Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 6:1

משנה: אֵילּוּ דְבָרִים בַּפֶּסַח דּוֹחִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת שְׁחִיטָתוֹ וּזְרִיקַת דָּמוֹ וּמִיחוּי קְרָבָיו וְהֶקְטֵר חֲלָבָיו. אֲבָל צְלִייָתוֹ וַהֲדָחַת קְרָבָיו אֵינָן דּוֹחִין. הַרְכָּבוֹ וַהֲבָאָתוֹ מִחוּץ לַתְּחוּם וַחֲתִיכַת יַבַּלְתּוֹ אֵינָן דּוֹחִין. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר דּוֹחִין׃ MISHNAH: The following items about the Pesaḥ push aside the Sabbath¹If the 14th of Nisan falls on a Sabbath.: Its slaughter, and the pouring of its blood, and emptying its intestines²Cleaning out the bowels so the carcass will not start to smell before nightfall when it can be roasted., and the burning of its fat. But its roasting and washing of its intestines³To clean them thoroughly to prepare them as food. do not push aside. Carrying it⁴Carrying the lamb on one’s shoulder., or bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain, or cutting its wart⁵Since a wart is a defect which disqualifies an animal as sacrifice (Leviticus.22.22">Lev. 22:22), the animal could not have been dedicated if it had developed one by the time of dedication. If it was dedicated without defect, a wart which developed later may be cut., do not push aside; Rebbi Eliezer says, they push aside⁶He holds that if an action supersedes the rules of the Sabbath, all preparatory actions also supersede the Sabbath (Šabbat 19:1)..

הלכה: אֵילּוּ דְבָרִים בַּפֶּסַח כול׳. זוֹ הֲלָכָה נֶעֶלְמָה מִזִּקְנֵי בָּתֵירָה. פַּעַם אַחַת חָל אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת. וְלֹא הָיוּ יוֹדְעִין אִם פֶּסַח דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת אִם לָאו. אָֽמְרוּ. יֵשׁ כָּאן בַּבְלִי אֶחָד וְהִלֵּל שְׁמוֹ. שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ אֶת שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן. יוֹדֵעַ אִם פֶּסַח דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת אִם לָאו. אֶיפְשַׁר שֶׁיֵּשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ תוֹחֶלֶת. שָֽׁלְחוּ וְקָֽרְאוּ לוֹ. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ. שָׁמַעְתָּ מִיָּמֶיךָ. כְּשֶׁחָל אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת. אִם דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת אִם לָאו. אָמַר לָהֶן. וְכִי אֵין לָנוּ אֶלָּא פֶסַח אֶחָד בִּלְבַד דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת בְּכָל־שָׁנָה. וַהֲלֹא כַמָּה פְסָחִים יִדְחוּ אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת בְּכָל־שָׁנָה. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. מֵאָה. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. מָאתַיִם. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. שָׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת. מָאן דְּאָמַר. מֵאָה. תְּמִידִין. מָאן דְּאָמר. מָאתַיִם. תְּמִידִין וּמוּסְפֵי שַׁבָּתוֹת. מָאן דְּאָמַר. שָׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת. תְּמִידִין וּמוּסְפֵי שַׁבָּתוֹת שֶׁלְיָמִים טוֹבִים וְשֶׁלְרָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים וְשֶׁלְמוֹעֲדוֹת. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ. כְּבָר אָמַרְנוּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ מִמְּךָ תוֹחֶלֶת. הִתְחִיל דּוֹרֵשׁ לָהֶן מֵהֶיקֵּשׁ וּמִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר וּמִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה. מֵהֶיקֵּשׁ. הוֹאִיל וְתָמִיד קָרְבַּן צִיבּוּר וּפֶסַח קָרְבַּן צִיבּוּר. מַה תָמִיד קָרְבַּן צִיבּוּר דּוֹחֶה [שַׁבָּת]. אַף פֶּסַח קָרְבַּן צִיבּוּר דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר. מַה אִם תָּמִיד שֶׁאֵין חַייָבִין עַל עֲשִׂייָתוֹ כָרֵת דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. פֶּסַח שֶׁחַייָבִין עַל עֲשִׂייָתוֹ כָרֵת אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיִּדְחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. מִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה. נֶאֱמַר בְּתָמִיד בְּמֽוֹעֲדֽוֹ וְנֶאֱמַר בְּפֶסַח בְּמֽוֹעֲדֽוֹ׃ מַה תָמִיד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ בְּמֽוֹעֲדֽוֹ דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. אַף פֶּסַח שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ בְּמֽוֹעֲדֽוֹ דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ. כְּבָר אָמַרְנוּ אִם יֵשׁ תּוֹחֶלֶת מִבַּבְלִי. הֶקֵּישׁ שֶׁאָמַרְתָּ יֵשׁ לוֹ תְשׁוּבָה. לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְתָמִיד שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ לוֹ קִיצְבָה. תֹּאמַר בְּפֶסַח שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קִצְבָה. קַל וָחוֹמֶר שֶׁאָמַרְתָּ יֵשׁ לוֹ תְשׁוּבָה. לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְתָמִיד שֶׁהוּא קָדְשֶׁי קָדָשִׁים. תֹּאמַר בְּפֶסַח שֶׁהוּא קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּין. גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה שֶׁאָמַרְתָּ. שֶׁאֵין אָדָם דָּן גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה מֵעַצְמוֹ. HALAKHAH: “The following items about the Pesaḥ,” etc. ⁷Pesachim.66a">Babli 66a; Tosephta 4:13–14. This question left the Elders of Bathyra at a loss. Once the Fourteenth fell on the Sabbath and they did not know whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not. They said, we have here a Babylonian who served Shemaya and Avtalion⁸The heads of the Pharisaic establishment in the preceding generation. and knows whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not. It is possible that there be hope from him. They sent and called him. The said to him, did you ever hear, if the Fourteenth falls on the Sabbath, whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not? He told them, do we have only one Pesaḥ which pushes aside the Sabbath every year? Are there not many Pesaḥim which push aside the Sabbath every year? There are Tannaim who state: 100. There are Tannaim who state: 200. There are Tannaim who state: 300. He who says 100, the daily sacrifices of the Sabbath. He who says 200, the daily and additional sacrifices of the Sabbath. He who says 300, the daily and additional sacrifices of the Sabbath, and of holidays, and of New Moons, and of semi-holidays. They told him, already we said, there is hope from you. He started to explain to them by analogy, by an argument de minore ad majus, and by equal cut. By analogy: The daily sacrifice is a public offering and Pesaḥ is a public offering. Since the daily sacrifice as a public offering pushes aside the Sabbath, also Pesaḥ as a public offering pushes aside the Sabbath. By an argument de minore ad majus. Since the daily sacrifice, whose action is not subject to extirpation, pushes aside the Sabbath, it is only logical that Pesaḥ, whose action is subject to extirpation, push aside the Sabbath. By equal cut. It is said about the daily sacrifice, at its fixed time⁹Numbers.28.2">Num. 28:2., and it is said about Pesaḥ, at its fixed time¹⁰Numbers.9.2">Num. 9:2.. They said to him, we already said, is there hope from a Babylonian? The analogy which you proposed can be answered. No, if you said this about daily sacrifices which are fixed in number, what can you infer for Pesaḥ which is not fixed in number? The argument de minore ad majus which you proposed can be answered. No, if you said this about daily sacrifices which are most holy, what can you infer for Pesaḥ which is a simple sacrifice¹¹The relationship between daily sacrifice and Pesaḥ is not that of minor and major; the argument is intrinsically invalid.? Concerning the equal cut which you proposed, nobody can introduce an equal cut by himself¹²Equal expressions in the Pentateuch imply equal legal status only if there is a documented tradition that these words were written for this purpose. Pesachim.66a">Babli 66a..

