Both the Mishnah and both opinions in the gmara (Chizkiyah and R Yochanan) unequivocally state that the only night permissible to eat a two-day-eating Korban (shlomim) is the night between the two days but not the night after the second day preceding the third say when it's burnt as nosar in the morning. Why then does Sifsei Chachomim at very end of today's parshah (Shlach), in quoting the very same pasuk that our daf quotes, say that the karban can be eaten the 2nd night- the night preceding the third morning when it's burnt!?
Dear Daniel,
The Sifsei Chachamim is not giving an exact quote. There is no such verse anywhere (see Shemos 12:10, 29:34, Vayikra 7:17, 19:6, 22:30).
He wants to prove that night follows the previous day (to explain Shirah on the 8th day).
His proof is from Todah (Vayikra 7:15), not Shelamim, which is eaten for only one day but can also be eaten that night, and is burned the next morning. His "verse" is the Torah's words concerning this Din.
All the best,
Reuven Weiner
Sifsei Chochim (below snapshot excerpt), directly quotes verbatim the pasuk in Vayikrah 19:6 (below snapshot) and refers to Shlomin not Todah (first word in preceding pasuk 5 -below snapshot).
Dear Daniel,
Your edition of Sifsei Chachamim was definitely edited! (No early edition has verse sources.) My older edition reads, "b'Yom Zivcho Ye'achel veha'Nosar Mimenu Ad Boker ba'Esh Yisaref." There is no such Pasuk like this; it is only to convey his point. See Vayikra 7:15-17.
Now, if you were the Sifsei Chachamim and you wanted to bring proof that night follows day, what case would you pick -- Todah or Shelamim? Only Todah can prove this point. And then, how would you show that you eat day 1 and burn day 2, when there is no direct Pasuk about the Todah? You would paraphrase the Pesukim concerning what is true about Todah. That is my opinion.
All the best,
Reuven Weiner
("Yavo ha'Tzad ha'Shlishi...")
It seems to me that the first 3 words of the Sifsei Chachamim's verse are the first 3 words of Vayikra 19:6, and the last 6 words of his verse are the last 6 words of Shemos 12:10. (The first of these Pesukim refers to Shelamim, and the second refers to Korban Pesach, but neither of them refer to Todah.) However, there is no verse in the Torah which is exactly the same as the Sifsei Chachamim's verse.
The Sifsei Chachamim is not a Rishon such that we would be obligated to try to reconcile his words.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
1) It is worth noting that there is another well-known statement of the Sifsei Chachomim, on a totally different issue, which is problematic Halachically. This is in Devarim 23:3.
Devarim 23:2 states that a Petzua Dacha or Krus Shofcho (a man with various injuries to his sexual organs) is not allowed to marry into Klal Yisroel. Verse 23:3 states that a mamzer is not allowed to marry in. Rashi on 23:3 writes that this means that a mamzer may not marry a Yisraelis.
2) Sifsei Chachomim asks why did Rashi not mention this in the previous verse; that a Petzua Dacha may not marry a Yisraelis?! Sifsei Chachomim answers that there is a difference between a mamzer and a petzua dacha; a mamzer is obliged to divorce his wife even if they have already married, whilst a petzua dacha may not marry her in the first place, but if they are already married, they need not separate.
3) This statement of the Sifsei Chachomim is against the Halacha. The Tur Even Ha-ezer beginning #116 writes that anyone who married a woman through a transgression, must be forced to divorce her. One of the examples that the Tur gives is a Petzua Dacha who married a Yisraelis.
4) Teshuvas Chasam Sofer Even Ha-ezer #19 DH v'Shuv also writes that what the Sifsei Chachomim wrote is incorrect; and that a petzua dacha must divorce his wife.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom