Eighteen Treatises from the Mishna, by D. A. Sola and M. J. Raphall, , at sacred-texts.com
§ 1. The following acts necessary for the sacrifice of the paschal offering, supersede the command of abstaining from work on the Sabbath, namely, the slaughtering thereof, the sprinkling of its blood, the removal of its entrails, and the burning of them with incense; but the roasting of it, as also the washing of its entrails, do not supersede the Sabbath. To carry and bring it beyond the Sabbatical limits, or to remove a tetter [or spreading eruption] thereon, are acts which do not supersede the Sabbath. R. Eleazar says they do supersede it.
§ 2. For, said R. Eleazar, this is surely a logical sequence—if slaughtering an animal which is prohibited on the Sabbath on account of מלאכה 1 is allowed in this instance [of the passover], and does supersede the Sabbath; does it not follow that these, 2 which are only acts disallowed on account of שבות 3 should also be permitted? R. Joshua answered and said, "The laws concerning the festival shall prove the contrary; for many things prohibited on the Sabbath, as מלאכה, are nevertheless permitted on the festival: 4 whilst those which}
are prohibited on account of infringement of Sabbatical rest [שבות] are also prohibited on the festival." 5 R. Eleazar replied, "How is this, Joshua? What sort of proof is it to infer from purely voluntary acts 6 to one which is enjoined by the express command of the Holy Law?" Then R. Akivah answered, "The sprinkling 7 shall prove it; for that also is an express law, and is not otherwise prohibited on the Sabbath, than on account of שבות, it does not, however, supersede the Sabbath; do not, therefore, wonder that these, which also are express commands of the law, and are prohibited on the Sabbath, only on account of שבות, should also not supersede the Sabbath." Then R. Eleazar replied, "I also draw the same conclusion with respect to the sprinkling, 8 and say, if slaughtering, which as מלאכה, or work prohibited by the Holy Law to he done on the Sabbath, is here allowed to supersede that command, 9 does it not follow that the sprinkling of an impure person, which is only prohibited on account of שבות should also be prohibited thereon?" But R. Akivah replied, "Rather conclude the reverse, for if the sprinkling, which is only prohibited on account of שבות does nevertheless not supersede the Sabbath, does it not follow that slaughtering, which is prohibited, as מלאכה should also [a fortiori] not supersede the Sabbath?" Then R. Eleazar said to him, "Akivah! thou wouldst thus annul that which is written in the Holy Law, 10 'between the evenings at its appointed season,' whether that be a week or Sabbath day." R. Akivah then said, "My honoured teacher! pray, adduce a text of the law which prescribes a particular and appointed time for these acts, 11 even as it does in respect to the slaughtering of the paschal sacrifice." The following rule did R. Akivah [therefore 12] lay down—every work
[paragraph continues] [מלאכה] done in respect to the paschal sacrifice, which could or might he done to it, previous to the Sabbath, does not supersede the Sabbatical laws, but as the slaughtering of the paschal sacrifice could not have been done on any preceding day, it does supersede the Sabbath.
§ 3. When is it allowed to bring a festive offering [in addition] to the paschal sacrifice? When it [the paschal offering] is sacrificed on a week-day: when those that offer it are in a state of legal cleanliness, and when it is insufficient for the number of those that are appointed to eat it. But when it is sacrificed on a Sabbath, when it is sufficient for the persons appointed to eat it, or when these are in a state of legal defilement, 13 no festive offering may be brought in addition to the paschal sacrifice.
§ 4. The festive offering might be brought of the flock, of cattle, lambs, or goats, and might be brought either of male or female [cattle]; it might also be eaten during two days and one night.