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן אָמַר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מָמָל. אִם בָּא אָדָם לְדִין אַחַר גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה [מֵעַצְמוֹ] עוֹשֶׁה אֶת הַשֶּׁרֶץ מְטַמֵּא בָאֹהֶל. וְאֶת הַמֵּת מְטַמֵּא בְכָעֲדָשָׁה. דּוּ דָרַשׁ. בֶּגֶד עוֹר בֶּגֶד עוֹר לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה. כָּךְ אִם יִהְיֶה הַשֶּׁרֶץ בְּיָדוֹ שֶׁלְאָדָם אֲפִילוּ טוֹבֵל בְּמֵי שִׁילוֹחַ אוֹ בְמֵי בְרֵאשִׁית אֵין לוֹ טַהֲרָה עוֹלָמִית. הִשִׁלִיכוֹ מְיָּדוֹ מִיַּד הוּא טַהוֹר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל. אָדָם דָּן גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה לְקַייֵם תַּלְמוּדוֹ. וְאֵין אָדָם דָּן גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה לְבַטֵּל תַּלְמוּדוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל. אָדַם דָּן קַל וָחוֹמֶר לָעַצְמוֹ וְאֵין אָדַם דָּן גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה לְעַצְמוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ מְשִׁיבִין מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר וְאֵין מְשִׁיבִין מִגְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה. ¹³Here a Genizah fragment (Ginze Schechter pp. 446–447) becomes readable again (ג). Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If a person could construct an equal cut by himself, he could make a creeping animal causing impurity in a tent and a corpse causing impurity in the volume of a lentil, by explaining textile, leather; textile, leather¹⁴A dead creeping animal (of the list Leviticus.11.29-30">Lev. 11:29–30) imparts impurity in the volume of a lentil; a human corpse only in the volume of an olive. A human corpse imparts impurity to everything under the same roof with it, a dead creeping one imparts impurity only by contact. The argument is incomprehensible but the text is confirmed not only by ג but also by Sefer Hapardes from the school of Rashi (Pardes Gadol §175, ed. H. L. Ehrenreich p. 230), and Meïri Pesaḥim (ed. Y. Klein, col. 290a). While textile and leather are written about the creeping animal in Leviticus.11.32">Lev. 11:32, they are not mentioned in the Chapter about tent impurity (Numbers.19">Num. 19). It is mentioned in the Chapter about ṣāraˋ at impurity of textiles (Leviticus.13.47-59">Lev. 13:47–59) although not in the exact wording of 11:32. The argument should be that the equal cut is illegitimate since minimal sizes for impurity of animals are determined by volume while those of textiles by surface area; the rules cannot be transferred.. So if a creeping animal is in a person’s hand, even if he immerses himself in the waters of the Siloam, or in waters of a primeval ocean, he never can achieve purity. If he throws it away, immediately he becomes pure¹⁵This argument does not belong here, it is not in ג, nor in Pardes, nor in Meïri. It is part of a sermon in Taˋanti (Yerushalmi 2:1 69a line 69, Pesachim.16a">Babli 16a.). Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may use an equal cut to confirm what he has learned; nobody may use an equal cut to invalidate what he has learned¹⁶Since it is part of oral tradition.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may argue de minore ad majus by himself; a person may not argue an equal cut by himself¹⁶Since it is part of oral tradition.. Therefore one can contradict an argument de minore ad majus; one cannot contradict an equal cut.

אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיָה יוֹשֵׁב וְדוֹרֵשׁ לָהֶן כָּל־הַיּוֹם לֹא קִיבְּלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶן. יָבוֹא עָלַי כָּךְ שָׁמַעְתִּי מִשְּׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן. כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּֽׁמְעוּ מִמֶּנּוּ כֵן עָֽמְדוּ וּמִינוּ אוֹתוֹ נְשִׂיא עֲלֵיהֶן. כֵּיוָן שֶׁמִּינוּ אוֹתוֹ נְשִׂיא עֲלֵיהֶן הִתְחִיל מְקֶנְתְּרָן בִּדְבָרִים וְאוֹמֵר. מִי גָרַם לָכֶם לְצָרֵךְ לַבַּבְלִי הַזֶּה. לֹא עַל שֶׁלֹּא שִׁימַּשְׁתֶּם לִשְׂנֵי גְדוֹלֵי עוֹלָם לִשְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ יוֹשְׁבִין אֶצְלֵכֶם. כֵּיוָן שְׁקִינְתְּרָן בִּדְבָרִים נֶעֶלְמָה הֲלָכָה מִמֶּנּוּ. Even though he was sitting and explaining the entire day they did not accept it from him until he said, it should come over me, so I heard from Shemaya and Avtalion. When they heard this from him, they rose and appointed him Patriarch over them. After they had appointed him Patriarch over them, he started to goad^16*Greek κεντρόω “to spur, goad, hit with a sharp instrument”. them with words, and said: What caused you to need this Babylonian? Not that you did not serve the two greats of the world, Shemaya and Avtalion? When he started to goad them with words, practice disappeared from him.

אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ. מַה לַעֲשׂוֹת לָעָם וְלֹא הֵבִיאוּ סַכִּינֵיהֶם. אָמַר לָהֶן. הֲלָכָה זוֹ שָׁמַעְתִּי וְשָׁכַחְתִּי. אֶלָּא הַנִּיחוּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אִם אֵינָן נְבִיאִים בְּנֵי נְבִיאִים הֵן. מִיָּד כָּל־מִי שֶׁהָיָה פִסָחוּ טָלֶה הָיָה תוֹחְבָהּ בְּגִיזָתוֹ. גְּדִי הָיָה קוֹשְׁרוֹ בֵין קַרְנָיו. נִמְצְאוּ פִּסְחֵיהֶן מְבִיאִין סַכִּינֵיהֶן עִמָּהֶן. כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאָה אֶת הָמַּעֲשֶׂה נִזְכַּר אֶת הַהֲלָכָה. אָמַר. כָּךְ שָׁמַעְתִּי מִשְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבָטַלְיוֹן. ¹⁷This is copied from Shabbat 19:1:9-10" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shabbat.19.1.9-10">Šabbat 19, Notes 59–66, where readings are noted and the text is explained. While the text fits in here, its origin is in Šabbat since the disagreement between R. Immi and R. Simon mentioned in the paragraph does not refer to anything discussed here. They said to him: What to do with people who did not bring their knives with them? He told them, I was informed of the practice, but I forgot. But let Israel act; if they are not prophets they are descendants of prophets. Then everybody whose Passover sacrifice was a lamb stuck them in its fleece, for a kid goat he bound them to its horns; it turned out that the Passover sacrifices brought their knives with them. When he saw the action he remembered the practice. He told them, this is what I heard from Shemaya and Avtalion.

רִבִּי זְעִירָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. כָּל־תּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ בֶיֵת אָב אֵינָהּ תּוֹרָה. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. רָכַב עָלֶיהָ. נִשְׁעַן עָלֶיהָ. נִתְלָה בִזְנָבָהּ. עָבַר בָּהּ אֶת הַנָּהָר. קִיפֵּל עָלֶיהָ אֶת הַמּוֹסֵירָה. נָתַן טַלִּיתוֹ עָלֶיהָ. פְּסוּלָה. [אֲבָל קוֹשְׁרָהּ בַּמּוֹסֵרָה. עָשָׂה לָהּ סַנְדָּל בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁלֹּא תַחֲלִיק. פֵּרַשׂ טַלִּיתוֹ עָלֶיהָ מִפְּנֵי הַזְּבוּבִין. כְּשֵׁרָה. זֶה הַכְּלָל. כֹּל שֶׁהוּא לְצָרְכָּהּ כְּשֵׁרָה. לְצוֹרֶךְ אַחֵר פְּסוּלָה׃] הָדָא יַלְפַּה מִן הַהִיא וְהַהִיא יַלְפַּה מִן הָדָא. הָדָא יַלְפַּה מִן הַהִיא. שֶׁאִם תָּלָה בָהּ סַכִּין לְשׁוֹחֲטָהּ כְשֵׁרְה. וְהַהִיא יַלְפַּה מִן הָדָא. שֶׁכָּל־עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם קֳדָשִׁים אֵינָהּ עֲבוֹדָה. וְיַתִּיר לָהֶן עַל יְדֵי חוֹלָה. אֶלָּא כְרִבִּי אִימִּי. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר כְּרִבִּי סִימוֹן. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנֶּעֶלְמָה זוֹ נֶעֶלְמָה זוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן. וַהֲלֹא [אֵי] אֶיפְשַׁר לִשְׁנֵי שָׁבוּעוֹת שֶׁיָּחוּל אָרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לִהְיוֹת בְּשַּׁבָּת. וְלָמָּה נִתְעַלְּמָה הֲלָכָה מֵהֶן. כְּדֵי לִיתֵּן גְּדוּלָּה לְהִלֵּל. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. Any teaching which has no pedigree is no teaching. There, we have stated¹⁸Parah 2:3" href="/Mishnah_Parah.2.3">Mishnah Parah 2:3. The text in parentheses was added by the corrector from the Mishnah.: “If he rode on it, leaned on it, hung on it, used it to cross a river, folded the bridle on it, put his toga on it, it is disqualified. [But if he tied it with the bridle, made it a shoe lest it slip, put his toga on it because of flies, it is qualified. This is the principle: Anything for its needs, it is qualified. For any other need, it is disqualified.]” This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that that if he hung on it a knife to slaughter it it remains qualified. That learns from this, that any action which is done for sancta is not work. Why did they not allow it to them by means of walls of people? It must follow Rebbi Immi. Even if you are saying following Rebbi Simon, just as they could not remember this so they did not remember that. Rebbi Abun said, but it is impossible that in two Sabbatical periods there should be no 14^th which falls on the Sabbath! How could they not have remembered? To confer greatness on Hillel.

אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. אֲנָא שְׁמָעִית מֵרִבִּי יוּדָן וּמִן כָּל־רַבָּנִין. מִפְּנֵי מַה נוֹהֲגִין בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁלְמַטָּן בְּכָבוֹד. שֶׁלֹּא יִרְבּוּ הַמַּחֲלוֹקֹת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. שְׁלֹשָׁה הִנִּיחוּ כִתְרָן בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְיָֽרְשׁוּ חַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. וְאֵילּוּ הֵן. יוֹנָתָן בֶּן שָׁאוּל. וְאֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה. וְזִקְנֵי בְּתֵירָה. יוֹנָתָן בֶּן שָׁאוּל. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. אֲפִילוּ נָשִׁים מֵאֲחוֹרֵי הַקַּורָיִין יוֹדְעוֹת הָיוּ שֶׁדָּוִד עָתִיד לִמְלוֹךְ. אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה תְנַייָן הֲוָה. לֵית לָךְ כְּהָדָא דְזִקְנֵי בְּתֵירָה דְּשָׁרוֹן גַּרְמוֹן מִן נְשִׂייוּתָא וּמְנוּנֵיהּ נָשִׂיא. רַבָּנִין דְּקַיְסָרִין אָֽמְרִין. אַף רִבִּי חֲנִינָה דְצִיפּוֹרִין לְרִבִּי מָנָא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ בֵּן קָבֻסַיי. כָּל־יָמַיי הָיִיתִי בוֹרֵחַ מִן הַשְּׂרָרָה. עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁנִּכְנַסְתִּי. כָּל־מִי שֶׁהוּא בָּא וּמוֹצִיאֵנִי. כְּקוֹמְקוּם הַזֶּה אֲנִי יוֹרֵד לוֹ. מַה הַקּוֹמְקוּם הַזֶּה כוֹוֶה וּמַפְצִיעַ וּמְפַחֵם בּוֹ. כָּךְ אֲנִי יוֹרֵד לוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵירִבִּי בּוּן. חַס וְשָׁלוֹם דַּהֲוָה בָעֵי לָהּ. אֶלָּא דַהֲוָה אֲמַר. מָאן יֵימַר לִי דְּחוֹרָן מְקַדֵּשׁ שֵׁם שְׁמַיָּא דִּכְווָתִי. Rebbi Mana said, I heard from Rebbi Yudan and from all the rabbis, why does one honor the lower house¹⁹Following ג, we read “the earthly House”, meaning the Patriarchate (as recognized by L. Ginzberg), not “the earthly court”. While Hillel became Patriarch because of his intellectual stature, in Talmudic times the descendants of Rebbi were no longer the leading scholars. The question then is asked, why they should retain their status as Patriarchs. They are needed since their pronouncements can guarantee unity of practice in Judaism.? So that divisions should not grow in Israel. Three put down their crowns in this world and inherited the life of the Future World. And these are: Jonathan the son of Saul, and Eleazar ben Azariah, and the Elders of Bathyra. Jonathan the son of Saul. Rebbi La said, even the women behind the loom²⁰Greek καῖρος, ό. did know that David would rule in the future. Eleazar ben Azaria was Second in rank²¹While he volunteered to re-establish Rabban Gamliel as Patriarch (Berakhot 4:1:33" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.4.1.33">Berakhot 4:1 Notes 114–124). ג reads “there was a stipulation,” that he would remain Chief Justice if Rabban Gamliel was re-instated as Patriarch.. There are among these only the Elders of Bathyra who freed themselves of the Patriarchate and appointed him Patriarch. The rabbis of Caesarea said, also Rebbi Ḥanina of Sepphoris for Rebbi Mana. Rebbi Joshua ben Qabusai²²Since the name tradition is not uniform, it cannot be determined who exactly was the person referred to. said, all my days I fled from authority. Now that I entered, anybody who would remove me I would treat like a water kettle. As the kettle burns, and injures, and chars, so I would treat him. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, heaven forbid that he wanted this. But he said, who could tell me that he would sanctify the Name of Heaven as I am doing.

עַל שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים עָלָה הִלֵּל מִבָּבֵל. טָה֣וֹר ה֑וּא. יָכוֹל יִפָּטֵר וְיֵלֵךְ לוֹ. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְטִֽהֲר֭וֹ הַכֹּהֵֽן. אִי וְטִֽיהֲר֭וֹ הַכֹּהֵֽן יָכוֹל אִם אָמַר הַכֹּהֵן עַל טָמֵא טָהוֹר יְהֵא טָהוֹר. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר טָה֣וֹר ה֑וּא וְטִֽהֲר֭וֹ הַכֹּהֵֽן׃ עַל זֶה עָלָה הִלֵּל מִבָּבֵל. Because of three questions Hillel immigrated from Babylonia. He is pure. I could think that he was rid of it and may take leave, the verse says, the Cohen shall declare him pure. If the Cohen shall declare him pure then I could think that if the Cohen declared him pure while he was impure that he was pure, the verse says, he is pure and the Cohen shall declare him pure²³Leviticus.13.37">Lev. 13:37.. For this Hillel immigrated from Babylonia²⁴Sifra Tazriaˋ Pereq 9(15)..

כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר. וְזָבַ֥חְתָּ פֶּ֛סַח לַֽיי֥ אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ צֹ֣אן וּבָקָ֑ר. וְכָתוּב אַחֵר אוֹמֵר. מִן־הַכְּבָשִׂ֥ים וּמִן־הָֽעִזִּי֭ם תִּקָּֽחוּ׃ הָא כֵיצַד. צֹ֣אן לַפֶּסַח. וְצֹ֣אן וּבָקָ֑ר לַחֲגִיגָה. One verse says²⁵Deuteronomy.16.2">Deut. 16:2., you shall sacrifice a Pesaḥ to the Eternal, your God, small cattle and large cattle. Another verse says²⁶Exodus.12.5">Ex. 12:5.,from sheep and goats you shall take. How is this? Small cattle for Pesaḥ, small and large cattle for the festival sacrifice²⁷Pesachim.70b">Babli 70b, Sifry Deut. 129, not in the name of Hillel..

כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר. שֵׁ֥שֶׁת יָמִ֖ים תֹּאכַ֣ל מַצּ֑וֹת. וְכָתוּב אַחֵר אוֹמֵר. שִׁבְעַ֤ת יָמִים֙ מַצּ֣וֹת תֹּאכֵ֔לוּ. הָא כֵיצַד. שִׁשָּׁה מִן הֶחָדָשׁ וְשִׁבְעָה מִן הַיָּשָׁן. וְדָרַשׁ וְהִסְכִּים וְעָלָה וְקִיבֵּל הֲלָכָה. One verse says²⁸Deuteronomy.16.8">Deut. 16:8., you shall eat mazzot for six days; another verse says²⁹Exodus.12.5">Ex. 12:5., seven days you shall eat mazzot. How is this? Six days from the new crop³⁰After the Omer ceremony on the second day of the Holiday of Unleavened Bread, when grain from the new harvest becomes permitted (Leviticus.23.14">Lev. 23:14). Sifry Deut. 134 in the name of R. Simeon, 5 generations after Hillel; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo, Parašah 8, anonymous., seven days from the old. He interpreted, and agreed, and immigrated, and received practice³¹He had found the solutions himself; he immigrated into Palestine to have his explanations accepted by Shemaya and Avtalion and to have it harmonized with existing practice..

מִיחוּי קְרָבָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כֹּ֤ל פָּעַ֣ל יְ֭י לַֽמַּֽעֲנֵ֑הוּ. שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא נִרְאֶה כְנוֹטֵל אֵימוֹרִין מִתּוֹךְ זֶבַח מְנוּוָל. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. הַפְשֵׁיטוֹ דוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר. בַּשַּׁבָּת הָיָה מַפְשִׁיט אֶת הֶחָזֶה. מַה טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא נִרְאֶה כְנוֹטֵל אֵימוֹרִין מִתּוֹךְ זֶבַח מְנוּוָל. מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה. מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁהוּא הוֹפְכוֹ אֵינוֹ כְנוֹטֵל אֵימוֹרִין מִתּוֹךְ זֶבַח מְנוּוָל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אָֽמְרוּ דָבָר אֶחָד. כְּמַה דְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר. מוּבְחַר דּוֹחֶה. אֵין מוּבְחַר מִן הַמּובְחַר דּוֹחֶה. [כָּךְ רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא אוֹמֵר. מוּבְחַר דּוֹחֶה. אֵין מוּבְחַר מִן הַמּובְחַר דּוֹחֶה. אִין תֹּאמַר. מוּבְחַר הוּא. יִקְרְעֶנּוּ וְיוֹצִיא אֵימוֹרָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. לֹא אַתְייָא אֶלָּא כְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. “Emptying its intestines”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all the Eternal’s works are for Himself³²Proverbs.16.4">Prov. 16:4. Quoted Shabbat.116b">Babli Šabbat116b.; that it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice³³Since for profane use the emptying of the intestines would be a Sabbath violation.. Rebbi Ismael stated, its skinning pushes the Sabbath aside³⁴But for profane use it would be a Sabbath violation.. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, on the Sabbath one was skinning the breast³⁵With Tosephta 4:10 one has to read: “One was skinning up to the breast (starting with the feet).”. What is Rebbi Ismael’s reason? That it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. What does Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa do with this? Because he turns it around, it is not as if he was taking the parts from a disgusting sacrifice³⁶Since it is obvious that one skins from the feet for sacrificial use, it is not necessary to push aside the Sabbath more than a minimum.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said the same. As Rebbi Ismael said, choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside³⁷In Menachot 6:1" href="/Mishnah_Menachot.6.1">Mishnah Menaḥot 6:1, R. Ismael states that while on a Sabbath the ˋOmer(3/10 of a seah) of barley flour was sifted from three seah of grain while on weekdays it was from five. This implies that for the Temple service one uses choice material but only on weekdays it must be of the choicest kind if it is a matter of pushing aside Sabbath prohibitions., so Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside. If you are saying, this is choice, can he not tear it open and remove the parts³⁸If we interpret R. Ismael ben R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa in this way, then R. Ismael would be inconsistent by requiring total stripping of the Pesaḥ. Also R. Ismael ben R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa could obtain the desired result with much less Sabbath desecration. Therefore R. Joḥanan’s statement cannot be correct.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it only follows Rebbi Simeon.

דְּתַנֵּי. הַגּוֹרֵר הַקּוֹדֵחַ הַקּוֹצֵץ כָּל־שֶׁהוּא בַשַּׁבָּת חַייָב. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר. הַגּוֹרֵר עַד שֶׁיִּגּוֹר כָּל־צוֹרְכוֹ. הַקּוֹדֵחַ עַד שֶׁיִּקְדַּח כָּל־צוֹרְכוֹ. הַקּוֹצֵץ עַד שֶׁיְּקַצֵּץ כָּל־צוֹרְכוֹ. וְהַמְעַבֵּד אֶת הָעוֹר עַד שֶׁיְּעַבֵּד כָּל־צוֹרְכוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. לֹא אַתְיָא אֶלָּא כְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֹא עָבַד מִקְצַת מְלָאכָה כְכוּלָּהּ. וְרַבָּנִין עָֽבְדִין מִקְצַת מְלָאכָה כְכוּלָּהּ. ³⁹This is from Shabbat 12:1:7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shabbat.12.1.7">Šabbat 12, Notes 47–49. as it was stated⁷Pesachim.66a">Babli 66a; Tosephta 4:13–14.: “One who scratches, who drills, who chops anything is liable; Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, one who scratches only if he scratches completely, one who drills only if he drills completely, one who chops only if he chopped completely, one who tans hides only if he tanned completely.” And Rebbi Jacob bar Ada said, this only follows Rebbi Simeon since Rebbi Simeon did not treat partial work as whole work, but the rabbis do treat partial work as whole work⁴⁰Therefore R. Ismael ben R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa disagrees with R. Ismael and holds that skinning the Pesaḥ on the Sabbath is forbidden as action for profane use; he only permits partial skinning since for him it is not a Sabbath desecration. Cf. Menaḥot63b–64a..

וְקַשְׁיָא עַל דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אִילּוּ נָטַל לִקְצוֹר וְלֹא קָצַר שֶׁמָּא כְלוּם הוּא. אָמַר רַב. אַתְיָיא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל כְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. דְּתַנֵּי. הַשׁוֹבֵט וְהַמְקַטְקֵט עַל הָאָרִיג חַייָב. הֲרֵי זֶה חַייָב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כִמְייַשֵּׁב בְּיָדוֹ. וְהָכָא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כִמְייַשֵּׁב בְּיָדוֹ. ⁴¹This paragraph, continuation of the preceding one, is copied from Shabbat 12:1:8-3:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shabbat.12.1.8-3.5">Šabbat 12, Notes 50–53; it refers to Shabbat 12:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shabbat.12.1.1">Mishnah Šabbat 12:1 and has no meaning here. And it is difficult about Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. If one took [tools] to harvest but did not harvest, is that perhaps anything? Rebbi Ada said, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel parallels Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated: “One who hits or smooths a piece of weaving is liable. He is liable because he equalizes with his hand.” And here because he equalizes with his hand.

וְהֶקְטֵר חֲלָבָיו. וְלֹֽא־יָלִ֥ין חֵֽלֶב־חַגִּ֖י עַד־בֹּֽקֶר׃ וְאֵימוֹרֵי חוֹל קְרֵיבִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. קִייַמְתִּיהָ בְּשֶׁחָל אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בָעֵי. אִם בְּשֶׁחָל אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת אֵין חֲגִיגָה בָאָה עִמּוֹ. אָֽמְרָה תוֹרָה. הַקְרִיבֵהוּ מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. שֶׁלֹּא יְבוֹא לִידֵי בַּל תָּלִין. וְהָכָא. הַקְרִיבֵהוּ מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. שֶׁלֹּא תָּבֹא לִידֵי בַּל תְּאַחֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא. אִילּוּ עָבַר וְהֵבִיא שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ כָשֵׁר. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאִילּוּ עָבַר וְהֵבִיא כָּשֵׁר עוֹבֵר. ⁴²This paragraph also appears word for word in Roš Haššanah 1:1 (56c l. 13), which seems to be the original source.“And the burning of its fat.” The fat of my holiday offering shall not stay until the morning⁴³Exodus.23.18">Ex. 23:18. The first part of the verse is about slaughtering the Pesaḥ (Pesachim 5:4:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.5.4.3">Chapter 5, Note 130). The second part quoted here explicitly mentions the holiday offering, the required family sacrifice on the occasion of the holiday pilgrimage, but is interpreted to include the fat of the Pesaḥ.. But could parts from weekday be brought on a holiday⁴⁴Since the 15th of Nisan is a holiday, it seems obvious that parts of a sacrifice brought on the 14th have to be burned before the start of the holiday; the verse seems to be meaningless.? Rebbi Abbahu said, I confirmed it, if the Fourteenth fell on a Šabbath. Rebbi Jonah asked, if the Fourteenth fell on a Šabbath, no holiday offering comes with it, that the Torah has to say, bring it to the altar when it is still daylight lest it come to “not stay”⁴⁵Even if we restrict the meaning of the sentence to holiday offerings, since there is none if the 14th falls on a Sabbath, the explanation of R. Abbahu seems pointless.? (And here, bring it to the altar when it is still daylight lest it come to “not tarry”⁴⁶This sentence, referring to Deuteronomy.23.22">Deut. 23:22, belongs to Roš Haššanah and has no meaning here..) Rebbi Ḥinena said, if he transgressed and brought, is it not qualified⁴⁷This argument that a holiday offering, brought in error on the 14th which is a Sabbath, is qualified and the person who brought it is not liable for a Sabbath infraction, is not found in the Babli and the surviving Tosephta mss.; it is quoted as R. Meïr’s opinion in the Tosephta of the Bomberg Babli, 5:4.? Since it is qualified if he transgressed and brought, he would transgress⁴⁸If one brings a holiday offering on a 14th which is a Sabbath, the explanation of R. Abbahu applies. The verse is not meaningless..

אֲבָל צְלִייָתוֹ וַהֲדָחַת קְרָבָיו אֵינָן דּוֹחִין. תַּנִּינְָן. חָשֵׁיכָה. יָצְאוּ וְצָלוּ אֶת פִּסְחֵיהֶן׃ וְאַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. לְשִׁילְשׁוּלוֹ לַתַּנּוּר. “But its roasting, and washing of its intestines, do not push aside.” We have stated, “When it got dark, they left and roasted their Pesaḥ”, and you are saying so? For hanging into the oven⁴⁹In Mishnah Šabbat 1:15 roasting the Pesaḥ on the Sabbath is permitted if the 14th is a Friday. Why is it prohibited if the 14th is a Sabbath? The roasting essentially os automatic; it is starting the process which is forbidden on a Sabbath, whether the 14th is a Friday or a Sabbath..

הַרְכָּבוֹ וַהֲבָאָתוֹ מִחוּץ לַתְּחוּם. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא חוּץ לִרוּשָׁלֵם. הָא חוּץ לָעֲזְרְה מוּתָּר מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת שֶׁהִתִּירוּ בַמִּקְדָּשׁ. “Carrying it, or bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain.” He said only, from outside Jerusalem. Therefore from outside the Temple courtyard it is permitted because of rabbinic Sabbath restriction⁵⁰Since Jerusalem is a walled city, inside the city there can be no public domain by biblical standards; restrictions of carrying within the city walls are rabbinic. which they permitted in the Temple.

חֲתִיכַת יַבַּלְתּוֹ. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. וְחוֹתְכִין יַבֶּלֶת בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ אֲבָל לֹא בַמְּדִינָה. וְאִם בַּכֶּלִי. כָּאן וְכָאן אָסוּר׃ הָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. דּוֹחֶה. וְכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. אֵינוֹ דוֹחֶה. “Cutting its wart.” There, we have stated⁵¹Eruvin 10:13:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Eruvin.10.13.1">Mishnah Eruvin 10:11.: “One cuts a wart at the Temple but not in the countryside; using an implement is forbidden here and there.” Here⁵²In Eruvin, showing that this is the origin of the Halakhah., you are saying, it pushes aside; there, you are saying, it does not push aside.

רִבִּי סִימוֹן רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי בְשֵׁם בַּר פְּדָייָה. מִפְּנֵי קִילְקוּל פַּיִיסוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. וְהֵן שֶׁהִפִּיסוּ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי סוֹבַייָה. כָּאן בְּנִפְרֶכֶת וְכָאן בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ נִפְרֶכֶת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יָקִים אָמַר. כָּאן בְּלַחָה וְכָאן בִּיבֵישָׁה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה אָמַר. כָּאן בְּיָד וְכָאן בְּכֶלִי. אַתְיָא דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְּבַר קַפָּרָא. וּדְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָה כְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּתַנֵּי. כָּל־הַמְקַלְקְלִין פְּטוּרִין חוּץ מִן הַמַּבְעִיר וְהָעוֹשֶׁה חַבּוּרָה. בַּר קַפָּרָא אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְדָם. אֲפִילוּ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְאֶפֶר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. והוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא צָרִיךְ לְדָם. והוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא צָרִיךְ לְאֶפֶר. רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָאן וְכָאן בְּלַחָה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא צָרִיךְ לְדָם. ⁵³This paragraph is from Eruvin 10:12:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Eruvin.10.12.3">Eruvin 10, Notes 141–148. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaya: Because of vitiation of the lotteries. Rebbi Yose said, but only if they drew lots. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Sobaya: Whether it can be scraped off or cannot be scraped off. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim said, one if it is moist, the other if it is dry. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, here by hand, there by implement. It turns out that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish parallels Bar Qappara, and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina Rebbi Joḥanan, as it was stated: All who destroy are not liable, except the incendiary and one causing an injury. Bar Qappara said, even if he did not need the blood, even if he did not need the ashes. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if he needed the blood or the ashes. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In both cases if it is moist, and only if he needs the blood.

