Pesachim 71a (עא.) — the Talmud in English

Because of rejoicing, as it is written

Deuteronomy 27]

“And you shall slaughter and rejoice”—

we require slaughter

on the Festival day,

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

slaughter at the time of rejoicing.

Because of the Festival offering,

he does not fulfill his obligation with it, since the Festival offering

is an obligatory offering, and every obligatory offering may be brought only from non-sacred funds

and not from an offering of shelamim.

Therefore, even if he brought it as a shelamim offering on the Festival itself, he does not fulfill the obligation of the Festival offering with it.

Let us say that this supports

Ulla, from the fact that there is an extra verse:

It is written [Deuteronomy 16:13]: “You shall make for yourself the Festival of Sukkot for seven days.”

And afterward it is written: “And you shall rejoice on your Festival,” meaning, during those seven days.

The verse then repeats and says: “For seven days you shall 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, but not on the eighth day.

However, from the repetition in the second verse, where the verse again says

“and you shall be only joyful”—

we learn

to include the night of the final Festival day

of Shemini Atzeret

for rejoicing,

for one is obligated to eat on it the meat of shelamim 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 final Festival day, or perhaps it does not

come

but

to include

the night of the first Festival day

for rejoicing, for the verse obligates one to bring a shelamim offering on the eve of the Festival so that he will have the meat of a shelamim offering of rejoicing to eat on the night of the first Festival day?!

The verse states: “

and you shall be

only

joyful”—

it divides.

Whenever the word “only” is stated, the verse comes to make a division. Here, the verse distinguishes between the night of the first Festival day, on which there is no mitzva of rejoicing, and the night of the final 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 indicated by “only,” and include the night of the final Festival day from the superfluous verse?

And why do we not learn the opposite: to include the first night and exclude the final night?

Is it not because he has no

on the night of the first Festival day

with what to rejoice?

This proves that he does not fulfill the obligation of rejoicing by eating the meat of shelamim offerings that were brought on the eve of the Festival, in accordance with the statement of Ulla in the name of Rabbi Elazar.

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

the reason that the mitzva of rejoicing does not apply on the first night is not that he has no meat of shelamim offerings with which to rejoice.

Rather,

as the reason was taught

in a beraita:

What did you see that led you to include the night of the final Festival day and exclude the night of the first Festival day?

I include the night of the final Festival day,

because

there is rejoicing

on the Festival

before it,

both during the day and during the preceding night.

And I exclude the night of the first Festival day

because

there is no rejoicing before it.

Rav Yosef raises an objection

to Ulla from the beraita that we learned above:

With the offering of the fourteenth, one fulfills the obligation of rejoicing, but he does not fulfill the obligation of the Festival offering.

Rav Yosef initially understood that the reference is to the offering of the fourteenth that was slaughtered on the fourteenth.

And

why

does one fulfill the obligation of rejoicing with it according to Ulla?

We require slaughter at the time of rejoicing, and there is none!

Rather, from here there is proof that slaughter at the time of rejoicing is not necessary; rather, one can fulfill the obligation of rejoicing on the fifteenth by eating a shelamim offering that was 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 offering of the fourteenth

and slaughtered it

on the fifteenth, which is the time of rejoicing.

Rav Ashi said: It is also 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, there is a difficulty:

For

this teaching—

who taught it?

It is according to

Ben Teima,

as we established it above.

And according to

Ben Teima,

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

it has already become disqualified through remaining overnight!

If so, what does the beraita teach us by stating that he does not fulfill the obligation of rejoicing with it [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 offering of the fourteenth and slaughtered it at the time of rejoicing, on the fifteenth.

Rava raises an objection

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

The Hallel

that is recited during the Festival of Sukkot [including Shemini Atzeret],

and the rejoicing

through eating the meat of shelamim offerings—these are

eight

days.

And if you say that we require

the

slaughter to be at the time of rejoicing—

there are many occasions

when one

cannot find

the opportunity

it,

rejoicing through eating shelamim offerings slaughtered at the time of rejoicing,

for more than seven

days.

For example:

when

the first Festival day falls on Shabbat,

when it is prohibited to offer a shelamim offering on it. And one does not fulfill the obligation with the meat of a shelamim offering slaughtered on the eve of Shabbat, because that is not slaughter at the time of rejoicing?!

