that it is forbidden;1 cold into cold, all agree that it is permitted.2 [If] hot [falls] into cold, or cold into hot, — Rab maintained: The upper prevails;3 while Samuel maintained: The lower prevails.
We learned: IF SOME OF ITS JUICE DRIPPED ON TO THE EARTHEN[WARE] AND DRIPPED BACK ON TO IT HE MUST REMOVE ITS PLACE. It was assumed that this refers to a cold earthenware; now it is well on Rab's view that the upper prevails: consequently he must remove its place, because the juice goes and heats the earthenware and the earthenware in turn heats the juice, and when the juice drips back on to the paschal lamb, the paschal lamb is roasted [at that spot] by the heat of the earthenware, whereas the Divine Law said, roast with fire,4 but not roast with something else. But on Samuel's view that the lower prevails, since the earthenware is cold it actually cools the juice; why then should he remove its place? — As R. Jeremiah said5 in Samuel's name: The reference is to hot flour; so here too the reference is to hot earthenware.
We learned: IF SOME OF ITS JUICE DRIPPED ON TO THE FLOUR, HE MUST REMOVE A HANDFUL FROM ITS PLACE. It was assumed that this refers to cold flour. It is well on Rab's view that the upper prevails: consequently he must remove a handful from its place, because it heats the flour around it and the flour in turn heats it, and the juice is roast by the heat of the flour, whereas the Divine Law said, 'roast with fire', but not roast with something else. But on Samuel's view that the lower prevails, since the flour is cold it actually cools it; why then must he remove a handful from its place? — Said R. Jeremiah b. Samuel: This refers to hot flour.
We learned: IF HE BASTED IT With OIL OF TERUMAH, IF THEY [WHO REGISTERED FOR IT] ARE A COMPANY OF PRIESTS, THEY MAY EAT [IT]; IF IT BELONGS TO ISRAELITES: IF IT IS [YET] RAW, LET HIM WASH IT OFF; IF IT IS ROAST, HE MUST PARE THE OUTER PART. It is well on Rab's view that the upper prevails: consequently [mere] paring is sufficient, because the upper is cold.6 But on Samuel's view that the lower prevails, since it is hot it certainly absorbs; why then is paring sufficient: let us forbid it entirely? — Basting is different, because a mere trifle is used.
It was taught in accordance with Samuel: [If] hot matter [falls] into hot, it is forbidden; similarly, if he put cold into hot, it is forbidden; hot into cold or cold into cold, he must wash it off. [You say], 'Hot into cold, he must wash it off'; [surely] since it is hot, until it cools it cannot but absorb a little; then it should at least require paring? Rather say: hot into cold, he must pare it; cold into cold, he must wash it off.
Another [Baraitha] taught: If hot meat fell into hot milk, and likewise if cold fell into hot, it is forbidden. Hot into cold or cold into cold, he must wash [the meat]. 'Hot into cold, he must wash [the meat]'; [surely] since it is hot, until it cools it cannot but absorb a little, then it should at least require paring? — Rather say: hot into cold, he must pare [it]; cold into cold, he must wash [the meat].
The Master said: 'Cold into cold, he must wash the meat.R. Huna said: They learned this only where he had not [previously] salted it; but if he had salted it, it is forbidden, for Samuel said: Salted [matter] is like hot;7 if preserved [in vinegar], it is like boiled.8 Raba said: As to what Samuel said, Salted [matter] is like hot, — this was said9 only where it cannot be eaten through the salt;10 but if it can be eaten in spite of the salt, it is not so. A young pigeon fell into a jug of kamka,11 [and] R. Hinena the son of Raba of Pashrunia12 permitted it. Said Raba: Who is so wise as to permit such a thing if not R. Hinena the son of Raba of Pashrunia, who is a great man. [For] he can tell you: when did Samuel say, Salted matter is like hot? — Where it cannot be eaten through the salt; whereas this could be eaten in spite of the salt. That is, however, only if it is raw; but if roast, it requires paring. Further, this was said only if it contains no splits;13 but if it contains splits, it is [altogether] forbidden; and if it is seasoned with condiments, it is forbidden.14 Rab said:
____________________
(1) Because each absorbs from the other.
(2) Because they do not absorb from each other.
(3) Thus: if hot falls into cold, the upper heats the lower, and it is tantamount to hot into hot: while if cold falls into hot, it is as cold into cold.
(4) Ex. XII, 8.
(5) V. infra.
(6) I.e., the oil is cold. Nevertheless paring at least is required, because the oil cannot but soak slightly into the flesh.
(7) 'Salted', this is soon defined — it is regarded as hot, and necessitates paring.
(8) And the whole of the permitted matter rendered forbidden.
(9) Lit., 'we said'.
(10) Until the salt is washed off
(11) A relish containing milk, among other things.
(12) A town in Babylonia. Obermeyer does not identify it. Jast., however, s.v. פרשוניא identifies it with Perishna, which is mentioned infra 91a, and Obermeyer, p. 297, n. 1. thinks that the latter is identical with Barus, which was included in the district of Sura for taxation purposes.
(13) Then paring is sufficient.
(14) In both cases the flesh absorbs more freely than otherwise.Fat meat of a [ritually] slaughtered [animal] which was roasted together with lean meat of nebelah1 is forbidden. What is the reason? They fatten each other.2 But Levi maintained: Even lean meat of a [ritually] slaughtered [animal] which was roasted together with fat meat of nebelah is permitted. What is the reason? It is a mere smell, and smell is nothing. Levi gave a practical decision3 at the house of the Resh Galutha4 in the case of a goat and 'something else.'5
An objection is raised: One may not roast two Passover offerings together, on account of the mixture. Surely that means, the mixture of [the] flavours,6 which is a difficulty on Levi's view? No: [it means] the mixture of their carcasses.7 This too is logical, since the second clause teaches: Even a kid and a lamb. Now it is well if you say [that it is] on account of the carcasses: hence he teaches, 'even a kid and a lamb.'8 But if you say [that it is] on account of the mingling of [the] flavours, what does it matter whether it is a kid and a lamb or a kid and a kid? — What then? You are bound [to say] that it is forbidden only on account of the mixing of the carcasses, but the mingling of flavours is permitted; shall we say [then] that this is a refutation of Rab? — Said R. Jeremiah: The case we discuss here9 is e.g., where he roasted them in two pots. [You say] 'In two pots — can you think so!10 — Rather say, as though [they were roasted in] two pots,11 and this is what it teaches: One may not roast two Passover-offerings together, on account of the mixture. What mixture? The mixture of the flavours. And even [when roasted] as it were in two pots it is forbidden on account of the [possible] confusing of the carcasses, and even a kid and a lamb [must not be roasted together].
R. Mari said: This is dependent on Tannaim. If a man removes a hot loaf [from the oven] and places It on a wine barrel of terumah, — R. Meir forbids it;12 whereas R. Judah permits it; while R. Jose permits it in the case of [a loaf of] wheat, but forbids it in the case of barley [flour], because barley absorbs. Surely then it is dependent on Tannaim, one Master holding: Smell is nothing; while the other Master holds: Smell is something [substantial]? According to Levi, it is certainly dependent on Tannaim.13 Shall we say that it is [dependent on] Tannaim according to Rab [too]? — Rab can tell you: All agree that smell is something [substantial]; [and as to the ruling of R. Judah] was it not stated thereon, Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of Resh Lakish: In the case of a hot loaf and an open barrel, all agree that it is forbidden; in the case of a cold loaf and a closed [stoppered] barrel, all agree that it is permitted. They differ only in the case of a hot loaf and a sealed barrel, [or] a cold loaf and an open barrel;14 and this too15 is like a hot loaf and an open barrel.16
R. Kahana the son of R. Hinena the Elder recited: A loaf which was baked together with roast [meat] in an oven may not be eaten with kutah.17 A fish was roasted [i.e., baked] together with meat, [whereupon] Raba of Parzikia18 forbade it to be eaten with kutah. Mar b. R. Ashi said: Even with salt too it is forbidden, because it is harmful to [one's] smell and in respect of 'something else.'19
MISHNAH. FIVE THINGS [SACRIFICES] MAY COME IN UNCLEANNESS, YET MUST NOT BE EATEN IN UNCLEANNESS: THE 'OMER,20 THE TWO LOAVES,21 THE SHEWBREAD,22 THE SACRIFICES OF THE PUBLIC PEACE-OFFERINGS,23 AND THE HE-GOATS OF NEW MOONS.24 THE PASCHAL LAMB WHICH COMES IN UNCLEANNESS IS EATEN IN UNCLEANNESS, FOR FROM THE VERY BEGINNING IT CAME FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE BUT TO BE EATEN.
GEMARA. What does 'FIVE' exclude?25 — It excludes the hagigah [for example] of the fifteenth.26 For I might argue, since it is a public sacrifice27 and a season is fixed for it, let it override uncleanness; therefore he informs us [that] since you can make it up the whole seven [days],28 it does not override the Sabbath,29 and since it does not override the Sabbath, it does not override uncleanness.
Now, let him [the Tanna] state the he-goats of festivals too?30 — He does indeed state THE SACRIFICES OF THE PUBLIC PEACE-OFFERINGS.31 If so, let him not state the he-goats of New Moons either, seeing that he States THE SACRIFICES OF THE PUBLIC PEACE-OFFERINGS? — I will tell you:
____________________
(1) In the same oven on separate spits and not touching.
(2) The odour of the fat meat enters the lean meat and makes it fat, and then in turn the odour of the lean meat, which is forbidden enters the permitted meat and renders it forbidden too. — Hence if the meat of nebelah itself is fat, it is certainly forbidden.
(3) As distinct from a mere theoretical ruling — in accordance with his view.
(4) V. Glos.
(5) I.e., a swine, which was generally referred to thus; cf. supra 3b. These had been roasted together.
(6) Each absorbs the flavour of the other through its smell, which would thus be enjoyed by those who have not registered for that animal.
(7) The animals themselves may be mixed up with each other.
(8) Though a mistake is less likely there.
(9) In the teaching cited.
(10) The Passover-offering may not be roasted in pots at all.
(11) A heap of coals or ashes intervening between the two sacrifices.
(12) To a lay Israelite, because it has absorbed the odour of the wine.
(13) For R. Meir's view certainly contradicts his.
(14) And it is only in such cases that R. Judah permits.
(15) Sc. the case disputed by Rab and Levi.
(16) Which even R. Judah agrees is forbidden.
(17) V. Glos. This contains milk.
(18) Obermeyer, p. 227, n. 2 thinks this identical with Perezina
(Faransag), near Bagdad.
(19) Leprosy.
(20) V. Glos. and Lev. XXIII, 10f.
(21) V. ibid. 17.
(22) V. Ex. XXV, 30.
(23) The lambs offered on Pentecost, v. Num. XXVIII, 27.
(24) V. ibid. 15 — all these are brought even if the community is unclean, which of course makes them unclean too through the handling of the officiating priest; nevertheless, they may not be eaten for they are brought merely in discharge of public obligations, but their main purpose is not to be eaten.
(25) It is assumed that the number has this purpose, for otherwise the Mishnah would simply state, The 'omer . . . come in uncleanness etc.
(26) And similarly the hagigah of any other Festival.
(27) In the sense that all Jews must bring a hagigah.
(28) If not brought on the first day it can be brought for a week afterwards, v. Hag. 9a.
(29) A public sacrifice overrides the Sabbath only when it cannot be offered on any other day.
(30) V. Num. XXVIII, 15, 22, 30; XXIX, 5, 16, 38.
(31) For the he-goats too are public sacrifices (R. Han).It is necessary for him [to teach about] the he-goats of New Moons. I might argue, surely 'appointed season' [mo'ed] is not written in connection therewith;1 therefore he informs us that New Moon is designated mo'ed, in accordance with Abaye's [dictum]. For Abaye said, The Tammuz2 of that year3 was indeed made full,4 as it is written, He hath proclaimed an appointed time [mo'ed] against me to crush my young men.5
Shall we say that all of them6 are derived from mo'ed ['appointed time']? How do we know it? For our Rabbis taught: And Moses declared unto the children of Israel the appointed times of the Lord.7 For what purpose is this stated?8 Because we have learnt only of the daily offering and the Passover-offering [that they override the Sabbath and uncleanness], since 'in its appointed time' is stated in connection with them,9 'in its appointed time' [implying] even on the Sabbath, 'in its appointed time' implying even in uncleanness. Whence do we know it of other public sacrifices? Because it is said, These shall ye offer unto the Lord in your appointed time.10 Whence do we know to include the 'omer — and that which is offered with it, and the two loaves and that which is offered with them? Therefore it is stated, 'And Moses declared unto the children of Israel the appointed times of the Lord': the Writ fixed it as one appointed season for all of them.11
Now, what is the purpose of all these?12 — They are necessary. For if the Divine Law wrote it of the daily offering [alone], I would say: The daily offering [overrides the Sabbath and uncleanness] because it is constant and entirely burnt, but the Passover is not so;13 hence we are informed [otherwise]. While if the Divine Law wrote it of the Passover-offering, [I would argue that] the Passover-offering [must be offered under all circumstances] because it involves the penalty of kareth,14 but [as for] the continual offering, for [neglect of] which there is no penalty of kareth, I would say that it is not [so]; hence we are informed [otherwise]. Again, if the Divine Law wrote it of these two, I would say: These alone [override Sabbath and uncleanness, since they] possess a stringent feature, the continual offering being constant and entirely [burnt], the Passover-offering involving the penalty of kareth; but [as for] other public sacrifices, I would say, It is not so. [Hence] the Divine Law wrote, 'These shall ye offer unto the Lord in your appointed times.' While if the Divine Law [merely] wrote, 'These shall ye offer unto the Lord in your appointed times,' I would argue: [It refers only to] other public sacrifices, which come to make atonement,15 but [the sacrifices accompanying] the 'omer and the two loaves, which do not come to make atonement but are merely in order to permit [the new harvest] are not so; hence we are informed [otherwise]. Again, if the Divine Law wrote [about] the 'omer and the two loaves alone, I would have said: On the contrary, it [applies only to] the 'omer and the two loaves which are more important, because they come to permit; but these others are not so. Hence we are informed [otherwise].
Now it was assumed that all hold that uncleanness is overridden in the case of a community, hence the headplate is required for propitiation.16 For there is no [other] Tanna whom you know to maintain [that] uncleanness is permitted in the case of a community17 but R. Judah. For it was taught: The headplate, whether it is on his [the High Priest's] forehead18 or it is not on his forehead, propitiates; this is the view of R. Simeon. R. Judah maintained: If it is still on his forehead, it propitiates; if it is not still on his forehead, it does not propitiate. Said R. Simeon to him: Let the High Priest on the Day of Atonement prove it, for it is not on his forehead, and [yet] it propitiates!19 - Leave the Day of Atonement, replied he, because uncleanness is permitted in the case of a community. Whence it follows that R. Simeon holds: Uncleanness is overridden in the case of a community. Again, [it was assumed that all hold,] the headplate does not propitiate for [the defilement of] eatables,20 for there is no Tanna whom you know to maintain [that] the headplate propitiates for [the defilement of] eatables save R. Eleazar. For it was taught, R. Eleazar said: The headplate propitiates for [the defilement of] eatables; R. Jose said: The headplate does not propitiate for the defilement of eatables.21 [Accordingly,] shall we say that our Mishnah22 does not agree with R. Joshua? For it was taught, And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh, and the blood.'23 R. Joshua said: If there is no blood there is no flesh, and if there is no flesh there is no blood.24 R. Eliezer said: The blood [is fit] even if there is no flesh, because it is said, And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out [against the altar of the Lord thy God].25 Then how do I interpret,26 'and thou shalt offer thy burnt-offering, the flesh and the blood?' [It is] to teach you: just as the blood requires throwing,27 so does the flesh require throwing:28 hence say, there was a small passage-way between the stairway and the altar.29 Now [according to] R. Joshua too, surely it is written, 'and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out?' — He can answer you: surely in connection therewith is written, and thou shalt eat the flesh.30
____________________
(1) Whereas it is from this word that we deduce anon that festival public sacrifices override the Sabbath and uncleanness.
(2) The fourth month of the year, generally corresponding to June.
(3) In which the spies reconnoitered the promised Land, with disastrous results, v. Num. XIII.
(4) I.e., it consisted of 30 days. When it consists of 29 days it is called defective. Now, as they set out on the 29th of Sivan, the third month (Ta'an. 29a), the 40 days of their mission ended on the ninth of Ab, the fifth month. Thus their weeping on that night (ibid. XIV, 1) became the forerunner of subsequent lamentation on that date for many generations, for it is the anniversary of the destruction of the Temple.
(5) Lam. I, 15. Abaye appears to interpret thus: God caused New Moon (i.e., the 'appointed time' — mo'ed) of Tammuz in that year to be proclaimed on such a day that their return and the weeping of the people would coincide with the future anniversary of the destruction of the Temple. Hence, on this interpretation, New Moon too is designated 'mo'ed'.
(6) I.e., those mentioned in the Mishnah that may be offered in uncleanness.
(7) Lev. XXIII, 44.
(8) Seeing that ali the Festivals are individually treated in that chapter.
(9) Num. XXVIII, 2; IX, 2. 'In its appointed time' implies that the sacrifice must be offered in all circumstances, as explained in the text.
(10) Ibid. XXIX, 39. This verse ends the section (chs. XXVIII-XXIX) dealing with the public additional sacrifices on New Moon, the Sabbath and Festivals, and its effect is that the whole section is to be so understood as though 'in its appointed season' were explicitly written in connection with each.
(11) V. previous note; the same applies here, and the 'omer and the two loaves are prescribed in this section (vv. 10f, 17f).
(12) Scripture could have written appointed season' in connection with one only, and the rest would follow.
(13) It is not constant by comparison.
(14) For not bringing it; v. Num. IX, 13.
(15) The additional sacrifices make atonement for the transgression of affirmative precepts, v. Yoma 36a.
(16) I.e., though uncleanness is not a bar when the whole community is unclean, Scripture does not mean that the normal interdict of uncleanness is completely abrogated, so that it is permitted, but merely that the interdict is overridden in favour of the community. Now in Ex. XXVIII, 38 it is stated: And it (the head plate) shall be upon Aaron's forehead, and Aaron shall bear (i.e., atone for) the iniquity committed in the holy things (sc. sacrifices) . . . and it shall always be upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord (i.e., that these sacrifices shall be fit). 'The iniquity' is understood to refer to a case where a sacrifice accidentally became unclean, and the headplate atones for it, so that it remains fit. Since we hold that even in the case of a community uncleanness is merely overridden, but not actually permitted, the head plate is required for propitiation even then.
(17) So that the propitiation of the headplate is not required at all.
(18) When the sacrifice accidentally becomes unclean.
(19) On that day he put aside all his usual vestments, which included the headplate, and wore simple linen garments (v. Lev. XVI,4). Yet if the community was unclean he still offered the sacrifices, and the headplate 'made them acceptable'.
(20) I.e., if the flesh or the part of the meal-offering which is eaten is defiled, the sacrifice cannot be proceeded with, the headplate propitiating only if the blood or the handful which is burnt on the altar is defiled.
(21) These two assumption are the necessary premises for the question which follows.
(22) Which states that the 'omer, the two loaves, etc., may be offered in uncleanness, although the plate does not propitiate on the eatable parts of these offerings.
(23) Deut. XII, 27.
(24) I. e., if either is defiled, the other is unfit for its purpose.
(25) Ibid.
(26) Lit., 'fulfil'.
(27) I.e., dashing against the altar.
(28) On to the altar.
(29) Consequently a priest standing at the top of the ascent could not place the flesh on the altar but had to throw it.
(30) Deut. XII, 27. This proves that the flesh too must be fit for eating.Then what is the purpose of these two verses?1 — One refers to the burnt-offering and one refers to a peace-offering, and both are necessary. For if the Divine Law wrote it in connection with a burnt-offering, I would say: It is [only with] the burnt-offering2 which is stringent — because it is entirely [burnt]; but as for the peace-offering which is not stringent — I would say that it is not so. Again, if the Divine Law wrote [it of] a peace-offering I would say: on the contrary [the reason is] because it has two forms of consumption;3 but [as for] the burnt-offering, where there are not two forms of consumption.4 I would say that it is not so.Hence we are informed [otherwise].
Now [according to] R. Eliezer too, surely it is written, 'and thou shalt eat the flesh?' — He can answer you: He utilizes that [to teach] that the flesh is not permitted for eating until the blood is sprinkled. If so, say that the whole verse comes for this [purpose],then how do we know [that] the blood [is fit] even if there is no flesh? — He can answer you: If so, let the Divine Law [first] write 'thou shalt eat the flesh,' and then, 'and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out,' as is written in the beginning [of the verse], 'and thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood?' Why then does [Scripture] place 'the blood of thy sacrifices' first? Hence infer from it [that] the blood [is fit] even if there is no flesh, and infer from it also that the flesh is not permitted for eating until the blood is sprinkled.5 And R. Joshua?6 — [That] the flesh is not permitted for eating until the blood is sprinkled follows a minori: if the emurim,7 which when not available8 are not indispensable [to the eating of the flesh] , yet when available are indispensable;9 then the blood, which if not available is indispensable, if available how much the more is it indispensable! And R. Eliezer?10 [Even] a law which can be inferred a minori, the Writ takes the trouble of writing it. And R. Joshua? - Wherever we can interpret, we do interpret.11 Shall we now say that our Mishnah is not in accordance with R. Joshua, for since he says that we require both,12 while the headplate does not propitiate for [the defilement of] eatables, how can it come in uncleanness?13 — You may even say [that it agrees with] R. Joshua, but R. Joshua holds: The headplate propitiates for those that ascend.14 That is well of sacrifices, where there are objects which ascend [sc. emurim]; but what can be said of the 'omer and the two loaves, where there are no objects to ascend [the altar]? — I will tell you: R. Joshua too said that we require both only in the case of sacrifices; [but] he did not say [it] in the case of meal-offerings.
Yet did he not say [it] in the case of meal-offerings? Surely we learnt: If the remainder thereof15 was defiled, [or] if the remainder thereof was lost:16 according to the view of R. Eliezer17 it [the handful] is fit;18 according to the view of R. Joshua,19 it is unfit!20 It is according to his view, yet not entirely so.21 [Thus]: according to the view of R. Joshua, that we require both, yet not entirely so, for whereas R. Joshua ruled [thus] in the case of sacrifices, but he did not rule [thus] in the case of meal-offerings, this Tanna holds [that it is so] even in the case of meal-offerings.
Now who is this Tanna that agrees with him but is more stringent than he?22 Moreover, it was taught, R. Jose said: I agree with the words of R. Eliezer23 in respect to meal-offerings and [animal] sacrifices, and with the words of R. Joshua in respect to [animal] sacrifices and meal-offerings. 'The words of R. Eliezer in respect to [animal] sacrifices,' for he used to say: The blood [is fit] even if there is no flesh; 'and the words of R. Joshua in respect to sacrifices,' for he used to say: If there is no blood there is no flesh, and if there is no flesh there is no blood. 'The words of R. Eliezer in respect to meal-offerings': for he used to say: the handful [is fit] even if there is no remainder [for consumption]; 'and the words of R. Joshua In respect to meal-offerings,' for he used to say: if there is no handful there is no remainder, [and] if there is no remainder there is no handful?24 — Rather R. Joshua holds: The headplate propitiates for [the defilement of] the objects which ascend [the altar] and for eatables.25 If so, why [do you say,] 'according to the view of R. Joshua it is unfit?'26 [That refers] to what is lost or burnt.27 Then according to whom does he teach, '[if the remainder] was defiled'? according to R. Eliezer? [But] that is obvious; seeing that you say that [even when it is] lost or burnt, where they are [now] non-existent, R. Eliezer declares [the handful] fit, need it [be stated] where it is defiled, when it is in existence! Hence it is obviously [taught] according to R. Joshua, yet he teaches [that] it is unfit?28 Furthermore, it was taught, R. Joshua said: [In the case of] all the sacrifices of the Torah, whether the flesh was defiled while the fat has remained [clean], or the fat was defiled while the flesh has remained [clean], he [the priest] sprinkles the blood. But not if both were defiled. This proves that R. Joshua holds that the headplate does not propitiate either for [the defilement of] the objects which ascend [the altar]29 or for the eatables!30 — Rather [explain it thus:] after all our Mishnah is [the view of] R. Joshua, yet there is no difficulty: here it means in the first place; there it means if it was done [offered]. R. Joshua said [that both are required] only in the first place, but not if it was done.31 And whence do you know32 that R. Joshua draws a distinction between [what is required] in the first place and what was done? — Because it was taught: If the flesh was defiled, or disqualified,33 or it passed without the curtains, — R. Eliezer said: He must sprinkle [the blood]; R. Joshua maintained: He must not sprinkle [the blood]. Yet R. Joshua admits that if he does sprinkle [it], it is accepted.34 But surely this explanation is not acceptable: firstly, because 'it is unfit'35 implies [even] where it was done. Moreover,36 FIVE THINGS MAY COME [IN UNCLEANNESS] implies [even] in the first place!37
____________________
(1) According to R. Joshua, since both teach that the blood and the flesh are interdependent.
(2) That both are interdependent.
(3) The fat portions are consumed ('eaten') on the altar while the flesh is consumed partly by priests and partly by its owners.
(4) The whole being consumed on the altar.
(5) The reversed order intimating this additional teaching.
(6) How does he know this?
(7) V. Glos.
(8) E.g., if lost or defiled.
(9) The flesh may not be eaten until the emurim are burnt on the altar, v. supra 59b.
(10) Does he not accept this argument?
(11) The principle that Scripture writes explicitly what can be inferred a minori holds good only when the verse cannot be employed for any other purpose.
(12) The blood and the flesh.
(13) Sc. the objects enumerated in the Mishnah. For on the one hand, propitiation is required (v. p. 398, n. 2), while on the other there cannot be propitiation for eatables, and according to R. Joshua the eatables and the blood, or in the case of the meal-offering, the handful, are interdependent.
(14) The altar, sc. the emurim; i.e., providing that as much as an olive of the emurim ascends the altar, the headplate propitiates for its defilement, and the blood too can be sprinkled.
(15) Of the meal-offering, after the handful was removed (v. Lev. II, 9). In the Hebrew the word is in the plural. This remainder would normally be eaten by the priests (ibid. 10).
(16) In both cases before the handful was burnt on the altar.
(17) That the blood is fit for sprinkling even if the flesh is not available; the handful of a meal-offering is the equivalent of the blood of an animal sacrifice, while the remainder is the equivalent of the flesh.
(18) For burning on the altar, and the owner thus discharges his obligation and need not bring another meal-offering.
(19) That the blood and the flesh are interdependent.
(20) V. Men. 9a Thus R. Joshua requires both in the case of meal- offerings too.
(21) Lit., 'and not according to his view.'
(22) I.e., do we in fact find any such Tanna?
(23) Lit., 'I see (as right) the words of R. Eliezer.'
(24) This Baraitha is explained anon. From it we see that R. Joshua maintained his view even in respect to meal-offerings.
(25) Hence our Mishnah can agree with him.
(26) Surely the headplate propitiates, i.e., makes the handful fit for burning on the altar, even if the remainder is unclean?
(27) If the remainder is lost or burnt the handful is unfit for the head plate propitiates only for defilement.
(28) on his view this is necessary, as it informs us that he holds the handful unfit not only if the rest is now entirely non-existent, but even if the rest is in existence, but unclean.
(29) Sc. the fat.
(30) Sc. the flesh. For if the headplate does propitiate, why is it unfit?
(31) I.e., R. Joshua holds that in the first place both are required; nevertheless, if only the blood was clean and it was sprinkled, though it should not have been, it is fit. Our Mishnah too means where it was done.
(32) Lit., say'.
(33) By the touch of a tebul yom, q.v. Glos.; v. also supra 14a Mishnah and note a.l.
(34) V. supra 34b for the whole passage.
(35) In the ruling of R. Joshua where the remainder was defiled, v. supra.
(36) Even granted that 'it is fit' implied only in the first instance.
(37) So that our Mishnah could still not be in accordance with R. Joshua.- Rather, there is no difficulty: here the reference is to an individual;1 there [in the Mishnah] the reference is to a community.2
Shall we say that our Mishnah does not agree with R. Jose? For it was taught, R. Eliezer said: The headplate propitiates for [the defilement of] eatables; R. Jose said: The headplate does not propitiate for [the defilement of] eatables. Now it was assumed: since R. Jose rules, The headplate does not propitiate for [the defilement of] eatables, he agrees with R. Joshua who maintains: We require both.3 Shall we now say [that] our Mishnah does not agree with R. Jose? — No: R. Jose agrees with R. Eliezer, who maintained: The blood [is fit] even if there is no flesh. If so, in respect of what law [does he rule]: the headplate does not propitiate for [the defilement of] eatables?4 — Then on your reasoning, when R. Eliezer rules: The headplate does propitiate [for the defilement of eatables], — since he maintains [that] the blood [is fit] even if there is no flesh, in respect of what law [does the headplate propitiate]? — Rather they differ in respect of branding5 it with [the unfitness of] piggul6 and excluding it from [the law of] trespass.7 R. Eliezer holds: The headplate propitiates for it [the defilement of the flesh] and renders it as clean, and so brands it as piggul8 and excludes it from [the law of] trespass; while R. Jose holds: The headplate does not propitiate for it and does not render it as clean; hence it cannot be branded as piggul, nor does it exclude it from [the law of] trespass.
To this R. Mari demurred: Even granted that R. Jose agrees with R. Eliezer: as for sacrifices,9 It is well, [since] there is blood; as for the 'omer, there is the handful; [in the case of] the shewbread too there are the censers [of frankincense].10 But [in the case of] the two loaves, what can be said?11 And should you answer, it is in respect of what is offered together with them,12 then it is tantamount to the public peace-offerings, [and] if so there are [only] four, whereas we learned FIVE? — Rather, R. Jose holds: uncleanness was permitted in the case of a community.13
But surely it was taught: Both [in the case of] the one and the other,14 we besprinkle them the whole seven [days]15 with [the ashes of] all the purification offerings16 which were there:17 this is R. Meir's view. R. Jose said: We besprinkle them on the third day and on the seventh day alone.18 Now if you should think that R. Jose holds, Uncleanness was permitted in the case of a community, why do I need sprinkling at all?19 Hence it is clear that our Mishnah does not agree with R. Jose.
R. Papa said to Abaye: And does R. Jose grant the [Court's] document to two!20 For it was taught, R. Jose said: I agree with the words of R. Eliezer in respect to meal-offerings and [animal] sacrifices, and with the words of R. Joshua in respect to sacrifices and meal-offering. 'The words of R. Eliezer in respect to sacrifices,' for he used to say: The blood [is fit] even if there is no flesh; 'the words of R. Joshua in respect to sacrifices,' for he used to say: If there is no blood there is no flesh, if there is no flesh there is no blood. 'The words of R. Eliezer in respect to meal-offerings, for he used to say: the handful [is fit] even if there is no remainder [fit for consumption]; 'and the words of R. Joshua in respect to meal-offerings,' for he used to say: if there is no remainder there is no handful, [and] if there is no handful there is no remainder!
Said he to him: He states what appears logical [to him].21 [Thus:] when he was studying [the subject of] sacrifices22 he said: It is logical [that] just as they differ in respect to sacrifices, so do they differ in respect to meal-offerings too. [And] when he was studying [the subject of] meal-offerings he said: It is logical [that] just as they differ in respect to meal-offerings, so do they differ in respect to sacrifices too. Said he to him: It is correct [that] when he was studying [the subject of] sacrifices he said: It is logical [that] just as they differ in respect to sacrifices, so do they differ in respect to meal-offerings too, because the verses [on this matter] are written fundamentally in connection with sacrifices.23 But when he is studying [the subject of] meal-offerings and he says, It is logical [that] just as they differ in respect to meal-offerings, so do they differ in respect to sacrifices too, — but surely, the verses are fundamentally written in connection with sacrifices! — Rather [explain it thus], there is no difficulty: I agree with the words of R. Eliezer, where it [the flesh] was defiled, and with the words of R. Joshua, where it was lost or burnt. Where it was defiled, what is the reason [that he agrees with R. Eliezer]? Because the headplate propitiates! Surely you know R. Jose to maintain [that] the headplate does not propitiate for [the defilement of] eatables! — Rather [explain it thus], there is no difficulty: I agree with the words of R. Eliezer in the case of the community; I agree with the words of R. Joshua in the case of an individual. In the case of the community, what is the reason [that he agrees with R. Eliezer]? Because uncleanness is permitted in the case of a community? But one [objection] is that you know R. Jose to maintain [that] uncleanness is overridden in the case of a community. Again, if it refers to a community, [does only] R. Eliezer declare it fit, but not R. Joshua?
____________________
(1) Then it is unfit in the first place, but valid if done.
(2) Which is unclean; then it is permitted at the very outset.
(3) The blood and the flesh.
(4) Since you now say that the blood can be sprinkled in any case.
(5) Lit., 'appointing.'
(6) V. Glos.
(7) For piggul v. Lev. XIX, 7 (E.V. vile thing); mere intention renders it piggul, and it may then not be eaten even within the permitted precincts or within the permitted time. But a sacrifice cannot become piggul unless it is otherwise fit. Again, if one benefits from sacrifices of the higher sanctity (v. p. 108, n. 2) before their blood is sprinkled, he is liable to a trespass-offering; if after, he is exempt, for by then the flesh is permitted to priests.
(8) For now there is no other disqualification.
(9) Mentioned in our Mishnah that they may be offered in uncleanness.
(10) All these ascend the altar, and therefore the headplate makes them acceptable.
(11) For these consist entirely of eatables, for whose defilement R. Jose holds that the headplate does not propitiate. How then can they be offered in uncleanness?
(12) V. Lev. XXIII, 18f. The slaughtering of these sacrifices sanctifies the loaves, and the sprinkling of their blood permits them for eating; thus the Mishnah teaches that the headplate propitiates for the defilement of the shewbread in so far as the sacrifices can now be brought.
(13) So that propitiation is not required at all; v. supra 77a p. 398, nn. 2 and 3.
(14) Sc. the priest who burnt the red heifer (Num. XIX 4ff) and the High Priest.
(15) The former prior to his burning the red heifer; the latter, before the Day of Atonement, when he officiated in the Temple.
(16) The red heifer was designated חטאת, i.e., a sin-offering, here translated purification offering, v. ibid. 9.
(17) Some ashes were kept of every red heifer killed since Moses.
(18) V. Yoma 4a.
(19) Seeing that the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement were public offerings.
(20) In a lawsuit the court granted a document containing the verdict to the winner. Here R. Jose grants this document to both sides — i.e., he agrees with both R. Eliezer and R. Joshua.
(21) Without expressing agreement either with the one or the other.
(22) Lit., 'when he stands at sacrifices.'
(23) V. verses quoted supra 77a.Surely you have said, even R. Joshua agrees in the case of a community! Rather [explain it thus:] I agree with the words of R. Eliezer where It was done [offered], and with the words of R. Joshua [where it is] at the very outset. [But] if it was done, even R. Joshua agrees, for it is taught: R. Joshua agrees that if he sprinkled [the blood] it is made acceptable? One refers to uncleanness; the other to [the case where it] is lost or burnt. [Thus:] when does he teach, R. Joshua agrees that if he sprinkled [the blood] it is made acceptable, where [the flesh] was defiled, but not if it was lost or burnt; [and] when does R. Jose say, I agree with the words of R. Eliezer if it was done, where [the flesh] was lost or burnt.
MISHNAH. IF THE FLESH WAS DEFILED WHILE THE FAT1 HAS REMAINED [CLEAN], HE MUST NOT SPRINKLE THE BLOOD;2 IF THE FAT WAS DEFILED WHILE THE FLESH HAS REMAINED [CLEAN], HE MUST SPRINKLE THE BLOOD. BUT IN THE CASE OF [OTHER] DEDICATED SACRIFICES IT IS NOT SO, FOR EVEN IF THE FLESH WAS DEFILED WHILE THE FAT HAS REMAINED CLEAN, HE MUST SPRINKLE THE BLOOD.3
GEMARA. R. Giddal said in Rab's name: If he sprinkled [the blood], it [the Passover-offering] is made acceptable.4 But we require eating?5 — The eating is not indispensable. But surely it is written, according to every man's eating [ye shall make your count for the lamb]?6 — That is for preference.7 And is [this] not [to intimate that] it is indispensable? Surely it was taught: According to the number of [bemiksath] the souls:8 this teaches that the paschal lamb is killed for none save those who registered for it. You might think that if he killed it for those who are not registered for it, he should be regarded as violating the precept, yet it is fit. Therefore it is stated, 'according to every man's eating ... ye shall make your count [takosu]': The Writ reiterated it, to teach that it is indispensable; and eaters are assimilated to registered persons.9 -Rather, Rab ruled as R. Nathan, who said: The eating of the Passover-offerings is not indispensable. Which [statement of] R. Nathan [is alluded to]?10 Shall we say, the following [dictum] of R. Nathan? For it was taught, R. Nathan said: How do we know that all Israel can discharge [their obligation] with one Passover-offering? Because it is said, and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at dusk:11 does then the whole assembly kill? Surely only one kills! But it teaches that all Israel can discharge [their duty] with one Passover-offering.12 Perhaps it is different there, because if some withdraw it is fit for the others, and if the others withdraw it is fit for these?13 — Rather it is this [dictum of] R. Nathan. For it was taught: If one company registered for it, and then another company registered for it, the former, for whom there is as much as an olive [per person], eat it and are exempt from sacrificing a second Passover-offering; the latter, for whom there is not as much as an olive [per person], cannot eat, and they are bound to sacrifice a second Passover-offering. R. Nathan said: Both are exempt from sacrificing a second Passover-offering, because the blood has already been sprinkled.14 Yet still perhaps it is different there, because if these withdraw it is fit for them [the others]?13 — If so, let him teach, because it is possible for them15 to withdraw? Why [state] 'because the blood has already been sprinkled?' That proves' that the matter depends [entirely] on [the sprinkling of] the blood, but the eating is not indispensable. Now, what compels Rab to establish our Mishnah as meaning in the first place [only] and [in accordance with] R. Nathan: let us establish it as [agreeing with] the Rabbis, and even if it was done,16 it is not [fit]? — To Rab our Mishnah presents a difficulty: why does it state, HE MUST NOT SPRINKLE THE BLOOD: let it teach, 'It is unfit'? Hence this proves that he must not sprinkle in the first place [only], but if done it is indeed well.
But on R. Nathan's view, what is the purpose of 'according to every man's eating?' — [To teach] that we require men who are fit to eat [to register for it].
Who is the author of the following which our Rabbis taught: If he slaughtered it for those who can eat of it, but sprinkled its blood for those who cannot eat of it, the paschal-offering itself is fit,17 and a man discharges his duty therewith? With whom [does this agree]? Shall we say [that] it is [according to] R. Nathan, but not the Rabbis? — You may even say [that it agrees with] the Rabbis: There is no intention of eaters at the sprinkling.18 Who is the author of the following which our Rabbis taught: If he was ill at the time of the slaughtering but well at the time of sprinkling, [or] well at the time of slaughtering but ill at the time of sprinkling, one may not slaughter and sprinkle on his behalf, unless he is well from the time of the slaughtering until the time of the sprinkling? With whom [does this agree]? Shall we say [that] it is [according to] the Rabbis but not R. Nathan? — You may even say [that it agrees with] R. Nathan: we require a man who is capable of eating [to be registered for it].
Who is the author of the following which our Rabbis taught: If he slaughtered it in cleanness and then its owners became unclean, he must sprinkle the blood in cleanness,19 but the flesh must not be eaten in uncleanness? With whom [does this agree]? — Said R. Eleazar: This was taught as a controversy, and it is [the view of] R. Nathan.20 But R. Johanan said: You may even say [that] it is [the view of] the Rabbis: we treat here of the community,21 who may even sacrifice in [a state of] uncleanness. If it refers to the community, why may the flesh not be eaten in uncleanness? — As a preventive measure, lest the owners22 become unclean [in a subsequent year] after the sprinkling and they argue: Were we not unclean last year, and yet we ate; then now too we will eat! But they will not know that in the previous year the owners were unclean when the blood was sprinkled,23 whereas this year the owners were clean [when the blood was sprinkled].24
____________________
(1) The portions burnt on the altar.
(2) Even according to R. Eliezer, because the main purpose of the Passover-offering is that it should be eaten.
(3) Even according to R. Joshua, since the fat is clean.
(4) And the owner does not bring another.
(5) Which is impossible, since the flesh is defiled.
(6) Ex. XII, 4.
(7) Lit. , 'for a precept'. I.e. 'in the first place the lamb must certainly be brought for this purpose; nevertheless, even when it cannot be eaten the sacrifice is valid.
(8) Ibid.
(9) Just as registration is indispensable, so are eaters, and consequently eating, indispensable.
(10) For he does not rule thus explicitly, and it must be inferred from some other statement.
(11) Ex. XII, 6.
(12) Now in that case there is certainly not as much as an olive of flesh for each, which is the minimum to constitute eating.
(13) So that virtually it is fit for all, but in the present case it is not fit for any.
(14) Which proves that in R. Nathan's view the eating is not indispensable.
(15) Lit., 'they are fit, eligible.'
(16) I.e., even if the blood was sprinkled.
(17) This is assumed to mean that it is fit for the sprinkling of its blood and the burning of the fat, but not for eating.
(18) V. supra, 61b.
(19) I.e., by ritually clean priests and with clean service vessels.
(20) Who maintains that the eating is not indispensable. R. Eleazar holds that he does not require those registered for it even to be fit to eat. Consequently he explains the previous Baraitha as the view of the Rabbis only
(21) I.e., the whole or the majority of the community became unclean between the killing and the sprinkling, e.g., if the nasi died just then.
(22) I.e., the community, cf. n. 1.
(23) So that it was a Passover-offering sacrificed in uncleanness, which is eaten in uncleanness too.
(24) Hence the sacrifice came in a state of cleanness, and may therefore not be eaten now that the owners are unclean.Alternatively I may answer, Rab ruled as R. Joshua.1 For it was taught, R. Joshua said: [In the case of] all the sacrifices of the Torah, whether the flesh was defiled while the fat has remained [clean] or the fat was defiled while the flesh has remained [clean], he must sprinkle the blood. [In the case of] a nazirite2 and one who sacrifices the Passover-offering, if the fat was defiled and the flesh has remained [clean], he must sprinkle the blood; if the flesh was defiled while the fat has remained [clean], he must not sprinkle the blood. Yet if he sprinkled it, it is acceptable.3 If the owners became unclean through a dead body, he must not sprinkle [the blood], and if he does sprinkle the blood it is not acceptable.4
BUT IN THE CASE OF [OTHER] DEDICATED SACRIFICES IT IS NOT SO etc. Who is [the author of] our Mishnah? — It is R. Joshua. For it was taught, R. Joshua said: [With regard to] all the sacrifices of the Torah of which as much as an olive of flesh or an olive of fat has remained [clean], he sprinkles the blood. [If there remains] as much as half an olive of flesh and half an olive of fat, he must not sprinkle the blood. But in the case of a burnt-offering, even [if there remains] as much as half an olive of flesh and half an olive of fat, he sprinkles the blood, because the whole of it is entirely [burnt].5 While in the case of a meal-offering, even if the whole of it is in existence,6 he must not sprinkle [the blood]. What business has a meal-offering [here]?7 — Said R. Papa: [This refers to] the meal-offerings of libations.8 You might have said, Since it comes in virtue of9 the sacrifice, it is as the sacrifice:10 hence he informs us [that it is not so].
How do we know [it of] fat?11 Said R. Johanan on R. Ishmael's authority, while it is [ultimately] derived from R. Joshua b. Hananiah: Scripture saith, [And the priest shall sprinkle the blood . . .] and burn the fat [heleb] for a sweet savour unto the Lord:12 the fat [authorizes the sprinkling of the blood] even if there is no flesh. We have thus found [this to hold good of] fat; how do we know it of the lobe above the liver and the two kidneys?13 [But] where have we said that we do sprinkle?14 Since he states, 'while in the case of a meal-offering, even if the whole of it is in existence, we do not sprinkle [the blood],' [that implies,] the meal-offerings alone is not [sufficient for the sprinkling of the blood], but the lobe above the liver and the two kidneys are well.15 Whence [then] do we know it? — R. Johanan, giving his own [exegesis] said: Scripture saith, 'for a sweet savour': whatever you offer up for a sweet savour.16 Now, it is necessary that both 'heleb' and 'for sweet savour' be written. For if the Divine Law wrote 'heleb' [alone], I would say: only 'fat', but not the lobe on the liver and the two kidneys; [therefore] the Divine Law wrote 'for a sweet savour.' While if the Divine Law wrote 'for a sweet savour' [alone], I would say: all that ascend for a sweet savour, and even the meal-offering [permit the sprinkling of the blood]; therefore the Divine Law wrote 'heleb.'
MISHNAH. IF THE COMMUNITY OR THE MAJORITY THEREOF WAS DEFILED, OR IF THE PRIESTS WERE UNCLEAN AND THE COMMUNITY CLEAN, THEY MUST SACRIFICE IN UNCLEANNESS. IF A MINORITY OF THE COMMUNITY WERE DEFILED: THOSE WHO ARE CLEAN OBSERVE THE FIRST [PASSOVER], WHILE THOSE WHO ARE UNCLEAN OBSERVE THE SECOND.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Behold, if the Israelites were unclean, while the priests and the service-vessels17 were clean, or the Israelites were clean while the priests and the service-vessels were unclean, and even if the Israelites and the priests were clean while the service-vessels were unclean, they must sacrifice in uncleanness, because a public sacrifice cannot be divided.18 R. Hisda said: They learned this only if the [slaughtering] knife became defiled through a person unclean by the dead,19 because the Divine Law saith, [and whosoever . . . toucheth] one that is slain by the sword,20 [intimating,] the sword is [of the same degree of uncleanness] as the slain;21 hence it defiles the person. Thus from the very beginning when it is sacrificed,22 it is sacrificed in [a state of] personal uncleanness, which involves kareth. But if the knife became unclean with the uncleanness conferred by a reptile, so that it defiles the flesh alone, but does not defile the person, [only] those who are clean sacrifice, but the unclean do not sacrifice, [for] it is better eaten when the flesh is unclean, which is subject to a negative injunction, rather than that the flesh should be eaten when the person is unclean, which is subject to kareth.23 This proves that R. Hisda holds: uncleanness is overridden in the case of a community.24 And thus said R. Isaac [too]: uncleanness is overridden in the case of a community.
But Raba said: Even the unclean too may sacrifice. What is the reason? Because it is written, And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire. And as for the flesh, every one that is clean may eat thereof.25 Wherever we read 'and the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten,' we [also] read, 'and as for the flesh, every one that is clean may eat thereof;' and wherever we do not read, 'and the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten' we [also] do not read, 'and as for the flesh, every one that is clean may eat thereof.'26
It was stated: Behold, if the Israelites were half [of them] clean and half unclean, Rab said: Half against half is as a majority; while R. Kahana said: Half against half is not as a majority. Rab said, Half against half is as a majority'; [hence] these sacrifice27 by themselves, while those sacrifice by themselves.28 'While R. Kahana said: Half against half is not as a majority'; [hence] the clean observe the first [Passover], while the unclean observe the second. Others say, R. Kahana said: Half against half is not as a majority: the clean observe the first [Passover],
____________________
(1) Who does not consider the eating indispensable.
(2) Rashi: the peace-offering brought by a nazirite on the completion of his naziriteship (v. Num. VI, 14) is essentially intended to be eaten: hence the eating is indispensable. Tosaf. however maintains that it is not indispensable, and deletes 'nazirite,' adding that it is absent in the Tosef. too; Bah also deletes it.
(3) Thus the eating is not indispensable.
(4) Because though the eating is not indispensable, the people registered for it must be fit to eat, while Scripture itself relegated him to the second Passover (Num. IX, 10f).
(5) Since both the flesh and the fat are food for the altar, they combine. But this does not hold good of other sacrifices.
(6) I.e., it is clean.
(7) There is no blood to sprinkle in a meal-offering.
(8) Which accompanied the sacrifice.
(9) Lit., 'by the strength of.'
(10) Hence if as much as an olive of the flour is clean, and certainly if all is clean, the blood is sprinkled.
(11) Sc. that the blood may be sprinkled if there is as much as an olive of clean fat?
(12) Lev. XVI, 6.
(13) That the blood is to be sprinkled if these alone are clean.
(14) If these alone are left.
(15) I.e., since they are part of the sacrifice itself, the blood is sprinkled if they alone are clean.
(16) Authorizes by itself the sprinkling of the blood.
(17) Used in connection with the sacrifice, the slaughtering knife and basins in which the blood is caught.
(18) That some should bring it in a state of cleanness and others in a state of uncleanness. Since the majority bring it in uncleanness, even the minority who are clean bring it in uncleanness too.
(19) This is the 'service-vessel' referred to and its degree of uncleanness.
(20) Num. XIX, 16.
(21) V. supra 14b.
(22) Lit., 'made.'
(23) V. Mishnah supra 14a and p. 62, n. 2 a.l. Now in the first instance the knife bears a principal degree of uncleanness and defiles human beings. Hence the man who kills with it must in any case become unclean, while normally the penalty for eating sacred flesh in this state is kareth (v. Lev. VII, 20). But in the second instance the knife is unclean in the first degree only and does not defile the person who handles it, though it defiles the flesh of the animal which is killed with it. Since this is a lower stage, for eating unclean sacred flesh is merely subject to a negative injunction but does not involve kareth, we do not permit the greater uncleanness of the person too; hence those who are bodily unclean must observe the second Passover.
(24) But not permitted; v. supra 77a, p. 398, n. 2. Consequently we seek as far as possible to bring the sacrifice in cleanness or at least with the smallest possible degree of uncleanness.
(25) Lev. VII, 19.
(26) I.e., the two are interdependent. Since the flesh is now eaten unclean, unclean persons too may eat it.
(27) Lit., 'do'.
(28) They must all observe the first Passover. The clean must not show themselves to be defiled, forwhile the unclean observe neither the first nor the second. They cannot sacrifice on the first, because they are not a majority, [while] they cannot sacrifice at the second because they are not a minority.1
We learned: IF THE COMMUNITY OR THE MAJORITY THEREOF WAS DEFILED, OR IF THE PRIESTS WERE UNCLEAN AND THE COMMUNITY CLEAN, THEY MUST SACRIFICE IN UNCLEANNESS. [Thus] it is only the majority that sacrifices in uncleanness, but [when it is] half and half, they do not sacrifice at the first [Passover], which is a difficulty on Rab's view? — Rab can answer you: [When] a majority [is unclean], all sacrifice in uncleanness; [whereas where there is] half and half, these observe [the Passover] by themselves, and those observe [it] by themselves. That too is logical, because the second clause states IF A MINORITY OF THE COMMUNITY WERE DEFILED: THOSE WHO ARE CLEAN OBSERVE THE FIRST [PASSOVER], WHILE THOSE WHO ARE UNCLEAN OBSERVE THE SECOND. [Thus] only a minority sacrifice at the second, but not [when it is] half against half, for then they sacrifice at the first, these sacrificing by themselves and those sacrificing by themselves.
But in that case it is a difficulty on R. Kahana's view? — R. Kahana can answer you: [It states] IF A MINORITY OF THE COMMUNITY WERE DEFILED, THOSE WHO ARE CLEAN OBSERVE THE FIRST [PASSOVER], WHILE THOSE WHO ARE UNCLEAN OBSERVE THE SECOND; hence [when it is] half against half, the clean observe the first, but the unclean observe neither the first nor the second. Now that is well according to the latter version of P. Kahana['s ruling]; but according to the version in which R. Kahana states, 'The clean observe the first and the unclean
each half ranks as a majority, and when the majority is clean they must not sacrifice in uncleanness. On the other hand, the unclean half is not relegated to the second Passover, since they too count as a majority. observe the second,' what is to be said? — R. Kahana can answer you: The same law [holds good] that even half against half, the clean observe the first while the unclean observe the second; yet as to what he [the Tanna] teaches, A MINORITY OF THE COMMUNITY: because he teaches THE MAJORITY in the first clause, he also teaches A MINORITY in the second clause.
It was taught in accordance with Rab; it was taught in accordance with R. Kahana, and as both versions [of his ruling]. It was taught in accordance with Rab: If the Israelites were half [of them] clean and half [of them] unclean, the former sacrifice by themselves and the latter sacrifice by themselves. It was taught as the first version of R. Kahana['s ruling]: Behold, if the Israelites were half [of them] clean and half [of them] unclean, the clean observe the first [Passover] while the unclean observe the second. And it was taught as the second version of R. Kahana['s ruling]: Behold, if the Israelites were half [of them] clean and half [of them] unclean the clean observe the first, while the unclean observe neither the first nor the second.
Now according to Rab and the second version of R. Kahana['s ruling], when he2 teaches, 'The clean observe the first and the unclean [observe] the second,' how do they reconcile it [with their views]? — E.g., if the Israelites were half [of them] clean and half [of them] unclean, with women making up [the number of] the unclean;3 now he holds: [The observance of the Passover-offering by] women at the first [Passover] is voluntary;4 [hence] deduct the women from the [number of] unclean, so that the unclean are a minority, and a minority are relegated to the second Passover.
According to Rab and the first version of R. Kahana, as to what was taught, 'The clean observe the first and the unclean observe neither the first nor the second,' how do they reconcile it [with their views]? — Rab reconciles it [thus]: e.g., if the [male] Israelites were half [of them] unclean and half of them clean, with women as an addition to the clean.5 Now he holds: [The observance of the Passover-offering by] women at the first [Passover] is a duty, but voluntary at the second. [Hence] they [the unclean] cannot sacrifice at the first, because they are a minority,6 and a minority do not sacrifice at the first. While they cannot sacrifice at the second, [because] deduct the women from them,7 so there is half and half, and a half do not sacrifice at the second. While according to R. Kahana who maintained, a half too sacrifice at the second, he explains it thus: e.g., if the Israelites were half [of them] clean and half [of them] unclean, with women making up [the number of] the clean. Now he holds: [The observance of the Passover-offering by] women at the first Passover is a duty, while at the second it is voluntary. [Hence] they cannot sacrifice at the first, because they are half against half, and a half does not sacrifice at the first. At the second too they cannot sacrifice, [because] deduct the women from the clean [and] the unclean are a majority, and a majority do not sacrifice at the second. Again, according to R. Kahana, as to what was taught, 'Behold, if the Israelites were half [of them] clean and half [of them] unclean, the former sacrifice by themselves while the latter sacrifice by themselves,' how does he explain it? — R. Kahana can answer you: It is [a controversy of] Tannaim: there is a view [that] half against half is as a majority, and there is a view [that] half against half is not as a majority.
[To turn to] the main text:8 'Behold, if the Israelites were half [of them] clean and half [of them] unclean, the former sacrifice by themselves and the latter sacrifice by themselves. If the unclean exceeded the clean even by one, they all sacrifice in uncleanness, because a public sacrifice cannot be divided.'9 R. Eleazar b. Mathia said: A single individual cannot overbalance the community to uncleanness, because it is said,
____________________
(1) Whereas only a minority sacrifices at the second Passover.
(2) The Tanna of the cited teaching.
(3) I.e., there were half unclean only when women are included.
(4) They need not observe it all.
(5) Bringing up the clean to a majority.
(6) Since it is obligatory for women they must he counted.
(7) Sc. the clean; for since it is only voluntary for women at the second they cannot be counted.
(8) From which the teaching cited supra, p. 415, is taken.
(9) V. supra p. 412, n. 2.Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover-offering at one of thy gates.1 R. Simeon said: Even if one tribe is unclean and all the other tribes are clean, the former sacrifice by themselves while the latter sacrifice by themselves.
(What is R. Simeon's reason? — He holds: One tribe is designated a community.)2 R. Judah said: Even if one tribe is unclean and all the other tribes are clean, let them [all] sacrifice in uncleanness, because a public sacrifice cannot be divided.
(R. Judah holds: One tribe is designated a community, so that it is half against half,3 and [since] a public sacrifice is not divided, they all sacrifice in uncleanness.)It was stated: If the Israelites were half [of them] clean and half [of them] unclean, — said Rab: we defile one of them with a reptile.4 But why so: let the former sacrifice by themselves and the latter by themselves, for surely Rab said: These sacrifice by themselves and those sacrifice by themselves? — I will tell you: what do we discuss here? E.g., where the unclean exceeded the clean by one. If so, the majority are unclean, [then] let them all sacrifice in uncleanness? — He holds as R. Eleazar b. Mathia, who maintained: A single individual cannot overbalance the community to uncleanness. If so, our difficulty returns in full force:5 let the former sacrifice by themselves and the latter by themselves? Rather this is what he means:If there is a Tanna who agrees with the first Tanna6 who rules: [When there is] half against half they must not all sacrifice in uncleanness, and [also] he agrees with R. Judah who said: A public sacrifice cannot be divided, then we defile one of them with a reptile.
But 'Ulla maintained: We send away one of them on a journey afar off.'7 But let us defile him with a reptile? — He holds: We slaughter [the Passover-offering] and sprinkle [its blood] for a man who is unclean through a reptile.8 Then let us defile him through a dead body? — Then you debar him from his hagigah.9 But now too you debar him from his Passover-offering? — It is possible to sacrifice at the second [Passover]. Then in the case of [defilement by] a dead body too it is possible to sacrifice [the hagigah] on the seventh [day of Passover] which would be his eighth [day after defilement]? — 'Ulla holds: They are all a compensation for the first [day]:10 [hence] he who is eligible on the first is eligible [to sacrifice] on all of them, but wherever one is not eligible on the first, he is not eligible on any of them.
R. Nahman said to them [his disciples], Go and tell 'Ulla: Who will obey you to pull up his tent-pegs and tent and speed away!11
It was stated: If the majority were zabin12 and the minority unclean though the dead, — Rab said: Those unclean through the dead cannot sacrifice either on the first or on the second. They do not observe the first [Passover], because they are a minority, and a minority do not observe [it] on the first. They cannot observe it on the second either: whenever the community observes [it] on the first, individual[s] observe [it] on the second; [but] whenever the community does not observe it on the first, individual[s] do not observe [it] on the second. Said Samuel to them [his disciples], Go out and say to Abba:13 How do you dispose of, Let the children of Israel keep the Passover in its appointed season!14 — He [Rab] answered them: Go and say to him: [yet] how do you dispose of it [the verse] when they are all zabin?15 But [you must say] since it is impossible [to carry it out], it is impossible; so here too it is impossible.
It was stated: If the majority were unclean through the dead and a minority were zabin, — R. Huna said: There is no compensation for a Passover-offering which comes in uncleanness;16 while R. Adda b. Ahabah said: There is compensation for a Passover-offering which comes In uncleanness. Shall we say that they differ in this, viz., he who maintains [that] there is no compensation for a Passover-offering which comes in uncleanness holds: Uncleanness is overridden in the case of the community; while he who maintains [that] there is compensation for a Passover-offering which comes in uncleanness holds: Uncleanness is permitted in the case of a community!17 — I will tell you. It is not so, for all hold [that] uncleanness is overridden in the case of a community, and they differ in this: one Master holds:
____________________
(1) Deut. XVI, 5. He translates: you must not sacrifice it on account of one person, i.e., one person has no power to change any of the conditions of the sacrifice.
(2) V. Hor. 5b. Hence it is not relegated to the second.
(3) Communities are not regarded numerically.
(4) So that there is a majority unclean, and all can now sacrifice in uncleanness.
(5) Lit., 'to its place.'
(6) in the previously cited Baraitha.
(7) Which is tantamount to being unclean (v. Num. IX, 10) and effects the same result. For the definition of a journey afar off', v. infra 93b.
(8) Since he can have a ritual bath (tebillah) and be fit to eat in the evening.
(9) V. Glos. The reference is to the hagigah brought on the fifteenth, and he would be debarred from it, since a man defiled by the dead is unclean for seven days. [But when he is sent away on a 'journey afar off', he might manage to be back in Jerusalem on the following day to offer the hagigah, v. Tosaf.]
(10) All the days of the Festival, though fit for the sacrificing of the hagigah, are only regarded as a compensation for the first day, this being the day when it should really be brought. This question is disputed in Hag. 9b.
(11) None will consent to depart on a distant journey! Hence Rab's expedient is preferable. [R. Nahman must have accepted R. Akiba's definition (v. loc. cit.) of a 'journey afar off', v. Tosaf.]
(12) Pl. of zab, q.v. Glos. They are unclean, but the law that an unclean majority sacrifice in uncleanness applies only to those who are unclean through the dead.
(13) Rab. His name was Abba Arika, but he was called Rab (the Master) in the same way that R. Judah ha-Nasi was called Rabbi.
(14) Num. IX, 2.
(15) When obviously the precept cannot be fulfilled.
(16) Hence the zabin cannot observe the second Passover.
(17) V. supra 77a; hence it is really the same as any other Passover-offering, and therefore permits of compensation.Cleanness defers, [whereas] uncleanness does not defer;1 while the other Master holds: Even uncleanness defers.
It was stated: If a third were zabin, a third clean, and a third unclean through the dead, — R. Mani b. Pattish said: Those unclean through the dead observe neither the first [Passover] nor the second. They do not sacrifice on the first, [because] the zabin swell the number of the clean2 who do not sacrifice in uncleanness; [hence] the unclean through the dead are a minority, and a minority do not sacrifice on the first. They do not sacrifice on the second, [because] the zabin combine with those who are unclean through the dead who did not sacrifice on the first; [hence] they are a majority, and a majority is not relegated to the second Passover.
MISHNAH. IF THE BLOOD OF A PASSOVER-OFFERING IS SPRINKLED AND THEN IT BECOMES KNOWN THAT IT3 WAS UNCLEAN, THE HEADPLATE PROPITIATES; IF THE PERSON [THE OWNER] BECAME UNCLEAN,4 THE HEADPLATE DOES NOT PROPITIATE, BECAUSE THEY [THE SAGES] RULED: [IN THE CASE OF] A NAZIRITE, AND HE WHO SACRIFICES5 THE PASSOVER-OFFERING, THE HEADPLATE PROPITIATES FOR THE UNCLEANNESS OF THE BLOOD, BUT THE HEADPLATE DOES NOT PROPITIATE FOR THE UNCLEANNESS OF THE PERSON. IF HE WAS DEFILED WITH THE UNCLEANNESS OF THE DEEP,'6 THE HEADPLATE PROPITIATES.7
GEMARA. Thus it is only because it was [first] sprinkled and it became known afterwards [that it was unclean]; but if it [first] became known and [the blood] was sprinkled afterwards, it does not propitiate. But the following contradicts it: For what does the headplate propitiate? For the blood, flesh, and fat which were defiled, whether in ignorance or deliberately, accidentally or intentionally, whether in the case of an individual or of a community?8 — Said Rabina: [With regard to] its defilement, whether [it occurred] in ignorance or deliberately, [the offering] is made acceptable;9 [but as to its] sprinkling, [if done] in ignorance [that the blood was unclean], it is acceptable; if deliberately, it is not acceptable. R. Shila said: [With regard to] its sprinkling, whether [done] in ignorance [that the blood was unclean] or deliberately, it is accepted; [but as to] its uncleanness, [if it occurred] in ignorance, it is acceptable; if [caused] deliberately, it is not acceptable. But surely he states, 'whether in ignorance or deliberately?' This is what it means: If it was defiled in ignorance, and he [the priest] sprinkled it, whether unwittingly or deliberately, it is accepted. Yet surely it is taught, IF THE BLOOD WAS SPRINKLED AND THEN IT BECAME KNOWN: thus it is only because it was sprinkled [first] and it became known afterwards; but if it became known [first] and it was sprinkled afterwards, it is not so? — The same law holds good even if it became known [first] and it was sprinkled afterwards, and the reason that he states, IF IT WAS SPRINKLED AND THEN IT BECAME KNOWN is because he wishes to teach in the second clause, IF THE PERSON BECAME UNCLEAN, THE HEADPLATE DOES NOT PROPITIATE, where even if it was sprinkled [first] and it became known afterwards [it does] not [propitiate]; therefore he teaches the first clause too, IF IT WAS SPRINKLED AND THEN IT BECAME KNOWN.
IF HE WAS DEFILED WITH 'THE UNCLEANNESS OF THE DEEP' etc. Rami b. Hama asked: The priest who propitiates with their sacrifices, is the 'uncleanness of the deep' permitted to him or not?10 Do we say, when have we a tradition about the 'uncleanness of the deep'?11 [It is] in the case of the owners, but we have no tradition in respect of the priest; or perhaps we have a tradition in respect of the sacrifice,12 no matter whether the owners or the priest [are thus defiled]? — Said Raba, Come and hear: For R. Hiyya taught: They [the Sages] spoke of the 'uncleanness of the deep' in respect of a corpse alone. What does this exclude? Surely it is to exclude 'uncleanness of the deep' caused by a reptile; and to what [then] do we refer? Shall we say, to the owners [who are thus defiled]? Then in the case of whom? If we say, in the case of a nazirite? Does it [a reptile uncleanness] affect him,13 [seeing that] the Divine Law said, and if any man die beside him [etc.].14 Hence it must refer to him who sacrifices the Passover-offering. Now that is well on the view [that] we may not slaughter [the Passover-offering] and sprinkle [its blood] for those who are unclean through a reptile.15 But on the view [that] we slaughter and sprinkle on behalf of those who are unclean through a reptile, what can be said? Seeing that known uncleanness was permitted to him [who sacrifices at Passover], how much the more 'uncleanness of the deep'! Hence it must surely refer to the priest, whence it is proved that 'uncleanness of the deep' was permitted to him! — Said R. Joseph, No: After all it refers to the owners and the Passover-offering, and it excludes 'uncleanness of the deep' of gonorrhoea.16
Yet does it [the headplate] not propitiate for the 'uncleanness of the deep' of gonorrhoea? Surely it was taught, R. Jose said: A woman who watches from day to day17 on whose behalf they slaughtered [the Passover-offering] and sprinkled [its blood]
____________________
(1) I.e., when the sacrifice comes in a state of cleanness, it relegates the unclean to the second Passover; but when it comes itself in a state of uncleanness, it cannot relegate those who are otherwise unclean to the second Passover.
(2) Lit., 'they make large.'
(3) Rashi: The offering — i.e., the flesh-or the blood. In the former case the head plate makes it acceptable only in the sense that the owner is not liable to another offering and the emurim are burnt on the altar; yet the flesh itself may not be eaten (Tosaf. on the basis of Rashi's interpretation). Tosaf. itself maintains that the Mishnah refers to the defilement of the blood only.
(4) Through the dead.
(5) Lit., 'does,' 'prepares.'
(6) This is a technical term denoting the hidden uncleanness of a corpse which is now discovered for the first time. E.g., if he was in a house and it is subsequently learned that a corpse had been buried therein.
(7) And he is not liable to a second offering. This is a traditional law.
(8) V. supra 16b. 'In ignorance' and 'deliberately' are assumed to mean respectively: ignorance of the uncleanness of the blood, and deliberately sprinkling it with that knowledge.
(9) The headplate propitiates.
(10) If the priest who offers the Passover sacrifice or the sacrifices of a nazirite on behalf of their owners was defiled with the 'uncleanness of the deep,' does the breastplate propitiate, so that the sacrifice is valid, or not?
(11) That the headplate propitiates for it.
(12) Viz., that in the case of the Passover-offering and the sacrifice of a nazirite the head plate propitiates for personal defilement caused by the 'uncleanness of the deep.'
(13) Even if he is certainly defiled by a reptile.
(14) Num. VI,9 thus his naziriteship is affected only by uncleanness through the dead.
(15) V. supra 69a p. 353. Hence R. Hiyya can mean that when one is defiled through the 'uncleanness of the deep' of a reptile the Passover-offering must not be sacrificed for him.
(16) A zab
(gonorrhoeist) is unclean seven days and the Passover-offering may not be offered on his behalf. Now, if the eve of Passover marks the seventh day of his uncleanness, he is in a state of a doubt; for if he does not discharge on that day he will be clean in the evening; while if he does discharge he becomes unclean for a further seven days. Thus he too is unclean with the 'uncleanness of the deep,' and R. Hiyya teaches that the headplate does not propitiate in his case and the offering must not be killed or its blood sprinkled on his behalf.
(17) Lit., 'day against day.'on her second day, and then she saw [a discharge], may not eat [of the sacrifice] and is exempt from observing the second Passover.1 What is the reason? Is it not because the headplate propitiates?2 — I will tell you: It is not so, [the reason being] because R. Jose holds: She is defiled from now and henceforth.3 But it was taught, R. Jose said: A zab of two discharges4 on whose behalf they slaughtered [the Passover-offering] and sprinkled [its blood] on the seventh day,5 and then he discharged again;6
for the third to see whether another discharge will follow, rendering her a zabah, or not. Thus on the first or second day of her discharge within these eleven days she is called 'a woman who watches from day to day.' Should another discharge follow on the third day, she cannot regain cleanness until seven days have passed without any issue at all. (The foregoing is on the basis of the ancient law, but already in the period of the Talmud itself the law was adopted that a single blood issue at any time imposes all the restrictions which necessitate for cleanness a period of seven consecutive clean days.) Now in the present instance the eve of Passover occurred on the second day of her discharge; the sacrifice was offered and its blood was sprinkled on her behalf before she had a discharge on that day, so that if she had not discharged later she would have been fit to eat in the evening. Since, however, she subsequently discharged, she cannot eat of the sacrifice, as she cannot perform tebillah until the following evening. similarly, a woman who watches from day to day on whose second day they slaughtered and sprinkled on her behalf, and then she discharged again, — these defile their couch or their seat retrospectively,7 and they are exempt from observing the second Passover.8 — I will tell you: what does 'retrospectively' mean? By Rabbinical law.9
Now R. Oshaia too holds [that] he defiles retrospectively by Rabbinical law [only].10 For it was taught, R. Oshaia said:11 But a zab who saw [a discharge] on his seventh day upsets the preceding [period];12 whereupon R. Johanan said to him: He does not upset [aught] save that day.13 (What will you? If he holds [that] he defiles retrospectively,14 let us upset even all of them; while if he holds that he defiles [only] from now and onwards,15 let him not upset even that day?16 — Rather say: He does not even upset that day.) Whereupon he [R. Oshaia] said to him [R. Johanan], R. Jose agrees with you.17 Yet surely R. Jose said: They defile their couch and their seat retrospectively? Hence it certainly proves that they defile retrospectively by Rabbinical law [only]. This proves it.
Now according to R. Jose, seeing that he rules [that] he defiles from now and onwards [only], what does '[They spoke of the "uncleanness of the deep"] in respect of a corpse alone' exclude?18 [Hence] let us solve from this that it refers to the priest, and [thus] the 'uncleanness of the deep' is permitted to him? — I will tell you: After all it refers to the owners and [treats] of the Passover-offering, but he [R. Jose] holds: One may not slaughter [the Passover-offering] and sprinkle [its blood] on behalf of those who are unclean through a reptile, and thus it is necessary to exclude it.19 But according to R. Jose, how is a complete zabah possible?20 — When she has a continuous discharge.21 Alternatively, e.g., if she sees [a discharge] the whole of two [successive] twilights.22
R. Joseph asked: The priest who officiates at23 the continual-offering,24 is the 'uncleanness of the deep' permitted to him or not? If you should say that the 'uncleanness of the deep' is permitted to the priest who officiates at their sacrifices,25 what about the gonorrhoea which has no connection with the preceding, and when a man has a single discharge he is unclean only until the evening, when he performs tebillah and becomes clean. Why then does he need another day? priest who officiates at the continual-offering? Do we say, when have we a tradition about 'the uncleanness of the deep', in respect of the Passover-offering, [but] we have no tradition about the 'uncleanness of the deep' in respect to the continual-offering; or perhaps the continual-offering is learned from the Passover-offering? — Said Rabbah: It stands to reason: if where known uncleanness was not permitted to him,26 yet the 'uncleanness of the deep' was permitted to him,27 then where known uncleanness was permitted to him,
____________________
(1) During the eleven days following the seven days of niddah (menstruation) which are called the eleven days between the menses, a woman cannot become a niddah again, it being axiomatic that a discharge of blood in that period is not a sign of niddah, but may be symptomatic of gonorrhoea (zibah). A discharge on one or two days within the eleven renders her unclean for that day or those days only, but she cannot perform tebillah (v. Glos.) to become clean until the evening of the following day (for full details v. Nid. 71b ff), and she must wait
(2) For when the blood was sprinkled she was doubtfully unclean, since she might discharge again on that day. Thus she is assumed to be unclean with the 'uncleanness of the deep,' and is exempt from observing the second Passover because the headplate propitiates and makes her sacrifice valid, though she cannot partake of it.
(3) If she discharges on one day, waits part of the following and performs tebillah, she is clean, and if she subsequently discharges on the same day she becomes unclean anew, but does not continue her previous uncleanness. Hence when the sacrifice was slaughtered she was actually clean, having already performed tebillah, so that no propitiation is required.
(4) When a man suffers three gonorrhoeic discharges within three days or less (in this respect a man differs from a woman, who becomes a zabah only if the three discharges are on three consecutive days), he becomes a full zab, i.e., he does not regain his cleanness until seven consecutive days pass without a discharge, while during these seven days he is unclean as a zab; should he discharge on any of these days, he requires a further seven days, and so on. On the eighth day he brings a sacrifice, and on the evening that follows he may eat of sacred flesh (having performed tebillah the previous day). If, however, he suffers two discharges only, he is likewise unclean for seven days, but does not bring a sacrifice on the eighth; hence he can partake of sacrifices on the evening following the seventh day.
(5) So that if the day passes without a further discharge, he is fit to partake of the Passover-offering in the evening.
(6) Lit., 'Saw.' 'Saw' and 'sight' are technical terms denoting the gonorrhoeic discharges of a zab.
(7) Anything upon which they sit or lie, even without actually touching it, becomes unclean, its degree of defilement being that of a 'principal uncleanness' which in turn defiles people or utensils (v. Mishnah supra 14a and note a.l.). 'retrospectively' means, since the tebillah (q.v. Glos.) on the seventh day. Before the tebillah of course he would in any case be unclean.
(8) Thus they are not unclean only for the future, and yet they are exempt from a second Passover; the reason must be because it is an 'uncleanness of the deep' of gonorrhoea, and he holds that the headplate propitiates.
(9) But according to Biblical law she was clean during the interval between the tebillah until the third discharge.
(10) I.e., he interprets R. Jose's ruling thus.
(11) So cur. edd. But marginal note emends this to, 'For R. Oshaia said', omitting 'it was taught', as we never find his view expressed in a Baraitha, though he was the compiler of a series of Baraithas.
(12) I.e., the seven days are nullified and he must count another seven days; v. p. 423, n. 3. Rashi observes that he does not know to what R. Oshaia refers when he says 'But', which obviously indicates a contrast with some other law. Possibly, however, אבל means here 'indeed', 'in truth', in which case it is an independent statement.
(13) Which is disregarded, and he requires only one more day free from discharge in order to regain his cleanness.
(14) I.e., from the beginning of the seventh day, the portion of the seventh day during which he had no discharge not being regarded as a complete day, that we should look upon him as having had seven consecutive days without an unclean discharge.
(15) Not from the beginning of the day, for the part of the day during which he was free from discharge counts as a whole day.
(16) For on that view he has enjoyed seven consecutive days of cleanness, which purifies him. The present discharge therefore is as an entirely new attack of
(17) Since he exempts her from observing the second Passover, he too holds that she is not retrospectively unclean.
(18) For, as seen above, on the present ruling there is no 'uncleanness of the deep' in connection with gonorrhoea. Hence it must refer to defilement by a reptile and to the priest; v. supra 80b.
(19) The steps of the argument are stated supra 80b.
(20) Since he holds that part of the day is counted as a whole day, and she is unclean only from when she discharges, each day is distinct and she can never be unclean for the three consecutive days which are necessary before she becomes a complete zabah.
(21) For the whole three days.
(22) Twilight counts as the end of one day and the beginning of the following. Hence if she discharges right through the twilights of Sunday and Monday, she is regarded as having 'seen' on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, and as this includes the beginnings of Monday and Tuesday, she is unclean the whole of these days.
(23) Lit., 'propitiates with'.
(24) During the whole year.
(25) V. supra 80b.
(26) E.g., a nazirite and one who sacrifices his Passover-offering. The headplate does not propitiate to make the sprinkling permissible.
(27) In the case of the continual-offering, where none are clean.is it not logical that the 'uncleanness of the deep' was permitted to him? — I will tell you: can we then argue a fortiori from a traditional law: surely it was taught, R. Eliezer said to him: Akiba! That a bone [of a corpse] the size of a barley grain defiles1 is a traditional law, whereas [that] a quarter [log] of blood [of a corpse defiles] is [deduced by you] a fortiori,2 and we do not deduce a fortiori from a traditional law! — Rather said Raba: We learn [the scope of] 'its appointed time' from the Passover-offering.3 And where is [the law about] the 'uncleanness of the deep' itself written?4 — Said R. Eleazar: Scripture saith, And if any man die beside him ['alaw],5 [which means] when it is quite clear beside him.6 We have thus found [it in the case of] a nazirite; how do we know [it in the case of] one who sacrifices a Passover-offering? — Said R. Johanan: Because Scripture saith, [If any man shall be unclean by reason of a dead body or] in a distant road unto you:7 [that means] when it is quite clear unto you. R. Simeon b. Lakish said, It is as the road: just as the road is manifest, so must the [cause of] defilement be manifest too.
An objection is raised: What is the 'uncleanness of the deep'? Wherever not [even] a person at the end of the world had been cognizant thereof.8 If a person at the end of the world had been cognizant thereof, it is not the 'uncleanness of the deep.' [But] according to R. Eleazar who interpreted — when it is quite clear beside him, then [it is 'uncleanness of the deep'] unless he himself [the nazirite] knows of it.9 According to R. Johanan who interpreted 'unto you' [as meaning] when it is quite clear unto you, then [at least] two should know thereof.10 According to R. Simeon b. Lakish who said, It is as a road, then all should know of it? — Rather the 'uncleanness of the deep' is known as a traditional law, while the verse[s] are a mere support.11
Mar son of R. Ashi said: They learned this12 only where it became known to him13 after the sprinkling, so that when the blood was sprinkled it was rightly sprinkled; but if it was known to him before the sprinkling — it does not propitiate. An objection is raised: If a man finds a corpse lying across the width of a path,14 in respect of terumah he is unclean;15 in respect of [the laws of] a nazirite or one who sacrifices the Passover-offering, he is clean; and all [statements of] unclean and clean refer to the future.16 Rather if stated, it was thus stated: Mar son of R. Ashi said: Do not say that only if it became known to him after sprinkling does it propitiate, whereas if it became known to him before sprinkling, it does not propitiate; for even if it became known to him before sprinkling it [still] propitiates.
[To revert to] the main text: If a man finds a corpse lying across the width of a path, in respect of terumah he is unclean; in respect of [the laws of] a nazirite or one who sacrifices a Passover-offering, he is clean. When is that said? If he has no room to pass by,17 but if he has room to pass by, he is clean even in respect of terumah. When is that said? If he finds it whole. But if it was broken or dismembered, he is clean, as he might have passed between the pieces. But [if it lay] in a grave, even if broken and dismembered, he is unclean, because the grave unites it.18 When is this said? If he was walking on foot. But if he was laden [with a burden] or riding, he is unclean; because he who walks on foot can avoid touching it or overshadowing it,19 but when he is laden or riding, he cannot but touch [it] or overshadow it.20 When is this said?21 In the case of 'uncleanness of the deep'; but in the case of known uncleanness, he is unclean. And what is 'uncleanness of the deep'? Wherever not [even] one at the end of the world had been cognizant thereof. But if one [even] at the world's end was cognizant thereof, it is not 'uncleanness of the deep.' If he found it hidden in straw, earth, or pebbles, it is 'uncleanness of the deep.'22 [If he found it] in water, in darkness, or in the clefts of rocks, it is not 'uncleanness of the deep.'23 And they did not state [the law of] 'uncleanness of the deep' in respect of aught save a corpse alone.
MISHNAH. IF IT [THE PASCHAL LAMB] BECAME UNCLEAN, [EITHER] WHOLLY OR THE GREATER PART THEREOF, WE BURN IT IN FRONT OF THE BIRAH24 WITH THE WOOD OF THE PILE.25 IF THE LESSER PART THEREOF BECAME UNCLEAN, ALSO NOTHAR,26 THEY [THE PEOPLE] BURN IT IN THEIR COURT-YARDS OR ON THEIR ROOFS WITH THEIR OWN WOOD. MISERS BURN IT IN FRONT OF THE BIRAH, IN ORDER TO BENEFIT FROM THE WOOD OF THE PILE.
GEMARA. What is the reason?27 — Said R. Jose b. Hanina: In order to put them to shame.28
IF THE LESSER PART THEREOF BECAME UNCLEAN etc. But the following contradicts it: Similarly, he who went out of Jerusalem and reconnected that he had holy flesh with him, if he has passed Scopus he burns it where he is; but if not,
____________________
(1) A nazirite, if he touches or carries it, and he must commence again (v. Num. VI, 9-12).
(2) R. Akiba deduced a fortiori from the former that if a nazirite is under the same covering as a quarter log of blood taken from a corpse he is defiled, just as in the first case; v. Naz. 57a.
(3) Mo'ado (its appointed time) is written in connection with both the continual-offering and the Passover-offering (v. Num. XXVIII, 2; IX, 2). Hence just as the head plate propitiates for the 'uncleanness of the deep' in the latter case, so in the former too.
(4) That the headplate propitiates in the case of a nazirite and one who sacrifices his Passover-offerings. At this stage it is as yet unknown that it is not intimated in Scripture at all but is a traditional law.
(5) Num. VI, 9.
(6) I.e., he becomes unclean only if the existence of the corpse is 'beside him', clear and known to him. But in the 'uncleanness of the deep' it was unknown hitherto.
(7) Ibid. IX, 10, lit. translation.
(8) Until after the nazirite or the Israelite sacrificing his Passover-offering was defiled by it. In that case the headplate propitiates.
(9) Since the verse refers to him.
(10) 'Unto you', Heb. lakem, is in the plural, hence must refer to two at least.
(11) But not really the source of the law.
(12) Sc. that the headplate propitiates for 'uncleanness of the deep' in the two cases stated.
(13) The owner of the sacrifice, that he had been thus defiled.
(14) Where he had passed, and he must either have actually touched or passed over it.
(15) He may not eat terumah.
(16) Thus though it is now known to him before the blood is sprinkled, the headplate propitiates, for this too was a case of 'uncleanness of the deep', since as far as is known none was aware of the corpse before.
(17) V. p. 427, n. 7.
(18) And the whole length of the grave is unclean and defiles.
(19) אהל יאהיל means to form a tent, and is the technical term for overshadowing a corpse without touching it.
(20) Because the burden or the action of the riding makes him sway from side to side.
(21) That a nazirite etc. is clean.
(22) These completely cover a corpse and make him quite invisible; hence its presence would not be known.
(23) Because one might have seen it previously.
(24) V. supra 49a.
(25) The wood specially arranged for the altar for the burning of the burnt-offerings etc.
(26) That which remained over from a clean Passover sacrifice, v. Ex. XII, 10.
(27) That it is burnt before the Temple, publicly.
(28) For their carelessness in permitting it to become defiled.he returns and burns it in front of the Temple with the wood of the [altar] pile?1 — Said R. Hama b. 'Ukba, There is no difficulty: One refers to a lodger;2 the other [our Mishnah] refers to a householder. R. Papa said, Both refer to a lodger: there he had repaired to the road;3 here he had not repaired to the road. R. Zebid said: in truth it is as was first stated, [viz.,] there it refers to a lodger, while here it refers to a householder, and even where he had not taken to the road; [in the case of] a lodger, since he has not [wood of his own] he was regarded as a miser, for we learned: MISERS BURN IT IN FRONT OF THE TEMPLE IN ORDER TO BENEFIT FROM THE WOOD OF THE [ALTAR] PILE.
Our Rabbis taught: If they come [desire] to burn it in their own court-yards and with the wood of the [altar] pile, we do not heed [permit] them; in front of the Temple and with their own wood, we do not heed them. As for not heeding them [when they wish to burn it] with the wood of the pile in their own courtyards, that is well, [the reason being] lest some of it [the wood] be left over and they come to a stumbling-block through it.4 But what is the reason that [they may] not [burn it] in front of the Temple with their own wood? — Said R. Joseph: So as not to shame him who has none [of his own]. Raba said: On account of suspicion.5 Wherein do they differ? — They differ where he brought cane reeds and dried branches, which are not fit for the pile.6
We learned elsewhere: The head of the ma'amad7 used to place the unclean8 by the East Gate.9 What is the reason? Said R. Joseph: In order to put them to shame.10 Raba said: Because of suspicion.11 Wherein do they differ? — They differ in respect of delicate persons or ropemakers.12
MISHNAH. A PASSOVER-OFFERING WHICH PASSED OUT13 OR WAS DEFILED MUST BE BURNT IMMEDIATELY.14 IF ITS OWNERS WERE DEFILED OR THEY DIED,15 IT MUST BECOME DISFIGURED14 AND BE BURNT ON THE SIXTEENTH. R. JOHANAN B. BEROKAH SAID: THIS TOO MUST BE BURNT IMMEDIATELY, BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE TO EAT IT.
GEMARA. As for uncleanness, It is well, because it is written, And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire.16 But how do we know it of what goes out? Because it is written, Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within.17 Moses said to Aaron: 'Why did ye not eat the sin-offering? Perhaps its blood entered the innermost [sanctuary]'?18 'No,' he answered him. 'Perhaps it passed without its barrier'?19 he asked. 'No,' replied he, 'it was in the sanctuary.' Said he to him, 'If it was in the sanctuary, and "behold, the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within," wherefore have ye not eaten it?' Whence it follows that if it passed out, or if its blood entered within, it requires burning.
As for when it is defiled, it is well: the Divine Law revealed it in the case of lesser Holy sacrifices, and all the more20 in the case of Most Holy sacrifices.21 But as to what goes out; we have found [that it is disqualified in the case of] superior sacrifices; whence do we know [it of] inferior sacrifices? Moreover, as to what was taught: If its blood was kept overnight,22
____________________
(1) V. Mishnah supra 49a for notes. — This shows that even a small portion is burnt thus.
(2) Who has no home of his own and lacks the facilities for burning it at home.
(3) Therefore it is too much trouble to return home, and so he burns it in front of the Temple.
(4) They may use it for other purposes, which is forbidden.
(5) He will take away any wood that is left over, but the onlooker will think that it is wood of the altar pile and so suspect him of theft.
(6) Raba's reason is not applicable here, and therefore it is permitted; whereas R. Joseph's reason still hold hence it is forbidden.
(7) Post, a division of popular representatives deputed to accompany the daily services in the Temple with prayers, and also a corresponding division in the country town, answering to the divisions (v. supra 57a, p. 284, n. 3) of priests and Levites. — Jast.
(8) Of the priestly division that should have officiated that day in the Temple.
(9) That all who entered might see them.
(10) For not having taken care to be clean.
(11) Lest they be suspected of neglecting the Temple service for their private affairs.
(12) Who receive little pay; no priest will neglect the Temple service for this. Raba's reason does not apply here, whereas R. Joseph's reason does.
(13) Beyond its proper boundaries.
(14) On the fourteenth.
(15) So there is none to eat it. (13) V. supra 34a, p. 156, n. 7.
(16) Lev. VII, 19.
(17) Ibid. X, 18; the previous verses relate how Moses was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar for having the sin-offering burnt instead of eating it.
(18) I.e., the Holy of Holies — in that case you had rightly burnt it; v. ibid. VI, 23.
(19) I.e., outside the Temple court.
(20) Var. lec.: the same law applies.
(21) V. supra 24a, p. 108, n. 2. The verse quoted in connection with defilement refers to a peace-offering.
(22) I.e., the blood of the sacrifice had not yet been sprinkled by sunset.if its blood was poured out, or if the blood passed outside the Temple enclosures, — where it is all established law that it requires burning;1 whence do we learn it? — We deduce it from R. Simeon['s teaching]. For it was taught, R. Simeon said: In the holy place . . . it shall be burnt with fire:2 this teaches of the sin-offering that is burnt in the holy place [sanctuary]. Now, I only know this alone: how do we know it of the unfit of the [other] Most Holy sacrifices and the emurim of the lesser Holy sacrifices? Therefore it is stated, 'in the holy place . . . it shall be burnt with fire.'3 We have [thus] found it of the Most Holy sacrifices; whence do we know it of the lesser Holy sacrifices?4 Rather [that] wherever there is a disqualification in the sacred [sacrifices]5 burning is required, no matter whether it is the Most Holy sacrifices or the lesser Holy sacrifices; — this is known by tradition.6 And as for Aaron's sin-offering, that is because the incident that happened, happened thus.7
Now, according to the tanna of the School of Rabbah b. Abbuhah who said, Even piggul requires disfigurement,8 whence do we know it — [because] he learns the meaning of iniquity from nothar:9 yet let us learn the meaning of iniquity from Aaron's sacrifice?10 — He can answer you: [A sacrifice such as] Aaron's sin-offering too in such a case11 would require disfigurement in [future] generations;12 but there it was a special dispensation.13 Now that we say, [that] 'wherever there is a disqualification in the sacred [sacrifices] burning is required, no matter whether it is the most sacred sacrifices or the lesser sacrifices, — this is known by tradition,' what is the purpose of 'in the holy place . . . it shall be burnt with fire'? — That is required [to teach] that its burning [must be] in the holy place.14 What is the purpose of, 'and the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire'?-That is required for its own sake.15 You might say, All disqualifications of the sacred [sacrifices mean] e.g.,if its blood was kept overnight, if its blood was spilled, if its blood went outside, or if it was slaughtered by night: these require burning because they do not apply to hullin.16 But if it became unclean, which disqualifies in the case of hullin too' I would say, since it has been treated as profane [non-holy], it does not require burning, and burial should suffice for it. Hence we are informed [that it is not so].
IF ITS OWNERS WERE DEFILED OR THEY DIED, IT MUST BECOME DISFIGURED etc. R. Joseph said: The controversy is where the owners were defiled after the sprinkling, so that the flesh had become fit for eating. But if the owners were defiled before the sprinkling, so that the flesh had not become fit for eating, all agree that it must be burnt immediately. An objection is raised: 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, [their flesh] must become disfigured and [then] it goes out to the place of burning?' Now [the disqualification through] the owners is taught as analogous to [that of] the blood: just as [that of] the blood is before sprinkling, so was [the defilement of] the owners before sprinkling? — Rather if stated, it was thus stated: The controversy is where the owners were defiled before the sprinkling, so that the flesh is not fit for eating, whereby it is as though its disqualification were in itself; but if the owners were defiled after the sprinkling, so that the flesh had become fit for eating, all agree that its disqualification is through something else [extraneous] and it requires disfigurement.
But R. Johanan maintained: The controversy holds good [even if the owners were defiled] after sprinkling too. Now R. Johanan is consistent with his view. For R. Johanan said: R. Johanan b. Berokah, and R. Nehemiah said the same thing. R. Johanan b. Berokah, this which we have stated. What is [the allusion to] R. Nehemiah? — For it was taught, R. Nehemiah said: This [Aaron's sin-offering] was burnt on account of bereavement, therefore it is stated, [and there have befallen me such things] as these.17 Now surely bereavement is as [a disqualification] after sprinkling.18 Yet when it was burnt; it was burnt immediately.19
____________________
(1) In all these cases the blood is unfit for sprinkling and in turn the flesh cannot be eaten, and it must be burnt.
(2) Lev. VI, 23.
(3) V. supra 24a and notes a.l.
(4) The verse quoted refers only to the emurim of the lesser holy sacrifices.
(5) Or, whatever its disqualification (that arises) in the sanctuary.
(6) It is not intimated in the Bible.
(7) The Bible does not record this story in order to teach, as stated above, but simply because it happened so.
(8) Though the disqualification is certainly in itself; v. supra 34b.
(9) 'Iniquity' is written in connection with piggul and nothar. Piggul: and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity
(Lev. VII, 18); nothar: but every one that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity (ibid. XIX, 8, — this verse is applied to nothar in Ker. 5a). Now nothar is naturally disfigured, having been kept too long, and the employment of 'iniquity' in both cases teaches that piggul too requires disfigurement,
(10) Lev. X, 17: and he hath given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation. Hence just as it was burnt there on the same day, before it could become disfigured, so should piggul be.
(11) Whatever the cause of its disqualification. On this there are two views: (i) it had been defiled; (ii) it could not be eaten because Aaron and his sons were bereaved that day by the death of Nadab and Abihu.
(12) I.e., if a sin-offering becomes thus disqualified it normally requires disfigurement.
(13) Lit., 'the ruling of the hour'.
(14) In the Temple Court.
(15) I.e., to teach that uncleanness too is a sacred disqualification in this respect.
(16) V. Glos. Hullin remains unaffected by these. Thus in spite of these disqualifications the sacrifice has not been subjected to an indignity, as it were, which would disqualify even in the case of hullin. (2) V. supra 34b for notes.
(17) Lev. X, 19; 'as these' directly refers to his bereavement.
(18) For even if Nadab and Abihu died before the sprinkling, this would not be invalid, the sin-offering being dissimilar to the Passover-offering in this respect. For the latter stands primarily to be eaten, and therefore if the owners are defiled before the sprinkling, the sprinkling is invalid, while if they are defiled after the sprinkling the sprinkling is valid. The purpose of the sin-offering however, is atonement, so that even if the priests are defiled (here, bereaved) before the sprinkling and cannot eat, the sprinkling is valid. Hence this bereavement, even if it occurred before the blood was sprinkled, is the same as when the owners of the Passover-offering are defiled after the sprinkling.
(19) Hence since R. Johanan identifies R. Johanan b. Berokah's view with that of R. Nehemiah, this must be the former's opinion also, and thus they differ in our Mishnah where the owners are defiled after the sprinkling too.Rabbah added: R. Jose the Galilean too. For it was taught, R. Jose the Galilean said: The whole passage speaks only of the bullocks which were burnt and the he-goats which were burnt, and its purpose is to teach that when they are disqualified, they must be burnt before the Temple, and to impose a negative injunction against eating them.1 Said they to him: A sin-offering whose blood entered the innermost [sanctuary], whence do we know [that it is disqualified]? Said he to them, [From the verse] Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within,2 whence it follows that if it [the sacrifice] went outside or if its blood entered within, it requires burning.3 But R. Johanan4 holds: The blood and the flesh are one thing;5 [while the defilement of] the owners is a different thing.6
MISHNAH. THE BONES,7 AND THE SINEWS, AND THE NOTHAR OF THE PASCHAL LAMB ARE TO BE BURNT ON THE SIXTEENTH.8 IF THE SIXTEENTH FALLS ON THE SABBATH, THEY ARE TO BE BURNT ON THE SEVENTEENTH, BECAUSE THEY9 DO NOT OVERRIDE EITHER THE SABBATH OR THE FESTIVAL.
GEMARA. R. Mari b. Abbuha said in R. Isaac's name: Bones of sacrifices which served nothar10 defile the hands,11 since they became a stand for a forbidden article.12 Shall we say that this supports him: THE BONES, AND THE SINEWS, AND THE NOTHAR ARE TO BE BURNT ON THE SIXTEENTH. How are these bones meant? If we say that they contain no marrow, why burn them? Let us throw them away!13 Hence it is obvious that they contain marrow. Now, it is well if you agree that the serving of nothar is a [substantial] fact:14 then it is right that they require burning.15 But if you say [that] the serving of nothar is not a [substantial] fact, why do they need burning? Let us break them, scoop out their marrow and burn it, and throw them [the bones] away.16 Hence this surely proves that the serving of nothar is a [substantial] fact! — I will tell you. It is not so: in truth I may argue that the serving of nothar is not a [substantial] fact, but he17 holds: [neither shall ye break a bone] thereof18 [means] of a fit [bone], and even of an unfit [one]. [You say] 'Even of an unfit [one]' — can you think so! Surely we learned: But he who leaves anything over [even] of clean [flesh], or he who breaks [a bone] of: an unclean [Passover-offering], does not receive forty [lashes]?19 — There is no difficulty: here it means where it enjoyed a period of fitness;20 there it means where it never enjoyed a period of fitness;20 And which Tanna admits a distinction between where it enjoyed a period of fitness and where it did not enjoy a period of fitness? — It is R. Jacob. For it was taught: 'Neither shall ye break a bone thereof': 'thereof' implies of a fit one, but not of an unfit one. R. Jacob said: If it enjoyed a period of fitness and became unfit, it is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone; if it did not enjoy a period of fitness, it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. R. Simeon said: Both the one and the other are not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. An objection is raised: No bones of sacrifices require burning,21 except the bones of the Passover-offering,22 on account of the stumbling-block.23 How are these bones meant? If we say that they contain no marrow, why do they need burning? Hence it is obvious that they contain marrow. Now if you should think [that] the serving of nothar is something substantial, why do the bones of [other] sacrifices not require burning? — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: The circumstances here are e.g., if he found them [the bones] scooped out:24 [in the case of] the bones of [other] sacrifices which are not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, [we assume that] they were scooped out before it25 [the marrow] became nothar', Hence they did not serve nothar and do not require burning. [But in the case of] the bones of the Passover-offering which are subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, we assume that they were scooped out after they became nothar; hence they had served nothar and require to be burnt.
R. Zebid said: The circumstances here are e.g.,
____________________
(1) This refers to Lev. VI, 23: And no sin-offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy place, shall be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire. The Rabbis relate this to a sin-offering which is sacrificed in the inner court, whose blood was carried into the inner court, thereby thus qualifying it. But R. Jose the Galilean relates it to a sin-offering which is sacrificed in the inner court, e.g., the bullock brought when the entire congregation sins in ignorance (v. Lev. IV, 13 f.). Hence he interprets the verse thus: And no sin-offering thereof any of the blood is rightly brought into the tent of meeting etc., shall be eaten. Now this is superfluous in respect of a valid sacrifice, since it is explicitly stated in IV, 21: and he shall carry forth the bullock without the camp, and burn it. Hence the verse must mean that if it became unfit though going outside its legitimate boundary or through defilement, it must be burnt in front of the Birah, and not be carried 'without the camp', i.e., beyond the Temple Mount. Further, this prohibits the eating of its flesh by a negative injunction, violation of which involves flagellation (Lev. IV, 21 merely contains an affirmative precept whose disregard is not punished by flagellation).
(2) Lev. X, 18.
(3) Now, since R. Jose the Galilean learns sacrifices for all time from Aaron's sin-offering, he evidently holds that for all time if the blood is brought within, it requires immediate burning without awaiting disfigurement, though the disqualification of the blood is like a disqualification through something else. Rabbah assumes that the same law viz., that it must be burnt without awaiting disfigurement, applies to the owner's defilement, though it is a disqualification through something else. Hence R. Jose the Galilean and R. Johanan b. Berokah say the same thing.
(4) Who does not include R. Jose he Galilean.
(5) Hence when the blood goes without its precincts, it is a disqualification in the sacrifice itself.
(6) I.e., it is a disqualification through something else, and therefore one cannot be deduced from the other.
(7) Of the paschal lamb. They may not be broken (Ex. XII, 46), and therefore their marrow becomes nothar
(v. Glos.) and must be burnt (ibid. 10).
(8) Not on the fifteenth, which is a festival day, but on the sixteenth, which is the first of the Intermediate days (hol ha-mo'ed); v. p. 16, n. 4.
(9) I.e., the burning of them.
(10) I.e. , the marrow was left in them after the time permitted for the eating of the sacrifice, and thus became nothar, for which the bones served as a container.
(11) Just as nothar itself, v. infra 85a, 120b.
(12) Sc. the marrow.
(13) Nothar, which must he burnt, is applicable only to what can be eaten in the first place, viz.,the flesh and the marrow.
(14) I.e., of sufficient importance to be treated as nothar itself.
(15) I.e.,the bones themselves too.
(16) For as stated anon, only a fit bone may not be broken; here, once the marrow is nothar, the bone ceases to be fit.
(17) The Tanna of our Mishnah.
(18) Ex. XII, 46.
(19) Flagellation, the penalty for violating a negative injunction. V. infra 84a. Since he is not so punished, the prohibition evidently does not apply.
(20) E.g., if a bone is rendered unfit on account of nothar, it was fit before it became nothar. Then the prohibition remains even when it becomes unfit. (9) E.g., if the bone was defiled before the sprinkling of the blood. Then it was never fit, and the prohibition does not apply to it.
(21) Though the marrow in them, if uneaten, is nothar. The bones are broken while the marrow is scooped out and burnt.
(22) Where the bones themselves are burnt.
(23) One might Otherwise be led to violate the prohibition of breaking bones.
(24) I.e., the bones were already broken and their marrow removed.
(25) The plural in the text probably refers to the separate marrows distributed among the bones.that he found them piled up in heaps and some of them were scooped out:1 [in the case of] bones of [other] sacrifices which are not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, [I assume] that they have all been scooped out and [the marrow] eaten; hence they do not require burning. But in the case of bones of the Passover-offering which are subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, [I say] perhaps it is these [only] which were scooped out, while the others2 were not scooped out; hence they require burning.
Rab Judah said in Rab's name: All sinews are flesh, except the sinews of the neck. We learned: THE BONES, THE SINEWS, AND THE NOTHAR ARE TO BE BURNT ON THE SIXTEENTH. How are these sinews meant? If they are sinews of flesh, let us eat them! While if they remained over,3 then they are [indeed] nothar?4 Hence it is obvious [that] the sinews of the neck [are meant]. Now it is well if you say that they are flesh:5 therefore they require burning. But if you say that they are not flesh, why do they require burning? — Said R. Hisda: This [teaching] arises only in respect of the thigh sinew, and in accordance with R. Judah. For it was taught, R. Judah said: [The prohibition of the thigh sinew] is operative only in respect of one, and reason determines, that of the right [thigh].6 Then in that case conclude that R. Judah is in doubt,7 for if he is really certain, let us eat that which is permitted, and throw away that which is forbidden. Why then do they [both] need burning? — Said R. Ika b. Hinena: [This law was stated] where e.g., they were [originally] distinguished but subsequently mixed up.8
R. Ashi said: It is necessary [to teach it] only in respect of the fat of the sinew of the thigh. For it was taught: Its fat is permitted, but the Israelites are holy and treat it as forbidden.9
Rabina said: It refers to the outer [sinew of the thigh], and is in accordance with Rab Judah's dictum in Samuel's name. For Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: The inner one which is near the bone is forbidden, and a person is liable on its account [to flagellation]; the other which is near the flesh is forbidden, but a person is not liable on its account.10 IF THE SIXTEENTH FELL etc. Yet why so? Let the affirmative command come and override the negative command?11 — Said Hezekiah, and the School of Hezekiah taught likewise: And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; but that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire: now [the second] 'until the morning' need not be stated, What then is the teaching of 'until the morning'? [Scripture comes] to appoint a second morning for its burning.12 Abaye said: Scripture saith, The burnt-offering of the Sabbath [shall be burnt] on its Sabbath:13 but the burnt-offering of weekdays is not [to be burnt] on the Sabbath, nor is the burnt-offering of weekdays [to be burnt] on Festivals.14 Raba said: Scripture saith, [no manner of work shall be done in them — sc. Festivals — , save that which every man must eat,] that only may be done by you:15 'that' but not its preparatory requisites:16 'only,'
____________________
(1) He only examined those on top and found them thus.
(2) Which he did not examine.
(3) Accidentally or through negligence.
(4) Why state it separately?
(5) In spite of their woodenness.
(6) V. Gen. XXXII, 33. Thus actually one of the thigh sinews is permitted, though we do not know which; this one therefore is really nothar and must be burnt.
(7) Which is forbidden and which is permitted.
(8) R. Judah may be certain that the prohibition applies to the right thigh only, but these sinews referred to in our Mishnah, though distinguished when drawn out, are now mixed up and we do not know which is the right and which is the left, and hence both require burning.
(9) Since therefore according to Scriptural law it can be eaten, it is nothar and must be burnt. On the other hand, since in actual practice it could not be eaten the Tanna cannot include it in the term nothar, which generally implies flesh which could have been eaten, and must mention it separately.
(10) It is forbidden by Rabbinical law only. The reasoning in the preceding note applies here too.
(11) It is a general principle that if an affirmative command and a negative command are in conflict, the former overrides the latter. Here we have all affirmative command to burn the nothar, Ex. XII, 10, and a negative command forbidding work on a festival, ibid. 16.
(12) Translating: but that which remaineth of it, (ye shall wait) until the (following) morning (sc. that of the sixteenth)
(and) burn (it) with fire.
(13) Num. XXVIII, 10; this is the literal translation.
(14) E.g., the animal sacrificed before the Sabbath or Festival must not be burnt the following evening. Hence sacrifices and sacred food in general, if unfit, must not be burnt on Festivals, a fortiori.
(15) Ex. XII, 16.
(16) E.g., you may roast meat, but may not sharpen a spit for impaling the meat on it.but not circumcision out of its proper time, which might [otherwise] be inferred a fortiori.1 R. Ashi said: [On the seventh day is a Sabbath of] solemn rest [Shabbathon],2 [written] in connection with Festivals, is an affirmative precept3 and one affirmative precept cannot override a negative precept and an affirmative precept [combined]. MISHNAH. EVERYTHING WHICH CAN BE EATEN OF A FULL-GROWN OX MAY BE EATEN OF A TENDER GOAT,4 AND ALSO THE TOPS OF THE FORELEGS AND THE GRISTLES.5
GEMARA. Rabbah pointed out a contradiction. We learned: EVERYTHING WHICH CAN BE EATEN OF A FULL-GROWN OX MAY BE EATEN OF A TENDER GOAT; hence that which cannot be eaten [of the former] may not [be eaten of the latter]. Then consider the sequel: [AND ALSO] THE TOPS OF THE FORELEGS AND THE GRISTLES: yet surely these cannot be eaten in the case of a full-grown ox? — Rather it is [dependent on] Tannaim, and it is taught thus: EVERYTHING WHICH CAN BE EATEN OF A FULL-GROWN OX MAY BE EATEN OF A TENDER GOAT, while that which cannot be eaten [of the former] may not be eaten [of the latter]: but some maintain, also THE TOPS OF THE FORELEGS AND THE GRISTLES. Raba said: This [the second] is a defining clause,6 and it teaches thus: EVERYTHING WHICH CAN BE EATEN OF A FULL-GROWN OX after [much] boning MAY BE EATEN OF A TENDER GOAT when roasted, and what is it? THE TOPS OF THE FORELEGS AND THE GRISTLES.
It was taught in accordance with Raba: Everything which can be eaten of a full-grown ox after [much] boning may be eaten of a tender goat when roasted, and what is it? The tops of the forelegs and the gristles, and the soft sinews are treated7 as flesh.
It was stated: [With regard to] sinews which would ultimately harden,8 — R. Johanan said: One may register for them in the Passover-offering; Resh Lakish maintained: One may not register for them in the Passover-offering. R. Johanan said, One may register for them in the Passover-offering, [because] we decide by the present. Resh Lakish maintained. One may not register for them in the Passover-offering, [because] we decide by its ultimate [condition].9 Resh Lakish raised an objection against R. Johanan: Everything which can be eaten of a full-grown ox may be eaten of a tender goat, and what is it? The tops of the forelegs and the gristles; [thus] only these,10 but not sinews which would ultimately harden! — Said he to him: He teaches those, and the same applies to these. [Thus] why are those [permitted]? Because they can be eaten in the case of a full-grown ox after [much] boning; [so] these too call be eaten of a full-grown ox after [much] boning.
R. Jeremiah said to R. Abin: When you go before R. Abbahu, point out a contradiction to him. Did then R. Johanan say, '[With regard to] sinews which would ultimately harden, one nay register for them in the Passover-offering', which shows that we decide by the present? Surely Resh Lakish asked R. Johanan: 'Can the skin of the head of a tender [sucking] goat be defiled'?11 And he answered him: 'It cannot be defiled', which proves that we decide by the future? — Said he to him: he who pointed out this contradiction to you was not particular about his flour.12 Surely R. Johanan retracted in favour of Resh Lakish['s view], and he said to him: Do not provoke me, for I learn it as the opinion of an individual.13
MISHNAH. HE WHO BREAKS A BONE OF A CLEAN PASSOVER-OFFERING RECEIVES FORTY [LASHES]. BUT HE WHO LEAVES OVER [FLESH] OF A CLEAN [OFFERING] OR BREAKS [A BONE] OF AN UNCLEAN [ONE] IS NOT FLAGELLATED WITH FORTY [LASHES].
GEMARA. As for leaving over [flesh] of a clean [offering], it is well. For it was taught: And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.14 Scripture desires to state an affirmative command after a negative command, thus teaching that one is not flagellated for it; this is R. Judah's view.15 R. Jacob said: This is not the real reason,16 but because It is a negative injunction involving no action,17 for which one is not flagellated. But how do we know [that] he who breaks [a bone] of an unclean [offering is not flagellated]? — Because Scripture states, Neither shall ye break a bone thereof:18 'thereof' [implies] of a fit sacrifice but not of an unfit one. Our Rabbis taught: 'Neither shall ye break a bone thereof': 'thereof' implies of a fit sacrifice but not of an unfit one. Rabbi said: In one house shall it be eaten . . . neither shall ye break a bone thereof:18 [this intimates,] whatever is fit for eating is subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone, while whatever is not fit for eating is not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone. Wherein do they differ? Said R. Jeremiah: They differ in respect of a Passover-offering which came in a state of uncleanness:19 on the view that [the verse refers to] a fit [sacrifice].
____________________
(1) An infant is circumcised even on the Sabbath, if it is the eighth day after birth (Lev. XII, 3), but not otherwise. This is deduced from 'alone', which is a limitation. But for this, one could infer a fortiori that it is permissible (v. Shab. 132b). Thus we see that an act which need not be done on a particular day may not be done on the Sabbath or on Festivals, and the same applies to unfit sacred food.
(2) Lev. XXIII, 3.
(3) For it intimates: rest thereon, so that work on a festival involves the transgression of both affirmative and negative precepts.
(4) But not those portions of a full-grown ox which are too hard to be eaten (the reference, of course, is to the Passover-offering), though in the case of a young goat these are soft and edible.
(5) E.g., the cartilage of the ears, the gristly portion of the breast, and the small ribs at the end of the spine.
(6) Lit., 'he teaches what they are'.
(7) Lit., 'judged'.
(8) The sinews of the neck of a young goat fit for a Passover-offering are soft, but when it grows older they harden and are unfit for food.
(9) Thus R. Johanan interprets the 'soft sinews' of the foregoing Baraitha as meaning those which are soft now, even if they ultimately harden; while in the view of Resh Lakish it means only those which remain permanently soft.
(10) Which even in the case of a full-grown ox can be eaten after protracted boiling.
(11) At present it is edible, but not when the goat grows older. Can it be defiled as food, since it can now be eaten, or not, since it will ultimately harden.
(12) Whether he milled sound wheat or the refuse! I.e., he was careless about his data.
(13) This refers to the Mishnah in Hul. 122a which states that the skin of the head of a tender goat is as its flesh, i.e., can be defiled as an eatable, which proves that we decide by the present and thus contradicts R. Johanan's answer to Resh Lakish. He, however, countered by stating that he regarded it as an individual's ruling only. Hence when he rules in the present discussion that we decide by the present, it must be on the assumption that that Mishnah represents the opinion of the majority, an assumption, however, which he evidently abandoned.
(14) Ex. XII, 10.
(15) This is a general principle, for when an affirmative precept follows a negative one, it is implied that if the latter is violated, the remedy lies in the former.
(16) Lit., 'this is not of the same denomination'.
(17) It is violated by remaining passive, not by committing a positive act.
(18) Ibid. 46.
(19) I.e., when the majority of the community were unclean; v. Mishnah supra 79a.this however is unfit;1 but on the view that whatever is fit for eating [is subject to this law], [surely] this too is fit for eating.2 R. Joseph said: In such a case all agree that it is not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone, for Rabbi comes to be [more] lenient3 and this is surely unfit. But4 they differ where it enjoyed a period of fitness and then became unfit:5 on the view that [the verse refers to] a fit [sacrifice], this [indeed] was fit; but on the view that [only what is] fit for eating [is meant], surely it is not fit for eating now.
Abaye said: In such a case all hold that it is not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone. What is the reason? [Because] at all events it is unfit now. But they differ in respect of breaking a bone during the daytime.6 On the view that [the verse refers to] a fit [sacrifice], this [indeed] is fit; but on the view, that [only what is] fit for eating [is subject to this law], at present7 it is not fit for eating.
An objection is raised: 'Rabbi said: One may register for the marrow in the head, but one may not register for the marrow in the thigh-bone'. Why [may one register for] the marrow in the head? Because one is able to scrape it and extract it. Now if you think that the breaking of the bone by daylight is permitted, then the thigh-bone too, let us break it during the day, extract the marrow, and register for it? — Abaye can answer you: Yet even according to your view,8 let us still take a glowing coal after nightfall, place it upon it, burn it and extract the marrow and register for it? For surely it was taught: But he who burns the bones or cuts the sinew does not violate [the prohibition of] breaking a bone? Then what can you say?9 Abaye said: Because it may split.10 Raba said: [This is impossible] on account of the loss of sacred food, which he may destroy with [his own] hands, as the fire may destroy some of the marrow. [Hence] during the daytime too [it may not be broken] as a preventive measure on account of after nightfall.11
R. Papa said: In such a case all hold that it is subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone. What is the reason? [Because] in the evening it is fit for eating. But they differ in respect of a limb part of which went out:12 On the view that [the verse refers to] a fit [sacrifice], this [indeed] is fit;13 while on the view that [only what is] fit for eating [is subject to this law], this, however, is not fit for eating, as was taught: R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Berokah said: A lamb part of which went outside, and which he broke, is not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone.
R. Shesheth the son of R. Idi said: In such a case all agree that it is not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone, for this limb is surely unfit. But they differ in respect of breaking a bone of a half-roast [offering].14 On the view that [the verse refers to] a fit [sacrifice], this is fit;15 while on the view that [only what is] fit for eating [is subject to this law], now [however] it is not fit for eating.
R. Nahman b. Isaac said: In such a case all agree that it is subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone. What is the reason? Because it is surely fit for eating, as he can roast it [completely] and eat it. But they differ in respect of [the breaking of the bone of] the fat tail. On the view that [the verse refers to] a fit [sacrifice], this is indeed fit, but on the view that [only what is] fit for eating [is subject to this law], this [however] is not fit for eating, for the fat tail is offered to the Most High.16
R. Ashi said: In such a case it is certainly not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone, for it is certainly unfit for eating at all. But they differ in respect of [breaking the bone of] a limb upon which there is less than an olive of flesh.17 On the view that [the verse refers to] a fit [sacrifice], this indeed is fit; but on the view that [only what is] fit for eating [is subject to this law], we require the standard of eating, which is absent.
Rabina said: In such a case it is not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone, because we require the standard of eating. But they differ in respect of a limb upon which there is less than an olive of flesh at this point,18 but which contains as much as an olive of flesh elsewhere. On the view that [the verse refers to] a fit [sacrifice],this indeed is fit. But on the view that [only what is] fit for eating [is subject to this law], we require the standard of eating at the point where it is broken, which is absent.
It was taught as four of these.19 For it was taught, Rabbi said: 'In one house shall it be eaten . . . neither shall ye break a bone thereof': he is culpable on account of that which is fit, but he is not culpable on account of that which is not fit. [Thus:] If it had a period of fitness but became unfit by the time of eating, it is not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone. If it contains the standard of eating,20 it is subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone; if it does not contain the standard of eating, it is not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone. That which is intended for the altar21 is not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone. [Only] at the time of eating is it subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone; when not at the time of eating22 it is not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone. It was stated: If a limb does not contain as much as an olive of flesh at this point,23 but does contain as much as an olive of flesh elsewhere, — R. Johanan maintained: It is subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone; R. Simeon b. Lakish said: It is not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone. R. Johanan raised an objection against Resh Lakish: 'Neither shall ye break a bone thereof': both a bone upon which there is as much as an olive of flesh and a bone upon which there is not as much as an olive of flesh. Now what does 'there is not as much as an olive of flesh upon it' mean? Shall we say that there is not as much as an olive of flesh upon it at all, then why is it subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone?24 Hence surely this is what it means: Both a bone upon which there is as much as an olive of flesh at this [very] point and a bone upon which there is not as much as an olive of flesh at this point, but there is as much as an olive of flesh upon it elsewhere? — Said he to him,
____________________
(1) Normally such is unfit, for uncleanness is merely overridden in favour of a community, but not permitted, v. supra 77a, p. 398, n. 2; hence it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone.
(2) Since a Passover offered in uncleanness may be eaten in uncleanness, v. supra 76b.
(3) Some versions omit this (Bah).
(4) [Var. lec. omit 'In such a case . . But'.]
(5) E.g., the paschal sacrifice became unclean after the sprinkling of the blood.
(6) Of the fourteenth, before the Festival commences on the evening of the fifteenth.
(7) I.e., when he actually breaks it.
(8) Sc. that this is forbidden.
(9) Why one may not register for the marrow.
(10) The fire may not burn it through but cause it to crack and split and this is the same as breaking it.
(11) The point of the 'too' ('during the daytime too') is this: just as it must not be burnt at night by Rabbinical law only, lest something else happen, so he must not break it during the day by Rabbinical law only', also because he may do something else instead, viz., break it at night.
(12) Without the walls of Jerusalem. The offering had to be eaten in Jerusalem; whatever went outside became unfit. Here as only part of a limb had gone out, this part should be cut out', but this entails cutting across the bone in the limb.
(13) Sc. the part which remained inside, and when he breaks the bone he naturally touches on that part. Consequently it is forbidden; for the remedy v. Mishnah infra 85b.
(14) Which is itself forbidden, v. Ex. XII, 9: Eat not of it half-roast (so translated supra 41a).
(15) The sacrifice itself is fit, though it may not be eaten because it was not properly prepared.
(16) I.e., it is burnt on the altar together with the emurim (v. Glos.).
(17) That is the least quantity which constitutes eating
(18) Where he actually breaks the bone.
(19) [R. Joseph, R. Nahman b. Isaac, Abaye and Rabina (or R. Ashi). V. n. 5. Var. lec., however, omits the passage.]
(20) [Either at the point where it is broken, as required by Rabina, or on the limb itself', as required by R. Ashi.]
(21) I.e., the bone of the fat tail.
(22) I.e., before nightfall.
(23) At the point of breaking.
(24) For R. Johanan and Resh Lakish both, agree that it must contain as much as an olive of flesh before it is subject to the prohibition.No: it means this: Both a bone which has as much as an olive of flesh on the outside and a bone which has not as much as an olive of flesh on it on the outside, but contains as much as an olive of flesh [marrow] inside, [yet still] at the point of breaking. And it was taught [even so]: 'Neither shall ye break a bone thereof': [this refers to] both a bone which contains marrow and a bone which does not contain marrow, while to what do I apply,1 and they shall eat the flesh in that night?2 To the meat on the bone. Yet perhaps it is not so , but [it applies] to the meat [marrow] inside the bone [too], while to what do I apply, 'neither shall ye break a bone thereof'? To a bone which does not contain marrow; but in the case of a bone which contains marrow he breaks [it] and eats [the marrow]; and do not wonder thereat, for the affirmative command comes and overrides the negative command!3 When, [however,] 'they shall not break a bone thereof4 is stated in connection with the second Passover, which need not have been taught, seeing that it has already been said, according to all the statute of the Passover they shall keep it,5 deduce from this [that it means] both a bone which, contains marrow and a bone which does not contain marrow.
An objection is raised: [With regard to] a limb part of which went outside,6 he cuts [the flesh] as far as the bone, and pares it until he reaches the joint and then cuts it off.7 Now if you say [that] a limb upon which there is not as much as an olive at this point but there is as much as an olive on it elsewhere is not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone, why does he pare it until he reaches the joint and [then] cut it off? Let us scrape a little away and break it? — Abaye said: [This cannot be done] because of a [possible] split.8 Rabina said: This refers to the thigh bone.9
We learned elsewhere: Piggul and nothar10 defile the hands.11 R. Huna and R. Hisda, — One maintained: It was on account of the suspects of the priesthood;12 while the other maintained: It was on account of the lazy priests.13 One recited [the reason] in reference to piggul, while the other recited it in reference to nothar. He who recited it in reference to piggul [gave the reason as being] on account of the suspects of the priesthood. While he who recited it in reference to nothar [stated that it was] on account of the lazy priests. One recited: As much as an olive;14 while the other recited: As much as an egg. He who recited, as much as an olive [took the same standard] as its prohibition,15 while he who recites, as much as an olive, [takes the same standard] as its uncleanness.16
The scholars asked: Did the Rabbis enact uncleanness in respect of what goes outside17 or not? Do we say, they imposed uncleanness on nothar because they [the priests] might come to be lazy about it; but [concerning] that which goes outside, they will [certainly] not carry it out with [their own] hands, [and so] the Rabbis did not decree uncleanness in connection therewith. Or perhaps there is no difference? — Come and hear: If part of a limb went outside, he cuts [the flesh] as far as the bone and pares it until he reaches the joint and then cuts it off. Now if you say that the Rabbis imposed uncleanness upon it, what if he does cut? Surely it defiles it?18 — It is concealed uncleanness,19 and concealed uncleanness does not defile. But according to Rabina who maintained: The connection of foodstuffs is not a real connection, and they are as though separated,20 what can be said: surely they21 touch each other and it [the inner portion] is defiled? — Hence according to him who recited, as much as an olive, [we must say here] that it22 did not contain as much as an olive; while according to him who recited, as much as an egg, [we must say] that it did not contain as much as an egg.
Come and hear: If a man carries out flesh of a Passover-offering from one company to another,23 though he [has violated] a negative injunction, it [the flesh] is clean. Now does that not mean that it is clean yet forbidden, because that which goes out from one company to another company is like that which goes outside its boundary24 and is disqualified [for eating], yet even so it teaches [that] it is clean, which proves that the Rabbis did not decree uncleanness! — No: it is clean and permitted, because that which goes out from company to company is not like that which goes outside its boundary, and it is not disqualified. But surely the second clause teaches: He who eats it is subject to a negative injunction? As for him who says, as much as an egg, it is well: [this may refer to] where it contains as much as an olive25 but not as much as an egg. But according to him who says as much as an olive, what can be said? — Rather [say thus]: We do not ask in respect of what goes out in the case of a Passover-offering, for the Rabbis [certainly] did not decree uncleanness [there]. What is the reason? The members of a company26 are most scrupulous, and so are very careful with it.27 But we do ask in respect of what goes out in the case of sacrifices [in general]: what [is the law]? The question stands over.
Now he who carries out flesh of the Passover-offering
____________________
(1) Lit., 'and how do I fulfil?'
(2) Ex. XII, 8.
(3) V. supra 83b, P. 439. n. 1.
(4) Num. IX, 12.
(5) Num. IX, 12.
(6) V. supra 84b, p. 444, n. 2.
(7) While the flesh which he cut on (i.e., which had not gone outside) is eaten.
(8) When he hits the bone to break it, it may split elsewhere, not just where it was scraped.
(9) Which contains marrow; hence scraping the flesh off is of no avail.
(10) V. Glos.
(11) By Rabbinic law; v. infra 120b.
(12) Who were suspected of maliciously making the sacrifice piggul to hurt its owner, who would have to bring another; therefore the priest who handles it was declared unclean, since defilement was regarded as very serious even by the wicked (Rashi, and Tosaf. quoting Yoma 23a). Another interpretation: so that he who touched it should not be suspected of intending to eat it, as it would be known that he could not do this in his unclean state.
(13) Who were too indolent to consume the flesh within the permitted period and allowed it to become nothar.
(14) Of these defiled the hands.
(15) That quantity involves punishment if it is eaten.
(16) As much as an egg is the smallest quantity which defiles by Biblical law. Hence when the Rabbis enacted that this defiles the hands, they adopted the same standard.
(17) Its appointed boundaries.
(18) The inner portion of the flesh is defiled by contact with the part which went outside.
(19) This is a technical term: the actual point of contact is not visible in the same way that the contact of two separate pieces of flesh is visible.
(20) Since foodstuffs are intended to be cut up. In his view the law of concealed uncleanness is only applicable where the object is not intended to be cut, e.g., a piece of cloth, v. Hul. 72b.
(21) The two parts.
(22) The portion which went outside.
(23) Cf. Mishnah infra 86a.
(24) Within which it much be eaten. Viz., the walls of Jerusalem.
(25) Which involves punishment.
(26) Who have registered for one paschal sacrifice.
(27) Hence there is no need for a preventive measure.from one company to another company, how do we know [that he violates a negative injunction]? — Because it was taught: Thou shalt not carry forth aught of the flesh abroad out of the house:1 I only know [that it must not be taken] from one house to another house; whence do we know [that it must not be taken] from one company to another company?2 Because it is stated, 'abroad', [meaning] outside [the place of] its consumption.
R. Ammi said: He who carries out flesh of the Passover-offering from one company to another company is not culpable unless he deposits [it there]: 'carrying out' is written in connection with it as [in connection with] the Sabbath;3 [hence] just as [in the case of] the Sabbath, [he is not culpable] unless he removes and deposits,4 so here too [he is not culpable] unless he removes it [from one company] and deposits it [with the second]. R. Abba b. Mammel raised an objection: If they were carrying them on staves, the front bearers having gone outside the walls of the Temple Court while the rear ones had not [yet] gone out, those in front defile [their] garments while those behind do not defile their garments.5 But it has not come to rest?6 He raised the objection and he himself answered it: It refers to [carcasses] which are trailed [along the ground].7
MISHNAH. IF PART OF A LIMB WENT OUTSIDE, HE CUTS [THE FLESH] AS FAR AS THE BONE AND PARES IT UNTIL HE REACHES THE JOINT AND CUTS IT AWAY. BUT IN THE CASE OF [OTHER] SACRIFICES HE CUTS IT OFF WITH A CHOPPER, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE [PROHIBITION OF] BREAKING A BONE. FROM THE DOOR-STOP AND WITHIN RANKS AS WITHIN [THE CITY];8 FROM THE DOOR-STOP AND WITHOUT IS AS OUTSIDE [THE CITY]. THE WINDOWS9 AND THE THICKNESS OF THE WALL ARE AS THE INSIDE.
GEMARA. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: And it is likewise in respect of prayer.10 He differs from R. Joshua b. Levi. For R. Joshua b. Levi said: Even an iron partition cannot interpose between Israel and their Father in Heaven.11 Now this is self-contradictory. You say, FROM THE DOORSTOP AND WITHIN RANKS AS WITHIN [THE CITY]; hence the [area of] the door-stop itself is as the outside. Then consider the sequel: FROM THE DOOR-STOP AND WITHOUT IS AS OUTSIDE [THE CITY]; hence the door-stop itself is as the inside? — There is no difficulty: one refers to the gates of the Temple Court;12 the other, to the gates of Jerusalem.13 For R. Samuel b. R. Isaac said: Why were the gates of Jerusalem not sanctified?14 Because lepers shelter under them in summer15 from the sun and in winter16 from the rain. R. Samuel son of R. Isaac also said: Why was the gate of Nicanor17 not sanctified? Because lepers stand there and insert the thumbs of their hands [into the Court].18
THE WINDOWS AND THE THICKNESS OF THE WALL etc. Rab said: The roofs and the upper chambers were not sanctified.19 But that is not so, for Rab said on the authority of R. Hiyya: There was [only] as much as an olive of the Passover-offering [to eat],20 yet the Hallel21 split the roofs!22
____________________
(1) Ex. XII, 46.
(2) Even in the same house.
(3) Sc. in Ex. XVI, 29: let no man go out of his place on the seventh day (Tosaf. s.v. הוצאה).(4) Lit., 'he uproots and lays at rest'. Removing it from private and depositing it in public ground or the reverse; v. Shab. 2a.
(5) This refers to the bullocks which were burnt outside the three camps (v. p. 343 n. 2); Jerusalem itself is the third camp but the bearers defiled their garments as soon as they left the first camp, viz., the Temple Court. This is deduced in Yoma 68a from Lev. XVI, 27: and the bullocks of the sin-offering . . . shall be carried forth without the camp.
(6) It was not put down, yet it defiles, though 'carrying out' is written there.
(7) Which constitutes depositing.
(8) The door-frame in the the city walls of Jerusalem was of considerable breadth — sufficient for the Passover-offering to be eaten there. The Mishnah states that everywhere on the inside of this door-frame is as inside the city, while that on the outside is as the outside of the city. The GEMARA discusses the status of the door-frame space itself.
(9) In the city walls; these too occupied a considerable breadth.
(10) Certain portions of the service are recited only when there is a quorum of ten men
(called minyan). A man standing in the inside of the door-stop is counted with those inside the room, but not he who is standing outside the door-stop.
(11) Hence even if he stands outside the door-stop, he is counted with the others.
(12) There the space of the door-stop itself is as the inside.
(13) There it is as the outside.
(14) I.e., the space occupied by the thickness of the gates.
(15) Lit., 'the sun'.
(16) Lit., 'the rain'.
(17) The east gate of the Temple Court.
(18) V. Lev. XIV, 17 and Yeb. 7b.
(19) The roofs of the houses of Jerusalem are not sanctified, in the sense that sacrifices which are eaten anywhere in Jerusalem nay not be eaten on them. Similarly, the sacrifices which had to be eaten within the Temple precincts might not be eaten on its roof or in its upper chambers.
(20) Very large companies registered for each sacrifice, so that each person could not receive more than that.
(21) V. p. 324, n. 2.
(22) It was sung with such gusto.Does that not mean that they ate on the roof and recited [the Hallel] on the roof? No: they ate on the ground and recited [it] on the roof. Yet that is not so, for surely we learned: You must not conclude after the Paschal meal [by saying] 'To the aftermeal entertainment!'1 and Rab said: [That means] that they must not remove from one company to another?2 — There is no difficulty: there it is at the time of eating;3 here it is not at the time of eating.4 Come and hear: Abba Saul said: The upper chamber of the Holy of Holies was more stringent than the Holy of Holies, for the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies once a year, whereas the upper chamber of the Holy of Holies was entered only once a septennate — others say, twice a septennate — others say, once in a Jubilee — to see what it required?5 -Said R. Joseph: Shall a man stand up and raise an objection from the Hekal!6 The Hekal is different, because it is written, Then David gave to Solomon his son the pattern of the porch [of the Temple], and of the houses thereof, and of the treasuries thereof, and of the upper rooms thereof, and of the inner chambers thereof, and of the place of the ark-cover;7 and it is written, All this [do I give thee] in writing, as the Lord hath made me wise by His hand upon me.8
Come and hear: [With regard to] the chambers built in the sacred area9 and opening into the non-sacred area,10 their inside is non-sacred,11 while their roofs are sacred? — R. Hisda explained this [as meaning] where their roofs were level with the ground of the Temple Court.12 If so, consider the second clause: [As to] those built in the non-sacred [area] and opening into the sacred [area], their inside is sacred, while their roofs are non-sacred. Now if you think that it means where their roofs are level with the ground of the Temple Court, then they are cellars, whereas R. Johanan said: The cellars were not sanctified? — R. Johanan said this only in respect of those opening into the Temple Mount; [whereas] that was taught in respect of those opening into the Temple Court. But it was taught, R. Judah said: The cellars under the Hekal were non-sacred?13 — That was taught where they opened into the non-sacred [area].
Come and hear: And its roof is sacred?14 — Now is that logical: surely he teaches: As for these roofs, you may not eat there sacrifices of the greater sanctity, nor kill there sacrifices of the lesser sanctity.15 But in that case 'its roof is holy' presents a difficulty? — Said R. Hama b. Guria: [That was taught] in respect of those two cubits. For we learned: There were two cubits [measures] in Shushan the Castle,16 one on the north-east corner and one on the south-east corner. That on the north-east corner exceeded [the cubit] of Moses17 by half a fingerbreadth, while that on the south-east corner exceeded it [sc. the first cubit] by half a fingerbreadth, so that it exceeded [the cubit] of Moses by a fingerbreadth. And why was one large and one small?18 So that the workers might receive [contracts] by the small [measure] and deliver [the work] by the large one, to avoid liability to a trespass-offering.19 Any why two? One was for [work in] gold and silver,20 while the other was [or building.21 We learned: THE WINDOWS AND THE THICKNESS OF THE WALL ARE AS THE INSIDE. As for the windows, it is well, this being possible where they were level with the ground of the Temple Court; but how is the thickness of the wall conceivable?22 — It is possible in the case of the inner wall,23 as it is written, But he hath made the rampart and the wall to mourn,24 which R. Aha — others say, R. Hanina — interpreted: the wall proper and the minor wall.
MISHNAH. IF TWO COMPANIES ARE EATING IN ONE ROOM,25 THESE MAY TURN THEIR FACES IN ONE DIRECTION AND THOSE MAY TURN THEIR FACES IN ANOTHER DIRECTION,26 WITH THE BOILER27 IN THE MIDDLE.28 WHEN THE WAITER29 RISES TO MIX [THE WINE], HE MUST SHUT HIS MOUTH AND TURN HIS FACE AWAY [FROM THE OTHER COMPANY] UNTIL HE REACHES HIS OWN COMPANY.30 BUT A BRIDE31 MAY TURN HER FACE AWAY AND EAT.
GEMARA. Who is [the author of] our Mishnah? — It is R. Judah. For it was taught: Upon the houses wherein they shall eat it:32 this teaches that a Paschal lamb may be eaten in two companies. You might think that the eater may eat in two places,33 therefore It is stated, In one house shall he eat it.34 Whence it was said: If the waiter35 ate as much as an olive at the side of the oven, if he is wise he eats his fill36 of it; but if the members of the company wish to do him a favour, they come and sit at his side:37 this is R. Judah's opinion. R. Simeon said: 'Upon the houses wherein they shall eat it:' this teaches that the eater may eat in two places.38
____________________
(1) It was customary among ancient nations to conclude a banquet with bouts of drinking, revelry and music. The sanctity of the Paschal meal precluded this, as it would turn an occasion of solemnity and reverential gratitude to God into one of light-hearted frivolity.
(2) For the purpose mentioned in the preceding note. Thus the whole service must be carried out in the same place.
(3) Then a change of place is forbidden.
(4) The hallel was recited after the meal was concluded; praise to God is then permissible anywhere.
(5) E.g., repairs. Thus the upper chambers were sanctified.
(6) The Holy, the hall containing the golden altar etc. , contrad. to the Holy of Holies (Jast.). In the present passage, however, R. Joseph appears to use the word more elastically, making it embrace the Holy of Holies too.
(7) I Chron. XXVIII, 11.
(8) Ibid. 19. 'The Lord hath made me wise' is understood to mean that he was Divinely inspired to sanctify all those mentioned in the forgoning, which include the 'upper room'.
(9) I.e., the Temple Court.
(10) Sc. the Temple Mount; i.e., they had no doors opening into the Temple Court.
(11) They lack the sanctity of the Temple Court, though they possess that of the Temple Mount, for their status is determined by their openings.
(12) The chambers referred to being cellars.
(13) This is now assumed to refer even to those opening into the Temple Court.
(14) Sc. the roof of the Hekal, this being the conclusion of R. Judah's statement. R. Joseph's answer that the hekal was different on account of the explicit verse is inapplicable here, for the roofs are not mentioned in that verse.
(15) V. supra p. 108, n. 2. Thus it is definitely stated that they did not enjoy the sanctity of the Temple Court.
(16) A chamber built above the eastern gate of the Temple, so called because the picture of the castle of Shushan in the capital of the Persian empire, was sculptured upon it.
(17) I.e., the standard cubit.
(18) Why not simply the standard cubit of Moses?
(19) E.g., they contracted to build a certain length in terms of the standard cubit; nevertheless they completed their contract according to the length of the larger measure. The purpose was to preclude the possibility of benefiting from the Sanctuary over and above their exact due, which would involve them in trespass.
(20) This being more difficult, they added only half a fingerbreadth to the standard measure.
(21) Where a whole fingerbreadth was added. — Now the roofs were sanctified only in so far that these measuring rods and similar utensils or vessels which were not used in the actual service of the altar might be kept in them. But they were not sanctified in respect of anything else.
(22) For by the thickness of the wall must be meant the top, which is the same as the upper chambers and the roofs, while the top of the city wall was certainly not on a level with the Temple Mount.
(23) A smaller wall on the inside of the larger wall; the top of the former was level with the greatest height of the ground of the Temple Court, which itself reached several different heights in gradient.
(24) Lam. II, 8.
(25) Of the same Paschal offering.
(26) They are not bound all to face each other, though they were originally one company for this offering.
(27) In which water was heated for diluting the wine.
(28) Though this seems further to emphasize their separateness.
(29) Who is waiting on both parties. He too had registered for this offering-a Jewish waiter, of course is meant.
(30) Lest he be suspected of eating with the other company too. This Tanna holds that one Paschal lamb may be eaten in two companies, but one person may not eat in two places.
(31) Who in her modesty does not wish to face the company.
(32) Ex. XII, 7.
(33) Of the same offering. E.g., either in two separate rooms or even in one room containing two companies, which makes it like two rooms.
(34) Ex. XII, 46. The vocalization is יאכל (passive E.V.: shall it be eaten), but it may also be read יאכל, and R. Judah holds that the traditional consonantal form of the word determines Its meaning regardless of vocalization.
(35) Engaged in roasting the offering.
(36) Lit., 'fills his stomach'.
(37) And eat there, but he may not go and eat with them, as he would thereby be eating in two places.
(38) 'They shall eat' referring to each individual separately, who is thus permitted to eat in 'the houses'.You might think that it may be eaten in two companies. Therefore it is stated, 'In one house shall it be eaten.'1 Wherein do they differ? R. Judah holds: The traditional [non-vocalized] text is authoritative; while R. Simeon holds: The text as read [as vocalized] is authoritative.2
If they were sitting [in one company], and a partition was spread between then,3 — on the view that [one] Paschal lamb may be eaten in two companies, they may eat [thus]; [but] on the view that [one] Paschal lamb may not be eaten in two companies, they may not eat [thus]. If they were sitting4 , when the partition was removed from between them:5 on the view that the eater may eat in two places, they may [go on] eating [thus]; but on the view that the eater may not eat in two places, they may not [go on] eating. R. Kahana sat [and] stated this as a definite ruling. Said R. Ashi to R. Kahana: You should [rather] ask it as a question: Does the removing of a partition or the setting up of a partition transform it into two places or two companies [respectively] or not? The question stands over.
THE BRIDE TURNS HER FACE AWAY etc. What is the reason? — Said R. Hiyya b. Abba in R. Johanan's name: Because she is modest.6
R. Huna the son of R. Nathan visited the home of R. Nahman b. Isaac. They asked him, 'What is your name?' 'Rab Huna,' replied he.7 'Would you, Sir, sit down on the couch,' said they, and he sat down. Then they offered him a goblet, which he accepted at the first [invitation]8 but he drank it in two times, without turning his face away. They asked him, 'What is the reason that you called yourself Rab Huna?' [He replied:] 'That is my name.'9 'What is the reason that when they told you to sit on the couch you did sit?'10 Said he to them: 'Whatever your host tells you, do.'11 'What is the reason that when a goblet was offered you you accepted it at the first invitation?' Said he to them: 'One must show reluctance to a small man, but one must not show reluctance to a great man. 'Why did you drink it in two times?' — Said he to them: 'Because it was taught: He who drinks his goblet in once is a gourmand; in two times, shows good breeding; in three times, is of the arrogant. Why did you not turn your face away?'12 — 'We learned, A BRIDE TURNS HER FACE AWAY,' replied he.13
R. Ishmael Son of R. Jose visited the home of R. Simeon b. R. Jose b. Lakunia. They offered him a goblet, which he accepted at the first invitation and drank in one draught. Said they to him: 'Do you not agree that he who drinks his goblet in one draught is greedy'? Said he to them: 'This was not said when your goblet is small, your wine sweet, and my stomach broad'.14 R. Huna said: The members of a company enter three at a time, and depart even singly.15 Rabbah observed: But that is only if they enter at the time when people generally enter,16 and providing that the attendant had taken notice of them.17 Rabina said: And they must make their [full] payment;18 and the last must pay extra.19 But the law does not agree with him. [
____________________
(1) Each Paschal lamb must be eaten in one company, but the person is not bound to retain the same position in the company all the time.
(2) V. n. 1; also Sanh., Sonc. ed. p. 10, n. 4.
(3) Thus transforming them into two companies.
(4) In two rooms.
(5) Thus making them into one company; furthermore, a new area is added to each, and this renders the whole as another place.
(6) And as a bride she is naturally the cynosure of all eyes.
(7) Mentioning his title of Rabbi.
(8) Lit. , 'in one time' — he did not wait to be pressed a second time.
(9) Lit., 'I am the master of the name'. Rashi: I have been called Rab Huna even as a child. Thus Rab in his case was a proper name, not only a title. [R. Hananel: an ordained Rabbi and known by this designation.]
(10) The couch was reserved for distinguished visitors, others sitting on ordinary stools. His immediate compliance therefore savoured of arrogance.
(11) Var. lec.: except 'depart'. The text reads better without this addition, but if it is retained it was probably meant humorously — a guest should not outstay his welcome until he is told to go!
(12) Which would have been more mannerly in their opinion.
(13) But not others.
(14) R. Ishmael was very stout, v. 84a.
(15) Rashi: This does not refer particularly to the Passover-offering. The members of a company should enter for meals three at a time in order to facilitate the work of the waiter, but may depart even singly though the waiter has still to attend on the rest. R. Han.: When a company registers for a Passover-offering and three of them
(but not less) enter the house at the normal time for eating, they can eat without waiting for the rest. But if they had already assembled and then left for some purpose, even if only one is left he can eat alone and need not wait for their return.
(16) I.e., not earlier, in which case they must wait for the rest.
(17) According to Rashi: They notified the waiter of their intention to depart singly. R. Hananel: The waiter had been sent to find them and failed. MS.M. too reads: the attendant has searched for them.
(18) [To the waiter for the extra trouble incurred. R. Hananel: the one who eats the Paschal lamb on his own, if he ate more than his share, v. Aruch s.v. דײל.](19) To the water for the extra trouble incurred. [R. Hananel omits this clause.]
MISHNAH. A WOMAN, WHEN SHE IS IN HER HUSBAND'S HOME, AND HER HUSBAND SLAUGHTERED ON HER BEHALF AND HER FATHER SLAUGHTERED ON HER BEHALF, MUST EAT OF HER HUSBAND'S. IF SHE WENT TO SPEND THE FIRST FESTIVAL IN HER FATHER'S HOME,1 AND HER FATHER SLAUGHTERED ON HER BEHALF AND HER HUSBAND SLAUGHTERED ON HER BEHALF, SHE MAY EAT WHEREVER SHE PLEASES. AN ORPHAN ON WHOSE BEHALF HIS GUARDIANS SLAUGHTERED2 MAY EAT WHEREVER HE PLEASES. A SLAVE OF TWO PARTNERS MAY NOT EAT OF EITHER.3 HE WHO IS HALF SLAVE AND HALF FREE4 MUST NOT EAT OF HIS MASTER'S.5
GEMARA. [Hence] you may infer from this that selection is retrospective?6 — [No:] what does 'SHE PLEASES' mean? At the time of the slaughtering.7 Now the following contradicts this: A woman, on the first Festival, eats of her father's; thereafter, if she desires she eats of her father's, [while] if she desires she eats of her husband's?8 There is no difficulty: there it means when she is eager to go [to her father's home];9 here [in our Mishnah] it means when she is not eager to go. For it is written, Then was I in his eyes as one that found peace [shalom],10 which R. Johanan interpreted: Like a bride who was found perfect [shelemah] in her father-in-law's home and is eager to go and recount her merits in her father's house, as it is written,11 And it shall be at that day, saith the Lord, that thou shalt call Me My husband [Ishi], and thou shalt call Me no more My Master [Ba'ali]:12 R. Johanan said: [That means] like a bride in her father-in-law's house, and not like a bride in her father's house.13
We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts14 R. Johanan said: This alludes to Elam, who was privileged to study but not to teach.15
I am a wall, and my breast like the towers thereof.16 R. Johanail said: 'I am a wall' alludes to the Torah; 'and my breasts like the towers thereof,' to scholars. While Raba interpreted: 'I am a wall' symbolizes the community of Israel; 'and my breasts like the towers thereof' symbolizes the synagogues and the houses of study.
R. Zutra b. Tohiah said in Rab's name: What is meant by the verse, We whose sons are as plants grown up in their youth; whose daughters are as corner-pillars carved after the fashions of the Temples?17 'We whose sons are as plants' alludes to the young men of Israel who have not experienced the taste of sin. 'Whose daughters are as corner pillars,' to the virgins of Israel who reserve themselves18 for their husbands; and thus it is said, And they shall be filled like the basins, like the corners of the altar.19 Alternatively. [a parallel is drawn] from the following. Whose garners are full, affording all manner of store.20 'Carved after the fashion of the Temple:'21 both the one and the other, the Writ ascribes [Praise] to them as though the Temple were built in their days.
The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah:22 Four prophets prophesied in one age, and the greatest of all of them was Hosea. For it is said, The Lord spoke at first with Hosea:23 did He then speak first with Hosea; were there not many prophets from Moses until Hosea? Said R. Johanan: He was the first of four prophets who prophesied in that age. and these are they: Hosea, Isaiah, Amos and Micah. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Hosea, 'Thy children have sinned,' to which he should have replied. 'They are Thy children, they are the children of Thy favoured ones they are the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; extend24 Thy mercy to them.' Not enough that he did not say thus, but he said to Him: 'Sovereign of the Universe! The whole world is Thine; exchange them for a different nation. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, 'What shall I do with this old man? I will order him: "Go and marry25 a harlot and beget thee children of harlotry"; and then I will order him: "Send her away from thy presence." If he will be able to send [her] away. so will I too send Israel away.' For it is said, And the Lord said unto Hose'!: 'Go, take unto thee a wife of harlotry and children of harlotry';26 and it is written, So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim.27 'Gomer': Rab said, [That intimates] that all satisfied their lust [gomerim]28 on her; 'the daughter of
____________________
(1) It was the custom for a woman to spend the first Festival after her marriage in her father's house.
(2) He had more than one guardian, and each kind a Passover-offering with him as one of its eaters.
(3) Even if one specifically registered him in his company, since half of the slave belongs to another man. Hence he may eat only if both agree that he should be registered with one. — A slave in a Jewish house has the status of a semi-Jew, and if circumcised he ate of the Paschal offering (v. Ex. XII, 44).
(4) E.g. 'he had belonged to two masters, and one had manumitted him.
(5) As we assume that his master did not count in the free half.
(6) Lit., 'there is bererah'. Bererah is a technical term denoting that a choice or selection made now has retrospective validity in a legal sense. For it is assumed that the Mishnah means that the woman may eat of whichever offering she desires now, though she had not yet made her choice when it was killed and its blood was sprinkled. But the Passover-offering may be eaten only by those who had registered for it and on whose behalf it was killed. Hence when we say that her present choice permits her to eat thereof, it proves that this choice is retrospectively valid, as though she had declared it before the offering was killed. Actually there is a controversy (B.K. 51b; Bez. 38a; GIT. 25a) in this matter.
(7) It was then that she had declared her choice.
(8) Whereas the Mishnah states that at the first Festival she makes her choice.
(9) Then she eats of her father's even if she had not expressed her desire previously, as it is taken for granted. Cf. Keth. 71b,
(Sonc. ed.) pp. 445ff notes.
(10) Cant. VIII, 10.
(11) Var. lec.: it is written, this introducing a new passage.
(12) Hos. II, 18.
(13) I.e., like a bride who has already gone over to her husband completely, and is more intimate with him
(viz., after nissu'in, the completion of marriage), and not like a bride in her father's house, which is after erusin (betrothal) only
(Rashal).
(14) Cant. VIII, 8.
(15) V. Sanh., Sonc. ed. p. 138. n. 5.
(16) Ibid. 10.
(17) Ps. CXLIV, 12. On hekal v. infra p. 512. n. 6. E.V.: a palace.
(18) Lit., 'seal their openings'.
(19) Zech. IX, 1.
(20) Ps. CXLIV, 13.
(21) Ibid. 12.
(22) Hos. I, 1.
(23) Ibid. 2. lit. translation. E.V.: When the Lord etc.
(24) Lit., 'roll'.
(25) Lit., 'take'.
(26) Ibid.
(27) Ibid. 3.
(28) Lit., 'to complete'.Diblaim': [a woman of] in fame [dibbah] and the daughter of [a woman of] in fame [dibbah].1 Samuel said: [It means] that she was as sweet in everyone's mouth as a cake of figs [debelah]. While R. Johanan interpreted: [It means] that all trod upon her2 like a cake of figs [is trodden]. Another interpretation: 'Gomer': Rab Judah said: They desired to destroy [le-gammer] the wealth of Israel in her days. R. Johanan said: They did indeed despoil [their wealth]. for it is said, For the king of Aram [Syria] destroyed then, and made them like the dust in threshing.3
And she conceived, and bore him a son. And the Lord said unto him: 'Call his name Jezreel; for yet in little while, and I will visit the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel. And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel.' And she conceived again, and bore a daughter. And He said unto him: 'Call her name Lo-ruhamah [that hath not obtained compassion]; for I will no more have compassion upon the house of Israel, that I should in any wise pardon them . . . And she conceived, and bore a son. And He said: 'Call his name Lo-ammi [not my people]; for ye are not My people, and I will not be yours.4 After two sons and one daughter were born to him, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Hosea: 'Shouldst thou have not learned from thy teacher Moses, for as soon as I spoke with him he parted from his wife; so do thou too part from her.' 'Sovereign of the Universe!' pleaded he: 'I have children by her, and I can neither expel her nor divorce her.' Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to him: 'Then if thou, whose wife is a harlot and thy children are the children of harlotry, and thou knowest not whether they are thine or they belong to others, yet [thou] art so; then Israel who are My children, the children of My tried ones, the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; one of the four possessions which I have acquired in this world —
(The Torah is one possession, for it is written, The Lord acquired me as the beginning of His way.5 Heaven and earth is one possession. as It is written, [God Most High] Who possesses heaven and earth.6 The Temple is one possession, for it is written, This mountain [sc. the Temple Mount], which His right hand had acquired.7 Israel is one possession, for it is written, This people that Thou hast gotten.)8 Yet thou sayest, Exchange them for a different people!' As soon as he perceived that he had sinned, he arose to supplicate mercy for himself. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to him: 'Instead of supplicating mercy for thyself, supplicate mercy for Israel, against whom I have decreed three decrees because of thee'.9 [Thereupon] he arose and begged for mercy, and He annulled the decree[s]. Then He began to bless them, as it is said: Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea . . . and it shall come to pass that, instead of that it which was said unto them: Ye are not My people', it shall be said unto them: Ye are the children of the living God.' And the children of Judah and the children of Israel shall be gathered together . . . And I will sow her unto Me in the land; and I will have compassion upon her that hath not obtained compassion; and I will say to them that were not My people: 'Thou art My people.'10T. Johanan said: 'Woe to lordship which buries [slays] its possessor, for there is not a single prophet who did not outlive11 four kings, as it is said, The vision of Isaiah the sun of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.12
R. Johanan said: How did Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel merit to be counted together with the kings of Judah? Because he did not heed13 slander against Amos. Whence do we know that he was counted [with them]? Because it is written, The word of the Lord that came into Hosea the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel.14 And whence do we know that he did not heed slander? Because it is written, Then Amaziah the priest of Beth-el sent to Jeroboam king of Israel, saying. Amos hath conspired against thee [etc.];15 and it is written, For thus Amos saith: Jeroboam shall die by the sword [etc.].16 Said he [Jeroboam]: 'Heaven forfend that that righteous man should have said thus! Yet if he did say, what can I do to him! The Shechinah told it to him.
R. Eleazar said: Even when the Holy One, blessed be He, is angry,17 He remembers compassion, for it is said, for I will no more have compassion upon the house of Israel.18 R. Jose son of R. Hanina said [i.e., deduced] it from this: that I would in any wise pardon them.19 R. Eleazar also said: The Holy One, blessed be He, did not exile Israel among the nations save in order that proselytes might join them, for it is said: And I will sow her unto Me in the land;20 surely a man sows a se'ah in order to harvest many kor! While R. Johanan deduced it from this: And I will have compassion upon her that hath not obtained compassion.21
R. Johanan said on the authority of R. Simeon b. Yohai: What is meant by the verse, Slander not a servant unto his master, lest he curse thee, and thou be found guilty?22 And it is written, A generation that curse their father, and do not bless their mother:23 because they curse their father and do not bless their mother, therefore do not slander?24 But [it means:] even if they [the slaves] are a generation that curse their father and do not bless their mother, yet do not slander [etc.]. Whence do we know it? From Hosea.25
R. Oshaia said: What is meant by the verse, Even the righteous acts of His Ruler in Israel?26 The Holy One, blessed be He, showed righteousness [mercy] unto Israel by scattering them among the nations. And this is what a certain sectarian27 said to R. Hanina, 'We are better than you. Of you it is written, For Joab and all Israel remained there six months, until he had cut off every male in Edom;28 whereas you have been with us many years yet we have not done anything to you!' Said he to him, 'If you agree, a disciple will debate it with you.' [Thereupon] R. Oshaia debated it with him, [and] he said to him,' [The reason is] because you do not know how to act. If you would destroy all, they are not among you.29 [Should you destroy] those who are among you, then you will be called a murderous kingdom!' Said he to him, 'By the Capitol of Rome!30 with this [care] we lie down and with this [care] we get up.31
R. Hiyya taught: What is meant by the verse, God understandeth the way thereof, and He knoweth the place thereof?32 The Holy One, blessed be He, knoweth that Israel are unable to endure33 the cruel decrees of Edom,34 therefore He exiled them to Babylonia. R. Eleazar also said: The Holy One, blessed be He, exiled Israel to Babylonia only because it is as deep as she'ol, for it is said, I shall ransom them from the power of the nether-world [she'ol]; I shall redeem them from death.35 R. Hanina said: Because their language is akin to the language of the Torah. R. Johanan said: Because He sent them back to their mother's house.36 It may be compared to a man who becomes angry with his wife: Whither does he send her? To her mother's house. And that corresponds to [the dictum] of R. Alexandri, who said: Three returned to their original home,37 viz., Israel, Egypt's wealth, and the writing of the Tables. Israel, as we have said. Egypt's wealth, as it is written, And it came to pass in the fifth year of King Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem; and he took away the treasurers of the house of the Lord.38 The writing of the Tables, for it is written, and I broke them before your eyes.39 It was taught: The Tables were broken, yet the Letters flew up.40 'Ulla said: [Their exile] was in order that they might eat
____________________
(1) He interprets diblaim as a dual form of dibbah, ill fame.
(2) A euphemism for sexual indulgence.
(3) II Kings XIII, 7.
(4) Hos. I, 3-6; 8-9.
(5) Prov. VIII, 22.
(6) Gen. XIV, 19.
(7) Ps. LXXVIII, 54.
(8) Ex. XV, 16. V. Ab. VI, 10.
(9) Jezreel, which symbolizes exile (Jezreel zera', to sow) indicating that Cod would sow (scatter) Israel among the nations; Lo-ammi (not my people) and Lo-Ruhamah (without compassion).
(10) Hos. II, 1f, 25.
(11) Lit., 'cut clown in his days'.
(12) Isa. I, 1.
(13) Lit., 'receive', 'accept'.
(14) Hos. I, 1.
(15) Amos. VII, 10.
(16) Ibid. 11.
(17) Lit., 'at the time of his anger'.
(18) Hos. I, 6. 'Compassion' is thus mentioned even in connection with retribution.
(19) Ibid.
(20) Hos. II, 25.
(21) Ibid. R. Johanan makes this refer to the Gentiles, who in God's compassion will be given the opportunity. through Israel's exile, of coming under the wings of the Shechinah. According to Rashi, R. Johanan deduces it from the concluding part of the verse, 'And I will say to them that are not My people; thou art My people'. This passage shows these two Rabbis in favour of proselytes. For the general attitude of the Rabbis towards proselytization v. f. E. art. Proselyte.
(22) Prov. XXX, 10.
(23) Ibid. 11.
(24) What connection is there between the two verses?
(25) Who was rebuked for slandering Israel to God, though they had indeed sinned.
(26) Judg. V, 11.
(27) Min, v. Glos.
(28) I Kings XI, 16.
(29) Many live among other nations.
(30) Jast. Or perhaps: by the Roman eagle!
(31) How to destroy you without incurring odium.
(32) Job. XXVIII, 23.
(33) Lit., 'receive', accept.'
(34) I.e., Rome, for which Edom was the general disguise; v. Sanh., Sonc. ed. p. 52. n. 8.
(35) Hos. XIII, 14. I.e., its very depth compels a speedy redemption.
(36) Abraham having come to Palestine from Ur of the Chaldees.
(37) Lit., '(the place of) their planting'.
(38) I Kings XIV, 25f. The Israelites took much Egyptian wealth with them at the Exodus: v. Ex. XII, 35f.
(39) Deut. IX, 17: 'before your eyes' implies that they saw something wonderful happen, as explained in the text.
(40) Back to God. — Though physical matter may be destroyed, the spirit
(symbolized by the letters) is indestructible, but waits until mankind is ready to receive it.dates1 and occupy themselves with the Torah.
'Ulla visited Pumbeditha. On being offered a basket [tirama] of dates, he asked them, How many such [are obtainable] for a zuz? 'Three for a zuz', they told him. 'A basketful [zanna]2 of honey for a zuz', exclaimed he, 'yet the Babylonians do not engage in [the study of] the Torah!'3 At night they [the dates] upset him. 'A basketful of deadly poison cost a zuz in Babylonia, exclaimed he, 'yet the Babylonians study the Torah!'4
R. Eleazar also said, What is meant by the verse, And many people shall go and say: 'Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, To the house of the God of Jacob',5 the God of Jacob, but not the God of Abraham and Isaac? But [the meaning is this: we will] not [be] like Abraham, in connection with whom 'mountain' is written, as it is said, As it is said to this day, 'In the mountain where the Lord is seen.'6 Nor like Isaac, in connection with whom 'field' is written, as it is said, 'And Isaac when out to meditate in the field at eventide.'7 But [let us be] like Jacob, who called Him 'home', as it is said, 'And he called the name of that place Beth-el [God is a home].8
R. Johanan said: The reunion of the Exiles is as important as the day when heaven and earth were created, for it is said, And the children of Judah and the children of Israel shall be gathered together, and they shall appoint themselves one head, and shall go up out of the land; for great shall be the day of Jezreel;9 and it is written, And there was evening and there was morning, one day.10
AN ORPHAN ON WHOSE BEHALF HIS GUARDIANS SLAUGHTERED etc. You may infer from this that selection is retrospective?11 — Said R. Zera: [No:] a lamb according to their father's houses12 [implies] in all cases.13
Our Rabbis taught: A lamb for a household:14 this teaches that a man can bring [a lamb] and slaughter [it] on behalf of his son and daughter, if minors, and on behalf of his Canaanitish [non-Jewish] slave and bondmaid, whether with their consent or without their consent. But he cannot slaughter [it] on behalf of his son and daughter, if adults, or on behalf of his Hebrew slaves and bondmaids, or on behalf of his wife, save with their consent.
Another [Baraitha] taught: A man must not slaughter [the Passover-offering] on behalf of an adult, his son and daughter, and on behalf of his Hebrew slave and bondmaid, and on behalf of his wife, save with their consent. But he may slaughter [it] on behalf of his son and daughter, if minors, and on behalf of his Canaanitish slave and bondmaid, whether with their consent or without their consent. And all of these, if they [themselves] slaughtered and their master [also] slaughtered on their behalf, can discharge [their duty] with their master's, but they cannot discharge [their duty] with their own, except a woman,15 because she is able to protest.16 How is a woman different?17 — Said Raba, [It means] a woman and those who are like her.18
This is self-contradictory. You say, 'Except a woman, because she is able to protest.' [Thus] the reason is because she protested, but if she did not protest, she cannot discharge [her duty] with her husband's. Yet surely the first clause teaches: 'Nor on behalf of his wife [etc.] save with their consent': hence if nothing is said, she cannot discharge [her obligation thus]? — What does 'save with their consent' mean? Not that they said 'yes,' but when they said nothing, which excludes [the case] where they said 'no.' But surely 'and all of these, if they [themselves] killed and their master killed on their behalf, can discharge [their duty] with their master's, but they cannot discharge [their duty] with their own meal's where nothing is said, yet it teaches, 'except a woman, because she can protest'? — Said Raba: Since they [themselves] slaughtered, you can have no greater protest than this. A SLAVE BELONGing TO TWO PARTNERS etc. R. 'Ena Saba19 pointed out a contradiction to R. Nahman: We learned: A SLAVE BELONGING TO TWO PARTNERS MAY NOT EAT OF EITHER'; yet it was taught: If he wishes, he can eat of this one's [and] if he wishes, he can eat of that one's? Said he to him, 'Ena Saba!20 others say, You black pot!21 Between you and me the law will be clearly defined:22 our Mishnah [holds good] where they are particular with each other;23 the Baraitha [was taught] when they are not particular with each other.
HE WHO IS HALF SLAVE AND HALF FREE MUST NOT EAT OF HIS MASTER'S. It is only of his master's that he must not eat, yet he may eat of his own? But it was taught: He may not eat, either of his own or of his master's! — There is no difficulty: one is according to the earlier Mishnah, while the other is according to the later Mishnah. For we learned: He who is half slave and half free works one day for his master and one day for himself: this is the view of Beth Hillel. Beth Shammai say:
____________________
(1) Which grow abundantly in Babylonia.
(2) [The text appears to be in slight disorder. Read with MS.M.: For how much are such obtainable? — They replied, For a zuz. A zanna denotes a large basket with a capacity of three tirama, cf. Ta'an. 9b.]
(3) With the cost of living so low, surely they have plenty of time to study.
(4) Suffering makes one charitable-minded.
(5) Isa. II, 3.
(6) Gen. XXII, 14.
(7) Ibid. XXIV, 63.
(8) Ibid. XXVIII, 19. Visits to the mountain and the held are only made at certain times, but a home is permanent. Thus this teaches that man must live permanently in God.
(9) Hos. II, 2.
(10) Gen. I, 4.
(11) V. supra 8a.
(12) Ex. XII, 3.
(13) I.e., the head of the house does not require the consent of the members of the household. For that reason the orphan may now eat whichever he desires and there is no question of retrospective validity.
(14) Ibid.
(15) She discharges her duty with her own.
(16) A married woman can renounce her right to her husband's support and refuse to work for him as she is normally obliged to do.
(17) I.e., an adult son and daughter and Hebrew slaves can also protest!
(18) I.e., his adult son and daughter and his Hebrew slaves.
(19) 'The old man'.
(20) Probably as a pun on his name-scholarly eye!
(21) He was of unattractive appearance (Jast.), perhaps swarthy. Rashi in A.Z. 16b softens this by explaining that he was either begrimed through toil (many Rabbis in Talmudic days being workmen) or that in his preoccupation with his studies he had neglected the appearance of his garments.
(22) As a result of your question and my answer the exact conditions of the law will emerge. Jast. translates: this tradition will be named from myself and from thee.
(23) Not to benefit from one another; hence the half of the slave which belongs to one, as it were, may tot eat of the other's offering.You have [thus] safeguarded his master,1 but you have not safeguarded him! He is unable to marry a [Canaanitish] bondmaid, because he is already half free; he is unable to marry a free woman, because he is still half slave. Shall he be made as nought,2 — but surely the world was not created for aught but procreation as it is said, He created it not a waste, He formed it to be inhabited.3 Hence in the public interest we compel his master, and he makes him a free man, and he indites a bond for half his value.4 Then Beth Hillel reverted to rule as Beth Shammai.5
MISHNAH.IF A MAN SAYS TO HIS SLAVE, 'GO FORTH AND SLAUGHTER THE PASSOVER-OFFERING ON MY BEHALF': IF HE SLAUGHTERED A KID, HE EATS [THEREOF]. IF HE SLAUGHTERED A LAMB, HE EATS [THEREOF]. IF HE SLAUGHTERED A KID AND A LAMB, HE MUST EAT OF THE FIRST.6 IF HE FORGOT WHAT HIS MASTER TOLD HIM, HOW SHALL HE ACT? HE SLAUGHTERS A LAMB AND A KID AND DECLARES, 'IF MY MASTER TOLD ME [TO SLAUGHTER] A KID, THE KID IS HIS [FOR HIS PASSOVER-OFFERING] AND THE LAMB IS MINE; WHILE IF MY MASTER TOLD ME [TO SLAUGHTER] A LAMB, THE LAMB IS HIS AND THE KID IS MINE. IF HIS MASTER [ALSO] FORGOT WHAT HE TOLD HIM, BOTH GO FORTH TO THE PLACE OF BURNING,7 YET THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM SACRIFICING THE SECOND PASSOVER.8
GEMARA. It is obvious that if he slaughtered a kid, he [the master] may eat [thereof] even though he is accustomed to lamb;9 if he slaughtered a lamb, he may eat [thereof] even though he is accustomed to a kid. But how is it stated, IF HE SLAUGHTERED A KID AND A LAMB, HE MUST EAT OF THE FIRST; surely it was taught, One cannot register for two Passover-offerings simultaneously?10 — Our Mishnah refers to a king and a queen.11 And it was taught even so: One may not register for two Passover offerings simultaneously. Yet it once happened that the king and queen instructed their servants, 'Go forth and slaughter the Passover-offering on our behalf,' but they went and killed two Passover-offerings for them. [Then] they went and asked the king [which he desired and] he answered then, 'Go and ask the queen.' [When] they went and asked the queen she said to them, 'Go and ask R. Gamaliel.' They went and asked R. Gamaliel who said to them: The king and queen, who have no particular desires,12 must eat of the first; but we [in a similar case] might not eat either of the first or of the second. On another occasion a lizard was found in the [Temple] abattoir,13 and they wished to declare the entire repast unclean. They went and asked the king, who answered them, 'Go and ask the queen.' When they went to ask the queen she said to them, 'Go and ask it. Gamaliel.' [So] they went and asked him. Said he to then, 'Was the abattoir hot or cold?'14 'It was hot,' replied they. 'Then go and pour a glass of cold water over it,' he told them. They went and poured a glass of cold water over it, and it moved,15 whereupon R. Gamaliel declared the entire repast clean. Thus the king was dependent on the queen and the queen was dependent on R. Gamaliel: hence the whole repast was dependent on R. Gamaliel.16 IF HE FORGOT WHAT HIS MASTER HAD TOLD HIM etc. MINE? Whatever a slave owns his master owns!17 — Said Abaye: He repairs to a shepherd with whom his master generally has dealings,18 who is therefore pleased to make things right for his master, and he gives him possession of one of them on condition that his master shall have no rights therein.19
IF HIS MASTER FORGOT WHAT HE HAD TOLD HIM etc. Abaye said: They learned this only where he forgot after the sprinkling, so that when the blood was sprinkled it was fit for eating. But if he [the master] forgot before the sprinkling, so that when the blood was sprinkled it was not fit for eating, they are bound to observe the Second Passover.
Others recite this in reference to the [following] Baraitha: If the hides of five [companies'] Passover-offerings became mixed up with each other, and a wart20 was found on one of them, they all21 go out to the place of burning, and they [their owners] are exempt for observing the Second Passover. Said Abaye: This was taught only where they were mixed up after the sprinkling, so that at least when the blood was sprinkled it was fit for eating; but if they were mixed up before the sprinkling, they are bound to observe the Second Passover.
He who recites [this] in reference to our Mishnah, [holds that] all the more [does it apply] to the Baraitha.22 But he who recites it in reference to the Baraitha [holds] that [it does] not [apply] to our Mishnah: since [the sacrifices themselves] are valid, for if he reminds himself [of what the Master had told him],it would be fit for eating, it is [indeed] revealed23 before Heaven. The Master said: 'And [their owners] are exempt from observing the Second Passover.' But one has [definitely] not discharged [his duty]?24 — [The reason is] because it is impossible [to do otherwise]. What should be done? Should each bring a [second] Passover-offering, — then they bring hullin to the Temple Court, since four of them have [already] sacrificed.25 If all of them bring one Passover-offering, the result is that the Passover-offering is eaten by those who have not registered for it.26 How so? Let each of them bring his Passover-offering and stipulate and declare: 'If mine was blemished, let this one which I am bringing now be a Passover-offering; while if mine was unblemished, let this one which I am bringing now be a peace-offering'? — That is impossible,
____________________
(1) Lit., 'repaired his master, — so that he should not suffer loss.
(2) Do neither and end in futility.
(3) Isa. XLV, 18.
(4) Which becomes an ordinary debt to his former master.
(5) After having ruled in actual practice on their own view for some time (v. Halevi, Doroth, I, 3, p. 576), they adopted Beth Shammai's ruling. Now the law is always as Beth Hillel. Before they retracted, he could not eat of his own, because the half in him that is free is sharply differentiated from the half that is not. But when they retracted they would regard him as entirely free, even before he is actually so, since we compel his master to free him; hence he could eat of his own.
(6) While the second is burnt.
(7) Because they do not know which belongs to whom, and a Paschal offering may be eaten only by those registered for it.
(8) For both the killing and the sprinkling of the blood were valid acts.
(9) And that is really what the Mishnah informs us.
(10) To eat subsequently whichever one chooses, because selection is not retrospective (v. supra, p. 458, n. 6). Thus the same applies here.
(11) Being surfeited with luxury they do not care what they eat, and generally leave it to their servants. Hence the question of retrospective validity does not arise.
(12) Lit., 'their mind is light'.
(13) A dead lizard (halta'ah) defiles.
(14) I.e., was it found in hot water or in cold?
(15) They now saw that it was alive.
(16) [Derenbourg (Essai p. 211) identifies the King and Queen in these two stories with Agrippa I and his wife Kypros; Buchler (Synedrion p. 129 n. 1) with Agrippa II and his sister Berenice. On either view it is to R. Gamaliel I that reference is here made.]
(17) How then can the slave stipulate that one of these should be his?
(18) Lit., 'where his master is accustomed'.
(19) Since this is in the master's own interests.
(20) This is a blemish which disqualifies an animal as a sacrifice.
(21) I.e., the Paschal-offerings.
(22) For in the Mishnah the sacrifices themselves are both definitely fit, but that we do not know who registered for them, and yet if the doubt arose before the sprinkling they are bound to observe the Second Passover. How much the more then in the Baraitha, where the fitness of the sacrifices themselves is in question!
(23) Hence even if the doubt arose before the sprinkling, they are exempt from observing the Second] Passover.
(24) Sc. the one whose offering was blemished.
(25) A Passover-offering can only be brought when there is an actual obligation. and if a man not under this obligation consecrates an animal as such, the consecration is invalid and the animal remains hullin (q.v. Glos.), which may not be brought into the Temple Court for slaughtering. Here four have actually discharged their duty already, though we do not know who they are, so that four of the animals must remain unconsecrated.
(26) Because the registration of those whose duty has been done is of no account.because there is the breast and the shoulder [of the peace offering], which is eaten by priests [only].1 Then let each one bring a priest with him?2 — What is the position of this priest? If he has [already] sacrificed a Passover-offering, then perhaps this [too] is a passover-offering, with the result that the Passover offering is eaten by those who have not registered for it. While if he has not observed the Passover,3 perhaps this is a peace offering, and so he will not observe the Passover? Then let all the five [jointly] bring one priest who had not kept the Passover and register him for these five Passover-offerings, for on any hypothesis4 there is one [sacrifice] with which he will discharge [his duty]!5 — Rather [the reason is] because he reduces [the time allowed for] the eating of the peace-offering, for the Passover offering [is eaten] a day and a night,6 whereas a peace-offering [is eaten] two days and one night.7 Then let them bring a Passover 'remainder'8 and declare, 'If mine was blemished, let this which I bring now be a passover-offering; while if mine was unblemished, let this which I bring now be a peace-offering,' for a Passover 'remainder' is eaten one day and one night [only]?9 — May we then set aside [animals] in the first instance to be remainders!10 Then let us take the trouble to bring a Passover-remainder?11 Rather [the reason is] because of the laying [of hands]; for whereas the Passover-offering does not require laying [of the hands], a remainder requires laying [of the hands].12 That is well of a mens' sacrifice, [but] what can be said of a women s sacrifice?13 — Rather it is on account of the [blood] applications: for whereas the Passover-offering [requires] one application, the peace-offering [requires] two, which are four.14 [But] what does that matter? Surely we learned: All [blood] which is sprinkled on the outer altar,15 if he [the priest] applied them with one sprinkling, he has made atonement?16 — Rather [the reason is] because whereas [the blood of] the Passover-offering must be poured out [gently],17 [that of] the peace-offerings requires dashing [against the altar].18 But what does that matter? Surely it was taught: All [blood] which is applied by dashing [against the altar], if he [the priest] applied [it] by pouring it out, he has discharged [his duty]?19 — Granted that we say [thus] where he has done so; [do we say thus] as the very outset too?20
MISHNAH. IF A MAN SAYS TO HIS CHILDREN, 'BEHOLD, I SLAUGHTER THE PASSOVER-OFFERING ON BEHALF OF WHICHEVER OF YOU GOES UP FIRST TO JERUSALEM,' AS SOON AS THE FIRST HAS INSERTED HIS HEAD AND THE GREATER PART OF HIS BODY [IN JERUSALEM] HE HAS ACQUIRED HIS PORTION, AND HE ACQUIRES IT ON BEHALF OF HIS BRETHREN WITH HIM.
GEMARA. This proves that selection is retrospective?21 Said R. Johanan: He [their father] said this in order to encourage them in [the performance of] precepts.22 This may be proved too, for he [the Tanna] teaches: AND HE ACQUIRES IT ON BEHALF OF HIS BRETHREN WITH HIM; now it is well if you say that he had registered them beforehand, then it is correct. But if you say that he had not registered them beforehand, can they be registered after he has slaughtered it? Surely we learned: They may register and withdraw their hands from it until it is killed!23 This proves it. It was taught likewise: It once happened that the daughters outstripped the sons, and so it was seen that the daughters were zealous while the sons were indolent. MISHNAH. ONE MAY ALWAYS REGISTER FOR IT AS LONG AS THERE IS AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE THEREIN FOR EACH ONE [REGISTERED]. THEY MAY REGISTER AND WITHDRAW THEIR HANDS FORM IT UNTIL IT IS SLAUGHTERED; R. SIMEON SAID: UNTIL THE BLOOD IS SPRINKLED.
GEMARA. What does he inform us? — He informs us this, viz., though this company had registered for it, it can retract [entirely] and a different company register for it.24
THEY MAY REGISTER AND WITHDRAW THEIR HANDS FROM IT UNTIL IT IS KILLED etc. Abaye said: The controversy is in respect of withdrawing, for the Rabbis hold: [And if the household be too little] for being [me-heyoth] for a lamb25 [implies] in the lifetime [mi-hayuth] of the lamb;26 while R. Simeon holds [that it implies] during the existence [mi-hawayuth] of the lamb.27 But in respect of registering all agree [that this can be done only] until it is killed, because the Writ saith, according to the number of [bemiksath] the souls, and then, ye shall make your count [takosu].28 It was taught likewise: They may register and withdraw their hands from it until it is slaughtered. R. Simeon said: They may register until it is slaughtered and withdraw until the blood is sprinkled.
____________________
(1) And since it may be a Passover sacrifice and no priests are registered for this, they cannot eat it.
(2) I.e., let a priest register for each sacrifice.
(3) Having been unclean or on a distant journey at the First Passover.
(4) Lit., 'whatever you will'.
(5) This is Rashi's text. Cur. edd. read: there is one who has kept the Passover and so they will discharge etc., i.e., by this device we ensure that all shall have discharged their duty. — The priest then would partake of the breast and shoulders of each sacrifice.
(6) And what is left over after that must be burnt as nothar,
(7) Since each sacrifice may be a Passover-offering, we can only permit the shorter period, whereas actually it may be a peace-offering.
(8) [The text is not clear. R. Hananel reads, let him bring (an offering) and make a stipulation for (it to become if necessary) a Passover-'remainder'.]
(9) If an animal is consecrated as a Passover-offering but not sacrificed as such, it is a Passover-'remainder', which is then brought as a peace-offering but eaten only during the shorter period. Hence here, let each consecrate the animal for a Passover-offering. If his animal was blemished, he discharges his duty with this one. But if his animal was unblemished, this is automatically a Passover-'remainder', since it cannot be sacrificed for its own purpose
(Tosaf.; Rashi explains slightly differently.)
(10) Surely not.
(11) I.e., let us find an animal which was actually left over from the first Passover.
(12) V, Lev, III, 2.
(13) This does not require laying of the hands.
(14) The blood was applied to the north-east and the south-west corners of the altar, thus making it appear that the four corners were besprinkled; v. Zeb. 53b.
(15) This includes the blood of the peace-offering.
(16) I.e., the sacrifice is valid, though in the first place two applications are required.
(17) From the basin on to the wall of the altar near the base.
(18) Vigorously, from a distance.
(19) The sacrifice is valid.
(20) Surely we may not arrange at the very outset that the blood should be gently poured out where it really requires to be dashed against the altar. Hence there is no possibility of observing the Second Passover.
(21) V. supra 87a. It is now assumed that only one was registered.
(22) But actually he had registered all of them beforehand.
(23) But not after.
(24) This disagrees with R. Judah, who maintains infra 99a that one member at least of the original company must remain.
(25) Ex. XII, 4.
(26) The verse is understood to refer to withdrawal, it being translated: And if the household has become too little etc., because some of its members have withdrawn. The present interpretation of mi-heyoth teaches that this withdrawal is possible only while the animal is still alive.
(27) I.e., as long as it still exists for its sacrifice rites to be preformed, which is until the blood is sprinkled.
(28) Ibid. 'Be-miksath' and 'takosu' are connected with a root meaning to slaughter, while at the same time retaining their connotation of numbering, i.e., registering. Hence registration is permitted only until it is slaughtered; cf. supra 61a.MISHNAH. IF A MAN REGISTERS ANOTHER WITH HIM [TO SHARE] IN HIS PORTION,1 THE MEMBERS OF THE COMPANY2 ARE AT LIBERTY TO GIVE HIM HIS [PORTION],3 AND HE EATS HIS AND THEY EAT THEIRS.4
GEMARA. The scholars asked: Can the members of a company, one of whom is quickhanded,5 say to him, 'Take your portion and go!' Do we rule that he can say to them, 'Surely you have accepted [me]'; or perhaps they can answer him, 'We accepted you for the purpose of the sacrifice,6 but we did not accept you with the view that you should eat more than we'? — Come and hear: IF A MAN REGISTERS ANOTHER WITH HIM, THE MEMBERS OF THE COMPANY ARE AT LIBERTY TO GIVE HIM HIS [PORTION], AND HE EATS HIS AND THEY EAT THEIR. What is the reason? Is it not because it is as though one of them were quick-handed:7 and if you should think that one who is quick-handed can say to them, 'You have accepted me,'8 then let this one be as though he is quick-handed? — I will tell you: That is not so, [for] characters differ, for even if both of them together eat [only] as much as one member of the company, they can say to him that they are not willing to have a stranger with them.
Come and hear: If the attendant ate as much as an olive at the side of the oven, if he is wise he eats his fill of it; but if the members of the company wish to do him a favour, they come and sit at his side and eat: this is R. Judah's opinion.9 Thus, only if they wish, but not if they do not wish. Yet why so? Let him say to them, 'Surely you have accepted [me.]'10 — There it is different, because they can say to him, 'We accepted you with the intention of troubling you to attend on us; [but] we did not accept you that we should take the trouble of attending to you.' Come and hear: Members of a company, one of whom is quickhanded, are at liberty to say [to him], 'Take your portion and go.' And not only that, but even when five arrange for a meal in common,11 they are at liberty to say to him, 'Take your portion and go.' This proves it.
What does 'and not only that' mean?12 — He proceeds to a climax.13 In the case of Passover-offerings it goes without saying, for they can say to him, 'We accepted you for the purpose of the sacrifice.' But even in the case of a meal in common, which is mere companionship, they are at liberty to say to him, 'Take your portion and go.
Others state: That is no problem to us,14 but this is our question: Are the members of a company permitted to divide,15 or are they not permitted to divide?16 — Come and hear: Members of a company, one of whom was quick-handed, are at liberty to say to him, 'Take your portion and go.' Thus, only if he is quickhanded, but not if he is not quick-handed. This proves it.17
R. Papa and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua joined their bread together. But by the time R. Huna the son of R. Joshua ate one [piece], R. Papa ate four. Said he to him, 'Divide with me.' 'You have accepted [me as a partner],' he retorted. [Thereupon] he raised all these objections18 to him, and he answered him as we have answered them. He then refuted him by [the teaching regarding] 'the members of a company [etc.]'. Said he to him, There the reason is because they can say to him, 'We accepted you for the purpose of the sacrifice.' He refuted him by [the teaching regarding] 'a meal in common [etc.]', so he divided with him. Then he went and joined bread with Rabina. By the time R. Huna the son of R. Joshua ate one [piece], Rabina ate eight. Said he: A hundred Papas rather than one Rabina!
Our Rabbis taught: If a man registers others with him for his Passover-offering and his hagigah,19 the money he holds20 is hullin. And he who sells his burnt-offering and his peace-offering21 has effected nothing,22 and the money, however much it is,23 is utilized24 for a freewill-offering. But since he has not effected anything, why should it be utilized for a freewill-offering?25 Said Raba: As a penalty.26 And what does 'however much it is' mean? — Even if they [the animals] were only worth four [zuz] and he paid five, the Rabbis penalized him even in respect of that additional [zuz].
'Ulla — others state, R. Oshaia — said: Perhaps our Babylonian colleagues know the reason for this ruling. [Consider:] one set aside a lamb for his Passover-offering, and another set aside money for his Passover-offering: how can sanctification fall upon sanctification, that he teaches, 'the money he holds is hullin.?27 —
____________________
(1) Without the knowledge of the other members of the company.
(2) Who disapprove of the new companion.
(3) Bidding him to go and eat it elsewhere with the new companion of his choice.
(4) This Tanna holds that one Paschal lamb may be eaten by two separate companies.
(5) To seize food — i.e., he is a glutton and eats more than his due share. Lit., 'who has fine hands' — a euphemism.
(6) We calculated that so many are required for this lamb.
(7) Presumably the two will eat more than the ordinary share of one.
(8) Enabling me to eat as much as I like.
(9) V. supra 86a for notes.
(10) As one of your company, and since I cannot go to you, you must come to me.
(11) Each contributing an equal share.
(12) In which way is the second ruling more noteworthy than the first?
(13) Lit., 'he states, it is unnecessary"'.
(14) That the quick-handed companion may be told to take his portion and go.
(15) Each to take his share.
(16) But must all eat together.
(17) They must eat together.
(18) From the teaching cited above.
(19) Here the Festive peace-offering which was brought on the fourteenth likewise and eaten before the Passover-offering. This was eaten by the same who had registered for the Passover-offering.
(20) Which he received from those whom he registered.
(21) I.e., animals which he consecrated for that purpose.
(22) The sacrifice must be offered on behalf of the first owner.
(23) Even if it exceeds the animal's worth.
(24) Lit., 'falls'.
(25) His action being null, the money remains hullin.
(26) He should not have bought another man's sacrifice.
(27) Money consecrated for a sacrifice can revert to hullin only if an animal of hullin is bought therewith, whereby the animal receives the sanctity of the money, which in turn loses it and becomes hullin. Here, however, the money was consecrated and given for an animal
(or part of it, which is the same) which was already consecrated for a Passover-offering: how then can additional sanctity fall upon the animal, in the sense that the sanctity of the money is transferred thereto, leaving the money hullin? — It cannot be answered that this refers to unconsecrated money, for in that case it is obvious.Said Abaye: Had not R. Oshaia related that [Mishnah]1 to a case where he registers a harlot for his Passover-offering,2 and in accordance with Rabbi,3 I would have related it to sacrifices of lesser sanctity4 and in accordance with R. Jose the Galilean who maintained: sacrifices of lesser sanctity are their owner's property. But [on Rabbi's view] a man does not leave anything over [unconsecrated] in the Passover-offering, yet he certainly does leave over in the case of money, because when he set it aside [for a Passover-offering] in the first place, he did so with this intention.5 While this [the present Baraitha]6 is [the view of] Rabbi,7 and for that reason the money he holds is hullin, as a man certainly leaves over [something] of money [unconsecrated]. Again, what R. Oshaia explains as the view of Rabbi, I do not explain as [the view of] Rabbi, for a man does not leave over anything [unconsecrated] of the Passover-offering.8 But this [present Baraitha] cannot be established as agreeing with R. Jose, since it is taught therein, 'and he who sells his burnt-offering and his peace-offering has effected nothing.'9 Now however that R. Oshaia related that [Mishnah] to the case of a man who registers a harlot in his Passover-offering and in accordance with Rabbi, it follows that he10 holds that a man leaves [something unconsecrated] even in his Passover-offering [itself].11 What is [this statement] of R. Oshaia [which is alluded to]? — For we learned: If he gave her [a harlot] consecrated animals as her hire, they are permitted [for the altar];12 [if he gave her] birds of hullin, they are forbidden.13 Though [the reverse] would have been logical: if with consecrated animals, which a blemish disqualifies, yet [the interdict of] 'hire' or 'price'14 does not fall upon them;15 then with birds, which a blemish does not disqualify, is it not logical that [the interdict of] 'hire' and 'price' does not fall upon them? Therefore it is stated, 'for any vow,' which includes birds. [But] now you might argue a minori in respect of consecrated animals: if with birds, though a blemish does not disqualify them, yet 'hire' and 'price' fall upon them, then with consecrated animals, which a blemish disqualifies, is it not logical that 'hire' and 'price' fall upon them? Therefore it is stated, 'for any vow [neder]', which excludes that which is [already] vowed [nadar].16 Now the reason is because the Divine Law wrote 'vow'; but otherwise I would say: The interdict of 'hire' falls upon consecrated animals: but surely a man cannot prohibit that which is not his? — Said R. Oshaia: It refers to the case of a man registering a harlot for his Passover offering, this being according to Rabbi.
What is [this allusion to] Rabbi? — For it was taught, And If the household be too little from being for a lamb:17 sustain him with [the proceeds of] the lamb in his food requirements, but not in his requirements of [general] purchases. Rabbi said: In his requirements of [general] purchases too, so that if he has nought [wherewith to purchase], he may register another in his Passover offering and his hagigah,18 while the money he receives is hullin, for on this condition did the Israelites consecrate their Passover offerings.
Rabbah and R. Zera [disagree]. One maintains: None differ about fuel for roasting it, for since this makes the Passover offering fit [to be eaten], it is as the Passover-offering itself.19 Their controversy is only about unleavened bread and bitter herbs: the Rabbis hold: This is a different eating;20 while Rabbi holds: Since it is a requisite of the Passover-offering,21 it is as the Passover-offering itself. The other maintains: None disagree about unleavened bread and bitter herbs either, for it is written, [They shall eat the flesh . . .] and unleavened bread; with bitter herbs they shall eat it;22 hence since they are a requisite of the Passover-offering they are as the Passover-offering. Their controversy is only about buying a shirt therewith [or] buying a cloak therewith. The Rabbis hold: The Divine Law saith, from being for a lamb [mi-heyoth miseh]: devote it [hahayehu] to the lamb;23 while Rabbi holds: Sustain [hahayeh] thyself with [the proceeds of] the lamb.
But according to Abaye, who said: 'Had not R. Oshaia related that [Mishnah] to a case where he registers a harlot in his Passover offering, and in accordance with Rabbi, I would have related it to sacrifices of lesser sanctity, and in accordance with R. Jose the Galilean who maintained, Sacrifices of lesser sanctity are their owner's property; but [on Rabbi's view] a man does not leave anything over [unconsecrated] in the Passover-offering'; — surely it is explicitly stated, 'for on this condition did the Israelites consecrate their Passover-offerings'?24 — Say: 'for on this condition did the Israelites consecrate the money for their Passover-offerings.'25
MISHNAH. IF A ZAB HAS SUFFERED TWO ATTACKS [OF DISCHARGE], ONE SLAUGHTERS [THE PASSOVER-OFFERING] ON HIS BEHALF ON HIS SEVENTH [DAY]; IF HE HAS HAD THREE ATTACKS, ONE SLAUGHTERs ON HIS BEHALF ON HIS EIGHTH [DAY].26 IF A WOMAN WATCHES DAY BY DAY,27 ONE SLAUGHTERS ON HER BEhalf ON HER SECOND DAY; IF SHE SAW [A DISCHARGE] ON TWO DAYS, ONE SLAUGHTERS ON HER BEHALF ON THE THIRD [DAY]. AND AS TO A ZABAH,28 ONE SLAUGHTERS ON HER BEHALF ON THE EIGHTH [DAY].
GEMARA. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: One slaughters and sprinkles on behalf of a tebul yom29 and one who lacks atonement,30
____________________
(1) V. infra in reference to a man who gave a sanctified animal to a harlot, where it is implied that but for a certain verse this would disqualify the animal from being offered as a sacrifice (v. Deut. XXIII, 19). Though a mail cannot render forbidden that which does not belong to him, we say there that he would do so, though since it is sanctified it is really not his.
(2) In return for the 'hire' which he owes her.
(3) Rabbi rules infra that if a man needs money e.g.. for clothes, he may register other people with him for his Passover-offering and spend his money so acquired on clothes. Thus he holds that an animal sanctified for a Passover offering is entirely his private property; consequently he could also render it forbidden (but for the verse) by making it a harlot's hire.
(4) V. supra p. 108, n. 2. Thus he gave the harlot an animal consecrated for a peace-offering.
(5) I.e., when Rabbi permits the owner to spend the money on clothes etc., it is not because he holds that when a man consecrates an animal for a Passover-offering he leaves part of it unconsecrated, as it were, so that if a man gives him consecrated money for a share in the sacrifice the sanctity of the money is transferred to that unconsecrated portion of the animal, while the money itself thereby becomes hullin and can be expended on anything. The reason is on the contrary that when a man consecrates money for the Passover-offering he leaves that money partly unconsecrated, as it were, in the sense that it automatically reverts to hullin when he gives it in payment for a share in a sacrifice, and in fact, the money is technically to be regarded as a gift, not as payment at all; Hence the vendor can use it as he pleases.
(6) Introduced by 'our Rabbis taught'.
(7) As explained in the preceding note.
(8) Hence on Rabbi's view if he registers a harlot it does not prohibit it, since nothing at all of the animal is his in that sense.
(9) Whereas on R. Jose's view that sacrifices of lesser sanctity are the owner's personal property, the sale of the peace-offering is valid.
(10) Viz., Rabbi, in R. Oshaia's view.
(11) Not only in the money set aside for the Passover-offering.
(12) Since they were consecrated before he gave them to her, he cannot make them forbidden.
(13) To be offered henceforth as a sacrifice.
(14) V. Deut. XXIII, 19: Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow etc.
(15) To make them forbidden.
(16) The hire of a harlot cannot be vowed as a sacrifice; but a consecrated animal has already been vowed.
(17) Ex. XII, 4, lit. translation.
(18) Of the fourteenth.
(19) Hence one may certainly sell a share in the sacrifice for this purpose.
(20) Hence he cannot buy it with the proceeds of the sacrifice.
(21) Which must be eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.
(22) Ex. XII, 8. The verse actually quoted, which is slightly different, is Num. IX, 11, but the Talmud probably means the verse stated here.
(23) Lit., 'make it live for the lamb' — i.e., the money realized from the lamb must be expended on what is needed for the lamb, e.g., the unleavened bread and bitter herbs which accompany it.
(24) This definitely implies a reservation in the sacrifice itself.
(25) This is not an emendation but an interpretation.
(26) V. supra p. 423, n. 3. In both these cases they are fit to eat the Passover offering in the evening; hence we kill it on their behalf
(27) V. Supra p. 422, n. 5.
(28) Who had three discharges.
(29) V. Glos.
(30) V. p. 84, n. 1; p. 294, n. 4.but one may not slaughter and sprinkle for a person unclean through a reptile.1 But 'Ulla maintained: One slaughters and sprinkles for a person unclean through a reptile. According to Rab, wherein does a tebul yom differ? Because he is fit in the evening. But one unclean through a reptile too is fit in the evening? — He lacks tebillah. Then a tebul yom too lacks the setting of the sun?2 The sun goes down of its own accord.3 Then one who lacks atonement too, surely lacks forgiveness?4 — It means where his pair [of birds] are in his hand.5 Then a person unclean through a reptile too, surely the mikweh6 stands before him? — He may neglect it. If so, he who lacks sacrifice too, perhaps he will neglect [to sacrifice]? — It means e.g., that he had delivered them [his birds] to the Beth din, this being in accordance with R. Shemaiah, who said: It is a presumption that the Beth din of Priests7 do not rise from there8 until the money in the horn-shaped receptacles is finished.9 Now according to Rab, by Scriptural law he10 is indeed fit, and it was the Rabbis who preventively forbade him;11 why then did Rab say: We defile one of them with a reptile?12 — Rather [say] according to Rab he is not fit by Biblical law either, for it is written, If any man be unclean by reason of a dead body:13 does this not hold good [even] when his seventh day falls on the eve of Passover,14 which case is [tantamount to] uncleanness through a reptile,15 yet the Divine Law said, Let him be relegated [to the second Passover]? [But] how do you know that it is so?16 — He holds as R. Isaac, who said: They17 were unclean through an unattended corpse18 whose seventh day fell on the eve of Passover, for it is said, and they could not keep the Passover on that day:19 thus only on that day could they not keep it, but on the morrow they could keep it,20 yet the Divine Law said, Let them be put off.21
We learned: IF A ZAB HAS SUFFERED TWO ATTACKS, ONE SLAUGHTERS ON HIS BEHALF ON HIS SEVENTH [DAY]; does that not mean where he had not performed tebillah, which proves [that] one slaughters and sprinkles for a person unclean through a reptile?22 No; it means where he has performed tebillah. If he has performed tebillah, what does it [the Mishnah] inform us? If he informs us this, that though he lacks the setting of the sun, the sun sets automatically.23 Reason too supports this [interpretation], since the second clause teaches: IF HE HAS HAD THREE ATTACKS, ONE SLAUGHTERS ON HIS BEHALF ON HIS EIGHTH [DAY]. Now it is well if you agree that [the clause] 'IF A ZAB HAS SUFFERED TWO ATTACKS, ONE SLAUGHTERS ON HIS BEHALF ON HIS SEVENTH [DAY]' means where he has performed tebillah: then [the second clause] is necessary. You might argue: Only when he has had two attacks [do we slaughter for him] on his seventh [day], because he does not lack a positive act; but [in the case of] 'one who has had three attacks, on his eighth day,' where an action is wanting [in that] he lacks forgiveness,24 it is not so. Therefore [the Mishnah] informs us that though he lacks forgiveness, we slaughter and sprinkle on his behalf. But if you say that [the clause, 'IF A ZAB] HAS SUFFERED TWO ATTACKS, [ONE SLAUGHTERS ON HIS BEHALF] ON HIS SEVENTH DAY,' means where he has not performed tebillah, what is the purpose of [teaching about] one who has had three attacks? Seeing that you say that one slaughters and sprinkles on behalf of one who had two discharges, and is in his seventh day, but has not performed tebillah, so that he is quite unclean; then how much the more does one slaughter and sprinkle for one who had three attacks, and is in his eighth day, and has performed tebillah on the seventh, so that his uncleanness is of a lighter nature! Hence it surely follows that [the law] that we slaughter on behalf of one who has had two attacks and is in [his] seventh [day] refers to the case where he has performed tebillah! — No. In truth I may tell you that he has not performed tebillah, and [yet] it is necessary. I might argue: Only on the seventh day [do we slaughter for him], since [it lies] in his own hand to make himself fit; but on the eighth day, when it is not in his power to offer the sacrifice, I might say, the priests may neglect him. Hence we are informed [that it is] as R. Shemaiah [stated].25
AND AS TO A ZABAH, ONE SLAUGHTERS etc. A tanna recited before R. Adda b. Ahabah: And as to a zabah,26 one slaughters on her behalf on her seventh day. Said he to him: Is then a zabah on her seventh day fit?27 Even on the view that one slaughters and sprinkles for a person unclean through a reptile, that is only for a person unclean through a reptile, who is fit in the evening. But this one is not fit until the morrow when she brings her atonement. Say [instead], 'on the eighth.' Then it is obvious?28 — You might say, since she lacks atonement, [one must] not slaughter [on her behalf]; hence he informs us [that it is] as R. Shemaiah [stated]. Rabina said: He [the Tanna] recited before him [about] a niddah,29 [thus]: And as to a niddah, one slaughters for her on the seventh [day]. Said he to him: Is then a niddah fit on the seventh [day]? Even on the view that one slaughters and sprinkles for a person unclean through a reptile [that is] because he is fit in the evening. But a niddah performs tebillah in the evening of [i.e., following] the seventh day: [hence] she is not fit for eating [the Passover offering] until the [evening after the] eighth, by when she has had the setting of the sun.30 But say, 'on the eighth.' That is obvious: seeing that one slaughters and sprinkles for a zabah on the eighth day, though as yet she lacks atonement, need it be taught that one slaughters and sprinkles on behalf of a niddah, who does not lack atonement?31 — He finds it necessary [to teach about] a niddah, [and] informs us this: only on the eighth, but not on the seventh, even as it was taught: All who are liable to tebillah.32 their tebillah takes place by day;33 a niddah and a woman in confinement, their tebillah takes place at night.34 For it was taught: You might think that she [a niddah] performs tebillah by day;35 therefore it is stated, she shall be in her impurity seven days:36 let her be in her impurity full seven days.37 And a woman in confinement is assimilated to Juddah.38 MISHNAH. [As To] AN OMEN,39
____________________
(1) Though he can perform tebillah and be fit in the evening.
(2) I.e., he too is not fit when the sacrifice is actually slaughtered.
(3) No action by himself is wanting.
(4) I.e., he is yet to bring his sacrifice, and thus he is on a par with a person unclean through a reptile, who is to perform tebillah.
(5) For sacrificing, so we need not fear that he may omit to do so and the Passover-offering will have needlessly been slaughtered for him.
(6) Ritual bath.
(7) A special court in the Temple which dealt with priestly and sacrificial matters.
(8) I.e., do not leave the Temple Court.
(9) The monies for the bird-offerings were placed daily in horn-shaped receptacles, and the priestly Beth din saw to it that these were expended on the day they were received. Hence there was no fear of neglect.
(10) The person unclean through a reptile.
(11) This must be assumed, since he gives the reason because we fear that he may neglect his tebillah.
(12) V. supra 80a; but an unclean majority means such as are unfit to partake of the Passover offering in the evening by Biblical law.
(13) Num. IX, 10.
(14) Since Scripture does not particularize, it must include all cases.
(15) Since both can be clean in the evening.
(16) Since Scripture mentions a dead body, it may refer only to such uncleanness that is not the same as that acquired from a reptile, viz., before the seventh day.
(17) The men who came to enquire of Moses and Aaron, Num. IX, 6.
(18) Lit., 'a corpse of a precept' — i.e., the corpse of a person whose relatives are unknown; its burial is obligatory upon the first person who finds it.
(19) Ibid.
(20) This is possible only if the morrow was their eighth day.
(21) Though they can make themselves fit for the evening.
(22) For they are exactly alike.
(23) As above.
(24) Is sacrifice is yet to be offered.
(25) Supra.
(26) Who had three discharges.
(27) To partake of the sacrifice in the evening.
(28) Though the same is stated in the Mishnah, it might be included there for the sake of parallelism, though unnecessary in itself. But here it is taught as an independent statement.
(29) V. Glos.
(30) She must not eat of sacrifices until the setting of the sun after her tebillah. Since she performs tebillah in the evening, when the sun has already set, she must wait until the following evening.
(31) She does not require a sacrifice.
(32) E.g., a zab and a zabah, a leper, and one defiled through a corpse (Shab. 121a).
(33) The seventh day from their defilement.
(34) The evening following the last day of their uncleanness. In this respect a niddah is more stringent than a zabah, who performs tebillah on the seventh day, and does not wait for the evening.
(35) Sc. the seventh, like a zabah.
(36) Lev. XV. 19.
(37) But if she performs tebillah on the seventh day itself, the period is diminished.
(38) For it is written, as in the days of the impurity of (niddath, const. of niddah) her sickness shall she
(sc. a woman in confinement) be unclean (Lev. XII, 3).
(39) V. Glos. Here it refers to one who became an omen after midday, so that the obligation of the Passover-offering was already incumbent upon him. But if he became an omen before midday, this obligation does not fall on him at all, as stated infra 98a (Tosaf).AND ONE WHO IS REMOVING A HEAP [OF DEBRIS],1 AND LIKEWISE ONE WHO HAS RECEIVED A PROMISE TO BE RELEASED FROM PRISON, AND AN INVALID, AND AN AGED PERSON WHO CAN EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE, ONE SLAUGHTERS ON THEIR BEHALF.2 [YET IN THE CASE OF] ALL THESE, ONE MAY NOT SLAUGHTER FOR THEM ALONE, LEST THEY BRING THE PASSOVER-OFFERING TO DISQUALIFICATION.3 THEREFORE IF A DISQUALIFICATION OCCURS TO THEM, THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM KEEPING THE SECOND PASSOVER,4 EXCEPT ONE WHO WAS REMOVING DEBRIS, BECAUSE HE WAS UNCLEAN FROM THE BEGINNING.5
GEMARA. Rabbah son of R. Huna said in R. Johanan's name: They learned this only of a heathen prison; but [if he is incarcerated in] an Israelite prison, one slaughters for him separately; since he was promised, he will [definitely] be released, as it is written, The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies.6 R. Hisda observed: As to what you say, [If he is in] a heathen prison [one may] not [kill on his behalf alone]; that was said only [when the prison is] without the walls of Beth Pagi;7 but [if it is] within the walls of Beth Pagi,8 one slaughters on his behalf alone. What is the reason? It is possible to convey it [the flesh] to him and he will eat it.
THEREFORE IF A DISQUALIFICATION OCCURS etc. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: They learned [this] only of a round heap;9 but [if it was] a long heap, he is exempt from keeping the Second Passover, [for] perhaps he was clean at the time of the shechitah.10 It was also taught likewise: R. Simeon the son of R. Johanan b. Berokah said: One who is removing a heap [of debris] is sometimes exempt [from the Second Passover] and sometimes liable. How so? [It if was] a round heap and uncleanness [a corpse] was found underneath it, he is liable; a long heap, and uncleanness was found underneath it, he is exempt, [for] I assume [that] he was clean at the time of shechitah.
MISHNAH. ONE MAY NOT SLAUGHTER THE Passover offering FOR A SINGLE PERSON: THIS IS R. JUDAH'S VIEW; BUT R. JOSE PERMITS IT. AND EVEN A COMPANY OF A HUNDRED WHO CANNOT EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE [JOINTLY], ONE MAY NOT KILL FOR THEM. AND ONE MAY NOT FORM A COMPANY OF WOMEN AND SLAVES AND MINORS.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: How do we know that one may not slaughter the Passover-offering for a single person? Because it is said, Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover-offering for one:11 this is R. Judah's opinion. But R. Jose maintained: A single person and he is able to eat it, one may slaughter on his behalf; ten who are unable to eat it, one must not slaughter on their behalf. Now R. Jose, how does he employ this 'for one'? — He requires it for R. Simeon's [deduction]. For it was taught, R. Simeon said: How do we know that one who sacrifices his Passover offering at a private bamah12 at the time when bamoth were prohibited violates a negative command? Because it is said, 'Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover-offering within one of thy gates'. You might think that it is also thus when bamoth were permitted:13 therefore it is stated, 'within one of thy gates': They ruled [that he violates a negative injunction] only when all Israel enter through one gate.14 And how does R. Judah know this? — You may infer two things from it.15
Now according to R. Jose, whence [does he know] that its purpose is for what R. Simeon said: perhaps it comes for what was stated by R. Judah? — He can tell you: you cannot think so, for surely it is written, according to every man's eating.16
R. 'Ukba b. Hinena of Parishna17 pointed out a contradiction to Raba: Did then R. Judah Say: One may not kill the Paschal lamb for a single person? But the following contradicts it: [As to] a woman; at the First [Passover] one may slaughter for her separately, but at the second one makes her an addition to others: this is the view of R. Judah. — Said he to him, Do not Say, 'for her separately,' but 'for them separately.'18 Yet may we form a company consisting entirely of women? Surely we learned, ONE MAY NOT FORM A COMPANY OF WOMEN AND SLAVES AND MINORS. Does that not mean women separately and slaves separately and minors separately? — No, he replied, [it means] women and slaves and minors [together]. Women and slaves, on account of obscenity; minors and slaves, on account of
____________________
(1) Which had fallen upon a person, and it is unknown whether he is alive or dead.
(2) All these may be fit in the evening, including an one.
(3) The omen may defile himself through the corpse; he who is removing the debris may find the person underneath it dead, in which case he himself is unclean; the prisoner may not be freed; while the invalid and aged person may grow weaker. Therefore they must be registered with others.
(4) Since they were actually fit when the animal was slaughtered.
(5) If he finds the person underneath dead, he himself was defiled through overshadowing the dead, and thus he was unclean when the animal was sacrificed.
(6) Zeph. III, 13.
(7) V. p. 319, n. 1.
(8) Hence in Jerusalem, where the Passover-offering is eaten.
(9) I.e., one just about covering the person, so that the rescuer must have been directly over the corpse from the very beginning.
(10) He may not have been actually over the corpse then.
(11) Deut. XVI, 5 (E.v. within one [of thy gates]).
(12) 'High place'. Before the Tabernacle was erected in Shiloh, and between its destruction and the building of the Temple, sacrifices were offered at bamoth (pl. of bamah), both private and public. During the existence of the Tabernacle at Shiloh, and since the Temple was built, even after it was destroyed, bamoth were forbidden.
(13) For even then private bamoth were permitted only for votive sacrifices but not for obligatory offerings like the Passover, which were sacrificed at the public bamoth.
(14) I.e., when there is a central sanctuary; but when bamoth were permitted there was no central sanctuary. The verse is understood thus: Thou mayest not Sacrifice the Passover-offering at a private bamah when all Israel enter through one of thy gates.
(15) Presumably by interpreting 'one' separately and 'one of the gates' separately.
(16) Ex. XII, 4. Thus the matter depends solely on ability to eat.
(17) V. supra 76a, p. 393, n. 6.
(18) This is not an emendation, but an explanation: 'for her separately' means that women need not necessarily join a company of men.licentiousness.1 [To turn to] the [main] text: [As to] a woman, at the First [Passover] one slaughters for her separately, while at the second one makes her an addition to others: this is the view of R. Judah. R. Jose said: [As to] a woman, at the Second [Passover] one slaughters for her separately, and at the First it goes without saying. R. Simeon said: [As to] a woman, at the First one makes her an addition to others; at the second one may not slaughter for her at all. Wherein do they differ? — R. Judah holds: according to the number of the souls2 [implies] even women.3 And should you say, if so, even at the Second too? It is [therefore] written, that man shall bear his sin:4 only a man, but not a woman. Yet should you argue: if so, she may not even be [made] an addition at the Second, [therefore is written,] according to all the statue of the [first] passover5 , which is effective in respect of [her being made] a mere addition.
And R. Jose? What is his reason! — Because in connection with the First [Passover] it is written, 'according to the number of souls,' [implying] even a woman. Again, in connection with the Second Passover it is written, that soul shall be cut off from his people,6 'soul' [implying] even women. While what does 'that man shall bear his sin' exclude? It excludes a minor from kareth.
While R. Simeon [argues]: In connection with the First [Passover] 'a man is written:7 only a man but not a woman. Yet should you say. If so, [she may] not even [be made] an addition:. [therefore is written] 'according to the number of sous', which is effective in respect of [her being] an addition. But should you say, then even at the Second too, — [therefore] the Divine Law excluded [her] from the second, for it is written, 'that man shall bear his sin': [implying] only a man, but not a woman. Now from what is she excluded? If from an obligation,8 [this cannot be maintained]: seeing that there is no [obligation] at the first, is there a question of the second! Hence [she is surely excluded] from [participation even as] an addition.
Now, what is [this] 'man' which R. Simeon quotes? If we say, they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to their fathers' houses etc.9 Surely that is required for [the teaching] of R. Isaac. who deduced: only a 'man' can acquire [on behalf of others], but a minor cannot acquire [on behalf of others]!10 Rather [it is derived] from 'a man, according to his eating'.11 But since R. Jose agrees with R. Simeon,12 R. Simeon too must agree with R. Jose,13 and he needs that [verse to teach] that one slaughters the Passover-offering for a single person?14 — He can answer you: If so,15 let the Divine Law write 'according to his eating',16 why [state] 'a man'? Hence you infer two [laws] from it.
With whom does the following dictum of R. Eleazar agree.17 [viz.]: '[The observance of the Passover-offering by] a woman at the First [Passover] is obligatory, while at the Second it is voluntary, and it overrides the Sabbath.' If voluntary, why does it override the Sabbath? Rather say: 'at the Second it is voluntary, while at the First it is obligatory and overrides the Sabbath.' With whom [does it agree]? With R. Judah.
R. Jacob said in R. Johanan's name: A company must not be formed [consisting] entirely of proselytes, lest they be [too particular about it and bring it to disqualification.18 Our Rabbis taught: The Passover-offering and unleavened bread and bitter herbs are obligatory on the first [night], but voluntary from then onwards.19 R. Simeon said: In the case of men [it is] obligatory; in the case of women, voluntary. To what does this refer? Shall we say, to the Passover-offering is there then a Passover-offering the whole seven days!20 Hence [it must refer] to unleavened bread and bitter herbs. Then consider the sequel: R. Simeon said: In the case of men [it is] obligatory; in the case of women, voluntary. Does then R. Simeon not agree with R. Eleazar's dictum: Women are bound to eat unleavened bread by Scriptural law, for it is said, Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith:21 whoever is subject to, 'thou shalt eat no leavened bread,' is subject to [the law]. 'arise, eat unleavened bread'; and these women, since they are subject to, 'thou shalt eat no leavened bread,' are also subject to [the law], 'arise, eat unleavened bread?' — Rather say: The Passover-offering, unleavened bread, and bitter herbs are obligatory on the first [night]; from then onwards [the latter two] are voluntary. R. Simeon said: As for the Passover-offering, in the case of men it is obligatory, in the case of women it is voluntary.
MISHNAH. AN ONEN PERFORMS TEBILLAH AND EATS HIS PASSOVER-OFFERING IN THE EVENING, BUT [HE MAY] NOT [PARTAKE] OF [OTHER] SACRIFICES.22 ONE WHO HEARS ABOUT HIS DEAD [FOR THE FIRST TIME],23
____________________
(1) Pederasty; cf. Weiss, Dor, II, 21 on the rifeness of pederasty among the Romans. — Heathen slaves are meant here.
(2) Ex. XII, 4.
(3) Since men are not specified.
(4) Num. IX, 13; this refers to the Second Passover.
(5) Ibid. 12.
(6) Ibid. 13.
(7) TheGEMARA discusses below which verse is meant.
(8) I.e., the verse teaches that she need not keep the Second Passover.
(9) Ex. XII, 3.
(10) He deduces it from the present verse. For this person took the lamb not on his behalf alone but on behalf of 'their fathers' houses', who thereby gained the right to participate therein, and Scripture specifies that a man is required for this, not a minor. Hence a minor cannot be vested with the powers of an agent.
(11) Ibid. 4.
(12) That the Passover-offering may not be sacrificed at a private bamah, and that this is deduced from, thou mayest not sacrifice the Passover-offering at one of the gates, as stated supra.
(13) That the Passover-offering may be slaughtered for a single person.
(14) For if R. Simeon does not accept this view, then he should employ the verse, 'thou mayest not sacrifice the Passover offering for one' as teaching that it may not be slaughtered for a single person, as R. Judah does supra 91a, in which case his ruling on the private bamah is without foundation.
(15) That the verse is intended for R. Jose's teaching only.
(16) Which would show that the matter depends entirely on his powers of eating.
(17) Lit., 'as who does it go.'
(18) In their ignorance of the law they may object to points which really do not matter, and thus disqualify it without cause.
(19) I.e., for the rest of Passover.
(20) That is surely not permitted even voluntarily.
(21) Deut. XVI, 3.
(22) An onen may not eat the flesh of sacrifices (v. Lev. X. 19f). By Scriptural law a man is an onen on the day of death only, but not at night; the Rabbis, however, extended these restrictions to the night too. Since, however, the Passover-offering is a Scriptural obligation, they waived their prohibition in respect of the night, and hence he may eat thereof. He is not unclean, but requires tebillah to emphasize that until the evening sacred flesh was forbidden to him, whereas now it is permitted. In respect of other sacrifices the Rabbinical law stands, and he may not partake of them.
(23) On the day when a man is informed of the death of a near relative, e.g., his father, he is an onen by Rabbinical law, even if death took place earlier.AND ONE WHO COLLECTS THE BONES [OF HIS PARENTS],1 PERFORM TEBILLAH AND EAT SACRED FLESH.2 IF A PROSELYTE WAS CONVERTED ON THE EVE OF PASSOVER, - BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: HE PERFORMS TEBILLAH AND EATS HIS PASSOVER-OFFERING IN THE EVENING; WHILE BETH HILLEL RULE: ONE WHO SEPARATES HIMSELF FROM [THE STATE OF] UNCIRCUMCISION IS LIKE ONE WHO SEPARATED HIMSELF FROM A GRAVE.3
GEMARA. What is the reason? — He holds: [The law of] aninuth at night is Rabbinical [only], and where the Passover offering is concerned they did not insist on their law, since it involves4 kareth;5 but in respect to sacrifices [in general] they insisted on their law, Seeing that [only] an affirmative precept is involved.6
ONE WHO HEARS ABOUT HIS DEAD etc. ONE WHO COLLECTS BONES? — But he requires sprinkling on the third and the seventh [days]?7 — Say: One for whom [his parent's] bones were collected.8 A PROSELYTE WHO WAS CONVERTED etc. Rabbah b. Bar
Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: The controversy is in respect of an uncircumcised heathen, where Beth Hillel hold: [He is forbidden to eat in the evening] as a preventive measure lest he become defiled the following year [by the dead] and he argues, 'Did I not perform tebillah last year and eat [of the Passover offering]? So now too I will perform tebillah and eat.' But he will not understand that the previous year he was a heathen and not susceptible to uncleanness, whereas now he is an Israelite and susceptible to uncleanness. While Beth Shammai hold: We do not enact a preventive measure. But with regard to an uncircumcised Israelite9 all agree that he performs tebillah and eats his Passover-offering in the evening, and we do not preventively forbid an uncircumcised Israelite on account of an uncircumcised heathen10 it was taught likewise, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel did not differ about an uncircumcised Israelite, [both agreeing] that he performs tebillah and eats his Passover-offering in the evening. About what do they differ? About an uncircumcised heathen, where Beth Shammai rule: He performs tebillah and eats his Passover-offering in the evening; while Beth Hillel maintain: He who separates himself from uncircumcision is as though he separated from a grave.
Raba said: [In the case of] an uncircumcised person, sprinkling, and a knife, they [the Sages] insisted on their enactments [even] where kareth is involved;11 [in the case of] an onen, a leper and beth ha-peras,12 they did not insist on their enactments where kareth is involved. 'An uncircumcised person,' as stated.13 'Sprinkling,' for a Master said: Sprinkling is [forbidden as] a shebuth, yet it does not override the Sabbath.14 'A knife,' as it was taught: Just as one may not bring it [sc. a knife for circumcision] through the street, so may one not bring it by the way of roofs, court-yards. or enclosures.15
'An onen,' as we have stated.16 What is this [law of] 'a leper'? For it was taught: A leper whose eighth day fell on the eve of Passover17 and who had a nocturnal discharge [keri] on that day.18 performs tebillah19 and eats [the Passover-offering in the evening].20 [For] the Sages said: Though a tebul yom21 may not enter [the Levitical Camp], this one does enter:22 it is preferable that an affirmative precept which involves kareth23 should come and override an affirmative precept which does not involve kareth.24 Now R. Johanan said: By the law of Torah25 there is not even an affirmative precept in connection therewith, for it is said, And Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judah and Jerusalem, in the house of the Lord, before the new court.26 What does 'the new court' mean? That they innovated a law there and ruled: A tebul yom must not enter the Levitical Camp.27
'Beth ha-peras': for we learned: Now Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel both agree
____________________
(1) He too is a mourner on that day by Rabbinical law.
(2) In the evening. This applies to all sacrifices, for since even during the day he is an onen by Rabbinical law only, the Rabbis did not extend his aninuth (v. Glos.) to the evening.
(3) He must be besprinkled with the water of purification on the third and seventh days after the circumcision; hence he is not yet fit in the evening.
(4) Lit., 'in the place of'.
(5) Since the neglect of the Passover offering involves kareth, they waived their law.
(6) It is an affirmative precept to eat of one's own sacrifice (Ex. XXIX, 33), but the violation of this law does not involve kareth.
(7) The Mishnah was understood literally as meaning that he himself gathered them; but these defile just like a corpse, and he is unclean for seven days, and must be besprinkled on the third and the seventh days (Num. XIX, 19).
(8) By others: he himself is nevertheless regarded as an onen on that day.
(9) Who was circumcised on the eve of Passover.
(10) I.e. , through fear that if the former is permitted it may be thought that the latter is permitted too.
(11) I.e., though thereby a Scriptural command, failure to observe which involves kareth, is disregarded.
(12) Peras is half the length of a hundred-cubit furrow, hence fifty cubits; beth ha-peras is the technical designation for a field a square peras in area, declared unclean on account of crushed bones carried over it from a ploughed grave (Jast.). Its uncleanness is Rabbinical only.
(13) Supra: Beth Hillel forbid him to eat of the Passover-offering as a preventive measure, which is only a Rabbinical enactment.
(14) V. Supra 65b. Thus on account of a Shebuth, which is a Rabbinical prohibition, the unclean person may not participate in the Passover-offering.
(15) Karpf, pl. karpifoth, is an enclosure not more than two se'ahs in area (this is slightly over seventy cubits square). If the eighth day of birth, when a child must be circumcised (v. Lev. XII, 3), falls on the Sabbath, the knife must be brought the previous day. If it was forgotten, however, it must not be brought on the Sabbath, even by way of roofs, etc., carrying on which is forbidden by Rabbinical law only, and circumcision must be postponed, notwithstanding that failure to circumcise involves kareth (Gen. XVII, 14). — Actually no kareth would be incurred in the present case, since it would be done another day, but Raba means that to the precept of circumcision there is attached the penalty of kareth.
(16) V. Mishnah and p. 490. n. 4.
(17) When a leper was healed from his leprosy he waited seven days, performing tebillah on the seventh, and brought his sacrifices on the eighth (v. Lev. XIV, 9f). When he brought these he was still not permitted to enter the Temple Court ('the camp of the Shechinah) but stood at the east gate ('the gate of Nicanor'). whose sanctity was lower (it was regarded as 'the Levitical camp'), while the priest, standing inside the Temple Court, applied the blood and the on to the thumbs and the great toes of the leper (ibid. 14f).
(18) Before he had offered his sacrifices. A ba'al keri (v. Glos.) might not enter even the Levitical Camp (v. supra 67b).
(19) Again. Though he had performed tebillah the previous day, that was on his leprosy, whereas now he performs it on account of his discharge.
(20) Thus after the tebillah he would bring his sacrifices for leprosy.
(21) V. Glos.
(22) For his purification rites; v. n. 3.
(23) Sc. the Passover-offering.
(24) Sc. that a tebul yom must not enter the Levitical Camp. That is derived in Naz. 45a from, 'he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him' (Num. XIX, 13); since that is an affirmative statement, the injunction likewise counts as an affirmative precept. Its violation does not involve kareth.
(25) The Pentateuch.
(26) II Chron. XX, 5.
(27) Since this was all innovation, it is only Rabbinical, and as seen supra it was waived for the sake of the Passover-offering. V. Yeb., Sonc. ed. pp. 31ff notes.that we examine [a beth ha-peras] for the sake of those who would keep the Passover,1 but we do not examine [it] for those who would eat terumah.2 How is it examined? Said Rab Judah in Samuel's name: He sifts the beth ha-peras as he proceeds.3 R. Judah b. Abaye4 said in Rab's name: A beth ha-peras which was [thoroughly] trodden down is clean.5
MISHNAH. HE WHO WAS UNCLEAN OR IN A JOURNEY AFAR OFF'6 AND DID NOT KEEP THE FIRST [PASSOVER] MUST KEEP THE SECOND. IF HE UNWITTINGLY ERRED OR WAS ACCIDENTALLY PREVENTED AND DID NOT KEEP THE FIRST, HE MUST KEEP THE SECOND. IF SO, WHY IS AN UNCLEAN PERSON AND ONE WHO WAS IN 'A JOURNEY AFAR OFF SPECIFIED? [TO TEACH] THAT THESE'7 ARE NOT LIABLE TO KARETH, WHEREAS THOSE ARE LIABLE TO KARETH.8
GEMARA. It was stated: If he was in a journey afar off'9 and they slaughtered [the Passover-offering] and sprinkled [its blood] on his behalf, — R. Nahman said: It is accepted;10 R. Shesheth said: It is not accepted. R. Nahman said, It is accepted: The Divine Law indeed had compassion on him,11 but if he kept [the first], a blessing come upon him!12 While R. Shesheth said, It is not accepted: The Divine Law did in fact suspend him, like an unclean person.13
R. Nahman said, Whence do I know it? Because we learned, HE WHo WAS UNCLEAN OR IN A JOURNEY AFAR OFF AND DID NOT KEEP THE FIRST [Passover] MUST KEEP THE SECOND; whence it follows that if he wished, he could keep it. And R. Shesheth?14 -He can answer you: If so, the second clause which teaches, IF HE UNWITTINGLY ERRED OR WAS ACCIDENTALLY PREVENTED AND DID NOT KEEP THE FIRST, HE MUST KEEP THE SECOND: [will you argue that] since he [the Tanna] states, AND DID NOT KEEP, it follows that had he desired he could have kept it? But surely he had unwittingly erred or been accidentally prevented! Hence [you must answer that] he teaches of deliberate neglect together with these;15 so here too [in the first clause] he teaches about an onen together with these.'16 R. Ashi said: Our Mishnah too implies this,17 for it is taught, THESE ARE NOT LIABLE TO KARETH, WHILE THOSE ARE LIABLE TO KARETH: Now to what [does this refer]? Shall we say, to one who errs unwittingly or is accidentally prevented? are then he who errs unwittingly and he who is accidentally prevented subject to kareth!18 Hence it must surely [refer] to a deliberate offender and an onen. And R. Nahman?19 -He can answer you: In truth it refers to a deliberate offender alone,20 and logically he should have taught, he is liable [in the singular]; but the reason that he teaches, THEY ARE LIABLE is that because the first clause teaches THEY ARE NOT LIABLE, the second clause teaches THEY ARE LIABLE.
R. Shesheth said: Whence do I know it? Because It was taught, R. Akiba said: 'Unclean' is stated and 'in a journey afar off'21 is stated:
____________________
(1) If there is no other way to reach Jerusalem in time to sacrifice the Passover-offering save by crossing a beth ha-peras, the field is examined and they pass through it.
(2) If a priest wishes to go somewhere to eat terumah and his way lies across a beth ha-peras, he cannot examine it but must take a circuitous course, even if this delays him a day or more. — One who passes over the beth ha-peras becomes unclean, and may not partake either of the Passover-offering or of terumah.
(3) He takes up the earth en route and sifts it, to see if any small bones are hidden there, and if there are none he is clean, cf. note 7.
(4) Var. lec.: Ammi.
(5) As it is assumed that every bone which may be there has been reduced to less than the size of a wheat, which is the minimum standard for conveying uncleanness 'through contact' or treading upon it. Therefore if a man sees this he may cross it to sacrifice the Passover-offering, but not to eat terumah. Now the uncleanness of a beth ha-peras is only Rabbinical, and as we see here this law was waived somewhat in favour of the Passover-offering.
(6) V. Num. IX, 10 f.
(7) Enumerated in this Mishnah-all the four.
(8) This is explained in the GEMARA.
(9) He can reach Jerusalem by nightfall in time to eat the offering, but not by day when the offering is sacrificed.
(10) The sacrifice is valid, and he does not keep the second Passover.
(11) By giving him the opportunity of a second Passover.
(12) I.e., all the better.
(13) So that he is not permitted to keep the first.
(14) How does he rebut this?
(15) I.e., though it is not specifically stated, yet the words 'AND DID NOT KEEP can only apply to such, and he is therefore to be understood as included in the Mishnah.
(16) I.e., the Mishnah is to be read in the first clause as including onen (v. Hananel). He could have kept the First Passover had he desired, v. supra 90b, and it is to this that the words 'AND DID NOT KEEP' refer.
(17) That the first clause includes also onen.
(18) Surely not.
(19) Does he not admit this argument?
(20) For the first clause does not treat of an onen, and consequently R. Nahman's deduction holds good.
(21) Num. IX, 10.just as an unclean [person] is one who has the means of keeping it,1 yet must not keep it, so [a man 'in ] a journey afar off' means one who has the means of keeping it,2 yet he must not keep it.3 And R. Nahman?- He can answer you: R. Akiba is consistent with his view, for he holds: One must not slaughter and sprinkle on behalf of a person unclean through a reptile;4 whereas I agree with the view that one slaughters and sprinkles on behalf of a person unclean through a reptile.5
Our Rabbis taught: The following keep the second [Passover]: zabin and zaboth,6 male lepers and female lepers, niddoth7 and those who had intercourse with niddoth, and women after confinement, those who [do not observe the first Passover] inadvertently, and those who are forcibly prevented, and those who [neglect it] deliberately, and he who is unclean, and he who was in 'a journey afar off'. If so, why is an unclean person mentioned? [You ask] 'why is he mentioned'? [Surely to teach] that if he wishes to keep it at the first we do not permit him? Rather [the question is] why is [a person] on a journey afar off mentioned? — To exempt him from kareth, this being in accordance with the view that it is accepted.8
Is then a woman obliged [to keep] the second [Passover],9 but surely it was taught: You might think that only a person unclean through the dead and one who was in 'a journey afar off' keep the second [Passover], — whence do we know [that] zabin and lepers and those who had intercourse with niddoth [must keep it]? From the verse, If any man [etc.]?10 -There is no difficulty: one is according to R. Jose; the other, according to R. Judah and R. Simeon.11
Our Rabbis taught: One incurs kareth on account of the first [Passover], and one incurs kareth on account of the second:12 this is Rabbi's view. R. Nathan said: One incurs kareth on account of the first, but does not incur it on account of the second.13 R. Hanania b. 'Akabia said: One does not incur kareth even on account of the first, unless he [deliberately] does not keep the second.
Now they are consistent with their views. For it was taught: A proselyte who became converted between the two Passovers, and similarly a minor who attained his majority between the two Passovers,14 are bound to keep the second Passover:15 that is Rabbi's view. R. Nathan said: Whoever is subject to the first is subject to the second, and whoever is not subject to the first is not subject to the second. Wherein do they differ? — Rabbi holds: The second is a separate Festival. R. Nathan holds: The second is a compensation for the second,16 [but] it does not make amends for the first.17 While R. Hanania b. 'Akabia holds: The second makes amends for the first. Now the three deduce [their views] from the same verse: But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey.18 Rabbi holds: And forbeareth to keep the Passover, that soul shall be cut off19 — because he did not keep [it] at the first; or alternatively [if] he brought not the offering of the Lord in its appointed season20 [i.e.,] at the second. And how do you know that that [phrase], 'that man shall bear his sin, '21 means kareth?
____________________
(1) He is physically able to keep it.
(2) E.g., one could sacrifice on his behalf and he could reach Jerusalem in time.
(3) But must postpone it; hence if he does have it sacrificed on his behalf, it is not accepted.
(4) Though he will be fit to eat in the evening, because at the time of sacrificing he is not fit.The present case is similar.
(5) The translation and explanation follows cur. edd. Tosaf. records a different reading, which is supported by the Sifre
(Be-ha alotheka): Just as an unclean person is one who cannot possibly keep it, on account of his uncleanness, and he must not keep it, so a person in 'a journey afar off' means one who cannot possibly reach Jerusalem in time (according to 'Ulla, for the sacrificing; according to Rab Judah, for the eating),and he too must not keep it. R. Shesheth deduces that 'he must not keep it' means that even if it is sacrificed on his behalf it is not accepted, since it is completely analogous to the case of an unclean person. R. Nahman answers that because R. Akiba holds that you may not slaughter and sprinkle on behalf of a person unclean through a reptile, therefore he learns the case of 'a journey afar off' from that of uncleanness, since the former two are alike in that both are unfit at the time of slaughtering and fit and able at the time of eating. Hence it is true that in R. Akiba's opinion the sacrifice is not accepted' if offered, but R. Nahman holds that you do slaughter and sprinkle for a person unclean through a reptile. Tosaf. adds that R. Shesheth too holds thus, but that in his view R. Akiba learns it from' a person unclean through the dead, though the cases are not really alike then.
(6) Plural of zabb and zabah respectively, q.v. Glos.
(7) Pl. of niddah, q.v. Glos.
(8) Supra 92b. For if he held that it is not accepted, then this case must be stated for that very teaching.
(9) So that female lepers, menstruants and women after childbirth are included.
(10) Num. IX, 10. Heb. איש איש, the repetition denoting extension. Thus nothing is said about women.
(11) V. Supra 91b. R. Jose holds that even at the second Passover a company consisting entirely of women may be formed; hence in his view the second Passover is binding upon women. Whereas R. Judah and R. Simeon hold that it is voluntary only.
(12) Deliberate neglect to keep either when there is the obligation involves kareth. Of course, no man can actually incur kareth twice, but the point is that if a man sinned unwittingly in respect of one but deliberately in respect of the other he incurs kareth. Similarly, where a proselyte becomes converted between the two Passovers and deliberately neglects the second.
(13) Hence if he inadvertently neglected the first, he does not incur kereth even if he deliberately neglects the second.
(14) Thus both were exempt from the first Passover, but are in a condition to keep the second.
(15) He regards it as a separate obligation entirely, even for those who were not subject to the law at all at the first, as in the present instances.
(16) Hence only he who was subject to the law at the first can keep the second.
(17) Hence if a person deliberately neglects the first he incurs kareth even if he keeps the second. On the other hand, if he neglects the first unwittingly, he is not liable to kareth even if he deliberately neglects the second, since the second is not an independent obligation apart from the first.
(18) Num. IX, 13.
(19) Ibid.
(20) Ibid. because(Heb. ki) he brought not the offering etc. Ki is variously translated according to the context, v. R.H. 3a. Rabbi renders it 'if'.
(21) Ibid.He holds that megaddef is one who curses1 the [Divine] Name,2 while of him who curses the [Divine] Name It Is written, [Whosoever curseth his God] shall bear his sin,3 and [the meaning of] this 'his sin' is learnt from 'his sin' there: just as there [it means] kareth, so here too, [it means] kareth.
Again, R. Nathan holds: And forbeareth to keep, the Passover, that soul shall be cut off' for this ki denotes 'because'4 and this is what the Divine Law saith, Because he brought not the offering of the Lord at the first. How does he employ this [phrase] 'that man shall bear his sin'?5 — He holds that megaddef is not one who curses the [Divine] Name,6 and so [the meaning of] this 'his sin' [written] there is learnt from 'his sin' [written] here; just as [it means] kareth here,7 so there too [it means] kareth.
While R. Hanania b. 'Akabia holds [that we translate thus]: 'and forbeareth to keep the Passover, that soul shall be cut off';8 if [also] he brought not the offering of the Lord in its appointed season, [viz.,] at the second. And how does he employ this 'shall bear his sin'? — As we have stated.9
Therefore if [he neglected] deliberately both [Passovers], all agree that he is culpable. If [he neglected] both unwittingly, all agree that he is not culpable. If [he neglected] the first deliberately but the second unwittingly: according to Rabbi and R. Nathan he is culpable; according to R. Hanania b. 'Akabia, he is not culpable. If [he neglected] the first unwittingly but the second deliberately: according to Rabbi he is culpable; according to R. Nathan and R. Hanania b. 'Akabia he is not culpable.
MISHNAH. WHAT IS 'A JOURNEY AFAR OFF'? FROM MODI'IM10 AND BEYOND, AND THE SAME DISTANCE ON ALL SIDES [OF JERUSALEM]: THIS IS R. AKIBA'S OPINION. R. ELIEZER SAID: FROM THE THRESHOLD OF THE TEMPLE COURT AND WITHOUT. SAID R. JOSE TO HIM: FOR THAT REASON THE HEH IS POINTED11 IN ORDER TO TEACH: NOT BECAUSE IT IS REALLY AFAR OFF, BUT [WHEN ONE IS] FROM THE THRESHOLD OF THE TEMPLE COURT AND WITHOUT [HE IS REGARDED AS BEING 'AFAR OFF'].
GEMARA. 'Ulla said: From Modi'im to Jerusalem is fifteen miles.12 He holds as Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: what is an [average] man's journey in a day?13 Ten parasangs: five mils from daybreak until the first sparklings of the rising sun, [and] five mils from sunset until the stars appear. This leaves thirty: fifteen from the morning until midday, and fifteen from midday until evening [i.e., sunset]. 'Ulla Is consistent with his view, for 'Ulla said: What is 'a journey afar off'? Any place whence a man is unable to enter [Jerusalem] at the time of slaughtering.14
The Master said: 'Five mils from daybreak until the first sparklings of the rising sun.' Whence do we know it? — Because It is written, And when the morning arose [i.e., at daybreak], then the angels hastened Lot, saying etc.;15 and it is written, The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot came unto Zoar,.16 while R. Hanina said: I myself saw that place and it is five mils [from Sodom].
The [above] text [stated]: ''Ulla said, what is "a journey afar off"? Any place whence a man Is unable to enter [Jerusalem] at the time of slaughtering.' But Rab Judah maintained: Any place whence one is unable to enter [Jerusalem] at the time of eating. Rabbah said to 'Ulla: on your view there is a difficulty, and on Rab judah's view there is a difficulty. On your view there is a difficulty, for you say, 'Any place whence a man is unable to enter at the time of slaughtering': yet surely a man unclean through a reptile is unable to enter17 at the time of slaughtering, yet you say, One slaughters and sprinkles on behalf of a person unclean through a reptile? On Rab Judah's view there is a difficulty, for he says, 'Any place whence one is unable to enter at the time of eating': but surely he who is unclean through a reptile is able to enter at the time of eating, yet he says, One may not slaughter and sprinkle on behalf of a man unclean through a reptile?18 Said he to him: Neither on my view nor on Rab Judah's view Is there a difficulty. On my view there is no difficulty: 'A journey afar off' [is stated] in reference to a clean person, but 'a journey afar off' is not [stated] in reference to an unclean person.19
____________________
(1) Lit., 'blesses', a euphemism for 'curses'
(2) V. Num. XV, 30; he blasphemeth (Heb. megaddef, R.V.: reproacheth) the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off
(i.e., kareth). The meaning of megaddef is disputed in Ker. 7b.
(3) Lev. XXIV, 15. From Num. XV, 30 'ye know that he incurs kareth, and therefore that must be the meaning in this verse.
(4) R. Nathan renders 'ki' as 'because'.
(5) According to Rabbi it is necessary, as it refers to the punishment for the neglect of the second. But since R. Nathan relates it to the first, it is superfluous, having been already stated.
(6) But one who takes part in an idolatrous service, e.g., by singing hymns in a heathen Temple, v. Ker. 7b. Consequently, Nun,. XV, 30 cannot be identified with Lev. XXIV, 15 (v. notes supra), and so there is nothing to indicate the meaning of 'shall bear his sin' in the latter verse, which refers to blasphemy.
(7) As explicitly stated in the first half of the verse.
(8) Translating ki like Rabbi, except that he connects it with the preceding part of the verse.
(9) In connection with R. Nathan.
(10) Generally known as Modim, a town famous in Jewish history as the residence of Mattathias and his sons, where the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus flared up; it was some fifteen miles N.W. of Jerusalem.
(11) The Heb. for 'a journey afar off' (Num. IX, 10) is רך רחוקה the ה (heh) being traditionally written with a dot, thus . Such a point was regarded as a weakening or limitation, as though the word were not really written.
(12) A mil=two thousand cubits, a quarter of a parasang.
(13) From daybreak to nightfall, when the day and night are of equal length, i.e., from six a.m. To six p.m.
(14) I.e., so far, that if a man started walking at midday, which is the earliest time for sacrificing the Passover-offering, he could not reach it by sunset, which is the latest. Taking this statement in conjunction with the preceding calculation, we see that Modim must be fifteen mils from Jerusalem.
(15) Gen. XIX, 15.
(16) Ibid. 23.
(17) Sc. the Temple.
(18) For this controversy v. supra 90b.
(19) V. Num. IX, 13: But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep (lit., 'do') the Passover etc. From this we see, (i) that the exemption for a man who is in a 'journey afar off' applies to a clean person, and (ii) that a 'journey (afar off)' is determined by his inability to do the Passover, i.e., to slaughter it. Hence if he is so far away that he cannot reach the Temple Court in time for the slaughtering, he is in a journey afar off'. But an unclean person is exempt because of his uncleanness, which prevents his eating, but not his sacrificing, since that can be done by another acting on his behalf. Moreover, since Scripture specifies one who is 'unclean by reason of a dead body' and does not state one who is unclean through a reptile, it follows that this exemption applies only to such as the former, who are unclean for a long period (seven days) and cannot be fit in the evening, but not to such as the latter, who can be fit to eat in the evening.On Rab Judah's view there is no difficulty: When one is unclean through a reptile, the Divine Law relegated him [to the second Passover], for it is written, 'If any man shall be unclean by reason of a dead body': does this not refer [even] to one whose seventh day falls on the eve of Passover, yet even so the Divine Law said: Let him be relegated [to the second].1
Our Rabbis taught: If he was standing beyond Modi'im and is able to enter by horses and mules, you might think that he is culpable. Therefore it is stated: 'and is not in a journey,'2 whereas this man was in a journey.3 If he was standing on the hither side of Modi'im, but could not enter on account of the camels and wagons which held him up,4 you might think that he is not culpable. Therefore It is stated, 'and is not in a journey,' and lo, he was not in a journey.5
Raba said: The world is six thousand parasangs,6 and the thickness of the heaven [rakia'] is one thousand parasangs the first one [of these statements] is a tradition, while the other is [based on] reason. [Thus:] he agrees with Rabbah b. Bar Hanah's dictum in R. Johanan's name: What is an average man's journey in a day? Ten parasangs: from daybreak until the first sparklings of the rising sun five mils, and from sunset until the stars appear five mils: hence the thickness of the heaven is one sixth of the day['s journey].7
An objection is raised: Rab Judah said: The thickness of the sky is one tenth of the day's journey. The proof is this: what is an [average] man's journey in a day? Ten parasangs, and from daybreak until the rising sun four mils, [and] from sunset until the stars appear four mils,: hence the thickness of the sky is one tenth of the day['s journey].8 This is a refutation of Raba, and a refutation of 'Ulla! It is a refutation.9 Shall we say that this is [also] a refutation of R. Johanan?-He can answer you: I spoke only of [an average man's journey] in a [complete] day, and it was the Rabbis10 who erred by calculating [the distance for] pre-dawn and after nightfall.11 Shall we say that this is a refutation of R. Hanina?12 — No: 'and [the angels] hastened'13 is different -14
Come and hear: Egypt was four hundred parasangs square. Now Egypt is one sixtieth of Ethiopia [Cush], Ethiopia one sixtieth of the world, the world one sixtieth of the Garden, the Garden one sixtieth of Eden, Eden one sixtieth of the Gehenna: thus the whole world is like a pot lid [in relation] to Gehenna. This is [indeed] a refutation .15 Come and hear: Tanna debe Eliyahu16 [taught]: R. Nathan said: The whole of the inhabited world is situate under one star. The proof is that a man looks at a star, [and] when he goes eastward it is opposites [and when he goes] to the four corners of the world it is opposite him. This proves that the whole of the inhabited world is situate under one star. This is indeed a refutation.17
Come and hear: The Wain ['Waggon']18 is in the north and Scorpio is in the south, the whole of the inhabited world lies between the Wain and Scorpio, and the whole of the inhabited world represents but one hour of the day,19 for the sun enters [the space above] the inhabited world only for one hour in the day.20 The proof is that at the fifth [hour] the sun is in the east while at the seventh the sun is in the west: [during] half of the sixth and half of the seventh the sun stands overhead all people.21 This is [indeed] a refutation. Come and hear: For R. Johanan b. Zakkai said: What answer did the Bath Kol22 give that wicked man [Nebuchadnezzar] when he asserted, 'I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High'?23 A Bath Kol came forth and rebuked him: 'Thou wicked man, son of a wicked man,
____________________
(1) V. supra 90b and notes a.l.
(2) Ibid.
(3) As defined in the Mishnah.
(4) He too being on one, and the road was blocked.
(5) He should have completed it on foot.
(6) Rashi: in diameter from east to west.
(7) The periods from daybreak until the rising sun is in the heavens, and again from sunset until the stars appear, were regarded as the time during which the sun was passing through the sky, which was conceived as a solid vault stretched out above the earth. Hence it follows from Rabbah's dictum that since five mils can be walked in each of these two periods, while thirty mils can be walked during the day excluding these periods (ten parasangs=forty mils), the thickness of the sky is one sixth of the world's diameter.
(8) The one tenth is of the inclusive figure, i.e., four in forty, whereas one sixth mentioned before was exclusive: six in thirty. But in any case they disagree.
(9) Both (for 'Ulla v. supra 93b) hold that five mils can be walked from daybreak until the sun is in the heavens, which certainly cannot be reconciled with the present statement.
(10) I.e., 'Ulla and R. Johanan.
(11) He had merely stated that an average man can walk ten parasangs in a day, but Raba and 'Ulla had erred by adding that one travels five mils in the period stated; though most people do indeed walk five mils by the time the sun is in the heavens, that is because they generally start a little before dawn; similarly in the evening they continue their journey a little after nightfall.
(12) Supra 93b.
(13) Gen. XIX, 15.
(14) They would naturally cover a greater distance.
(15) For according to the present calculation the surface area of the world is 576,000,000 sq. parasangs
(thus: 400 X 400 X 60 x 60) whereas according to Raba, even if the 6000 is squared, we have only 36,000,000 sq. parasangs.
(16) This is a Midrash consisting of two parts, 'Seder Eliyahu Rabbah' and 'Seder Eliyahu Zuta'. According to the Talmud Keth. 106a the Prophet Elijah recited this Midrash to R. 'Anan, a Babylonian Amora of the third century. Scholars are agreed that the work in its present form received its final redaction in the tenth century C.E., though they are not agreed as to where it was written. V. Bacher, Monatsschrift, XXIII, 267f; idem in R.E.J. XX, 144-146; Friedmann, Introduction to his edition of Seder Eliyahu; v. Keth., Sonc. ed. p. 680, n. 2.
(17) And since there are countless stars in the sky, it follows that the sky is immeasurably greater than the earth, not, as Raba says, only one sixth.
(18) The Great Bear.
(19) The sun in travelling through the sky takes one hour only to travel across the actual breadth of the world.
(20) As explained in the previous note.
(21) "Wherever they are; thus it is during this hour only that the sun is actually above the world. This too proves that the sky is infinitely larger than the earth.
(22) V. Glos.
(23) Isa. XIV, 14.descendant of the wicked Nimrod, who incited the whole world to rebel [himrid]1 against Me during his reign!2 How many are the years of man? Seventy years; and if by reason of strength, eighty years, for it is said, The days of our years are threescore years and ten, or even by reason of strength fourscore years.3 Now from earth to heaven is a five hundred years journey, the thickness of heaven Is a five hundred years' journey, and between the first heaven and the next lies a five hundred years' journey, and similarly between each heaven,4 'Yet thou shalt be brought down to the nether-world, to the uttermost parts of the pit' -5 This is [indeed] a refutation.
Our Rabbis taught: The Sages of Israel maintain: The Galgal6 is stationary [fixed], while the mazzaloth7 revolve; while the Sages of the nations of the world maintain: The Galgal revolves and the mazzaloth are stationary.8 Rabbi observed: This disproves their view [viz.,] we never find the Wain in the south or Scorpio in the north.9 To this R. Aha b. Jacob demurred: Perhaps it is like the pivot10 of a millstone,11 or like the door socket?
The Sages of Israel maintain: The sun travels beneath the sky by day and above the sky at night; while the Sages of the nations of the world maintain: It travels beneath the sky by day and below the earth at night. Said Rabbi: And their view is preferable to ours, for the wells are cold by day but warm at night.12
It was taught, R. Nathan said: In summer the sun travels in the heights of the heaven,13 therefore the whole world is hot while the wells [springs] are cold; in winter the sun travels at the lower ends of the sky,14 therefore the whole world is cold while the wells are hot.
Our Rabbis taught: The sun travels over four courses: [during] Nisan,15 Iyar and Sivan, it travels over the mountains, in order to melt the snows; [in] Tammuz, Ab and Elul, over the inhabited world, to ripen the fruits; [in] Tishri, Marheshwan and Kislev, over seas, to dry up the rivers; in Tebeth, Shebat and Adar, through the wilderness, so as not to dry up the seeds [in the ground]. R. ELIEZER SAID: FROM THE THRESHOLD etc. Even though he can enter, and we do not say to him, 'Arise and enter'? but it surely was taught: An uncircumcised Jew who did not circumcise himself is punished by kareth: this is the opinion of R. Eliezer? — Said Abaye: 'A journey afar off' [is stated] in respect of a clean person, but 'a journey afar off' is not [stated] in respect of an unclean person.16 Raba said: It is [a controversy of] Tannaim. For it was taught, R.Eliezer said: Distance of place is stated in connection with the Passover, and distance of place is stated in connection with tithe:17 just as there [it means] without [the boundaries of] its eating,18 so here too it means outside [the place of] its eating.19 R. Jose son of R. Judah said on R. Eliezer's authority: [It means] outside [the place] where it is sacrificed .20 With whom does the following dictum of R. Isaac son of R. Joseph agree. [viz.:] In respect of those who are unclean, decide by the majority who are standing in the Temple Court.21 With whom [does it agree]? With R. Jose son of R. Judah, as he stated [the law] on R. Eliezer's authority.22
SAID R. JOSE TO HIM, THEREFORE etc. It was taught, R. Jose the Galilean said: [BY] 'a journey afar off' I may understand a distance of two or three days: but when it is said, and is not in a journey, it teaches that from the threshold of the Temple Court and without is designated a journey .23
MISHNAH
____________________
(1) This is a play on the name Nimrod, deriving it from marad, to rebel.
(2) According to Talmudic tradition Nimrod instigated the building of the tower of Babel to storm heaven.
(3) Ps. XC, 10.
(4) According to the ancient tradition there were seven heavens.
(5) Isa. XIV, 15. [In Hag. 13a the distance is further extended and according to the calculation given there amounts to a total of 4,096,000 years' journey, which at the rate of eighty rabbinic mils in 24 hours (v. supra) amounts to 119,603,200,000 say — 120,000 million mils, which shows that the Rabbis had a fair idea of stellar distance. Cf. Feldman, W. M., Rabbinical Mathematics, p. 213.]
(6) ['Wheel sphere' probably the celestial sphere, v. n. 7.]
(7) Here fixed stars.
(8) [This will probably represent the Ptolemaic view according to which the stars are fixed on the surface of the celestial sphere which moves round the earth carrying the stars with it, v. op. cit. p. 71.]
(9) But if the Galgal revolves, the mazzaloth too would change their position. The view of the Jewish Sages is difficult to explain.
(10) Rashi. 'Aruch: the socket.
(11) "Which remains fixed in its place.
(12) [On this passage v. op. cit. p. 72.]
(13) Above the earth.
(14) Not above the earth but at its side.
(15) The first month of the Jewish civil year, commencing some time in March. The remaining eleven months are enumerated in order.
(16) v. supra 93b. Similarly, a man must make himself fit for the Passover, and otherwise he incurs kareth. But it is not his duty to bring himself within the area of obligation. Tosaf. points out an obvious difficulty: if he is uncircumcised or unclean and standing without the Temple court, as he must be in that case, he must make himself fit and keep the Passover on penalty of kareth; whereas if he is already circumcised or clean and standing without he is exempt! Tosaf explains it with the principle laid down by R. Zera, v. Yeb. 104b.
(17) Deut. XIV, 24 q.v.
(18) The second tithe must be eaten in Jerusalem. Anywhere outside Jerusalem is regarded as a distant place and the law of redemption applies.
(19) When Scripture states that if a man is on a journey afar off he is exempt, it means if he is anywhere outside Jerusalem, in the whole of which the Passover-offering was eaten. Hence if he is merely outside the Temple Court but in Jerusalem he is not exempt.
(20) viz., the Temple Court. Thus we have a controversy of Tannaim as to R. Eliezer's view.
(21) when the majority of those in the Temple Court are unclean, the Passover is sacrificed in uncleanness
(supra 79a). But those who are not in the Temple Court are disregarded entirely. as they are on a 'journey afar off'.
(22) For according to the first Tanna a majority of all in Jerusalem would be required.
(23) Since 'afar off' is not mentioned here.WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIRST PASSOVER AND THE SECOND? THE FIRST IS SUBJECT TO THE PROHIBITION OF [LEAVEN] SHALL NOT BE SEEN AND [LEAVEN] SHALL NOT BE FOUND;1 WHILE AT THE SECOND [A MAN MAY HAVE] LEAVENED AND UNLEAVENED BREAD IN THE HOUSE WITH HIM. THE FIRST REQUIRES [THE RECITING OF] HALLEL WHEN IT [THE PASCHAL LAMB] IS EATEN, WHEN THE SECOND DOES NOT REQUIRE HALLEL WHEN IT IS EATEN. BUT BOTH REQUIRE [THE RECITING OF] HALLEL WHEN THEY ARE SACRIFICED, AND THEY ARE EATEN ROAST WITH UNLEAVENED BREAD AND BITTER HERBS, AND THEY OVERRIDE THE SABBATH.
GEMARA. Our rabbis taught: According to all the statute of the Passover they shall keep it:2 the Writ refers to the ordinance[s] pertaining to itself.3 How do we know the ordinance[s] indirectly connected with itself?4 Because it is said, they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.5 You might think that regulations which are not even indirectly connected with itself [are included too]; therefore it is stated, nor shall they break a bone thereof:6 just as the breaking of a bone stands out as an ordinance pertaining to itself, so is every ordinance pertaining to itself [included].7 Issi b. Judah said: 'they shall keep it' [implies that] the Writ treats of regulations pertaining to itself.8
The Master said: 'You might think that regulations which are not even indirectly connected with itself [are included too]' — But surely you have said that the Writ refers to ordinance[s] pertaining to itself?-This is what he means: now that you have quoted. 'they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, which proves that 'they shall keep it'9 is not exact, then say that it is like a particularization and a general proposition, whereby the general proposition is accounted as adding to the particularization, so that even all regulations [are included]:10 hence he informs us [that It is not so].
Now Issi b. Judah, how does he utilize this [law concerning a] bone?-He requires it for [teaching that] both a bone which contains marrow and a bone which does not contain marrow [are meant].11 And the Rabbis: how do they utilize this [verse] 'they shall keep it'?-they require it to teach that one may not kill the Passover-offering on behalf of a single person, so that as far as it is possible to procure [another unclean person] we do so.12 Our Rabbis taught: 'According to all the statute of the Passover they shall keep it': you might think, just as the first is subject to the prohibition of [leaven] 'shall not be seen' and 'shall not be found', so is the second subject to the prohibition of [leaven] shall not be seen and shall not be found: therefore it is stated, they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.13 Again, I know it only of positive precepts;14 how do we know it of negative precepts? Because It is stated, They shall leave none of it unto the morning.15 Also, I know it only of a negative precept modified to a positive precept;16 how do we know it of an absolute negative precept? Because It is stated, 'and they shall not break a bone thereof': [hence] just as the particularization is explicitly stated as a positive precept, and a negative precept modified to a positive precept, and an absolute negative precept, so every positive precept, and a negative precept modified to a positive precept, and complete negative precept [are included].17 What is included in the general proposition as applied to '[they shall eat it] with unleavened bread and bitter herbs'?- Roast with fire.18 What does it exclude in its particularization?19 -The putting away of leaven. May I [not] reverse it? — [The inclusion of] a precept pertaining to itself is preferable. What is included in the general proposition as bearing on 'they shall leave none of it unto the morning'?- thou shall not carry forth aught [of the flesh abroad out of the house],20
(which is similar thereto, since the one is disqualified through being nothar,21 while the other is disqualified through going out [of its permitted boundary]).22 What does it exclude by its particularization?-[Leaven] 'shall not be seen and 'shall not be found,'
(which is similar thereto, for the one does not involve flagellation, since it is a negative precept modified to a positive precept, while the other does not involve flagellation, since It is a negative precept modified to a positive precept.)23 May I [not] reverse it?- [The inclusion of] a precept pertaining to itself is preferable.What is included in the general proposition as bearing on 'they shall not break a bone thereof?
____________________
(1) Ex. XII, 19; Deut. XVI, 4
(2) Num. IX, 12 with reference to the second Passover.
(3) E.g.. how the sacrifice shall be prepared, that it is to be eaten roast etc.; but regulations not directly pertaining to itself, e.g.. the removing of leaven, are not included.
(4) E.g., that it is to be eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.
(5) Num. IX, 11.
(6) Ibid. 12.
(7) But not others.
(8) So that 'nor shall they break a bone thereof' is unnecessary for that purpose.
(9) 'It' might imply that only the regulations directly bearing on the sacrifice itself are meant, and therefore exclude the eating of unleavened bread and bitter herbs.
(10) This is a general principle of exegesis that if a law is first stated in a particular instance and then in a general form, the former does not limit the latter but on the contrary the latter generalizes the former, so that all instances are included. Here a particular instance of similarity between the first Passover and the second is stated in v. 11 while in v. 12 a general law is stated that the two are alike in all respects.
(11) Supra 85a.
(12) Even if we have to defile a person at the first Passover, so that there may be at least two at the second; v. supra 91a.
(13) V. p. 508. they are alike only in respect of the regulations pertaining to or connected with itself, just like the particular case which is stated.
(14) 'They shall eat it' etc. is a positive precept, and therefore teaches that all the positive precepts applicable to the first Passover are also binding upon the second, e.g., the precept to eat it roast.
(15) Num. IX, 12; hence the deduction stated in the preceding note applies to negative precepts too.
(16) A prohibition which if violated must be repaired by a positive act. Thus 'and ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning' (Ex. XII, 10) is followed by 'but that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire'. Technically such an injunction is less stringent than an ordinary negative precept and does not involve flagellation.
(17) Hence the general proposition, 'according to all the statute etc., is applied separately to each of these three particular laws, teaching that all laws which partake of their nature are included.
(18) V. n . 2.
(19) For just as the general proposition includes laws unstated, so the particularization teaches that some laws are excluded, as otherwise the former alone would suffice.
(20) Ex. XII, 46
(21) V. Glos.
(22) Var. lec. omits the bracketed passage.
(23) If flesh of the Passover sacrifice is left over, it must be burnt, while if leaven is not completely removed before Passover, so that it is 'seen' or 'found', it must be destroyed whenever discovered. Hence both of these negative precepts are modified to positive precepts, and he who violates them is not flagellated.-Var. lec. omits the bracketed passage.- Eat not of it half-roast.1 By its particularization what does it exclude? Thou shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread.2 May I [not] reverse it?- [The inclusion of] a precept pertaining to itself is preferable.
THE FIRST REQUIRES [THE RECITING OF] HALLEL WHEN IT IS EATEN etc. Whence do we know it?-Said R. Johanan on the authority of R. Simeon b. Jehozadak: Scripture saith, Ye shall have a song as in the night when a feast is hallowed:3 the night that is hallowed for a feast [Festival] requires [the reciting of] Hallel ['Song'], while the night which is not hallowed for a feast does not require [the reciting of] Hallel.
BUT BOTH REQUIRE [THE RECITING OF] HALLEL WHEN THEY ARE SACRIFICED etc. What is the reason?-I can either say, [Scripture] excludes the night, but not the day; or alternatively, is it possible that Israel sacrifice their Passover-offerings or take their palm-branches4 without reciting Hallel!
AND THEY ARE EATEN ROAST etc. Only the Sabbath [do they override], but not uncleanness:5 our Mishnah does not agree with R. Judah,for it was taught: It [the second Passover] overrides the Sabbath, but it does not override uncleanness; R. Judah maintained: It overrides uncleanness too. What is the reason of the first Tanna?-Seeing that I have suspended him [from the first Passover] on account of uncleanness, shall he after all keep it in uncleanness?6 And R. Judah?7 - The Torah sought [means] for him to keep it in cleanness; yet if he was not privileged [thus], he must keep it in uncleanness. Our Rabbis taught: The first Passover overrides the Sabbath, [and] the second Passover overrides the Sabbath; the first Passover overrides uncleanness,[and] the second Passover overrides uncleanness; the first Passover requires the spending of the night [in Jerusalem], [and] the second Passover requires the spending of the night [in Jerusalem]. '[The second Passover] overrides uncleanness . With whom [does this agree]? — With R. Judah. But according to R. Judah, does it require the spending of the night [in Jerusalem]? Surely it was taught, R. Judah said: How do we know that the second Passover does not require the spending of the night [in Jerusalem]?
Because it is said, and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents;8 and it is written, six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread:9 that which is eaten six [days] requires the spending of the night [in Jerusalem], but that which is not eaten six [days] does not require the spending of the night [in Jerusalem]?10 -There is [a controversy of] two Tannaim as to R. Judah's opinion.
MISHNAH. [WITH REGARD TO ] THE PASSOVER-OFFERING WHICH COMES IN UNCLEANNESS, ZABIN AND ZABOTH, MENSTRUANT WOMEN AND WOMEN AFTER CONFINEMENT MUST NOT EAT THEREOF, YET IF THEY DID EAT THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM KARETH;11 BUT R. ELIEZER EXEMPTS [THEM] EVEN [OF THE KARETH NORMALLY INCURRED] FOR ENTERING THE SANCTUARY.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If zabin and zaboth, menstruant women and women after confinement ate of the Passover-offering which was sacrificed in uncleanness, you might think that they are culpable, therefore it is stated, Every one that is clean may eat flesh [of sacrifices]. But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that pertain unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off:12 with regard to that which is eaten by clean persons, you are culpable on its account on the score of uncleanness, but as to that which is not eaten by clean persons, you are not culpable on its account on the score of 'uncleanness -13 R. Eliezer said: If zabin and lepers14 forced their way through and entered the Temple Court at a Passover-offering which came in uncleanness, 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 everyone that hath an issue [zab], and whosoever,- is unclean by the dead:15 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.
R. Joseph asked: What if persons unclean through the dead forced their way in and entered the Temple [hekal]16 at a Passoveroffering which came in uncleanness? [Do we say,] since the uncleanness of the Temple Court was permitted, the uncleanness of the Temple [hekal] too was permitted;17 or perhaps, what was permitted was permitted, while what was not permitted was not permitted? Said Raba: Scripture saith, 'that they send out of the camp,' [implying] even from part of the camp.18 Others maintain. Raba said: Scripture saith, without [mi-huz] the camp shall ye send then:19 only where20 'without the camp shall ye send them,' is applicable, is 'that they send out of the camp' applicable.21
A. Joseph asked: What if persons unclean by the dead forced their way through [to the altar] and ate the emurim: of a Passover-offering which came in uncleanness?22
____________________
(1) Ex. XII, 9.
(2) Ex. XXXIV, 25.
(3) Isa. XXX, 29.
(4) On the Feast of Tabernacles, v. Lev. XXIII, 40.
(5) If the majority of those who should keep the second Passover are unclean, the sacrifice is not brought.
(6) Surely not.
(7) How does he rebut this argument?
(8) Deut. XVI, 7' 'Thy tents' is understood to refer to tents pitched without Jerusalem; but it cannot mean home, firstly because one might not travel on a Festival, and secondly because the pilgrimage burnt-offering was yet to be offered. The phrase 'in the morning' teaches that the night was to be spent in Jerusalem, even after the Passover sacrifice was consumed.
(9) Ibid. 8.
(10) I.e., only the Passover-offering which necessitates the eating of unleavened bread six days (actually seven; v. infra 120a), and prohibits leaven necessitates the spending of the night in Jerusalem; the first Passover alone fulfils this condition, but not the second. — Thus R. Judah is self-contradictory.
(11) The usual penalty for eating sacred flesh in a state of personal uncleanness. But if they actually entered the Temple too, they are liable to kareth on that account.
(12) Lev. VII, 19f.
(13) Hence when the Passover-offering comes in uncleanness, though zabin etc. may not eat of it, they nevertheless do not incur kareth.
(14) So the text as emended and Supra 67b.
(15) Num. V, 2.
(16) The hall containing the golden altar; the Temple proper, as opposed to the Temple court. Even priests might enter it only when necessary; here entry was unnecessary, since the offering was sacrificed in the Temple Court.
(17) I.e., no penalty is incurred on account of uncleanness.
(18) Even when they are not sent out of the entire camp, as here, they are sent out of the part where their presence is not necessary; hence if they enter it they incur kareth.
(19) Num. V, 3; 'mi-huz' implies right outside the whole of it.
(20) Lit., 'read in his case'.
(21) Hence, since he is not sent out of the whole camp, he is not liable.
(22) The emurim were burnt on the altar, and were therefore forbidden.[Do we say,] since the uncleanness of the flesh was permitted, the uncleanness of the emurim too was permitted;1 or perhaps, what was permitted was permitted, and what was not permitted was not permitted?Said Raba, Consider: whence is the uncleanness of emurim included?2 From the uncleanness of the flesh, for it is written, That pertain onto the Lord,3 which includes emurim: [hence] wherever the uncleanness of the flesh is interdicted, the uncleanness of the emurim is interdicted: while wherever [the interdict of] the uncleanness of the flesh is absent, [the interdict of] the uncleanness of the emurim is absent.
R. Zera asked: Where did they burn the emurim of the Passover offering of Egypt?4 -Said Abaye, And who is to tell us that it was not prepared roast?5 Moreover, surely R. Joseph learned: Three altars were there [for the sprinkling of the blood] viz., the lintel and the two doorposts.6 Further, was there nothing else?7
MISHNAH. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PASSOVER-OFFERING OF EGYPT AND THE PASSOVER-OFFERING OF [SUBSEQUENT] GENERATIONS?8 THE PASSOVER-OFFERING IN EGYPT WAS TAKEN ON THE TENTH [OF NISAN],9 [ITS BLOOD] REQUIRED SPRINKLING WITH A BUNCH OF HYSSOP ON THE LINTEL AND ON THE TWO DOOR-POSTS, AND IT WAS EATEN IN HASTE ON ONE NIGHT; WHEREAS THE PASS OVER- OFFERING OF [SUBSEQUENT] GENERATIONS IS KEPT THE WHOLE SEVEN [DAYS].10
GEMARA. Whence do we know it?-Because it is written, Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying: in the tenth day of this month they shall take [to them every man a lamb]:11 the taking of this one was on the tenth , whereas the taking of the Passover-offering of [subsequent] generations is not on the tenth. If so, [when it is written,] And ye shall keep it [mishmereth] until the fourteenth day of this month,12 does that too [intimate], this requires a four days' examination before slaughtering,13 but no other requires examination? Surely it was taught, The son of Bag Bag14 said: How do we know that the tamid15 requires a four days' examination before slaughtering? Because it is said, Ye shall observe [tishmeru] to offer unto Me in its due season,16 while elsewhere it is said, And ye shall keep it [mishmereth] until the fourteenth [etc.]:17 just as there it requires a four days' examination before slaughtering, so here too it requires a four days examination before slaughtering? - There it is different, because tishmeru ['ye shall observe'] is written.18 And thus [in connection with] the annual Passover-offering it is indeed written, then thou shalt keep this service in this month,19 [which intimates] that all the services of this month [in subsequent generations] should be like this.20 Hence that [word] 'this'21 is to exclude the second Passover, which is like itself.22
But [again] if so, when it is written, and they shall eat the flesh in this night,23 does that too [teach] that this is eaten at night, but another is not eaten at night?24 -Scripture saith, then thou shalt keep this service [etc.].25 Then what is the purpose of 'this'?- [It is required] for [the exegesis] of R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah and A. Akiba [respectively].26
But if so, when it is written, But no uncircumsized person shall eat thereof,27 does that too [teach] that he may not eat 'thereof,' yet he may eat of the Passover-offering of [subsequent] generations?- [No, for] Scripture saith, 'Then thou shalt keep [this service etc.].' Then what is the purpose of 'thereof'?- Thereof he must not eat, but he eats unleavened bread and the bitter herbs. But if so, when it is written, There shall no alien eat thereof,28 is it the case there too that he must not eat thereof, yet he eats of the Passover-offering of [subsequent] generations? — Scripture saith, 'Then thou shalt keep [etc.].' Then what is the purpose of 'thereof'?- In that case only ['thereof'] does apostasy disqualify, but apostasy does not disqualify in the case of terumah — Now it is necessary that an uncircumcised person should be stated, and it is necessary that an alien should be stated. For if the Divine Law stated an uncircumcised person, [I would say that he is disqualified] because he is repulsive, but an alien is not repulsive [so] I would say [that he is] not [excluded] from the Passover-offering]; hence [an alien] is necessary. And if we were informed about an alien, [I would argue that he is disqualified] because his heart is not toward Heaven, but [as for] an uncircumcised person, whose heart is toward Heaven,29 I would say [that he is] not [excluded]. Thus both are necessary.
But if so, [when it is written,] A sojourner [toshab] and a hired servant [sakir] shall not eat thereof,30 does that too [intimate] that he must not eat thereof, but he does eat of the annual Passover? — Scripture saith, 'Then thou shalt keep [etc.]'. Then what is the purpose of 'thereof'?- Only in this case does apostasy disqualify, but apostasy does not disqualify from terumah.31 But if so, [when it is written, But every man's servant that is bought for money,] when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof,32 — does that too [intimate] that he must not eat thereof, but he does eat of the annual Passover? — Scripture saith, 'then thou shalt keep [etc.]'. Then what is the purpose of 'thereof' [bo]? Only in this case [bo] is the circumcision of his males and his slaves indispensable,33 but the circumcision of his males and his slaves is not indispensable in the case of terumah. But if so, when it is written, Neither shall ye break a bone thereof,34 does that too [intimate] that he may not break [a bone] thereof, but he may break [a bone] of the annual Passover?-Scripture saith, 'then thou shalt keep [etc.]'. Then what is the purpose of 'thereof'? 'Thereof' [indicates] of a fit [sacrifice], but not of an unfit [one].35
But if so, when it is written, Eat not of it half-roast,36 [does that too intimate,] of it you may not eat [half-roast], but you may eat half-roast of the annual Passover-offering?-Scripture saith, 'then thou shalt keep etc.' Then what is the purpose of 'of it'?- For the teaching of Rabbah in R. Isaac's name.37
AND WAS EATEN IN HASTE etc. How do we know it?- Because Scripture saith, and ye shall eat it in haste:38 'it' was eaten in haste, but no other was eaten in haste.
AND THE ANNUAL PASSOVER-OFFERING IS KEPT THE WHOLE SEVEN [DAYS] etc. To what does this refer? If we say, to the Passover-offering, — is there then a Passover-offering all the seven [days]?
____________________
(1) So that liability on eating is not incurred on the grounds of their uncleanness, although there still remains the liability for the eating of emurim which are reserved for the altar.
(2) Whence do we learn that for eating emurim in an unclean state liability is incurred? — Actually only the uncleanness of the flesh is explicitly mentioned.
(3) Lev. VII, 20.
(4) No mention is made of an altar there.
(5) And eaten.
(6) I.e., there were three places for the sprinkling of the blood, corresponding to the altar in the Temple. But there was no altar for the burning of the emurim.
(7) In which the Passover-offering in Egypt differed from those offered in the Temple. Surely there were many points of difference (v. next Mishnah): why then assume that in this respect they were alike?
(8) 1.e., the annual Passover.
(9) Its owner had to take it four days beforehand, declaring, 'This is for the Passover-offering'.
(10) This is explained in the GEMARA.
(11) Ex. XII, 3.
(12) Ibid. 6.
(13) It was taken on the tenth and examined every day until the fourteenth for a blemish.
(14) V. Aboth, Sonc. ed. p. 76, n. 7
(15) V. Glos.
(16) Num. XXVIII, 2.
(17) Tishmeru and mishmereth have the same root.
(18) Hence the animal must be examined daily for four days before it is sacrificed, and the same applies to the annual Passover-offering, though the latter is not actually declared to be taken for that purpose.
(19) Ex. XIII, 5.
(20) I.e., all the regulations of the Egyptian Passover hold good for the annual Passover too, and this includes the four days' examination. The special 'taking' however has been excluded by the exegesis above.
(21) In the verse, 'and ye shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month'.
(22) Just as the Egyptian Passover was only one day, so is the annual second Passover of one day's duration only, and it is logical that 'this' should exclude another Passover which is similar to itself. Hence it teaches that the animal sacrificed at the second Passover does not require a four days' examination.
(23) Ex. XII, 8.
(24) Surely not-the annual Passover-offering was of course eaten at night.
(25) Ex. XIII, 5.
(26) According to the former, to teach that it may be eaten until midnight only; according to the latter, to show that it may not be eaten two nights; v. Ber. 9a.
(27) Ibid. XII, 48.
(28) Ibid. 43. By 'alien' is understood not a non-Jew but a Jewish apostate, whose actions have alienated him from God.
(29) For this is understood to refer to one whose brothers died through circumcision, so that he fears the operation, but would otherwise have it performed.
(30) Ex. XII, 45.
(31) This seems quite unintelligible; Rashi deletes the whole passage on other grounds, observing that the answer is in any case pointless. Tosaf. in Yeb. 71 s.v. בו defends the present reading.
(32) Ibid. 44.
(33) The master may not partake of the Passover-offering until the males of his household are circumcised.
(34) Ex. XII, 46.
(35) V. supra 70a and 83a.
(36) Ibid. 9.
(37) Viz., that an uncircumcised person may not eat of tithe; v. Yeb. 74a.
(38) Ibid. 11.- Rather [it must refer] to leaven. Hence it follows that at the Passover of Egypt [leaven was forbidden] one night and no more; but surely it was taught, R. Jose the Galilean said: How do we know that at the Passover of Egypt the [prohibition of] leaven was in force one day only? Because it is said, There shall no leavened bread be eaten1 and in proximity [thereto] is written, This day ye go forth!2 -Rather this is its meaning: [The Passover-offering is kept] one night, and the same law applies to the annual Passover-offering; while [the prohibition of] leaven [was in force] the whole day, whereas at the Passover-offering of [subsequent] generations [the interdict of leaven] holds good for the entire seven [days].
MISHNAH. R.JOSHUA SAID: I HAVE HEARD [FROM MY TEACHERS] THAT THE SUBSTITUTE OF A PASSOVER-OFFERING3 IS OFFERED,4 AND THAT THE SUBSTITUTE OF A PASSOVER-OFFERING IS NOT OFFERED,5 AND I CANNOT EXPLAIN IT.6 SAID R. AKIBA, I WILL EXPLAIN IT: THE PASSOVER-OFFERING WHICH WAS FOUND BEFORE THE SLAUGHTERING OF THE PASSOVER-OFFERING MUST BE LEFT TO GRAZE UNTIL IT BECOMES UNFIT,7 BE SOLD, AND ONE BRINGS A PEACE-OFFERING FOR ITS MONEY; AND THE SAME APPLIES TO ITS SUBSTITUTE. [IF FOUND] AFTER THE SLAUGHTERING OF THE PASSOVER, IT IS OFFERED AS A PEACE-OFFERING, AND ITS SUBSTITUTE LIKEWISE.8
GEMARA. BUT LET HIM SAY, The Passover-offering is offered, and the Passover-offering is not offered?9 -He informs us this, [viz.,] that there is a substitute of a Passover-offering which is not offered [as a peace-offering].10 It was stated: Rabbah said: We learned, Before slaughtering and after slaughtering;11 R. Zera maintained: We learned, Before midday and after midday.12 But according to R. Zera, surely he teaches, BEFORE THE SLAUGHTERING OF THE PASSOVER-OFFERING?-SAY: BEFORE THE TIME OF THE SLAUGHTERING OF THE PASSOVER-OFFERING,13
This is dependent on Tannaim: The Passover which is found before slaughtering must graze [etc.]; [if found] after slaughtering, it is offered. R. Eleazar said: [If found] before midday it must graze [etc.]; after midday, it is offered.
