Commentary for Pesachim 142:2

או אינו אלא בקר ראשון ומה אני מקיים חגיגה הנאכלת לשני ימים ולילה אחד חוץ מזו כשהוא אומר בו (ויקרא ז, טז) אם נדר או נדבה לימד על חגיגת י"ד שנאכלת לב' ימים ולילה א'

The Master said. 'Yet perhaps it is not so, but the first morning [is meant]'. But you have [already] said, 'When it [Scripture] says, "the first day" the second morning is meant'? - This is what he means: Yet perhaps it is not so, but the Writ speaks of two hagigoth, one the hagigah of the fourteenth, and one the hagigah of the fifteenth, and the former [must not remain] until its morning, while the latter [must not remain] until its morning? Then he argues, as to our general ruling [that there is] a hagigah which is eaten two days and one night. if so, in which [case does] 'if, a vow or a freewill-offering' [hold good]? if the hagigah of the fourteenth, surely a day and a night is written in connection therewith; if the hagigah of the fifteenth, surely a day and a night is written in connection therewith? But this is in respect of the hagigah of the fifteenth, while the whole of the other verse is in respect of the hagigah of the fourteenth [only,] [and thus] it teaches concerning the hagigah of the fourteenth that it may be eaten two days and one night. Thus the reason is that 'on the first day until the morning' is written, so that what does 'morning' mean? the second morning; hence wherever 'morning' is written without qualification, it means the first morning, even if 'first' is not written in connection with it. MISHNAH. IF THE PASSOVER WAS SLAUGHTERED FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE ON THE SABBATH, HE [THE SLAUGHTERER] IS LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING ON ITS ACCOUNT. WHILE ALL OTHER SACRIFICES WHICH HE SLAUGHTERED AS A PASSOVER, IF THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE, HE IS CULPABLE; WHILE IF THEY ARE ELIGIBLE, - R. ELIEZER RULES HIM LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING, WHILE R. JOSHUA RULES HIM NOT CULPABLE, SAID R. ELIEZER TO HIM: IF THE PASSOVER, WHICH IS PERMITTED FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE,YET WHEN HE CHANGES ITS PURPOSE HE IS CULPABLE; THEN [OTHER] SACRIFICES, WHICH ARE FORBIDDEN [EVEN] FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSE, IF HE CHANGES THEIR PURPOSE IS IT NOT LOGICAL THAT HE IS CULPABLE! R. JOSHUA ANSWERED HIM, NOT SO. IF YOU SAY [THUS] OF THE PASSOVER, [HE IS CULPABLE] BECAUSE HE CHANGED IT FOR SOMETHING THAT IS FORBIDDEN; WILL YOU SAY [THE SAME] OF [OTHER] SACRIFICES, WHERE HE CHANGED THEM FOR SOMETHING THAT IS PERMITTED? SAID R. ELIEZER TO HIM, LET THE PUBLIC SACRIFICES PROVE IT, WHICH ARE PERMITTED FOR THEIR OWN SAKE, YET HE WHO SLAUGHTERS [OTHER SACRIFICES] IN THEIR NAME IS CULPABLE. R. JOSHUA ANSWERED HIM: NOT SO. IF YOU SAY [THUS] OF PUBLIC SACRIFICES, [THAT IS] BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LIMIT; Will YOU SAY [THE SAME] OF THE PASSOVER, WHICH HAS NO LIMIT? R. MEIR SAID:

Explore commentary for Pesachim 142:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.