פסחים נט

פסחים נט

יְאוּחַר דָּבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״בָּעָרֶב״ וּ״בֵין הָעַרְבָּיִם״, לְדָבָר שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ ״בָּעֶרֶב״, אֶלָּא ״בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם״ בִּלְבַד.

An item, i.e., the Paschal lamb, about which it is stated: “In the evening” and “in the afternoon,” should be sacrificed after an item, the daily afternoon offering, about which it is not stated “in the evening,” but only “in the afternoon.” With regard to the Paschal lamb, the verse says: “You shall sacrifice the Paschal lamb in the evening, at the going down of the sun, at the season in which you came out of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 16:6), and it also says: “And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it in the afternoon” (Exodus 12:6), whereas regarding the daily afternoon offering it only says: “And the second lamb you shall offer in the afternoon” (Numbers 28:4).

אִי הָכִי, קְטֹרֶת וְנֵרוֹת נָמֵי נִקְדְּמוּ לְפֶסַח: יְאוּחַר דָּבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״בָּעָרֶב״ וּ״בֵין הָעַרְבָּיִם״, לְדָבָר שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ אֶלָּא ״בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם״ בִּלְבַד!

The Gemara asks: If that is so, that the halakha that the Paschal lamb is offered after the daily afternoon offering is derived from these verses, then the burning of the incense and the lighting of the lamps of the candelabrum should also precede the offering of the Paschal lamb. The item, the Paschal lamb, about which it is stated “in the evening” and “in the afternoon” should be sacrificed after the item about which it is stated only: “And when Aaron lights the lamps in the afternoon he shall burn it, a perpetual incense before the Lord throughout your generations” (Exodus 30:8), which relates to both the burning of the incense and the lighting of the lamps.

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּמִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא ״אֹתוֹ״. דְּתַנְיָא: ״מֵעֶרֶב וְעַד בֹּקֶר״ — תֵּן לָהּ מִדָּתָהּ שֶׁתְּהֵא דּוֹלֶקֶת מֵעֶרֶב עַד בּוֹקֶר.

The Gemara answers: It is different there, in the case of lamps, as the Merciful One explicitly excludes in the Torah the possibility that the lamps will be kindled first by means of the word it [oto], which emphasizes that the lamps are kindled later. The Gemara clarifies: As it was taught in a baraita concerning the verse pertaining to the lamps: “In the tent of meeting, outside of the veil, which is before the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall set it in order from evening to morning before the Lord; it shall be a statute forever to their generations on behalf of the children of Israel” (Exodus 27:21). The phrase “from evening to morning” indicates that you shall allocate the candelabrum its measure of oil, so that it will burn from evening until morning.

דָּבָר אַחֵר: אֵין לְךָ עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה מֵעֶרֶב עַד בּוֹקֶר אֶלָּא זוֹ בִּלְבַד. מַאי טַעְמָא — אָמַר קְרָא: ״יַעֲרֹךְ אֹתוֹ אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר״. אוֹתוֹ מֵעֶרֶב עַד בּוֹקֶר, וְאֵין דָּבָר אַחֵר מֵעֶרֶב עַד בּוֹקֶר.

The baraita continues: Alternatively, the same verse can be interpreted as follows: There is no rite that is valid from evening until morning but this one alone, since all the other rites are performed only during the day. What is the reason that this verse is interpreted to mean that lighting the lamps is the only rite valid from evening until morning? It is because the verse said with regard to the candelabrum: “Aaron and his sons shall set [ya’arokh] it [oto] in order, to burn from evening to morning.” The verse uses the separate word it [oto], rather than a pronominal suffix attached to the word ya’arokh to form the word ya’arkhenu, in order to emphasize that it, the lighting of the candelabrum, is from evening until morning, but no other rite is from evening until morning.

וְאִיתַּקַּשׁ קְטֹרֶת לְנֵרוֹת.

And the Torah juxtaposes the burning of the incense to the kindling of the lamps, as it explicitly states that the incense is burned at the time the lamps are kindled: “And when Aaron lights the lamps in the afternoon, he shall burn it, a perpetual incense” (Exodus 30:8). From this it is derived that no other rite is performed in the Temple after burning the incense and lighting the lamps, not even the Paschal lamb.

וְתַנְיָא כִּי קוּשְׁיַין: תָּמִיד קוֹדֶם לִקְטֹרֶת, קְטֹרֶת קוֹדֶמֶת לְנֵרוֹת, וְנֵרוֹת קוֹדְמוֹת לְפֶסַח. יְאוּחַר דָּבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״בָּעָרֶב״ וּ״בֵין הָעַרְבָּיִם״, לְדָבָר שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ אֶלָּא ״בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם״ בִּלְבַד.

That explains the opinion cited in the previous baraita and its sources. It should, however, be noted that it was explicitly taught in a baraita in accordance with our difficulty and contrary to the opinion cited in the previous baraita: The daily afternoon offering precedes the afternoon burning of the incense, the burning of the incense precedes the lighting of the lamps, and the lighting of the lamps precedes the Paschal lamb. This is proof that this is the correct order: An item, the Paschal lamb, about which it is stated “in the evening” and “in the afternoon” should be delayed until after an item, i.e., the incense and lamps, about which it is stated only “in the afternoon.”

וְהָא כְּתִיב ״אוֹתוֹ״! הַאי ״אוֹתוֹ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְמַעוֹטֵי עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁבִּפְנִים, וּמַאי נִיהוּ? קְטֹרֶת. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב ״וּבְהַעֲלוֹת אַהֲרֹן אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם יַקְטִירֶנָּה״, אֵימָא: נַדְלֵיק נֵרוֹת בְּרֵישָׁא וַהֲדַר נַקְטֵיר קְטוֹרֶת, מִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא ״אוֹתוֹ״.

The Gemara asks: As already stated, isn’t “it” written in the verse, from which it is derived that lighting the lamps is the final Temple rite of the day? The Gemara answers: This word “it” is necessary, in order to exclude a rite that is performed inside the sanctuary, as opposed to the Paschal lamb, which is sacrificed outside, in the courtyard. The Gemara asks: And what is this rite? The Gemara answers: The burning of the incense. It could have entered your mind to say that since it is written: “And when Aaron lights the lamps in the afternoon he shall burn it” (Exodus 30:8), say that perhaps we should light the lamps first and then we should burn the incense, as the verse does not clearly state which of the two comes first. Therefore, the Merciful One excludes this possibility by use of the word “it,” from which it is derived that no other rite is performed inside the sanctuary after the lamps are kindled.

אֶלָּא, ״בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם יַקְטִירֶנָּה״ לְמָה לִי? הָכִי קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: בְּעִידָּן דְּמַדְלְקַתְּ נֵרוֹת תְּהֵא מִקַּטְרָא קְטֹרֶת.

The Gemara asks: However, if that is the halakha, why do I need the phrase “in the afternoon he shall burn it,” which seems to add nothing? The Gemara answers that this is what the Merciful One is saying: This verse does not come to establish the time for lighting the lamps; it comes to teach that at the time when you light the lamps, the incense should already be burning.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁקּוֹדֵם לְתָמִיד שֶׁל שַׁחַר אֶלָּא קְטֹרֶת בִּלְבַד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בָּהּ: ״בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר״. וְיוּקְדַּם קְטֹרֶת — דָּבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר״, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִקְטִיר עָלָיו אַהֲרֹן קְטֹרֶת סַמִּים בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר״, לְדָבָר שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ אֶלָּא ״בֹּקֶר״ אֶחָד.

The Sages taught in a baraita: Nothing may precede the daily morning offering but the morning burning of the incense alone, as it is stated about the burning of the incense: “In the morning, in the morning.” And it is derived that the incense, an item about which it is stated: “In the morning, in the morning,” as it is written: “And Aaron shall burn upon it incense of sweet spices; in the morning, in the morning, when he dresses the lamps, he shall burn it” (Exodus 30:7), should precede an item, the daily offering, about which only one morning is stated: “The one lamb you shall offer in the morning” (Numbers 28:4).

וְאֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁמִּתְעַכֵּב אַחַר תָּמִיד שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם אֶלָּא קְטֹרֶת, וְנֵרוֹת, וּפֶסַח, וּמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים בְּעֶרֶב הַפֶּסַח — שֶׁטּוֹבֵל שֵׁנִית וְאוֹכֵל אֶת פִּסְחוֹ לָעֶרֶב.

And similarly, nothing may be delayed until after the daily afternoon offering but the afternoon burning of the incense, the lighting of the lamps, the offering of the Paschal lamb, and one who lacks atonement on Passover eve, i.e., one who was ritually impure, such as a leper or a zav, and who immersed in a ritual bath to become pure. Such a person is required to bring an offering before he may partake of consecrated food, and he is referred to as one who lacks atonement until he does so. In the event that he neglects to bring his offering before the daily afternoon offering on Passover eve, the Sages instituted a special ordinance to enable him to bring his offering even after the daily offering. He immerses a second time after bringing the offering, thereby becoming fit to eat sacrificial foods, and he eats his Paschal lamb in the evening.

רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא אוֹמֵר: אַף מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, שֶׁטּוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל בַּקֳּדָשִׁים לָעֶרֶב.

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says that even one who lacks atonement on the rest of the days of the year brings his offering after the daily afternoon offering, and that he immerses and eats sacrificial food from a voluntary offering that he brought during the day, in the evening.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְתַנָּא קַמָּא, יָבֹא עֲשֵׂה דְפֶסַח שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כָּרֵת, וְיִדְחֶה עֲשֵׂה דְהַשְׁלָמָה שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא, מַאי אוּלְמֵיהּ דְּהַאי עֲשֵׂה מֵהַאי עֲשֵׂה?!

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the first tanna, who permits sacrificing offerings after the daily afternoon offering only for one who lacks atonement on Passover eve, there is good reason for this policy: The positive mitzva of the Paschal lamb, which carries with it the punishment of karet for one who is qualified to bring the Paschal lamb and does not do so, will come and override the positive mitzva of completion. There is a positive mitzva to complete all the offerings before the daily afternoon offering. Failure to fulfill this command certainly does not involve karet, and therefore it is overridden by the more stringent mitzva of the Paschal lamb. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, in what way is the strength of this positive mitzva to eat sacrificial meat greater than the strength of that positive mitzva to complete all the offerings of the day before the daily afternoon offering?

אָמַר רָבִינָא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הָכָא בְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף עָסְקִינַן, שֶׁאֵין לְמִזְבֵּחַ אֶלָּא דָּמָהּ.

Ravina said that Rav Ḥisda said: Here we are dealing with the special case of a bird brought as a sin-offering. This occurs when the person lacking atonement, e.g., an impoverished leper, is required to bring only a bird as a sin-offering, as in that case the altar has only the bird’s blood. Its meat is not brought on the altar at all; it is eaten by the priests. The mitzva to complete all offerings before the daily afternoon offering applies only to burning fats on the altar. Sprinkling blood onto the altar is permitted even after the daily afternoon offering.

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא בְּחַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה, מַעֲלֶהָ וּמְלִינָהּ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ.

Rav Pappa said: Even if you say that we are dealing here with a person lacking atonement who is required to bring an animal sin-offering, it is possible to sacrifice it and still observe the mitzva of completion. How? The sacrificial parts of this sin-offering that are burned on the altar are not burned on the same day. Rather, the priest brings them up and leaves them overnight on the top of the altar. They are then burned the next day after the daily morning offering. If these sacrificial parts are left elsewhere overnight, they become disqualified; however, if they are left overnight on the top of the altar they remain fit. Consequently, it is possible for one to bring his offering and still observe the positive commandment of completion.

