Vayedaber

שֶׁלֹּא נִתְּנָה שַׁבָּת לִדָּחוֹת. [וְסֵיפָא — נִתְּנָה שַׁבָּת לִדָּחוֹת אֶצְלוֹ].

Traduction

In that case, Shabbat does not stand to be overridden at all. Since the baby who should have been circumcised on Shabbat was already circumcised, and the only one left is the baby who should have been circumcised on Friday, the circumciser should have known that he has no circumcisions to perform on Shabbat, because a circumcision that was delayed beyond the eighth day does not override Shabbat. Therefore, he is liable if he performed the circumcision on Shabbat. In the latter clause, however, the circumcision was performed in a situation where Shabbat stands to be overridden for him, as the baby who should have been circumcised on Shabbat was not yet circumcised.

הָכָא — הֲרֵי נִתְּנָה שַׁבָּת לִדָּחוֹת אֵצֶל קָרְבַּן צִיבּוּר.

Traduction

Based on the understanding that everything depends on whether or not Shabbat stands to be overridden, it may be argued that here too, Shabbat stands to be overridden with regard to a communal offering. Therefore, one who on Shabbat unwittingly slaughters other offerings for the purpose of communal offerings is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, because he knows that communal offerings must be brought on Shabbat, and consequently there is some justification for his error.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: הָכָא נָמֵי, הֲרֵי נִתְּנָה שַׁבָּת לִדָּחוֹת אֵצֶל תִּינוֹקוֹת דְּעָלְמָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְגַבֵּי דְּהַאי גַּבְרָא מִיהַת לָא אִיתְיְהִיב.

Traduction

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana that this explanation is difficult: Here too, it may be argued that Shabbat stands to be overridden with regard to babies in general, as it is permitted to circumcise a baby whose eighth day occurs on Shabbat, and so there is some minimal justification for his mistake. Rav Kahana said to him: That is indeed so. However, with regard to this person, Shabbat does not stand to be overridden, as there is no longer any child who is supposed to be circumcised on Shabbat. Therefore, if he unwittingly performed a circumcision on Shabbat, it is not considered as if he performed a transgression while preoccupied with the performance of a mitzva.

וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן לְשׁוּם פֶּסַח, אִם אֵינָן רְאוּיִין — חַיָּיב, וְאִם רְאוּיִין — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּיב חַטָּאת, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר. מַאן תַּנָּא דְּשָׁנֵי לֵיהּ בֵּין רְאוּיִין לְשֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין?

Traduction

We learned in the mishna with regard to all other offerings that one unwittingly slaughtered on Shabbat for the purpose of a Paschal offering, that if they were not fit for the Paschal offering, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, and if they were fit, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna that distinguishes between offerings that are fit for the Paschal lamb and those that are not fit?

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: אֶחָד הַזְּבָחִים הָרְאוּיִין וְאֶחָד זְבָחִים שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין, וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְשֵׁם אֵימוּרֵי צִיבּוּר — פָּטוּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ עַל שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין שֶׁחַיָּיב, עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ — עַל הָרְאוּיִין, שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּיב חַטָּאת, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר.

Traduction

The Gemara explains: It is Rabbi Shimon, as it was taught in a baraita: If one unwittingly slaughters other offerings on Shabbat for the purpose of a Paschal offering, whether they are offerings that are fit for the Paschal lamb or they are offerings that are not fit, and similarly, if he unwittingly slaughters other offerings for the purpose of communal offerings on Shabbat, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree about one who slaughtered offerings that are not fit, for in that case all agree that he is liable. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to one who slaughtered offerings that are fit, for Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him. This indicates that the unattributed ruling of our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

Rachi non traduit

ואחד זבחים שאינן ראויין. לפסח:

פטור. הואיל וטרוד במחשבת לבו מאז הופרשו ויודע שעליו להקריבם טועה ושוחטן לשם פסח:

על שאינן ראויין שחייב. דלאו טועה הוא:

אָמַר רַב בִּיבִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: פּוֹטֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אֲפִילּוּ עֵגֶל שֶׁל זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ לְשׁוּם הַפֶּסַח. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַב בִּיבִי: וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוֹדֶה הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין לָא טְרִיד בְּהוּ, וְהַאי טְרִיד בֵּיהּ.

