Pesachim 70a — the Talmud in English

It is not an obligation

from the Torah

itself, but

only a permission.

If it should enter your mind that it is an obligation—

let it be brought on Shabbat, let it be brought in abundance, and let it be brought in a state of ritual impurity and in a small amount!

And we raised it as a difficulty:

And

since there is no obligation to bring the fourteenth-of-Nisan festival offering,

nevertheless—

for what reason is it brought,

why is it customary to bring it?

And we answer:

As it was taught in a beraita: The festival offering that comes together with the Passover offering

is

eaten first,

before eating the meat of the Passover offering,

so that the Passover offering will be eaten when one is satiated,

so that the pleasure of satiety will accompany its eating, and the eating will not be merely to relieve hunger, and thereby its eating will be considered significant eating for them.

We learned in the Mishna:

And it is eaten

the festival offering

for two days

and one night.

And we say:

Our Mishna,

which says that the fourteenth-of-Nisan festival offering is eaten for two days, is

not in accordance with ben Teima.

As it was taught in a beraita, ben Teima says: The festival offering that comes together with the Passover offering

on the fourteenth of Nisan—

it is like the Passover offering, and it is not eaten

for two days and one night, like the law of every peace-offering,

but

only

for one day and one night.

And the festival offering of the fifteenth,

which is obligatory on each of the three pilgrimage Festivals—

is eaten for two days and one night.

And the festival offering of the fourteenth,

which one consecrated for the purpose of bringing it together with the Passover offering on the fourteenth of Nisan, but did not sacrifice it together with it, rather kept it with him, may be sacrificed on the following day, on the Festival, and

fulfills with it

the mitzva of the peace-offering of

joy.

Although we will learn below that every offering that one is obligated to sacrifice comes only from non-sacred property, and not from consecrated property, the mitzva of the peace-offering of joy differs in this respect from other obligatory offerings, for it was included through a special amplification, teaching that it can also be fulfilled with offerings consecrated for the purpose of vows and voluntary offerings.

However,

he does not fulfill with it,

with this festival offering that was consecrated for the purpose of bringing it together with the Passover offering on the fourteenth and was kept over,

on account of the festival offering

of the Festival on the fifteenth, since the law of the festival offering is like that of every obligatory offering, which comes only from non-sacred property.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason of ben Teima,

who said that the festival offering of the fourteenth is eaten only for one day and one night, and not for two days and one night, as is the law of a festival offering and of all peace-offerings?

As Rav taught

as he transmitted

to Ḥiyya, his son,

the teaching derived from the comparison of the Passover offering to the fourteenth-of-Nisan festival offering that comes with it: [

Exodus 34 ]

“And no offering shall remain until morning

of the feast of Passover.”

“The offering of the feast”

this is the festival offering,

that comes together with the Passover offering on the fourteenth.

“The Passover offering”

according to its plain meaning.

And the Merciful One says—

it shall not remain!

We learn from this comparison that the meat of the offering of the festival offering of the fourteenth must be eaten before the pillar of dawn of the fifteenth rises, like the meat of the Passover offering. For if some of the meat remains until morning, it is found that it “remained” throughout the entire night.

And now the Gemara deals at length with explaining the position of ben Teima, and discusses in which laws the offering of the fourteenth is equal to the Passover offering. The fundamental question is: to what extent must the festival offering of the fourteenth be compared to the Passover offering:

a.

They raised a dilemma before them: According to ben Teima,

whether

is it eaten

the festival offering of the fourteenth

roasted, or is it not eaten roasted?

And the sides of the dilemma are:

Whether

when the Merciful One compared it,

when Scripture compared the festival offering of the fourteenth

to

the offering of

the Passover—

with regard to remaining overnight

it compared it only,

but with regard to

the matter of its eating

roasted,

like the Passover offering,

it did not

compare it.

Or perhaps it is no different,

Scripture also compared it with regard to eating it roasted.

Come and hear

from the Mishna below, in the final chapter [116a], in which it is stated that one of the questions that the son asks his father on the night of the Seder is: What distinguishes this night from all other nights? On all other nights we eat roasted, boiled, and cooked meat,

on this night, all of it is roasted.

And

concerning this

Rav Ḥisda said: This is the statement of ben Teima.

Learn from it

that according to ben Teima the comparison in the verse also applies to eating it roasted.

b.

They raised a dilemma before them:

the festival offering of the fourteenth

according to ben Teima:

Whether it

comes from cattle or does not come from cattle,

just as the Passover offering does not come from cattle? Whether it

comes from females or does not come from females,

just as the Passover offering does not come from them? Whether it

just as a Paschal offering does not come from females? Does it

comes

as a two-year-old or does not come as a two-year-old,

since the Passover offering comes only from an animal in its first year?

And the sides of the dilemma are: Whether

when

the Merciful One compared it to the Passover offering—

only

with regard to matters of eating

did He compare it, such as eating it roasted.

Since the verse of the comparison deals with the matter of eating, as the prohibition against leaving it overnight means that there is a mitzva to eat it before its night passes.

But with regard to every matter—

not

did Scripture compare it.

Or perhaps it is no different.

Come and hear

from a beraita that compares it in every respect:

As it was taught:

The festival offering that comes together with the Passover offering—

it is like the Passover offering:

It comes from the flock and does not come from cattle.

It comes from males and does not come from females.

It comes in its first year and does not come in its second year.

And it is eaten only for one day and one night.

And it is eaten only roasted.

And it is eaten only by its registered participants.

And the Gemara proves:

Who is the one from whom you heard that he holds this view,

that the festival offering of the fourteenth is compared to the Passover offering—

ben Teima

is the one.

Learn from it

that according to ben Teima Scripture compared it in every respect. Therefore

we require all the matters

so that the festival offering of the fourteenth will be like the Passover offering.

And the Gemara concludes:

Learn from it.

c.

They raised a dilemma before them: According to ben Teima—

whether

does it have,

in the festival offering of the fourteenth that comes together with the Passover offering, a prohibition

on account of breaking a bone

as with the Passover offering,

or does it not have a prohibition on account of breaking a bone?

And the sides of the dilemma are:

Whether

even though when the Merciful One compared it to the Passover offering

with regard to every matter, Scripture did not compare it with regard to breaking a bone, since

the verse says

a phrase of limitation concerning the law of breaking a bone in the Passover offering, as it is written: “And you shall not break any bone

in it,”

and we must expound:

“In it”—

but not in the festival offering.

Or perhaps this

“in it”

comes to exclude and say:

in

an offering that is

valid

you shall not break a bone,

but not

refrain from breaking a bone

in

an offering that is

invalid.

And only for this purpose

does it come

the limitation of “in it”?

Come and hear

from a beraita that we learned:

A knife that is found on the fourteenth

of Nisan need not be questioned regarding its purity, since if it had been impure the previous day, presumably its owners, who lost it, immersed it before the evening of the thirteenth of Nisan, so that “sunset” would pass over it and it would become pure.

Therefore, one who finds it on the fourteenth—

slaughters with it

the Passover offering

immediately,

without needing to immerse it.

But if he found the knife

on

the day

of the thirteenth

of Nisan, it is not certain that its owners had already immersed it, since they still have time during the day to immerse it.

Therefore, if he wishes to slaughter with it, he is obligated to immerse it.

And he

“repeats and immerses.”

That is, on the possibility that the owners immersed it, he repeats its immersion once more.

And if he found

a cleaver,

a large knife, which most people do not use for slaughtering, but only for cutting meat and breaking bones—

in either case,

whether he found it on the thirteenth or whether he found it on the fourteenth—

he repeats and immerses.

For even if he found the cleaver on the fourteenth, we must be concerned that its owners had not yet immersed it, since they do not use it on the fourteenth.

For on the fourteenth they do not need the cleaver, neither for slaughtering the Passover offering, since a large knife is not fit for its slaughter, nor for breaking its bones, since breaking the bones of the Passover offering is prohibited.

And since the owners who lost it still had time to immerse it until close to sunset on the fourteenth [when they would need to immerse it for cutting meat on the Festival and for breaking the bones of the festival offering that comes on the fifteenth], it is not certain that the owners who lost it had immersed it.

Therefore, one who finds the cleaver on the fourteenth is obligated to immerse it, since its purity is not certain.

And the Gemara infers: This beraita—

whose

is it, who stated it?

If you say the Rabbis

stated it—

That cannot be.

For

what is different about a knife,

concerning which it is certain to us

that its owner immerses it, since

it is

fit

for him, the knife

for

slaughtering the

Passover offering?

Then

a cleaver also—indeed, it is fit for

breaking the bones of the

festival offering

that comes on the fourteenth together with the Passover offering.

If so, it is certain to us that its owner immersed it for this purpose; why, then, did we obligate him to immerse it again?!

Rather, is it not that this beraita is in accordance

with

ben Teima, according to whom the festival offering of the fourteenth is completely compared to the Passover offering, and therefore it is prohibited to break its bones?

according to whom the festival peace-offering of the fourteenth is entirely compared to the Paschal offering, and therefore it is prohibited to break its bones.

Therefore, the owner of the cleaver had no reason to hurry to purify the cleaver on the thirteenth, since he had no need for the cleaver to be pure on the fourteenth. Therefore, one who finds it on the fourteenth must immerse it.

And learn from it, according to

ben Teima

it has,

in the festival offering of the fourteenth, a prohibition

on account of breaking the bone,

as with the Passover offering.

And we reject this:

No,

ben Teima did not state this beraita.

Rather,

actually—

the Rabbis

taught it.

And this is a case where

the Passover offering came

on Shabbat,

when a festival offering is not brought with it. Therefore, there is no immediate need to immerse the cleaver, since there are no bones for it to break.

The Gemara is astonished: How can the beraita be established as referring to Shabbat, and thereby be established in accordance with the Rabbis?

But from the fact that the latter clause teaches:

However, if

the fourteenth occurred on Shabbat—

he slaughters with it,

whether with a knife or with a cleaver,

immediately,

and he need not immerse them, since it is clear that the owner who lost them immersed them.

For he needs the knife for slaughtering, and the cleaver to use on the Festival following Shabbat in order to break bones with it. He cannot immerse them on Shabbat, and therefore he immerses them on the eve of Shabbat.

And if he found the knife

on the

fifteenth,

that is, on the Festival itself—

he slaughters with it

a peace-offering

immediately,

without needing to immerse it, because it is certain that its owner, who lost it, immersed it before Shabbat.

And even the cleaver does not require immersion, since he needs it in order to break bones with it.

And if

the

cleaver

is found

when it is

tied to the knife—

it is like the knife.

And the cleaver is presumed pure even if he found it on an ordinary fourteenth. For then he needs the knife for slaughtering, and certainly the owner who lost it immersed the cleaver together with the knife, since it is tied to it.

And the Gemara infers: From the fact that the latter clause speaks of finding the knife and the cleaver on Shabbat and on the Festival,

by inference

this can be proven:

the first clause,

which says that one who finds a cleaver, in either case, repeats and immerses—

is not dealing with Shabbat.

For if the first clause also spoke of Shabbat, the words of the beraita would contradict one another from the first clause to the latter clause!

And necessarily, the beraita is in accordance with ben Teima, and according to him one must immerse a cleaver found on an ordinary fourteenth, since its owners who lost it had not immersed it. For they had no need to immerse it on the thirteenth, since on the fourteenth they had no need to use it for breaking bones.

And it is proven that according to ben Teima it is prohibited to break the bones of the festival offering of the fourteenth!

And the Gemara attempts to reject this, saying that it is not necessary that the beraita is in accordance with ben Teima [according to whom the bones of the festival offering of the fourteenth are not broken, and therefore the owners had no need for the cleaver, and consequently had not immersed it].

But rather, the beraita can refer even to the Rabbis, according to whom it is not certain that the owners of the cleaver immersed it, since it is possible that they had no need at all to bring the festival offering of the fourteenth [and therefore had no bones to break on the fourteenth].

the beraita can even be understood as being in accordance with the Sages. According to them, there is no certainty that the owner of the cleaver immersed it, since it is possible that he had no need at all to bring the festival peace-offering of the fourteenth, and therefore had no bones to break on the fourteenth.