קַשְׁיָא מְלִיקָה אַמְּלִיקָה, קַשְׁיָא הַקְטָרָה אַהַקְטָרָה! There seems to be a contradiction between the ruling in the first baraita with regard to pinching and the ruling in the second baraita with regard to pinching. In addition, there seems to be a contradiction between the ruling in the first baraita with regard to burning and the ruling in the second baraita with regard to burning. The first baraita rules that one who burns the sacrificial parts is included in the prohibition but that one who pinches the neck of a bird-offering is not, and the second baraita says the opposite.
וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, תִּיקְשֵׁי לָךְ הִיא גּוּפָא. דְּקָתָנֵי: לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא בְּפֶסַח בִּלְבַד, וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי: אֶחָד הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְאֶחָד הַזּוֹרֵק וְאֶחָד הַמּוֹלֵק וְאֶחָד הַמַּזֶּה! The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning that both baraitot refer to the same issue, ask about the baraita itself, as first it teaches: They said that this prohibition applies only to the Paschal lamb, and then it teaches that whether he slaughters the animal or he sprinkles the blood, or he pinches a bird-offering, or he sprinkles the blood of the bird-offering onto the altar, he is liable. Pinching and sprinkling the bird’s blood apply to bird-offerings but not to the Paschal lamb.
אֶלָּא: הָא וְהָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מְלִיקָה אַמְּלִיקָה לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, כָּאן — בְּחוּלּוֹ שֶׁל מוֹעֵד. וְאִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. Rather, say instead that both this baraita and that baraita express the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And there is no contradiction between the ruling in the first baraita about pinching and the ruling in the second baraita about pinching: Here, where it says that one who pinches does not transgress, it is referring to the fourteenth of Nisan, while there, where it says that one who pinches does transgress, it is talking about the intermediate days of the festival of Passover. And both this baraita and that baraita express the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that the prohibition does not apply to other sacrifices on the fourteenth of Nisan but does apply to them during the intermediate days of Passover, as explained in the mishna.
הַקְטָרָה אַהַקְטָרָה נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא — תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּאִיכָּא דְּמַקֵּישׁ הַקְטָרָה לִשְׁחִיטָה, וְאִיכָּא מַאן דְּלָא מַקֵּישׁ. There is also no contradiction between the ruling in the first baraita about burning and the ruling in the second baraita about burning, as the matter is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: There is one who compares burning to slaughtering, as Rav Pappa did, and there is one who does not compare them.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף הַתָּמִיד וְכוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אָמַר לָךְ: ״זִבְחִי״ — זֶבַח הַמְיוּחָד לִי, וּמַאי נִיהוּ? תָּמִיד. It was stated in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: One is liable even for slaughtering the daily afternoon offering on the eve of Passover with leaven in his possession. What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you that the verse states: “You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread” (Exodus 34:25). “My sacrifice” indicates the sacrifice that is designated to Me; and what is it? This is referring to the daily offering, which is a burnt-offering brought each day as part of the Temple service.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הַפֶּסַח בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר וְכוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? דִּכְתִיב ״זִבְחִי״ ״זִבְחִי״ תְּרֵי זִמְנֵי, קְרִי בֵּיהּ: ״זֶבַח, זְבָחַיי״. It was further stated in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: On the fourteenth of Nisan one is liable for sacrificing the Paschal lamb with leaven in his possession, but he is not liable for sacrificing other offerings with leaven; however, during the Festival one is liable for sacrificing any offering with leaven in his possession. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “My sacrifice [zivḥi],” “My sacrifice [zivḥi],” two times, as first it is written: “You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice [zivḥi] with leavened bread” (Exodus 23:18) and then it is written again: “You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice [zivḥi] with leavened bread” (Exodus 34:25). If the two instances of the word zivḥi are combined, their letters may be rearranged to read: A sacrifice [zevaḥ], and: My sacrifices [zevaḥai]. This indicates that the law applies both to the Paschal lamb and to the rest of the sacrifices.
לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא פַּלְגִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא מֵהֲדָדֵי וְלָא כְּתַב ״זְבָחַיי״? לְמֵימַר: בִּזְמַן דְּאִיכָּא זֶבַח — לָא מִחַיַּיב אַזְּבָחַיי. בִּזְמַן דְּלֵיכָּא זֶבַח — מִחַיַּיב אַזְּבָחַיי. To teach what halakha does the Merciful One divide them from one another and not explicitly write: My sacrifices? It was to say that at the time when there is a sacrifice, meaning at the time of the Paschal lamb, as mentioned in the continuation of the verse, one is not liable for My sacrifices. On the eve of Passover, when the Paschal lamb is brought, there is no liability for offering other sacrifices with leaven. However, at a time when there is no sacrifice, during the festival of Passover, one is liable for slaughtering any of My sacrifices with leaven in his possession.