Traduction

Rav Beivai said that Rabbi Elazar said: Rabbi Meir would exempt him even in the case of a calf of a peace-offering that he slaughtered for the purpose of the Paschal offering, even though one does not ordinarily mistake a calf for a lamb. Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Beivai: But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say that Rabbi Meir conceded that if one slaughtered blemished animals on Shabbat he is liable to bring a sin-offering? He said to him: With regard to blemished animals, he is not at all preoccupied with them, because he knows that they are ineligible to be offered as sacrifices. But as for this calf, he is preoccupied with sacrificing it as an offering, and he may therefore make a mistake.

Rachi non traduit

אפילו עגל. דסד''א ליכא דטעי בה:

מודה היה ר' מאיר בבעלי מומין. הואיל ולאו בני קרבן נינהו לא יכול לומר טועה הוא וחייב הכא נמי חולין לשם פסח יהא חייב הואיל ולאו בני קרבן נינהו:

לא טריד בהו. אין מחשבת הקרבתן בלבו עד הנה:

האי טריד ביה. כל ימי הפרשתן בלבו ועסוק ואומר מתי אפנה ואקריבנו:

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן: חוּלִּין לְשׁוּם פֶּסַח, מַאי לִי אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פּוֹטֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אֲפִילּוּ חוּלִּין לְשׁוּם פֶּסַח.

Traduction

Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: If one unwittingly slaughtered an unconsecrated animal for the purpose of a Paschal offering, what would Rabbi Meir say? Would he exempt him in this case as well? Rav Naḥman said to him: Rabbi Meir would exempt him even if he slaughtered an unconsecrated animal for the purpose of a Paschal offering.

Rachi non traduit

חולין לשם פסח מה לי א''ר מאיר. כלומר מה ר' מאיר אמר לנו בו:

וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוֹדֶה הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין! בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין לָא מִיחַלְּפִי, הָנֵי מִיחַלְּפִי.

Traduction

Rava asked him: But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say that Rabbi Meir concedes that if one slaughtered blemished animals on Shabbat he is liable to bring a sin-offering, as they are never sacrificed as offerings, and similarly, unconsecrated animals are never sacrificed as offerings? Rav Naḥman responded: There is room for a distinction. Blemished animals cannot be confused with unblemished ones, and so there is no legitimate reason for error; but these, i.e., unconsecrated animals, can easily be confused with consecrated animals, as they are externally indistinguishable from one another, and therefore one who confuses them is exempt.

Rachi non traduit

מודה היה ר' מאיר בבעלי מומין. הואיל ולאו בני קרבן נינהו לא יכול לומר טועה הוא וחייב הכא נמי חולין לשם פסח יהא חייב הואיל ולאו בני קרבן נינהו:

הני מיחלפי. חולין בקדשים מיחלפי ויכול לומר טעיתי סבור הייתי קדשים הן משום הכי פטור:

הני לא מיחלפי. בעלי מומין בקדשים לא יכול לומר טעיתי כסבור קדשים הן משום הכי חייב:

וְטַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר מִשּׁוּם אִיחַלּוֹפֵי וְלָא אִיחַלּוֹפֵי? וְהָאָמַר רַב בִּיבִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: פּוֹטֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אֲפִילּוּ עֵגֶל שֶׁל זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ לְשׁוּם הַפֶּסַח! אַלְמָא, טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר מִשּׁוּם דִּטְרִיד!

Traduction

Rava asked further: And is Rabbi Meir’s reason really that these can be confused and these cannot be confused with a legitimate offering? But didn’t Rav Beivai say that Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Meir would exempt him even in the case of a calf of a peace-offering that he slaughtered for the purpose of the Paschal offering, even though there is no way to mistake a calf for an animal that can be brought for the Paschal offering? Therefore, it is apparent that Rabbi Meir’s reason is that he is preoccupied with sacrificing the calf as an offering, and consequently he is exempt if he erred and slaughtered it for the purpose of a Paschal lamb. But why should one be exempt if he brought an unconsecrated animal for the purpose of a Paschal offering? He is not preoccupied with bringing it as an offering.

