Pesachim 70b (ע:) — the Talmud in English

What

if

the

Paschal offering came []

in abundance,

meaning that the group was small and there was an abundance of meat from the Paschal offering for each member of the group, so that they could be satiated by it; they would not bring a חגיגה offering with it.

Therefore, the owners did not immerse the cleaver, since they had no bones of a חגיגה offering to break.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

From where did they know

on the thirteenth of Nisan that the owners of the cleaver would not need to immerse it before sunset, because they would not bring a חגיגה offering the next day, since they had an abundance of Paschal-offering meat and would have no bones to break?

After all, by the next day many more people could still register for it, in which case they would have to bring a חגיגה offering, and the cleaver would then be needed in order to break its bones.

The Gemara attempts to establish that the cleaver would not be needed on the following day because they would not bring a חגיגה offering, since the Paschal offering had been brought in a state of ritual impurity:

Rather, that it came

the Paschal offering

in a state of ritual impurity,

meaning that the majority of the public were ritually impure, and they were permitted to bring only the Paschal offering in impurity, but not a חגיגה offering.

The Gemara rejects this explanation as well:

Ultimately, from where did they know

on the thirteenth that the owners of the cleaver [who would then have to immerse it for the חגיגה offering] that on the following day the majority of the public would be impure due to contact with the dead and would not bring a חגיגה offering? And the Gemara answers with another explanation:

That the nasi died,

and all Israel were obligated to attend to his burial and thereby became ritually impure.

And we raise the following discussion:

That the nasi died—

when?

If we say that he died

the nasi

on the thirteenth,

on the day when everyone was occupied with purifying their vessels for the following day, and the majority of the public became impure on that day—

why would they need to immerse the knife?

This question applies both to the owners, for there would be no reason for them to immerse it, since they were destined to render it impure, and to the person who found it, for there would be no reason for him to keep it pure for the slaughter of his חגיגה offering on the Festival, since he was destined to render it impure [for the Paschal offering he did not need to keep it pure, because impurity is permitted for the public].

Rather, that the nasi died

the nasi

on the fourteenth,

while on the previous day, the thirteenth, everyone had immersed all their vessels for the sake of the Paschal offering and for the חגיגה offering brought with it.

If so, raise the following difficulty:

What is different about the knife, that they immerse

it on the thirteenth, since they need it for the Paschal offering,

and what is different about the cleaver, that they do not immerse it?

After all, they need the cleaver in order to break the bones of the חגיגה offering brought with the Paschal offering!

And on the thirteenth, when everyone purifies their vessels for the following day, he does not know that the nasi will die the next day, and he does not anticipate that they will not bring a חגיגה offering the next day!?

The Gemara establishes the matter with another explanation:

It is necessary only where

the

nasi was dying on the thirteenth.

The people were uncertain whether he would die the next day, in which case the Paschal offering would be brought in impurity and they would not bring a חגיגה offering with it; therefore, they immersed only the knife and not the cleaver.

The knife, since there was one uncertainty

for the people—whether the nasi would die—and if he did, they would certainly

immerse it

on the thirteenth. For perhaps the nasi would not die, and they would need a pure knife with which to slaughter the Paschal offering.

But

the cleaver, since there were two

uncertainties,

uncertainties [which will be explained below] that its owner faced regarding the need to keep it pure if they would need it the next day—

[kotorye budut obyasneny nizhe] u ego vladeltsa o tom, nuzhno li sokhranyat ego v chistote, esli na sleduyushchiy den on okazhetsya nuzhen, —

he would not immerse it

its owner.

And the two uncertainties are:

a. It was possible that the nasi would die the next day and they would perform the Paschal rite in impurity, in which case they would not bring a חגיגה offering. Since when the Paschal offering is brought in impurity, no חגיגה offering is brought with it, there would be no need to keep the cleaver pure, as they would not break the bones of a חגיגה offering the next day.

b. It was possible that the eating of the Paschal offering would be abundant, so that there would be no need to offer a חגיגה offering and no need for the cleaver.

We learned in our Mishna that the חגיגה offering of the fourteenth does not override Shabbat. Even Ben Teima, who compares the laws of this חגיגה offering to those of the Paschal offering in many respects, agrees with this ruling.

The Gemara now cites a beraita containing the view of Yehuda ben Dorta'i, who holds that the חגיגה offering of the fourteenth does override Shabbat!

It was taught: Yehuda ben Dorta'i separated

from the Sages and dissociated himself from them because he disagreed with their statement, “The חגיגה offering of the fourteenth does not override Shabbat,” and held that it does override Shabbat.

When Passover eve fell on Shabbat, when according to his opinion they were obligated to bring the חגיגה offering of the fourteenth, he wished to prevent himself from neglecting the mitzva of the חגיגה offering [according to his opinion], and he left his place near the Temple,

he and Dorta'i his son.

And he went and settled

at a distance,

in the South,

so that he would be exempt from ascending on the pilgrimage and from becoming obligated in the Paschal offering and the חגיגה offering.

He said,

Yehuda ben Dorta'i:

If Elijah should come and say to the Jewish people, “Why did you not offer the חגיגה offering on Shabbat?”—

what

answer

will they give him!?

I am astonished at the two great sages of the generation, Shemaya and Avtalyon, who are great scholars and great expounders, yet they did not say to the Jewish people: The חגיגה offering overrides Shabbat.

Rav said: What is the reason of ben Dorta'i?

As it is written [Deuteronomy 16]

[Dvarim, 16]

“And you shall slaughter the Paschal offering to the Lord your God

—flocks and cattle.”

But is the Paschal offering not brought only from sheep and goats?

And what, then, is the meaning of the word “cattle”?

Rather: “flocks”

—this is the Paschal offering; “cattle”

—this is the חגיגה offering

brought with it.

And the Merciful One said

“And you shall slaughter the Paschal offering,”

as Scripture also called the חגיגה offering brought with the Paschal offering by the name “Paschal offering”; therefore, it overrides Shabbat just as the Paschal offering does.

Rav Ashi

said,

Rav Ashi

was challenging Rav’s exposition, in which he explained the verse in accordance with the view of Yehuda ben Dorta'i: Is it the case that

we should adopt the reasoning of the separatists

who separate themselves from the Sages—

let us rise and separate ourselves

as well!?

Rather, the verse

comes for the teaching of Rav Naḥman.

For Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha: From where is it derived that the “surplus of the Paschal offering”

[a Paschal offering that was not sacrificed at its proper time, or money designated for purchasing a Paschal offering with which an offering was purchased, leaving surplus money]

is sacrificed as a peace offering?

As it is stated

“And you shall slaughter the Paschal offering to the Lord your God, flocks and cattle.”

Does a Paschal offering come from cattle?

But surely the Paschal offering is brought only from sheep and goats.

Rather: the surplus of the Paschal offering—

let it become

a peace offering, which is

an offering that comes from both the flock and cattle.

And we raise the following discussion:

And what is the reason that the Rabbis say that the חגיגה offering

brought with the Paschal offering and the חגיגה offering of the fifteenth

does not override Shabbat?

Is it not certainly a communal offering!?

After all, it is brought by an assembly, like the Paschal offering, and its time is fixed.

Rabbi Ila'a said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Sifra: The verse says

with regard to the חגיגה offering of the fifteenth on the festival of Sukkot: [Leviticus 23]

“And you shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord for seven days during the year.”

But are חגיגה offerings brought for only

seven

days? After all,

eight

days

there are,

including Shemini Atzeret, on which a חגיגה offering is sacrificed!

Rather, from here it is derived that a חגיגה offering does not override Shabbat,

and therefore Shabbat must be subtracted from the count of the eight days. It follows that there are only seven.

And this verse proves that there is no חגיגה offering that overrides Shabbat; the חגיגה offering of the fourteenth is also excluded by it.

When Ravin came

from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said:

This is what

I said

I asked

before my teachers:

How can Scripture say, “And you shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord for seven days”?

After all,

there are times when you find only six

days on which to offer the חגיגה offering.

For example, when the first day of the Festival

of Sukkot

falls on Shabbat,

as in that case Shemini Atzeret also falls on Shabbat.

Abaye said: Avin the bereaved

[the name of a man who buried his sons]

should say

that he is the one fit to say

such a statement,

such an improper question. It was not appropriate for Ravin to ask it.

Since the plain meaning of the verse is:

Eight—

you cannot find that at all. Seven—

you find in most years.

Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: With regard to peace offerings that one slaughtered on the eve of a Festival,

one does not fulfill through them either the obligation of rejoicing or the obligation of the חגיגה offering.