Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 51a
you may not permit it in their presence? Said he to him, Yet was it not stated thereon, R. Hisda said: This refers to Cutheans.1 What is the reason in the case of Cutheans? Because they confound one thing [with another]!2 Then these people too [being ignorant] confound one thing [with another]? — Rather, said R. Ashi, we consider: if most of them eat rice [bread], a lay Israelite must not eat it [the hallah] in their presence, lest the law of hallah be [altogether] forgotten by them; but if most of them eat corn [bread], let a lay Israelite eat it in their presence, lest they come to separate [hallah] from what is liable upon what is exempt, and from what is exempt upon what is liable.3
[It was stated in] the text: ‘Things which are permitted, yet others treat them as forbidden, you may not permit it in their presence. Said R. Hisda: This refers to Cutheans’. Yet not [to] all people? Surely it was taught: Two brothers may bathe together,4 yet two brothers do not bathe [together] in Cabul.5 And it once happened that Judah and Hillel, the sons of R. Gamaliel, bathed together in Cabul, and the whole region criticized them, saying, ‘We have never seen such [a thing] in [all] our days;’ whereupon Hillel slipped away and went to the outer chamber,6 but he was unwilling to tell them, ‘You are permitted [to do this]’. [Again,] one may go out in slippers on the Sabbath,7 yet people do not go out in slippers in Beri.8 And it once happened that Judah and Hillel, the sons of R. Gamaliel, went out in slippers on the Sabbath in Beri, whereupon the whole district criticized them, saying, ‘We have never seen such [a thing] in [all] our days’; so they removed them and gave them to their [non-Jewish] servants, but they were unwilling to tell them, ‘You are permitted [to wear these].’ Again, one may sit on the stools of Gentiles on the Sabbath,9 yet people do not sit on the stools of Gentiles on the Sabbath in Acco.10 And it once happened that R. Simeon b. Gamaliel sat down on the stools of Gentiles on the Sabbath in Acco, and the whole district criticized him, saying, ‘We have never seen such [a thing] in [all] our days’. [Accordingly] he slipped down on to the ground, but he was unwilling to tell them, ‘You are permitted [to do this]’.11 — The people of the coastal region, since Rabbis are not common among them, are like Cutheans.12
As for [not sitting on] Gentiles’ stools, that is well, [the reason being] because it looks like [engaging] in buying and selling. [That they do not go out] in slippers too [is understandable], lest they fall off and they come to carry them four cubits in the street. But what is the reason that [brothers] do not bathe [together]? — As it was taught: A man may bathe with all, except with his father, his father-in-law, his mother's husband and his sister's husband.13 But R. Judah permits [a man to bathe] with his father, on account of his father's honour,14 and the same applies to his mother's husband. Then they [the people of Cabul] came and forbade [it] in the case of two brothers on account of [bathing with] his sister's husband.15
It was taught: A disciple must not bathe with his teacher, but if his teacher needs him, it is permitted.
When Rabbah b. Bar Hanah came,16 he ate of the stomach fat.17 Now, R. ‘Awira18 the Elder and Rabbah son of R. Huna visited him; as soon as he saw them, he hid19 it [the fat] from them. When they narrated it to Abaye he said to them, ‘He has treated you like Cutheans’. But does not Rabbah b. Bar Hanah agree with what we learned: WE LAY UPON HIM THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE PLACE WHENCE HE DEPARTED AND THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE PLACE WHITHER HE HAS GONE? — Said Abaye: That is only [when he goes] from [one town in] Babylonia to [another in] Babylonia, or from [a town in] Palestine to [another in] Palestine, or from [a town in] Babylonia to [another in] Palestine; but not [when he goes] from [a place in] Palestine to [another in] Babylonia, [for] since we submit to them,20 we do as they.21 R. Ashi said: You may even say [that this holds good when a man goes] from Palestine to Babylonia; this is, however, where it is not his intention to return; but Rabbah b. Bar Hanah had the intention of returning.
Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said to his son: My son, do not eat [this fat], whether in my presence or not in my presence. As for me who saw R. Johanan eat [it], R. Johanan is sufficient [an authority] to rely upon in his presence and not in his presence. [But] you have not seen him [eat it]; [therefore] do not eat, whether in my presence or not in my presence. Now, [one statement] of his disagrees with [another statement] of his. For Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said: R. Johanan b. Eleazar related to me: I once followed R. Simeon son of R. Jose b. Lakuna into a kitchen garden,
(1) The people whom Shalmaneser settled in Samaria after the deportation of the Ten Tribes. They formally accepted Judaism, but as they retained many heathen practices, their religious status fluctuated, until they were finally declared heathens. In the present passage they are treated as Jews, but so lax as to require special laws.
(2) If they were treated with leniency in one case, their laxity in general would increase.
(3) Hallah can be separated from one piece of dough upon another piece, providing that both are liable; but if one is liable while the other is not, the separated piece is not hallah, while the other remains forbidden as tebel. Hence if they separate hallah from rice dough, which is really exempt, upon dough of wheat, which is liable, the latter remains tebel, and by eating it they transgress. Again, if they separate hallah from wheat dough upon itself and upon a rice dough, the former is not hallah but likewise tebel, and when it is given to the priest he eats tebel.
(4) Lit., ‘as one’ — without fear that this may induce a desire for pederasty.
(5) A place southeast of Acco. Though the fear of pederasty may seem far-fetched, this is not so when its prevalence in the Roman Empire is remembered; v. Weiss, Dor, 11, 21f.
(6) Of the baths.
(7) Though they are loose-fitting; we do not fear that they may fall off and the wearer will thus come to carry them in the street, which of course is forbidden.
(8) A town in Galilee.
(9) When they are engaged in business, and we do not fear that the Jew who sits down there will be suspected of doing the same.
(10) A town and harbour on the coast of Phoenicia.
(11) In all these instances Jews are referred to, yet we see that this law holds good.
(12) In that leniency may lead to laxity, where there is none to show them the difference between what is mere stringency and what is really prohibited by law.
(13) In their case this may lead to impure thoughts.
(14) He can perform some services for him and help him.
(15) Lest the latter be thought permitted too.
(16) From Palestine to Babylonia.
(17) The stomach is partly curved, like a bow, and partly straight, like the string of a bow, which is the meaning of the present word. The fat on the straight part of the stomach is really permitted, but in Babylonia it was treated as forbidden.
(18) Alfasi and Rosh read: ‘Awia.
(19) Lit., ‘covered’.
(20) We accept their jurisdiction.
(21) I.e., a Palestinian going to Babylonia may retain his home practice, for this cannot give rise to quarrels.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 51b
and he took the aftergrowth of the cabbage1 and ate it, and he gave [some] to me and said to me, ‘My son, in my presence you may eat,2 when not in my presence, you may not eat [it]. I who saw R. Simeon b. Yohai eat [it], — R. Simeon B. Yohai is [great] enough to rely upon in his presence and not in his presence; [but] you may eat in my presence, but do not eat [when] not in my presence’.3 What is [this reference to] R. Simeon? For it was taught, R. Simeon said: All aftergrowths are forbidden,4 except the aftergrowth of the cabbage, because there is none like them among the vegetables of the field;5 but the Sages maintain, All aftergrowths are forbidden. Now, both [state their views] on the basis of R. Akiba. For it was taught: Behold, we may not sow, nor gather in our increase.6 R. Akiba said: Now, since they do not sow, whence can they gather?7 Hence it follows that the aftergrowth is forbidden.8 Wherein do they differ? The Rabbis hold, We preventively forbid the aftergrowth of cabbage on account of other aftergrowths in general; whereas R. Simeon holds: We do not preventively forbid the aftergrowth of cabbage on account of [other] aftergrowths in general.9
HE WHO GOES FROM A PLACE etc. As for [teaching], HE WHO GOES FROM A PLACE WHERE THEY DO WORK TO A PLACE WHERE THEY DO NOT WORK . . . WE LAY UPON HIM THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE PLACE WHITHER HE HAS GONE, AND A MAN MUST NOT ACT DIFFERENTLY, ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUARRELS, that is well, and he must not work. But [if he goes] FROM A PLACE WHERE THEY DO NOT WORK TO A PLACE WHERE THEY DO WORK . . . A MAN MUST NOT ACT DIFFERENTLY, BECAUSE OF THE QUARRELS — [that is] he is to work? But you say, WE LAY UPON HIM THE RESTRICTION OR THE PLACE WHITHER HE HAS GONE AND THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE Place WHENCE HE HAS DEPARTED! — Said Abaye: It refers to the first clause.10 Raba said: After all it refers to the second clause, but this is its meaning: This does not come within [the scope of] differences which cause quarrels. What will you say: He who sees will say, ‘[He regards] work as forbidden?’11 [No:] they will indeed say, ‘How many unemployed are there in the market place!’12
R. Safra said to R. Abba:13 For instance I,14 who know [the art] of fixing the New Moon,15
(1) Rashi: It was in a Sabbatical year, and after the time when provisions must be removed from the house; v. p. 243, n. 1. Tosaf. maintains that ‘and he took’ implies that he pulled it out of the earth; thus it was still available for cattle, and therefore it was before the time of removal.
(2) Because you can rely upon me.
(3) Whereas Rabbah b.Bar Hanah told his son not to rely upon him even in his presence.
(4) After the time of removal (Rashi); v. however next note.
(5) Rashi offers two explanations the first of which he rejects. The second, about which he is also doubtful, is this: cabbages remain in the ground right through winter, whereas the aftergrowths of other vegetables are consumed earlier: hence we are more lenient with cabbages, because we can never apply to them the principle, ‘when it ceases for the beasts in the field, it must cease — (i.e., be removed from) the man in the house’. V. p. 251, n. 1, for a different interpretation.
(6) Lev. XXV, 20.
(7) Then why state ‘nor gather in our increase’?
(8) And to this they refer.
(9) R. Tam: the reference is to the time before the removal. Both R. Simeon and the Rabbis accept R. Akiba's view that the aftergrowth is Scripturally forbidden, but only that aftergrowth which is similar to sowing (seeds), for the verse, ‘we may not sow, nor gather in our increase, implies that ‘our increase,’ which refers to the aftergrowth, is similar to what ‘we may not sow’; but the cabbage plant has more affinity to trees then to seeds (v. Keth. 111b), hence it is not forbidden by Biblical law. This view is held by both, and they differ whether the cabbage aftergrowth is Rabbinically forbidden as a preventive measure or not. Another explanation is given in Tosaf. on quite different lines.
(10) I.e., HE MUST NOT ACT DIFFERENTLY if he goes FROM A PLACE WHERE THEY DO WORK TO A PLACE WHERE THEY DO NOT WORK.
(11) Though we permit it; do you fear that this will lead to strife?
(12) Raba explains the Mishnah thus: IF A MAN GOES FROM A PLACE WHERE THEY DO NOT WORK TO A PLACE WHERE THEY WORK . . . WE IMPOSE UPON HIM THE RESTRICTION OF THE PLACE WHENCE HE HAS DEPARTED. For the general principle that a man MUST NOT ACT DIFFERENTLY from the rest of the people was only ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUARRELS, whereas here we have no fear.
(13) Var. lec. Raba.
(14) [So Tosaf. and MS. M., cur. edd. ‘we’.]
(15) By Biblical law Festivals are holy on the first and the seventh days only (Pentecost one day altogether). But owing to uncertainty in early time about the exact day of New Moon, i.e., when the month began, it became a binding practice in the Diaspora to observe two days instead of one, and this remained binding even when New Moon was ascertained by mathematical calculation, which obviated all doubt.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 52a
in inhabited places I do not work,1 because it is a change [which would lead to] strife. [But] how is it in the wilderness? — Said he to him, Thus did R. Ammi say: In inhabited regions it is forbidden; in the desert it is permitted. R. Nathan b. Asia went from Rab's academy [in Sura]2 to Pumbeditha on the second Festival day of Pentecost, [whereupon] R. Joseph put him under the ban. Said Abaye to him, Yet let the master punish him with lashes? — Said he to him, I have treated him more severely, for in the West [sc. Palestine] they take a vote for punishing a disciple with lashes, yet they do not take a vote on the ban.3 Others say, R. Joseph had him lashed. Said Abaye to him, Yet let the Master ban him, for Rab and Samuel both said: We impose the ban for [the violation of] the two Festival days of the Diaspora? — Said he to him, That refers only to an ordinary person, but here it is a scholar, so I did what was better for him, for in the West they take a vote for punishing a disciple with lashes, yet they do not take a vote on the ban.
SIMILARLY, HE WHO TRANSPORTS SABBATICAL-YEAR PRODUCE etc. Does then R. Judah not accept what we learned, WE LAY ON HIM THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE PLACE WHENCE HE DEPARTED AND THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE PLACE WHITHER HE HAS GONE? — Said R. Shisha the son of R. Idi, R.Judah says4 a different thing, and this is its meaning: or from a place where it has not ceased to a place where it has not ceased, and then he heard that it had ceased in his town, he is bound to remove it. R. Judah said: [He can say,]5 ‘Do you too go out and procure [produce] for yourself from the place whence I have obtained it’, since it has not ceased for them.6 Shall we say that R. Judah [thus] rules leniently? But surely R. Eleazar said, R. Judah did not rule otherwise than stringently?7 Rather, reverse it: He is not bound to remove it.8 R. Judah said: [His townspeople can say to him], ‘Do you too go out [now] and obtain [produce] from the place whence you brought it [the produce you possess], and lo! it has ceased’.9 Abaye said: In truth it is as taught,10 and this is what he states: Or from a place where it has not ceased to a place where it has ceased, and [then] he brought it back to its place, and it has still not ceased [there], he is not bound to remove it. R. Judah said: [They can say to him,] ‘Go out and do you too bring [produce] from the place whence you have [now] brought it, and lo! it has ceased [there]’. To this R. Ashi demurred: According to R. Judah, has he then caught them [these restrictions] up on the back of an ass!11 Rather, said R. Ashi, [This enters] in the controversy of the following Tannaim. For we learned: If a man preserves three [kinds of] preserves In one barrel,12 — R. Eliezer said: One may eat [in reliance] upon the first [only];13 R. Joshua said: Even [in reliance] upon the last;14 R. Gamaliel said: Whatever kind has ceased from the field, he must remove that kind from the barrel, and the halachah is as his ruling.15
Rabina said, [It enters] into the controversy of the following Tannaim. For we learned:16 One may eat dates until the last in Zoar is finished;17 R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said:
(1) On the second day of Festivals. [I.e., when I happen to be in Babylon, v. infra p. 52a.]
(2) [Var. lec. ‘Biram’ on the West bank of the Euphrates. v. Asheri and MS.M. In Biram, which was the home of R. Nathan b. Asia, only a one day Festival was observed, v. R.H., Sonc. ed. p. 100, n. 2 and Obermeyer, p. 99].
(3) As the ban would damage his prestige more than corporal punishment. This proves that the ban is a severer punishment.
(4) [Var. lec. omit ‘R. Judah’ the reference being to the first Tanna, v. Rashi.]
(5) To the people of the place whence he came.
(6) Thus, he does not regard the practice of his own town, since they too can do as he.
(7) In this connection.
(8) I.e., insert the addition in the Mishnah thus: Or if he goes from a place where it has not ceased to a place where it has not ceased, and he then learns that it has ceased in his own town, he is not bound to remove it, as one cannot speak of the restrictions of the place whence he came, for when he left it there were as yet no restrictions.
(9) I.e., the fact remains that by now it has ceased in your own town, and the resultant law applies to yourself too just as to us.
(10) It refers to two dissimilar places, not to two similar places.
(11) So that he brings them back with him! The produce has neither grown in that second town nor does he consume it there: how then can he be subject to the restrictions of that place?
(12) I.e., three different vegetables. These may ‘cease from the field’ at different times — the reference is to the Sabbatical year.
(13) As soon as the first kind ‘ceases from the field’, he must declare the whole free to all, because their being preserved together makes them as one.
(14) He may go on eating of all three until the last kind has ceased from the field.
(15) Now in the Mishnah there is the same controversy. The first Tanna agrees with R. Joshua's lenient view, and this is what he means: If a man carries various kinds of produce from a place where they have not ceased to a place where all of them have ceased, he is bound to remove them. But if only some kinds have ceased, he may eat even of the kind which has ceased. R. Judah rules, One can say to him, ‘Go out and do you too bring of that kind from the field’, i.e., you will not find of that kind, and therefore you must remove it in accordance with R. Gamaliel.
(16) [The teaching that follows is not a Mishnah but a Baraitha, Tosef. Sheb. VII. Read accordingly with MS. M.: ‘It has been taught’.]
(17) Dates may be eaten in the whole of Judea until the last palm tree is finished in Zoar, a town near the Dead Sea (Gen. XIII, 10) particularly well-stocked with palm trees (v. Deut. XXXIV, 3, though ‘the city of palm trees’ mentioned there refers to Jericho, not Zoar).
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 52b
One may eat [in reliance] on those that are among the upper [overarching] boughs but one may not eat [in reliance] on those that are among the single prickly branches.1
We learned elsewhere: There are three [separate] districts2 in respect of removal: Judea, Transjordania and Galilee;3 and there are three districts in each of them separately.4 Then why did they say, There are [only] three districts in respect of removal?5 Because in each one they may eat until it [the produce] has ceased in the last [region] thereof.6 Whence do we know it? — Said R. Hama b. ‘Ukba in the name of R. Jose b. Hanina, Scripture saith, [And the sabbath-produce of the land shall be food for you...]and for thy cattle, and for the beasts that are in thy land:7 as long as the [wild] beasts can eat in the field, feed the cattle in the house;8 when there is no more for the beasts in the field, make an end of it for the cattle in the house;9 and we have it on tradition that the beasts in Judea do not live on the produce of Galilee, and the beasts in Galilee do not live on the produce of Judea.10
Our Rabbis taught: Produce which went from the Land11 abroad12 must be removed wherever it is.13 R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: They must go back to their [original] place and be removed, because it is said, ‘in thy land’. But you have utilized this?14 — Read therein, ‘in the land’, ‘in thy land’.15 Alternatively, [it is deduced] from, ‘that are [asher] in thy land’.16
R. Safra went from the Land abroad, [and] he had with him a barrel of wine of the Sabbath year. Now, R. Huna the son of R. Ika and R. Kahana accompanied him. He asked them, Is there any one who has heard from R. Abbahu17 [whether] the halachah is as R. Simeon b. Eleazar or not? — Said R. Kahana to him: Thus did R. Abbahu say: The halachah is as R. Simeon b. Eleazar. R. Huna the son of R. Ika [however] said to him, Thus did R. Abbahu say: The halachah is not as R. Simeon b. Eleazar. Said R. Safra, Accept this ruling of R. Huna,18 because he is meticulously careful to learn the laws from his teacher, like Rehabah of Pumbeditha. For Rehabah said in Rab Judah's name: The Temple Mount consisted of a double colonnade, [i.e.,] a colonnade within a colonnade.19 [Thereupon] R. Joseph applied to him [R. Safra] the verse, My people ask counsel at their stock, and their staff [makkelo] declareth unto them:20 whoever is lenient [mekal] to him, to him he concedes [right].21
R. Elai cut down date-berries of the Sabbatical year.22 How might he do thus: the Merciful One said, [It . . . shall be] for food,23 but not for destruction? And should you answer that is only where it has reached24 [the stage of] fruit,25 but not where it has not reached [the stage of] fruit, — surely R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: The calyxes26 of ‘orlah are forbidden, because they became a guard for the fruits. Now, when is it a guard for the fruits? When they are unripe berries, yet he calls them fruits! — R. Nahman ruled as R. Jose. For we learned, R. Jose said: The [berries of ‘orlah] in the budding stage [semadar] are forbidden, because they count as fruit; whereas the Rabbis disagree with him. To this R. Shimi of Nehardea demurred; yet do the Rabbis disagree with R. Jose in respect to other trees,27 — surely we learned, From when may you not cut down trees in the Sabbatical year?28 Beth Shammai maintain: All trees [may not be cut down] from when they bring forth;29 but Beth Hillel rule: The carob trees from when they form chains [of carobs]; the vine trees,
(1) The lower portion of the palm tree near the roots is surrounded with single prickly, thorn-like branches. Now, when a wind blows, the falling dates are retained both among the ordinary (upper) branches as well as the prickly ones. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel rules that you may eat only as long as there are dates among the higher branches, which are accessible; but those (in the prickly branches must be disregarded, since animals cannot take them because of the prickles. In our Mishnah the first Tanna means: When they have completely ceased, even from the prickly branches, he must remove them. Whereas R. Judah maintains that unless one can go and bring them, i.e., unless they are accessible, he must remove them, which means even if there are still dates on these thorn branches.
(2) Lit., ‘countries’.
(3) In each the time of removal is when the produce has ‘ceased from the field’ in that particular district.
(4) The produce ceasing in each at a different time.
(5) Instead of nine.
(6) Rash: until it has ceased in the last subdivision. Tosaf. explains it differently v. Shebi. IX, 2-3.
(7) Lev. XXV, 6f.
(8) I.e., domestic animals.
(9) I.e., you must no longer keep the produce in the house for your private needs.
(10) I.e., they do not stray so far in search of food (Rashi).
(11) I.e., Palestine, ‘the Land’ par excellence.
(12) Lit., ‘to without the Land.’
(13) The law of sabbatical produce, being dependent on the soil, is binding in Palestine only, v. Kid. 36b; yet it is also binding upon Palestine produce, even when transplanted elsewhere. Nevertheless, he is not bound to take it back to Palestine for removal, but can do it wherever he is.
(14) To show that one district cannot rely on another.
(15) I.e., Scripture could have written ‘in the land’, which would suffice for the present exegesis. In thy land intimates both.
(16) Asher is superfluous; hence it can be used for this purpose.
(17) Who was his teacher.
(18) Lit., ‘hold . . . in your hand’.
(19) V. supra 13b and Bezah, Sonc. ed. p. 54, n. 9. The point of the quotation is not clear. In Ber. 33b Rashi explains that Rehabah was careful to use the word setaw, the exact word used by his teacher, though the passage is based on a Mishnah (v. Supra 11b), where the word iztaba is used.
(20) Hos. IV, 12.
(21) A humorous play on words, connecting makkel, a staff, with mekal, he is lenient.
(22) I.e., before they ripened and were fit for food (R. Hananel); Rashi: he cut down the palm tree before the dates had ripened.
(23) Lev. XXV, 6.
(24) Lit., ‘descended to’.
(25) I.e., when it is ripe.
(26) Which surround the date in its early stage.
(27) Apart from the vine, to which the above refers.
(28) As stated above, they must be used for food, not for destruction. Now the question is: at what stage are their fruits regarded as food, so that the tree must not be cut down, but left until its fruit ripens.
(29) Rashi explains here: the first leaves
(preceding the fruits); but in Ber. 36b Rashi explains: when they bring forth the fruit; Strashun accepts the latter view.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 53a
from when they form kernels;1 olive trees, from when they blossom;2 and all other trees, from when they bring forth. Now R. Assi said thereon: Boser [half-ripe fruit], girua’ [formation of kernels], and the white bean are identical.3 ‘The white bean can you think so!4 — Rather, say, its size is that of the white bean. Now, whom do you know to maintain that boser is fruit, but not semadar? The Rabbis.5 Yet it is stated, ‘and all other trees, from when they bring forth?’6 — Rather, R. Ilai cut down nishane.7
Our Rabbis taught: One may eat grapes [of the Sabbatical year] until the espalier branches of okel8 are finished. If there are later ones than these, one may eat [in reliance] on them.9 One may eat olives until the last of Tekoa10 is finished. R. Eliezer said: Until the last of Gush-Heleb11 is finished, so that a poor man should go out and not find a quarter12 either on the branches or on the stem. One may eat dried figs until the unripe figs [pagge] of Beth Hini13 are finished. Said R. Judah: The unripe figs of Beth Hini were not mentioned except in connection with tithe, for we learned,14 The unripe figs of Beth Hini and the dates15 of Tobanya16 are subject to tithe.17 ‘One may eat dates until the last in Zoar is finished; R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: One may eat [in reliance] on those that are among the upper [overarching] branches, but you may not eat [in reliance] on those that are among the single prickly branches.’ But the following contradicts this: One may eat grapes until Passover; olives until Pentecost; dried figs until Hanukkah;18 [and] dates until Purim.19 Now R. Bibi said, R. Johanan transposes the last two!20 — Both are one [the same] limit. Alternatively, surely it is explicitly taught, ‘If there are later ones than these, one may eat [in reliance] on them.’21
It was taught, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: An indication of mountainous country is [the presence of] millin;22 an indication of valleys is palm trees; an indication of streams is reeds; an indication of lowlands is the sycamore tree. And though there is no proof of the matter, there is an allusion to the matter, for it is said, And the king made silver to be in Jerusalem as stones, and cedars made he to be as the sycamore trees that are in the lowland, for abundance.23
‘An indication of mountainous country is [the presence of] millin; an indication of valleys is palm trees.’ The practical difference is in respect of first fruits. For we learned: First fruits are not brought of any save the seven species,24 nor of the palm trees in the highlands nor of the fruits in the valleys.25 ‘An indication of streams is reeds.’ The practical difference is in respect of the rough valley’ [nahal ethan].26 ‘An indication of lowlands is the sycamore tree.’ The practical difference is in respect of buying and selling.27 Now that you have arrived at this, all the [others] too are in respect of buying and selling.
MISHNAH. WHERE IT IS THE PRACTICE TO SELL SMALL CATTLE28 TO HEATHENS, ONE MAY SELL; WHERE IT IS THE PRACTICE NOT TO SELL,29 ONE MAY NOT SELL. AND IN ALL PLACES ONE MAY NOT SELL LARGE CATTLE TO THEM, [NOR] CALVES OR FOALS, WHETHER SOUND OR MAIMED.30 R. JUDAH PERMITS IN THE CASE OF A MAIMED [ONE].31 THE SON OF BATHYRA PERMITTED IT IN THE CASE OF A HORSE.32 WHERE IT IS THE CUSTOM TO EAT ROAST [MEAT] ON THE NIGHT OF PASSOVER, ONE MAY EAT[IT]; WHERE IT IS THE CUSTOM NOT TO EAT [IT],33 ONE MAY NOT EAT [IT].
GEMARA. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: A man is forbidden to say, ‘This meat shall be for Passover,’ because it looks as though he is sanctifying his animal and eating sacred flesh without [the Temple]. Said R. Papa: This applies only to meat, but not to wheat, because he means, It is to be guarded [from fermenting] for Passover. But not ‘meat’? An objection is raised: R. Jose said, Thaddeus of Rome34 accustomed the Roman [Jews] to eat helmeted goats35 on the nights of Passover. [Thereupon] they [the Sages] sent [a message] to him: If you were not Thaddeus, we would proclaim the ban against you, because you make Israel eat sacred flesh without [the Temple]. ‘Sacred flesh’ — can you think so?36 — Rather say,
(1) Or, ovules containing moisture (v. Jast. s.v. גרע II).
(2) I.e., when their blossoms, a calyx-like growth, come forth.
(3) Lit., ‘that is boser, that is’ etc. I.e., the three terms indicate the same stage. The Mishnah often speaks of these.
(4) We are discussing the vine!
(5) For R. Jose maintains that even semadar, which denotes an earlier stage, is fruit.
(6) Thus they agree with R. Jose in respect to other trees.
(7) Stunted dates of palms whose fruit never matures.
(8) Cur. ed. ‘Ar. (also quoted by Rashi) reads: Abel, i.e., the branches of Abel Cheramim (lit., ‘the palm of the vine-yards’ — v. Jud. XI, 33), situate six or seven Roman miles from Philadelphia (Rabbath-Ammon), and as its name implies, famous for its vineyards; v. J.E. s.v.
(9) I.e., as long as they are yet on the branches.
(10) A city of southern Judea often mentioned in the Bible (e.g., II Sam. XIV, 2f; Amos I, 1; II Chron. XI, 6), and famous for the abundance of its olives, v. Men. 85b.
(11) Lit., ‘fat ground’, (Gush-heleb) or Giscala in Galilee, not far from Tyre (Neub. Geogr. p. 230), was rich in oil; Josephus, Vita, 13; Men. 85b; v. J.E. s.v. Giscala.
(12) I.e., a log.
(13) Bethania, near Jerusalem; v. Neub. op. cit., 149f. Pagge are probably a species of figs that never reach full maturity, but are nevertheless fit for eating.
(14) ‘We learned’ is absent in this passage as quoted in ‘Er. 28b. [It is a Baraitha (Tosef. Sheb. VII) and not a Mishnah.]
(15) Ahina (pl. ahini) is a species of late and inferior dates.
(16) Name of a certain place.
(17) But these figs do not determine the time for the removal of figs.
(18) The Feast of Lights, commencing on the twenty-fifth of Kislev and lasting for eight days. It generally fails in the latter half of December.
(19) ‘Lots’ — the minor Festival in celebration of Haman's downfall. It is held on the fourteenth of Adar, and generally occurs in March.
(20) I.e., dried figs until Purim, and dates until Hanukkah. By then the various kinds mentioned have disappeared from the field; thus this conflicts with the previous statement.
(21) Thus even if these are different time-limits, the later one is stated in accordance with this teaching.
(22) Milla pl. millin, a species of oak from which the gall-nut is collected (quercus infectoria). Jast.
(23) I Kings X, 27.
(24) Enumerated in Deut. VIII, 8; a land of wheat and barley, and vines and fig trees and pomegranates; a land of olive trees and honey.
(25) Because these are of inferior quality. The same idea is expressed by R. Simeon b. Gamaliel when he says that palm trees are an indication of valleys, i.e., the best grow in the valleys. His other statements bear a similar meaning.
(26) V. Deut. XXI,4 . Nahal is a stream which in summer dries up and leaves a valley bed. The presence of reeds along the margin of the valley indicates that this is a fitting place for the purpose.
(27) If a man sells a lowland estate it must contain sycamores (Rashi). Or, if a man sells sycamore trees, guaranteeing them to be of the best quality, they must be from lowland country.
(28) E.g., sheep and goats.
(29) For fear that large cattle too may be sold to them; v. n. 5.
(30) Large cattle, because they are thereby deprived of the Sabbath rest (v. A.Z. 15a); calves or foals, being the young of large cattle, as a preventive measure; maimed, likewise as a preventive measure on account of whole animals.
(31) Because it is unfit for work and will immediately be killed for food. Therefore the few will not see it in the heathen's possession, and so will not come to sell him others too.
(32) The main use of a horse is for riding, and riding on the Sabbath, even by a Jew, is not regarded as Scripturally forbidden but merely as a shebuth (v. Glos.).
(33) This means after the destruction of the Temple. While the Temple stood the Passover sacrifice was eaten roast (Ex. XII, 8). Consequently, when the Temple was no more it became the practice to refrain from eating roast meat on the night of Passover, so that it should not appear that a sacrifice was brought without the Temple, which is forbidden.
(34) Lit., ‘a man of Rome’.
(35) Goats roasted whole with the entrails and the legs on the head, like a helmet
(the verb kalas denotes to put on a helmet). That is how the Passover sacrifice was roasted, v. infra 74a.
(36) Surely the goats were not dedicated as sacrifices.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 53b
It is near to making Israel eat sacred flesh without [the Temple].1 [Thus,] only a ‘helmeted’ goat,2 but not if it is not ‘helmeted’? — I will tell you: if it is ‘helmeted’, there is no difference whether he stated3 or he did not state; [but] if it is not ‘helmeted’, if he specified, it is [forbidden]; if he did not specify, it is not [forbidden].
R. Aha learned this Baraitha as [the statement of] R. Simeon.4 To this R. Shesheth demurred: It is well according to him who learns it as [the statement of] R. Jose; then it is correct. But according to him who learns it as [the statement of] R. Simeon, is it correct?, Surely we learned, R. Simeon declares him exempt, because he did not make the offering in the way which people make [this] offering!5 Said Rabina to R. Ashi: And is it correct [even] according to him who learns it as [the statement of] R. Jose? Surely Raba said: R. Simeon stated this according to the view of R. Jose, who maintained: A man is held responsible6 for his last words too. Surely then, since R. Simeon agrees with R. Jose, R. Jose also agrees with R. Simeon?7 — No: R. Simeon agrees with R. Jose, but R. Jose does not agree with R. Simeon.8 The scholars asked: Was Thaddeus, the man of Rome, a great man or a powerful man?9 — Come and hear: This too did Thaddeus of Rome teach: What [reason] did Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah see that they delivered themselves, for the sanctification of the [Divine] Name,10 to the fiery furnace? They argued a minori to themselves: if frogs, which are not commanded concerning the sanctification of the [Divine] Name, yet it is written of them, and they shall come up and go into thy house . . . and into thine ovens, and into thy kneading troughs:11 when are the kneading troughs to be found near the oven? When the oven is hot.12 We, who are commanded concerning the sanctification of the Name, how much the more so.13 R. Jose b. Abin said: He cast merchandise into the
Passover-sacrifice at the time of roasting, this is not the way in which people consecrate animals: therefore his words are invalid. pockets of scholars.14 For R. Johanan said: Whoever casts merchandise into the pockets of scholars will be privileged to sit in the Heavenly Academy, for it is said, for wisdom is a defence even as money is a defence.15
MISHNAH. WHERE IT IS THE PRACTICE TO LIGHT A LAMP [AT HOME] ON THE NIGHT OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT,16 ONE MUST LIGHT [ONE]; WHERE IT IS THE PRACTICE NOT TO LIGHT [A LAMP], ONE MUST NOT LIGHT [ONE]. AND WE LIGHT [LAMPS] IN SYNAGOGUES, SCHOOL-HOUSES, AND DARK ALLEYS, AND FOR THE SAKE OF INVALIDS.
GEMARA. It was taught: Whether they maintained that we should light [lamps] or they maintained that we should not light [them], both intended [it] for the same purpose.17 R. Joshua said, Raba lectured: Thy people also shall all be righteous, they shall inherit the land for ever: etc.18 whether they maintained that we should light [lamps] or they maintained that we should not light [them], both intended nought but the same purpose.
Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: We do not recite a blessing over light except at the termination of the Sabbath, since it was then created for the first time.19 Said a certain old man to him-others state, Rabbah b. Bar Hanah — ‘Well spoken! and thus [too] did R. Johanan say.
‘Ulla was going along, riding an ass, while R. Abba proceeded at his right and Rabbah b. Bar Hanah at his left. Said R. Abba to ‘Ulla: Do you indeed say in R. Johanan's name: We do not recite a blessing over light except at the termination of the Sabbath, since it was then created for the first time? ‘Ulla turned round and looked at Rabbah b. Bar Hanah with displeasure.20 Said he to him, I said it not in reference to that but in reference to this.21 For a tanna recited before R. Johanan, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: When the Day of Atonement falls on the Sabbath, even where they maintain that we must not light [a lamp], we do light [it] in honour of the Sabbath; which R. Johanan followed with the remark,22 But the Sages forbid it. Said he to him, Let it be this.23 R. Jose applied to this the verse, Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water’;
(1) I.e., it is similar to sacrifices,
(2) Should be forbidden.
(3) That it was for Passover.
(4) Not R. Jose.
(5) V. Men. 103a. If a man declares, ‘I vow a meal-offering of barley’, the first Tanna rules that he must bring a meal-offering of wheat. For a man's liabilities are determined by his first words only, where these contradict his last words. Thus, when he declared, ‘I vow a meal-offering’, this is a binding vow; when he adds ‘of barley’, this is impossible, since only wheat is permitted; therefore his first words are binding. But R. Simeon maintains that he must be judged by his last words too: hence he really meant a meal-offering of barley, thinking that this is permitted; consequently his entire statement is invalid, and he is exempt. Now, in this case, how could it be regarded as near to sacred flesh? He did not consecrate the animal whilst alive, and even if he designated it a
(6) Lit., ‘seized’.
(7) That a vow made in an unusual manner is not binding. Hence the same difficulty arises according to R. Jose.
(8) He maintains that even when a vow is not made in a usual manner it must be taken into account, because no man speaks without a purpose. Hence though R. Simeon bases his ruling on R. Jose's view, R. Jose himself does indeed hold that a man is held responsible for his last words too, but only when both his first words and his last can take effect (v. Tem. 25b); but where his last words would completely nullify his statement, as here, they are disregarded; hence the vower is liable to a wheat meal-offering (Maharsha). So here too, if he declared at the roasting, ‘This be for a Passover sacrifice’, though such a vow is unusual, I would say that he means that a sacrifice shall be bought with its monetary value. Thus it is ‘near to sacred flesh’ on R. Jose's view. But according to R. Simeon this is a real difficulty, which remains unanswered.
(9) Lit., ‘a man of fists’. — On what grounds did they refrain from imposing the ban?
(10) This is one of the great principles of Judaism: a man must by his actions sanctify the Divine Name, i.e., prove his deep conviction of the truth of Judaism even to the extent of suffering for it, and thereby shed lustre and glory upon it.
(11) Ex. VII, 28.
(12) And yet at God's command they entered them.
(13) This quotation shows that he was a great scholar.
(14) I.e., he gave them opportunities for trading.
(15) Eccl. VII, 12. R. Johanan translates: he will enter within the precincts (lit., ‘shadow’) of wisdom, who brings a scholar within the protection of his wealth.
(16) I.e., before it commences, so that it should burn through the night.
(17) viz., to curb their desire for sexual indulgence. The former argued that this would be the better effected by the presence of a lamp, because darkness is generally required; while the latter held that a lamp would strengthen his desire, as he could see his wife by the light.
(18) Isa. LX, 21.
(19) Lit., ‘that was the beginning of its creation’ on the evening of the first day.
(20) For misrepresenting R. Johanan's view.
(21) [MS. M.: I did not say this but that.]
(22) Lit., ‘and R. Johanan answered after him’.
(23) I admit this to be right.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 54a
but a man of understanding will draw it out.1 ‘Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water’ — this applies to ‘Ulla;2 ‘but a man of understanding will draw it out’ — this applies to Rabbah b. Bar Hanah.3 And in accordance with whom did they hold their view?4 — In accordance with the following which R. Benjamin b. Japheth said in R. Johanan's name: We recite a blessing over light both at the termination of the Sabbath and at the termination of the Day of Atonement, and that is the popular practice. An objection is raised: We do not recite a blessing over light except at the termination of the Sabbath, since it was then created for the first time; and as soon as he sees [it] he immediately recites a blessing. R. Judah said: He recites them5 in order over the cup [of wine]. Now R. Johanan said thereon: The halachah is as R. Judah? — There is no difficulty: here the reference is to light that has burnt over the Sabbath;6 there it refers to light which issues from tinder and stones.7 One [Baraitha] taught: We can recite a blessing over light which issues from tinder and stones; [while] another taught: We cannot recite a blessing over it? — There is no difficulty: one refers to the termination of the Sabbath, [and] the other refers to the termination of the Day of Atonement.
Rabbi used to ‘scatter’ them.8 R. Hiyya ‘collected’ them.9 R. Isaac b. Abdimi said: Though Rabbi scattered them, he subsequently repeated them in [their] order over the cup [of wine], so as to quit his children and household [of their obligation].10 Yet was light created at the termination of the Sabbath? Surely It was taught: Ten things were created on the eve of the Sabbath at twilight. These are they: the well,11 the manna, the rainbow,12 the writing13 and the writing instrument[s], the Tables,14 the sepulchre of Moses, the cave in which Moses and Elijah stood,15 the opening of the ass's mouth,16 and the opening of the earth's mouth to swallow up the wicked.17 R. Nehemiah said in his father's name: Also fire and the mule.18 R. Josiah said in his father's name: Also the ram19 and the shamir.20 R. Judah said: Tongs too. He
new thing to the person, since he did not benefit from the light during the day. used to say: Tongs are made with tongs;21 then who made the first tongs? Hence in truth it was22 a Heavenly creation. Said they to him, it is possible to make it in a mould and shape it simultaneously.23 Hence in truth it is of human manufacture!24 — There is no difficulty: one refers to our fire, the other to the fire of the Gehenna.25 Our fire [was created] at the termination of the Sabbath; the fire of the Gehenna, on the eve of the Sabbath.
Yet was the fire of the Gehenna created on the eve of the Sabbath? Surely it was taught: Seven things were created before the world was created, and these are they: The Torah, repentance, the Garden of Eden, Gehenna, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, and the name of the Messiah. The Torah, for it is written, The Lord made me [sc. the Torah] as the beginning of his way.26 Repentance, for it is written, Before the mountains were brought forth, and it is written, Thou turnest man to contrition, and sayest, Repent, ye children of men.27 The Garden of Eden, as it is written, And the Lord planted a garden in Eden from aforetime.28 The Gehenna, for it is written, For Tophet [i.e., Gehenna] is ordered of old.29 The Throne of Glory and the Temple, for it is written, Thou throne of glory, on high from the beginning, Thou place of our sanctuary.30 The name of the Messiah, as it is written, His [sc. the Messiah's] name shall endure for ever, and has exited before the sun!31 — I will tell you: only its cavity was created before the world was created, but its fire [was created] on the eve of the Sabbath.
Yet was its fire created on the eve of the Sabbath? Surely it was taught, R. Jose said: The fire which the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the second day of the week shall never be extinguished,32 as it is said, And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have rebelled against me,’ for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched?33 Again, R. Bana'ah son of R. ‘Ulla said: Why was ‘it was good’ not said concerning the second day of the week?34 Because the fire of the Gehenna was created therein. Also R. Eleazar said, Although ‘it was good’ was not said in connection with it, yet He re-included it in the sixth, as it is said, And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good.35 — Rather, the cavity [was made] before the world was created, and its fire on the second day of the week; while as for our fire, on the eve of the Sabbath He decided36 to create it, but it was not created until the termination of the Sabbath. For it was taught, R. Jose said: Two things He decided to create on the eve of the Sabbath, but they were not created until the termination of the Sabbath, and at the termination of the Sabbath the Holy One, blessed be He, inspired Adam with knowledge of a kind similar to Divine [knowledge],37 and he procured two stones and rubbed them on each other, and fire issued from them; he also took two [heterogenous] animals and crossed them, and from them came forth the mule. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: The mule came into existence in the days of Anah, for it is said, This is the Anah who found the mules38 in the wilderness.39 Those who interpret symbolically40 used to say: Anah was unfit,41 therefore he brought unfit [animals]42 into the world, for it is said, These are the sons of Seir the Horite [. . . And Zibeon and Anah],43 while it is written, And these are the children of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah.44 Hence it teaches that Zibeon cohabited with his mother and begat Anah by her. But perhaps there were two Anahs? Said Raba: I say a thing which [even] King Shapur could not say, and who is that? Samuel. Others say, R. Papa said: I say a thing which even King Shapur did not say, and who is that? Raba.45 The Writ saith, that is Anah [meaning], that is the original Anah.46
Our Rabbis taught: Ten things were created on the eve of the Sabbath at twilight, and these are they: The well, manna, the rainbow, writing, the writing instruments, the Tables, the sepulchre of Moses and the cave in which Moses and Elijah stood, the opening of the ass's mouth, and the opening of the earth's mouth to swallow up the wicked. While some say, Also Aaron's staff, its almonds and its blossoms.47 Others say, The harmful spirits [demons] too. Others say, Also
(1) Prov. XX, 5.
(2) Who understood from R. Abba the error of Rabbah b. Bar Hanah.
(3) He understood why ‘Ulla looked at him with displeasure, though he gave no reason.
(4) viz., ‘Ulla and Rabbah, who would not accept R. Abba's ruling.
(5) Various blessings which are to be recited on the termination of Sabbath.
(6) It had burnt during the day. Nevertheless it had observed the Sabbath, as it were, in that it was lit in permitted circumstances, e.g.. for an invalid or a woman about to be delivered of child. Or in the case of the Day of Atonement, it had been lit prior to its commencement. There a blessing is recited at the termination of the latter too, because it is as a
(7) I.e., which is made now. A blessing over this is recited only at the termination of the Sabbath, when light was likewise created for the first time, but not at the termination of the Day of Atonement.
(8) Immediately he saw light after the termination of the Sabbath he recited the appropriate blessing. Later, when spices were brought to him, he recited a further blessing over them. Thus the blessings were ‘scattered’.
(9) He recited both blessings together over a cup of wine, as is the present practice.
(10) I.e., he recited the blessings a second time on their behalf.
(11) The Well of Miriam which followed the Israelites in the Wilderness; v. Num. XXI, .16-18, which some relate to this.
(12) V. Gen. IX, 13f.
(13) I.e., the shape of letters.
(14) Ex. XXXII, 16.
(15) When God allowed them to see His glory; v. Ex. XXXIII, 22; I Kings XIX, 9.
(16) Num. XXII, 28.
(17) Ibid. XVI, 30. That these last two should happen when the need arose was decreed at the time of the creation.
(18) The mule is regarded as a hybrid, as stated infra. But according to R. Nehemiah, the first was created directly, and was not the result of cross-breeding.
(19) Which Abraham offered as a substitute for Isaac, Gen. XXII, 13; it was ordained at the Creation that the ram should thus be ready to hand.
(20) A legendary worm used for the building of the Temple. It was laid upon the stones and cut through them, and so obviated the need for iron tools, in conformity with Ex. XX, 22; v. I Kings VI, 7 and Git. 68a.
(21) The already manufactured tongs must hold the iron on the anvil as it is beaten out into another pair of tongs.
(22) Lit., ‘was this not etc.?’
(23) Without beating it out.
(24) For the whole passage v. Ab. V, 5 and notes a.l. in Sonc. ed. pp. 62-64. — This shows that fire was created already on Sabbath eve.
(25) Hell or purgatory.
(26) Prov. VIII, 22.
(27) Ps. XC, 2f. ‘Before’ etc. applies to ‘repent’.
(28) Gen. II, 8.
(29) Isa. XXX, 33.
(30) Jer. XVII, 12.
(31) Ps. LXXII, 17. — Thus the Gehenna was created before the world. — The general idea of this Baraitha is that these things are indispensable pre-requisites for the orderly progress of mankind upon earth. The Torah, the supreme source of instruction; the concept of repentance, in recognition that ‘to err is human’, and hence, if man falls, the opportunity to rise again; the Garden of Eden and the Gehenna, symbolizing reward and punishment; the Throne of Glory and the Temple, indicating that the goal of Creation is that the Kingdom of God (represented by the Temple) shall be established on earth, as it is in heaven; and finally, the name of the Messiah, i.e., the assurance that God's purpose will ultimately be achieved.
(32) Because it is the fire of the Gehenna.
(33) Isa. LXVI, 24.
(34) In which the world was created.
(35) Gen. I, 31.
(36) Lit., ‘it came up in (His) intention’.
(37) Lit., ‘of above’.
(38) E.V. ‘hot Springs’.
(39) Gen. XXXVI, 24.
(40) דורשי המורות Lit., ‘those who interpret (Scripture) as jewels’, i.e., as ethical teachings. Levi connects the phrase with הומר a beautiful and graceful gazelle, i.e., those who teach with charming and graceful interpretations.
(41) Pasul, i.e., the issue of an incestuous union.
(42) I.e., the offsprings of hetereogeneous breeding, i.e., one sees in this the teaching that evil begets evil.
(43) Gen. XXXVI, 20.
(44) Ibid. 24. In the first verse Anah appears as Zibeon's brother, whereas in the second he is his son.
(45) Shapur I, King of Persia, was a contemporary of Samuel, while Shapur II was a contemporary of Raba. These names are applied here to Samuel and Raba, as indicating their acknowledged authority in learning. v. MGWJ. 1936, p. 217.
(46) Identical with the first mentioned.
(47) V. Num. XVII, 23. This too was ordained at the Creation.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 54b
Adam's raiment.1 Our Rabbis taught: Seven things are hidden2 from men. These are they: the day of death, and the day of comfort,3 the depth [extent] of judgment;4 and a man does not know what is in his neighbour's heart; and a man does not know from what he will earn; and when the Davidic dynasty will return;5 and when the wicked kingdom6 will come to an end. Our Rabbis taught: Three things [God] willed to come to pass,7 and if He had not willed them, it would be but right that He should will them. And these are they: Concerning a corpse, that it should become offensive; and concerning a dead person, that he should be forgotten from the heart; and concerning produce, that it should rot;8 and some say, concerning coins, that they should enjoy currency.9
MISHNAH. WHERE IT IS THE CUSTOM TO DO WORK ON THE NINTH OF AB,10 ONE MAY DO IT; WHERE IT IS THE CUSTOM NOT TO DO WORK, ONE MAY NOT DO IT. AND IN ALL PLACES SCHOLARS CEASE [FROM WORK ON THAT DAY]. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: A MAN MAY ALWAYS MAKE HIMSELF A SCHOLAR.11
GEMARA. Samuel said: There is no public fast in Babylonia save the Ninth of Ab alone.12 Shall we say that Samuel holds, [with regard to] the Ninth of Ab, its twilight is forbidden;13 but Samuel said: [with regard to] the Ninth of Ab, its twilight is permitted? And should you say, Samuel holds, The twilight of every public fast is permitted, — surely we learned: One must eat and drink while it is yet day. Now what is this to exclude is it not to exclude twilight? No: it is to exclude after nightfall. Shall we say that this supports him? [It was taught:] There is no difference between the Ninth of Ab and the Day of Atonement except that with the latter, its doubt is forbidden, while with the former, its doubt is permitted. What does ‘its doubt is permitted’ mean? Surely [that refers to] twilight? — No, [but] as R. Shisha the son of R. Idi said,14 It is in respect of the fixing of New Moon; so here too it is in respect of the fixing of the New Moon.15
Raba lectured: Pregnant women and suckling women must fast and complete [the fast] on that day [the Ninth of Ab], just as they fast and complete [the fast] on the Day of Atonement; and the twilight thereof is forbidden. And they said likewise in R. Johanan's name. Yet did R. Johanan say thus? Surely R. Johanan said: The Ninth of Ab is not like a public fast. Surely that means in respect of twilight? — No: in respect of work.16 [You say], ‘Work’! we have learned it: WHERE IT IS THE CUSTOM TO DO WORK ON THE NINTH OF AB, ONE MAY DO IT; WHERE IT IS THE CUSTOM NOT TO DO WORK, ONE MAY NOT DO IT. And even R. Simeon b. Gamaliel merely says that if he sits and does not work it does not look like conceit, yet he certainly does not forbid it? — Rather, what does ‘is not like a public fast’ mean? In respect of the Ne'ilah service.17 But surely R. Johanan said: Would that a man would go on praying all day!18 — There it is a [statutory] obligation, whereas here It is voluntary.19 Another alternative [answer] is, ‘What does ‘it is not like a public fast’ mean? In respect of the twenty-four [benedictions].20
R. Papa said: What does ‘it is not like a public fast’ mean? It is not like the first ones but like the last [ones].21 An objection is raised: There is no difference between the Ninth of Ab and the Day of Atonement except that with the latter, its doubt is forbidden, while with the former, its doubt is permitted. Now what does ‘its doubt is permitted’ mean? Does it not refer to its twilight? — Said R. Shisha son of R. Idi: No: [It is meant] in respect of the fixing of New Moon.
Hence in all [other] regulations they are alike. This supports R. Eleazar. For R. Eleazar said: A man is forbidden to dip his finger in water on the Ninth of Ab, just as he is forbidden to dip his finger in water on the Day of Atonement. An objection is raised: There is no difference between the Ninth of Ab and a public fast except that on one work22 is forbidden, while on the other work is permitted, where it is customary. This [implies that] in all [other] matters they are both alike; whereas in respect to a public fast it was taught, When they [the Sages] ruled, Bathing is forbidden, they spoke only of the whole body, but not of a man's face, hands, and feet?23 — Said R. Papa:
(1) This probably refers to Gen. III, 21: And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them (Rashi).
(2) Lit., ‘covered’.
(3) No man knows when he will be relieved of his anxieties.
(4) Sc. Divine Judgment (Rashi).
(5) This was probably said in order to discourage those who tried to calculate the advent of the Messiah on the basis of Scripture; cf. Sanh. 97a.
(6) A covert allusion to Rome (Rashi).
(7) Lit., ‘came up in (God's) intention to be created’.
(8) If kept too long. This is necessary in order to restrain the producer from withholding supplies and thus artificially raising the prices.
(9) For the benefit of the poor who have no other means of obtaining sustenance (v. Marginal Glosses).
(10) Which is a fast-day in commemoration of the destruction of the Temple.
(11) I.e., he may abstain from work even if he is not a scholar.
(12) I.e., if a public fast is proclaimed, it does not commence on the previous evening, nor is work forbidden, even where it is the practice not to work on the Ninth of Ab. (The Day of Atonement, of course, stands in a different category entirely.) In the whole of the subsequent discussion ‘public fast’ does not mean one of the statutory fasts, but a fast proclaimed on account of drought or disaster etc.
(13) I.e., it is forbidden to eat at twilight on the eve of the fast, since he regards the twilight as possessing the full rigours of a fast-day. Twilight is a period of doubt, and it is not certain whether it is day or night.
(14) v. infra.
(15) E.g., if a man is in the wilderness and does not know what day was fixed as New Moon, he must observe two Days of Atonement (his doubt could only be whether the previous month had consisted of twenty-nine days or thirty days), but only one day as the Ninth of Ab.
(16) On the fast-day itself. On a specially proclaimed public fast work is forbidden, whereas on the Ninth of Ab it is permitted.
(17) On specially proclaimed public fast-days an extra service was added at the end of the day’, called ne'ilah, which means ‘closing’. R. Johanan states that there is no ne'ilah on the Ninth of Ab.
(18) If a man does not remember whether he has recited his statutory prayers, R. Johanan rules that he should recite them now, though there is an opposing view that a man must not pray when in this doubt. Now, since R. Johanan holds that a man must pray when in doubt, why should there not be a ne'ilah service on the Ninth of Ab, seeing that it is like a specially proclaimed public fast in many respects?
(19) On a public fast-day ne'ilah is obligatory; on the Ninth of Ab a man may recite it if he desires.
(20) On public fast-days six benedictions were added to the usual eighteen which constituted the ‘Prayer’ par excellence (Ta'an. 15a). R. Johanan teaches that these are not recited on the Ninth of Ab.
(21) In times of drought three public fasts were proclaimed, which began at daybreak. But if the drought nevertheless continued, another three were proclaimed, and these began the previous evening (v. Ta'an. Mishnah 10a and 12b). R. Johanan thus ruled that the Ninth of Ab begins on the previous evening, and eating is forbidden from twilight.
(22) Lit., ‘the doing of work’.
(23) Which shows that on the Ninth of Ab washing of face and hands and feet is permitted.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 55a
The Tanna teaches a series of leniences.1 AND IN ALL PLACES SCHOLARS etc. Shall we say that R. Simeon b. Gamaliel holds that we do not fear [the appearance of] conceit, while the Rabbis hold that we do fear [the appearance of] conceit? But we know them [to hold] the reverse! For we learned: A bridegroom, if he wishes to recite the reading of the shema’2 on the first night, he may recite it. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Not everyone who wishes to assume3 the name [reputation] may assume it.4 — Said R. Johanan: The discussion must be reversed. R. Shisha the son of R. Idi said, Do not reverse it. The Rabbis are not self-contradictory: here, since everybody works, while he [alone] does not work, it looks like conceit; but there, since everybody recites [the shema’] and he too recites [it], it does not look like conceit. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel too is not self-contradictory: There only, since devotion Is required, while we are witnesses that he cannot devote his mind,5 it looks like conceit. But here it does not look like conceit, [for] people will say, ‘It is work that he lacks: go out and see how many unemployed there are in the market place!’
MISHNAH. BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN,6 IN JUDEA THEY USED TO DO WORK ON THE EVE OF PASSOVER UNTIL MIDDAY, WHILE IN GALILEE THEY DID NOT WORK AT ALL. [AS FOR] THE NIGHT,7 — BETH SHAMMAI FORBID [WORK], WHILE BETH HILLEL PERMIT IT UNTIL DAYBREAK.
of Ab is not more lenient than public fasts save that work is permitted on the former. But he does not refer to the reverse cases where the Ninth of Ab is more stringent; hence you cannot deduce that they are alike in all other matters.
GEMARA. At first he [the Tanna] teaches custom,8 and then he teaches a prohibition? — Said R. Johanan, There is no difficulty: one is according to R. Meir; the other, according to R. Judah. For it was taught, R. Judah said: In Judea they used to do work on the eve of Passover, until midday, while in Galilee they did not work at all. Said R. Meir to him: What proof is Judea and Galilee for the present [discussion]?9 But where they are accustomed to do work, one may do it, [while] where they are accustomed not to do [work], one may not do it. Now, since R. Meir states [that it is merely a matter of] custom, it follows that R. Judah states [that it is] a prohibition.10
Yet does R. Judah hold that work on the fourteenth is permitted?11 Surely it was taught, R. Judah said: He who weeds on the thirteenth and [an ear of corn] is uprooted in his hand, must replant it in swampy [damp] soil, but must not replant it in a dry place.12 Thus, only on the thirteenth, but not on the fourteenth,13 Now consider: we know that R. Judah maintains: Any grafting which does not take root within three days will never take root. Then if you think that work may be done on the fourteenth, why [state] the thirteenth; surely there is the fourteenth, the fifteenth and part of the sixteenth?14 — Said Raba: We learned [this] of Galilee. But there is the night?15 — Said R. Shesheth: This is according to Beth Shammai.16 R. Ashi said: In truth it is as Beth Hillel, [yet the night of the fourteenth is not stated] because it is not the practice of people to weed at night — Rabina said: After all it refers to Judea, but in respect to taking root we do say once that part of the day is as the whole of it, but we do not say twice that part of the day is as the whole of it.17
MISHNAH. R. MEIR SAID: ANY WORK WHICH HE BEGAN BEFORE THE FOURTEENTH, HE MAY FINISH IT ON THE FOURTEENTH; BUT HE MAY NOT BEGIN IT AT THE OUTSET ON THE FOURTEENTH, EVEN IF HE CAN FINISH IT [ON THE SAME DAY]. BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: THREE CRAFTSMEN MAY WORK ON THE EVE OF PASSOVER UNTIL MIDDAY, AND THESE ARE THEY: TAILORS, HAIRDRESSERS, AND WASHERMEN. R. JOSE B. R. JUDAH SAID: SHOEMAKERS TOO.18
GEMARA. The scholars asked: Did we learn [that it may be finished] when required for the Festival, but when not required for the Festival he may not even finish it; or perhaps we learned [that he must not begin work] when it is not required for the Festival, but when it is required we may indeed begin it; or perhaps, whether it is needed for the Festival or it is not needed, he may finish but not start? — Come and hear: But he may not begin at the outset on the fourteenth even a small girdle, [or] even a small hair-net — What does ‘even’ imply? Surely, even these which are required for the Festival, he may only finish, but not begin; whence it follows that where it is not required [for the Festival], we may not even finish! — No: after all, even when it is not required we may indeed finish [the work], and yet what does ‘even’ connote? Even these too, which are small. For you might argue, their beginning, that is the end of their work;19 then we should even begin them at the very outset; therefore he informs us [that it is not so]. Come and hear: R. Meir said: Any work which is required for the Festival,
(1) The whole series of ‘there is no difference’ etc. is taught by the same Tanna, and in each he merely wishes to intimate a point of leniency. Thus he first teaches that the Ninth of Ab is not more lenient than the Day of Atonement save that the doubt of the former is permitted. Then he states that the Ninth
(2) ‘Hear’ — the passage commencing ‘Hear O Israel’ etc. (Deut. VI, 4f). This is recited every morning and evening, but a bridegroom is exempt on the evening of his marriage.
(3) Lit., ‘take’.
(4) Unless he has a reputation for great piety, as otherwise it looks like an unwarrantable assumption of piety (Rashi in Ber. 17b).
(5) His feelings are obviously such that unless he is extremely pious he cannot recite the shema’ with proper devotion.
(6) This is a continuation of the last Mishnah.
(7) Following the thirteenth day of Nisan.
(8) The preceding Mishnah regards abstention from work a mere custom and in this Mishnah it is treated as a prohibition!
(9) I.e., why cite Judea and Galilee? the matter is everywhere determined by local custom.
(10) Viz., that in Judea it is held to be permitted, while in Galilee it is held to be definitely prohibited, and not merely dependent on custom.
(11) According to the views held in Judea.
(12) It takes root in damp soil more quickly. Now the ‘omer (v. Glos. and Lev. XXIII, 10-14) is effective in permitting everything which has taken root before it is waved; hence it is desirable that this should take root before the omer is waved on the sixteenth of the month.
(13) For it is obvious that the law is so stated as to give the latest possible time.
(14) And it is a principle that part of the day counts as the whole day; thus there is time for it to take root even if it is replanted on the fourteenth.
(15) Following the thirteenth, when it is permissible even in Galilee.
(16) Who in our Mishnah forbid the night.
(17) For if he weeds some time on the fourteenth we would have to count the rest of the day as a complete day, and also the beginning of the sixteenth until the waving of the ‘omer as another complete day.
(18) These may work everywhere.
(19) I.e., they require so little time.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 55b
he may finish it on the fourteenth.1 When is that? When he began it before the fourteenth; but if he did not begin it before the fourteenth, he must not begin it on the fourteenth, even a small girdle, even a small hair-net. [Thus,] only when required for the Festival, but not when it is not required! — No: the same law holds good that even when it is not required for the Festival we may also finish it, and he informs us this: that even when it is required for the Festival, we may only finish, but not begin.
Come and hear: R. Meir said: Any work which is required for the Festival, he may finish it on the fourteenth; but that which is not required for the Festival is forbidden; and one may work on the eve of Passover until midday where it is customary [to work]. [Thus,] only where it is the custom, but if it is not the custom,it is not [permitted at all]. Hence this proves that when required for the Festival it is [permitted], but when it is not required for the Festival it is not [permitted]. This proves it.
BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN, THREE CRAFTSMEN [etc.]. A Tanna taught: Tailors, because a layman2 may sew in the usual way on the intermediate Days;3 hairdressers and washermen, because he who comes from overseas and he who comes out of prison may cut their hair and wash [their garments] on the Intermediate Days.4 R. Jose son of R. Judah said: Shoemakers too, because the Festival pilgrims5 repaired their shoes on the Intermediate Days. Wherein do they differ? — One Master holds, We learn the beginning of the work from the end of the work;6 while the other Master holds, We do not learn the beginning of the work from the end of the work.
MISHNAH. ONE MAY SET UP CHICKEN-HOUSES FOR FOWLS ON THE FOURTEENTH,7 AND IF A [BROODING] FOWL RAN AWAY,8 ONE MAY SET HER BACK IN HER PLACE; AND IF SHE DIED, ONE MAY SET ANOTHER IN HER PLACE. ONE MAY SWEEP AWAY FROM UNDER AN ANIMAL'S FEET ON THE FOURTEENTH,9 BUT ON THE FESTIVAL10 ONE MAY REMOVE [IT] ON A SIDE [ONLY].11 ONE MAY TAKE UTENSILS [TO] AND BRING [THEM BACK] FROM AN ARTISAN'S HOUSE, EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR THE FESTIVAL.
GEMARA. Seeing that you may [even] set [the fowls for brooding], is there a question about putting back?12 — Said Abaye: The second clause refers to the Intermediate Days of the Festival.13 R. Huna said: They learnt this14 only [when it is] within three [days] of her rebellion,15 so that her heat16 has not yet left her, and after three days of her brooding, so that the eggs are quite spoiled.17 But if it is after three days since her rebellion, so that her heat has left her, or within three days of her brooding, so that the eggs are still not completely spoiled,18 we must not put [her] back.19 R. Ammi said: We may even put her back within [the first] three days of her brooding.20 Wherein do they differ? — One Master holds, They [the Sages] cared about a substantial loss, but they did not care about a slight loss; while the other Master holds: They cared about a slight loss too.
ONE MAY SWEEP AWAY FROM UNDER [etc.]. Our Rabbis taught: The manure which is in the court-yard may be moved aside; that which is in the stable and in the court-yard may be taken out to the dunghill. This is self-contradictory: you say, The manure which is in the court-yard may [only] be moved aside; then he [the Tanna] teaches, that which is in the stable and in the court-yard may [even] be taken out to the dunghill? — Said Abaye, There is no difficulty: one refers to the fourteenth [of Nisan]; the other, to the Intermediate Days. Raba said: Both refer to the Intermediate Days, and this is what he says: If the courtyard became like a stable,21 it may be taken out to the dunghill.
ONE MAY TAKE UTENSILS [TO] AND BRING [THEM BACK] FROM AN ARTISAN'S HOUSE. R. Papa said: Raba examined us. We learned: ONE MAY TAKE [UTENSILS TO] AND BRING UTENSILS FROM AN ARTISAN'S HOUSE, EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR THE FESTIVAL. But the following contradicts it: One may not bring utensils from an artisan's house, but if he fears that they may be stolen, he may remove them into another court-yard?22 And we answered, There is no difficulty: Here it means on the fourteenth; there, on the Intermediate Days. Alternatively, both refer to the Intermediate Days, yet there is no difficulty: here it is where he trusts him;23 there, where he does not trust him. And thus it was ‘taught: One may bring vessels from the artisan's house, e.g., a pitcher from a potter's house, and a [glass] goblet from a glass-maker's house; but [one may] not bring wool from a dyer's house nor vessels from an artisan's house.24 Yet if he [the artisan] has nothing to eat, he must pay him his wages and leave it [the utensil] with him; but if he does not trust him, he places them in a nearby house; and if he is afraid that they may be stolen, he may bring them secretly home.25 You have reconciled [the contradictions on] bringing; but [the contradictory statements on] taking [the utensils to the artisan's house] present a difficulty, for he teaches, ‘One must not bring [from the artisan's house]’, hence how much more that we must not take [them to his house]!26 — Rather, it is clear [that it must be reconciled] as we answered it at first.27
MISHNAH. SIX THINGS THE INHABITANTS OF JERICHO DID: THREE THEY [THE SAGES] FORBADE THEM,28 AND THREE [THEY] DID NOT FORBID THEM. AND IT IS THESE WHICH THEY DID NOT FORBID THEM: THEY GRAFTED PALM TREES ALL DAY,29 THEY ‘WRAPPED UP’ THE SHEMA,30 AND THEY HARVESTED AND STACKED [THEIR PRODUCE] BEFORE [THE BRINGING OF] THE ‘OMER.31 AND IT IS THESE WHICH THEY FORBADE THEM: THEY PERMITTED [FOR USE] THE BRANCHES — [OF CAROB OR SYCAMORE TREES] BELONGING TO HEKDESH,32
(1) Even where it is customary not to do any work.
(2) I.e., a man who is not a craftsman in this particular trade.
(3) Lit., ‘the non-holy (portion) of the Festival’; v. p. 16, n. 4. Only professional work is forbidden, but not the work a non-professional does at home.
(4) Hence on the fourteenth, which is certainly lighter than the Intermediate Days, these may be done in general, and even by professionals.
(5) v. Deut. XVI, 16.
(6) Making shoes is the beginning; repairing them is the end. Just as repairing is permitted, so is making them permitted.
(7) I.e., you may put in eggs for brooding (Jast.). Rashi reads ‘and’ instead of ‘FOR’, and renders: One may set up dove-cots and fowls (to brood).
(8) From its eggs.
(9) Sc. the dung, and throw it away.
(10) Which of course is stricter.
(11) But not sweep it altogether away.
(12) It is obvious!
(13) A fowl may not be set to brood then, but she may be put back.
(14) That she may be put back even on the Intermediate Days of the Festival.
(15) I.e., of her running away.
(16) The desire to hatch.
(17) They can no longer be eaten, being too addled.
(18) They can still be eaten.
(19) In the Intermediate Days.
(20) Since the eggs have been slightly spoiled, and not all people would eat them. (15) After three days there is a substantial loss, as the eggs are quite unfit; but within three days the loss is only slight, since some people would eat them.
(21) It contains so much manure that it cannot be moved aside.
(22) Near the artisan's house, where it is better guarded, but he may not take them home if it is a long distance.
(23) Either that the artisan will not dispose of them, or that he will not claim payment a second time.
(24) The latter two when they are not needed for the Festival.
(25) Not publicly, as that would give a too workday appearance to these days.
(26) While the question of trusting does not arise here.
(27) viz., that our Mishnah refers to the fourteenth, while the Baraitha refers to the Intermediate Days.
(28) Lit., ‘stayed their hand’.
(29) Of the fourteenth.
(30) I.e., they recited it without the necessary pauses, v. GEMARA 56a.
(31) V. Glos. and Lev. XXIII, 10-14. Rashi deletes HARVESTED, as that was quite permissible as far as Jericho was concerned, since no ‘omer could be brought from Jericho which was situated in a valley. V. Men. 71a, 8a.
(32) I. e., the branches which grew after the trees had been vowed to the Sanctuary.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 56a
AND THEY ATE THE FALLEN FRUIT FROM BENEATH [THE TREE] ON THE SABBATH, AND THEY GAVE PE'AH1 FROM VEGETABLES; AND THE SAGES FORBADE THEM.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Six things King Hezekiah did; in three they [the Sages] agreed with him, and in three they did not agree with him — He dragged his father's bones [corpse] on a rope bier,2 and they agreed with him; he crushed the brazen serpent,3 and they agreed with him; [and] he hid the book of remedies,4 and they agreed with him. And in three they did not agree with him: He cut [the gold off] the doors of the Temple5 and sent them to the King of Assyria,6 and they did not agree with him; and he closed up the waters of Upper Gihon,7 and they did not agree with him;8 and he intercalated [the month of] Nisan in Nisan,9 and they did not agree with him.
THEY GRAFTED PALM TREES ALL DAY. How did they do it? — Said Rab Judah: They brought a fresh myrtle, the juice of bay-fruit and barley flour which had been kept10 in a vessel less than forty days,11 and boiled them together and injected [the concoction] into the heart of the palm tree; and every [tree] which stands within four cubits of this one, if that is not treated likewise immediately withers. R. Aha the son of Raba said: A male branch was grafted on to a female [palm tree].12
THEY ‘WRAPPED UP’ THE SHEMA’. What did they do? — Rab Judah said, They recited, Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is One13 and did not make a pause.14 Raba said: They did make a pause, but [the meaning is] that they said [And these words, which I command thee] this day shall be upon thy heart,15 which implies, this day [shall they be] upon thy heart, but to-morrow [they shall] not [be] upon thy heart.
Our Rabbis taught: How did they ‘wrap up’ the shema’? They recited ‘Hear O Israel the Lord our God the Lord is One’ and they did not make a pause: this is R. Meir's view. R. Judah said: They did make a pause, but they did not recite, ‘Blessed be the name of His glorious Kingdom for ever and ever.’16 And what is the reason that we do recite it? — Even as R. Simeon b. Lakish expounded. For R. Simeon b. Lakish said: And Jacob called unto his sons, and said: Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you [that which shall befall you in the end of days].17 Jacob wished to reveal to his sons the ‘end of the days’,18 whereupon the Shechinah departed from him. Said he, ‘Perhaps, Heaven forfend! there is one unfit among my children,19 like Abraham, from whom there issued Ishmael, or like my father Isaac, from whom there issued Esau.’ [But] his sons answered him, ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord our God the Lord is One:20 just as there is only One in thy heart, so is there in our heart only One.’ In that moment our father Jacob opened [his mouth] and exclaimed, ‘Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever.’ Said the Rabbis, How shall we act? Shall we recite it, — but our Teacher Moses did not say it. Shall we not say it — but Jacob said it! [Hence] they enacted that it should be recited quietly.
R. Isaac said, The School of R. Ammi said: This is to be compared to a king's daughter who smelled a spicy pudding.21 If she reveals [her desire], she suffers disgrace;22 if she does not reveal it, she suffers pain.23 So her servants began bringing it to her in secret. R. Abbahu said: They [the Sages] enacted that this should be recited aloud, on account of the resentment of heretics.24 But in Nehardea, where there are no heretics so far, they recite it quietly.
Our Rabbis taught: Six things the inhabitants of Jericho did, three with the consent of the Sages, and three without the consent of the Sages. And these were with the consent of the Sages: They grafted palm trees all day [of the fourteenth], they ‘wrapped up’ the shema’, and they harvested before the ‘omer.25 And these were without the consent of the Sages: They stacked [the corn] before the ‘omer,26 and they made breaches in their gardens and orchards to permit the poor to eat the fallen fruit in famine years on Sabbaths and Festivals, and they permitted [for use] the branches of carob and sycamore trees belonging to hekdesh: this is R. Meir's view. Said R. Judah to him, If they did [these things] with the consent of the Sages, then all people could do so! But they did both without the consent of the Sages, [save that] three they forbade them [to do], and three they did not forbid them [to do]. And it is these which they did not forbid them: They grafted palm trees the whole day, and they ‘wrapped up’ the shema’, and they stacked [the corn] before the ‘omer. And it is these which they forbade them to do: They permitted [for use] branches of hekdesh of carob and sycamore trees, and they made breaches in their garden and orchards to permit the poor to eat the fallen fruit in famine years on Sabbaths and Festivals; they gave pe'ah from vegetables; and the Sages forbade them.
Yet does R. Judah hold that the reaping was not with the consent of the Sages? Surely we learned: The inhabitants of Jericho reaped before the ‘omer with the consent of the Sages and stacked before the ‘omer without the consent of the Sages, but the Sages did not forbid them to do it.
(1) V. Glos. Pe'ah is exempt from tithes, and the poor, by eating the vegetables without tithing them in the belief that they were Pe'ah, ate tebel (v. Glos.).
(2) Instead of showing him the honour due to a king. He did this in order to effect atonement for him, his father (Ahaz) having been very wicked.
(3) Set up by Moses, Num. XXI, 8f; v. II Kings XVIII, 4.
(4) Because they cured so quickly that illness failed to promote a spirit of contrition and humility. V. Ber. 10b.
(5) Or, he cut down the doors etc.
(6) Sennacherib, as a bribe to leave him in peace; v. II Kings XVIII, 16.
(7) v. II Chron. XXXII, 1-4.
(8) In both cases he should have trusted in God.
(9) Ibid. XXX, 1-3. The Talmud holds that he effected this by declaring Nisan an intercalated month, calling it the second Adar, after it (Nisan) had already commenced. (Since the Jewish year which is lunar is some eleven days shorter than the solar year, it is necessary periodically to lengthen it by the intercalation of a second Adar, the last month of the civil year. In ancient times this was done not by mathematical calculation, as nowadays, but according to the exigencies of the moment, but this had to be done before Nisan actually commenced, v. Sanh. 12b and Ber. 10a).
(10) Lit., ‘cast’.
(11) Lit., ‘over which forty days had not passed’.
(12) Jast. translates: they put the male flower (scatter the pollen) over the female tree. — But he does not regard the operation described by Rab Judah as grafting.
(13) Deut. VI, 4.
(14) Before proceeding with the next verse, And thou shalt love etc.: ‘One’ (Heb. אחד) must be prolonged in utterance, which creates a pause, but they did not do thus (Rashi). Tosaf.: they did not pause between ‘Hear O Israel’ and ‘the Lord’ etc. thus read together it is a prayer that God may hearken to Israel, which of course gives a completely wrong sense in this instance.
(15) Deut. VI, 6. Reading it without a pause at ‘day’ as is indicated in the E.V.
(16) Before ‘and thou shalt love’ etc.
(17) Gen. XLIX, 1.
(18) The final universal redemption, v. Dan. XII, 13.
(19) Lit., ‘in my bed’.
(20) ‘Israel’ referring to their father.
(21) And conceived a strong desire for it.
(22) Through her lack of self-control.
(23) Through her restraint.
(24) Heb. min, sectarian. They might think that the Jews were cursing them.
(25) V. supra p. 277, n. 6.
(26) As it is quite unnecessary, for the produce will not suffer loss if it is left unstacked until after the ‘omer, and while engaged in stacking it, they might come to eat it.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 56b
Whom do you know to maintain [that] they forbade and did not forbid?1 R. Judah. Yet he teaches, They reaped with the consent of the Sages? — Then according to your reasoning, [surely] these are four! Rather, delete reaping from this.
‘And they permitted the branches of carob and sycamore trees of hekdesh.’ They said: Our fathers sanctified nought but tree trunks, hence we will permit [for use] the branches of hekdesh of carob and sycamore trees. Now we discuss the growth which came after that;2 so that while they held as he who rules, There is no trespass-offering [due] when [one benefits from] what grows, the Rabbis held, Granted that there is no trespass-offering [due], there is nevertheless a prohibition.
‘And they made breaches [etc.]’ ‘Ulla said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: The controversy is in respect of [the dates of] the upper branches, for the Rabbis held, We forbid them preventively, lest he go up and cut them off, while the inhabitants of Jericho held, We do not forbid them preventively, lest he go up and cut them off. But as for the dates which are among the lower branches, all agree that it is permitted.3 Said Rabbah to him, But they are mukzeh?4 And should you say, [that is] because they [the dates] were fit for [his] ravens,5 [I would rejoin], — seeing that that which is ready6 for man is not ready for dogs, for we learned, R. Judah said, If it was not nebelah from the eve of the Sabbath, it is forbidden, because it is not of that which is ready,7 then shall what is ready for birds be [regarded as] ready for human beings?8 — Yes, he replied. That which is ready for human beings is not ready for dogs, for whatever is fit for a man, he does not put [it] out of his mind;9 [but] that which is ready for birds is [also] ready for human beings,10 [for] his mind is [set] upon it. When Rabin came,11 he said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: The controversy is in respect of [the fallen dates] among the lower branches, the Rabbis holding, That which is ready for birds is not ready for man, while the men of Jericho hold, That which is ready for birds is ready for man. But [the fallen dates] on the
place are permitted now that they have fallen to earth, for since none grow there, there was never any fear that he might go up and cut off the growing dates. — Though this explanation removes several difficulties, Tosaf. observes that it raises a practical difficulty: how is one to distinguish between those which fell down before the Festival and those which fell on the Festival itself, and those which had fallen on the upper branches in the first place and those which had first fallen on the lower branches? upper branches, all agree that they are forbidden; we forbid [them] preventively, lest he ascend and cut off [some dates].
AND THEY GAVE PE'AH FROM VEGETABLES. Yet did not the inhabitants agree with what we learned: They stated a general principle in respect to pe'ah: whatever is an eatable, and is guarded, and its growth is from the earth, and is [all] gathered simultaneously,12 and is collected for storage,13 is subject to pe'ah. ‘Whatever is an eatable’ excludes the aftergrowth of woad14 and madder;15 ‘and is guarded’ excludes hefker;16 ‘and its growth is from the earth’ excludes mushrooms and truffles;17 ‘and is [all] gathered simultaneously’ excludes the fig tree;18 ‘and is collected for storage excludes vegetables!19 — Said Rab Judah in Rab's name: The reference is to turnip tops, and they differ [in respect to what] one collects for storing by means of something else:20 one Master holds, If he takes it in for storage by means of something else it is designated storage; while the other Master holds, What he takes in for storage by means of something else is not designated storage.21
Our Rabbis taught: At first they used to leave Pe'ah for turnips and cabbages. R. Jose said: Also for porret. While another [Baraitha] taught: They used to give pe'ah for turnips and porret; R. Simeon said: For cabbage too.
(1) I.e., who makes this distinction, but not the distinction between with and without their consent.
(2) Sc. after the trees had been dedicated.
(3) Mekabedoth are the upper branches on which dates grow; kipin are the lower branches where dates do not grow. Rashi: they differ in respect of the dates which fell on the Festival and were caught on these upper branches. Since they are high up, he must climb up to get them, and the Rabbis held that we fear that this will lead him to pull off some dates still on the branches, which is forbidden; while the inhabitants of Jericho held that there was no need to fear this. But all agree that he may take those which had been caught by the lower branches, for no dates grow there in any case, that we should fear that he will pull some off. Tosaf.: the reference is to dates which fell off before the Festival commenced, being caught either by the upper or the lower branches, and then they fell to the ground on the Festival. The Rabbis held that those which had been caught on the upper branches are forbidden, for since they were there at twilight, when the Festival was about to commence, and also there are dates growing on these upper branches, we fear that he might ascend and pluck some; while the inhabitants of Jericho did not thus forbid them, preventively, since they were already detached on the eve of the Festival. But all agree that those which had fallen on the lower branches in the first
(4) v. Glos. Rashi: on the eve of the Sabbath or Festival at twilight they were mukzeh on account of the prohibition of cutting them off then from the tree, and consequently they remain so for the whole day, even after they fall. (Mukzeh is always determined by the status of an object at twilight of the Sabbath or Festival.) Tosaf.: they were mukzeh at twilight because one must not make use of a tree on the Sabbath or Festival, e.g., by climbing it, taking articles which had been suspended upon it, etc.
(5) If he has ravens at home, they could have eaten these dates on the Sabbath even while they were still on the tree; since they are fit for his birds, they are also regarded as fit for himself too.
(6) Mukan, a technical term denoting the opposite of mukzeh.
(7) If an animal dies on the Sabbath, the first Tanna holds that the carcass may be cut up for dogs. But R. Judah rules as stated. For while alive it could have been ritually killed and then permitted for human consumption; hence it was ready not for dogs but for human beings, and thus R. Judah holds that its readiness for human beings does not make it ready for dogs too.
(8) Surely not!
(9) To think of giving it to dogs.
(10) Even if it is fit for dogs.
(11) From Palestine to Babylonia.
(12) I.e., the whole of the crop ripens about the same time.
(13) Lit., ‘he brings it in to keep’. This applies to cereals in general, which are stored in granaries for long periods.
(14) GR. **, isatis tinctora, a plant producing a deep blue dye.
(15) Both are used as dyes.
(16) V. Glos.
(17) Though these grow in the earth, they were held to draw their sustenance mainly from the air.
(18) Whose fruits are likewise excluded.
(19) Which must be eaten fresh.
(20) R. Han.: i.e., by means of pickling.
(21) It must be capable of storing in its natural state.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 57a
Shall we say that there are three Tannaim [in dispute]? — No: there are [only] two Tannaim [in dispute], the first Tanna opposed to1 R. Simeon being R. Jose, while the first Tanna opposed to R. Jose is R. Simeon. And what does ‘too’ mean? It refers to the first mentioned.2 Our Rabbis taught: The son of Bohayon3 gave pe'ah from vegetables, and his father came and found the poor laden with vegetables and standing at the entrance to the kitchen garden. Said he to them, ‘My sons, cast it from you, and I will give you twice as much of tithed [produce]; not because I begrudge it to you, but because the Sages said, You must not give pe'ah from vegetables.’ Why had he to say to them, ‘Not because I begrudge it to you?’ So that they should not say, ‘He is merely putting us off.’
Our Rabbis taught: At first they used to place the skins of sacrifices in the chamber of Beth Ha-Parwah.4 In the evening they used to divide them among the men of the paternal division,5 but men of violence6 used to seize [more than their due share] by force. So they enacted that they should divide them every Sabbath eve, so that all the ‘wards’ came and received their portions together.7 Yet the chief priests still seized [them] by force; thereupon the owners8 arose and consecrated them to Heaven.9 It was related: It did not take long before they covered the whole Temple with gold plaques a cubit square of the thickness of a gold denar. And on festivals they used to lay them together10 and place them on a high eminence on the Temple Mount, so that the Festival pilgrims might see that their workmanship was beautiful,11 and that there was no imperfection in them.
It was taught, Abba Saul said: There were sycamore treetrunks in Jericho, and the men of violence seized them by force, [whereupon] the owners arose and consecrated them to Heaven. And it was of these and of such as these that Abba Saul b. Bothnith said in the name of Abba Joseph b. Hanin: ‘Woe is me because of the house of Boethus; woe is me because of their staves!12 Woe is me because of the house of Hanin, woe is me because of their whisperings!13 Woe is me because of the house of Kathros,14 woe is me because of their pens!15 Woe is me because of the house of Ishmael the son of Phabi,16 woe is me because of their fists! For they are High Priests17 and their sons are [Temple] treasurers and their sons-in-law are trustees and their servants beat the people with staves.’18
Our Rabbis taught: Four cries did the Temple Court cry out. The first: ‘Depart hence, ye children of Eli,’ for they defiled the Temple of the Lord. And another cry: ‘Depart hence, Issachar of Kefar Barkai, who honours himself while desecrating the sacred sacrifices of Heaven’; for he used to wrap his hands with silks and perform the [sacrificial] service.19 The Temple Court also cried out: ‘Lift up your heads, O ye gates, and let Ishmael the son of Phabi, Phineas's disciple,20 enter and serve in the [office of the] High Priesthood.’ The Temple Court also cried out: ‘Lift up your heads, O ye gates, and let Johanan the son of Narbai,21 the disciple of Pinkai,22 enter and fill his stomach with the Divine sacrifices. It was said of Johanan b. Narbai that he ate three hundred calves and drank three hundred barrels of wine and ate forty se'ah of young birds as a desert for his meal.23 It was said: As long as Johanan the son of Narbai lived,24 nothar25 was never found in the Temple.
What was the fate of26 Issachar of Kefar Barkai? It was related: The king and queen27 were sitting: the king said, ‘Goat's [flesh] is better,’ while the queen said, ‘Lamb is better’. Said they, Who shall decide?28 The High Priest, who offers up sacrifices every day. So he came,
(1) Lit., ‘of’.
(2) Thus: the first Tanna states turnips and cabbages, whereupon R. Jose says, for porret too, just as for turnips, but not for cabbages; similarly R. Simeon in the second Baraitha.
(3) The name of a certain man.
(4) Name of a Persian builder and Magian, after whom a compartment in the Temple was supposed to have been named
(5) The priests were divided into ‘wards’, (משמר), each ‘ward’ officiating a week at a time in the Temple; these were further subdivided into paternal divisions (beth ab), of which each officiated one day in the week.
(6) Among the priests (Rashi). Lit., ‘men of (strong) arms’.
(7) Cur. edd.; Rashi's reading seems to be: so that the whole ward (sing.) i.e., all the paternal divisions etc. This is more correct, and if our reading is retained it must also be understood in the same sense. — The larger number present would act as a check.
(8) I.e., all the priests of each ward.
(9) Sc. for the Temple.
(10) The word really means ‘fold them’, but as gold plates of that thickness could hardly be folded, it must be understood as translated.
(11) For the sacrifices, with the skins of which these were brought, were mostly offered by the Festival pilgrims.
(12) With which they beat the people.
(13) Their secret conclaves to devise oppressive measures.
(14) Supposed to be identical with GR. **, Josephus, Antiquities XX, 1, 3.
(15) With which they wrote their evil decrees.
(16) He himself was religious and held in high repute, as is seen below (v. also Par. III, 5; Sot. IX, 5; Yoma 35b), but he did not restrain his sons from lawlessness; in the passage of Josephus too, already cited, reference is only made to his children.
(17) The High Priesthood by this time was a source of great political power. Once a man became a High Priest he retained much of his power, and perhaps his title too, even if he was deposed; hence there were often several High Priests at the same time; v. Halevi, Doroth, I, 3, p. 445, n. 30; pp. 633f; 718.
(18) For this passage cf. Josephus, Antiquities XX, 8,8.
(19) This disqualifies the sacrifice.
(20) In his zeal for God.
(21) [Ananias son of Nebedus. v. Josephus, Antiquities XX, 5, 2.]
(22) Perhaps this is a nickname formed by a play on words, פינכא (here פינקא) being a meat dish; i.e., the gourmand.
(23) The marginal note softens this statement by observing that this was eaten by his whole household, which was very numerous
(24) Lit., ‘(during) all the days of’ etc.
(25) V. Glos.
(26) Lit., ‘what happened to?’
(27) Hasmonean monarchs [In Ker. 28b: King Yannai and the Queen. The name Jannai appears in the Talmud as a general name for kings of the Hasmonean dynasty.]
(28) Lit., ‘(from) whom is it proved?’
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 57b
[and] indicated with his hand,1 ‘If the goat were better, let it be offered for the daily sacrifice’. Said the king, ‘Since he had no fear of my royal person, let his right hand be cut off.’ But he gave a bribe [and] they cut off his left hand [instead]. Then the king heard [of it] and they cut off his right hand [too]. Said R. Joseph: Praised be the Merciful One Who caused Issachar of Kefar Barkai to receive his deserts in this world.
R. Ashi said: Issachar of Kefar Barkai had not studied the Mishnah. For we learned, R. Simeon said: Lambs take precedence over goats in all places.2 You might think that that is because they are the best of their species, therefore it is stated, And if he bring a lamb as his offering.3 Rabina said: He had not even studied Scripture either, for it is written, If [he bring] a lamb . . . And if [his offering be] a goat:4 if he wishes, let him bring a lamb; if he wishes, let him bring a goat.5
(1) I.e., in a contemptuous fashion.
(2) Wherever both are mentioned together in the same verse the lamb is stated first.
(3) Lev. IV, 32; this is given as an alternative to a goat, which is prescribed earlier in the same section in v. 28.
(4) Lev. III, 7, 12.
(5) And neither is preferable to the other.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 58a
MISHNAH. THE [AFTERNOON] TAMID1 IS SLAUGHTERED AT EIGHT AND A HALF HOURS2 AND IS OFFERED AT NINE AND A HALF HOURS.3 ON THE EVE OF PASSOVER4 IT IS SLAUGHTERED AT SEVEN AND A HALF HOURS AND OFFERED AT EIGHT AND A HALF HOURS, WHETHER IT IS A WEEKDAY OR THE SABBATH. IF THE EVE OF PASSOVER FELL, ON SABBATH EVE [FRIDAY], IT IS SLAUGHTERED AT SIX AND A HALF HOURS AND OFFERED AT SEVEN AND A HALF HOURS, AND THE PASSOVER OFFERING AFTER IT.5
GEMARA. Whence do we know it? — Said R. Joshua b. Levi, Because Scripture saith, The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning, and the other lamb shalt thou offer between the two evenings:6 insert7 it between the two ‘evenings’, [which gives] two and a half hours before and two and a half hours after8 and one hour for its preparation.9
Raba objected: ON THE EVE OF PASSOVER IT IS SLAUGHTERED AT SEVEN AND A HALF HOURS AND OFFERED AT EIGHT AND A HALF HOURS, WHETHER IT IS A WEEKDAY OR THE SABBATH. Now if you think that [it must be slaughtered] at eight and a half hours according to Scriptural law, how may we perform it earlier? Rather, said Raba: The duty of the tamid10 properly [begins] from when the evening shadows begin to fall.11 What is the reason? Because Scripture saith, ‘between the evenings’, [meaning] from the time that the sun commences to decline in the west. Therefore on other days of the year, when there are vows and freewill-offerings,12 in connection with which the Divine Law states, [and he shall burn] upon it the fat of the peace-offerings [he-shelamim],13 and a Master said, ‘upon it’ complete [shalem] all the sacrifices,14 we therefore postpone it two hours and sacrifice it at eight and a half hours.15 [But] on the eve of Passover, when there is the Passover offering after it, we advance it one hour and sacrifice16 it at seven and a half hours. When the eve of Passover falls on the eve of the Sabbath, so that there is the roasting too [to be done], for it does not override the Sabbath,17 we let it stand on its own law, [viz.,] at six and a half hours.
Our Rabbis taught: Just as its order during the week, so is its order on the Sabbath: these are the words of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba said: Just as its order on the eve of Passover. What does this mean? — Said Abaye, This is what it means: Just as its order on a weekday which is the eve of Passover, so is its order on the Sabbath which is the eve of Passover:18 these are the words of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba said: Just as its order on the eve of Passover which falls on the eve of the Sabbath, so is its order on the Sabbath;19 and our Mishnah which teaches, WHETHER ON A WEEKDAY OR THE SABBATH, agrees with R. Ishmael. Wherein do they differ? — They differ as to whether the additional sacrifices20 take precedence over the [burning of the frankincense in the] censers:21 R. Ishmael holds, The additional offerings take precedence over the [burning of the frankincense in the] censers: therefore he [the priest] sacrificed the additional sacrifices at six hours, [burned the incense in] the censers at seven, and sacrificed the tamid at seven and a half [hours]. R. Akiba holds: [The burning of the frankincense in] the censers takes precedence over the additional sacrifices: [hence] the [burning in the] censers took place at five [hours], the additional offering at six hours, and the tamid was sacrificed at six and a half hours.
To this Raba demurred: Does then R. Akiba teach, Just as its order on the eve of Passover which falls on the Sabbath, so is its order on the Sabbath; surely he teaches, ‘Just as its order on the eve of Passover,’ without qualification? Rather, said Raba, This is what he means: Just as its order on the weekdays in general,22 so is its order on the Sabbath which is the eve of Passover:23 these are the words of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba said: Just as its order on the eve of Passover;24 hence our Mishnah which teaches, WHETHER ON WEEKDAYS OR ON THE SABBATH agrees with R. Akiba. Wherein do they differ? — They differ in the heating of the flesh.25 R. Ishmael holds, We fear for the heating of the flesh; while R. Akiba holds: We do not fear for the heating of the flesh.
(1) The daily burnt-offering: one was brought every morning and another every afternoon. Num. XXVIII, 4.
(2) The day being counted from sunrise to sunset, i.e., about six a.m. to six p.m.
(3) The sacrificial ceremonies took an hour.
(4) The Heb. is in the plural: on the eves of Passovers.
(5) When the eve of Passover falls on a Friday, time must be left for roasting the Passover offering before the Sabbath commences; hence the earlier hour of the tamid.
(6) Ibid. Literal translation. ‘Evening’ (ערב ‘ereb) is defined as the whole afternoon until nightfall.
(7) Lit., ‘divide’.
(8) Lit., ‘here’ . . .’there’.
(9) Thus the ‘two evenings’ are from midday (= six) until eight and a half hours, and from nine and a half hours until nightfall (= twelve).
(10) The slaughtering of it.
(11) Lit., ‘decline’. The sun reaches its zenith at midday and then begins to decline in the west, the decline being perceptible from half an hour after midday, and this is regarded as the falling of the evening shadows.
(12) These are two technical terms: a ‘vow’ is a votive sacrifice, the particular animal having been unspecified when the vow was made; in a freewill-offering a particular animal was specified at the time of the vow. The difference is that in the former case, if the animal which he subsequently dedicates dies or is rendered unfit before it is sacrificed, he must bring another; but in the latter case he has no further obligation.
(13) Lev. VI, 5.
(14) Rashi: upon it, Sc. the morning tamid, to which the verse refers, complete etc., i.e., all the sacrifices of the day are to be brought after the morning tamid, but not after the afternoon tamid, which must be the last of the day. This exegesis connects shelamim with shalem (whole, complete). Jast. translates: with it (the evening sacrifice) cease all sacrifices
(none can be offered after it). This is simpler, but not in accordance with the context.
(15) To allow time for the voluntary offerings.
(16) Lit., ‘make’.
(17) Though the roasting is a precept, yet it may not be done on the Sabbath.
(18) I.e., in both cases the tamid is slaughtered at seven and a half hours.
(19) Hence in both cases it is slaughtered at six and a half hours. For since no vows are offered on the Sabbath, it is unnecessary to delay the tamid, which is therefore sacrificed as early as possible, to leave ample time for the Passover sacrifice.
(20) Offered on Sabbaths, New Moons, and Festivals; midday (six hours) was the earliest time when they could be offered. — In memory of these additional sacrifices there is now an Additional Service (Musaf) on these days.
(21) Two censers of frankincense stood by the rows of shewbread; this shewbread was set on the Table every Sabbath and removed and replaced by fresh bread the following Sabbath. At the same time the frankincense was burnt, and after that the priests ate the shewbread. The removing, replacing and burning of the incense took an hour.
(22) During the year.
(23) Viz., at eight and a half hours. For the flesh of the Passover sacrifice may not be roasted until evening, therefore it is inadvisable to slaughter it earlier, lest the flesh became overheated and putrid, and consequently the tamid is slaughtered at the usual time.
(24) Viz., at seven and a half hours, so likewise on
(25) v. p. 289. n. 5; also perhaps, the shrinking of the flesh caused by overheating; v. Jast. s.v. כמר and Rashi on Gen. XLIII. 30.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 58b
If we do not fear, let us sacrifice it at six and a half [hours]?1 — He holds that the [burning of the frankincense in the] censers takes precedence over the additional sacrifices: [hence] he sacrificed the additional sacrifices at six hours, [performed the burning in] the censers at seven, and sacrificed the tamid at seven and a half. To this Rabbah b. ‘Ulla ‘demurred: Does he then teach, Just as its order on weekdays [in general], so is its order on the Sabbath which is the eve of Passover: these are the words of R. Ishmael? [Surely] he teaches, ‘so is its order on the Sabbath,’ without qualification! Rather, said Rabbah b. ‘Ulla, this is what he means: Just as its order on a weekday in general, so is its order on the Sabbath in general:2 these are the words of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba said: Just as its order on the eve of Passover in general, so is its order on the Sabbath in general:3 [hence] our Mishnah which teaches, WHETHER ON WEEKDAYS OR ON THE SABBATH agrees with all.4 Wherein do they differ? — They differ as to [whether there is] a preventive measure on account of vows and freewill-offerings. R. Ishmael holds: We enact a preventive measure for the Sabbath on account of weekdays;5 while R. Akiba holds: We do not enact a preventive measure. If we do not enact a preventive measure, let us sacrifice it at six and a half?6 — He holds
the Sabbath. Since many are to be offered, we must start as early as possible. that the additional sacrifices take precedence over [the burning of the frankincense in] the censers: [hence] the additional sacrifices are [offered] at six hours, the [burning in the] censers at seven, and he sacrifices the tamid at seven and a half [hours].
An objection is raised: The tamid, during the whole year it is offered according to its law, [viz..] it is slaughtered at eight and a half [hours] and offered at nine and a half hours. But on the eve of Passover it is slaughtered at seven and a half and offered at eight and a half; if it [the eve of Passover] fell on the Sabbath, it is as though it fell on a Monday.7 R. Akiba said: As its order is on the eve of Passover. As for Abaye, it is well;8 but according to Raba it is a difficulty?9 — Raba can answer you: Do not say, It is the same as when it falls on a Monday. but say, it is the same as a Monday in general.10
An objection is raised: If it falls on the Sabbath, it is as its order during the whole year: these are the words of R. Ishmael.11 R. Akiba said: It is as its order on the eve of Passover in general.12 Now as for Raba, it is well;13 but according to Abaye it is difficult? — Abaye answers you: Do not say, ‘It is as its order during the whole year,’ but say, It is as its order in all [other] years:14 these are the words of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba said: It is as the order when the eve of Passover falls on the eve of the Sabbath.15
Our Rabbis taught: How do we know that there must not be anything before the morning tamid?16 Because it is said, and he shall lay the burnt-offering in order upon it.17 What is the exegesis?18 — Said Raba: The burnt-offering implies the first burnt-offering.19 And how do we know that nothing may be offered after the evening tamid? Because it is stated, and he shall burn upon it the fat of the peace-offerings.20 What is the exegesis?21 Said Abaye: After it22 [sc. the morning tamid] [you may sacrifice] peace-offerings, but not after its companion [sc. the evening tamid] [may you sacrifice] peace-offerings. To this Raba demurred: Say [then], it is only peace-offerings that we may not present,23 yet we may present burnt-offerings? Rather, said Raba: Ha-shelamim implies, upon it complete all the sacrifices.24
Our Rabbis taught: The [evening] tamid is [sacrificed] before the Passover offering,the Passover offering is [sacrificed] before the [burning of the evening] incense, the incense before [the kindling of] the lights;
(1) Since there are many Passover sacrifices, while there is no need to delay it on account of vows, which are not offered on the Sabbath.
(2) In both cases the tamid is slaughtered at eight and a half hours, though on the Sabbath no voluntary sacrifices are offered.
(3) Viz., in both cases the tamid is slaughtered at seven and a half hours.
(4) For their controversy does not refer to the eve of Passover at all.
(5) If we permit him to slaughter the afternoon tamid on Sabbath at seven and a half hours, he may slaughter it at the same hour during the week too, leaving no time for voluntary offerings, which are disqualified if brought after the afternoon tamid.
(6) For it is a general principle that all precepts must be performed as early as possible.
(7) Lit., ‘the second (day) of the week’ — there are no specific names for the days of the week in Hebrew, except of course, for the Sabbath. — I.e.,it is the same as when it falls during the week, Monday being mentioned as an example
(Rashi and Tosaf.).
(8) For since R. Ishmael says that if it falls on the Sabbath it is the same as when it falls on a Monday, R. Akiba must mean, Just as its order on the eve of Passover which falls on the eve of the Sabbath.
(9) For Raba interprets R. Ishmael's statement thus: just as its order on weekdays in general etc. But since R. Ishmael concludes, it is the same as when it fails on a Monday, i.e., a weekday in general, it is obvious that he does not refer to a weekday in general in the first half of his statement.
(10) An ordinary weekday which is not Passover eve when the tamid is slaughtered at eight and a half hours, because we fear for the overheating of the flesh.
(11) I.e., the tamid is slaughtered at eight and a half hours, because we fear for the overheating of the flesh.
(12) It is slaughtered at seven and a half hours.
(13) For this is exactly as Raba interprets the Baraitha.
(14) I.e., just as in all other years when the eve of Passover falls on an ordinary weekday and the tamid is slaughtered at seven and a half hours, so likewise when it falls on the Sabbath.
(15) Viz., the tamid is slaughtered at six and a half hours.
(16) Rashi: nothing must be burnt upon the wood pile before the morning tamid, after the latter has been laid in order upon it. Tosaf.: no voluntary offering may be sacrificed before the morning tamid. Tosaf. accepts Rashi's interpretation as an alternative.
(17) Lev. VI, 5. This follows, ‘and the priest shall kindle wood on it every morning’ (ibid.) showing that immediately after the wood pile is kindled, the tamid is the first thing to be burnt.
(18) How is it implied that ‘the burnt-offering’ mentioned in the verse refers to the morning tamid?
(19) The def. art. points to some particular sacrifice, viz., the first burnt-offering mentioned in the chapter on sacrifices, Num. XXVIII, which is the daily morning tamid, and this verse teaches that it must be the first thing to ascend the altar every day. and nothing else may take precedence over it.
(21) How is it implied in this verse?
(22) Taking עליה (‘upon it’) in this sense.
(23) After the evening tamid.
(24) v. supra p. 288, n. 5.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 59a
let that in connection with which ba-’ereb [at evening] and ben ha-’arbayim [between the evenings]1 are said be deferred after that in connection with which ba-’ereb is not said, save ben ha-’arbayim alone.2 If so, let [the burning of] the incense [and the kindling of] the lights also take precedence over the Passover offering, [for] let that in connection with which ba-’ereb and ben ha-’arbayim are stated be deferred after that in connection with which nought save ben ha-’arbayim alone is said?3 — There it is different, because Scripture expressed a limitation, ‘it’. For it was taught: [Aaron and his sons shall set it in order, to burn] from evening to morning:4 furnish it with its [requisite] measure, so that it may burn from evening to morning. Another interpretation: you have no [other] service which is valid from evening to morning save this alone. What is the reason? Scripture saith, ‘Aaron and his sons shall set it in order, to burn from evening to morning’: ‘it’ [shall be] from evening to morning, but no other thing shall be from evening until morning;5 and [the burning of] the incense is likened to [the kindling of] the lights.6
Now it was taught in accordance with our difficulty: The [evening] tamid is [sacrificed] before [the burning of] the incense, the incense is [burnt] before [the kindling of] the lamps, and the lamps are [kindled] before [the sacrificing of] the Passover offering: let that in connection with which ba-’ereb and ben ha'arbayim are stated be deferred after that in connection with which nought save ben ha-’arbayim alone is stated. But ‘it’ is written?7 — That ‘it’ is required to exclude a service of the inner [Temple]; and what is it? [The burning of] the incense.8 You might think
But in connection with the former only ben ha-’arbayim is stated, Num. XXVIII,6 : and the other lamb shalt thou offer at dusk (ben ha'arbayim). that I would say, since it is written, And when Aaron lighteth the lamps at dusk, he shall burn it,9 say, let us first light the lamps and then burn the incense; therefore the Merciful One expressed a limitation, ‘it’. Then what is the purpose of, ‘at dusk he shall burn it’? — This is what the Merciful One saith: When thou lightest the lamps, the incense must [already] be burning.
Our Rabbis taught: There is nothing which takes precedence over the morning tamid except [the burning of] the [morning] incense alone, in connection with which ‘in the morning, in the morning’ is stated; so let [the burning of the] incense, in connection with which ‘in the morning, in the morning,’ is stated, for it is written, And Aaron shall burn thereon incense of sweet spices, in the morning, in the morning,10 take precedence over that in connection with which only one ‘morning’ is stated.11 And there is nothing which may be delayed until after the evening tamid save [the burning of] the incense, [the lighting of] the lamps, [the slaughtering of] the Passover sacrifice, and he who lacks atonement12 on the eve of Passover, who performs ritual immersion a second time13 and eats his Passover sacrifice in the evening. R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka said: He who lacks atonement at any other time of the year too, who performs ritual immersion and eats of sacred flesh in the evening.14 According to the first Tanna, it is well: let the affirmative precept of [eating] the Passover sacrifice, which involves kareth,15 come and override the affirmative precept of completion.16 which does not involve kareth.17 But according to R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka, wherein is this affirmative precept stronger than the other affirmative precept? — Said Rabina in R. Hisda's name: We treat here of a sin-offering of a bird, the blood of which alone belongs to the altar.18 R. Papa said: You may even say [that we treat of] an animal sin-offering: he takes it up and keeps it overnight on the top of the altar.19 But there is the guilt-offering?20 As for R. Papa. it is well: hence we keep it overnight. But according to R. Hisda, what can be said? — I will tell you: It means where he has offered up his guilt-offering.21 But there is the burnt-offering?22 And should you answer, The burnt-offering is not indispensable,23 surely it was taught. R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Berokah said: Just as his sin-offering and his guilt-offering are indispensable for him, so is his burnt-offering indispensable for him. And should you answer, It means where he has offered his burnt-offering; yet can his burnt-offering be offered first before his sin-offering? Surely it was taught: And he shall offer that which is for the sin-offering first:24 for what purpose is this stated? If to teach that it comes before the burnt-offering, surely it is already said, And he shall prepare the second for a burnt-offering, according to the ordinance?25 But this furnishes a general rule for all sin-offerings, that they take precedence of all burnt-offerings which accompany them; and we have an established principle26 that even a bird sin-offering takes precedence of an animal burnt-offering!27 — Said Raba, The burnt-offering of a leper is different, because the Merciful One saith,
(1) E.V.: ‘at dusk’.
(2) This is why the evening tamid is before the Passover sacrifice. For in connection with the latter both these expressions are used: Ex. XII, 6: and the whole assembly . . . shall kill it at dusk (ben ha-’arbayim); Deut. XVI, 6: thou shalt sacrifice the passover-offering at even (ba-’ereb).
(3) For only ben ha-’arbayim is stated in connection with the former two, Ex. XXX, 7f: And Aaron shall burn thereon incense of sweet spices . . . And when Aaron lighteth the lamps at dusk (ben ha-’arbayim), he shall burn it, ‘ben ha-’arbayim’ applying to both the burning of the incense and the lighting of the lamps.
(4) Ex. XXVII, 21.
(5) Hence nothing may come after the kindling of the lights, and consequently the slaughtering of the Passover offering must take precedence.
(6) Just as no service after the former is valid, so is no service valid after the latter.
(7) Implying that nothing must be done after the kindling of the lights.
(8) For it is logical that a service similar to itself should be excluded, the kindling of the lamps likewise being a service in the inner Temple, and ‘it’ shows that no other inner service may take place after the kindling of the lamp. But the Passover offering was sacrificed in the outer Court.
(9) Ex. XXX, 7.
(10) Ibid.; E.V.: ‘every morning’. The literal translation is given in the text, and the repetition implies an earlier hour.
(11) Num. XXVIII, 4: The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning.
(12) The technical designation, of an unclean person who may not eat holy flesh until he has brought a sacrifice after regaining his cleanliness, viz.,a zab and a zabah (v. Glos.). a leper and a woman after childbirth. If one of these forgot to bring his sacrifice before the evening tamid was sacrificed on the eve of Passover, he must bring it after the tamid, since otherwise he may not partake of the Passover offering in the evening. which is obligatory.
(13) Though he must perform ritual immersion the previous day, this being necessary before the purificatory sacrifice may be offered, he nevertheless repeats it before partaking of holy flesh.
(14) If he brought a peace-offering that day but forgot to bring his purificatory sacrifice, he must bring it even after the afternoon tamid, so that he may eat the flesh of his peace-offering in the evening. R. Ishmael regarding this too as obligatory.
(15) If unfulfilled, v. Num. IX, 13.
(16) V. supra 58b bottom: ‘after it complete all the sacrifices’.
(17) Even if a sacrifice is unlawfully brought after the evening tamid it is not punished by kareth.
(18) R. Ishmael, in speaking of one who lacks atonement during the rest of the year, refers to a poor leper, who brought a bird for his sin-offering. This was eaten by the priests, and nothing of it was burnt on the altar, whereas the affirmative precept of ‘completion’ is written in reference to burning on the altar (v. Lev. VI, 5: and he shall burn thereon the fat of the peace-offerings). and hence applies only to animal sacrifices, the fat of which was burnt on the altar.
(19) He slaughters the sacrifice after the evening tamid, but carries the animal on to the top of the altar and leaves it there overnight, postponing the burning of the fat until after the tamid of the following morning.
(20) Required by a leper; even if poor, he brought a lamb, v. Lev. XIV, 21.
(21) But had forgotten about the sin-offering.
(22) Likewise required by a leper. ibid. 19, 22. This of course was burnt on the altar (v. n. 4).
(23) To the eating of sacred flesh.
(24) Lev. V, 8, q.v.
(25) Ibid. 10.
(26) Binyan Ab, a building up of a principle (or class). i.e., a conclusion by analogy.
(27) V. Zeb. 90b.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 59b
And the priest shall [have] offer[ed] the burnt offering.1 [implying], that which he has already offered.2
R. Shaman b. Abba said to R. Papa: According to you who maintain [that] he takes it up and keeps it overnight on the top of the altar, shall we arise and do a thing to the priests whereby they may come to a stumbling-block, for they will think it is of that day. and thus come to burn it?3 — he priests are most careful, replied he.
R. Ashi said to R. Kahana-others state, R. Huna the son of R. Nathan [said] to R. Papa: But as long as the emurim4 have not been burnt, the priests may not eat the flesh?5 For it was taught: You might think that the priests should be permitted [to partake] of the breast and the thigh before the burning of the emurim: therefore it is stated, And the priest shall burn the fat upon the altar,6 and then follows, but the breast shall be Aaron's and his sons’. And as long as the priests have not eaten [it], the owners obtain no atonement, for it was taught: And they shall eat those things wherewith atonement was made:7 this teaches that the priests eat [it] and the owners obtain atonement! — Said he to him, Since it is impossible,8 they [the emurim] are treated9 as though they were defiled or lost. For it was taught: You might think that if the emurim were defiled or lost, the priests have no right to the breast or the thigh, therefore it is stated, ‘But the breast shall be Aaron's and his sons’, in all cases.
R. Kahana opposed [two verses]: It is written, neither shall the fat of My feast remain all night until the morning:10 [thus] it is only ‘until the morning’ that ‘it shall not remain all night,’ but it may be kept for the whole night;11 but it is written, and he shall burn thereon the fat of the peace-offerings,12 [implying,] after it complete all the sacrifices?13 He raised the difficulty; and he himself answered it: That is where they were left over.14
R. Safra pointed out a contradiction to Raba: It is written, neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the Passover be left unto the morning:15 thus it is only ‘unto the morning’ that ‘it shall not be left,’ but it may be kept all night;16 but it is written, The burnt-offering of the Sabbath [shall be burnt] on its Sabbath,17 but not the burnt-offering of a weekday on the Sabbath, nor the burnt-offering of a weekday on a Festival? — Said he to him, R. Abba b. Hiyya has already pointed out this contradiction to R. Abbahu, and he answered him, We treat here of the case where the fourteenth falls on the Sabbath,18 for the fats of the Sabbath may be offered on the Festival. Said he to him, Because the fats of the Sabbath may be offered on the Festival, we are to arise and assume that this verse is written [only] in respect of the fourteenth which falls on the Sabbath?19 Leave the verse, he answered, for it is compelled to establish its own [particular] case.20
MISHNAH. IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED THE PASSOVER SACRIFICE FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE,21 AND HE CAUGHT [THE BLOOD] AND WENT AND SPRINKLED IT FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE;22 OR FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE AND FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE; OR FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE AND FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE;23 IT IS DISQUALIFIED. HOW IS ‘FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE AND FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE’ MEANT? IN THE NAME OF THE PASSOVER SACRIFICE [FIRST] AND [THEN] IN THE NAME OF A PEACE-OFFERING. ‘FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE AND FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE’ [MEANS] IN THE NAME OF A PEACE-OFFERING [FIRST] AND [THEN] IN THE NAME OF THE PASSOVER-OFFERING.
GEMARA. R. Papa24 asked: Did we learn [of a dual intention expressed even] in respect to one service,25 or did we learn [only of a dual intention expressed] at two separate services? Did we learn [of a dual intention expressed even] in respect of one service, this being in accordance with R. Jose, who maintained, A man is responsible for26 his last words too;27 for if [it agreed with] R. Meir, surely he said, Seize [i.e., determine the matter by] the first expression;28
(1) Lev. XIV, 20; the bracketed additions show the meaning which the verse is capable of bearing, by treating והעלה as a pluperfect, beside its usual and obvious meaning.
(2) Hence although the sin-offering should come before the burnt-offering, yet the possible meaning of this verse teaches that even if the order is reversed it is valid. Therefore we can explain the present Baraitha as meaning that he had already sacrificed his burnt-offering.
(3) During the night the limbs of the sacrifices of the previous day are burnt, all before the tamid of the following morning. Here, however, the animal sin-offering which was kept untouched overnight must be burnt after the morning tamid, whereas the priest may confuse it with the rest and burn it before.
(4) V. Glos.
(5) And in consequence atonement is incomplete, so that the owner may not partake of the Passover sacrifice in any case, if his sin-offering is left overnight.
(6) Lev. VII, 31.
(7) Ex. XXIX, 33.
(8) To burn the emurim after the evening tamid, on account of the affirmative precept of ‘completion’.
(9) Lit., ‘they (the Sages) treated them’.
(10) Ex. XXIII, 18.
(11) I.e.,the priest has the whole night in which to burn the fat, providing that nothing is left by the morning.
(12) Lev. VI, 5.
(13) V. supra 58b. Thus nothing may be done after the evening tamid.
(14) Of the sacrifices whose blood was sprinkled before the evening tamid. Immediately the blood is sprinkled the fat etc. is ready for burning on the altar, and therefore even if it is delayed, its ultimate burning during the night is regarded as following the tamid of the previous morning, not that of the evening.
(15) Ex. XXXIV, 25.
(16) During which the altar portions of the Passover sacrifice are burnt. Although these, strictly speaking, belong to a sacrifice which has been offered on a weekday, i.e., the fourteenth, yet they may be burnt on the night of the Festival.
(17) Num. XXVIII, 10.
(18) I.e., only then is the implication of the first verse applicable.
(19) Surely there is no warrant for this limitation.
(20) Since there is a contradiction, the verse itself proves that it can only relate to this particular instance.
(21) Lit., ‘not for its own name’, i.e., as a different sacrifice. E.g., when he killed it he stated that it was for a peace-offering, not for a Passover sacrifice.
(22) Slaughtering the sacrifice, catching the blood, going with it to the side of the altar where it is to be sprinkled, and sprinkling it, are regarded as four distinct services, any of which, if performed with an illegal intention, disqualifies the Passover sacrifice.
(23) I.e., one of the services was for its own sake and another was for a different purpose, in the order stated.
(24) Rashal reads: Raba.
(25) I.e., even if he declared at one of the services, e.g.,the slaughtering, that he was doing it for its own purpose and for another purpose.
(26) Lit., ‘seized’.
(27) v. supra 53b. Hence since his last words were illegal, the sacrifice is disqualified.
(28) Where the two parts of a man's statement are mutually exclusive, regard the first only.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 60a
or perhaps we learned [it only] in respect to two services, and even according to R. Meir, who said, ‘Seize the first expression.’ that applies only in the case of one service, but in the case of two services he agrees that it is disqualified?1 — I will tell you: to which [case does this problem refer]? Shall we say, to [the case where it was] for another purpose [first] and [then] for its own purpose, then whether it was in connection with one service or in connection with two services, according to both R. Meir and R. Jose it was disqualified by the first [wrongful intention], for according to R. Jose too, he holds that a man is held responsible for his last words also?2 — Rather, [the problem refers] to [where it was done] for its own purpose [first] and then for another purpose: what then? —
Come and hear: IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED THE PASSOVER SACRIFICE FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE AND CAUGHT [THE BLOOD]. AND WENT AND SPRINKLED IT FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE: how is it meant? Shall we say, [literally] as he teaches it,3 why must he intend all of them [for a wrong purpose]? From the first it is disqualified! Hence he must teach thus: IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED THE PASSOVER SACRIFICE FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE, or even if he slaughtered it for its own purpose, but HE CAUGHT [ITS BLOOD], AND WENT AND SPRINKLED IT FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE,4 or even if he slaughtered it, caught [its blood], and went [with it] for its own purpose. but SPRINKLED IT FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE, so that it is [a question of] two services.5 Then consider the second clause: FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE AND FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE: how is it meant? Shall we say. in respect of two services: then it is identical with the first clause! Hence it must surely be in respect of one service, and this agrees with R. Jose, who maintained: A man is held responsible for his last words too! — No. After all it refers to two services,6 but the first clause [discusses] where he is standing at [engaged in] the slaughtering and intends [with due purpose] in respect of the slaughtering, or again7 he is standing at the sprinkling and intends [for another purpose] in respect of sprinkling.8 While the second clause means when he is standing at the slaughtering and intends in respect of the sprinkling, when he [for instance] declares, ‘Behold, I slaughter the Passover sacrifice for its own purpose, [but] to sprinkle its blood for another purpose’; and he [the Tanna] informs us that you can intend at one service for another service,9 and that is R. Papa's question.10
Come and hear: OR FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE AND FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE, [IT] IS DISQUALIFIED. How is it meant? If we say, in the case of two services, [then] seeing that where [if the first is] for its own purpose and [the second is] for another purpose. you say that it is disqualified. is it necessary [to state it where it is first] for another purpose and [then] for its own purpose?11 Hence it must surely refer to one service, and since the second clause refers to one service, the first clause too refers [also] to one service! — No, after all it refers [only] to two services, and logically indeed it is not required, but because he speaks of ‘FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE AND FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE,’ he also mentions ‘FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE AND FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE.12
Come and hear: If he killed it [the Passover sacrifice] for those who cannot eat it or for those who were not registered for it,13 for uncircumcised14 or for unclean persons,15 it is disqualified. Now here it obviously refers to one service, and since the second clause refers to one service, the first clause too treats [also] of one service!16 — What argument is this? The one is according to its nature, while the other is according to its nature; the second clause [certainly] refers [only] to one service, while the first clause may refer either to one service or to two services.17
Come and hear: [If he killed it] for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, it is fit. How is it meant? Shall we say, at two services:18 and the reason [that it is fit] is because he intended it [for non-eaters] at the sprinkling, for there can be no [effective] intention of eaters at the sprinkling;19 hence [if it were] at one service, e.g.. at the slaughtering, where an intention with reference to eaters is effective, it would be disqualified, but we have an established law that if some are eaters it is not disqualified?20
(1) On the first hypothesis the Mishnah refers even to one service, and will certainly also hold good in the case of two services; while on the second hypothesis the Mishnah refers to two services only, but will not hold good in the case of one service; Rashi infra 60b. s.v. סיפא בעבודה אחת and as is evident from the context.
(2) I.e., they too must be taken into account, but his first words certainly cannot be ignored.
(3) Viz., that all four services were performed for another purpose.
(4) [The text seems to be in slight disorder, v. D.S. The general meaning is, however, clear.]
(5) I.e., this clause states the case of a legal purpose at one service and an illegal purpose at another service.
(6) And still the two clauses are not identical as it goes on explaining.
(7) [MS.M. omits: ‘or again’.]
(8) [‘Slaughtering’ and ‘sprinkling’ are taken merely as examples, the same applying to the other services. Each was performed with the due or undue intention, as the case may be, in respect of itself.]
(9) And that such intention is taken into account, so that if it is illegitimate the sacrifice is disqualified.
(10) Riba: that is why R. Papa asks his question, because the Mishnah affords no solution. Rashba: R. Papa's question as to whether the Mishnah may refer to two services is in such conditions, viz., where an illegitimate intention for one service is expressed in the course of another service.
(11) For the very first intention is illegitimate and disqualifies it; how then is it to regain its validity? The same difficulty arises if the Mishnah refers to one and the same service, but then it can be answered that the Mishnah informs us in the first clause (‘FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE AND FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE’) that we do not determine the matter purely by his first words, and in the second clause (‘FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE AND FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE’) that the matter is not determined purely by his last words, but that due weight must be given to both.
(12) For the sake of parallelism.
(13) Every Paschal lamb required its registered consumers before it was slaughtered, in accordance with Ex. XII, 4. In the present instance he enumerated those for whom he was slaughtering it, all of whom, however, were incapable of eating through old age or sickness (Rashi: none others had registered for it; Tosaf.: others who were capable had also registered for it, but he ignored them in his declaration), or had not registered for this particular animal.
(14) ‘Uncircumcised’ in this connection always means men whose brothers had died through circumcision, and they were afraid of a similar fate. These may not eat thereof, ibid. 48.
(15) Who may likewise not eat it, being forbidden all sacred flesh. Lev. XXII, 4ff.
(16) The Mishnahs printed on 59b and 61a are actually clauses of the same Mishnah.
(17) I.e., either also to one service or exclusively to two services. And the question is, to which?
(18) Thus: at the slaughtering he declared that it was for those who can eat, and at the sprinkling he declared that it was for those who cannot eat (R. Han.).
(19) I.e., an intention with respect to the eaters expressed at the sprinkling is of no account.
(20) Since even if only one desired to eat of it the whole animal must be killed, v. infra 61a.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 60b
Hence it surely refers [also] to one service,1 and since the second clause refers [also] to one service, the first clause too refers [also] to one service! — What argument is this: the one is according to its nature, while the other is according to its nature: the second clause refers [also] to one service,2 while the first clause refers either to one service or to two services.3 The scholars asked: What is the law of a Passover sacrifice which he killed at any other time of the year for its own purpose and for another purpose?4 Does the other purpose come and nullify5 its own purpose, and [thus] make it fit, or not? — When R. Dimi came,6 he said, I stated this argument before R. Jeremiah: Since [slaughtering it] for its own purpose makes it fit at its own time, while [slaughtering it] for another purpose makes it fit at a different time,7 then just as [the slaughtering] for its own purpose, which makes it fit at its own time, does not save8 it from [the disqualifying effect of] another purpose,9 so also [the slaughtering] for another purpose, which makes it fit at a different time, does not save it [from the disqualifying effect] of its own purpose, and it is unfit. Whereupon he said to me, It is not so: If you say thus in respect to another purpose.10 that is because it operates in the case of all sacrifices;11 will you say [the same where it is slaughtered] for its own purpose, seeing that it does not operate [as a cause of disqualification] in the case of all [other] sacrifices but only in the case of the Passover sacrifice alone?
What is [our decision] thereon? — Said Raba, A Passover sacrifice which he slaughtered at any other time of the year for its own purpose and for another purpose is fit. For it tacitly stands [to be killed] for its own purpose, yet even so, when he kills it for another purpose12 it is fit, which proves that the other purpose comes and nullifies its own purpose. Hence, when he slaughters it for its own purpose and for another purpose too, the other purpose comes and nullifies its own purpose. Said R. Adda b. Ahabah to Raba: Perhaps where he states it, it is different from where he does not state it?13 For [if he kills it] for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, it is fit, yet when he kills it for those who cannot eat it alone, it is disqualified. Yet why so? Surely it tacitly stands for those who can eat it?14 Hence [you must admit that] where he states it, it is different from where he does not state it; so here too, where he states it, it is different from where he does not state it. Is this all argument? he rejoined. As for there, it is well: there, as long as he does not [expressly] overthrow it at the slaughtering, its tacit [destiny] is certainly to be killed for its own purpose. But here, does it tacitly stand for those who are [registered] to eat it? Perhaps these will withdraw and others will come and register for it, for we learned: They may register and withdraw their hands from it [the Paschal lamb] until he kills it.
The scholars asked: What is the law of a Paschal lamb which was slaughtered during the rest of the year with a change of its
offering, which may then not be eaten, or in part, in the sense that they may be eaten, but their owners have not discharged their obligations and must bring another. Therefore it is logical that its disqualifying power should be so strong as to render of no avail the fact that it was slaughtered for its purpose too. owners?15 Is a change of owner like a change of sanctity,16 and it validates it; or not? — Said R. Papa. I stated this argument before Raba: Since a change of sanctity disqualifies it at its own time, and a change of owner disqualifies it at its own time: then just as a change of sanctity, which disqualifies it at its own time, validates it at a different time,17 so a change of owner, which disqualifies it at its own time, validates it at a different time. But he said to me, It is not so: If you say thus in the case of a change of sanctity, [that is] because its disqualification is intrinsic,18 and it is [operative] in respect of the four services,19
(1) I.e., also to one service.
(2) This will not have quite the same meaning as the same phrase used before. There it obviously meant that it treats of one service only. Here however the meaning is this: even in the case of one service the sacrifice is fit, this law holding good in the case of both one service or two services. Thus, if this intention, viz., that he was killing it for eaters and non-eaters, was expressed at the slaughtering, the sacrifice is fit, because eaters were included. While it may also refer to two services, as explained on p. 301, n. 7.
(3) V. p. 301. n. 6.
(4) E.g., if a man dedicated a lamb for the Passover sacrifice a considerable time beforehand. Now it is stated infra 70b that if he kills it as a peace-offering at any time other than the eve of Passover it is fit; if as a Passover offering, it is unfit.
(5) Lit., ‘exclude from’.
(6) From Palestine to Babylon
(7) Lit., ‘not in its own time’.
(8) Lit., ‘draw out’.
(9) So that if it is killed both for its purpose and for another purpose, it is unfit.
(10) That it disqualifies the Passover sacrifice even if it is also killed for its own purposes.
(11) All sacrifices, if slaughtered for a purpose other than their own, are disqualified, either wholly, viz., in the case of a sin-offering and the Passover
(12) Before the eve of passover.
(13) The other purpose can nullify the tacit assumption that it stands for its own purpose, but it may be unable to nullify the explicit declaration that it is slaughtered for its own purpose too.
(14) So that according to your argument it is the same as though he explicitly killed it for both.
(15) The animal was set aside for a certain person and then slaughtered for a different person, but for its own purpose
(16) I.e., like slaughtering it as a different sacrifice.
(17) The text must be emended thus.
(18) I.e., an illegitimate intention is expressed in respect to the sacrifice itself.
(19) V. Mishnah supra 59b and note a.l.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 61a
and it is [operative] after death,1 and it is [operative] in the case of the community as in the case of an individual;2 will you say [the same] of a change of owner, where the disqualification is not intrinsic, and it is not [operative] in respect of the four services,3 and it is not [operative] after death,4 and it is not [operative] in the case of the community as in the case of an individual? And though two [of these distinctions] are not exact,5 two nevertheless are exact. For how is a change of owners different, that [you say] its disqualification is not intrinsic: because its disqualification is merely [one of] intention? Then with a change of sanctity too, its disqualification is merely one of intention. Again, as to what he says. A change of owners is not [operative as a disqualification] after death, then according to R. Phineas the son of R. Ammi who maintained, There is [a disqualification in] a change of owner after death, what is there to be said? Two [of these distinctions] are nevertheless exact! Rather, said Raba: A Paschal lamb which he slaughtered during the rest of the year with a change of owners is regarded as though it had no owners in its proper time,6 and it is disqualified.
MISHNAH. IF HE KILLED IT FOR THOSE WHO CANNOT EAT IT OR FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED FOR IT, FOR UNCIRCUMCISED PERSONS OR FOR UNCLEAN PERSONS, IT IS UNFIT. [IF HE KILLED IT] FOR THOSE WHO ARE TO EAT IT AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT TO EAT IT, FOR THOSE WHO ARE REGISTERED FOR IT AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED FOR IT, FOR CIRCUMCISED AND FOR UNCIRCUMCISED, FOR UNCLEAN AND FOR CLEAN PERSONS, IT IS FIT. IF HE KILLED IT BEFORE MIDDAY, IT IS DISQUALIFIED, BECAUSE IT IS SAID, [AND THE WHOLE ASSEMBLY . . . SHALL KILL IT] AT DUSK.7 IF HE KILLED IT BEFORE THE [EVENING] TAMID, IT IS FIT, PROVIDING THAT ONE SHALL STIR ITS BLOOD UNTIL [THAT OF] THE TAMID IS SPRINKLED;8 YET IF IT WAS SPRINKLED,9 IT IS FIT.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: How is ‘for those who cannot eat it’ meant? [If it was killed] in the name of an invalid or an old man. How is ‘for those who were not registered for it’ meant? If one company registered for it and he killed it in the name of a different company.
How do we know this? Because our Rabbis taught, [Then shall he and his neighbour next unto him take one] according to the number of [be-miksath] [the souls]:10 this teaches that the Paschal lamb is not slaughtered save for those who are registered [numbered] for it. You might think that if he slaughtered it for those who were not registered for it, he should be as one who violates the precept, yet it is fit. Therefore it is stated, ‘according to the number of [be-miksath] [the souls] . . . ye shall make your count [takosu]’: the Writ reiterated it, to teach that it is indispensable. Rabbi said, This is a Syriac expression, as a man who says to his neighbour, ‘Kill [kos] me this lamb.’11 We have thus found [it disqualified if killed] for those who are not registered for it; how do we know [the same of] those who cannot eat it? Scripture saith, according to every man's eating ye shall make your count,’ [thus] eaters are assimilated to registered [persons].
(1) If the owner of the sacrifice died, his son must bring it, and if the latter slaughters it for a different purpose it is disqualified.
(2) A public sacrifice, just like a private sacrifice, is disqualified if offered for another purpose.
(3) In the case of sacrifices other than the Passover a change of owner is a disqualification only when it is expressed in connection with the sprinkling of the blood, i.e., he declares that he will sprinkle the blood on behalf of another person.
(4) When its owner dies the sacrifice loses his name, and therefore even if it is offered in another man's name it is fit.
(5) They are not true distinctions, as shown anon.
(6) I.e., as though it were slaughtered on Passover eve as a Passover sacrifice, but for no persons in particular.
(7) Ex. XII, 6; lit., ‘between the evenings’.
(8) To prevent it from congealing.
(9) Before the blood of the tamid.
(10) Ex. XII, 4.
(11) Thus Rabbi connects the word with slaughter. But he also admits its Hebrew connotation of counting, and he thus points out that an intention for those who cannot eat it or who are not registered for it disqualifies the sacrifice only when it is expressed at the killing, but not when it is expressed at one of the other services (Tosaf.).
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 61b
If he slaughtered it for circumcised persons on condition that uncircumcised persons should be atoned for therewith at the sprinkling,1 — R. Hisda said: It [the lamb] is disqualified; Rabbah ruled: It is fit. R. Hisda said, It is disqualified: There is [a disqualification in] an intention for uncircumcised at the sprinkling. Rabbah ruled, It is fit: There is no [disqualification in] an intention for uncircumcised at the sprinkling. Rabbah said, Whence do I know it? Because it was taught: You might think that he [an uncircumcised person] disqualifies the members of the company who come with him,2 and it is logical: since uncircumcision disqualifies, and uncleanness disqualifies, [then] just as with uncleanness, part uncleanness was not made tantamount to entire uncleanness,3 so with uncircumcision, part uncircumcision was not made tantamount to entire uncircumcision.4 Or turn this way:5 since uncircumcision disqualifies, and time disqualifies: then just as with time, part [in respect to] time was made tantamount to the whole [in respect of] tithe,6 so with uncircumcision, part [in respect] to uncircumcision should be made tantamount to the whole [in respect to] uncircumcision. Let us see to what it is similar: you judge [draw an analogy between] that which does not apply to all sacrifices by that which does not apply to all sacrifices,7 and let not time provide an argument, which operates [as a disqualification] in the case of all sacrifices. Or turn this way: you judge a thing which was not freed8 from its general rule by a thing which was not freed from its general rule;9 and let not uncleanness provide an argument, seeing that it was freed from its general rule.10 Therefore it is stated. This [is the ordinance of the Passover].11 What is [the purpose of] ‘this’?12 If we say. [to teach] that entire uncircumcision disqualifies it [the Paschal lamb], but part thereof13 does not disqualify it, surely that is deduced from, and all uncircumcised person[s] [shall not eat thereof]?14 Hence he [the Tanna] must have taught thus: Therefore it is stated, ‘and all uncircumcised shall not eat thereof. Entire uncircumcision disqualifies it, [but] part thereof does not disqualify it. And should you say, the same law applies to sprinkling, viz., that entire uncircumcision at least does disqualify it:15 therefore ‘this’ is stated, [teaching,] it is only at the slaughtering that entire uncircumcision disqualifies, but [as for] sprinkling, even entire uncircumcision too does not disqualify it.16 And should you ask, What is the leniency of sprinkling?17 That there is no intention of eaters in respect to sprinkling.18
But R. Hisda [maintains,] On the contrary, [the Baraitha is to be explained] in the opposite direction. [Thus:] therefore it is stated, and all uncircumcised person[s] [shall not eat thereof]: if the whole of it [the registered company] is [in a state of] uncircumcision, it disqualifies it, but part thereof does not disqualify it. But [as for] sprinkling, even part thereof disqualifies it.19 And should you say, the same law applies to sprinkling, viz., that unless there is entire uncircumcision it does not disqualify it, therefore ‘this’ is stated, [teaching,] only at the slaughtering does part thereof not disqualify it, but at the sprinkling even part thereof disqualifies it. And should you ask, What is the stringency of sprinkling?20 [It is] that [the prohibition of] piggul cannot be imposed save at the sprinkling.21 To this R. Ashi demurred: Whence [do you know] that this [verse] ‘and all uncircumcised person[s],’ implies in its entirety; perhaps this [verse], ‘and all uncircumcised person[s]’ implies whatever there is of uncircumcision,22 [and] therefore the Merciful One wrote ‘this’ to teach that unless there is an entire [company in a state of] uncircumcision, it does not disqualify it, there being no difference whether [it is] at the slaughtering or at the sprinkling?23 Rather, said R. Ashi, R. Hisda and Rabbah
(1) Whether the latter were registered for it or not. [‘To be atoned for’ here is employed in a technical sense denoting to have the blood sprinkled on behalf of (a person), as there is no question of atonement with the Paschal lamb. The words ‘at the sprinkling’ are accordingly superfluous, and in fact do not appear in MS.M.]
(2) I.e., if he registered together with duly circumcised, all are disqualified from partaking of this lamb.
(3) Only if all who register are unclean is the sacrifice disqualified. but not if merely some of them are unclean.
(4) Hence it is not disqualified.
(5) I.e., argue thus.
(6) I.e., if he expressed an intention of eating only part of the sacrifice even after the time legally permitted, the whole sacrifice is piggul (q.v. Glos.) and disqualified.
(7) Uncircumcision and uncleanness are not disqualifications in the case of other sacrifices, which may be killed on behalf of their owners even if they are uncircumcised or unclean.
(8) Lit., ‘permitted’.
(9) In no case may a sacrifice be eaten by an uncircumcised person or after its permitted time.
(10) If the whole community is unclean, the Paschal lamb is sacrificed and eaten by them. — Thus two contradictory arguments are possible.
(11) Ex. XII, 43; the passage proceeds to disqualify an uncircumcised person (v. 49), and this word is quoted as teaching that an uncircumcised person does not disqualify others who register with him. ‘This’ is a limitation, teaching that the law is exactly as stated, and is not to be extended to others.
(12) This is part of Rabbah's argument. How does ‘this’ signify that the uncircumcised does not disqualify the members of the company that come with him?
(13) I.e., when only some of the registered company are uncircumcised.
(14) Ibid. 48, which is thus interpreted: when all who have registered for a particular animal are uncircumcised, none must eat thereof. But if only a fraction are uncircumcised, the circumcised may eat thereof. (E.V. but no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.)
(15) Viz., where he expressed an intention that the sprinkling should make atonement for uncircumcised only.
(16) ‘This’ implies that uncircumcision disqualifies at one of the four services only, which is assumed to be the slaughtering. This interpretation of the Baraitha supports Rabbah's view.
(17) What other leniency do you find in sprinkling, that you assume that the limitation of ‘this’ teaches a further leniency in respect to uncircumcision.
(18) He need not sprinkle expressly for those who are registered, as the requirement of registration and eaters is stated in connection with slaughtering, v. supra 61a note on Rabbi's exegesis.
(19) As his view supra.
(20) What other stringency do you find in sprinkling, that you assume that the limitation of ‘this’ teaches a further stringency in respect to uncircumcision.
(21) An illegitimate intention to partake of the sacrifice after the permitted time, expressed at one of the four services (v. Mishnah supra 59b) renders it piggul, and he who eats it even within the permitted time, incurs kareth, only if the subsequent services are performed without any intention at all or with a legitimate intention or with the same illegitimate intention. But if any one of the subsequent services is performed with a different illegitimate intention, e.g.. to eat it without the permitted boundaries, it ceases to be piggul and does not involve kareth, v. Zeb. 28b. Hence the only service in which it can definitely be fixed as piggul without possibility of revocation is sprinkling, because that is the last service. That is regarded as a stringency of sprinkling.
(22) I.e., on the contrary it may imply that even if a single person of those who are registered for the sacrifice is uncircumcised, it is disqualified.
(23) For on the present exegesis there is no verse to intimate a distinction.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 62a
differ in this verse: And it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him:1 ‘for him’, but not for his companion.2 Rabbah holds, His companion must be like himself: just as he is capable of atonement, so must his companion be capable of atonement,3 thus excluding this uncircumcised person, who is not capable of atonement.4 But R. Hisda holds, This uncircumcised person too, since he is subject to the obligation, he is [also] subject to atonement, since if he wishes he can make himself fit.5
Yet does R. Hisda accept [the argument of] ‘since’?6 Surely it was stated, If one bakes [food] on a Festival for [use on] a weekday. — R. Hisda said: He is flagellated; Rabbah said: He is not flagellated. ‘Rabbah said, He is not flagellated’: We say, Since if guests visited him, it would be fit for him, [on the Festival itself]. it is fit for him now too.7 ‘R. Hisda said, He is flagellated’: We do not say, ‘since’.8 As for Rabbah, it is well, [and] he is not self contradictory: here [in the case of circumcision], an action is wanting,9 whereas there an action is not wanting.10 But R. Hisda is self-contradictory?11 — I will tell you: when does R. Hisda reject [the argument of] ‘since’? [where it leads] to [greater] leniency;12 [but where it results] in stringency, he accepts it.13
Mar Zutra son of R. Mari said to Rabina: [The Baraitha] teaches: ‘since uncircumcision disqualifies, and uncleanness disqualifies, [then] just as uncleanness, part uncleanness was not made tantamount to entire uncleanness, so uncircumcision, part uncircumcision was not made tantamount to entire uncircumcision. How is this uncleanness meant? Shall we say, it means uncleanness of the person, and what is meant by, ‘part uncleanness was not made tantamount to entire uncleanness’? That if there are four or five unclean persons and four or five clean persons,14 the unclean do not disqualify [the Paschal lamb] for the clean. But then in the case of uncircumcision too they do not disqualify, for we learned, FOR CIRCUMCISED AND UNCIRCUMCISED . . . IT IS FIT: how then is uncleanness different, that he is certain about it, and how is uncircumcision different, that he is doubtful?15 Hence it must refer to uncleanness of the flesh, and what is meant by, ‘part uncleanness was not made tantamount to entire uncleanness’? For where one of the limbs becomes unclean, that which becomes unclean we burn, while the others we eat. To what have you [thus] referred it?16 To uncleanness of the flesh! Then consider the sequel: ‘you judge that which does not apply to all sacrifices by that which does not apply to all sacrifices,17 hence let not time [dis]prove it, since it applies to all sacrifices’. Now what does ‘uncleanness mean? Shall we say, uncleanness of the flesh, — why does it not apply to all sacrifices?18 Hence it is obvious that it refers to uncleanness of person, and what does ‘it does not apply to all sacrifices’ mean? For whereas in the case of all [other] sacrifices an uncircumcised person and an unclean person can send their sacrifices,19 in the case of the Passover offering an uncircumcised person and an unclean person cannot send their Passover offerings. Thus the first clause refers to uncleanness of the flesh, while the second clause refers to uncleanness of the person? — Yes, answered he to him, he argues20 from the designation of uncleanness.21
Alternatively, the sequel too refers to the uncleanness of flesh. Then what is [meant by] ‘it does not apply to all sacrifices’? [It means this], for whereas in the case of all [other] sacrifices, whether the fat22 is defiled while the flesh remains [clean], or the flesh is defiled while the fat remains [clean], he [the officiating priest] sprinkles the blood;23 in the case of the Passover offering, if the fat22 is defiled while the flesh remains [clean], he sprinkles the blood; but if the flesh is defiled while the fat remains [clean], he must not sprinkle the blood.24
To what have you referred it: to uncleanness of the flesh? Then consider the final clause: ‘you judge a thing which was not freed from its general interdict by a thing which was not freed from its general interdict, hence let not uncleanness disprove it, seeing that it was freed from its general interdict.’ In which [case]? Shall we say.
(1) Lev. I, 4. [I.e., by sprinkling, v. supra p. 306, n. 2.]
(2) I.e., if the blood is sprinkled on behalf of a different person, the sacrifice is disqualified.
(3) Only then does this change of name disqualify the sacrifice.
(4) I.e., he is not fit to have the Paschal offering made acceptable on his behalf; cf. loc. cit. Hence the intention that the sprinkling shall be on his behalf does not disqualify it.
(5) By circumcision.
(6) I.e., does he accept the view that since a different state of affairs is possible, we take it into account as though it were already in existence?
(7) Though he has no guests. He is therefore regarded as having baked for the Festival itself.
(8) V. supra 46b.
(9) Viz., circumcision, before he is fit; hence though he is potentially circumcised, we cannot regard him as actually so.
(10) The coming of guests involves no action on his part; hence Rabbah's ruling.
(11) As in the case of baking on a Festival for a weekday.
(12) If he accepts the argument of ‘since’ even in the case of circumcision, where an action is wanting, how much the more where no action is wanting!
(13) Tosaf.: according to this, R. Hisda disqualifies the sacrifice (supra 61a top) only by Rabbinical law, for in Scriptural law this distinction is unacceptable.
(14) Registered for the same Paschal lamb.
(15) That the one must be deduced from the other.
(16) Lit., ‘in what (case) have you established it?’
(17) The reference to uncleanness. V. supra p. 307, n. 2.
(18) It certainly does.
(19) To be sacrificed on their behalf, though they cannot partake of them personally.
(20) Lit., ‘he rebuts’.
(21) I.e., from uncleanness as a cause of disqualification, without particularizing the nature of the uncleanness.
(22) Which is burnt on the altar.
(23) And the sacrifice effects its purpose.
(24) For there must be at least as much as an olive of eatable flesh before its blood may be sprinkled.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 62b
in the case of uncleanness of the flesh; where was it permitted? Hence it obviously refers to uncleanness of the person, and where was it permitted? In the case of a community?1 Thus the first clause refers to uncleanness of flesh, while the second clause refers to the uncleanness of the person? — Yes: he argues from the designation of uncleanness. Alternatively, the whole refers to uncleanness of the flesh; and [as to the question,] where was it permitted? [It was] in [the case of] the uncleanness of the Paschal lamb. For we learned: The Paschal lamb which comes [if offered] in uncleanness is eaten in uncleanness, for at the very outset it did not come for [aught] except to be eaten.2 R. Huna son of R. Joshua raised an objection: If a Paschal lamb has passed its year3 and he [its owner] slaughtered it at its own time4 for its own purpose;5 and similarly, when a man kills other [sacrifices] as a Passover offering in its [own] time, — R. Eliezer disqualifies [it];6 while R. Joshua declares it fit.7 Thus the reason [that R. Eliezer disqualifies it] is that it is in its own time, but [if it were slaughtered] at a different time8 it is fit; yet why so? Let us say, Since he disqualifies [it]9 in its own time, he also disqualifies it at a different time?10 — Said R. Papa. There it is different, because Scripture saith, Then ye shall say, The sacrifice of the Lord's passover it is:11 let it retain its own nature:12 neither may it be [slaughtered] in the name of other [sacrifices], nor may others [be slaughtered] in its name; in its time13 when it is disqualified [if slaughtered] in the name of others, others are disqualified [if slaughtered] in its name; at a different time, when it is fit [if slaughtered] in the name of others, others are fit [if slaughtered] in its name.
R. Simlai came before R. Johanan [and] requested him, Let the Master teach me the Book of Genealogies.14 Said he to him, Whence are you? — He replied, From Lod.15 And where is your dwelling? In Nehardea.16 Said he to him, We do not discuss it17 either with the Lodians or with the Nehardeans, and how much more so with you, who are from Lod and live in Nehardea!18 But he urged19 him, and he consented, Let us learn it in three months, he proposed. [Thereupon] he took a clod and threw it at him, saying, If Beruriah, wife of R. Meir [and] daughter of R. Hanina b. Teradion, who studied three hundred laws from three hundred teachers in [one] day, could nevertheless not do her duty20 in three years, yet you propose [to do it] in three months!
As he was going he said to him, Master, What is the difference between [a Passover sacrifice which is offered both] for its own purpose and for a different purpose, and [one that is offered both] for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it?21 — Since you are a scholar, he answered him, come and I will tell you. [When it is killed] for its own purpose and for another purpose, its disqualification is in [respect of] itself;22 [when he kills it] for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, its disqualification is not in [respect of] itself; [when it is] for its own purpose and for another purpose, it is impossible to distinguish its prohibition;23 [when it is] for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, it is possible to distinguish its interdict.24 [Sacrificing] for its own purpose and for another purpose applies to the four services;25 for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, does not apply to the four services.26 [The disqualification of sacrificing] for its own purpose and for another purpose applies to the community as to an individual;27 for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, does not apply to the community as to an individual.28 R. Ashi said: [That] its disqualification is intrinsic and [that] it is impossible to distinguish its prohibition are [one and] the same thing. For why does he say [that]29 its disqualification is intrinsic? Because it is impossible to distinguish its prohibition.
Rami the son of Rab Judah said: Since the day that the Book of Genealogies was hidden,30 the strength of the Sages has been impaired and the light of their eyes has been dimmed.31 Mar Zutra said, Between ‘Azel’ and ‘Azel’ they were laden with four hundred camels of exegetical interpretations!32
It was taught: Others33 say, If he put the circumcised before the uncircumcised,34 it is fit; the uncircumcised before the circumcised, it is disqualified. Wherein does [the case where he put] circumcised before uncircumcised differ, that it is fit, — because we require [them to be] all uncircumcised:35 then [where he put] the uncircumcised before the circumcised too, we require all [to be] uncircumcised, which is absent?
(1) V. supra 61b, p. 307, n. 5.
(2) V. infra 76a.
(3) It became a year old on the first of Nisan, and was then set aside for the Passover sacrifice. Since a year is the extreme limit for such (v. Ex. XII, 5: a male of the first year), it automatically stands to be a peace-offering, being unfit for its original purpose.
(4) I.e., on the eve of Passover.
(5) Sc. as a Passover offering. Thus he killed a peace-offering as a Passover sacrifice.
(6) He infers this a minori: if an animal set aside for the Passover offering is disqualified if slaughtered in its time (on the eve of Passover) as a peace-offering, though if left until after Passover it must be offered as such; then how much the more is a peace-offering disqualified if killed on the eve of Passover as a Passover offering, seeing that if left over and not brought as a peace-offering at the time appointed for same, it cannot be brought as a Passover offering on Passover eve.
(7) For all sacrifices, except the Passover offering and the sin-offering, if sacrificed for another purpose, are fit. He too argues a minori: if during the rest of the year, when it is disqualified if slaughtered in its own’ name
(Sc. as a Passover sacrifice), yet if others (i.e., peace-offerings) are slaughtered in its name they are fit (in accordance with the general rule stated at the beginning of this note); then in its own time, when it is of course fit if slaughtered in its own name, how much the more are others fit if killed in its name!
(8) Lit., ‘not in its time’.
(9) This is the reading in cur. edd. Tosaf.’s reading is preferable: since it is disqualified, etc.
(10) Now that R. Hisda accepts the argument of ‘since’ where this results in greater stringency.
(11) Ibid. 27.
(12) Lit., ‘it is in its own being’. Hu (‘it is’) is an emphatic assertion that it must always retain its own peculiar nature, as explained in the text.
(13) Sc. the eve of Passover.
(14) A commentary on Chronicles, presumably so called because of the many genealogical lists it contains.
(15) Lydda in southern Palestine. [The original home of R. Simlai, v. Hyman, Toledoth, p. 1151.]
(16) The famous academy town on the Euphrates in Babylonia. It is fully discussed in Obermeyer, Landshaft, pp. 244ff.
(17) So. cur. edd. Var. lec.: we do not teach it.
(18) Probably he was simply putting him off.
(19) Lit., ‘compelled’.
(20) I.e., study it adequately.
(21) Why is it disqualified in the first case but fit in the second?
(22) The illegitimate intention is in respect of the sacrifice itself.
(23) I.e., you cannot say this portion of the animal was sacrificed for its own purpose, and that portion for another purpose.
(24) It is possible to allocate separately the share for those who cannot eat it.
(25) V. Mishnah 58b.
(26) An intention with respect to the eaters expressed or conceived at the sprinkling has no effect, v. supra p. 306, n. 1.
(27) I.e., both to private and to public sacrifices.
(28) Intention in respect to eaters has effect only in the case of the Passover sacrifice, which is a private one, and in no others.
(29) [MS.M.: ‘For why is’].
(30) This probably means either suppressed or forgotten; perhaps destroyed.
(31) Rashi: it contained the reasons for many Scriptural laws which have been forgotten.
(32) I.e., on the passage commencing with ‘And Azel had six sons’ (I Chron. VIII, 38) and ending with ‘these were the sons of Azel’ (Ibid. IX, 44) there were such an enormous number of different interpretations! This too, of course, is not to be understood literally.
(33) ‘Others’ frequently refers to R. Meir, v. Hor. 13b, and does refer to him here, as is evident from the text infra.
(34) I.e., if he first intended it for the former and then for the latter.
(35) In order to disqualify the sacrifice.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 63a
Shall we [then] say that the ‘others’ hold, Slaughtering does not count save at the end, and [this is] in accordance with Raba, who said, There is still the controversy. Therefore if he put the circumcised before the uncircumcised, it operates in respect of the circumcised,1 but it does not operate in respect of the uncircumcised; while if he put the uncircumcised before the circumcised, it operates in respect of the uncircumcised, but it does not operate in respect of the circumcised?2 — Said Rabbah, Not so: in truth the ‘others’ hold [that] slaughtering counts from beginning to end, but the case we discuss here is this: e.g., where he mentally determined [it] for both of them, [i.e.,] both for circumcised and for uncircumcised, and he verbally expressed3 [his intention] for uncircumcised, but he had no time to say, ‘for the circumcised’ before the slaughtering was completed with [the expressed intention of] the uncircumcised [alone], and they differ in this: R. Meir holds [that] we do not require his mouth and his heart [to be] the same [in intention];4 while the Rabbis hold, We require his mouth and his heart [to be] the same.5
Yet does R. Meir hold that we do not require his mouth and
at the same service or at different services, because the first statement only is regarded. But the Rabbis maintain that his last words too count, so that if both are expressed at the same service there is a mixing of intentions, and it does not become piggul, for a sacrifice becomes piggul only when the blood has otherwise been properly sprinkled. This proves that the view that the first statement only is regarded is maintained even in respect of halves, for the sacrifice is large enough to permit us to assume that each wrongful intention was expressed with respect to a different part thereof, and yet R. Judah disagrees. To this Abaye answered, Do not think that the slaughtering counts only when it is completed, so that the two intentions come together at the same moment. On the contrary, the slaughtering counts from beginning to end, and in the passage quoted he cut one organ of the animal with the intention of eating it after time, and the second organ with the intention of eating it without the permitted area, R. Meir holding that you can make an animal piggul even at one organ only. (Ritual slaughtering — shechitah — consists of cutting across the two organs of the throat, viz, the windpipe and the gullet.) This proves that Raba, who raised this objection, holds that in the views of R. Meir and R. Judah slaughtering counts only at the end. Hence the present passage too can be explained on that basis too. Thus: he must express his intention for whom he is slaughtering the Passover sacrifice at the end of the slaughtering, and at that moment there is insufficient time to mention both, and so only the first expression is regarded, the second being entirely disregarded. Therefore if he first mentions the circumcised, it is fit; while if he first mentions the uncircumcised, it is unfit. his heart [to be] the same, but the following contradicts it: He who intended saying ‘[Let this be] terumah,’ but he said ‘tithe’ [instead], [or, ‘let this be] tithe,’ and he said ‘terumah,’ or, ‘[I swear] that I will not enter this house,’ but he said, ‘that [house],’ or, ‘[I vow] that I will not benefit from this [person],’ but he said ‘from that [person],’ he has said nothing,6 unless his mouth and his heart are alike?7 — Rather, said Abaye, The first clause means where he stated, ‘[I cut] the first organ for the circumcised and the second organ for the uncircumcised too,’ so that at the second organ also circumcised too are included.8 [But] the second clause means where he stated ‘[I cut] the first organ for uncircumcised, the second organ for circumcised’ so that at the first organ circumcised are not included. Now R. Meir is consistent with his opinion, for he maintained, You can render [a sacrifice] piggul at half of that which makes it permitted; while the Rabbis9 are consistent with their view, for they maintain, You cannot render [a sacrifice] piggul at half of that which makes it permitted.10
MISHNAH. HE WHO SLAUGHTERS THE PASSOVER OFFERING WITH LEAVEN [IN HIS POSSESSION]11 VIOLATES A NEGATIVE COMMAND.12 R. JUDAH SAID: [ALSO] THE [EVENING] TAMID TOO.13 R. SIMEON SAID: [IF HE SLAUGHTERS] THE PASSOVER OFFERING [WITH LEAVEN] ON THE FOURTEENTH FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE, HE IS LIABLE [TO PUNISHMENT]; [IF] FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE, HE IS EXEMPT.14 BUT [FOR] ALL OTHER SACRIFICES,15 WHETHER SLAUGHTERED FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSE OR FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE, HE IS EXEMPT. [BUT IF HE SLAUGHTERS THE PASSOVER SACRIFICE WITH LEAVEN] ON THE FESTIVAL, IF FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE, HE IS EXEMPT; IF FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE, HE IS LIABLE;16 BUT [FOR] ALL OTHER SACRIFICES [SLAUGHTERED ON THE FESTIVAL WITH LEAVEN], WHETHER FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSE OR FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE, HE IS LIABLE,17 EXCEPT [IN THE CASE OR] A SIN-OFFERING WHICH HE SLAUGHTERED FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE.18
GEMARA. R. Simeon b. Lakish said: He is never liable unless there is leaven belonging to him who slaughters or to him who sprinkles [the blood]
(1) Lit., ‘the circumcised fall’ (i.e., are counted). — The slaughtering counts as having been performed for the circumcised.
(2) When a man would substitute an animal for another consecrated animal, both are holy (Lev. XXVII, 33), the former bearing the same holiness as that of the latter, and it must be offered as the same sacrifice. Now if he declares, ‘This animal be a substitute for a burnt-offering’, ‘This (the same) animal be a substitute for a peace-offering’, R. Meir rules that it is a substitute for the first only, for only his first words are regarded. R. Jose holds that his last words too are regarded, and therefore it is a substitute for both; hence it must be redeemed, and the redemption money expended on two animals, one for a burnt-offering and another for a peace-offering. Now a problem is raised in Zeb. 30a: What if he declares, ‘Half of this be a substitute for a burnt-offering, and half be a substitute for a peace-offering’; does R. Meir agree with R. Jose or not? Is R. Meir's reason in the former case because he regards the second statement as a change of mind, which is invalid, since by his first statement it has already become a burnt-offering? But that is obviously inapplicable to the case in question, hence R. Meir will agree. Or perhaps here too R. Meir holds that since the sanctity of the burnt-offering first takes possession of it, as it were, that of the peace-offering cannot operate? Abaye maintains that R. Meir does agree in this case, but Raba holds that there is still the controversy. Thereupon Raba raised an objection to Abaye from this: If a man slaughters a sacrifice with the intention of eating as much as an olive without the permitted area and as much as an olive after the permitted time, R. Judah disagrees with the Rabbis and rules as R. Meir, that only his first statement is counted, hence it is not piggul, which applies to the second only, and kareth is not incurred for eating it. For R. Judah states this as a general rule: If the intention of an illegitimate time is expressed before the intention of an illegitimate place, it is piggul, and kareth is incurred for eating it, whether these two intentions are both expressed
(3) Lit., ‘uttered with his mouth’.
(4) I.e., we merely regard the explicit intention. Hence since he mentioned the uncircumcised only, the sacrifice is unfit.
(5) I.e., both are regarded. Therefore the Mishnah supra 61a states that if it is sacrificed for both, whatever the order, it is fit.
(6) I.e., his words are invalid.
(7) This is an anonymous Mishnah, and it is a general rule that such reflects R. Meir's view; Sanh. 86a.
(8) Hence it is fit.
(9) I.e., the view of the Mishnah supra 61a.
(10) ‘That which makes it permitted’ (the mattir) here is the slaughtering; half of that etc., is the cutting of one organ. R. Meir holds that the intention expressed at the cutting of the first organ determines the status of the sacrifice. Hence, if this intention was to eat it after time, it is piggul; while in the present case, since it was for the uncircumcised, it is disqualified. The Rabbis, however, hold that an illegitimate intention at the first organ cannot render it piggul, and in the same way an intention for uncircumcised at the first organ does not disqualify it.
(11) I.e., before the leaven has been destroyed. The phraseology is Biblical: Thou shalt not slaughter (E.V. ‘offer’) the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread (Ex. XXXIV, 25).
(12) V. preceding note.
(13) I.e., if he kills the evening tamid of the fourteenth before the leaven is destroyed, he violates a negative command.
(14) In the former case the sacrifice is fit, hence the shechitah is duly regarded as shechitah. But in the latter the sacrifice is unfit; hence R. Simeon does not regard the shechitah as shechitah, and the verse quoted on p. 317, n. 6. does not apply to it.
(15) Offered on Passover eve with leaven in his possession.
(16) For a Passover offering killed at a time other than its own, viz., the fourteenth, is disqualified if sacrificed as a Passover offering, but fit if sacrificed as a peace-offering.
(17) Because they are fit, v. Zeb. 2a.
(18) Because it is disqualified, ibid.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 63b
or to one of the members of the company,1 and providing that it [the leaven] is with him in the Temple Court. R. Johanan said: Even if it is not with him in the Temple Court.
Wherein do they differ? Shall we say that they differ in whether ‘with’ [‘al] means ‘near,’2 R. Simeon b. Lakish holding, ‘with’ means near, while R. Johanan holds, We do not require ‘with’ [in the sense of] near,’ — but surely they have differed in this once [already]?3 For we learned: If a man slaughters the thanksoffering within [the Temple Court], while its bread is without the wall, the bread is not sanctified.4 What does ‘without the wall’ mean? R. Johanan said, Without the wall of Beth Pagi;5 but [if] without the wall of the Temple Court, it is sanctified, and we do not require ‘with’ [in the sense of] near. R. Simeon b. Lakish said: Even if without the wall of the Temple Court, it is not sanctified; which proves that we require ‘with’ [in the sense of] near! — Rather, they differ over a doubtful warning.6 But in this too they have already differed once? For it was stated: [If a man declares, ‘I take] an oath that I will eat this loaf to-day,’ and the day passed and he did not eat it, — R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish both maintain, He is not flagellated. R. Johanan said, He is not flagellated, because it is a negative injunction not involving an action,7 and every negative command not involving an action, we do not flagellate for it; but a doubtful warning counts8 as a warning.9 While R. Simeon b. Lakish said, He is not flagellated, because it is a doubtful warning, and a doubtful warning does not count as a warning; but as for a negative command not involving an action, we flagellate for it!
I will tell you: After all they differ in whether ‘with’ implies near, yet it is necessary.10 For if they differed on the subject of leaven [alone], I would say: It is only there that R. Johanan maintains that we do not require ‘with’ [in the sense of] near, because it is a prohibited article, and wherever it is, it is;but in the matter of sanctifying the bread,it is not sanctified save within [the Temple Court], [hence] I would assume [that] he agrees with R. Simeon b. Lakish, that if it is inside it is sanctified, and if not, it is not sanctified, by analogy with service vessels.11 Thus this [latter case] is necessary. And if we were informed [of this] in the matter of sanctifying the bread, I would say: in this R. Simeon b. Lakish maintains that we require ‘with’ [in the sense of] near, so that if it is inside it is sanctified, [and] if not, It is not sanctified. But in the matter of leaven [I would say that] he agrees with R. Johanan that we do not require ‘with’ [in the sense of] near, because it is a prohibited article, and wherever it is, it is. Hence they are [both] necessary.
R. Oshaia asked R. Ammi: What if he who slaughters has none, but one of the members of the company has [leaven]?12 — Said he to him, Is it then written, ‘Thou shalt not slaughter [the blood of My sacrifice] with thy leavened bread’? ‘Thou shalt not slaughter [the blood of My sacrifice] with leavened bread’ is written.13 If so, he countered, [he is culpable] even if a person at the end of the world [possesses leaven]! — Said he to him, Scripture saith, Thou shalt not slaughter [the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread]; neither shall [the sacrifice of the feast of the Passover] be left overnight unto the morning: [thus,] ‘Thou shalt not slaughter . . . with leavened bread’ [applies to] those who are subject to ‘it shall not be left overnight’ on its account.14 R. Papa said: As a corollary, the priest who burns the fat [on the altar] violates a negative command, since he is subject to the general [interdict of] leaving the emurim overnight.15 It was taught in accordance with R. Papa. He who slaughters the Passover sacrifice with leaven violates a negative command — When is that? When it belongs to him who slaughters or to him who sprinkles [the blood] or to one of the members of the company. If it belonged to someone at the end of the world, he is not tied to him.16 And whether he slaughters or sprinkles or burns [the fat],17 he is liable. But he who wrings a bird's neck on the fourteenth18 does not violate anything.19 But the following contradicts it: He who slaughters the Passover offering with leaven violates a negative command. R. Judah said: The tamid too.20 Said they to him, They [the Sages] said [thus] of nought except the Passover-offering alone. When is that? When either he who slaughters or he who sprinkles or one of the members of the company possesses [the leaven]. If a person at the end of the world possesses it, he is not tied to him. And whether he slaughters or he sprinkles or he wrings [a bird's neck] or he sprinkles21 [the blood of the bird], he is liable. But he who takes the handful of the meal-offering22 does not violate a negative command. He who burns the emurim does not violate a negative command.
(1) Registered for this sacrifice.
(2) In Ex. XXXIV, 25, quoted on p. 317, n. 6.
(3) Why then repeat the controversy here?
(4) The thanksoffering was accompanied by forty loaves. These were verbally sanctified before the sacrifice was actually slaughtered, whereupon they acquired a monetary consecration, which means that they might not henceforth be eaten or put to use until the offering is sacrificed; while if they became defiled, they were redeemed and reverted to hullin. The slaughtering of the sacrifice conferred intrinsic (‘bodily’) sanctity upon them; they were more readily disqualified then, and if defiled they had to be burnt. In this connection too ‘with’ (על) is written: then he shall offer with the sacrifice of the thanksoffering unleavened cakes . . . with (על) cakes of leavened bread he shall present his offering (Lev. VII, 12f). — ‘Not sanctified’ means not intrinsically sanctified.
(5) A fortified suburb of Jerusalem (Jast.), which is the uttermost boundary of the town
(Rashi). Its exact spot has not been identified, v. Neubauer, Geographie, pp. 247ff.
(6) ‘Flagellation, the punishment for violating a negative command, is imposed only if the offender has been duly warned before he sinned. Now, if the leaven is in the Temple Court, he can be warned with the certainty that his proposed action is forbidden. But if it is not in the Temple Court, we are doubtful, as we do not know whether he has leaven at home, and thus it is a doubtful warning. R. Simeon b. Lakish holds that such is not a valid warning, and flagellation is not thereby incurred; while R. Johanan holds that it is a warning, and when we subsequently learn that he had leaven at home, he is flagellated.
(7) I.e., he violates the injunction, ‘Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain (Ex. XX, 7) by remaining passive, not by a positive act, v. Shebu. 20b.
(8) Lit., ‘its name is’.
(9) For naturally until the last moment of the day only a doubtful warning can be given, as we do not know that he will permit the day to pass without eating it.
(10) For them to differ in both cases.
(11) These sanctify whatever is put into them, but only when they are in the Temple Court (Tosaf.).
(12) Resh Lakish states it
(supra) as an obvious thing, but R. Oshaia was in doubt.
(13) Ex. XXXIV, 25. Hence he is culpable.
(14) And that obviously applies to its owners only.
(15) I.e., if he still has leaven when he burns the fat, even if none of the company has any.
(16) He has no connection with him, — or, he is not bound to take him into account, — is unaffected thereby.
(17) This supports R. Papa.
(18) While he still possesses leaven. The reference is to a bird offered as a sacrifice for a man lacking atonement; as stated supra 59a, it could be brought on the fourteenth after the afternoon tamid, i.e., when it is time for the Passover sacrifice to be slaughtered.
(19) This is explained anon.
(20) V. note on Mishnah.
(21) מזה, term used in connection with bird sacrifices, as distinct from רזק, which refers to animal sacrifices.
(22) V. Lev. II, 2.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 64a
Now [the rulings on] wringing are contradictory, [and the rulings on] burning [the fat] are contradictory? — Then according to your reasoning, let that [Baraitha] itself present a difficulty to you. For it teaches, ‘They said [this] of nought except the Passover offering alone; and then it teaches, ‘Whether he slaughters or he sprinkles or he wrings [a bird's neck] or he sprinkles [the blood of the bird]?1 [Say] rather, both are [according to] R. Simeon; [the rulings on] wringing are not contradictory: here2 it refers to the fourteenth,3 while there it4 means during the Intermediate Days, and thus both the one and the other are [according to] R. Simeon. [The rulings on] the burning [of fat] too are not contradictory: it is dependent on Tannaim. For some compare burning to slaughtering,5 whilst others do not compare [them].
R. JUDAH SAID: THE [EVENING] TAMID TOO etc. What is R. Judah's reason? — He tells you: Scripture saith, [Thou shalt not slaughter the blood of] My sacrifice,6 [implying] the sacrifice which is particularly assigned to Me; and which is that? the tamid.
R. SIMEON SAID: [IF HE SLAUGHTERS] THE PASSOVER SACRIFICE [WITH LEAVEN] ON THE FOURTEENTH etc. What is R. Simeon's reason? — Because ‘My sacrifice,’ ‘My sacrifice,’ is written twice:7 read it, ‘a sacrifice,’ ‘My sacrifices’.8 For what law did the Divine Law divide them from one another and not write ‘My sacrifices’ [in one word]? To intimate: when there is ‘a sacrifice’ [viz., the Paschal lamb], you are not liable on account of ‘My sacrifices’; when there is no ‘sacrifice,’ you are liable for ‘My sacrifices’.
[BUT IF HE KILLS THE PASSOVER OFFERING WITH LEAVEN] ON THE FESTIVAL, IF FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE, HE IS EXEMPT etc. The reason is that it is for a different purpose,9 but if it is unspecified, he is exempt. [Yet] why? The Passover offering during the rest of the year10 is a peace-offering!11 Can you then infer from this12 [that] the Passover offering during the rest of the year requires cancellation?13 — Said R. Hiyya b. Gamada: It was thrown out from the mouth of the company14 and they said: [The circumstances are] e.g., that its owners were unclean by reason of a dead body and relegated to the second Passover,15 so that while unspecified it [still] stands [to be sacrificed] as a Passover offering.16
MISHNAH. THE PASSOVER OFFERING IS SLAUGHTERED IN THREE DIVISIONS,17 FOR IT IS SAID, AND THE WHOLE ASSEMBLY OF THE CONGREGATION OF ISRAEL SHALL KILL IT:18 [I.E.,] ‘ASSEMBLY,’ ‘CONGREGATION,’ AND ‘ISRAEL.’19 THE FIRST DIVISION ENTERED, THE TEMPLE COURT WAS FILLED, THEY CLOSED THE DOORS OF THE TEMPLE COURT, THEY SOUNDED A TEKI'AH, A TERU'AH, AND A TEKI'AH.20 THE PRIESTS STOOD IN ROWS, AND IN THEIR HANDS WERE BASINS21 OF SILVER AND BASINS OF GOLD; A ROW WHICH WAS ENTIRELY OF SILVER WAS OF SILVER, AND A ROW WHICH WAS ENTIRELY OF GOLD WAS OF GOLD: THEY WERE NOT MIXED; AND THE BASINS HAD NO [FLAT] BOTTOMS, LEST THEY PUT THEM DOWN AND THE BLOOD BECOME CONGEALED. THE ISRAELITE KILLED [THE LAMB], AND THE PRIEST CAUGHT [THE BLOOD]; HE HANDED IT TO HIS COLLEAGUE AND HIS COLLEAGUE [PASSED IT ON] TO HIS COLLEAGUE; AND HE RECEIVED THE FULL [BASIN] AND GAVE BACK THE EMPTY ONE.22 THE PRIEST NEAREST THE ALTAR SPRINKLED IT ONCE OVER AGAINST THE BASE [OR THE ALTAR].23 THE FIRST DIVISION [THEN] WENT OUT AND THE SECOND ENTERED; THE SECOND WENT OUT AND THE THIRD ENTERED. AS THE MANNER OF THE FIRST [GROUP], SO WAS THE MANNER OF THE SECOND AND THE THIRD. THEY RECITED THE HALLEL;24 IF THEY FINISHED IT25 THEY REPEATED, AND IF THEY REPEATED [AND WERE NOT FINISHED YET], THEY RECITED IT A THIRD TIME, THOUGH THEY NEVER DID RECITE IT A THIRD TIME. R. JUDAH SAID: THE THIRD DIVISION NEVER REACHED26 ‘I LOVE THAT THE LORD SHOULD HEAR’ [ETC.],27 BECAUSE THE PEOPLE FOR IT WERE FEW. AS WAS DONE ON WEEK-DAYS SO WAS DONE ON THE SABBATH, SAVE THAT THE PRIESTS SWILLED THE TEMPLE COURT, [BUT] WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE SAGES. R. JUDAH SAID: HE [A PRIEST] USED TO FILL A GOBLET WITH THE MIXED BLOOD28 [AND] HE SPRINKLED IT ONCE ON THE ALTAR; BUT THE SAGES DID NOT AGREE WITH HIM.
HOW DID THEY HANG UP [THE SACRIFICES] AND FLAY [THEM]? THERE WERE IRON HOOKS FIXED IN THE WALLS AND IN THE PILLARS, ON WHICH THEY SUSPENDED [THE SACRIFICES] AND FLAYED [THEM]. IF ANY ONE HAD NO PLACE TO SUSPEND AND FLAY, THERE WERE THERE THIN SMOOTH STAVES WHICH HE PLACED ON HIS SHOULDER AND ON HIS NEIGHBOUR'S SHOULDER, AND SO SUSPENDED [THE ANIMAL] AND FLAYED [IT]. R. ELIEZER SAID: WHEN THE FOURTEENTH
(1) The last two refer to birds, hence not to the Passover offering, v. p. 321, n. 7.
(2) In the first Baraitha.
(3) As is distinctly stated. Then he is exempt, culpability being incurred on that day only for the Paschal lamb.
(4) In the second Baraitha.
(5) Actually only slaughtering which includes sprinkling is mentioned in Ex. XXXIV, 25. (Thou shalt not slaughter the blood of etc.’), but some maintain that burning is the same.
(6) Ex. XXIII, 18; XXXIV, 25.
(7) In Ex. XXIII, 18 and XXXIV, 25.
(8) I.e., by transferring the yod (י) from one זבחי to the other, we have זבח, זבחײ, a ‘sacrifice’ referring to the Paschal lamb, and זבחײ, ‘My sacrifices’, plural, referring to all others.
(9) I.e., he explicitly states thus.
(10) I.e., at any time other than the eve of Passover.
(11) Automatically. Why then is an explicit declaration required.
(12) Viz., that we do nevertheless require this explicit statement.
(13) Lit., uprooting’, ‘eradicating’. I.e., it does not become a peace-offering automatically, but its character as a Passover offering must be explicitly cancelled.
(14) I.e., all the scholars unanimously declared.
(15) V. Num. IX, 10ff.
(16) In the following month; therefore it is not a peace-offering automatically. But in other cases it is, and an explicit declaration is then unnecessary.
(17) Irrespective of the number sacrificing.
(18) Ex. XII, 6.
(19) Each denotes a separate division.
(20) Teki'ah is a long, straight blast on the shofar (ram's horn); teru'ah is a series of three short consecutive blasts.
(21) To receive the blood.
(22) After the blood had been sprinkled. Thus it was worked on the ‘endless-chain’ system.
(23) I.e., on the side which has a projecting base, viz., the north and west sides of the altar, v. Mid. III, 1.
(24) Lit., ‘praise’, a liturgical passage at present consisting of Ps. CXIII-CXVIII. This was recited by each group.
(25) Before they finished sacrificing.
(26) Lit., ‘from the days of the third party they did not reach’.
(27) Ps. CXVI, 1 seq.
(28) The blood of many sacrifices which ran together.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 64b
FELL ON THE SABBATH, HE PLACED HIS HAND ON HIS NEIGHBOUR'S SHOULDER AND HIS NEIGHBOUR'S HAND ON HIS SHOULDER, AND HE [THUS] SUSPENDED [THE SACRIFICE] AND FLAYED [IT].1 THEN HE TORE IT AND TOOK OUT ITS EMURIM, PLACED THEM IN A TRAY AND BURNT THEM ON THE ALTAR.
THE FIRST DIVISION WENT OUT AND SAT DOWN ON THE TEMPLE MOUNT,2 THE SECOND [SAT] IN THE HEL,3 WHILE THE THIRD REMAINED IN ITS PLACE. WHEN IT GREW DARK THEY WENT OUT AND ROASTED THEIR PASCHAL LAMBS.
GEMARA. R. Isaac said: The Passover offering was not slaughtered except in three divisions each consisting of thirty men. What is the reason? ‘Assembly’ ‘congregation,’ and ‘Israel’ [are prescribed, and] we are doubtful whether [that means] at the same time or consecutively.4 Therefore we require three divisions each consisting of thirty men, so that if [it means] at the same time, they are there; and if consecutively, they are there. Hence fifty [in all] too are sufficient, thirty entering and preparing [their sacrifices], then ten enter and ten leave, [and another] ten enter and [another] ten leave.
THE FIRST DIVISION ENTERED etc. It was stated, Abaye said: We learned, ‘They [the doors] locked themselves’;5 Raba said, We learned: THEY LOCKED. Wherein do they differ? — They differ in respect of relying on a miracle. ‘Abaye said, We learned, They locked themselves’; as many as entered, entered, and we rely on a miracle.6 Raba said, We learned, THEY LOCKED, and we do not rely on a miracle. And as to what we learned, R. Judah said: Heaven forfend that Akabia b. Mehalallel was banned! for the wisdom and fear of sin to Akabia b. Mehalallel,7 — Abaye explains Temple Court was never closed upon any man in Israel equal in it according to his view, [while] Raba explains it according to his view. Abaye explains it according to his view: there was none in the Temple Court when it closed itself upon every man in Israel like Akabia b. Mehalallel in wisdom and fear of sin. Raba explains it according to his view: There was none in the Temple Court when they closed it on all Israel like Akabia b. Mehalallel in wisdom and the fear of sin.
Our Rabbis taught: No man was ever crushed in the Temple Court8 except on one Passover in the days of Hillel, when an old man was crushed, and they called it ‘The Passover of the crushed’.
Our Rabbis taught: King Agrippa once wished to cast his eyes on the hosts of Israel.9 Said he to the High Priest, Cast your eyes upon the Passover sacrifices. He [thereupon] took a kidney from each, and six-hundred-thousand pairs of kidneys were found there, twice as many as those who departed from Egypt, excluding those who were unclean and those who were on a distant journey; and there was not a single Paschal lamb for which more than ten people had not registered; and they called it, ‘The Passover of the dense throngs.’
‘He took a kidney’! but it required burning [on the altar]? He burned them subsequently.10 But it is written, And [Aaron's sons] shall burn it etc.,11 [which intimates] that he must not mix the fat [portions] of one [sacrifice] with [that of] another? — He subsequently burned them each separately. But it was taught: And [the priest] shall burn then,:12 [this teaches] that all of it must be [burnt] simultaneously.13 But it was a mere seizure, i.e., he took it from them until they gave him something else.14
THE PRIESTS STOOD IN ROWS etc. What is the reason? Shall we say, lest they take [a basin] of gold and return [a basin] of silver;15 then here too,16 perhaps they might take [a basin] of two hundred [measures] capacity and return one of one hundred? Rather, [the reason is] that it is more becoming thus.17
AND THE BASINS DID NOT HAVE [FLAT] BOTTOMS etc. Our Rabbis taught: None of the basins in the Temple had [flat] bottoms, except the basins of the frankincense for the shewbread, lest they put them down and they break up the bread.18
AN ISRAELITE KILLED AND THE PRIEST CAUGHT [THE BLOOD] etc. Is then an Israelite indispensable?19 — He [the Tanna] informs us that very fact, viz., that the shechitah is valid [when done] by a lay Israelite. AND THE PRIEST CAUGHT [THE BLOOD] informs us this: from the receiving of the blood and onwards it is a priestly duty.
HE HANDED IT TO HIS COLLEAGUE. You can infer from this that carrying without moving the feet is carrying!20 [No:] perhaps he moved slightly [too]. Then [in that case] what does he inform us? — He informs us this: In the multitude of people is the king's glory.21 HE RECEIVED THE FULL [BASIN] AND GAVE BACK THE EMPTY ONE etc. But not the reverse.22 This supports R. Simeon b. Lakish. For R. Simeon b. Lakish said: You must not postpone the precepts.23
THE PRIEST NEAREST THE ALTAR etc. Which Tanna [holds] that the Passover offering requires sprinkling?24 Said R. Hisda, it is R. Jose the Galilean. For it was taught, R. Jose the Galilean said: Thou shalt sprinkle their blood against the altar, and thou shalt burn their fat:25 ‘its blood’ is not said, but ‘their blood’; ‘its fat’ is not said, but ‘their fat’.26 This teaches concerning the firstling, the tithe [of animals] and the Passover offering, that they require the presenting of blood and emurim at the altar.27 How do we know that they require [sprinkling against] the base? — Said R. Eleazar: The meaning of ‘sprinkling’ is deduced from, a burnt-offering.28 Here it is written, thou shalt sprinkle their blood against the altar, while there it is written, And Aaron's sons, the priests, shall sprinkle its blood against the altar round about:29 just as the burnt-offering requires [sprinkling against] the base, so does the Passover offering too require [sprinkling against] the base.
(1) But the staves might not be used on that day.
(2) If the fourteenth fell on the Sabbath, as they could not carry their sacrifices home and had to wait for the evening.
(3) A place within the fortification of the Temple (Jast.); v. Mid. I, 5.
(4) And each expression denotes a minimum of ten.
(5) Or, were locked-miraculously, without human agency.
(6) That the doors should shut themselves when sufficient had entered.
(7) V. ‘Ed. V, 6 for the whole discussion. ‘Was never closed’ — on the eve of Passover, at the sacrificing of the Paschal lambs.
(8) In spite of the enormous crowds that thronged it.
(9) I.e., to take a census of the Jewish people. This was an unpopular proceeding, as it was regarded as of unfortunate omen; cf. I Chron. XXI. In addition, a census was looked upon with suspicion as being the possible precursor of fresh levies and taxation, and the decision of Quirinius, the governor of Syria, to take a census in Judea (c. 6-7 C.E.) nearly precipitated a revolt; v. Graetz. History of the Jews (Eng. translation) II, ch. V. pp. 129 seq. According to Graetz
(op. cit. p. 252) the present census was undertaken by Agrippa II in the year 66 C.E. as a hint to the Roman powers not to underrate the strength of the Jewish people, and therefore avoid driving them too far by the cruelty and greed of the Procurator, at that time Gessius Florus. Graetz assumes that an extra large number flocked to Jerusalem on that occasion, and it is then that the old man was suffocated. This however does not agree with the statement that the man was crushed in the days of Hillel, which is a far earlier date, Hillel having flourished or commenced his Patriarchate one hundred years before the destruction of the Temple, i.e., 30 B.C.E.
(10) After the event.
(11) Lev. III, 5.
(12) Lev. III, 16.
(13) All the parts of the sacrifice which are burnt on the altar (called emurim) must be burnt at the same time. Here, however, the kidneys would be burnt separately.
(14) The unpopularity of the census (v. p. 326, n. 2) may have necessitated this procedure.
(15) Which is ‘descending in sanctity’, and this must be avoided.
(16) I.e., even with the present arrangements.
(17) The general beauty and dignity of the proceedings are thereby enhanced.
(18) These vessels were kept near the shewbread, and if they were not provided with a base to stand on they might fall against the rows of shewbread and break up their formation.
(19) Lit., ‘is it not enough that it should not be an Israelite?’ — Surely a priest too could kill it!
(20) Carrying the blood to be sprinkled was one of the four services (v. supra 59b Mishnah), and there is a controversy in Zeb. 14b whether the priest actually had to walk a little for this or not. From the present passage we see that this was unnecessary.
(21) Prov. XIV, 28.
(22) It had to be done in this order.
(23) Lit., ‘one must not pass by precepts’, but must perform them immediately they come to hand. Thus when the full basin is held out, the next priest must accept it immediately, before returning the empty one, as the reception of the full basin on its way to the sprinkling is a religious service.
(24) From the distance, and not just pouring out; v. infra 121a.
(25) Num. XVIII, 17.
(26) Though the passage treats of one sacrifice only, viz., the firstling. The plural possessive suffix indicates that other sacrifices too are included in this law.
(27) These are the only sacrifices in connection with which it is not mentioned elsewhere, hence the plural is applied to them. Furthermore, Scripture states ‘thou shalt sprinkle’ (tizrok), not ‘thou shalt pour out’ (tishpok).
(28) Lit., ‘"sprinkling", "sprinkling" is deduced from a burnt-offering’.
(29) Lev. I, 11.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 65a
And how do we know it of the burnt-offering itself? — Scripture saith, at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering:1 this proves that the burnt-offering requires [sprinkling at] the base.2
THE FIRST DIVISION WENT OUT etc. A Tanna taught: It [the third division] was called the slothful division.3 But It was impossible otherwise? What should they have done! — Even so, they should have hurried themselves, as it was taught: Rabbi said: The world cannot exist without a perfume maker and without a tanner: happy is he whose craft is [that of] a perfume maker, [and] woe to him whose craft is [that of] a tanner. Nor can the world exist without males and females: happy is he whose children are males, [and] woe to him whose children are females.4
AS HE DID ON WEEK-DAYS etc. Without whose consent?5 — Said R. Hisda, Without the consent of R. Eliezer; for if [the ruling of] the Rabbis [is regarded], surely they maintain that it is a shebuth,6 and a shebuth is not [interdicted] in the Temple. What is this [allusion]? — For it was taught: Whether he milks, sets milk [for curdling],7 or makes cheese, [the standard for culpability is] as much as a dried fig. He who sweeps [the floor], lays [the dust by sprinkling water], and removes loaves of honey, [if he does this] unwittingly on the Sabbath, he is liable to a sin-offering; if he does it deliberately on a Festival, he is flagellated with forty [lashes]: this is R. Eliezer's view. But the Sages maintain: In both cases it is [forbidden] only as a shebuth.8 R. Ashi said: You may even say, [it means] without the consent of the Sages, this agreeing with R. Nathan. For it was taught, R. Nathan said: A shebuth that is necessary they permitted [in the Temple]; [but] a shebuth which is not necessary they did not permit.
R. JUDAH SAID: HE USED TO FILL A GOBLET etc. It was taught, R. Judah said: He used to fill goblet with the mingled blood,9 so that should the blood of one of them be spilled, it is found that this renders it fit. Said they to R. Judah, But surely it [this mingled blood] had not been received in a basin? How do they know?10 Rather, they said thus to him: Perhaps it was not caught in a vessel?11 I too, he answered them, spoke only of that which was received in a vessel. How does he know?12 The priests are careful. If they are careful, why was it spilled? — Because of the speed with which they work,13 it is spilled.
But the draining blood14 is mixed with it?15 — R. Judah is consistent with his view, for he maintained, The draining blood is [considered] proper blood. For it was taught: The draining blood is subject to a ‘warning’;16 R. Judah said: It is subject to kareth.17 But surely R. Eleazar said, R. Judah agrees in respect to atonement, that it does not make atonement, because it is said, for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of life:18
(1) Lev. IV, 7.
(2) For in fact the altar was not used for the burnt-offering exclusively, the very sentence quoted treating of a sin-offering. Hence the verse must mean, at the base of the altar, as is done with the burnt-offering.
(3) For remaining to the last.
(4) This was not said in a spirit of contempt for the female sex, but in the realization of the anxieties caused by daughters; v. Sanh. 100b, (Sonc. ed.) p. p. 681).
(5) I.e., on whose view is this wrong?
(6) V. Glos.
(7) Rashi, Jast.: beats milk into a pulp.
(8) Which is only a Rabbinical prohibition, and involves neither a sin-offering nor flagellation, v. Shab. 95a.
(9) Lit., ‘the blood of those which were mixed’.
(10) This is an interjection: how do the Rabbis, who raise this objection, know that it was not caught in a vessel?
(11) But poured straight from the animal's throat on to the ground. Rashi: in that case sprinkling is of no avail. Tosaf.: sprinkling, if already performed, is efficacious, but such blood must not be taken up to the altar in the first place.
(12) That it was caught in a vessel? For R. Judah prescribed this merely because the blood might have been spilled; then how can it be remedied with blood about which there is a doubt?
(13) Zariz denotes both careful and speedy; they hurried to catch the blood, present it at the altar, and sprinkle it.
(14) Tamzith denotes the last blood which slowly drains off the animal, contrad. to the lifeblood, which gushes forth in a stream.
(15) Whereas the ‘life-blood’ is required for sprinkling.
(16) This is a technical designation for a negative injunction whose violation is punished by lashes. But it involves no kareth, as does the consuming of the life-blood (v. Lev. XVII, 10f).
(17) Just like life-blood. Hence it is also the same in respect to sprinkling.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 65b
blood wherewith life departs, makes atonement; and blood wherewith life does not depart, does not make atonement? — Rather [reply],1 R. Judah is consistent with his view, for he maintained: Blood cannot nullify [other] blood.2
It was taught, R. Judah said to the Sages: On your view, why did they stop up [the holes in] the Temple Court?3 Said they to him: It is praiseworthy for the sons of Aaron [the priests] to walk in blood up to their ankles. But it interposed?4 — It is moist [liquid] and does not interpose. As it was taught: Blood, ink, honey and milk, if dry, interpose; if moist, they do not interpose.5 But their garments become [blood-] stained, whereas It was taught: If his garments were soiled and he performed the service, his service is unfit? And should you answer that they raised their garments.6 surely it was taught: [And the priest shall put out] his linen measure:7 [that means] that it must not be [too] short nor too long?8 — [They could raise them] at the carrying of the limbs to the [Altar] ascent, which was not a service. Was it not? But since it required the priesthood, it was a service! For it was taught, And the priest shall offer the whole, [and burn it] on the altar:9 this refers to the carrying of the limbs to the [altar] ascent. — Rather [they could raise them] at the carrying of the wood to the [altar] pile, which was not a service. Nevertheless, how could they walk when carrying the limbs to the [altar] ascent and when carrying the blood? They walked on balconies.10
HOW DID THEY HANG UP [THE SACRIFICES] AND FLAY [THEM] etc. THEN HE TORE IT OPEN AND TOOK OUT ITS EMURIM, PLACED THEM ON A TRAY AND BURNT THEM [ON THE ALTAR]. Did he then burn them himself?11 Say, To burn them on the altar.
THE FIRST DIVISION WENT OUT etc. A Tanna taught: Each one placed his paschal lamb in its hide and slung it behind him. Said R. ‘Ilish: In Arab-like fashion.12
MISHNAH. THESE THINGS IN [CONNECTION WITH] THE PASSOVER OFFERING OVERRIDE THE SABBATH: ITS SHECHITAH AND THE SPRINKLING OF ITS BLOOD AND THE CLEANSING OF ITS BOWELS AND THE BURNING OF ITS FAT. BUT ITS ROASTING AND THE WASHING OF ITS BOWELS DO NOT OVERRIDE THE SABBATH. ITS CARRYING13 AND BRINGING IT FROM WITHOUT THE TEHUM14 AND THE CUTTING OFF OF ITS WART DO NOT OVERRIDE THE SABBATH. R. ELIEZER SAID: THEY DO OVERRIDE [THE SABBATH]. SAID R. ELIEZER, DOES IT NOT FOLLOW A FORTIORI: IF SHECHITAH, WHICH IS [USUALLY FORBIDDEN] AS A LABOUR, OVERRIDES THE SABBATH, SHALL NOT THESE, WHICH ARE [ONLY FORBIDDEN] AS A SHEBUTH, OVERRIDE THE SABBATH?15 R. JOSHUA ANSWERED HIM, LET FESTIVAL[S] REBUT16 IT, WHEREIN THEY PERMITTED LABOUR AND FORBADE A SHEBUTH.17 SAID R. ELIEZER TO HIM, WHAT IS THIS, JOSHUA, WHAT PROOF IS A VOLUNTARY ACT IN RESPECT OF A PRECEPT! R. AKIBA ANSWERED AND SAID, LET HAZA'AH18 PROVE IT, WHICH IS [PERFORMED] BECAUSE IT IS A PRECEPT AND IS [NORMALLY FORBIDDEN ONLY] AS A SHEBUTH, YET IT DOES NOT OVERRIDE THE SABBATH;19 SO YOU TOO, DO NOT WONDER AT THESE, THAT THOUGH THEY ARE [REQUIRED] ON ACCOUNT OF THE PRECEPT AND ARE [ONLY FORBIDDEN] AS A SHEBUTH, YET THEY DO NOT OVERRIDE THE SABBATH. SAID R. ELIEZER TO HIM, BUT IN RESPECT OF THAT [ITSELF] I ARGUE: IF SHECHITAH, WHICH IS A LABOUR, OVERRIDES THE SABBATH, IS IT NOT LOGICAL THAT HAZA'AH, WHICH IS [ONLY] A SHEBUTH, OVERRIDES THE SABBATH!
(1) To the question, ‘But the draining blood is mixed with it’.
(2) Therefore there must be a little of proper (i.e., life-) blood, if spilled in this goblet of mixed blood, and that is sufficient for atonement.
(3) On the eve of Passover they stopped up the holes through which the blood of the sacrifices passed out to the stream of Kidron.
(4) Between the pavement and their feet, whereas they had to stand actually on the pavement itself, Zeb. 15b.
(5) When a person takes a ritual bath (tebillah), nothing must interpose between the water and his skin; if something does interpose, it invalidates the bath.
(6) I.e., they made them short, so that they did not reach down to the blood.
(7) E.V. Garment. Lev. VI, 3.
(8) But reach exactly to the ground.
(9) Lev. I, 13.
(10) Projecting boards alongside the walls.
(11) This was not necessarily done by the same priest.
(12) In the fashion of Arab merchants, Rashi. Jast.: in the manner of travellers.
(13) Lit., ‘riding’ — i.e., carrying it upon one's shoulder.
(14) V. Glos.
(15) ‘Labour’ (מלאכה) denotes work regarded as Biblically forbidden, whereas a shebuth is only a Rabbinical interdict.
(16) Lit., ‘prove’.
(17) Lit., ‘they permitted (that which is forbidden on the Sabbath) on account of labour’ etc. Slaughtering and cooking, for example, are permitted on Festivals, whereas bringing food from without the tehum which is only a Rabbinical prohibition, is forbidden.
(18) Haza'ah connotes the sprinkling of the waters of purification (v. Lev. XIV, 7, 16; Num. XIX, 19) upon an unclean person; zerikah, the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifice upon the altar.
(19) If the seventh day of the unclean person (v. Num. ibid.) falls on the Sabbath, which happens to be the eve of
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 66a
SAID R. AKIBA TO HIM, OR ON THE CONTRARY: IF HAZA'AH, WHICH IS [FORBIDDEN] AS A SHEBUTH, DOES NOT OVERRIDE THE SABBATH,1 THEN SHECHITAH, WHICH IS [NORMALLY FORBIDDEN] ON ACCOUNT OF LABOUR, IS IT NOT LOGICAL THAT IT DOES NOT OVERRIDE THE SABBATH.2 AKIBA! SAID R. ELIEZER TO HIM, YOU WOULD ERASE WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE TORAH, [LET THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL PREPARE THE PASSOVER SACRIFICE] IN ITS APPOINTED TIME,3 [IMPLYING] BOTH ON WEEK-DAYS AND ON THE SABBATH. SAID HE TO HIM, MASTER, GIVE ME AN APPOINTED TIME FOR THESE AS THERE IS AN APPOINTED SEASON FOR SHECHITAH!4 R. AKIBA STATED A GENERAL RULE: WORK WHICH COULD BE DONE ON THE EVE OF THE SABBATH OVERRIDES5 THE SABBATH; SHECHITAH, WHICH COULD NOT BE DONE ON THE EVE OF THE SABBATH, DOES OVERRIDE THE SABBATH.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: This halachah was hidden from [i.e., forgotten by] the Bene Bathyra.6 On one occasion the fourteenth [of Nisan] fell on the Sabbath, [and] they forgot and
Passover, R. Akiba holds that the haza'ah must not be performed, though the man is thereby prevented from joining in the Passover sacrifice. did not know whether the Passover overrides the Sabbath or not. Said they, ‘Is there any man who knows whether the Passover overrides the Sabbath or not?’ They were told, ‘There is a certain man who has come up from Babylonia, Hillel the Babylonian by name, who served7 the two greatest men of the time,8 and he knows whether the Passover overrides the Sabbath or not [Thereupon] they summoned him [and] said to him, ‘Do you know whether the Passover overrides the Sabbath or not?’ ‘Have we then [only] one Passover during the year which overrides the Sabbath?’ replied he to them, ‘Surely we have many more than two hundred Passovers during the year which override the Sabbath!9 Said they to him, ‘How do you know it?’10 He answered them, ‘In its appointed time’ is stated in connection with the Passover, and ‘In its appointed time’11 is stated in connection with the tamid; just as ‘Its appointed time’ which is said in connection with the tamid overrides the Sabbath, so ‘Its appointed time’ which is said in connection with the Passover overrides the Sabbath. Moreover, it follows a minori, if the tamid, [the omission of] which is not punished by kareth, overrides the Sabbath, then the Passover,[neglect of] which is punished by kareth,12 is it not logical that it overrides the Sabbath! They immediately set him at their head and appointed him Nasi [Patriarch] over them,13 and he was sitting and lecturing the whole day on the laws of Passover. He began rebuking them with words. Said he to them, ‘What caused it for you that I should come up from Babylonia to be a Nasi over you? It was your indolence, because you did not serve the two greatest men of the time, Shemaiah and Abtalyon.’ Said they to him, ‘Master, what if a man forgot and did not bring a knife on the eve of the Sabbath?’ ‘I have heard this law,’ he answered, ‘but have forgotten it. But leave it to Israel: if they are not prophets, yet they are the children of prophets!’ On the morrow, he whose Passover was a lamb stuck it [the knife] in its wool; he whose Passover was a goat stuck it between its horns. He saw the incident and recollected the halachah and said, ‘Thus have I received the tradition from the mouth[s] of Shemaiah and Abtalyon.’
The Master said: "’In its appointed season" is stated in connection with the Passover, and "in its appointed time" is stated in connection with the tamid: just as "its appointed time" which is said in connection with the tamid overrides the Sabbath, so "its appointed time" which is said in connection with the Passover overrides the Sabbath.’ And how do we know that the tamid itself overrides the Sabbath? Shall we say, because ‘in its appointed time’ is written in connection with it;14 then the Passover too, surely ‘in its appointed time’ is written in connection with it?15 Hence [you must say that] ‘its appointed time’ has no significance for him [Hillel]; then here too, ‘its appointed time’ should have no significance for him? — Rather Scripture saith, This is the burnt-offering of every Sabbath, beside the continual burnt-offering:16 whence it follows that the continual burnt-offering [tamid] is offered on the Sabbath.
The Master said: ‘Moreover, it follows a minori: if the tamid, [the omission of] which is not punished by kareth, overrides the Sabbath; then the Passover, [neglect of] which is punished by kareth, is it not logical that it overrides the Sabbath!’ [But] this can be refuted: as for the tamid, that is because it is constant,17 and entirely [burnt]?18 — He first told them the a minori argument, but they refuted it; [so] then he told them the gezerah shawah. But since he had received the tradition of a gezerah shawah, what was the need of an a minori argument? — Rather he spoke to them on their own ground: It is well that you do not learn a gezerah shawah, because a man cannot argue [by] a gezerah shawah of his own accord.19 But [an inference] a minori, which a man can argue of his own accord, you should have argued! — Said they to him, It is a fallacious a minori argument.
The Master said: ‘On the morrow, he whose Passover was a lamb stuck it in its wool; [he whose Passover was] a goat stuck it between its horns.’
(1) I regard this as certain.
(2) This is a reductio ad absurdum.
(3) Num. IX, 2.
(4) Shechitah must be done on the fourteenth; have these a similar fixed time? — surely not!
(5) Lit., ‘every work. .. does not override’.
(6) ‘The children of Bathyra’ — they were the religious heads of Palestine at the time of this incident. — Bathyra is a town of Babylonia. [Their name is, however, generally held to be derived from the colony of that name in Batanea mentioned in Josephus, Antiquities, XVII, 2, 2, and established by Herod for the settlement of the Jews who had come from Babylon.]
(7) I.e., studied under.
(8) Lit., ‘generation’.
(9) I.e., during the year more than two hundred sacrifices are offered on the Sabbath, viz., the two daily burnt-offerings and the two additional sacrifices of every Sabbath, besides the extra sacrifices offered on the Sabbath which occurs in the middle of Passover and the middle of Tabernacles.
(10) A question of such importance cannot be decided by a mere argument, however strong, but must have Biblical support, as well as the support of tradition.
(11) Num. XXVIII, 2.
(12) V. Num. IX, 13.
(13) This story of Hillel's rise to eminence contains a number of difficulties particularly (i) The ignorance of Bene Bathyra, the religious heads of the people, and (ii) the fact that there was no single head, but the authority lay in the hands of a family. V. Halevi, Doroth, I, 3. pp. 37ff, where this is discussed at great length; he maintains that the Great Sanhedrin, which was the ruling authority on all religious matters, had been abolished, and there was no single religious head at the time. [Buchler Synhedrion pp. 144ff connects this story with the controversy related infra 70b which led to the retirement of Judah b. Durtai to the south.]
(14) Which implies whenever it is.
(15) Then why is it regarded as axiomatic in the case of the former, whereas the latter must be learnt from it?
(16) Num. XXVIII, 10.
(17) Every day; in comparison therewith the Passover, which is only once a year, is not constant.
(18) Each of which fact gives it a stronger claim to override the Sabbath.
(19) A man must have received a tradition from his teachers that a particular word in the Pentateuch is meant for a gezerah shawah, but he cannot assume it himself. Hence the Bene Bathyar, not having received this tradition, could not adduce this gezerah shawah.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 66b
But he performed work with sacred animals?1 [They did] as Hillel. For it was taught: It was related of Hillel, As long as he lived2 no man ever committed trespass through his burnt-offering.3 But he brought it unconsecrated [hullin] to the Temple Court, consecrated it, layed his hand upon it,4 and slaughtered it.
[Yet] how might a person consecrate the Passover on the Sabbath? Surely we learned: You may not consecrate, nor make a valuation vow,5 nor make a vow of herem,6 nor separate7 terumah and tithes. They said all this of Festivals, how much the more of the Sabbath! — That applies only to obligations for [the discharge of] which no time is fixed; but in the case of obligations for [the discharge of] which a time is fixed, you may consecrate. For R. Johanan said: A man may consecrate his Passover on the Sabbath, and his Festival-offering [hagigah] on the Festival.
But he drives [a laden animal]?8 — It is driving in an unusual way.9 [But] even driving in an unusual manner, granted that there is no Scriptural prohibition, there is nevertheless a Rabbinical prohibition? — That is [precisely] what they asked him: An action which is permitted by Scripture, while a matter of a shebuth stands before it to render it impossible,10 such as [an action performed] in an unusual manner [standing] in the way of a precept, what then? Said he to them, ‘I have heard this halachah, but have forgotten it: but leave [it] to Israel, if they are not prophets they are the sons of prophets.’
Rab Judah said in Rab's name: Whoever is boastful, if he is a Sage. his wisdom departs from him; if he is a prophet, his prophecy departs from him. If he is a Sage, his wisdom departs from him: [we learn this] from Hillel. For the Master said, ‘He began rebuking them with words,’ and [then] he said to them, ‘I have heard this halachah, but have forgotten it’.11 If he is a prophet, his prophecy departs from him: [we learn this] from Deborah. For it is written, The rulers ceased in Israel, they ceased, until that I arose, Deborah, I arose a mother in Israel;12 and it is written, Awake, awake, Deborah, awake, awake, utter a song.13
Resh Lakish said: As to every man who becomes angry, if he is a Sage, his wisdom departs from him; if he is a prophet, his prophecy departs from him. If he is a Sage, his wisdom departs from him: [we learn this] from Moses. For it is written, And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host etc.;14 and it is written, And Eleazar the Priest said unto the men of war that went to the battle: This is the statute of the law which the Lord hath commanded Moses etc.,15 whence it follows that it had been forgotten by Moses.16 If he is a prophet, his prophecy departs from him: [we learn this] from Elisha. Because it is written, ‘were it not that I regard the presence of Johoshaphat the king of Judah, I would not look toward thee, nor see thee’,17 and it is written, ‘But now bring me a minstrel,’ And it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord [i.e., the spirit of prophecy] came upon him.18
R. Mani b. Pattish said: Whoever becomes angry, even if greatness has been decreed for him by Heaven, is cast down. Whence do we know it? From Eliab, for it is said, and Eliab's anger was kindled against David, and he said: ‘Why art thou come down? and with whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know thy presumptuousness, and the naughtiness of thy heart; for thou art come down that thou mightest see the battle.’19 And when Samuel went to anoint him [sc. a king], of all [David's brothers] it is written, neither hath the Lord chosen this,20 whereas of Eliab it is written, But the Lord saith unto Samuel, ‘Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have rejected him’:21 hence it follows that He had favoured him until then.
We have [thus] found that the tamid and the Passover override the Sabbath; how do we know that they override uncleanness?22 — I will tell you: just as he learns the Passover from the tamid in respect to the Sabbath, so also does he learn the tamid from the Passover in respect to uncleanness. And how do we know it of the Passover itself? — Said R. Johanan. Because the Writ saith, If any man of you shall be unclean by reason of a dead body:23 a man [i.e.. an individual] is relegated to the second Passover,24 but a community is not relegated to the second Passover, but they must offer it in [a state of] uncleanness. R. Simeon b. Lakish said to R. Johanan: Say, a man is relegated to the second Passover, [whereas] a community has no remedy [for its uncleanness]. neither on the first Passover not on the second Passover? Rather, said R. Simeon b. Lakish. [It is deduced] from here: [Command the children of Israel,] that they send out of the camp of every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is unclean by the dead:25 let [Scripture] state those who are unclean by the dead, and not state zabin26 and lepers, and I would argue, if those who are unclean by the dead are sent out [of the camp]. how much the more zabin and lepers!27
(1) Which is forbidden, v. Deut. XV, 19: thou shalt do no work with the firstling of thine ox — a firstling being sacred.
(2) Lit., ‘from his days’.
(3) I.e.. through making unlawful use of the consecrated animal.
(4) v. Lev. I, 4: and he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering.
(5) I.e.. vow your own value to the Temple; v. Lev. XXVII, 2-13.
(6) A vow dedicating an object for priestly use, ibid. 28 seq.
(7) Lit., ‘raise’, ‘lift off’.
(8) Which is likewise forbidden.
(9) Lit., ‘as in a back-handed manner’ — an idiom connoting an unusual way of doing anything. Sheep and goats are not employed as beasts of burden, hence this is unusual, whereas by Scriptural law work is forbidden on the Sabbath and Festivals only when performed in the usual way.
(10) Lit., ‘to eradicate it’.
(11) Though his rebuke was probably justified and timely, he should not have drawn attention to his own promotion.
(12) Judg. V, 7.
(13) Ibid. 12; thus after boasting that she was a mother in Israel, she had to be urged to awake and utter song. i.e., prophecy, the spirit having departed from her.
(14) Num. XXXI, 14.
(15) Num. XXXI, 21.
(16) Lit., ‘it had become hidden from Moses’.
(17) II Kings III, 14; this was an expression of anger.
(18) Ibid. 15.
(19) I Sam. XVII, 28.
(20) Ibid. XVI, 8f. passim.
(21) Ibid. 7.
(22) If the larger part of the community is unclean, these offerings are still sacrificed.
(23) Num. IX, 10.
(24) I.e., in the second month, ibid. II.
(25) Num. V, 2.
(26) Those who have an issue. Pl. of zab,q.v. Glos.
(27) Their uncleanness is more stringent, since it emanates from themselves.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 67a
But [it intimates,] there is a time when zabin and lepers are sent out, whereas those who are unclean by the dead are not sent out; and when is that? It is [when] the Passover comes [is sacrificed] in uncleanness.
Said Abaye, If so, let us also argue: ‘Let [Scripture] state a zab and those who are unclean by the dead, and let it not state a leper, and I would argue, If a zab is sent out, how much the more a leper; but [the fact that a leper is stated intimates] there is a time when lepers are sent out, whereas zabin and those who are unclean by the dead are not sent out, and when is that? It is [when] the Passover comes in uncleanness’? And should you say. That indeed is so-surely we learned: The Passover which comes in uncleanness, zabin and zaboth, menstruant women and women in childbirth must not eat thereof, yet if they ate, they are not liable [to kareth]? Rather, said Abaye. After all, [it is derived] from the first verse;1 [and as to the question raised,2 the reply is]. If so,3 let the Divine Law write, ‘If any man of you shall be unclean’; what is the purpose of ‘by reason of a dead body’? And should you say, this [phrase] ‘by reason of a dead body’ comes for this [purpose, viz..] only he who is unclean by reason of a dead body is relegated to the second Passover, but not other unclean [persons], surely’ it was taught: You might think that only those who are unclean by the dead and he who was on a distant journey keep the second Passover; whence do we know [to include] zabin and lepers and those who had intercourse with menstruant women?4 Therefore it is stated, ‘any man’.5 Then what is the purpose of [the phrase] ‘by reason of a dead body’ which the Divine Law wrote? But this is what [Scripture] states: A man [i.e.. an individual] is relegated to the second Passover, whereas a community is not relegated to the second Passover, but they keep [the first Passover] in uncleanness. And when do the community keep [the first Passover] in uncleanness? When [they are] unclean by reason of the dead; but in the case of other forms of uncleanness, they do not keep [it thus].
R. Hisda said: If a leper entered within his barrier,6 he is exempt [from flagellation],7 because it is said, he shall dwell solitary; without the camp shall his dwelling be:8 the Writ transformed it [his prohibition] into a positive command.9 An objection is raised: A leper who entered within his barrier [is punished] with forty lashes; zabin and zaboth who entered within their barrier [are punished] with forty lashes; while he who is unclean by the dead is permitted to enter the Levitical camp;10 and they said this not only [of] him who is unclean by the dead but even [of] the dead himself, for it is said, And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him,11 ‘with him’ [implying] within his barrier [precincts]!12 — It is [a controversy of] Tannaim. For it was taught: ‘He shall dwell solitary’: [that means,] he shall dwell alone so that other unclean persons13 should not dwell with him.14 You might think that zabin and unclean persons are sent away to one [the same] camp; therefore it is stated, that they defile ‘not their camps:15 [this is] to assign a camp for this One and a camp for that one: this is R. Judah's opinion. R. Simeon said, It is unnecessary. For lo, it is said, ‘[Command the children of Israel] that they send out of the camp every leper, and everyone that hath all issue, and whosoever is unclean by the dead’.16 Now, let [Scripture] state those who are unclean by the dead and not state zab, and I would say, if those who are unclean by the dead are sent out, how much the more zabin! Why then is zab stated? To assign a second camp to him. And let [Scripture] state zab and not state leper, and I would say, if zabin are sent out, how much the more lepers! Why then is a leper stated? To assign a third camp to him. When it states, ‘he shall dwell solitary’, the Writ transforms it [the prohibition] into a positive command.17
What is the greater stringency of a zab over him who is unclean by reason of the dead?18 — Because uncleanness issues upon him from his own body. On the contrary, he who is unclean by the dead is more stringent, since he requires sprinkling on the third and the seventh [days]?19 — Scripture saith, [instead of] ‘the unclean,’ ‘and whosoever [kol] is unclean,’20 to include him who is unclean through a reptile, and a zab is more stringent than he who is unclean through a reptile; and what is his greater stringency? As we have stated.21 On the contrary, a reptile is more stringent, since it defiles [even] accidentally?22 I will tell you:
(1) Num. IX, 10.
(2) By Resh Lakish.
(3) That the deduction is to be made as R. Simeon b. Lakish proposes.
(4) Which act defiles them.
(5) Heb. ish ish: the doubling indicates extension, and therefore includes these.
(6) I.e., into the precincts that are forbidden to him.
(7) Though he thereby transgressed the negative injunction, that they defile not their camp. — Num. V, 3.
(8) Lev. XIII, 46.
(9) Only a negative command involves flagellation, but not a positive command. Though a negative command is stated in this connection, this verse teaches that he is regarded as having violated a positive command only.
(10) The whole of the Temple Mount outside the walls of the Temple Court is so called.
(11) Ex. XIII, 19.
(12) Moses was a Levite.
(13) E.g., zabin and those unclean through the dead.
(14) This shows that his uncleanness is greater and stricter than theirs.
(15) Num. V, 3: ‘camps’. plural.
(16) Num. V, 2.
(17) Since according to R. Simeon this can have no other purpose; thus we have a controversy of Tannaim.
(18) That the former could be deduced as stated a minori from the latter.
(19) V. Num. XIX. 19.
(20) I.e., Scripture employs the second, more-embracing phrase, where the first would suffice.
(21) That the uncleanness emanates from himself. Hence the reference to a zab is superfluous, and therefore it teaches as above.
(22) I.e., even if it touches the person by accident. But a discharge makes a man unclean as a zab only if it issues of its own accord. If, however, It is caused by an ‘accident’, e.g.. physical over-exertion or highly-seasoned food, he is not unclean.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 67b
To that extent1 a zab too is certainly defiled through an accident, in accordance with R. Huna. For R. Huna said: The first discharge2 of a zab defiles [when it is caused] by an accident.3
What is the greater stringency of a leper over a zab? Because he requires peri'ah4 and rending [of garments], and he is forbidden sexual intercourse.5 On the contrary, a zab is more stringent, because he defiles couch and seat,6 and he defiles earthen vessels by hesset?7 — Scripture saith, [instead of] ‘a leper’, ‘and every [kol] leper’8 to include a ba'al keri;9 and a leper is more stringent than a ba'al keri, and what is his greater stringency? As we have stated.10 On the contrary, a ba'al keri is more stringent, because he defiles by the smallest quantity [of semen]?11 — He agrees with R. Nathan. For it was taught, R. Nathan said on the authority of R. Ishmael: A zab requires [a discharge of matter] sufficient for the closing of the orifice of the membrum, but the Sages did not concede this to him. And he holds that a ba'al keri is assimilated to a zab.12 What is the purpose of ‘and every [kol] leper’?13 — Since ‘every one [kol] that hath an issue’ is written, ‘every [kol] leper’ too is written.14 Now [as for] R. Judah. [surely] R. Simeon says well?15 — He requires that16 for what was taught; R. Eliezer said: You might
days, but only until evening, while a reptile too defiles until evening only. think, if zabin and lepers forced their way through and entered the Temple Court at a Passover sacrifice which came in uncleanness,17 — you might think that they are culpable; therefore it is stated, [‘Command the children of Israel,] that they send out of the camp every leper’, and every one that hath an issue [zab], and whosoever is unclean by the dead’: when those who are unclean by the dead are sent out, zabin and lepers are sent out; when those who are unclean by the dead are not sent out, zabin and lepers are not sent out.
The Master said: ‘"And every [kol] one that hath an issue" is to include a ba'al keri’. This supports R. Johanan. For R. Johanan said: The cellars [under the Temple] were not consecrated; and a ba'al keri is sent without the two camps.18
An objection is raised: A ba'al keri is like [a person defiled through] contact with a reptile. Surely that means in respect of their camp?19 No: [it means] in respect of their uncleanness.20 [You say] ‘In respect of their uncleanness!’ [Surely] uncleanness until evening is written in connection with the one, and uncleanness until evening is written in connection with the other?21 Hence it must surely mean in respect of their camp! — No: after all [it means] in respect of their uncleanness, and he informs us this: that a ba'al keri is like [a person defiled through] the contact of the reptile: just as the contact of a reptile defiles [even] accidentally, so is a ba'al keri defiled [when the semen is discharged] accidentally.22 An objection is raised:
(1) Lit., ‘in such a manner’ as that defilement caused by a reptile.
(2) Lit., seeing’ — of discharge.
(3) He is not unclean as a zab, for a period of seven
(4) Letting the hair grow long and neglected, v. Lev. XIII, 45.
(5) V. M.K. 7b.
(6) This is a technical phrase. He defiles that whereon he lies or sits, imposing such a high degree of uncleanness on it that if a man touches it he in turn becomes so unclean as to defile his garments, even if they did not touch it. But a leper, though he too defiles couch and seat, the degree of uncleanness is less, and the man who touches it becomes unclean only in so far that he in turn defiles food and drink, but not his garments, nor can he defile any other utensils by touch. — Rashi. But Maim. and others omit this passage, whence it appears that they do not accept this distinction; v. also Tosaf. a.l. s.v. שכן
(7) Lit., ‘shaking’. A zab defiles an earthen vessel when he causes it to move through his weight. e.g., if it is standing on one end of a rickety bench and he sits down on the other, causing it to move upwards, as on a see-saw.
(8) V. p. 341. n. 5.
(9) A man who has discharged semen.
(10) Rashi understands this as part of the following question: Now what is his greater stringency as stated? On the contrary etc.
(11) Whereas for leprosy there must be at least as much as a bean (geris).
(12) As it is written, This is the law of him that hath an issue (zab), and of him from whom the flow of seed goeth out (ba'al keri) — Lev. XV, 32. Thus a ba'al keri too requires a certain minimum; hence a leper is more stringent, and therefore a leper is mentioned in order to assign a third camp to him.
(13) I.e., the ‘kol’ written in connection with a leper.
(14) For the sake of parallelism.
(15) What then is the purpose of the verse quoted by R. Judah supra 67a?
(16) Sc. the verse employed by R. Simeon for this purpose.
(17) I.e., when the community as a whole was unclean.
(18) Viz., the camp of the Shechinah (the place of the Sanctuary) and the Levitical camp, just like a zab. R. Johanan heard these two teachings from his master (Rashi).
(19) I.e., just as a man who is defiled by a reptile is sent out from the camp of the Shechinah only. i.e., from the Temple, so is a ba'al keri.
(20) Neither is unclean for seven days, but only until the evening.
(21) V. Lev. XI, 24; XV, 16. Hence the comparison is pointless and unnecessary.
(22) V. supra 67a bottom and note a.l.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 68a
He who has intercourse with a niddah1 is like he who is unclean by the dead.2 In respect of what: shall we say, in respect of their uncleanness, — but uncleanness for seven [days] is written in connection with the one, and uncleanness for seven days is written in connection with the other?3 Hence it must surely be in respect of their camp;4 and since the second clause is in respect of their camps, the first clause too is in respect of their camps? — What argument is this! the one is as stated, and the other is as stated.5
An objection is raised: A leper is more stringent than a zab,6 and a zab is more stringent than he who is unclean by the dead.7 A ba'al keri is excepted, for he who is unclean by the dead is more stringent than he. What does ‘is excepted’ mean? Surely [it means], he is excepted from the rule of a zab and is included8 in the rule of him who is unclean by the dead, seeing that he who is unclean by the dead is more stringent than he, and [yet] he is permitted within the Levitical camp? — No: [it means that] he is excepted from the camp of him who is unclean by the dead and is included in the camp of a zab; and though he who is unclean by the dead is more stringent than he, and [yet] he may enter the Levitical camp. [nevertheless] we compare him [the ba'al keri] to what is like himself.9
A tanna recited before R. Isaac b. Abdimi: Then he shall go abroad out of the camp:10 this means the camp of the Shechinah;11 he shall not come within the camp:12 this means the Levitical camp. From this [we learn] that a ba'al keri must go without the two camps.13 Said he to him, You have not yet brought him in that you should [already] expel him!14 Another version: you have not yet expelled him, and [already] you [discuss whether] he should enter!15 Rather say: ‘abroad out of the camp’ — this is the Levitical camp; ‘he shall not come within the camp’- that is the camp of the Shechinah. To this Rabina demurred: Assume that both refer to the camp of the Shechinah, [it being repeated] so that he should violate an affirmative command and a negative command on its account? If so, let Scripture say, ‘Then he shall go abroad out of the camp’ and ‘he shall not enter": what is the purpose of ‘within the camp’? Infer from it that it is to prescribe another camp for him.16
AND THE CLEANSING [MIHUY] OF ITS BOWELS. What is THE CLEANSING OF ITS BOWELS? — R. Huna said: [It means] that we pierce them with a knife.17 Hiyya b. Rab said: [It means the removal of] the viscous substance of the bowels, which comes out through the pressure of the knife. R. Eleazar observed, What is Hiyya b. Rab's reason? Because it is written, and the waste places of the fat ones [mehim] shall wanderers eat.18 How does this imply it? — As R. Joseph19 translated: and the estates of the wicked shall the righteous inherit.20
Then shall the lambs feed as in their pasture [kedobram]:21 Menassia b. Jeremiah interpreted it in Rab's name: As was spoken about them [kimedubbar bam].22 What means ‘as was spoken about them’? — Said Abaye: ‘And the waste places of the fat ones shall wanderers eat’. Said Raba to him, If ‘the waste places’ were written, it would be well as you say;23 since, however, ‘and the waste places’ is written, this states another thing. Rather, said Raba: [It is to be explained] as R. Hananel said in Rab's name. For R. Hananel said in Rab's name: The righteous are destined to resurrect the dead. [For] here it is written, ‘Then shall the lambs feed kedobram’, while elsewhere it is written, Then shall Bashan and Gilead feed as in the days of old.24 [Now] Bashan means Elisha, who came from Bashan, as it is said, ‘and Janai and Shaphat in Bashan,25 while it is written, Elisha the son of Shaphat is here, who poured water on the hands of Elijah.26 [Again,] Gilead alludes to Elijah, for it is said, And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the settlers of Gilead, said [unto Ahab].27
R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Jonathan's name: The righteous are destined to resurrect the dead, for it is said, There shall yet old men and old women sit in the broad places of Jerusalem, every man with his staff in his hand for very age;28 and it is written, and lay my staff upon the face of the child.29
‘Ulla opposed [two verses]. It is written, He will swallow up death for ever;30 but it is written, For the youngest shall die a hundred years old?31 There is no difficulty: there the reference is to Israel; here, to heathens. But what business have the heathens there? — Because it is written, And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and aliens shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.32
R. Hisda opposed [two verses]. It is written, Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed;33 whereas it is written, Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of the seven days?34 There is no difficulty: the former refers to the world to come;35 the latter to the days of the Messiah.36 But according to Samuel, who maintained, This world differs from the Messianic age only in respect of the servitude to governments,37 what can be said? — Both refer to the world to come, yet there is no difficulty: one refers to the camp of the righteous; the other, to the camp of the Shechinah.
Raba opposed [two verses]: It is written, I kill, and I make alive;38 whilst it is also written, I have wounded, and I heal:39 seeing that He even resurrects, how much the more does He heal!40 But the Holy One, blessed be He, said thus: What I put to death I make alive, just as I wounded and I heal [the same person].41
Our Rabbis taught: ‘I kill, and I make alive’: You might say, I kill one person and give life to another, as the world goes on.42 Therefore it is stated, ‘I have wounded, and I heal’: just as the wounding and the healing [obviously] refer to the same person, so death and life refer to the same person. This refutes those who maintain that resurrection is not intimated in the Torah.43 Another interpretation: At first what I slay I resurrect;44 and then, what I wounded I will heal.45
(1) V. Glos.
(2) This is the conclusion of the Mishnah just quoted, Zab. V, 11.
(3) V. Lev. XV, 24; Num. XIX. 11.
(4) Both are sent out of the camp of the Shechinah only.
(5) Lit., ‘as it is’, i.e., each clause is governed by its own particular requirements.
(6) The leper being sent out of all three camps, whereas the zab is sent out of two only; supra 67a.
(7) The last-named being sent out of the camp of the Shechinah only.
(8) Lit., ‘enters’.
(9) Viz., a zab. Thus the meaning of the Baraitha is this: A leper, a zab, and he who is unclean by the dead follow the rule that the more stringent the uncleanness the further away is he sent; but a ba'al keri is excepted from this rule, and though his uncleanness is less than that of a person unclean by the dead, he is sent further away, because he must be compared to a zab, since both are unclean through bodily discharge.
(10) Deut. XXIII, 11; the reference is to a ba'al keri.
(11) The Sanctuary.
(13) I.e., if he is in the Temple (‘the camp of the Shechinah’) when he becomes a ba'al keri, he must leave both that and the Temple mount (‘the Levitical camp’).
(14) I.e., since Scripture states that he must not enter the Levitical camp, it follows that he is without: how then say that he is inside? (Rashi).
(15) I.e., you have not yet ordered him to leave the Levitical camp, and yet you are already forbidding him to enter.
(16) From which he must depart.
(17) To allow the dung to fall out.
(18) Isa. V, 17.
(19) [V. Targum version a.l. The Targum on the Prophets is ascribed by some to R. Joseph. V. B.K., Sonc. ed. p. 9, n. 9.]
(20) Thus he translates ‘mehim’ the wicked, i.e., the repulsive; similarly ‘mihuy’ refers to the repulsive matter, viz., the viscous substance.
(21) Ibid. One part of the verse having been quoted and translated, the GEMARA proceeds to discuss the other half.
(22) I.e., in accordance with the promise made: ‘lambs’ is understood as meaning Israel.
(23) The second part of the verse being explanatory of the first.
(24) Mic. VII, 14.
(25) I Chron. V, 12.
(26) II Kings III, 11.
(27) I Kings XVII, 1. Now both Elijah and Elisha resurrected the dead (v. ibid. IV; I Kings XVII, 21 seq.) ‘feed’ is therefore understood to allude to this metaphorically; hence the same meaning is assigned to ‘feed’ in the first verse too, ‘the lambs’ being the righteous.
(28) Zech. VIII, 4.
(29) II Kings IV, 29. The staff was employed to revive the child (ibid. seq.), and the same purpose is assumed for it in the first verse.
(30) Isa. XXV, 8.
(31) Ibid. LXV, 20.
(32) Ibid. LXI, 5.
(33) Ibid. XXIV, 23.
(34) Ibid. XXX, 26.
(35) Then the sun and the moon shall be ashamed — i.e., fade into insignificance because of the light radiating from the righteous (Rashi in Sanh. 91b).
(36) V. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 601, n. 3.
(37) I.e., delivery from oppression.
(38) Deut. XXII, 39.
(40) Why then state it? v. Sanh. 91b and notes a.l. in the Sonc. ed.: the point of the difficulty is explained there differently.
(41) As explained in the next passage.
(42) People dying and others being born.
(43) V. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 601, n. 5 and p. 604, n. 12.
(44) I.e., in the same state.
(45) After their resurrection I will heal them of the blemishes they possessed in their former life.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 68b
AND THE BURNING OF ITS FAT. It was taught, R. Simeon said: Come and see how precious is a precept in its [proper] time.1 For lo! the [precept of] burning the fats and limbs and the fat-pieces is valid all night, yet we do not wait for [burning] them until nightfall.2
ITS CARRYING AND ITS BRINGING etc. But the following contradicts it: You may cut off a wart [of an animal] in the Temple, but not in the country,3 and if [it is done] with a utensil [a knife], it is forbidden in both cases?4 R. Eleazar and R. Jose b. Hanina one answered, Both refer to [removing the wart] with the hand: one refers to a moist [wart]; the other, to a dry one5 While the other maintains, Both refer to a moist [wart], yet there is no difficulty: one means by hand, and the other means with a utensil.6
Now according to him who explained. ‘One means by hand, and the other means with a utensil,’ why did he not say. Both mean by hand, yet there is no difficulty: one refers to a moist [wart]; the other, to a dry one? — He can answer you: a dry one [just] crumbles away.7 And according to him who maintained, ‘Both mean by hand, yet there is no difficulty: one refers to a moist [wart]; the other to a dry one’; why did he not say: Both refer to a moist [wart], yet there is no difficulty: one means by hand, and the other means with a utensil? — He can answer you: as for a utensil, Surely he [the Tanna] teaches there, ‘if [it is done] with a utensil, it is forbidden in both cases!’8 And the other?9 That which he teaches [about] a utensil here, [is because] he comes to inform us of the controversy of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua. SAID R. ELIEZER . . . IF SHECHITAH etc. R. Joshua is consistent with his view, for he maintains, Rejoicing on a Festival too is a religious duty.10 For it was taught, R. Eliezer said: A man has nought else [to do] on a Festival save either to eat and drink or to sit and study. R. Joshua said: Divide it: [devote] half of it to eating and drinking, and half of it to the Beth Hamidrash. Now R. Johanan said thereon: Both deduce it from the same verse. One verse says, a solemn assembly to the Lord thy God,11 whereas another verse says, there shall be a solemn assembly unto you:12 R. Eliezer holds: [That means] either entirely to God or entirely to you; while R. Joshua holds, Divide it: [Devote] half to God and half to yourselves.
(Mnemonic: ‘abam.)13 R. Eleazar said: All agree in respect to the Feast of Weeks [‘azereth]14 that we require [it to be] ‘for you’ too. What is the reason? It is the day on which the Torah was given.15 Rabbah said: All agree in respect to the Sabbath that we require [it to be] ‘for you’ too. What is the reason? And thou shalt call the Sabbath a delight.16 R. Joseph said: All agree that on Purim we require ‘for you’ too. What is the reason? Days of feasting and gladness17 is written in connection therewith.
Mar son of Rabina would fast18 the whole year,19 except on the Feast of Weeks, Purim, and the eve of the Day of Atonement. The Feast of Weeks, [because] it is the day on which the Torah was given: Purim, [because] ‘days of feasting and gladness’ is written in connection therewith. The eve of the Day of Atonement: for Hiyya b. Rab of Difti taught: And ye shall afflict your souls on the ninth day of the month:20 do we then fast on the ninth? Surely we fast on the tenth! But this is to tell you: whoever eats and drinks on the ninth thereof, the Writ ascribes [merit] to him as though he had fasted on the ninth and the tenth.21
R. Joseph would order on the day of Pentecost: ‘Prepare me a third-born calf,’22 saying. ‘But for the influence of this day.23 how many Josephs are there in the market place!’24
R. Shesheth used to revise his studies every thirty days, and he would stand and lean at the side of the doorway and exclaim, ‘Rejoice, O my soul, Rejoice. O my soul; for thee have I read [the Bible], for thee have I studied [the Mishnah].’ But that is not so, for R. Eleazar said, But for the Torah, heaven and earth would not endure, for it is said, If not for my covenant by day and by night,I had not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth?25 — In the first place when a man does it [sc. studies], he does so with himself in mind.
R. Ashi said: Yet according to R. Eliezer too, who maintained that [rejoicing on] a Festival is [merely] voluntary, he can be refuted:26 if a Festival, when labour for a voluntary [requirement] is permitted,27 yet the shebuth which accompanies it is not permitted; then the Sabbath, whereon only labour [required for the carrying out of] a precept is permitted, is it not logical that the shebuth which accompanies it is not permitted!
(1) I.e., as soon as it can be performed, even if it can be postponed.
(2) But do it immediately, though it is the Sabbath.
(3) Medinah, ‘province’. This is the technical designation for all places outside the Temple.
(4) ‘Er. 103a.
(5) Our Mishnah refers to a moist wart. Even when it is removed by hand, which is merely a Shebuth, it is forbidden, since it could have been removed the previous day. But in ‘Er. 103a the reference is to a dry one, the removal of which is not even regarded as a shebuth.
(6) The former is permitted, while the latter is forbidden. — This of course is a more lenient explanation.
(7) It would not be called cutting at all.
(8) Why then should it be repeated in the present Mishnah?
(9) Does he not accept the force of this argument?
(10) Not merely permitted.
(11) Deut. XVI, 8.
(12) Num. XXIX, 35.
(13) A mnemonic is a word or phrase, whose letters or words respectively each stand for a tithe or catchword of a subject, strung together as an aid to the memory. Here ‘a _ ‘azereth’ B _ Shabbath; M _ Purim.
(14) Lit., ‘the solemn assembly’ — without a further determinant this always means the Feast of Weeks.
(15) Therefore we must demonstrate our joy in it by feasting.
(16) Isa. LVIII, 13.
(17) Esth. IX, 22.
(18) Lit., ‘sat in a fast’.
(19) That is if the occasion arose.
(20) Lev. XXIII, 32. The punctuation of the E.V. has been disregarded, as is required by the context.
(22) I.e., the third calved by its mother. Others translate: (i) in its third year; or (ii) third grown, i.e., one that has reached a third of its full growth. On all translations this was regarded as particularly choice.
(23) Lit., ‘if this day had not caused (it).’
(24) I.e., I owe my eminence to having studied the Torah, which was given on this day.
(25) Jer. XXXIII, 25. I.e., if not for my Torah, which is to
(26) Lit., ‘there is a refutation for him’.
(27) I.e., shechitah, though the eating of meat, which constitutes rejoicing, is voluntary.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 69a
And R. Eliezer?1 — In his view the shebuth [required] for a precept is more important.2
It was taught. R. Eliezer said: I argue, if3 the necessary adjuncts of the precept which [come] after shechitah,4 when the precept has [already] been performed, override the Sabbath; shall not the necessary adjuncts of the precept which [come] before shechitah override the Sabbath! Said R. Akiba to him: If the necessary adjuncts of the precept which [come] after shechitah override the Sabbath, the reason is5 because the shechitah has [already] overridden the Sabbath;6 will you say that the necessary adjuncts of the precept before the shechitah shall override the Sabbath, seeing that the shechitah has not [yet] overridden the Sabbath?7 Another argument is: the sacrifice may be found to be unfit, and thus he will be found retrospectively to have desecrated the Sabbath.8 If so, let us not slaughter it either, lest the sacrifice be found unfit, and thus it be found that he retrospectively desecrated the Sabbath? — Rather, he first told him this [argument], and he refuted it; and then he told him this ‘the reason is etc.
be studied by day and by night, heaven and earth would not enjoy permanence. How then could R. Shesheth take such a selfish view of his studies? R. AKIBA ANSWERED AND SAID: LET HAZA'AH PROVE IT etc. It was taught, R. Eliezer said to him: ‘Akiba, you have refuted me by shechitah,’ by shechitah shall be his death!’9 Said he to him ‘Master, do not deny me at the time of argument:10 I have thus received [the law] from you. [vis.] haza'ah is a shebuth and does not override the Sabbath.’11 Then since he himself had taught it to him, what is the reason that he retracted? — Said ‘Ulla: When R. Eliezer taught it to him it was concerning haza'ah for [the sake of] terumah,12 since terumah itself does not override the Sabbath;13 [and] R. Akiba too, when he refuted him refuted him by haza'ah for [the sake of] terumah, which is [likewise] a religious duty14 and is [usually forbidden] as a shebuth; but he [R. Eliezer] thought that he was refuting him by haza'ah for the Passover sacrifice.15
Rabbah raised an objection:R.Akiba answered and said, Let the haza'ah of a person unclean through the dead prove [refute] it, — when his seventh [day] falls on the Sabbath and on the eve of Passover, so that it is a religious duty16 and it is [only]a shebuth, yet it does not override the Sabbath.17 Hence he [R. Eliezer] certainly taught him about haza'ah for [the sake of] the Passover sacrifice. Then since he [himself] had taught it to him what is the reason that R. Eliezer rebutted him [thus]? — R. Eliezer had forgotten his own tradition, and R. Akiba came to remind him of his tradition. Then let him tell it to him explicitly? — He thought that it would not be mannerly.18
Now, what is the reason that haza'ah does not override the Sabbath; consider, it is mere handling,19 [then] let it override the Sabbath on account of the Passover sacrifice? — Said Rabbah, It is a preventive measure, lest he take it [the water of purification] and carry it four cubits in public ground.20 But according to R. Eliezer, let us [indeed] carry it, for R. Eliezer ruled, The necessary adjuncts to a precept override the Sabbath? I will tell you: that is only when the man himself is fit [to perform the precept] and the obligation lies upon him; but here that the man himself is not fit,21 the obligation does not lie upon him.
Rabbah said: According to the words of R. Eliezer,22 [if there is] a healthy infant,23 one may heat water for him to strengthen him24 and to circumcise him on the Sabbath, since it is fit for him. [If there is] a sickly infant,25 one may not heat hot water for him to strengthen him and to circumcise him, since it is not fit for him.26 Said Raba: But if he is healthy, why does he need hot water to strengthen him? Rather, said Raba, all are regarded as invalids in respect to circumcision: both in the case of a strong infant or a sickly infant, one may not heat hot water for him to strengthen him and to circumcise him on the Sabbath,27 since it is not fit for him.
Abaye raised an objection against him: An [adult] uncircumcised person who did not circumcise himself [on the eve of Passover] is punished by kareth:28 this is the view of R. Eliezer. Now here, though the man himself is unfit, yet he states that he is punished by kareth, which proves that the obligation lies upon him.29 — Said Rabbah: R. Eliezer holds, One may not slaughter [the Passover] and sprinkle [its blood] for him who is unclean through a reptile,
(1) How does he rebut this argument?
(2) Hence though a shebuth is not permitted on a Festival, it nevertheless overrides the Sabbath when it is necessary for the performance of a precept.
(3) Lit., ‘and what is to me’, this being the ethic dative.
(4) I.e., the cleansing of the bowels.
(5) Lit., ‘for what is it to me’ — i.e., I need not wonder at it, for the reason that etc.
(6) Therefore it may be overridden again by a shebuth.
(7) Surely not.
(8) For no precept will have been performed.
(9) I.e., your argument is obviously a humorous one and cannot be taken seriously, since you would thereby eradicate a Scriptural law; v. Mishnah.
(10) Rashi; i.e., do not deny what you yourself have taught me — viz., that haza'ah does not override the Sabbath. Jast.: do not make me an atonement, (saying, ‘may his death be atonement’) at the time of judgment — i.e., I need no apology for my attitude; or perhaps, do not be angry with me.
(11) Consequently I am justified in using this fact to prove, by a reductio ad absurdum (since it would overthrow a Scriptural law), that your argument is fallacious.
(12) An unclean priest may not undergo haza'ah on the Sabbath in order to eat terumah in the evening.
(13) Terumah may not be separated on the Sabbath.
(14) It is the priests’ duty to eat terumah.
(15) Which he holds is permitted on the Sabbath, since otherwise the unclean person is debarred from discharging his obligation.
(16) Haza'ah will make him fit to partake of the Passover in the evening, which is a religious duty.
(17) Thus it is explicitly stated that R. Akiba argued that haza'ah, even for the sake of the Passover sacrifice, does not override the Sabbath.
(18) To tell him plainly; hence he intimated it to him indirectly.
(19) It is not a labour.
(20) Which is Scripturally forbidden.
(21) Since he is unclean.
(22) That wherever the man is unfit he has no obligation.
(23) To be circumcised on the Sabbath. ‘Healthy’ means that he is strong enough to be circumcised even without bathing.
(24) I.e., to make him even stronger.
(25) I.e., one who is too weak to be circumcised in his present state unless he is first bathed.
(26) For at present he is too weak; consequently it is not our duty to strengthen him so that he should be immediately liable. Tosaf.: this distinction can be drawn only according to R. Eliezer. But according to R. Akiba it is forbidden in all cases, just as haza'ah is forbidden.
(27) But the water must be prepared from the previous day.
(28) Because he could have circumcised himself after midday, when the Passover is obligatory; hence he incurs kareth for not partaking of the Passover sacrifice, v. Ex. XII, 48 and Num. IX, 10-13. He is not comparable to an unclean person or one who is on a distant journey, since they could not make themselves fit after midday, while before that there was as yet no obligation.
(29) Where it is possible to make the person fit. Hence haza'ah too should override the Sabbath, since a man is bound to make himself fit.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 69b
and wherever an individual would be relegated [to the second Passover], in the case of the community they keep [it] in uncleanness, and whatever is [obligatory] in the case of a community is [obligatory] in the case of an individual, and whatever is not [obligatory] in the case of a community is not [obligatory] in the case of an individual. [Hence as for the defect of] uncircumcision, where if the whole community are uncircumcised we say to them, ‘Arise, circumcise yourselves, and sacrifice the Passover, then an individual too, we say to him, ‘Arise, circumcise yourself, and sacrifice the Passover,’ while if he does not circumcise [himself] and [does not] sacrifice he is punished with kareth. But [in the case of] uncleanness, where if the whole community is unclean we do not sprinkle [the water of purification] upon them but they keep [it] in uncleanness, [therefore] an individual too is not culpable.1 R. Huna son of R. Joshua said to Raba: Yet there is the second Passover, which is not [practised] in the case of a community, yet it is [practised] in the case of an individual? — There it is different, replied he, because the community has [already] sacrificed at the first [Passover].2
An objection is raised: You might think that there is no penalty of kareth [for neglecting to offer the Passover] except if he [the delinquent] was clean and was not on a journey afar off;3 how do we know it of an uncircumcised person and one who was unclean through a reptile and all others who are unclean?4 Because it is stated, and the man [that is clean etc.].5 Now, since he seeks [a verse to teach the inclusion of] him who is unclean through a reptile, he [evidently] holds, One may not slaughter [the Passover sacrifice] and sprinkle [its blood] for him who is unclean through a reptile; for if one may slaughter and sprinkle, why seek [a verse] for him, [seeing that] he is indeed [identical with] a clean person?6
by the rule stated, a community in like condition is not bound to purify itself but may sacrifice in uncleanness. Again, since the community need not purify itself by sprinkling, an individual is not obliged to either, for an individual has no obligation which is not likewise binding upon the community; consequently, since an individual is not bound to purify himself, he may not do so on the Sabbath. But if the whole community are uncircumcised, it is their duty to circumcise themselves on the eve of Passover, and therefore it is the duty of an individual too, neglect of which entails kareth. Had he, however, held that we do slaughter the Passover for a man who is unclean through a reptile or through a corpse when his seventh day falls on the eve of Passover, then since the individual is not relegated, the community too might not sacrifice in uncleanness but would have to purify itself; and as a corollary, since the community would have to perform haza'ah, it would also be an individual's duty, and in consequence it would be permitted on the Sabbath. This proves that though he is not fit, the obligation is upon him [to make himself fit], and though this is not [so] in the case of a community,7 yet it is [so] in the case of an individual? — Rather, said Raba: R. Eliezer holds, One may slaughter and sprinkle for a man who is unclean through a reptile, and the same law applies to a man who is unclean through the dead on his seventh day;8 then for what [purpose] is the haza'ah? for the eating9 — [yet] the eating of the Passover sacrifice Is not indispensable.10 R. Adda b. Abba said to Raba, If so, it is found that the Passover sacrifice is slaughtered for those who cannot eat it?11 ‘For those who cannot eat it’ means for the infirm and the aged, he replied, since they are [physically] unfit; but this one is indeed fit, save that he is not made ready.
R. AKIBA STATED A GENERAL RULE etc. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: The halachah is as R. Akiba. And we learned similarly in respect to circumcision. R. Akiba stated a general rule: No labour which can be performed on the eve of the Sabbath overrides the Sabbath; circumcision, which cannot be performed on the eve of the Sabbath,12 overrides the Sabbath; and Rab Judah said in Rab's name: The halachah is as R. Akiba. Now [both] are necessary. For if he informed us [this] in connection with, the Passover, [I would say,] it is only there that the necessary adjuncts of the precept do not override the Sabbath, because thirteen covenants were not made over it; but as for circumcision, over which thirteen covenants were made,13 I would say that they [the adjuncts] override [the Sabbath]. While if he informed us [this of] circumcision, [I would argue],it is only there that the necessary adjuncts of the precept do not override the Sabbath, since there is no kareth;14 but as for the Passover sacrifice, where there is kareth,15 I might argue, Let the necessary adjuncts override [the Sabbath]. Thus they are necessary.
MISHNAH. WHEN DOES HE16 BRING A HAGIGAH17 WITH IT [THE PASSOVER SACRIFICE]? WHEN IT COMES DURING THE WEEK, IN PURITY, AND IN SMALL [PORTIONS].18 BUT WHEN IT COMES ON THE SABBATH, IN LARGE [PORTIONS], AND IN UNCLEANNESS, ONE DOES NOT BRING THE HAGIGAH WITH IT. THE HAGIGAH WAS BROUGHT OF FLOCKS, HERDS, LAMBS OR GOATS, OF THE MALES OR THE FEMALES, AND IT IS EATEN TWO DAYS AND ONE NIGHT.19
GEMARA. What has he taught [previously] that he [now] teaches [about] the hagigah?20 — He has taught about carrying it [the paschal lamb on his shoulders] and bringing it, which do not override the Sabbath, so he also teaches about the hagigah that it [too] does not override the Sabbath, and he states thus: WHEN DOES ONE21 BRING A HAGIGAH WITH IT? WHEN IT COMES DURING THE WEEK, IN PURITY, AND IN SMALL [PORTIONS].22
R. Ashi said: This proves that the hagigah of the fourteenth
(1) This explains why a person who is unclean through a corpse need not purify himself, yet an uncircumcised person must circumcise himself.Thus: — the whole community are not bound to purify themselves by sprinkling, even if the seventh day of their uncleanness falls on the eve of Passover, so that after haza'ah they would be clean in the evening, when the Passover is to be eaten. For he holds that if an individual is unclean through a reptile and has not performed tebillah (q.v. Glos.), though he can do so and be clean in the evening, nevertheless the Passover may not be slaughtered on his behalf; the same applies to him who is unclean through the dead whose seventh day falls on the eve of Passover, though he too would be clean in the evening if he were besprinkled during the day. Thus he must postpone his sacrifice for the second Passover; and therefore
(2) Where, however, the community as a whole did not sacrifice at the first Passover for some other reason of uncleanness than that of corpse uncleanness, there is no second Passover for individuals who are unclean through a corpse.
(3) v. Num. IX, 10, 13.
(4) In the same way. viz., that they could be clean by the evening, as explained in note 5.
(5) ‘And’ is an extension, and teaches the inclusion of these.
(6) For he could have the animal sacrificed by another, and he would be clean in the evening to eat it. Hence he must hold that you cannot sacrifice for him whilst he is unclean, i.e., before he performs tebillah, yet even so he incurs kareth since he could have performed tebillah.
(7) The community is not bound to perform haza'ah, even if it could, but sacrifices in uncleanness.
(8) If he held that you may not slaughter etc., then haza'ah would certainly be permitted on the Sabbath and obligatory too, notwithstanding that it is not obligatory upon a community. Since he holds the reverse, however, the actual sacrificing is possible without haza'ah at all.
(9) He cannot eat of the Passover sacrifice, as indeed of all sacrifices, without previous haza'ah.
(10) For the fulfilment of the precept of the paschal sacrifice. Tosaf.: in such a case where he could make himself fit for eating but does not.
(11) Whereas it is stated supra 61a that such a Passover sacrifice is unfit.
(12) When the Sabbath is the eighth day from birth.
(13) In the passage enjoining circumcision upon Abraham and his descendants (Gen. XVII) ‘covenant’ is mentioned thirteen times, which shows its great importance.
(14) If circumcision is postponed.
(15) For not offering it.
(16) Var. lec. ‘ONE’.
(17) Festival sacrifice. Such was obligatory on the first day of all Festivals; hence in the case of Passover, on the fifteenth of Nisan. The obligation is deduced in Hag. 9a from, and ye shall keep it a feast (hag) unto the Lord (Lev. XXIII, 41), hag being interpreted as referring to a Festival sacrifice. In this Mishnah, however, the reference is to a hagigah brought on the fourteenth, and the Mishnah lays down the conditions when it is brought,it being in addition to the hagigah of the fifteenth. Besides the Festival hagigah there was another obligatory sacrifice, called the peace-offering of rejoicing, deduced from, and thou shalt rejoice in thy feast (Deut. XVI, 14). This is discussed anon.
(18) I.e., so many are registered for one paschal lamb that each person can receive but a small portion.
(19) The night between the two days.
(20) The sudden introduction of the hagigah is abrupt and irrelevant, unless it has some point in common with the preceding Mishnah.
(21) Cf. n. 3.
(22) While the next clause proceeds to state when the hagigah does not override the Sabbath, and that is the connection with the preceding Mishnah.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 70a
is not obligatory. For if you should think that it is obligatory, let it come [be sacrificed] on the Sabbath, and let it come [when the Passover sacrifice is divided] in large [portions], and in uncleanness. Nevertheless, what is the reason that it comes [when the paschal lamb is divided] in small portions? — As it was taught: The hagigah which comes with the Passover is eaten first, so that the Passover be eaten after the appetite is satisfied.
AND IT IS EATEN FOR TWO DAYS etc. Our Mishnah is not in agreement with the son of Tema. For it was taught: The son of Tema said: The hagigah which comes with the Passover is as the Passover, and it may only be eaten a day and a night, whereas the hagigah of the fifteenth1 is eaten two days and one night; again, the hagigah of the fourteenth, a man discharges therewith [his duty] on account of rejoicing, but he does not discharge therewith [his duty] on account of hagigah.2 What is the son of Tema's reason?3 — As R. Hiyya taught his son, Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast [zebah hag] of the passover be left unto the morning:4 ‘zebah hag,’ this is the hagigah; ‘the passover’ is what it implies, and the Divine Law saith, ‘it shall not be kept overnight’.5
The Scholars asked: According to the son of Tema, is it [the hagigah] eaten roast or is it not eaten roast?6 [Do we say,] When the Divine Law compared it to the Passover it was in respect of keeping it overnight, but not in respect of roast; or perhaps there is no difference? — Come and hear: On this night all [must be eaten] roast;7 and R. Hisda said: These are the words of the son of Tema. This proves it.8
The Scholars asked: According to the son of Tema, does it [the hagigah] come from the herd or does it not come from the herd; does it come from females or does it not come from females; does it come a two-year old, or does it not come a two-year old?9 [Do we say,] when the Divine Law compared it to the Passover it was in the matter of eating,10 but not in respect of all [other] things; or perhaps there is no difference? — Come and hear: The hagigah which comes with the Passover is as the Passover: it comes from the flock, but it does not come from the herd; it comes from the males but it does not come from the females; it comes a year old, but it does not come a two-year old, and it may be eaten only a day and a night, and it may be eaten only roast, and it may be eaten only by those who have registered for it. [Now,] whom do you know11 to hold this view?12 The son of Tema. This proves that we require everything.13 This proves it.
The Scholars asked: According to the son of Tema, is it subject to [the prohibition of] breaking a bone, or is it not subject to [the prohibition of] breaking a bone?14 [Do we say,] though the Divine Law assimilated it to the Passover, yet the Writ saith, ‘[neither shall ye break a bone] thereof,’ [implying] ‘thereof,’ but not of the hagigah;’15 or perhaps, this ‘thereof’ comes [to teach], of a fit [sacrifice], but not of an unfit one?16 — Come and hear: If a [slaughtering] knife is found on the fourteenth, one may slaughter with it immediately;17 [if it is found] on the thirteenth he must repeat the tebillah.18 [If he finds] a chopper.19 whether on the one or on the other,20 he must repeat the tebillah.21 Who [is the authority for this]?22 Shall we say the Rabbis?23 wherein does a [slaughtering] knife differ, that we assume that it had been immersed;24 because it is fit for [slaughtering] the Passover? Then a chopper too, surely it is fit for [breaking the bones of] the hagigah20 ?25 Hence it must be [the view] of the son of Tema, which proves that it is subject to [the prohibition of] breaking a bone! — No: in truth [it is the view of] the Rabbis, and [this was taught] e.g., when it [the Passover] comes on the Sabbath.26 But since the second clause teaches, If the fourteenth occurred on the Sabbath, he may slaughter with it immediately;27 and [likewise if he finds it] on the fifteenth, he may slaughter with it immediately;28 if a chopper is found tied to a knife, it is as the knife,29 it follows that the first clause30 does not treat of the Sabbath? — Rather it means that it [the Passover]
readiness for slaughtering the Passover on the fourteenth. We disregard the possibility that the owner may have lost it some time ago, for Jerusalem was thronged at Passover and it could not have lain long without being discovered. came
(1) V. p. 356, n. 4.
(2) V. note on Mishnah on these two sacrifices. Now the hagigah of the fourteenth is a voluntary sacrifice (supra), and it is a general rule that an animal already dedicated for such cannot be used for all obligatory sacrifice, except in the case of the peace-offering of rejoicing. v. infra, 71a. Hence if the hagigah dedicated for the fourteenth is not killed on that day, it can be utilized the next day as the peace-offering of rejoicing but not as the obligatory hagigah of the fifteenth
(3) That the hagigah may be eaten only a day and a night.
(4) Ex. XXXIV, 25.
(5) Referring to the hagigah too.
(6) I.e., must it be eaten roast or not? Similarly the problems which follow.
(7) V. infra 116a.
(8) That the hagigah too must be roast.
(9) V. Ex. XII, 5: your lamb (sc. the Passover) shall be . . . a male of the first year; ye shall take it from the sheep, or from the goats. Does the same apply to the hagigah or not?
(10) I.e., in the conditions under which it must be eaten.
(11) Lit., ‘hear’.
(12) That it may be eaten only a day and a night.
(13) I.e., it must be like the passover in all respects.
(14) v. Ex. XII, 46: neither shall ye break a bone thereof (sc. the Passover).
(15) I.e., there is no interdict in its case.
(16) If the Passover is unfit its bones may be broken; v. infra 83a.
(17) Without immersing it. For if it were unclean its owner would have immersed it on the thirteenth, so that it should be clean at sunset (v. Num. XIX, 14-19; shall be clean at even applies to utensils too), in
(18) I.e., he must immerse it, though even if it was unclean its owner may already have done so.
(19) A large knife used for cutting up meat and breaking the bones, but not as a rule for slaughtering.
(20) Viz., the thirteenth or the fourteenth.
(21) For since the bones of the Passover sacrifice must not be broken, even if it was unclean its owner may not have troubled to immerse it on the thirteenth but waited for the fourteenth, to have it in readiness for the use of breaking bones on the following day, to break the bones of the hagigah of the fifteenth or of the peace-offering of rejoicing.
(22) Which implies that there is no breaking of bones on Passover eve.
(23) Who do not assimilate the hagigah of the fourteenth to the paschal sacrifice, and consequently hold that the bones of the former may be broken.
(24) On the day before by the owner so that he who finds it need not immerse it.
(25) Why then should the finder repeat the immersion?
(26) So that a hagigah cannot be brought at all. As there would be no need for the chopper, the owner, it is to be assumed, did not immerse it.
(27) Sc. even with the chopper, if he has no knife. For if it were unclean its owner would have performed tebillah on Friday, to use it on Sunday (v. n. 4). Since tebillah is forbidden on the Sabbath.
(28) For the same reason that tebillah must already have been performed.
(29) And even if found on the fourteenth on a weekday he may slaughter with it immediately, for since they are tied together they must both have received tebillah at the same time.
(30) Which requires a second immersion for either.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 70b
in large [portions].1 How can we know?2 — Rather it means that it came in uncleanness.3 Yet after all, how could they know?4 — The nasi had died.5 When did the nasi die? Shall we say that he died on the thirteenth,6 then why was it necessary for the owner to perform tebillah for the knife?7 Again, if he died on the fourteenth, wherein does the knife differ, that [we say] he [its owner] gave it tebillah, and wherein does the chopper differ, that [we assume] he did not give it tebillah?8 — This arises only when the nasi was in a dying condition on the thirteenth. As for the knife, [concerning] which [there is] one doubt,9 he would give it tebillah [on the thirteenth]; the chopper, [concerning] which [there are] two doubts,10 he would not give it tebillah.
It was taught: Judah the son of Durtai separated himself [from the Sages], he and his son Durtai, and went and dwelt in the South.11 ‘[For,]’ said he, ‘if Elijah should come and say to Israel, "why did you not sacrifice12 the hagigah on the Sabbath?" what can they answer him? I am astonished at the two greatest men of our generation. Shemaiah and Abtalyon, who are great Sages and great interpreters [of the Torah], yet they have not told Israel, The hagigah overrides the Sabbath.13 Rab said, What is the reason of the son of Durtai? Because it is written, And thou shalt sacrifice the passover-offering unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and the herd:14 yet surely the Passover offering is only from lambs or goats? But ‘flock’ refers to the Passover offering, [while] ‘herd’ refers to the hagigah, and the Divine Law saith, ‘And thou shalt sacrifice the passover-offering’.15 Said R. Ashi: And are we to arise and explain the reason of schismatics?16 But the verse comes for [the exegesis] of R. Nahman. For R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: How do we know that the left-over of the paschal offering is brought as a peace-offering?17 Because it is said, ‘and thou shalt sacrifice the passover-offering unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and of the herd’. Now, does then the Passover offering come from the herd: surely the Passover offering comes only from lambs or from goats? But [it means] the left-over of the paschal offering is to be [utilized] for something which comes from the flock and from the herd.18 Now according to the Rabbis, what is the reason that it [the hagigah] does not override the Sabbath, seeing that it is certainly a public sacrifice? — Said R. Illa'a on the authority of R. Judah b. Safra: Scripture saith, And ye shall keep it a feast [hag] unto the Lord seven days in the year.19 ‘Seven!’ but there were eight?20 Hence from here [we learn that] the hagigah does not override the Sabbath.21 When Rabin came,22 he said: I stated before my teachers, Sometimes you can only find six, e.g., if the first day of the Feast [of Tabernacles] fell on the Sabbath?23 — Said Abaye: That Abin the childless should say such a thing! Eight is altogether impossible. [while] seven are found in most years.24
‘Ulla said in R. Eleazar's name: Peace-offerings which a man slaughtered on the eve of the Festival, he does not discharge therewith [his duty] either on account of rejoicing or on account of hagigah.25 ‘On account of rejoicing.’ because it is written, and thou shalt sacrifice [peace-offerings . . .] and thou shalt rejoice;26 we require the slaughtering
(1) In which case a hagigah does not accompany it.
(2) So MS.M. Cur. edd. ‘they know’ that a small number had registered for the Passover for which the unknown owner of this chopper was registered. Aliter: ‘how could they (the owners) know on the thirteenth that only a small number would register for the Passover, so that it would not be necessary to have the chopper immersed in readiness?’ V. Rashi.
(3) Hence a hagigah was possible.
(4) How could the owner know on the thirteenth that on the morrow the majority of the community would be unclean?
(5) And the whole community would have to take part in his funeral, which would defile them.
(6) When the vessels are generally taken for tebillah.
(7) Seeing that the Passover is brought in uncleanness. Hence the finder should not be permitted to assume that it is clean, as he might then slaughter the Festival peace-offerings with it, which is forbidden. [Even when the Passover comes in uncleanness, the Festival sacrifices on the following or subsequent days must be brought in cleanness:]
(8) He would not have known on the thirteenth, and therefore just as he assumed that a clean knife was necessary for slaughtering the Passover, so he would also assume that a clean chopper would be required for breaking the bones of the hagigah which would accompany it.
(9) Viz., whether the nasi would die on the fourteenth or not.
(10) (i) Whether the nasi would die; and (ii) whether a hagigah would be brought, for even if he did not die, only a few people might register for that particular paschal offering, in which case it would not be required.
(11) Far from Jerusalem, so that he could not be in Jerusalem on Passover and therefore avoid the obligation of bringing a hagigah. He held that it was obligatory even if only a small number registered for the paschal offering, and even on the Sabbath.
(12) Lit., ‘celebrate’.
(13) [Judah b. Durtai is held to have belonged to the Sadducean party, and his son is identified with Dortos (v. Josephus, Antiquities XX, 6, 2) who had been captured by Quadratus in Lydda and executed for having incited the Jews in rebellion against the Romans, v. Derenbourg, Essai, p. 187 note.]
(14) Deut. XVI, 2.
(15) I.e., both are called by the same name, and therefore the same law applies to both.
(16) Though of course the Talmud abounds in controversies, even of one against many, and the views of the minorities too have to be explained, in actual practice the minority always fell in with the final decision of the majority. Hence R. Judah the son of Durtai was unjustified in separating himself, and we have no need to study his view; v. Halevi, Doroth I, 5, pp. 206f. — Or perhaps R. Ashi merely meant that since the interpretation of this verse is according to a minority view, it behoves us to know how the verse is interpreted on the view of the Sages. This appears to be the explanation given by R. Han., whose text differs slightly.
(17) E.g., if an animal dedicated for a Passover sacrifice was lost, whereupon its owners registered for another animal, and then it was found after the second was sacrificed. Or again, if a certain sum of money was dedicated to buy a paschal lamb, but it was not all expended; then too the surplus must be used for a peace-offering.
(18) Sc. a peace-offering.
(19) Lev. XXIII, 41. This treats of Tabernacles, which was observed for eight days, and the verse teaches that a hagigah was to be brought (v. supra p. 356, n. 4).
(20) For the hagigah, if not brought on the first day of the Festival, could be brought on any other day.
(21) And since one of the eight days must be the Sabbath, there are actually only seven days when it can be brought.
(22) From Palestine to Babylonia.
(23) Why is this too not intimated in Scripture?
(24) Therefore there is no need for Scripture to intimate that there may only be six,
(25) V. note on Mishnah.
(26) Deut. XXVII, 7.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 71a
at the time of rejoicing,1 which is absent [here]. ‘On account of hagigah’: this is an obligatory sacrifice,2 and every obligatory sacrifice comes from nought but hullin.3
Shall we say that [the following] supports him? [For it was taught]; And thou shalt be altogether [ak] joyful:4 this is to include the night of the last day of the Festival for rejoicing.5 You say, the night of the last day of the Festival; yet perhaps it is not so, but the night of the first day of the Festival?6 Therefore ‘ak’ is stated, dividing it.7 Now what is the reason?8 Is it not because he has nought wherewith to rejoice!9 — No: [it is] as it states the reason: Why do you prefer10 to include the night of the last day of the Festival and to exclude the night of the first day of the Festival? I include the night of the last day of the Festival, because there is rejoicing before it, while I exclude the night of the first day of the Festival, seeing that there is no rejoicing before it.11
R. Joseph raised an objection: The hagigah of the fourteenth, one discharges with it [his duty] on account of rejoicing. but one does not discharge with it [his duty] on account of hagigah.12 [Yet] why so?13 Surely we require slaughtering to be at the time of rejoicing, which is lacking [here]?14 — Said R. Idi b. Abin: It is meant where he delayed and slaughtered it [on the fifteenth]. R. Ashi observed: This too is logical, for if you should not say thus, who taught this teaching? The son of Tema?15 But [according to] the son of Tema, surely he has disqualified it through keeping it overnight!16
Raba objected: [The reciting of] hallel17 and rejoicing18 are [observed] eight [days].19 Now if you say [that] we require the slaughtering at the time of rejoicing, then there are many occasions when only seven are found, e.g.. if the first day of the Festival falls on the Sabbath?20 Said R. Huna son of Rab Judah: He rejoices with the he-goats of the Festivals.21 Said Raba: Of this there are two refutations: firstly, because the he-goats of the Festivals can be eaten raw [on the Sabbath], but cannot be eaten roast,22 and there is no rejoicing in [eating] raw [meat]; moreover, the Priests eat it; and wherewith do the Israelites rejoice? Rather, said R. Papa: He rejoices with clean garments and old wine.
When Rabin came, he said in R. Eleazar's name: Peace-offerings which one slaughtered on the eve of the Festival, he discharges therewith [his duty] on account of rejoicing, but he cannot discharge therewith [his duty] on account of hagigah. ‘He discharges [his duty] on account of rejoicing,’ [for] we do not require the slaughtering at the time of rejoicing. ‘But not on account of hagigah’; this is an obligatory [sacrifice], and every obligatory [sacrifice] comes from nought but hullin.
An objection is raised: ‘And thou shalt be altogether’ [ak] joyful:’ this is to include the night of the last day of the Festival for rejoicing. You say, to include the light of the last day of the Festival; yet perhaps it is not so, but it is to include the night of the first day of the Festival? Therefore ‘ak’ is stated, dividing it. Now what is the reason? Is it not because he has no light wherewith to rejoice! — No: [it is] as it was taught. Why do you prefer to include the night of the last day of the Festival and to exclude the night of the first day of the Festival? I include the night of the last day of the Festival, because there is rejoicing before it; while I exclude the night of the first day of the Festival, because there is no rejoicing before it.
R. Kahana said: How do we know that the emurim23 of the hagigah of the fifteenth are disqualified through being kept overnight?24 Because it is said, neither shall the fat of My feast [haggi] remain all night until morning;25 and in proximity thereto ‘the first’ [is stated],26 to intimate that this ‘morning’ means the first morning.27 To this R. Joseph demurred: [Thus] the reason is that ‘first is written, but if ‘first’ were not written I would say, what does ‘morning’ mean? the second morning; [but] is there a case where the flesh is disqualified from the evening, whereas the emurim [are fit] until morning?28 Said Abaye to him, Yet why not? Surely there is the paschal offering according to R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah, where the flesh is disqualified from midnight,29 whereas the emurim [are fit] until morning? — Said Raba, This is R. Joseph's difficulty: is there a case where the Tanna does not require ‘first’ in respect of the flesh, whereas R. Kahana requires ‘first’ in respect of the emurim?30 What is this [allusion]? — For it was taught: Neither shall any of the flesh which thou sacrificest the first day at even, remain all night until the morning:31
(1) Viz,, on the Festival itself.
(2) Lit., ‘a matter of an obligation’.
(3) V, p. 357. n. 3.
(4) Deut. XVI, 15. This is superfluous, since v. 14 states, And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast. Hence it is intended as an extension.
(5) I.e., the night of the eighth day. Rashi: It cannot mean the eighth day itself, since ‘seven’ is twice specified (in v. 13 and v. 15). Tosaf.: ‘night’ is not meant particularly. as the same applies to the day. By ‘rejoicing’ is meant the eating of the peace-offering of rejoicing.
(6) Perhaps one must eat of the peace-offering then? And since sacrifices cannot be slaughtered at night, it would he necessary to slaughter it on the eve of the Festival.
(7) Ak is always interpreted as a limitation; hence it excludes the first night.
(8) That you include the last night and exclude the first; why not reverse it?
(9) Since the sacrifice is not to be offered until the following morning. Thus this supports ‘Ulla's statement that the peace-offering of rejoicing cannot be offered on the eve of the Festival.
(10) Lit., ‘what (reason) do you see?’
(11) It is more logical to assume that a continuation of rejoicing already begun is included than that the rejoicing must commence before the time actually prescribed.
(12) V. supra 70a for notes.
(13) Why should he discharge with it his duty on account of rejoicing?
(14) He understood it to mean that it was actually slaughtered on the fourteenth.
(15) As stated supra 70a.
(16) Since he holds that the hagigah of the fourteenth may be eaten only a day and a night. I.e., not after the night of the fifteenth, like the Passover. Hence he must have slaughtered it on the fifteenth.
(17) ‘Praise’ — i.e., Ps. CXIII-CXVIII, which are recited on every Festival.
(18) With the peace-offerings of rejoicing.
(19) The reference is to the Feast of Tabernacles.
(20) When the peace-offering may not be slaughtered.
(21) V. Num. XXVIII, 22, 30; XXIX, 16 et seq. These were public sacrifices, and therefore slaughtered even on the Sabbath.
(22) Though they are slaughtered on the Sabbath, their roasting or cooking does not override the Sabbath.
(23) V. Glos.
(24) Though its flesh may be eaten the whole of the following day too.
(25) Ex. XXIII, 18; ‘haggi’ refers to the hagigah.
(26) ראשית The first (E.V. ‘choicest’) of the fruits etc. Here, however, it is read with ‘morning’, as explained in the text.
(27) I.e., the fat is not to remain until the first morning after the offering is sacrificed.
(28) Surely not, for the flesh may be eaten only on the day it is slaughtered and on the following, but not the night after it!
(29) V. infra 120b.
(30) The sanctity of emurim, which are burnt on the altar, is naturally greater than that of the flesh, which is eaten, and accordingly the former becomes unfit more easily than the latter. Yet we see anon that the Tanna assumes that morning’ written in connection with the flesh must mean the first morning. without having recourse to ראשית ‘first’; why then does R. Kahana require the proximity of ראשית ‘first’ in order to establish that ‘morning’ written in connection with the emurim means the first morning?
(31) Deut. XVI, 4.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 71b
this teaches concerning the hagigah of the fourteenth, that it may be eaten two days and one night.1 Yet perhaps it is not so, but [only] one day and one night?2 When it [Scripture] says, ‘the first day,’ the second morning3 is meant.4 Yet perhaps it is not so, but the first morning [is meant], and to what do I relate5 [the case of] the hagigah which may be eaten two days and one night?6 [To all other hagigoth] excepting this? When [Scripture] says thereof, But if [the sacrifice of his offering be] a vow, or a freewill-offering,7 it teaches concerning the hagigah of the fourteenth that it may be eaten for two days and one night.8
The Master said:9 ‘Yet perhaps it is not so, but the first morning [is meant]’. But you have [already] said, ‘When it [Scripture] says. "the first day" the second morning is meant’? — This is what he means: Yet perhaps it is not so, but the Writ speaks of two hagigoth, one the hagigah of the fourteenth, and one the hagigah of the fifteenth, and the former [must not remain] until its morning, while the latter [must not remain] until its morning?10 Then he argues, as to our general ruling11 [that there is] a hagigah which is eaten two days and one night.12 if so, in which [case does] ‘if, a vow or a freewill-offering’ [hold good]? if the hagigah of the fourteenth, surely a day and a night is written in connection therewith; if the hagigah of the fifteenth, surely a day and a night is written in connection therewith?13 But this is in respect of the hagigah of the fifteenth, while the whole of the other verse is in respect of the hagigah of the fourteenth [only,] [and thus] it teaches concerning the hagigah of the fourteenth that it may be eaten two days and one night. Thus the reason is that ‘on the first day until the morning’ is written, so that what does ‘morning’ mean? the second morning;14 hence wherever ‘morning’ is written without qualification, it means the first morning, even if ‘first’15 is not written in connection with it.16
MISHNAH. IF THE PASSOVER WAS SLAUGHTERED FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE17 ON THE SABBATH, HE [THE SLAUGHTERER] IS LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING ON ITS ACCOUNT.18 WHILE ALL OTHER SACRIFICES WHICH HE SLAUGHTERED AS A PASSOVER,19 IF THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE,20 HE IS CULPABLE; WHILE IF THEY ARE ELIGIBLE, — R. ELIEZER RULES HIM LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING, WHILE R. JOSHUA RULES HIM NOT CULPABLE,21 SAID R. ELIEZER TO HIM: IF THE PASSOVER, WHICH IS PERMITTED FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE,YET WHEN HE CHANGES ITS PURPOSE HE IS CULPABLE; THEN [OTHER] SACRIFICES, WHICH ARE FORBIDDEN [EVEN] FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSE,22 IF HE CHANGES THEIR PURPOSE IS IT NOT LOGICAL THAT HE IS CULPABLE! R. JOSHUA ANSWERED HIM, NOT SO. IF YOU SAY [THUS] OF THE PASSOVER, [HE IS CULPABLE] BECAUSE HE CHANGED IT FOR SOMETHING THAT IS FORBIDDEN; WILL YOU SAY [THE SAME] OF [OTHER] SACRIFICES, WHERE HE CHANGED THEM FOR SOMETHING THAT IS PERMITTED?23 SAID R. ELIEZER TO HIM, LET THE PUBLIC SACRIFICES24 PROVE IT, WHICH ARE PERMITTED FOR THEIR OWN SAKE,25 YET HE WHO SLAUGHTERS [OTHER SACRIFICES] IN THEIR NAME IS CULPABLE. R. JOSHUA ANSWERED HIM: NOT SO. IF YOU SAY [THUS] OF PUBLIC SACRIFICES, [THAT IS] BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LIMIT;26 Will YOU SAY [THE SAME] OF THE PASSOVER, WHICH HAS NO LIMIT?27 R. MEIR SAID: HE TOO WHO SLAUGHTERS [OTHER SACRIFICES] IN THE NAME OF PUBLIC SACRIFICE IS NOT LIABLE.
IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT28 FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT ITS EATERS,29 OR FOR THOSE WHO WERE NOT REGISTERED30 , FOR UNCIRCUMCISED OR FOR UNCLEAN [PERSONS], HE IS CULPABLE; [IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT] FOR ITS EATERS AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT ITS EATERS, FOR THOSE WHO ARE REGISTERED FOR IT AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED FOR IT, FOR CIRCUMCISED AND FOR UNCIRCUMCISED, FOR UNCLEAN AND FOR CLEAN [PERSONS], HE IS NOT LIABLE.31 IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT, AND IT WAS FOUND TO POSSESS A BLEMISH, HE IS LIABLE. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND IT WAS FOUND TEREFAH32 INTERNALLY,33 HE IS NOT LIABLE.34 IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT, AND [THEN] IT BECAME KNOWN THAT ITS OWNERS HAD WITHDRAWN THEIR HANDS FROM IT,35 OR THAT THEY HAD DIED, OR THAT THEY HAD BECOME UNCLEAN, HE IS NOT CULPABLE, BECAUSE HE SLAUGHTERED WITH PERMISSION.36
(1) Understanding ‘morning’ to refer to the sixteenth of Nisan.
(2) Relating ‘morning’ to the fifteenth.
(3) After it is slaughtered, i.e., the morning of the sixteenth.
(4) Lit., ‘said’. For ‘the first day’ implies that it may be eaten the whole of the first day after it is slaughtered.
(5) Lit., ‘how do I fulfil?’
(6) That there are such hagigoth (pl. hagigah) is deduced anon.
(7) Lev. VII, 16.
(8) The verse continues: it shall be eaten on the day he offereth his sacrifice and on the morrow. Thus two days are allotted, which ‘if a vow’ is regarded as superfluous, and therefore is interpreted as an extension to include the present case.
(9) The Talmud now proceeds to elucidate this Baraitha leading up to the explanation of R. Joseph's argument.
(10) I.e.,the former must not remain until the morning of the fifteenth, while the latter must not remain until the morning of the sixteenth. Then the verse would be translated thus: ‘neither shall any of the flesh . . . which thou sacrificest . . . at even’ — sc. of the hagigah of the fourteenth — ‘remain all night’, which naturally means until the morning of the fifteenth; while that ‘which thou sacrificest the first day’, i.e., on the fifteenth, must not remain . . . until the morning’ viz., of the sixteenth.
(11) Lit., ‘what is established to us’.
(12) Rashi: but as to our principle that there is a hagigah apart from this which may be eaten etc. Thus a different meaning is now given to the phrase ‘apart from this’.
(13) On the present hypothesis.
(14) Because of ‘the first day’.
(16) This is the point of R. Joseph's objection as explained by Raba,
(17) Lit., ‘not for its name’ — e.g., as a peace-offering.
(18) For having desecrated the Sabbath unintentionally, as he thought that just as it is permitted for its own purposes3 it is permitted for another purpose.
(19) I.e., the animals had been consecrated for other sacrifices.
(20) For a Passover, e.g., if they are females or two-years old (v. Ex. XII, 5).
(21) R. Eleazar holds that even when a man performs a forbidden action while thinking that he is doing a religious deed, he is culpable. R. Joshua, however maintains that if the action actually performed is a religious deed, even a slight one, he is not liable, as he is regarded not as having unwittingly desecrated the Sabbath, but as having erred in a religious matter. This applies to the present case, for he did offer a sacrifice, and R. Joshua rules supra 62b that all sacrifices, including the Passover, even if slaughtered for a different purpose, are nevertheless fit. But in the first case he definitely did not perform a religious action, since all know that a female etc. is not eligible for a Passover, and therefore both agree that he is culpable.
(22) On the Sabbath.
(23) I.e., he slaughtered them as a Passover, which is actually permitted.
(24) Rashi: the sacrifices which are prescribed (amure fr. amur).
(25) The daily burnt-offering and the additional offerings of Sabbaths and Festivals override the Sabbath.
(26) Only a few animals are slaughtered as public sacrifices, and it is easy to avoid the mistake. Therefore when a man slaughters an animal consecrated for a different purpose as a public sacrifice, he cannot be regarded as having erred in a religious act but as one who unwittingly desecrated the Sabbath.
(27) An enormous number of animals were slaughtered (cf. supra 64b) — seemingly limitless. Hence his error is pardonable, and he is regarded as having erred in a religious duty.
(28) The Passover offering, on the Sabbath.
(29) Such who could not eat of it; e.g.. sick or old people.
(30) Lit., ‘numbered’,
(31) In the former case the offering is unfit; hence his act constitutes desecration of the Sabbath; but in the latter case the offering is valid, v. supra 61a.
(32) V. Glos.
(33) Lit., ‘in a secret part’.
(34) A sin-offering is incurred only when a person intends doing what he does, but is unaware that in the circumstances it is forbidden; he is then technically called shogeg, an unwitting offender, But if he did not intend doing it at all, he is called anus, the victim of an unforeseen accident, and is not liable. Now an external examination of the animal would have revealed its blemish; his neglect to do this renders him shogeg, as though he had known that it was blemished, but thought it permitted. But he could not have known here that it was terefah; therefore he is regarded as anus, and is not culpable.
(35) I.e. , they had re-registered for a different animal before this was slaughtered.
(36) He could not have known of this, and therefore he too is regarded as anus.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 72a
GEMARA. What are we discussing? Shall we say, where he erred?1 then you may infer from this that abrogation in error constitutes abrogation?2 Hence it means that he [intentionally] abrogates [its status].3 Then consider the sequel: WHILE ALL OTHER SACRIFICES WHICH HE SLAUGHTERED AS A PASSOVER, IF THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE, HE IS CULPABLE; WHILE IF THEY ARE ELIGIBLE,- R. ELIEZER RULES HIM LIABLE To A SIN-OFFERING, WHILE R. JOSHUA RULES HIM NOT CULPABLE. But if he abrogates [their status], what does it matter whether they are eligible or they are not eligible?4 Hence it obviously refers to a man who errs; [then] the first clause refers to a man who abrogates [its status], whereas the second clause refers to him who errs? — Said R. Abin: Yes the first clause refers to a man who abrogates, whereas the second clause refers to him who errs. R. Isaac b. Joseph found R. Abbahu standing in a large concourse of people. Said he to him, How is our Mishnah meant? — The first clause refers to a man who abrogates, whereas the second clause refers to him who errs, he answered him. He learnt it from him forty times, and it seemed to him as though it were lying in his wallet.5
We learned: SAID R. ELIEZER: IF THE PASSOVER, WHICH IS PERMITTED FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE, YET WHEN HE CHANGES ITS PURPOSE, HE IS CULPABLE; THEN [OTHER] SACRIFICES, WHICH ARE FORBIDDEN FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSE, IF HE CHANGES THEIR PURPOSE IS IT NOT LOGICAL THAT HE IS CULPABLE. But if this [interpretation] is so, surely they are dissimilar,6 since the first clause refers to a man who abrogates, whereas the second clause refers to him who errs? — In R. Eliezer's view there is no difference. But according to R. Joshua, who holds that there is a difference, let him answer him thus? — He says thus to him: According to my view, they are dissimilar, [for] the first clause refers to a man who abrogates, whereas the second clause refers to him who errs. [But even] according to you, it is NOT SO. IF YOU SAY [THUS] OF THE PASSOVER, [HE IS CULPABLE] BECAUSE HE CHANGED IT FOR SOMETHING THAT IS FORBIDDEN; WILL YOU SAY [THE SAME] OF [OTHER] SACRIFICES, WHERE HE CHANGED THEM FOR SOMETHING THAT IS PERMITTED?
SAID R. ELIEZER TO HIM: LET THE PUBLIC SACRIFICES PROVE IT, WHICH ARE PERMITTED FOR THEIR OWN SAKE, YET HE WHO SLAUGHTERS [OTHER SACRIFICES] IN THEIR NAME IS CULPABLE. R. JOSHUA ANSWERED HIM: NOT SO: IF YOU SAY [THUS] OF PUBLIC SACRIFICES, [THAT IS] BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LIMIT; WILL YOU SAY [THE SAME] OF THE PASSOVER, WHICH HAS NO LIMIT? Are we to say that wherever there is a limit R. Joshua holds him culpable? Yet surely infants have a limit7 yet we learned: He who had two infants for circumcision, one for circumcision after the Sabbath and the other for circumcision on the Sabbath,8 and he erred9 and circumcised the one belonging to after the Sabbath on the Sabbath, he is culpable.10 [If he had] one for circumcision on the eve of the Sabbath and another for circumcision on the Sabbath, and he erred and circumcised the one belonging to the eve of the Sabbath on the Sabbath, — R. Eliezer holds him liable to a sin-offering.11 but R. Joshua exempts him,12 — Said R. Ammi: The circumstances here are e.g., that he first circumcised [the infant] of the eve of the Sabbath on the Sabbath, so that there is this [infant] of the Sabbath with whom he is pre-occupied;13 here e.g.. it means that he first slaughtered the public sacrifices at the beginning.14
If so, [when] ‘R. MEIR SAID: HE TOO WHO SLAUGHTERS [OTHER SACRIFICES] IN THE NAME OF PUBLIC SACRIFICES IS NOT LIABLE’ — [he meant] even if he had first slaughtered the public sacrifices at the beginning? Surely it was taught. R. Hiyya of Ebel ‘Arab15 said in R. Meir's name: R. Eliezer and R. Joshua did not differ concerning him who had two infants, one for circumcision on the eve of the Sabbath and one for circumcision on the Sabbath, and he erred and circumcised the one belonging to the eve of the Sabbath on the Sabbath [both agreeing] that he is culpable. About what do they disagree? About a man who had two infants, one for circumcision after the Sabbath and another for circumcision on the Sabbath, and he erred and circumcised the one belonging to after the Sabbath on the Sabbath, R. Eliezer ruling him liable to a sin-offering, while R. Joshua exempts [him].16 Now is that logical?17 If there [in the second clause], where he did not perform a religious duty.18 R. Joshua exempts him; then where he did perform a religious duty, he rules him liable!19 Said the School of R. Jannai: The first clause means e.g., that he previously circumcised [the infant] belonging to the Sabbath on the eve of the Sabbath,
(1) Thinking that it was a different sacrifice.
(2) Lit., ‘uprooting’. By slaughtering it for a different purpose he abrogates (lit., ‘uproots’) its true status; but this matter is disputed in Men. 49a.
(3) Thinking, however, that this is permitted.
(4) Since he deliberately abrogates its designation, he is certainly not erring in thinking that he is performing a religious act; why then does R. Joshua hold him not liable?
(5) I.e., he then knew it perfectly, and was certain that he would not forget it.
(6) Sc. the two cases.
(7) I.e., in the case adduced he knows definitely that he has only one infant for circumcision on the Sabbath, and therefore when he circumcises another his error is inexcusable, as explained in the note on the Mishnah.
(8) E.g.. twins, one being born on the Sabbath late in the day, and the second born after nightfall
(or even during twilight).
(9) Lit., ‘forgot’.
(10) For unwittingly desecrating the Sabbath. For since circumcision is not obligatory before the eighth day, this is not circumcision but the mere infliction of a wound, which entails culpability.
(11) For though he has actually fulfilled a precept, nevertheless circumcision after its proper time does not override the Sabbath.
(12) He erred though fulfilling a precept, viz., because he was occupied with the circumcision of the second, which was actually obligatory for that day; and he also did fulfill a precept by circumcising the first, and R. Joshua holds that in such a case he is not culpable. Hence here too, if he slaughtered a private sacrifice for a public sacrifice, he was occupied with a precept, viz., slaughtering a sacrifice, and he did fulfil a precept, for the sacrifice he did actually offer is valid. Hence he should not be liable.
(13) When he circumcised the infant whose circumcision was due on the previous day, he had not yet circumcised the other; hence his error arose because he was rightly pre-occupied with the obligation of circumcision on that day.
(14) So that his subsequent error was unjustified, since he had no pre-occupation with any obligation of offering sacrifices at all when he made that error, all permitted sacrifices on that day having been disposed of.
(15) [In the Gilead district, v. Horowitz, Palestine, p. 6.]
(16) It is now assumed that in the first clause R. Meir holds him culpable when he circumcised both, because he thought that it was already time for both, and he first circumcised the infant belonging to the Sabbath, which was due for that day, and then circumcised the other. Now though he did actually perform a religious duty, yet since there was no occasion to be further occupied with this one after having circumcised the one belonging to the Sabbath, he is not regarded as having erred in the fulfilment of a precept. Whereas in the second clause he is exempt because he was pre-occupied with the infant belonging to the Sabbath and circumcised the other by mistake; for it is assumed that he certainly did not circumcise both on that day, as he must have known that one was due for the next day. Thus we see that where he has no occasion at all to be occupied at present with a precept, R. Meir rules him liable.
(17) That the reason is as stated in the last note.
(18) The infant not yet being due for circumcision.
(19) Surely not!
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 72b
so that the Sabbath does not stand to be overridden1 whereas in the second clause the Sabbath stands to be overridden by him;2 [thus] here, [too], surely the Sabbath stands to be overridden in respect of a public sacrifice.3 R. Ashi said to R. Kahana: But here too [in the first clause] the Sabbath stands to be overidden in connection with infants in general? Nevertheless it was not given [to be overridden] in connection with this man, he answered him.
WHILE ALL OTHER SACRIFICES WHICH HE SLAUGHTERED AS A PASSOVER, IF THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE, HE IS CULPABLE; WHILE IF THEY ARE ELIGIBLE, — R. ELIEZER RULES HIM LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING, WHILE R. JOSHUA RULES HIM NOT CULPABLE. Which Tanna draws a distinction between eligible and not eligible? It is R. Simeon. For it was taught: The sacrifices which are eligible [for a Passover] and the sacrifices which are not eligible are as one; and similarly he who slaughters for the sake of public sacrifices is not liable; this is R. Meir's view. R. Simeon said: R. Eliezer and R. Joshua did not differ about those which are not eligible, [agreeing] that he is liable. About what do they differ? About those which are eligible. R. Eliezer ruling him liable to a sin-offering, while R. Joshua declares him not liable.
R. Bibi said in R. Eleazar's name: R. Meir declared him not liable even [if it was] a calf of a peace-offering sacrifice which he slaughtered in the name of a Passover-offering.4 Said R. Zera to R. Bibi, But R. Johanan said: R. Meir admitted [that he is liable] in the case of blemished [animals]?5 — He is not pre-occupied with blemished animals [at all],6 whereas he is occupied with this [calf],7 he answered him.
Raba asked R. Nahman: What is R. Meir's opinion8 [where a man slaughters] hullin for the sake of a Passover?9 Said he to him: R. Meir declared him not liable even [if he slaughtered] hullin for the sake of a Passover. But R. Johanan said: R. Meir admitted [that he is liable] in the case of blemished [animals]? Blemished [animals] cannot be confused [for these] these can be confused,10 Is then R. Meir's reason because they can be confused or they cannot be confused; surely R. Bibi said in R. Eleazar's name, R. Meir declared him exempt even [if it was] a calf of a peace-offering sacrifice which he slaughtered in the name of a Passover-offering,11 which proves that R. Meir's reason is because he is pre-occupied with the [sacrificing of an animal].12 — Said he to him, If he is pre-occupied [he is not liable] even if it cannot be confused; if it can be confused [he is not liable] even if he is not pre-occupied [with sacrificing], which excludes blemished [animals], which can neither be confused nor is he indeed pre-occupied [with the sacrificing of them].
R. Zera and R. Samuel b. Isaac were sitting in the hall of R. Samuel b. Isaac[‘s house], and they sat and said: R. Simeon b. Lakish said: If a man mistook a spit of nothar13 for a spit of [ordinary] roast meat14 and he ate it, he is liable.15 While R. Johanan said: If a man had intercourse with his wife, a niddah,13 he is liable; if he had intercourse with his yebamah,13 a niddah, he is not liable.16 Some say, In the former case17 he is all the more liable, seeing that he did not perform a religious duty [at all].18 Others say, In the former case he would not be liable. What is the reason? It is only there19 because he should have asked; but here, that he could not have asked,20 [he is] not [liable].
Now [according to] R. Johanan, wherein does his yebamah differ? Because he performed a religious duty! [Then in the case of] his wife too he performed a religious duty.21 — It refers to his wife when she is pregnant. But there is the pleasure of the periodical visit?22 — It was not at the time of her periodical visit. But Raba said: A man is bound to please his wife with a good deed?23 — It was near her [menstruation] date,24 If so, the same [applies to] his yebamah?25 — he is bashful towards his yebamah,26 [but] he is not bashful towards his wife.
Now R. Johanan, according to whom [does he give his ruling]? Shall we say, according to R. Jose, for we learned, R. Jose said: If the first festival-day of the Feast27 fell on the Sabbath, and one forgot [himself] and carried out the palm-branch28 into the street,29 he is not liable [to a sin-offering], because he carried it out with permission.30 But perhaps it is different there, because his time is urgent?31 Again, if [it is] in accordance with R. Joshua's [ruling] on infants,32 there too his time is urgent? — Rather, it is in accordance with R. Joshua's [ruling] on terumah. For we learned: If he [a priest] was eating terumah and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or of a haluzah,33 R. Eliezer holds him liable for the principal plus a fifth,34 while R. Joshua exempts [him].35 Perhaps [however] this is as R. Bibi b. Abaye. for R. Bibi b. Abaye said: This refers to terumah on Passover eve, since its time is urgent?36 Alternatively, terumah is different, as it is designated ‘abodah,37 and the Divine Law declared ‘abodah valid,38 For we learned: If he was standing and offering [sacrifices] and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or of a haluzah, all the sacrifices which he offered on the altar are invalid; but R. Joshua declares them valid. Now we said, what is R. Joshua's reason? Because it is written, Bless, Lord, his substance [helo] and accept the work of his hands.39 Now where is terumah designated ‘abodah? For it was taught: It once happened that R. Tarfon had not attended the Beth Hamidrash the previous evening. The [following] morning R. Gamaliel met him and said to him ‘Why did you not attend the Beth Hamidrash last night?’ ‘I performed an ‘abodah,’ replied he. ‘All your words are nought but mysteries.’40 he retorted, ‘for whence have we ‘abodah nowadays?’41 Said he to him, ‘Behold, it is said,
(1) And he had not yet discovered his mistake when he came to perform circumcision on the Sabbath. Thus, though he thought that he was occupied with a religious duty, and did in fact perform one, he is nevertheless liable, because the Sabbath did not stand to be violated by him, since there was no infant left for whom the Sabbath must be violated.
(2) Hence he erred in the matter of a religious duty, and R. Meir holds that such is not liable even if he did not eventually perform a religious duty at all. Thus here too, if he slaughters a private sacrifice as a public sacrifice, the Sabbath did stand to be overridden in respect of a public sacrifice, and even if it had actually been slaughtered already the error is excusable, and he is not culpable.
(3) As explained in last note.
(4) Though I might think that it is impossible to confuse these two.
(5) And he assumes that the two cases are alike, since in both an error should be impossible.
(6) Since he never dedicated them as sacrifices.
(7) Having set them aside for an offering, his mind was pre-occupied with them and he might have erred in offering them for another purpose.
(8) Lit., ‘what (says) he’?
(9) On the Sabbath. No animal may be slaughtered as a sacrifice unless it is first consecrated.
(10) A man cannot err in respect of blemished animals, whereas he can forget that an animal has not been consecrated.
(11) Though these too cannot be confused.
(12) But he is not occupied in sacrificing hullin.
(13) V. Glos.
(14) Lit., ‘a spit of nothar was exchanged to him for a spit roast’.
(15) To a sin-offering, which the unwitting consumption of nothar involves. The roast meat was that of a sacrifice, while the eating of sacrifices is a religious duty, as it is written, and they shall eat those wherewith atonement was made (Ex. XXIX, 33). Thus he rules that he is liable even where he erred in thinking that he was fulfilling a religious duty.
(16) As explained below, the first case means immediately prior to her menstruation period, so that he did not fulfil a religious duty. But in the latter case he fulfils a religious duty (v. Deut. XXV, 5).
(17) Viz., that dealt with by R. Simeon b. Lakish.
(18) Whereas he did perform a religious duty by rendering to his wife her conjugal rights.
(19) Viz., where he cohabited with his wife, that he is liable.
(20) There was none to ask about the spit.
(21) Viz., that of procreation, which is enjoined in Gen. I, 28: be fruitful, and multiply.
(22) V. Keth. 61b,
(23) Sc. intercourse, even at other times too.
(24) When one must hold aloof from his wife.
(25) Neither in her case is there any religious obligation when her menstruation date is near?
(26) Therefore he could not ask her.
(27) ‘Feast’ (hag) without a further determinant always means the Feast of Tabernacles.
(28) V. Lev, XXIII, 40.
(29) Carrying from private into public ground constitutes a forbidden labour on the Sabbath; v. Shab.7 2a, 73a.
(30) I.e., though his action is forbidden, nevertheless it was done as a religious duty. Thus this is similar to the case dealt with by R. Johanan.
(31) He must do it within a fixed period; hence his anxiety not to miss that period excuses his forgetfulness.
(32) V. supra 72a.
(33) V. Glos. — whom a priest may not marry (Lev. XXI,7- a haluzah is forbidden by Rabbinical law only); the issue of such a union is hallal
(profaned) who ranks as a zar (lay Israelite) and must not eat terumah under the same penalties as a zar.
(34) Which a zar who eats terumah unwittingly must pay. v. Lev, XXII, 14.
(35) Because he erred in thinking that he was performing a religious duty; v. p. 374, n. 3; and the same applies to terumah.
(36) I.e., it was terumah of leaven and so he was in a hurry to consume it (R. Han.).
(37) ‘Abodah, lit., ‘service’, means the sacrificial service; it is now stated that the eating of terumah is likewise ‘abodah.
(38) When performed by a hallal, though he is not eligible to do it in the first place. Hence though he may not eat terumah, he is nevertheless not liable if he does eat it.
(39) Deut, XXXIII, 11. The verse refers to priests, and helo (E.V.. substance) is derived here from hullin
(non-sacred, profane); thus it is translated, Bless . . . (even) him who is profaned (hallal) and accept etc., i.e., let his service be valid.
(40) Lit., ‘words of astonishment’.
(41) After the destruction of the Temple.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 73a
I give you the priesthood as a service of [‘abodath] gift; and the common man that draweth nigh shall be put to death:1 [thus] they made the eating of terumah in the borders2 as [equivalent to] the ‘abodah in the Temple.
IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT ITS EATERS [etc,]. That is obvious: since it is [taught] there3 [that it is] unfit, he is liable here?4 — Because the second clause teaches, HE IS NOT LIABLE, the first clause teaches, HE IS LIABLE. But that too is obvious: Since [the sacrifice] is fit there, he is not liable here?- Rather, because he teaches, IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE ON THE SABBATH, he also teaches [about] THOSE WHO ARE NOT ITS EATERS. And what is the purpose of that itself?5 — [He states it] because he wishes to teach the controversy of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua.6
R. Huna b. Hinena said to his son, ‘When you go before R. Zerika, ask him: On the view that he who causes damage through a wound is not liable,7 [when we learned] IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT ITS EATERS, HE IS LIABLE, what [of positive value] has he effected? — He effected [this. viz.,] that if they [the emurim] ascended [the top of the altar], they do not descend.8 IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT, AND IT WAS FOUND TO POSSESS A BLEMISH, HE IS LIABLE: what [of positive value] has he effected?9 — He effected [something positive] in the case of cataracts in the eye,10 this being in accordance with R. Akiba, who maintained: If they [the emurim] ascended, they do not descend,11 IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND IT WAS FOUND TO BE TEREFAH INTERNALLY, HE IS NOT CULPABLE. Hence if it is in an exposed part, he is culpable; [yet] what has he effected?12 — He effected its withdrawal from the scope of nebelah.13 Rabina demurred: As to what was taught: He who slaughters a sin-offering on the Sabbath without [the Temple] to an idol, is liable on account thereof to three sin-offerings:14 -what has he effected?15 -Said R. ‘Awira: Because he withdraws it from [the interdict of] a limb [cut] from a live animal.16
IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND IT BECAME KNOWN etc. R. Huna said in Rab's name: A guilt-offering which was transferred to pasture and [then] slaughtered without a specified purpose is fit for a burnt-offering.17 This proves that he holds that it does not require [express] abrogation.18 If so, [even] if it was not transferred too?19 [When it is sacrificed thus immediately] after atonement it is preventively forbidden on account of [when it is sacrificed thus even] before atonement.20 And whence do you rule [thus]? For we learned: A guilt-offering whose owner died or whose owner [otherwise] obtained atonement must graze until it becomes unfit;21 then it is sold, and its money falls [is utilized] for a voluntary offering.22 R. Eliezer said: It is left to die.23 R. Joshua said: he can sell it and bring a burnt-offering for its money.24 Thus, only for its money, but not that itself, because he preventively forbids [it when sacrificed] after atonement on account of [when it is sacrificed] before atonement. This proves it.
R. Hisda raised an objection against R. Huna: IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND IT BECAME KNOWN THAT THE OWNERS HAD WITHDRAWN THEIR HANDS etc.
(1) Num. XVIII, 7. ‘Service of gift’ refers to the priestly dues, which includes terumah, and it is designated here ‘abohah.
(2) This is a technical term denoting all places without the Temple.
(3) Supra 61a.
(4) For its unfitness renders his action a desecration of the Sabbath.
(5) For seemingly the same principles are involved here too,
(6) Lit., ‘to make R. Eliezer and R. Joshua dispute’.
(7) In general, the desecration of the Sabbath involves culpability only when it has a positive, beneficial effect. For causing damage, however, a man is not liable (Shab. 105b); but in respect to damage by wounding there is a controversy ibid, 106a.
(8) If a sacrifice becomes unfit in the Temple Court and its emurim (v. Glos.) are placed on the altar for burning, they do not descend but must be burnt there.
(9) For if the emurim of a blemished animal sacrificed unwittingly are laid on the altar, they must be taken down.
(10) Which are a blemish in respect to a sacrifice.
(11) In this case, since it is a kind of blemish that does not apply to a bird-offering, v. Zeb. 85b.
(12) For here too if the emurim are taken up to the altar they must go down again.
(13) V. Glos. As nebelah it would defile, whereas now it does not defile.
(14) (i) For slaughtering on the Sabbath: (ii) for sacrificing to an idol: and (iii) for slaughtering a sacrifice without the Temple.
(15) Seeing that the slaughtering does not withdraw it from the scope of defilement, since an idol sacrifice becomes a source of defilement!
(16) A limb cut from a live animal is forbidden even to a non-Jew. His present action renders that interdict impossible
(Rashi). R. Han.: a man is culpable when he eats as much as an olive of the limb of a live animal even if it is made up of flesh, tendons and bones; now, however, it ranks as nebelah, and he is liable only when he eats as much as an olive of the flesh, by itself, excluding the tendons and bones.
(17) A sin-offering and a guilt-offering cannot be brought as votive sacrifices, but only when they are due for transgression. Now, if a man dedicates an animal for one of these, and then dies, or dedicates and sacrifices another animal in its place, then the first, if a sin-offering, must be allowed to perish; if a guilt-offering, it must be put out to pasture until it receives a blemish, when it is redeemed and reverts to hullin (v. Glos.), while the redemption money is allocated to a special fund for voluntary sacrifices, which take the form of burnt-offerings. Nov, if he slaughtered it (in the Temple Court) before it received a blemish, it is valid as a burnt-offering, since that would eventually have been brought in any case. The flesh is then burnt on the altar, while the hide belongs to the priests.
(18) Lit., ‘uprooting’. Since this is its ultimate destiny, he need not expressly abrogate its status of a guilt-offering.
(19) I.e., if it was slaughtered as a burnt-offering immediately its owner died etc., it should be fit.
(20) For the two cases may be confused. But once it is actually put out to pasture there is no fear of confusion. — From the text and Tosaf. a.l. it would appear that if he slaughters it as a burnt-offering before transferring it to pasture it is unfit, even if it was done. While even after it was transferred to pasture it is fit for a burnt-offering only if it was thus sacrificed, so that we are faced with a fait accompli. But at the outset it may not be sacrificed even after it is transferred to pasture.
(21) For a sacrifice by receiving a blemish.
(22) I.e., the money is placed in the fund for voluntary sacrifices.
(23) For he holds that a guilt-offering is the same as a sin-offering.
(24) I.e., the owner brings it as his own sacrifice, and the money does not go into the fund. Thus it is a private sacrifice, so that he himself can slaughter it, he lays his hands upon it (Lev. I, 4), and the accompanying drink-offerings are at his expense. Whereas when the money goes into the fund it is brought as a public sacrifice, and the foregoing are absent.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 73b
Now it ways taught thereon: During the week in such circumstances it must be burnt immediately. Now it is well if you say that it requires abrogation: this is a Passover, and since it has no owners, its disqualification is in itself, [and] for that reason it must be burnt immediately. But if you say that it does not require abrogation [then] from the beginning1 it is a peace-offering; On account of what [then] is its disqualification? [Presumably] on account of something extraneous, viz., that he slaughtered it after the evening tamid!2 [But] then it requires disfigurement? For it was taught, This is the general rule: Wherever its disqualification is in itself, it must be burnt immediately; [if it is] in the blood or in its owner, [the flesh] must become disfigured and [then] it goes out to the place of burning3 — Rather, do not say,4 ‘if he slaughtered it without specifying its purpose, it is fit as a burnt-offering,’ but say, If he slaughtered it for the purpose of a burnt-offering, it is fit. This proves that it requires [express] abrogation.
Then according to R, Hiyya b. Gamada, who said: It was thrown out from the mouth of the company and they said: [The circumstances are] e.g.. that its owners were unclean through a dead body and relegated to the second Passover: [thus] only this requires abrogation, but in general abrogation is not required, what can be said?5 — Rather, said R. Huna son of R. Joshua, what are we discussing here? E.g., if he separated it [for a Passover] before midday, and the owner died after midday, so that it was eligible and then rejected, and whatever was eligible and then rejected cannot be eligible again.6 — Is then our reasoning [required] for any but Rab,7 — surely Rab said: Live animals cannot be [permanently] rejected?8 Rather, said R. Papa, the author of this9 is R. Eliezer, who maintained: Similarly, if he slaughters other [sacrifices] for the sake of the Passover, they are unfit,]10 so that its disqualification is in itself.11 But if it is [according to] R. Eliezer, he would rule him liable to a sin-offering, since R. Eliezer rejects [the view that] he who errs in the matter of a precept12 is exempt!13 — R. Joseph14 the son of R. Salla the Pious explained it before R. Papa: The author of this is R. Joseph b. Honai. For we learned, R. Joseph b. Honai said: Those [other sacrifices] which are slaughtered for the purpose of a Passover or for the purpose of a sin-offering are unfit.15 This proves that its disqualification is in itself, and for that [reason] it must be burnt immediately; while in the matter of non-culpability16 he agrees with R. Joshua.17
R. Ashi said, Rab ruled in accordance with R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Berokah. For it was taught, R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Berokah said: If there was sufficient time in the day to ascertain whether the owners had withdrawn their hands or died or become defiled, he is liable,18 and it [the sacrifice] must become disfigured and [then] go out to the place of burning.
he slaughtered it without a specified purpose, express abrogation not being necessary. But the reason in the Baraitha is a different one, as stated. Thus: at midday the owner was still alive and therefore it was immediately eligible for a Passover offering; the owner's death disqualified it from that purpose, and he holds that it can never be eligible again in such circumstances. What is the reason? Is it not because it does not require abrogation?19 — Whence [does this follow]: perhaps it is because he agrees with the tanna of the School of Rabbah b. Abbuha, who said: Even piggul20 too requires disfigurement, because we learn the meaning of ‘iniquity’ from nothar.21 For if you should not say thus, where the owners become defiled, what can be said, for surely that certainly requires abrogation, for R. Hiyya b. Gamada said, it was thrown out from the mouth of the company and they said: [The circumstances are] e.g.. that its owners were unclean through a dead body and relegated to the second Passover? Hence it is clear as we answered at first: this is [in accordance with] R. Joseph b. Honai. [
(1) I.e., immediately the owners die or withdraw their hands.
(2) V. Glos.; that is when he would actually slaughter it, thinking that it was still a Passover, whereas as a peace-offering it must be slaughtered before; v. supra 59b.
(3) V. supra 34b for notes.
(4) In the statement of Rab reported by R. Huna.
(5) V. supra 64a for notes.
(6) The original version is to be retained, viz., that
(7) This explanation is given only in order to reconcile R. Huna's statement in Rab's name with the Baraitha.
(8) V. infra 98a.
(9) The Baraitha which was cited commenting on our Mishnah.
(10) V. supra 62b.
(11) I.e., it does not require abrogation, so that it is automatically a peace-offering; hence by slaughtering it expressly for a Passover he renders it intrinsically disqualified, and therefore on weekdays it must be burnt immediately.
(12) V. Mishnah 71 b and note a.l.
(13) Hence in the Mishnah he should be liable for desecrating the Sabbath.
(14) So MS.M. omitting ‘But’ of cur. edd.
(15) v. Zeb. 2a.
(16) When one errs in a matter of a precept.
(17) That he is not culpable.
(18) For he should have satisfied himself on these things before slaughtering. Therefore he is regarded not as having erred in the fulfilment of a precept but as an unwitting offender (shogeg); hence he is liable.
(19) As above. Thus this supports Rab, who does not accept the view of the Baraitha quoted at the beginning of the page.
(20) V. Glos.
(21) V. infra 82b; though piggul is certainly intrinsically disqualified.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 74a
MISHNAH. HOW IS THE PASSOVER-OFFERING ROASTED? WE BRING A SPIT OR POMEGRANATE WOOD AND THRUST IT INTO ITS MOUTH [RIGHT DOWN] AS FAR AS ITS BUTTOCKS, AND PLACE ITS KNEES AND ITS ENTRAILS INSIDE IT: THIS IS THE VIEW OF R. JOSE THE GALILEAN. R. AKIBA SAID: THIS IS IN THE NATURE OR SEETHING;1 BUT THEY ARE HUNG OUTSIDE IT. ONE MAY NOT ROAST THE PASSOVER-OFFERING EITHER ON A [METAL] SPIT OR ON A GRILL.2 R. ZADOK SAID: IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT R. GAMALIEL SAID TO HIS SERVANT TABI, GO OUT AND ROAST US THE PASSOVER-OFFERING ON THE GRILL.’
GEMARA. But let us bring [a spit] of metal? — When part of it is hot the whole of it is hot,3 and so [part of] it is roasted through the spit,4 whereas the Divine Law saith, roast with fire,5 and not roast through something else. But let us bring [a spit] of palm wood? — Since it has grooves it exudes water [sap], so that it would be like boiled. Then let us bring [a spit] of fig wood? — Since it is hollow,6 it exudes water, so that it is like boiled. Then let us bring [a spit] of the oak tree, the carob tree or the sycamore tree? — Because it has knots it exudes water. [But the wood] of the pomegranate tree too has knots? — Its knots are smooth.7 Alternatively, this refers to a shoot of this [i.e., the first] year's growth, which has no knots. But there is the point where it is cut?8 — He causes the point where it is cut to protrude without [the animal].
Our Mishnah is not according to R. Judah. For it was taught, R. Judah said: Just as a wooden spit is not burnt,9 so a metal spit does not boil [the flesh].10 Said they to him: This [sc. metal], if part of it is hot, the whole of it is hot; whereas the other [wood], if part of it is hot, the whole of it is not hot.11
AND WE PLACE ITS KNEES, etc. It was taught: R. Ishmael called it tok tok.12 R. Tarfon called it a helmeted goat.13
Our Rabbis taught: What is the helmeted goat which it is nowadays forbidden to eat on the nights of Passover?14 Wherever the whole is roasted in one [piece]. If a lamb was cut from it, [or] if a limb of it was boiled, that is not a helmeted goat. Now that you say that if a limb was cut from it, even if he roasted it together with it, it is not [a helmeted goat], [if a limb is] boiled need it [be stated]?15 — Said R. Shesheth: It means that he boiled it while attached [to the whole animal].
Rabbah said: A stuffed [lamb]16 is permitted. Said Abaye to him: But [the lamb] absorbs the blood?17 As it absorbs, so it exudes, he answered him.18 Shall we say that this supports him: AND [WE] PLACE ITS KNEES AND ITS ENTRAILS INSIDE IT: what is the reason? Is it not because we say, as it absorbs, so it exudes? — I will tell you: it is different there, [for] since there is the place of slaughtering, which is hollow,
(1) The entrails inside the animal are like meat in a pot, which is seething, not roasting.
(2) This is explained in the GEMARA.
(3) Metal-iron — being a good conductor of heat.
(4) The flesh actually in contact with it is roasted in the heat of the spit, not by the heat of the fire.
(5) Ex. XII,8.
(6) Having a marrow-like substance inside.
(7) Hence they do not exude sap.
(8) Which naturally exudes moisture.
(9) For being inside the lamb it is protected from the fire.
(10) Thus he permits the use of a metal spit.
(11) Hence there is no analogy between the two.
(12) ‘Tok’ is the sound of boiling. Thus he held that the knees etc. are placed inside it, so that it emits a sound of boiling. MS. M. reads: R. Ishmael called it a takbera i.e., a basket, as the animal was stuffed with the loose pieces, v. Jast. s.v. תכברא
(13) He held that the knees etc. must hang outside, so that it looked like a helmet on the head of a warrior.
(14) I.e., after the destruction of the Temple; v. supra 53a.
(15) Surely it is superfluous.
(16) I.e., the lamb being stuffed with meat salted only enough for roasting, which is less than is required by law when it is to be boiled (Rashi). Blood in flesh is forbidden, hence the prescribed, process of soaking and salting in order to draw it out.
(17) Which exudes from the pieces of meat with which it is stuffed when the whole is roasted.
(18) It exudes on the outside the same amount of blood which it first absorbs on the inside.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 74b
[the blood] indeed oozes out.1
Shall we say that this supports him: The heart must be torn and the blood withdrawn;2 if he did not tear it [open], he must tear it after it is boiled3 and it is permitted.4 What is the reason? Is it not because we say, as it absorbs, so it exudes?5 — The heart is different, because it is smooth.6 But surely Rabin the Elder put a paste of dough over a [roasted] pigeon for Rab, and he [Rab] said to him, ‘If the paste is good [tasty], give it me and I will eat it?’7 — That was [done] with [a paste of] fine flour, which is crumbly.8
But Raba visited the home of the Resh Galutha9 and they put a paste of dough over a [roasted] duck for him. Said he, ‘Had I not seen that it was as clear as white glass, I would not eat of it.’ Now should you think, as it absorbs, so it exudes, why particularly when it is clear; [it is permitted] even if not clear? — There it was [prepared] with white flour, so that it [the paste] is compact.10 Now the law is: [a paste] of finest flour, whether it looks red or does not look red, is permitted;11 [a paste] of white flour: if it is as clear as white glass, it is permitted, if not, it is forbidden; [a paste] of other flours: if it looks red, it is forbidden; if it does not look red, it is permitted. [As to] a stuffed [lamb], he who forbids [does so] even if the mouth is at the bottom; while he who permits [does so] even if the mouth is on top. Now the law is: a stuffed [lamb, etc.] is permitted even if the mouth is on top.12
[With regard to] raw meat,13 eggs,14 and the jugular veins, R. Aha and Rabina differ therein. (In the whole Torah15 R. Aha is stringent while Rabina is lenient, and the law is as Rabina [viz.,] as the lenient [view]; except in these three, where R. Aha is lenient and Rabina is stringent, and the law is as R. Aha, [viz.,] as the lenient view.) If raw meat turns reddish, if one cuts16 and salts it, it is permitted even for a pot; if one impales it on a spit [over the fire], it is permitted,17 [because] it [the blood] certainly oozes out. If he placed it on [burning] coals, R. Aha and Rabina differ therein; one forbids and the other permits. He who forbids [holds that] it [the fire] binds [the blood],18 while he who permits [holds] that it draws [the blood] out. And the law is: it does indeed draw [the blood] out. Similarly with eggs: if he cut and salted them, they are permitted even for a pot. If he suspended them from a spit, they are permitted, [because] it [the blood] certainly oozes out. If he laid them on coals, Aha and Rabina differ therein: one forbids and the other permits them. He who forbids [holds]: it certainly binds [the blood]; while he who permits [maintains]: it draws it out. Similarly with the [throat portion containing the] jugular veins: if he cut and salted it, it is permitted even for a pot; if he suspended it on a spit, the place of the cut19 being underneath,20 it is permitted, [because] it does indeed ooze out. If he laid it on coals, R. Aha and Rabina differ therein: one forbids and the other permits. He who forbids [holds]: it does indeed bind [the blood]; while he who permits [maintains]: it draws it out. And the law is: it draws it out.
Raw meat which turns red, its serum is forbidden;21 if it does not turn red, its serum is permitted. Rabina said: Even if it does not turn red, its serum is forbidden, [for] it cannot but contain streaks of blood. Mar b. Amemar said to R. Ashi: My father did indeed drink it.22 Others say: R. Ashi himself drank it.
Mar b. Amemar said to R. Ashi: Vinegar which had been used once for contracting [meat],23 my father would not use it again for contracting’.24 How does it differ from weak vinegar, which may be used for contracting’? — There
(1) The animal being hung throat downwards.
(2) Before it is boiled; the heart is full of blood and therefore ordinary salting, as is done with other flesh, is insufficient.
(3) Rashi: this is assumed to mean, after it is roasted over an open fire, roasting being occasionally referred to as boiling, v. II Chron. XXXV, 13: and they boiled (wa-yebashshelu) the passover with fire according to the ordinance.
(4) V. Hul. 109a.
(5) The reference is not to the heart absorbing blood from other meat, but to one part of the heart absorbing blood from another, and it is now suggested that it exudes the same blood, since it is roasted over an open fire.
(6) Hence it does not absorb, so that even if it were boiled in a pot it would be permitted, though there that it is not directly over the fire we certainly cannot say, so it exudes.
(7) Now the paste absorbs blood from the roasted pigeon; since he wanted to eat it, he must have known that it reexudes it.
(8) And so leaves room for the blood to ooze.
(9) V. Glos.
(10) Which prevents the blood from oozing.
(11) Even in the former case we assume that the blood which the paste absorbed certainly oozed out, the redness being a mere hue which it leaves.
(12) When it is suspended for roasting; though there is no opening for the blood to run out, it nevertheless oozes out through the flesh.
(13) Umza is raw meat, unsalted and unsoaked. Blood in flesh is forbidden only if it travels from one part of the flesh to another. But if it remains in its original place, e.g., when raw meat is pickled dry, it is permitted
(14) The eggs of a male. Rashi: the controversy infra arises when they look red. Tosaf.: these eggs are covered with a membrane which is forbidden on account of blood, hence the controversy.
(15) Where R. Aha and Rabina differ.
(16) To allow for the blood to flow out.
(17) Even if only slightly salted, as one salts ordinary meat when it is to be roasted.
(18) Though not before it has time to travel from its place.
(19) I.e., the throat.
(20) So that the blood can flow out.
(21) This is R. Aha's view; though he permits the meat itself, he agrees that the serum is forbidden.
(22) The serum.
(23) Meat was washed in vinegar in order to contract the blood vessels and bind the blood.
(24) Because after it has been used once the vinegar loses its strength to bind the blood in its place.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 75a
the tartness of the fruit is present in its natural state, whereas here the tartness of the fruit is not present in its natural state.
ONE MAY NOT ROAST THE PASSOVER-OFFERING etc. A story [is quoted] in contradiction? — The text is defective, and it teaches thus: But if it is a perforated grill, it is permitted, and R. ZADOK SAID [LIKEWISE]: IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT R. GAMALIEL SAID TO HIS SERVANT: GO OUT AND ROAST US THE PASSOVER-OFFERING ON THE PERFORATED GRILL’.
R. Hinena b. Idi asked R. Idi b. Ahabah: If a man fires an oven with the shells of ‘orlah1 and then sweeps it out and bakes bread in it, what is [the law] on the view that it is forbidden?2 The bread is permitted, he answered. Said he to him, But R. Hinena the Elder said in R. Assi's name in R. Johanan's name: If a man fires an oven, sweeps it out, and roasts the Passover-offering in it, that is not ‘roast with fire,’ because ‘roast with fire,’ is stated twice.3 [Thus] the reason is that the Divine Law revealed [it by stating] roast with fire’ twice; but if the Divine Law had not revealed it, I would say, it is ‘roast with fire’?4 — The Divine Law revealed it there, replied he, and we learn from it [for elsewhere]. Alternatively, there the reason is that the Divine Law wrote roast with fire’ twice; but if the Divine Law had not written ‘roast with fire’ twice, I would say, the Divine Law insisted on fire, and even if he swept it out, that too is ‘roast with fire’;5 but here the Divine Law objected to forbidden fuel, which is [now] absent.
Our Rabbis taught: If he cut it6 and placed it on the coals,Rabbi said: I maintain that this is ‘roast with fire.’ R. Ahadeboi b. Ammi pointed out a contradiction to R. Hisda: Did then Rabbi rule [that] coals are fire? But the following contradicts it: [Or when the flesh hath in the skin thereof] a burning by fire [etc.]:7 I know it only where it was burnt by fire; if it was burnt with coals, hot ashes, boiling lime, boiling gypsum, or anything produced by fire, which includes hot water [heated] by fire, how do we know it?8 Therefore ‘a burning’ is stated twice, as an amplification. [Hence] it is only because the Divine Law amplified [it by writing] ‘a burning’ twice, but if the Divine Law had not amplified [it by writing] ‘a burning’ twice, [I would say that] coals are not fire? Scripture does not find it necessary to include a wood coal, he answered him;9 a verse is necessary only in respect of a coal of metal. Then are not coals of metal fire? Surely in respect of a priest's daughter [who committed adultery], though it is written, she shall be burnt with fire,10 R. Mattenah said: They made a lead wick for her?11 — There it is different, because the Divine Law said, ‘she shall be burnt with fire’: ‘she shall be burnt’ is to include all burnings which come from fire, then all the more fire itself! [If so] let us surround her with bundles of faggots and burn her? — The meaning of ‘burning’ is learnt from the children of Aaron: just as there it was a burning of the soul while the body remained intact, so here burning of the soul while the body remains intact [is meant].12 Then let us prepare for her boiling water [heated] by the fire?13 — [That is ruled out] on account of R. Nahman’ [s dictum]. For R. Nahman said, Scripture saith, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself:14 choose an easy death for him. Now, since there is R. Nahman[‘s deduction], what is the purpose of the gezerah shawah?15 — I will tell you: But for the gezerah shawah, I would say [that] the burning of the soul while the body remains intact is not burning,16 while as for R. Nahman's [teaching], let us use many bundles of faggots for her, so that she should die quickly. Therefore it [the gezerah shawah] informs us [that it is not so]. Then what is the purpose of ‘[she shall be burnt] with fire’?17 — It is to exclude [boiling] lead [drawn straight] from its source.
R. Jeremiah said to R. Zera: Then wherever ‘she shall be burnt with fire’ is written, it is to include all burnings which are produced by fire? Surely in respect to the [sacrificial] bullocks which were burnt, though it is written, and the [the priest] shall burn it on wood with fire,18 it was nevertheless taught: ‘With fire,’ but not with boiling lime or boiling gypsum? — Said he to him, How compare! There ‘with fire’ is written [first] and ‘she shall be burnt’ after: [hence] it is to include all burnings which are produced by fire;19 [whereas] here is written, and he shall burn it on wood with fire,’ ‘with fire’ being at the end, to intimate that fire only [is permitted], but not anything else. But there too burning is written at the end, for it is written,
(1) V. Glos.
(2) Where it is not first swept out; V. supra 26b. Here, however, there is no improvement of the fuel in the loaf; hence the question.
(3) Ex. XII, 8, 9. The repetition emphasizes that it must be roast actually over the fire itself.
(4) Hence in the present case as there is no Biblical intimation, we should regard it as though the fire itself were present, and by corollary, as though, the oven were unswept.
(5) Since the heat was the result of fire.
(6) The Passover-offering; not actually dividing it, but making a number of deep cuts, so that it should roast more quickly.
(7) Lev. XIII, 24.
(8) That it falls within this particular category of leprosy? V. Hul. 8a.
(9) For that indeed is fire.
(10) Lev. XXI, 9.
(11) V. Sanh. 52a.
(12) V. Sanh. 52a.
(13) I.e., let us execute her by scalding.
(14) Lev. XIX, 18.
(15) V. Glos. I.e., the derivation from the sons of Aaron. it. Nahman's dictum in itself excludes also burning by faggots.
(16) So that the only alternative left is burning by faggots.
(17) Since after all the verse is taken to include all burnings which come from fire.
(18) Ibid. IV, 12.
(19) Since the addition of ‘she shall be burnt’, after ‘with fire’ has already been stated, it is superfluous.
Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 75b
where the ashes are poured out shall it be burnt?1 I will tell you: that ‘shall it be burnt’ is required for what was taught: ‘It shall be burnt’: even if no ashes are there; ‘it shall be burnt’, even if he made the fire catch on to the greater part of it.2 Rabina said:3 Unite them4 and learn: ‘A burning by fire’: I know it only if it was burnt by fire or with a coal;5 if it was burnt with hot ashes, boiling lime, boiling gypsum or with anything produced by fire, which includes hot water [heated] by the fire, how do we know it? Therefore ‘a burning’ is stated twice as an amplification.
Raba pointed out a contradiction: did then Rabbi say [that] coals are designated fire? But the following contradicts it: [And he shall take a censer full of] coals [of fire]:6 you might think [that] quenched [smouldering] coals are meant;7 therefore ‘fire’ is stated. If ‘fire’, you might think [that] a flame [must be brought]; therefore ‘coals of’ is stated. How then [is it to be understood]? He must bring of the brightly-burning [coals].8 Now this is self-contradictory: you say: "’coals," you might think [that] quenched coals [are meant],’ which proves that brightly-burning [coals] are [termed] fire. Then consider the second clause: ‘if "fire", you might think [that] a flame [must be brought]; therefore "coals of" is stated,’ which proves that even brightly-burning [coals] are not fire? Whereupon R. Shesheth answered, This is what he teaches: coals: you might think, both smouldering and brightly-burning [can be taken]; therefore ‘fire’ is stated. if ‘fire,’ you might think [that] a flame [must be brought]; therefore ‘coals of’ is stated. How then [is this to be understood]? He must bring of the brightly-burning [coals]. Yet at all events coals are not called fire, which is a difficulty according to Rabbi? — Said Abaye, Explain it thus: coals of:you might think quenched, but not brightly-burning; therefore ‘fire’ is stated; if ‘fire,’ you might think, he can bring a flame9 or a coal, whichever he desires; therefore ‘coals of fire is stated. How then [is it meant]? He must bring of the brightly burning [coals]. Raba10 asked: [You say] ‘He can bring a flame or a coal, as he desires.’ [But] how is a flame without a coal possible? [Only] if one smears a vessel with oil and lights a fire in it! [Then] why do I need a verse [to exclude] that? Seeing that you do not do thus before a king of flesh and blood, is it not all the more [forbidden] before the Holy One, blessed be He! Rather said Raba, Explain it thus: ‘coals of’: you might think, quenched but not brightly-burning; therefore ‘fire’ is stated; if fire, you might think, let him bring half coal and half flame,11 so that by the time he carries it within [the Holy of Holies] it is all a coal; therefore it is stated, ‘And he shall take a censer full of coals of fire from off the altar’: at the very time of taking they must be coals.
The Scholars asked: [Is the word] omemoth or ‘omemoth?12 -R. Isaac quoted: The cedars in the garden of God could not hide it [‘amamuhu].13
MISHNAH. IF IT [THE PASCHAL LAMB] TOUCHED THE EARTHEN[WARE] OF THE OVEN, HE MUST PARE ITS PLACE; IF SOME OF ITS JUICE DRIPPED ON TO THE EARTHEN[WARE] AND DRIPPED BACK ON TO IT, HE MUST REMOVE ITS PLACE.14 IF SOME OF ITS JUICE FELL ON THE FLOUR, HE MUST TAKE A HANDFUL AWAY FROM ITS PLACE. IF HE BASTED IT [THE PASCHAL LAMB] WITH OIL OF TERUMAH10 IF THEY WHO REGISTERED FOR IT ARE A COMPANY OF PRIESTS, THEY MAY EAT [IT]; BUT IF ISRAELITES, IF IT IS [YET] RAW, LET HIM WASH IT OFF; IF IT IS ROAST, HE MUST PARE THE OUTER PART. IF HE ANOINTED IT WITH OIL OF SECOND TITHE,15 HE MUST NOT CHANGE ITS VALUE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMPANY, BECAUSE SECOND TITHE MUST NOT BE REDEEMED16 IN JERUSALEM.17
GEMARA. It was stated: [If] hot matter [falls] into hot,18 all agree
(2) Yet he must not leave it until the whole is burning. This is deduced because ‘it shall be burnt’ is repeated at the end of the sentence, which emphasizes that it is to be entirely burnt in all cases.
(3) In reply to the contradiction pointed out by R. Ahadeboi.
(4) Lit., ‘wrap’.
(5) Coal is included as implied by the term ‘fire’, and not derived from the repetition of ‘a burning’, as stated in the original version.
(6) Lev. XVI, 12.
(7) I.e., without a flame, for otherwise they are simply called ‘fire’.
(8) Lit., ‘whispering,’ for when coals are burning brightly they make a slight hissing noise something like a sibilant whisper.
(9) Without a coal.
(10) As emended in margin from Rabbah.
(11) E.g., a piece of wood part only of which is well alight.
(12) With an alef (א) or with an ‘ayin (ע)?
(13) Ezek. XXXI, 8; ‘amamuhu is with an ‘ayin (ע), and the root really means to dim, darken, whence E.V. ‘hide’.
(14) I.e.,the part on to which it dripped. ‘Pare’ denotes a very thin strip; ‘to remove,’ the thickness of the finger. The reason is explained in the GEMARA.
(15) Second tithe was brought to Jerusalem and eaten there by its Israelite owners; if it was too burdensome, they redeemed it and expended the redemption money in Jerusalem, v. Deut. XIV, 22f.
(16) Var. lec.: sold.
(17) Even to eat it in Jerusalem as holy food. If the owner of this oil charges the other members for their share, he virtually redeems or sells it as far as he is concerned.
(18) E.g., hot milk into hot meat, or hot forbidden flesh into hot permitted flesh, or vice versa. By ‘hot’, boiling is meant.