Rachi non traduit

אלמא טעמא משום טירדא. ולאו משום איחלופי וחולין לא טריד בהקרבתן:

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: טְרִיד — אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא מִחַלַּף, מִחַלַּף — אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא טְרִיד, לְאַפּוֹקֵי בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין, דְּלָא אִיחַלּוֹפֵי מִחַלַּף וְלָא מִטְרִיד טְרִיד.

Traduction

Rav Naḥman said to him: Both reasons apply according to Rabbi Meir. If one is preoccupied with bringing the animal as an offering, he is exempt even though the animal cannot easily be confused with the one he was supposed to sacrifice. And when the animal can easily be confused with the one set aside as an offering, he is exempt, even though he is not preoccupied with bringing it as an offering. This comes to exclude blemished animals, which cannot be confused with unblemished animals and with whose sacrifice he is not preoccupied.

יָתֵיב רַבִּי זֵירָא וְרַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק אַקִּילְעָא דְּרַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק, וְיָתְבִי וְקָא אָמְרִי, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: נִתְחַלֵּף לוֹ שַׁפּוּד שֶׁל נוֹתָר בְּשַׁפּוּד שֶׁל צָלִי, וַאֲכָלוֹ — חַיָּיב.

Traduction

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak were sitting on the porch of Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak, and they sat and said: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: If one unwittingly confused a spit of leftover sacrificial meat, which it is prohibited to eat and which makes one liable to receive the punishment of karet when one eats it intentionally, with a spit of roasted sacrificial meat, which is a mitzva to eat, and he ate it, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. Although he intended to do a mitzva, since he unwittingly transgressed the prohibition against eating leftover sacrificial meat, he must bring a sin-offering.

Rachi non traduit

אקילעא. לפני הבית כעין בית שער וקורין פוריי''א:

בשפוד של צלי. של קודש הראוי ואכילת קדשים מצוה דכתיב (שמות כ''ט:ל''ג) ואכלו אותם אשר כופר וגו':

חייב. דטעה בדבר מצוה ולא עשה מצוה ונותר חייבים על זדונו כרת ושגגתו חטאת דכתיב (ויקרא י''ט:ח') ואוכליו עונו ישא:

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אִשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה בָּעַל — חַיָּיב. יְבִמְתּוֹ נִדָּה בָּעַל — פָּטוּר.

Traduction

And they further reported that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If one unwittingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his wife while she was menstruating, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. But if he unwittingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his sister-in-law who was waiting to become his wife through levirate marriage while she was menstruating, he is exempt, because the act of intercourse itself is a mitzva. A man whose brother died without children is obliged by Torah law to marry his deceased brother’s widow and ''come to her'' (Deuteronomy 25:5), so that even if he mistakenly transgressed while attempting to fulfill the mitzva, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering.

Rachi non traduit

אשתו נדה בעל חייב. כדמוקי לה לקמיה בסמוך לווסתה ובמעוברת דלאו מצוה היא ולקמיה מפרש ואזיל אם חלוק הוא על ריש לקיש או מוסיף על דבריו:

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: כָּל שֶׁכֵּן בְּהָהִיא דְּמִחַיַּיב, דְּלֹא עָשָׂה מִצְוָה.

Traduction

The Gemara attempts to determine whether Rabbi Yoḥanan agrees or disagrees with Reish Lakish’s ruling: Some say that all the more so in the first case, where one unwittingly ate a spit of leftover sacrificial meat, Rabbi Yoḥanan would deem him liable to bring a sin-offering, for he did not actually perform a mitzva when he ate the meat, even though he intended to do so. This stands in contrast to the second case, where the person unwittingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his wife while she was menstruating, where he at least performed a small mitzva, as will be explained shortly.

Rachi non traduit

כל שכן בההוא. נותר:

דמחייב. דאין שם לחלוחית מצוה אבל הכא אע''ג דמעוברת מיהו מצות שמחת אשתו איכא:

אִית דְּאָמְרִי, בְּהַהִיא — פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? הָתָם הוּא דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְשַׁיּוֹלֵי. אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְשַׁיּוֹלֵי — לָא.

Traduction

Others say that according to Rabbi Yoḥanan in that case where one ate leftover sacrificial meat, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. What is the reason? There, where he had sexual intercourse with his wife while she was menstruating, he is liable, for he should have asked her if she was menstruating, and because he failed to do so he is liable to bring a sin-offering. But here, where he ate a spit of leftover sacrificial meat, he did not have anyone to ask, and so he is not liable to bring a sin-offering.

Rachi non traduit

בשפוד. ליכא למאן נישייליה:

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מַאי שְׁנָא יְבִמְתּוֹ, דְּקָא עָבֵיד מִצְוָה? אִשְׁתּוֹ נָמֵי קָא עָבֵיד מִצְוָה! בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ מְעוּבֶּרֶת.

Traduction

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, what is different about one who unwittingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his sister-in-law, in that he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering? Is it that he performed a mitzva, i.e., the mitzva of levirate marriage? If so, then also in the case where he unwittingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his wife while she was menstruating, he performed a mitzva, for he occupied himself in the fulfillment of the mitzva of procreation. The Gemara answers that we are dealing here with a case where his wife is pregnant, such that intercourse cannot lead to procreation.

Rachi non traduit

ור' יוחנן מאי שנא יבמתו. דפטור ואע''ג דהוה ליה לשיולי:

דקא עביד. מצות יבום בביאה ראשונה קאמר:

אשתו. מצות פריה ורביה:

Tossefoth non traduit

באשתו נמי קא עביד מצוה. ובסמוך נמי פריך והא איכא שמחת עונה ותימה הא באשתו נדה קיימינן דליכא מצוה ולא שמחת עונה ואומר ר''י דפריך אלישנא בתרא דפוטר טעה בדבר מצוה אע''פ שלא עשה מצוה הלכך פריך והא איכא שמחה וטעה בדבר מצוה ומסיק דהוה ליה לשיולי:

וְהָא אִיכָּא שִׂמְחַת עוֹנָה! שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת עוֹנָתָהּ.

Traduction

The Gemara raises another question: Nevertheless, there is the mitzva of the enjoyment of conjugal rights. One of a husband’s marital obligations is to engage in sexual intercourse with his wife at regular intervals (see Exodus 21:10), and this is considered a mitzva. The Gemara answers that we are talking about a case where it is not the time of her conjugal rights.

Rachi non traduit

עונה. לפי מה שהוא חמר או גמל או טייל או תלמיד כדמפרש בכתובות (דף סא:):

וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: חַיָּיב אָדָם לְשַׂמֵּחַ אִשְׁתּוֹ בִּדְבַר מִצְוָה! סָמוּךְ לְוִוסְתָּהּ.

Traduction

The Gemara asks further: Even so, didn’t Rava say that a man is obligated to please his wife through a mitzva? That is to say, he must engage in sexual intercourse with her when she so desires, even if it is not the time of her conjugal rights. The Gemara answers that we are dealing with a case where it was near her expected date of menstruation, when sexual relations are prohibited due to a concern that the woman may already be menstruating or that she may begin to menstruate during the sexual act.

Rachi non traduit

לשמח את אשתו. אפילו שלא בשעת עונתה אם רואה שמתאוית לו:

ומשני בסמוך לווסתה. דמוזהרין ישראל לפרוש מנשותיהן סמוך לזמן ווסת נדותיהן כדאמרינן בשבועות (דף יח:) והזהרתם את בני ישראל והדוה בנדתה מכאן אזהרה לבני ישראל שיהו פורשין מנשותיהן כו':

Tossefoth non traduit

סמוך לווסתה. אין לפרש דיודע שהוא סמוך לווסתה ומספקא ליה אם נדה גמורה היא אם לאו דא''כ ביבמתו אמאי פטור כיון דיודע שהוא סמוך לווסתה וסמוך לווסתה דאוריי' דנפקא לן מוהזהרתם את בני ישראל אלא יש לפרש שאינו יודע אם הוא סמוך לווסתה אם לאו דהוה ליה לשיולה כיון שאינו יודע והא דאמר בפ''ב דנדה (דף טו.) דכל הנשים בחזקת טהרה לבעליהן היינו כשיודע שלא הגיע זמן ווסתה דלא חיישינן שמא שינתה ווסתה וה''ה דהוה מצי למימר שאינו יודע אם היא נדה גמורה או לאו אלא נקט דאפילו יודע שאינה נדה כיון דמספקא ליה אם הוא סמוך לווסתה באשתו חייב ומיהו הוה מצי לאשמעינן במספקא ליה אם היא נדה גמורה ואפי' הכי ביבמתו פטור:

אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ יְבִמְתּוֹ נָמֵי! יְבִמְתּוֹ בְּזִיז מִינַּהּ, אִשְׁתּוֹ לָא בְּזִיז מִינַּהּ.

Traduction

The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if they engaged in sexual intercourse near the woman’s expected date of menstruation when he should have refrained from doing so, then even in the case where he had sexual intercourse with his sister-in-law and she turned out to be menstruating, he should also be liable, as the mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply at that time. The Gemara explains that with regard to his sister-in-law, he is still shy [bazeiz] in front of her and uncomfortable asking her whether she is close to her expected menstruation date, whereas with regard to his wife, he is not shy in front of her, and so he should have asked her.

Rachi non traduit

אי הכי יבמתו נמי. סמוך לווסתה לא רמיא מצוה עליה:

בזיז מינה. בוש ממנה לשואלה אם סמוך לווסתה הוא:

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּמַאן? אִילֵּימָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חַג שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת, וְשָׁכַח וְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַלּוּלָב לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוֹצִיא בִּרְשׁוּת.

Traduction

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yoḥanan, in accordance with whose opinion did he rule with regard to one who erred while engaged in a mitzva? If you say he ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Yosei says: If the first Festival day of the festival of Sukkot occurs on Shabbat, and he forgot and carried his lulav out into the public domain and continued to transport it there, unwittingly performing a prohibited labor, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. That is because he carried it out with permission, that is to say, he was acting with the intention of fulfilling a mitzva.

Rachi non traduit

ור' יוחנן. דאמר פטור כמאן:

ברשות. של מצוה שהיה טרוד בה:

דִּילְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּזְמַנּוֹ בָּהוּל.

Traduction

There is room to differentiate between Rabbi Yosei’s ruling and that of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Perhaps it is different there, as he is pressed for time. Since by Torah law the mitzva of lulav applies only one day a year, he is anxious to fulfill the mitzva and therefore does not realize that he is violating a Torah prohibition. This is unlike the case of levirate marriage, which need not be performed at any specific time and about which he is less pressured.

Rachi non traduit

דזמנה בהול. שקבוע לה היום וטרוד באם לא עכשיו אימתי הולך אצל בקי ללמדו:

וְאֶלָּא רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דִּזְבָחִים. דִּילְמָא הָתָם נָמֵי זְמַנּוֹ בָּהוּל.

Traduction

Rather, one might say that Rabbi Yoḥanan issued his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua in our mishna with regard to offerings, for according to Rabbi Yehoshua, one who unwittingly slaughtered another offering on Shabbat for the purpose of a Paschal offering, and the animal was fit to be brought as a Paschal offering, is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. Here too, however, there is room to differentiate. Perhaps there also we can say that Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him because he is pressed for time.

Rachi non traduit

דזבחים. דפטור במתני' בשוחט לשם פסח משום דטעה בדבר מצוה ועשה מצוה:

זמנו. של פסח בהול הוא היום למהר פן יעבור זמנו:

וְאֶלָּא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דְּתִינוֹקוֹת. הָתָם נָמֵי זְמַנּוֹ בָּהוּל.

Traduction

Rather, one might say that Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to babies, one that should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve and the other on Shabbat, and the circumciser forgot and circumcised the one that should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat. In that case the circumciser is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. But once again there is room to differentiate: Perhaps there too, Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him because he is pressed for time.

וְאֶלָּא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דִּתְרוּמָה, דִּתְנַן: הָיָה אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה וְנוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶּן חֲלוּצָה — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּיב קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר.