וּבַמּוֹעֵד לִשְׁמוֹ פָּטוּר וְכוּ׳. טַעְמָא דְּשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, הָא סְתָמָא — פָּטוּר. It was taught in the mishna that according to Rabbi Shimon, if one sacrificed a Paschal lamb during the intermediate days of the Festival for its own purpose as a Paschal lamb, one is exempt from liability if he had leaven in his possession during the time of the slaughter, as it is an invalid offering. However, if he sacrificed it for a different purpose, he is liable, because a Paschal lamb that is slaughtered at a time other than Passover eve is valid as a peace-offering. The Gemara analyzes this ruling: The reason he is liable is that he slaughtered it explicitly for a different purpose; but had he slaughtered it without specific intent he would be exempt, because the offering would be disqualified. Unless he specifically states otherwise, the animal retains its status as a Paschal lamb and is subsequently disqualified because it is not the proper time to sacrifice a Paschal lamb.
אַמַּאי? פֶּסַח בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה שְׁלָמִים הָוֵי! שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ פֶּסַח בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה בָּעֵי עֲקִירָה! The Gemara expresses surprise: Why must he expressly state that he is sacrificing it as a different offering? Isn’t a Paschal lamb sacrificed during the rest of the days of the year presumed to be a peace-offering? There should be no need to state explicitly that it is a different offering. Learn from this that a Paschal lamb sacrificed on the rest of the days of the year requires uprooting, i.e., one must explicitly declare that he is sacrificing the offering as a peace-offering, and not as a Paschal lamb.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר גַּמְדָּא: נִזְרְקָה מִפִּי חֲבוּרָה, וְאָמְרוּ: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ בְּעָלִים טְמֵאֵי מֵת, וְנִדְחִין לְפֶסַח שֵׁנִי, דִּסְתָמֵיהּ לְשׁוּם פֶּסַח קָאֵי. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said: A group of scholars were studying this issue and it emerged from the group, that is, one of the scholars made a statement with which the rest of them agreed, and it was subsequently forgotten who had made the statement, and they said as follows: We are dealing here with a case where the owners of the offering were ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse during the first Passover, and they were deferred to the second Passover. A person who was ritually impure or on a distant journey and therefore failed to bring the Paschal lamb at its proper time on the fourteenth of Nisan must compensate by bringing the offering on the fourteenth of Iyyar. In such a situation, the offering presumably stands to be sacrificed as a Paschal lamb, and it does not automatically become a peace-offering unless its owners explicitly declare it as such. However, this would not be true of other Paschal lambs after the time to offer the Paschal lamb has passed.
מַתְנִי׳ הַפֶּסַח נִשְׁחַט בְּשָׁלֹשׁ כִּתּוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׁחֲטוּ אוֹתוֹ כֹּל קְהַל עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל״, קָהָל, וְעֵדָה, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל. נִכְנְסָה כַּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, נִתְמַלְּאָה הָעֲזָרָה, נָעֲלוּ דַּלְתוֹת הָעֲזָרָה, תָּקְעוּ הֵרִיעוּ וְתָקְעוּ, MISHNA: The Paschal lamb was slaughtered in three groups, meaning those bringing the offering were divided into three separate sets, as it is stated: “And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it in the afternoon” (Exodus 12:6). The verse is interpreted as referring to three groups: Assembly, congregation, and Israel. The procedure for sacrificing the offering was as follows: The first group of people sacrificing the offering entered, and when the Temple courtyard became filled with them they closed the doors of the Temple courtyard. They sounded uninterrupted, broken, and uninterrupted trumpet blasts, as was done while sacrificing any offering.
הַכֹּהֲנִים עוֹמְדִים שׁוּרוֹת שׁוּרוֹת, וּבִידֵיהֶם בְּזִיכִי כֶסֶף וּבְזִיכֵי זָהָב. שׁוּרָה שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ כֶּסֶף כֶּסֶף, וְשׁוּרָה שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ זָהָב זָהָב, לֹא הָיוּ מְעוֹרָבִין. וְלֹא הָיוּ לַבָּזִיכִין שׁוּלַיִים, שֶׁמָּא יַנִּיחוּם וְיִקָּרֵשׁ הַדָּם. The priests stood in rows from the place of slaughter to the altar, and in their hands they held bowls [bezikhin] of silver and bowls of gold in order to receive the blood of the offerings. There was a row entirely composed of priests holding silver bowls, and a row entirely composed of priests holding gold bowls, as the gold and silver bowls were not mixed in the same row. The bowls did not have flat bases that would allow them to be put down, out of concern that perhaps the priests would set them down and forget about them and in the meantime the blood would congeal and become disqualified for sprinkling on the altar.
