Mishnah Pesachim
by Jonathan Wolf

(Chapter 6 of 10)

Chapter 6

In the last chapter, we learned that one may bring the Pesach sacrifice even on Shabbat. This ruling derives from the phrase in the Torah that the Pesach must be brought "in its appointed time". However, not everything involved with the offering can be performed on Shabbat. Anything that can be performed before or after the Shabbat does not override the Shabbat. Consequently, those items that cannot be postponed or accomplished earlier must be performed on the eve of Pesach even if it is the Shabbat.

Mishnah 1:

These things pertaining to the Pesach offering override the Sabbath: Its slaughter; throwing the blood; removal of the offal from its entrails; and the burning of its fats. But its roasting and the rinsing of its entrails do not override the Sabbath.

Carrying it, bringing it from outside the Sabbath limit, and cutting off its wart do not override the Sabbath. Rabbi Eliezer says: They do override it.

Commentary:

The gemara(66a) relates that this mishnah began the legacy of Hillel the Elder as Nasi (Prince). The story is related that once the fourteenth of Nisan fell on the Sabbath and the heads of the Beis Din, the sons of Beseira, forgot the halachah about bringing the Pesach offering on the Sabbath. They inquired if anyone in the Land knew the ruling. They were told that a man named Hillel, a student of the two greatest Sages of the time Shamaya and Avtaylon, knew the halachah. Hillel was summoned to the court and presented such a convinving argument that the Pesach may be brought even on the Sabbath that they instantly proclaimed him "Nasi". Hillel’s descendant was Rabbi yehidah HaNasi, the complier of the Mishnah.

We will see that Rabbi Eliezer’s statement that bringing the Pesach from outside the Sabbath limit (the limit of 2000 cubits permitted for traveling) leads to a controversary between the Sages.

On a technical note, the "offal" refer to the insides of the entrails which ust be cleaned out quickly to avoid an offense odor and putrefication. Roasting can be postponed until evening since only the bringing of the offering, sacrificing it, throwing its blood on the altar, and burning the fats must be performed during the day.

Rabbi Eliezer derives his ruling as being similar to a brit milah. The circumcision can be peformed on the Sabbath and even the preparations for the mitzvah can override the Sabbath. Consequently, in the performance of a scriptural mitzvah, if the mitzvah can override the Sabbath, so too can its preparations. The next mishnah continues the discussion.

Mishnah 2:

Said Rabbi Eliezer, "But is this not a logical argument! If slaughter of the Pesach which is Scripturally prohibited as a labor overrides the Sabbath, then these which are forbidden merely because of a Rabbinic prohibition should certainly override the Sabbath!"

Said Rabbi Yehoshua to him: "Let the festival laws prove this, for on it they permitted labor, but forbade on it what is proscribed because of rabbinic prohibitions."

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: "What is this Yehoshua? What proof can be adduced from a permissible act to a mitzvah?"

Rabbi Akiva responded and said, "Let the ‘sprinkling prove this, for it is a mitzvah and is forbidden because of a Rabbinic prohibition, and does not override the Sabbath. So you should not wonder about these, that even though they are a mitzvah, and are forbidden because of a Rabbini prohibition, they do not override the Sabbath?"

Said Rabbi Eliezer to him: " But about this too do I apply my logic. If slaughter which is forbidden because it is categorized as a labor overrides the Sabbath, then sprinkling which is forbidden only by a Rabbinic prohibition should surely override the Sabbath!"

Said Rabbi Akiva to him: "Perhaps the opposite is more correct? If sprinkling which is forbidden by a Rabbinic prohibition does not override the Sabbath, then slaughtering which is forbidden because it is categorized as a labor should surely not override the Sabbath!"

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: "Akiva! You have uprooted what is written in the Torah: ‘In the afternoon…in its appointed time (Bamidbar 9:3)’, which implies both on weekdays and on the Sabbath."

Said Rabbi Akiva to him : " My Master! Give me an appointed time for these which is like the appointed time for slaughter."

A general rule was stated by Rabbi Akiva: Any labor that can be performed on the eve of the Sabbath does not override the Sabbath. Slaughtering which cannot be performed on the eve of the Sabbath does override the Sabbath.

Commentary:

This long mishnah has a rare glimpse into the discussions that are usually reserved for the gemara. Rabbi Eliezer’s initial argument was based on a rule of logic called kal vachomer (a fortiori). The kal vachomer has a classic style and was worded like this: If something is Scriptually prohibited on the Sabbath because it is classified as one of the thirty nine categories of labor (melachos) and is nonetheless permitted as a mitzvah, then how much more so should an act, which is prohibited by the Sages, also override the Sabbath if it forms an essential part of fulfilling the mitzvah.

The debate now centers on whether Rabbi Eliezer’s premise and logic is justified. In other words, can the kal vachomer be refuted on the basis of not being applicable in the case of slaughtering the Pesach and all of the other side issues involved in both preparation and execution.

Rabbi Yehoshua tries to refute the argument by using the festival laws as evidence. On a festival it is permissible to cook (one of forbidden labors of the Sabbath) but it is forbidden, by a Rabbinic ordinance to bring in food from outside the Sabbath limit even if it is needed for the festival. The Rambam (in his commentary on this mishnah) states that another example is the fact that music is prohibited on a festival even though adding music would enhance the celebration of the Festival.