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehuda, said:

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

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

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

Rava said: There are two answers

—two refutations—

to this matter:

One: The goats of the Festival offerings,

if one wishes to eat their meat on Shabbat, may not be cooked or roasted, because their cooking does not override Shabbat; rather,

raw

they are

eaten,

but

they are not eaten roasted.

And rejoicing through

eating meat

raw—

there is none!

And furthermore:

Although

the priests eat

the meat of the goats of the Festival offerings,

but

the Israelites—

with what

do they

rejoice?

For they are prohibited from eating 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 aged wine.

When Rafin came

from Eretz Yisrael, he disputed what Ulla had said in the name of Rabbi Elazar and maintained that this is what

Rabbi Elazar said:

With regard to shelamim offerings that one slaughtered on the eve of the Festival—

he fulfills the obligation of rejoicing with them.

And

if he held them over and slaughtered them on the fifteenth,

he does not fulfill the obligation of the Festival offering

of the Festival.

He fulfills

the obligation with shelamim offerings slaughtered on the eve of the Festival

because of rejoicing,

because

we do not require slaughter at the time of rejoicing.

But not because of the Festival offering,

because the Festival offering on the fifteenth

is an obligatory offering.

And every obligatory offering may be brought only from non-sacred funds.

He raises 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 final Festival day for rejoicing.

You say that it comes to include the night of the final Festival day, or perhaps it comes only to include the night of the first Festival day?

The verse states: “only”—

it divides.

And the Gemara infers:

What is the reason

that you say that specifically the night of the first Festival day is excluded from rejoicing?

Is it not because he has no

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

with what to rejoice!

This proves that it is not in accordance with Rafin!

And we reject this:

No,

that is not the interpretation of the beraita.

Rather,

as it was taught: What did you see that led you to include the night of the final Festival day and exclude the night of the first Festival day?

I include the night of the final Festival day, because there is rejoicing before it, and I exclude the night of the first Festival day, because there is no rejoicing before 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, although the time for eating the meat of the Festival offering continues until the end of the day of the sixteenth, in the evening?

As it is stated [Exodus 23]:

Exodus 23]:

“You shall not leave the fat of My Festival offering until morning.”

And adjacent to it is

“the first.”

By this the verse intended

to say that this

“morning,”

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

morning

after

first

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

And from here we learn that remaining overnight disqualifies all sacrificial portions.

Rav Yosef challenged this: The reason is that it is written

“the first”

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

Had it not been written

“the first”

adjacent to “morning,”

I would have said: What is the meaning of “morning”

that disqualifies through remaining overnight?

The second morning.

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

But this is impossible, for

Is there such a thing

as this being possible,

that the meat

of the offering

would become disqualified

for eating under the law of notar already

from the previous evening,

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

while

the

sacrificial portions

of the offering would not become disqualified

until the morning,

the following morning?!

Abaye said to him: Why

—why

not

could the sacrificial portions become disqualified after the meat had become disqualified?

But

there is proof from the

Paschal offering, according to

the opinion of

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya,

who permits eating it only until midnight.

The meat becomes disqualified

already

at midnight, while

the

sacrificial portions

do not become disqualified

until the morning.

Rava said: This is what troubled Rav Yosef

about Rav Kahana’s statement: Why did he need to derive from the word “first,” which is written adjacent to “morning,” that the Torah’s intention is the first morning and not the following morning?

The meaning of “morning” by itself, even without its being adjacent to “first,” is the first morning!

And the proof is that

indeed

is there such a thing,

how could it be

that

the

if

the

tanna

in the beraita,

with regard

to the disqualification through remaining overnight of

the meat

of the offering,

did not need

“first”

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

And

if

Rav Kahana,

in order

to

disqualify the

sacrificial portions

through remaining overnight on the first morning,

needed

the adjacency of

“first”

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

And the Gemara explains:

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

Which beraita is it in which it is obvious to the tannaitic sage, without deriving it from “first,” that the ordinary reference to “morning,” when the meat becomes disqualified by remaining overnight, is the first morning and not the second?

As it was taught:

It is written [Deuteronomy 16]:

“You shall not leave any of the meat that you slaughter in the evening, on the first day, until morning.”