Pesachim 69a — the Talmud in English

And

these

Rabbi Eliezer

would hold that this is not a

kal va-chomer

: Since, in his view, the shvut of a mitzva is preferable to the shvut of an optional matter. Therefore, specifically on a Festival, the Sages did not permit shvut for the sake of the joy of the Festival, which in his view is only optional. But shvut for the sake of a mitzva, when the mitzva itself overrides Shabbat, they permitted.

It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer said

another

kal va-chomer : What is it to me if the requirements of a mitzva that are after slaughter override Shabbat,

such as scraping out its innards, even after

the mitzva of

the slaughtering of the Paschal offering

—should the requirements of a mitzva that are before slaughter not override Shabbat

, so that they may fulfill the mitzva itself?!

Rabbi Akiva said to him

: This is not a

kal va-chomer , and your question, “What is it to me if the requirements of a mitzva after slaughter override Shabbat, once the mitzva has been performed; should the requirements of a mitzva before slaughter not override Shabbat?” is not a valid inference. Rather, the law is in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua.

For

as for, “What is it to me if the requirements of a mitzva after slaughter override Shabbat,”

the reason for the matter is

that

already

the slaughtering overrode Shabbat

, and the Sages were not stringent to prevent engaging in the requirements after slaughter.

But is it so that you will

say

that

the requirements of a mitzva before slaughter should override Shabbat

, despite the fact

that it has not overridden

yet

the slaughtering Shabbat ?

And

another matter

Rabbi Akiva additionally argued: Shabbat must not be overridden for the sake of the requirements of the mitzva of the Paschal offering, because

perhaps he will find the sacrifice invalid, and it will turn out that he desecrated Shabbat retroactively.

And we raised it:

If so

, that one must be concerned lest he find the sacrifice invalid—

then it should not be slaughtered either,

because

perhaps he will find the sacrifice invalid, and it will turn out that he desecrated Shabbat retroactively?!

And we answer:

Rather, this

, that one must be concerned lest he find it invalid,

he said to him

Rabbi Akiva to Rabbi Eliezer

at the beginning.

And he refuted it

as we asked: If so, he should not slaughter the Paschal offering, lest he find it invalid and it turn out that he desecrated Shabbat.

And afterward he said this to him

argument

of “What is it to me if they overrode.”

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Akiva responded and said: Sprinkling proves it,

for it is because of a mitzva, yet it is [forbidden] because of shvut, and it does not override Shabbat.

And Rabbi Eliezer refuted him, and said that he was actually arguing concerning the sprinkling itself, to permit it: If slaughtering, which is a primary category of labor, overrides Shabbat, then sprinkling, which is shvut, all the more so should override Shabbat.

And then Rabbi Akiva argued: Or reverse it! [That is, slaughtering, which is a primary category of labor, should not override Shabbat by a kal va-chomer from sprinkling, which is only a prohibition of shvut, and nevertheless it does not override Shabbat].

It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva, you have answered me concerning slaughtering

, with a laughable argument, and on its basis you came to uproot a matter from the Torah. For slaughtering overrides Shabbat because “its appointed time” was stated concerning it, and you knew that you were not correct in your argument; therefore, your punishment will be—

by slaughtering shall be his death.

He said to him: Rabbi, do not deny me

, do not deny what you yourself taught me,

at the time of judgment,

at this time when we are judging the matter!

For

thus have I received from you: Sprinkling

is shvut.

And it does not override Shabbat!

And therefore I argued before you a kal va-chomer from sprinkling, which is forbidden, to slaughtering, that it should not override Shabbat.

And I did this in order to rouse you to the fact that it is obvious to me that sprinkling does not override Shabbat, so that you would remember that I received this from you, and retract what you said, “And concerning it I argue,” to permit sprinkling on Shabbat.

And we raised it:

But since it was he

Rabbi Eliezer

who taught him

, taught Rabbi Akiva that sprinkling does not override Shabbat—

what is the reason that he retracts?

Why did Rabbi Eliezer retract and permit sprinkling?

Ulla said: When Rabbi Eliezer taught him

that he had taught him that sprinkling does not override Shabbat—

the sprinkling

for the sake of eating

teruma

on Shabbat

he taught him.

For

the separation of

teruma itself does not override Shabbat.

And

Rabbi Akiva also, when he challenged him

Rabbi Eliezer with a

kal va-chomer , to reverse it and say that slaughtering should not override Shabbat—from the sprinkling of teruma he challenged him.

That it is a mitzva, and it

is forbidden only

because of shvut

, and nevertheless the sprinkling does not override Shabbat; all the more so, slaughtering, which is labor, should not override Shabbat. And through this Rabbi Akiva wished to remind Rabbi Eliezer that he had heard from him himself that sprinkling for the sake of eating teruma, despite being sprinkling for the sake of a mitzva, does not override Shabbat.

And Rabbi Akiva argued that the same law applies to sprinkling for the sake of offering the Paschal offering.

And he,

Rabbi Eliezer, who was hurt by Rabbi Akiva’s words,

held

: From

the sprinkling of the Paschal offering

, which is permitted, and concerning which he had not taught Rabbi Akiva that it was forbidden,

Rabbi Akiva is challenging him

.

