MISHNAH: At nightfall of the Fourteenth one checks leavened matter by candle light. A place into which no leavened matter is introduced does not need checking. And where1The Babli and Maimonides read ולמה “why” instead of ובמה “where”. did they say two rows in the cellar2The storage place for wine or oil amphoras. While this is not a place where one usually stores leavened matter it is possible that the person who is asked to bring a barrel of wine or oil for household use is eating some bread and deposits it temporarily near the entrance door. Therefore it needs checking except for a wholesaler’s cellar.? A place where one introduces leavened matter. The House of Shammai are saying two rows in the front of the entire cellar3The amphoras are arranged in a rectangular pattern. The House of Shammai requires checking of two rows in all directions accessible from the door. Since usually one starts arranging the amphoras starting at two walls meeting at an angle, the outer rows at the other two sides of the rectangular arrangement have to be checked., but the House of Hillel are saying the outermost two rows which are the uppermost4Only the rows facing the door have to be checked. If the amphoras also are stacked on top of one another, the two top rows facing the door have to be checked.. HALAKHAH: “At nightfall of the fourteenth,” etc. It is written5Ex. 12:17–18.: You shall guard the mazzot, because on this same day I took out your multitudes fromthe Land of Egypt. On the first, on the fourteenth of the month, in the evening, you shall eat mazzot, etc. Where do we hold6What means on the first? Does it mean on the first month, or on the first day of the holidays?? If for eating mazzah, is it not already written, seven days you shall eat mazzot7Ex. 12:15.? Or if to say that one starts on the Fourteenth, is it not written, until the twenty-first of the month5Ex. 12:17–18.? But if it is not needed as a reference to the eating of mazzah, take it as a reference to the elimination of leavened matter8As usual, the argument partially refers to parts of the verse which are not quoted in the text. It says in 12:15, seven days you shall eat mazzot, only on the first day you shall eliminate sour dough from your houses. No calendar date has been given. One could read v. 17 to state that mazzot have to be eaten and leavened matter eliminated on the 14th. This is impossible since the same verse states that the seventh day is the 21st. Therefore the obligation to eat mazzot starts in the evening preceding the 15th. Since it is accepted doctrine that the calendar day starts at nightfall of the preceding night, the reference to the 14th cannot possibly refer to eating, but must give the date of the elimination of leavened matter for which the search in the preceding night is a preparation.. Why by candlelight? Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, because a candle permits checking everywhere9In holes and crevices which are dark in daytime (Babli 8a). The “candle” mentioned here is a small clay vessel filled with oil.. Why in the night? Rebbi Yose said, because checking with a candle is exact only during night time10As stated later, candle light is not effective during daytime.. Rebbi Mana did not say so: And guard this day for your generations as an eternal law5Ex. 12:17–18., see to it that day and night be guarded11The entire day should be dedicated to the elimination of leavened matter.. Then should one not start on the Thirteenth that day and night be guarded? He also agrees with the statement of Rebbi Yose12One cannot say that R. Mana disagrees with R. Yose; he adds to his statement.. Then should one start in the evening of the Thirteenth? If so, he could even check on the beginning of the month13Since checking two weeks in advance would be useless, so is checking a full day in advance. Since checking should be done at nighttime, the only remaining date is the evening of the 14th of Nisan (preceding the day).. Rebbi Jeremiah said that Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: May one check by the light of torches? What is his problem? Because their light is unsteady14Since the light is unsteady, it does not serve in searching nooks and crannies.. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac is consistent since Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, because a candle permits checking everywhere15The scribe wrote בודק כל שהוא כל שהוא “checking extremely well everywhere.” The second כל שהוא was deleted by the corrector; probably incorrectly.. [16Tosephta Pisha 1:1; corrector’s addition. Even though it is not proof of the matter, it is an allusion to the matter: It shall be on that day17Misquote from memory.that I shall search Jerusalem by candles18Zeph. 1:12, Babli 7b–8a.. But some want to say,] one can understand it from the following: A candle of the Eternal is a person’s soul, it searches all rooms of the body19Prov. 20:27, Babli 7b–8a.. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies that checking during daytime is called checking, as we have stated20Mishnah 3.: “Rebbi Jehudah says, one checks at nightfall of the Fourteenth, and on the Fourteenth, and at the moment of elimination.” Not only Rebbi Jehudah but even the rabbis, as we have stated: “If he did not check at nightfall of the Fourteenth he shall check on the Fourteenth.” Is it obligatory to check by candlelight21When checking during daytime, even following the rabbis.? Let us hear from the following22Tosephta 1:1, Babli 7b. “One checks neither by sunlight, nor by moonlight, nor by starlight, but by candlelight.” One understands “neither by moonlight, nor by starlight,” but “neither by sunlight”? Is there any sun in the night? This implies, even during daytime one has to check by candlelight; not only in a house without light, but even in a house which has light, even during daytime, it is necessary to check by candlelight. May one23This translation of צריך follows S. Liebermann. check dark passages24Roofed public spaces. purposely25As the parallel expression in the next paragraph shows, a word “during daytime” is missing here. by candlelight? The words of the rabbis imply that not as it radiates at night it radiates during the day, 26Gen. r. 31:12, a much better text. As given here, the story is Babylonian and there is no reason why they should be fleeing, and why the earth under the place (under the open sky) where the twice-yearly assembly of scholars was held should have been tunnelled. In Gen. rabba the name is Rebbi Huna, the place is Tiberias, and they were hiding from soldiers. as Rav Huna said, when we were fleeing to these catacombs of the great assembly they were lighting candles for us. When they were faint, we knew that it was day; when they were bright we knew that it was night. This parallels what Rebbi Aḥawa bar Ze`ira27The son of R. Zeˋira. In Gen. r. “R. Phineas in the name of R. Zeˋira”. In the Babli Sanhedrin 108b is a similar statement of R. Joḥanan. said, when Noah entered the Ark he brought with him precious stones and pearls. When they were dull, he knew that it was daytime; when they were shiny he knew that it was nighttime.Why? There are animals eating at daytime and there are animals eating at nighttime. But is there not written, make a skylight to the ark28Gen. 6:16.? Following him who said that the stars were not operative in the year of the flood29Gen. r. 25:2, interpretation of Gen.8:22.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Do synagogues and houses of study need checking? What is his problem? Since one brings30In general it is forbidden to bring food into a synagogue or study hall proper, but for a meal accompanying the public declaration of the new month or the additional month one brought food there, bread and vegetables (Babli Sanhedrin 70b) or grapes and bread (Yerushalmi Berakhot6:4, Note 149). there for intercalations31In a responsum of R. Nissim of Kairawan (Teshuvot Hegaonim Lyck, #105) and the Frankfurt ms. of Or zarua II §453, עיבריות. Even the word spelled with א is interpreted as if written with ע, “intercalations”; J. N. Epstein, Tarbiz 5 (1933–34) p. 263. In the printed editions of the Yerushalmi, following a correction on the margin of the ms., “on Sabbaths” (cf. R. Nissim loc. cit., p. 34). and on the days of the New Moon. It should be obvious for him32That one has to check, even if the place was not usually used for public meals., but what really is his problem? Since they are very well illuminated, may one check them purposely during daytime by candlelight33And not in the evening of the 14th, when people are occupied in their own houses. Since no answer is given, theˋ answer is negative.? Rebbi Yose asked: The courtyards in Jerusalem where one eats the bread of thanksgiving offerings34Which have an obligatory component of leavened bread, Lev. 7:13. and the wafers of a nazir35Part of the offering of the nazir at the fulfillment of his vow, Num. 6:15. These are unleavened., do they need checking? Are they not checked anyhow for leftovers36Since any leftovers from any well-being offering, including the thanksgiving offering, must be burned (Lev.7:17), every day of the year these localities are treated the way every other dwelling is treated on Passover Eve.? It should be parallel to what Rebbi Zachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi stated: A menstruating woman washes her hair and combs37She becomes pure by immersing all her body in water. Therefore it is imperative that not two hairs cling together; before immersion she has to make sure that this does not happen.. A priestly woman does not wash her hair and comb38The wife, unmarried daughter, or slave of a Cohen who participate with the Cohen in eating heave and other sancta. As long as the rules of purity could be kept, these women, together with the Cohen, have to immerse themselves every day close to sundown (cf. Mishnah Berakhot 1:1, Note 3). Therefore washing the hair is not necessary. Quoted Tosaphot Niddah 66b.. A menstruating priestly woman washes her hair and combs, not to differentiate between one menstruating woman and another. So also here, not to differentiate between elimination and elimination. Rabbi Gamliel bar Inyany stated before Rebbi Mana: A menstruating woman who interrupts for seven days washes her hair and combs. A priestly woman who immerses herself every day does not wash her hair and comb39From the comparison of the menstruating and the priestly women one cannot infer anything since the menstruating priestly woman is excluded from the common meal of sancta for the period of her impurity. The statement which exempts her from washing her hair applies only to pure priestly women.. He told him, it is necessary for one who watches one day for a day40As long as the rules of purity could be observed, a woman in the household of a Cohen was obligated to reduce the period of her impurity to a minimum. The method by which any other woman could avoid showing her blood to a rabbinic authority to ascertain the status of her impurity (cf. Niddah 4:1 Note 3) is not available to the priestly woman. It is rabbinic doctrine that after one menstruation, the next is possible only after 11 days.(Mishnah Niddah 4:7). If she loses blood on one of these days, she does not follow the rules of niddah but those of zavah. For the first two occurrences in one period she is impure only for 24 hours. The statement about the impure priestly woman is needed to decree that even an interruption of one day without immersion triggers the obligation of washing the hair.. 41Tosephta 1:3, Babli 8a.“Holes in the house, the upper and the lower ones, and the veranda42Any additional structure having a sloping roof., and the ditch43חדות is the same as דות in the Tosephta., and the upper floor44Used only for storage but not as dwelling., and the roof of the olive press45It seems that the reading of the Tosephta, גג הבית “the roof of the house” is the correct one (as it is quoted as reading of the Yerushalmi by R. Isaac Ibn Ghiat). A flat roof is exposed to the wind and to foraging birds; one may assume that no leavened matter stays there for long., and the roof of the tower46This has a sloping roof on which nothing stays., the storage room of straw, and the cattle stable, and the storage room of wood, and the storage room of provisions, wine storage, and oil storage, and produce storage, do not need checking.” One understands the upper ones47If “upper” means “higher than the reach of a person”, one need not expect that leavened matter was deposited there. But very low lying holes are at the reach of children.. The lower ones? Does this mean that they did not worry about things falling down? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if both were close to the wall48Holes at the outside of the wall., whether higher than ten or lower than ten [hand-breadths]49The text is confirmed by a quote in Tur Orah Hayyim §433; it does not make any sense since 10 hand-breadths is a height very accessible to all uses. The statement is rejected by all authorities who quote it.. Did we not state “the ditch”? Does this not mean that they did not worry about things falling down? The toddler is afraid to go there. But should one not be afraid that leavened matter rolled there? Explain it by a ditch which has a rim. “And the roof of the olive press, and the roof of the tower.” That is, if they are three hand-breadths high; but if they are not three hand-breadths high they are like ground. And if they were not used for leavened matter, but if they were used for leavened matter even if it is very high it needs checking. Rebbi Mana said, this is correct. Would we say that this papyrus scaffold which is very high should not need checking50Tosephta Šabbat 14(15):3 mentions an instrument used to remove bread from the papyrus scaffold where it is stored. Cf. Kilaim 6:3 Note 38.? It was stated: 41Tosephta 1:3, Babli 8a.“Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a couch which was separated52The couch was separated from the floor, i. e., it was on high legs which left room for storage under the bed. in the house but wood and stones are stored under it, one checks at the outside but does not have to check on the inside.” Because wood and stones are stored under it, but if no wood and stones are stored under it, one has to check on the inside. Does this mean that they did (not)53The word was written by the scribe but correctly deleted by the corrector. worry about things falling down? I am saying that (a child exerted himself and) [an unruly child]53*Versions of (scribe) and [corrector.] brought leavened matter there54Just as the first part of the Tosephta, quoted in the preceding paragraph, does not prove that the earlier generations were not afraid of bread accidentally falling down without being picked up, so this part does not prove the opposite conclusion.. A wine cellar needs checking, an oil cellar does not need checking55Babli 8a.. What is the difference between wine and oil? Wine has no staying power, oil has staying power56Wine is drawn from the amphora at least once a day; fresh oil is needed only from time to time.. Storage57Wholesale storage for commercial purposes., whether of wine or oil, does not need checking. What is a cellar? Anything used with bread in the courtyard58Any place where bread is introduced during the year needs checking. Some Medieval authors, e.g. Meïri (ed. J. Klein, Jerusalem 1964, p. 39, Notes 468–469) read here an additional sentence: “Storage is what is not used with bread in the courtyard.”. There exists a cellar which is like storage and storage which is like a cellar. A cellar in which he is ashamed to eat is like storage; storage where he is not ashamed to eat is like a cellar. 59This does not belong here; because of the similarity in language it is copied from Ketubot 7:7, Notes 71–72. There is a courtyard which is like an alley and an alley which is like a courtyard. A courtyard which is used by the public is like an alley, and an alley which is not used by the public is like a courtyard. But should one not be afraid that animal drivers introduce leavened matter into it60This refers back to storage areas. While the producer of the wine will not introduce bread into his storage area, what can be said about the teamster who will transport the wine for sale at other places?? Animal drivers usually do not introduce leavened matter into it but sweets since they help in checking the quality of the wine61If the teamster is transporting for his own account, he will want to check the quality of the wine he is buying; for that he eats taste enhancing candy, not taste dulling bread.. “If somebody leaves to travel by sea, before thirty days he does not have to check; within thirty [days] he has to check”62Tosephta 1:4 (in the formulation of the Babli 6a).. 63The Babli 6a rules in everything the exact opposite of the Yerushalmi, which holds that everybody is obligated at all times to see to it that his property contains no leavened matter on Passover, wherever it be situated and wherever he spends the holiday. That is to say, if he intends to return. But if he does not intend to return, even before thirty days he has to check. If there is a doubt; but if it is certain then even from New Year’s Day. Rebbi Abba said, but even if he intends to return he has to check, maybe he will change his mind and not return. Everybody is trustworthy about elimination of leavened matter, even women, even slaves. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: There is no “even” women. Women intrinsically are trustworthy; since they are slow they check everything very carefully. Samaritans any time when they prepare their mazzah with Jews64If the Samaritan calendar has Passover on the same day as the rabbinic one. are trustworthy about checking for leavened matter; if they do not prepare their mazzah with Jews they are not trustworthy about checking for leavened matter. Rebbi Yose said, this means in the houses, but they are suspect in courtyards since they explain that it should not be found in your houses,65Ex. 12:19. does not apply to your courtyards. It was stated: 66Tosephta 2:3, Babli Gittin 10a, Qiddushin 76a, Ḥulin 4a. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any commandment which the Samaritans keep they are much more exact with them than Jews. Rebbi Simeon67This author cannot be R. Simeon ben Yoḥai, but he might be R. Simeon ben Eleazar (Avodah zarah 5:4, p. 447). said, that means earlier when they were concentrated in their villages. But today, when they have no commandments nor remainders of commandments they are suspect and degenerate. One asks about practices of Passover at Passover, practices of Pentecost at Pentecost, practices of Tabernacles at Tabernacles68Babli Megillah 4a. Sifry Num. 66.. In the House of Assembly one asks thirty days in advance; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, two weeks69Babli Pesaḥim 6a.. The statement of Rebbi Joḥanan follows the rabbis, that of the colleagues Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of the rabbis, because Moses stands on the First Passover and explains to them the rules of Second Passover70The rules of the Second Passover to be celebrated on the 14th of Iyar by people impure on the 14th of Nisan were promulgated on the 13th of Nisan, Num.9:9–14.. That of the colleagues follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, because Moses stands on the day of the New Moon and explains to them the rules of Passover71Num. 9:1–4.. “Where1The Babli and Maimonides read ולמה “why” instead of ובמה “where”. did they say two rows in the cellar2The storage place for wine or oil amphoras. While this is not a place where one usually stores leavened matter it is possible that the person who is asked to bring a barrel of wine or oil for household use is eating some bread and deposits it temporarily near the entrance door. Therefore it needs checking except for a wholesaler’s cellar.,” etc. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: He peels it like a Gamma. Bar Qappara stated, he peels it like two Gamma73He checks the outer rows in the cellar in two directions orthogonal to one another, in the shape of Γ. Babli 8b in the name of R. Joḥanan.. If it was situated in the middle of the room. In the opinion of Rav Huna he strips it of one garment, in the opinion of Bar Qappara he strips it of two garments74He has to check the lower row and one vertical row and the upper row and, depending on the interpretation given later, either another vertical row or a horizontal row inwards.. If it75The storage room. Each step defines a new front row. was built in steps, he strips it by many Gamma. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Ḥizqiah: Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. The outermost row which is the uppermost which sees both door and beam of the roof, [and] the one inside of it76If the amphoras are stored at least two layers high, one has to check the two rows close to the entrance of the top layer.. It was stated: the one below it. They wanted to say that he who says, the one inside of it, so much more that one below it. He who says, the one below it, therefore not the one inside of it77Only the front rows in all layers have to be checked.. If half a row was used, it is obvious that what was used has inside of it and below it. That which was not used has inside of it and below it78Even if during the year wine was taken only from one side of one row, once part of a row must be checked, the entire row must be checked.. That is to say, if they are spaced79According to Tosephta Ahilut 10:5, amphoras are spaced if on two opposite sides there is one hand-breadth of free space.. But if they are tightly packed he passes the light over them80Corrector’s text. The scribe’s הנייר ולווי “the paper and appurtenances” is unintelligible. and it is enough. Does this mean that they did worry about things falling down? Rebbi Phineas from Yafo80*Nothing more is known about him. said, I am saying that the servant introduced leavened matter when he placed them.
MISHNAH: One does not suspect81After a room has been searched for leavened matter, one does not fear that an animal brought such matter back into the room; no place has to be searched more than once. that a mole dragged it from room to room or from place to place82In one courtyard.; if that were the case, also from courtyard to courtyard83Since not all people search their property at the same time, animals could find leavened matter somewhere at all times and no search could ever be completed. and from town to town without end. HALAKHAH: “One does not suspect,” etc. Rebbi Jonah said, so the Mishnah should have been stated: From town to town and from courtyard to courtyard, from place to place and from room to room. If you suspect from town to town, you will suspect from courtyard to courtyard. If you suspect from courtyard to courtyard, you will suspect from place to place. If you suspect from place to place, you will suspect from room to room. Rebbi Yose said, even following the Mishnah it is correct. “One does not suspect that a mole pulled it from room to room or from place to place; if that were the case, also from courtyard to courtyard and from town to town without end.” For if you do not suspect from room to room, not so much more you suspect from place to place? If you do not suspect from place to place, not so much more from courtyard to courtyard? If you do not suspect from courtyard to courtyard, not so much more from town to town? All of Israel can check their leavened matter together84Mishnah 2 is a consequence of Mishnah 1. One really should be worried that animals could transport food from one place to another. But since everybody checks at the same time, after sundown of the 13th of Nisan, there is no danger of later contamination.This paragraph is the corrector’s text; the scribe’s text “if you do not suspect from town to town you certainly do mot worry from courtyard to courtyard, etc.“ has all arguments the wrong way..
MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah says, one checks at nightfall of the Fourteenth, and on the mourning of the Fourteenth, and at the time of elimination85In the interpretation of the Yerushalmi, R. Jehudah requires three checks for every place. Rav Joseph in the Babli (10b) reads the conjunctions in R. Jehudah’s statement as “or”. The time of elimination is given in Mishnah 4.. But the Sages say, he who did not check at nightfall of the Fourteenth has to check on the Fourteenth; he who did not check on the Fourteenth has to check on the holiday. He who did not check on the holiday has to check after the holiday86Since leavened matter which was in the possession of a Jew during Passover is forbidden for all usufruct (Mishnah 2:2), such matter if it was not eliminated before the holiday must be eliminated afterwards.. And what he leaves he should deposit at a guarded place so that he would not be obligated to repeat checking87Any bread and leavened matter to be used on the morning of the Fourteenth must be secured after the checking in the evening since if some of it would be missing in the morning the entire checking procedure would have to be repeated.. HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah says,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Jehudah, corresponding to the three times that in the Torah is written, leavening shall not be seen as yours88Twice in Ex. 13:7, once in Deut. 16:4.. But is it not written89Ex. 12:15., you shall remove leavening from your houses? That is a positive commandment. But is it not written90Ex. 12:19., for seven days leavening shall not be found in your houses? Rebbi Yose said, since they are mutually needed91As explained in the sequel., they are as one. It should not be seen as yours, I would have said, if somebody92A Gentile’s leavened matter, which is exempt from Jewish law. But if it is a deposit, i. e., that the Jew is responsible for damages, it becomes the Jew’s property for the rules of Passover. deposited with him it should be permitted. The verse says, it shall not be found in your houses. If it shall not be found in your houses, if he gave him a separate place93A Gentile’s leavened matter stored at a separate place for which the Jewish owner of the place accepts no responsibility may stay there over Passover. Babli 6a. it should be forbidden. The verse says, it shall not be seen as yours. How is this? If he deposited with him it is forbidden; if he gave him a separate place it is permitted. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted94It is not spelled out what other opinion of R. Jehudah is in conflict with his statement in the Mishnah. It seems that while he is stringent in the requirement of triple checking before the holiday he is lenient in not requiring anything afterwards if checking was not done by the time of elimination.. As we have stated, “Rebbi Jehudah says, one checks at nightfall of the Fourteenth, and on the mourning of the Fourteenth, and at the time of elimination5Ex. 12:17–18.. But the Sages say, if he did not check at nightfall of the Fourteenth, he has to check on the Fourteenth.” Does he have to check three times? Since at a time before its term of elimination you are saying that he has to check three times, at the moment of the term of elimination not so much more? 95The text in parentheses was deleted by the corrector and therefore is not found in the printed texts. It is a necessary component of the argument.(No, it need not be so. If he did not check on the Fourteenth, he has to check on the holiday. Does he have to check three times? Since at a time before its term of elimination you are saying that he has to check three times, at the moment of the term of elimination not so much more?) No, it need not be so. If he did not check on the holiday, he has to check after the holiday96The answer to the question was that certainly R. Jehudah would agree with the Sages that checking during or after the holidays is required if it was not done beforehand (a position rejected by the Babli 10b–11a.) The only question is whether in these cases also R. Jehudah requires triple checking. Since he does not spell out his position, an attempt to determine this by inferences is unsuccessful. Since practice does not follow R. Jehudah, a final answer is not given.. “And what he leaves he should deposit at a guarded place so that he would not be obligated to repeat checking87Any bread and leavened matter to be used on the morning of the Fourteenth must be secured after the checking in the evening since if some of it would be missing in the morning the entire checking procedure would have to be repeated..” What does he do? He covers it with a vessel. If he covered it with a vessel but did not find it97If the bread was covered, we assume that a human took it. If it was uncovered, one assumes that an animal took it. In the Babli 9b one supposes in both cases that an animal took it; this also seems to be the underlying hypothesis in the Yerushalmi. Rabbenu Yeruham (Part 1, Path 5, 39a) reads in the first case אימא שד נטלתו “I would say, a spirit took it” but from Ravia §444 (vol. 2, p.68) it seems that for שד “spirit” one should read שיד “that a hand”, meaning a human hand. Raviah notes that his own copy of the Yerushalmi does not contain the passage. In any case the reading of R. Yeruham is suspect since אימא is Babylonian Aramaic based on Accadic, for standard אימר, תימר.. I am saying that a hand took it. If he did not cover it with a vessel and did not find it, this house98Since a standard house had one room, it might be better to translate “a room”. needs checking. Or the other houses would not need checking? Let us hear from the following99Tosephta Tahorot 3:5.: “If the volume of an olive from a cadaver was lost in a house; it was searched but not found. The house is pure; if it will be found, the house is retroactively impure.” This can teach about that and that can teach about this. This can teach about that, there is no difference between “was lost” and “what he leaves”100This is the original assertion that the rules of Passover Eve can be compared to the rules of impurity.. And that can teach about this, only this house needs to be checked. Following Rebbi Jehudah even this house should not need to be checked, as we may hear from the following:101Babli 9a, Tosephta Ahilut 16:13. “Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the slave girl of a discharged veteran102Latin missicus, cf. Bava qamma 10:6, Notes 60. at Rimmon threw a still birth into a cistern. A Cohen came and looked to know what she had thrown down. The case came before the Sages and they declared him pure103By bending over the opening of the cistern the Cohen would become impure by “tent impurity” if the body still was there. for moles and martens usually drag it away.” It runs after flesh, it does not run after bread104Babli 9a.. And even if you are saying that it runs after flesh and bread, it drags away flesh and eats it; it drags away bread and stores it. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: One does not suspect that a mole dragged it, but following Rebbi Jehudah one suspects it105R. Jehudah cannot accept Mishnah 2, otherwise he would accept single checking..
MISHNAH: Rebbi Meïr says, one eats106Leavened food on the 14th of Nisan. all during the fifth [hour]107According to most opinions. the standard day is counted from sunrise to sundown and is divided into 12 hours. At the spring equinox the day starts at 6 am local time; then the fourth hour is 9–10 am, the fifth 10–11 am and the start of the sixth is 11 am. and burns at the start of the sixth. Rebbi Jehudah says, one eats the entire fourth [hour], suspends108One neither eats nor burns. during the fifths, and burns at the start of the sixth. HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Meïr says, one eats all during the fifth [hour],” etc. 109The text is copied from Sanhedrin 5:3 where in general it is agreed that in a criminal case where it is necessary to determine the time of an alleged crime a difference of two hours in the testimony of different witnesses invalidates the testimonies; R. Jehudah applies this also to noontime but the anonymous Tanna (supposed to be R. Meïr) disagrees and allows discrepancies up to two hours in this case.The scribe of the Leiden ms., after the text translated here in the first 5 sentences, wrote: “one repeats from Sanhedrin until the sun never starts setting’.” The corrector who prepared the ms. for the Venice printer added the omitted portion; his text differs from Sanhedrin by both an addition and a lacuna. It is impossible to decide whether the corrector’s text be copied from a different ms. or represents the corrector’s emendations of the Sanhedrin text. In neither text is the use of references “here” and “there” (either Pesaḥim or Sanhedrin) completely consistent. Rebbi Meïr says, from noontime on it110The prohibition of leavened matter on Passover Eve. is from their words; Rebbi Jehudah says, from noontime on it is biblical. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Only on the first day111Ex. 12:15: Seven days you shall eat maẓzot; only on the first day you shall eliminate sour dough from your houses … אַךְ might also be translated as “certainly”., that is the fifteenth112Ex. 12:14 states: This day shall be a remembrance for you; you shall keep it as a holiday of pilgrimage for the Eternal … Num. 28:15–16 require that the 14th of Nisan be pesaḥ for the Eternal; starting from the 15th for seven days it is the holiday of mazzot. Since pesaḥ (i. e., the day of the slaughter of the pesaḥ sacrifice) is connected inextricably with the holiday of mazzot, the reference in v. 14 to the “first day” is intrinsically ambiguous, whether it refer to pesaḥ or to the holiday.. I could think at nightfall; the verse says only,113A similar argument is in the Babli, 4b, Mekhilta dR. Ismael (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 28), Mekhilta dR. Simeon b. Iohai (ed. Epstein-Melamed p. 17).. How is this? Give it one hour before sundown114I. e., the only biblical requirement is that all leavened matter be completely disposed of before the holiday at sundown.. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fourteenth. I could think the entire day; the verse says only. How is that? Split the day, half for leavened matter, half for mazzah. Rebbi Meïr’s argument seems inverted. There, he said only to add; here he said only to diminish115It seems that this refers to Ex. 12:16: …no work shall be done [on the holidays], only what may be eaten by any soul, it alone may be made by you. Everybody agrees that food may be prepared on a holiday. According to R. Meïr (i. e., the anonymous opinion in Mishnah Megillah 1:8) only food may be prepared, not preparations necessary for the preparation of food. According to R. Jehudah (Megillah 1:8), anything that in the end leads to preparation of food is permitted on a holiday. R. Meïr reads only as a restriction in v. 16 and as an addition in v. 15!. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he diminished, he excludes leavened matter. Rebbi Meïr says, do not eat leavened matter with it116Deut. 16:3, referring to the pesaḥ sacrifice which is slaughtered on the afternoon of the 14th and eaten in the night of the 15th., while it is eaten. Rebbi Jehudah says, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is prepared117In the afternoon of the 14th. This supports R. Jehudah’s contention that leavened matter is biblically forbidden in the afternoon of the 14th; Sifry Deut. 130.. Rebbi Jehudah has [both a positive and a negative commandment concerning its eating118“It” here refers to maẓzah., a positive and a negative commandment concerning its119“It” here refers to leavened matter. removal. A positive commandment concerning its eating, seven days you shall eat unleavened bread with it, but not leavened. Any prohibition which is implied by a positive commandment has the status of positive commandment120It is not an indictable offense; cf. Bikkurim 1:5, Note 103. If a positive commandment is in conflict with a negative one (a prohibition), the positive is stronger. But an obligation which is both positive and negative is stronger than anything else.. A negative commandment concerning its eating, do not eat leavened for it. A positive commandment concerning its removal, you shall remove sour dough111Ex. 12:15: Seven days you shall eat maẓzot; only on the first day you shall eliminate sour dough from your houses … אַךְ might also be translated as “certainly”.. A negative commandment concerning its removal, for seven days sour dough shall not be found in your houses121Ex. 12:19.. Now Rebbi Meïr says, after noontime it is forbidden because of their words. The seventh hour is forbidden because of a fence. Why the sixth? Because of a fence122For R. Meïr, the biblical prohibition of leavened matter starts at the 11th hour (5 pm local time). The earlier afternoon hours, including the 7th, are rabbinically forbidden as a “fence around the law”. Then it is difficult to understand why leavened matter has to be burned at the start of the 6th, extending the rabbinic prohibition for another hour as a fence around the fence, a practice generally rejected.. Is there a fence around a fence? But the sixth hour may be confounded with the seventh123It is not a fence around a fence but consistent with the opinion of the Sages (R. Meïr) in Sanhedrin 5:3. In a society without watches the difference between 11am and 12am is not generally recognized; a prohibition enforced after noontime must practically be enforced starting from 11am.. 124The remainder of the paragraph is missing in Sanhedrin. Now Rebbi Jehudah says, after the fifth hour it is forbidden because of their words; the sixth hour is forbidden because of a fence. Why the fifth? Because of a fence. Is there a fence around a fence? But the fifth hour may be confounded with the seventh. Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There125Referring to Sanhedrin. R. Jehudah agrees that while without watches people cannot distinguish between two morning or two afternoon hours, he explicitly agrees that people distinguish between fifth (10–11am) and seventh (12am–1pm)., he says that the fifth cannot be confounded with the seventh. Rebbi Yose said, there the matter is given over to the court, and the court is diligent. But here the matter is given over to women who are slow. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there126In Sanhedrin the Mishnah does not require the court to accept any testimonies where the witnesses differ widely in determining the time of a crime; R. Jehudah admonishes the court under certain circumstances to investigate whether the witnesses do not in reality testify about the same time; Babli Pesaḥim 12b. it is a matter between the beginning of the fifth and the end of the seventh hour. Here it is between the end of the fifth and the start of the seventh127In Pesaḥim the period of doubt is little more than 60 min., in Sanhedrin close to 180 min. The apparent inconsistency is due to the informal use of “hour.”. It also was stated thus128Babli 12b.: At the start of the fifth hour the sun is in the East, and at the end of the [seventh] hour the sun is in the West. The sun never starts setting before the end of the seventh hour.] Rav said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: He who preliminarily marries with leavened matter starting from the sixth hour did not do anything129Qiddušin 1:1, Note 73. A preliminary marriage can be contracted in different ways; one of them is delivering something of value to the bride. While leavened matter for R. Jehudah is prohibited only after noontime of the 14th of Nisan, since it is rabbinically forbidden after the start of the fifth hour it no longer has any monetary value. Babli 7a.. Rebbi Huna said, this is correct. Would Cordovanian130In the Babli, loc. cit., קורדניתא “Kurdish”. According to Rashi and R. Hananel they are very hard; to be used they have to be soaked in water and then are considered leavened and forbidden for ususfruct on Passover. wheat in the desert be any good on the holiday? A person deposited a double sack131Greek δισάκκιον, τό. A different version is in the Babli 13a. of bread with the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, he was Joḥanan from Ḥiqoq. He went and asked Rebbi who told him, it should be sold under judicial supervision at the time of elimination132The owner did not collect his property before Passover Eve. To avoid it becoming worthless, it has to be sold to Gentiles and the proceeds kept in trust for the owner.. A person deposited a jar of kutaḥ133A kind of yogurt made in Babylonia from milk, salt, and mouldy bread as source of the bacteria. This is leavened matter. with Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi. He went and asked Rav who told him, it should be sold under judicial supervision at the time of elimination. What is the time of elimination134When is the time to sell leavened matter whose owner did not collect it in time?? Rebbi Jeremiah said, in the morning135The entire morning of the 14th of Nisan.. Rebbi Aḥa said, the fifth [hour] following Rebbi Jehudah136This is the Babli’s decision in the name of Rebbi, 13a.. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Jeremiah said it correctly. Did they not say to touch them in order to sell them only to return a lost article to its owner137In general, an unpaid keeper is not responsible for losses unless he manipulates the deposit without authorization. Without incurring financial responsibility he only can sell by direction of the court in order to avoid major financial loss to the depositor.? In the fifth [hour] following Rebbi Jehudah it is not worth anything. The colleagues said, in the fifth [hour] following Rebbi Jehudah if he dedicated it it is dedicated138In order to avoid having to burn the leavened matter, he dedicates it to the Temple to be sold and the proceeds used for the Temple’s needs. Temple property is not subject to the prohibition of leavened matter since it is not yours as mentioned in Ex.13:7.; if he designated it as heave it is no heave. If he dedicated it it is dedicated, dedication of money’s worth139Even for R. Jehudah the biblical prohibition of usufruct only starts on midday of the 14th; during the fifth hour the matter is worth money even for Jews, since it may be used as cattle feed.. If he designated it as heave it is no heave, since heave was given only to be consumed140Heave is a sanctum to be given to the Cohen to be consumed in purity; nothing pure that cannot be consumed may become heave.. Rebbi Yose told them, the opposite is reasonable. If he dedicated it it is not dedicated; if he designated it as heave it is heave. If he dedicated it it is not dedicated, since one does not redeem sancta to feed to the dogs141Babli 29a, Ševuot 11b, Bekhorot 15a, Temurah 17a,30b,31a; Yerushalmi Maˋaser Šeni 2:5 Note 82.. If he designated it as heave it is heave, since it is pure by the words of the Torah142Since by biblical standards it is food until 12 am, a rabbinic prohibition cannot invalidate a biblically valid dedication. This cannot be compared with the case of preliminary marriage since there money’s worth is required, which was eliminated by rabbinic usage.. You are the one who decided that it has to be burned.
MISHNAH: In addition, Rebbi Jehudah said, two disqualified loaves of thanksgiving offering143At Jerusalem in Temple times, the Temple was the timekeeper and signalled to the people the times to dispose of leavened matter. A thanksgiving offering requires the addition of leavened bread (Lev. 7:13). Since the bread was kept until the time its consumption was forbidden, one used loaves which could not be eaten, either because they were impure or because they were from the preceding day’s offering. A thanksgiving offering must be consumed on the day it is offered (Lev. 7:15), this applies not only to the meat but also to the accompanying cereal. were lying on the roof of the stoa144The stoa surrounding the Temple Mount. Babli 13b. As long as they were lying there, everybody was eating. If one was removed one suspends, neither does one eat nor burn. If both were removed, everybody started to burn.Rabban Gamliel says, profane food is eaten the entire fourth [hour] and heave the entire fifth; and one burns at the start of the sixth. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: They were qualified145The breads exhibited as a sign. Babli 13b.. And why does he treat them as disqualified? Not to slaughter the sacrifice for them6What means on the first? Does it mean on the first month, or on the first day of the holidays?. But do they not become sancta only by the slaughter? They should be redeemed and be eaten146They were dedicated as bread accompanying a thanksgiving sacrifice; their holiness is that of a gift to the Temple, not that of a sacrifice. Once the sacrifice was slaughtered and the blood sprinkled on the altar, the bread becomes intrinsically holy and its status equals that of sacrificial meat which cannot be redeemed. This implies that any time before the slaughter, the bread can be redeemed to regain profane status and other bread dedicated in its stead. The bread cannot become disqualified if the corresponding sacrifice is not slaughtered.! Rebbi Ḥanania said, he has profane [bread] before him which he could not eat and you are saying, they should be redeemed and be eaten? Rebbi [Ḥanina]147The name is missing in the ms. and the printed editions but retained in the quote of this passage by Tosaphot (13b s.v. אלא). said, they were disqualified. Since they are in a hurry to bring their thanksgiving sacrifices because of the leavened bread with the sacrifice148The Yerushalmi assumes that thanksgiving sacrifices may be offered on the 14th. These are family sacrifices and in this case must be eaten as long as the bread may be eaten. Since no sacrifices may be offered before the daily morning sacrifice, the time to consume an entire animal is very short. The Babli 13b holds that no thanksgiving sacrifice is accepted on the 14th and refers R. Yannai’s statement to bread dedicated for such a sacrifice which then cannot be used for sacrificial purposes., it is impossible that not the blood of one of them be spilled149An argument accepted in the Babli 13b as minority opinion of R. Simeon ben Eleazar. and it becomes disqualified. It was stated: Two cows were ploughing [in Jerusalem]150Babli 14a. In this version they were ploughing on Mount Olivet and could be seen everywhere in Jerusalem. One had to stop eating leavened bread when only one cow was seen.. But is Jerusalem not a place where they used not to work on the Fourteenth151The 14th is a semi-holiday. As noted in Mishnah 4:1, whether work in the morning was permitted or forbidden was a matter of local custom.? They were looking as if ploughing. There are Tannaim who stated: Two lights were burning. There are Tannaim who stated: Two sheets152Two large linen sheets displayed as flags.. Rebbi Phineas said, they do not disagree. He who said, two cows, two lights, on a weekday. He who said, two sheets, on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ḥananiah asked before Rebbi Mana, should they not insitute trumpet blowing? If you say so, it would turn out that [they would say, maybe] they blow for the daily sacrifice153As required by Num. 10:10.[, and they would be led astray]. He retorted, but did we not state: “Three to separate people from work, and three to separate between weekday and holiness”154Mishnah Sukkah 5:5. Every Friday afternoon after the daily sacrifice trumpets were blown to announce the coming of the Sabbath.? He answered him, there every single Friday they are blowing, one will not err. But here it is once in a long time; if you say so, it would turn out that they would say, maybe they blow for the daily sacrifice, and they would be led astray. Why155Why may heave, which is a sanctum and may be eaten only by pure Cohanim, be eaten an additional hour?? Because of its holiness or because its eaters are few? What is the difference between them? The breads of the thanksgiving sacrifice. If you are saying because its eaters are few, the eaters of these are many156Of the 10 breads accompanying a thanksgiving sacrifice, 9 are eaten by the offerer and his family, only one by a Cohen.. If you are saying because of its holiness, these are holy. Rebbi Nathan says, they157He agrees with R. Jehudah that two breads were displayed as a sign that leavened matter may be eaten. He disagrees with him on two points. First, that the breads were pure sancta, and that they were lifted together and eaten, exactly one hour before leavening had to be burned. were taken when qualified, (that there be) [one waits]158The scribe’s text (in parentheses) is as good as the corrector’s [in brackets]/ one hour when they can be eaten, one suspends but does not burn. Could you say because its eaters are few159Since they are only two, they could be eaten by the person lifting them.? No, because of its holiness; here also because of its holiness. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, it seems that practice has to follow Rabban Gamliel since he says it similar to both of them160R. Meïr and R. Jehudah in Mishnah 4. There came Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq: practice follows Rabban Gamliel since what he says is similar to both of them.
MISHNAH: Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim161The organizer of the Temple service; one of the few permanent positions in the Temple service., says, the Cohanim never refrained from burning meat which became impure by derivative impurity162Since it is written (Num. 19:22) anything an impure person touches will become impure, it is clear that biblical original impurity induces biblical derivative impurity. In both cases, sacrificial meat which became impure must be burned. The question is raised in the Halakhah, how many stages of derivative impurity are implied by biblical law and how many are purely rabbinical. If biblically impure meat would be burned together with rabbinically impure (but biblically pure) meat, the latter could become more impure before being destroyed. with meat which became impure by original impurity even though they added impurity to it. HALAKHAH: 165Here starts the discussion of Mishnah 7, even though this is noted only later. Bar Qappara said, original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words166This refers to the terms used by R. Ḥananiah in the Mishnah. In the Babli, 15a/15b, the attributions are switched. In the Yerushalmi the attributions are confirmed in Šeqalim 8:5.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both these and those are word of the Torah167In his opinion, biblically pure food, even if it may no longer be eaten or sacrificed, may not be destroyed.. In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable168The statement of R. Ḥananiah contains essential information, that one may cause impurity to food which is biblically pure in order to burn it together with biblically impure food. While it is a matter of dispute whether this applies to food in a profane setting, it is agreed that it is prohibited to increase impurity in a sacral setting.. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, original impurity induces first degree derivative. Derivative impurity169Derivative impurity in the first degree such as described in Num. 19:22. The biblical rule that for material susceptible to impurity contact with derivative impurity in the first degree induces derivative impurity in the second degree is derived from Lev.7:19. Since there is no verse which implies the possibility of biblical derivative impurity in the third degree, derivative impurity in the second degree biblically should be characterized as disqualified for sacral use rather than impure. induces second degree derivative. Second degree impurity which touched first degree one remains in its place, second degree, since third degree which touches first degree becomes second degree170Babli 14a. Then R. Ḥananiah’s statement is trivial and unnecessary.. It was stated171Tosephta 1:6.: “The House of Shammai say, one does not burn pure meat with impure meat, but the House of Hillel permit.” In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable. One burns what is disqualified172Derivative impurity in the second degree. by the Torah with what is disqualified as impure173Original impurity or derivative impurity in the first degree. by the Torah. And it was necessary to let hear, impurity by their words with impurity by the Torah166This refers to the terms used by R. Ḥananiah in the Mishnah. In the Babli, 15a/15b, the attributions are switched. In the Yerushalmi the attributions are confirmed in Šeqalim 8:5.. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one burns disqualified by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah, so much more impurity by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel174For R. Joḥanan, while the statement of R. Ḥananiah is trivial, it is important as summarizing the consensus of the Houses of Shammai and Hillel.. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, for six doubts one was permanently suspending, but in Usha they decided burning for them175Babli Šabbat 15b.. Was Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, not before Usha176In Usha, the place of R. Jehudah, a loyal supporter of the Roman government, the Rabbinate was reconstituted by the third generation Tannaim after the death of Hadrian and the suspension of the latter’s anti-Jewish decrees. The executive officer of the Cohanim must have served in the Temple; he therefore belongs to the first generation of Tannaim.? Before Usha there was no burning for their words177Rabbinically impure sancta neither could be used nor destroyed.. He told him, explain it if it became impure in a glass vessel178Biblical impurity applies only to kinds of vessels and implements mentioned in the rules of impurity: earthenware and metal (Lev. 6:21), leather and textiles (Lev. 13:49), bone and wood (Num. 31:20). Other vessels cannot become impure; to this fact one attributes the great number of stone vessels found on archeological sites of the Second Temple period. (Similarly intrinsically pure vessels made of cow dung have not survived for the archeological record.) The impurity of glass vessels, unknown to Moses, is purely rabbinical. One has to take the information that the impurity of glass ware “was decided” by the heads of the Synhedrion to mean that they codified the rules which were popularly observed before. Glass vessels are compared to earthenware vessels since the former are made from sand, the latter from clay. They are also compared to metal vessels since if broken they can be melted down and made into new vessels.. He retorted, even if you are saying that it became impure in a glass vessel, did not Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abuna say in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah179Rebbi or Rav Jeremiah bar Abba, the first generation Babylonian Amora. The main place of the statement is Ketubot 8:11, Notes 98–105; Babli Šabbat 14b., Yose ben Yoˋezer from Sereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decided impurity for Gentile land and glass ware180The land outside the Holy Land was always being considered impure (cf. Am.7:17). What they decided was that earth of Gentile places, within or outside the Holy Land, is considered infected with the impurity of rotting human bodies. While it is in dispute whether Gentile corpses induce tent impurity, it is universally accepted that they transmit impurity by touching.. [Rebbi Jehuda said, Jehudah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Šetah decided on metal vessels181The possible impurity of metal vessels is biblical (Note 178). Following the Babli Šabbat 16b, what they decreed was that metal impure by the impurity of the dead should not become pure by being melted down, but only by sprinkling with water containing ashes of the Red Cow.. Hillel and Shammai decided on purity of hands182They codified the rules that hands which were not all the time consciously guarded from impurity after being washed are impure in the second degree and, therefore, impart impurity to fluids, heave, and sacrifices but not to solid profane food (cf. Demay 2:3, Notes 136–137; Babli Šabbat 14b). Corrector’s addition from Ketubot..] Rebbi Jeremiah179Rebbi or Rav Jeremiah bar Abba, the first generation Babylonian Amora. The main place of the statement is Ketubot 8:11, Notes 98–105; Babli Šabbat 14b. was of the opinion that for Gentile land there is suspension and for glass ware there is suspension. Rebbi Yose was of the opinion that for Gentile lands there is suspension, for glassware burning183That it was decided that glassware has the biblical status of metalware.. The following are the six doubts184Mishnah Taharot 4:5.: “On the doubt of a bet happeras185A place known to contain a grave whose position is no longer known or ascertainable. If heave was transported over this place, it might have become impure by tent impurity., on the doubt of Gentile land, on the doubt of clothing of the vulgar186A person not known to observe the rules of impurity. His clothing may be impure either by contact with his impure wife in her period or because he suffers from gonorrhea.The quote here is lacunary; there is missing the possible impurity of vessels found in the public domain., on the doubt of spittle187Which might be the source of biblical original impurity as body fluid of a woman menstruating or suffering from flux or a male sufferer from gonorrhea., on the doubt of human urine which is separate from animal urine188Urine was used industrially and as a household chemical. Animal urine is pure; human urine may be a source of biblical original impurity as body fluid of a person whose impurity is caused by his own body (Note 187)., on certain touch which is a doubt of impurity189If the fact that it touched the object in question is not in doubt; the only doubt is whether that object transmits impurity or not. on these one burns heave.
MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba added and said, the Cohanim never refrained from burning oil which became disqualified by a ṭevul-yom163A person who is cleansed from impurity by immersion in a miqweh, who is no longer impure but prevented from touching sancta before the sundown following his immersion (Lev. 22:7). in a lamp impure by the impurity of the dead even though they added impurity to it164The oil was heave which became disqualified from being consumed by the touch of a ṭevul-yom but is biblically pure. By being filled into an impure lamp it becomes biblically impure.. HALAKHAH: 7190It seems that in this tradition the statement of R. Aqiba in Mishnah 7 was a separate Mishnah.: In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan there191“Here” refers to the statement of R. Aqiba, “there” to that of R. Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim (Notes 166,167). one burns biblical impurity with biblical impurity. He192R. Aqiba compared to R. Ḥananiah. comes to add biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. In the opinion of Bar Qappara there191“Here” refers to the statement of R. Aqiba, “there” to that of R. Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim (Notes 166,167). one burns rabbinical impurity with biblical impurity. Here, biblical disqualification with biblical impurity only comes to diminish193This is unlikely.. Explain it if he was ṭevul yom from a bet happeras which is rabbinical194In the interpretation of Bar Qappara, the rabbinic impurity mentioned by R. Ḥananiah is secondary or tertiary impurity derived from biblical original impurity whereas R. Aqiba adds rabbinic impurity which has no biblical source.. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel174For R. Joḥanan, while the statement of R. Ḥananiah is trivial, it is important as summarizing the consensus of the Houses of Shammai and Hillel.. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aqiba follows his opinion, since Rebbi Aqiba said, shall be impure, shall make impure by word of the Torah195As explained in Sotah 5:2, R. Aqiba takes טמא as a transitive verb. Therefore he reads the expression יטמא as “will transmit impurity”, in contrast to טָמֵא “is passively impure.” This applies not only to Num.19:22 but also to Lev. 11:32–35.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even though Rebbi Ismael196Sotah 5:2 Notes 103–106. The position of R. Ismael on Num. 19:22 is not known from other sources. does not accept shall be impure, shall make impure, for foodstuffs, he accepts shall be impure, shall make impure, for implements. There are Tannaim who state “impurity of the dead”. There are Tannaim who state “by the impurity of the dead”197This is about the wording of R. Aqiba’s statement. A dead human body is the source of original impurity. A person or vessel touching the dead becomes originally impure, carrying “the impurity of the dead”.A vessel touching such a person or vessel becomes impure in the first derivative degree “by the impurity of the dead”.. He who said “impurity of the dead”, about vessels that have to be rinsed198Impure clay vessels cannot be purified, but become pure only as potsherds or otherwise impossible to use as containers. The expression “vessels to be rinsed” comes from Lev. 6:21 where it characterized metal pots. In rabbinic usage, the expression is applied to all vessels that can be purified; here it applies to wooden vessels since metal vessels are excluded in the next sentence.The separate treatment of metal in cases of impurity of the dead is based on Num. 19:16 where in the expression “slain by the sword” the mention of “sword” seems to be superfluous in the context and therefore one concludes that the sword, and by extension any metal, acquires the super-impurity of the dead to impart original impurity to its contents and anything it comes in contact with (Sifry Num. 127). The contents of the wooden vessel are impure in the second degree but those in the metal vessel in the first.. He who said “by the impurity of the dead”, about metal vessels. What is the reason? Any open vessel etc. is impure199Num. 19:15, referring mainly to clay vessels but also to all other non-metallic containers (Sifry Num. 126).. [It is] impure but does not become a source of impurity to transmit impurity.195As explained in Sotah 5:2, R. Aqiba takes טמא as a transitive verb. Therefore he reads the expression יטמא as “will transmit impurity”, in contrast to טָמֵא “is passively impure.” This applies not only to Num.19:22 but also to Lev. 11:32–35.
MISHNAH: Rebbi Meïr said, from their words we learned that one burns pure heave together with impure on Pesaḥ200The 14th of Nisan where pure leavened heave becomes rabbinically forbidden as food at the start of the sixth hour and must be disposed of before its possession becomes biblically (for the majority) or rabbinically (for R. Meïr) forbidden at noontime.. Rebbi Yose said to him, this is not the implication201R. Ḥananiah and R. Aqiba stated their positions only about (biblically or rabbinically) impure food, not about pure heave which becomes forbidden for an unrelated reason.. Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that each of these is burned separately. Where did they disagree? On the suspended202Heave whose status of purity is in doubt, which cannot be used either as pure or impure (Mishnah Terumot 8:7, Note 180). and impure ones, where Rebbi Eliezer says each one should be burned separately while Rebbi Joshua said, both together. HALAKHAH: What is “on Pesaḥ”? On the Fourteenth203In biblical Hebrew “Pesaḥ” denotes the 14th of Nisan, the day of the Pesaḥ sacrifice (Lev. 23:5, Deut. 28:16). In popular language “Pesaḥ” denotes the festival of unleavened bread, the 15th–21st. The Mishnah uses the biblical expression.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, from the words204Explaining what R. Meïr in the Mishnah is referring to. of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥananiah the executive officer of the Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and the words of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Yasa: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable205S. Liebermann here endorses the opinion of earlier commentators who want to emend the text and switch the names of RR. Joḥanan and Simeon ben Laqish, since otherwise how could the latter ask where RR. Eliezer and Joshua enter the discussion? But it seems that with the two classical commentaries one may explain the text as it stands. According to R. Joḥanan, R. Meïr refers to Mishnah 7. Since RR. Eliezer and Joshua are mentioned only in the argument of R. Yose, the statement quoted at the end of Mishnah 8 cannot be the one to which R. Meïr refers; it must be Mishnah Terumot8:7, quoted later in the Halakhah, which on the face of it deals with an unrelated subject, whether it is better to keep heave from becoming certainly impure or see to it that it be usable in conformity with the rules (Notes 216 ff.).. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, where enter Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua in the discussion? He told him, there are [different] Tannaim206There are Tannaim who state Mishnah 7 in the name of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua.. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that on the Sixteenth one burns pure and impure heave [together]207If leavened heave was discovered during the holiday it must be burned. If unleavened heave became impure during the holiday, it must be burned, in both cases by biblical decree. But sancta other than Temple sacrifices may not be burned on the holiday; the burning must be on the first of the intermediate days where work is permitted.. Rebbi Yasa asked: Why does Rebbi Yose say, this is not the implication? Rebbi Yasa had heard that Rebbi Joḥanan said, “from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥananiah the executive officer of the Cohanim,” and he had heard that Bar Qappara said, “original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words166This refers to the terms used by R. Ḥananiah in the Mishnah. In the Babli, 15a/15b, the attributions are switched. In the Yerushalmi the attributions are confirmed in Šeqalim 8:5..” But he had not heard that Rebbi Joḥanan had said, “both these and those are words of the Torah167In his opinion, biblically pure food, even if it may no longer be eaten or sacrificed, may not be destroyed..” Therefore, he was asking: Just as it is permitted to burn what is (rabbinically) [biblically] forbidden with what is biblically impure, since one burns what is (rabbinically) [biblically] impure with what is biblically impure, so it should be permitted to burn what is (biblically) [rabbinically] forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is (biblically) [rabbinically] impure with what is biblically impure. But there must be a difference between prohibition and impurity. And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that on the Sixteenth one burns pure and impure heave [together]207If leavened heave was discovered during the holiday it must be burned. If unleavened heave became impure during the holiday, it must be burned, in both cases by biblical decree. But sancta other than Temple sacrifices may not be burned on the holiday; the burning must be on the first of the intermediate days where work is permitted.. Just as you did not make a difference for us between biblical prohibition and biblical impurity since one burns what is biblically impure with what is biblically impure, so you should not make a difference for us between what is rabbinically forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is rabbinically impure with what is biblically impure. But it must be that both these and those are words of the Torah208Since the statement of R. Joḥanan about the 16th implies that it does not apply on the 14th, it is inconsistent with the statement of Bar Qappara. R. Yasa concluded that R. Joḥanan must disagree with Bar Qappara without having heard his statement. Then the correct text is the scribe’s (in parentheses), not the corrector’s the the printed texts’ [in brackets] since for R. Joḥanan Mishnah 7 refers to biblical impurities.. There came Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba from Tyre and said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: both these and those are words of the Torah, and I209R. Yasa. said, it is correct. There191“Here” refers to the statement of R. Aqiba, “there” to that of R. Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim (Notes 166,167). (rabbinic) [biblical] impurity with biblical impurity but here192R. Aqiba compared to R. Ḥananiah. biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. Therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication210In addition to the reason given in Note 201, if R. Joḥanan’s statement about the 16th is correct, R. Yose will not accept R. Meïr’s treatment of rabbinic and biblical impurity as equivalent.. The position of Rebbi Joḥanan is difficult for Rebbi Meïr211Since R. Joḥanan is an Amora and R. Meïr a Tanna, the statement rather should be that R. Joḥanan’s position is inconsistent with R. Meïr’s.; therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication. Bar Qappara must argue like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and the words of Rebbi Joshua. Then the opinion of Bar Qappara is difficult for Rebbi Yose212Bar Qappara allows burning of rabbinically impure sacrificial meat with biblically impure even though momentarily the rabbinically impure will become biblically impure. In Mishnah Terumot 8:7, discussed in the next paragraph, R. Joshua prescribes making possibly rabbinically impure heave biblically impure. Since the first generation R. Joshua is an overriding authority, it is difficult to see how the third generation R. Yose could disagree. based on what Rebbi Meïr said, “from their words we learned.” Rebbi Abbin said, Rebbi Meïr is consistent213For R. Meïr the disputes between Bar Qappara and R. Joḥanan and R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish are irrelevant. Even if R. Ḥananiah speaks only about biblical impurities, it makes no difference for R. Meïr who applies all biblical stringencies to rabbinic prohibitions. since Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah. Where do we find that Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥinena said, as we have stated there214Mishnah Niddah 6:13.: “A woman who sees a stain is out of order and worries because of flux[, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, nothing in stains implies flux215In biblical rules (which are difficult for rabbinic women to follow, cf. Niddah Chapter 4, Note 3) there is a big difference between menstrual discharges (Lev. 19:15–24) and non-menstrual flux (Lev. 19:25–30). In rabbinic theory, there are 11 days after the end of a menstrual period in which no discharges are menstrual. If a woman discovers a stain on an undergarment, it is rabbinically considered evidence of a discharge. Since this is a purely rabbinic rule, she is “out of order” in that the 11 day rule cannot be applied. In addition, if the undergarment was worn for three days and the stain is large enough to possibly be the result of three discharges, for R. Meïr all rules spelled out in vv. 19:28–30 do apply even though there is no biblical impurity.].” There216Mishnah Terumot 8:7. The text from here to the end of the Chapter is from Terumot 8:8–9 (Notes 180–235,ת); it cannot be understood without Mishnaiot 8:8–9 which are not reproduced here., we have stated: An amphora of heave about which a doubt of impurity arose, Rebbi Eliezer says, if it was at a vulnerable place, he should move it to a hidden place. If it was uncovered, he should cover it. Rebbi Joshua says, if it was at a hidden place, he should move it to a vulnerable place. If it was covered, he should uncover it. Rabban Gamliel says, he should not change anything217If it were certainly impure, heave wine could be used to settle dust on dirt floors, heave oil or grain as fuel. If there only is a doubt, the heave is called “suspended”. It cannot be used as impure since it might be pure, nor as pure since it might be impure. R. Eliezer holds that one has to treat this heave according to all rules of holiness. R. Joshua holds that one has to make sure that the heave be used somehow. Since it never will be usable as pure heave, one has to make sure it will be usable impure (Rashi in Bekhorot 33b).. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, from the opinion of all three of them: It is forbidden to burn suspended [heave]218Since neither of them proposes burning the heave as an alternative.. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The first amphora219Mishnah Terumot 8:7 is consistent with the position of R. Yose in Pesaḥim 1:8. Since R. Joshua only permits to put suspended heave in a situation where there is great probability that it accidentally will become impure but does not allow actively to make it impure, it follows that he will not allow pure heave to be made impure in the process of burning, as prescribed by R. Meïr. following Rebbi Yose, the second220The amphora which is the topic of Mishnah Terumot 8:10. If there is a choice of either making heave impure or letting it go to waste, R. Joshua permits to make it impure. This parallels the position of R. Meïr in Pesaḥim 1:8, who permits making heave impure in the process of required destruction. Since that Mishnah is not quoted here, it is clear that the origin of the text is in Terumot. following Rebbi Meïr. The colleagues say, the first amphora following Rebbi Yose but Rebbi Meïr will not agree; the second following Rebbi Meïr but Rebbi Yose will not agree. Rebbi Yose told them, be careful what you are saying. The first amphora following Rebbi Yose, but following Rebbi Meïr one burns and following Rebbi Simeon one burns. Then Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon should form a majority against Rebbi Yose221Even though R. Yose (ben Halafta) is a greater authority than either R. Meïr or R. Simeon, they together should be a majority to determine practice. and one should burn. In addition, we understand from the following: we see the rabbis, if a case comes before them, they say, go and suspend222In the last generation of Amoraim practice still followed R. Yose.. Where do we find that Rebbi Simeon says, one burns? It is what we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that each of these is burned separately.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon stated this223Tosefta 1:5. While this does not prove that R. Simeon agrees with the position of R. Meïr about sancta, it establishes that he agrees with him about heave. The translation follows the spelling in Terumot, שנייה.. If you want to say that Rebbi Meïr does not recognize suspension224But treats heave of doubtful status as impure., have we not stated225Tosephta 3:10, about leavened heave to be disposed of if the 14th of Nisan is a Sabbath.: “Suspended (pure)226With the text in a later paragraph and in Terumot one has to read: “or impure”. heave is burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time227The 14th of Nisan..” Rebbi Ezra228This reading, R. Ezra (fifth generation) sitting before R. Mana II, is preferable to that of Terumot, R. Zeˋira (third generation) before R. Mana I (early second generation). said before Rebbi Mana, explain it that it is suspended because he does not intend to ask about it. He said to him, so also said Rebbi Yose229Fifth generation, the teacher of R. Mana II.: All we are occupied with here is with suspended [heave] about which he does not intend to ask230Since designating any produce as heave is a dedication, it has the status of a vow and as such is subject to annulment by an ordained rabbi or a court. If the vow is annulled, the original produce reverts to profane status where secondary impurity is excluded; in most cases this means that it will automatically revert to purity. Then heave must be given from some other produce of the same harvest. Since all problems arising for suspended heave can be easily resolved by asking for annulment, it is clear that the Mishnah must assume that this way out is not chosen.; but suspended [heave] about which he intends to ask is pure. It was stated thus231A related text is Tosephta Terumot7:18.: “Suspended heave about which they said, is it pure? It is impure. If he said, I am keeping it in order to ask about it, it is pure.” What about it? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it if the doubt arose at sundown. Then one cannot infer anything232Since there is no time to burn anything, the opinion of the Sages must be followed even by their opponents. This does not prove anything about the position of R. Meïr if the heave already was suspended in the morning.A different treatment in the Babli, 20b.. And you233Continuation of the attack of R. Yose the Amora against the statement of the colleagues. are saying, the first amphora following Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Meïr will not agree234While this R. Yose’s argument in both texts it is clear from the following that the discussion is about the second of their statements, that R. Yose cannot agree with the ruling of Mishnah Terumot 8:8 and 8:10 about a barrel of pure heave wine which is breaking on top of a container of impure wine.? But did we not state:235“Lifting” is explained in Terumot Chapter 5. If heave falls into a container of profane produce of the same kind as the heave and the volume of the profane matter is less than 101 times that of the heave, the entire matter is forbidden to non-Cohanim. But if it is at least that amount, a volume equal to that of the heave which was lost can be lifted from the mixture and declared as replacement heave. Then the particles of the original heave in the mixture revert to profane status and become permitted to lay persons.Mishnaiot Terumot 8:8,10: “If an amphora broke in the upper part of a wine press whose lower part was impure, R. Eliezer and R. Joshua agree that if one can save a quartarius from it, he shall save that in purity.… Rebbi Joshua said, this is not a case for which I have been warned not to make it impure …” When has this been said? Regarding a vat which contains enough to lift it. But for a vat which does not contain enough to lift it, it is forbidden to make any amount impure. And if it follows Rebbi Meïr, whether it is a vat which contains enough to lift it or a vat which does not contain enough to lift it, is it forbidden to make any amount impure?236Since R. Meïr permits to bring impurity to anything that later automatically would become impure. Babli 21a. In addition, from what we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication,” nobody says “this is not” unless he agrees with the premise. How is that? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there in order to care for the property of Jews237Mishnah Negaˋim 12:5. Babli 20b.; here what do you have? Does the Jew not lose money even here? For he needs to burn wood separately238This text is corrupt. The correct version is in Terumot: For he needs wood to burn each lot separately. and this separately? They worried about a big loss, they did not worry about a small loss. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana239In Terumot: R. Yose ben R. Abun said., explain it following him who said, from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥanina the executive officer of the Cohanim; and one cannot infer anything240There is no inference to be drawn from the Mishnah in Pesaḥim which according to R. Meïr speaks about impurity and disqualification and in Terumot dealing with impurity and purity. R. Yose’s second objection to the colleagues is not proven.. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Ila, both in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. The first amphora following Rebbi Yose, but the second both following Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana228This reading, R. Ezra (fifth generation) sitting before R. Mana II, is preferable to that of Terumot, R. Zeˋira (third generation) before R. Mana I (early second generation).: Does this not disagree with Rebbi Yose? He told him, if not following Rebbi Yose241In Terumot the names Yose and Meïr are systematically switched. For the interpretation there is no difference since, as stated in the next sentence, the two rabbis agree in this matter. Nevertheless it seems that the text in Terumot is more reliable since the remainder of the discussion concentrates on determining R. Meïr’s position., we may say not following Rebbi Meïr since we find that Rebbi Yose is burning suspended [heave] in all cases. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Rebbi Meïr is burning suspended [heave] in all cases. I asked him, even in a case where it is suspended by word of the Torah242If we hold that the rule which states that doubts in cases of biblical commandments have to be decided restrictively is itself biblical, then suspended heave would have to be considered impure by biblical standards and immediately used as fuel.? He told me, if I explain it that it became impure in Gentiles’ dwelling243Since Gentiles are suspected of burying their stillbirths in the dirt floors of their houses, their dwellings in the Holy Land are considered possibly impure by “tent impurity” (Kilaim Chapter 6 Note 25). Practice disregards the opinion of R. Simeon who denied the possibility of “tent impurity” for Gentiles., what do you have in your hand? It was stated244Tosephta Ahilut18:7.: “For Gentiles’ dwelling one suspends, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one burns.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Zeˋura: Rebbi Meïr burns suspended [heave] any day of the year, and so it was stated: “Suspended [and]245Added from the text in Terumot, necessary by the context. impure heave are burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time227The 14th of Nisan..” Should he not burn in the morning? Explain it that he was lazy and did not burn. You should know that this is so, since it was stated “impure”246Since impure heave is used as fuel, there is no reason why it should not be used to burn leavened matter in the morning. Since in most years Passover Eve is not a Sabbath and one is obligated to burn in the morning, if Friday is the 13th of Nisan the rule is that in this case also one burns in the morning.. Not because he was lazy and did not burn? Rebbi Abba Mari the brother of Rebbi Yose said, explain it that the impurity came to it at that moment and one cannot infer anything. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Joshua247The order appearing in the text of Terumot, R. Joshua (first generation), R. Simeon (third generation) is preferable. both said the same thing. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Simeon in Bekhorot248Mishnah Bekhorot 5:2, quoted in the next paragraph. While a firstling calf or lamb has to be treated as a sacrifice, R. Simeon permits any surgical operation if the health of the animal requires it, even if it is clear that by the operation the animal will become disqualified as sacrifice. and Rebbi Joshua in Terumot, neither of them will agree with the other. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua249Talmudic style requires the addition found in Terumot: “But R. Joshua will not agree with R. Simeon”. R. Joshua (Terumot8:8–10) permits to cause impurity to heave in order to save food; R. Simeon permits to make a blemish on a firstling in order to save its life. But the Mishnah in Bekhorot states that a firstling with this intentionally induced blemish may not be slaughtered; it cannot become food for anybody. Therefore it is not necessary to conclude that R. Joshua agrees with R. Simeon. Babli Bekhorot 33b.. [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Zeˋira: In your opinion, since you say that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua, did we not state: How may one burn suspended [heave] with impure one]250This sentence is neither in the Mishnah nor in Terumot; the question is correct as objection of R. Eliezer to R. Joshua.? “Rebbi Eliezer agrees with Rebbi Joshua251While the Mishnah states, “R. Eliezer and R. Joshua agree”, the formulation here is more to the point. that each of these is burned separately.” Should one not burn both together? It is pure by words of the Torah. You are the one who decided on burning. In any case, would it not become disqualified by inattention252Heave must be eaten in purity, which can be guaranteed only if the heave is guarded at all times or at least kept at a place locked away from possible impurities (Babli 34a, Šeqalim 7:2). Since on the 14th of Nisan heave cannot be eaten after 10 a.m., there is no need to watch it any longer and, by being released from supervision, it should become disqualified immediately even by biblical standards.? Did nor Rebbi Joḥanan say, inattention is a word of the Torah; blood affliction following Rebbi Simeon is Torah, the second amphora following Rebbi Meïr is Torah? It is not so253Even if disqualified for other reasons, it still has to be watched; the prior objection is baseless.; but he watches it that it should not come in contact with other pure things. Rebbi Isaac, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe, objected: Think of it, if it was put on coals254If one starts the fire to burn the leavened matter, guarding against impurity certainly is unnecessary. The answer is that this argument is irrelevant since we are dealing with the time before the fire was started.. He told him, after it was put there254If one starts the fire to burn the leavened matter, guarding against impurity certainly is unnecessary. The answer is that this argument is irrelevant since we are dealing with the time before the fire was started.. Rebbi Mana said to Rebbi Shammai: You are saying that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua. Even Rebbi Joshua does not agree with Rebbi Joshua255The positions of R. Joshua in Pesaḥim1:7 and Terumot 8:8–10 do not necessarily coincide.. He told him, these are Tannaim. There Rebbi Meïr in the name of Rebbi Joshua, here Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua256It is impossible to fully reconstruct the original position of R. Joshua since the only knowledge we have of his statements is through the interpretation of third generation Amoraim.. There, we have stated257Mishnah Bekhorot 5:2 [Sifra Emor Parashah 7(10)]. Since a firstling is a sacrifice by birth, it has to be treated according to the rules of sacrifices. The only difference is that a dedicated sacrifice which develops a blemish must be redeemed to become profane whereas a firstling in the hands of a Cohen which develops a blemish automatically becomes profane and may be eaten by everybody and in impurity. Therefore, Cohanim are suspected to induce blemishes on the firstlings in their possession.: “A firstling afflicted by blood, even if it is going to die, cannot be bled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, it should be bled, only he should not intend to cause a blemish. If it did cause a blemish, it may not be slaughtered because of it. Rebbi Simeon says, he should bleed it even if he makes a blemish.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Jehudah parallels Rabban Gamliel, the rabbis parallel Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Simeon parallels Rebbi Joshua258The opinions stated in Mishnah Terumot 8:7 (“the first amphora.”) The Babli Bekhorot 35b identifies the position of the Sages with that of R. Joshua (i. e., the operative opinion in Bekhorot with that in Terumot) while the Yerushalmi implies that practice should follow R. Simeon.. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “He should bleed it even if he intends to make a blemish.” This parallels another opinion of Rebbi Joshua259His opinion about the “second amphora” where he permits to induce impurity on most of the heave in order to save a small portion in purity.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira: Explain about sancta for which he is liable following Rebbi Simeon260This sentence is missing in Terumot. The verse is formulated for all sacrifices which develop a blemish; it is more reasonable to apply it to the vast majority of dedicated sacrifices which have to be redeemed rather than to firstlings for which change to semi-profane status is automatic.If somebody dedicates a specific animal and it later develops a blemish, there is no sacrifice. But if he vows “a sacrifice” and then dedicates a particular animal which later develops a blemish, he has to redeem the animal by an unblemished replacement.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Jehudah: You shall not eat it, on the earth you shall you shall spill it like water261Deut. 12:24.. I did permit you its blood only for spilling. Rebbi Abba Mari the brother of Rebbi Yose said, is not about disqualified sancta written so, you shall not eat it, on the earth you shall spill it like water262One would have expected R. Jehudah to use Deut. 15:23, speaking of the firstling: Only its blood you shall not eat, spill it onto the ground like water. The verse used gives the rules for animals which develop blemishes after being dedicated. This also includes firstlings.? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, it was said for preparation263Produce in the ground is impervious to impurity. It remains so after harvesting as long as it stays completely dry. Blood is one of the fluids that prepare dry food to accept impurity (cf. Demay Chapter 2, Notes 136,141). Since the rules for preparation are spelled out for water (Lev. 11:38), other fluids have this property of water only if there is a biblical verse which compares them to water. Sifry Deut. #71.. Just as the water prepares, so the blood shall prepare. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, both of them explain the same verse264Lev. 22:21.: Perfect it265Any animal sacrifice.shall be for goodwill; any blemish shall not be on it. Rebbi Simeon explains: As long as it is for goodwill, you may not induce a blemish. If it is no longer for goodwill, you may induce a blemish. But the Sages say, even if it is all blemishes, you may not add a blemish266As Rashi explains in Bekhorot 35b, the Sages hold that R. Simeon would be justified if the verse read “no blemish shall be on it.” But the involved language, any blemish, forbids the imposition of a new blemish on existing blemishes..
MISHNAH: Any time one is permitted to eat one feeds it1Leavened matter on the 14th of Nisan which has to be eliminated before noontime. to domestic or wild animals or birds, or sells it to a Non-Jew2Since only leavened matter in the possession of a Jew has to be eliminated, the Gentile may keep the leavened matter bought from the Jew and also use it during Passover time., and one may have usufruct from it3For example one may use the matter as fuel and its ashes as fertilizer.. If its time has passed4After noontime on the 14th, even though according to the majority opinion the biblical prohibition of usufruct only starts shortly before sundown, there is a rabbinic prohibition of usufruct for the entire afternoon. one may not have usufruct from it, nor use it to heat an oven or a cooking stove. Rebbi Jehudah says, leavened matter may only be eliminated by burning. But the Sages say, he makes crumbs and scatters them in the wind or throws it into the Sea5In this version, which also is the reading of the Munich ms. of the Babli, R. Hananel, some texts of Alfasi, and Maimonides’s autograph Mishnah, the Sages disagree with R. Jehudah. The Mishnah in the printed Babli, starting with the editio princeps, reads “But the Sages say, he also may make crumbs and …” This determines current practice following R. Jehudah, even though also is missing in the Mishnah quote in the Babli Halakhah (28a). Cf. Diqduqe Soferim Pesaḥim p. 28a Note 1.. HALAKHAH: “Any time” etc. Rebbi Immi said, who is the Tanna of “any time when he is permitted to eat he is permitted to feed, when it is forbidden to the eater he is forbidden to feed”? Rebbi Meïr6Babli 21a. In Mishnah 1:4 R. Meïr permits to eat up to the time one has to dispose of the leftovers, in contrast to R. Jehudah who forbids to eat starting one hour before the leavened matter will be forbidden. The latter could not have formulated “any time”.. But following Rebbi Jehudah, in the fifth hour even though he is forbidden to eat he is permitted to feed. Rebbi Abba objected: Did we not state7Mishnah 3:5, presumed to be R. Meïr’s., “sour dough has to be burned but one who eats it is not liable8Ex. 12:19 contains two statements. 1° leavened matter may not be in a Jew’s possession on Passover, and 2°, it is a deadly sin, punishable by extirpation, to eat leavened matter during the holiday. The Tanna of the Mishnah holds that the second statement is not applicable to matters commonly considered to be inedible.,” and did not Rav Ḥuna say in the name of Rebbi, one may feed it to the dogs9Mishnah 1 excludes feeding to animals.? Rebbi Yose said, did we state “any leavened matter”, not “time10Mishnah 2:1 is formulated to apply only to the 14th of Nisan. Mishnah 3:5, referring to Nisan 15–21, does not contradict the earlier Mishnah.”? Who is the Tanna of “time”, Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Bun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira: This11The statement of the Mishnah, “if its time has passed one may not have usufruct from it,” seems to imply that any use from which the owner does not derive usufruct is permitted. implies that one is permitted to feed it to ownerless animals. Rebbi Jeremiah objected, did we not state “he crumbles it”? Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion, loaf sized12He reads the Mishnah as requiring only that loaves should not be disposed of whole, but may be disposed of in sizeable pieces. If these are thrown to the wind, the probability is great that a bird or a squirrel will pick them up; the reference to his usufruct seems to be unnecessary.. Rebbi Yose said to him, it only mentioned “he crumbles it”, that when he crumbled it it was nullified13The Mishnah requires that any leftovers be reduced to tiny crumbs which are of no use. These crumbs do no longer qualify as food; the leavened matter is considered disposed off even if not thrown to the wind.. But the following says it, leavend matter may not be eaten today14Ex. 13:3–4: Moses said to the people, remember this day on which you left Egypt, the House of Slavery, for with a strong hand did the Eternal remove you from there, and leavened matter shall not be eaten. Today you are leaving, in the Spring month. Since the text is written without commas and periods, the period implied by the oral tradition of separation of verses may be disregarded. A different interpretation of the same reading is in Mekhilta dR. Ismael ad loc. (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 62 line 2), Babli 28b., even by the dogs. This includes to forbid it for usufruct. Where do we hold? If for his own dog, the prohibition of usufruct had been stated15The passive voice in Ex. 13:3 implies that the identity of the eater is irrelevant, against the argument of Note 11.. But we must hold for the dog [of others]. This implies that one is prohibited from feeding it to ownerless animals. 16The text from here to Note 64 also is in Orlah 3:1, Notes 10–44, ע. It seems that the origin of the text is in Pesaḥim since only here the verses are quoted in full and an important sentence is missing in ע. In the Babli, the parallel is 21b–23a. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar17In the printed editions of the Babli, R. Eleazar is not mentioned, but his name appears in the Munich ms.: Everywhere it is written do not eat, do not eat18Plural., it shall not be eaten, you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating unless the verse is explicit and explains to you as it did explain about limbs of a living animal and a carcass. What did it explain about limbs of a living animal? Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat; throw it to the dog19Ex. 22:30. Why is it necessary to permit torn limbs as dog food? R. Eleazar argues that this shows that without such permission the limb would be forbidden for all usufruct.. And what did it explain about a carcass? Do not eat any carcass; to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it, or sell to the stranger.20Deut. 14:21. Ḥizqiah stated a disagreement21In the Babli 21b, Ḥizqiah accepts the statement of R. Eleazar only for the passive formulation; later (Note 48) this is clarified to be the position of Ḥizqiah and R. Joḥanan in a second version. In this first version, Ḥizqiah must hold that an inference from a verse is only valid if there is no second verse leading to the same result. The theoretical basis is the recognition that the legal texts in the Torah are incomplete and sometimes contradictory as a system. In addition, it is held that words do not change their meaning in legal contexts. Therefore, a mechanism of translation of the Torah text into a coherent and reasonably complete system must exist. The rule quoted by Ḥizqiah is one of the translation rules; cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Ph. Longworth (ed.), Confrontations with Judaism (London 1966) pp. 171–196.Since here the mention of the torn limb and the carcass both lead to the same argument, either one of them would be superfluous and, therefore, both must be needed for other inferences. The argument of R. Eleazar is refuted.. What does one forbid to the dog22The dog is not a human and is not obliged by any rules.? But is it not written23Lev. 7:23. This paragraph discusses verses which present difficulties for R. Eleazar.: Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written24Lev. 7:23. In the opinion of the Babli 23a, the verse is needed to permit any use of profane fat since otherwise one would argue that since fat is forbidden for humans but required for the altar, fat of animals unfit for the altar should be permitted for use in the Temple but forbidden for profane use. In the Sifra Ṣaw (Parasha 10), the argument of the Babli is attributed to R. Yose the Galilean; R. Aqiba concludes that fat of domesticated animals is not food nor subject to the impurity of food.In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, since some fat is permitted for unrestricted use, no fat can be forbidden for usufruct in the absence of an explicit verse. For Ḥizqiah, this is a third verse that could be used for R. Eleazar’s argument; nobody will contest that three parallel verses invalidate the argument. In the second version of Ḥizqiah’s position (below, after Note 49), he needs the verse to permit use of fat for work on Temple property.: But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work, only it may not be eaten. But is it not written25Deut. 12:16.: Only the blood you may not eat? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written: You shall pour it on the ground like water26The Babli 22b deduces from here that animal blood is a fluid which prepares for impurity only if it is spilled on the ground (cf. Demay 2:3, Note 136). The argument of the Yerushalmi, and an argument that animal blood prepares for impurity in all cases, is in Sifry Deut. 73 and later here, in the second version of Ḥizqiah. (Preparation for impurity is explained in Demay 2:3, Notes 136–141.). Since water is permitted for use, so blood shall be permitted for use. But is it not written27Gen. 32:33.: Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the sciatic nerve? Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass28The argument is more explicit in the Babli 22a. R. Abbahu holds that when carcass and tom meat was permitted for the sojourner (Note 53) and the pagan, the entire animal was permitted, including the fat. Then the last paragraph of Note 24 establishes that the schiatic sinew cannot be forbidden for usufruct.. But is it not written29Lev. 23:14.: Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat until this very day? Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, said there is a difference since the verse fixed a time for it. But is it not written30Lev. 11:42.: Do not eat them for they are abominations? Rebbi [Mana]31Added from Orlah, missing here. said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct33Latin splenium, Greek σπληνίον, τό, “pad, wound dressing.”. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who makes a wound dressing33Latin splenium, Greek σπληνίον, τό, “pad, wound dressing.” from a stoned ox34The Babli 24b explains that one might use fat from the stoned ox to cover a wound.The ox was stoned by order of the court because it killed humans (Ex. 21:28–29). Its meat is forbidden for usufruct as explained in the sequel. Cf. Mekhilta dR.Ismael Mišpaṭim10 (p. 282). or from leftover sour matter after Passover35Since the Mishnah had stated that leavened matter becomes prohibited for all usufruct in the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan, after the holiday it cannot become permitted again. cannot be whipped since its prohibition is not clear. For vineyard kilaim he is whipped since Rebbi Ḥanina said36Deut. 22:9. For this derivation, cf. Kilaim 8:1, Note 6.: Lest it be sanctified, lest fire should be kindled. For ˋorlah it is problematic. A prescriptive commandment to removal is written37Since Lev. 19:23 requires that the (budding) fruit is treated as “foreskin” and the foreskin has to be removed, one may take the verse as prescribing the removal of any ˋorlah fruit., a prohibition to eat is written38Last two words of Lev. 19:23. Since R. Joḥanan reads לֹ֥א יֵֽאָכֵֽל as prohibition of eating, not of usufruct, he follows his teacher Ḥizqiah in rejecting the argument of R. Eleazar., [“do not eat”]39An incorrect and unnecessary addition by the corrector, not part of the original ms., a prohibition to remove it is not written40Non-fulfillment of a prescriptive commandment is not prosecutable.. In a baraita41The baraita as stated here is not found in any other source except the Yerushalmi parallels in Orlah and Avodah Zarah 5:12 (Note 155). In Mekhilta Mišpaṭim 19; quoted in Babli 22b, Qiddušin 56b, Bava Qamma 41a the text explicitly notes that, since “its meat shall not be eaten” is included in the statement of the sentence to be passed by the court, only after judgment is rendered does slaughter become ineffective. This may also be he rule implied by the Yerushalmi Targum to Ex.21:28: וְלָא יִתְנְכַס לְמֵיכוּל יַת בִּשְׂרֵיהּ “it should not be slaughtered to make its flesh edible.” Since the Babli follows R. Eleazar, no discussion of the prohibition of usufruct is necessary. one disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: What does one understand from what has been said42Ex. 21:28.: the ox shall certainly be stoned? Do we not know that its meat is forbidden as food43As carcass meat.? Then why does the verse say, its meat shall not be eaten? To tell you that just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden for usufruct. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explained it if the owners slaughtered it before sentence was pronounced44This statement directly contradicts the position of the Babli. R. Joḥanan will hold that the prescriptive commandment to stone the ox after judgment has been passed automatically makes any slaughter invalid; that would not need a proof from the verse.. Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Here you say so, there you say so45He states contradictory theses, whether or not prohibition as food implies prohibition of usufruct.? He said to him, here in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, there in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating if it is written do not eat, do not eat. It may not be eaten (f.). it may not be eaten (m.), you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating46In contrast to the statement of R. Eleazar (Note 17) it is asserted that if the prohibition of food is in the active voice it does not imply prohibition of usufruct. Still the passive voice does imply prohibition of usufruct.. The paradigm for all cases is47Lev. 6:23.: Any purification offering of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned48It is shown that the passive voice implies prohibition of usufruct, since it is the only such case where the inference is valid according to everybody. The verse is understood (Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 8(5), quoted in Babli Zebaḥim 82a, Yerushalmi Pesaḥim7:9, fol. 35a] following a punctuation which differs from the masoretic one: Any purification offering, some of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify, in the Sanctuary it shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned. This is a possible reading since purification offerings may be eaten only in the Sanctuary. Then “Sanctuary” is taken also to refer to the last clause, (in the sanctuary) in fire it shall be burned. This excludes all sacred and profane usufruct after purification.. Ḥizqiah stated support for Rebbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said49Lev. 7:23.: Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat, why has it been said: but fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work? Even for the work of Heaven24Lev. 7:23. In the opinion of the Babli 23a, the verse is needed to permit any use of profane fat since otherwise one would argue that since fat is forbidden for humans but required for the altar, fat of animals unfit for the altar should be permitted for use in the Temple but forbidden for profane use. In the Sifra Ṣaw (Parasha 10), the argument of the Babli is attributed to R. Yose the Galilean; R. Aqiba concludes that fat of domesticated animals is not food nor subject to the impurity of food.In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, since some fat is permitted for unrestricted use, no fat can be forbidden for usufruct in the absence of an explicit verse. For Ḥizqiah, this is a third verse that could be used for R. Eleazar’s argument; nobody will contest that three parallel verses invalidate the argument. In the second version of Ḥizqiah’s position (below, after Note 49), he needs the verse to permit use of fat for work on Temple property.. If one understands what has been said50Deut. 12:16.: But the blood you shall not eat, why has it been said,you shall pour it on the ground like water? As water prepares51Preparation for impurity is explained in Demay 2:3, Notes 136–141., so blood prepares. If one understands what has been said52Deut. 14:21.: Do not eat any carcass; why has it been said, to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it? It serves to tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat53The resident sojourner, in order to receive the full protection of the law, only has to follow the “precepts of the descendants of Noe”, to abstain from idolatry, murder, incest and adultery, eating limbs tom from a living animal, blasphemy, robbery, and anarchy.. If one understands what has been said54Ex. 22:30.: Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat, why does the verse say, throw it to the dog? This you throw to the dog but you do not throw profane meat slaughtered in the Temple precinct55In the Babli 22a this is quoted as the opinion of R. Meïr. It is forbidden to slaughter anything but sacrifices in the Temple precinct, Lev.17:4.. A baraita56Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Bo 16, p. 51. Tanḥuma Bo 11 supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar57The disagreement between R. Eleazar and R. Joḥanan is an old tannaitic disagreement between Rabbis Josia and Isaac of the fourth tannaitic generation.. Sour bread shall not be eaten58Ex. 13:3., to make the feeder equal to the eater59The person who serves sour matter to a Jew on Passover is guilty as if he ate it, to be punished by extirpation. If the server acts intentionally and the eater unintentionally, the server alone is punishable.. And you say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says:60Deut. 16:3. You shall not eat sour bread with it, we learned that usufruct is forbidden61This is the position of R. Eleazar.. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition62Eating forbidden living things is punished by whipping by the earthly court; but eating sour matter on Passover is punished by Heaven with extirpation., He made the feeder equal to the eater63Sifra Šemini Pereq 5(1). R. Abraham ben David in his commentary notes that this is not the position of the Babli; he does not refer to the Yerushalmi.; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that we consider the feeder to be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse serves only to forbid its usufruct. Since it is written, sour bread shall not be eaten, therefore from you shall not eat one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan 64Here ends the parallel with ˋOrlah 3:1.. “Nor use it to heat an oven or a cooking stove.” If he transgressed and heated, it shall come like the following65Mishnah Avodah zarah 3:14, dealing with using wood from an Asherah to heat a clay stove which was not finished in a kiln. It would become hardened by being exposed to the fire kindled in them. Therefore a new oven would be finished by the Ashera wood; it must be destroyed. The text might be a quote not of this Mishnah but of Tosephta Orlah 7 dealing with the same situation if the fuel is orlah fruit (Orlah 3:3 Note 114) which is quoted in extenso in the Babli 26b.: “If it was new it must be destroyed270Prepared to be used with the meat. Since both this and haroset are moist, leavening would be caused by the addition of flour., if it was old it must be cooled down.” It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, leavened matter may only be eliminated by burning.66The first and last paragraphs in this section are also quoted in the Babli, 27b–28a; Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yoḥay ad Ex. 12:15, pp. 17–18.. It is an argument de minore ad majus. Since piggul67Sacrifices which were offered with the intention that the meat be eaten out of place or time; Lev. 19:7. and leftover68Sacrificial meat left over after the time allotted for its consumption, depending on the kind of sacrifice either day and night or two daytimes with the night in between., which are not under an injunction not to be seen and not to be found, only may be disposed of by burning, for leavened matter which is under an injunction not to be seen and not to be found, it is only logical that it only may be disposed by burning. They told Rebbi Jehudah, any argument de minore ad majus which you argue in the beginning as a restriction but it turns out in the end to be a leniency, is no argument de minore ad majus69The premise that there be a case of major and minor is disproved. Cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, Ph. Longworth, ed., London 1966, pp. 171–196.. It would imply that if he does not find fire he could sit and not dispose of it. The Torah said70Ex. 12:15., eliminate sour dough from your houses. Similarly said Rebbi Jehudah, if a woman carries seed and gives birth to a male71Lev. 13:1. Sifra TazriaˋIntroduction (5); another version of Sifra in Midrash Haggadol Lev., ed A. Steinsalz, Jerusalem 1976, pp. 313–314.. What does the verse imply? Since it is said, she shall be impure for seven days,72Lev. 13:2.and on the eighth day one shall circumcise, I understand that a live birth makes his mother impure by the impurity of birth. From where that a stillbirth makes his mother impure by the impurity of birth? Rebbi Jehudah said, I am presenting an argument de minore ad majus. Since a live birth, who does not make impure for seven days his mother, and those who come with him73According to Pene Mosheh, this refers to multiple births if one of the fetuses is dead., [or who comes with his mother,]74Unnecessary addition by the corrector. into a tent75A live birth causes his mother to be impure for seven days; after this time she may remove her impurity at any time by immersion in a miqweh. A stillbirth causes impurity of the dead not only by touch but also by being under the same “tent” and requires the purification rite of the ashes of the Red Cow described in Num. 19., the stillbirth who makes impure for seven days his mother, and those who come with him, [or who comes with his mother,]74Unnecessary addition by the corrector. into a tent, it is only logical that he should make his mother impure by the impurity of birth. They told Rebbi Jehudah, any argument de minore ad majus which you argue in the beginning as a restriction but it turns out in the end to be a leniency is no argument de minore ad majus. As a consequence, since a live birth purifies his mother76After the impurity of the first 7 days, the next 33 days for a male or 66 days for a female no genital discharge of the mother induces biblical impurity., also the stillbirth should purify his mother? Since I cannot prove it by an argument de minore ad majus, [therefore} the Torah said a male, to include the stillbirth77Since the mention of a female in v. 5 implies that the preceding verses refer to a male, the explicit mention of “male” is unnecessary. It is concluded that the verses refer to any fetus recognizably male.. Similarly said Rebbi Jehudah, “you should dwell in huts78The reference obviously is to Lev.23:42 where the text reads either בַּסֻּכֹּ֥ת תֵּֽשְׁב֖וּ or יֵֽשְׁב֖וּ בַּסֻּכֹּֽת. The quote is correct in Sifra Emor Pereq 17(10) but incorrect in Midrash Haggadol (Note 71) p. 763. The reference is to the holiday of Tabernacles.,” a hut made of anything. For Rebbi Jehudah was saying, it is an argument de minore ad majus that the hut should come only from the Four Kinds79This can only mean that the thatched roof of the hut, which must be of vegetal material, should be composed of willow, myrrh, or palm branches. The fourth kind, the fruit of the hadar tree (Lev. 23:40), probably cannot be used for this purpose. [In medieval Germany the roof of the festival hut usually was covered with willow branches, Sefer Maharil (ed. S. J. Spitzer, Jerusalem 1989, p. 363)].. Since the lulav which is not used in nights as in days may come only from the Four Kinds, it is only logical that a hut which is used by nights as well as by days should come only from the Four Kinds. They told Rebbi Jehudah, any argument de minore ad majus which you argue in the beginning as a restriction but it turns out in the end to be a leniency is no argument de minore ad majus. As a consequence, if he did not find of the Four Kinds, should he sit without a hut? But the Torah said, “you should dwell in huts,” a hut made of anything. [And so Ezra said80Neh. 8:15. The proof is from the continuation of the verse, not quoted in the text: Bring olive leaves, and oil-wood leaves, and myrrh leaves, and palm leaves, and ˋavot-tree leaves, to make huts as it is written. Corrector’s addition from the parallel sources., they informed and did proclaim in all cities and in Jerusalem, go to the mountain, etc.] Rebbi Jehudah came back and presented another argument: Leavened matter is forbidden as food and leftover68Sacrificial meat left over after the time allotted for its consumption, depending on the kind of sacrifice either day and night or two daytimes with the night in between. is forbidden as food. Since the latter is to be burned81Lev. 19:8., the former is to be burned. They told him, carcass meat disproves since it is forbidden as food and is not to be burned20Deut. 14:21.. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food and for usufruct and leftover is forbidden as food and for usufruct; carcass meat does not disprove since it is not forbidden for usufruct. They told him, the stoned ox34The Babli 24b explains that one might use fat from the stoned ox to cover a wound.The ox was stoned by order of the court because it killed humans (Ex. 21:28–29). Its meat is forbidden for usufruct as explained in the sequel. Cf. Mekhilta dR.Ismael Mišpaṭim10 (p. 282). disproves which is forbidden as food and for usufruct82Since it says, its meat may not be eaten(Ex. 21:18) in the passive voice, according to everybody this implies prohibition of usufruct. and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation83Ex. 12:19., [and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation]84Lev. 19:8.; the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not make liable for extirpation. They told him, the fat85Lev. 7:25. of the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time; the fat of the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not depend on time. They told him, a suspended sacrifice86The sacrifice by a person who suspects that he inadvertently committed a deadly sin. He may not bring a purification sacrifice since that is possible only if there is proof of inadvertent sin; Lev. 5:17–19. following your opinion87In Mishnah Temurah 7:6 it is stated that Sages hold that the body of an animal dedicated as a hung sacrifice which was wrongly slaughtered has to be burned, but R. Jehudah requires that it be buried. does disprove since it is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, [but is not to be burned]. Rebbi Jehudah remained silent88And practice does not follow him.. It was stated: Before the time of its elimination you eliminate it in any way you wish; at the time of its elimination you eliminate it by burning. This follows Rebbi Jehudah. There are Tannaim who state, before the time of its elimination you eliminate it by burning; at the time of its elimination you eliminate it in any way you wish89The Babli disagrees, 12b.. This follows the rabbis. Rebbi says, remove sour dough from your houses, anything which may not be seen nor found90Ex. 12:15. Rebbi disagrees with both the preceding baraitot. Since it is spelled out in Chapter 13 that on Passover sour matter may neither be seen nor found, the only acceptable form of removal both before noontime of the 14th or at noontime is by burning which transforms everything into ashes. If one would bury the leavened matter or crumble it and scatter it in the wind, it still would exist and could be found. 90a The firstling of a donkey which was not redeemed by a lamb given to a Cohen must be killed by breaking its neck (Ex.13:13). An animal which killed a human must be stoned (Ex. 21:28). If both conditions apply there are no rules to decide which precept to apply.. How is this? By burning. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if the firstling of a donkey killed, what is the form of his execution? By breaking the neck or by stoning90a? Rebbi Benjamin bar Levi asked about leftover flat-bread from a thanksgiving sacrifice, should we say that if they were left before the time ofelimination you may eliminate it in any way you wish; at the time of its elimination you have to eliminate it by burning91A thanksgiving offering must be accompanied by leavened bread (Chapter 1, Notes 34, 143). The argument is that if the offering was brought on the 14th of Nisan (cf. Chapter 1, Note 148) and there was no time to eat the bread, it is not biblical leftover; before noontime any elimination is purely rabbinical and can be done in any way. At noontime it no longer can be eaten by biblical standards, it becomes biblical leftover before its time and has to be burned. That latter statement is independent of the disagreements between R. Jehudah, Rebbi, and the Sages.?
MISHNAH: A Non-Jew’s leavened matter which existed during Passover is permitted for usufruct but a Jew’s is forbidden for usufruct since it is said92Ex. 13:7., it should not be seen in your possession. If a Non-Jew gave a loan to a Jew secured by leavened matter, after Passover it is permitted for usufruct93If the leavened matter is mortgaged, the Jew may not sell or destroy it; therefore it is considered the creditor’s property. The Babli disagrees and restricts the Mishnah to the case that the Non-Jew has custody of the material. but if a Jew gave a loan to a Non-Jew secured by leavened matter, after Passover it is forbidden for usufruct. Leavened matter on which debris fell94When a wall or a house collapsed. is as if eliminated; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only one which cannot be dug out by a dog. HALAKHAH: Therefore it is forbidden for eating95Since the Mishnah is formulated “is permitted for usufruct” and not simply “is permitted”, it appears that the addition “for usufruct” is a restriction, excluding the use as kosher food.? The Mishnah refers to a place where they are used not to eat Gentile bread; [but at a place where they used to eat Gentile bread] it is permitted even for eating. What is it during Passover96May the Jew use the Gentile’s leavened matter for industrial purposes on Passover?? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose objected: but was it not stated: An Israel may not lease his animal to a Gentile to use it to transport leavened matter? He97R. Jeremiah. explains it, if he comes with him. But was it not stated: An Israel may not lease his ship to a Gentile to use it to transport leavened matter? He explains it, if he comes with him. But was it not stated: An Israel may not lease his house to a Gentile to store leavened matter in it. Can you say, if he dwells with him98Therefore practice has to follow R. Yose. However, since the Tosephta 2:14 states: “An Israel may lease his animal to a Gentile to transport leavened matter from place to place”, Raviah (§449) reads the quotes as declarative sentences supporting R. Jeremiah, that leasing animal or ship to a Gentile is forbidden only if the Jew drives the animal or steers the ship. Then the last question is not rhetorical and is left without answer.? If the roof of a Gentile was adjacent to a Jew’s roof and leavened matter rolled from the Gentile’s roof to the Jew’s roof, he pushes it away with a stick99But he may not touch leavened matter on Passover.. If it was Sabbath or holiday100Since leavened matter is forbidden, it is muqṣeh on Sabbath or holiday and may not be moved. A similar statement appears in the Babli 6a., Rav said, he covers it with a vessel. Rav said, one has to say “any leavened matter which I have in my house unknown to me shall be nullified.101Babli 6b. While the Babli does not mention “unknown to me”, the discussion there implies that this is understood.” Rav said, one has to say “Who sanctified us by His Commandments and commanded us about the precept of eliminating leavened matter.102Babli 7a (bottom) in the name of later Amoraim. The benediction has to be introduced by the formula: “Praise to You, Eternal, our God, King of the universe”. Cf. H. Guggenheimer, The Scholar’s Haggadah, Northvale 1995, p.194.” Rav said, he who affixes leavened matter to his house has to eliminate103Ravan (ed. S. Albeck, Warsaw 1904) §7: “For what is customary to rub off walls which were touched by leavened matter before Passover and also to wash the chairs, I found support in the Yerushalmi: Rav said, he who affixes leavened matter to his house has to eliminate.” Copied by Raviah (§451) and later authors.. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, if one turns dough into a clump, it is nullified104Babli 45b, Ḥulin 129a. In the Babli: “A clump used to sit on it.” The leavened matter no longer is food. He105Rav, who requires that leavened matter on walls be eliminated. explains it, either that one disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or that this clump is repugnant. 106Tosephta 2:13–14.“If a Jew and a Gentile were travelling by ship107On the 14th of Nisan. and leavened matter was in the Jew’s hand, he sells it to the Gentile or gives it to him as a gift; then he reverts and buys it from him after Passover108Since the leavened matter was the Gentile’s property on Passover, it is permitted for the Jew after the holiday, as stated in the Mishnah., on condition that it was an unconditional gift109It may not be given on condition that the Gentile return it after the holiday. It is necessary that the entire transaction result in some monetary reward for the Gentile.. The Jew may say to the Gentile, instead of buying it for a mina, come and buy it for 200 [denar]110While this cannot refer to dough (except in times of hyperinflation), it is common practice at the least to double the price in the sale for Passover of valuable enterprises engaged in processing leavened matter (e. g., a beer brewery), in order to guard against the Gentile selling the enterprise to an outsider.. Instead that you buy from a Gentile, come and buy it from a Jew, maybe I shall have need, then I shall buy from you after Passover111While the Jew cannot sign a contract requiring him to buy back the items after Passover, he can use language which the Gentile will interpret to that effect..” If somebody rents out his house to another, as long as this one does not enter into it112As the following remark of R. Simeon shows, this cannot mean that the lessee actually started using the house, but it must mean that the contract entered into effect on the 13th of Nisan. Babli 4a., the lessor has to eliminate; after this one entered into it, the lessee has to eliminate. Rebbi Simeon said, when? If he handed him the key, but as long as he did not hand him the key, he does not have to eliminate113As long as the lessor controls the access to the house, even though the lessee has the right of use, the lessor is required to eliminate.. 114Qiddušin 1:4, Notes 435–438. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, I asked: What if he handed him the key115S. Liebermann points out that this cannot mean that the key was handed over after a contract for lease or sale was signed, since for a lease the matter was settled in the preceding paragraph and for a sale it is stated that transfer of the key is transfer of the property (Bava batra 3:1, Note 12). Nevertheless Sefer Haˋittur (vol. 2, p. 121a, Note 17) reads the question as complement of the preceding statement.? Rebbi Zachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi said, this is the disagreement between Rebbi Simeon and the Sages, as we have stated there116Mishnah Tahorot 7:1. The vulgar person is one who does not observe the rules of purity. He is considered a source of original impurity; cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay.: “If somebody hands over his key to a vulgar person, the house remains pure since he only entrusted him with safekeeping the key.” It was stated: Rebbi Simeon declares it impure117Tosephta Tahorot 8:1. He holds that handing over the key implies authorization for unlimited entry into the premises.. 118Babli 6a; Tosephta 2:11; Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yohay Ba (p. 23 1.16).“If a Gentile comes to a Jew with leavened matter in his hand, one does not need to eliminate. If he deposited with him, he has to eliminate119If the Jew is responsible for loss.. If he gave him a separate room120Which is not used for the Jew’s property during Passover. he does not need to eliminate.” If he did not eliminate121The Gentile’s leavened matter for which the Jew is responsible., what is its status after Passover? Rebbi Jonah said, it is permitted; Rebbi Yose said, it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, it is the Gentile’s leavened matter [but] the Jew acted wrongly and did not eliminate122While it is not the Jew’s property, it is his responsibility. Rabbinically one forces the Jew to destroy the leavened matter and to indemnify the Gentile. There is no need to emend the text.. Who is the Tanna of it should not be seen in your possession123The first part of Mishnah 2, which requires elimination of the Gentile’s leavened matter for which the Jew is responsible.? Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated124Somewhat differently quoted in the Babli, 28a/b.: He who eats leavened matter after the sixth hour125On the 14th of Nisan., as well as leavened matter which was in existence during Passover violates a biblical prohibition but there is no extirpation, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, anything for which there is no extirpation there is no biblical prohibition. Rebbi Simeon agrees about the prohibition that it is prohibited. What is its prohibition126This is asked for R. Simeon. It is clear that R. Jehudah holds that the prohibition is biblical since he forbids leavened matter one hour before it becomes biblically forbidden.? Rebbi Jeremiah said, its prohibition is a word of the Torah. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, its prohibition is from their words. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? No leavened matter may be eaten, today127Ex. 13:4–5. “Today” belongs to the next sentence.. Where do we hold? If during the holiday, it already is written, you may not eat leavened matter with it128Deut 16:3.. But if it does not refer to the time during the holiday, transfer it to the time after the holiday. How does Rebbi Simeon explain Rebbi Jehudah’s reason, no leavened matter may be eaten, today? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, he will explain if following Rebbi Yose the Galilean, as it was stated: 129Tosephta 8:21, cf. Mishnah 9:4. Babli 28b; Tanḥuma Bo 11; Mekhilta dR. IsmaelBo 16 (p. 62), dR. Simeon Bar Yohay, Bo (p. 38 1. 15). Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, I am saying that in Egypt the Passover was only one day as it was said, no leavened matter may be eaten, today. It should not be seen in your possession92Ex. 13:7.. There are Tannaim who state, it should not be seen in your possession, yours you may not see, [but]130Corrector’s addition. As the sentence after the next shows, the addition is unnecessary. you may see Heaven’s. There are Tannaim who state, not even Heaven’s. He who said, yours you may not see, you may see Heaven’s, if its dedication precedes its elimination131Everybody agrees that Temple property is exempt from elimination. A person may dedicate his leavened matter to the Temple, to be sold and the proceeds used for the service. If he did this before noon-time on the 14th, the dedication is valid. But if it was done on or after noontime, the matter already is (rabbinically) forbidden for usufruct, it is worthless, and nothing worthless can be dedicated to the Temple. The dedication is invalid and he is guilty of disregarding the obligation to eliminate leavened matter in a timely fashion.. He who said, not even Heaven’s, if its dedication is after its elimination. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira: Explain it about sancta for which he is responsible in case of alienation following Rebbi Simeon132It seems that here also one refers to matters dedicated to the Temple, which are sancta as long as they are not redeemed for the benefit of the Temple. It is assumed that the dedication was not “this is given to the Temple” but “I will give a certain value to the Temple”. In the latter case only actual delivery fulfills the vow and according to R. Simeon [Mishnah Bava qamma 7:5 (Note 56)] even after dedication it remains the votary’s personal property until delivered.. It should not be seen in your possession. There are Tannaim who state, it should not be seen in your possession, yours you may not see; you may see it in the street133Greek πλατεῖα (sc., ὁδός) “a wide (road)”, equivalent of Hebrew רחוֹב.; there are Tannaim who state, not even if in the street;. He who says, yours you may not see, you may see it in the street, if his renunciation of ownership precedes its elimination134If the leavened matter was abandoned in the street and declared ownerless before noontime of the 14th. However, this statement has to be qualified, cf. Note 139.; he who said, not even in the street, if his renunciation of ownership follows its elimination. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it for sancta135This sentence is a mindless copy from the preceding paragraph and is to be deleted., etc. If he declared his leavened matter ownerless on the thirteenth; what is its status after Passover136It is clear that it is forbidden during Passover (unless picked up by a Gentile before the holiday). May the original owner go back and pick it up again after the holiday?? Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Do you not agree with me that it is forbidden after noontime137How can the prohibition be removed automatically?? He answered, there its prohibition caused it; here what can you say138Even on the afternoon of the 14th it only is forbidden if no Gentile picked it up; it never was intrinsically forbidden; if the outside cause disappeared, the prohibition disappeared.? Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Phineas, do you remember that we said, Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish Rebbi Meïr139The disagreement of RR. Yose (ben Halaphta) and Meïr is in Peah 6:1 (Notes 18,19) where R. Meïr holds that an object becomes ownerless as soon as it is abandoned in a public place and declared to be ownerless, whereas for R. Yose it remains the original owner’s property until picked up by another person.? It is not so. Only Rebbi Joḥanan is concerned about cunning140The owner might circumvent the obligation of elimination by declaring it ownerless but from the start intend to take it back after the holiday., but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is not concerned about cunning. What is the difference? If debris fell on it. He who says cunning, there is no cunning and it is permitted. He who said acquisition141For R. Yose the leavened matter remains the owner’s property. He does not have to dig it out to burn since it is neither visible nor can it be used, but it remains permanently prohibited if it would be dug out afterwards., there is no acquisition and it is prohibited. Everybody agrees about a proselyte who died142If he failed to contract a Jewish marriage and start a Jewish family, his estate has no heirs and has the status of abandoned property. Cf. Bava qamma 9:15 Notes 111,121. and the Jews plundered his property. For him who says cunning, it is permitted, and for him who says acquisition, it is permitted142*If the proselyte died before Passover and Jews took possession of his estate with leavened matter after Passover, the estate became ownerless by itself. The suspicion of cunning does not apply. Since a dead person cannot own anything, even R. Yose must agree that it was not property of a Jew during Passover; it is permitted.. There, we have stated: 143This paragraph is from Giṭtin 4:4 where the few differences in spelling are noted and which is explained there in Notes 75–78, 120–130.“A slave whom his master gave as mortgage144Greek ὑποθήκη. to others and then freed him [in strict law does not owe anything, but for the public good one forces the master to formally manumit him and he writes a bond for his own value. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the one who manumits writes.] Who frees? Rav says, either his first or his second master. Rebbi Joḥanan says, only his first master alone is able to free. Rebbi Haggai objected before Rebbi Yose: Does not a baraita disagree with Rav? If a Jew gave a loan to a Gentile on the latter’s leavened matter, it is permitted after Passover. If you say that the Jew has property rights in it, it would be forbidden. What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Yudan said, manumission is made easy, as it was stated: If somebody gives his slave as mortgage144Greek ὑποθήκη., if he sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the manumittor writes. If somebody mortgaged his field to another, then went and sold it, can the creditor not come and foreclose? Rebbi Abbahu said, in this matter Rebbi Joḥanan opened for us a door to illuminate. We do not find that a slave can again be enslaved after having been freed. If that is so, he should not have to write a bond for his value! Rebbi Ila said, it is better that a person say to him, give me the 200 zuz which you owe me than say to him, you are my slave! The rabbis of Caesarea say in Rebbi Nasaʹs name: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr imposes a fine for words, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel imposes a fine for words. As it was stated: With a bond documenting both principal and interest one can collect neither principal nor interest, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, one collects the principal but not the interest. “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only one which cannot be dug out by a dog..” How far145How far must one presume that a dog may dig?? Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq: Up to three hand-breadths.
MISHNAH: Somebody who eats leavened heave on Passover, if in error pays its value and a fifth146A Non-Cohen who eats sanctified heave (which either was dedicated leavened before Passover or was dedicated unleavened but became leavened by itself on Passover) has to pay restitution to the priests together with a biblically ordained surcharge; Mishnah Terumot 6:1 Note 1., if intentionally is not liable for restitution even as value of wood147Intentional desecration of heave (e. g., used as food by a Non-Cohen) is too great a sin to be forgiven for just a monetary fine (Mishnah Terumot 7:1 Note 2). Also, while the restitution money and the fine for inadvertent consumption are sancta, the restitution for intentionally consumed heave is profane (loc. cit.) and therefore has to follow the rules of civil debts. Since leavened matter on Passover is forbidden for usufruct, it has no monetary value, not even as fuel to be burned.. HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar148This name tradition raises serious questions. While it is likely that the young R. Simeon ben Josadaq (of the generation of transition from Tannaim to Amoraim) knew the very old R. Simeon ben Eleazar (a 5th generation Tanna), it is most unlikely that the latter would formulate a tradition in the former’s name. Also this would be the only statement of R. Simeon ben Josadaq in the Talmudim not transmitted by his student R. Joḥanan. says in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq: Our Mishnah if he separated it as unleavened and it became leavened149On Passover (Babli 32a). It seems that the Yerushalmi agrees with the Babli that leavened heave dedicated before Passover is included though it should have been burned if not consumed by the 14th of Nisan.. But if he separated it leavened, it does not apply150Giving leavened heave on Passover is impossible. Since leavened matter is forbidden for usufruct, giving leavened heave is giving nothing; nothing cannot be heave.. If he separated unleavened for leavened? Rebbi Zeˋira said, any heave which does not permit the remainder as food is no heave151Since leavened matter may not be eaten on Passover, and is worthless; giving heave for it does not change its status. But heave is given in order to make the remainder of the food available for profane use.. [Even]152Unnecessary addition by the corrector. if he separated leavened for unleavened? Rebbi Zeˋira said, since if he gave from its kind it would not be heave, and even if he gives from this kind for another place it is not heave153Since leavened matter cannot be used for leavened matter (Note 150) it cannot be used in this capacity for any other matter.. (If he beat)154The word was unnecessarily deleted by the corrector, who apparently did not understand it although it appears in both Talmudim. four quarters for themselves and made them leavened, and another four quarters for themselves, and mixed them155A dough made of at least 5/4 qab of flour (of the kinds enumerated in Mishnah 4) is subject to ḥallah (cf. Introduction to Tractate Ḥallah). Before ḥallah is removed, bread baked from the dough is ṭevel and forbidden as food. If the dough becomes leavened on Passover it becomes forbidden for usufruct and its consumption is a deadly sin. Therefore even if later it is mixed with another qab of new flour, there is no ṭevel since the first qab forbidden for usufruct cannot become ṭevel, and the second qab is less than the minimum quantity triggering the obligation of ḥallah. Clearly the mixture if forbidden as food and for usufruct because of the laws of Passover.. If one warned him156No criminal prosecution is possible unless the perpetrator was warned by two witnesses that his intended act would be criminal, and only if the nature of the crime was spelled out. because of eating ṭevel, he is not flogged, because of one who eats leavened matter on Passover, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition157Cf. Babli 35b (last line), Ḥulin 101a.. But if he mixed them158Then the mixture is forbidden as ṭevel; if later it also becomes forbidden both as food and for usufruct as leavened on Passover, the prohibition of ṭevel is not removed. and afterwards made them leavened, if one warned him because of eating ṭevel. he is flogged, because of one who eats leavened matter on Passover, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition. If he made a grain heap and worshipped it159It becomes forbidden for usufruct as object of pagan worship (Deut. 7:26)., then smoothed it160If it were not forbidden as object of pagan worship, the completion of threshing by storage of the grain in a smooth heap causes the obligation of tithes; the heave of the tithe included in the tithe would make the entire heap ṭevel (Mishnah Maˋserot1:6). But since worshipped grain is not food, it cannot become subject to tithe., and then ate from it: if one warned him because of eating ṭevel, he is not flogged, because of one who eats idolatrical food, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition. [But if he smoothed it161And now it becomes ṭevel as food. (Corrector’s addition.) and then worshipped it, if one warned him because of eating ṭevel, he is flogged, because of idolatrical food, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition.] Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: He who eats leavened heave on Passover162Where the Mishnah requires restitution even though it is prohibited for usufruct., to whom does he pay? It is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since the disagreed: One who robbed heave from his mother’s father who was a Cohen163When the grandfather dies and the grandson from an Israel father is the only heir., Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to the tribe164Even though he is the legal heir of the Cohen, and if he had not stolen the heave he would have inherited it and could sell to a Cohen, he is forced to give it away but he has the right to choose the recipient.; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself165He must separate heave, which becomes a sanctum and is forbidden to any layman, including himself. He may then sell the heave to a Cohen who will offer little money since there are very few competitors for heave food.. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: It is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about the fifth that he has to pay it to the tribe166Since the additional fifth is a fine, it is unreasonable to assume that he may have usufruct from it other than the goodwill which he gets from the recipient of his heave.. He told him, I also do agree with this, since impure heave is forbidden to the tribe167Since impure heave may only be used as fuel it is of little value; nevertheless illegitimate use triggers the obligation of paying the fine.. There came Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Even in this case they disagree167*Since for R. Simeon ben Laqish the Mishnah is purely rabbinic.. Rebbi Yose asked, if somebody benefited from Temple property less than the value of a perutah168Which therefore cannot be claimed in court and there is no coin with which to pay., is he liable for reimbursement? (He said to him.)169Addition by the corrector; to be deleted. Let us hear from the following: What he appropriated from sancta he has to repay170Lev. 5:16. This seems to exclude amounts smaller than the smallest coin in circulation since such an amount cannot be paid., except what is less than the value of a perutah. There are Tannaim who state, to add. (He who said except, for) [he who said “except what is less than the value of a perutah” for reimbursement171Sifra Ḥovah (Wayyiqra II) Parashah11(7). The argument there is based on the expression from sancta, even a minute part. and] sacrifice. He who said “to add”, for reimbursement172While is cannot be paid for in coin, it can be restituted in kind. Everybody agrees that no sacrifice as prescribed in 5:15 is due in this case. (The scribe’s text, in parentheses, is preferable.). As you are saying there172*Appropriating less than the value of a perutah from sancta does not trigger the obligation to pay an additional fifth since no amount less that a perutah can be invoiced., intentionally less than the value of a perutah, even though he does not pay the fifth and a reparation sacrifice he has to pay to the tribe, one says the same here. The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose, is that not a Mishnah? “Somebody who eats leavened heave on Passover, if in error pays its value and a fifth146A Non-Cohen who eats sanctified heave (which either was dedicated leavened before Passover or was dedicated unleavened but became leavened by itself on Passover) has to pay restitution to the priests together with a biblically ordained surcharge; Mishnah Terumot 6:1 Note 1., if intentionally he is not liable for restitution even as value of wood147Intentional desecration of heave (e. g., used as food by a Non-Cohen) is too great a sin to be forgiven for just a monetary fine (Mishnah Terumot 7:1 Note 2). Also, while the restitution money and the fine for inadvertent consumption are sancta, the restitution for intentionally consumed heave is profane (loc. cit.) and therefore has to follow the rules of civil debts. Since leavened matter on Passover is forbidden for usufruct, it has no monetary value, not even as fuel to be burned.”? He told them, there it is impossible to complete173Since leavened matter on Passover is worthless, rules about it cannot be invoked in discussions about money’s worth., but here it is possible to complete. In error for heave and intentional for leavened matter, in error for heave and intentional for nazir, in error for heave and intentional for the Day of Atonement. If one explains it with two things, it is fine. If one explains it for one, this is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish174This text is copied from Ketubot 3:1 (after Note 33); there is a somewhat defective copy in Terumot 7:1, Notes 47–51.The disagreement between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish referred to here is not the one quoted earlier, but the one discussed in Ketubot and Terumot, whether a criminal conviction precludes monetary claims arising from the same case or not. If one holds that with one action two different laws have been broken, each infraction is punished according to its separate rules and everybody agrees that for heave he has to pay. But if one holds that for one action there can be only one punishment, he has to pay only following R. Joḥanan..
MISHNAH: With the following one fulfills his obligation175While on the holiday of Passover there only is a prohibition of leavened matter, on the first night there is a positive commandment (Ex. 12:18) to consume azyme bread (cf. the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, Northvale NJ 1995, p. 329). Only bread made from cereal which can become leavened is admitted; by tradition only the grains enumerated in the sequel qualify in this respect. on Passover: With wheat, and with barley, and with spelt, and with rye, and with fox grain176According to Rashi, oats. Maimonides in his Commentary to Kilaim 1:1: prairie barley., and with demay177Grain of which it is not known whether tithe was removed. Since one is permitted to feed demay to the poor and passing travellers, it is profane food by biblical standards., and with First Tithe whose heave was removed178This is totally profane in the hand of the Levite., and with Second Tithe or sancta which were redeemed179Once redeemed all sanctity is transferred to the redemption money; the produce reverts to profane status., and the Cohanim with ḥallah and heave180These are sancta, but since the Cohanim are obliged to consume them, they may consume them to fulfill their obligation.. But not with ṭevel181Grain after threshing and storage, before heave and tithe was taken. It is forbidden as food; it would be sinful to use it for the biblical obligation., nor with First Tithe whose heave was not removed182This statement is not really necessary since it is ṭevel., nor with Second tithe or sancta which were not redeemed183They have to be consumed in purity in Jerusalem; one action cannot be used to satisfy two distinct biblical obligations.. Flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir184These are obligatory additions to the sacrifices; Lev. 7:12, Num. 6:15., if he made them for himself one cannot fulfill his obligation185Since then they are sancta.; if he made them to sell on the market one fulfills his obligation186They are profane; only dedication by the buyer might make them sancta.. HALAKHAH: 187This and the the following paragraphs up to Note 207 are also in Ḥallah 1:1, Notes 6–21, ח. It is written188Num. 15:19.: It shall be when you eat of the bread of the Land you shall lift a heave189This is ḥallah which follows the rules of heave.for the Eternal. I could think that everything190Since לֶחֶם also means food in general. is subject to ḥallah; the verse says of the bread but not all bread191Which are the main bread grains.. If of the bread and not all bread, that might be only wheat and barley192Num. 15:20, 21.? From where the other kinds? The verse says the first of your dough192Num. 15:20, 21., this includes193Not only rye, spelt, and fox grain but also rice and millet would be included.. Does it include everything? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon:194This must be R. Simeon ben Laqish. R. Yose asserts that R. Ismael accepted the inference as valid; “dough” includes every bread-dough made from grains similar to wheat and barley. R. Aqiba’s interpretation of these verses is reported in Sifry Num. 110. Rebbi Ismael stated this. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, in the name of Rebbi Ismael195Confirmed this tradition.. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Aḥava ben Rebbi Zeˋira196The son of R. Zeˋ ira who had been a baraita teacher in his father’s academy. (who said, I) [my father] said in the name of Rebbi Ismael197A similar text Sifry Num. 110. As regards Passover only, Babli Pesaḥim 35a, Mekhilta deR. Ismael Bo Chap. 8, 17; Sifry Num. 146.: “Bread” is mentioned for Passover198Deut. 16:2. and “bread” is mentioned for ḥallah199Num. 15:19.. Since bread mentioned in a discussion of Passover is something that can be either mazzah or leavened, bread mentioned for ḥallah must be something that can be either mazzah or leavened. They checked and found that only the five kinds can be either mazzah or leavened; all others cannot be mazzah200Rice cakes, while unleavened, cannot be called mazzah since rice bread (not containing gluten) does not quality as leavened bread. If left standing with leavening it will not rise but spoil. or leavened but would spoil. It was stated202Tosephta 2:17, Ḥallah 1:1; Babli 35a.: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit203According to the Geonim (Ozar Hageonim Pesaḥim p. 33) a grain growing wild among reeds in swamps, used as human food in times of famine. In the opinion of I. Löw, (Flora der Juden l, p. 703) Glyceria fluitans. a grain preferring swampy ground, frequently used for animal feed, also for soups and flour. {Also cf. Latin gramen, -inis, n. “grass, dog’s grass” (Plin. Hist. Nat.24,19,118, §178) (E.G.)}. is obligated for ḥallah.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, 204Here starts a Genizah text edited by L Ginzberg (Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah. New York 1909, pp. 102–115.) it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, it cannot be either mazzah or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found that it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either mazzah or leavened. There205Mishnah Terumot 10:2. The paragraph also appears there, Notes 15–19, as well as in Šabbat 3, Notes 67–70 with the mention of “cooking” and “souring” switched correctly., we have stated: “If a mashed apple is added to dough which soured, [the dough] is forbidden. But if barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, [the water] is permitted206Sentence added unnecessarily by the corrector from the Mishnah in Terumot. The discussion only refers to the first sentence.. It was stated: Rebbi Yose says, it is permitted. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They disagree when it becomes sour from the juice [of the apple]. But if it becomes sour from its solid substance it is permitted according to everybody207Even the anonymous Sages admit that dry mixing of a mashed apple with flour will not induce souring.. Rebbi Yose stays with his opinion; just as he says there, its cooking is not clearly cooking208R. Yose permits to use the sun’s rays to make poached eggs on the Sabbath. Mishnah Šabbat 3:3., so he says here, its souring is not clearly souring. 209This paragraph does not belong here; it is copied from Sabbat 3 immediately following the text of the preceding paragraph (Note 71). Kilaim 1:9 (Note 167); Babli Sabbat 123a, Eruvin 77a. It was stated: “An unripe fig which he hid in straw or a flat pita which he hid in coals may be taken on the Sabbath if they were partially uncovered, otherwise they may not be taken.” From where that the Cohanim may fulfill their obligation with ḥallah or heave, and Israel with Second Tithe on Passover? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot210Ex. 12:18,20. Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yohay 12:20 (p. 24)., this adds. Could I think that they may fulfill their obligation with First Fruits? The verse says, inallyour dwelling places you shall eat mazzot211Ex. 12:20., mazzah which may be eaten at any dwelling place; this excludes First Fruits which are not eaten at any dwelling place212First Fruits are sancta presented to the priest in the Temple and consumed in Jerusalem only (Mishnah Bikkurim 2:2). Babli 39a, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Ba 10, dR. Simeon ben Yohay 12:20 (p. 24).. They objected, but Second Tithe may not be eaten at any dwelling place213It may be eaten only in Jerusalem, Mishnah Bikkurim 2:2, Deut. 14:23.! It may be redeemed and be eaten at any dwelling place214Deut. 14:24. Redemption of pure Second Tithe is possible only outside of Jerusalem.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: What was bought with tithe money and became impure, following Rebbi Jehudah, 215The text in brackets is an addition from the corrector who was misled by the expression “asked” because the statement of R. Abun bar Ḥiyya is a straight declarative sentence: “What was bought with tithe money which became impure, following Rebbi Jehudah since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it.” The question here and in the next sentence is whether there is any objection to the inference drawn. Since the scribe’s text is confirmed by G, the addition should be deleted.[what is its status? As it was stated: “If what was bought with tithe money became impure, it should be redeemed. Rebbi Jehudah says, it should be buried115S. Liebermann points out that this cannot mean that the key was handed over after a contract for lease or sale was signed, since for a lease the matter was settled in the preceding paragraph and for a sale it is stated that transfer of the key is transfer of the property (Bava batra 3:1, Note 12). Nevertheless Sefer Haˋittur (vol. 2, p. 121a, Note 17) reads the question as complement of the preceding statement.. They said to Rebbi Jehudah, if original Second Tithe which became impure is redeemed, what was bought with tithe money and became impure certainly should be redeemed. He said to them, no! If you referred to original Second Tithe, which can be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place, can you say the same about what was bought with tithe money which cannot be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place?216Mishnah Maˋaser šeni 3:11 (p. 111).”] since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: Ḥallah from dough made from Second Tithe in Jerusalem, since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it217Since ḥallah is heave and if impure must be burned, even for the majority which disagrees with R. Jehudah it cannot be used for the Passover obligation. Since no objection is raised, this is accepted doctrine in the Yerushalmi, rejected in the Babli 38a.. I could think that they may fulfill their obligation with flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir218The question is raised about mazzot which were baked to be used with a thanksgiving offering (Lev. 7:12) or with the offerings required at the end of a vow of nazir(Num. 6:15) but were not used for that purpose, as implied by the text of the Mishnah. Babli 38a as Amoraic statement..The verse says, seven days you shall eat mazzot219Ex. 12:15.; mazzah which may be eaten all seven days. But flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir may not be eaten all seven days220Both kinds of bread may be eaten only on the day of the sacrifice and the following night; if it was intended not to be eaten for a longer period it may not be used even if it was not used for the original purpose.. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: since flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”221The argument really goes the other way. Since the statement at the start of the paragraph (which also in the Yerushalmi seems to be Amoraic as shown by the expression שׁוֹנֶה instead of תַּנֵּי) uses a verse different from the one quoted in the preceding Tannaitic source, it follows that the verse quoted earlier is not applicable. The bread accompanying the animal sacrifices must be consumed at the place prescribed for consumption of the meat.. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: this implies that wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. One understands about flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering. But it is not so for wafers of a nazir222While during the existence of the Sanctuary at Shilo or after the building of the Temple all sacrifices had to be offered at the place of the Sanctuary, before the building of the Sanctuary at Shiloh and after its destruction voluntary offerings could be given at private altars (“minor elevated places”) whereas obligatory offerings were restricted to altars erected at the place of the Tabernacle or the Ark of Covenant (“principal elevated places”, Gilgal, Nob, and Gibeon); Mishnah Megillah 1:13. Therefore there were times when thanksgiving offerings could be presented anywhere in the Land, but while making a vow of nazir was voluntary, once it was made the sacrifices of nezirut became mandatory.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no nazir here; nezirut is an obligation. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, explain it if his purification offering was presented in Shiloh but his elevation and well-being offerings in Nob or Gibeon223Not that they were sacrificed at Nob or Gibeon, but they were sacrificed at the time when Nob or Gibeon were principal elevated places, i. e., the sanctuary at Shiloh was presumed destroyed immediately after the purification sacrifice was offered. Since elevation and well-being offerings are by their nature voluntary (even though in this case they are obligatory), they can be offered at a local sanctuary and the accompanying bread eaten anywhere in the Land.. Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi [Azariah]224It seems that this was his name; the spelling עֶזְרָה in the Leiden text is irregular since Ezra should be spelled with א. asked before Rebbi Mana: Did not the teacher say in the name of Rebbi Yose: Holiday well-being offerings brought at an elevated place are qualified but they are not counted against an obligation of the owner225Well-being sacrifices mostly are voluntary; they can be offered at a local shrine according to all the rules spelled out in Lev. 3. But the holiday offering is obligatory; at a local shrine they cannot satisfy an obligation. Therefore the accompanying bread cannot be eaten at all places.? But it must be for Rebbi Jehudah, as Rebbi Jehudah said, purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a principal elevated place, but no purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a minor elevated place226But all other obligatory sacrifices can be brought locally, including two of the three sacrifices of the nazir.. It only follows Rebbi Simeon, since “Rebbi Simeon said, when one of the bloods was sprinkled, the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself for the dead.227Mishnah Nazir 6:11 (Note 224). Therefore only the first sacrifice of the nazir is obligatory, the others together with the bread may be offered locally.” Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The olive-sized piece of mazzah with which a person fulfills his obligation on Passover must be without fluid228The dough must be made with water to the exclusion of any other fluid. Cf. Babli 36a.. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this was said for a meritorious deed229In this opinion the mazzah which either was made from dough containing other fluids or where fluid was rubbed into it after baking is undesirable but not forbidden.. Rebbi Abba said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, this was said as a necessary condition. The word of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya implies that this was said as a necessary condition. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected, did we not state: “flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering”? Are there flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering without fluids230Lev. 7:12 prescribes “flat cakes mixed with oil”. If the Mishnah permits such cakes when commercially made, it must permit all mazzah kneaded with a mixture of oil and water.? Rebbi Yose said, there it is a quartarius; one quartarius splits into many kinds231Mishnah Menaḥot9:3 specifies that half a log (2 quartarii, slightly more than 1/4 liter) was used to bake the bread required for a thanksgiving offering, 10 flat cakes, 10 wafers, and flour mixed with oil. The amount used for a single flat cake was negligible. Babli 38b.. But what implies this? “One might think and a person could satisfy his obligation with pancake, the verse says, guard the mazzot232Ex. 12:17; a similar baraita is quoted in Midrash Haggadol Ba 12:17; where it is spelled out that a pancake made from flour fried in oil is unacceptable since it never can become leavened., a mazzah which needs guarding, excluding this one which does not need guarding.” Because it does not need guarding; therefore if it would need guarding one would satisfy his obligation with it. And so we stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”233Tosephta 2:21.. They thought to say, spiced by fluids. We may say, spiced by sesame, spiced by nuts. But the following says it: One might think that a person only could satisfy his obligation on Passover with (roasted) [whole grain]234The scribe wrote “roasted bread”, i. e., baked on the open fire (parallel to the roasting prescribed for the Passover sacrifice.). The corrector changed this to “bread from the second milling”, i. e., from non-white flour. This correction is induced from the Babli 36b and should be disregarded. bread? From where even with Solomon’s mazzah235Which certainly was made from pure white flour. Sifry Deut. 130.? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot, it included. If it is so, why does it say bread of affliction236Deut. 16:3.? To exclude sursīn237This word is unexplained. סוּרְסִי is the name of the Syriac language. We do not know what “Syriac cakes” are. Sifry only mentions חָלוּט “pancake fried in oil” and cake. The rule is mentioned in the Tosephta 2:20, Babli 119b; the Babli version also in Mekhilta dR. Ismael Ba 10 (end)., and pancake, and cake. One may fulfill his obligation with mazzah thick up to one hand-width like the shew bread238Rejected in the Babli, 37a.. One may fulfill his obligation with raw mazzah if only it does not draw fibers when broken239Babli 37a, bottom. It does not really mean raw but lightly baked so that the mazzah is not dark like a bread crust. The Babli’s expression is הינא (هنا “easily digested”). A mazzah is fully baked if it breaks cleanly.. An old mazzah is subject of a disagreement between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion; since he did not make it for Passover it is certain that he did not care to make it accurately240An old mazzah is one baked before Passover. Tosephta 2:21 permits the use of old mazzah if it was baked for Passover use.. One may fulfill his obligation with seriqin241Tosephta 2:19, Babli 37a. It seems that seriqin are today’s common mazzot: flat bread grated with a comb (מַסְרֵק) exhibiting an orderly pattern of tiny holes (Orhot Hayyim I, Hilkhot Hamez Umazzah 103, p. 75d ed. Firenze 1734.) both with figures or without figures, even though they said, one does not make painted seriqin on Passover. It was stated242Tosephta 2:19, Babli 37a (without the last statement.) “Boethos ben Zenon asked Rabban Gamliel and the Sages at Jabneh: May one make seriqin with figures on Passover? They told him, no, because a woman would spend time with it and it would become leavened. He said to them, then one should make it in a form243Greek τύπος, ὁ, “figure, form”.. They told him, one would say, all seriqin are forbidden but the seriqin of Boethos ben Zenon are permitted. Rebbi Yose said, one may make seriqin like wafers; one does not make (wafers) [seriqin]244The reading of G [in brackets] is confirmed by the Tosephta. as loaves245Greek κόλλιξ; S. Fraenkel conjectures a diminutive κολλίσκιον, τό..”
MISHNAH: And with the following vegetables246For the bitter herbs accompanying the mazzah or the Passover sacrifice. The names of the plants are described in the Halakhah; for a comparison with the somewhat different explanations of the Babli (39a) and their Medieval interpretations cf. the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, Northvale 1995, p.333. a person can fulfill his obligation on Passover: With Romaine lettuce, with endives, with gingidium. harhabina and bitter herb. One fulfills his obligation with both fresh and wilted, but not marinated or cooked in water or cooked in broth; and they may be combined for the volume of an olive. One fulfills his obligation with their stalk, and with demay177Grain of which it is not known whether tithe was removed. Since one is permitted to feed demay to the poor and passing travellers, it is profane food by biblical standards., and with First Tithe whose heave was removed178This is totally profane in the hand of the Levite., and with Second Tithe or sancta which were redeemed179Once redeemed all sanctity is transferred to the redemption money; the produce reverts to profane status.. HALAKHAH: “With hazeret”, lettuce247Arabic خسّ.. “With ˋulšin”, τρώξιμον248Greek τρώξιμος, -ον, “edible”; τά τρώξιμα “vegetables eaten raw”, in rabbinic sources traditionally used for endives.. “And with tamka”, γιγγίδιον249A plant of the family of carrots. “With harhabina”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, 250This is the reading of the Rome ms. Of the Yerushalmi Zeraˋim for the explanation of Kilaim 1:2 חזרת גלין which Maimonides in his Mishnah Commentary explains as “wild growing lettuce” (Kilaim Chapter 1, Notes 37,51,52.)יסי חלי. “And with maror”. A bitter vegetable turning grey and containing sap. They objected, is not lettuce sweet? Is it not called “lettuce” only if it be sweet? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Hoshaya: (Itself it depends only on change) [Itself it is only called “change”]251A play on words from the Hebrew root חזר “to return” which in Rabbinic Hebrew is used in the combination חזר בו “he changed his mind”. The text of G [in brackets] is preferable.The same homily but without the play on words is in the Babli 39a.. (As) hazeret is sweet at the beginning and bitter at the end, so did the Egyptians behave towards our forefathers in Egypt. At the start, in the best part of the land settle your father and your brothers252Gen. 47:6., and after that they embittered their lives with hard labor, with mortar and bricks253Ex. 1:6.. “And wilted”. There are Tannaim who state, “but not wilted”. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said “and wilted”, about a stalk. He who said, “but not wilted”, about leaves254Babli 39b.. 255This paragraph is copied from Berakhot 6:1 (Notes 34–41 ,ב). Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yohanan: One says “Creator of the fruit of the tree” on marinated olives256The required benediction before the consumption of raw fruits growing on a tree. He seems to hold that marinating does not change the nature of the fruit; then it is difficult to understand why marinated bitter herbs cannot be used on Passover.. Rebbi Benjamin bar Jephet in the name of Rebbi Yohanan: One says “By Whose word everything was created” on water-cooked vegetables257The benediction for anything that cannot be classified as agricultural produce. He is supported by the Mishnah here which seems to indicate that once processed, vegetables are no longer counted as agricultural produce.. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: a Mishnah supports Rebbi Benjamin bar Yephet: “but not marinated or cooked in water or cooked in broth”; if they were recognizable in their state one could fulfill his duty with them on Passover. Rebbi Zeˋira said, who understands well what Rebbi Yohanan said, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba or Rebbi Benjamin? Not Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba? And in addition from the fact that we see great rabbis going to a mourner’s meal, eat lupines258Greek θέρμος, ὁ. Raw lupines are cattle feed, too bitter for human consumption. They become edible only after long cooking. This statement seems to supprt R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. and recite on them “Creator of the fruit of the earth;” Are not lupines certainly cooked? If you wish, you may say there is a difference, since the Torah said bitter herbs, and cooked lupines have lost their bitterness. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they have no disagreement. Since olives usually are eaten fresh, they are recognizable in their state even if they are marinated. Vegetables are changed once they are cooked259One must assume that roots of lupine keep their shape and general appearance in cooking. The rule that vegetables which are inedible unless cooked require the blessing “Creator of the fruit of the earth” is the opinion of Rav Ḥisda in the Babli Berakhot38b..