וְהָאִיכָּא אָשָׁם. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב פָּפָּא הַיְינוּ דְּמֵלִין לַהּ, אֶלָּא לְרַב חִסְדָּא מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אָמְרִי: שֶׁקָּרַב אֲשָׁמוֹ.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t there also a guilt-offering that one who lacks atonement, e.g., a leper or a zav, must bring, and only sheep may be brought as a guilt-offering? Granted, according to Rav Pappa, the solution in the case of the guilt-offering is also for the priest to leave it overnight on the top of the altar. However, according to Rav Ḥisda, what can be said, as sprinkling the blood of the guilt-offering alone does not suffice to achieve atonement? They say: According to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, is referring here to one who lacks atonement and who already sacrificed his guilt-offering. He has only to bring a sin-offering, for which he can sacrifice even a bird, in order to achieve full atonement.

וְהָאִיכָּא עוֹלָה! וְכִי תֵּימָא: עוֹלָה לָא מְעַכְּבָא, וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁחַטָּאתוֹ וַאֲשָׁמוֹ מְעַכְּבִין אוֹתוֹ, כָּךְ עוֹלָתוֹ מְעַכַּבְתּוֹ!

The Gemara asks: But isn’t there also a burnt-offering among the atonement offerings? And if you say that the failure to sacrifice the burnt-offering does not prevent atonement, wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, himself says: Just as failure to sacrifice his sin-offering and his guilt-offering prevents the leper from achieving full ritual purity, so too does failure to sacrifice his burnt-offering.

וְכִי תֵּימָא בְּשֶׁקָּרְבָה עוֹלָתוֹ, וּמִי קָרְבָה עוֹלָתוֹ קוֹדֶם לְחַטָּאתוֹ רִאשׁוֹן?! וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְהִקְרִיב אֶת אֲשֶׁר לַחַטָּאת רִאשׁוֹנָה״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? אִם לְלַמֵּד שֶׁתְּהֵא קוֹדֶמֶת לָעוֹלָה — הֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״וְאֵת הַשֵּׁנִי יַעֲשֶׂה עוֹלָה כַּמִּשְׁפָּט״.

And if you say, in an attempt to answer as before, that the baraita here is dealing with a situation in which he already offered his burnt-offering; may his burnt-offering be brought before his sin-offering? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: It is written concerning one who entered the Temple or ate consecrated food while ritually impure: “And he shall bring them to the priest and he shall offer that which is for the sin-offering first and pinch off its neck close by its head, but shall not divide it” (Leviticus 5:8). To what purpose does the verse state that the sin-offering is first? If it is to teach that this sin-offering should be offered prior to the burnt-offering, it is already stated: “And he shall offer the second as a burnt-offering according to the ordinance” (Leviticus 5:10), and there is no need for two verses.

אֶלָּא: זֶה בָּנָה אָב לְכׇל חַטָּאוֹת שֶׁיְּהוּ קוֹדְמוֹת לְכׇל עוֹלוֹת הַבָּאוֹת עִמָּהֶן. וְקַיְימָא לַן דַּאֲפִילּוּ חַטַּאת הָעוֹף קוֹדֶמֶת לְעוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה!

Rather, this is a paradigm and a foundation for the principle that all sin-offerings should precede all burnt-offerings that come with them. In every case, the sin-offering is sacrificed first. And we maintain that this principle is so weighty that even the sin-offering of a bird precedes a burnt-offering of an animal.

אָמַר רָבָא: שָׁאנֵי עוֹלַת מְצוֹרָע, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר:

Rava said: The halakha of the burnt-offering of a leper is different from other sin-offerings and burnt-offerings, as the Merciful One says with regard to the halakhot of a leper:

״וְהֶעֱלָה הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הָעוֹלָה״ — שֶׁהֶעֱלָהּ כְּבָר.

“And the priest shall offer the burnt-offering” (Leviticus 14:20); this is interpreted as referring to the burnt-offering that has already been offered. From here it is derived that the leper achieves atonement even if the standard order is reversed and the burnt-offering is brought before the sin-offering.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שֶׁמֶן בַּר אַבָּא לְרַב פָּפָּא: לְדִידָךְ, דְּאָמְרַתְּ מַעֲלֶהָ וּמְלִינָהּ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ, קַיָּימִין וְעָבְדִינַן מִילְּתָא לְכֹהֲנִים דְּאָתוּ בַּהּ לִידֵי תַקָּלָה, דְּסָבְרִי דְּיוֹמֵיהּ הוּא וְאָתוּ לְאַקְטוֹרֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כֹּהֲנִים זְרִיזִין הֵן.

Rav Shemen bar Abba said to Rav Pappa: According to your opinion, that you said he brings them up and leaves them overnight at the top of the altar, do we stand and perform an action for the priests whereby they may come to a mishap. As they may think that these fats are from offerings brought on that day, and so they may burn them that day, although these fats must be left until the next day. He said to him: Priests are vigilant and may be relied upon to avoid that mistake and to warn their fellow priests to be careful as well.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב כָּהֲנָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן לְרַב פָּפָּא: וְהָא כַּמָּה דְּלָא מִתְקַטְּרִי אֵמוּרִין כֹּהֲנִים לָא מָצוּ אָכְלִי בָּשָׂר, דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל יְהוּ כֹּהֲנִים רַשָּׁאִין בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק קוֹדֶם הַקְטָרַת אֵמוּרִין, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַחֵלֶב הַמִּזְבֵּחָה״, וַהֲדַר: ״וְהָיָה הֶחָזֶה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו״.

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana, and some say it Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: But, isn’t it the case that as long as the sacrificial parts of the sin-offering have not been burned on the altar, the priests may not eat the meat? As it was taught in a baraita with regard to peace-offerings: I might have thought that the priests would be permitted to eat the breast and thigh, which are designated for them from the peace-offering, prior to burning the sacrificial parts of the offering on the altar. Therefore, the verse states: “And the priest shall burn the fat upon the altar, and the breast shall be for Aaron and his sons” (Leviticus 7:31). From here it is derived that the priest is first obligated to burn the fat, and only then: “The breast shall be for Aaron and his sons.

וְכַמָּה דְּכֹהֲנִים לָא אָכְלִי בָּשָׂר בְּעָלִים לָא מִתְכַּפְּרִי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְאָכְלוּ אוֹתָם אֲשֶׁר כֻּפַּר בָּהֶם״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹכְלִים וּבְעָלִים מִתְכַּפְּרִין!

And, in addition, as long as the priests have not eaten the meat of the offering, the owners of the offering have not achieved complete atonement, as it was taught in a baraita that the verse: “And they shall eat those things with which atonement was made to consecrate them, to sanctify them; but a stranger shall not eat of them for they are sacred” (Exodus 29:33), teaches that the priests eat, and consequently the owners of the offerings achieve atonement. If so, how can one who lacks atonement achieve atonement that day when the priests may not eat the meat of his sin-offering until the sacrificial parts are burned the next day?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כֵּיוָן דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר — עֲשָׁאוּם כְּמִי שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדוּ. דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל נִטְמְאוּ אֵמוּרִין אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדוּ לֹא יְהוּ כֹּהֲנִים זַכָּאִין בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהָיָה הֶחָזֶה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

He said to him: Since it is impossible to complete the offering any other way, due to the positive mitzva of completion, they rendered these sacrificial parts as ones that became ritually impure or were lost. In those cases, it is permitted for priests to eat their portions. As it was taught in a baraita: I might have thought that if the sacrificial parts became ritually impure or were lost, the priests would not be entitled to the breast and thigh, the eating of which ordinarily depends upon burning the sacrificial parts on the altar. Therefore, the verse states: “And the breast shall be for Aaron and his sons” (Leviticus 7:31), which indicates that in any event it is an absolute gift, even if some of the accompanying rites were not performed in the proper manner.

