Study Pesachim folio 69A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
ורבי אליעזר, שבות דמצוה עדיף ליה.
And R' Eliezer rejects this refutation because, in his opinion, permitting a rabbinic decree for the sake of a mitzva is preferable. We cannot derive through an a fortiori inference that since rabbinic decrees were not permitted for optional activities associated with rejoicing on festivals, they must not be permitted for the purpose of a mitzva on Shabbat. This is because it is possible that they permitted rabbinic decrees for mitzva purposes due to the importance of the mitzva.
תניא אמר רבי אליעזר: ומה לי אם דחו מכשירי מצוה שלאחר שחיטה את השבת, דאיתעביד ליה מצוה — לא ידחו מכשירי מצוה שלפני שחיטה את השבת!
It was taught in a baraita: R' Eliezer said: What reason do I have? If actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva and are done after the slaughter, such as cleaning the intestines which is permitted according all opinions, override Shabbat even though the mitzva has already been done, is it possible to say that actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva and must be done before the slaughter do not also override Shabbat?
אמר לו רבי עקיבא: דמה לי אם דחו מכשירי מצוה שלאחר שחיטה את השבת, שהרי דחתה שחיטה את השבת, תאמר ידחו מכשירי מצוה שלפני שחיטה את השבת — שלא דחתה שחיטה את השבת. דבר אחר: שמא ימצא זבח פסול, ונמצא מחלל את השבת למפרע.
R' Akiva said to him: What reason do I have to reject this comparison? If actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva that are done after the slaughter override Shabbat, that is because slaughter has already overridden Shabbat and therefore an action that violates a rabbinic decree is performed, after Shabbat has already been overridden; can you say that actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva and are done before the slaughter should override Shabbat even though slaughter has not yet overridden Shabbat? Alternatively, R' Akiva has another reason: Perhaps the offering will be found to be disqualified due to a blemish and the person will be found to have violated Shabbat retroactively when he slaughtered the animal without fulfilling a mitzva.