§ 5. When a person has brought on the Sabbath a paschal sacrifice not as such, he is bound to bring a sin-offering in expiation. If he did slaughter other sacrifices as a passover-offering, if they are of a nature so as not to be a proper paschal sacrifice, 14 he is guilty; 15 but if they are proper for that purpose, R. Eleazar declares him guilty, but R. Joshua absolves him. 16 For thus R. Eleazar argues, "If a person, when he has changed the name of the paschal sacrifice, which sacrifice he may slaughter on the Sabbath, is deemed to be guilty; does it not follow that when he had changed the names of other sacrifices which are already prohibited to be offered thereon as such, that he must a fortiori, be considered guilty?" To this R. Joshua answered, "You cannot apply what is affirmed in respect to the sacrifice, when it was changed to that which it is unlawful to offer on the Sabbath, to other sacrifices where the name has been changed to what is lawful." R. Eleazar replied, "The offerings brought for the whole congregation [of Israel] shall prove [my assertion,] for it is
lawful to offer them on the Sabbath under their proper name; yet whoever brings other offerings under their denomination is declared to be guilty." Then R. Joshua answered, "You cannot apply what is affirmed in respect to the offerings of the whole congregation which have a determinate number, to the paschal sacrifice which has no determinate number." R. Meir said, "He also who offers on the Sabbath other offerings under the name of those of the congregation is absolved."
§ 6. If a person slaughtered the paschal sacrifice for those who may not eat thereof, or for persons who are not numbered and appointed to eat it, and for uncircumcised or unclean persons, he is guilty; but if he had slaughtered it for those who may, and also for those who may not eat thereof; for those who are numbered to eat, and for those who are not; or for circumcised as well as for the uncircumcised; or for clean as also for unclean persons, he is absolved. If he has slaughtered it, and a blemish was found, he is guilty; 17 but if, after being slaughtered, it was found to be טריפה [prohibited to be eaten on account of inward blemishes], he is not guilty. If, after slaughtering it he became acquainted that the owners had withdrawn themselves from it, or had died, or become polluted, he is absolved, because when he slaughtered it, it was under lawful circumstances.
110:5 On which it is not lawful to use these sticks.
110:6 See Leviticus iii. passim.
110:7 This was the open space between the walls of the court of women, and the סורג, or trellis work in the Temple.—See Treatise Middoth, c. II. § 3.
110:1 It is essential to bear in mind here the difference between מלאכה and שבות, as all the arguments pro and con turn on that difference. By the first expression is understood all work which is prohibited on the Sabbath, by direct authority of the Holy Law; and by the second, the laws which the Rabbins have instituted for the better preservation of Sabbatical rest.—See farther, Treatise Sabbath.
110:2 Namely, the acts mentioned in the preceding section.
110:3 See note 1.
110:4 Such as cooking, lighting a fire, splitting wood, &c.
111:5 Such as the prohibition of moving from one תחום into another, excepting by means of Erub, as mentioned in Treatise ביצה, which prohibition is of Rabbinical origin.
111:6 The cooking of food on the festival.
111:7 Of a person who had contracted legal pollution by contact with a dead body, whose seventh day, when he was to be sprinkled for his purification happened on Sabbath the 14th of Nissan, and who could not eat of the passover sacrifice before he had been thus rendered clean.
111:8 That is, I dispute, by the same mode of argument and syllogism, your inference, and say, that this sprinkling ought to supersede the Sabbatical command in respect to this work, in order that the unclean person may be purified by means of the sprinkling, to enable him to partake of the paschal sacrifice.
111:9 For it is agreed that the slaughtering of the paschal sacrifice, if the 14th happen on the Sabbath, is a lawful act.
111:10 See Numbers xii.
111:11 Mentioned § 1. of this chapter.
111:12 Since there is no command which prescribes a fixed time, either for the p. 112 cases mentioned in the preceding § or for the sprinkling of the defiled person, the talmudical decision is therefore like R. Akivah's. Compare c. XIX. § 1. of Treatise שבת; c. IV. § 8. of Treatise Rosh Ashana; and c. XI. of Treatise מנחות.
112:13 This may be done under certain circumstances enumerated in the next chapter, § 6.
112:14 If, for instance, the sacrifice consisted of a calf, ox, or female of any kind of cattle; because the Holy Law orders the paschal sacrifice to be of a male lamb or kid of one year old.
112:15 And is obliged to bring a sin-offering as expiation.
112:16 From bringing the said offering.
113:17 For as it is an express command of the Holy Law that the paschal sacrifice should be "perfect and without blemish," he ought to have had it examined previously. This, of course, relates to external blemishes.