רַב כָּהֲנָא רָמֵי: כְּתִיב ״לֹא יָלִין חֵלֶב חַגִּי עַד בֹּקֶר״ — עַד בּוֹקֶר הוּא דְּלָא יָלִין, הָא כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה כּוּלָּהּ יָלִין. וּכְתִיב: ״וְהִקְטִיר עָלֶיהָ חֶלְבֵי הַשְּׁלָמִים״ — עָלֶיהָ הַשְׁלֵם כׇּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת כּוּלָּן!

Rav Kahana raised a contradiction: It is written in one verse: “Neither may the fat of My festive-offering remain overnight until morning” (Exodus 23:18), which indicates that the fat may not remain overnight and into the morning hours, but it may remain all through the night. However, in another verse it is written: “And he shall burn upon it the fat of the peace-offerings” (Leviticus 6:5), and it is interpreted: Upon it you shall complete all the offerings, which indicates that the fats of all the offerings brought during the day must be burned before the daily afternoon offering.

הוּא מוֹתֵיב לַהּ וְהוּא מְפָרֵק לַהּ, כְּשֶׁנִּתּוֹתְרוּ.

Rav Kahana raised the objection and he resolved it: The verse which indicates that the fat may remain all through the night is referring to fats that were left over after the blood was sprinkled during the day, after the daily morning offering, and there was no opportunity to offer them on the altar before the daily afternoon offering. Although ideally they should be offered on the altar before the daily afternoon offering, if they were left over, they may be offered until morning.

רָמֵי לֵיהּ רַב סָפְרָא לְרַב: כְּתִיב ״לֹא יָלִין לַבֹּקֶר זֶבַח חַג הַפָּסַח״ — לַבֹּקֶר הוּא דְּלֹא יָלִין, הָא כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה יָלִין. וְהָכְתִיב: ״עוֹלַת שַׁבָּת בְּשַׁבַּתּוֹ״ — וְלֹא עוֹלַת חוֹל בְּשַׁבָּת, וְלֹא עוֹלַת חוֹל בְּיוֹם טוֹב!

Similarly, Rav Safra raised a contradiction before Rav: In one verse it is written: “Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of Passover be left over until morning” (Exodus 34:25), from which it can be inferred that it may not remain overnight and into the morning hours, but it may remain all through the night. Accordingly, the fats of a Paschal lamb that was slaughtered on a weekday Passover eve may be offered on the altar on the night of the Festival. However, elsewhere it is written: “The burnt-offering of each Shabbat on its own Shabbat in addition to the continual burnt-offering and its libation” (Numbers 28:10), from which it is derived that the burnt-offering of a weekday is not offered on Shabbat, and the burnt-offering of a weekday is not offered on a Festival. Therefore, it should be prohibited to burn the fats of the Paschal lamb on the altar on the Festival, as it is a weekday offering and consequently may not be offered on a Festival.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּבָר רַמְיַיהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ רַב אַבָּא בַּר חִיָּיא לְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, וְשַׁנִּי לֵיהּ: הָכָא בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת עָסְקִינַן, דְּחֶלְבֵי שַׁבָּת קְרֵיבִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב.

Rav said to him: Rav Abba bar Ḥiyya already raised this contradiction before Rabbi Abbahu, and he answered him: Here, in the verse that says that the fat may not remain overnight and into the morning hours but it may remain on the altar all through the night, we are dealing with a case where the fourteenth of Nisan occurs on Shabbat, as the fats of a Shabbat offering may be sacrificed on the altar on a Festival. It is only in that specific case that the fats of the Paschal lamb may be burned on the night of the Festival.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִשּׁוּם דְּחֶלְבֵי שַׁבָּת קְרֵיבִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב, אֲנַן נֵיקוּ וְנֵימָא לֵיהּ דְּהַאי קְרָא בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת הוּא דִּכְתִיב? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שִׁבְקֵיהּ לִקְרָא, דְּהוּא דָּחֵיק וּמוֹקֵים אַנַּפְשֵׁיהּ.

