Pesachim 71a — the Talmud in English

Because of rejoicing, as it is written [דברים כז]

Deuteronomy 27]

“And you shall slaughter and rejoice” —

we require slaughtering

)on the Festival,

at the time of rejoicing,

and through them he fulfills the obligation of rejoicing,

and

when he slaughters on the eve of the Festival,

there is no

slaughtering at the time of rejoicing.

Because of the festival offering,

he does not fulfill it through it, since the festival offering

is a matter of obligation, and every matter of obligation comes only from unconsecrated property

and not from a peace-offering.

And therefore, even if he brought it as a peace-offering on the Festival itself, he does not fulfill through them the obligation of the festival offering.

Let us say that this supports him,

for Ulla, from this, that an extra verse is written:

It is written [Deuteronomy 16:13]: “The festival of Sukkot you shall make for yourself seven days.”

And afterward it is written: “And you shall rejoice in your festival,” that is, during those seven days.

And again Scripture returned and said: “Seven days shall you celebrate before the Lord your God—and you shall be only joyful.”

We learn from here that the rejoicing is during the seven days of the festival of Sukkot and not on the eighth day.

But from the superfluity of the second verse, in which Scripture again said

“And you shall be only joyful” —

we learn

to include the night of the last Festival day [של שמיני עצרת]

of Shemini Atzeret]

for rejoicing,

for one is obligated to eat on it the meat of peace-offerings that were brought on the seventh day, through which there is rejoicing.

You say

that the superfluous verse comes to include

the night of the last Festival day, or is it not

the verse

instead

coming to include

the night of the first Festival day

for rejoicing, so that Scripture obligates him to bring peace-offerings on the eve of the Festival, in order that he have peace-offering meat of rejoicing to eat on the night of the first Festival day!?

The verse says: “

you shall be

only

joyful” —

it divides!

Everywhere that “only” is stated, Scripture comes to divide. And here Scripture divides between the night of the first Festival day, on which there is no mitzva of rejoicing, and the night of the last Festival day, on which there is rejoicing.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason

that we must exclude the night of the first Festival day from rejoicing by means of the exclusion of “only,” and include the night of the last Festival day from the extra verse?

And why do we not learn this in the opposite manner, to include the first night and exclude the last night?

Is it not because he does not have

on the night of the first Festival day

with what to rejoice?

And it is proven that he does not fulfill the obligation of rejoicing by eating the meat of peace-offerings that come on the eve of the Festival, in accordance with the words of Ulla in the name of Rabbi Elazar.

And the Gemara rejects this:

No,

it is not because he does not have peace-offering meat with which to rejoice that rejoicing does not apply to him.

Rather,

as the reason was taught

in a beraita:

What have you seen that you include the night of the last Festival day and exclude the night of the first Festival day?

I include the night of the last Festival day,

because

there is rejoicing

on the Festival that

precedes it,

both by day and by night.

And I exclude the night of the first Festival day,

because

there is no rejoicing preceding it.

Rav Yosef raised an objection

to Ulla from the beraita that we learned above:

With the festival offering of the fourteenth, he fulfills the obligation of rejoicing, but he does not fulfill through it the obligation of the festival offering.

And Rav Yosef assumed that the beraita is speaking of the festival offering of the fourteenth that he slaughtered on the fourteenth.

And

why

does he fulfill through it the obligation of rejoicing according to Ulla?

But we require slaughtering at the time of rejoicing, and there is none!

Rather, from here there is proof that slaughtering at the time of rejoicing is not necessary; rather, he can fulfill the obligation of rejoicing on the fifteenth by eating peace-offerings slaughtered on the fourteenth, contrary to Ulla.

Rav Idi bar Avin said:

There is no proof from this beraita, because the beraita is speaking of a case in which he

delayed

the festival offering of the fourteenth

and slaughtered it

on the fifteenth, which is a time of rejoicing.

Rav Ashi said: It is indeed reasonable

that the beraita is speaking of a case in which he delayed it and slaughtered it on the fifteenth.

For if you do not say so,

but establish that he slaughtered it on the fourteenth, it is difficult:

For after all,

this teaching —

who taught it?

After all, according to

Ben Teima,

we established it above.

And according to

Ben Teima,

it may be eaten only for a day and a night, and becomes disqualified on the morning of the fifteenth like the Passover offering, because

it is disqualified by remaining overnight!

And if so, what is the beraita teaching us by saying that he does not fulfill through it the obligation of rejoicing [which begins on the morning of the fifteenth]!? Rather,

infer from it

that the beraita is speaking of a case in which he delayed the festival offering of the fourteenth and slaughtered it at the time of rejoicing, on the fifteenth.

Rava raised an objection

to Ulla from what we learned in the Mishna in tractate Sukkah:

The Hallel

that they recite during the festival of Sukkot [including Shemini Atzeret],

and the rejoicing

in eating peace-offering sacrifices — are

eight

days.

And if you say that we require

that there be

slaughtering at the time of rejoicing —

there are many times

there are many times when it

is not found

you find

for it,

for rejoicing through eating peace-offerings slaughtered at the time of rejoicing,

but seven

days.

For example:

when

the first Festival day falls on Shabbat,

when it is forbidden to offer peace-offerings on it. And one does not fulfill the obligation through the meat of peace-offerings slaughtered on the eve of Shabbat, because this is not slaughtering at the time of rejoicing!?