Traduction

Rather, we should say that Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to teruma, as we learned in a mishna: If a priest was eating teruma, and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or a woman who underwent ḥalitza and he is therefore disqualified from the priesthood and may not eat teruma, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to pay the value of the principal and an additional fifth, like any non-priest who unwittingly ate teruma, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him. In this case, one who thought he was a priest and therefore fulfilling a mitzva when he ate the teruma was actually committing a transgression, but nevertheless, Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him from the ordinary penalty. On the face of it, this is similar to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling.

Rachi non traduit

בן גרושה. כהן חלל זר גמור הוא דכתיב בכהן הנושא גרושה (ויקרא כא) לא יחלל זרעו שמחללו מדין כהונה:

קרן וחומש. שהרי אכלה שוגג:

ור' יהושע פוטר. שטעה בדבר מצוה:

דִּילְמָא כִּדְרַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי, דְּאָמַר רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: בִּתְרוּמָה בְּעֶרֶב הַפֶּסַח, דִּזְמַנָּהּ בָּהוּל.

Traduction

This comparison can, however, be rejected, for perhaps that case should be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rav Beivai bar Abaye. For Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: The mishna is talking about a disqualified priest who ate teruma which is leaven on the eve of Passover, whose time is pressing, because if he does not eat it quickly he will have to burn it.

אִי נָמֵי: שָׁאנֵי תְּרוּמָה דְּאִיקְּרִי עֲבוֹדָה, וַעֲבוֹדָה רַחֲמָנָא אַכְשַׁר.

Traduction

Alternatively, there may be another reason to differentiate: Eating teruma is different, because it is called sacred service, and the Merciful One validates service performed by someone of priestly descent even if he is not fit for the priesthood.

Rachi non traduit

דאיקרי עבודה. אכילתה כדלקמן:

ועבודה. של חלל בשוגג רחמנא אכשרה דתנן כו':

דִּתְנַן: הָיָה עוֹמֵד וּמַקְרִיב, וְנוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶּן חֲלוּצָה — כָּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת כּוּלָּן שֶׁהִקְרִיב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ פְּסוּלִין, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מַכְשִׁיר. וְאָמְרִינַן, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ — דִּכְתִיב: ''בָּרֵךְ ה' חֵילוֹ וּפֹעַל יָדָיו תִּרְצֶה''.

Traduction

As we learned in a mishna: If a priest was standing and sacrificing offerings on the altar, and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or the son of a woman who underwent ḥalitza, all the offerings that he offered on the altar until that time are disqualified, because only service performed by a priest deemed fit is acceptable. And Rabbi Yehoshua validates them. And we said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehoshua? As it is written with regard to the tribe of Levi: ''Bless, Lord, his substance and accept the work of his hands'' (Deuteronomy 33:11), which teaches that after the fact, God accepts the work of a priest’s hands, even if it becomes clear that he was actually disqualified at the time he performed the service.

Rachi non traduit

ברך ה' חילו. בכהנים כתיב ישימו קטורה באפך וגו' וסמיך ליה ברך ה' חילו חללים שבו:

וּתְרוּמָה הֵיכָא אִיקְּרִי עֲבוֹדָה? דְּתַנְיָא, מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן שֶׁלֹּא בָּא אֶמֶשׁ לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. לְשַׁחֲרִית מְצָאוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אָמַר לוֹ: מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא בָּאתָ אֶמֶשׁ לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ? אָמַר לוֹ: עֲבוֹדָה עָבַדְתִּי. אָמַר לוֹ: כָּל דְּבָרֶיךָ אֵינָן אֶלָּא דִּבְרֵי תֵימָה, וְכִי עֲבוֹדָה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה מִנַּיִן? אָמַר לוֹ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר:

Traduction

The Gemara questions what was stated above: And where is teruma called service? The Gemara explains: As it was taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabbi Tarfon, who did not come in the evening to the study hall. In the morning, Rabban Gamliel found him and said to him: For what reason did you not come in the evening to the study hall? He said to him: I was performing sacred service. He said to him: All your words are astonishing; from where do we have service in this time after the destruction of the Temple? He said to him: It says in Scripture:

Rachi non traduit

אמש. בערב: