Talmud - Pesahim 70a פסחים ע׳ א׳

is not an obligation, meaning there is no Torah obligation to bring this offering. For if it should enter your mind to say that it is an obligation, it should come even on Shabbat, and it should come even when each member of the group will receive a large portion of the Paschal lamb, and it should come even in a state of ritual impurity.

The Gemara asks: If there is no obligation to bring this offering, what is the reason that it nevertheless comes when each person’s portion of the Paschal lamb is small? The Gemara explains that the reason is as it was taught in a baraita: The Festival peace-offering that comes with the Paschal lamb is eaten first; the reason for this is so that the Paschal lamb will be eaten when one is already satiated. The Paschal lamb should not be eaten in a needy manner, but rather in joy and when one is already filled to satisfaction.

The mishna taught that the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth is eaten for two days and the intervening night. The Gemara notes that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of ben Teima, for it was taught in a baraita that ben Teima says: The Festival peace-offering that comes with the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth of Nisan is like the Paschal lamb and is eaten for only a day and a night, whereas the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth, i.e., the Festival peace-offering brought on the first day of Passover, just as it is brought on the first day of each of the other Festivals, is treated like a regular peace-offering and is eaten for two days and one, i.e., the intervening, night.

And if one consecrated an animal to be used as a Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth, but it was not slaughtered on that day, on the next day he can fulfill with it his obligation to bring a peace-offering of rejoicing, as it is stated: “And you shall rejoice on your Festival,” but he cannot fulfill with it his obligation to bring a Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason and scriptural basis for ben Teima’s opinion? The Gemara explains: As Rav taught his son Ḥiyya based on the following verse: “Neither shall the offering of the feast of the Passover be left to the morning” (Exodus 34:25). “The offering of the feast,” this is referring to the Festival peace-offering; “the Passover,” as per its plain meaning, i.e., this is referring to the Paschal lamb itself. And with regard to both sacrifices, the Merciful One states in the Torah: “It shall not be left to the morning.” This proves that the Festival peace-offering may be eaten for only a day and a night.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the opinion of ben Teima, is the Festival peace-offering that is brought with the Paschal lamb eaten roasted like the Paschal lamb itself or is it not eaten roasted? The possible considerations are as follows: When the Merciful One compares the Festival peace-offering to the Paschal lamb in the Torah, was that only with regard to leaving it over until the morning, but with regard to the mitzva of roasting, no such comparison is made? Or perhaps there is no difference; the comparison was complete, and the Festival peace-offering is roasted just like the Paschal lamb.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution from what was taught in a mishna: In the time of the Temple, one of the questions that the children would ask on the night of Passover was: How is this night different from all other nights? For on all other nights we eat meat that is roasted, stewed, or boiled, whereas on this night it is all roasted. And Rav Ḥisda said: This is the statement of ben Teima, indicating that even the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth must be roasted. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that the Festival peace-offering must be roasted just like the Paschal lamb.

Another dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the opinion of ben Teima, does the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth come from the herd or does it not come from the herd, like the Paschal offering, which must be brought from the flock? Does it come even from females or does it not come from females, just like the Paschal offering comes only from males? Does it come even from a two-year-old animal or does it not come from a two-year-old animal, but rather only from a one-year-old animal, like the Paschal offering itself?

The Gemara explains that this dilemma is based on a fundamental question similar to the one raised earlier: When the Merciful One compares the Festival peace-offering to the Paschal lamb in the Torah, was that only with regard to matters pertaining to eating and the time during which the Paschal lamb must be eaten, but for everything else there is no comparison? Or perhaps there is no difference and the Torah compared these two offerings in every way.

Come and hear an answer to these questions from what was taught in a baraita: The Festival peace-offering that comes with the Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan is like the Paschal offering in every respect. It comes from the flock and does not come from the herd, it comes from males and does not come from females, it comes from an animal that is a year old and does not come from an animal that is two years old, and it is eaten for only a day and a night, and it is eaten only roasted, and it is eaten only by those who registered for it in advance.

The Gemara explains how this baraita answers the questions raised above: Who have you heard adopts this reasoning, comparing the Paschal offering and the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth? Surely it is ben Teima. Learn from this that we require everything, that the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth must parallel the Paschal offering in all its details. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that they are comparable in every way.

Yet another dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the opinion of ben Teima, is the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth subject to the prohibition against breaking a bone, as is the Paschal lamb, with regard to which the Torah explicitly states: “And you shall not break a bone in it” (Exodus 12:46), or is it not subject to the prohibition against breaking a bone? The possible considerations are as follows: Do we say that even though the Merciful One compares the Festival peace-offering to the Paschal lamb, the verse that teaches the prohibition against breaking a bone says “in it,” and these words serve as a qualifying statement, indicating that the prohibition applies only in it, the Paschal lamb, and not in the Festival peace-offering that comes with it? Or perhaps this term, “in it,” teaches that the prohibition applies only to a fit Paschal lamb but not to a disqualified one.

The Gemara proposes: Come and hear a solution based on the following mishna: If a slaughtering knife was found on the fourteenth day of Nisan in Jerusalem, one may slaughter with it immediately without concern that perhaps it is ritually impure, for presumably any knife that is valid for slaughtering had already been immersed on the previous day so that it could be used for slaughtering the Paschal lamb. But if it was found on the thirteenth day of Nisan, he must immerse it again due to the possibility that it had not yet been immersed and purified.As for a cleaver [kofitz], a large knife that is used primarily for chopping bones, whether it was found on this day, the fourteenth, or on the other day, the thirteenth, he must immerse it again.

The Gemara clarifies: Whose opinion is taught in this mishna? If you say it is the opinion of the Rabbis, who permit breaking the bones of the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth, what is different about a slaughtering knife found on the fourteenth that we say its owner presumably immersed it on the previous day? Is it because it is fit for slaughtering the Paschal lamb? If so, a cleaver found on the fourteenth should also not require immersion before being used, for presumably its owner already immersed it, as it is fit for chopping the bones of the Festival peace-offering.

Rather, is it not the opinion of ben Teima, and learn from this that even the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth is subject to the prohibition against breaking a bone, and therefore a cleaver must be immersed again even if it was found on the fourteenth. Since no bones may be broken on the fourteenth of Nisan, neither those of the Paschal lamb nor those of the Festival peace-offering, it is possible that the knife was not immersed in preparation for the Festival.

The Gemara rejects this proof: No, actually one can explain that the mishna reflects the opinion of the Rabbis, and it is referring to a case where the time to slaughter the Paschal lamb comes on Shabbat. In this circumstance, all agree that the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth is not sacrificed. Since there is no need for a cleaver, there is no reason to assume that the knife had been immersed in preparation for the Festival.

The Gemara asks: But from the fact that the latter clause of that same mishna teaches that if the fourteenth of Nisan occurred on Shabbat he may slaughter with the knife immediately, without immersing it, and similarly, if he found it on the fifteenth, i.e., on the first day of the Festival, he may slaughter with it immediately, as it was certainly immersed the day before, and if a cleaver was found tied to a slaughtering knife, then even if it was found on the fourteenth on a weekday, it is like the slaughtering knife, as they were certainly immersed together, it follows by inference that in the first clause of the mishna we are not dealing with a case where the fourteenth of Nisan occurred on Shabbat.

Rather, this understanding must be rejected and instead we should say that the mishna is talking about a case where the Paschal lamb came

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Pesachim 70a examines whether the festival peace-offering with the Paschal lamb is obligatory, and debates its eating period per ben Teima.