Commentary for Pesachim 143:1

במאי עסקינן אילימא בטועה שמעת מינה עקירה בטעות הויא עקירה אלא בעוקר

<br> GEMARA. What are we discussing? Shall we say, where he erred? then you may infer from this that abrogation in error constitutes abrogation? Hence it means that he [intentionally] abrogates [its status]. Then consider the sequel: 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. But if he abrogates [their status], what does it matter whether they are eligible or they are not eligible? Hence it obviously refers to a man who errs; [then] the first clause refers to a man who abrogates [its status], whereas the second clause refers to him who errs? - Said R. Abin: Yes the first clause refers to a man who abrogates, whereas the second clause refers to him who errs. R. Isaac b. Joseph found R. Abbahu standing in a large concourse of people. Said he to him, How is our Mishnah meant? - The first clause refers to a man who abrogates, whereas the second clause refers to him who errs, he answered him. He learnt it from him forty times, and it seemed to him as though it were lying in his wallet. <br>

Explore commentary for Pesachim 143:1. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.