Rabbi Eliezer counters that one cannot compare what the Sages permit or forbid to a mitzvah from the Torah. Eating a lavish meal on a Festival is not, in Rabbi Eliezer’s mind, a mitzvah.

Rabbi Akiva now enters the discussion. He tries to argue on the basis of the laws of "sprinkling. The gemara states that Rabbi Akiva is referring an act performed by a person who was in contact with a corpse. He must undergo cleansing in which purified water is sprinkled on the third and seventh day of the cleansing period. The person must then undergo ritual immersion in a mikvah. If the seventh and final days of the cleansing period fell on the Sabbath and it is also the eve of Pesach, the sprinkling is considered a mitzvah since without it, the person would not be permitted to partake of the Pesach offering. Nonetheless, the rabbi forbade this process on the Sabbath. The gemara further states that Rabbi Akiva knew that sprinkling purified water does not override the Sabbath since he was taught this ruling by Rabbi Eliezer!

Rabbi Eliezer counters that using his logic, the sprinkling should also override the Sabbath. The gemara notes that Rabbi Eliezer evidentally forgot his own ruling! In order to tactfully remind him, Rabbi Akiva challenges him to come up with an example that links the two prohibitions. The mishnah ends with Rabbi Akiva stating the general rule which is now followed.

Mishnah 3:

When does on bring a Chagigah with it? When it is offered on a weekday, in purity and is insufficient. But when it is offered on the Sabbath, or is abundant, or in contamination, we do not bring a Chagigah with it.

Mishnah 4:

A Chagigah may be brought from the flock, from cattle, from sheep or from goats; from males or from females. And it may be eaten for two days and one night.

Commentary:

A Chagigah is an additional festival offering brought with the Pesach. Today, the roasted egg symbolizes the chagigah offering. The Sages derive the ruling of the chagigah based on the Torah’s statement that the Pesach be eaten while sated. The Torah does not require that the chagigah be consumed at the seder.

The chagigah is governed by the usual rules of sacrifices and therefore those who partake of it must be in a state of ritual purity. Additionally, if there are a large number of people to consume the chagigah, and thus it must be divided into small quantities, then one will not be sated as required.

Mishnah 5:

If one slaughtered the pesach offering for some other designation on the Sabbath, he is liable thereby for a sin offering. And all other sacrifices that he slaughtered with the designation of a Pesach offering; if they are not suitable, he is liable for a sin offering; but if they are suitable, Rabbi Eliezer obligates him to bring a sin offering, but Rabbi Yehoshua absolves him.

Said Rabbi Eliezer, "If the Pesach, which is permitted on the Sabbath for its own designation, if he changed its designation he is liable then other sacrifices, which are forbidden on the Sabbath even for their own designations, if he changed their designations he should surely be liable."

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him, "Not so! If you say thus of the Pesach when he changed it to a forbidden matter, will you say thus of other sacrifices when he changed them to a permitted matter?"

Said Rabbi Eliezer to him: "Let public offerings prove it, for they are permitted to be offered for their own designation, yet one who slaughters other sacrifices for their designations is liable."

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: "Not so! If you say thus of public offerings which have a limit, will you say thus of the Pesach which has no limit?"

Rabbi Meir says: Even one who slaughters other sacrifices for the designation of public offerings, is not liable.

Mishnah 6:

If one slaughtered it for those who cannot eat of it or for those not registered on it, for uncircumcised or contaminated people, he is liable. However, if he slaughtered for those who can eat of it and those who cannot eat of it, for those registered and those unregistered, for circumcised and uncircumcised, for those who are cleansed and those who are contaminated, he is not liable.

If one slaughtered it and it was found to have a blemish, he is liable. If one slaughtered it and it was found to be a treifah internally, he is not liable.

If one slaughtered it and then it became known that the owners had withdrawn from it or had died, or had become contaminated, he is not liable, because he slaughtered it with permission.

Commentary:

Mishnah 5 continues the theme of mishnah 2. Rabbi Eliezer again uses a kal vachomer to argue his point.. In general, the act of sacrificing is forbidden on Shabbat. This is superseded by a Torah commandment to slaughter the Pesach in its appointed time. However, if during the act of slaughtering, an unintentional mistake is made, then the act is invalid and sin offering must be brought. The discussion centers on what acts invalidate the sacrifice and when must a sin offering be brought.

The mishnah states (by an anonymous Sage) that if one slaughters another sacrifice (let’s say a shleimim, the peace offering and then realized that he cannot offer it on Shabbat) but then declares it to be the Pesach offering, if the animal is one of the acceptable species, then he is not obligated to bring a sin offering.

Rabbi Eliezer tries to show that he is obligated for a sin offering by arguing that if one is obligated to bring a sin offering if the Pesach (which is permissible on Shabbat) has its designation changed, then how much more so should one bring a sin offering if one slaughters for an initially invalid offering and then suddenly changes its designation to the Pesach. Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees since it is permitted to slaughter another offering by mistake on te Shabbat if it was erroneously designated as the Pesach offering.

Mishnah six is related to the third mishnah in chater 5. If we have a mixed multitude of people (some of whom can invalidate the offering because they are in a state of impurity or uncircumcised, or not registered), then the mishnah discusses the circumstances that keep the offering valid. The word treifah means "torn". If an animal was killed in a fight with another animal, or if the ritual slaughtering was improper, or if any internal organs are punctured or torn, then the animal cannot be eaten. Tractate Chullin discusses these ideas in more detail. Colloquially, non-kosher meat is sometimes referred to as treifah.