He said to him: Because the fats of Shabbat offerings may be sacrificed on a Festival, shall we arise and say that this verse is written exclusively with regard to the special case of the fourteenth of Nisan that occurs on Shabbat, and not with regard to the standard case? He said to him: Leave the interpretation of this verse alone, since it compels itself to be established as referring exclusively to this special case, because the contradiction needs to be resolved in some manner.

מַתְנִי׳ הַפָּסַח שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, וְקִבֵּל וְהִלֵּךְ וְזָרַק שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, אוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ וְלִשְׁמוֹ — פָּסוּל.

MISHNA: The Paschal lamb that the priest slaughtered not for its own purpose, i.e., at the time of slaughter he said that his intent was to slaughter it as a different offering, e.g., a peace-offering or burnt-offering, rather than as a Paschal lamb; or if the priest received the blood, or carried the blood to the altar, or sprinkled the blood on the altar while saying that it was not for the purpose of the Paschal lamb; or if the priest performed the rites both for its own purpose and not for its own purpose; or not for its own purpose and for its own purpose; in all these cases, the Paschal lamb is disqualified.

כֵּיצַד לִשְׁמוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ? לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח וּלְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים. שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ וְלִשְׁמוֹ — לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים וּלְשֵׁם פֶּסַח.

How does one perform the rites for its own purpose and not for its own purpose? It is in a case where the priest said that his intent is for the purpose of the Paschal lamb and for the purpose of a peace-offering. And how does one perform rites not for its own purpose and for its own purpose? It is in a case where the priest says that the offering is for the purpose of a peace-offering and for the purpose of a Paschal lamb.

גְּמָ׳ בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: בַּעֲבוֹדָה אַחַת תְּנַן, אוֹ בִּשְׁתֵּי עֲבוֹדוֹת תְּנַן?

GEMARA: Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: The mishna says: For its own purpose and not for its own purpose. Did we learn in the mishna concerning a case where the priest had both intentions while performing one rite, i.e., he stated both intentions while slaughtering? Or, did we learn in the mishna concerning a case where the priest had the two intentions while performing two rites, i.e., during one rite he said that it was for its own purpose and in another of the four rites he said that it was not for its own purpose?

בַּעֲבוֹדָה אַחַת תְּנַן וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אַף בִּגְמַר דְּבָרָיו אָדָם נִתְפָּס.

Rav Pappa elaborates on the difference between these two different explanations. Shall we say that we learn in the mishna with regard to one rite, and therefore our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that a person is held accountable even for the conclusion of his statement? Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Meir disagree in the case of one who says: This animal is a burnt-offering and a peace-offering. Rabbi Yosei says that not only the beginning but also the conclusion of his statement is significant, and the animal has been consecrated as both a burnt-offering and a peace-offering. It is therefore unfit to be offered on the altar; rather, it must be sold when it develops a defect and the money used to purchase animals for both a burnt-offering and a peace-offering. And similarly in the case of our mishna, where the priest says that his intent is for the purpose of a Paschal lamb and for the purpose of a peace-offering, Rabbi Yosei would say that the animal has been slaughtered for both a Paschal lamb and a peace-offering, and is therefore disqualified.

דְּאִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר — הָא אָמַר: תְּפוֹס לָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן,

For if our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, surely he said: Hold one accountable for the first expression, and what he says after that is of no consequence. Rabbi Meir disagrees with Rabbi Yosei about the case of one who says: This animal is a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, for he maintains that the sacrifice has the status of a burnt-offering. Since the first term that he uttered was burnt-offering, the animal is consecrated as a burnt-offering, and it can no longer become a peace-offering. And similarly in the case of our mishna, where the priest says that his intent is for the purpose of a Paschal lamb and for the purpose of a peace-offering, Rabbi Meir would say that the animal has been slaughtered only for a Paschal lamb and the offering is fit.