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehuda, said:

There is always rejoicing for eight days through eating sacrificial meat, and even when the first Festival day falls on Shabbat — for then

he causes him to rejoice with the goats of the Festival,

for on Shabbat the communal offerings of the Festival are offered, including goats that are eaten, and through eating them one can fulfill the mitzva of rejoicing through eating sacrificial meat.

Rava said: two refutations

refute it

in this matter:

One: the goats of the Festival,

if he wishes to eat their meat on Shabbat, he may not cook or roast them, because their cooking does not override Shabbat; rather, only as

raw

are they

eaten,

but

roasted they are not eaten.

And rejoicing through

eating meat

raw —

there is none!

And furthermore:

indeed

the priests eat

the meat of the goats of the Festival.

But

the Israelites —

with what

do they

rejoice?

For it is forbidden for them to eat the meat of communal sin-offerings!?

Rather, Rav Pappa said:

when the Festival falls on Shabbat,

he causes him to rejoice with clean clothing and old wine.

When Ravin came

from the Land of Israel, he disagreed with what Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Elazar, and maintained that Rabbi Elazar

said as follows:

Peace-offerings that one slaughtered on the eve of the Festival —

he fulfills through them the obligation of rejoicing.

And

if he delayed them and slaughtered them on the fifteenth —

he does not fulfill through them the obligation of the festival offering

of the Festival.

He fulfills

through peace-offerings that he slaughtered on the eve of the Festival

the obligation of rejoicing,

because

we do not require slaughtering at the time of rejoicing.

But not the obligation of the festival offering,

because the festival offering on the fifteenth

is a matter of obligation.

And every matter of obligation comes only from unconsecrated property.

He raised an objection

from the beraita that we learned [at the beginning of this page]:

“And you shall be only joyful,”

the verse is superfluous in order

to include the night of the last Festival day for rejoicing.

You say, to include the night of the last Festival day, or is it only to include the night of the first Festival day?

The verse says: “only” —

it divides.

And the Gemara infers:

What is the reason

that you say to exclude specifically the night of the first Festival day from rejoicing?

Is it not because he does not have

peace-offerings slaughtered at the time of rejoicing, and therefore he has no

with what to rejoice!

And it is proven that this is not in accordance with Ravin!

And we reject this:

No,

this is not the explanation of the beraita.

Rather,

as it was taught: What have you seen that you include the night of the last Festival day and exclude the night of the first Festival day?

I include the night of the last Festival day, since there is rejoicing preceding it, and I exclude the night of the first Festival day, since there is no rejoicing preceding it.

Rav Kahana said: From where is it derived that the sacrificial portions of the festival offering of the fifteenth become disqualified through remaining overnight

immediately on the morning of the sixteenth, even though the time for eating the meat of the festival offering continues until the end of the sixteenth day, in the evening?

As it is stated [שמות כג]

Exodus 23]:

“And the fat of My festival offering shall not remain overnight until morning.”

And adjacent to it is

“first.”

For through this Scripture wished

to say that this

“morning,”

concerning which we were commanded not to leave the sacrificial portions overnight until morning, is the

“morning”

the

first

that follows the first night that passed over the sacrificial portions of the offering.

And from here we learn to disqualify through remaining overnight all sacrificial portions.

Rav Yosef raised an objection to this: The reason is that it wrote

“first”

adjacent to “morning,” and from this Rav Kahana learned that it is speaking of the first morning.

But if it had not written

“first”

adjacent to “morning”,

I would have said: What “morning”

disqualifies through remaining overnight?

The second morning.

That is, the morning of the seventeenth, after two days and two nights had passed over it.

But this is impossible. For

is there anything

how can it be possible

that the meat

of the offering

became disqualified for him

for eating by the law of notar already

from the evening,

from the beginning of the night of the seventeenth, once the time for eating it for two days and one night had passed,

and

if

the sacrificial portions

of the offering did not become disqualified

until morning,

until the following morning!?

Abaye said to him: Why

why

not

is it possible for the sacrificial portions to become disqualified after the meat became disqualified?

But

a proof should be brought from the offering of

Passover, according to

according to

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya,

who permits eating it only until midnight.

For the meat became disqualified

already

at midnight, and

if

the sacrificial portions

do not become disqualified

until morning.

Rava said: Rav Yosef —

this is what was difficult to him

concerning the words of Rav Kahana: Why did he need to expound from the word “first,” written adjacent to “morning,” in order to prove that the Torah’s intention is the first morning and not the following morning?

But surely the meaning of “morning” by itself, even without the adjacency of “first,” is the first morning!

And the proof is: for

is there anything,

how can it be possible

that if

if

the

the

teacher

in the beraita

with regard

to the disqualification through remaining overnight of

the meat

of the offering,

does not require

“first”

in order to learn from it that the morning mentioned in it is the first morning.

And

if

Rav Kahana,

in order

to

disqualify the

sacrificial portions

through remaining overnight on the first morning —

he would require

the adjacency of

“first”

to “morning” in order to learn from it that it is the first morning and not the second. And without this, the sacrificial portions would become disqualified only on the second morning.

And the Gemara explains:

What is it

the beraita in which it is obvious to the teacher, without learning it from “first,” that an unspecified “morning,” on which the meat becomes disqualified through remaining overnight, is the first morning and not the second?

For it was taught:

It is written [Deuteronomy 16]:

“He shall not leave overnight from the meat that you slaughter in the evening, on the first day, until morning.”