הֲבָאָתוֹ חוּץ לַתְּחוּם שְׁבוּת. הָדָא מְסַייְעָא לְהָא דָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי חִייָה רֹבָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר יוֹסֵי בַּר לַקּוֹנִיָּא. לוֹקִין עַל תְּחוּמֵי שַׁבָּת דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי חִייָה רַבָּה. וַהֲלֹא אֵין בַּשַּׁבָּת אֶלָּא סְקִילָה וְכָרֵת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְהָֽכְתִיב אַל־תֹּֽאכְל֤וּ מִמֶּ֨נּוּ֙ נָ֔א. אָמַר לֵיהּ מִי כְתִיב לֹא. אַל כְּתִיב. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְהָֽכְתִיב שְׁב֣וּ ׀ אִ֣ישׁ תַּחְתָּ֗יו אַל־יֵ֥צֵא אִ֛ישׁ מִמְּקוֹמוֹ בַּיּ֥וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִֽי׃ אָמַר לֵיהּ. מַה כְתִיב לֹא. אַל כְּתִיב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אַף עַל פִּי כֵן זֶה עוֹמֵד בִּשְׁמוּעָתוֹ וְזֶה עוֹמֵד בִּשְׁמוּעָתוֹ. חֲתִיכַת יַבַּלְתּוֹ בְּכֶלִי שְׁבוּת. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. לֹא תַנֵּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה אֲלָּא הֶרְכֵּבוֹ וַהֲבָאָתוֹ. הָא חֲתִיכַת יַבַּלְתּוֹ לֹא. מִן בְּגִין דּוּ סְבַר בַּכֶּלִי. הָא אִין לָא סְבַר בַּכֶּלִי. שְׁבוּת. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. מַפְלִיגִין. בְּשֶׁנְּטָלָן הוּא. אֲבָל אִם נְטָלָן אַחֵר מָאוּסִין הֵן. וְהָדֵין זֶבַח כְּאַחֵר הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. שַׁנְייָא הִיא הָכָא דִכְתִיב זֶבַח. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. הֲזָייָה שְׁבוּת וְאֵילּוּ שְׁבוּת. הֲזָייָה דוֹחִין וְאֵילּוּ אֵינָן דּוֹחִין. אֶלְּא שֶׁזֶּה בְזֶבַח וְזֶה בְזוֹבֵחַ. מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי זְעוּרָא אָֽמְרָה. הִיא זֶבַח הִיא זוֹבֵחַ. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי דְּבַר קַפָּרָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. תִּמְיהָנִי הֵיאַךְ קִיבֵּל רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר מֵרִבִּי יְהוּשֻׁעַ אֶת הַתְּשׁוּבָה שֶׁזֶּה בְזֶבַח וְזֶה בְזוֹבֵחַ. אָמַר לֵיהּ בַּר קַפָּרָא תַמָּה. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר לֹא תַמָּה. Is bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain a matter of Sabbath rest⁵⁸Since the argument of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua is about rabbinic restrictions because of Sabbath rest, it is implied that the list of items in Pesachim 6:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.6.2.1">Mishnah 2 about which R. Eliezer dissents contains only rabbinic prohibitions. But bringing anything from outside the Sabbath domain is a biblical prohibition.? ⁵⁹The next sentences are from Eruvin 3:4:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Eruvin.3.4.5">Eruvin 3, Notes 127–131. This supports what Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation! He said to him, is there not written⁶⁰Exodus.12.9">Ex. 12:9. This belongs to the discussion there whether all pentateuchal prohibitions are legally prosecutable, or only those formulated as לֹא whereas those introduced by the negation אַל are simply moral obligations. Since the latter then cannot be enforced in court by biblical standards, they are equal in rank to rabbinic prohibitions., do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written⁶¹Exodus.16.28">Ex. 16:28., stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition⁶²This is the end of the parallel in Eruvin3.. Is cutting its wart with an implement a matter of Sabbath rest⁶³This is making a wound, biblically forbidden under the category of slaughtering.? Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina stated only carrying it and bringing it; therefore not cutting its wart⁶⁴In Pesachim 6:1:1-18" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.6.1.1-18">Mishnah 1, he does not read “cutting its wart”.. That is because he thinks it⁶⁵Cutting the wart. Everybody agrees that biting off the wart is unprofessional, therefore does not create liability, and is only rabbinically forbidden. is with an implement. Therefore if he were not of the opinion that it was with an implement, would it be a matter of Sabbath rest? ⁶⁶Quoted from Eruvin 10:1:8" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Eruvin.10.1.8">Eruvin 10(7), Note 64. It is stated there that cutting the wart creates liability only if done professionally with a surgeon’s knife. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, where do they disagree? If he removed it with an implement. But if another person removed it it is disgusting⁶⁷Therefore not causing biblical liability. Shabbat.94b">Babli Šabbat 94b., and is not the sacrifice another? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference because there is written “a sacrifice”. Rebbi Mana said, sprinkling⁶⁸Purifying a person impure by the impurity of the dead by sprinkling with water containing of the ashes of the Red Cow. In Second Temple times this was a public act (Parah 11:4" href="/Mishnah_Parah.11.4">Mishnah Parah 11:4) not performed on the Sabbath. is a matter of Sabbath rest, and these are because of Sabbath rest. Sprinkling is pushed aside⁶⁹If the 14th of Nisan is a Sabbath and a person’s seventh day of impurity falls on that day, he may not be purified by sprinkling, but this is not biblically forbidden, and he has to celebrate his Pesaḥ on the 14th of Iyar. Cf. Pesachim 6:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.6.3.1">Mishnaiot 3,Pesachim 4:1:1-9:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.4.1.1-9.1">4. but these should not be pushed aside? Only that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices. The word of Rebbi Zeˋira implies that there is no difference between sacrifice and sacrificer: Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated Bar Qappara’s before Rebbi Zeˋira: I wonder how Rebbi Eliezer received Rebbi Joshua’s answer that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices⁷⁰Since R. Joshua’s argument is about the slaughterer, not the animal being slaughtered.? He told him, Bar Qappara was wondering, Rebbi Eliezer was not wondering⁷¹Their discussion makes sense only if there is no difference whether one speaks about sacrifice or sacrificer. This confirms what R. Zeˋira said..