שָׁחַט יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְקִבֵּל הַכֹּהֵן. נוֹתְנוֹ לַחֲבֵירוֹ, וַחֲבֵירוֹ לַחֲבֵירוֹ. וּמְקַבֵּל אֶת הַמָּלֵא, וּמַחֲזִיר אֶת הָרֵיקָן. כֹּהֵן הַקָּרוֹב אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ זוֹרְקוֹ זְרִיקָה אַחַת כְּנֶגֶד הַיְּסוֹד. An Israelite would slaughter the sacrifice, and a priest would receive the blood and immediately hand it to another priest standing next to him, and the other priest would pass it to another. Each priest would receive a full bowl of blood from the priest next to him and return to him an empty bowl being passed in the opposite direction, the contents of which had already been sprinkled on the altar. The priest who was closest to the altar would sprinkle a single sprinkling of blood against the base of the altar, i.e., against the north and west sides of the altar, where there was a base.
יָצְתָה כַּת רִאשׁוֹנָה, וְנִכְנְסָה כַּת שְׁנִיָּה. יָצְתָה שְׁנִיָּה, נִכְנְסָה שְׁלִישִׁית. כְּמַעֲשֵׂה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה כָּךְ מַעֲשֵׂה הַשְּׁנִיָּה וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁית. קָרְאוּ אֶת הַהַלֵּל. אִם גָּמְרוּ — שָׁנוּ, וְאִם שָׁנוּ — שִׁלֵּשׁוּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא שִׁלְּשׁוּ מִימֵיהֶם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מִימֵיהֶם שֶׁל כַּת שְׁלִישִׁית לֹא הִגִּיעוּ לְ״אָהַבְתִּי כִּי יִשְׁמַע ה׳״, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעַמָּהּ מוּעָטִין. The first group exited upon completion of the rite, and the second group entered; the second group left upon completion of its rite, and the third group entered. As it was done by the first group, so was it done by the second and third groups. All the people standing in the Temple courtyard while the Paschal lambs were being slaughtered would recite hallel. If they finished reciting it before all the offerings were slaughtered, they recited it a second time, and if they finished reciting it a second time, they recited it a third time, although in practice they never recited it a third time, as the priests worked efficiently and finished the rite before this became necessary. Rabbi Yehuda says: The third group never reached even once the opening verse of the fourth chapter of hallel: “I love that the Lord hears the voice of my supplications” (Psalms 116:1), because its people were few and the slaughtering of all the offerings was completed during the recitation of the first three chapters.
כְּמַעֲשֵׂהוּ בַּחוֹל כָּךְ מַעֲשֵׂהוּ בַּשַּׁבָּת, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים מְדִיחִים אֶת הָעֲזָרָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כּוֹס הָיָה מְמַלֵּא מִדַּם הַתַּעֲרוֹבֶת, זְרָקוֹ זְרִיקָה אַחַת עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים. As it was done during the week, so was it done on Shabbat; only that on Shabbat the priests would rinse the Temple courtyard, cleaning away the blood, contrary to the wishes of the Sages, as the priests did not want to veer from the weekday procedure in this regard. Rabbi Yehuda says: Before the floor was rinsed, a priest would fill a cup with the blood of the many offerings brought that day that was now mixed together on the floor and then sprinkle it with a single sprinkling upon the altar. But the Rabbis did not agree with Rabbi Yehuda with regard to this point.
כֵּיצַד תּוֹלִין וּמַפְשִׁיטִין? אוּנְקְלָיוֹת שֶׁל בַּרְזֶל הָיוּ קְבוּעִים בַּכְּתָלִים וּבָעַמּוּדִים שֶׁבָּהֶן תּוֹלִין וּמַפְשִׁיטִין. כׇּל מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מָקוֹם לִתְלוֹת וּלְהַפְשִׁיט — מַקְלוֹת דַּקִּים וַחֲלָקִים הָיוּ שָׁם, מַנִּיחַ עַל כְּתֵפוֹ וְעַל כֶּתֶף חֲבֵירוֹ, וְתוֹלֶה וּמַפְשִׁיט. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר How would one suspend and flay the Paschal lamb in the Temple? Iron hooks [unkelayot] were secured into the walls and pillars, and upon them one would suspend the offering and flay it. If anyone lacked a place among the hooks in the Temple courtyard to suspend and flay the offering, there were thin, smooth rods there, which he would place on his own shoulder and on another’s shoulder, and from it he would suspend the offering and flay it. Rabbi Eliezer says: When the fourteenth of Nisan