אֵלּוּ דְבָרִים בַּפֶּסַח דּוֹחִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ וּזְרִיקַת דָּמוֹ וּמִחוּי קְרָבָיו וְהֶקְטֵר חֲלָבָיו. אֲבָל צְלִיָּתוֹ וַהֲדָחַת קְרָבָיו אֵינָן דּוֹחִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. הַרְכָּבָתוֹ וַהֲבָאָתוֹ מִחוּץ לַתְּחוּם, וַחֲתִיכַת יַבַּלְתּוֹ, אֵין דּוֹחִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, דּוֹחִין: These are the matters related to the Paschal lamb that override Shabbat, when the eve of Passover occurs on Shabbat: Its slaughter, the sprinkling of its blood, the cleaning of its intestines and the burning of its fats on the altar, all of which are services that must be performed on Passover eve while it is still day. However, its roasting and the washing of its intestines, which need not be done by day, do not override Shabbat; rather, one waits until after Shabbat to perform these tasks. Carrying the Paschal lamb through a public domain does not override Shabbat. The Paschal offering consisted of either a lamb or a goat, sometimes quite young and unable to walk the entire way, so that it had to be carried on a person’s shoulders. Similarly, bringing it from outside the Shabbat limit and cutting off its wart do not override Shabbat, as all these tasks could have been performed before Shabbat. A wart is considered a blemish that disqualifies the animal from being brought as an offering, but once the wart is removed, the animal is fit to be sacrificed on the altar. Rabbi Eliezer says: All of these procedures override Shabbat.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וַהֲלֹא דִין הוּא, מָה אִם שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁהִיא מִשּׁוּם מְלָאכָה דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, אֵלּוּ שֶׁהֵן מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת לֹא יִדְחוּ אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, יוֹם טוֹב יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁהִתִּירוּ בוֹ מִשּׁוּם מְלָאכָה, וְאָסוּר בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מַה זֶּה, יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, מָה רְאָיָה רְשׁוּת לְמִצְוָה. הֵשִׁיב רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְאָמַר, הַזָּאָה תוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁהִיא מִצְוָה וְהִיא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת וְאֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, אַף אַתָּה אַל תִּתְמַהּ עַל אֵלּוּ, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן מִצְוָה וְהֵן מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת, לֹא יִדְחוּ אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְעָלֶיהָ אֲנִי דָן, וּמָה אִם שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁהִיא מִשּׁוּם מְלָאכָה, דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, הַזָּאָה שֶׁהִיא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁדּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אוֹ חִלּוּף, מָה אִם הַזָּאָה שֶׁהִיא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת, אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁהִיא מִשּׁוּם מְלָאכָה, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא תִדְחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, עֲקִיבָא, עָקַרְתָּ מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה, בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם בְּמֹעֲדוֹ (במדבר ט), בֵּין בְּחֹל בֵּין בְּשַׁבָּת. אָמַר לוֹ, רַבִּי, הָבֵא לִי מוֹעֵד לָאֵלּוּ כַּמּוֹעֵד לַשְּׁחִיטָה. כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, כָּל מְלָאכָה שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת: Rabbi Eliezer said: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference? If slaughter, which is ordinarily forbidden on Shabbat as a biblically prohibited labor, nonetheless overrides Shabbat when performed for the sake of the Paschal lamb, then these activities, namely carrying the animal, bringing it from outside the Shabbat limit, and the like, which are prohibited due to rabbinic decree, should they not override Shabbat? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: The law governing a Festival proves otherwise, for the Torah permitted on it acts that are normally prohibited as labor, such as slaughtering, cooking, and baking, and yet it is forbidden to do on it acts that are prohibited due to rabbinic decree. Thus, we cannot derive policy with regard to rabbinic prohibitions from the rules that govern Torah laws. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: What is this, Yehoshua? How can you suggest such a weak proof? What proof can be deduced from optional activities that would apply to a mitzva? How does the fact that rabbinic decrees remain in effect on a Festival with respect to optional activities prove that one is also forbidden to transgress a rabbinic decree in order to fulfill the mitzva of offering the Paschal lamb? Rabbi Akiva responded and said in defense of Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion: Sprinkling the purifying water of a red heifer upon someone who had contracted ritual impurity through contact with a corpse proves the matter, for it is done for the sake of a mitzva, in order to allow the person to offer the Paschal lamb, and it is prohibited only due to rabbinic decree, and nonetheless it does not override Shabbat, for the purification rite is not performed on the eve of Passover that falls on Shabbat. So, too, you should not be surprised about these activities, namely carrying the animal, bringing it from outside the Shabbat limit, and cutting off its wart, that although they are performed for the sake of a mitzva and they are prohibited only due to rabbinic decree, they do not override Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: I do not accept this proof. With regard to this sprinkling itself, I infer that it, too, is permitted for the same reason: If slaughter, which is a biblically prohibited labor, overrides Shabbat, is it not right that sprinkling the purifying water of a red heifer, which is prohibited only due to rabbinic decree, should override Shabbat? You cannot challenge me based on a premise with which I disagree. Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Eliezer: Or perhaps we can reverse the order of your argument and say the opposite: If, as we know by accepted tradition, sprinkling the purifying water on Shabbat, which is prohibited only due to rabbinic decree, does not override Shabbat, then with regard to slaughter, which is prohibited as a biblically prohibited labor, is it not right that it should not override Shabbat? Therefore, it should be prohibited to slaughter the Paschal lamb when the eve of Passover occurs on Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva, how can you say this? You have thus uprooted what is written in the Torah: “Let the children of Israel offer the Paschal lamb in its appointed time” (Numbers 9:2); the phrase “at its appointed time” indicates that the offering must be brought on that day, whether it is a weekday or Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Eliezer: My teacher, bring me an appointed time stated in the Torah for these tasks, namely, carrying the animal or bringing it from outside the Shabbat limits, like the appointed time stated with respect to slaughter. The Paschal lamb must be slaughtered on the fourteenth of Nisan, but there is no fixed time when the animal must be brought to the Temple, and it is therefore possible to transport it before Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva stated a principle: Any prohibited labor required for the offering of the sacrifice that can be performed on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat; slaughter, which cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat, overrides Shabbat.
אֵימָתַי מֵבִיא חֲגִיגָה עִמּוֹ, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא בָא בְּחֹל, בְּטָהֳרָה וּבְמֻעָט. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהוּא בָא בְּשַׁבָּת, בִּמְרֻבֶּה וּבְטֻמְאָה, אֵין מְבִיאִין עִמּוֹ חֲגִיגָה: When does one bring a Festival peace-offering with the Paschal lamb? A special offering is brought on the fourteenth of Nisan together with the Paschal lamb when the Paschal lamb comes on a weekday rather than on Shabbat, and when it comes in a state of ritual purity as opposed to when it is brought in a state of impurity because most of the community is impure, and when many people are registered for the Paschal lamb so that each person will receive only a small portion from it. When these three conditions are met, the Festival peace-offering is eaten first and the Paschal lamb is eaten afterward. When, however, the Paschal lamb comes on Shabbat, or when few people are registered for it so that each person will receive a large portion, or when it is brought in a state of ritual impurity, one does not bring a Festival peace-offering with it.
חֲגִיגָה הָיְתָה בָאָה מִן הַצֹּאן, מִן הַבָּקָר, מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים וּמִן הָעִזִּים, מִן הַזְּכָרִים וּמִן הַנְּקֵבוֹת. וְנֶאֱכֶלֶת לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד: With regard to the extra offering itself, the Festival peace-offering would come from the flock, from the herd, from sheep or from goats, from males or from females, as the Festival peace-offering is not bound by the limitations governing the Paschal offering, which must be specifically a young male sheep or goat. And the Festival peace-offering is eaten for two days and one night like other peace-offerings.
הַפֶּסַח שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ בְשַׁבָּת, חַיָּב עָלָיו חַטָּאת. וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן לְשׁוּם פֶּסַח, אִם אֵינָן רְאוּיִין, חַיָּב. וְאִם רְאוּיִין הֵן, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּב חַטָּאת, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר. אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מָה אִם הַפֶּסַח שֶׁהוּא מֻתָּר לִשְׁמוֹ, כְּשֶׁשִּׁנָּה אֶת שְׁמוֹ, חַיָּב, זְבָחִים שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין לִשְׁמָן, כְּשֶׁשִּׁנָּה אֶת שְׁמָן, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָּב. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַּפֶּסַח, שֶׁשִּׁנָּהוּ לְדָבָר אָסוּר, תֹּאמַר בַּזְּבָחִים, שֶׁשִּׁנָּן לְדָבָר הַמֻּתָּר. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אֵמוּרֵי צִבּוּר יוֹכִיחוּ, שֶׁהֵן מֻתָּרִין לִשְׁמָן, וְהַשּׁוֹחֵט לִשְׁמָן, חַיָּב. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְאֵמוּרֵי צִבּוּר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן קִצְבָּה, תֹּאמַר בַּפֶּסַח שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קִצְבָּה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אַף הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְשֵׁם אֵמוּרֵי צִבּוּר, פָּטוּר: A Paschal lamb that one slaughtered for a different purpose on Shabbat, not knowing that it is prohibited for him to do so, is disqualified, and he is liable to bring a sin-offering for it because he unwittingly performed a prohibited labor on Shabbat. As for all other offerings, such as a peace-offering, that one unwittingly slaughtered on Shabbat for the purpose of a Paschal offering, if they were not fit for the Paschal offering, e.g., if they were female or cattle or more than a year old and clearly ineligible for the Paschal offering, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. Because he did not fulfill the mitzva to bring a Paschal offering, his act of slaughter was therefore unnecessary. And if they were fit, Rabbi Eliezer nevertheless deems him liable to bring a sin-offering for his unwitting transgression. But Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him, because he maintains that if someone intended to perform a mitzva, and despite his error he in fact performed a mitzva, he is not liable to bring a sin-offering. And in this case he performed a mitzva, because offerings that are sacrificed for a different purpose are still fit. Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: If, with regard to the Paschal lamb, which is permitted to be slaughtered on Shabbat for its own purpose, when one changed its purpose he is nevertheless liable, then, with regard to other offerings that are forbidden to be slaughtered on Shabbat even for their own purpose, when one changed their purpose, is it not right that he should be liable? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, this reasoning is faulty. If you say that one is liable to bring a sin-offering if he slaughtered a Paschal lamb for a different purpose, it is because he changed its purpose for something forbidden, as the offering he intended it to be may not be slaughtered on Shabbat. But can you necessarily say the same thing about other offerings that he slaughtered for the purpose of a Paschal offering and thus changed their purpose for something that is permitted to be sacrificed on Shabbat? Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Let the communal offerings, such as the daily offering and the additional-offerings of Shabbat and the Festivals, prove the matter, for they are permitted to be slaughtered on Shabbat for their own purpose, and nevertheless, one who unnecessarily slaughters a different offering for their purpose is liable.This indicates that even when a particular offering may be slaughtered, one is nevertheless liable if he slaughtered a different offering for the purpose of the permitted offering. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, if you say this halakha with regard to communal offerings, it is because they have a limit, as there is a specific number of communal offerings that must be offered on any particular day and there is no reason one would mistakenly sacrifice extra offerings for this purpose. But can you necessarily say the same thing about the Paschal lamb, which does not have a limit, making it more likely for someone to make a mistake? Rabbi Meir says: According to Rabbi Yehoshua, even one who unwittingly slaughters other offerings for the purpose of communal offerings beyond their daily limit is exempt for the same reason, i.e., that he intended to fulfill a mitzva that is permitted on Shabbat.
שְׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לְאוֹכְלָיו וְשֶׁלֹּא לִמְנוּיָיו, לַעֲרֵלִין וְלִטְמֵאִין, חַיָּב. לְאוֹכְלָיו וְשֶׁלֹּא לְאוֹכְלָיו, לִמְנוּיָיו וְשֶׁלֹּא לִמְנוּיָיו, לְמוּלִין וְלַעֲרֵלִין, לִטְהוֹרִים וְלִטְמֵאִים, פָּטוּר. שְׁחָטוֹ וְנִמְצָא בַעַל מוּם, חַיָּב. שְׁחָטוֹ וְנִמְצָא טְרֵפָה בַסֵּתֶר, פָּטוּר. שְׁחָטוֹ וְנוֹדַע שֶׁמָּשְׁכוּ הַבְּעָלִים אֶת יָדָם, אוֹ שֶׁמֵּתוּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ, פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשָּׁחַט בִּרְשׁוּת: The mishna continues with another halakha with regard to the Paschal lamb: If one slaughtered a Paschal lamb on Shabbat and mistakenly intended it for those who cannot eat it, such as sick or elderly people who are unable to eat the meat, or for those who did not register for it, or for the sake of the uncircumcised or for those ritually impure, the offering is disqualified and he is liable to bring a sin-offering for his unnecessary act of slaughter. If, however, he slaughtered it for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, or for those who registered for it and for those who did not register for it, or for the circumcised and for those who are uncircumcised, or for those who are ritually impure and those who are ritually pure, he is exempt. Since a Paschal lamb slaughtered with dual intentions of these types is valid, the act of slaughter was justified. If he slaughtered it and it was found to have a blemish, the offering is disqualified, and he is liable to bring a sin-offering for having unwittingly performed a prohibited labor on Shabbat, as he should have examined the animal before it was slaughtered. If he slaughtered it and it was found to have a hidden condition that would cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa] and that could not have been discovered before the slaughter even if it were examined properly, the offering is disqualified, but he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. This is not a case of shogeg, unwitting violation of Shabbat, but rather of ones, an unavoidable accident. If he slaughtered it and afterward it became known that the owners had withdrawn from it and registered for a different Paschal lamb, in which case this one was slaughtered unnecessarily, as no one was registered for it, or it became known that they had died or became ritually impure, in all these cases he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, because he slaughtered with permission. At the time of the slaughter, he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the offering would be disqualified.