וְהֶקְטֵר חֲלָבָיו וְכוּ׳. תַּנְיָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה חֲבִיבָה מִצְוָה בִּשְׁעָתָהּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים וְאֵבָרִים וּפְדָרִים כְּשֵׁרִים כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה, וְאֵין מַמְתִּינִים לָהֶם עַד שֶׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ. We learned in the mishna that when the eve of Passover occurs on Shabbat, burning the fats of the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat. The Gemara notes that it was taught in the Tosefta: Rabbi Shimon said: Come and see how dear is a mitzva performed in its proper time. For burning the fats and limbs and inner fats is valid all night and it would have been possible to wait until the conclusion of Shabbat and burn them at night, but nonetheless we do not wait with them until nightfall; rather, we burn them immediately, even on Shabbat.
הַרְכָּבָתוֹ וַהֲבָאָתוֹ וְכוּ׳. וּרְמִינְהוּ: חוֹתְכִין יַבֶּלֶת בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, אֲבָל לֹא בַּמְּדִינָה. וְאִם בִּכְלִי — כָּאן וְכָאן אָסוּר. The mishna also taught that carrying the Paschal lamb through a public domain, bringing it from outside the Shabbat limit and cutting off its wart do not override Shabbat. The Gemara raises a contradiction from another mishna in tractate Eiruvin, which teaches: One may cut off a wart by hand on Shabbat in the Temple but not in the rest of the country outside the Temple. And if the wart is to be removed with an instrument, it is forbidden both here, in the Temple, and there, outside the Temple. From here we see that in the Temple cutting off a wart, at least by hand, is permitted.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא, חַד אָמַר: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בַּיָּד; הָא בְּלַחָה, הָא בִּיבֵשָׁה. וְחַד אָמַר: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּלַחָה, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בַּיָּד, הָא בִּכְלִי. Two amora’im, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina, disagreed about how to resolve this contradiction. One of them said: Both this mishna in Pesaḥim and that mishna in Eiruvin speak of cutting off the wart by hand. This mishna that forbids cutting it off refers to a moist wart, which is considered like the flesh of the animal. It is therefore prohibited by rabbinic decree to cut off the wart; and since it could have been removed before Shabbat, the decree applies even in the Temple, where rabbinic decrees are generally not applicable. That mishna that permits cutting it off refers to a dry wart, which breaks apart by itself, and so there is no prohibition even by rabbinic decree to cut it off. And the other one said: Both this mishna and that mishna speak of cutting off a moist wart, and it is not difficult. This mishna that says it is permitted talks about removing the wart by hand, which is prohibited only by a rabbinic decree that was not applied to the Temple; whereas that mishna that says it is prohibited talks about removing the wart with an instrument, which is prohibited by Torah law and forbidden everywhere.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר: הָא בַּיָּד, הָא בִּכְלִי — מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בַּיָּד, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּלַחָה הָא בִּיבֵשָׁה? אָמַר לָךְ: יְבֵשָׁה — מִפְרָךְ פְּרִיכָא. The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that this mishna speaks about cutting off the wart by hand and that mishna speaks about cutting it off with an instrument, what is the reason that he did not state like the other amora that this and that talk about cutting off the wart by hand, and it is not difficult; this mishna speaks of a moist wart, while that mishna speaks of a dry wart? The Gemara answers that he could have said to you: A dry wart breaks apart by itself, and so there would be no need to teach us that it may be removed. Both mishnayot must therefore refer to a moist wart, and the difference between them is whether the wart is being removed by hand or with an instrument.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בַּיָּד, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּלַחָה, הָא בִּיבֵשָׁה — מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּלַחָה, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בַּיָּד, הָא בִּכְלִי? אָמַר לָךְ: כְּלִי — הָא קָתָנֵי הָתָם: אִם בִּכְלִי, כָּאן וְכָאן אָסוּר. The Gemara reverses the question: And according to the one who says that both this mishna and that mishna talk about removing the wart by hand, and it is not difficult; this speaks of a moist wart while that speaks of a dry wart. What is the reason that he did not state like the other amora that this and that are discussing a moist wart and it is not difficult; this mishna in Eiruvin speaks about cutting off the wart by hand and that mishna in Pesaḥim speaks about cutting it off with an instrument? The Gemara answers that he could have said to you: The case of cutting off the wart with an instrument is taught there in Eiruvin in that very same mishna: If the wart is to be removed with an instrument, it is forbidden both here, in the Temple, and there, outside the Temple. Therefore, there would be no reason to repeat the same halakha here in this mishna, as it is stated explicitly in the other mishna.
וְאִידַּךְ? הָא דְּקָתָנֵי כְּלִי הָכָא, פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן. The Gemara asks: And the other amora, how does he account for the repetition according to his explanation? The mishna here teaches the law with regard to an instrument because it comes to teach us the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua; for according to our mishna, Rabbi Eliezer permits cutting off a moist wart even with an instrument in order to render the animal fit to be brought as a Paschal offering.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וּמָה אִם שְׁחִיטָה וְכוּ׳. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּאָמַר שִׂמְחַת יוֹם טוֹב נָמֵי מִצְוָה הִיא. We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer said that if slaughter, which is ordinarily forbidden on Shabbat as a biblically prohibited labor, nevertheless overrides Shabbat when performed for the sake of the Paschal lamb, then activities that are prohibited by rabbinic decree should certainly override Shabbat when performed for that purpose. Rabbi Yehoshua disagreed, arguing that the law governing a Festival proves otherwise. Rabbi Eliezer countered that the law governing an optional activity, such as preparing food on a Festival, cannot be brought as proof with regard to the mitzva of offering the Paschal lamb. The Gemara notes that Rabbi Yehoshua follows his regular line of reasoning, for he said that rejoicing on a Festival is also a mitzva, and therefore whatever one does in order to enhance one’s enjoyment of the Festival is considered an act performed for the sake of a mitzva, just like the offering of a sacrifice.
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵין לוֹ לְאָדָם בְּיוֹם טוֹב אֶלָּא, אוֹ אוֹכֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה, אוֹ יוֹשֵׁב וְשׁוֹנֶה. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: חַלְּקֵהוּ, חֶצְיוֹ לַאֲכִילָה וּשְׁתִיָּה, וְחֶצְיוֹ לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. For it was taught in a baraita that these two tanna’im disagreed about this matter: Rabbi Eliezer says: A person has nothing but to choose on a Festival; he either eats and drinks or sits and learns the entire day, but there is no specific mitzva to eat on the Festival. Rabbi Yehoshua, on the other hand, says: Divide the day, half of it for eating and drinking and half of it for the study hall, for he holds that eating and drinking are obligatory on the Festival.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ, כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״עֲצֶרֶת לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״עֲצֶרֶת תִּהְיֶה לָכֶם״. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: אוֹ כּוּלּוֹ לַה׳, אוֹ כּוּלּוֹ לָכֶם. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר: חַלְּקֵהוּ, חֶצְיוֹ לַה׳ וְחֶצְיוֹ לָכֶם. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And both of them derived their opinions from one verse, i.e., the two of them addressed the same textual difficulty, resolving it in different ways. For one verse says: “It shall be an assembly for the Lord your God; you shall do no labor” (Deuteronomy 16:8), which indicates that the day is set aside for Divine service, and another verse says: “It shall be an assembly for you; you shall do no servile labor” (Numbers 29:35), which indicates a celebratory assembly for the Jewish people. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the two verses should be understood as offering a choice: The day is to be either entirely for God or entirely for you. And Rabbi Yehoshua holds that it is possible to fulfill both verses: Split the day into two, half of it for God and half of it for you.
(עב״ם סִימָן) אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בַּעֲצֶרֶת דְּבָעֵינַן נָמֵי לָכֶם. מַאי טַעְמָא? יוֹם שֶׁנִּיתְּנָה בּוֹ תּוֹרָה הוּא. אָמַר רַבָּה: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּשַׁבָּת דְּבָעֵינַן נָמֵי לָכֶם. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״וְקָרָאתָ לַשַּׁבָּת עוֹנֶג״. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּפוּרִים דְּבָעֵינַן נָמֵי לָכֶם. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״יְמֵי מִשְׁתֶּה וְשִׂמְחָה״ כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ. Ayin, beit, mem is a mnemonic consisting of the first letter of Atzeret, the middle letter of Shabbat and the final letter of Purim. Rabbi Elazar said: All agree with regard to Atzeret, the holiday of Shavuot, that we require that it be also “for you,” meaning that it is a mitzva to eat, drink, and rejoice on that day. What is the reason? It is the day on which the Torah was given, and one must celebrate the fact that the Torah was given to the Jewish people. Rabba said: All agree with regard to Shabbat that we require that it be also “for you.” What is the reason? Because the verse states: “If you proclaim Shabbat a delight, the sacred day of God honored” (Isaiah 58:13). Rav Yosef said: All agree with regard to Purim that we require that it be also “for you.” What is the reason? Because it is written: “To observe them as days of feasting and gladness” (Esther 9:22).
מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא כּוּלַּהּ שַׁתָּא הֲוָה יָתֵיב בְּתַעֲנִיתָא, לְבַר מֵעֲצַרְתָּא, וּפוּרְיָא, וּמַעֲלֵי יוֹמָא דְכִיפּוּרֵי. עֲצֶרֶת — יוֹם שֶׁנִּיתְּנָה בּוֹ תּוֹרָה. פּוּרְיָא — ״יְמֵי מִשְׁתֶּה וְשִׂמְחָה״ כְּתִיב. מַעֲלֵי יוֹמָא דְכִיפּוּרֵי — דְּתָנֵי חִיָּיא בַּר רַב מִדִּפְתִּי: ״וְעִנִּיתֶם אֶת נַפְשׁוֹתֵיכֶם בְּתִשְׁעָה לַחֹדֶשׁ״, וְכִי בְּתִשְׁעָה (הֵם) מִתְעַנִּין? וַהֲלֹא בַּעֲשִׂירִי מִתְעַנִּין! אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לְךָ: כׇּל הָאוֹכֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה בְּתִשְׁעָה בּוֹ — מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ מִתְעַנֶּה תְּשִׁיעִי וַעֲשִׂירִי. The Gemara relates: Mar, son of Ravina, would spend the entire year fasting during the day and eating only sparsely at night, except for Shavuot, Purim, and the eve of Yom Kippur. He made these exceptions for the following reasons: Shavuot because it is the day on which the Torah was given and there is a mitzva to demonstrate one’s joy on that day; Purim because “days of feasting and gladness” is written about it; the eve of Yom Kippur, as Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught: “And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth day of the month in the evening, from evening to evening you shall keep your Sabbath” (Leviticus 23:32). But does one fast on the ninth of Tishrei? Doesn’t one fast on the tenth of Tishrei? Rather, this comes to tell you: One who eats and drinks on the ninth, the verse ascribes him credit as if he fasted on both the ninth and the tenth of Tishrei.
רַב יוֹסֵף בְּיוֹמָא דַעֲצַרְתָּא אָמַר: עָבְדִי לִי עִגְלָא תִּלְתָּא. אָמַר, אִי לָא הַאי יוֹמָא דְּקָא גָרֵים — כַּמָּה יוֹסֵף אִיכָּא בְּשׁוּקָא. The Gemara relates that Rav Yosef, on the day of Shavuot, would say: Prepare me a choice third-born calf. He said: If not for this day on which the Torah was given that caused the Jewish people to have the Torah, how many Yosefs would there be in the market? It is only due to the importance of Torah study that I have become a leader of the Jewish people, and I therefore have a special obligation to rejoice on this day.
רַב שֵׁשֶׁת כׇּל תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין מְהַדַּר לֵיהּ תַּלְמוּדֵיהּ, וְתָלֵי וְקָאֵי בְּעִיבְרָא דְּדַשָּׁא, וַאֲמַר: חֲדַאי נַפְשַׁאי, חֲדַאי נַפְשַׁאי, לָךְ קְרַאי לָךְ תְּנַאי. אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אִילְמָלֵא תּוֹרָה לֹא נִתְקַיְּימוּ שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִם לֹא בְרִיתִי יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה חֻקּוֹת שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ לֹא שָׂמְתִּי״! מֵעִיקָּרָא כִּי עָבֵיד אִינִישׁ — אַדַּעְתָּא דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ קָא עָבֵיד. A somewhat similar story is told about Rav Sheshet, that every thirty days he would review his studies that he had learned over the previous month, and he would stand and lean against the bolt of the door and say: Rejoice my soul, rejoice my soul, for you I have read Scripture, for you I have studied Mishna. The Gemara asks: Is that so, that Torah study is beneficial only for the soul of the person who has studied? But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say: If not for the Torah and its study, heaven and earth would not be sustained, as it is stated: “If not for My covenant by day and by night, I would not have set up the laws of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25). It is the Torah, the eternal covenant that is studied day and night, that justifies the continued existence of the world. The Gemara answers: This is indeed correct, but at the outset when a person does this mitzva, he does it for himself, and only afterward does he have in mind the benefit that will be brought to the entire world.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: וּלְמַאי דְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר נָמֵי יוֹם טוֹב רְשׁוּת, אִית לֵיהּ פִּירְכָא: וּמָה יוֹם טוֹב שֶׁהִתִּיר בּוֹ מְלָאכָה שֶׁל רְשׁוּת, לֹא הִתִּיר שְׁבוּת שֶׁעִמָּהּ. שַׁבָּת שֶׁלֹּא הִתִּיר בָּהּ אֶלָּא מְלָאכָה שֶׁל מִצְוָה — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא תַּתִּיר שְׁבוּת שֶׁעִמָּהּ! Rav Ashi said: And even according to what Rabbi Eliezer said, that rejoicing on a Festival is optional, there is a refutation: If on a Festival, when a biblically prohibited labor, such as slaughtering, baking, or cooking, is permitted even when it is performed for an optional activity, nonetheless a rabbinic decree that is with it is not permitted, and we do not say that since they permitted an optional activity they permitted everything associated with it; how much more so on Shabbat, when a biblically prohibited labor is only permitted when it is performed for a mitzva, isn’t it right not to permit a rabbinic decree that is with it? Activities that are forbidden due to a rabbinic decree should thus be prohibited on Shabbat even for the purpose of a mitzva, against the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.