Rabba raises an objection

from a beraita, from which it is evident that Rabbi Akiva argued a

kal va-chomer from sprinkling for the sake of the Paschal offering, and not from sprinkling for the sake of eating teruma: Rabbi Akiva responded

to Rabbi Eliezer

and said

to him:

The sprinkling for one impure with corpse impurity proves it, whose seventh day fell on Shabbat, and it

was

on the eve of Passover, which is a mitzva and is because of shvut

—and it does not override Shabbat!

And Rabba proves:

Rather, certainly

it is implied that it was obvious to Rabbi Akiva that sprinkling for the sake of offering the Paschal offering is forbidden, to the extent that he argued from it itself to Rabbi Eliezer, that the prohibition of

the sprinkling of the Paschal offering he had taught him

Rabbi Eliezer had taught Rabbi Akiva does not override Shabbat.

And now the Gemara explains:

But since he had taught him

Rabbi Eliezer had taught Rabbi Akiva that sprinkling is forbidden even for the sake of the Paschal offering—

for what reason does Rabbi Eliezer challenge Rabbi Akiva

to Rabbi Akiva?

Rabbi Eliezer’s teaching had been uprooted from him.

And Rabbi Akiva came to remind him of his teaching.

And we raised it:

And let him say to him

Rabbi Akiva to Rabbi Eliezer

explicitly

, explicitly, that he himself had taught him this; and why did he need to hint to him?!

And we answer:

He held

Rabbi Akiva that

it is not proper conduct

, for it is not proper conduct to mention to him explicitly that he had erred and forgotten.

And now the Gemara explains the matter of sprinkling on Shabbat:

And sprinkling—

what is the reason that it does not override Shabbat?

Since

after all

the carrying

of water

alone is involved,

and if so,

let it override Shabbat for the sake of the Paschal offering.

Rabba said: It is a decree lest he take it

, the water of sprinkling,

and carry it four cubits in the public domain.

And we raised it:

But according to Rabbi Eliezer—

let him carry it!

For Rabbi Eliezer said: The requirements of a mitzva override Shabbat.

They said

to resolve it:

These words

that Rabbi Eliezer said that the requirements of a mitzva override Shabbat apply

where the person himself is fit,

such as a baby who is fit to be circumcised on Shabbat,

and there is placed

and imposed

a duty upon him,

except that it is necessary to bring a knife for him through the public domain in order to circumcise him with it.

But here, where the person himself is not fit,

since he is impure—

a duty is not placed upon him,

and his sprinkling is not the requirement of a mitzva.

Rabba said: According to the words of Rabbi Eliezer,

who holds that wherever the person is not presently fit, his rectifications are not considered even the requirements of a mitzva:

A healthy minor

whose time is to be circumcised on Shabbat, and there is no need to wash him with hot water before the circumcision so that he will be fit to circumcise—

they heat hot water for him

in order

to make him healthy

, to make him healthy and strong before circumcision,

and to circumcise him on Shabbat.

For he is fit for him

to circumcise him, and consequently it is permitted to override Shabbat even for the sake of its requirements, to strengthen him and make him healthy.

But

a sick minor,

who will be fit for circumcision only if they wash him with hot water—

they do not heat hot water for him to make him healthy and circumcise him.

For

now

he is not fit for him

, he is not fit to be circumcised.

Rava said: And if he is healthy—

why does he need hot water to make him healthy?

Rather, Rava said: Everything

is “illness”

with regard to circumcision.

And therefore,

both a healthy minor and a sick minor—

they do not heat hot water for him to make him healthy and circumcise him on Shabbat, for he is not fit.

For if they do not wash them before the circumcision with hot water, it is impossible to circumcise them. Therefore, heating the water is not considered the requirement of a mitzva at all, and even according to Rabbi Eliezer they must prepare the hot water from the day before.

Abaye raised an objection to him

: We learned in a beraita:

An uncircumcised man who did not circumcise

himself on the eve of Passover—

is liable to karet,

for failing to rectify himself so as to be fit for offering the Paschal offering,

the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

But here, where the person himself is not fit, and it teaches that he is liable to karet.

Evidently, a duty is placed upon him

to rectify himself, and the same applies that he is obligated to purify himself. If so, his sprinkling should override Shabbat, for he is obligated to become pure!

Rabba said: Rabbi Eliezer holds

that although an uncircumcised man and one impure with corpse impurity are both unfit to offer the Paschal offering, one must distinguish between their obligations to make themselves fit.

For an uncircumcised man is obligated to circumcise himself, whereas one impure with corpse impurity is not obligated to purify himself [through sprinkling on the seventh day, when it falls on the eve of Passover that falls on Shabbat].

And Rabbi Eliezer makes this distinction in accordance with what he holds in several other laws.

1.

They do not slaughter

the Paschal offering

and

they do not

sprinkle

its blood

upon

one who is

impure with creeping-animal impurity.

That is, they later dispute in the Gemara [80b] whether they slaughter the Paschal offering for one impure with creeping-animal impurity, who can immerse during the day and be pure in the evening and eat the Paschal offering, or perhaps, if at the time of the slaughtering of the Paschal offering he had not immersed, he is deferred to the Second Passover.

And one impure with corpse impurity whose seventh day falls on the eve of Passover is also included in this dispute, since he too can receive sprinkling and be fit in the evening to eat the Paschal offering.

And since later the dispute concerns one impure with creeping-animal impurity, the Gemara stated that Rabbi Eliezer holds in this dispute that they do not slaughter for one impure with creeping-animal impurity. And the same law applies that according to Rabbi Eliezer they do not slaughter for one impure with corpse impurity; rather, both are deferred to the Second Passover.