וְהָא קָא עָבֵיד עֲבוֹדָה בְּקָדָשִׁים! כְּהִלֵּל. דְּתַנְיָא, אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל הִלֵּל: מִיָּמָיו לֹא מָעַל אָדָם בְּעוֹלָתוֹ. אֶלָּא מְבִיאָהּ חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה וּמַקְדִּישָׁהּ, וְסוֹמֵךְ יָדוֹ עָלֶיהָ וְשׁוֹחֲטָהּ. But surely he did work with consecrated animals, using the lambs and goats that had been consecrated as sacrifices to transport the knife, and it is forbidden to make use of consecrated animals. The Gemara answers that the person acted here in accordance with the opinion of Hillel, as it was taught in a baraita: They said about Hillel that no one ever misused his burnt-offering. How did he ensure this? He was careful not to consecrate the animal in advance, but rather he would bring it in an unconsecrated state to the Temple courtyard and there he would consecrate it, and then immediately he would place his hand on its head and slaughter it. On that day, those who used their Paschal lambs and goats to transport knives consecrated their animals only after they arrived in the Temple courtyard.
פֶּסַח בְּשַׁבָּת הֵיכִי מָצֵי מַקְדֵּישׁ לֵיהּ, וְהָתְנַן: אֵין מַקְדִּישִׁין וְאֵין מַעֲרִיכִין וְאֵין מַחְרִימִין וְאֵין מַגְבִּיהִין תְּרוּמָה וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת. כׇּל אֵלּוּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב אָמְרוּ, קַל וָחוֹמֶר בַּשַּׁבָּת! The Gemara asks: If so, how could they consecrate the Paschal offerings that year when Passover eve occurred on Shabbat? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: One may not consecrate animals, take a valuation vow, consecrate objects for use by the priests or the Temple, or separate terumot and tithes. They stated all of these prohibitions with regard to a Festival, and it is an a fortiori inference that these activities are prohibited on Shabbat as well, for the Sages decreed that one should not engage in these activities because they are similar to business transactions and weekday activities.
הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּחוֹבוֹת שֶׁאֵין קָבוּעַ לָהֶן זְמַן. אֲבָל בְּחוֹבוֹת שֶׁקָּבוּעַ לָהֶן זְמַן — מַקְדִּישִׁין. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַקְדִּישׁ אָדָם אֶת פִּסְחוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת וַחֲגִיגָתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב. The Gemara answers: This prohibition of consecrating an animal as a sacrifice on Shabbat or a Festival applies only to obligatory sacrifices that do not have a set time to be brought. But obligatory sacrifices that have a set time, such as the Paschal lamb, one may consecrate even on Shabbat. For Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A person may consecrate his Paschal lamb on Shabbat and his Festival peace-offering on the Festival. Since these sacrifices must be brought on a specific day, they may be consecrated on that day even when it is Shabbat or a Festival, as the Sages did not uphold their decree in this circumstance.
וַהֲלֹא מְחַמֵּר! מְחַמֵּר כִּלְאַחַר יָד: מְחַמֵּר כִּלְאַחַר יָד נָמֵי נְהִי דְּאִיסּוּרָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לֵיכָּא אִיסּוּרָא מִדְּרַבָּנַן מִיהָא אִיכָּא. The Gemara asks: But is he not driving a laden animal? One who leads a lamb that is carrying a knife is considered as one who is driving a laden animal, which is prohibited on Shabbat. The Gemara answers: It is driving a laden animal in an unusual manner, as a lamb is not typically used to carry loads. The Gemara asks: Even driving a laden animal in an unusual manner is problematic; granted that there is no prohibition by Torah law, but there is at least a rabbinic prohibition. When one performs a prohibited act on Shabbat in an unusual manner, he does not transgress a Torah prohibition, but nonetheless, he violates a rabbinic prohibition.
הַיְינוּ דְּקָא בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ: דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ הֶיתֵּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה, וּדְבַר שְׁבוּת עוֹמֵד לְפָנָיו, לְעׇקְרוֹ כִּלְאַחַר יָד בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה מַאי? אָמַר לָהֶן: הֲלָכָה זוֹ שָׁמַעְתִּי וְשָׁכַחְתִּי, אֶלָּא הַנִּיחוּ לָהֶן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, אִם אֵין נְבִיאִים הֵן — בְּנֵי נְבִיאִים הֵן. The Gemara answers: This is precisely what the sons of Beteira asked Hillel: If there is an act that is permitted by Torah law, and a rabbinic decree stands before it and disallows it, what is the law with regard to the permissibility of uprooting the rabbinic decree in an unusual manner, in a situation in which one does so in order to fulfill a mitzva? Bringing the sacrifice is a mitzva, whereas leading the animal while it carries a knife is an unusual way of violating a rabbinic prohibition. Is this permitted? Hillel said to them: I once heard this halakha but I have forgotten it. But leave it to the Jewish people and rely on them to come up with a solution on their own, for if they are not prophets, they are the sons of prophets.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הַמִּתְיַהֵר, אִם חָכָם הוּא — חׇכְמָתוֹ מִסְתַּלֶּקֶת מִמֶּנּוּ, אִם נָבִיא הוּא — נְבוּאָתוֹ מִסְתַּלֶּקֶת מִמֶּנּוּ. אִם חָכָם הוּא חׇכְמָתוֹ מִסְתַּלֶּקֶת מִמֶּנּוּ — מֵהִלֵּל, דְּאָמַר מָר הִתְחִיל מְקַנְטְרָן בִּדְבָרִים, וְקָאָמַר לְהוּ: הֲלָכָה זוֹ שָׁמַעְתִּי וְשָׁכַחְתִּי. אִם נָבִיא הוּא נְבוּאָתוֹ מִסְתַּלֶּקֶת מִמֶּנּוּ — מִדְּבוֹרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״חָדְלוּ פְרָזוֹן בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל חָדֵלּוּ עַד שַׁקַּמְתִּי דְּבוֹרָה שַׁקַּמְתִּי אֵם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״עוּרִי עוּרִי דְּבוֹרָה עוּרִי עוּרִי דַּבְּרִי שִׁיר וְגוֹ׳״. With regard to the incident with Hillel, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Anyone who acts haughtily, if he is a Torah scholar, his wisdom departs from him; and if he is a prophet, his prophecy departs from him. The Gemara explains: That if he is a Torah scholar, his wisdom departs from him is learned from Hillel, for the Master said in this baraita: Hillel began to rebuke them with words. Because he acted haughtily, he ended up saying to them: I once heard this halakha, but I have forgotten it, as he was punished for his haughtiness by forgetting the law. That if he is a prophet his prophecy departs from him is learned from Deborah, as it is written: “The villagers ceased, they ceased in Israel, until I, Deborah, arose, I arose a mother in Israel” (Judges 5:7). For these words of self-glorification, Deborah was punished with a loss of her prophetic spirit, as it is written later that it was necessary to say to her: “Awake, awake, Deborah; awake, awake, utter a song” (Judges 5:12), because her prophecy had left her.
רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁכּוֹעֵס, אִם חָכָם הוּא — חׇכְמָתוֹ מִסְתַּלֶּקֶת מִמֶּנּוּ, אִם נָבִיא הוּא — נְבוּאָתוֹ מִסְתַּלֶּקֶת מִמֶּנּוּ. אִם חָכָם הוּא חׇכְמָתוֹ מִסְתַּלֶּקֶת מִמֶּנּוּ — מִמֹּשֶׁה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּקְצוֹף מֹשֶׁה עַל פְּקוּדֵי הֶחָיִל וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן אֶל אַנְשֵׁי הַצָּבָא הַבָּאִים לַמִּלְחָמָה זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳ אֶת מֹשֶׁה וְגוֹ׳״, מִכְּלָל דְּמֹשֶׁה אִיעֲלַם מִינֵּיהּ. Similarly, Reish Lakish said: Any person who becomes angry, if he is a Torah scholar, his wisdom departs from him, and if he is a prophet, his prophecy departs from him. The Gemara explains: That if he is a Torah scholar his wisdom departs from him is learned from Moses, as it is written: “And Moses became angry with the officers of the host, the captains over thousands and the captains over hundreds, who came from the battle” (Numbers 31:14). And what was his punishment? As it is written afterward: “And Elazar the priest said to the men of war who went to the battle: This is the statute of the law, which the Lord commanded Moses” (Numbers 31:21), which proves by inference that this law had become hidden from Moses due to his anger.
אִם נָבִיא הוּא נְבוּאָתוֹ מִסְתַּלֶּקֶת מִמֶּנּוּ — מֵאֱלִישָׁע, דִּכְתִיב: ״לוּלֵי פְּנֵי יְהוֹשָׁפָט מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה אֲנִי נוֹשֵׂא אִם אַבִּיט אֵלֶיךָ וְאִם אֶרְאֶךָּ וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״וְעַתָּה קְחוּ לִי מְנַגֵּן וְהָיָה כְּנַגֵּן הַמְנַגֵּן וַתְּהִי עָלָיו יַד ה׳ וְגוֹ׳״. And that if he is a prophet, his prophecy departs from him, we learn from Elisha, as it is written that he became angry with the king of Israel and said to him: “Were it not that I have regard for the presence of Jehoshaphat the king of Judea, I would not look toward you, nor see you” (II Kings 3:14), and it is afterward written: “But now bring me a minstrel; and it came to pass when the minstrel played that the hand of the Lord came upon him” (II Kings 3:15). Because Elisha became angry with the king of Israel, his prophetic spirit departed from him and a minstrel was needed to rouse it anew.
אָמַר רַבִּי מָנִי בַּר פַּטִּישׁ: כׇּל שֶׁכּוֹעֵס, אֲפִילּוּ פּוֹסְקִין עָלָיו גְּדוּלָּה מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם — מוֹרִידִין אוֹתוֹ. מְנָלַן? מֵאֱלִיאָב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּחַר אַף אֱלִיאָב בְּדָוִד וַיֹּאמֶר לָמָּה [זֶּה] יָרַדְתָּ וְעַל מִי נָטַשְׁתָּ מְעַט הַצֹּאן הָהֵנָּה בַּמִּדְבָּר אֲנִי יָדַעְתִּי אֶת זְדֹנְךָ וְאֵת רוֹעַ לְבָבֶךָ כִּי לְמַעַן רְאוֹת הַמִּלְחָמָה יָרָדְתָּ״. וְכִי אֲזַל שְׁמוּאֵל לְמִמְשְׁחִינְהוּ, בְּכֻלְּהוּ כְּתִיב: ״לֹא בָּזֶה בָחַר ה׳״, וּבֶאֱלִיאָב כְּתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל שְׁמוּאֵל אַל תַּבֵּיט אֶל מַרְאֵהוּ וְאֶל גְּבֹהַּ קוֹמָתוֹ כִּי מְאַסְתִּיהוּ״, מִכְּלָל דַּהֲוָה רָחֵים לֵיהּ עַד הָאִידָּנָא. Rabbi Mani bar Patish said: Whoever becomes angry, even if greatness has been apportioned to him from heaven, he is lowered from his greatness. From where do we derive this? From Eliab, David’s older brother, as it is stated: “And Eliab’s anger burned against David and he said: Why did you come down, and with whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know your insolence and the evil of your heart, for you have come down to see the battle” (I Samuel 17:28); we see that Eliab became angry. And when Samuel went to anoint him after God had told him that one of Yishai’s sons was to be the king, concerning all of the other brothers it is written: “The Lord has not chosen this one” (I Samuel 16:8), whereas with regard to Eliab it is written: “And the Lord said to Samuel: Look not at his appearance, nor at the height of his stature, for I have rejected him” (I Samuel 16:7). This proves by inference that until now He had loved him, and it was only at this point that Eliab was rejected. Had it not been for his anger, Eliab would have been fit for greatness; but owing to this shortcoming, God rejected him.
אַשְׁכְּחַן תָּמִיד וּפֶסַח דְּדָחוּ שַׁבָּת, דְּדָחוּ טוּמְאָה מְנָא לַן? אָמְרִי: כִּי הֵיכִי דְּיָלֵיף פֶּסַח מִתָּמִיד לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת, הָכִי נָמֵי יָלֵיף תָּמִיד מִפֶּסַח לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה. The Gemara raises an additional question incidental to the previous discussion proving that the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat: We have found proofs that the daily offering and the Paschal lamb override Shabbat. From where do we derive that they also override ritual impurity? For we have a tradition that if the entire community is ritually impure, they nonetheless offer the communal sacrifices and the Paschal lamb. They say: Just as the law governing the Paschal lamb is derived from the law governing the daily offering in regard to the overriding of Shabbat, so too the law concerning the daily offering is derived from the law concerning the Paschal lamb in regard to ritual impurity; just as the Paschal lamb overrides communal impurity, so does the daily offering.
וּפֶסַח גּוּפֵיהּ מְנָא לַן? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי יִהְיֶה טָמֵא לָנֶפֶשׁ״. אִישׁ נִדְחֶה לְפֶסַח שֵׁנִי, וְאֵין צִיבּוּר נִידְחִין לְפֶסַח שֵׁנִי, אֶלָּא עָבְדִי בְּטוּמְאָה. The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Paschal lamb itself, from where do we derive that if most of the nation is ritually impure, the sacrifice is offered anyway? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: For the verse states: “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: Any man of you or your generations who shall be impure by reason of a corpse, or on a distant journey, he shall keep the Passover to the Lord. On the fourteenth day of the second month at evening they shall keep it, and eat it with matzot and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:10–11). We can infer from here that a single individual or a group of individuals are deferred to the second Pesaḥ if they are ritually impure, but the entire community or the majority thereof is not deferred to the second Pesaḥ; rather, they observe the first Pesaḥ in a state of ritual impurity.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵימָא, אִישׁ נִדְחֶה לְפֶסַח שֵׁנִי, צִיבּוּר לֵית לְהוּ תַּקַּנְתָּא לָא בְּפֶסַח רִאשׁוֹן וְלָא בְּפֶסַח שֵׁנִי! Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: This verse cannot serve as proof, for you can say that it is to be understood as follows: A single individual or a group of individuals is deferred to the second Pesaḥ, but the community has no remedy, neither on the first Pesaḥ nor on the second Pesaḥ.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, מֵהָכָא: ״וִישַׁלְּחוּ מִן הַמַּחֲנֶה כׇּל צָרוּעַ וְכׇל זָב וְכֹל טָמֵא לָנָפֶשׁ״, יֵאָמֵר טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים וְאַל יֵאָמֵר זָבִין וּמְצוֹרָעִין, וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: אִם טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים, מִשְׁתַּלְחִין, זָבִין וּמְצוֹרָעִין — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? Rather, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish rejected this proof and said that a different proof may be brought from here: “Command the children of Israel that they send out from the camp any leper and any zav and anyone impure by reason of a corpse” (Numbers 5:2). Let the verse say only that they are to send out those who are ritually impure due to a corpse, and not say anything about zavin and lepers, and I would say this law on my own through an a fortiori inference: If those ritually impure due to a corpse, whose impurity is not so severe as it is contracted from an external source, are sent out from the camp, with regard to zavin and lepers who are the source of their own impurity, all the more so is it not clear that they should be sent out? Thus, the verse contains unnecessary information.