[IF IT IS FOUND] AFTER THE SLAUGHTERING OF THE PASSOVER, HE BRINGS IT AS A PEACE-OFFERING etc. Raba14 said:They learned this only if it was found after the slaughtering and he substituted [another] for it after the slaughtering. But if it was found before the slaughtering while he substituted [another] for it after the slaughtering, its substitute derives from the power of rejected sanctity, and it cannot be offered.15 Abaye raised an objection against him: If [he bring] a lamb [for his offering' etc.]:16 for what purpose is 'if [he bring] a lamb' stated? To include the substitute of a Passover-offering after Passover, [teaching] that it is offered as a peace-offering. How is it meant? If we say that it was found after the slaughtering and he substituted [another] for it after the slaughtering, then it is obvious:17 why do I require a verse? Hence it must surely apply where it was found before slaughtering and he substituted [another] for it after slaughtering?18 — No: in truth it applies where it was found after slaughtering and he substituted [another] for it after slaughtering, while the verse is a mere support.19
Then for what [purpose] does the verse come?20 -For what was taught: '[If he bring] a lamb [etc.]': this is to include the Passover-offering, in respect of its fat tail.21 When it is stated, 'If [he bring] a lamb,' this is to include [an animal] more than a year old [dedicated for] a Passover-offering22 and a peace-offering which comes in virtue of a Passover-offering23 , in respect of all the regulations of the peace-offering, [viz.,] that they require laying [of the hands],24 libations, and the waving of the breast and shoulder. Again, when it states, and if [his offering be] a goat,25 it breaks across the subject [and] teaches of a goat that it does not require [the burning of the] fat tail [on the altar].26
Others recite it [Raba's dictum] in reference to the first clause: THE PASSOVER-OFFERING WHICH WAS FOUND BEFORE THE SLAUGHTERING OF THE PASSOVER-OFFERING MUST GRAZE UNTIL IT BECOMES UNFIT, BE SOLD, AND ONE BRINGS A PEACE-OFFERING FOR ITS MONEY, AND THE SAME APPLIES TO ITS SUBSTITUTE. Said Raba, They learned [this] only where It was found before the slaughtering and he substituted [another] for it before the slaughtering. But if it was found before the slaughtering and he substituted [another] for it after the slaughtering, it is offered as a peace-offering. What is the reason? The slaughtering [of the Passover-offering] stamps [with its sanctity] only something that is eligible therefor, [but] it does not stamp [with its sanctity] that which is not eligible therefor.27
Abaye raised an objection against him: 'If [he bring] a lamb [etc.]': what is its purpose? To include the substitute of a Passover-offering after Passover, [teaching] that it is offered as a peace-offering.
____________________
(1) Ibid. XIII, 3.
(2) Ibid. 4; v. supra p. 130, n. 9. Thus it was prohibited the whole day, not during the night only.
(3) When an animal is dedicated for a sacrifice, another must not be declared as a substitute for it; if it is, both animals are holy, the holiness of the second being of the same nature as that of the first. But the substitute of a Passover-offering cannot be offered as such, but must be kept until after the Festival. Normally if a Passover-offering is not sacrificed at the proper time, e.g.,if it was lost, it is subsequently sacrificed as a peace-offering.
(4) As a peace-offering, after Passover.
(5) As a peace-offering, but must graze until it becomes blemished, whereupon it is redeemed.
(6) When it is offered and when it is not.
(7) Through a blemish.
(8) The animal originally dedicated for the Passover was lost, and another was dedicated in its stead. Now if it was found again before the second was slaughtered or before the time of slaughtering the Passover in general (the exact meaning is disputed in the GEMARA), the fact that it was present at the time of slaughtering stamps it as a Passover, and by not slaughtering it, one has rejected it, as it were, with his own hands. Consequently, it can no longer be offered itself, but must be sold, etc. If after finding it he substituted another animal for it, that too is governed by the same law, as stated in n. I. But if it was found after the second was killed, the time of the slaughtering has not stamped it with the name of a Passover-offering, nor has it been rejected therefrom. Consequently, it is brought itself after the Festival as a peace-offering.
(9) Why does R. Joshua speak about the substitute of a Passover: surely he could say the same about the Passover itself?
(10) For I might otherwise think that since the substitute cannot be sacrificed as a Passover-offering, it is as though he dedicated it in the first place for a peaceoffering, and therefore must itself be offered as such in all cases, irrespective of what happens to the original. Hence he informs us that where the original cannot be offered, the substitute too cannot be offered.
(11) I.e., if it was found before or after the second was actually slaughtered.
(12) The time for slaughtering the Passover is from midday until evening. R. Zera maintains that if it is still unfound by midday, it can no longer be stamped as a Passover-offering even if it is found before the second is actually slaughtered, and therefore is subsequently sacrificed itself as a peace-offering.
(13) This does not emend the Mishnah but rather explains it.
(14) Var. lec. Rabbah.
(15) I.e., since the original is rejected, as explained in n. 6 on the Mishnah, the substitute is in the same position.
(16) Lev. III, 7. This refers to a peace-offering, and it is superfluous. For v. 6 states, and if his offering... be of the flock, while v. 12 states, and if his offering be a goat: since 'flock' only comprises goats and lambs, v. 6 must refer to lambs, which renders v. 7 unnecessary. Hence it must be written for a particular exegesis.
(17) Since it follows from the general principle of substitution, as explained in n. 1 and 6 on the Mishnah.
(18) And we are then informed that although the original itself cannot be offered, its substitute is offered!
(19) But not the actual source of the law, which follows indeed from general principles.
(20) Since it is superfluous, as explained on p. 519, n. 6.
(21) The fat tail of all other sacrifices is explicitly stated to be part of the emurim which are burnt on the altar (v. Lev. III, 9; VII, 3). The burning of the emurim is not mentioned at all in connection with the Passover, however, but deduced from elsewhere (v. supra 64b); consequently a verse is required to teach that the fat tail too is included.
(22) Hence unfit for its purpose (v. Ex. XII, 5).
(23) E.g., the substitute for a Passover-offering, or where the owner of a Passover-offering registered for a different animal, so that the first is a Passover remainder; both are sacrificed as peace-offerings.
(24) V. Lev. III, 2.
(25) Ibid. 12.
(26) 'And if' is regarded as a disjunctive, teaching that the provisions that apply to a lamb do not apply to a goat, unless expressly stated. The fat tail is mentioned in connection with the former (v. 9) but not the latter.
(27) I.e., if the animal is dedicated for a Passover-offering, the act or time of slaughtering the second animal stamps it with that sanctity, and since it was not offered then, it was rejected and must graze. But the act of slaughtering cannot stamp an animal with that sanctity, that it should be regarded as rejected if it was not fit for a Passover-offering at the time, and in the latter case this substitute was indeed unfit, since at that time it was as yet unconsecrated. Consequently now that it is consecrated, it is offered itself as a peace-offering.You might think that it is also thus before Passover,1 therefore it is stated, 'it':2 'it' is offered [as a peace-offering], but the substitute of a Passover-offering is not offered [as such] -3 How is it meant? If we say that it was found before slaughtering and he substituted [another] for it before slaughtering, then it is obvious!4 Why do I require a verse? Hence it must surely apply to where it was found before the slaughtering, 'while he substituted [another] for it after the slaughtering. Thus the refutation of Raba is indeed a refutation.5
Samuel said: Whatever must be left to perish in the case of a sin-offering, is brought as a peace-offering in the case of a Passover,6 and whatever must be left to graze in the case of a sin-offering,7 must also be left to graze in the case of a Passover. While R. Johanan said: No Passover is brought as a peace-offering save that which is found after the slaughtering, but not [if it is found] before the slaughtering. To this R. Joseph demurred: Now is this a general rule? Surely there is the sin-offering more than a year old, which goes forth to pasture,8 for R. Simeon b. Lakish said: A sin-offering more than a year old, we regard as though it stood in a cemetery,9 and it must be left to graze; whereas a Passover in such a case is brought as a peace-offering, for it was taught: '[If he bring] a lamb [etc.]': this is to include the Passover-offering, in respect of its fat tail. When it is stated, 'If [he bring] a lamb,' this is to include [an animal] more than a year old [dedicated for] a Passover and a peace-offering which comes In virtue of a Passover-offering in respect of all the regulations of a peace-offering,10 [viz.,] that they require laying [of the hands], libations, and the waving of the breast and shoulder. Again, when it [Scripture] states, 'and if [his offering be] a goat', it breaks across the subject and teaches of a goat that it does not require [the burning of its] fat tail [on the altar]!11 — Said he to him, Samuel spoke only of lost [sacrifices],12 but he did not say it of rejected [animals]. Yet is [this principle] possible [in the case of] a lost [sacrifice]? Surely an [animal which was] lost at the time of separating [another],13 in the view of the Rabbis goes to pasture [until it receives a blemish], for we learned: If he set apart [an animal as] his sinoffering and it was lost, and he [then] set apart another in its stead, and [then] the first was found again, and behold! both stand [before us], [any] one of them may be sacrificed, while the other must die: this is Rabbi's ruling. But the Sages maintain: No sin-offering must die except one found after its owner has been atoned for.14 Hence [if found again] before its owner was atoned for, it must graze. Whereas in the case of a Passover-offering, if it was lost and found again after midday [but] before the slaughtering [of the second], it is brought as a peace-offering? — Samuel agrees with Rabbi, who maintained: A lost animal goes forth to perish. But every lost [sin-offering], according to Rabbi, is left to die, whereas in the case of a Passover-offering, if it was lost before midday and found again before midday it must be left to graze?- [If found] before midday it is not [regarded as lost],15 in accordance with Raba. For Raba said: A loss at night is not designated a loss .16
Then according to Rabbi, how is it possible that [a sin.offering] should be left to graze?
____________________
(1) That the substitute of a Passover which is found before Passover is offered as a peace-offering.
(2) He seems to translate, If it (hu) is a lamb (which) he brings etc. , and treats the 'it' as a limitation.
(3) this does not mean that where the Passover itself is offered as a peace-offering its substitute is not, but that there is a substitute of the Passover which is not offered as a peace-offering.
(4) that it cannot be offered itself', having been rejected as explained in n. 6 on the Mishnah.
(5) Here we cannot answer that the verse is a mere support, as above, for in that case what is the purpose of the verse?
(6) There are five cases of the former: (i) the offspring of a sin-offering; (ii) the substitute of a sin-offering; (iii) a sin-offering whose owner died; (iv) a sin-offering which was lost, and refound after its owner had made atonement with another; and (v) a sin-offering more than a year old. All these must be allowed to perish. It is now assumed that all these, in the case of a Passover (the first of course is excluded, the Passover being a male), are brought as a peace-offering.
(7) until it receives a blemish, when it can be redeemed.-It is discussed anon which these are.
(8) Until it receives a blemish.
(9) Thus inaccessible to the priest for sacrifice-i.e., it cannot be sacrificed.
(10) This is the point of the objection.
(11) V. supra 96b for notes.
(12) I.e,, iv in p. 521, n. 7.
(13) If a sin-offering was lost and another consecrated, and then the first was found again before the second was sacrificed, so that the first was a lost animal only when the second was set apart, but not when it was sacrificed.
(14) By another offering.
(15) Even if another had been separated in its place.
(16) If a sin-offering was lost at night, and another was separated in its stead, and the first was found by the morning, even on Rabbi's view It is not regarded as having been lost, since it could not have been sacrificed at night in any case, and therefore it goes forth to pasture. By the same reasoning, if the lost Passover-offering is found before midday, it is not regarded as having been lost, since it could not have been sacrificed before midday.- In accordance with R. Oshaia. For R. Oshaia said: If he set apart two sin-offerings as security,1 he is atoned for by one of them, while the second must be left to graze. Yet surely a Passover-offering in such a case is brought as a peace-offering?2 — Rather, Samuel holds as R. Simeon, who maintained: The five sin-offerings are left to die.3 But surely R. Simeon does not hold at all that [any sin-offering] must be left to graze?4 Samuel too stated one rule [only]: Whatever must be left to perish in the case of a sin-offering must be left to graze in the case of a Passover-offering. Then what does he inform us?5 — [His purpose is] to rebut R. Johanan, who said: No Passover is brought as a peace-offering except if it is found after the slaughtering, but not [if it is found] before the slaughtering, which proves that [in his opinion] the slaughtering stamps [it as a rejected animal]; hence he [Samuel] informs us that midday stamps [it]. Another version: Whereas in the case of the Passover, where it is lost and found after midday [but] before the slaughtering [of the second], it is brought as a peace-offering?6 — Samuel agrees with Rabbah, who maintained: The slaughtering stamps [it].7 But surely, since R. Johanan said thereon: 'No Passover-offering is brought as a peace-offering save when it is found after the slaughtering, but not [if it is found] before the slaughtering,' which proves that [in his opinion] the slaughtering stamps [it], it follows that Samuel holds [that] midday stamps it?- Rather Samuel agrees with Rabbi, who ruled: A lost [sacrifice] goes forth to perish — But all lost [sacrifices] are left to perish, in Rabbi's opinion, whereas in the case of the Passover-offering, where it is lost before midday and found before midday it must be left to graze? — He holds that [if it is found] before midday it is not [regarded as] lost, and he also holds: Midday stamps [it].
MISHNAH. IF A MAN SETS ASIDE A FEMALE OR A TWO-YEAR OLD MALE FOR HIS PASSOVER-OFFERING,8 IT MUST BE LEFT TO GRAZE UNTIL IT BECOMES UNFIT,9 THEN BE SOLD, AND ITS MONEY IS SPENT10 ON A VOLUNTARY SACRIFICE, ON A PEACE-OFFERING.11
____________________
(1) Each as security for the other, in case the other is lost.
(2) For this is definitely a case where one is a remainder', not a rejected sacrifice.
(3) v. supra 97a. Those die in all cases, this holding good of iv whether it was refound before atonement was made with the second or after. Similarly, if two are set aside as a security for each other, the unsacrificed one must die.
(4) How then can Samuel say', whatever must be left to graze in the case of a sin-offering'?
(5) Since all sin-offerings must be left to die, it follows that Samuel teaches that all lost Passover-offerings are brought as peace-offerings. But this is already taught in the Mishnah, viz., IF THE PASSOVER-OFFERING IS FOUND AFTER THE SLAUGHTERING, IT IS BROUGHT AS A PEACE-OFFERING; this is explained supra as meaning after the time for slaughtering, i.e., after midday, which proves that if it is still lost at midday it is brought as a peace-offering.
(6) This is another version of the difficulty raised supra 97a: 'But surely an animal which was lost at the time of separating another, in the view of the Rabbis goes to pasture, whereas in the case etc. (continuing as in the text).
(7) V. supra 96b. Hence if found before the second is slaughtered it goes to pasture.
(8) Both are ineligible; v. Ex. XII, 5. 'A two-year old' means in its second year.
(9) Through a blemish.
(10) Lit., 'falls'.
(11) In the separate edition of the Mishnah 'On a peace-offering' is omitted, while Tosaf. in Zeb. 9b s.v. חד gives the reading as, 'and he brings a peace-offering with its money'. — By separating it for a Passover-offering he has stamped it as such, and since it is unfit, it is regarded as a rejected sacrifice, which cannot be offered itself but must be redeemed and the money expended on a sacrifice. Cf. Mishnah on 96b and n. 6 a.l.IF A MAN SEPARATES HIS PASSOVER-OFFERING AND DIES, HIS SON AFTER HIM MUST NOT BRING IT AS A PASSOVER-OFFERING1 BUT AS A PEACE-OFFERING.
GEMARA. R.Huna son of R.Joshua said, This proves three things: [i] Live animals may be [permanently] rejected;2 [ii] that which is rejected [even] ab initio is rejected;3 and [iii] rejection is applicable to monetary sanctity.4
IF A MAN SEPARATES HIS PASSOVER-OFFERING etc. Our Rabbis taught: If a man separates his Passover-offering and dies, — If his son is registered with him, he must bring it as a Passover-offering; [if] his son is not registered with him, he must bring it as a peace-offering on the sixteenth [of Nisan].5 Only on the sixteenth, but not on the fifteenth: he holds, Vows and voluntary offerings6 may not be offered on a Festival.
Now when did the father die? Shall we say that he died before midday [then how is it stated], 'if his son is registered with him he must bring it as a peace-offering'? — But surely aninuth [bereavement] has previously fallen upon him!7 Again, if he died after midday, '[if] his son is not registered with him, he must bring it as a peace-offering'?-But midday has stamped it?8 Said Rabbah: In truth it is meant where he died before midday, and what does 'he must bring it as a Passover-offering' mean? He must bring it for the second Passover.9 Abaye said, It is taught disjunctively: If he died after midday, [and] his son is registered with him, he must bring it for the sake of a Passover. If he died before midday, [and] his son is not registered with him, he must bring it as a peace-offering. R. Sherabia said: In truth it means where he died after midday, the case being e.g., where his father was in a dying condition at midday.10 R. Ashi said: In truth it means that he died after midday,11 this being in accordance with R. Simeon, who maintained: Live animals cannot be [permanently] rejected.12 Rabina said: [It means] e.g., where he set it aside after midday and its owner died after midday, and he holds: [only] midday establishes it .13
MISHNAH. IF A PASSOVER-OFFERING BECAME MIXED UP WITH OTHER SACRIFICES, ALL MUST BE LEFT TO GRAZE UNTIL THEY BECOME UNFIT [THROUGH A BLEMISH], THEN BE SOLD, AND FOR THE PRICE OF THE BEST ONE MUST PURCHASE [AN ANIMAL] OF EACH DENOMINATION, AND MAKE UP14 THE EXCESS FROM ONE'S PRIVATE PURSE.15 IF IT BECAME MIXED UP WITH FIRSTLINGS,16 -R. SIMEON SAID: IF [THE PASSOVER-OFFERING BELONGED TO] A COMPANY OF PRIESTS, THEY EAT [ALL ON THAT NIGHT].17
GEMARA.
____________________
(1) As now there are none registered for it.
(2) As here: the animal being rejected from its original purpose, viz., a Passover-offering, it remains ineligible even for a peace-offering, for which it is fit, but must graze. There is an opposing view in Yoma 63b, and quoted infra, that only a dead animal can be rejected permanently.
(3) This animal was not eligible for its purpose from the very outset. There is an opposing view in Suk. 33b that an animal can be permanently rejected only if it was originally eligible.
(4) Since this animal is unfit for a Passover-offering, it was sanctified from the very outset only for its value, viz., that its redemption money should be expended on a sacrifice. Nevertheless it becomes permanently ineligible for the altar.
(5) I.e., on the first of the Intermediate Days.
(6) P. 288, n. 3.
(7) Before the obligation of the Passover, which commences at midday. It is stated supra 91a that the Passover must not be sacrificed on behalf of an onen (v. Glos.) by himself, whereas the present passage implies that he brings it himself, even when he is not registered with others.
(8) As a Passover, and since it cannot be sacrificed as such it remains rejected and cannot be offered itself, as supra 96b ff.
(9) If he did not keep the first through his bereavement.
(10) Hence if his son was registered with him, he must bring it as a Passover, since that obligation preceded his bereavement. But if his son was not registered with him, he must bring it as a peace-offering, for since his father was already in a dying condition, midday did not establish it as a Passover-offering.
(11) But was not necessarily dying at midday.
(12) Save when they become actually unfit, e.g.,if they receive a blemish or are given as a harlot's hire
(v. Deut. XXIII, 19).
(13) But not the rest of the time allotted for its slaughtering. Hence it has not been established and therefore it cannot be rejected. Consequently, if his son was not registered with him, he must bring it as a peace-offering.
(14) Lit., 'lose'.
(15) Lit., 'house'. Thus: if three lambs of unequal value, one dedicated for a Passover-offering, another for a guilt-offering, and the third for a burnt-offering, became mixed up, they must all be sold. Since the best may have been any of the three sacrifices, he must buy an animal for each sacrifice at the cost of the best; naturally he will need more than they realized, and he must make that up himself.-Instead of 'he must lose' there is a variant: 'and he must set aside'.
(16) Which are offered in the same way as Passover-offerings, viz., the blood of both is sprinkled in the same way, and neither require the waving of the breast and shoulder, nor laying of the hands, nor libations.
(17) Stipulating at the time of slaughtering: 'Whichever is the Passover-offering, we sacrifice it as such, and whichever is the firstling, we offer it as such'.But he brings sacrifices to the place of unfitness?1 -R. Simeon is consistent with his view, for he maintains: One may bring sacrifices to the place of unfitness.2 For we learned: If a guilt-offering was mixed up with a peace-offering, — R. Simeon said: They must be slaughtered at the north [side of the altar]3 and eaten in accordance with [the laws of] the more stringent of them.4 Said they to him: One may not bring sacrifices to the place of unfitness.5
Now according to the Rabbis, what do we do?6 -Said Raba: We wait until they receive a blemish. Then he brings a choice animal and declares: 'Wherever the Passover-offering may be,7 let it[s sanctity] be transferred to this one,'8 and he eats them In accordance with the laws of a blemished firstling.9
MISHNAH. IF A COMPANY LOST THEIR PASCHAL SACRIFICE AND INSTRUCTED ONE [OF THEIR NUMBER], 'GO AND SEEK IT, AND SLAUGHTER IT ON OUR BEHALF'; AND HE WENT, FOUND, AND SLAUGHTERED IT, WHILE THEY [Also] TOOK AN ANIMAL AND SLAUGHTERED [IT]: IF HIS WAS SLAUGHTERED FIRST, HE EATS OF HIS AND THEY EAT WITH HIM.10 WHILE IF THEIRS WAS FIRST SLAUGHTERED, THEY EAT OF THEIRS,11 WHILE HE EATS OF HIS.12 BUT IF IT IS UNKNOWN WHICH OF THEM WAS FIRST SLAUGHTERED, OR IF THEY KILLED BOTH OF THEM AT THE SAME TIME, HE EATS OF HIS, BUT THEY MAY NOT EAT WITH HIM;13 WHILE THEIRS GOES FORTH TO THE PLACE OF BURNING,14 AND THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM KEEPING THE SECOND PASSOVER.15
IF HE SAID TO THEM, IF I DELAY, GO FORTH AND SLAUGHTER ON MY BEHALF,'16 [AND] THEN HE WENT AND FOUND AND SLAUGHTERED [IT], WHILE THEY TOOK [ANOTHER] AND SLAUGHTERED [IT], IF THEIRS WAS SLAUGHTERED FIRST, THEY EAT OF THEIRS WHILE HE EATS WITH THEM.17 WHILE IF HIS WAS SLAUGHTERED FIRST, HE EATS OF HIS18 AND THEY EAT OF THEIRS.19 But IF IT IS UNKNOWN WHICH OF THEM WAS SLAUGHTERED FIRST, OR IF THEY SLAUGHTERED BOTH OF THEM AT THE SAME TIME, THEY EAT OF THEIRS, BUT HE MAY NOT EAT WITH THEM, WHILE HIS OWN GOES FORTH TO THE PLACE OF BURNING, AND HE IS EXEMPT FROM KEEPING THE SECOND PASSOVER.20
IF HE INSTRUCTED THEM, AND THEY INSTRUCTED HIM,21 THEY MUST ALL EAT OF THE FIRST [TO BE SLAUGHTERED],22 AND IF IT IS UNKNOWN WHICH OF THEM WAS SLAUGHTERED FIRST, BOTH GO FORTH TO THE PLACE OF BURNING.23 IF HE DID NOT INSTRUCT THEM AND THEY DID NOT INSTRUCT HIM,24 THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR EACH OTHER.25
IF THE PASCHAL SACRIFICES OF TWO COMPANIES BECOME MIXED UP, THESE TAKE POSSESSION OF ONE [ANIMAL] AND THOSE TAKE POSSESSION OF ONE. ONE MEMBER OF THESE JOINS THOSE, AND ONE MEMBER OF THOSE JOINS THESE, AND THEY DECLARE THUS:26 IF THIS PASCHAL SACRIFICE IS OURS, YOUR HANDS ARE WITHDRAWN FROM YOUR OWN AND YOU ARE REGISTERED FOR OURS; WHILE IF THIS PASCHAL SACRIFICE IS YOURS,27 OUR HANDS ARE WITHDRAWN FROM OURS AND WE ARE REGISTERED FOR YOURS.28 SIMILARLY, IF THERE ARE FIVE COMPANIES CONSISTING OF FIVE MEMBERS EACH OR OF TEN EACH, THEY DRAW ONE FROM EACH COMPANY TO THEMSELVES AND MAKE THE FOREGOING DECLARATION.29
IF THE PASCHAL SACRIFICES BELONGING TO TWO [SINGLE INDIVIDUALS] BECOME MIXED UP, EACH TAKES POSSESSION OF ONE [ANIMAL]; THIS ONE REGISTERS A STRANGER30 WITH HIMSELF AND THAT ONE REGISTERS A STRANGER WITH HIMSELF.31 THE FORMER GOES OVER TO THE LATTER SACRIFICE AND THE LATTER GOES OVER TO THE FORMER SACRIFICE, AND THEY [I.E., EACH OWNER] DECLARE THUS: IF THIS PASCHAL SACRIFICE IS MINE, YOUR HANDS ARE WITHDRAWN FROM YOUR OWN AND YOU ARE REGISTERED FOR MINE; WHILE IF THIS PASCHAL SACRIFICE IS YOURS, MY HANDS ARE WITHDRAWN FROM MINE AND I AM REGISTERED FOR YOURS.'32
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: if he instructed them and they instructed him, they must [all] eat of the first. If he did not instruct them and they did not instruct him, they are not responsible for each other.33
____________________
(1) This difficulty arises on R. Simeon's ruling. A firstling may be eaten two days and the night in between, whereas the Passover-offering may be eaten only on the first night. Thus if it is not eaten by morning he must burn it as nothar (v. Glos.), whereas it is actually still fit.
(2) In such a case, rather than let them graze until they receive a blemish, which is the only alternative.
(3) The side prescribed for the slaughtering of a guilt-offering. Peace-offerings could be slaughtered on any side of the Temple Court.
(4) I.e., as guilt-offerings, viz., during one day and a night only, within the Temple precincts, and by male priests.-A peace-offering is eaten two days and one night, anywhere in Jerusalem, and by Israelites as well as priests.
(5) But they must be left to graze until blemished.
(6) When a Passover-offering is mixed up with a firstling. When it is mixed up with a burnt-offering or guilt-offering, or when a peace-offering is mixed up with a guilt-offering, the expedient stated in the Mishnah is possible. But a firstling, even when blemished, can not be redeemed in the sense that it becomes hullin but must be eaten by a priest with its blemish; while on the other hand when a Passover-offering receives a blemish, it must be redeemed and may not be eaten otherwise.
(7) I.e., whichever of these two animals is the Passover.
(8) Thus whichever is the Passover-offering is redeemed.
(9) These are: it may not be slaughtered or sold in the ordinary abattoir, nor weighed with the ordinary weights. These restrictions do not apply to a redeemed Passover-offering, and would not apply here if he knew which it was.
(10) By instructing him to slaughter it on their behalf they become registered for his and cannot register for another after the first was slaughtered. Hence their own is unfit and must be burnt.
(11) By slaughtering their own first they ipso facto cancelled their registration for the original, which is permissible, v. supra 89a.
(12) But not of theirs, since he had not registered with them.
(13) Lest their own was slaughtered first, whereby they had cancelled their registration for his.
(14) For his may have been killed first; v. n. 4.
(15) Because they were certainly registered for one animal at the first Passover, while the eating is not indispensable.
(16) But they did not instruct him to slaughter the lost animal on their behalf.
(17) While his own must be burnt, for according to his instructions he was now registered for theirs; hence his is unfit, having none registered for it.
(18) Cf. p. 528, n. 5.
(19) For they were not registered for his, since they had not instructed him to slaughter it on their behalf.
(20) Cf. p. 528, n. 9.
(21) He instructed them to slaughter on his behalf if he delayed, and they instructed him to slaughter on their behalf if he found the lost animal.
(22) For which they are all automatically registered now.
(23) Each must thus go forth lest it was slaughtered last and had none registered for it.
(24) To slaughter on each other's behalf.
(25) Each party eats of its own, whatever the order of their slaughtering.
(26) Each company declares thus to the newcomer.
(27) I.e., it belongs to your first company.
(28) One of each company must join the other, for otherwise each company would have to withdraw en masse from their own, if it had been taken by the second, thus leaving it momentarily entirely without owners, and this is forbidden.
(29) Each company consists of four new members and one original member. The latter
(or all the original members, where each company consisted of more than five) makes the foregoing declaration to each new member in turn.
(30) Lit., 'a man from the street'.
(31) Thus there are now two registered persons for each sacrifice.
(32) The general reasoning is the same as in the previous cases.
(33) Thus in the first case one animal must be destroyed, whatever happens, while in the second both are eaten.Hence the Sages said: Silence is better for the wise, and how much more so for fools, as it is said, Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise.1 IF THE PASCHAL SACRIFICES BELONGING TO TWO [SINGLE PERSONS] BECOME MIXED UP etc. Shall we say that our Mishnah does not agree with R. Judah? For it was taught: And if the household be too little for a lamb:2 this teaches that they may go on decreasing [their numbers] ,3 providing, however, that one of them remains:4 this is R. Judah's view. R. Jose said: Providing that they do not leave the Paschal sacrifice as it is!5 — Said R. Johanan: You may even say [that it agrees with] R. Judah. Since R. Judah said, One may not slaughter the Passover-offering for a single person, then from the outset he stood to register another with himself, and he [the newly-registered person] is accounted as one of the [original] members of the company. R. Ashi said: Our Mishnah too proves this, for it teaches, SIMILARLY, IF THERE ARE FIVE COMPANIES CONSISTING OF FIVE MEMBERS EACH: thus,only of five [each], but not [if some consist] of five and [others of] four; is not[the reason] because one of the [original] members of the company does not remain with it?6 This proves it.
MISHNAH.
____________________
(1) Prov. XVII, 28.
(2) Ex. XII, 4.
(3) V. supra p.474, n. 3.
(4) For 'if it be too few' implies that someone at least is registered for it.
(5) Without owners. Now R. Judah must mean that one of the persons who originally registered for it, when the animal was first set aside for a Passover-offering, must remain registered for it, while in R. Jose's opinion it is sufficient that someone remains, even if he is not of those who originally registered for it. For if R. Judah's view Is not as stated, it does not differ in any way from R. Jose's. But in the Mishnah, when A, the only original owner of one of the sacrifices, declares, 'If this animal is not mine, I withdraw from the other and register for this', the other is left without anyone who first registered for it, since A is the only original owner.
(6) If it consisted of less than five, and one joins each other's company. For if it were unnecessary for all original member to remain, the Mishnah could teach that whatever the number of original members, each company increases itself to five and then does as stated.ON THE EVE OF PASSOVER1 CLOSE TO MINHAH2 A MAN MUST NOT EAT UNTIL NIGHTFALL. EVEN THE POOREST MAN IN ISRAEL MUST NOT EAT [ON THE NIGHT OF PASSOVER] UNTIL HE RECLINES;3 AND THEY4 SHOULD GIVE HIM NOT LESS THAN FOUR CUPS [OF WINE],5 AND EVEN [IF HE RECEIVES RELIEF] FROM THE CHARITY PLATE.6
GEMARA. Why particularly THE EVE OF PASSOVER? Even the eves of Sabbaths and Festivals too [are subject to this law]? For it was taught: A man must not eat on the eves of Sabbaths and Festivals from minhah and onward, so that he may enter [i.e., commence] the Sabbath with an appetite [for food]: [these are] the words of R. Judah. R. Jose said: He may go on eating until nightfall! — Said R. Huna: This [our Mishnah] is necessary only on the view of R. Jose, who said: He may go on eating until nightfall: that is only on the eves of Sabbaths and [other] Festivals; but with respect to the eve of Passover he agrees [with R. Judah], because of the duty of [eating] unleavened bread.7 R. Papa said: You may even say [that it must be taught on] R. Judah['s view too]: there, on the eve of Sabbaths and Festivals, it is forbidden only from minhah and after, but close to minhah it is permitted; whereas on the eve of Passover it is forbidden even close to minhah too. Now is it permitted just before minhah on the eve of the Sabbath and Festivals? Surely it was taught: A man must not eat on the eve of the Sabbath or Festivals from nine hours8 and onwards, in order that he may enter the Sabbath with an appetite: [these are] the words of R. Judah. R. Jose said: He may go on eating until nightfall? — Said Mar Zutra: Who is to tell us that this is authentic?
____________________
(1) Lit., 'on the eve of Passovers'. Tosaf. suggests that this may mean either on the eve when Passover-offerings are sacrificed, or on the eve of the first and second Passovers. But there is a variant reading ON THE EVES OF PASSOVER, the whole being in the plural; its meaning will then be on the eve of (every) Passover, as translated in the text, Heb. often using the plural in this way.
(2) V. Glos.; i.e., from just before minhah.
(3) As a sign of freedom, this being the practice in ancient days.
(4) Rashbam and Tosaf.: the charity overseers.
(5) Which every Jew must drink on the night of Passover. These correspond to the four expressions of redemption employed in Ex. VI, 6f: I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm, and with great judgments; and I will take you to me for a people
(commentaries and Jerusalemi).
(6) Tamhuy, daily distributed food collected from contributors, soup kitchen (Jast.). This was available only to the poorest of the poor, for he who had enough even for two meals only might not receive from the tamhuy (Pe'ah VIII, 7); even such must drink four cups of wine on the night of Passover.
(7) For since the eating of unleavened bread on the first night of Passover is compulsory (v. Ex. XII, 18) it is unfitting that should be eaten when one is already satisfied.
(8) I.e., about three p.m., whereas minhah time was nine and a half hours, about half past three p.m., two and a half hours before nightfall.Perhaps it is a corrupted version.1 Said Meremar to him — others state, R. Yemar; I visited the session of R. Phineas the son of R. Ammi, and a tanna arose and recited it2 before him and he accepted it [as correct]. If so, there is a difficulty? Hence it is clearly [to be explained] as R. Huna.3
Yet is it satisfactory according to R. Huna? Surely R. Jeremiah said in R. Johanan's name-others state, R. Abbahu said in the name of R. Jose b. R. Hanina — : The halachah is as R. Judah in respect to the eve of Passover, and the halachah is as R. Jose in respect to the eve of the Sabbath. 'The halachah is as R. Judah in respect to the eve of Passover, whence it follows that R. Jose disagrees on both?4 — No: 'The halachah [etc.]' proves that they disagree in respect to interruption. For it was taught: One must interrupt [the meal] for the Sabbath:5 this is R. Judah's ruling. R. Jose said: One need not interrupt [the meal].6 And it once happened that R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, R. Judah and R. Jose were dining7 at Acco, when the day became holy upon them.8 Said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel to R. Jose: 'Berabbi,9 is it your wish that we interrupt [our meal] and pay heed to the words of our colleague Judah?' Said he to him: 'Every [other] day you prefer my words to those of R. Judah, whereas now you prefer R. Judah's words in my very presence — "will he even force the queen before me in my house"?'10 'If so,' he rejoined, 'we will not interrupt [the meal], lest the disciples see it and establish the halachah [thus] for all time.'11 It was related: They did not stir thence until they had established the halachah as R. Jose.
Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: The halachah is neither as R. Judah12 nor as R. Jose,13 but one must spread a cloth14 and sanctify [the day].15 But that is not so, for R. Tahlifa b. Abdimi said in Samuel's name: Just as one must interrupt [the meal] for kiddush,
____________________
(1) This Baraitha contradicts the previous one, and there is nothing to show that this is more correct, particularly as the latter agrees with the Mishnah as explained above.
(2) The second Baraitha: from nine hours.
(3) Hence 'from minhah' in the first Baraitha means just before nightfall, and thus the Mishnah and both Baraithas are in agreement.
(4) Whereas in R. Huna's view R. Jose agrees in respect of Passover eve.
(5) The Heb. is in the plural: Sabbaths. I.e., if one started eating before the Sabbath, he must interrupt the meal when the Sabbath commences, remove the table and recite grace (the table was generally removed before grace, v. Ber. 42a), then recite kiddush, the prayer of sanctification, and proceed as with a new meal. According to a version infra 100b, the table was removed before kiddush, which then preceded grace (Tosaf.).
(6) But he completes the meal, recites grace, and then kiddush. Now when R. Jeremiah states that the halachah is as R. Judah in respect to Passover eve, whence it follows that R. Jose disagrees there too, this disagreement is likewise in reference to interrupting the meal, R. Jose maintaining that even on the eve of Passover he need not interrupt it once he has commenced (i.e.,if he commenced at the permitted time — Rashbam and Tosaf). But he admits that a man must not commence a meal in the first place shortly before minhah, and that is the meaning of the Mishnah too.
(7) Lit., 'reclining'.
(8) I.e., the Sabbath or festival commenced.
(9) A title of honour, v. Naz., Sonc. ed. p. 64, n. 1.
(10) Esth. VII, 8; i.e., will you shame me in my own presence?
(11) Lit., 'for generations
(12) Who maintains that one must interrupt the meal, which implies that the table must be removed.
(13) Who ruled that no interruption whatsoever is required.
(14) Which hides the table so that it is not there, as it were.
(15) By reciting kiddush.so must one interrupt it for habdalah.1 Now what does 'one must interrupt' mean: surely by removing the table?2 — No: by [spreading] a cloth. Rabbah b. R. Huna visited the Resh Galutha.3 When a tray [with food] was placed before him, he spread a cloth and sanctified [the day].4 It was taught likewise: And they both agree that5 one must not bring the table6 unless one has recited kiddush;7 but if it was brought, a cloth is spread [over it]8 and kiddush is recited.9
One [Baraitha] taught: Both10 agree that one must not commence;11 while another taught: And both agree that one may commence. As to what was taught, 'and both agree that one must not commence, it is well: that holds good on the eve of Passover.12 But as to the statement, 'And both agree that one may commence,' when [is that]? If we say, on the eve of the Sabbath, — but surely they differ? — There is no difficulty: here it means before nine [hours]; there, after nine [hours].13
As for people who have sanctified [the day] in the synagogue,14 Rab said: They have not done their duty in respect of wine,15 but they have done their duty in respect of kiddush.16 But Samuel maintained:
____________________
(1) V. Glos.
(2) Thus the mere spreading of a cloth is insufficient.
(3) Exilarch, the official head of Babylonian Jewry.
(4) It was at the beginning of the meal, the Sabbath having commenced.
(5) Rashbam is inclined to delete this phrase. If retained, it refers to R. Judah and R. Jose (Tosaf. and one alternative in Rashbam): though' they differ as to whether the meal must be interrupted, they agree where it has not yet begun.
(6) Small tables were set for each person separately; these were brought in for the meal and removed when It was finished.
(7) So that the table is then brought in honour of the Sabbath. Nevertheless it was laid before the Sabbath.
(8) Cf. p. 534, n. 9.
(9) This expedient is adopted nowadays that large tables are used, as it would be too troublesome to bring them in after kiddush.
(10) R. Judah and R. Jose, who disagree in respect of commencing a meal on the eve of the Sabbath just before minhah and also in respect of interrupting a meal at nightfall, if it was begun well before minhah.
(11) A meal from minhah and onwards.
(12) As R. Huna Supra 99b.
(13) There is no controversy in respect to the former.
(14) I.e., who have listened to the kiddush recited by the Reader.
(15) If they wish to drink wine at home, they must recite the benediction for wine. Even if they drank wine in the synagogue, over which a benediction had been recited, that does not exempt them, at home, for the change of place breaks the continuity and renders this drinking a new act.
(16) And as far as they are concerned they need not repeat the kiddush at home.