MISHNAH: One may not soak bran as chicken feed but one may parboil260Bran, the outer shell of wheat kernels, also may become leavened. Since leavened matter is forbidden for usufruct, it also is forbidden as animal feed. It is assumed that the bran becomes inert if parboiled in boiling water.. A woman may not soak bran to take it in her hand to the bath house but she may rub it dry on her skin261To be used as cleansing powder, even if applied to her wet body, since it will be washed off before it can become leavened.. A person may not chew wheat kernels to put on his wound since they become leavened262By the spittle.. HALAKHAH: It was stated263Tosephta Ḥallah 1:1; Yerushalmi Ḥallah 1:5 (Note 189). In Babli Pesaḥim37b, the definitions are switched.: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name: What is parboiled? If one adds hot water to flour. Dumpling, flour into hot water.” But here either water into bran or bran into water264all cases it is forbidden.. If there is any fat in them266One is forbidden to chew wheat kernels for medical use if there is any moisture left in them, the moisture being called “fat” in Deut. 32:14. If the kernels are completely devoid of moisture, they are inert and may be chewed.. Unguent267Greek μάλαγμα The base of the unguent contains flour. which became putrid, there are Tannaim who state, he is required to eliminate; and there are Tannaim who state, he is not required to eliminate. He who said, he is required to eliminate, if it became leavened before becoming putrid; he who said, he is not required to eliminate, if it became putrid before becoming leavened268If the unguent becomes unu sable and worthless before Passover, or even on Passover but it was spoiled before showing signs of leavening, it is neither food nor valuable and not subject to the Passover prohibition..
MISHNAH: One adds flour neither to haroset269The sauce in which the bitter herbs are dipped, cf. Mishnah 10:3; The Scholar’s Haggadah pp. 333–334. nor to mustard270Prepared to be used with the meat. Since both this and haroset are moist, leavening would be caused by the addition of flour.. If one did add, he has to eat it immediately, but Rebbi Meïr forbids271As explained in the Halakhah, he does not believe that it will be eaten quickly enough.. One may not cook the Passover sacrifice either in fluid272Neither water (which is explicitly for bidden by the verse) nor fruit juice. or in fruit juice, but one may rub it or immerse it in them273Before the Passover lamb is roasted over the open fire, it may be basted with fluids as taste enhancers.. Water used by a baker274.Water in which he dips his hands while kneading the dough. This water will contain particles. has to be poured out because it causes leavening. HALAKHAH: It was stated: “One adds flour neither to haroset269The sauce in which the bitter herbs are dipped, cf. Mishnah 10:3; The Scholar’s Haggadah pp. 333–334. nor to mustard270Prepared to be used with the meat. Since both this and haroset are moist, leavening would be caused by the addition of flour.; it one did add, he has to eat it immediately, on condition that he not tarry. Rebbi Meïr forbids since he tarries.275The Babli 40b restricts this argument to mustard, requires haroset to be burned.” It is written: or cooking cooked in water276Ex. 12:9.. I not only have water, from where other fluids? The verse says, cooking cooked, in any way. So far following Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael277Who considers the combination of infinitive and perfect a form of common speech, not a duplication.? An argument de minore ad majus. Since for water which does not mask its taste you are saying it is forbidden, other fluids which mask its taste not so much more278Babli 41a; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Ba, Parašah 6, pp. 20=-21/? 279Tosephta 3:5; Babli 36a, Menaḥot52a.“One does not knead mazzah with fluids272Neither water (which is explicitly for bidden by the verse) nor fruit juice. but one may rub it with them. Rebbi Aqiba said, I was with Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua on a ship and kneaded their mazzah with fluids. One may not knead mazzah with boiling water since it parboils260Bran, the outer shell of wheat kernels, also may become leavened. Since leavened matter is forbidden for usufruct, it also is forbidden as animal feed. It is assumed that the bran becomes inert if parboiled in boiling water., nor with lukewarm water because this makes leavened, but one kneads with cold water.” But did we not state280Mishnah Menaḥot5:2, speaking of the flour offerings in the Temple where leavening is forbidden (Lev.2:11).: “All flour offerings are kneaded with lukewarm water and one guards them lest they become leavened”? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There the matter is in the hands of the Cohanim and Cohanim are quick; here it is in the hands of women and women are slow. Then it is a problem about Cohanim themselves, may they knead their mazzah with lukewarm water? 281Chapter 1:1 Notes 37–38. Here the corrector’s additions are justified by G. It should be parallel to what Rebbi Zachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi stated: A menstruating woman washes her hair and combs. A priestly woman does not wash her hair and combs. A menstruating priestly woman washes her hair and combs, not to differentiate between one menstruating woman and another. So also here, not to differentiate between mazzah and mazzah. “Water used by a baker274.Water in which he dips his hands while kneading the dough. This water will contain particles. has to be poured out because it makes leavened.” There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a depression282It is presumed that the water will be absorbed into the ground.. There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a declivity283Greek adjective καταφερές, “inclined”.. Rebbi Yose said, he who said, he pours it into a depression, if the depression was large. He who said, he pours it into a declivity, if the declivity was consierable. Rebbi Phineas said to him in the name of Rebbi Ila: So was he284In G: “so was my teacher …”. discussing it: If he soaked wheat or barley grains in water, if they became leavened, they are forbidden; if they did not become leavened, they are permitted. Rebbi Yose said, if he soaked barley in water, if they split they are forbidden285Babli 40a.. If he soaked them in vinegar they are permitted since the vinegar contracts them. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac had wine which was getting sour. He added barley to it that it should become vinegar286. In G (confirmed by quotes in Raviah and Meïri): That it certainly should become vinegar. Wine which starts to get sour can be sold neither as wine nor as vinegar; it is better to turn it into vinegar as quickly as possible.. He asked Rebbi Immi, who told him, you have to eliminate287Since the barley grains became leavened matter in the wine, in contrast to barley preserved in fully sour vinegar.It seems that the Yerushalmi implies from the linguistic relation between חָמֵץ “leavened matter” and חוֹמֶץ “vinegar” that the processes which turn dough into leavened bread and wine into vinegar are essentially the same. Rabbenu Tam, in a ms. Of his Pentateuch Commentary edited by S. E. Stern (קובץ המיעדים פסח vol. 1, p. 16, Moriah, Jerusalem 2005), notes that this and the following example imply that all fluids except vinegar may cause grain to become leavened, in contrast to the Babli (35b) who states categorically that fruit juices (with no water added) cannot cause leavening.. [Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Kihai {Kirai}288Reading of G. The text added by the corrector is confirmed by G. had honey adulterated with flour. He asked Rebbi Mana who told him, you have to eliminate. One of the people of [the house of]289Added from G. Rebbi Kirai had leather sacks of oil in the storage room of wheat. He asked the rabbis,who told him, go and clean out from under them290The wheat kernels on the flour have to be removed before Passover since they may have become wet during the rainy season.. Rebbi Immi instructed about those leather sacks of kutah291Yogurt for which the source of the bacteria is mouldy bread, which is certainly leavened matter. But since the contents of the leather sacks always were cold, three days of leaching by water is enough., one fills them with water for three days [and empties them]289Added from G.every24hours.
MISHNAH: And the following are removed on Passover: Babylonian kutah1Cf. Chapter 2, Note 290., and Median beer2Made from barley., and Edomite vinegar3Made with barley: cf. Chapter 2, Note 286., and Egyptian zythum4Greek ζῦθος, ὁ, a kind of beer., and dyers’ gravy5Greek ζύμη, ἡ., and cooks’ starch, and scribes’ glue6Greek κόλλα, -ης, ἡ, “flour paste”.; Rebbi Eliezer says, also women’s make-up7If the base contains flour. This is the principle: Anything made from grain one removes on Passover; these are included in the warning8They are biblically forbidden. but they are not cause for extirpation9If edible, the grain is no longer visible. If not edible, consumption is not punishable.. HALAKHAH: “And the following are removed on Passover,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, all by the action of water10He agrees with the Babli and disagrees with the opinion expressed in Chapter 2, Note 287, that fluids other than water can induce fermentation leading to leavening of grains.. “Babylonian kutah”, for he puts in crumbs of dough. “Median beer2Made from barley.,” for he puts in barley flour. “Edomite vinegar3Made with barley: cf. Chapter 2, Note 286.,” Southern aromatic. In earlier times, when one made wine in purity for libations, wine did not turn sour11But in later Talmudic times, at the beginning of the global cooling characterizing the time of migration of the nations, in many years sour wine naturally turned into vinegar. Babli 42b.. One had to spike it with barley to make it sour; one did call it “Southern aromatic.” “Egyptian zythum4Greek ζῦθος, ὁ, a kind of beer.,” ζύθος. “Dyers’ gravy5Greek ζύμη, ἡ.,” for he puts in qussam12As S. Liebermann points out (Tosephta kiFshutah3, Šabbat 8, pp. 111–112) if one adopts the reading of the text, the word is Syriac “barley flower” (as pointed out by E. S. Rosenthal), but the reading of G has to be explained as plural of קצי “morsel of bread”. There remains the difficulty that in the preceding lines both “barley flour” and “bread crumbs” appear in their Hebrew forms. {Perhaps cf. Latin quasso “to shake, toss” (E. G.).} so the dye should be absorbed. “Cooks’ starch.” Rebbi Hitta bar Abba said, one brings ears of grain which are less than one-third ripe, pounds them, forms them like loaves of saffron, and puts them in the pot, so they should absorb the impurities13Greek χλῆδος, ὁ, “dirt, slime”.. “Scribes’ glue6Greek κόλλα, -ης, ἡ, “flour paste”..” In Alexandria they make tubs of dough14The glue used in the manufacture of papyrus was grain-based.. “Rebbi Eliezer says, also women’s make-up.” There are Tannaim who state “make-up”; and there are Tannaim who state “treatments”. He who says “treatments”, so much more “make-up”; he who says “make-up”, but not “treatments”15The Babli 42b–43a explains that ‘treatments” are depilatories used on a woman’s body whereas make-up is used on her face. According to the second opinion, depilatories are so far removed from edibles that they need not be removed for Passover even if grain-based.In G, the statement is quoted as a non-authoritative opinion: “they wanted to say that he who said …”.. “It is written: Any leavened matter you shall not eat16Ex. 12:20., to include Babylonian kutah, and Median beer, and Edomite vinegar, in the admonition. I might think that these are subject to extirpation, the verse says, for anybody who eats leavened bread will be extirpated17Ex. 12:15. Babli 33a, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Ba 10 (p. 35), dR. Simeon ben Yohay12:20 (p.24)..“The colleagues asked before Rebbi Jonah: Here it is written any, and there it is written any. Here you are adding but there you are excluding18Both in v. 15 and in v. 20 is written any. Why in matters of the prohibition one includes admixture of leavening but in matters of extirpation one excludes it?. He told them, there He added eaters but there He added edibles19In both cases, “any” implies addition and extension. In v. 15, any who eats, includes women who are obligated to eat mazzah even though this is a positive commandment activated at a fixed date from which in general women are exempted (Mishnah Qiddušin 1:7). V. 20 any leavened matter includes admixture of leavening to edibles.. They objected, was it not stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”20Cf. Chapter 2, Note 233.. And for these21Median beer. One agrees that Babylonian kutah might not trigger extirpation since the amount of leavened matter is small, but why should beer, which essentially is water and malt, be treated differently from bread which is water and flour?, because they are mostly grain, he should be liable. He told them, there is a difference, for it is written bread, and these are not bread. Rebbi Yose objected, was it not stated that only mazzah is called bread, seven days you shall eat mazzot, the bread of deprivation22Deut. 16:3. Since mazzah is called bread, it is clear that the positive commandment to eat mazzah can only be fulfilled by eating azyme bread. But leavened matter is always called חָמֵץ, and never is explicitly called “bread”; there seems to be no reason why extirpation should be restricted to those who eat bread.? But here you infer mazzah from leavened bread? In addition, from the following which was stated: “A person may acquit himself of his obligation with a soaked wafer, or a cooked wafer, as long as it did not lose its shape.23Babli 41a, Berakhot 38b.” It only says, “as long as it did not lose its shape,” therefore not if it lost its shape. But in the matter of leavened bread you are saying, if he mashed leavened bread and slurped it, he is liable24It is true that the positive commandment can be fulfilled only with bread but the prohibition extends to anything produced from leavened flour.. How is this? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Idi: Their25The items enumerated in the Mishnah. leavening is not clear leavening. Should he be flogged? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Concerning flogging, he cannot be flogged, as it was stated: On certain leavened bread he is subject to extirpation, for its admixture he receives forty [lashes]26Since Ex. 12:20 states a general prohibition for food with an admixture of leavened matter, transgression has to be punished by the generic punishment prescribed for all prohibitions for which no particular punishment is specified.G has an additional sentence: “The word of Rebbi (probably meaning Rabbenu, i. e., Rav) implies that he is not flogged.” On the other hand, a sentence of the ms. text is missing in G because of homoioteleuton.. Rav said, that is sour dough. He could have said, that is Babylonian kutah, and Median beer27Since Rav explains that one is flogged for consuming something containing an admixture of sour dough but not the items enumerated in the Mishnah, one may conclude that only active souring agent exposes one to flogging.. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: Explain it if leavened bread and mazzah were mixed28The preceding argument may be irrelevant since the baraita can be explained as referring directly to bread, eaten alone or with other edibles.. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty for Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: Where do we hold? If most of it was leavened bread, he is subject to extirpation. If most of it is mazzah, he could use it to fulfill his obligation on Passover29Since by biblical standards, anything greater than 50% is counted as whole. Since the mixture still is forbidden, the argument is possible only for R. Yose (cf. Šabbat 13, Note 56), but nobody else.. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Joshua from Ono stated: Explain it if the amount of leavened bread was less than the volume of an olive, following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, the most minute amount for flogging30Babli Makkot 17a, Ševuot 21a, 24b, Menaḥot4a, Meˋilah18a. R. Simeon restricts the possibility of a purification sacrifice to the case that a person ingested at least the volume of an olive of food forbidden under punishment of extirpation (such as forbidden fat or leavened matter on Passover) but admits the possibility of criminal prosecution for the most minute amount.. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: In a pot in which one cooked with water31מודה, a reading confirmed by G, cannot have the usual meaning “to agree”. The unique meaning here is derived from Arabic مذى “mix with much water”. If leavening was cooked with little water in a clay pot, everybody agrees that it cannot be completely cleaned with much water, Rav prohibits the use Passover. one may cook the same kind only after Passover. Therefore another kind is permitted although only after three dishes32If the pot was used before Passover three times with water but no leavened matter, one assumes that the leavened matter absorbed in the walls was leached out and the pots may be used on Passover.. If it becomes insignificant by other kinds, should it not become insignificant also by its own kind33Where one assumes that no leavened matter was used.? A kind awakes its own kind to prohibit34A general principle recognized in the Babli (Eruvin 9a, Avodah zarah 73a, Bekhorot 22a, 33a).. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, Rebbi Abbahu ordered the millers35In this version, this is a general instruction to the millers preparing Passover flour. In G the singular is used, “the miller”, referring to the one who delivered to his household. not to put boxes one on top of the other lest they heated up and became leavened. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappos went to the millers36He personally supervised the milling for Passover.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun milled himself as guest37Guest of the miller’s. Reading צרף as ضرف, “to somebody’s guest”.. Rebbi Abun instructed the millers to fill a quartarius38Following the reading of G; τέταρτον is the Greek equivalent of the Roman quartarius, “a quarter”.. of water in the modii and moisten it four times. Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, grasses are permitted, moistened it is forbidden39Grain silos used to be padded with grasses, Mishnah Makhshirin 3:5. It is difficult to understand how anybody could permit storing grain on moist grasses. S.Liebermann conjectures that instead of מטננה one has to read בטיט הנגוב “in dried clay”. But since the text is confirmed by G, emendation is problematic., but the other one switches. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, even the one who permits grasses, if he collected them in the afternoon. Why? For dew faded away from it40Here ends this fragment from G..
MISHNAH: Dough in crannies of the baking trough: if there is the volume of an olive at one place one is obligated to eliminate; less than this becomes insignificant. Similarly in matters of impurity, if he is bothered by it it separates; if he desires its existence it is like the baking trough41Since for cleansing from impurity the verse requires that one immerse “all his flesh” in water, any dirt on the skin prevents the water to touch the skin and invalidates the immersion. The Mishnah restricts that to unwanted dirt; wanted adhesions separate only in the volume of an olive. Dry dough which acts as glue becomes part of the trough.. Deaf dough42As explained in the Halakhah, dough refrigerated immediately after kneading. is forbidden if a similar kind became sour. HALAKHAH: The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If it could be scraped off together43“At one place” mentioned in the Mishnah does not mean that the leavened matter must be in one lump, only that the dough somehow must be connected (Babli 45b). If it is moist, it can be scraped off and remain connected; it dry, it will break when being scraped off. Nevertheless, since it was connected before being scraped off, the rule of the Mishnah applies.. So far moist; dry? Since if it were moist it could be scraped together, even if dry the same applies. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Two volumes of half an olive in one house, the house does not combine them; in one vessel, the vessel does combine them. But did we not state, “less than this becomes insignificant”? One if plucked, one if connected44The Mishnah states that leavened matter less than the volume of an olive is insignificant; R. Zeˋira states that several insignificant pieces in one vessel combine to be significant. Since the Amora R. Zeˋira cannot disagree with the Mishnah, how can his statement be interpreted? The Mishnah deals with specks of חָמֵץ material embedded in the walls of the vessel; they are permanently separate. R. Zeˋira speaks of movable specks; they combine since they can be assembled at one place (Babli 45b in the name of Ulla.). If he reduced it, did it become insignificant, or since it was to be eliminated it has to be completely eliminated? How much? They wanted to say, up to most of the trough. How is this? If he reduced most of the trough, the remainder becomes insignificant, or since it was to be eliminated it has to be completely eliminated45If the walls of the trough were covered with a thin film of חָמֵץ, is it enough to clean the walls so that the remainder be less than the volume of an olive or must it be thoroughly cleaned? No answer is given; since the obligation of elimination is biblical, the automatic answer is that it must be thoroughly cleaned.? (There, Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Two volumes of half an olive in one house, the house does not combine them; in one vessel, the vessel does combine them; and here he says so?46The text in parentheses does not belong here, it is from Halakhah 3, Note 87.). “If he is bothered by it it separates” for immersion; so if he is not bothered it does not separate for immersion41Since for cleansing from impurity the verse requires that one immerse “all his flesh” in water, any dirt on the skin prevents the water to touch the skin and invalidates the immersion. The Mishnah restricts that to unwanted dirt; wanted adhesions separate only in the volume of an olive. Dry dough which acts as glue becomes part of the trough.. The same is true for immersion and for sprinkling47For the ritual of cleansing from the impurity of the dead, sprinkling with water containing ashes of the Red Cow (Num. 19). If the water only is sprinkled on dirt which would invalidate immersion, the implement is purified.. It48The dough in the volume of an olive sticking to the trough, as described in the Mishnah. is not a connection for impurity, from the following: “if he desires its existence it is like the baking trough,” otherwise it is not really49S. Liebermann points to Yoma 6:4 (Note 83), where גּוּפוֹ “its body” is used as opposite of מַמָּשׁ “really it”. like the trough. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so did Rebbi formulate: Dirt under the chair50Used as glue. is connection for impurity, but no connection for sprinkling51The two statements are not quite parallel. Immersion requires that the object to be purified be completely immersed; “connection” then means that if the glue is wetted, the wood below also is purified. In sprinkling, only drops are used; if a drop falls on the glue, the object is not purified.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Cahana: An atrophied limb, an atrophied nail52Inoperative but still connected to the body., the ballast of a pumpkin and its hollow53A hollowed-out pumpkin used as a bottle. Since it is lighter than water, it cannot be immersed and filled with water without a ballast, usually a stone. While it is not part of the pumpkin, it is an intrinsic part of the bottle, as much as its hollow. All these are included in “connection for impurity, but no connection for sprinkling.”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also down which he plucked54Downy facial hair. If a woman insists on removing it it acquires the status of unwanted dirt described in the Mishnah, being an obstacle to immersion and no receptor of sprinkling drops. is connection for impurity but no connection for sprinkling. What is the difference between impurity and sprinkling? Rebbi La said, about sprinkling it is written, he shall sprinkle on the tent and on all vessels55Num. 19:18.. But here, for you56Many occurrences in the rules of impurity in Lev. 11: Babli Ḥulin 118a, a discussion of people having different needs at different times in Šabbat 48b., all you have use for. There, they are saying, tracta57Latin tractum, tracta, Greek τρακτόν, τό “long piece of dough drawn out in making pastry”. Mentioned in Apicius (De re coquinaria, Ed. M. E. Milham, Leipzig 1969 Bk. IV iii) as used in serving fish, Bk. VII using “three small tracta balls” for pultes tractogalatae., Rebbi Isaac instructed that one may make one; two or three are forbidden unless one cleans his hands with water58Since preparation of tracta takes time, one may bake these for Passover use only if one thoroughly cleanses his hands between any two of these, to avoid fermentation of the dough on the pastry cook’s hands.. It was stated: Bireh boxes59Greek κιβωτός “box, chest” (in LXX used to translate תֵּיבָה). Obviously not the boxes have to be eliminated but their contents have to be cleaned out. It seems that the boxes made in Bireh were used to store pastry. (S. Liebermann). have to be eliminated. Rebbi Yasa instructed that the surroundings of baking troughs60Liebermann reads προλήνια, places surrounding the ληνός, “kneading trough.” Not only the implement where one makes dough has to be cleaned, but also its surroundings. have to be eliminated. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Cooled dough42As explained in the Halakhah, dough refrigerated immediately after kneading.. If there was not other dough like it, how long61How long is it permitted to keep cooled dough in preparation for Passover, without risk of fermentation.? Rebbi Jacon bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ulla of Caesarea: Up to four mil’s walk62Slightly more than one standard hour..
MISHNAH: How does one separate ḥallah in impurity on the holiday63The problem is mainly for the holiday of Passover. Since ḥallah is a kind of heave, it must be consumed by a Cohen in purity. Dough of a minimum volume (cf. Introduction to Tractate Ḥallah) is forbidden as food as long as its heave was not taken. It is permitted to bake bread on a holiday which is not a Sabbath. If the dough is impure (e. g., if the person kneading the dough is impure, as is everybody today), the ḥallah is impure and has to be burned as impure heave. But since sancta other than Temple sacrifices may not be burned on any holiday, the impure ḥallah may not be burned immediately and, therefore, can be expected to become fermented. (In the talmudic languages, ḥallah never means “Sabbath bread” as in Eastern European Yiddish.)? Rebbi Eliezer says, it should not be given a name until after it is baked64He permits to bake the bread without ḥallah being taken from the dough (even though in this case the bread in the oven is forbidden as food) and to remove ḥallah (preferably a small loaf intended as ḥallah from the start) and declare it as such, which then releases the remainder of the bread for human consumption and retroactively justifies baking it on the holiday.. Ben Bathyra65R. Jehudah ben Bathyra of Nisibis on the upper Tigris. In the interpretation of the Halakhah, he requires that the dough be kneaded continuously with cold water until the end of the holiday. says, one should keep it in cold water. Rebbi Joshua said, this is not leavening where one is warned that it should not be seen nor found, but one separates it and leaves it until the evening, and if it fermented, it fermented66Since ḥallah is for Cohanim, it is not property of the maker of the dough and since the prohibition is that yours shall not be seen, yours shall not be found, it does not apply in this case and it is preferable to bake the dough into bread when clearly permitted as food.. HALAKHAH: The Mishnah if it became impure after rolling. But if it became impure before rolling, he should make them into pieces of single qab67After kneading the dough was shaped ready to be baked. This is the end of preparation of dough and, as for all heave, the completion of processing induces the obligation of heave. While the obligation of ḥallah starts only with completion of the dough, the possibility of giving ḥallah legally exists from the moment the preparation of the dough has begun. Later in this paragraph R. Yose ben R. Abun notes that it became customary to give ḥallah from pure dough at the earliest possible moment, to protect it from possible impurity during processing. Mishnah Ḥallah 3:1 states that the obligation of ḥallah exists only for a dough of 5/4 qab of flour. Using impure flour on a holiday one is required to make loaves not larger than 1 qab (of 4 log of 4 quartarii); then the dough is never obligated for ḥallah and the problem of the Mishnah does not even start.. If it was kneaded on the holiday. But if it was kneaded before the holiday, it is as it was stated:68Tosephta Yom Ṭov 1:14. The text from here to the end of the paragraph is repeated in Beṣah 1:7 (צ). “if one kneads dough on a holiday, he separates its ḥallah on the holiday. If he kneaded it before the holiday but forgot to take its ḥallah, it is forbidden to move it; it is unnecessary to say, to take ḥallah from it.” If he mixed water and flour? He only mentioned “kneaded”, so not when he mixed69Even though Mishnah Ḥallah 3:1 permits separating ḥallah immediately after mixing the flour with water.? Rebbi Samuel, brother of Rebbi Berekhiah, said: explain it if the dough was impure where he takes ḥallah only at the end. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it should have been the rule that for pure dough one should take ḥallah only at the end. They instituted that one should take it at the start, lest the dough become impure70Since then only the ḥallah has to be guarded from impurity but not the dough itself.. The Mishnah is about the holiday of Passover; therefore on Pentecost and Tabernacles it is permitted71The remark applies both to Mishnah Pesaḥim 3:3 and Tosephta Yom Ṭov 1:14.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, even on Pentecost and Tabernacles it is prohibited, because of no work shall be done on them72Ex. 12:16. Since impure ḥallah may not be eaten, it may not be baked on a holiday.. What is the difference between this and cleansing heave vegetables73It is permitted to trim heave vegetables on a holiday; the parts eliminated are no longer human food but as coming from sancta may not be used as animal feed. Cleansing vegetables as a regular component of preparing food is permitted on a holiday.? The latter is possible food, the former is not possible food. The rabbis of Caesarea asked, what is the difference between this and picking out legumes on a holiday74This question is similar to the preceding one, therefore the answer given to the first also applies here. The assumption here is that the chaff eliminated when picking out the edible parts is not even animal feed.? What should he do in Rebbi Eliezer’s opinion? He is cunning and says, this I want to eat[ and this I want to eat], and bakes all of them. When he removes the loaves, he is cunning and says, this I want to leave for later, and this I want to leave for later, and leaves one as remainder75While he forms a small loaf that in the end will be impure ḥallah, he treats it as if he wanted to eat it while it is being baked, and only at the end, before he takes the first bite of the bread, declares it to be ḥallah. Then he leaves it in the oven where eventually it will be burned and turned into coal.. 76The following is a much shortened version, mostly by the corrector, of a text in Eruvin 10, Notes 165–175. Rebbi Joshua said to him, are you not like one who burns sancta on a holiday? Rebbi Eliezer told him, it is burned automatically. Rebbi Joshua said to him, are you not transgressing it should not be seen, and it should notbe found77Ex. 13:7.? He told him, it is better to violate a prohibition that was not caused by you than a prohibition which will come before you. [Rebbi Phineas said, this disagreement is parallel to other disagreements. As we have stated there78MishnahZevaḥim 8:10.: “[Blood] to be given in one batch etc. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, would you not transgress do not diminish? Rebbi Joshua answered him, would you not transgress do not add?79Deut. 4:2,13:1.” He said to him, it is better to violate a prohibition that was not caused by me than a prohibition which will come before me.] In Rebbi Eliezer’s opinion, should he not give it its name and then take it down80Why does R. Eliezer require that the ḥallah remain in the oven (Note 67)?? It will be forbidden to move it81Since it is neither food nor implement, it is muqṣeh.. Then should he not take it down and then give it its name? Maybe he would forget and eat it. Should he not take it down, then give it its name, and with another piece put it in an isolated corner, following what we did state there, “one may move impure heave together with pure one or with profane food82Mishnah Šabbat 21:1.”? It cannot be compared; there impure for the needs of pure83It is permitted to move impure heave on the Sabbath only if this is needed to allow access to permitted items (Babli Šabbat 142a.), but here profane for the needs of impure. The colleagues asked, could he not throw it onto the garbage heap and then dedicate it84Could one not remove some raw dough, throw in on the garbage heap (where it is abandoned and may be taken by scavengers). Since it no longer is his possession, he should not be concerned about it fermenting.? May a person dedicate what is not his85If it is abandoned and no longer his property, it is not his dough anymore and cannot be declared as ḥallah.? Then could he not dedicate it and throw it on the garbage heap? Can a person declare ownerless something that is not his86Since ḥallah is the Cohen’s property, he cannot declare it ownerless; even on the garbage heap it remains his property and he has sinned if it ferments there.? Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Could he not separate it, throw it in the air in the house87Take the piece of raw dough reserved for ḥallah, separate it into minuscule parts, throw them into the air in the house, and only then declare them to be ḥallah. By Mishnah 3:2 he would not be liable if some of the flakes fermented, and in any case these would soon be swept away if the house is cleaned. and then give it its name88Declare it to be ḥallah.? There44The Mishnah states that leavened matter less than the volume of an olive is insignificant; R. Zeˋira states that several insignificant pieces in one vessel combine to be significant. Since the Amora R. Zeˋira cannot disagree with the Mishnah, how can his statement be interpreted? The Mishnah deals with specks of חָמֵץ material embedded in the walls of the vessel; they are permanently separate. R. Zeˋira speaks of movable specks; they combine since they can be assembled at one place (Babli 45b in the name of Ulla.), Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Two volumes of half an olive in one house, the house does not combine them; in one vessel, the vessel does combine them; and here he says so? Rebbi Yose said, when it still is in the air of the house he gives it its name. Does the air of the house combine for ḥallah but the ground of the house does not combine for leavening89The question of R. Jeremiah rests on an unproven and unreasonable hypothesis. For R. Eliezer there is no way to give ḥallah for impure dough easier than the complicated procedure explained earlier.? It and its young90Lev. 22:28. It is prohibited to slaughter an animal and its young on the same day. Therefore, if both an animal and its young fell into a cistern on a holiday, only one of them can be potential food. The other one is muqṣeh and cannot be moved by humans. Babli 117b, Beṣah 37a, Tosephta Yom Ṭov 3:2.. The paragraph also appears as Halakhah Beṣah 3:5 with the references to “here” and “there” switched correctly. fell into a cistern. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and slaughter it. The second one has to be provided for so it should not die. Rebbi Joshua says, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and not slaughter it, and be cunning and lift the second one91As long as it is not determined which animal is to be turned into food, both are potential food and can be moved.. Even though he had no intention of slaughtering either of them, he is permitted92He is permitted to declare both animals as potential food even though he had no intention of slaughtering either one.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is the argument of Rebbi Eliezer not inverted? There he says, one is prohibited from cunning but here he says, one is permitted to be cunning93In the matter of an animal and its young he requires strict adherence to the rules; in the matter of impure ḥallah he permits bending them.. Here it is because “not to be seen nor found”; there, what do you have94In matters of dough on Passover there is no other way out (short of not making food on the holiday); in the matters of the animals it is possible to follow all the rules.? Is the argument of Rebbi Joshua not inverted? There he says, one is permitted to be cunning, but here, he says, one is prohibited from cunning95For the animals in the cistern he allows a fake declaration which permits their rescue; for impure ḥallah he removes the prohibition by declaring it inapplicable.. Rebbi Idi said, there it is a rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, but here liability for a purification offering96Muqṣeh is rabbinic; eating bread without taking ḥallah is a deadly sin.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, there it is to protect Jews’ money; here what do you have97The animals in the cistern are valuable; impure ḥallah is worthless.? Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Joshia, one like one of them, the other like the other98Since R. Isaac and R. Josia are last generation Tannaim, their disagreement must refer to the difference between the first generation RR. Eliezer and Joshua.The sentence is copied in Beṣah.. Rebbi Berekhiah preached following Ben Bathyra99He decided that practice has to follow Ben Bathyra., the Mishnah says so: “she shall beat it and wet it with cold water.100Mishnah 3:4. Vocalization and translation follow Maimonides in his Mishnah Commentary (cf. Note 17 in the edition by R. Y. Qafeh). Dough is not fermenting only as long as it is worked on with cold water.” The words of the rabbis disagree101RR. Isaac and Josia disagree but by the rule formulated by the Amoraim one has to accept R. Berekhia’s determination. The rule is affirmed Orlah 2:1 (Note 30), Ta’aniot 2:14, Babli Yebamot 42b, Avodah zarah 7a., but Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: In every instance where Rebbi formulated a disagreement and later formulated it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous statement101RR. Isaac and Josia disagree but by the rule formulated by the Amoraim one has to accept R. Berekhia’s determination. The rule is affirmed Orlah 2:1 (Note 30), Ta’aniot 2:14, Babli Yebamot 42b, Avodah zarah 7a..
MISHNAH: Rabban Gamliel says, three women knead dough simultaneously and bake in one oven one after the other, but the Sages say, three women are occupied with dough; one is kneading, one is forming, and one is baking102This determines the time from the start of making dough to baking when no fermenting is occurring. The details are described in the Halakhah.. Rebbi Aqiba says, neither all women nor all wood nor all ovens are equal. This is the principle, she shall beat it and wet it with cold water100,Mishnah 3:4. Vocalization and translation follow Maimonides in his Mishnah Commentary (cf. Note 17 in the edition by R. Y. Qafeh). Dough is not fermenting only as long as it is worked on with cold water.103The preceding paragraph makes it clear that this sentence is accepted by everybody; it is not part of R. Aqiba's dissent.. HALAKHAH: It was stated: The first one waits for heating, the second for two heatings and one baking, and the third for three heatings and two bakings. If she made one of the first loaves last, for three heatings and three bakings104This follows Rabban Gamliel. If three women finish kneading the dough and forming the loaves all at the same time and the first to use the oven bakes only part of it the first time and for the remainder she waits until after the other two are finished with theirs, she will use the oven again after three baking runs. The ovens are small and have to be refuelled for each run. This is purely as explanation of the Mishnah since the last sentence of the Mishnah explains, in the words of Maimonides, “know that all the time the hand is working on the dough it does not start to ferment even if this takes an entire day”.. It was stated: If one finished kneading, one finished forming, and one finished baking. The first one waits for heating, the second for her colleague’s heating and baking, and the third for two heatings and one baking. If she made one of the first loaves last, for two heatings and two bakings105This follows the Sages, for whom one starts baking while the second one is still forming loaves and the third kneading dough. Since the first baking run is made while the second and third batches are not ready, it is not counted.. “Rabban Gamliel says, three women knead dough simultaneously and bake in one oven one after the other, but the Sages say, three women are occupied with dough; one is kneading, one is forming, and one is baking.” Rebbi Hoshaia stated: And another one comes and kneads in their stead106To work on the dough during the waiting period as required.. There are Tannaim who state: Three qab wheat or four qab barley107These are maximal quantities permitted to be worked on in one batch without fear of fermentation. Cf. Babli 48a.. There are Tannaim who state: Four qab wheat or three qab barley. He who said, three qab wheat, if they have fat, or four qab barley, if they have no fat. He who said, four qab wheat, if they are soft, or three qab barley, if they are hard108“Fat” grain produces flour which easily ferments; soft grain needs little water and therefore is not prone to quick fermentation, hard grain has to be soaked.The translation of רטש as “hard” presumes a metathesis and reads the word as טרש..
MISHNAH: Sour dough109Dough in the process of fermentation which is not edible for most people. Extirpation is decreed only for people eating leavened food on Passover. is to be burned but a person who eats it is not liable; cracked dough110Not fully fermented but edible dough. is to be burned and a person who eats it is liable for extirpation. What is sour dough? Like locusts’ antlers111The CO2 created in the fermentation process causes small fissures the size of locusts’ antlers.; cracked if its fissures joined one another, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages say, in both cases one who eats it is liable. What is sour dough? Any which is pale like a man whose hair is standing up112. In fear.. HALAKHAH: Rav Huna in the name of Rav: One is permitted to feed it [to his dog]113Since it is inedible, the prohibition of eating cannot imply prohibition of usufruct; cf. Chapter 2, Notes 9,14.. Bar Qappara stated: There is no fissure on top which does not have several fissures below114He gives the reason why the Sages reject the definition of R. Jehudah. Even if only one fissure the size of a locust antler is visible, it is a confluence of a number of interior bubbles. Babli 48b..
MISHNAH: If the Fourteenth falls on a Sabbath one eliminates everything before the Sabbath115By burning on Friday., the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, on their time116Since the remaining leavened matter cannot be burned on the Sabbath, if not eaten by that time it either has to be given to Gentiles or it has to be crumbled into minute pieces which are strewn to the wind, the preferred method of disposal of the Sages (Mishnah 2:1)... Rebbi Eleazar bar Sadoq says, heave before the Sabbath117Since heave must be consumed by Cohanim, who are few, the ways of disposal on the Sabbath are not available; it must be disposed of on Friday. But profane matter may be disposed of following the Sages. and profane on their time. HALAKHAH: It turns out that Rebbi Meïr parallels Rebbi Eliezer but is more stringent than Rebbi Eliezer. For Rebbi Eliezer says “that he not transgress not to be seen nor be found.” Rebbi Meïr says, that he not possibly transgress not to be seen nor be found118In Halakhah 3, R. Eliezer requires that the rules of ḥallah be bent to avoid the ḥallah dough becoming fermented. Here R. Meïr requires that heave be eliminated early even through it is a biblical requirement that it be treated as sanctum(Num. 18:8) and be consumed by the priest and their families (v. 13).. It turns out that the rabbis parallel Rebbi Joshua but are more stringent than Rebbi Joshua. For Rebbi Joshua says that one does not burn sancta on a holiday, and the rabbis say, even on weekdays one does not burn sancta119Since profane food may be disposed of at any time (Halakhah 2:1), it is clear that the Sages only insist that heave may not destroyed before it time. This parallels the opinion of R. Joshua who in Halakhah 3 insist that ḥallah dough may not be touched.. It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree 120Here starts a new Genizah fragment (G). about pure heave that it is forbidden to burn it121On a Friday the 13th of Nisan., and about impure heave that one is permitted to burn it121On a Friday the 13th of Nisan.; about what did they disagree? About the suspended122Heave whose purity is in question. It may not be eaten since it may be impure; it may not be disposed of since it may be pure. one, about which the House of Shammai123The spelling is the Babylonian one of the corrector; it should be disregarded. say, one may not burn it, but the House of Hillel say, one burns it. The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel: Do you not say that the pure one may not be burned because I am saying that maybe a Cohen was keeping the Sabbath within the domain and he might come and eat in on the Sabbath, so also the suspended one may not be burned because I am saying that maybe Elijah125He may appear anywhere and as a member of the Divine Court he knows the true facts about everything. was keeping the Sabbath on Mount Carmel and he might come and testify on the Sabbath that it is pure. The House of Hillel told them, we are sure that Elijah will come neither on a Sabbath nor on a holiday126In the Babli 13a in a related baraita: “neither on a Friday nor on the day preceding a holiday because of the trouble [this would cause.]”.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Sadoq parallels Rabban Gamliel127Who in Mishnah 1:6 allows more time to consume leavened heave than leavened profane food.. Just as Rabban Gamliel (said)128Omit with G. distinguishes between profane and heave, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Sadoq (said)128Omit with G. distinguishes between profane and heave. Since you say that practice follows Rabban Gamliel, similarly practice has to follow Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Sadoq129Cf. Chpater 1, Halakhah 6, Note 160; Maimonides Hames umazzah 3:3, Note by Ravad..
MISHNAH: A person who goes to slaughter his Passover sacrifice, or to circumcise his son, or to eat the betrothal meal at his father-in-law’s house130On the 14th of Nisan., and remembers that he has leavened matter in his house, if he can return, eliminate it, and return to his meritorious deed, he shall return and eliminate; otherwise, he has to nullify it in his thought131While the condition given in Chapter 2, Note 101, is not strictly satisfied, in an emergency situation mental annulment is sufficient as legal abandonment to satisfy the biblical requirement not to have one’s own leavened matter in his possession.. To save from the army132The Roman army on the march in the Roman empire. Since the soldiers will steal anything not hidden, this is an emergency., or from a river133A flood., or from a conflagration, or from a house collapse, he has to nullify it in his thought134These are real emergency situations.. To celebrate the holiday according to his wishes135He goes to celebrate the holiday at another place of his choosing, not to fulfill a religious precept., he has to return immediately. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, come and see how great is peace that it is bundled with two things about whom one is liable to extirpation136In the Mishnah, a meal with his future in-laws is put on the same level as the Passover sacrifice and circumcision; two commandments whose omission is punished by Divine extirpation (Gen. 17:14, Num.9:13).. His son’s circumcision and the slaughter of his Passover sacrifice. what has precedence? Rebbi Phineas said, since it is written, all his males have to be circumcided, then he will be admitted to nake it, this implies that his sons’ circumcisions has priority over the slaughter of his Passover sacrifice. Even if he could return and eliminate, or go and save137Since the second series of cases in the Mishnah is formulated as apodictic rule, not subject to a condition as in the first series, it follows that a person starting to save from soldiers, flood, fire, and collapse, is not permitted to return and eliminate but forced to annul mentally.. Even if he could go and acquire rest status, return and (nullify) [eliminate]138. In the last case, if he leaves his place but not to go to Jerusalem, he is required to return immediately even if he could go to the place of his destination, deposit some food there to symbolically move his dwelling to that place, then return to his own house, eliminate the leavened matter, and return to his place of holiday rest. [What is]139This was written by the scribe and then erased by him; it should be read following G.. (no)140Addition of the corrector; to be deleted with G. to celebrate the holiday according to his wishes? At his teacher’s or at somebody greater than he in wisdom. Here did Rebbi state that action precedes study141Since the action of eliminating leavened matter, even though it could have been replaced by a declaration of nullification, has precedence over a possibility of further study.. They voted in the upper floor of the house of Arius in Lydda that study precedes action142According to the Babli, Qiddušin 40b, this was an early Tannaitic decision following R. Aqiba against R. Tarphon. Ḥagigah 1:7.. Rebbi Abbahu sent his son Rebbi Ḥanina to acquire merit in Tiberias. They came and said to him, he does works of charity143Burying the dead.. He sent to tell him, are there no graves in Caesarea144A reference to Ex. 14:11. that I sent you to Tiberias? For they already voted and decided145Delete with G. in the upper floor of the house of Arius in Lydda that study precedes action146Therefore he has to spend his time studying in the Academy there.. The rabbis of Caesaria say, that is, if there is somebody there who will do it. But if nobody is there who will do it, the action has precedence147In particular, religious obligations of a personal nature, which cannot be delegated, have precedence over study.. Example. Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Immi, were late in coming to Rebbi Eleazar. He asked them, where have you been? They told him, performing an act of charity. He asked them, where there no others? They answered him, it was a neighbor148It was an obligation irrespective of the number of attendees at the funeral..
MISHNAH: Similarly, somebody who left Jerusalem and remembers that he has with him sacrificial meat149Family sacrifices which can be eaten anywhere within the walls of Jerusalem but become invalid and impure the moment they are taken outside., if he passed Mount Scopus150When he no longer can see the walls of the city. For “citadel” see Halakhah 7:8. he burns it on the spot, otherwise he returns and burns it before the citadel on altar wood. Up to what151What is the minimal volume for which one has to return, either to eliminate leavened matter or to burn sancta. do they return? Rebbi Meïr says, in both cases the size of an olive; Rebbi Jehudah says, in both cases the size of an egg152Slightly more than three olives.. But the Sages say, sacrificial meat in the volume of an olive, but leavened matter in that of an egg. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It is written, on that day will all shadow of horses be holy153Zach. 14:20. Cf. Babli 50a. etc.; to the place where the horse runs without having a shadow154The future size of the suburbs of Jerusalem will be as far as a horse can run outside the walls of Jerusalem during noontime at the summer solstice when it casts no shadow (Rashi in the Babli, explanation by R. Makhir.). Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, if it is a sanctum should he burn it on the spot? Since even in Jerusalem one burns it before the Temple on altar wood155He asks why outside of sight of Jerusalem one burns it on the spot where one realizes that one has impure sacrificial meat when in Jerusalem itself in such a case one cannot burn it on the spot but has to bring it to a central place on the Temple Mount outside the Temple enclosure.. This one outside, how do you treat it? As having become impure outside or having become impure inside156To answer R. Samuel bar Rav Isaac’s question one first has to determine the status of impurity of the meat. It is accepted by everybody (and discussed in the last paragraph of this Tractate) that sacrificial meat outside the place appropriate for its consumption is biblically disqualified and rabbinically impure. The modalities of burning depending on the status of the impurity are in dispute in Mishnah Šeqalim 8:6–7.? Rebbi Yose said, since it is disqualified because of its place it becomes as if having become impure outside. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is pure by the words of the Torah. You have decided that it be impure. It is not enough that you decided that it be impure, but you also want to make it as if having become impure outside? It [only]157Added from G. is like having become impure inside. Some Tannaim state it switched158They state the Babylonian tradition that R. Meïr states “egg” and R. Jehudah “olive”.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa following our Mishnah159He confirms the attributions as quoted in the Mishnah.. Rebbi Yudan said, an indication is that of Berakhot160Mishnah Berakhot 7:2. “Inviting” is the exhortation for groups of at least 3 people who ate together to say Grace together aloud, with the appropriate introduction.: “What is the minimum to ‘invite’? Down to the size of an olive, Rebbi Jehudah says to the size of an egg.” Less than that161The size of an olive for R. Meïr, of an egg for R. Jehudah, or depending on the case an egg or an olive for the Sages. one does not importune him to return. What is the difference between one and the other162This is a question for the Sages: why are they more restrictive for sacrificial meat than for leavened matter?? One can be declared insignificant, the other cannot be declared insignificant. So far sacrificial meat; leavened matter from where? Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, from what we have stated, “similarly, somebody who left Jerusalem”, this implies that what is incident to one is incident to the other163Since the rules of sacrificial meat are appended to those of leavened matter, they must follow the same pattern..
MISHNAH: In a place where one was used to work on Passover Eve before noon one works; in a place where one was used not to work on Passover Eve before noon one does not work1Since on Passover Eve one has to eliminate leavening, bake mazzot, prepare for the evening celebration, and in Jerusalem slaughter the Pesaḥ sacrifice, there were places where the day was considered a kind of holiday. “Work” here is not to be understood in the technical sense of the rules of Sabbath and holidays but as “gainful employment”.. If one goes from a place where he works to one where he does not work, or from a place where he does not work to one where he works, one puts on him the restrictions of the place he left and the restrictions of the place to which he comes, but a person should not change because of the controversy2As a matter of principle one should not use the leniencies of one place to avoid stringencies of another, but if this would lead people to question the person’s behavior or their own usage, one has to refrain from stringencies which are not based on well-founded practice. The Babli reads this Mishnah differently and takes “one puts on him the restrictions of the place he left and the restrictions of the place to which he comes” as absolute rule.. HALAKHAH: “In a place where one was used to work,” etc. It is written, there you shall slaughter the Pesaḥ in the evening3Deut. 16:6.. Not only he, from where his agent? The verse says, and you shall cook and you shall eat4Deut. 16:7. Since the Pesaḥ sacrifice must be eaten in a group (Ex. 12:3–4), the singular in these verses cannot mean that the slaughter has to be done by the eater; this is proof that it may be delegated.. Why does the verse say, there you shall slaughter the Pesaḥ in the evening? It is not in order that he should be occupied by his work while his sacrifice is offered5The singular is interpreted that even if the sacrifice is presented by an agent, the owner still has to behave as if he himself were present.. As what was stated6The first sentence is a quote from Megillat Taˋanit. The entire text is copied in Ḥagigah 2:4., “therefore anybody who has an obligation for wood and first fruits. He who says, I am taking upon me [to bring] wood for the altar and logs for the arrangement7The arrangement of the firewood on the altar. on that day is forbidden funeral orations, and fasting, and working.” 8From here on there also is a parallel in Taˋaniot 4:2 (נ). Rebbi Jonah said, these daily sacrifices are the offerings of all of Israel9By the statement of the preceding paragraph, no man in Israel would be permitted to work both in the morning and in the evening.. Could all of Israel ascend to Jerusalem? Is it not written10Deut. 16:16. G instead quotes Ex.23:14., three times a year all your males shall be seen? If all of Israel would sit there and do nothing, is there not written11Deut. 11:14., you shall harvest your grain? Who would harvest their grain? But the early prophets12David, Asaph, Heman, and Yedutun, 1Chr. 25:1. instituted 24 watches; from each watch there were [Cohanim, Levites, and Israel] present in Jerusalem. It was stated, twenty-four thousand131Chr. 27:1. The verse is read as meaning that every month there were 24’000 representatives of the people at the Temple.. A stand-by group14Since the Cohanim were changed every week, the people’s representatives also were changed every week; only one quarter of the 24’000 on stand-by were actually needed for one week. The Babylonian term for עָמוּד is מַעֲמָד (Taˋanit 27a). The actual numbers in Second Temple times were small. from Jerusalem, and half a stand-by group from Jericho. Jericho also could have produced a full stand-by group, but to give precedence to Jerusalem it only produced half a stand-by group. The Cohanim for service, the Levites for the podium15For the musical accompaniment of the Temple service., and the Israel as proof that they are the agents for all of Israel16These are forbidden any work while the Daily Sacrifice is offered but everybody else may work.. 17The first sentence is also in Eruvin 10 (Note 141,ר). The text there reads “musical instruments”, which is required by the context there and must be understood here also since the choir is subsumed under “Levites”. It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, Cohanim, Levites, Israel, and song invalidate the sacrifice18A sacrifice requiring a wine offering is invalid if not accompanied by the Levite’s song..” Rebbi Abbin19In the other sources: Abun. in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar:202Chr. 29:28. Since this is not a pentateuchal verse it only can prove what people did or, as explained there in v. 25, what was prophetic instruction. The entire congregationwere bowing down, these are Israel, and the song was sung, these are the Levites, and the trumpets were trumpeting, these are the Cohanim, everything up to the end of the elevation offering, all are indispensable for the sacrifice. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Eleazar understood it from here21Num. 8:19.: And I gave the Levites to Aaron and his sons from the midst of the Children of Israel, these are the Levites, to work the service of the Children of Israel in the Tent of Meeting, these are the Cohanim, and to atone for the Children of Israel, that is the song22In this version the implication is incomprehensible. It is understandable in the Babli, Arakhin 11a, where it is a tannaitic statement: “Song invalidates the sacrifice, the words of R. Meïr, but the Sages say, it does not invalidate. What is R. Meïr’s reason? The verse says, and I gave the Levites to Aaron and his sons from the midst of the Children of Israel, to work the service of the Children of Israel in the Tent of Meeting, and to atone for the Children of Israel.” Since the Levites had three biblical obligations in the Sanctuary, viz., to carry the Tent, to be its watchmen, and to sing. Since only the third can be classified as ritual service, it must be what is referred to as atoning., so there shall be no plague when the Children of Israel approach the Sanctuary, these are Israel. From where that the song is called atonement? Ḥinena the father of (Rav Yanta) [Bar Nata]23The version of G and Taˋaniot in brackets must be preferred over that of the text here in parentheses since a Galilean cannot carry the title “Rav”. in the name of Rebbi Banaia: and to atone for the Children of Israel, that is the song. From where that the song invalidates? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon βουλευτής24“The city councillor”., in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, and to atone for the Children of Israel, that is the song. Is not Pesaḥ a sacrifice of all of Israel and they made it dependent on usage25Work should be biblically forbidden.? Rebbi Abbahu said, there is a difference, since the Pesaḥ cannot be offered before noontime. Rebbi Abbahu asked, if one said, I have the obligation to bring an elevation offering in the afternoon, is he permitted to work in the morning26As stated earlier (Note 7), the entire day he is forbidden gainful work until he has discharged his obligation.? Rebbi Yose said, a Pesaḥ which he brought in the morning is no Pesaḥ; an elevation offering which he brought in the morning is an elevation offering27The sacrifice is valid even though he has to bring another one to fulfill his vow.. 28The following two paragraphs are also in Taˋaniot 1:6 (נ); in a slightly different order it is copied in Raviah §495 (vol. 2, p. 119). Everything they made dependent on usage. If women use not to work after the end of the Sabbath, it is no [{legitimate} usage]; until the end of the seder29The additional prayer at the end of the evening service at the end of the Sabbath. it is [{legitimate} usage]. On Monday and Thursday30Which were common fast-days of the pious in Palestine (cf. L. Ginzberg, Genizah Studies in Memory of Doctor Solomon Schechter, vol. 1, p. 483, §6.), it is no [{legitimate} usage], to the end of the fast-day prayers it is [legitimate] usage. On the day of the willow twigs31The Seventh Day of Tabernacles. Since the following day is a holiday, it is appropriate that the preparations be finished by the time of the afternoon prayers. it is not {legitimate} usage, after afternoon prayers it is {legitimate} usage. On the day of the New Moon it is {legitimate} usage. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if women use not to weave32Between the first and the tenth of Av. from the start of Av it is {legitimate} usage, for the šetiah stone stopped to exist33The stone in the Holiest of Holies in the Temple.. What is the reason? For the woofs will be torn down34Ps. 11:3. If read as the foundations will be torn down it is appropriate for the anniversary of the destruction of the Temple.. Rebbi Ḥinena said, everything they made dependent on usage. There were acacia trees in Migdal Sevaya35Since by a Galilean tradition the Tabernacle was built in the desert from perfect logs of acacia wood (Mimosa nilotica L.) cut for this purpose by Jacob and his sons when they travelled to Egypt [Gen. rabba 94(4).]. They came and asked Rebbi Ḥanania, the colleague of the rabbis, may one use them for work? He told them, since your ancestors used to treat them as forbidden, do not change the usage of your deceased ancestors. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abbin19,In the other sources: Abun.36Even though all three sources have R. Eleazar in the name of ... , it must be ... in the name of R. Eleazar.. In any case which is permitted but in error he treats it as forbidden, if he asks they will permit him. But in any case where he knows that it is permitted but he has the usage to treat it as forbidden, if he asks they will not permit him37Since he intentionally accepted an unnecessary stringency, it has the status of a vow.. 38Babli 51a. One may sit on a Gentile’s bench on the Sabbath. It happened that Rabban Gamliel39Gamliel III, son of Rebbi. was sitting on a Gentile’s bench at Acco on a Sabbath. They said to him, it is not our usage to sit on a Gentile’s bench on a Sabbath. He did not want to tell them that it is permitted to do this but got up and went away. It happened that Jehudah and Hillel, Rabban Gamliel’s39Gamliel III, son of Rebbi. sons, went to bathe in the bathhouse of Kabul40Jos. 19:27.. They said to them, it is not our usage that two brothers should be bathing together. They did not want to tell them, so it is permitted, but entered one after the other. Also they went to promenade in gilded bark sandals40aLatin corticea at Biro41In Upper Galilee. in the night of the Sabbath. They said to them, it is not our usage to promenade in gilded bark sandals on the Sabbath. They did not want to tell them, so it is permitted, but sent them by their slaves. Not only the Pesaḥ but also usage42Religious observances which have no basis in codified practice.. The net-fishermen43They fish with boats on Lake Genezareth. The following also is in Moˋed qaṭan 2:5 (מ, Genizah text g).. of Tiberias, and the farina millers of Sepphoris, and the grain splitters44They pound grain to split it into two or three parts for the preparation of cereal. of Acco, accepted not to work on the intermediate days of a holiday45When preparation of food and provisions is permitted without restriction.. One understands the farina millers of Sepphoris, and the grain splitters of Acco. The net-fishers of Tiberias, do they not diminish the enjoyment of the holiday46Since they leave the people of Tiberias without fish for the latter parts of the holiday week.? He may fish with a hook; he may fish with a stationary net. Even so, do they not diminish the enjoyment of the holiday? Rebbi Immi cursed them because they diminish the enjoyment of the holiday47Baseless religious observances of private groups are to be rejected if they interfere with public needs. The Babli Moˋed qaṭan 13b approves of the action of the fishermen’s guild which they base at Acco.. If they were exiled from one place to another and wanted to change their ways48If the certain restriction is particular to a place and the people from this place migrate to another where there is no established usage, are they bound by their prior usage?? Would it be as Rebbi Abba said, the people of Mesha49From the context it seems that this place was in Palestine on the coast and the question is whether they are permitted to go by sea to another port on the coast when they could go by land (in a more laborious way) without leaving the Land. took it upon themselves not to travel on the ocean. They came, asked Rebbi, and said to him, our forefathers used not to travel by sea; what is our situation? He said to them, since your forefathers treated it as a prohibition, do not change the usage of your deceased ancestors. May a person not ask about his vow50Most of Tractate Nedarim deals with the modalities of rabbinic annulment of vows.? There he asks when he made the vow, but here their ancestors made the vow. Then they should be permitted a fortiori51If restrictive usage is considered a vow then automatically it cannot oblige people who were not present when the vow was made.. Rebbi Ḥanania said, it is not because of this but because of the following. Rebbi was the student of Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Jehudah said, one is forbidden to travel by sea52In order to avoid leaving the Land (Moˋed qaṭan 3:1). R. Jehudah forbids leaving the rabbinic Land of Israel even though he defines the biblical land of Canaan as including most islands of the Mediterranean (Ševiˋit 6:1 Note 93, Ḥallah 4:8 Note 99, Babli Giṭtin 8a.). Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked Rebbi Joḥanan: Is it not forbidden because of “do not split into sects”53How can the Mishnah require people who move from place to place to follow the more restrictive practice? Does this not violate the basic principle of uniform practice based on an aggadic interpretation of Deut. 14:1. Babli Yebamot 13b.? He said to him54He wants to restrict the prohibition of concurrent different practices to cases of fundamental differences in the formulation of rules, not to differing interpretations of existing rules., in case these follow the House of Shammai and those the House of Hillel. But between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel does practice not follow the House of Hillel55The answer is unsatisfactory since in post-Jabneh Judaism, practices of the House of Shammai are not recognized anyhow.? He said to him, in case these follow Rebbi Meïr and those follow Rebbi Yose. But between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose, does practice not follow Rebbi Yose? He answered him, there are two Tannaim regarding Rebbi Meïr and two Tannaim regarding Rebbi Yose56While it is agreed as general rule that between R. Meïr and R. Yose practice follows R. Yose (Maˋserot 1:7 Note 200; Babli Eruvin 46b), this is only a general rule, not an invariable principle. There are many examples where other Tannaim follow the lines of argument of R. Meïr and R. Yose and practice was decided only in later generations.. He said to him, is there not New Year’s Day and the Day of Atonement, where in Judea one used to follow Rebbi Aqiba and in Galilee Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri57Mishnah Roš Haššanah 4:6,7 explains their differences in the way prayers and shofar blowings are combined on New Year’s day and the Day of Atonement in a Yovel year.. He told him, there is a difference since if he changed and in Judea acted as in Galilee or in Galilee as in Judea he discharged his obligation58Everybody will agree that either way fulfills the biblical requirement.. But is there not Purim, where these read on the fourteenth and those on the fifteenth59Days of reading of the Esther scroll in the month of Adar. Since the date of reading is determined by the place of reading, it is obvious that a visitor has to read with the local people.? He told him, he who edited the Mishnah based it on Scripture60Esth. 9:28. Since the differences are of biblical origin, the example is irrelevant for the rabbinic prohibition.: Family and family, country and country, and town and town. One understands “one goes from a place where he works to one where he does not work.” “From a place where he does not work to one where he works,” why should he not be idle? Are there not may idlers at that place? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he causes to wonder61The question is about the last sentence in Mishnah 1, “but a person should not change because of the controversy.” It is clear that when one comes to a place where nobody works, he cannot work there, and “one puts on him the restrictions of the place he left and the restrictions of the place to which he comes.” But if he comes to a place where one works, why should he not be required to be idle? If he is required to be idle in all circumstances then the last clause, “but a person should not change because of the controversy” would be pointless. The answer is that the person who comes from a place where he does not work should not work at the other place if he might appear as an idler; he may not stay idle if he would have to declare this as a religious principle. The Babli 51b disagrees..
MISHNAH: Similarly, he who brings Sabbatical produce from a place where it was exhausted62Since the laws of the Sabbatical state (Lev. 25:6–7) that Sabbatical produce be food for “you, …, your domestic animals, and the wild animals on your fields” it is inferred that Sabbatical produce stored in one’s house must be eliminated (by being eaten or given to the poor) when nothing is left of the same kind on the fields for wildlife. According to Mishnah Ševiˋit 9:2 the dates are determined separately for each region where in particular Galilee is divided into three, Upper Galilee, Lower Galilee with Sepphoris, and the Jordan valley with Tiberias. For the anonymous majority it is not possible to keep produce by moving it to another region where it still is in abundance. to one where it was not exhausted or from a place where it was not exhausted to one where it was exhausted is obligated to eliminate. Rebbi Jehudah says, go and get it for yourself63He denies that Galilee is split into three different regions in this respect (an opinion attributed to R. Simeon in Mishnah Ševiˋit 9:3) and in general that artificial boundaries are to be disregarded between places of easy commerce.. HALAKHAH: If they run out in Tiberias but did not run out in Sepphoris64One explains the argument of R. Jehudah; the implication being that practice follows him. The Babli disagrees, 52a.. He says to him65These words are part of the Babli Mishnah., 1 brought it from Sepphoris; if you do not believe me, go and bring for yourself. Rebbi Ḥanania and66G: In the name of. Rebbi Phineas: Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose both said the same, as we have stated there67Mishnah Ševiˋit 9:4.: “One eats based on what is abandoned but not on what is guarded68“One eats” means “one does not have to eliminate”. “Guarded” according to Maimonides means that it grows in a fenced-in field, whose Sabbatical produce is not private property and available to all comers.. Rebbi Yose says, also on what is guarded.” He says to him69Text of G; text here “them”. The reasoning of R. Yose is parallel to that of R. Jehudah. Since R. Yose is the preeminent authority in the generation after R. Aqiba, practice follows him., I brought it from what is guarded; if you do not believe me, there is field x guarded before you, go and bring for yourself.
MISHNAH: At a place where they used to sell small cattle to Gentiles one sells70At places where sheep and goats are not sacrificed in pagan rites.; at a place where they used not to sell one does not sell; nobody should change this because of controversy71Even if the situation changes one should not change old usage since this will destroy communal peace.. Nowhere does one sell to them large animals, calves, and donkey foals, whole or damaged72Cattle and donkeys were used as animals for work and beasts of burden. Belonging to Jews, these animals have a right to rest on the Sabbath. If they are sold to Gentiles, the seller deprives them of this right; depending on circumstances this might be counted as violation of the Sabbath by the seller. Calves and foals do not work but are raised for work.. Rebbi Jehudah permits damaged ones; Ben Bathyra permits horses73In antiquity horses were used only for riding, not for work. Even if the horse is used for hunting, he holds that transporting live animals or birds is not a breach of biblical Sabbath law.Missnah and Halakhah are also in Avodah zarah 1:6, where the different readings are noted. It is difficult to determine which text is original.. HALAKHAH: Is it permitted to raise them74Since it is forbidden to raise sheep and goats in the Land of Israel (Mishnah Bava qamma 7:10, Note 97), from where does one get them to sell them to a Gentile?? Rebbi Abba said, for example Mahir which is sixteen by sixteen mil15For the musical accompaniment of the Temple service.. They wanted to say, he who said it is permitted to sell [says] it is permitted to leave it alone. But he who says, it is forbidden to sell [says] it is forbidden to leave it alone76Gentiles are suspected of bestiality (Mishnah Avodah zarah 2:1).. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rav77In the Babli, Avodah zarah 14b/15a, this is R. Eleazar’s statement opposing Rav.: Even one who says it is permitted to sell it [says] it is forbidden to leave it alone. What is the difference between selling and leaving alone? There, because he intends to sell it to him it is like the Gentile’s animal. But here it is the Jew’s animal and he is suspected about it. “At a place where they used not to sell one does not sell.” Why? Because he eliminates the duty of shearing78The first wool of shearing sheep should be given to a Cohen, Deut. 18:4. But goats are not raised for wool and are included in the prohibition.. Think of it, if it was a goat! Because he eliminates the duty of the first-born79Which must be given to a Cohen, Deut. 15:19. But a male animal does not bear lambs and also is included in the prohibition.. Think of it, if it was a male! Because he eliminates the gifts80The parts of the animal to be given to a Cohen, Deut. 18:3.. Then one should not sell wheat to him because he eliminates the duty of ḥallah; then one should not sell wine and oil to him because he eliminates the duty of benedictions81Which are pronounced before and after food, as described in the later Chapters of Tractate Berakhot.The problem treated here is that in the next paragraph it is stated that one does not sell large animals to Gentiles because of problems with the laws of the Sabbath. Therefore one is inclined to say that the prohibitions of Mishnah Avodah zarah 1:5 are because of pagan worship and those of our Mishnah, which also is Mishnah Avodah zarah 1:6, because of Jewish worship. It is shown that this does not hold; the first part of the Mishnah is about pagan worship, about places where sheep or goats are sacrificed by pagans; only the second part is about Jewish matters.. “Nowhere does one sell large animals to them.” What is the difference between large and small animals? For a large animal there might be an obligation for a purification offering82If the Gentile does work with the Jew’s animal on the Sabbath, it is a violation of the Sabbath by biblical standards.; for a small animal there can be no obligation for a purification offering. But does he not shear, does he not milk? There he is liable; here would it be liable83It is clear that shearing a sheep on the Sabbath is a violation of biblical law (Mishnah Šabbat 7:2). The Yerushalmi holds that milking a goat also is a biblical prohibition. But giving the animal rest on the Sabbath in an obligation of the owner; he is liable even if another person does the work with his consent. But the Gentile who shears or milks the animal violates no prohibition; since the animal is passive the owner also does not violate any biblical statute.? But if it is sold, is it not the Gentile’s animal? The Babylonian Rebbi Immi84A Babylonian who immigrated to Galilee in the generation after R. Immi the Galilean. In the Babli Avodah zarah 15a he is called Rami ben Rebbi Yeva. in the name of the rabbis there: Sometimes he sells it on trial and returns it after three days, then it turns out that he did forbidden work with the Jew’s animal85If the Gentile takes the animal on Friday and returns it on Sunday he will have worked with it on the Sabbath with the agreement of the Jew who it turns out still is the owner.. Then on trial it should be forbidden, not on trial permitted. One is because of the other86This is a rabbinic “fence around the law,” far from biblical prohibitions.. If he transgressed and sold one fines him. Just as one fines for practice so one fines for custom. From where that one fines for custom? A person sold his camel to an Aramean87A Gentile. While “Gentile” is used to emphasize the pagan character of a person, “Aramean” simply characterizes him as Non-Jew.. The case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him double to make him take back the camel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they fined the broker and called him son who brokers to an Aramean. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Jehudah88Could R. Simeon ben Laqish act against accepted practice in this case?? As it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah89Tosephta Bekhorot 2:1, Babli Bekhorot2b.: “If somebody buys an animal from a Gentile and it gave birth to a firstling, he buys it up to its worth and gives half of its worth to a Cohen. If it was given to him as contractor, he has to pay for up to ten times its worth and gives all of its worth to the Cohen. But the Sages say, since the finger of the Gentile in involved it is no longer liable as firstling90Undisputed practice follows the Sages, cf. Note 94..” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows Rebbi Jehudah and says more than Rebbi Jehudah. What Rebbi Jehudah said because of the practice of firstlings; but what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said because of practice regarding a large animal91The two cases have nothing in common.. “Rebbi Jehudah permits damaged ones.” Rebbi Jehudah said this only for a damaged one which cannot be healed92To ever work again.. They told him, may they not bring a male to her, she is fertilized and gives birth? He said to them, I also said this only about a male damaged one which cannot be healed. They told him, may they not bring a female to him, he fertilizes her and she gives birth? Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: This implies that one is forbidden to provide them with semen93Since the argument of the rabbis has nothing to do with Sabbath prohibitions.The Babli, Avodah zarah 16a and Bekhorot2b, disagrees and reports that R. Jehudah denies that a disabled cow will accept a male.. There94Mishnah Bekhorot 1:1., we have stated: “If somebody buys a Non-Jew’s donkey fetus or who sells one to him even though he is not authorized, or one who enters into partnership, or accepts from him as contractor, or lets it in contract, is not liable for firstling.” Rebbi Haggai asked before Rebbi Yose, does this95The note that one is not authorized to sell a pregnant animal to a Gentile. not imply that one is forbidden to provide them with (slaves) [fetuses]96The word עבדים “slaves” in the Leiden ms. is a scribal error for עוּבָּרִין “fetuses” in G and Avodah zarah.? He said to them, Rebbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there already preceded you, since Rebbi Abun said in the name of the rabbis there, this implies that one is forbidden to provide them with semen. “Ben Bathyra permits horses.” Rebbi Jehudah97R. Jehudah ben Bathyra. said this only about a male horse because it kills [its owner] in war. Some say, because it runs after a female, and some say, because it stands still to urinate98At this moment the horse will not obey its master and therefore be dangerous.. What is between them? A gelding. He who says because it runs after a female, [this one] does not run after a female. He who says because it stands still to urinate, this one also stands still to urinate. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: If it gets old he binds it to the grindstone99Then it is used like a beast of burden and the same restriction may apply as to the sale of cattle. Babli Avodah zarah 16a.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Ben Bathyra and Rebbi Nathan both said the same100For the laws of Sabbath. Everybody agrees that “a living person carries himself’; it is permitted to carry a human baby from private to public domains. The rabbis restrict this to humans; R. Nathan explicitly and Ben Bathyra implicitly (Note 73) extend the rule to animals. Babli Šabbat 94a., as it was stated101Tosephta Šabbat 8:34 Babli Šabbat94a.: “If he carried domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, whether alive or dead, he is liable. Rebbi Nathan says, dead he is liable, alive he is not liable.” The rabbis hold that he is liable for a purification sacrifice and they answer him so102Why do they object because of the use of old horses which only implies a violation of rabbinic rules but not to the possible use of a younger horse in hunting, which would violate biblical rules? It seems clear that in contrast to the Babli, the Yerushalmi does not consider riding on a horse on a Sabbath or a holiday as a violation.? They answer following his own argument. Following your argument, since you are saying because of rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, also we hold that if it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi says, I am saying that it is forbidden for two reasons, as a weapon103Which makes the seller of the weapon an accessory to murder before the fact. Babli 16a. and as a large animal. It was stated so: A large wild animal is like a large domestic animal104A horse is considered a tamed wild animal, not domesticated by nature.. Who stated this? Rebbi. The words of the Sages: Rebbi Bisna, Ḥanin bar Abba in the name of Rav105The Genizah text has the statement in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rav’s uncle and foremost teacher.: A wild animal is like a small105The Genizah text has the statement in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rav’s uncle and foremost teacher. domestic animal.
MISHNAH: In a place where usually one eats roast meat in the Passover nights one eats; in a place where one does not usually eat106Since this would suggest eating the Pesaḥ sacrifice outside the sacred precinct, a deadly sin. one does not eat. In a place where one is used to ignite a candle in the night of the Day of Atonement107The Day of Atonement follows the rules of the Sabbath, but the reasons for illuminating the house for the festive Friday evening meal do not apply to the fast day. one ignites, in a place where one is used not to ignite one does not ignite. One ignites in synagogues, and in houses of study108Since on the day of Atonement long evening prayers are conducted in synagogues and houses of study, these have to be illuminated., and in dark passages109Since late in the night people will return to their houses from the synagogue., and near sick persons. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba asked before Rebbi Immi: Even calf meat? He said to him, even calf meat110Since already in his time nowhere was roast meat eaten in the Passover night, the question is whether the customary prohibition is restricted to lambs’ or kid goats’ meat, which would imitate the Pesaḥ sacrifice, or applies to meat in general.. Even fowl meat? He said to him, even fowl meat. They wanted to say, even an egg, even colocasia111Colocasia antiquorum Schott., an edible fruit.. Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ḥanin said, but only what needs slaughter112Only roast meat is forbidden. In fact, on modern seder plates, many communities use roasted egg.. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath, even in a place where one is not used to ignite one ignites. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Yose ben Saul in the name of Rebbi: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar113In the Babli 53b R. Joḥanan disagrees.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba114In G, “R. Ḥiyya the Elder”, a most unlikely reading. preached to the Tiberians following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. Rebbi Yose said it in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, but some say Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman: A place where one is used to ignite is better than a place where one is used not to ignite. Rebbi Jeremiah said, you should know that this is so since on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath, even in a place where one is not used to ignite one ignites. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Simon both are saying, you should know that this is so since a man is modest and will not engage in sexual activity when a light is burning115Sexual activity is forbidden on the Day of Atonement. It is presumed that the light is burning the entire night in the one-room house, or in the bedroom in a multi-room apartment. Babli 53b.. Both he who said, one lights, as he who said, one does not light, because of leading into sin116Tosephta 3:16, Babli 53b.. He who said that one lights, because he will see and be ashamed. But he who said that one does not light, that he should not see and become desirous. It was stated: Even in (synagogues) [privies]117The reading of G [in brackets] is preferable to that of the Leiden ms. (in parentheses). A related text in Tosephta 3:16. and wash rooms. For that it is necessary: One ignites even in a place where one is not used to ignite118The reason here is the same as for illuminating dark passages. The statement applies to all Days of Atonement, not only on a Sabbath.. On a Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath may one soak pickles119Any food preserved in vinegar. and preserves120Food preserved in water after extensive cooking. starting from the time of afternoon prayers121On a regular Sabbath or holiday it is forbidden to prepare food for use after the end of the day. The exception is the Day of Atonement where one is encouraged to start preparing for the end of the fast in the late afternoon in order to minimize the time between nightfall and the evening meal, the “danger” from an extension of the fast.? Rav said, it is forbidden122Babli Šabbat 114b.; Rebbi Eleazar said, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, why did they say, one may soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? Because of danger. Is there a difference between the danger on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath and a Day of Atonement which falls on a weekday123There is no reason to distinguish between Sabbath and weekday in this respect.? Rebbi Ḥanania the colleague of the rabbis124G switches the attributions between him and R. Phineas. objected, a Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “On a Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath, the shew-breads are distributed in the evening.125Mishnah Menaḥot11:7. The shew-breads are changed every Sabbath (Lev. 24:8); the previous week’s bread must be eaten by the Cohanim in the Temple precinct. Since the consumption of the bread is part of the Temple service (v. 9), if this cannot be prepared before the end of the Day of Atonement then certainly profane food cannot be prepared.” There is a difference. Since this is a small matter, he might forget and eat. Rebbi Phineas objected:: A baraita of Rebbi Eleazar disagrees with him. The Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath is a day of rest; on a weekday it is a day of rest126Sifra Emor Pereq 14(4); Babli Šabbat114b. The Day of Atonement is called שַׁבַּ֨ת שַׁבָּת֥וֹן. The expression Šabbat refers to all activity biblically forbidden on the Sabbath; שַׁבָּת֥וֹן therefore must refer to additional restraint from permitted activity incompatible with the nature of the day. The verse does not distinguish between a Day of Atonement on a Sabbath or on a weekday.. If one is resting on a weekday, not so much more on a Sabbath? Is it not necessary that even things which you are permitted to do on a weekday you have to refrain from on a Sabbath? What would this be? This is soaking pickles and preserves127This implies that according to everybody on a Day of Atonement on a weekday one prepares for the end of the fast before the end of the day.. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. The matter is evident for anything which is served with cold food but for anything which is served with hot food while it is heated he can trim it128Since cooking is biblically forbidden on the Sabbath and on the Day of Atonement, hot food never can be prepared before the end of the day.The translation follows G; the text of the Leiden ms. is rather unintelligible.. Rebbi Mana said, if you are saying so, also he will be embarrassed and will not trim; it will turn out that he will become endangered129Here ends G.. Rebbi Abba asked before Rebbi Immi: May one soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? He said to him, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa asked Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yasa, may one soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? They said to him, it is permitted. Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Immi, may one say to the maker of fried food130A Gentile. It is obvious that on a regular Sabbath this is forbidden. make me some fried food? He said to him, it is permitted. Make me baked goods? Permitted. Prepare me a wick? No. What is the difference between one and the other? This is food, the other is not food131In all matters not pertaining to the preparation of food, the regular Sabbath rules have to be followed..
MISHNAH: In a place where usually one works on the Ninth of Av, one works. In a place where usually one refrains one does not work, but everywhere the scholars are idle. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, should everybody make himself a scholar? HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Yudan the Prince: With a question mark, “should everybody make himself a scholar?” The Sages themselves did not decree idleness132Since according to the anonymous majority, it is recommended that everybody be idle on the Ninth of Av, the day of mourning for the destruction of the Temple, the original intent of the Mishnah, that this be a matter of local custom, would be contradicted. Therefore he requires that scholars do not behave differently from anybody else.R. Salomon Adani in his Mishnah Commentary מלאכת שלמה quotes a reading במתמיה “if he causes people to wonder” (cf. Note 61); in this version Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel only forbids idleness if it is noticed in public.The Babli 54b–55a has a slightly different reading in Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s text and reads it as a straight declarative sentence..
MISHNAH: Also the Sages say, in Judea one did work on Passover Eve until noon, but in Galilee one did not work at all. In the night, the House of Shammai forbid, but the House of Hillel permit until sunrise133Since the Mishnah is formulated in the past tense, it must refer to the time of the Temple, where the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan was the time of slaughter of the Passover lamb, which was slaughtered for everybody, and where nobody could work (Note 5). Then the question remains whether the difference in pharisaic practice between Judea and Galilee has to be considered a difference in the interpretation of the law by different schools or a matter of popular usage.. HALAKHAH: Therefore, the day is forbidden134The Mishnah contradicts itself. If even the House of Hillel permit work only until sunrise, then nobody should be allowed to work in the morning of the 14th. There should be some biblical support for this conclusion.. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: “A day of Pesaḥ it is for the Eternal.135Such a verse does not exist; it is a combination of Num. 28:16, (In the first month, on the fourteenth) day (of the month,) a Pesaḥ for the Eternal, and Ex.12:27: (And you shall say, a sacrifice) of Pesaḥ it is for the Eternal. This kind of scriptural argument is not proof; it is a hint to support popular usage.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Two students formulated it. Rebbi Zeˋira said, I found to say that they are three. One said, it is forbidden, another said, it is permitted, and another said it is a matter of usage136The Babli 55a identified R. Meïr as the one who holds that it is a matter of usage but keeps open the possibility of reading R. Jehudah’s opinion either following the action in Judea or that in Galilee..
MISHNAH: Rebbi Meïr says, any work which one started before the Fourteenth he may finish on the Fourteenth. But he may not start one on the Fourteenth even if he can finish it. But the Sages say, three trades are permitted working on Passover Eve, the tailors, and the barbers, and the laundrymen. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, also the cobblers. HALAKHAH: 137Babli 55a/b, slightly different.“Rebbi Meïr says, any work which one started before the Fourteenth he may finish on the Fourteenth,” but only what is needed on the holiday. “But he may not start one on the Fourteenth,” even something needed for the holiday. “But the Sages say, three trades are working on Passover Eve, the tailors,” since a non-professional138Greek ἰδιώτης, ὁ. may sew normally on the intermediate days of the holiday139When necessary non-agricultural work is permitted. In the following, “holiday” always implies “intermediate days of”.. “The barbers,” since nezirim140If the vow of a nazir expires during the holiday, his shaving is part of the required ceremony. and lepers141If a sufferer from skin disease is healed during the holiday, his shaving is part of the required ceremony of purification (Lev. 14:8). shave on the holiday. “The laundrymen,” since usually people who ascend from impurity to purity launder on the holiday142Since in most cases, the impure person makes his garments impure, the garments also have to be immersed in a miqweh and have to be washed to be free of dirt.. “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, also the cobblers,” since the pilgrims are used to repair their boots and sandals on the holiday. But the rabbis say, they were rich and made the pilgrimage on animals143This argument also restricts the Mishnah to Temple times..
MISHNAH: One sets hens on brooding stalls on the Fourteenth144But not during the intermediate days of the holiday.; and a hen which fled one returns to its place, or if it died one installs another in its place. One cleans under the feet of animals on the Fourteenth; on the holiday one sweeps to the side145One sweeps the manure away but one may not transport it to the dungheap.. Vessels one delivers to and brings from the artisan’s house146The entire day of Passover Eve, even in the afternoon. even though they are not needed on the holiday. HALAKHAH: “One installs hens on brooding stalls on the Fourteenth,” therefore not during the holiday147“Holiday” always implies “intermediate days of the holiday”.. One does not breed an animal on the holiday but may lead it to the corral148One may not bring the male on the female but one may bring an animal in heat to a corral where there are many males and it can find a mate on its own. Babli Moˋed qaṭan 12a.. Rebbi Jehudah says, one breeds a female donkey in heat on the holiday, lest it cool down; all other animals one leads to the corral. One bleeds humans and animals on the holiday147“Holiday” always implies “intermediate days of the holiday”., and does not refrain from any medical procedure for humans or animals on the holiday. “A hen which fled one returns to its place150The hen left the eggs on which it was sitting.,” only if one returns it within three days of its escape151Reading with the Babli 55b מֵרְדָּהּ instead of the text מדורה “dwelling”.. “Or if it died one installs another in its place,” only it sat on its eggs three days of 24 hours. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah implies this, the 13th, 14th, 15th, and part of a day is counted as a whole day152The argument is reasonable but the numbers are wrong. If the eggs were laid on the 14th, and the hen sat on it on the 14th, on the full holiday the 15th, and ran away the first of the intermediate days, the 16th, it is the third day of breeding. The requirement of 3 times 24 hrs. is not proven.. Rebbi Abun said, explain it if it sat down by itself and it implies nothing153The chicken could have started in the morning of the day on which it ran away.. 154Babli 55b. Manure in an alley one sweeps aside, in a cowshed and a courtyard one takes it out to the dungheap. Rebbi Abba said, this is for a small courtyard, but in a large courtyard one sweeps it aside. In a cowshed, whether large or small, one takes out to the dungheap. Rebbi Abba said, because its ugliness is dangerous.
MISHNAH: Six things used the people of Jericho to do; on three of them they155The rabbinic authorities of the day did not interfere even though the actions were somewhat against the rules. The Jewish settlement of Jericho came to an end at the latest in the aftermath of the war of Bar Kokhba. interfered, about three they did not interfere. The following are where they did not interfere: They grafted date palms during the entire day156The 14th of Nisan. “Grafting” here means cutting male flowers and hanging them in female trees for pollination by the wind. This operation has to be done in a very narrow time frame in the spring., and they bundled the šemaˋ157Different opinions about this are given in the Halakhah. and they cut grain and tied it into sheaves before the ˋomer158The start of the barley harvest. Consumption of new barley is strictly forbidden before the ceremony (Lev. 23:14).; they did not interfere. The following are where they did interfere: They permitted sycamore figs159Arabic جُمّينر, in modern Hebrew also the ג is pronounced “j”. Cf. Peah Chapter 7, Note 159. of dedicated trees160Old sycamores whose trunks were dedicated to the Temple; they were of the opinion that it was possible to dedicate a trunk while excepting new shoots from the dedication., and they ate wind-fall on the Sabbath161Fruit still on the tree at sundown is muqṣeh the entire Sabbath (or holiday) even after it fell from the tree., and they gave peah from vegetables162It is obligatory to leave the last corner of a field unharvested for the poor to collect only for produce that is similar to grain in that it is harvested all at once and is stored for use during the year (Mishnah Peah 1:4). Legal peah is freed from the obligation of heave and tithes; illegitimate peah is not. People giving illegal peah lead the poor into deadly sin by making them eat ṭevel produce.; here they did interfere. HALAKHAH: Who is the Tanna of “cutting”? Rebbi Meïr. Who is the Tanna of “binding into sheaves”? Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Jacob ben Rebbi Sosai said before Rebbi Yose: Everybody agrees that one may cut163The verse Lev. 23:9: the beginning of your harvest for the Cohen is interpreted (Sifra Emor Parašah 10(2)) that cutting grain before the ˋomer is forbidden only in places whose grain is acceptable in the Temple, which excluded grain grown in irrigated fields (including those of Jericho). Therefore cutting the grain these could not have been a problem. Mishnah Menaḥot10:8; Babli 56a, Menaḥot 71a., and everybody agrees that one may not tie into sheaves164Only the offense did not warrant interference.. Where did they disagree? About grafting of date palms. Rebbi Meïr says, one grafts date entire day, and they acted following the will of the rabbis. Rebbi Judah says, they were not acting following the will of the rabbis165Tosephta 3:19.. How did they bundle the šemaˋ? Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Zeˋira said, Rebbi La said:166The discussion is about the formulation of a text close to Tosephta 3:19; cf. Babli 56a. The sequence of three “said” is Babli style. Hear, o Israel, the Eternal, our God, the Eternal is One167Deut. 6:4., only they did not stop between words, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, they did stop but they did not say “Praised be the Name of the Glory of His Kingdom for ever and ever.168The customary insert between the recitation of v. 4 and vv. 5–9.” Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi La said: Hear, o Israel, the Eternal, etc., only they did not stop between One and “Praised”, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, they did stop but they did not say “Praised be the Name of the Glory of His Kingdom for ever and ever.” 169From here on, the Halakhah also is Peah7:8 (פ).“How did they permit sycamore figs of dedicated trees? The Sages said to them, do you not agree with us that growth of dedicated [plants] is forbidden? They told them, when our forefathers dedicated them, they dedicated only the tree stems because of the strong men who came and took them by force.170Tosephta 3:22 (Babli 56b). Sycamores produce inferior fruits but superior building material. The “strong men” are probably the Hasmonean rulers or Herod. The people protected their sycamore groves by putting them out of bounds of any human government.” Do the rabbis mean to say that they dedicated tree stems and fruits? Even if you say that they dedicated the tree stems but not the fruits, the rabbis wonder if somebody dedicates an orchard, may he reserve the growth for himself171In Mishnah Meˋilah 3:6 the anonymous Tanna declares that taking the fruits of a Temple tree does not constitute the crime of meˋilah, larceny committed on Temple property. But R. Yose declares the fruits to be covered by meˋilah. The Babli 56b points out that the Sages of the Tosephta, while agreeing that no felony is committed by taking the sycamore figs, nevertheless must assume that taking them means overstepping a prohibition. No such prohibition is written in the Torah. While any stipulation contradicting a commandment of the Torah is invalid (Peah 6:9), one violating a rabbinic prohibition may be valid. It remains unresolved whether the people of Jericho had permission to reserve the right to use the jummiz.? Let us hear from the following172Mishnah Peah 7:8, about a vineyard dedicated to the Temple (i. e., its fruits to be sold by the Temple and the proceeds to be given to the Temple treasury).: “After the gleanings are recognizable, the gleanings belong to the poor.” That is different because nobody may dedicate anything that is not his own173Since gleanings on vines belong to the poor by Divine decree (Deut. 24:21).. Does that not mean that even if the gleanings were not yet recognizable, they should belong to the poor? This is different, because it is a vineyard for the Temple, as it was stated174Tosephta Peah 3:15. Here starts a Genizah fragment, edited by L. Ginzberg in Ginze Schechter, vol. 1, New York 1928, pp. 442–448 (ג).: “It somebody plants a vineyard for the Temple, it is exempt from single berries175Which in secular growth belong to the poor (Lev. 19:10). Addition by the corrector, supported by a lacuna in ג., and from ˋoriah176The fruits growing in the first three years after planting, forbidden for use (Lev.19:23)., and from the Fourth Year177Where the fruit has to be redeemed (Lev. 19:24)., but it is subject to the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The land shall observe a Sabbath for the Eternal178Lev. 25:2.. The sanctity of the Sabbatical falls even on anything that is the Eternal’s. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba179While this is the text here and in Peah, it is impossible since the third generation R. Ḥiyya bar Abba cannot be a student either of the first generation R. Mana I nor of the fifth generation R. Mana II. Therefore with ג one has to read “R. Ḥiyya bar Ada” (second generation). asked before Rebbi Mana: It is impossible180Here the corrector, trained in Babylonian Aramaic, corrupted the text. Following the other two sources, both times “אי” has to be deleted since the Yerushalmi distinguishes between אֶפשַׁר “possible” and אֵיפְשַׁר “impossible”. to eat without redemption181This refers to the statement earlier that produce dedicated to the Temple is subject to the rules of the Sabbatical. Sabbatical produce must he eaten (Lev. 25:6) but Temple produce cannot be eaten without first being redeemed and the sanctity transferred to the redemption money. since Temple property cannot leave without redemption. If one redeems and eats it, it would be as if one bought an axe with Sabbatical money182The Temple has no need for money for food since the public sacrifices must be paid from the Temple tax of half a šeqel and private sacrifices are paid by the donors. Valuables donated to the Temple are used for building upkeep, vessels, and implements. Any monetary gain from Sabbatical produce for these purposes is forbidden; how can the Temple accept illegal money?. He said to him, the treasurer183The Temple treasurer has the right and the obligation to sell all Temple property which is not directly used for sacrifices in order to raise money for the upkeep of the Temple. The Sabbatical produce is not sold but directly exchanged for vessels or implements needed by the Temple. This exchange is permitted; it removes the holiness of Temple property but has no influence on the Sabbatical status of the produce. The third party may use or sell the produce as Sabbatical food. exchanges it through a third person. Rebbi Mattaniah said, why do we not explain it184That the laws of the Sabbatical year apply to Temple property. according to everybody, as Rebbi Joḥanan said185This refers to Mishnah Nedarim 6:10: Two people A and B are on the road. B had made a vow not to use anything belonging to A. A has food with him, B has nothing to eat. A gives food to a third person C as a gift; C gives the food to B who may use it. If no third person is present, A puts the food up on a fence or on a rock and says, this is abandoned to anybody who wants it. B may take and eat it, but R. Yose forbids. R. Joḥanan notes that R. Yose only forbade because the food was forbidden to B before it was abandoned. But if anything was abandoned before a vow was made, R. Yose agrees that a vow cannot retroactively influence the status of abandoned property., the words of Rebbi Yose because his vow precedes his declaration of abandonment. But here186In the cases of the vineyards (Notes 174 and 178), the abandonment both of the gleanings and the Sabbatical year are written in the Torah and certainly precede any dedication. the vow of abandonment precedes his dedication187Since the abandonment of the Sabbatical year is not invalidated by the dedication, the Sabbatical produce should not need any redemption.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened that they gave instructions following Rebbi Yose188Who requires in Mishnah Peah 4:8 that the Temple be reimbursed for the produce grown in its possession, deciding with R. Ḥiyya bar Ada against R. Mattaniah.. 189The following paragraph refers only to the last part of Mishnah Peah 7:8: “What are forgotten grapes? On a trellis, anything one cannot stretch out his hand and take; on a single growing vine once he is done with it.” The paragraph is copied from there and has no relevance for Pesaḥim, nor is it related to the statement of R. Joḥanan just quoted. Does this not contradict Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he passed over it and forgot it, it is forgotten. There is a difference, for a trellis is usually checked190On a trellis the branches are stretched out widely; one can go over the branches as many times as he wants as long as he does not move away.. And it does not even contradict Rebbi Hoshaia, for Rebbi Hoshaia said, when I was mashing olives with the great Rebbi Ḥiyya, he told me that any olive you can reach when stretching out your hand is not forgotten191But Mishnah Peah 7:8 makes it clear that one may go around a free-standing vine as many times as he wants, as long as he does not move away.. There is a difference, since every single freestanding vine is a separate planting. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Immi: If one leased his house to another and needs the money? He said to him, it is unthinkable that he should have to starve to death193He accepts the rule of Roman law that sale breaks lease.. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi [Il]la both say, μίστωσις like ὠνή is acquired by buying194S. Liebermann’s remark is convincing that they choose to formulate the statement in Greek terms, “lease is acquired like a buy by acquisition” to make the point of their rejection of the Roman law clear to all traders. They consider the right to use leased property as a valuable asset which once acquired in due form cannot be taken away.. It was stated195Babli Arakhin 21a. Since property donated to the Temple is given only for its money’s worth, not the house was given but the future income.: If one leased his house to another and went and dedicated it, [the renter] lives in it and pays the rent to the Sanctuary. When? If he did not pay the rent in advance, but if he paid the rent in advance he lives there for free. In the days of Rebbi Mana there was a company196Latin numerus; a military unit of native auxiliaries in the late Roman Empire. For nonpayment, the government threatened to enslave the children. in Sepphoris, and their children were taken as pledges. When they were about to leave, Rebbi Mana published (so) [a proclamation]197The text of ג [in brackets] seems preferable. following Rebbi Immi. He said, not that I am of his opinion, but because of the Sepphoreans that they should not permanently lose their children198This was an emergency measure (probably to permit sale of houses to Gentiles). He could not have agreed with the underlying principle since he was a student of his father R. Jonah, student of R. Jeremiah, student of R. Zeˋira.. “They ate wind-fall.” Where do we hold? If it fell off before the holiday, everybody agrees that it is permitted; if it fell off on the holiday, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. But we must hold if it is unknown199Since fruit on the tree at nightfall of a Sabbath or holiday is muqṣeh, it cannot become permitted on the Sabbath or holiday. The only problem is whether muqṣeh is to be considered as rabbinic prohibition, which would require a case of doubt to be treated leniently as permitted, or as biblical, which requires a case of doubt to be treated restrictively as prohibited. Since the principle of muqṣeh is recognized by Sadducees (cf. Introduction to Tractates Šabbat and Eruvin), the Mishnah treats it as biblical prohibition. Quoted by Tosaphot 56b s. v. מחלוקת.. “They gave peah from vegetables.” 200Tosephta 3:20.“They only gave for beets and leeks201Greek κεφαλωτόν “headed”. since these are harvested once. Rebbi Yose said, also cabbage.” 202Esther rabba 2, on v. 1:4. It happened that the son of Ben Meviyayin203“Importer of wine”. gave peah of vegetables to the poor. His father came and found them standing at the door of the garden plot. He told them, put down what is in your hands, they put down what was in their hands. He gave them double from what had been tithed. Not that he was a miser, but he was concerned about the words of the Sages. Once the rabbis needed contributions; they sent to him Rebbi Aqiba and another rabbi with him. When they came to enter at his place they heard the voice of a lad saying to him, what shall we buy for you today? He said, endives204Greek τρώξιμον vegetable “eaten raw”., not from today but from yesterday which are wilted and cheap. They left him and went away. After all people had (acquired merit) [contributed]205The text from the Leiden ms. is in parentheses, from ג in brackets., they came to him. He said to them, why did you not come to me first, as you were used to? They told him, we already came but heard the voice of a lad saying to you, what shall we buy for you today? You said, endives, not from today but from yesterday which are wilted and cheap. He said, you know what was between me and the lad; do you know what is between me and my Creator? Nevertheless, go and tell her206His wife. to give you a modius207A measure of volume; Roman 8.5 1, Syrian 17 1. of denars. They went and told her. She said to them, what did he say to you, heaped or flat? They answered her, he said it vaguely. She told them, I am giving you heaped. If he said so, I filled it. If not, I shall account for the excess from my dowry208Greek φερνή, ἡ.. When her husband heard this, he doubled her ketubaḥ.
MISHNAH: The daily sacrifice1The service of the daily afternoon sacrifice which concludes the Temple service for the day is concluded at 3:30 pm local time every day of the year except Passover Eve. In Roman style, an hour is defined as 1/12 of the time of daylight. The night is divided into watches, not hours. is slaughtered at [hour] eight and a half and brought at nine and a half. On Passover Eve it is slaughtered at [hour] seven and a half and brought at eight and a half whether it be weekday or Sabbath2Since the Pesaḥ is slaughtered after the service of the daily sacrifice is completed, there must be time for several groups of people to prepare their Pesaḥ. Since it must be done on the 14th of Nisan, the rules of the Pesaḥ have precedence over those of the Sabbath.. If Passover Eve falls on a Friday, it is slaughtered at [hour] six and a half and brought at seven and a half3In this case, roasting the Pesaḥ is an obligation of the 14th of Nisan, and it does not push aside the Sabbath prohibitions on the 15th if that day be a Sabbath. The slaughter has to be early enough to allow for roasting before nightfall.. The Pesaḥ is following4In all cases, the Pesaḥ follows the completion of the ordinary Temple service.. HALAKHAH: “The daily sacrifice is slaughtered,” etc. It is written: The following you shall do on the altar5Ex. 29:38. As usual the reference is to the second part of the verse, not quoted in the text: sheep, yearlings, two per day, in perpetuity., etc. I would have said, both of them should be sacrificed in the morning, or both of them in the afternoon. The verse says6Ex. 29:39., one sheep you shall do in the morning. I would have said, the morning one should be sacrificed at dawn and the evening one at dusk; the verse says6Ex. 29:39., between the evenings. It is said here between the evenings and it is said there7Ex. 12:6, about the Pesaḥ sacrifice. between the evenings. Since between the evenings which is said there means after six hours8As noted immediately afterwards, this assertion is unproven., also between the evenings which is said here must mean after six hours. What did you see that makes you say, between the evenings means after six hours? [Even though it is no proof there is a hint:]9This sentence was not written by the scribe, and also is missing in ג. It was added by the corrector from the parallels, Sifra Emor Pereq 11, Mekhilta deR. Ismael Bo Parasha 5 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 17). woe on us that the day has turned, that evening shadows are turned10Jer. 6:4.. Since evening which is said there means after six hours11The verse shows that “evening” is the time when shadows point East. The Babli holds (58a) that this starts not at noontime but about half an hour later. But it seems that for Yerushalmi, Sifra and Mekhilta “six hours” means 12 noon.The argument is only a hint, not a proof, since the thesis that a word can have only one meaning is valid only for the Pentateuch, not for later biblical books., also evening which is said here must mean after six hours. Then should it not be qualified after six hours12S. Liebermann thinks that this refers to the Pesaḥ since the Mishnah states that on a 14th of Nisan which is a Friday the daily sacrifice is brought at 12:30 pm. This time must be qualified on all days. But this is a Babli argument, not valid for the Yerushalmi. The question is about the daily sacrifice; why on a 14th of Nisan which is a Friday is the service of the daily evening sacrifice not started at noon?? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, what is between the evenings? Split the evening into two, give it two and a half hours before, two and a half hours afterwards, and one hour for its work13Since from noon to sunset there are 6 variable hours, the sacrifice should be brought at 3 pm. Since one does not consider smaller units of time, “3 pm” really means “from 2:30 pm to 3:30 pm”. Babli Zevaḥim 11b.. It turns out that the daily sacrifice is brought at nine hours and a half. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi left out the beginning14The statement of R. Joshua ben Levi actually is an older baraita which makes it explicit that the times of the evening daily sacrifice and the Pesaḥ are identical. and said the end; is that not what was stated: “Ḥanania ben Jehudah15In Mekhilta deR. Simeon ben Yoḥai (p. 12, ad Ex. 12:6), which according to J. N. Epstein is the Tanna debe Ḥizqiah. Ḥanania ben Ḥakinai). says, I hear between evenings, between [two]16Added from ג and Mekhilta deR. Simeon ben Yoḥai. evenings, between the evening of the 14th and the evening of the fifteenth17Reading עַרְבַּיִם as עֲרָבִים. For the rest of the Halakhah ג is not readable.. I could think that day and night are included; the verse says, day18Ex. 12:6: It should be guarded by you until the fourteenth day of this month.. Since He said day, this excludes the night. If it is day, I could think at two hours into the day; the verse says, in the evening. If in the evening, I could think after it became dark. The verse says, between the evenings. How is this? Split the evening into two, give it two and a half hours before, two and a half hours afterwards, and one hour for its work. It turns out that the daily sacrifice19And the Pesaḥ. is brought at nine hours and a half. Rebbi Yose said, that is, for merit20If one follows all the rules, both Pesaḥ and the daily evening sacrifice have to be brought at 3:30 pm. But as the Mishnah shows, a deviation does not invalidate the sacrifice.. But for invalidation it is what we have stated21Mishnah 5:3. The Mishnah supports the Yerushalmi position that “6 hours” means exactly this and not “half past twelve”. Any Pesaḥ or daily evening sacrifice slaughtered before noon is invalid.: “If one slaughtered it before noon it is disqualified; after noon it is immediately qualified. Before the daily evening sacrifice it is qualified.” Could one say that it also is the same for the morning22Meaning that the daily morning sacrifice should preferably be slaughtered at 2½ hours (8:30 am), rather than at dawn?? Here it is written between the evenings; do you have a verse between the mornings23Since it says '"morning" but never "between the mornings", there is no reason why it should not be meritorious to start the morning service at soon as possible.? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, they learned prayers from the patriarchs. One repeats this25Here one should insert a copy of the text in Berakhot 4:1 (Notes 11–124). A number of Medieval authorities (e. g., Rav Nissim Gaon in his Commentary to Berakhot27b, penultimate line) note that the text of Berakhot also appears in Pesaḥim(and partially in Taˋaniot 4:1). In the Venice editio princeps and the later printed editions the sentence has been shortened to become unintelligible. up to “but made him head of the court.” Who is the Tanna of “whether it be weekday or Sabbath”? Rebbi Ismael, as it was stated26Babli 58a. In Sifiy zuṭa Beha ˋalotekha9(3) (Yalqut 720) the name tradition is the opposite of that of the Talmudim.: “As its order is on a weekday so its order is on a Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba says, as its order is on a Friday so is its order on a Sabbath.” This means that Rebbi Ismael makes it an hour later for its arguments27In Maˋaser šeni 1:1 (Note 19) פִּלְפּוּלוֹ refers to the discussion of the rules of tithe money. So it seems that here the interpretation of Pene Moshe is correct, that there is time to solve all questions that arise before the sacrifice is slaughtered on a tight schedule., and Rebbi Aqiba makes it an hour earlier to occupy oneself with it, so they would not fulfill the commandment while inebriated28Since it is a Sabbath where usually three meals with bread and wine are prescribed, he makes sure that the entire afternoon no alcohol is consumed and the people are awake for the celebration in the night.. Could not the Pesaḥ be brought first and the daily sacrifice afterwards29Since if the 14th is a Friday neither the Pesaḥ nor the daily sacrifice are brought at the time which was determined to be the correct between the evenings, it should not make any difference which sacrifice was brought first.? If you are saying so, you are eliminating between the evenings of the Pesaḥ. If you are keeping between the evenings of the Pesaḥ, are you not eliminating between the evenings of the daily sacrifice? If you are neglecting between the evenings of the daily sacrifice now, you can observe it at other times. If you are neglecting it now for the Pesaḥ, when can you ever observe it? Could not Pesaḥ be brought first, followed by the daily sacrifice? The one about which is written in the evening30Deut. 16:6: There you shall slaughter the Pesaḥ in the evening, at sundown, at the time of your exodus from Egypt. Babli 59a. and between the evenings shall be delayed more than one about which is written [only] between the evenings. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what did you see to say that evening is later31Since starting at 12:01 pm one greets with “good evening”.; could we not say that between the evenings is later? But it must be: The one about which is written between the evenings at sundown31Since starting at 12:01 pm one greets with “good evening”. shall be delayed more than one about which is written only between the evenings. The formulation of a baraita32Babli Berakhot 9a, Sifry Deut. 113 in the name of R. Eliezer; different wording and authors Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 5, last sentence. supports Rebbi Jeremiah: “There you shall slaughter the Pesaḥ in the evening. In the evening you are slaughtering, at sundown you are eating, at the time of your exodus from Egypt you are roasting33Since obviously roasting must precede eating and the day of the Exodus was the 15th of Nisan, the day after the night dedicated to the Pesaḥ, with the parallel sources one has to understand “roasting” as “burning” the remainders (Ex. 12:10)..” There are Tannaim who state: “In the evening you are eating, at sundown you are slaughtering, at the time of your exodus from Egypt you are roasting.” Could not both be brought simultaneously? Rebbi Yose said, the sheep is second, the Pesaḥ is not second. It was stated: Rebbi Nathan says, every day the daily sacrifice was slaughtered at eight and a half, and brought at nine and a half. What means “every day”? Every Passover Eve. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the reason of this Tanna is to allow half an hour between one group and the next. It was stated36Sifry Num. 143, Babli 58b. The argument seems to be that the Pesaḥ, while a personal sacrifice from the offerers, has the status of a public sacrifice, since only public sacrifices can override Sabbath prohibitions and be offered if the people are impure (Mishnah 9:3). Then the verse states that the daily evening offering has to be the second public offering of the day, not the third. (This implies that the additional offerings of Sabbath and holidays are counted as appendices to the daily morning sacrifice.): “The blood of the daily sacrifice and its limbs precede the Pesaḥ, and the Pesaḥ the incense, and the incense the trimming of the lights.37Ex. 27:2.” There are Tannaim who state: “The blood of the daily sacrifice and its limbs precede the incense, and the incense the Pesaḥ, and the Pesaḥ the trimming of the lights, so that the libations of the daily sacrifice should be accompanying it38“It” here is the burning of the incense on the golden altar in the Temple. Since the daily sacrifices and in the morning may precede, in the evening follow, the daily offering (Babli 59a).” There is nothing preceding the daily morning sacrifice and nothing later than the daily evening sacrifice except Pesaḥ and incense on Passover Eve. “39Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(10). From where that nothing should precede the daily morning sacrifice? The verse says, on it ˋolah40S. Liebermann conjectures that here one reads עולה as Aramaic אַוְלַא “first”.. And from where that nothing should invalidate the daily evening sacrifice? The verse says, on it šelamim41Reading שִׁלּוּמִים “finishing”.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, it is not written here he arranges on it ˋolah but he arranges on it the ˋolah, that no elevation offering precede the daily morning sacrifice42Babli 58b. The definite article describes an offering that certainly is brought on the altar immediately after it is readied for service; this must be the daily morning sacrifice.. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, people lacking expiation43People forbidden access to sancta unless a reparation sacrifice has been brought in the Temple on their behalf: The woman after childbirth (Lev. 12:6–8), the male sufferer from gonorrhea (Lev.15:14–15), the female sufferer from flux (Lev. 15:29–30), and the person healed from skin disease (Lev. 14:19,31). Babli 59a. bring their expiatory sacrifices after the daily evening sacrifice to enable them to immerse themselves and eat their Pesaḥ in the evening. Rebbi Yudan said, that is, for a rich sufferer from skin disease. But a poor sufferer from skin disease, does he not bring a bird44It is clear from Lev. 14:19 that of the two sacrifices offered, an elevation (עולה) and a reparation (חטאת) one, only the latter is expiatory. But in case this is a bird (in all cases except the wealthy sufferer from skin disease), nothing is burned on the altar, only its blood is squeezed out on wall and bottom of the altar (Lev. 5:9). Therefore these offerings by their nature are not subject to the limitations imposed on offerings of which parts are burned on the altar.? Said Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon, does he not bring a reparation sacrifice45And Lev. 14:21 declares also the reparation offering as expiatory.?
MISHNAH: Pesaḥ which he46The sacrifice may be slaughtered by its owner, or by a Levitic slaughterer attached to the Temple. The blood must be received in a vessel, transported to the altar, and sprinkled on the walls of the altar by a Cohen. Everybody involved in the service must have the intent of performing his duty explicitly for the Pesaḥ. If he started with the correct idea but in the act changed his mind and thought, e. g., that he is performing for the festival offering (Mishnah 6:6), we do not say that his prior thought is a dedication which excludes additional dedications, but the association of Pesaḥ and any other kind of sacrifice in any order disqualifies the sacrifice; it must be disposed of by burning outside the Temple district. slaughtered not for its purpose, received [the blood], transported it, or poured it, not for its purpose, or for its purpose and not for its purpose, or not for its purpose and for its purpose, is disqualified. What is “for its purpose and not for its purpose”? As Pesaḥ and as well-being offering. “Not for its purpose and for its purpose”? As well-being offering and as Pesaḥ. HALAKHAH: 47Babli Zevaḥim 7b. The topic here really is Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:1: “All sacrifices which were not slaughtered specifically for the benefit of their owners are qualified except for Pesaḥ and purification offerings.” In all matters of required intent, the rules for Pesaḥ and purification offerings are equal. From where that he must slaughter it for its purpose? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: And you shall say, a Pesaḥ slaughter it is48Ex. 20:27. Quoted in this sense in Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai (p. 26, line 20).; to imply that if he slaughtered it for the purpose of Pesaḥ it is Pesaḥ, otherwise it is not Pesaḥ. From where the remainder of its actions? You shall make [a Pesaḥ]49Deut. 16:1. The unspecific עשה always is interpreted to include all necessary actions., that all its actions shall be for the purpose of Pesaḥ. But then also the burning of its parts50Greek αἱ μοῖραι [τοῦ θεοῦ], the fat which is forbidden for human consumption.? The verse says, slaughter But then also the burning of its parts50Greek αἱ μοῖραι [τοῦ θεοῦ], the fat which is forbidden for human consumption.? The verse says, slaughter51זבח indicates slaughter in preparation of a meal; often “sacrifice of which at least a part is consumed as sanctum”; whereas שחט (سحط) specifically means “to cut the throat”.. Since slaughter is particular in that it invalidates expiation52Since it is spelled out that the blood is it which atones for the soul(Lev. 17:11), if anything goes wrong in any action necessary up to the pouring of the blood on the altar’s wall the sacrifice is invalid, but nothing that happens afterwards can invalidate the offering. If the parts to be burned become impure, they have to be burned outside the Temple district but the sacrifice remains valid., this excludes the burning of its parts which does not invalidate expiation. From where for purification offerings? He shall slaughter it as purification offering53Lev. 4:33.. From where the remainder of its actions? [He]shall make49Deut. 16:1. The unspecific עשה always is interpreted to include all necessary actions. one as purification offering54There is no verse exactly as quoted in the text. The reference seems to be to Lev.16:30, the Cohen shall bring one as purification offering.. But then also the burning of its parts50Greek αἱ μοῖραι [τοῦ θεοῦ], the fat which is forbidden for human consumption.? The verse says, he shall slaughter. Since slaughter is particular in that it invalidates expiation, this excludes the burning of its parts which does not invalidate expiation. From where that a purification sacrifice must be for the name of its owner55All Temple personnel dealing with the sacrifice have to know the name of the owner, and the purpose of the sacrifice, and have to intend to help his expiation.? Rebbi Jeremiah said, the Cohen shall make the purification offering and expiate for the one who purifies himself from his impurity56Lev. 14:19. Babli Zevaḥim 8a in the name of Rava, a contemporary of R. Jeremiah.From here through Chapter 7 there exists a series of Genizah fragments from the Kaufmann collection in Budapest, published by S. Loewinger in the Hebrew part of the Alexander Marx Jubilee Volumes (New York 1950), indicated here by K.. Rebbi Yose said to him, but then also the burning of its parts50Greek αἱ μοῖραι [τοῦ θεοῦ], the fat which is forbidden for human consumption.? The verse says, and expiate. Since pouring is particular in that it invalidates expiation52Since it is spelled out that the blood is it which atones for the soul(Lev. 17:11), if anything goes wrong in any action necessary up to the pouring of the blood on the altar’s wall the sacrifice is invalid, but nothing that happens afterwards can invalidate the offering. If the parts to be burned become impure, they have to be burned outside the Temple district but the sacrifice remains valid., this excludes the burning of its parts which does not invalidate expiation. From where that a Pesaḥ must be in the name of its owner? Is it not a logical argument57דִּין usually introduces an informal argument de minore ad majus.? Since a purification sacrifice, where intent for the uncircumcised or impure58Sacrifices of the uncircumcised (e. g., a hemophiliac who may not be circumcised) or an impure person (e. g., a resident outside the Land) sent through third persons are accepted in the Temple. But any uncircumcised is excluded from the Pesaḥ(Ex.12:48) and the person who will not be pure by nightfall is excluded by the requirement that the Pesaḥ be slaughtered for the group of subscribers (Ex. 12:3–4); adding the name of a person prohibited from eating sacred food will invalidate the slaughter. This argument is somewhat circular; since the argument is rejected for other reasons, this does not have to be pointed out. does not invalidate it, needs to be in the name of the owner, Pesaḥ, where intent for the uncircumcised or impure does invalidate it, is it not logical that it needs to be in the name of its owner? No. If you are saying about purification sacrifice which is most holy59It may be eaten only by male Cohanim in the Temple precinct., would you say that about Pesaḥ which is a simple sanctum60It may be eaten by every pure person within the walls of the city of the Temple.? Rebbi Yose said, did you not argue about intent? The Torah insisted about intent for Pesaḥ more than for purification sacrifice. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: Do we infer this from the purification sacrifice of the sufferer from skin disease? But is not the purification sacrifice of the sufferer from skin disease separate for something new61As stated in Mishnah Menaḥot 9:6, no purification offering other than that of the sufferer from skin disease needs accompanying offerings of flour and wine. The offering of flour is explicit in Lev. 14:10; that of wine is inferred in Sifra Mesoraˋ Pereq 2(10).? And one cannot infer from anything which is separate for something new62This is R. Ismael’s 12th hermeneutical principle: Anything which was in a group, but is taken from the group to be under a separate rule, cannot be returned to its original group unless the verse returns it explicitly. An example is the reparation sacrifice of the sufferer from skin disease, whose blood is not for the altar but for the right thumb and right great toe of the owner, but which Lev. 14:13 declares to follow the rules of reparation sacrifices in all respects. Such a note is missing for the purification sacrifice. The Babli, Zevaḥim 8a, accepts the argument as valid.. He told him, from where do you infer that it be invalid if not for its purpose? Not from the following verse, he shall slaughter it as purification sacrifice63Lev. 4:33. Sifra Wayyiqra II (Ḥovah)Pereq 11(3)., and it is written: this is the doctrine of the purification sacrifice64Lev. 6:18. Babli Zevaḥim 9a. Interpreted differently in Sifra Ṣaw Parašah 3(1).. There is one doctrine for all purification sacrifices. But from the place where it is being inferred, there it permits inferences65Since the flour offering does not accompany the purification offering of the sufferer from skin disease but his elevation offering (14:20), the attribution of the wine offering to the purification offering is an inference of the oral tradition which cannot override Lev. 6:18.. If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to sprinkle its blood not for its purpose66The slaughterer, who most probably is not priestly, is different from the person who will pour the blood. He has the correct intention for his own action, but intends a future action to be disqualifying. Does this have an influence on the status of Pesaḥ or purification offering? Babli Zevaḥim9b/10a, Ḥulin 39a.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service and it is disqualified. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, is there transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service66aIn K: “Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there is no transfer of ‘not for its purpose’ from service to service.”? It should be qualified. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned this from thought of piggul67The source is Lev. 19:7. A well-being offering must be eaten on the day of its offering and the next. But if it is intended to be eaten on the third day, it is piggul(“mushy”) and will not be wanted. Eating from sacrificial meat on the third day is sinful, but this has no influence on the validity of the sacrifice. But from the start intending to eat on the third day disqualifies the sacrifice and any consumption of its meat, even on the first day, is a deadly sin. This clearly is disqualification by intent for a future action by a different person. The argument is accepted in both Babli sources.. If he poured not for its purpose would that not cause piggul68It would cause disqualification but not piggul.? If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification69He objects of comparing required actions in the presentation of sacrifices to piggul.. If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified70Since the Cohen who receives the blood must be present at the moment of slaughter, the Cohen’s intent is what counts; a contrary intent by the slaughterer is irrelevant since it cannot precede the Cohen’s.? If he slaughtered for its purpose and received its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified71In this sentence and the next, only the scribe’s text is reproduced and translated; the corrector’s additions and deletions are disregarded. The scribe’s text is fully confirmed by K.The argument goes as follows: For any action up to the pouring of the blood, the wrong intent before or during the action disqualifies. But for actions required after the pouring of the blood, such as burning of the parts or eating the meat, a wrong intent before the pouring of the blood disqualifies, but a wrong intent at the moment of the action is irrelevant. Therefore, the rules of piggul cannot be used to infer rules for actions preceding the pouring of the blood.. If he slaughtered for its purpose in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose and in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, it is qualified. Rebbi Yose said, I saw Rebbi Jeremiah grabbing Rebbi Abba and saying to him, tell me the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan , why it is disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and it is disqualified. He told him, if this is so, even if he slaughtered not72For the text to make sense, this word has to be deleted with K. for its eaters and to sprinkle its blood not for its eaters, it should be as if from the start he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters and be qualified73Mishnah 3.. This you cannot do, as Rebbi Ila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified74Obviously, here one has to read “disqualified,” even though the text is confirmed by K.. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified75The argument of R. Yose is correct; the tradition of R. Ila is incorrect, and R. Joḥanan is consistent in his opinions.. Rebbi Yose got his strength76To reject a comparison with piggul. from the two reasons of Rebbi Joḥanan . Why is it disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and is disqualified. Why is it qualified if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters, and is qualified. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana in the name of Rebbi Yudan. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan that if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking77Since sacrifices may become disqualified if a necessary action is made with the wrong intent, it is preferable that the Cohen not have any thought other than doing his duty for whom and for what it is needed., one continues thinking from another action. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, would that not be piggufl68? If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. If one slaughtered for its purpose and to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified, since on the act of receiving he is thinking70Since the Cohen who receives the blood must be present at the moment of slaughter, the Cohen’s intent is what counts; a contrary intent by the slaughterer is irrelevant since it cannot precede the Cohen’s.. Therefore, if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues the thinking from another action. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If at the moment of burning he does not think, then if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues the thinking from another action78As stated in Note 71, the intent at the moment of the action after the pouring of the blood cannot have retroactive influence on the validity of the sacrifice.. He told him, do not object to me about disqualification because of piggul, since Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification. What results from the difference between them? Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, switching on the other days of the year. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to sprinkle its blood not for its purpose, on the other days of the year. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is qualified; in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it is disqualified79For R. Joḥanan , Pesaḥ at any other day is a well-being sacrifice which is not disqualified by an action not done for its purpose (Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:1). For R. Simeon ben Laqish, Pesaḥ on any other day is out of order.. 80This paragraph also appears in Šeqalim2:4 (ש). The readings of the editio princeps of the Babli with Yerushalmi Šeqalim are noted (שׁ); those of interest of the very shortened Munich ms. of the Babli as (M). The version of Šeqalim in the Babli is characterized by much babylonized spelling; there is an addition in Babylonian Aramaic directly taken from the parallel in the Babli Zevaḥim 8b-9a. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba81He is the father of Samuel (Babli Zevaḥim 8b), head of the school of Nahardea in the generation of transition from Tannaim to Amoraim. He reports a Babylonian tradition. enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed82An offering in the Temple declared as Pesaḥ on any day other than the 14th of Nisan automatically is for well-being. Therefore animals dedicated as Pesaḥ but not needed on the 14th, at nightfall of the 15th automatically become dedicated well-being offerings. into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says83Lev. 3:6., and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering [from small cattle]84Scribe’s text, incorrectly deleted by corrector and missing in printed editions but confiirmed by ש. K is lacunary at this point.? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering85Which never comes from large cattle.? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. [Rebbi Abun objected,]84Scribe’s text, incorrectly deleted by corrector and missing in printed editions but confiirmed by ש. K is lacunary at this point. everywhere you are saying that מִן is to include, but here you are saying that מִן is to exclude86The text is difficult since it is standard rabbinic interpretation to consider prefix mem or מִן as privative, excluding certain categories (cf. Šabbat 7 Note 26, Ševuot 1:2 Note 75, Bava Mesiaˋ 4:8 Note 122, Nazir5:4 Note 105). Also in the next sentence, R. Mana gives the interpretation that here מִן is privative. On the other hand, the testimony of K, M, and the scribe’s text of ש do not permit emendation. It seems that here “every where” is derogatory, meaning Babylonian. The sequence of arguments leads to a contradiction. Abba bar Abba treats מִן as inclusive, R. Abun bar Cahana as exclusive. R. Mana explains that מִן always is partitive; automatic switch to well-being offerings is possible only for sacrifices that totally correspond to the declaration צאן, i. e., both sheep and goats, male and female.? Rebbi Mana said, it excludes it, since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written,87Lev. 1:10. and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, [but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten.]88Addition by the corrector from ש, confirmed by K. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices89The latter category includes both elevation and reparation sacrifices.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that you are saying, Pesaḥ is changed82An offering in the Temple declared as Pesaḥ on any day other than the 14th of Nisan automatically is for well-being. Therefore animals dedicated as Pesaḥ but not needed on the 14th, at nightfall of the 15th automatically become dedicated well-being offerings. into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi [Il]la said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan : And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering83Lev. 3:6.; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts90If the animal dedicated as Pesaḥ is used against the rules for something other than a well-being offering, do the rules of the other kind apply or is it disqualified and no rules of intent apply.? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day91This being forbidden certainly disqualifies.. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul92If the animal still is a sacrifice, now under the rules of elevation sacrifices, the intention to perform any required action out of its prescribed time-frame generates piggul, which is a deadly sin causing extirpation.. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified. 93This paragraph also has a parallel in Šeqalim. For its purpose and not for its purpose on the other days of the year94The slaughterer has intent both for Pesaḥ and for well-being offering. Since the Pesaḥ then is a well-being offering, it should not make any difference.? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Samuel bar Abba: Since it is left without a name it is as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and is qualified95Since now Pesaḥ and well-being offering mean the same, there is no contradiction. But since the names are different, it may be treated as if it was slaughtered for “what may apply”. It is presumed that slaughtering a simple sacrifice without spelling out the category is qualified.. They said to him. if it is so, even if he slaughtered for its purpose to pour the blood not for its purpose it should be treated as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and be qualified96Since two different designations were used, the presumption should be that this is disqualified, as given in K.. Rebbi Abba Mari said, who says that in silence it is qualified97The premise of Samuel bar Abba is unproven. The question remains unanswered.? Or may we say, in silence it is disqualified?
MISHNAH: If he slaughtered it for those who cannot not eat it98For example a sick person who will not be able to eat a full olive-sized piece of meat., for those who did not subscribe to it The Pesaḥ may be eaten only by people who beforehand formed a group to this purpose, Ex. 12:4., for the uncircumcised, He is forbidden to participate even if he is a hemophiliac who may not be circumcised, Ex. 12:48. or for the impure. If he will be impure in the evening, such as a person impure in the impurity of the dead who is impure for seven days. For an impure person eating sancta is a deadly sin, Lev. 7:21., it is disqualified. The meat of a simple sacrifice must be eaten; it may not be slaughtered in the absence of people who would consume it.. For those who eat it and those who will not eat it, for those who subscribed to it and those who did not subscribe to it, for the circumcised and the uncircumcised, or for the pure and the impure, it is qualified. Since people may decide to join the group until the blood is poured on the walls of the altar, which is after slaughtering, the slaughter is qualified as long as there is at least one person for whom it is validly slaughtered.. If one slaughtered it before noon it is disqualified since it was said about it: between the evenings. If one slaughtered it before the daily evening sacrifice it is qualified, on condition that somebody stir the blood until after the blood of the daily evening sacrifice was poured; Since any sacrifice may be slaughtered by a lay person and the sacral activities only start with the reception of the blood in a sacral vessel by a Cohen, the status of a Pesaḥ slaughtered before the daily sacrifice, whose blood was stirred to prevent jellying and which then was poured on the walls of the altar after the daily sacrifice, is identical with one which was slaughtered after the daily sacrifice, but if the blood was poured it is qualified. Even if the pouring was done before the daily sacrifice. HALAKHAH: From where that he needs to slaughter for those who will eat it? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: For each man according to his eating you shall cut. This translation reads the hapax תָּכֹ֖סּוּ with Ibn Ezra as derived from a root כסס “to cut into pieces”, as in Accadic. R. Josia reads it as imperative of Syriac נכס “to slaughter”. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo Parašah 3, end. Differetly Babli, 61a, 78b.K reads: For each man according to his eating, one has to slaughter according to its eaters.. Rebbi Josia said, it is a Syriac expresssion, as if a person say to his neighbor, slaughter for me this lamb. “How is ‘those who cannot eat it’? If he slaughtered it in the name of a sick person, in the name of an old person, who cannot eat the volume of an olive. How about ‘those who did not subscribe to it’? If he slaughtered it in the name of a different group.” This implies that a baby can be counted to disqualify. Since the baby cannot eat solid food. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael Ba, Parašah 3, the baby is mentioned instead of the old person. This implies that if one was on a distant trip Who cannot possibly be near the central sanctuary to participate in the Pesaḥ; Num. 9:9. and he slaughtered it in this person’s name, it is disqualified. This implies that it supports the Southerners, since the Southerners are saying, one thinks about parts which were lost as if they were in existence. It has been stated before that the validity of a sacrifice depends on the intent of the slaughterer. There is a general rule, that intent regarding less than the volume of an olive is disregarded. But if the intent was for at least the volume of an olive, but in fact it was impossible that it be the volume of an olive, as in the case of the baby or the sick person, it is intent that counts and not the fact. Similarly, if the intent was that parts should be burned out of time, it makes the sacrifice piggul even if the parts are lost and it is physically impossible to burn them out of time.. This implies that if one slaughtered so that half of the group should eat, it is disqualified. Part of the group were sick and could not eat the volume of an olive. If the Pesaḥ was slaughtered for those who can eat and those who cannot, it is qualified as stated in the Mishnah. But if it was slaughtered for all of them as being able to eat the volume of an olive, the slaughter was not “for those who eat it and those who will not eat it” and therefore those who cannot eat it will make it disqualified.. Rebbi Haggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it that all of them were sick. Certainly as a group they are able to consume meat in the volume of an olive.. He told him, then one should have stated, “in the name of disqualified members of the group.” He said to him, if there were qualified people, but he slaughtered in the name of the disqualified hen certainly the sacrifice is invalid.. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah if he slaughtered it for those who eat it, but it was covered by those who eat it and those who cannot eat it. But it is disqualified if from the start he slaughtered it so that it should be covered by those who eat it and those who cannot eat it. It seems that R. Eleazar interprets the Mishnah that the sacrifice is qualified if the slaughterer intended it for the entire group, without inquiring whether all members of the group were entitled to eat or able to consume a minimum. If then it turned out that some members were barred or unable to participate, there was no false intent and the sacrifice is qualified. But if from the start there was explicit intent to include incapable or disqualified persons, the intent was disqualifying (S. Liebermann). Rebbi Simlai came to Rebbi Jonathan. R. Simlai became famous as a preacher. K and the Medieval sources add that he was too young to be taught these matters.. He said to him, teach me homiletics. He answered him, I have a tradition from my forefathers not to teach homiletics either to a Babylonian or to a Southerner, since they are gross in spirit and have little learning. And you are from Nahardea and live in the South. He said to him, tell me this one thing, what is the difference between “for its purpose and not for its purpose” and “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it”. Why is the former disqualified and the latter qualified.? He answered him, “for its purpose and not for its purpose”, the disqualification is intrinsic. “For those who eat it and those who cannot eat it”, the disqualification is of others. “For its purpose and not for its purpose”, you cannot pick out the disqualified from the qualified. [“For those who eat it and those who cannot eat it”, you can pick out the disqualified from the qualified.] The corrector’s addition is justified by K, which reads “you can’t” instead of “you can. “For its purpose and not for its purpose”, applies to all sacrifices. Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:1: “All sacrifices, except Pesaḥ and purification offerings, which were slaughtered not for their purpose are qualified but do not relieve their owners from their obligations.”; “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it” applies only to the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Yose said, from that of Rebbi Eleazar one may deduce two [conclusions]. Since Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah if he slaughtered it for those who eat it, but it was covered by those who eat it and those who cannot eat it. But it is disqualified if from the start he slaughtered for those who eat it and it was covered by those who eat it and those who cannot eat it. It seems that R. Eleazar interprets the Mishnah that the sacrifice is qualified if the slaughterer intended it for the entire group, without inquiring whether all members of the group were entitled to eat or able to consume a minimum. If then it turned out that some members were barred or unable to participate, there was no false intent and the sacrifice is qualified. But if from the start there was explicit intent to include incapable or disqualified persons, the intent was disqualifying (S. Liebermann).. Then its disqualification is of others and you can pick out the disqualified from the qualified, and you are saying so? But it must be the following, “for its purpose and not for its purpose”, applies to all sacrifices. Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:1: “All sacrifices, except Pesaḥ and purification offerings, which were slaughtered not for their purpose are qualified but do not relieve their owners from their obligations.”; “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it” applies only to the Pesaḥ119Of all the arguments of R. Jonathan, only the last is valid.. Rebbi Abin said, there are others. “For its purpose and not for its purpose”, applies to all services. Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:4: The sacrifice becomes disqualified [by wrong intent] in four cases: For slaughter, for reception of the blood, for carrying the blood to the altar, for pouring the blood.; “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it” applies only to slaughtering. For those who eat it in volumes of an olive and those who cannot eat it in volumes of an olive, it is qualified. This is the normal case mentioned in the Mishnah.. For those who eat it in volumes of an olive and those who cannot eat it in volumes of half an olive, it is qualified a fortiori. For those who eat it in volumes of half an olive and those who cannot eat it in volumes of half an olive? Where do we hold? If intent was qualifying, intent is disqualifying. If intent regarding consumption of less than the volume of an olive is counted as qualifying, then it also must be counted as disqualifying. In this case, the rule formulated by R. Eleazar applies as if the intent was for volumes of an olive.. If intent is not disqualifying then the intent should be qualifying. If intent regarding consumption of less than the volume of an olive is disregarded, then the slaughter was made without special condition, “for whom it may apply”, and is qualified. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the intent in qualifying, as we have stated there. Mishnah Zevaḥim 2:5.: “To eat half the volume of an olive and to burn half the volume of an olive is qualified since slaughter and burning do not combine. The sacrifice was slaughtered with theintent that half the volume of an olive should be eaten out of its allotted time and half the volume of an olive be burned on the altar out of its allotted time. Since it is stated that the sacrifice is qualified, it follows that any intent about half the volume of an olive is disregarded. Therefore in the preceding case the intent is disregarded and the sacrifice is qualified..” If he slaughtered it that half of its group should be covered, Rebbi Jonah disqualifies. It is as grabbing the cover for these and those. Since these are not covered, neither are those covered. Since an entire group paid for the Pesaḥ, they are its owners. If the intent was to eliminate part of the owners, the Pesaḥ is slaughtered not for its owners and therefore disqualified.. Rebbi Yose said, it is qualified. During the second cycle. When the entire material of the Yerushalmi was reviewed a second time in the Academy of RR. Yose in Tiberias, he, Rebbi Yose retracted. Rebbi Phineas said to him, did the rabbi not teach us, it is qualified. He told him, is this fixed for you by nails? “If one slaughtered it before noon it is disqualified,” [after noontime] immediately it is qualified. “If one slaughtered it before the daily sacrifice it is qualified.” It was stated thus. Sifry zuta Pinhas 28(3). The question was whether slaughter of the Pesaḥ prohibits later slaughter of the daily sacrifice. The answer is that the wording of the verse Num.. 28:4, וְאֵת֙ הַכֶּ֣בֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִ֔י תַּֽעֲשֶׂה֭ בֵּ֥ין הָֽעַרְבָּֽיִם when it would have been possible to say simply וְאֵת הַכֶּבֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִי בֵּין הָֽעַרְבָּיִם implies that it must be broughtr in any case.: One could think that if Pesaḥ preceded the daily sacrifice, the daily sacrifice could not be delayed. The verse says, do, adding. Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah implies that the Pesaḥ itself is qualified. If you would say, it is disqualified, it would be as if it did not precede. The argument seems to be that the Pesaḥ, while a personal sacrifice from the offerers, has the status of a public sacrifice, since only public sacrifices can override Sabbath prohibitions and be offered if the people are impure (Mishnah 9:3). Then the verse states that the daily evening offering has to be the second public offering of the day, not the third. (This implies that the additional offerings of Sabbath and holidays are counted as appendices to the daily morning sacrifice.), you are saying: “The blood of the daily sacrifice and its limbs precede the Pesaḥ, and the Pesaḥ the incense, and the incense the trimming of the lights.37Ex. 27:2.” And here you are saying so? Rebbi La said, one if it is living, the other if it is slaughtered. The baraita requires that the Pesaḥ be brought after the limbs of the daily sacrifice are on the altar, but Mishnah mentions only pouring of the blood, without mention of the limbs. If the Pesaḥ is still alive, one has to wait until the limbs have been disposed of; if it is slaughtered, one waits only for the pouring of the blood..
MISHNAH: One who slaughters the Pesaḥ on leavened matter transgresses a prohibition130Ex. 23:18; 34:25: Do not sacrifice on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice; the sacrifice of the Pesaḥ pilgrimage. “On leavened matter” means that he has leavened matter in his possession.; Rebbi Jehudah says, also the daily sacrifice131Since this is an elevation offering which is completely burned, it is My sacrifice.. Rebbi Simeon says, the Pesaḥ on the Fourteenth, if for its purpose, he is liable, not for its purpose he is not liable132A disqualified sacrifice is no sacrifice at all and therefore not a subject of the prohibition.. All other sacrifices, whether for their purposes or not for their purposes, he is not liable133Since the verse refers only to the Pesaḥ.. On the holiday, for its purpose he is not liable, not for its purpose he is liable134R. Simeon reads the verse as referring not only to the 14th of Nisan but also to the entire Holiday of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 15–21. Since the Pesaḥ slaughtered for its purpose on any day other than the 14th is disqualified, it does not count. But not for its purpose it is a qualified well-being sacrifice.; for all other sacrifices, whether for their purposes or not for their purposes, he is liable except for the purification offering which he slaughtered not for its purpose135Which is disqualified (Mishna Zevaḥim 1:1).. HALAKHAH: From where that one who slaughters the Pesaḥ on leavened matter transgresses a prohibition? The verse says130Ex. 23:18; 34:25: Do not sacrifice on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice; the sacrifice of the Pesaḥ pilgrimage. “On leavened matter” means that he has leavened matter in his possession., do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice. I have not only the slaughterer, from where the one who pours the blood? The verse says, not on leavened matter the blood. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, since he becomes guilty for pouring, this implies that the Pesaḥ be qualified132,A disqualified sacrifice is no sacrifice at all and therefore not a subject of the prohibition.136Tosephta 4:3.. Rebbi Yose said, explain it that leavened matter came to him between slaughter and pouring or that one person was slaughtering and another pouring137In both cases the slaughter was correct and only the pouring incorrect. One still has to assume that the Pesaḥ slaughtered on leavened matter even in the afternoon of the 14th is disqualified.. Ḥizqiah stated: Do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice130Ex. 23:18; 34:25: Do not sacrifice on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice; the sacrifice of the Pesaḥ pilgrimage. “On leavened matter” means that he has leavened matter in his possession., the Torah called it “My sacrifice”138This implies that it is a valid sacrifice. Cf. Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 219, line 1.. Rebbi Mana said, if Ḥizqiah had not stated this, do we find anything disqualified because of which one is liable for a purification sacrifice139Without Ḥizqiah”s statement we would have declared the sacrifice disqualified since in fact we find that a person who sacrifices outside the official sanctuary is liable (i. e., for extirpation or a purification sacrifice) both for the slaughter and for burning on an altar even though the slaughter disqualifies (Mishnah Zevaḥim13:1).? If somebody leavens the disqualified140This refers to flour offerings the entire year. They are required to be unleavened, Lev.2:11.. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says liable, if it became disqualified because of its leavening241Being inside the sacred district, they could not sit down.; he who says not liable, if it did not become disqualified because of its leavening. The burning of the parts on leavening142On the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan. Differently Babli 63b-64a.. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. He who says liable, blood anywhere. He who says not liable, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, this excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement. If one broke a bird’s neck on leavening143This must refer to the middle days of the holiday following R. Simeon, since it was stated earlier that on the 14th one is liable only for the Pesaḥ and possibly the daily sacrifice.. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. He who says liable, blood anywhere. He who says not liable, sacrifice. This excludes the bird which is not slaughtered as sacrifice144זֶבַח is a sanctum, parts of which are consumed by lay people. A bird sacrifice, not killed by šehitah, if eaten at all is reserved for priests.. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Yose. Him who said “liable” one understands as you are saying for freeing from liability144aScribe’s text deleted by corrector, therefore iy is not found in the printed texts. But it is confirmed by K and necessary to understand R. Yose’s response. R. Jacob bar Zavdi argues that since bird sacrifices are treated as equal to animal sacrifices on the 14th, there is no liability if the owner still has leavened matter while bringing his offering, they also should be treated like animal sacrifices on the holiday and there should be liability.. What is the reason of him who frees from liability? He said to him, one may infer punishment from punishment but one may not infer punishment from exemption. The rabbis of Caesarea asked: I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood]145The Cohen who receives the blood of the sacrifice slaughtered by a layman or Levite, and the one who carries it to the altar. These two actions are biblically required. Reception of the blood in a sanctified vessel is mentioned explicitly; the action of carrying the blood is required implicitly since slaughter of the sacrifice must be performed away from the altar (North of the altar for most holy sacrifices, Lev. 1:11; before the Tent of Meeting for simple sacrifices, Lev. 3:2,8,13). on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that one is liable for it outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside146In the prohibition of sacrifices outside the Sanctuary (Lev. 17), only slaughter (v.4), pouring and burning of the parts (v. 6) are mentioned. There exists liability for extirpation or a purification sacrifice even if the slaughter was performed so that collection of the blood and carrying it was not necessary.. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, and he atones147This expression is never used for the Pesaḥ. The reference is to the verses referring to purification sacrifices, Lev.4:26,31, from which it would appear that the burning of the fat on the altar is the atoning agent but which in Sifra Wayyiqra II (Ḥovah) Pereq 11 (5–6) is explained to refer only to the pouring of the blood.. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, this excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Yose. Instead of arguing for absence of liability, argue for liability. I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood]148The argument shows that instead of “the one who receives or carries” one has to read “one who burns parts”. on leavened matter not be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], I also am adding burning of the parts for which one is liable outside. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter149The argument shows that instead of “one who burns parts” one has to read “the one who receives or carries”. not be liable. The verse says, and he atones. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, I also am adding the one who receives or carries who is indispensable for atonement150The argument of the rabbis of Caesarea is invalid since it can be turned upside down.. He said to him, anything equal in both respects instructs; anything not equal in both respects does not instruct. Sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement and for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside; it excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement151The statement of the rabbis of Caesarea is correct but their argument is incomplete.. 152This paragraph has a parallel in Yom Tov 1:1 (end). There, we have stated153Mishnah Yom Tov (Beṣah) 1:1.: “The House of Shammai say, leavening in the volume of an olive, and leavened matter in the volume of a dried fig.” Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They stated this only for its elimination, but for eating the volume of an olive154Even the House of Shammai agree that eating leavened matter in the volume of an olive on Passover creates liability.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive155This statement refers only to the opinion of the House of Hillel. While leavened matter is forbidden on Passover in the most minute amount, liability is created only by the volume of an olive, whether active leavening or passive leavened matter.. Rebbi Mana was standing with Rebbi Ḥizqiah; he said to him, from where did the rabbi hear this?. He told him, from Rebbi Abbahu. He answered, we also are saying, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive156In this version, nothing can be learned from the discussion between RR. Mana and Ḥizqiah. In Yom Tov the statement of R. Abbahu continues with a proof, that if there were different standards for leavening and leavened matter, the Mishnah in Keritut which enumerates the transgressions causing extirpation should have enumerated them separately.. If one slaughtered on leavened matter, after what are you going? After eating or after elimination? There157Halakhah 3:2, beginning. did Rebbi Jeremiah say in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Two volumes of half an olive in one house, the house does not combine them; in one vessel, the vessel does combine them. If one slaughtered on them, if they were in the house, and the house did not combine them, he is not liable; or if they were in one vessel and the vessel combines them, he is liable. If he slaughtered on leavening. Since Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav, he is permitted to feed it to his dog158Halakhah 2:1, Note 9., he is not liable; or since Rav said, one flogs for eating it, he is liable159The questions are not answered.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if it belongs to the slaughterer who is one of the group160What does it mean, “one who slaughters the Pesaḥ on leavened matter”? Whose leavened matter?. Rebbi Joḥanan said, to the slaughterer even if he is not of the group, to one of the group even if he is not the slaughterer. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if it is with him in Jerusalem; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if it is with him in the Temple courtyard161He reads “on” as meaning “physically close” (Babli Menaḥot 98a).In the text of K, the opinion of R. Joḥanan is repeated (supported) by R. Jacob bar [Aha].. 162Yebamot 11:7 Note 171, Nazir 8:1 Notes 48,49. Babli 64b, Ševuot 3b. Each of them follows his own opinion, since they disagreed: about the two holidays of the diaspora163Before the publication of the computed calendar, communities which could not be informed by messengers about the determination of the first days of the months of Nisan and Tishri, kept two days of holidays to account for possible variations in the dates. Since each day was only one of a possible two, and in talmudic interpretation no infraction could be prosecuted unless the perpetrator was duly warned by two witnesses not to commit the crime, work on the holidays could not be prosecutable unless the warning was given for both days, the infraction occurred on both days, and this kind of long-term conditional warning was accepted in court. [After the publication of the calendar computations, the first day of a holiday is of biblical character; the second day is purely rabbinic and is kept only because the algorithm was published on condition that its users continue to keep the second day (Eruvin 3, Note 190; Babli Beṣah 4b).]. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one accepts forewarning in case of a doubt; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not accept forewarning in case of a doubt. Everybody agrees if it was lying opposite him in a window in Jerusalem. He who said, a doubt164The disagreement of RR. Joḥanan and Simeon ben Laqish can be explained as one about warnings in cases of doubt only if the leavened matter is not visible by the slaughterer at the moment of slaughter, for it might have been disposed of in the meantime. If it is visible to the slaughterer on the Temple Mount the doubt does not apply. But if the reason is that “on” means physical presence, R. Simeon ben Laqish still will declare the slaughterer not liable even though the leavened matter is visible in Jerusalem., it is certain. He who said, in the Temple courtyard, it is in Jerusalem. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? The blood of my sacrifices, the blood of Pesaḥ and the blood of the daily sacrifice166R. Jehudah in the Mishnah includes the daily sacrifice in the prohibition of leavened matter. He reads זְבָחַי instead of זְבְחִי. Babli 64a.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon: One verse says, do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of my sacrifice, and another verse167The second verse is Ex. 23:18, where it says לֹא־תִזְבַּח, the first is Ex..34:25. Babli 64a. says, do not sacrifice on leavened matter the blood of my sacrifice. One refers to the Pesaḥ on the Fourteenth, one168This is formulated as if the second verse referred to the intermediate days of the holiday. to all other consumed sacrifices on the workdays of the holiday. How did you understand to add them on the workdays of the holiday and to exclude them from the Fourteenth? After that the verse added, it subtracted169Ex. 23:18 is general, referring to sacrifices eaten by its owners in general, while Ex..34:25 explicitly mentions the Pesaḥ and therefore restricts its meaning.. I am adding them on the workdays of the holiday since these are subject to “it should not be seen nor found”170Chapter 2:2 Note 90., and exclude them from the Fourteenth where they are not under “it should not be seen nor found”. And this parallels what Rebbi Meïr said; as Rebbi Meïr said, after noontime it is of their words171Chapter 1:4, Notes 109–110.. Rebbi Mana said, there where it says, the consumed sacrifice of the Pesaḥ holiday of pilgrimage, we hold that it refers to the Fourteenth172Ex..34:25 must refer to the 14th of Nisan; the anonymous majority is justified in rejecting R. Simeon’s position. 173The different commentators offer different emendations of this paragraph. The following commentary is offered as a tentative explanation of the text as it stands. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, where are we holding174Discussion of the statement of the Mishnah, “on the holiday, for its purpose he is not liable, not for its purpose he is liable.”? If it was lost and found before propitiation, whether it was for its purpose or not for its purpose it is qualified and sent to grazing175Mishnah 9:5. If an animal had been designated as Pesaḥ, was lost, another animal was designated, and then the original was found before the other was slaughtered, it is qualified as sacrifice but cannot be used as Pesaḥ. A qualified sacrifice cannot be redeemed (Lev. 27:10); therefore it shall graze until it develops a defect, then be sold and the money used to buy well-being offerings.. If it was lost and found after propitiation, whether for its purpose or not for its purpose, it is disqualified as well-being offering176While Mishnah 9:5 states clearly that a Pesaḥ animal, which was lost and only found after the replacement was slaughtered, is a qualified well-being offering, there is an opinion in Halakhah 9:6 that “the body of any which was acceptable as a Pesaḥ cannot be brought as well-being offering.” While this is explained away in Halakhah 9:6, it seems to be the basis of the statement here.. But we confirmed it when the owner became impure or acted criminally and already pushed to the Second Pesaḥ177The offering on the 14th of Iyar for those incapable of coming to the Sanctuary on the 14th of Nisan; Num. 9:9–14.. For its purpose, he is not liable and it is disqualified. Not for its purpose, he is liable and it is qualified134R. Simeon reads the verse as referring not only to the 14th of Nisan but also to the entire Holiday of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 15–21. Since the Pesaḥ slaughtered for its purpose on any day other than the 14th is disqualified, it does not count. But not for its purpose it is a qualified well-being sacrifice.. There they are saying in the name of Rav Ḥisda: If its year was completed between First and Second178The Pesaḥ lamb must be a yearling., Ex. 12:5. If the animal was dedicated before Passover but then its owner was prevented from coming to the Sanctuary in time, it automatically is dedicated for the Second Pesaḥ. If then it will be too old, it is automatically dedicated as well-being offering and can be used as such during the holiday; this is “not for its purpose” as Pesaḥ.. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : When the time for its propitiation was passed179If for some reason it was not used on the 14th and its owner is not eligible to celebrate the Second Pesaḥ, it may be used as well-being sacrifice during the holiday.. “If a Pesaḥ whose time had passed was slaughtered for its purpose at its time180An old animal, which had been dedicated when young, slaughtered on the 14th as Pesaḥ., or that he slaughtered another one for its purpose at its time181An animal dedicated as well-being offering used as Pesaḥ., Rebbi Eliezer disqualifies and Rebbi Joshua qualifies. Rebbi Eliezer disqualifies since he is like one who slaughters a Pesaḥ for the purpose of a well-being sacrifice. Rebbi Joshua qualifies since he is like one who slaughters a well-being sacrifice for the purpose of a Pesaḥ.182The Babylonian version of the baraita is in Babli Zevaḥim 11a, Tosephta Pesaḥim 4:5.” Since its time is passed, there is no difference whether he slaughtered a Pesaḥ for the purpose of a well-being sacrifice or he slaughtered a well-being sacrifice for the purpose of a Pesaḥ. In the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, if its year was completed between First and Second. In the opinion of Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , when the time for its propitiation was passed183Interpretations of: “Pesaḥ whose time had passed.”.
MISHNAH: The Pesaḥ was being slaughtered in three groups, as it is said184Ex. 12:6., and they shall slaughter it, the entire assembly of the community of Israel, assembly, community, and Israel. When the first group entered, the courtyard was filled, they locked the doors of the courtyard. They185The priests whose duty it was to blow horns for the daily sacrifice. “Straight” means an extended single tone. blew the trumpets, straight, modulated, and straight. The priests were standing in rows186The people went in with their lamb and stood in front of the priests, one priest per lamb. and in their hands were silver and golden cups; one row only silver, one row only gold, they were not mixed. The cups had no flat bottoms lest they would be put down and the blood jellying187That it could no longer be sprinkled on the wall of the altar.. HALAKHAH: 188A sermon, introducing the recitation of the “Egyptian Hallel”, Ps. 113–118, in the Passover night celebration. Cf. the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah p. 319; Midrash Tehillim 113(2), Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo Parashah 14. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa. Power was given to Moses’s voice and his voice went through the entire land of Egypt, a distance of 40 days of travel189Or 400 Egyptian parasangs.. What did he say? From place X to place Y one group, from place Z to place U one group. You should not be astonished. If about dust, which does not usually move, it is said190Ex. 9:9., it will bedust in the entire land of Egypt, voice which usually is moving, not so much more? Rebbi Levi said, just as power was given to Moses’s voice, so power was given to Pharao’s voice, [and his voice went through the entire land of Egypt, a distance of forty days of travel.]191Addition by the corrector, confirmed by K and Medieval sources. What did he say? Get up, leave from the midst of my people192Ex. 12:31. The argument is based on the part of the verse not quoted here, but quoted in K: both you and the Children of Israel and go to serve the Eternal.. In the past you were servants of Pharao, from now on you are servants of the Eternal. At that moment, they were saying193Ps. 113:1., Hallelujah, give praise, servants of the Eternal, but not servants of Pharao. It was stated: For the daily sacrifice, which is accompanied by libations, one blows the trumpets for the libations194Mishnah Tamid 7:2; Num. 10:10.. For the Pesaḥ, which has no libations, one blows the trumpets for its slaughter. Explanation195Greek δήλωμα; cf. Berakhot 1:1 Note 72.. Rebbi Zeˋira, and Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, and Rebbi Abinna were sitting. Rebbi Abinna said, because of the tricksters196The vessels in one row of Cohanim are all of the same metal lest a Cohen bring a silver vessel from home and substitute it for a gold vessel of the Temple.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said to him, a mouthful197It is insolent to suspect that holy priests would steal from the Temple. Accepted by the Babli, 64b.. Rebbi Zeˋira said to him, say it with half a mouthful. There came Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : because of the tricksters.
MISHNAH: The Israel slaughters198If he so wishes since slaughter is permitted to everybody. and the Cohen receives199The blood; an action for which only priests are qualified.; he hands it to his colleague and the colleague to his colleague; he accepts the full [cup] and returns the empty one200So that one Cohen may serve many slaughterers.. The Cohen standing next to the altar pours it in one pouring in the direction of the foundations201Foundation stones extending one cubit outside the altar proper; Mishnah Middot 3:1.. HALAKHAH: One verse says202Num. 18:17., but a firstling bull, or a firstling sheep, or a firstling goat, shall not be redeemed; holy they are; and their blood you shall pour on the altar. Another verse says203Deut. 12:27., and the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled on the altar of the Eternal, your God. If spilling, why pouring, and if pouring, why spilling? It was stated, shall be spilled, he may not let it fall in drips. Shall be spilled, he shall not sprinkle. Shall be spilled, he shall not pour. And it is explained in tradition2042 Chr. 35:11. that the priests pour the blood from the hands of the Levites. Everybody agrees on spilling how it is done; about sprinkling how it is done. Where do they disagree? About pouring. Rebbi Mana said, pouring is like spilling. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, pouring is like sprinkling. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius said, a verse supports Rebbi Ḥananiah: For the throwing water was not poured on him, impure he shall be205Num. 19:20, about sprinkling with water containing ashes of the Red Cow. Cf. Zevaḥim 36b/37a., etc. Does he not talk about sprinkling and calls it pouring?
MISHNAH: When the first group left, the second entered; when the second left, the third entered. Like the arrangement for the first, so is the arrangement for second and third. They read the Hallel206Ps. 113–118, sung by the Levites (cf. Note 188).; when they finished they repeated, after they repeated they tripled, even though they never tripled. Rebbi Jehudah says, during the existence of a third group they never reached I am loving; truly the Eternal listened to my voice207Ps. 116:1, since its people were few. HALAKHAH: 208Mishnah Taˋaniot 3:14, about a fast in a year of drought which was cut short by rainfall. The text is Halakhah 3:14 in Taˋaniot (ו). There, we have stated: “They went, ate, and drank. In the evening they returned and red the Great Hallel.” What is the Great Hallel? Rebbi Pamakh in the name of Rebbi Ḥaninah; Give thanks to Almighty God209Ps. 136. Babli 118a.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, on condition of who stand in the Eternal’s house210Ps. 135 as introduction to Ps. 136.. Why these two chapters? Because rainfall is included in them. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is understandable, for it is written211Ps. 135:7., He brings up vapors from the ends of the earth. How is it for Rebbi Ḥaninah? Because it is written212Ps.136:25., He gives nourishment to all flesh; Truly, His kindness is forever. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Simon, both are saying, ours213Ps. 113–118.. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, ours. Bar Qappara said, ours. Bar Qappara follows his opinion, as it was stated: “during the existence of a third group they never reached I am loving; truly the Eternal listened to my voice, my supplication, since its people were few.” Bar Qappara stated, this is the Great Hallel. A patrician stood before the Ark214To be the reader in a service of thanksgiving for rain relieving a drought.; he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying. This implies that it is not ours215If it were the regular Hallel, the congregation would not repeat the verses but answer every half-verse with “Hallelujah” (cf. Šabbat 16, Note 59).. Rebbi Mana said, it is ours. The miracle was great; therefore he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying216Because of the extraordinary nature of the event, he changed the usual response to repetition of the entire Hallel.. It was stated: It was called the group of the lazy ones217Babli 65a.. Rebbi Abun said, If in a case where the commandment is followed218Since “between the evenings” implies that late afternoon is preferred. it is called the group of the lazy ones, in a case one is lazy in fulfilling a commandment so much more.
MISHNAH: As it is done on weekdays it is done on the Sabbath, only that the priests rinse the courtyard against the wish of the Sages219Between two groups entering the courtyard they were stopping the flow of the water canal passing through the courtyard to flood the stone floor and thereby cleansing it (Tosephta 4:12). This is a rabbinic Sabbath infraction.. Rebbi Jehudah says, one was filling a cup of the mixture of blood220Covering the floor. and poured it in a single pouring on the altar, but the Sages did not agree with him. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonathan said221In Eruvin 10 (Note 133), the statement is in the name of the last generation R. Yose ben R. Abun instead of the first generation R. Jonathan. The statement explained why the inundating of the Temple courtyard was frowned upon by the pharisaic establishment., not every rabbinic Sabbath prohibition was permitted in the Temple. The priest would have sunk into the blood up to their knees222This would have dirtied the priestly garments and made them unfit for service. The sweeping was necessary and therefore the displeasure of the Sages misplaced.. How did they do it? They made them benches223The priests stood on elevated benches above the accumulated blood. Since the priestly garments are enumerated in Ex. 28 and shoes are not mentioned there, the priests had to officiate barefoot, their feet touching the floor of the courtyard. Therefore one has to assume that the benches were rows of stones connected to the floor and counted as floor. Babli 65b.. There, we have stated224Mishnah Keritut 5:1.: “Rebbi Jehudah declares liable for squeezed blood225If an animal is slaughtered by having its throat cut, the blood pumped out from the carotid arteries by the heart is called “life blood”; all other blood is “squeezed out” blood unfit for sacrificial use. For the majority, all blood is prohibited (Lev. 7:23) but only life blood is forbidden on penalty of extirpation (Lev. 17:10). R. Jehudah disagrees since life blood is mentioned only in v. 17:11..” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah added it only for extirpation226He agrees that only life blood is qualified for the altar.. There came Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah added it only for extirpation. There227Tosephta 4:12; Babli 65a, Zevaḥim34b, 60a., they are saying in the name of Rav Ḥisda: a baraita227Tosephta 4:12; Babli 65a, Zevaḥim34b, 60a. says so: “They said to him, is that not squeezed blood? And squeezed blood is disqualified on the altar228As explained at the end of the paragraph.. And also from the following, most of it was not received in a vessel, and blood not received in a vessel is disqualified on the altar229Mishnah Zevaḥim 2:1..” Does Rebbi Jehudah hold that blood invalidates blood230In Mishnah Zevaḥim 8:6, R. Jehudah is quoted as saying that no blood invalidates blood. Therefore if only a small portion of the blood collected in the cup was qualified, the remainder is disregarded and the entire contents can be poured on the altar.? Since he did not reply, it follows that he accepted their position231A possible interpretation of the Mishnah here.. Since in the other case he does not hold so but did not respond, so here he does not hold so but did not respond232Since we know that R. Jehudah holds that no blood invalidates blood and he is not reported to have answered the argument in the Tosephta, nothing can be inferred from his silence in the Mishnah.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: a baraita223The priests stood on elevated benches above the accumulated blood. Since the priestly garments are enumerated in Ex. 28 and shoes are not mentioned there, the priests had to officiate barefoot, their feet touching the floor of the courtyard. Therefore one has to assume that the benches were rows of stones connected to the floor and counted as floor. Babli 65b. says so: “Not only life blood for sancta, matter appropriate for atonement, from where life blood for profane animals and squeezed blood for both sancta and profane animals? The verse says blood and all blood. When it is about life it mentions atonement, for squeezed blood it does not mention atonement234This is R. Jehudah’s argument. In Lev.17:10 all blood is prohibited under penalty of extirpation. In Lev. 17:11 blood is the carrier of life, showing that life blood used for atonement is less than all blood. Babli 65a..
MISHNAH: How does one hang and skins235The Pesaḥ has to be roasted whole; for this it has to be skinned. For this purpose the carcass it hung on its hind feet and stripped from there to the head. This has to be done in the Temple enclosue since the required innards have to be burned on the altar and sacrificial meat which leaves the Temple precinct becomes disqualified for the altar.? Iron hooks236Greek ἀγκύλη, ἡ. were fixed in the walls and on the pillars where one hangs and skins. For anybody who does not find a place to hang and skin there were thin smooth rods; he puts one on his shoulder and another’s shoulder, and hangs and skins. Rebbi Eliezer says, if the Fourteenth falls on a Sabbath, he puts his arm on another’s shoulder who puts his arm on the first person’s shoulder237Since he holds that the rods are muqṣeh and may not be used on the Sabbath., and hangs and skins. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Half-pipes and rods were stated before the permission of vessels238This is quoted from Šabbat 17 (Notes 32,33), Babli Šabbat 123b. The half-pipes mentioned in MishnahMenaḥot 11:6 which separate between the loaves of the shew-bread, where it is mentioned that they cannot be removed or put in on the Sabbath. This clearly contradicts Mishnah Šabbat 17:1 which declares that all implements may be moved on the Sabbath.The rods are mentioned here. In view of Mishnah Šabbat 17:1 there is no reason not to use the rods on the Sabbath. It would be easy to say that practice does not follow R. Eliezer, but since he is a very reliable historical source there can be no doubt that he accurately reports Temple practice from his own experience. One has to conclude that the general permission to use all implements (with the exception of expensive tools of trade) has to be dated to the council of Jabneh after the destruction of the Second Temple..
MISHNAH: He tears it open and removes the parts50Greek αἱ μοῖραι [τοῦ θεοῦ], the fat which is forbidden for human consumption. which he239The officiating priest. puts in a tureen and burns on the altar. The first group left and sat on the Temple Mount240According to Rashi and Maimonides, this refers only to a Sabbath, when they could not carry outside the enclosure of the Temple Mount., the second within the inner wall of the Temple Mount, the third stood241Being inside the sacred district, they could not sit down. at its place. When it got dark, they left and roasted their Pesaḥ. HALAKHAH: It is written, he sprinkled from it242There is no verse like this; probably what is meant is Lev. 8:11: וַיַּז֥ מִמֶּ֛נּוּ. Cf. Babli Bekhorot 39b., from its entirety. Rebbi Abuna said, only from a complete sacrifice. 243Sifra Wayyiqra I Parsheta 14(10).“It is written, they shall burn it, and he shall burn it, and he shall burn them244The three expressions, from Lev. 3:5, 3:11, 3:16, all refer to well-being sacrifices, the first of cattle, the second of sheep, the third of goats. All three expressions are taken to refer to all three kinds, each one implying a different rule.. Why does the verse say they shall burn it, the qualified, not the disqualified245Since “it” is expressed by a separate word, it is for emphasis: This one but not one which does not follow the rules.. And he shall burn it, that he may not mix fat with fat. And he shall burn them, all of them together.” Here you are saying, and he shall burn it, that he may not mix fat with fat; and there you are saying, and he shall burn them, all of them together. Rebbi La said, here in the tureen, there on the top of the altar246Once the priest has started, he may not stop before all parts lifted from one animal are burned.. Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “nobody could sit in the Temple courtyard except kings of the Davidic dynasty”247Babli Yoma 25a,69b, Soṭah 40a, Tamid 27a, Sanhedrin 101b; Yerushalmi Yoma 3:2, Soṭah 7:7.? And Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, even the kings of the Davidic dynasty could not sit in the Temple courtyard. Explain it that he leaned on the wall as if sitting. But is it not written, King David came and sat before the Eternal2481Chr. 17:16., etc.? Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, he concentrated249Since in Mishnaic Hebrew יִשׂוּב דַּעַת means “concentration”. for prayer. “The first group left and sat on the Temple Mount, the second within the inner wall of the Temple Mount, the third at its place.” Rebbi Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Mana: Did we state “sat at its place”? “Stood at its place250The preceding paragraph explains why the third group is required to stand.The text implies that the reading in the Mishnah was simply שְׁלִישִׁית בִּמְקוֹמָהּ “the third at its place.””.
MISHNAH: The following items about the Pesaḥ push aside the Sabbath1If the 14th of Nisan falls on a Sabbath.: Its slaughter, and the pouring of its blood, and emptying its intestines2Cleaning out the bowels so the carcass will not start to smell before nightfall when it can be roasted., and the burning of its fat. But its roasting and washing of its intestines3To clean them thoroughly to prepare them as food. do not push aside. Carrying it4Carrying the lamb on one’s shoulder., or bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain, or cutting its wart5Since a wart is a defect which disqualifies an animal as sacrifice (Lev. 22:22), the animal could not have been dedicated if it had developed one by the time of dedication. If it was dedicated without defect, a wart which developed later may be cut., do not push aside; Rebbi Eliezer says, they push aside6He holds that if an action supersedes the rules of the Sabbath, all preparatory actions also supersede the Sabbath (Šabbat 19:1).. HALAKHAH: “The following items about the Pesaḥ,” etc. 7Babli 66a; Tosephta 4:13–14. This question left the Elders of Bathyra at a loss. Once the Fourteenth fell on the Sabbath and they did not know whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not. They said, we have here a Babylonian who served Shemaya and Avtalion8The heads of the Pharisaic establishment in the preceding generation. and knows whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not. It is possible that there be hope from him. They sent and called him. The said to him, did you ever hear, if the Fourteenth falls on the Sabbath, whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not? He told them, do we have only one Pesaḥ which pushes aside the Sabbath every year? Are there not many Pesaḥim which push aside the Sabbath every year? There are Tannaim who state: 100. There are Tannaim who state: 200. There are Tannaim who state: 300. He who says 100, the daily sacrifices of the Sabbath. He who says 200, the daily and additional sacrifices of the Sabbath. He who says 300, the daily and additional sacrifices of the Sabbath, and of holidays, and of New Moons, and of semi-holidays. They told him, already we said, there is hope from you. He started to explain to them by analogy, by an argument de minore ad majus, and by equal cut. By analogy: The daily sacrifice is a public offering and Pesaḥ is a public offering. Since the daily sacrifice as a public offering pushes aside the Sabbath, also Pesaḥ as a public offering pushes aside the Sabbath. By an argument de minore ad majus. Since the daily sacrifice, whose action is not subject to extirpation, pushes aside the Sabbath, it is only logical that Pesaḥ, whose action is subject to extirpation, push aside the Sabbath. By equal cut. It is said about the daily sacrifice, at its fixed time9Num. 28:2., and it is said about Pesaḥ, at its fixed time10Num. 9:2.. They said to him, we already said, is there hope from a Babylonian? The analogy which you proposed can be answered. No, if you said this about daily sacrifices which are fixed in number, what can you infer for Pesaḥ which is not fixed in number? The argument de minore ad majus which you proposed can be answered. No, if you said this about daily sacrifices which are most holy, what can you infer for Pesaḥ which is a simple sacrifice11The relationship between daily sacrifice and Pesaḥ is not that of minor and major; the argument is intrinsically invalid.? Concerning the equal cut which you proposed, nobody can introduce an equal cut by himself12Equal expressions in the Pentateuch imply equal legal status only if there is a documented tradition that these words were written for this purpose. Babli 66a.. 13Here a Genizah fragment (Ginze Schechter pp. 446–447) becomes readable again (ג). Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If a person could construct an equal cut by himself, he could make a creeping animal causing impurity in a tent and a corpse causing impurity in the volume of a lentil, by explaining textile, leather; textile, leather14A dead creeping animal (of the list Lev. 11:29–30) imparts impurity in the volume of a lentil; a human corpse only in the volume of an olive. A human corpse imparts impurity to everything under the same roof with it, a dead creeping one imparts impurity only by contact. The argument is incomprehensible but the text is confirmed not only by ג but also by Sefer Hapardes from the school of Rashi (Pardes Gadol §175, ed. H. L. Ehrenreich p. 230), and Meïri Pesaḥim (ed. Y. Klein, col. 290a). While textile and leather are written about the creeping animal in Lev. 11:32, they are not mentioned in the Chapter about tent impurity (Num. 19). It is mentioned in the Chapter about ṣāraˋ at impurity of textiles (Lev. 13:47–59) although not in the exact wording of 11:32. The argument should be that the equal cut is illegitimate since minimal sizes for impurity of animals are determined by volume while those of textiles by surface area; the rules cannot be transferred.. So if a creeping animal is in a person’s hand, even if he immerses himself in the waters of the Siloam, or in waters of a primeval ocean, he never can achieve purity. If he throws it away, immediately he becomes pure15This argument does not belong here, it is not in ג, nor in Pardes, nor in Meïri. It is part of a sermon in Taˋanti (Yerushalmi 2:1 69a line 69, Babli 16a.). Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may use an equal cut to confirm what he has learned; nobody may use an equal cut to invalidate what he has learned16Since it is part of oral tradition.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may argue de minore ad majus by himself; a person may not argue an equal cut by himself16Since it is part of oral tradition.. Therefore one can contradict an argument de minore ad majus; one cannot contradict an equal cut. Even though he was sitting and explaining the entire day they did not accept it from him until he said, it should come over me, so I heard from Shemaya and Avtalion. When they heard this from him, they rose and appointed him Patriarch over them. After they had appointed him Patriarch over them, he started to goad16*Greek κεντρόω “to spur, goad, hit with a sharp instrument”. them with words, and said: What caused you to need this Babylonian? Not that you did not serve the two greats of the world, Shemaya and Avtalion? When he started to goad them with words, practice disappeared from him. 17This is copied from Šabbat 19, Notes 59–66, where readings are noted and the text is explained. While the text fits in here, its origin is in Šabbat since the disagreement between R. Immi and R. Simon mentioned in the paragraph does not refer to anything discussed here. They said to him: What to do with people who did not bring their knives with them? He told them, I was informed of the practice, but I forgot. But let Israel act; if they are not prophets they are descendants of prophets. Then everybody whose Passover sacrifice was a lamb stuck them in its fleece, for a kid goat he bound them to its horns; it turned out that the Passover sacrifices brought their knives with them. When he saw the action he remembered the practice. He told them, this is what I heard from Shemaya and Avtalion. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. Any teaching which has no pedigree is no teaching. There, we have stated18Mishnah Parah 2:3. The text in parentheses was added by the corrector from the Mishnah.: “If he rode on it, leaned on it, hung on it, used it to cross a river, folded the bridle on it, put his toga on it, it is disqualified. [But if he tied it with the bridle, made it a shoe lest it slip, put his toga on it because of flies, it is qualified. This is the principle: Anything for its needs, it is qualified. For any other need, it is disqualified.]” This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that that if he hung on it a knife to slaughter it it remains qualified. That learns from this, that any action which is done for sancta is not work. Why did they not allow it to them by means of walls of people? It must follow Rebbi Immi. Even if you are saying following Rebbi Simon, just as they could not remember this so they did not remember that. Rebbi Abun said, but it is impossible that in two Sabbatical periods there should be no 14th which falls on the Sabbath! How could they not have remembered? To confer greatness on Hillel. Rebbi Mana said, I heard from Rebbi Yudan and from all the rabbis, why does one honor the lower house19Following ג, we read “the earthly House”, meaning the Patriarchate (as recognized by L. Ginzberg), not “the earthly court”. While Hillel became Patriarch because of his intellectual stature, in Talmudic times the descendants of Rebbi were no longer the leading scholars. The question then is asked, why they should retain their status as Patriarchs. They are needed since their pronouncements can guarantee unity of practice in Judaism.? So that divisions should not grow in Israel. Three put down their crowns in this world and inherited the life of the Future World. And these are: Jonathan the son of Saul, and Eleazar ben Azariah, and the Elders of Bathyra. Jonathan the son of Saul. Rebbi La said, even the women behind the loom20Greek καῖρος, ό. did know that David would rule in the future. Eleazar ben Azaria was Second in rank21While he volunteered to re-establish Rabban Gamliel as Patriarch (Berakhot 4:1 Notes 114–124). ג reads “there was a stipulation,” that he would remain Chief Justice if Rabban Gamliel was re-instated as Patriarch.. There are among these only the Elders of Bathyra who freed themselves of the Patriarchate and appointed him Patriarch. The rabbis of Caesarea said, also Rebbi Ḥanina of Sepphoris for Rebbi Mana. Rebbi Joshua ben Qabusai22Since the name tradition is not uniform, it cannot be determined who exactly was the person referred to. said, all my days I fled from authority. Now that I entered, anybody who would remove me I would treat like a water kettle. As the kettle burns, and injures, and chars, so I would treat him. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, heaven forbid that he wanted this. But he said, who could tell me that he would sanctify the Name of Heaven as I am doing. Because of three questions Hillel immigrated from Babylonia. He is pure. I could think that he was rid of it and may take leave, the verse says, the Cohen shall declare him pure. If the Cohen shall declare him pure then I could think that if the Cohen declared him pure while he was impure that he was pure, the verse says, he is pure and the Cohen shall declare him pure23Lev. 13:37.. For this Hillel immigrated from Babylonia24Sifra Tazriaˋ Pereq 9(15).. One verse says25Deut. 16:2., you shall sacrifice a Pesaḥ to the Eternal, your God, small cattle and large cattle. Another verse says26Ex. 12:5.,from sheep and goats you shall take. How is this? Small cattle for Pesaḥ, small and large cattle for the festival sacrifice27Babli 70b, Sifry Deut. 129, not in the name of Hillel.. One verse says28Deut. 16:8., you shall eat mazzot for six days; another verse says29Ex. 12:5., seven days you shall eat mazzot. How is this? Six days from the new crop30After the Omer ceremony on the second day of the Holiday of Unleavened Bread, when grain from the new harvest becomes permitted (Lev. 23:14). Sifry Deut. 134 in the name of R. Simeon, 5 generations after Hillel; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo, Parašah 8, anonymous., seven days from the old. He interpreted, and agreed, and immigrated, and received practice31He had found the solutions himself; he immigrated into Palestine to have his explanations accepted by Shemaya and Avtalion and to have it harmonized with existing practice.. “Emptying its intestines”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all the Eternal’s works are for Himself32Prov. 16:4. Quoted Babli Šabbat116b.; that it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice33Since for profane use the emptying of the intestines would be a Sabbath violation.. Rebbi Ismael stated, its skinning pushes the Sabbath aside34But for profane use it would be a Sabbath violation.. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, on the Sabbath one was skinning the breast35With Tosephta 4:10 one has to read: “One was skinning up to the breast (starting with the feet).”. What is Rebbi Ismael’s reason? That it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. What does Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa do with this? Because he turns it around, it is not as if he was taking the parts from a disgusting sacrifice36Since it is obvious that one skins from the feet for sacrificial use, it is not necessary to push aside the Sabbath more than a minimum.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said the same. As Rebbi Ismael said, choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside37In Mishnah Menaḥot 6:1, R. Ismael states that while on a Sabbath the ˋOmer(3/10 of a seah) of barley flour was sifted from three seah of grain while on weekdays it was from five. This implies that for the Temple service one uses choice material but only on weekdays it must be of the choicest kind if it is a matter of pushing aside Sabbath prohibitions., so Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside. If you are saying, this is choice, can he not tear it open and remove the parts38If we interpret R. Ismael ben R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa in this way, then R. Ismael would be inconsistent by requiring total stripping of the Pesaḥ. Also R. Ismael ben R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa could obtain the desired result with much less Sabbath desecration. Therefore R. Joḥanan’s statement cannot be correct.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it only follows Rebbi Simeon. 39This is from Šabbat 12, Notes 47–49. as it was stated7Babli 66a; Tosephta 4:13–14.: “One who scratches, who drills, who chops anything is liable; Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, one who scratches only if he scratches completely, one who drills only if he drills completely, one who chops only if he chopped completely, one who tans hides only if he tanned completely.” And Rebbi Jacob bar Ada said, this only follows Rebbi Simeon since Rebbi Simeon did not treat partial work as whole work, but the rabbis do treat partial work as whole work40Therefore R. Ismael ben R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa disagrees with R. Ismael and holds that skinning the Pesaḥ on the Sabbath is forbidden as action for profane use; he only permits partial skinning since for him it is not a Sabbath desecration. Cf. Menaḥot63b–64a.. 41This paragraph, continuation of the preceding one, is copied from Šabbat 12, Notes 50–53; it refers to Mishnah Šabbat 12:1 and has no meaning here. And it is difficult about Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. If one took [tools] to harvest but did not harvest, is that perhaps anything? Rebbi Ada said, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel parallels Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated: “One who hits or smooths a piece of weaving is liable. He is liable because he equalizes with his hand.” And here because he equalizes with his hand. 42This paragraph also appears word for word in Roš Haššanah 1:1 (56c l. 13), which seems to be the original source.“And the burning of its fat.” The fat of my holiday offering shall not stay until the morning43Ex. 23:18. The first part of the verse is about slaughtering the Pesaḥ (Chapter 5, Note 130). The second part quoted here explicitly mentions the holiday offering, the required family sacrifice on the occasion of the holiday pilgrimage, but is interpreted to include the fat of the Pesaḥ.. But could parts from weekday be brought on a holiday44Since the 15th of Nisan is a holiday, it seems obvious that parts of a sacrifice brought on the 14th have to be burned before the start of the holiday; the verse seems to be meaningless.? Rebbi Abbahu said, I confirmed it, if the Fourteenth fell on a Šabbath. Rebbi Jonah asked, if the Fourteenth fell on a Šabbath, no holiday offering comes with it, that the Torah has to say, bring it to the altar when it is still daylight lest it come to “not stay”45Even if we restrict the meaning of the sentence to holiday offerings, since there is none if the 14th falls on a Sabbath, the explanation of R. Abbahu seems pointless.? (And here, bring it to the altar when it is still daylight lest it come to “not tarry”46This sentence, referring to Deut. 23:22, belongs to Roš Haššanah and has no meaning here..) Rebbi Ḥinena said, if he transgressed and brought, is it not qualified47This argument that a holiday offering, brought in error on the 14th which is a Sabbath, is qualified and the person who brought it is not liable for a Sabbath infraction, is not found in the Babli and the surviving Tosephta mss.; it is quoted as R. Meïr’s opinion in the Tosephta of the Bomberg Babli, 5:4.? Since it is qualified if he transgressed and brought, he would transgress48If one brings a holiday offering on a 14th which is a Sabbath, the explanation of R. Abbahu applies. The verse is not meaningless.. “But its roasting, and washing of its intestines, do not push aside.” We have stated, “When it got dark, they left and roasted their Pesaḥ”, and you are saying so? For hanging into the oven49In Mishnah Šabbat 1:15 roasting the Pesaḥ on the Sabbath is permitted if the 14th is a Friday. Why is it prohibited if the 14th is a Sabbath? The roasting essentially os automatic; it is starting the process which is forbidden on a Sabbath, whether the 14th is a Friday or a Sabbath.. “Carrying it, or bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain.” He said only, from outside Jerusalem. Therefore from outside the Temple courtyard it is permitted because of rabbinic Sabbath restriction50Since Jerusalem is a walled city, inside the city there can be no public domain by biblical standards; restrictions of carrying within the city walls are rabbinic. which they permitted in the Temple. “Cutting its wart.” There, we have stated51Mishnah Eruvin 10:11.: “One cuts a wart at the Temple but not in the countryside; using an implement is forbidden here and there.” Here52In Eruvin, showing that this is the origin of the Halakhah., you are saying, it pushes aside; there, you are saying, it does not push aside. 53This paragraph is from Eruvin 10, Notes 141–148. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaya: Because of vitiation of the lotteries. Rebbi Yose said, but only if they drew lots. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Sobaya: Whether it can be scraped off or cannot be scraped off. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim said, one if it is moist, the other if it is dry. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, here by hand, there by implement. It turns out that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish parallels Bar Qappara, and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina Rebbi Joḥanan, as it was stated: All who destroy are not liable, except the incendiary and one causing an injury. Bar Qappara said, even if he did not need the blood, even if he did not need the ashes. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if he needed the blood or the ashes. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In both cases if it is moist, and only if he needs the blood. Is bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain a matter of Sabbath rest58Since the argument of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua is about rabbinic restrictions because of Sabbath rest, it is implied that the list of items in Mishnah 2 about which R. Eliezer dissents contains only rabbinic prohibitions. But bringing anything from outside the Sabbath domain is a biblical prohibition.? 59The next sentences are from Eruvin 3, Notes 127–131. This supports what Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation! He said to him, is there not written60Ex. 12:9. This belongs to the discussion there whether all pentateuchal prohibitions are legally prosecutable, or only those formulated as לֹא whereas those introduced by the negation אַל are simply moral obligations. Since the latter then cannot be enforced in court by biblical standards, they are equal in rank to rabbinic prohibitions., do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written61Ex. 16:28., stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition62This is the end of the parallel in Eruvin3.. Is cutting its wart with an implement a matter of Sabbath rest63This is making a wound, biblically forbidden under the category of slaughtering.? Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina stated only carrying it and bringing it; therefore not cutting its wart64In Mishnah 1, he does not read “cutting its wart”.. That is because he thinks it65Cutting the wart. Everybody agrees that biting off the wart is unprofessional, therefore does not create liability, and is only rabbinically forbidden. is with an implement. Therefore if he were not of the opinion that it was with an implement, would it be a matter of Sabbath rest? 66Quoted from Eruvin 10(7), Note 64. It is stated there that cutting the wart creates liability only if done professionally with a surgeon’s knife. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, where do they disagree? If he removed it with an implement. But if another person removed it it is disgusting67Therefore not causing biblical liability. Babli Šabbat 94b., and is not the sacrifice another? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference because there is written “a sacrifice”. Rebbi Mana said, sprinkling68Purifying a person impure by the impurity of the dead by sprinkling with water containing of the ashes of the Red Cow. In Second Temple times this was a public act (Mishnah Parah 11:4) not performed on the Sabbath. is a matter of Sabbath rest, and these are because of Sabbath rest. Sprinkling is pushed aside69If the 14th of Nisan is a Sabbath and a person’s seventh day of impurity falls on that day, he may not be purified by sprinkling, but this is not biblically forbidden, and he has to celebrate his Pesaḥ on the 14th of Iyar. Cf. Mishnaiot 3,4. but these should not be pushed aside? Only that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices. The word of Rebbi Zeˋira implies that there is no difference between sacrifice and sacrificer: Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated Bar Qappara’s before Rebbi Zeˋira: I wonder how Rebbi Eliezer received Rebbi Joshua’s answer that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices70Since R. Joshua’s argument is about the slaughterer, not the animal being slaughtered.? He told him, Bar Qappara was wondering, Rebbi Eliezer was not wondering71Their discussion makes sense only if there is no difference whether one speaks about sacrifice or sacrificer. This confirms what R. Zeˋira said..
MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer said, if slaughter which is work54Slaughter is one of the 49 categories of work biblically forbidden on the Sabbath. pushes the Sabbath aside, should not these55The Mishnah is a continuation of Mishnah 1, where R. Eliezer holds that all actions needed for the Pesaḥ push aside the Sabbath. The discussion in particular is about the list of rabbinically prohibited actions at the end of Mishnah 1, which are permitted by R. Eliezer but prohibited by the Sages (represented by R. Joshua.), which are because of Sabbath rest, push the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Joshua said to him, holiday is a counter example, where He permitted the work but forbade because of Sabbath rest56Since preparation of food is permitted on a holiday, slaughter for meat is permitted. But the rules of rabbinic Sabbath rest apply to holiday as to the Sabbath.. Rebbi Eliezer answered whim, what is this, Joshua? What proof is option for obligation57Rules of preparation of profane food cannot teach anything for sacrifices.? HALAKHAH: What does Sabbath rest mean? Did we not state72Mishnah Avot 3:11. Since there is an obligation to honor the holidays, is there not an obligation to slaughter animals for holiday meals. How can R. Eliezer call this optional?, “One who desecrates sancta, or abases the holidays, or breaks the Covenant of our father Abraham, or is insolent against the Torah, even if in his hands are learning and good deeds, has no part in the Future World.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, what is optional73There could have been meals prepared beforehand. There is no religious obligation to slaughter on a holiday, it truly is optional.? If he wants he cooks, if he does not want he does not cook. Rebbi Yose said, so should Rebbi Eliezer have embarrassed Rebbi Joshua. Does not the festival offering disprove according to your system, where they permitted the category of work but prohibited the category of Sabbath rest74Since R. Eliezer is a follower of the House of Shammai, who permit the festival sacrifice to be brought on the holiday but prohibit the (biblically required but purely rabbinically prohibited) laying of hands on the sacrificial animal, he would have to agree that not all rabbinic restrictions are waived on Sabbath and holiday.? He should have answered, no. If you are saying this about the festival offering about which one is not liable for extirpation, what can you say about Pesaḥ where one is liable for extirpation? He also could have objected as in the Mishnah: No, if you are saying this about the holiday about which one is not liable for extirpation, what can you say about Pesaḥ where one is liable for extirpation? It is as Rebbi Immi said, they were rich in answers75The same statements Kilaim 2:5 Note 89, Nazir 5:4 Note 109.. Or it may be as Rebbi Nassa said, like a man who has two arguments but he moves one of them.
MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba answered, sprinkling68Purifying a person impure by the impurity of the dead by sprinkling with water containing of the ashes of the Red Cow. In Second Temple times this was a public act (Mishnah Parah 11:4) not performed on the Sabbath. is a counter example, for it is a commandment and because of Sabbath rest does not push aside the Sabbath69If the 14th of Nisan is a Sabbath and a person’s seventh day of impurity falls on that day, he may not be purified by sprinkling, but this is not biblically forbidden, and he has to celebrate his Pesaḥ on the 14th of Iyar. Cf. Mishnaiot 3,4.. So you should not wonder about these55The Mishnah is a continuation of Mishnah 1, where R. Eliezer holds that all actions needed for the Pesaḥ push aside the Sabbath. The discussion in particular is about the list of rabbinically prohibited actions at the end of Mishnah 1, which are permitted by R. Eliezer but prohibited by the Sages (represented by R. Joshua.), even though they are commandments and because of Sabbath rest but shall not push aside the Sabbath.Rebbi Eliezer said to him, about this I am arguing. Since slaughter, which is work, pushes the Sabbath aside, sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, shall push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, or the other way. Since sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, does not push aside the Sabbath, slaughter, which is work, shall not push the Sabbath aside86Since it is agreed that the obligation to slaughter the Pesaḥ on the Sabbath if it is the 14th of Nisan is a biblical decree (Halakhah 6:1), what R. Aqiba proves is that biblical and rabbinic decrees cannot be compared in formal or informal arguments de minore ad majus..Rebbi Eliezer said to him, Aqiba! You uprooted what is written in the Torah, between the evenings, at its fixed time87Num. 9:2., whether on weekdays or on the Sabbath. He answered him, Rabbi, bring me a fixed time for these similar to the fixed time for slaughter88There is no biblical authorization for preparations of the Pesaḥ to be executed in violation of Sabbath rules.. Rebbi Aqiba formulated a principle: Anything which can be done on Friday does not push the Sabbath aside. Slaughter which cannot be done on Friday pushes the Sabbath aside. HALAKHAH: Thirteen years did Rebbi Aqiba enter at Rebbi Eliezer’s and he did not take notice of him. This is his first retort before Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua said to him, is this not the people which you despised; go now and fight against it76Jud. 9:38.. There77Mishnah 9:2., we have stated: “What is ‘far away’78That a person at this place on the 14th of Nisan is not obligated to bring his Pesaḥ on the 14th of Nisan (Num. 9:13).? From Modiin and farther away, and in the same distance in every direction, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Eliezer says, from the doorstep79Accadic askuppu. of the Temple courtyard and farther away.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eliezer said this only not to make him liable for extirpation80But he will agree that anybody within commuting distance to the Temple is obligated by a positive commandment (Num.9:2) to offer the Pesaḥ.. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah implies this: “Rebbi Aqiba answered him, sprinkling is a counter example, for it is a commandment.” Is it a commandment to sprinkle81The purification from the impurity of the dead is an obligation for anybody coming to the Sanctuary. If he is not going there, there is no obligation to be sprinkled on.? Explain it that his seventh day happened to be the Fourteenth which fell on a Sabbath. If it had been a weekday, one would have sprinkled on him, then he would have come, slaughtered his Pesaḥ82This is an inexact statement. The person who was sprinkled with the water containing the ashes of the Red Cow on the 3rd and 7th days of his impurity and then immerses himself in a miqweh is able to enter the sanctuary and eat sancta after sundown (Num. 19:19). This means that another person has to slaughter the Pesaḥ for him; but he can then come and eat from the sacrifice in the night. Rav Hoshaia holds that one may not slaughter for a person who could not slaughter by himself; therefore he has to transfer the situation to the 13th., and entered and eaten it in the evening. Because it is a Sabbath and one does not sprinkle on him, it results that he his prevented from fulfilling the commandment. Rav Hoshaia said, explain it that his seventh day happened to be the Thirteenth which fell on a Sabbath. If it had been a weekday, one would have sprinkled on him, then the next day he would have come, slaughtered his Pesaḥ, and entered and eaten it in the evening. Because it is a Sabbath and one does not sprinkle on him, it results that he is prevented from fulfilling the commandment. It was found stated83A baraita (not quoted) supports R. Eleazar against Rav Hoshaia. following the first [explanation]. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, explain it following him who said, from the doorstep of Jerusalem and outside. Would one object from outside Jerusalem to something inside Jerusalem84S. Liebermann has noted that this statement refers to Tosephta 8:2 where R. Eliezer defines “far away” as “outside the place where [the Pesaḥ] is consumed” and argues by comparing Pesaḥ to Second Tithe. Both definitions point to Jerusalem, and not the Temple courtyard, as R. Eliezer’s “not far away”; else one would compare “outside of Jerusalem” with “inside Jerusalem (but outside the Temple enclosure).” The version of the Tosephta is supported against the version of the Mishnah.? Is there anybody who says to his teacher, it is the other way around? Since Rebbi Eliezer was teaching him practice currently that the festival offering does not push aside the Sabbath and he objected to him at the time of argument, therefore he told him, it is the other way around85This refers to their discussion in Mishnah 4. S. Liebermann points out that the use of כָּפַר in the meaning of “contradict” is characteristic of Sifry zuṭa, and the remark refers to the formulation of the Mishnaic discussion in Sifry zuṭa Behaˋalotekha 9(2).. 90These paragraphs also are Šabbat 19 (17a line 16), Notes 66–76. The origin of the first paragraph is here, the second (of which part of the introduction and a sentence are missing here) is from there. It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, just as slaughter pushes the Sabbath aside so the preparations of slaughter push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, no. If you speak about slaughter which is impossible to be done on Friday and pushes the Sabbath aside, what can you infer about preparations of slaughter than can be done on Friday, should they push the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Eliezer said to him, the public parts shall prove which he could do after the Sabbath and which nevertheless push aside the Sabbath. What is the difference between preparations of slaughter before the slaughter and preparations of slaughter after slaughter? Rebbi Aqiba said to him, about preparations of slaughter after slaughter which push aside the Sabbath when the slaughter already had pushed away the Sabbath, what does this imply for preparations of slaughter before slaughter when the slaughter had not yet pushed away the Sabbath? Another explanation: Maybe the sacrifice would be found disqualified, then it turned out that the Sabbath was pushed aside without a slaughter.” What can you say [about a baby]? Maybe the baby would become sick; then the Sabbath would be pushed aside without circumcision. They objected: If the altar collapsed on the Sabbath, it will not be possible to build on the Sabbath!91Added from K: Some kind of altar can be built the day before. Think of it, if it developed a wart? It cannot be cut on the Sabbath! Warts can be cut on the day before. Think of it, if his Seventh day falls on a Sabbath, there cannot be sprinkling on the Sabbath81The purification from the impurity of the dead is an obligation for anybody coming to the Sanctuary. If he is not going there, there is no obligation to be sprinkled on.! Sprinkling may be done on the day before.
MISHNAH: When does one bring a festival offering92Since every group had only one Pesaḥ, if the number of participants was large so that only a small portion of the meat was available for each participant, the main dish as the meal was another sacrifice which was given under the rules of festival sacrifices even though it could not be counted as satisfying the biblical requirement of such an offering during the holiday itself. with it? When it comes on a weekday, in purity, and in small portions93If only small portions of Pesaḥ meat were available for each participant, not enough to satisfy. Then the festival offering had to be consumed first.. When it comes on the Sabbath, in large portions, or in impurity94If most of the public is impure, only public sacrifices may be offered in the Temple. The Pesaḥ has the status of a public sacrifice in this respect, but the accompanying festival offering does not., one does not bring a festival offering with it.The festival offering came from small cattle or bovines, from sheep or goats, from males and females95Whereas the Pesaḥ must be a male goat or sheep., and may be eaten during two days and one night96In this case really 2 times 24 hrs.. HALAKHAH: It was stated: The festival offering of the Fourteenth could come from tithe. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel bar Abba: This means that it is voluntary. If you would say that it is obligatory, can anything which is obligatory come from tithe97Animal tithe (Lev. 27:32) automatically is a sanctum which must be sacrificed and eaten by the family; therefore it is no longer at the disposal of the owner to use it to fulfill any obligation. If it is acceptable for use with the Pesaḥ, this cannot represent fulfilling an obligation. Babli Ḥagigah 7b–8a.? It was stated: The festival offering which comes with the Pesaḥ is eaten first so that the Pesaḥ be eaten when one is satiated98Tosephta 5:3.. Why should the Pesaḥ not be eaten so one be satiated? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Dosay: Lest one come to break a bone99Babli 70a. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 6 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 20).. It was stated: The festival offering which comes with the Pesaḥ has to be eliminated with it. Come and see, a festival offering may be eaten for two days but the Pesaḥ only until midnight, and you are saying so? If it comes to the table with it100Since remainders of the Pesah have to be burned (Ex. 12:10), any dish which came into contact with the Pesah has to be burned with it since it may be contaminated with particles of the Pesah. The Babli 70a disagrees and holds that it must be eliminated (as a biblical requirement) only in the opinion of Ben Tema.. Dishes who come to the table with it have to be eliminated with it101Tosephta 5:3, opinion of R. Simeon ben Elazar.. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that he who ate soft cheese and wants to eat meat must eliminate the bread slices102Accepted by Šulḥan Arukh Yoreh Deˋa89(4)..
MISHNAH: He who slaughters the Pesaḥ not for its purpose103As well-being sacrifice. on the Sabbath is for this liable for a purification sacrifice104If he slaughtered in error, i. e., either if he did not know that slaughtering not for its purpose is forbidden or if he did not realize that it was a Sabbath.. For any other sacrifice which he slaughtered for the purpose of Pesaḥ, if they are not suitable105If they are not male sheep or goat yearlings. he is liable, if suitable, Rebbi Eliezer declares him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares not liable106For him a valid sacrifice even if wrongly presented cannot trigger liability..Rebbi Eliezer said to him, since for Pesaḥ, which is permitted for its purpose107If the 14th is a Sabbath., he is liable if he changed its purpose, sacrifices which are forbidden for their purpose108Festival offerings or general well-being offerings on a Sabbath., it should be logical that he be liable if he changed their purpose. Rebbi Joshua answered him, no. If you argue about Pesaḥ, which he changed to something forbidden, what can you infer about sacrifices which he changed to something permitted109Since anything called Pesaḥ may be slaughtered on a 14th of Nisan which is a Sabbath.? Rebbi Eliezer said to him, public parts110The altar’s parts of those public sacrifices of which the rest is consumed by the priests, such as holiday purification sacrifices and the public well-being sacrifice of Pentecost. should prove it, which are permitted for their purpose and he who slaughters for their purpose is liable111If he erroneously slaughters any other sacrifice for the purpose of public sacrifice.. Rebbi Joshua answered him, no. If you argue about public parts which are fixed in number, what can you infer about Pesaḥ which is not fixed in number? Rebbi Meïr says, also he who slaughters for the purpose of public parts is not liable112Since he slaughtered with the intent of fulfilling a commandment, there can be no liability, and R. Eliezer’s premise is incorrect.. HALAKHAH: The Mishnah if he realized that it was Pesaḥ but he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offerings113If he knew that it was Pesaḥ and intentionally changed the purpose, there is liability if he erred in thinking that this was permitted, since his intent was executed. But if it was Pesaḥ, only the slaughterer thought that it was a well-being offering and he slaughtered it as well-being offering, it is valid Pesaḥ since an intent based on a false premise has no legal consequence. Cf. Babli 72a.. If he knew that it was a well-being offering but he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi Mana said, there is fulfilling of a commandment in his action. Rebbi Yose said, there is no fulfilling of a commandment in his action114This is a continuation of the preceding argument. The animal was dedicated as Pesaḥ, the slaughterer thought that it was a well-being offering and he slaughtered it as elevation offering. R. Mana holds that the slaughterer’s intent is ineffective since it is based on a wrong premise; the sacrifice is qualified as Pesaḥ. R. Yose holds that in all cases the slaughterer’s intent determines qualification.. Rams of the public which he thought were sheep and he slaughtered them for the purpose of rams, are they perhaps not counted as rams for the public115Rams are supplementary elevation sacrifices on holidays, as are the sheep mentioned here. Babli Menaḥot49a.? It was stated thus: Rams of the public which he thought were sheep and he slaughtered them for the purpose of rams, already are counted for the public as fulfillment of their obligation. The Mishnah applies if he thought it was Pesaḥ and he slaughtered it for the purpose of Pesaḥ116The second case of Mishnah 8, “for any other sacrifice which he slaughtered for the purpose of Pesaḥ, …”, if an animal was dedicated as well-being offering but is of the kind qualified for Pesaḥ, and was slaughtered as Pesaḥ, R. Joshua declares him not liable since the sacrifice is qualified and he erred in the fulfillment of a commandment.. If he knew that it was a well-being sacrifice but thought to say that it is permitted to change well-being sacrifice into Pesaḥ, Rebbi Mana said, there is no fulfilling of a commandment in his action; Rebbi Yose said, there is fulfilling of a commandment in his action117The difference here is the interpretation of R. Joshua’s stance. R. Mana holds that since he knew that the animal was not a Pesaḥ, it cannot be called error in the fulfillment of a commandment and even R. Joshua will agree that he is liable. R. Yose holds that since the sacrifice is qualified it must be called error in the fulfillment of a commandment and R. Joshua will hold that he is not liable.. It is reasonable following Rebbi Mana in the first case, following Rebbi Yose in the last. Halakhah 7118Discussion of Mishnah 9.: They said, that argument of Rebbi Eliezer is no answer to Rebbi Joshua, since he could say to him, how can you answer me with an argument about something that is apt to change for something that is not apt to being changed119The Pesaḥ after the 14th is automatically a well-being offering; but animals dedicated as well-being offerings cannot validly be changed into anything else.? Neither is the argument of Rebbi Joshua an answer to Rebbi Eliezer, since he could say to him, the Pesaḥ of Reuben which he slaughtered in the name of Simeon is changed into something qualified120Mishnah 5:3.; and you are saying, he is liable? “Rebbi Meïr says, also he who slaughters for the purpose of public parts is not liable.” Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: even a calf121No public sacrifice is a calf. According to him, R. Meïr in interpreting R. Joshua’s position that no action resulting in a qualified sacrifice can trigger liability.. You understand from here two things. You understand something which has no fixed number, or that is apt to being changed, only if the act is meritorious122Even if there are two detriments as enumerated in the Mishnah, as long as there is an angle of merit there is no liability.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if the act is meritorious, for example his sister-in-law which is menstruating and he slept with her123If the sister-in-law is a childless widow the brother-in-law is biblically obligated to sleep with her (Deut. 25:5). Incidentally by this act she becomes his wife, but this is not the point here. Since his act is in obeying a biblical commandment it cannot be sanctioned; even though he was negligent in not asking her whether sex with her was permissible; in the interpretation of R. Joshua’s position given here, the purification offering due for erroneously sleeping with a menstruating woman is neither due nor possible in this case.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the act is [not]124An addition by the corrector which seems to be erroneous. meritorious, for example two spits, one with slaughtered meat, the other with carcass meat, and he intended to eat from one but ate from the other125This sentence seems to be corrupt. Eating non-kosher meat is a simple violation, not a deadly sin whose commission in error would require a purification sacrifice. One might try to amend the text; which has been done in very many different ways, none of which is convincing. If one assumes that the uncorrected text is genuine, one has to assume, in the general spirit of the discussion, that the kosher meat is sanctum, whose consumption is meritorious. R. Joḥanan asserts that if the intended act was meritorious, the actual action, while a sin, cannot be sinful.. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan126Šabbat 19:4, about two babies to circumcise, one on the Sabbath and one on Sunday.: “If he forgot and circumcised the one for Sunday on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable.” In this case the act is not meritorious and Rebbi Joshua declares not liable. Samuel from Cappadocia said, the next day it is meritorious127Since on Sunday the baby is lawfully circumcised, the Mishnah cannot be used to show that R. Joshua declares not liable even if no commandment was obeyed in the action.. 128The text from here to the end of the Halakhah is from Šabbat 19, Notes 110–141. The connection with the topics here seems to be the mention of mazzah in the last two sentences. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, for something where there is a commandment performed one is not liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is liable is disputed. Rebbi Simeon says, where there is a commandment performed one is liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is not liable is disputed. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of Rebbi Meïr are, on condition that it be a sheep without blemish, a yearling, and a well-being sacrifice fit to be changed into a Passover sacrifice. One understands from this three consequences. One understands something which is not a fixed number. And which is not usually exchanged. And doing something which fulfills a commandment. What means “something which is not a fixed number”? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that the Torah did not specify how many Pesaḥ sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, where you cannot determine the amount. When Rebbi Yose came to these “children in doubt” he used to say, Rebbi Jeremiah taught us correctly. Could you say that you cannot determine the amount? But the Torah did not specify how many Pesaḥ sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rav Ḥisda said, one may explain the words of Rebbi Simeon if a group was there which did not slaughter. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the word of Rebbi Yannai implies that he forgot and circumcised the one for the Sabbath on Friday. It he circumcised him in the morning, Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he is not liable. Rebbi Abba said, he is liable. In relation to what did Rebbi Yannai say it? He comes to tell you in which cases can there be a switching of children. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion following Rebbi Yannai Rav followed Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, what Rav Ḥisda said follows Rebbi Simeon, and what Rebbi Yannai said follows Rebbi Meïr. Can one object anything between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon? Do we find a difference between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon about the remainder? How do you treat the babies in doubt? Like something which is a fixed amount or something which is not a fixed amount? If you are treating it like something which is a fixed amount, even if there is no (one) [other] baby to circumcise. If you are treating it like something which is not a fixed amount, only if there remains (one) [another] baby to circumcise. Come and see: If he anticipated his time he is not liable, if he delayed his time he is liable? Rav Ḥuna said, the Mishnah is the other way around, as it was stated: Rebbi Simeon said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree about one which was to be circumcised after the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath that he is liable, but one who was to be circumcised before the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath where Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice and Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because of this objection it was difficult for Rebbi Yannai, only if he forgot and circumcised the one of the Sabbath on Friday. Rebbi Ada bar Ahawah said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the words of Rebbi Yose [are]: Even if no commandment is performed he is not liable since he erred on behalf of a commandment. If he finished he can return only for fibers which would invalidate the circumcision. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose, even if he finished he may even return for fibers which do not invalidate the circumcision. Which [statement of] Rebbi Yose? That which we stated, “Rebbi Yose says, if the first day of Tabernacles falls on a Sabbath, if he forgot and took the lulav out into the public domain he is not liable because he took it out with permission.” Does the same hold for a knife for circumcision, the same for unleavened bread? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose, even if he finished he may even return for fibers which do not invalidate the circumcision; this implies the same even for a knife for circumcision, the same for unleavened bread.
MISHNAH: He is liable if he slaughtered it129For a Pesaḥ on the Sabbath he is liable for a purification sacrifice if acting in error. not for its eaters, or not for its subscribers, for the uncircumcised, or for the impure130Since a Pesaḥ is disqualified if nobody is able to eat it.. He is not liable if for its eaters and not for its eaters, for its subscribers and not for its subscribers, for the circumcised and the uncircumcised, for the pure and the impure131Mishnah 5:3.. If he slaughtered and it was found defective, he is liable132Since the Pesaḥ may not be defective (Ex. 12:5), it is necessary to inspect the animal before slaughter.. If he slaughtered and it was found internally tom, he is not liable133Since this cannot be determined beforehand, no guilt can be incurred. The last two statements are equally valid for the Sabbath sacrifices during the year.. He is not liable if he slaughtered and it became known that the owners became disinterested in it, or they died, or they became impure, because he slaughtered with permission134R. Joshua’s opinion in the preceding Halakhah.. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, for whom is this135This discusses the statement in the Mishnah that he who slaughters a defective Pesaḥ on a Sabbath is liable for a purification sacrifice. needed? For Rebbi Meïr. Does Rebbi Eleazar parallel Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish requires that his action be meritorious, does Rebbi Eleazar require that his action be meritorious136Since a defective animal never is acceptable as a sacrifice, it cannot be dedicated as a Pesaḥ, nor can it ever be used for any purpose in the Temple.? If you are saying that there is a difference, since this one has a defect, and a defective animal is not apt to be changed137The previous argument, while probably true, is not proven, since R. Meïr also requires that the sacrifice be apt to be changed into one of the correct type, Note 122., also a calf is not apt to be changed, and Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: even a calf121No public sacrifice is a calf. According to him, R. Meïr in interpreting R. Joshua’s position that no action resulting in a qualified sacrifice can trigger liability.. Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Eleazar were of Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, it would be understandable, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, a defective animals is not apt to be changed, but a calf is apt to be changed, because (it was a problem for Hillel) [it is needed for the slain]138The correct text is the sribe’s one in parentheses, confirmed by K. Since Hillel raised the question why a Pesaḥ cannot be a calf when there is a verse seemingly endorsing its use (Note 25), is using a calf as Pesaḥ not an excusable error? The text in brackets is the corrector’s, it makes little sense. (Maybe the corrector did not understand the scribe’s text, reading הַלֵּל instead of הִלֵּל). A calf is used in the rite of atonement of an unsolved murder, Deut. 22:1–9, but this is not a Temple ceremony.. Therefore {if it was torn} in the open, he is liable139This refers to the next clause in the Mishnah, if there was a defect in an internal organ, the sacrifice is disqualified but the slaughterer is not liable. (Not only is he not liable, but he did not commit any sin.) But if the defect was visible, it is a case of the previous clause; there is liability.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it140The statement in the Mishnah, when the Pesaḥ was slaughtered even though the owners decided to belong to a different group. In the preceding text from Šabbat19, R. Simeon is more restrictive than R. Meïr; therefore if the Mishnah is compatible with R. Simeon’s position, it certainly is with R. Meïr’s. is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, it is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: If somebody became disinterested in his Pesaḥ, its body is brought as well-being offering141. Since a Pesaḥ whose time has passed automatically is dedicated as well-being offering, the case here must be that it was slaughtered on the 14th of Nisan. If it is not Pesaḥ, it must be a well-being offering. The question is whether it is qualified and must be eaten, or is disqualified and may not be eaten. If it is disqualified the next question is whether it is disqualified Pesaḥ and must be burned immediately outside the Temple district or is qualified but unused and as well-being sacrifice has to wait until the third day, when it biblically becomes forbidden and must be burned there (Mishnaiot 7:6–7).. Rebbi Jonah said, qualified well-being offering. Rebbi Yose said, disqualified well-being offering. But did we not state, “not liable”142“Not liable” implies that a sinful act was committed, only it is not criminally prosecutable.? They wanted to say, not liable and qualified. They explain it, not liable and disqualified. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the only Pesaḥ which itself is brought as well-being offering is what was lost and found after the owner had fulfilled his obligation143Babli 97a.. But did we not state, “not liable”? They wanted to say, not liable and qualified. They explain it, not liable and disqualified144In the case of the Mishnah, the Pesaḥ which is left without eaters.. Samuel said, in any case where they said that a purification sacrifice is allowed to die145Mishnah Temurah 4:1–2: The offspring of an animal dedicated as purification offering, the (illegal) replacement of a purification offering, a purification offering whose owner had died, a purification offering which had been lost and was found after the owner had used a replacement, and one who became too old., a Pesaḥ will be brought as well-being sacrifice. But did we not state, “not liable”? They wanted to say, not liable and disqualified. They explain it, not liable and qualified143Babli 97a.. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it146The last sentence in the Mishnah, that if the owner(s) lost interest, died, or became impure, the slaughterer on the Sabbath is not liable. A difficulty is created by idiomatic rabbinic Hebrew, where “owner” is בְּעָלִים with the verb in the plural whether there is one owner or there are many owners. is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as we have stated there147Mishnah 8:7. R. Jehudah may read the Mishnah here that if a Pesaḥ was slaughtered for a number of subscribers, and all of them except one either lost interest, or died, or became impure, the sacrifice still is valid even though it would not have been permitted to be slaughtered if the facts had been known beforehand.: “One does not slaughter the Pesaḥ for a single individual, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but Rebbi Yose permits.” Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Mana: Where do we find “not liable and qualified”? He told him, here we stated “not liable”, and there we stated “qualified”148In Mishnah 8:7 R. Jehudah only says “one does not slaughter;” he does not state that if one slaughtered for a single eater the Pesaḥ was disqualified. Therefore it is qualified even for R. Jehudah.. But about all of them did Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa say, it should lose its shape and be brought to be burned149Babli 73b. Since the disqualification is extrinsic, the sacrifice cannot be burned immediately; one has to wait until it must be burned even if it is treated as well-being offering.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi Yose, one understands if they died or became impure. If the owners became disinterested150In the first two cases, it is an accident and one understands that the sacrifice cannot be burned immediately. But if the owner became disinterested, the animal may not be slaughtered. If it was slaughtered anyhow, the action is illegitimate and the carcass should be burned immediately.? If they are alive, does disqualification qualify? It is disqualified. If after it was slaughtered, can one become disinterested after slaughter? Since he has the right to become disinterested, the disqualification qualifies151K: “It must be R. Simeon’s, since R. Simeon said, one may become disinterested after slaughtering” (up to the time of pouring the blood, Mishnah 8:3) is suspect as lectio facilior. In keeping with the earlier statements, one may read the scribe’s text as implying that, since before slaughter one may subscribe or cancel the subscription at will, cancelling after slaughter is an excusable error, not intrinsic, and has to follow the general rules of sacrifices becoming disqualified by extrinsic factors., and it needs {losing its} shape.
MISHNAH: How does one roast the Pesaḥ1Since the verse Ex. 12:9 requires: Do not eat from it raw, or cooked in water, but roasted in fire, its head with its hooves and its innards.? A spit of pomegranate wood2Hardwood which will not ooze sap into the meat. The sap would cook the meat near the spit; and the meat may not be eaten as Pesaḥ. he sticks from its mouth to its buttocks and puts the hooves and its innards into it, the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean. Rebbi Aqiba says, this is a kind of cooking3Since the innards will be heated not by the fire but by hot moist meat.; but one hangs them outside. HALAKHAH: “How does one roast the Pesaḥ” etc. Why of pomegranates? Rebbi Ḥiyyas bar Abba said, all wood oozes fluid, but of pomegranates does not ooze fluid. Where do we hold? If fresh, even pomegranate {[wood} oozes. If dry, all other wood does not ooze. But it is so: All other wood if it is dry outside still is moist inside. Pomegranate {wood} if dry outside is dry inside. It was stated4Tosephta 5:8; Babli 74a. in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: He roasts it on a metal spit. They said to him, is it not hot and heats5Then the inner parts of the lamb are cooked by the heat of the spit, not roasted by the fire outside; cf. Halakhah 2.? He said to them, just as the wooden one is not burned, so the metal one does not heat. They said to him, wood is not comparable to metal, for wood, if it is hot somewhere, is not hot everywhere, but metal if hot somewhere is hot everywhere. There are Tannaim who stated, he sticks from its buttocks to its mouth. In the opinion of this baraita teacher he turns it around6The argument implies that the lamb was roasted on a vertical spit, like shawarma. According to the Tanna of the Mishnah, the pointed end of the stick stands out at the top; the lamb, whose meat has not been koshered, hangs down and the blood can flow out through the cut in the neck; koshering is not needed. But in the scenario of the baraita, the spit has to be turned around, with the pointed end at the bottom.. What? Does Rebbi Yose the Galilean consider it as thick hips7Is his argument a practical one? Since it is assumed that the inner parts also will be roasted by the fire burning under the lamb, there is no reason that the innards, if put inside, will not be roasted., or does he explain the verse8Deut. 12:9. As explained in the next paragraph, he reads “on” to mean in direct bodily contact; and this is guaranteed at all times only if the hooves and innards are tucked inside the body., its head, on its hooves, and on its innards. What is the difference between them? If he roasted it like a profane lamb9Innards and hooves separate from the body.. If you are saying that Rebbi Yose the Galilean considers it as thick hips, it is disqualified10One has to read “qualified”. This is the reading of the quote in Or Zaruaˋ II §229. This author is usually trustworthy in his readings.; if you are saying that he explains the verse, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards, it is qualified11Read: disqualified, confirmed by Or zaruaˋ. Clearly, if the innards hang in the fire separate from the body, they will be roasted but the verse is violated.. If he cut some meat from it and roasted it inside, if you are saying that Rebbi Yose the Galilean considers it as thick hips, it is qualified; if you are saying that he explains the verse, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards, it is disqualified12In the first case the meat will be roasted, therefore being qualified as Pesaḥ; but the verse does not permit to roast anything inside the body except innards and hooves.. If he roasted it in the steam of a pot, if you are saying that Rebbi Yose the Galilean considers it as thick hips, it is disqualified13Read: qualified (Or zaruaˋ).; if you are saying that he explains the verse, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards, it is qualified14Read: disqualified (Or zaruaˋ).. But did one not state, roasted in fire, not roasted in a pot. [Explain it,] if it touched the body of the pot. This15Not the preceding inconclusive discussion but the following discussion of the verse. implies that he explained the verse. Everybody agrees that “on it” means “in contact”. Where do they disagree? About “on”. 16This refers to Mishnah Menaḥot 11:5, Babli Menaḥot 97a, about the placement of incense on the table with the shew-bread. The verse says (Lev. 24:7): Put pure incense on the array(מַעֲרֶכֶת not מַעֲרָכָה). Abba Shaul says nearby, the rabbis say on top. Abba Shaul says, on the array, near the array. But the rabbis say, on the array, on top of the array. It turns out that Abba Shaul parallels Rebbi Aqiba, and the rabbis Rebbi Yose the Galilean17Since R. Aqiba requires the innards to bu hung outside, i. e. nearby.. Rebbi says, even if he made them two arrangements of fourteen, one considers the upper one as nonexistent and the lower ones are qualified18There are twelve shew-breads. If one made two too many, 7 to a row instead of 6, the additional two can be disregarded and the incense put on top, since we do not read “on” to imply touching.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi and Abba Shaul use in the method of Rebbi Meïr for the table19Mishnah Menaḥot 11:5 The table in the Tabernacle was 2 cubits long. According to R. Jehudah, the cubit was 5 hand-breadths, according to R. Meïr 6 hand-breadths. Six shew-breads in one row took up 10 handbreadths. This leaves 2 hand-breadths space where according to Abba Shaul the incense was placed, and according to Rebbi another bread could be placed.The argument shows that the text of the Leiden ms. is correct, attributing the statement about the shew-bread to Rebbi, against the reading of K which attributes it to R. Yose the Galilean.. Inside-out, the words of Rebbi Tarphon. Rebbi Ismael says, helmeted20Rashi’s explanation, Babli 74a.. It turns out that Rebbi Tarphon parallels Rebbi Aqiba, and Rebbi Ismael Rebbi Yose the Galilean; as we have stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, 21Tosephta Yom Ṭov 2:15. The same text in Beṣah 2:7 (61c line 62); cf. Babli 74a.“what is a helmeted kid-goat? Entirely roasted, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards. If he parboiled part of it, or cooked part of it, this is not a helmeted kid-goat. One serves helmeted kid-goat in the evening of the first day of Tabernacles, and on the last day of Passover22This is the Tosephta’s and the corrector’s text in Beṣah; one Tosephta ms. and K have “on the first day of Passover”. Both texts are acceptable; the roasted kid-goat is forbidden only during the first night. It is remarkable that Pentecost is not mentioned in this context; this may indicate an early form of the usage of German Jews to eat dairy on the first day of Pentecost.. One serves helmeted calf on the first night of Passover but not helmeted kid-goat23Roast meat is acceptable as long as it is not sheep or goat..” 24In addition to the Beṣah text (צ), this paragraph also is in Moˋed qaṭan 3:1 (81d line 27,ק). Babli 53a, Berakhot 19a, Beṣah23a. It was stated: Rebbi Yose said, Theudas of Rome led the people of Rome to eat helmeted kid-goat in the Passover nights, the Sages sent and said to him, if you were not Theudas, would we not put you in the ban? Who was Theudas? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, because he was providing for the rabbis. Are you not causing the public to eat sancta outside the Temple? And anybody causing the public to eat sancta outside the Temple has to be put in the ban. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: This25The story of Theudas. implies that a person is forbidden to say to another, here you have money and use it to buy meat for Pesaḥ for yourself26Babli 53a.. But he may say to him, here you have money and buy me meat to roast. Rebbi Immi asked, if one cleaned out the tannur and roasted it in it27The tannur is a truncated clay cone with an open top and some vents on the bottom, used to generate more heat by creating a draft and keeping the heat together in its walls. The question is whether by hanging the lamb into a tannur one roasts it in fire, as required by the verse, or one roasts it in the tannur, which would be forbidden just as using a metal spit is forbidden (see also Halakhah 2. Babli 95a.)? Rebbi Jeremiah said, his problem is following Rebbi Yose the Galilean, but it is obvious for him following Rebbi Aqiba28Since for R. Yose the Galilean the innards are roasted indirectly, inside the lamb, it is possible that he accept the use of a tannur while for R. Aqiba it should be clear that the roast must be in the open air.. Rebbi Yose said, even following Rebbi Aqiba it is problematic for him. From the coals into the air of the tannur it is roasted in half an hour. From the coals into free air it is roasted in one hour. What is the difference between being roasted half because of the tannur or being roasted entirely because of the tannur? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the tannur does nothing for the coals, it only keeps the heat together29One has to say that since in open air one may increase the heat by using bellows to increase the flames, the bottom vents of the tannur do not make the roasting a funxtion of the tannur. Tosaphot 95a s.v. וברפו.. If the coals are inside the tannur it is roasted in half an hour; if the coals are in free air it is roasted in one hour.
MISHNAH: One roasts the Pesaḥ neither on a spit30A metal spit. nor on a grill31Greek ἐσχάρα, ἡ.. Rebbi Ṣadoq said, it happened that Rabban Gamliel said to his slave Tabi, go and roast us the Pesaḥ on a sacrificial hearth32He holds that anything heated by fire is as good as fire itself. Since the metal gets all its heat from the fire, it is permitted. This Rabban Gamliel must be Gamliel I, preceding R. Jehudah (Note 4) by three generations, showing that Rebbi Jehudah is a reliable historical source.. If it touched the pottery of the tannur, he has to shave off its place33Since that place on the surface of the meat was cooked by the wall of the tannur, not roasted by the air heated by the fire.. If some of its fluid fell on clay and returned, one has to remove this place34The the fluid was heated by the clay walls; falling back onto the meat it penetrated into it and therefore surface shaving is insufficient.. If some of its fluid fell on flour, one has to remove its place35Since the entire lamb has to be consumed roasted in fire, the fluid in the flour may not be consumed; it has to be removed and burned separately.. HALAKHAH: Fire roasted, not spit roasted, nor pot roasted, nor grill roasted, nor metal roasted, nor roasted in any other way36Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 6 (p. 19); cf. Babli 74a, 76a. The corrector’s addition is only found in the Babli.. “A fire burn37Lev. 13:24, in the rules of skin disease., I could think if it stays moist38This is Maimonides’s interpretation (Negaˋim 7:8), based on the reading in Sifra מורדת. The reading here, מורדת could be interpreted, parallel to Arabic استمرّ “to stay unchanged”, that the wound does not heal., the verse says, if the burn was healed39Lev. 13:27.. If the burn was healed, I could think until it becomes scar tissue, the verse says, a fire burn. How is that? It was partially healed; and so it says below, it is a burn scar;40Lev. 13:28. until it forms a membrane in the thickness of a garlic peel.”41Sifra Tazria Pereq 7(3). And here he says so42Why for skin disease does one include anything which minimally corresponds to the description in the verses, but for Pesaḥ one excludes everything but strict adherence to the prescribed manner.? Rebbi Eleazar says, there fire roasted, only fire roasted43Ex. 12:8,9. Babli 95a., the verse repeated it to make it indispensable. But here, if the burn was healed, in any way. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, there “law, teaching” makes it indispensable44For the Pesaḥ “law” is written in Ex.12:43, “teaching” in 12:49. Any commandment labelled “law” or “teaching” must be kept to the letter; Babli Menaḥot 19a. For skin disease, “teaching” is mentioned the first time for the purification rites (Lev.14:43).. But here what do you have? Does Rabban Gamliel not have fire roasted? He does. The Pesaḥ in Egypt was fire roasted; the Pesaḥ for generations is not fire roasted45In the rules for the Pesaḥ to be observed in the future, at the end of Ex. 12 and the beginning of Num. 9, roasting in fire is not mentioned.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rabban Gamliel did not consider consequences of fire as fire; the rabbis consider consequences of fire as fire46It is obvious that the places of “did not consider” and “consider” have to be switched. Since the problematic text also is in K, it is not a scribal error.The Babli, 95a top, explains the problem away.. Rabban Gamliel disagrees with the rabbis and in practice acts on his own opinion47Cf. Berakhot 1:2, Note 111; also Avodah zarah 3:12, Note 252.. If it had said “do not eat from it except fire roasted” and had not said “raw”, I would have said that if he singed it and roasted it would be permitted; therefore he needed to say, “raw”. Or if it had said “do not [eat from it] except fire roasted” and had not said “cooked”, I would have said that if he parboiled it and roasted it, it would be permitted; therefore he needed to say, “cooked”. Or if it had said “do not eat from it except fire roasted” and had not said “thoroughly cooked”, I would have said that if he cooked it and roasted it would be permitted. Therefore it was needed to say “raw”, and it was needed to say [“cooked”, and it was needed to say] “thoroughly cooked.”48Cf. Mekhilta dR. IsmaelBo 6, ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 21; Babli 41a. “Raw” is interpreted as “rare”. C”s addition is confirmed by K. If somebody ate the volume of an olive raw when it still was daylight49On the 14th of Nisan.. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable, and there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable50Babli 41b.. He who says that he is liable, do not eat from it raw53It may not be eaten but because it is indirectly disqualified one has to wait until it would have to be burned even if qualified; cf. Chapter 6, after Note 151., in any case. But he who says that he is not liable, at a time when he is obligated to eat fire-roasted he is under obligation not to eat raw; at a time when he is not obligated to eat fire-roasted he is not obligated not to eat raw. If he broke a bone of it when it still was daylight. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable, and there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable51Babli 84b.. He who says that he is liable, do not break a bone in it52Ex. 12:46. etc., in any case. But he who says that he is not liable, at a time when he is not obligated to eat fire-roasted there is no do not break a bone in it; at a time when he is obligated to eat fire-roasted there is do not break a bone in it. “If it touched the pottery of the tannur,” it is a disability of its body and it has to be burned immediately. “If of its fluid fell on clay,” it is a disability on the instrument and needs [losing its] shape53It may not be eaten but because it is indirectly disqualified one has to wait until it would have to be burned even if qualified; cf. Chapter 6, after Note 151.. “If of its fluid fell on flour, one has to remove its place.” Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: that is, if it is hot54Babli 75b/76a.. But if it is cool, it is forbidden55In contrast to “liable”, “forbidden” means rabbinically forbidden.. Rebbi Eleazar, the Torah did not say, it should not cook others, but it should not be cooked because of others56He disagrees and notes that since there is no biblical prohibition if the hot fluid falls into cold edibles; there is no reason for a rabbinic prohibition either..
MISHNAH: If he basted it with heave oil, if there is a group of priests, they shall eat it. If of Israel57For whom consumption of heave is a deadly sin., if it is raw he shall soak it, if roasted he has to peel off the outside. If he basted it with oil of Second Tithe58Which is property of the farmer, to be eaten in purity at the place of the Temple. Second Tithe may be redeemed outside of Jerusalem, with the sanctity of the produce transferred to the money which has to be spent on pure food in Jerusalem. There is neither redemption nor sale of Second Tithe in Jerusalem., he may not charge the members of the group for it since one may not sell Second Tithe in Jerusalem. HALAKHAH: He only said “basted”. Therefore, if he immersed it, it is forbidden59Either this means that if the lamb absorbed too much of the oil, no Israel will be allowed to eat from it in any way. Or it may be that טִיבְּלוֹ stands for תִּיבְּלוֹ “spiced it”, when it will be forbidden to everybody since the spices cover the taste of the lamb’s meat.. A person cooked a chicken using oil to be burned60“Oil to be burned” is impure heave oil. While it may not be consumed, it may be used by a Cohen as fuel. Use as fuel by an Israel is stealing from the Cohanim. R. Bisna’s order has to be classified as imposing a fíne.. He came and asked Rebbi Bisna, who told him, go and cook it in water for an extended period. So is the Mishnah: “One does not redeem Second Tithe in Jerusalem.61The text of the Mishnah in the Babli.”
MISHNAH: Five kinds62The only impurity permitted in the Temple is the impurity of the dead, which can be removed only by a lengthy procedure and depends on the availability of the ashes of a red cow. All other impurities prevent a person from entering the sacred precinct. If most or all of the people are impure, the public service is conducted by the Cohanim without interruption. Most of the public sacrifices are elevation sacrifices which are totally burned on the altar; for them the question of consumption does not arise. The only time impure non-Cohanim are admitted to the sacred precinct is the 14th of Nisan, for the Pesaḥ. are brought in impurity but are not eaten in impurity: The ˋOmer63The offering of barley flour from the new harvest, Lev. 23:9–14, of which a fistful is burned on the altar and the remainder eaten be the Cohanim. If offered in impurity everything has to be burned., and the Two Breads64The two leavened breads of new wheat harvest presented on Pentecost, Lev. 23:17, intended to be eaten entirely by the Cohanim., and the shew-bread65Lev. 24:9., and public well-being offerings66The two sheep accompanying the two breads, to be eaten by the Cohanim with the breads; Lev. 23:19–20., and the goats of New Moons67The obligatory purification offerings, not only for New Moons but also all holidays, of which only a small part is burned on the altar and most of it eaten by the Cohanim in the Temple precinct; Num.28:15,22,30; 29:5.11,16, 19,22,25,28,31,34, 38.. Pesaḥ which is brought in impurity is eaten since from the start this is what it is for68Since it is written (Ex. 12:4), Everybody according to his eating you should slaughter the lamb.. HALAKHAH: Are not all public sacrifices brought in impurity? He only comes to tell you, even though they are brought in impurity they are not eaten in impurity. Both for him who says that the bread is the main item, as also for him who says that the sheep are the main item, there should be only four69A dispute between R. Aqiba and R. Simeon ben Nanas in Mishnah Menaḥot4:3. The verse states that the lambs of the well-being sacrifice of Pentecost have to be brought on the bread, which R. Aqiba reads as meaning that the Two Breads are indispensable for bringing the lambs, but not the other way around, and R. Simeon ben Nanas holds the opposite opinion.. The Tanna takes note of them and stated them as five. There are Tannaim who state that all of them are inferred from the Pesaḥ. There are Tannaim who state that each of them is inferred from its place. He who said that all of them are inferred from the Pesaḥ, since at its fixed time which is said (here) [about Pesaḥ pushes impurity aside, also at its fixed time which is written about all of them] pushes impurity aside70Since it says (Lev.23:4): These are the times of the Eternal, holy convocations, which you have to proclaim at their fixed times. Cf. Chapter 6, Halakhah 1.. He who said that each of them is inferred from its place, from where does he have it? It comes as it is stated71Babli 77a, Menaḥot73a, Sifra Emor Pereq 17(13).: “Rebbi says, why does the verse say, Moses told the holidays of the Eternal72Lev. 23:44.. Since we learned only about Pesaḥ and the daily sacrifices that they push the Sabbath aside, since it is said about them at its fixed time73Num. 9:2, 28:2., from where the rest of public offerings? The verse says, these you shall offer to the Eternal at your fixed times74Num. 29:39.. For the Omer and what is brought with it, and for the Two Breads and what is brought with them, we have no information. But since it is said, Moses told the holidays of the Eternal to the Children of Israel71Babli 77a, Menaḥot73a, Sifra Emor Pereq 17(13)., this fixed it as obligation that all of them have to be offered in impurity.” Just as they are brought in impurity, should they not be eaten in impurity? It is a decision of the verse: Any meat that touched anything impure may not be eaten75Lev. 7:19.. One would say that the same is valid for the Pesaḥ. This is different since from the start this is what it is for68Since it is written (Ex. 12:4), Everybody according to his eating you should slaughter the lamb..
MISHNAH: If the meat became impure while the fat is unchanged, he does not pour the blood76Since the Pesaḥ is brought only to be eaten, if there is no meat to be eaten, there is no Pesaḥ. If the Pesaḥ was brought but the blood may not be poured, the owner has to bring a second Pesaḥ on the 14th of Iyar.. If the fat became impure while the meat is unchanged, he pours the blood. With sacrifices it is not so, but even if the meat became impure while the fat is unchanged, he pours the blood77Since for sancta burned on the altar only pouring the blood permits the parts to be brought to the altar.. HALAKHAH: This does not follow Rebbi Nathan83Babli 78b., for Rebbi Nathan says, one fulfills one’s obligation by pouring without eating. What is the reason? All of Israel shall slaughter it between the evenings84Ex. 12:6.. “It”, even if there is only one Pesaḥ, all fulfill their obligation with one pouring. Ii is impossible that there be an olive-sized bit for everyone85If the entire people bring only one lamb, there is not one olive-size bite for every one. But eating less than an olive-size bite is not counted, it is equivalent to nobody eating anything.. The following is obvious: If the meat became impure but the parts are unchanged, one pours the blood for [the parts. If the parts became impure and the meat is unchanged, one pours the blood for] the meat86Since for all Temple sacrifices which are partially eaten, neither Heaven’s parts can be brought to the altar nor the meat eaten before the blood was poured on the walls of the altar. If one of the two kinds still exists in pure shape, pouring the blood is a positive act and therefore permitted.. If the meat became impure and the parts were lost, Rebbi Shammai said, is the (existing) [fistful]87Reading of K. not as if the meat became impure and the parts were lost88A flour offering is eaten by the priests after a fistful has been burned on the altar. If after the fistful was in the hand of the Cohen but before it was brought to the altar the flour became impure, or was burned, or lost, R. Eliezer permits to burn the fistful on the altar but R. Joshua forbids (Mishnah Menaḥot3:4). The situation can be compared to that of animal sacrifices when only the blood is left.The text of K has to be followed here; the text of S is a scribal error.? You are saying that he takes the fistful; also here he pours. Rebbi [Mana]87Reading of K. said, explain it following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer says, even if there is no remainder there is a fistful89In practice we follow R. Joshua. Babli 77b.. If it comes in impurity of the officiants90The case mentioned in the Mishnah, that the people were pure but all officiating priests impure.? How is that? If defective persons91It could have stated, “a pure non-priest”. The statement seems to imply that a priest with a bodily defect, who is barred from officiating (Lev. 21:16–24), still is permitted to act as slaughterer in the Temple. Here it is presumed that he is pure. slaughtered and pure92Obviously one has to read: impure. (K is not legible at this point.) The impure (by the impurity of the dead) priest does not come into direct contact with the sacrificial animal. While the blood collected in the vessel which he holds will be impure, it does not make the carcass impure through the stream of blood falling into his vessel. ones poured. Rebbi Hila said, any meat that touched anything impure may not be eaten75Lev. 7:19., but here it was not touched by anybody impure. The meat, anybody pure may eat meat75Lev. 7:19.; there are pure ones available to eat it93The people, as stated in the Mishnah.. Rebbi Zeˋira: Since Pesaḥ made in impurity is eaten, [this one is as if brought in impurity]94Since the people are pure, the argument of R. Hoshaia is superfluous.. And where was this95The source of R. Zeˋira’s argument. said? Rebbi Samuel said, Rebbi Zeˋira asked: If it comes with impurity of the blood96The carcass is pure, the priests are pure, but the blood has become impure. Since only the blood pumped out at the moment of slaughter is acceptable on the altar (Chapter 5, Note 234), it cannot be replaced., what is done? Since one does not permit him to pour, is it as if brought in impurity? Or since if he transgressed and poured, it was made acceptable, is it as if not brought in impurity? Let us hear from the following which was said by [Rebbi Elazar in the name of 87Reading of K. Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices97Ex. 28:38. Explained in more detail in the Babli 16b, Yoma 7a, Zevaḥim 23a., the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers98The diadem will not cover deficiencies in either the owners or the officiants of a sacrifice. Babli Zevaḥim 23b.. He separated between what is offered on behalf of an individual and what is offered on behalf of the public. If offered for an individual, if he has another one99Another animal to offer.The following text in brackets is a corrector’s addition which by the concurrent testimony of the original scribe and K should be deleted., one tells him, bring! If not, [one does not permit him to pour the blood;] if he transgressed and poured, it was made acceptable. The sacrificers for an individual, whether he has or does not have, [it was not made acceptable. If offered for the public, if he has another one, one tells him, bring! If not, one permits him to pour the blood a priori. The sacrificers for the public, whether he has or does not have,] it was made acceptable. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is about one “which comes in impurity from the start.”100Tosephta 6:1. But if it came in purity and then became impure, it cannot be eaten in impurity. “If it was slaughtered in purity but then the public became impure, the blood shall be poured in purity101Obviously if everybody is impure, the blood in the vessel carried by the impure Cohen cannot remain pure. One has to read with the Tosephta: impure. but the meat not eaten in impurity.” (Should one not say the same for pouring?102Text written by the scribe and deleted by the corrector; missing in K, which supports the corrector’s text. There seems to be no reason why the blood could be poured in impurity if the blood is only needed to permit the meat to be consumed when the meat is forbidden for consumption.) [Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is Rebbi Nathan’s, as Rebbi Nathan said, one has fulfilled his duty by pouring without eating103Babli 78b. The pouring of the blood frees the group subscribing to this particular Pesaḥ from having to bring another animal at the Second Pesaḥ.. “If it was slaughtered in purity but then the blood collected became impure104This sentence does not make any sense, although it is confirmed by the editio princeps of the Tosephta (6:1). One has to read with K and the Tosephta mss. either וצבור or והציבור: “If it was slaughtered in purity but then the public became impure, the blood may be poured in impurity but the meat may not be eaten in impurity.”, the blood may be poured in impurity but the meat may not be eaten in impurity.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of the bad impression, lest they say, we have seen a Pesaḥ brought in purity which was [poured] {eaten}105As the following shows, one has to prefer {the text of K} over [the corrector’s text]. in impurity. Then should not the blood be poured in impurity?] Lest they say, we have seen a Pesaḥ brought in purity for which it was poured in impurity. You have to end up saying that it is Rebbi Nathan’s. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a sick or an old person106R. Nathan only declares pouring the blood as sufficient if at the start there was a possibility that the meat would be eaten, “since from the start this is what it is for.” If nobody in the group is able to eat a full olive-sized piece, there can be no Pesaḥ.. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a group whose officiant became impure107If the slaughterer makes the sacrifice impure, there can be no pouring of the blood., that they are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a group where a wart was found108If the animal from the start was unfit to be a sacrifice, there can be no sacrifice., that they are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. “If the skins of the Pesaḥ sacrifices of five groups were intermingled and a wart was found on one of them, all of them109The sacrifices have to be brought to the spot where disqualified sacrifices were burned outside the sacred precinct. have to be brought to the place of burning, but they110The members of the groups. Since the animal with the wart never was a potential sacrifice, the group bringing this particular animal must be considered as not having offered a Pesaḥ at all, and obligated to bring a Second Pesaḥ. But since for each person there only is a 20% probability that his Pesaḥ was the invalid one, and a Second Pesaḥ may not be brought by a person not obligated, nobody is provably obligated and therefore nobody is entitled to bring a Second Pesaḥ. are not liable to bring a Second Pesaḥ.111Babli 88b.” They wanted to say that this is Rebbi Nathan’s. Explain it following everybody, {they made it}87Reading of K. like one which has become impure by a doubt of a grave of the abyss112Since if the blood was poured for the Pesaḥ of a person who assumes that he was pure and between this act and the consumption of the sacrifice he was informed that possibly he was made impure by stepping over a previously unknown grave, he cannot eat, so also here all members of the group whose Pesaḥ possibly was a non-sacrifice cannot eat from it.. Following Rebbi Nathan would he have poured the blood113Even following R. Nathan, the situation is possible only if the wart was discovered after the blood was poured; even R. Nathan does not allow pouring the blood of a non-sacrifice. Babli 88b, opinion of Abbai.? 114Discussion of the statement of the Mishnah that both the Omer and the Two Breads are brought in impurity even though they cannot be consumed by the priest and it is questionable whether a fistful of the Omer can be burned or the breads presented before the altar if that action seems purposeless since it does not serve to permit anything to be eaten. Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ismael in the name of Rebbi Joshua: One verse says, but a firstling of cattle, or a firstling of sheep, or a firstling of goats115Num. 18:17. The verse continues: pour their blood on the altar, and burn their fat, … and their meat shall be yours., etc. And another verse says116Lev. 17:6. the Cohen shall pour the blood on the Eternal’s altar at the door of the Tent of Meeting, and burn the fat for a pleasant smell before the Eternal. Only if there be there either meat be be eaten or parts to be burned117Since Num. 18:17 mentions fat and meat but Lev.17:6 only fat, it follows that the sacrifice is acceptable if the blood is poured either to permit the fat to be burned or the meat to be eaten.. There we have stated118Mishnah Menaḥot3:4. For flour offerings, the fistful to be burned on the altar permits the remainder to be eaten by the Cohanim; the relationship of the fistful taken by the priest for the altar to the remainder to be consumed in the sacred domain is parallel to that of blood to be poured and the parts to be burned or the meat to be eaten.: “If the remainders became impure, the remainders were burned, the remainders were lost. In the rules of Rebbi Eliezer it is qualified, in the rules of Rebbi Joshua it is disqualified. [Not in a vessel of service it is disqualified; Rebbi Ismael119The second part of the Mishnah was added by the corrector; by the testimony of K this should be deleted. “R. Ismael” is a scribal error for “R. Simeon” in the Mishnah and in a quote of the Mishnah in Yoma 2:1, 39c line 32. qualifies. If he burned the fistful in two parts it is qualified.”] In Rebbi Eliezer’s opinion, if there is no blood there is no meat; even though if there is no meat there is blood120For him, pouring the blood is a sacral act independent of the fact that pouring the blood is needed to enable the parts to be burned and the meat to be eaten.. If there is no fistful there are no remainders, even though if there are no remainders there is a fistful. In Rebbi Joshua’s opinion, if there is no blood there is no meat; if there is no meat there is no blood121If nothing is to be enabled, the act of pouring becomes meaningless and therefore has to be avoided. But then R. Joshua cannot permit the Omer to be brought in impurity, since this also would be a meaningless act.. If there is no fistful there are no remainders, if there are no remainders there is no fistful. Rebbi Mana said, explain it114Discussion of the statement of the Mishnah that both the Omer and the Two Breads are brought in impurity even though they cannot be consumed by the priest and it is questionable whether a fistful of the Omer can be burned or the breads presented before the altar if that action seems purposeless since it does not serve to permit anything to be eaten. following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, even though there are no remainders there is a fistful. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, Rebbi Joshua agrees that if he transgressed and poured the blood that it was made acceptable122Since the diadem justifies the act retroactively, the same can be said for the Omer and the entire Mishnah may be R. Joshua’s..
MISHNAH: If the public or a majority of it were impure or the Cohanim were impure and the public pure, it should be brought in impurity78Since the Pesaḥ cannot be slaughtered without Cohanim ready to receive and pour the blood.. If a minority of the public were impure, the pure people make the first and the impure the second79The Second Pesaḥ is made on the 14th of Iyar; Num. 9:10–12.. HALAKHAH: Who is the Tanna of “majority”123Discussion of the statement in the Mishnah, that Pesaḥ is celebrated in impurity if most (50%+1) of the people are impure. The following is an extended version of Halakhah 1:6 in Horaiot, where the problem is what is called “community”.? Rebbi Meïr124He holds that everywhere 50%+1 represent “all”; Babli Horaiot 5b., as it was stated: Either half of the tribes or half of each tribe, if only it be a majority125In order to trigger the ceremony required if all the community acts in error(Lev. 4:14), by following an erroneous ruling either of the High Court at the central sanctuary or of a majority of tribal High Courts.. Rebbi Jehudah says, half of each tribe, but only a majority of entire tribes126The language is somewhat self-contradictory. He also requires that a majority of Israel follow the erroneous ruling but in addition he demands that in a majority of tribes a majority follow the ruling. Babli Horaiot 5b.. One tribe drags all tribes127If one tribe has more members than all the others together, the action of one tribe triggers the obligation of all of them. He does not hold that the law about erroneous rulings of the High Court became moot with the exile of the Ten Tribes. Even later, when the tribe of Jehudah represented the overwhelming majority of Israel, a majority of the people can be considered a majority of all twelve tribes and the majority of Judeans triggers the obligation for all tribes.. Rebbi Meïr says, all tribes are called “the public”128The purification sacrifice for an erroneous ruling by the Court has to be brought by “the public” (Lev. 4:14). The difference of opinions in the Mishnah is traced to different interpretations of this notion. R. Meïr holds that only the entire people of Israel qualify as “public”; RR. Jehudah and Simeon consider each tribe as a separate public. (Babli Horaiot 5b, Pesaḥim 80a, Menaḥot15a).. Rebbi Jehudah says, each single tribe is called “public”. What is between them? Dragging. Rebbi Meïr says, a single tribe does not drag all tribes129Therefore he requires a separate sacrifice for the people of Israel in their entirety., but Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. And Rebbi Jehudah follows Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon said, one tribe drags all tribes130In Horaiot, the opposite is asserted, that in this particular R. Simeon sides with R. Meïr; this also is required by the later statements in this Halakhah. R. Simeon agrees that each single tribe is called “public”., so Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. Even though Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes, he agrees that only if the ruling came from the ashlar hall131Even though each tribe has to bring its own sacrifice, the ruling of a tribal High Court cannot trigger an obligation of any other tribe; only the Court sitting at the central sanctuary has this power.. Rebbi Yose said, the reason of that Tanna: From this place which the Eternal will choose132Deut. 17:10.. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? The entire community of the Children of Israel will be forgiven133Num. 15:26. R. Jehudah argues that the verse promises forgiveness for all of Israel even if only one tribe followed an erroneous ruling; this proves that “one tribe drags all the other tribes.” R. Simeon disagrees since the last clause in the verse states that the entire people have to be in error; only a majority of the tribes triggers the obligation.. What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? Since the entire people acted in error133Num. 15:26. R. Jehudah argues that the verse promises forgiveness for all of Israel even if only one tribe followed an erroneous ruling; this proves that “one tribe drags all the other tribes.” R. Simeon disagrees since the last clause in the verse states that the entire people have to be in error; only a majority of the tribes triggers the obligation.. How does Rebbi Simeon uphold Rebbi Jehudah’s reason, the entire community of the Children of Israel will be forgiven? Except women and children134Not that they will not be forgiven but they are not counted in determining what is a majority.. How does Rebbi Jehudah uphold Rebbi Simeon’s reason, since the entire people acted in error? Except if the beginning was criminal and the conclusion in error. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Benjamin bar Levi: The verse supports him who said that each tribe is called “public”, as it is written137Gen. 35:11, said to Jacob after the birth of 11 sons. Babli Horaiot 5b.: A people and a public of peoples will come from you, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, just as they differ here, so they differ about impurity, as it was stated: If the public was half pure and half impure; pure [people] celebrate the first [Pesaḥ] and impure the second, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the pure ones celebrate for themselves, and the impure ones celebrate for themselves138Both offer their sacrifices in the Temple, in separate groups. For this to happen, the number of pure people in Jerusalem on the 14th of Nisan must be exactly equal to the number of impure ones. Tosephta 6:2 in the name of R. Simeon. This latter attribution seems to be correct since in the paragraph after the next the Amoraim explain that R. Jehudah never considers this case but requires that the number of pure people present be diminished.. They told him, there is no split Passover; either all celebrate in purity or all celebrate in impurity. Who is “they told him”? Rebbi Meïr. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as we have stated there139Mishnah Menaḥot2:2.The Mishnah refers to the two public cereal offerings which have to be baked, viz., the weekly show-bread and the two leavened loaves presented at Pentecost. The 12 show-breads were presented in two rows, here called “orders” (Lev. 24:6).: “If one of the loaves or one of the orders became impure, Rebbi Jehudah said, both have to be brought to be burned140Outside the Temple precinct. for a public offering cannot be split141Cf. Babli 79a.. But the Sages say, the impure in its impurity, and the pure shall be eaten142By the officiating priests..” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: who is “they told him”? The Sages who argue like Rebbi Meïr143In Horaiot: R. Jehudah. In any case, the question should not arise since the objecting Sages, while adopting the point of view of one of the protagonists, are not bound to follow him in all details.. In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion144This name attribution seems to be in error since R. Meïr is quoted in the preceding paragraph that in this case the pure persons celebrate the First Pesaḥ and the impure the Second. One has to read “R. Simeon”., how does one act if they are half and half? As majority or as minority? If you are saying as a majority, the pure persons cannot make the First. If you are saying as a minority, the impure persons cannot make the Second145The formulation is not very clear. If one considers the impure (by the impurity of the dead) as a majority, then the service in the Temple is conducted in impurity, and the pure persons cannot make their sacrifice in purity. If the pure are considered a minority, there is no Second Pesaḥ for the impure.. Rebbi Yose said, he did not say that a majority of pure persons cannot make the First, a majority of impure persons cannot make the Second. He only said, a majority of impure persons is not pushed to the Second Pesaḥ146The problem only is apparent, not real. For the Pesaḥ to be offered in impurity one needs a real majority; a 50–50 split in practice is equal to a majority of the pure.. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, how does one act if they are half and half? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: One defiles one person with a crawling animal147He is impure, but can become free of impurity by immersion in a miqweh, which will make him pure for sancta at sundown. This kind of impurity does not prevent a person to be counted in a group eating the Pesaḥ in purity; accepting the person in the count of the impure is questionable; Babli 80a, 80b.. Samuel said, one sends one person on a far-away trip148Babli 80a. He automatically must bring the Second Pesaḥ.. This follows him who said, a single person clinches for impurity149Babli 80a, Tosephta 6:2.. But for him who said, a single person does not clinch for impurity, one has to send two persons away. Rav’s opinion parallels Rebbi Eleazar, as Rebbi Eleazar said, if the public was touching carcasses, touching crawling animals, one makes it in impurity if there is not water there to immerse in; but if there is water to immerse in, one does not make it in impurity150Since these are impurities which are eliminated by immersion in water.. Rebbi Eleazar said, if it comes while the Temple vessels are impure, comes in impurity; if it comes in impurity of Temple vessels, comes in impurity of hands, comes in impurity of knives151This means that Pesaḥ is brought in impurity if the necessary Temple implements are impure and cannot be purified in time; this could happen only in times of a siege of Jerusalem.. If the public were one third sufferers from gonorrhea152A person who suffers a single episode of gonorrhea is impure for the day and can be purified by immersion in a miqweh. If he has two episodes in at most two consecutive days, he is impure for seven days; after seven days in remission he can be purified by immersion in a miqweh. After three episodes he still needs seven days in remission but then is still prohibited sancta unless on the eighth day he brings a couple of birds as sacrifice to the Temple. A sufferer from gonorrhea who is impure for seven days, on the seventh day is a questionable candidate for Pesaḥ since if he suffers another episode he has to start all over again., one third impure153Impure in impurity of the dead., and one third pure. Rebbi Mana in the name of Ḥizqiah: The sufferers from gonorrhea and the impure form a majority against the pure and one brings in impurity. The sufferers from gonorrhea bring neither the First nor the Second154The First he cannot bring being impure. If he should be healed between the 14th of Nisan and the 14th of Iyar, in this case he cannot bring the Second Pesaḥ since the latter is instituted for people impure in the impurity of the dead or away on a trip (Num.9:9). While healed sufferers from gonorrhea can bring the Second Pesaḥ (Halakhah 9:1), there can be no Second Pesaḥ if the First was celebrated in impurity.. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they made the sufferer from gonorrhea like the apostate for ruling155If it is a question whether most of the people followed an erroneous ruling of the Supreme Court, apostates are not counted as part of the people. Applied to the case here, sufferers from gonorrhea are counted neither with the impure nor with the pure, in opposition to the rule stated earlier.. As one says there, the apostate in matters of ruling neither adds nor subtracts, also here he neither adds nor subtracts. If one of the members of a group became impure153Impure in impurity of the dead. but it is not known who it is, they must make the Second. If one of the public became impure but it is not known who it is, Rebbi Zeˋira said, they shall make the Second. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, they shall be treated as a case of doubt156They cannot bring a Pesaḥ since they cannot risk that one of the group eat sanctum while impure, a deadly sin punishable by extirpation.. It is reasonable following Rebbi Hoshaia, not to subject the individual to punishment of extirpation. 157This paragraph also is in Horaiot 1:2, Notes 92–97. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: For ruling158To determine whether a majority of the people followed an erroneous ruling of the Supreme Court, the entire adult male population of the Land is counted. they went after the population of the Land of Israel; for impurity they went after a majority of those entering the Temple courtyard. Does one estimate according to all groups or does one estimate only for the first group? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they have to estimate by themselves as long as they are outside159Since the impure are not permitted on the Temple Mount unless a majority of the people are impure, it is obvious that the count of a majority cannot be determined by the people entering the Temple precinct but must be made before people enter the Temple Mount. The Babli 94b has only the statement which is rejected here.. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, for appearance160The duty for all your men to be seen before the Eternal three times a year (Deut.15:16). they went from Lavo-Hamat to the Brook of Egypt. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: The reason of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, At that time Solomon made the pilgrimage holiday, and all of Israel with him1611K. 8:65. The verse continues: a big crowd, from Levo-Hamat to the Brook of Egypt (Central Syria to Wadi El-Arish)., etc.
MISHNAH: If blood was poured of a Pesaḥ when later it became known that it was impure, the diadem makes acceptable80The golden diadem worn by the High Priest, whose object is to carry away the iniquities of the sacrifices offered by the Children of Israel; Ex. 28:37.. An impurity of the body81The body of the offerer. the diadem does not make acceptable since they said that for the nazir and the offerer of the Pesaḥ the diadem makes impurity of the blood acceptable but not impurity of the body. If the impurity was caused by impurity of the abyss82Impurity buried in the ground which previously was totally unknown and is only recently uncovered. Since it is impossible to guard against this kind of impurity there can be no penalty for “tent impurity” of this kind., the diadem makes acceptable. HALAKHAH: 162Discussion of the last part of Mishnah 5 (in the independent Mishnah mss. Mishnah 7), that the diadem covers up impurity of the blood for Pesaḥ and the nazir. The Mishnah if it became impure after it fell into the vessel. But if it became impure when still higher it is as if he received water163If the Cohen received pure blood in a sacred vessel, the owner’s act in the sacrifice is completed. If then something happens in the custody of the Cohen, the High Priest’s diadem covers the fault; the blood may be poured on the walls of the altar and the meat consumed. But if the blood becomes impure before being received in the vessel, there is no qualified sacrifice; the carcass has to be burned outside the Temple district.. 164From here on, the text is also found in Nazir 9:2, Notes 58–94. From where about a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss165Both for the person going to celebrate the Pesaḥ and the nazir who finished his term, the impurity caused by a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss is disregarded. In view of the central role of purity in everything connected with the Sanctuary, it is obvious that some biblical justification has to be found for the rule. In the case of Passover, the argument notes that Num. 9:9 could have stated that a person on a far trip was required to celebrate the Second Pesaḥ. The addition for you seems to be superfluous. It is interpreted to mean just as the road is open to the wanderer, so the impurity has to be in the open for the impure person. The same argument is in the Babli 81b.? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis: Or on a far trip for you. What is in the open for you, including everything in the open. This excludes the case of a grave in the abyss which is not open. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi [Yannai]87Reading of K.: If a person dies suddenly on him166Num. 6:9.. Since on him it is in the open, so everything in the open. This eliminates the grave in the abyss which is not in the open167The same argument as before; Babli 81b, Sifry Num. 28.. If the public became impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity168Since a single person impure on the 14th of Nisan is required to celebrate the Second Pesaḥ, his standing is inferior to that of the public who celebrate the First Pesaḥ in impurity., you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss169The case of a grave in the abyss can arise only in a private domain since in a public domain all doubts are automatically resolved in favor of purity (Sotah 1:2, Note 88). For a private person, a case of doubt in matters of a grave in the abyss in a private domain is treated as if it were occurring in the public domain., for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity170In that they may bring the Pesaḥ in impurity., it only is logical that you should clarify it to its advantage in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public171This is how one intends to disprove the argument de minore ad majus.. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him172The impurity of a grave in the abyss never forces a person to the Second Pesaḥ; so if he was told before pouring it is as if he became otherwise impure after pouring, where the sacrificial act was completed and while he cannot eat his part of the Pesaḥ he has discharged all his obligations. before pouring he should be treated as if he became impure after pouring, that he should not be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, you restrict him in public, so that if it became known to him after pouring he should be treated as if he became impure before pouring, that he should not be able to eat the meat173If the public are impure, the Pesaḥ is slaughtered and eaten in impurity. But if it was slaughtered as pure and then it became impure or became known to be impure, it cannot be eaten.. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him before pouring he is treated as impure after pouring, that he should not have to bring a sacrifice of impurity174Mishnah Nazir 9:2. Corrector’s addition supported by K., you treat as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after pouring he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure; he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case175But if the nazir became aware of the second impurity before he offered his sacrifice of impurity, he has to bring only one sacrifice.. [As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case176Nazir Halakhah 6:8, Note 198..] If somebody is officiating for the Pesaḥ, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad majus. Since for the owner [of the Pesaḥ] whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged177While a person unable to eat the volume of an olive of the Pesaḥ may not subscribe to it, an old or sick priest is able to serve in the Temple as long as his infirmity is not of the kind listed in Lev, 21:18–20., you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. Since for the owner you clarify to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; what can you say for the officiating where you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year178An impure person, including a nazir not impure by the impurity of the dead, can send his sacrifice other than the Pesaḥ to the Temple by a pure agent, but an impure priest cannot officiate, irrespective of the nature of his impurity.. Since you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? For you165Both for the person going to celebrate the Pesaḥ and the nazir who finished his term, the impurity caused by a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss is disregarded. In view of the central role of purity in everything connected with the Sanctuary, it is obvious that some biblical justification has to be found for the rule. In the case of Passover, the argument notes that Num. 9:9 could have stated that a person on a far trip was required to celebrate the Second Pesaḥ. The addition for you seems to be superfluous. It is interpreted to mean just as the road is open to the wanderer, so the impurity has to be in the open for the impure person. The same argument is in the Babli 81b., whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought to say, on him166Num. 6:9., not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other179Babli 80b.. “What is a grave of the abyss? A corpse buried in stubble, straw, dust, or pebbles180Tosephta Zavim 2:9; quoted in the Babli, 81b, and Nazir 63b, without further discussion. As explained in the next paragraph, “grave of the abyss” is that of a person killed by an accident not witnessed by anybody. If one finds a corpse buried under a heap of straw, one has to assume that he suffocated when the straw fell on him. A corpse buried in dust or pebbles probably was the victim of an accident.. But if it was buried in water, a dark spot, or rock crevices, it does not create a grave of the abyss181In this case, the person also probably was the victim of an accident. But since it could have been seen by a passer-by, the competent authorities should have been alerted; this is not an unknown body..” The principle: Any place from where it can be removed creates a grave of the abyss; any place from where it cannot be removed does not create a grave of the abyss182Obviously, the clauses in this sentence are switched (here and in Nazir). As explained in the preceding notes, one must read: “Any place from where it cannot be removed creates a grave of the abyss; any place from where it can be removed does not create a grave of the abyss.” A corpse whose existence is unknown cannot be removed.. Can stubbles and straw not be removed? Does the Mishnah not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, straw said to be disregarded is disregarded183The remainder of this paragraph also is in Eruvin 7, Notes 58–62.This refers to the rules of the tent-impurity caused by a corpse. A “tent” is any covered space in which there is at least one hand-breadth of space between the corpse and the roof. If the space is enclosed, the impurity is restricted to the “tent”; anything above the ceiling and below the floor of the “tent” is pure. But if the entire space between floor and ceiling is filled with matter, there is no tent and the impurity extends indefinitely above and below the tent space. This is known as “squeezed impurity” (Mishnah Ahilut 15:1,5,6). It is implied in Tosephta Ahilut15:5 that R. Yose restricts “squeezed impurity” to material permanently deposited; but a storage of straw which is to be removed in the future is not counted as filler.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: It is everybody’s opinion. What Rebbi Yose said, if he mixed it with dust184Not really “mixed with”, but “treated like,” as formulated in the Tosephta.. “There is straw which is treated like dust and dust which is treated like straw. Straw not to be removed is like dust; dust to be removed is like straw.185Statement of R. Yose in Tosephta Ahilut 15:5; quoted in Eruvin 79a. “Straw” stands here for “material to be removed,” “dust” for “permanent filling.”” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said: If he covered it with mats it is disregarded. Come and see: If he filled it with mats it is not disregarded186Since the filling can easily be removed, the ditch still separates., if he covered it with mats it is disregarded187If a ditch is filled with any material, even straw, but this is covered with mats to create a floor from one side to the other, the courtyards become one and require one eruv. Šabbat 100a.. If he filled it with branches of date palms it is problematic188No ruling is available in this case.. Rebbi Zeriqan, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even thin sheets189This translation is tentative; it follows the Pesaḥim text, reading רַק. Neither the text in Eruvin רוֹק “spittle” nor the one in K and Nazir רֵיק “emptiness” are appropriate.. “What is a grave of the abyss? Any which nobody remembers.” Should we not be cautious and say, maybe one at the end of the world knows190Tosephta Zavim 2:9, Babli 81b.? And is the permanence of the living not like living191He might know of the grave even if we do not.? Explain that he was found compressed192Cf. Giṭtin 3:3, Notes 81,87. If any person left from here, when that person left he was alive and we have to apply the legal principle of permanence of the status quo and consider him permanently alive, disregarding the notion of “unknown grave”.. It was stated: “Only a corpse creates a grave of the abyss.”193Which clearly shows that he was not buried by humans but was the victim of an accident. Since the accident was not noticed when it occurred, there is nobody “at the end of the world” who would know of it.Tosephta Zavim 2:9, Babli 80b. Therefore, not a carcass194Obviously, only a human corpse has a grave that presents problems of impurity. A buried animal carcass does not produce impurity. Carcasses cause impurity only when touched or carried. The meaning of this sentence can be clarified: Only for the impurity of the dead do we find a rule that sometimes allows one to disregard biblical impurity.<sub>.</sub> An argument de minore ad maius. Since a corpse, which does not cause impurity of couch and seat, creates a grave of the abyss, should a carcasss which causes impurity of couch and seat not create a grave of the abyss? Why was it said that only a corpse creates a grave of the abyss? To exclude couch and seat195This argument does not make any sense. There are several distinct ways to emend the passage to create sense; therefore, no textual emendation is proposed but the meaning can easily be clarified.A person who is the source of his own impurity (a male or female sufferer from genital discharges) causes original impurity to any couch or personal seat he is using (Lev. 15:4–6,21–22,26). But any impurity induced on an inanimate object by a corpse is only derivative. The argument shows that the rules of the impurity of the dead and impurity produced by a living human body are not comparable: Each kind of impurity has its own severities and leniencies not found in the other.Here ends the parallel to Nazir.. There, we have stated196Mishnah Zevaḥim 2:1.: “All sacrifices whose blood was collected by a non-Cohen, a deep mourner197A person obligated to bury a close relative, such as defined in Lev. 21:2–3, who from the moment of the death to the burial is barred from all sacral acts; inferred from Deut. 26:14., one immersed on this day198Who is no longer impure but barred from sacral acts until sundown; Lev. 22:7., missing garments199A Cohen serving while not wearing all priestly garments commits a deadly sin; Ex.28:43., missing atonement200A person healed from skin disease or gonorrhea who needs not only immersion in water and waiting for sundown but is excluded from sacral rites until be bring a purifying sacrifice, Lev. 14:1–32 for skin disease, 15:14–15 for the sufferer from gonorrhea., with unwashed hands or feet201Ex. 30:19–20., uncircumcised202As the Babli points out, Zevaḥim 22b, there is no pentateuchal verse forbidding service to an uncircumcised priest, but there is one in Ezechiel, 44:9, which forbids entry to the Temple domain to any uncircumcised person, including a hemophiliac who may not be circumcised., impure203Lev. 22:2–3., sitting204Since the verses never permit any action in sitting, and the priests are required to be barefoot, no service is possible unless the priest is standing with his feet in direct contact with the floor of the Temple court, the Temple interior, or the altar., standing on utensils, on [an animal, on] another person205Meaning that another priest puts his hands under the feet of the officiating priest. Then he is not in contact with the floor., disqualified it.” The Southerners say, we hold this for those impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease206They read the expression “impurity of the body” used in the Mishnah to describe what the diadem does not make acceptable as impurity caused by the person’s body (i. e., in addition to skin disease and gonorrhea also sexual activity, Lev. 15:15,18.), but impurity of the dead does not desecrate since it was permitted in case of the impurity of the many for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to the Southerners: Since for the owner, where you clarified to his advantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year207They may send their sacrifices through an agent if they are disabled by impurity., you clarified to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ208He must celebrate the Second Pesaḥ., for the officiant, where you clarified to his disadvantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year209He may never serve being impure., it is only logical that you should clarify to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ. In addition to what Rebbi stated, “the diadem makes impurity of the blood acceptable but not impurity of the body.” If you want to say that this refers to the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, you cannot, since we have stated, “if the impurity was caused by impurity of the abyss82Impurity buried in the ground which previously was totally unknown and is only recently uncovered. Since it is impossible to guard against this kind of impurity there can be no penalty for “tent impurity” of this kind., the diadem makes acceptable.210Since impurity of the abyss only is caused by a corpse, it is not caused by the person’s body. If it is stated that the diadem makes acceptable in this case, it follows that the diadem is inactive in all cases of known impurity caused by external influences.” What are the Southerners doing with this? They explain if for the owner211The diadem only covers abyss impurity of the owner, but not proven impurity of the dead; one may still read “impurity of the body” as referring to impurity produced by the body.. But did we not state “a nazir”212The only impurity forbidden for the nazir is the impurity of the dead, so in Mishnah 5 the reference must be to this kind of impurity.? They explain it for the officiant. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, there is no difference; it is equal for owner or officiant. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is an argument de minore ad maius that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged177While a person unable to eat the volume of an olive of the Pesaḥ may not subscribe to it, an old or sick priest is able to serve in the Temple as long as his infirmity is not of the kind listed in Lev, 21:18–20., what can you say about the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, this is an argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are indispensable for him213Since Ex. 12:48 notes that no one uncircumcised may eat it [the Pesaḥ], in v. 44, a man’s slave, bought with money, if you circumcise him he may eat it, “he” is read to refer to the owner; the owner may not eat Pesaḥ if there are uncircumcised males in his familia. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 15, dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 35, what can you say about the officiating, for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are not indispensable214Cf. Note 202. An uncircumcised Cohen may not serve; nothing is said about his dependents.. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid. Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If an individual could learn from the public for the Pesaḥ, the officiant during the rest of the year might infer from the public for the Pesaḥ215But since the individual must make a Second Pesaḥ which the public never makes, the original argument of R. Simeon ben Laqish is incorrect.. Rebbi Immi asked: how do you explain this “impure”? Impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease? But did we not state, “missing atonement”? If he desecrates when he had been immersed, not so much more before he was immersed216The statement of Mishnah Zevaḥim 2:1 seems redundant.! How do you explain “immersed on this day”? If he immersed himself on that day because of a corpse. Come and see: the one impure from a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a corpse? But he must be immersed on that day because of a crawling animal147He is impure, but can become free of impurity by immersion in a miqweh, which will make him pure for sancta at sundown. This kind of impurity does not prevent a person to be counted in a group eating the Pesaḥ in purity; accepting the person in the count of the impure is questionable; Babli 80a, 80b.. Come and see: the immersed on that day because of a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a crawling animal217And from impurity of a corpse one has to wait for seven days while of a dead crawling animal one may immerse himself immediately.? Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, people having touched sufferers from gonorrhea218Who are impure until sundown after immediate immersion in water, Lev. 15:4,7.. The rabbis of Caesarea explain everything from a sufferer from gonorrhea152A person who suffers a single episode of gonorrhea is impure for the day and can be purified by immersion in a miqweh. If he has two episodes in at most two consecutive days, he is impure for seven days; after seven days in remission he can be purified by immersion in a miqweh. After three episodes he still needs seven days in remission but then is still prohibited sancta unless on the eighth day he brings a couple of birds as sacrifice to the Temple. A sufferer from gonorrhea who is impure for seven days, on the seventh day is a questionable candidate for Pesaḥ since if he suffers another episode he has to start all over again.. “One immersed on this day198Who is no longer impure but barred from sacral acts until sundown; Lev. 22:7.,” if he had one episode. “Impure” (in the impurity of the dead)218*The text in parentheses has to be deleted even though it is confirmed by K. if he had two episodes. “Missing atonement200A person healed from skin disease or gonorrhea who needs not only immersion in water and waiting for sundown but is excluded from sacral rites until be bring a purifying sacrifice, Lev. 14:1–32 for skin disease, 15:14–15 for the sufferer from gonorrhea.,” if he had three episodes. Are people having touched a sufferer from gonorrhea like a sufferer from gonorrhea in the opinion of the Southerners? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices97Ex. 28:38. Explained in more detail in the Babli 16b, Yoma 7a, Zevaḥim 23a., the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers98The diadem will not cover deficiencies in either the owners or the officiants of a sacrifice. Babli Zevaḥim 23b.. What is iniquity of the sacrifices? The blood of a sufferer from gonorrhea? No, what was touched by a sufferer from gonorrhea219Since gonorrhea causes impurity only in humans, the impurity cannot be the victim’s.. Similarly, the iniquity of the sacrificers, who touched a sufferer from gonorrhea. This implies that if the public were impure because they had touched sufferers from gonorrhea or women suffering from flux, they cannot make it220The only cause for Pesaḥ in impurity is the impurity of the dead. in impurity.
MISHNAH: If it became impure whole or most of it, one burns it before the citadel on altar wood. If a minor part became impure or leftovers220aWhat was not eaten by midnight (Mishnah 10:) one burns in the courtyards or on their roofs on their own wood. The misers burn it before the citadel in order to profit from altar wood. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: To publicize him, to make it known that he spoiled it221Babli 81b.. If he said, I am going to burn it before the citadel on my own wood, one does not listen to him; it is not necessary to note that if he says, I will burn it on my roof on my own wood that one does not listen to him222Here it refers to the Mishnah here; but the statement in Tosephta 3:13 that before the citadel one may not use private wood refers to Mishnah 3:8 (Note 150), and emphasizes that before the citadel one never uses any but altar wood.. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Hila: To inform the next in line that he is a miser. You should know that nowhere else is he called miser, but here you are calling him miser223This now refers to the end of the Mishnah. In Mishnah 3:8, where people burn disqualified private sacral meat before the citadel on altar wood, they are not called miser.. They made it easy for the guest224Babli 82a. Most people in Jerusalem at holiday time are guests, without their own supply of fire wood.. 225Yoma 2b, Zevaḥim 104b. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a tower was standing on the Temple Mount which was called “citadel”. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the entire Temple Mount was called citadel, to do everything and to build the citadel which I prepared2261Chr. 28:19..
MISHNAH: Pesaḥ which left227The walls of Jerusalem. or which became impure has to be burned immediately228On the 14th of Nisan.. If the owners became impure or died it shall lose its shape229Be spoiled and become unusable as sacral meat. and be brought to the place of burning229aThe place where disqualified sacrifices and those to be burned outside the sacred domain have to be disposed of.. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, this one also has to be burned immediately since it has no eaters. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated230Babli 34b, 73b, 82b; Tosephta 6:6. As K shows, the corrector’s additions are superfluous and should be deleted.: “A disqualification of the body [is piggul and] is immediately burned. [If the owners became impure or died it is] a disqualification of enabler and needs to lose its shape. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “Pesaḥ which left or which became impure is a disqualification of the body and has to be burned immediately. If the owner became impure or died it is a disqualification of the enabler and it shall lose its shape.” Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Rebbi Nehemiah and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa both said the same231That under certain circumstances a disqualified sacrifice must be burned immediately, without waiting that it lose its shape, even if the disqualification is not in the victim’s body., as it was stated232Sifra Šeminy Pereq 2(8–10).: “it was burned because of deep mourning233This is R. Nehemiah’s statement. The discussion refers to Lev. 10:16–17. Since tradition fixes the inauguration of Tabernacle and Priesthood on a First of Nisan (Seder Olam Chapter 7, in the author’s edition p. 82; cf. Rashi ad 9:1), there were three goats as purification offering: the one required for every New Moon (Num. 28:15), the people’s initiation sacrifice (Lev. 10:3), and the one offered by the chief of the tribe of Judah (Num. 7:16). Only the first of these was presented pursuant a permanent law; the other two were one time affairs from which no conclusions could be drawn for generally valid principles. R. Nehemiah holds that since a deep mourner on the day of burial is biblically excluded from all sacral rites, the order given in 18:12–15 to Aaron and his sons to eat sancta even though Aaron’s sons Nadav and Avihu had been buried on that day necessarily was restricted to the one time offerings of that day, to the exclusion of offerings presented following a permanent prescription. But the mourning of the priests is a condition of the enablers, not of the victim, and nevertheless Moses agreed that the purification offering correctly had been burned and not eaten.? Was it not burned only because of impurity? But it was not burned because of impurity, since if it had been burned because of mourning, all three of them234Since in Moses’s order to eat the sancta purification offerings are not mentioned. should have been burned. Another opinion, was not Phineas with them235Phineas was born in Egypt (Ex. 6:25). As a nephew of Nadav and Avihu he had no biblical obligation to mourn and could legally have eaten all sacrifices. Since there was one eater, R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa would agree that the sacrifice cannot be burned.? Another opinion, would it not have been permitted to be eaten in the evening236Since the talmudic rule is that only the day of burial is biblically forbidden. While his sons would have to observe seven days of mourning, the High Priest is forbidden mourning where it is not prescribed; in the following night he could have joined Phineas. Purification offerings are eaten by the priests during the day of offering and the following night.?” In the opinion of Rebbi Nehemiah it should be burned but be counted237There is no doubt that the obligation for which the sacrifice was brought had been fulfilled.. Rebbi Nehemiah is of the opinion that all three of them were burned. Should not Phineas have eaten? He was not yet appointed {High} Priest238In the initiation rites (Lev. Chapter 8), only Aaron and his sons are mentioned, not his grandson Phineas. This is the basis of the opinion that Phineas was not originally included in the priesthood; priesthood was conferred on him only after the incident with Zimry (Num. 25:13); Babli Zevaḥim 101b.. Should not Aaron have eaten in the evening? Rebbi Nehemiah is of the opinion that deeo mourning in the night is from the Torah. Rebbi Jeremiah said, also Rebbi Yose the Galilean is with them239In the same Chapter of Sifra (Halakhah 5), he deduces from Lev. 10:18 that any purification sacrifice whose blood was brought into the sanctuary is disqualified and must be burned immediately. This proves that he agrees with R. Nehemiah that the verses have to be interpreted referring to the ordinary Temple service, and that disqualification of the enabler may trigger an obligation of immediate burning.. 240This paragraph has no direct connection with the preceding; the connection being that R. Yose the Galilean interprets Lev.10:18. And we have stated there:241Mishnah Zevaḥim 8:12. “A purification sacrifice whose blood was received in two cups, of which one was brought outside242Since purification sacrifice has to be eaten by the priests in the Temple courtyard (Lev. 6:19), if any part leaves the sacred domain it becomes disqualified. Since pouring the blood on the walls of the altar enables the meat to be eaten, if blood is brought outside before it was poured the sacrifice is disqualified.; the one inside is qualified. If one of them was brought to the interior243As noted later, this is required/permitted only in extraordinary cases. The Mishnah here refers to ordinary sacrifices. Since then the blood is not in the courtyard, it is outside its prescribed domain and disqualified., Rebbi Yose the Galilean declares qualified but the Sages declare disqualified. [Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, since in a case where intent disqualifies outside244Slaughtering a victim with the intent of pouring the blood outside the sacred precinct disqualifies the sacrifice; Mishnah Zevaḥim 2:2.The text in brackets was added by a corrector from a different source; it is neither in the scribe’s text nor in K. the remainder was not made equal to what was brought outside, in a case where intent does not disqualify in the interior245The intent to pour the blood in the Temple itself does not disqualify; Mishnah Zevaḥim 3:6. is it not logical that we not make the remainder to what was brought inside? If it was brought into the interior to atone, even if it did not atone it is disqualified, the words of Rebbi Eliezer246The fact that the blood was inside when it should not have been makes it “outside its place” and disqualifies.. Rebbi Simeon says, only if it atones247Only if something was done against the rules with the blood; the interior of the Temple still is sacred domain.. Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was brought into the interior in error, it remains qualified. Of all disqualified blood which one gave on the altar, the diadem only makes the impure acceptable; for the diadem makes the impure acceptable but not what was brought outside.”] Rebbi Eleazar said, you have to know that for Rebbi Yose the Galilean it is disqualification of the enabler since the other part is outside248In the case that one cup was brought to the interior. and it is qualified. You have to know that for the rabbis it is disqualification of the body since it is within its enclosure249Since one cup remained outside, it could be poured on the walls of the altar even if the cup inside became unusable. and it is disqualified. The rabbis explain, since nothing of the blood was brought to the interior, you shall certainly eat it250Lev. 10:18.. Therefore if some of the blood had been brought to the interior, you251Aaron’s sons, addressed by Moses. [would have done well] in burning it. Rebbi Yose the Galilean explains, since not all of the blood was brought to the interior, [you shall certainly eat it. Therefore if all of the blood had been brought inside,] you would have done well in burning it. What is the rabbis’ reason? Any purification offering of whose blood was brought; even part of the blood252Lev. 6:33. As usual, a prefixed mem is interpreted to mean “some, not all”.. What is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? Behold, its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary250,Lev. 10:18.253If Lev. 10:18 is read to refer to rules of the purification sacrifices applicable at all times then it seems to contradict Lev. 6:33 since the prefixed mem is missing.. [This fits with] what was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, the entire matter only speaks of bulls to be burned and goats to be burned254The purification offering of the High Priest (Lev. 4:1–12), of the people (Lev.4:13–21), and of the day of Atonement (Lev.1627). Babli 83a top, Zevaḥim 82a., to prohibit eating them and to teach that if they are disqualified they are burned inside the citadel255Whereas all the other disqualified sacrifices have to be burned outside like the impure Pesaḥ.. They asked him, from where that a purification sacrifice becomes disqualified if some of its blood is brought inside? Not from this verse, behold, its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary? There it does not say of whose blood but all of its blood256Since this is the formulation in the actual case decided by Moses, it is the operative version.. An answer to Rebbi Aqiba who was saying, of whose blood, not all of its blood257Whose opinion is that of the “Sages” opposing R. Yose the Galilean..
MISHNAH: Pesaḥ which left227The walls of Jerusalem. or which became impure has to be burned immediately228On the 14th of Nisan.. If the owners became impure or died it shall lose its shape229Be spoiled and become unusable as sacral meat. and be brought to the place of burning229aThe place where disqualified sacrifices and those to be burned outside the sacred domain have to be disposed of.. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, this one also has to be burned immediately since it has no eaters. HALAKHAH: A bone with no meat on it, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one is forbidden to break it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one is permitted to break it258While it is a biblical commandment not to break a bone of the Pesaḥ (Ex. 12:46), it is generally accepted that bone material is inert like wood; cf. Orlah 1:4, Note 163. Therefore the prohibition can only refer to a bone with some meat on it or to the marrow inside the bone. The question may be asked only for a bone whose marrow does not add up to the volume of an olive, since otherwise the marrow, being edible, becomes leftover and has to be burned with the leftover meat.. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Did we not state, “the bones, the sinews, and leftovers are to be burned on the Sixteenth258aText of the Mishnah in the independent Mishnah mss. and the Babli.”? Could he not chop? Because of the marrow in a marrow-bone259One treats all bones as marrow bones to avoid problems in borderline cases. A different approach in Babli 84b referring to Mishnah 8.. Could one not strip off all meat from the bone and profit from the bone? They wanted to say that one may not strip off from the disqualified. Rebbi Eleazar said, and even if you say that one may strip, he explains it following Rebbi Jacob, since Rebbi Jacob said, the prohibition of breaking a bone applies if at the start it was qualified and then became impure260Babli 84b. The prohibition of breaking a bone applies even to the leftovers with or without marrow; cf. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo15 (pp. 53–54).. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: why did they say, “the bones, the sinews, and leftovers are to be burned on the Sixteenth”? Because he who burns causes breaking261It is forbidden when roasting the lamb on the 14th to cut the meat from the bones and expose the bones to direct fire to cause them to break and give access to the bone marrow.. Samuel said, one may subscribe to the brain in the head but one may not subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone262Babli 84b. One may subscribe to the brain in the head because one can take it out through the ear. But one may not subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone since one could only extricate it by breaking. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one may subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one may not subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone, but if he subscribed, he subscribed263He disagrees with the previous statement that burning is like breaking. Since the Pesaḥ may be eaten only by the subscribers to it, if somebody subscribed to the marrow he may open the bone by holding it into the fire; even though this is frowned upon it is not forbidden.. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, could he not burn and subscribe? Because of the loss of sancta264Since some of the edible marrow also will be burned and become inedible.. In Samuel’s opinion, could he not burn and subscribe? Samuel thinks like Rebbi Jacob, as Rebbi Jacob said, the prohibition of breaking a bone applies if at the start it was qualified and then became impure. 265This paragraph is copied from Šabbat 2, Notes 50–51; it starts with a question the reason of which is found only there. Here it is used to explain why the Mishnah requires the leftovers to be burned on the Sixteenth when from the verse one would have expected that it would be the 15th. What did you see that you said so? You shall not leave any leftovers until the morning; what is left over from it until morning you shall burn in fire266Ex. 12:9.. After two mornings, one the morning of the (14th) and the other the morning of the (15th)267The correct version is in K and Šabbat,15th and 16th.. And it is written268Lev.7:17., what is left of the well-being sacrifice should be burned on the third day. May one start fire on a pyre of leavened matter269May one dispose of one’s leavened matter by making a pyre on the 14th and have it burn into the 15th which is a holiday.? For him who infers from leftovers it is prohibited; for him who does not infer from leftovers it is permitted270This is the disagreement between R. Jehudah and the rabbis explained in Halakhah 2:1, Notes 66 ff. As stated in the Mishnah, leftover sacra may not be burned on a holiday.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, they came to it 271This is from Šabbat 2, Notes 58–59. following the argument of Rebbi Ismael. (etc.) [Just as Rebbi Ismael said, a baby whose time has passed can be circumcised either during the day or during the night, so when its time has passed the sanctum may be burned either during the day or during the night.]
MISHNAH: Anything eaten of a large bull shall be eaten of the soft lamb272Since it is forbidden to break a bone of the Pesaḥ (Ex. 12:46), any part of the animal which cannot be eaten of an adult bull even after extended cooking is considered bone also of a lamb whose sinews are still soft. Since these may not be broken they cannot be eaten. The borderline cases are cartilage and shoulder tendons which become edible in adult cattle by extended cooking. These are considered meat and the number of subscribers to one Pesaḥ may be increased accordingly., including the ends of the shoulder bone and cartilage. He who breaks a bone of a pure Pesaḥ is whipped forty [lashes]; but he who leaves over of a pure273Even though it is prohibited to have edible leftovers of the Pesaḥ(Ex. 12:10), leaving leftovers is a transgression by inaction which cannot be prosecuted. or who breaks of an impure is not whipped forty [lashes]. HALAKHAH: 274This paragraph also is in Sanhedrin 8:2, Note 23–29. What is the rule about soft sinews? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted; the argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inverted. As they disagreed about what is stated there275Mishnah Ḥulin 9:2. Mishnah 9:1 states that in general the hide of an animal is subject to the rules of impurity of food, but not to those of impurity of carcasses. Then Mishnah 2 lists some animals whose hides follow the rules of flesh in all respects; general consensus exists only for humans and domesticated pigs. R. Joḥanan holds that for eating pigskin one never can be prosecuted, while R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that eating pigskin, not yet transformed into leather, is as punishable as eating pork.: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh: Human skin, and the hides of domesticated pigs, Rebbi Yose says also of wild pigs. 276The text in brackets, the remainder of the Mishnah, was added by the corrector; it is neither in K nor in Sanhedrin and is not relevant for the discussion here.[The soft skin of camel’s hump, the soft skin of a calf’s head, the skin near the hooves, the skin of genitals, the skin of an embryo, the skin under the fat tail, and the skin of anaqa, koah, leta’ah, and homet lizards.277The lizards in the list of “crawling animals”, Lev. 11:29–30, whose carcasses are severely impure. Rebbi Jehudah says, a lizard is like a mole. In all cases, if one tanned them, or started to use them as working material, they are pure, except for human skin. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri says, the “eight crawling animals” have hides278None of the animals mentioned in Lev.11:29–30 fall under the exceptions of Mishnah 9:2..”] Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but for flogging it is hide. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah, for prohibition, for flogging, for impurity. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden279Animal hide will become inedible; soft sinews and cartilage will remain edible after cooking., not so much more? Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: they shall eat the meat in that night280Ex. 12:8., not sinews. The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Issy281Since Issy also is a nickname for Josef, probably one should read “Yasa”. K reads “Yasi” R. Ḥiyya here is R. Ḥiyya bar Abba., one switches and one follows as it was stated282The disagreement of R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish.. The one who switches does not have these problems283If the names are switched in the statement, the arguments of each one of the parties are consistent..And how much does he have to break284How much of the bone has to be broken to constitute a prosecutable offense. In the following, “liable” means liable to possible criminal prosecution and punishment by whipping.? Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: until the hand be grated285If passing with the back of the hand over the bone, the skin is grated.. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Abba both in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. One said, until the hand be grated; but the other said, even a finger nail286One notices a dent in the surface of the bone if moving a finger nail along its surface.. He who said the hand, so much more the finger nail. He who said the finger nail, but not the hand.Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, one never is liable unless one break a bone on which there is meat in the size of an olive, at one place of meat287Babli 84b.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Samuel bar Abba asked, then he never should be liable unless he take a stone and smash it into little pieces288Since if one starts to break a bone with meat on it, the meat will be loosened in the process and then there no longer will be an olive sized piece firmly attached to the bone unless the breaking is done with one stroke or by smashing with a stone.. A bone, to make him liable for each single bone289The singular used in Ex. 12:46 implies that breaking multiple bones is counted as multiple offenses.. This is, with one warning290Since there can be no criminal prosecution unless the perpetrator was duly warned that his intended behavior was criminal, no prosecution can exceed the scope of the warning (cf. Introduction to Tractate Sanhedrin, on Chapter Five). Unless the warning was extended to cover both breaking multiple bones and multiple breaking of one bone, only one prosecution is possible.. But with two warnings, then he will be twice liable even for a single bone which he broke repeatedly. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one is permitted to break a bone without meat. He said this only that he cannot be whipped, but as a prohibition, it is prohibited291Breaking any bone of the Pesaḥ always is sinful, even if not prosecutable.. “But he who leaves over of a pure {Pesaḥ} or who breaks of an impure is not whipped forty {ashes}.” Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Mishnah if it came in impurity from the start. But if it came in purity292If the blood was poured in purity. and became impure it is as if coming in purity and one is whipped for its breaking293This is in line with his earlier statement, Note 260. In the Babli 84a–b this is a matter of disagreement of Tannaim.. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Did we not state, “the bones, the sinews, and leftovers are to be burned on the Sixteenth”? Could he not chop? Because of the marrow259One treats all bones as marrow bones to avoid problems in borderline cases. A different approach in Babli 84b referring to Mishnah 8.. Could one not strip off all meat from the bone and cut? Not to break under the flesh299Except for the last sentence this is copied from earlier, Halakhah 9. Here it is R. Joḥanan ’s objection to R. Simeon ben Laqish who declares breaking a bone without flesh not prosecutable. Then why does the Mishnah require that one take out the entire bone after stripping off the meat; could one not strip off the meat and then break the bone, without cutting the sinews at the next joint? The answer is that in theory one could do this but in practice one could never be sure whether all meat was safely stripped off; for R. Simeon ben Laqish Mishnah 9 is rabbinical prescription. (Babli 85a, opinion of Abbai.).
MISHNAH: A limb which partially was taken out294If part of a limb was taken out of Jerusalem and therefore became impure, or in the night of the 15th of Nisan was taken out of the house where it was eaten and therefore became forbidden as food (Ex.12:46). one cuts until he reaches the bone, and pares until he reaches the joint, where he cuts295At the joint he cuts the sinews, not the bone, to remove the bone. The meat pared from the bone remains edible.; but for sacrifices296All other sacrifices. he cuts with a dagger since there breaking bones is not forbidden..From the wing and inside it is like inside; from the wing and outside it is like outside297The wing is the place of the hinges and the door bay.. Windows and the thickness of the wall are like inside298Windows are slits in the wall without glass. Since there was nothing to close off parts of the wall from the interior, the entire thickness of the wall is counted as interior.. HALAKHAH: 300This paragraph is copied in the last Halakhah of Chapter 10 (10). Rebbi Simon, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaya: Piggul301Cf. Chapter 5, Note 67. and leftovers add together to make hands impure302The impurity of hands as separate from impurity of the body is not pentateuchal. By tradition, it is an institution of First Temple times. in the amount that exposes to punishment, the volume of an olive. Do they disqualify heave? It is a argument de minore ad majus. If they make hands impure to disqualify heave, they themselves not so much more? This which left294If part of a limb was taken out of Jerusalem and therefore became impure, or in the night of the 15th of Nisan was taken out of the house where it was eaten and therefore became forbidden as food (Ex.12:46). what are you doing with it? Does it make hands impure or does it not make hands impure? If you are saying that this which left makes hands impure, would piggul and leftovers not disqualify heave303Since they make hands impure and the touch of impure hands disqualifies heave, it is obvious that the touch of piggul and leftovers must disqualify heave. Cf. Meˋilah17b.? If you are saying that piggul and leftovers do not disqualify heave, about that which left they did not decide anything304In contrast to piggul and leftovers, use of sancta which were taken out of their required places are not infractions punishable by extirpation.. For if it were not so, the outer part would make the inner part impure305The outer part of the bone, which became impure, touching the inner part would make the inner part and with it the entire Pesaḥ impure and disqualified.. Rebbi Abbin said, who holds that something can become impure by [touching]306Added from 10, needed for clarity. itself? Rebbi Meïr307The previous argument has to be qualified. Everybody agrees that touching at interior parts (מַגַּע בֵּית הַסְּתָרִים “touch of secret places”) does not transmit impurity (Sifra Mesoraˋ Pereq 6(10), quoted Babli Niddah 44b). Rebbi Meïr excludes from this rule the case that an object be partially impure and partially pure; then the inner contact of both parts makes everything impure. Therefore the preceding argument is valid only for R. Meïr, who is not followed in practice.. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, everything becomes pure by its greater part? When he cut off the greater part, is it not separated308If the pure part is larger than the impure, the object is pure. There is no problem for the Pesaḥ since the bone cannot be cut, the impurity is not transmitted since the touch is interior, and the entire bone is removed. But for other sancta, the moment the bone is cut, the touch is external and transmits impurity, which disqualifies the entire sacrifice. How can the Mishnah permit cutting the bone in this case?? Then it would be touching and be disqualified. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, if he cuts off minimal pieces and throws away309The bone cannot be cut but must be shaved off in pieces smaller than the size of an olive which then are discarded immediately. Quoted in Tosaphot 85a, s.v.ולרבינא.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: They did not sanctify under the wing in Jerusalem310The gates of the walls of Jerusalem were sanctified, to be used as place for the consumption of sancia, only within the closed doors.. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav Samuel bar Rav Isaac: That the sufferers from skin disease311While the verse Num. 5:2 says, they shall exile from the camp any sufferer from skin disease, any sufferer from gonorrhea, and any one defiled by a corpse, the rabbinic interpretation is that the sufferers from skin disease have to be exiled from any walled city, the sufferer from gonorrhea only from the Temple Mount, and the person impure by the impurity of corpses only from the Temple district proper. Babli 67a, Sifry Num. 1. might find shelter in summer from the sun and in the rainy season from rain. Did they similarly not sanctify under the wing of the Temple Mount, that sufferers from gonorrhea and flux311While the verse Num. 5:2 says, they shall exile from the camp any sufferer from skin disease, any sufferer from gonorrhea, and any one defiled by a corpse, the rabbinic interpretation is that the sufferers from skin disease have to be exiled from any walled city, the sufferer from gonorrhea only from the Temple Mount, and the person impure by the impurity of corpses only from the Temple district proper. Babli 67a, Sifry Num. 1. might find shelter in summer from the sun and in the rainy season from rain? The sufferer from skin disease has no place to find shelter; the sufferer from gonorrhea finds shelter in all of Jerusalem. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Since we see that the rabbis take off their sandals under the wing of the Temple Mount312Since it is forbidden to walk with shoes on the Temple Mount proper; Mishnah Berakhot 9:8., this implies that they did not sanctify under the wing of the Temple Mount. Rav asked the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: What is the status of roofs in Jerusalem? He told him, since one uses as proverb: the Pesaḥ in an olive-sized bit and Hallel breaks the roof,313So many people have subscribed to one Pesaḥ that each only got one olive-sized piece, and the noise of the Hallel which they were singing while eating on the roof damaged the roof. This proves that the Pesaḥ was eaten on the roof, and therefore the roofs of the houses of Jerusalem were sanctified. this implies that the roofs of Jerusalem are sanctified. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Miasha, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: The roofs of Jerusalem are profane. But did we not state, “From the wing and inside it is like inside; from the wing and outside it is like outside314Since the roofs are of houses inside the walls, the blanket statement that all inside is sanctified also includes the roofs.”? Explain it that the Mishnah speaks about a roof surrounded by buildings forming a courtyard315Roofs on street level of houses dug out from the earth, not built on it.. But did we not state, “windows and the thickness of the wall are like inside316The “thickness of the wall” cannot refer to the material since this is inaccessible; it cannot refer to the windows which are mentioned separately. Therefore it must refer to the roofs.”? Explain it again that the Mishnah speaks about a roof surrounded by buildings forming a courtyard. This parallels what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: glacis and wall mourned317Thr. 2:8. Babli 86a., the wall and the ante-wall. If they sanctified the thickness of the wall, not so much more the window? Rebbi Aḥa said, it is necessary for the window on top of the wing. Even though you are saying that they did not sanctify under the wing of Jerusalem, they sanctified the window over the wing. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: the tunnels under the Temple were profane, the Temple roofs were sanctified318Babli 86a.. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A Mishnah319Mishnah Tamid 1:1. says so, “there was a fireplace there, and an honorable bathroom. [What was its honor? If one found it locked, one knew that it was occupied, unlocked one knew that it was unoccupied.”] Rebbi Yose said, is excrement impure? Is it not simply cleanliness? But the following is it, “he320A priest watching in the Temple who becomes impure has to leave immediately by the shortest way. leaves and goes in the walkway under the Temple, and lights were burning on both sides, until he comes to the place of immersion.” If it were sanctified he would have to go by the shortest way321Either (Babli) two different groups have subscribed to different parts of one and the same Pesaḥ or (Mekhilta dR. Ismael) eating different Pesaḥim. Both cases are possible for the Yerushalmi. They may use the same room only if they are sitting back to back..
MISHNAH: Two groups which were eating in the same room, these are turning their faces in one direction while eating, and those are turning their faces in one direction while eating321Either (Babli) two different groups have subscribed to different parts of one and the same Pesaḥ or (Mekhilta dR. Ismael) eating different Pesaḥim. Both cases are possible for the Yerushalmi. They may use the same room only if they are sitting back to back., and the samovar322Producing hot water to mix the wine for the required Four Cups in the standard ratio of one part wine to two parts water. is in the middle. When the waiter stands to mix, he closes his mouth and turns his head323So people will not suspect him to eat with a group to whose part of the Pesaḥ he did not subscribe. unless he is near his own group and eats. But the newly-wed324Who is not yet used to be in company; she may turn her face away from the company and will not be suspected of not eating with her own group. may turn aside her face and eat. HALAKHAH: “It is written, do not remove any meat from the house to the outside325Ex. 12:46.. I have not only outside the house, from where outside the group? The verse says, do not remove to the outside.”326Babli 86a, Tosephta 6:11, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bol 15 (p. 55), dR. Simeon bar Yoḥai p. 36, Tanḥuma Bo 10, also cf. the Targumim. Rebbi Yudan said, from here that he makes himself liable if he (said I am) [removed] away from the group327The text in parentheses is the scribe’s, the one in brackets the corrector’s. Since in the corrector’s text R. Yudan adds nothing to the baraita, the scribe’s text must be the correct one. If a person (after the pouring of the blood) declares himself not to be part of his group, he commits a sin.. Rebbi Mana said, the verse should have said, do not remove to the outside, and we would have said, if he makes himself liable outside the group, not so much more outside the house328The mention of the house seems to be superfluous. Mekhilta dR. Ismael disagrees; the meat becomes disqualified and impure only by being removed to the outside.? Rebbi Immi asked, if he removed from group to group (the volume of two olives)329It seems that instead of כִּשְׁנִי זֵיתִים one should read בִּשְׁנֵי בָתִּים “in two houses”. Since “house” usually means a one-room dwelling, “house” also may mean “room” in a big house. he is twice liable, because of do not remove from the house and do not remove to the outside. If they subscribed to a Pesaḥ, and an individual removed the volume of an olive, he is liable. Two or three persons are not liable since the members of the group may be drawn after them; but they infringe on a positive commandment330Beginning of v. 12:46: In one house it shall be eaten.; and following Rebbi Simeon they do not infringe. As it was stated, over the houses in which they are eating it there331Ex. 12:7., this teaches that the Pesaḥ may be eaten in two places332In the same room, as described in the Mishnah. Babli 86a/b.. I could think that its eaters also could eat it in two places, the verse says, in one house it shall be eaten. How is that? A Pesaḥ may be eaten in two places, but its eaters may not eat it in two places. [Rebbi Simeon says, also its eaters could eat it in two places.] How does Rebbi Simeon uphold in one house it shall be eaten? Lest part of one group eat inside and another part outside. An individual who removed the volume of an olive, since the members of the group may be drawn after him, becomes absolved from the positive commandment. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked, why following Rebbi Simeon? Even following the rabbis, since the members of the group may be drawn after him, they are absolved from the prohibition; neither should they be under the positive commandment333Since the question is not answered it seems to be accepted. The positive commandment referred to is not in Maimonides’s list of commandments.. The waiter who ate the volume of an olive when he was near the oven,334In which the one Pesaḥ is roasted. if he is intelligent he fills his belly from it. If they want to honor him, they come and eat with him near the oven; otherwise they give him his part and he eats at his place. There335In the same house., they are saying, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, since they did not hear what Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Issy281Since Issy also is a nickname for Josef, probably one should read “Yasa”. K reads “Yasi” R. Ḥiyya here is R. Ḥiyya bar Abba., Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Everybody agrees that at the start they may split, at the end they may not split336Once they start eating.. Where do they disagree? When they were sitting and a beam cracked over them. Rebbi Simeon says, part of them remove themselves and eat at another place, but the rabbis say, no part of them may remove themselves and eat at another place338Since the rabbis agree that a group may split into two before they start eating, there is no fixed place of the Pesaḥ before they start eating and there can be no removal.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked: Then338Since the rabbis agree that a group may split into two before they start eating, there is no fixed place of the Pesaḥ before they start eating and there can be no removal. one who removes should not be liable up to the moment when he eats. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : One who removes is not liable up to the moment when he eats. Rebbi Zeˋira said, but it was stated there, an individual who removed the volume of an olive from a group is liable but he did not disqualify himself as a member339 of the group. This implies, even if he did not eat. If you would say, he ate, why did he not disqualify himself as a member of the group? Rebbi Yose said, when he removed it he disqualified it. Even if he ate, he ate something disqualified. Where was this said? There is breaking after breaking but not removing after removing340(Cf. Note 290). It is sinful to break a broken bone of a Pesaḥ, but it is not sinful to further remove a removed part.. Either this means that when he removes it, he disqualifies it, or it means that he is not liable up to the moment when he eats341Either there can be no removal after removal because the first removal disqualifies the meat, and moving disqualified Pesaḥ is not sanctioned, or “removing” means “removing and eating” and the first removal did not count.. The following is obvious: If one group started eating when the other became impure, the pure group acquired the part of the impure342Since both groups subscribe to the same animal and one group becomes unable to use it.. Not only this but even if one group started eating and they became impure, the pure group acquired the part of the impure. But if both had started eating when one of them became impure, the pure group did not acquire the part of the impure343Since each group already took possession of its part.. An individual can move his part in the entire room, but a group cannot move their part in the entire room344A single person eating a Pesaḥ may change his place while eating while members of a group have to remain sitting where they started eating.. But did we not state “two groups”345They are eating from the same Pesaḥ at two distinct tables. But one single group cannot be separated.? He only said two; therefore not one. But did we not state, “the samovar in the middle”346It serves both groups at the same time; the hot water has to be transported through the entire room. But the waiter shows by his behavior as described in the Mishnah to which group he belongs.? The place of the waiter proves where his group is. But did we not state, “the newly-wed may turn aside her face and eat”347Does she not show by turning away from the group that she does not want to belong?? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, because of shyness
MISHNAH: A woman living in her husband’s house1If she only is preliminarily married, she still lives in her father’s house and eats Pesaḥ as her father’s child, and both her husband and her father slaughtered for her2Both are in Jerusalem and both counted her on the list of subscribers to their Pesaḥ., should eat of her husband’s. If she went to her father’s house for the first holiday3There was a general custom of the bride returning to her father’s house for the first holiday after the definitive marriage. and both her father and her husband slaughtered for her, she may eat where she desires. An orphan for whom guardians4. If there are multiple guardians (Greek ἐπίτροπος, ὁ). slaughtered may eat where he desires. A slave of two owners may not eat from either of them5Since neither of the joint owners has the right to take from the other, the part of the slave belonging to one cannot profit from the other’s food. He has to participate in a separate Pesaḥ.. A person who is half slave and half freedman may not eat of his master’s6He has to behave like a free person.. HALAKHAH: “A woman living in her husband’s house,” etc. 7This paragraph is from Sotah 2:1, Notes 15–23 which is the original since the last sentence, which makes the argument intelligible, is missing here. Rebbi Joḥanan said, for the four who are missing atonement8Anyone whose own body was the source of impurity, when he is pure again cannot enter the Temple precinct unless he first brought a sacrifice of cleansing: The woman after childbirth (Lev. 12:6–8), the person healed from skin disease (Lev. 14: 1–32) and the persons healed from genital discharges (Lev. 15:14–15,29–30). others may dedicate without their knowledge; these are the following: Man or woman [healed from] genital discharges, the woman after childbirth and one [healed from] skin disease, since a father may dedicate for his small son who is lying in a crib9Who could have been afflicted with skin disease and, if female, with a discharge at her birth mimicking menstruation. One understands man or woman [healed from] genital discharges or [healed from] skin disease, but a woman after childbirth? May a minor give birth? 10This text also is in Yebamot 1:2, Note 153. It implies that a woman giving birth is an adult and no longer in her father’s power. Did not Rebbi Redifa, Rebbi Jonah, say in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If a woman became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs, she and her son will die. After she grew two hairs, she and her son will live. If she became pregnant before she grew two hairs and gave birth after she grew two hairs, she will live but her son will die. How is the situation? Since a man may dedicate for his underage daughter11Therefore, he should be able to dedicate for his wife who also is dependent upon him.. Since he married her off12Even without growing pubic hair, if he married her off she is emancipated from him., she already left his power. But it must be since a man may dedicate for his deaf-mute wife. Here, in the case of the suspected wife, the case of the minor does not apply since 13This statement also is in Sotah 1:2, Note 91. In the language of the Babli, Yebamot33b, “the seduction of an under-age girl is rape.” Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Yosa14With the text in Sotah read: Yasa. said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband. The case of the deaf-mute does not apply since it is written15Num. 5:22. The answer of the wife is a requirement that cannot be waved. Therefore, a mute woman cannot undergo the sotah ordeal. The Babli concurs, Sotah27b, quoted in Num. rabba 9(18).: The woman shall say: Amen, amen. Rebbi Abun said, since it is written16Deut. 14:26. A man’s house usually means his wife. The missing final sentence explains that since he cannot enjoy himself if his wife is forbidden to him, she cannot hinder him in the preparations for her rehabilitation. This answers the original question for the husband. At the same time, R. Abun disagrees with R. Joḥanan and holds that only the husband may dedicate the purgation offering of the woman after childbirth without her knowledge since he has a direct interest in it. While the woman after childbirth is permitted to her husband once she is recovered and pure, she cannot enjoy the holiday sacrifices with him as long as her sacrifice has not been handed over to the Temple personnel.: You shall enjoy together with your house. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : A person chooses another’s nezirut sacrifice without the other’s knowledge. But he cannot dedicate it without the other’s knowledge17Cf. Nazir 2:5 Note 84. Since an animal cannot be brought to the Temple without having been dedicated, and the dedication has to be for a specific obligation, the nazir whose sacrifices are paid for must be informed of the dedication for it to be valid. Denied by the Babli, Nedarim 36a.. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : A person chooses another’s purification sacrifice for fat18A general name for inadvertent sins punishable by extirpation, cf. Lev. 7:25. Denied by the Babli, Nedarim 36a. without the other’s knowledge. But he cannot dedicate it without the other’s knowledge. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A person may slaughter another’s Pesaḥ without his knowledge, but he cannot dedicate it without his knowledge. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah says so: “A woman living in her husband’s house, and both her father and her husband slaughtered for her, should eat of her husband’s.19The first sentence of the Mishnah, which prescribes the wife’s place, seems to contradict the second, which gives her freedom of choice. It is to be assumed that neither her father nor her husband are permanent dwellers in Jerusalem so that for the Pesaḥ she actually is neither in her husband’s nor in her father’s permanent home.” Where do we hold? If giving instructions20Reading מַמְחָה as מַנְחָה; not derived from any of the roots מחה “protest; erase, rub out”., normally a woman gives instructions saying, I want to be with my children21So one may assume that the Mishnah does not refer tot a wife who already has children.. So not giving instructions22Neither father nor husband had her agreement to eat with him. This would follow R. Eleazar who allows slaughtering the Pesaḥ without the knowledge of the other person.. The Mishnah may be about giving instructions23The Mishnah cannot be used to prove that practice agrees with R. Eleazar.. There came Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , the Mishnah is about giving instructions. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, a person may slaughter another’s Pesaḥ without his knowledge, but he may not choose it without his knowledge24Then she at least has to be informed beforehand. Babli, Nedarim 36a.? There is a difference between Pesaḥ and a purification sacrifice. If a Pesaḥ grows it may be used to satisfy an obligation25An animal dedicated for Pesaḥ but not used automatically is dedicated as well-being sacrifice to be used later for satisfying a vow by the owner.; a purification sacrifice if it grows may not be used to satisfy an obligation26An animal dedicated as purification sacrifice but not used may not be used for anything else.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this about the follow-holiday27Using the root רדף not in the biblical sense “to pursue” but the related meaning “to follow closely”, Arabic ردف. The definition of follow-holiday is from Ketubot7:5 (Notes 43–45), Babli Ketubot 71b.. What is the follow-holiday? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is the first holiday when her father follows her to her husband’s house. If she did not go for the first holiday, does the second holiday become the follow-holiday28So if that should be Passover she has a choice whether to join her father or her husband for the Pesaḥ.? She always has a follow-holiday. Does a widow have a follow-holiday? Let us hear from the following: “If she went to her father’s house for the first holiday.” Either this means that she always has a follow-holiday or it means that a widow has a follow-holiday29To make sense of the duplication in the Mishnah since following R. Joḥanan also the first sentence of the Mishnah refers to a newly-wed who still has no child.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that she has children but no husband. Normally a woman gives instructions saying, I want to be with my children30Once she has children, the question of where she celebrates the Pesaḥ is resolved; she no longer has to be asked where she wants to be.. 31This paragraph also appears in Qiddušin 1:7, Notes 612–623. The origin probably is here. Rebbi Eleazar said: The Pesaḥ of women is voluntary32S. Liebermann has emphasized repeatedly that in the Yerushalmi רְשׁוּתmeans “meritorious act which is not obligatory.” The Babli disagrees in the name of R. Eliezer, 91a.In the Babli and related texts, it is taken for granted that women present in Jerusalem on Passover eve are obligated to take part in the Passover meal, based on Ex. 12:4 which designates the participants as “persons”, not “men” (Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Pisḥa 3, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 10; cf. Mishnah 8:1,7 Tosephta 8:10; Babli 91a/b.) But it should be noted that missing the sacrificial meal is a deadly sin only for men (Num. 9:13); only men are required (and permitted) to make up the missed sacrifice on the 14th of Iyar (Num. 9:13; Tosephta 8:10).The statement means that an unaffiliated female, living neither in her father’s nor a husband’s house, is not obligated to seek a group with which to celebrate Passover. It would be considered most inappropriate if a single woman would join a group of men unrelated to her. But since she is included in the circle of celebrants of Passover by biblical law, if she alone or a group of similarly situated women want to organize their own Pesaḥ and meal, they are authorized to do so.Circumcised slaves are included in the group of Passover celebrants in Ex. 12:44. The owner of uncircumcised slaves is prohibited from bringing a Pesaḥ., but one pushes the Sabbath away for it33Since women are biblically empowered to celebrate Passover, the rule also applies to groups of women.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice from women and slaves is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their mazzah? Rebbi Eleazar said, it is obligatory. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is voluntary34In Qiddušin: This is in dispute.. Rebbi Hila said, it is everybody’s {opinion}. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeˋira: Lettuce, mazzah and Pesaḥ are obligatory the first night; on all other days they are voluntary. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: It was said: Do not eat leavened matter with it, for seven days you shall eat with it mazzot, the bread of deprivation35Deut 17:3. Rules stated in the same verse must be of one and the same category.. Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat mazzah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat mazzah36In the Babli, 91b, this is a statement by R. Eleazar, probably the Tanna. In Sifry Deut. 130, its contrapositive is a statement of R. Simeon.. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”37Mishnah Qiddušin 1:7.? Rebby Mana said, it is a powerful positive commandment since it is implied by a prohibition38And therefore follow the rules of prohibitions, obligatory for women.. 39This paragraph is from Ḥallah 4:12 and originates there. It refers to Mishnah Ḥallah4:12 which reports that a certain Joseph Hakohen brought his entire family, women and children, to celebrate Second Pesaḥ but the Temple authorities admitted only the adult males. Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary? It was stated40Tosephta 8:10.: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining \others, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, and certainly the First. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar41This should read with the other sources: R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon. says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? Every man a sheep for the family, if they want for the house42Ex. 12:3. Everywhere “house” is read as synonym of “wife”.. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, every man a sheep for the family, a fortiori for the house. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? “Every man”, not a woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, lest it become an obligation43If a renowned authority does something, everybody will rush to emulate him and in the next generation it will already be a common standard and acquire the status of “practice of the forefathers from time immemorial”. Even R. Yose will agree that in such a situation one should not allow a public display of special devotion.. “An orphan for whom guardians4. If there are multiple guardians (Greek ἐπίτροπος, ὁ). slaughtered may eat where he desires.” The Mishnah refers to an underage orphan. But an adult orphan is like one who subscribed to two Pesaḥim; as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated44Tosephta 7:3; cf. Babli 89b., one who subscribed to two Pesaḥim eats from the one which was slaughtered first45Therefore the adult orphan has no choice but the order of slaughter determines where he is obligated to eat.. Rebbi Yose says, the Mishnah says so, “if he slaughtered a kid goat and a lamb, one eats from the first.46Mishnah 8:2, referring to a case where the person who slaughtered was fully empowered to do so.” “A slave of two owners may not eat from either of them.” Rebbi Yose said, his master has no right to say, it is impossible that you should be counted for a Pesaḥ, but he may say to him, you may not be counted for this one, only for that one47To resolve the problem spelled out in the Mishnah, one of the masters may bar him from his own Pesaḥ and thereby force him to eat from the other owner’s Pesaḥ. But he cannot forbid him a Pesaḥ since it is a biblical obligation.. Sometimes he is counted for three Pesaḥim simultaneously. How is this? A slave of two owners must subscribe to a Pesaḥ. If one of them freed his part, he has to subscribe to another Pesaḥ48The part of his which is free cannot fulfill his absolute obligation with the dedication for the limited obligation of a slave.. If both of them freed, he has to subscribe to yet another Pesaḥ. Samuel bar Abba asked, may the slave eat from all three of them? If you are saying that the slave may not eat from all three of them, then he should not be able to subscribe to a Pesaḥ, since perhaps his master might want to free him and it turns out that an invalid dedication is mixed up in the offering49It is a biblical obligation that circumcised slaves eat from their master’s Pesaḥ (and the master is barred from Pesaḥ if he owns uncircumcised slaves). If manumission would invalidate the dedication, neither slaveholder nor his slaves would be able to eat any Pesaḥ since there always would be the possibility that the master manumit a slave which would retroactively invalidate the dedication and an undedicated animal may not be sacrificed. Therefore it is clear that manumission does not invalidate dedication.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Zeˋira asked, may the owner fulfill his obligation by the slave’s dedication? Is that not a Mishnah: “One says to his slave, go and slaughter the Pesaḥ for me.50Mishnah 2. It is clear from the remainder of the text of this Mishnah that the slave is authorized to buy the animal for Pesaḥ and to dedicate it on behalf of his master.” The Mishnah on the instruction of his master, what is problematic for him not on the instruction of his master. “A person who is half slave and half freedman may not eat of his master’s.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a man who is half slave and half freedman preliminarily married a woman, one disregards his preliminary marriage. It is the same for divorce52Obviously if there can be no marriage there can be no divorce. Therefore the text, which also is copied in Giṭtin 4:5 (Notes 135–141), has to be interpreted in the light of the explanation given there, following the House of Hillel who say that he works for his owner one day and for himself the other day. On his owner’s day he is a slave unable either to marry or divorce; on his own day he can marry preliminarily (but is unable to consummate the marriage, as explained there.) In Giṭtin and in Qiddušin1:1 (Note 139), the statement about divorce is a straight declarative sentence which is unchallenged. Here it is possible to read it as a question: is it the same for divorce? Samuel holds that since on his own day he may contract a preliminary marriage, just as a half-freed woman can contract a preliminary marriage to be consummated after her complete emancipation, so he can dissolve the preliminary marriage on his own day. Samuel says, one takes notice of his divorce. Samuel’s statement parallels Rebbi Jehudah’s, as we have stated, “One who kidnapped a person half slave and half free Rebbi Jehudah declares punishable but the Sages make him not prosecutable.53He delegates him to dedicate and slaughter the Pesaḥ without detailed instructions about what to do.”
MISHNAH: One says to his slave, go and slaughter the Pesaḥ for me53He delegates him to dedicate and slaughter the Pesaḥ without detailed instructions about what to do.. If he slaughtered a kid goat, it should be eaten; if he slaughtered a lamb, it should be eaten. If he slaughtered kid goat and lamb, one eats from the first. If he forgot what his master had told him54But he remembers that he was instructed to buy a particular kind of animal. Then he is not empowered to dedicate an animal not conforming to his master’s instructions; also a Pesaḥ may not be dedicated if it is known beforehand that it will not be eaten. Since only two kinds of animal are allowed fur Pesaḥ, the slave can resolve the problem by buying two animals and making sure that there are people able to eat either one of them., what can he do? He shall slaughter a kid goat and a lamb and say, if my master said to me a kid goat, the kid goat is his and the lamb mine, but if my master said to me a lamb, the lamb is his and the kid goat mine. If his master had forgotten what he told him, both shall be brought to the place of burning55Since it cannot be determined which animal has to be slaughtered for him and since “Pesaḥ comes only for its eaters,” the slaughter cannot permit the meat to be eaten. But since an attempt was made to bring the First Pesaḥ, the conditions for a Second are not satisfied. but they are free from bringing the Second Pesaḥ. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated44Tosephta 7:3; cf. Babli 89b.: One who simultaneously subscribed to two Pesaḥim eats from the one which was slaughtered first. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this; “if he slaughtered kid goat and lamb, one eats from the first.” Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, this is Rebbi Nathan’s since Rebbi Nathan said, one fulfills his obligation by pouring without eating. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Explain it that the master forgot between slaughter and pouring56Babli 88b. Then the blood was poured when it was known that the Pesaḥ would be eaten and it is qualified according to everybody.. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, one of the rabbis objected; some say that it was himself: Did we not state, “If he forgot what his master had told him, he shall slaughter a kid goat and a lamb57Since this presupposes that the master knows what he told him, the next sentence must deal with the case that the master did nor remember at the time of slaughter and the Mishnah necessarily follows R. Nathan.”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he dedicated a Pesaḥ before he converted and then converted58Since a Gentile may bring a well-being offering, and an unused Pesaḥ automatically reverts to a well-being offering, since the Gentile is barred from offering a Pesaḥ, he dedicated a well-being offering, and after conversion is without a dedicated Pesaḥ., before he was manumitted and then was manumitted, before he grew two pubic hairs59An adult is a person growing two pubic hairs. As a minor he has no obligation to bring a Pesaḥ; therefore he cannot dedicate one. and then grew two pubic hairs, has to subscribe to another Pesaḥ60However Maimonides (Qorban Pesaḥ4:9) and Meïri (Pesaḥim, ed. Y. Klein, Jerusalem 1964, p. 366b) read: “he brings [the animal when he is ineligible] as Pesaḥ.”. Rebbi Yudan said, all doubts61Whether a sacrifice required to be eaten (either by the Cohanim or by lay people) is acceptable in case that its blood was poured but it could not be eaten. follow Rebbi Nathan, except for him who pours the blood of his purification offering or the blood of his reparation offering when there is a doubt whether he poured during nighttime or poured during daytime62No sacrificial act is possible (except burning excess sacrifices) during nighttime., where there is a doubt of atonement, and every doubt of atonement atones63Even following the majority no other sacrifice is required..
MISHNAH: If one says to his children, I am going to slaughter the Pesaḥ in the name of whoever of you will come first to Jerusalem. When the first of them entered with his head and most of his body, he acquired his part and acquires for his siblings with him. Forever one subscribes to it as long as there is the volume of an olive for each participant. One subscribes to it or cancels until it has been slaughtered; Rebbi Simeon says until the blood is poured. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no “I am going to slaughter” here, only “I am going to dedicate.64Since after slaughter the animal is Heaven’s property, nobody can acquire a part of the animal. If the Mishnah mentions that the first to come acquires his own part and those of his siblings, by necessity this must be for the dedication as sacrifice.” And why was it stated “I am going to slaughter”? To urge him on. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: It is a stipulation of the Court that one dedicate his Pesaḥ and the other his money65The problem is, how can one have people subscribe to a Pesaḥ that already is dedicated as a sacrifice? It is Heaven’s property and no longer can be considered the owner’s; how can he take money for participation? Subscription is only possible because of a stipulation, probably part of Ezra’s reorganization of Jewish worship, that a Pesaḥ be open to subscription and that money dedicated for this purpose become profane in the hand of the person who dedicated the animal.. He lets him subscribe to his [part] and the money automatically becomes profane. How? It becomes profane and then dedicated again? Or for this purpose it was dedicated from the start66Since no Mishnah in Pesaḥim mentions the monetary aspect, it is up to Amoraim to determine how to harmonize this exception with the generally known rules of dedication of sancta. Either the Pesaḥ after dedication is not considered a sanctum but becomes one piecewise when olive-sized parts of it are sold to a subscriber and the sanctity of the dedicated money is transferred to the piece of the Pesaḥ while the money becomes profane in the hand of the seller, as is the general rule for money dedicated for sacrifices which become profane in the hand of the seller of the animal which is dedicated in being bought as sacrifice, or the money dedicated for Pesaḥ has a status different from money dedicated for any other sacrifice in that it is intrinsically profane with the restriction to be used only for the Pesaḥ. Cf. Babli 89b.? What is the difference between them? If he dedicated 100 mina for his Pesaḥ and used 50 to subscribe67This is a typically 3rd Century example from the time of the inflation of the Military Anarchy in the Roman Empire. 100 mina are 10’000 drachma (denar), while in the old (Augustean) Mishnah Ḥagigah 1:2 the value of a sacrifice is between an obolus(⅙ denar) and 2 denar.. If you are saying that it becomes profane and is dedicated again, the remainder of the monies are profane. If you are saying that for this purpose he dedicated it from the start, the rest of the monies are (profane) [dedicated]68The text in parentheses is the original text of the scribe, the one in brackets his own correction. It seems that the scribe felt compelled to correct the text since in the preceding sentence he wrote “profane”. But it seems more logical to assume that the first “profane” is in error and should be replaced by “dedicated” while in the second sentence “profane” is the correct expression.In the preceding sentence “it” refers to the Pesaḥ animal, to which the sanctity of the subscription money is transferred while the unused part in the hand of the buyer is not touched by the transaction; it remains dedicated. But if the dedication of the money was conditional for the stated purpose of acquiring part of a Pesaḥ, the remaining money never was dedicated and is profane.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Samuel bar Abba asked: Think of it if he lets him subscribe gratis. Where do you have “becomes profane and is dedicated again”69Since no money changes hands, there is dedicated money whose sanctity can be transferred to parts of the Pesaḥ. In order to have a fully dedicated sacrifice it should be forbidden to invite non-paying guests for the Pesaḥ. This is a restriction which nowhere is mentioned and has to be rejected.? The words of the rabbis imply that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. We have stated there70Mishnah Temurah 6:4, dealing with wages of prostitution which may not be used for Temple dedications (Deut. 23:19). The reference is to the sentence following the quote, “if he (the customer) gave her (the prostitute) sancta, they are permitted (as sacrifice)” since as Heaven’s property they never became the prostitute’s.: “If he gave her monies, they are permitted; wines, oils, and fine flour, or anything of whose kind one offers on the altar, are forbidden.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he lets him71This must be “her”. R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that a sacrifice in the hands of a prostitute is barred from the Temple, but if the prostitute is paid by a subscription to his Pesaḥ or his festival offering it is an acceptable arrangement. Temurah 30b. subscribe to his Pesaḥ and to his festival offering. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it would be forbidden as harlot’s wages72Mishnah Nedarim 4:3, detailing what A can legally do for B if A made a vow that B may not have any usufruct from him. A can pay for B’s sacrifices as long as no money comes into B’s hand, since sacrifices dedicated for B are Heaven’s, not B’s property.. Explain it if nothing was given into his hand; you should know as it was stated there73This paragraph also is in Beṣah 5:2 (צ)., “he can bring for him nests for male or female sufferers from genital discharges, nests for childbirth;” not if nothing came into his hands? Here also if nothing came into his71This must be “her”. R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that a sacrifice in the hands of a prostitute is barred from the Temple, but if the prostitute is paid by a subscription to his Pesaḥ or his festival offering it is an acceptable arrangement. Temurah 30b. hands. 73This paragraph also is in Beṣah 5:2 (צ). Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, one dedicates; the other said, one does not dedicate. The rabbis of Caesarea make it explicit: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one dedicates without problems on a holiday; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not dedicate, without problems on a holiday74There is no doubt that biblically one is permitted to dedicate animals as sacrifices on a holiday; the question is whether there is a rabbinic prohibition.. There are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of lambs; there are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim75If the 14th of Nisan is a Sabbath. In the first formulation, the lambs are profane and have to be dedicated on the Sabbath to be permitted into the Temple court; in the second version they already are dedicated (cf. Babli Šabbat 148b).. He who says, he goes to sellers of lambs, follows him who says, one dedicates. He who says, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim, follows him who says, one does not dedicate. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it should be forbidden because of dedicating, and we have stated, “one does not dedicate.76Mishnah Beṣah 5:2.” Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, if he dedicates for the next day; but the other said, if he dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple77Dedication of a sacrifice to be eaten on the holiday has to be considered part of the preparation of food and is permitted; what the Mishnah forbids are dedications either not for use on the holiday or not for food at all.. Rebbi Shammai said, even for him who said that one dedicates78It seems that one has to read “that one does not dedicate”. Since Mishnah Beṣah5:2 explicitly declares that the prohibition of dedication of sacrifices is rabbinical, it implies that inside the Temple precinct proper the prohibition does not apply. In this situation there is no disagreement between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish and no inference may be drawn about the status of monies dedicated for Pesaḥ., in the Temple Court because rabbinic Sabbath prohibitions were permitted in the Temple. From where that one subscribes? The verse says, by the number of souls79Ex. 12:4. By biblical decree a person not counted as participant is barred from eating the Pesaḥ. Babli 89a.. From where that one appoints80Appoints people as eaters.? It is said here a lamb, and it is said in Egypt a lamb. Since the lamb quoted in Egypt is live, not slaughtered, so the lamb quoted here is live, not slaughtered81“Lamb” is mentioned in v. 12:4 which, since its topic is not otherwise dealt with in the Pentateuch, refers to Pesaḥ at all times. “Lamb” also is mentioned in v. 12:3 which uniquely refers to the Pesaḥ in Egypt since only there was the lamb selected on the 10th of Nisan. Since the lamb was slaughtered only in the evening of the 14th; on both occasions the reference is to a living lamb. This implies that the count must be made while the lamb is alive, the position of the anonymous majority.. What is Rebbi Simeon’s reason? If he dies between slaughtering and pouring, would it not count for the owner as merit? What is the difference between the owner dying or the owner withdrawing from it83A person subscribed to a Pesaḥ as an individual but now appears with several people which he has invited without paying for them. They may give him the portion of an individual and tell him to divide it among his guests while everybody else get the full volume for which he has paid..
MISHNAH: If somebody lets others subscribe to his part, they are empowered to give him his part, so that he eats of his and they eat of theirs83A person subscribed to a Pesaḥ as an individual but now appears with several people which he has invited without paying for them. They may give him the portion of an individual and tell him to divide it among his guests while everybody else get the full volume for which he has paid.. HALAKHAH: The members of a group of which one had beautiful hands84The traditional explanation is: He grabs a lot and eats an inordinate amount of food. Babli 89b, Tosephta 7:9. were entitled to tell him, take your part and eat alone Not only Pesaḥ, but even if they made a meal by contributions85Greek συμβόλαια, τὰ, “contributions to partake in a common meal/” they are entitled to tell him, take your part and eat alone, if they did know him86They did know from the start that letting him participate might be unfair to the remainder of the group., since this was a stipulation from the start. Rav Huna said, if somebody dedicated his Pesaḥ and said, on condition that nobody else subscribe with me, nobody else can subscribe with him. If he dedicated it without specification, any who join are its subscribers87From the start the Pesaḥ is dedicated for anybody who will come to join.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Does the Mishnah say so? “If thehouse be less88Ex. 12:4., this teaches that they may continuously diminish, on condition that there always be one of the first group and one of the second group, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, either from the first or from the second, if only the Pesaḥ not be left alone.89Babli 99a, Tosephta 7:7, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 3, dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 9. It is presumed that practice follows R. Yose (the Tanna, ben Ḥalafta.)” If you are saying that any who join are its subscribers, then the members of the first group are the members of the second group90According to Rav Ḥuna, every subscriber is counted as original subscriber; there can be no first and second group.. What is the difference between them? If he dedicated his Pesaḥ, withdrew from it but another person subscribed to it. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is qualified, in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira disqualified91For Rav Ḥuna, the second person is an original subscriber. For R. Zeˋira the Pesaḥ was left without subscriber for a moment; this disqualifies.. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is dedication by an individual and subject to the laws of substitution; in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira it is dedication by partners and dedication of partners is not subject to the laws of substitution92If the first subscriber left; his replacement now is the original dedicator and all the rules of Tractate Temurah (Lev.27:10) do apply. But for R. Zeˋira, supposing that the second subscriber came before the first one left and the Pesaḥ still is qualified, it now is dedication by partners and any attempt at substitution is invalid and therefore inconsequential.. If a hundred people subscribed to it simultaneously, Rav Ḥuna said, if there is the volume [of an olive for each of them], it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. Rebbi Zeˋira said, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified93Since for Rav Ḥuna all subscribers are original dedicators, simultaneous subscription is possible. The subscriptions either are all valid or all invalid. For R. Zeˋira only sequential subscriptions are possible; as long as there is the volume of an olive available for a new subscriber he is accepted, otherwise he is rejected, but the rejection has no influence on the status of subscribers accepted earlier.. And it was stated thus: “If they subscribed and added subscribers, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified.94Babli 78b.”
MISHNAH: For a sufferer from gonorrhea after two episodes one slaughters on the seventh {day}, if he had three episodes one slaughters for him on the eighth. Similarly for a woman watching day for day one slaughters on the second, if she had episodes on two consecutive days one slaughters on the third; but for the sufferer from flux one slaughters on the eighth95A person who suffers a single episode of gonorrhea is impure for the day and can be purified by immersion in a miqweh. If he has two episodes in at most two consecutive days, he is impure for seven days; after seven days in remission he can be purified by immersion in a miqweh. After three episodes he still needs seven days in remission but then is still prohibited sancta unless on the eighth day he brings a couple of birds as sacrifice to the Temple. He can subscribe to a Pesaḥ if there is a reasonable chance that he will be permitted sancta after nightfall.A menstruating woman is impure for seven days, Lev. 15:19. A woman having non-menstrual discharges for many days (Lev. 15:25), interpreted as three days, is in the same situation as a male sufferer from gonorrhea after three episodes (15:28–29). For isolated episodes on one or two days, she may immerse herself in a miqweh on the next day and become pure for sancta at nightfall.. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “For the menstruating woman one slaughters on her eighth day. For a man having had intercourse with a menstruating woman one slaughters on his seventh day.” Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a man having had intercourse with a menstruating woman is pure on his seventh day96For a woman it is written seven days she shall stay in her separation(Lev.. 15:19) which is read to mean that she can go to a miqweh only after nightfall at the end of the seventh day. The next sundown which permits her to partake of sancta therefore is the sundown of the eighth day (Babli 90b). But for a male who lies with her it says (Lev.. 15:24) he is impure for seven days, and since part of a day is counted as a full day, he can purify himself on the seventh day before nightfall (Babli Yoma 6a)..
MISHNAH: One slaughters for the deep mourner97The status of a person a close relative of whom has died, between the time of death and burial. As a deep mourner he is barred from all religious rites, but if he does not become impure by the impurity of the dead by nightfall he is able to participate in religious ceremonies., and one who digs out a collapsed building98He searches for survivors or for the corpses of the slain. If he finds no corpses he remains pure and can eat the Pesaḥ, but this is very uncertain., and one who was promised that he would be freed from jail, the sick person or the old who are able to eat the volume of an olive. But for all of these one does not slaughter for themselves lest the Pesaḥ become disqualified99If something happened, the Pesaḥ would be without eaters and would have to be burned.. Therefore if a disqualification should occur they are not liable for the Second Pesaḥ except for one who digs out a collapsed building who from the start could expect to be impure. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Abba bar bar Hana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : The Mishnah100About the person who had been promised that he would be freed. if he was jailed by Jews. But if he was jailed by gentiles, whose mouth speaks vanity and whose oath is false oath101Ps. 144:8.. If he was held outside of Jerusalem, but if he was held in Jerusalem even if they did not promise it is as if they had promised102Since they can bring the Pesaḥ to the jail and eat there with him.. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both are saying, in the beginning we used to say that one may sprinkle on an uncircumcised Jew; but we were saying nothing103Sprinkling with water mixed with ashes of the Red Cow belongs to the ritual of cleansing the impurity of the dead; it is applicable to all Jews including those uncircumcised (cf. Note 160). But for people intending to eat Pesaḥ, this applies only to those already circumcised, as explained in the following sentence.. Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi stated before Rebbi Hila: It is said here then he shall come near to make it, and it is said there, then he may eat of it104In the rules of the Pesaḥ, Ex. 12:43–50, it is said of the slave (v.44) that he must be circumcised, then he may eat of it, and of the proselyte (v.48) that all his males have to be circumcised, then he may come near to make it. Since the verse about the slave states that circumcision is what is needed before he can eat, the same is true for the proselyte, and he must be circumcised and receive sprinkling before he can eat. Babli Yebamot 71a.. Since then mentioned there presumes that he is qualified at the time of eating, so also there mentioned here presumes that he is qualified at the time of (eating) [slaughter]105The text in parentheses was first written by the scribe who then corrected it to the text in brackets. It is obvious that the original text is the correct one.. Sometimes he106The person digging for victims in a collapsed building who is obligated for Second Pesaḥ. has the status of them and sometimes they have the status of him. Sometimes he has the status of them, a long collapsed building. I am saying that the blood was poured for him before he reached the impurity107Then he may not bring a Second Pesaḥ. Babli 91a.. Sometimes they have the status of him, at a circular collapsed building108Where in all likelihood he stood over the corpse if any was found at all, then he is impure by “tent impurity”.; if a disqualification occurred for them between slaughter and pouring, they have the status of him at a circular collapsed building.
MISHNAH: One does not slaughter the Pesaḥ for a single person, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; but Rebbi Yose permits. One does not slaughter for a group, even of a hundred, if none of them can eat the volume of an olive109Even though together they eat more than the volume of an olive., and one does not form a group of women, slaves, and minors. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, the season of Rebbi Jehudah: You may not sacrifice the Pesaḥ in one of your gates110Deut. 16:5. Halakhah 9:9, Babli 91a, 99a; Sifry Deut. #132. How does Rebbi Yose interpret Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? He explains it following Rebbi Eleazar ben Matthew, as it was stated: Rebbi Eleazar says, I could think that a single person clinches for impurity, the verse says, you may not sacrifice the Pesaḥ in one111Cf. Chapter 7, Note 149.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah concedes that if he transgressed and poured, it was made acceptable; if he transgressed and slaughtered one permits him to pour. It was stated: one does not form a group of women, slaves, and minors, since they increase lewd behavior112Without the presence of adult free males.. Bar Qappara stated, because they bring sancta to disqualification113Cf. Šabbat 11, Note 58.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Issy: One does not form a group from proselytes. Since they are [faulty they are not]114The text in brackets is an addition at the margin of the ms. The text without the addition is that of the Babli 91b, the text with the addition is quoted there by Tosaphot s.v. שמא. diligent about it and bring it to disqualification.
MISHNAH: The deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Pesaḥ in the evening but not [other] sancta97,115. He who hears about a death or for whom bones were collected immerses himself and eats sancta116If he did not become impure by the impurity of the dead, the immersion required for sancta is purely rabbinical; this rabbinic extension of the rules of deep mourning in no case extends to the night (Mishnah Ḥagigah 3:3.. A proselyte who converted on Passover eve, the House of Shammai say that he immerses himself117An immersion for sancta, additional to that required for conversion. and eats his Pesaḥ in the evening, but the House of Hillel say that he who separates from the prepuce is like one who separates from a grave118After conversion he has to be sprinkled with water containing ashes of the Red Cow on the 3rd and 7th days after conversion.. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah is about one who newly became a deep mourner between slaughter and pouring119It may have occurred earlier. The reason for this formulation is explained at the end of the paragraph.. But if he became a deep mourner after atonement it already was accepted120Since the sacrifice is accepted, there is no reason to wave any rules and the deep mourner may not eat from the Pesaḥ but he has fulfilled his religious duty.. 121This also is in Sanhedrin 2:1 (Notes 52–55), Horaiot 3:2. And it was stated122Babli Zevaḥim 100b; a suspect text in Semaḥot 4:4.: “What is deep mourning? From the moment of death until the moment of burial, the word of Rebbi. But the Sages say, the entire day.” It turns out that one describes leniencies and stringencies following Rebbi, leniencies and stringencies following the rabbis. What leniencies following Rebbi? If he died and was buried within the hour. Following Rebbi he is forbidden only that hour, following the rabbis he is forbiddden the entire day. Leniencies following the rabbis? If he died and was buried after three days. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rebbi he is forbidden up to three days. There came Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rav Ḥuna, both of whom said that Rebbi agrees with the Sages that he is forbidden only during the first day, as it was stated123Babli Zevaḥim 100b.: Rebbi said, you know that deep mourning [in the night] is not biblical, since they said, “the deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Pesaḥ in the evening.” But they declared deep mourning during daytime as biblical. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Explain it that he was buried close to sundown and one cannot infer anything.124The Mishnah only refers to the unlikely case that the deep mourner was not defiled with the impurity of the dead in a case in which both Rebbi and the Sages will agree on the duration of the deep mourning. 121This also is in Sanhedrin 2:1 (Notes 52–55), Horaiot 3:2. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: “Deep sorrow”125In its legal implications, that the person not only be forbidden to eat sanctified food but also cannot be counted in a quorum for religious services; cf. Berakhot3:1, Note 42. is only for the dead, for it is written126Is. 3:26. The gates of Jerusalem are in sorrow because all its men are dead.: Its gates are in deep sorrow and mourning.Ḥiyya bar Ada objected: Is it not written127Is. 19:8. The fishermen are in deep sorrow (and they mourn as quoted in the two parallel texts) because the Nile dried up. This proves that both terms used for the religious obligations of a person whose close relative died are used in the Bible also to describe other situations.: the fishermen are in deep sorrow, and mourning all who throw a fishing hook into the Nile? Rebbi Ḥanina said, so is the baraita: there is no deep sorrow in impurity except for the dead. It was stated128Babli Zevaḥim 100b; Semaḥot 12:1. In both sources, “and eats sancta in the evening.” From the following it is clear that this also was the reading of the Yerushalmi.: “The day of information is like the day of burial as regards tearing129The obligation to tear his clothes., and mourning130To observe the rules of the seven days of intensive followed by the thirty days of lesser mourning., and counting Seven and Thirty; but to eat sancta it is like gathering bones, (he immerses himself and eats sancta)131The text in parentheses was written by the scribe but then was deleted. The deletion is in error as shown by the question following the statement..” About gathering bones, may he immerse himself and eat sancta132Why is the qualification “in the evening” missing in the Mishnah?? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, explain it if he was buried after nightfall133Then he can eat sancta only a day later.. “In both cases they immerse themselves and eat their Pesaḥ in the evening.134Since the Mishnah states that the rules of deep mourning are waved for Pesaḥ but not for other sancta, it seems that here one should read sancta for Pesaḥ.” After burial may one eat sancta? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, both are about information. If he was informed that a relative died the day before, he immerses himself and eats sancta; if he was informed that bones were collected the day before, he immerses himself and eats sancta135But in the evening of the day itself only Pesaḥ may be eaten, not sancta in general.. 136This text is from Moˋed qaṭan 1:5 (מ). There also exists a Genizah text for most of the Halakhah there. It was stated: If a person transports a casket from place to place the rules137Prescribing mourning rites. of collecting bones do not apply. Rebbi Aḥa said, that only is about a stone sarcophagus. But to a wooden casket the rules of collecting bones do apply. Rebbi Yose said, even to a wooden casket the rules of collecting bones do not apply. When is there collecting bones? If one transports them in a striped garment138Greek ἐπικάρσιον, τό. from place to place. Rebbi Haggai in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Collecting bones [is] what it means139The rules apply only to the act of collecting bones, not of transporting.. And it was stated thus: In collecting bones one collects them bone by bone after the flesh has decomposed. It was stated: There is no information140No prescribed mourning rites when one is informed of the act. about collecting bones. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, that is if he was informed the next day. But on the day itself there is information about collecting bones. Is there a minimum for collecting bones? Nikomachos stated before Rebbi Zeˋira: There is no minimum about collecting bones. About this, Rebbi Mana instructed Rebbi Hillel from Kifra to tear and mourn following Rebbi Aḥa but not to defile himself following Rebbi Yose141R. Hillel was a Cohen; he was instructed to follow R. Aḥa to observe mourning rites when his parents’ bone were brought in ossuaries but not to violate the biblical rules which prohibit a Cohen from becoming impure in the impurity of the dead except for the burial of close relatives. The rules spelled out by R. Aḥa are purely rabbinic.. It was stated: When collecting bones one does not recite lamentations and dirges; one recites neither the blessings for mourners nor the consolations for mourners. These are blessings for mourners: what is recited in the synagogue. These are consolations of mourners, what is said in the row142After the burial the people attending form two rows between which the mourners walk and are greeted with a wish that “the Omnipresent may console you with all the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.”. It was stated: But one says words. What are words? The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, eulogies143קִילוּס “praise” is derived from Greek καλῶς! “beautiful, excellent”. For the use as “eulogy” compare καλολογέω, same as ἐυλογέω (E. G.).. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? You and your captives144Num. 31:19, speaking of the captive Midianite women.. Since you could not be impure before you entered the covenant, also your captives cannot be impure before they enter the covenant145While it seems from the text there that a Gentile corpse imparts impurity of the dead by touch, it is clear that a living Gentile cannot biblically be impure; the impurities attributed to Gentiles are of purely rabbinic character and must be disregarded in matters of conversions. Sifry Num. # 157 notes that mention of the captives in relation to impurity implies that these had to be converted.. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? You and your captives. Since you need sprinkling on the third and seventh {days}, so your captives need sprinkling on the third and seventh {days}. But it is not logically consistent146There is no claim that the restrictive practice of the House of Hillel is biblical., since Rav Ḥiyya bar Joseph, Giddul bar Benjamin said in the name of Rav: The House of Hillel agree that if he transgressed and poured the blood, that it is accepted. 147This paragraph is a reformulation of one in Nazir 8:1 (Notes 56–63) but, as the quotes in the paragraph show clearly, the source is Nazir, in contrast to the next paragraph which in Nazir is a copy from Pesaḥim. A nazir who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain148The general principle is that a doubt about impurity arising in a private domain is treated as certain impurity, in the public domain as certain purity. The rule becomes void if the character of the place itself is doubtful. (on Oassover) [not related to the Pesaḥ.149The scribe wrote “on Pesaḥ” and the corrector inserted “not”. Both words should be deleted.] The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir does not shave150The essence of a vow of nazir is that the person must let his hair grow, abstain from all products of the vine, and avoid any impurity of the dead. If he should become impure in this impurity, he has to shave, bring required sacrifices, and start his nezirut all over again., since we have stated there151Mishnah Nazir 7:4. In Mishnah 7:2 it is explained that the Nazir shaves only if the cause of the impurity is a verified part of a corpse; the cases of doubt enumerated in Mishnah 7:3 are excluded. The liability for entering the Sanctuary in impurity is for a sacrifice if inadvertent or for extirpation if intentional.: “For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, [one is liable] if entering the Sanctuary, but any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, [one is not liable] if entering the Sanctuary.” What kind of doubt? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the start of the Chapter152Mishnah Nazir 8:1: A person saw that one of two nezirim became impure but he cannot identify whom he saw. Then there certainly is impurity but it is not known to whom it refers.. The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the one here153One of the cases of Mishnah Nazir 7:3, where t is not known whether actually impurity was created.. A person who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Hoshaia said, he should be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one sends him on a far journey154For him also the person has to bring the Second Pesaḥ, but he holds that like any other sacrifice it may be brought for a certain, rather than a possible, obligation.. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he became impure by the impurity of the broken field155A field which contained a grave ploughed under. Not only is the suspected place of the grave impure by biblical standards but the entire field is rabbinically impure since the plough might have caught a bone and transported it to another part of the field., one sends him on a far journey. The community who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain on Passover. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they should present it in their doubt156If the majority of the public is certainly impure, all Pesaḥim are made in impurity. If the majority is in doubt whether they are impure, the pure minority brings their offerings in purity and the possibly impure majority theirs in possible impurity.. Does the great Rebbi Hoshaia say, it should be made in impurity? Rebbi Hoshaia (said) [also agrees] that it should be presented in their doubt; what Rebbi Hoshaia said referred only to restrictions. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah: One sprinkles on an uncircumcised Jew157The position of the House of Hillel in the Mishnah is rejected. It is asserted that the uncircumcised can purify himself from the impurity and, being circumcised later, participate in the Pesaḥ celebration as asserted by the House of Shammai., for we find that our forefathers in the desert158Not in the desert, but after crossing the Jordan on the 10th of Nisan (Jos. 4:19). They were then circumcised (Jos. 5:2–8) and celebrated the Pesaḥ on the 14th (Jos. 5:10). received sprinkling when uncircumcised. Rav Ḥisda said, following him who said that they circumcised on the eleventh159If they were circumcised on the 11th they had to be sprinkled on the 10th, when they still were uncircumcised, in order to become pure on the 14th.. But for him who said that they circumcised on the tenth, they did not count sprinkling when uncircumcised. Rebbi Abun said, did they not have to count for sprinkling when uncircumcised in any case160Rav Ḥisda’s argument has to be rejected since if sprinkling on an uncircumcised person is ineffective, the underlying counting (of the third, seventh days) also must be ineffective. But for the Pesaḥ on the 14th, the counting had to start on the 7th, when according to the biblical text everybody (except Joshua, Caleb, and possibly Levites and/or Priests) were uncircumcised. He will hold that the first Passover in Canaan was held in impurity. This argument, represented in the Babli, loc. cit., by Mar Zuṭra, there is rejected by Rav Ashi.? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: It happened that an uncircumcised Cohen sprinkled161In Nazir: “he was sprinkled” (passive voice). and the sprinklings were declared valid. It was stated so: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, there were soldiers162Greek στρατιώτης, ὁ. and gate keepers in Jerusalem who immersed themselves and ate their Pesaḥ in the evening163They were Gentiles who converted to Judaism, were circumcised, immersed themselves in a miqweh on the 14th of Nisan, and participated in Passover, not needing cleansing by sprinkling following the House of Shammai.
MISHNAH: He who was impure or on a far trip and did not make the First shall make the Second1A person impure and/or at a distance from Jerusalem on the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan is obligated to bring a Pesaḥ on the 14th of Iyar.. If in error or by force2He was pure and in Jerusalem on the 14th of Nisan but forcibly prevented from participating in a Pesaḥ. he did not make the First shall make the Second. If this is so, why was it said3Num. 9:9. impure or on a far trip? Because these are not liable for extirpation4The Second Pesaḥ is a positive commandment for which no penalties are indicated in case of omission, in contrast to the First whose intentional omission is a deadly sin implying extirpation. In contrast to the Babli (93b), the Yerushalmi does not expect that those who missed the First in error or by force are subject to extirpation if they intentionally miss the Second. but those are liable for extirpation. HALAKHAH: “He who was impure,” etc. Impure by a corpse5Num. 9:10., I not only have impure by a corpse, from where forced or in error? The verse says, every man, [it added]6Babli 93a.. So far following Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated, impure by a corpse is not equal to a far-away trip, nor is a far-away trip equal to impure by a corpse, what is common to them7This is the third hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael. Sifry Num. 69, Tosephta 8:2 (in the name of R. Aqiba); Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 9:10. is that he did not make the First and shall make the Second; also I am adding those forced or in error who did not make the First that they shall make the Second. Intentional from where? Rebbi Zeˋira said, but the man, to add the one acting intentionally8Num. 9:13: But the man who was pure.This contradicts the position of R. Aqiba in the Tosephta, that both those impure by a corpse and those on a far trip are prevented from making the First Pesaḥ and therefore the third hermeneutical principle excludes the one who intentionally omitted the First even though he was pure and not far away. Cf. Babli 93a/b.. We have stated; “if in error or by force;” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “if in error, or by force, or intentional.9Tosephta 8:1.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this, “because these are not liable for extirpation but those are liable for extirpation;” who is subject to extirpation if not intentional? Impure by a corpse. I have not only impure by a corpse; impure by genital discharge, impure by skin disease, from where? The verse says impure (by the dead)10This word should be deleted since there is no verse containing this expression. The argument is that while one would expect the accents to be טָמֵ֣א לָנֶ֡פֶשׁ “impure by a corpse,” the first word carries legarmeh, a dividing accent, טָמֵ֣א ׀ לָנֶ֡פֶשׁ, correctly translated “impure, [e. g.,] by a corpse.” Babli 93a, Sifry Num. 69., it added. Why does the verse say, impure by a corpse11The argument is not really from this quote but from the entire first part of the verse: every single man who would be impure, by a corpse.? A man impure by a corpse is pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, but a public impure by the impurity of a corpse are not pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Those impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. They made the impurity of idolatry equal to the impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease12As explained in the paragraph after the next.. If Israel had the possibility to build the Temple13If the Temple could be rebuilt after the 14th of Nisan but before the 14th of Iyar., individuals celebrate the Second Pesaḥ but the public does not celebrate the Second Pesaḥ. 14From here on, the text is from Nazir6:13 (Notes 83–109), Sanhedrin 1:2 (Notes 209–219). Rebbi Jehudah says, the public celebrates the Second Pesaḥ since we find that Hezekia celebrated the Second Pesaḥ. This is what is written, for most of the people from Ephraim and Manasse152Chr. 30:18., etc. Some Tannaïm state: One intercalates the year because of impurity16One does not intercalate a 13th month to give people time to purify themselves in time for the Pesaḥ on the 14th of Nisan.. Some Tannaïm state: One does not intercalate the year because of impurity. He who says, one does not intercalate, how does he uphold: for they ate the Passover contrary to what is written172Chr. 30:18. Hezeqiah celebrated Pesaḥ a month late; that is exactly what Scripture prescribes for impure individuals.? They intercalated in Nisan but only Adar can be intercalated. This follows what Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi said: they found the skull of Oman the Yebusite under the altar18This statement is from Soṭah 5:2, Note 90; it must refer to the construction of the altar by Solomon. Hezekiah moved the month because the Temple was not usable in Nisan since similarly the Temple was found to be a “tent” over human bones and thus impure. Ornan was the original owner of the Temple Mount (1Chr. 21:18–26); the text does not imply that Gentiles create tent impurity. Babli Sanhedrin 12a.. It is written192Chr. 29:17. They finished cleansing the Temple of idolatry on the 16th.: They started on the first of the first month, and on the eighth day …. Could they not have eliminated all idolatry from there in one day? Rebbi Idi said, because of Chaldean idols which were engraved in vermilion. It is written202Chr.30:19. The verse ends: except for the Temple’s purity.: With all his heart he prepared himself to seek the Eternal, the God of his forefathers. Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi and Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: One said, with all he did for the purity of the Temple, he did not fully establish the purity of the Temple. One said, with all the good works he did, he did not fully do his duty for the purity of the Temple. Six things did Hezekiah, the King of Judea, do; with three they agreed, with three they did not agree21This is the last Mishnah in Chapter 4 of the Babli; Maimonides in his Mishnah commentary declares it to be a Tosephta (cf. 8:5). Babli 56a, Berakhot 10b, Sanhedrin47a.. For the following they agreed with him. He smashed the bronze snake22The bronze snake made by Moses, 2K.18:4. “They” are the Heavenly Court. and they agreed with him. He dragged his father’s bones on a bier of ropes23He buried him in an undignified way to atone for his sins. The basis is a note in 2Chr. 28:27 that Aḥaz was not buried in the kings’ graves, contradicting 2K. 16:20., and they agreed with him. He hid the table of medicines24According to Maimonides a book of magical remedies., and they agreed with him. For the following they disagreed with him. He cut down the Temple doors252K. 18:16; to pay tribute to Assyria. and they disagreed with him. He enclosed the upper Giḥon spring26It seems that they did not connect 2Chr.32:30 with 2K. 20:20. The statement is denied in Avot dR. Nathan A, Chapter 2., and they disagreed with him. He intercalated Nisan in Nisan27As explained in the preceding paragraph, the celebration of Passover was wrong from beginning to end; the intercalation would have to precede Nisan, celebration, and if it was Iyar it should not be a mass celebration.; and they disagreed with him. If the public was half suffering from gonorrhea and half impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥava said, the sufferers from gonorrhea relate to the impure as the impure relate to the pure. They do not make it; the sufferers from gonorrhea are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rav Ḥuna said, there is no make-up for Pesaḥ celebrated in impurity28While sufferers from gonorrhea (and in general, all people whose impurity is generated by their own body) are impure and excluded from the sanctuary, only people impure in the impurity of the dead are counted in determining whether Pesaḥ is celebrated in impurity. The only difference is that in this case, where everybody is impure, the impure celebrate Pesaḥ in impurity if they make up 50% of the population, not 50%+2, and the healed sufferers from gonorrhea and similar impurity then may celebrate the Second. Cf. Halakhah 7:6, Note 154/. If most of the public were pure but a minority impure29Impure in the impurity of the dead., and some of the pure died between slaughter and pouring. After what are you going? Slaughter [or] pouring? If you are saying after slaughter, one does not celebrate in impurity; if you are saying after pouring, one celebrates in impurity. If most of the public were impure but a minority pure, and of the impure died between slaughter and pouring. After what are you going? Slaughter or pouring? If you are saying after slaughter, one celebrates in impurity; if you are saying after pouring, one does not celebrate in impurity30Since the case cannot happen, no answer is required..
MISHNAH: What is a far-away trip31That a person being there on the 14th of Nisan be obligated for Second Pesaḥ.? From Modiˋin32In the foothills West of Jerusalem. and farther away, and the same distance in every direction, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Eliezer says, outside the doorstep of the Temple Courtyard. Rebbi Yose said, therefore there is a dot on the ה33The masoretic text is רחקה̇, using the technique that instead of deleting letters one makes dots over them. to indicate not that it be really far but outside the doorstep of the Temple Courtyard. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon said, the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya and bar Qappara disagreed. One said, that he could come and eat34A person is not ”far away” to be absolved from participating in the First Pesaḥ if he can reach the walled city of Jerusalem in time for the eating of the Pesaḥ, i. e., between nightfall and midnight.; the other one said that he could come and pour35He must be there at the time of pouring the blood at the altar walls, in the late afternoon.. And even following him who said, that he could come and eat; on condition that he be within the two thousand cubits of the [Sabbath] domain before nightfall36Since on the holiday he is not permitted to walk more than 2’000 cubits from the place at which he started the holiday, it is clear that nobody farther than 2’000 cubits from Jerusalem at sundown can participate.. Rebbi Zeˋira said, there37In Babylonia. In the text of the extracts from the Yerushalmi in Yalqut Šimony published by L. Ginzberg in his Genizah Fragments (p. 321): “Tannaim state.” they stated, if he happened to be closer than Modiˋin but his feet were bad, I could think that he be liable, the verse said, he refrained38Num. 9:13., this excludes one who did not refrain. If he happened to be farther than Modiˋin but had a horse at his disposal, I could think that he be liable, the verse said, and he was not on a trip, this excludes this one who was on a trip. If he happened to be closer than Modiˋin before noontime but left before noontime, I could think that he be liable, the verse said, he refrained from doing, he who refrains at the time of doing is liable, not at the time of doing is not liable. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both of them39R. Aqiba and R. Eliezer, quoted in the Mishnah. explained the same verse, there, there40It is said about the Pesaḥ (Deut. 16:6) there you shall slaughter the Pesaḥ in the evening, and it is said about Second Tithe (Deut. 14:22): you shall eat before the Eternal, your God, at the place which He will select to have His Name dwell there. Both Pesaḥ and Second Tithe have to be eaten at the place of the Sanctuary, and Tithe has to be accompanied by a sacrifice of appearance. Therefore “there” may be interpreted either as place of the sacrifice, in this case the Temple, or the place of consumption, Jerusalem, with the corresponding meaning of “far away”.. One said, away from doing it, but the other one said, away from its enclosure. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But the man who is pure and was not on the road38Num. 9:13., this excludes the one on the road. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: when He warned, He mentioned far away, when He punishes He does not mention “far away”41“Far away” is mentioned in Num. 9:9, where the Second Pesaḥ is defined, but missing in 9:13 where omission of both Pesaḥim is declared to be a deadly sin.. But the rabbis are saying, in case that the letters are more than what is dotted, one explains the letters and disregards what is dotted; in case that the dotted is more than the letters, one explains the dotted and disregards the letter42As in Gen. 18:9 where א֗לי֗ו֗ is read as איו “where?”. Rebbi42As in Gen. 18:9 where א֗לי֗ו֗ is read as איו “where?” said, even though that in this case there is only one letter dotted on top, one explains the dotted and disregards the letters. The he in רחוקה is dotted: the man is far away, not the road far away.
MISHNAH: What is the difference between the First and the Second Pesaḥ? The First is forbidden [leavened matter] to be seen or found. For the Second, leavened matter and mazzah are with him in the house. The First needs Hallel when it is eaten, but the Second does not need Hallel when it is eaten44The First is a family celebration, the Second a ritual restricted to adult males.. Both need Hallel when it is offered45Pss. 113–117 sung by the Levitic choir in the Temple, not the family at the table., and they are eaten roasted, with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, and push the Sabbath aside. HALAKHAH: It is written: they shall not leave anything until morning46Num. 9:12, stating the rules of the Second Pesaḥ.. If it relates to eating, this is the relevant positive commandment. No bone of it may be broken, that is the relevant prohibition. So when He says, according to all rules of the Pesaḥ they shall make it, I could think that I have to add the elimination of leavened matter and mazzah for seven days. The verse says, on mazzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it47Num.9:11. Cf. Babli 95a.. Nothing external to its body impedes it except mazzot and bitter herbs. And following Rebbi Ismael? Since Rebbi Ismael says, a principle followed by a detail, everything is in the principle, I could think that everything impedes it; the verse says, on mazzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it. Nothing external to its body impedes it except mazzot and bitter herbs48In Sifry Num. 69, the argument is based on another hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: “Anything mentioned in one setting and repeated in a different setting cannot be considered part of the original setting unless referred to explicitly by the verse.” Since the details, to be eaten with mazzah and bitter herbs, not to be left until morning, and no bone being broken, are repeated from the laws of the First Pesaḥ, they and only they are transferred to the Second.. Some Tannain stated, he is punished by extirpation for the Second, he is not punished by extirpation for the First. Some Tannain stated, he is punished by extirpation for the First, he is not punished by extirpation for the Second. And there are Tannaim who state, both for the First as for the Second he is punished by extirpation. He who says, he is punished by extirpation for the First; he shall bear his sin about the First. He who says, he is punished by extirpation for the Second; he shall bear his sin about the Second. He who says, both for the First as for the Second he is punished by extirpation, he shall bear his sin about the First and the Second. He who said, for the Second, he is not punished by extirpation except if he missed the First: For the sacrifice of the Eternal he did did not bring at its appointed time, the First, his sin he shall bear, about the Second49While Num. 9:13 is written with the laws of the Second Pesaḥ, it is formulated in terms of the First. Therefore it is not clear whether it refers to the First (as understood by Sifry Num.70 and Pseudo-Jonathan), the Second, or both.. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simon ben Joṣadaq: It is written, the song shall be for you like the night at the start of the holiday ofpilgrimage50Is. 30:29; Babli 95b.. The Passover night comes to instruct about the downfall of Sanherib and taken instruction from it. Since the one needs Hallel. so the other needs Hallel. But then since the one needs a sacrifice of pilgrimage, does the other need a sacrifice of pilgrimage? Rebbi Zeˋira said, like the night at the start of the holiday of pilgrimage, anything needing Hallel needs a sacrifice of pilgrimage; anything not needing Hallel does not need a sacrifice of pilgrimage. It pushes aside impurity. You say, in itself it only comes because of impurity, and you are saying, it pushes aside impurity51Babli 95b, Sifry Num.70. It is clear that the Second Pesaḥ only can be offered in purity.?
MISHNAH: What is the difference between the First and the Second Pesaḥ? The First is forbidden [leavened matter] to be seen or found. For the Second, leavened matter and mazzah are with him in the house. The First needs Hallel when it is eaten, but the Second does not need Hallel when it is eaten44The First is a family celebration, the Second a ritual restricted to adult males.. Both need Hallel when it is offered45Pss. 113–117 sung by the Levitic choir in the Temple, not the family at the table., and they are eaten roasted, with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, and push the Sabbath aside. HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi Meïr declares liable but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable54The people whose impurity is caused by their own body who eat from Pesaḥ slaughtered for people impure by the impurity of the dead. The Mishnah is R. Simeon’s. In Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 14, the argument is attributed to R. Josua, in Tosephta 8:9 R. Simeon in the name of R. Joshua; in the Babli 95b it is anonymous.. What is Rebbi Simeon’s reason? The meat, every pure person shall eat meat. But the person who would eat meat from the well-being sacrifice55Lev. 7:19–20., for any which is permitted to pure persons one is liable for impurity, but for any which is not permitted to pure persons one is not liable for impurity56But naturally he still is liable for a sacrifice to atone for the unauthorized use of sancta (מְעִילָה).. If he ate elevation offerings, if he ate parts57The fat to be burned on the altar and forbidden for human consumption (Chapter 5, Note 50)., since they are not permitted to pure persons one is not liable for it. If he58The persons whose impurity is caused by their own body, who are excluded from the sacred domain, entering at a time when the Pesaḥ (which is to be brought in impurity) cannot be slaughtered. The question presupposes that practice follows R. Eliezer. entered in the night, if he entered before noontime? Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Eliezer would hold with Rebbi Simeon, what is the reason on she may not touch any sancta and into the Sanctuary she may not come59Lev. 12:4, of the woman after birth and before she brought the sacrifice which permits her to enter the sacred domain.? In case one be liable for eating sancta one is liable for entering the Sanctuary, and in case one be not liable for eating sancta one is not liable for entering the Sanctuary. If Rebbi Simeon would hold with Rebbi Eliezer, what is the reason on she may not touch any sancta and in the Sanctuary she may not come? In case one is liable for entering the Sanctuary one is liable for eating sancta and in case one is not liable for entering the Sanctuary one is not liable for eating sancta60The Mishnah is consistent; the anonymous part and that attributed to R. Eliezer express the same principles..
MISHNAH: What is the difference between Passover in Egypt and the Passover of generations61Passover for future generations.? The Pesaḥ in Egypt was bought on the Tenth62Ex. 12:3., and needed sprinkling with a bunch of hyssop on the lintel and two door-posts63Ex. 12:22., and was eaten in a hurry64Ex. 12:11., during one night65The following day was a common workday on which they left Egypt.. But Passover of generations is all of seven [days]. HALAKHAH: Some Tannaim state, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were disqualifying for it66As they are disqualifying for sacrifices; Lev. 22:22–24. Mekhilta dR. Isamel Bo 4.. Some Tannaim state, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were not disqualifying for it67Tosephta 8:11.. He who said, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were disqualifying for it, is understandable, since it is written, a perfect lamb68Ex. 12:5.. He who said, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were not disqualifying for it, how does he confirm a perfect lamb? 69The next sentences are from Soṭah 9:5, Notes 109–112. Even for offerings of the descendants of Noah it is impossible! Did not Rebbi Yasa say that Rebbi Eleazar made it clear to the colleagues, from all living, from all flesh70Gen. 6:19. From all living creatures, each one with its entire flesh, i. e., a whole body. Babli Avodah zarah 5b.Since Noah sacrificed some of the pure animals after the Flood, they must have conformed to the rules of sacrificial animals. But the Pesaḥ in Egypt was not an altar sacrifice., that they were complete in their limbs. There, some of them were for the altar, here nothing is for the altar. 71This sentence belongs to Soṭah, it has no place here.(Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, since you say, purgation is written there as for sacrifices, but here the altar has no part) But is was stated thus: Our forefathers in Egypt had three altars, the lintel and two door-posts. Some Tannaim state, four: the door-step, and the lintel, and two door-posts. Some Tannaim state, סַף is a vessel. Some Tannaim state, סַף is the door-step. He who said, סַף is a vessel, the cups, and the pruning knives, and the vessels for pouring721K. 6:50. The words are badly misspelled. The word is סף I.. He who said, סַף is the door-step, when they used My door-step and their door-step73Ez. 43:8, סף II.. He who said, סַף is a vessel, is understandable74Ex. 12:22.; from the blood in the סַף. He who said, סַף is the door-step, how does he confirm that סַף may mean a vessel? He brings a cup as סַף, puts it down on the door-step, dunks and sprinkles. It was stated: Ben Bag-bag says, a perfect lamb, shorn is not perfect. But was it not stated, of small cattle75Lev. 1:2. As always, prefix mem is read as: from some, not all., to exclude the smooth of them. Rebbi Abun said, to exclude those which the Torah separated76Sifra Wayyiqra I (Nedavah) Pereq 2., the male or female used for bestiality, one dedicated for idolatrous worship, and one worshipped. Rebbi Yose said, also Rebbi Yose the Galilean is with them77With the author of the last statement in the Mishnah, that Passover in Egypt was only one day. Tosephta 8:21, as minority opinion., as it was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, I am saying that Passover in Egypt was only one day, as it is said, no leavened matter shall be eaten; today78Ex. 13:3–4..
MISHNAH: Rebbi Joshua said, I have heard that the substitute of a Pesaḥ is sacrificed and that the substitute of a Pesaḥ is not sacrificed, and I cannot explain it. Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall explain it. The Pesaḥ which is found79An animal had been designated as Pesaḥ when it was lost and another animal was designated in its stead. If then it is found before the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan, it remains dedicated but cannot be sacrificed since only one Pesaḥ is possible for one group. A sacrifice which could not be used for the intended purpose cannot be used anymore. before the time of slaughtering the Pesaḥ shall graze until it becomes unusable80Either is develops a defect which disqualifies it for the altar or it becomes too old. Then it may be sold and the dedication is removed from the animal and transferred to the money, which only may be used to buy sacrificial animals., then be sold, and for the money one shall bring well-being offerings; the same holds for its substitute81This refers to unauthorized substitutes, where the act of substitution is sinful but the substituted animal nevertheless acquires the status of the animal for which it is substituted (Lev. 27:10).. After the time of slaughtering the Pesaḥ, it shall be brought as well-being offering82Since the dedication as Pesaḥ after the 14th of Nisan automatically becomes dedication as well-being offering.; the same holds for its substitute. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan asked, is it the same for the substitute of a reparation offering, that the substitute of a reparation offering is sacrificed and the substitute of a reparation offering is not sacrificed83Lev. 27:10 prescribes that the status of an (illegal) substitute of a sacrifice is that of the sacrifice for which it is substituted. But this condition cannot be fulfilled for a reparation sacrifice since for one obligation only one sacrifice is possible. Therefore it is decreed (Mishnsh Temurah 3:3) that in all cases the substitute of a reparation sacrifice (in contrast to substitutes of purification sacrifices) should be sent to graze until it becomes unusable, then be sold, and for the money one shall buy elevation sacrifices. The question is why, if the animal was lost and only found after the original had been sacrificed, it cannot be used directly as elevation sacrifice. No answer is given. As S. Liebermann points out, in the opinion of Tosaphot (73a, s.v.אשם), by biblical standards any substitute of a reparation sacrifice could be brought as elevation offering and the circuitous route via grazing is purely rabbinic; since the original rule does not mention exceptions, the question should not have been asked.? 84This sentence is copied from Chapter 4:1, Note 27. However, only the first part is relevant here. It defines “the time of slaughtering the Pesaḥ” mentioned in the Mishnah: this is the afternoon of the Fourteenth of Nisan. Therefore, in the following, “Thirteenth” really means “Thirteenth and morning of Fourteenth”, and “Fourteenth” means “Afternoon of the Fourteenth”. Rebbi Yose said, a Pesaḥ which one sacrificed [in the morning] is no Pesaḥ; an elevation offering which one sacrificed in the morning is an elevation offering. If he substituted for it on the Thirteenth, Rebbi Zeˋira said, the substitute is brought as a well-being offering85Since the dedication of a Pesaḥ animal which is not used automatically is that of well-being sacrifice.; Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the substitute is not brought as a well-being offering86But it must be sent to graze, as spelled out in the Mishnah.. The strength of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac is from the following: “after the time of slaughtering the Pesaḥ, it shall be brought as well-being offering.” If you are saying, if he substituted for it on the Thirteenth and the substitute is brought as a well-being offering, is it not better to infer the {rules of the} substitute of a Pesaḥ from the {rules of the} Pesaḥ than to infer the [rules of the] substitute of a well-being sacrifice from the {rules of the} Pesaḥ87The Mishnah, which treats the substitute together with the lost and found animal is more logically consistent than R. Zeˋira’s correction; the Mishnah should be followed to the letter.? Rebbi Hila in the name of Samuel: If the owner died88And no family member is subscribing. Babli 98a, Tosephta 9:16. on the Thirteenth, its body is offered as a well-being sacrifice. Why did he not say, on the Fourteenth? Any {animal} which is due to be sacrificed as Pesaḥ, its body is not offered as a well-being sacrifice89The rule that an animal which had been designated for a certain sacrifice, but at the moment of actual sacrifice was not used, never could be used for another sacrifice, has precedence over the rule which states that a designation of Pesaḥ automatically reverts to that of well-being sacrifice after the 14th of Nisan.. There90Mishnah Temurah4:1., we have stated: “The offspring of a purification offering91The purification offering from a private person is a female sheep or goat. If it produces a lamb, the lamb is a sanctum but since only its mother can be sacrificed, it may neither be redeemed nor used for any other sacrifice., and the substitute of a purification offering, and a purification offering whose owner died92Since it is dedicated, it may not be redeemed. As a purification offering, the dedication may not be transferred to the benefit of any other person (Mishna Zevaḥim 1:1)., …93The portion missing here states that all the previously enumerated animals must be allowed to die since they cannot be used; even if they develop a defect they cannot be sold., and whose year has passed94Sheep are acceptable as sacrifice only if one year old., and which was lost and found, defective95The question whether one has to read “which was lost and found defective” or “which was lost and found, and the defective” is resolved in the discussion in favor of the first alternative. For this second group the Mishnah prescribes that they have to die if found after the owners had offered a substitute but if found before that time they are to be put out to graze, to be sold once no longer qualified as sacrifices..” 96The Mishnah is discussed item by item, the hypothesis being that any animal which if dedicated as purification offering is left to die, as Pesaḥ is brought as well-being offering, but those put out to graze follow the same rules in both cases.“The offspring of a purification offering,” as they disagreed: If the community dedicated a female, and so the prince who dedicated a she-goat, Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is not dedicated97Since the purification offering of the community has to be a bull (Lev. 4:14) and that of a prince (Lev. 4:23) a ram. He holds that a dedication against the rules is void. and its offspring may be offered; Rebbi Yose said, it is dedicated and its offspring must die98The dedication is valid but obviously the animal cannot be used. Not only the calf but also its mother must die.. The strength of Rebbi Yose is from the following99A baraita also quoted in the Babli, Temurah 16a.: “You cannot speak about the offspring of a purification offering of the community, since the community does not bring a female.” He only said, “you cannot speak about”; therefore if he dedicated it100The baraita does not state that there is no dedication. it is dedicated. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Jeremiah said it correctly. Is it not Rebbi Simeon’s? As Rebbi Simeon said, a female as elevation offering is dedicated only for its money’s worth101An elevation offering has to be male (Lev. 1:3,10). The dedication of a female is valid as gift to the Temple but invalid as sacrifice; therefore the animal has to be given to the Temple to be sold for its benefit. (A matter of dispute in the Babli, Temurah 20a/b.) R. Jeremiah may also hold that the value of the animals is dedicated to the Temple, but this does not imply any sacrificial status.. “And the substitute of a purification offering,” as they disagreed: if he substituted for it on the Thirteenth, Rebbi Zeˋira said, the substitute is brought as a well-being offering85Since the dedication of a Pesaḥ animal which is not used automatically is that of well-being sacrifice.; Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the substitute is not brought as a well-being offering86But it must be sent to graze, as spelled out in the Mishnah.. “And a purification offering whose owner died,” [has to die. Parallel to what] Rebbi Hila said in the name of Samuel, If the owner died88And no family member is subscribing. Babli 98a, Tosephta 9:16. on the Thirteenth, its body is offered as a well-being sacrifice. Why did he {not} say, on the Fourteenth? Everybody agrees that the body of any {animal} due to be sacrificed as Pesaḥ, is not offered as a well-being sacrifice89The rule that an animal which had been designated for a certain sacrifice, but at the moment of actual sacrifice was not used, never could be used for another sacrifice, has precedence over the rule which states that a designation of Pesaḥ automatically reverts to that of well-being sacrifice after the 14th of Nisan.. “And whose year has passed.” Parallel to what Rav Ḥisda said102Chapter 5, Notes 178–179., If its year was completed between First and Second. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When the time for its propitiation was passed. “And which was lost and found.” (Defective.) [Is it not certainly permitted?] Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: No body of a Pesaḥ is brought as well-being sacrifice except the one which was lost but found only after the owners propitiated103In all other cases, while he agrees that the value of the animal is dedicated for well-being offerings, he demands that the animal be put out to grazing, to be sold once disqualified as sacrifice. Babli 97b.The scribe’s text “defective” is certainly a scribal error from the following paragraph.. “And the defective.” Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Yasa: Is it not reasonable that the defective quoted here is the one which was lost104Since a defective animal cannot be dedicated as sacrifice; its dedication automatically would only be for its money’s worth. It is to be sold without delay for the benefit of the Temple.? He said to him, I also am of this opinion. If he dedicated his Pesaḥ, but it became lost, and he dedicated another in its stead. Before he could sacrifice the second, the first was found, and now both are at his disposal. There are Tannaim who state, it is meritorious to sacrifice the first; there are Tannaim who state, it is meritorious to sacrifice the second. Samuel stated as follows: He selects the better of the two, and the other one shall graze until it becomes unusable, then be sold, and he shall bring for its value well-being offerings on the Sixteenth105In Tosephta 9:12 the text is: “If he dedicated his Pesaḥ, but it became lost, and he dedicated another in its stead. Before he could sacrifice the second, the first was found, and now both are at his disposal. He should bring the one he chooses following the words of the Sages. Rebbi Yose says, it is meritorious to sacrifice the first one, but if the second is better he should sacrifice that one and the first one shall graze until it becomes unusable, then be sold, and he shall bring for its value well-being offerings on the Sixteenth.”The excess sacrifice cannot be brought before the Sixteenth since the Fifteenth is a holiday and only obligatory sacrifices are permitted on that day. No commentary known to me addresses the problem that first it is required that the animal graze for an indeterminate period but then be sacrificed on short notice on the second day after the first sacrifice. Probably one should read the text as “not before the Sixteenth”.. Rebbi Eleazar says, itself shall be brought as well-being offering on the Sixteenth. Rebbi comes with Rebbi Eleazar, and Samuel stated according to his system89The rule that an animal which had been designated for a certain sacrifice, but at the moment of actual sacrifice was not used, never could be used for another sacrifice, has precedence over the rule which states that a designation of Pesaḥ automatically reverts to that of well-being sacrifice after the 14th of Nisan., as it was stated106The Babli 97a, Temurah 22b, has a completely different tradition. One may not emend the Yerushalmi according to the Babli, in particular in this case where R. Salomon Adani in his commentary מלאכת שלמה to the Mishnah quotes the Yerushalmi from a Yemenite ms. in the form given here.: “Rebbi says, no purification offering {dies}107The word is missing in the text here but is quoted by R. Salomon Adani and is needed for understanding. The quote is based on the rule explained in Note 96, that any animal left to die as purification sacrifice is brought as well-being sacrifice in the case of Pesaḥ. but one which was found after that the owner had been atoned95The question whether one has to read “which was lost and found defective” or “which was lost and found, and the defective” is resolved in the discussion in favor of the first alternative. For this second group the Mishnah prescribes that they have to die if found after the owners had offered a substitute but if found before that time they are to be put out to graze, to be sold once no longer qualified as sacrifices., no money is thrown into the Dead Sea except which was found after the owner had been atoned108No animal had been bought yet but money was dedicated to be used for a purification sacrifice. Since gifts to Heaven are irrevocable (Mishnah Qiddušin 1:6), if the money was lost and only found after a substitute animal had been offered, it has to be destroyed in a way in which nobody could have future usufruct of any kind, such as throwing the coins into the Dead Sea where the metal will quickly be dissolved..”
MISHNAH: If he dedicates a female as his Pesaḥ or a two year old male109Since Ex. 12:5 requires a male yearling, the dedications as Pesaḥ are invalid. Since the animal never was a Pesaḥ, the rule that a dedication of Pesaḥ implies a dedication as well-being offering cannot be applied., it shall graze until it becomes unusable, then be sold, and the monies given for voluntary sacrifices110The Temple account from which elevation offerings are paid to cover periods where otherwise the altar would be empty.. If he dedicates his Pesaḥ and dies, his son may not bring it after him as Pesaḥ but as well-being offering111Only if the Pesaḥ was left without subscribers; i. e., the son was not a subscriber to his father’s Pesaḥ (Tosephta 9:17).. HALAKHAH: The Mishnah after propitiation112The question is why in the first sentence of the Mishnah one does not distinguish as always between the situations before and after the 14th of Nisan. The sentence cannot deal with the situation before Passover when everything stilli can be put in order., following {neither Rebbi nor113These words are missing in the ms., they are quoted by R. Salomon Adani from a Yemenite ms. of the Yerushalmi and are necessary for the understanding of the text. The agreement of Rebbi and R. Simeon is in Tosephta 9:19. Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated114Tosephta 9:20, about a female sheep dedicated as Pesaḥ.: “Before Passover it shall graze until it becomes unusable, then be sold, and he shall bring for its value a Pesaḥ115Since the money always was intended for Pesaḥ.. After Passover it shall be brought as well-being sacrifice. Rebbi Simeon116In the Tosephta: “R. Simeon ben Jehudah”. says, before Passover it shall be sold without a defect, after Passover it shall be brought as well-being sacrifice.” Did we not understand that “the body of any {animal} due to be sacrificed as Pesaḥ is not offered as a well-being sacrifice89The rule that an animal which had been designated for a certain sacrifice, but at the moment of actual sacrifice was not used, never could be used for another sacrifice, has precedence over the rule which states that a designation of Pesaḥ automatically reverts to that of well-being sacrifice after the 14th of Nisan.”? Explain it if he dedicated coins.
MISHNAH: If a Pesaḥ was mingled with sacrifices117Other than well-being sacrifices, since a Pesaḥ mixed with well-being sacrifices is brought as well-being sacrifice on the 16th of Nisan., all of them shall graze until they become unusable, then be sold, and for the value of the best among them he shall bring one of each kind and lose the difference on his account118He redeems all animals and but spends money in a multiple of the proceeds obtained for the best in the flock.. If it was mingled with firstlings, Rebbi Simeon says, if it is a company of priests, they shall eat119Since the Temple service for Pesaḥ and firstlings is identical. The majority disagrees since firstlings may be eaten during two days and the night in between but a Pesaḥ only half a night.. HALAKHAH: 120This Halakhah also is a paragraph in Maˋaser Šeni 3:2 (ם) Notes 28–36. Sabbatical produce must be consumed by humans, Second Tithe money must be used to buy produce to be eaten in purity at the place of the Temple. The situation is similar to that of a Pesaḥ mingled with a firstling; the question is whether the disagreement of R. Simeon and the rabbis carries over to tithes and Sabbatical produce. It was stated: “One does not buy Sabbatical [produce] with tithe money.” Rebbi Yose said, that is a disagreement. Rebbi Jonah said, that is the opinion of everybody. The eaters of heave are careful. Rebbi Ḥananiah objected before Rebbi Mana: Did we not state: “If they were mingled with firstlings, Rebbi Simeon says, if it is a company of Cohanim they should eat.” And we have stated on that, they should be eaten following the more stringent rules. He said to him, eaters of the Pesaḥ in its time are as careful as the eaters of heave. You should know this since we have stated121Mishnah Šabbat 1:14. “They should be roasted before nightfall”.: “One roasts meat, onion, or egg only that they should be roasted“, but we have stated:122Mishnah Šabbat 1:15, contradicting the preceding Mishnah unless one accepts R. Mana’s argument (which is that of his father R. Jonah). “One lowers the Pesaḥ into the oven at nightfall.”
MISHNAH: A group whose Pesaḥ was lost and they said to one of them go, and search for it, and slaughter for us. He went, found123The original sheep., and slaughtered, and they bought and slaughtered. If his was slaughtered first, he eats of his, and they eat with him124Since all of them are subscribers to the one.; but if theirs was slaughtered first, they eat of theirs, and he eats of his125By their action they cancelled their subscription to the first sheep, but he never was involved with the second.. If it is not known which one was slaughtered first, or they slaughtered simultaneously, they eat of theirs, but he does not eat with them126Since it is not known whether they still are subscribers to their sheep or whether the subscription was cancelled by their action.. His is brought to be burned127This disposal of any disabled sanctum is by burning outside the sacred domain., and he is not liable for a Second Pesaḥ.If he told them, if I would tarry, slaughter for me; he went, found, and slaughtered, and they bought and slaughtered. If theirs was slaughtered first, they eat of theirs, and he eats with them; but if his was slaughtered first, he eats of his and they eat of theirs. If it is not known which one was slaughtered first, or they slaughtered simultaneously, he eats of his, but they he may not eat with him; and theirs is brought to be burned, but they are not liable for a Second Pesaḥ129The text of the Mishnah in the Yerushalmi is that of the editio princeps, it is not part of the manuscript text. It is obvious that this Mishnah was copied twice; the text of the second version is that of the Babli and Maimonides. Since the Mishnah is not discussed, it is impossible to decide between the versions. Maimonides declares the Mishnah to be obvious and not in need of explanation..If he told them, if I would tarry, go and slaughter for me; he went, found, and slaughtered, and they bought and slaughtered. If theirs was slaughtered first, they eat of theirs, and he eats with them130Since he does not renounce his membership in the group and their Pesaḥ was slaughtered first, which makes his redundant.; but if his was slaughtered first, he eats of his and they eat of theirs. If it is not known which one was slaughtered first, or they slaughtered simultaneously, they eat of theirs, and he may not eat with them; and his is brought to be burned131Since he had made them his agents to slaughter a Pesaḥ, the slaughter of the first makes his redundant., but he is not liable for a Second Pesaḥ.If he said to them and they said to him, all of them eat of the first. If he did not talk to them nor did they talk to him, they are not responsible for one another.Two groups whose Pesaḥim were commingled132When the animals are alive and it is possible to change affiliations., each of them draws one for them. One of each group joins the other and they133Each group has to make a separate declaration. declare: If this Pesaḥ is ours, your hand is removed from yours and you are subscribing to ours, and if this Pesaḥ is yours, our hand is removed from ours and we are subscribing to yours.The same holds for five groups of five members each, or ten of ten, one exchanges members of each group and so they declare134If n Pesaḥim were commingled, each group must have at last n members so that one member of each group joins another. They all have to make the declaration formulated in the previous Mishnah.. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, this128The statement in this and the following Mishnah that one is not liable for a Second Pesaḥ since the blood of their sheep was correctly poured on the altar, even though it turned out that they could not eat from it. is Rebbi Nathan’s, since Rebbi Nathan said, one fulfills one’s obligation by pouring without eating. Bar Qappara stated: Silence behoves the Sages, and so much more the fools. And also Solomon says135Prov. 17:28., also a silent dolt is considered to be wise, and it is not necessary to say, a silent sage136Since the only uncomplicated case in the Mishnaiot is when nobody says anything. Babli 99a..
MISHNAH: If the Pesaḥim of two people were intermingled137And no other people subscribed to these Pesaḥim. They cannot simply re-subscribe each to one of the animals since then the dedicated Pesaḥim would for a moment be left without subscribers and therefore disqualified., each of them takes one, and each one invites another from the street to subscribe with him138Then there are two groups of two people whose Pesaḥim were intermingled and one may apply the rule spelled out in Mishnah 11.. One of each group joins the other, and each one declares139To the one who comes to join the other group. as follows: If this Pesaḥ be mine, your hand is removed from yours and you are subscribing to mine, and if this Pesaḥ be yours, my hand is removed from mine and I am subscribing to yours. HALAKHAH: 140S. Liebermann writes: “I cannot explain this paragraph without major emendations.” In fact, as R. Yose the Amora notes in the second part of the paragraph, Mishnah 13 must follow R. Yose the Tanna, since according to R. Jehudah every Pesaḥ belongs to a group of at least 2 subscribers and therefore should be treated following Mishnah 11. A minimally invasive emendation would be to read in R. Joḥanan ’s statement: “This is not R. Jehudah’s.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Jehudah’s as we have stated there141Mishnah 8:7., “One does not slaughter the Pesaḥ for a single person, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; but Rebbi Yose permits.” Therefore not of the Fourteenth. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, this is Rebbi Jehudah’s? Rebbi Yose said, does it proclaim that it is Rebbi Jehudah’s? As we have stated there, “One does not slaughter the Pesaḥ for a single person, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; but Rebbi Yose permits.”
MISHNAH: In the afternoon of Passover Eve close to the time of afternoon prayers one should not eat until it gets dark1The time of the usual afternoon prayers starts at about 3:30 pm. Close to the time would be about 3 pm. One should not eat in the afternoon so as to eat with appetite the formal meal in the night.. And even the poorest person in Israel should not eat until he lies on a couch2Since in those times every formal dinner was eaten on couches. סבב really means “to form a circle”, since the couches were arranged in almost circular fashion in the triclinium.. One shall not give him less than four cups of wine, even from the communal tray3The תַּמְחוּי is the communal chest where contributions to charity are collected in kind. Four cups of wine have to be drunk by every participant of the Seder ceremony in the evening of the first day of Passover. For the entire Chapter, see the author’s commentary in The Scholar’s Haggadah, Northvale NJ 1995, pp. 183–377.. HALAKHAH: “In the afternoon of Passover Eve close to the time of afternoon prayers,” etc. The Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated:4Babli 99b, Tosephta Berakhot 5:1. The Babli denies that in the special case of Passover Eve R. Yose disagrees. “On Sabbath Eve starting at the time of afternoon prayers one should not taste anything until nightfall in order to enter the Sabbath with an appetite, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, he continues eating until he finishes.” 5Babli 100a.“One interrupts6R. Jehudah requires that one formally end the meal by reciting Grace and, probably after Evening prayers, restarts the meals by reciting qidduš. for the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, one does not interrupt.” 7Babli 100a, Tosephta Berakhot 5:2.“It happened that Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Yose ben Halaphta were lying on couches in Acco on Sabbath Eve, and in the meantime the Sabbath became holy. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said to Rebbi Yose ben Halaphta, do you want to interrupt for the Sabbath? He answered him, the entire day you preferred my words over those of Rebbi Jehudah, and now you are preferring the words of Rebbi Jehudah over mine, also to rape the queen in my palace8Esth. 7:8.? He said to him, therefore we shall not interrupt, that practice in Israel should not be fixed following R. Jehudah. They did not leave there before they fixed practice following Rebbi Yose.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: These are the words of Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose. But the words of the Sages, one spreads a cloth and makes qiddush9This disagrees with R. Yose since one acknowledges the Sabbath by a short interruption of the meal, it also disagrees with R. Jehudah since one is not required to formally close the meal or to recite Grace.. May one eat kinds of cookies10Since these are eaten without bread, they cannot be considered a meal.? May one eat kinds of dried fruit11Greek τράγημα, τό.? Rebbi Yudan the Prince bathed and became thirsty. He asked Rebbi Mana, since I am thirsty, may I drink? He told him, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: A person may not taste anything before nightfall12Therefore the previous questions have to be answered in the negative. The Babli disagrees, 107b.. Rebbi Levi said, he who eats mazzah on Passover Eve is like one who sleeps with his betrothed in his father-in-law’s house13After the preliminary but before the definitive marriage, when she is forbidden to him., and he who sleeps with his betrothed in his father-in-law’s house is flogged. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says, both bread and mazzah are forbidden14On the entire 14th of Nisan, even in the morning when leavened matter still is permitted.. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Rebbi ate neither bread nor mazzah. No mazzah because of that of Rebbi Levi, and no bread because of that of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. Was Rebbi a student of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra? No, he was a student of Rebbi Jacob ben Qorshai. But it was because he was a firstborn15Even though this reason is refuted in the following and it is not mentioned in the Babli, under the influence of Good Friday the fast of the firstborn has become a holy rite (Tur Šulḥan Arukh Orah Hayyim §470).. Rebbi Mana said, my father Rebbi Jonah was a firstborn and he ate. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, it is neither for this nor for that reason; Rebbi was asthenic16Greek ἀσθενής. Cf. Babli 108a, about Rav Sheshet. and when he ate during the day, he could not eat in the night. Why did he not eat during this day? To enter the Sabbath with appetite17Therefore it seems that Rebbi fasted every Friday.. 18Here starts the detailed discussion of the Mishnah. Rebbi Levi said, because usually slaves eat while standing, and here one is forced to eat lying on couches, to proclaim that they went from slavery to freedom. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: This olive-sized bit with which a person fulfills his obligation on Passover he must eat lying down. Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi Simon, even a slave before his master, even a woman before her husband19For the entire paragraph, see Babli 108a. According to the Babli, only aristocratic women have to lie down.? He said to him, great personality, that is all I heard. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, because it is not agreeable for a person to eat from public assistance, and here even from the tray20In general, people are encouraged not to use public assistance even if they are entitled to it. But for the Passover Seder it is an obligation of the poor to apply even to the distribution of food in kind, which is more demeaning than distribution of money, if otherwise he could not fulfill the requirements of the meal.. It was stated21Babli 109a.: “A man has to make his family happy on a feast of pilgrimage. How does he make them happy? With wine. Rebbi Jehudah used to say, women with what is appropriate for them, and minors with what is appropriate for them. Women with what is appropriate for them, for example shoes22Reading מסאנין. N. J. Epstein reads ביסנין, Greek βύσσινα, “(garments) made of byssos, fine linen”. It probably is better to read “shoes”, which are accessories like belts, rather than “luxury linen garments” which are not quite what the Babli recommends for women in the Land of Israel. and belts, and minors with what is appropriate for them, for example nuts and pistachios.” They said, Rebbi Tarphon acted in this way. 23For an explanation of this paragraph, see the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, pp. 186–187. From where the Four Cups? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah: Corresponding to the four deliveries24Ex. 6:7–8.: Therefore, say to the Children of Israel, I am the Eternal, and I shall take you out, etc. And I shall take you as My people, etc. I shall take you, I shall save you, I shall free you, I shall take you. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, corresponding to the four cups of Pharao: The cup of Pharao was in my hand; I took the grapes and squeezed them into Pharao ’s cup, and gave the cup in Pharao ’s hand. You will give the cup in the hand of Pharao25Gen. 40:11,13. The relation to Passover is explained in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan ad loc.. Rebbi Levi said, corresponding to the four kingdoms. But our teachers say, corresponding to the four cups of doom that the Holy One, praise to Him, will make the Gentiles drink at the end of days. Truly, so said the Eternal, the God of Israel, to me: take this cup of the wine of wrath26Jer. 23:15.. The golden cup of Babylon is in the hand of the Eternal27Jer. 51:7.. Truly a cup is in the hand of the Eternal, intoxicating wine, fully to be mixed; He shall sprinkle from it but its dregs shall be drunk, squeezed to the last, by all the wicked of the earth28Ps. 75:9.. He shall let coals rain on the wicked; fire, sulphur, and burning wind is the portion of their cup29Ps. 11:6.. What does the portion of their cup mean? R. Abun said: a double cup30Greek διπλόν ποτήριον, τό. like the double cup taken after a thermal bath. And in accordance with this correspondingly the Holy One, praised be He, will let Israel drink four cups of consolation at the End of Days: The Eternal is the portion of my part and my cup31Ps. 16:5.. You anointed my head with oil; my cup is overflowing32Ps.23:5.. I shall lift up the cup of salvations33Ps.116:13. counts for two. 34This text is from Šabbat 8, Notes 23–50.“One who brings out wine to mix a cup,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira asked Rebbi Joshiah, what is the measure of cups? He told him, let us infer the hidden from the explicit since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, the Four Cups which they said add up to an Italic quartarius of wine. There, we have stated35Mishnah Šabbat 18:1.: “One removes four or five baskets.” Rebbi Zeˋira asked Rebbi Joshiah, what is the measure of baskets? He told him, let us infer the hidden from the explicit since we have stated there36Mishnah Šeqalim 3:2.: “The contributions for the Temple were removed in three baskets of three seah each.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is Rebbi Jehudah’s. As it was stated37Tosephta Šabbat 8:10. “Water, a gulp; Rebbi Jehudah says, for the mixer’s mixing. Mixed by how much? Let us hear from the following: “Water. a gulp; Rebbi Jehudah says, for mixing a cup. Wine. a gulp; Rebbi Jehudah says, for mixing a cup.” What is the measure of cups? Rebbi Abun said, τέταρτον37aΤεταρτεύς, -έως, ὁ, or τεταρτηρόν, τὸ, a measure of capacity. is a quarter. May one drink them together? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said about Hallel, if he heard it in the synagogue he has fulfilled his obligation, this implies that if he drank them together he fulfilled his obligation. May one drink them with interruptions? They said that he should drink, not that he should get drunk. If he drinks them with interruptions, would he not become drunk? May one fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine? Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one may fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine. May one fulfill his obligation with spiced wine? Since Bar Qappara stated, spiced wine is like wine, which implies that one may fulfill his obligation with spiced wine. May one fulfill his obligation with mixed wine? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the Four Cups which they prescribed, one may fulfill his obligation either with unmixed or mixed, on condition that it have the taste and looks of wine. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is meritorious to fulfill one’s obligation with red wine. What is the reason? Do not see wine when it shows its red color38Prov. 23:31.. It was stated, cooked for spice. May one fulfill his obligation with cooked wine? Rebbi Jonah said, one may fulfill his obligation with cooked wine. Rebbi Jonah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jonah drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Pentecost. Rebbi Jehudah bar Ilai drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Tabernacles. A lady saw that his face was shiny. She said to him, old man, old man, one of three things applies to you. Either you are drunk from wine, or you are lending on interest, or you are raising pigs. He answered her, this woman’s spirit shall be blown away, not one of these three things applies to me, but my learning is ever present with me, as it is written, a man’s wisdom illuminates his face. Rebbi Abbahu descended to Tiberias. The students of Rebbi Joḥanan saw that his face was shining. They said before Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Abbahu found a treasure. He asked them, why? They told him, his face is shining. He said to them, maybe he understood a new teaching. He came to visit him. He asked him, what new teaching did you hear? He said, an old Tosephta. He recited about him, a man’s wisdom illuminates his face Rebbi Ḥanina said, the log of the Torah is the old Sepphorean eighth of fish sauce. Rebbi Jonah said, I know it. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they were measuring honey with it. It was stated, half of the old Tiberian eighth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this one we used. Why did he not say, the old one? Because it was in his days. Some are saying, it was small, then was enlarged, and diminished, but it was not made small as before. What is the measure of a cup? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: Two fingers by two fingers high a finger and a half and a third of a finger40This value of 2×2×15/6 = 71/3 cubic digits compares to a Babylonian value of 10.8 cubic digits (Babli 109a). A cubit is 24 digits. Various cubits were in use; therefore it is difficult to define this volume in modern terms. The variability of the cubit is mirrored in the Greek world by the many values given for the stadion, which varies from 148 m for the (Egyptian) itinerant stadion to the Greek sacramental 184 m. Based on the itinerant stadion and 1 mile = 7.5 stadia = 2000 cubits, one would obtain 91 cm3 for the cup.In Terumot 10:7 (Note 80), a log is defined as (volume corresponding to a weight of) 200 denar. If volume of water is intended, this would make a cup of 155 cm3. In Terumot 5:3, the log is defined as the volume of 4 eggs, the modius (16 log) as 96 eggs (in the Babli, Eruvin 83a, 217 eggs, which, however, refers not to the Roman but the Syrian modius, twice the volume of the Roman). For the standard modius of 8.536 1, this gives the volume of a cup as the standard quartarius of 133 cm3 (Note 1).. It was stated, dried like the volume of an olive, the words of Rebbi Nathan. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Nathan follows Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon says, a quartarius, so Rebbi Nathan says, a quartarius, when it jells it will have the volume of an olive.
MISHNAH: One mixes him41The celebrant of the Seder. Everybody else’s cup also is filled but only the celebrant recites the benediction of Qiddush. The Mishnah is paralleled by Mishnah Berakhot 8:1 (referring to the Sabbath). Halakhah 2 in its entirety is paralleled in Berakhot 8:1 (ב), Notes 2–18. the first cup. The House of Shammai say, he pronounces the benediction of the day and after that he pronounces the benediction over the wine. But the House of Hillel say, he pronounces the benediction over the wine and after that he pronounces the benediction of the day. HALAKHAH: What is the reason of the House of Shammai? The Sanctification of the Day causes the wine to be served; he was obligated for the Sanctification of the Day before the wine was served. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? The wine causes the Sanctification of the Day to be recited. Another explanation: The wine is frequent, Sanctification is less frequent. Rebbi Yose said: From the words of both of them it follows that for wine and Havdalah, the wine comes first. Is not the reason of the House of Shammai that the Sanctification of the Day causes the wine to be served? But here, Havdalah does {not}42Added from Berakhot, missing here, but logically necessary. cause the wine to be served; wine therefore has precedence. Is not the reason of the House of Hillel that the wine is frequent, Sanctification of the Day is less frequent? Also here, wine is frequent and Havdalah is less frequent: the wine has precedence. Rebbi Mana said: From the words of both of them it follows that for wine and Havdalah, Havdalah comes first. Is not the reason of the House of Shammai that he was obligated for the Sanctification of the Day before the wine came? Also here, since he is obligated for Havdalah before the wine came, Havdalah has precedence. Is not the reason of the House of Hillel that the wine causes the Sanctification of the Day to be recited? But here, the wine does {not}42Added from Berakhot, missing here, but logically necessary. cause Havdalah to be recited: Havdalah has precedence. Rebbi Zeˋira said: One infers from the words of both of them that one may make Havdalah without wine but one may not make Qiddush without wine. That is the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira since Rebbi Zeˋira said: One makes Havdalah on alcoholic beverages but one goes from one place to another to hear Oiddush. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: There, they have the custom that at a place without wine, the reader descends before the Ark, recites one benediction that contains seven, and closes by “He Who sanctifies Israel and the Sabbath Day”.
MISHNAH: They bring before him vegetables and Romaine lettuce43“Romaine lettuce” is used as stand-in for all bitter herbs admissible for the Seder, Mishnah 2:5. General vegetables are mentioned only in the Mishnah of the Yerushalmi; from the Halakhah which mentions that one is permitted non-bitter vegetables for the first dip it seems that they were not mentioned in the Mishnah underlying the Halakhah.. One dips Romaine lettuce44As an appetizer, since on Passover the cookies usually served as appetizers may not be used; cf. The Scholar’s Haggadah, pp. 228–233., until he comes to filling the bread45After the discussion of the Exodus, described in Mishnaiot 4,5,6. “Filling the bread” refers to the meal where in the absence of forks and knives one ate everything as fillers of pitta-bread; in this case, freshly baked soft mazzah., when one brings before him46Unless the entire plate was brought on a table at the start. mazzah, and Romaine lettuce, and haroset47A moist mixture of fruits and spices in which the bitter herbs have to be dipped., and two dishes48As the Halakhah explains, a remembrance of the Pesaḥ and the festival offerings of Temple times., even though haroset is not an obligation; Rebbi Eliezer ben Rebbi Sadoq says, it is an obligation. In the Temple49In Jerusalem in Temple times. one brings before him the body of the Pesaḥ. HALAKHAH: The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One has to dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One need not dip Romaine lettuce twice50He holds that after the Qiddush one has to eat vegetable, with the appropriate benediction of “Him Who created the produce of the earth,” and at the start of the meal one has to eat bitter herbs, in fulfillment of the biblical obligation, without benediction on the bitter herbs as food. The only problem is whether the benediction for the food must be for bitter herbs, or whether any vegetable is fine, and the benediction can be intended to include the bitter herbs consumed later. There are two conflicting traditions in the name of R. Joḥanan.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he did not dip the first time, he has to dip the second time51He holds that the first dipping is optional, an opinion rejected by the Babli 114b.. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; “On all other nights we dip once, this night twice.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is of one opinion with Bar Qappara; the Mishnah disagrees with Bar Qappara: On all other nights we dip with bread52One fills the pitta with food and dips the bread in sauce; without knives and forks this is the usual way to eat dinner. To dip vegetable without bread is uncommon., but here we dip it by itself. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, one fulfills his obligation with mazzah, whether he intended it or did not intend53Since in his opinion a biblical obligation is discharged when the required action is completed, with or without particular intention, then it should be impossible to eat bitter herbs the second time in fulfillment of the biblical obligation since the obligation already was discharged unintentionally with the first dipping.. But here since he was lying on a couch, the presumption is that he intended54But for vegetables this cannot be presupposed.. Rebbi Jeremiah objected before Rebbi Zeˋira, does not the Mishnah disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? “one brings before him mazzah, and Romaine lettuce, and haroset, … even though haroset is not an obligation.” Romaine lettuce is an obligation55This question implies that in his version of the Mishnah, “vegetables” were not mentioned. Since haroset is singled out as optional, it follows that bitter herbs are not optional even for the first dipping, and that a benediction for non-bitter vegetables as food would not be valid for bitter herbs.. He said to him, since Rav dips with beets56Therefore it is preferable to use some other vegetable for the benediction over food and reserve bitter herbs for the biblically ordained ceremony. Babli 115a.. The traders of Jerusalem used to say, “come and buy spices for the meritorious deed.57The haroset. Babli 116a.” The family of Issy in the same of Issy: Why is it57The haroset. Babli 116a. called “pounded”? Because one pounds58The spices and fruits are pounded to produce haroset. for it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it has to be thick. His word implies that it is a remembrance of the mortar59The mortar used by the Israelite slaves in Egypt.. There are Tannaim who state, it has to be soft60It needs added wine. (In Medieval sources, such as Or Zaruaˋ2, §256, the text is very different.). This word implies that it is a remembrance of the blood. It was stated: Outside Jerusalem one needs two dishes61The common usage is a roasted bone and an egg. Babli 114b., one as remembrance of the Pesaḥ, and one as remembrance of the holiday offering.
MISHNAH: One mixes him the second cup, and here the son asks62He is supposed spontaneously to ask why this dinner is different from the usual set-up.. If the son does not know how to ask, his father instructs him63The following catalogue is an example of the questions with which the instruction may start. The order of the questions is the same in Maimonides’s text, different in the Babli.: What is the difference between this night and all other nights? For every night we dip once64As explained in Note 52., but this night we dip twice. For every night we eat leavened and unleavened bread, but this night only unleavened. For in all other nights we eat meat roasted, preserved65By extended cooking. This always is mentioned as a separate category of preparation of food., or cooked, but in this night only roasted. According to the son’s understanding the father teaches him66Along the lines explained in Mishnah 5. If children or women do not understand Hebrew, this implies the duty to translate the Haggadah text.. He starts with ignominy67As explained in Halakhah 5. and ends with praise and explains from “a lost Aramean was my father” until he finishes the paragraph68Deut. 26:5–8. The Babli text, “until he finishes the paragraph completely”, would instruct to include also v. 9, not included in the Haggadah text identical with Sifry Deut. on Deut. 26:5–8..Rabban Gamliel used to say, anybody who did not teach these three words on Passover did not fulfill his duty, Pesaḥ, mazzah, and bitter herbs. Pesaḥ because the Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt, mazzah because our forefathers were freed from Egypt81A reference to Ex. 12:39 is understood, but is not included in any reliable Mishnah ms.. Bitter herbs because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egypt. In every generation a person is required to see himself as if he himself had gone out of Egypt, as it was said, you shall tell your son on that day, this is on account of what the Eternal did for me when I left Egypt. Therefore we are required to thank, sing His praise, laud, glorify, exalt, praise in perpetuity, to glorify, Him who did all these miracles for us82Since everybody has to consider himself as if he left Egypt, it is appropriate that here “our forefathers” are not mentioned, in contrast to the Mishnah in the Babli. and led us from slavery to freedom; let us say before Him Hallelujah83The Hallel, Pss. 113–118.. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated69The Babylonian parallel, used in the common Haggadah, is in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Bo, Pisqa 18. There the answers to the wise and stupid children are switched. “The Torah spoke about Four Children, a wise child, a wicked child, a stupid child, and a child who does not know how to ask. What does the wise child say? What are the testimonials, the ordinances, and the laws, that the Eternal, our God, commanded us70Deut. 6:20. The text of R. Ḥiyya and the Mekhilta is that underlying the LXX; the masoretic text has the child asking, what are the testimonials, … commanded you. This is a natural formulation for a child born later, asking a member of the generation which first received the Torah. The formulation of the Yerushalmi/Mekhilta was common in all Haggadot until corrected by pedantic editors who copied the masoretic text, disregarding talmudic tradition in Biblical quotes.Following Nahmanides, the “testimonials” are obligations in remembrance of His miracles, the “ordinances” are those commandments for which no reason is hinted at in the Torah, and the “laws” are the legal instructions to the court.? Also you shall tell him, with a strong hand did the Eternal lead us out of Egypt, the house of slaves71Ex. 13:14, the biblical answer to the question of the stupid child. The answer addresses the reason why one is obligated to follow the rules of Jewish worship, which is much more expensive than gentile rites.. What does the wicked son say? What does this service mean to you72Ex. 12:26.? What is this exertion which you impose on us every (moment) [year]? Since he excluded himself from the community, also you shall tell him, because of this did the Eternal do for me when I left Egypt73Ex. 13:8.. For me, He did it, for that man He did not do it. If that man had been in Egypt, he would not have been worthy ever to be redeemed. What does the stupid child say? What is this74Ex. 13:14. The question is not about Passover but about the obligation of sacrificing the firstlings of the flock. In order that the child should understand the answer given to the wise child, he first has to learn by rote all the rules, up to the last Mishnah dealing with the rules of the Passover celebration.? Tell him the rules of Passover, that one may not follow the Pesaḥἐπὶ κῶμον75A (frequently drunken) revelry, characteristic of Greek celebrations and most objectionable to Jews.. What means ἐπὶ κῶμον? That one not leave one company and join another company. With the child who does not know how to ask76The child who does not know how to ask is alluded to in Ex. 13:8, you must tell your child on that day as follows: …, without a question preceding., you have to begin and initiate with him.” Rebbi Yose said, that is what the Mishnah says, “if the son does not know how to ask, his father instructs him.”
MISHNAH: How far does he say? The House of Shammai say, up to a happy mother of children84Ps. 113 only.. But the House of Hillel are saying, up to the pebble into a source of water85Ps. 114, starting with Ps. 113., and he finishes with “redemption.96Text of the benediction for redemption prescribed at the end of Mishnah 6.”Rebbi Tarphon says, 96Text of the benediction for redemption prescribed at the end of Mishnah 6.“Who freed us and freed our forefathers from Egypt and let us reach this night”, and does not seal97For him the required benediction is “short”, starting with the formula “Praise to You, Eternal, our God, King of the Universe,” followed by a single sentence.. Rebbi Aqiba says, 98This text is in addition to R. Tarphon’s. It is “long”, closing with a separate sentence starting with “Praise to You, Eternal”.“so Eternal, our God, let us reach other festivals coming towards us in peace, happy in the rebuilding of Your city, enjoying Your service, and the renewal of Your Temple. There may we eat from the Pesaḥ and well-being offerings whose blood will reach to the wall of Your altar for pleasure and we shall thank You for our redemption. Praise to You, Eternal, Who redeems Israel.” HALAKHAH: 77This explains the expression in the Mishnah, “he starts with ignominy.” The Babli 116a reports that this is the Galilean version; the autochthonous Babylonian version was different. (The name tradition in modern prints of the Babli is unreliable; it is discussed in detail in The Scholar’s Haggadah pp. 252–255.) Rav said, a priori he has to start with78Jos. 24:2–4. your forefathers always lived on the far side of the River, etc. But I took your father Abraham from the far side of the River, etc And I increased. Rebbi Aḥa said, the ketib is וארב. How may quarrels I made for him before I gave him Isaac79The word is explained not from the root רבה “to increase” but ריב “to quarrel”.. Another explanation, I prepared an ambush for him80Root ארב “to ambush”.. If he would sin, to repay him, if he would acquire merit, to reward him. 86Tosephta 10:9.“The House of Shammai said to them, did Israel leave Egypt that he should mention the Exodus from Egypt87The first verse of Ps. 114 mentions the Exodus; the entire Psalm is more about the crossing of the Red Sea.? The House of Hillel answered them, even if he would wait until the cock crows88Since the House of Shammai also agree that after the meal one finishes the Hallel(Mishnah 8), even if this is said close to dawn it would be much too early., they did not reach half the redemption,” since they left only at noontime, as it is said89Ex. 12:41; the remainder of the verse is misquoted., in the middle of this day did the Eternal lead out the Children of Israel, etc. But since one started fulfilling the obligation, on tells him to clean it up. Rebbi Abunah bar Sehora objected, did he not already mention it for the cup90Since the House of Shammai agree that in the Qiddush spoken over the first cup one mentions the Exodus, the objection of the House of Shammai seems without base.? It was stated: One says “time”91This refers to the benediction “Praise to You, Eternal, our God, King of the universe, Who has kept us alive, maintained us, and enabled us to reach this festive time.” Babli Eruvin 40b. Since the benediction is said with Qiddush, this paragraph belongs with Halakhah 1. only at the three festivals of pilgrimage. Rebbi Mana said, a baraita says so, on the festival of mazzot, the festival of weeks, and the festival of booths92Deut. 16:16. It seems that the baraita notes that the verse singles out these three festivals at times one is obligated to enjoy.. It was stated: For any {day} where it is stated “declaration as holy” one has to say ”time”93This includes the day following the festival of booths, New Year’s Day, and the Day of Atonement.. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, this is correct. If somebody saw a fig as first fruit, does he not have to recite “time”94The benediction is for all festive occasions which happen not more than once a year.? This applies to New Year’s Day and the Day of Atonement95The text in parenthesis is copied from Chapter 4:1, Notes 57–60, it is the continuation of the preceding half sentence, which also is the start of this text, but has no meaning in this context. (where in Judea one used to follow Rebbi Aqiba and in Galilee Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. If he changed and in Judea acted as in Galilee or in Galilee as in Judea he discharged his obligation. But is there not Purim, where these read on the fourteenth and those on the fifteenth? There is a difference since it is written, family and family, country and country, and town and town.)
MISHNAH: One mixes him the third cup, he says Grace102Which requires a cup of wine anyhow.. The fourth, over which he finishes the Hallel and recites the benediction of the song103The benediction after the recitation of the Hallel in the synagogue.. Between these cups104After the first cup up to the conclusion of the meal., he may drink if he wants to drink; between the third and the fourth he may not drink. After the Pesaḥ one may not serve afiqoman105While in Halakhah 4 this was interpreted as ἐπὶ κῶμον, the Halakhah here gives other interpretations.. HALAKHAH: 99This paragraph is copied from Sotah5:6, Notes 138–141. it is written100Jud. 5:2.: When retribution is retributed for Israel, when the people volunteered, praise the Eternal; the heads of the people volunteered. When the Holy One, praise to Him, does wonders for Israel, they should sing a song. They objected: There is the redemption from Egypt101Meaning that the Song of the Sea also covers the Exodus, since the latter was confirmed only at the Sea. In the Babli and midrashic literature, Ps. 113 is the song of the Israelites during Passover night [Pesaḥim 117a, Midrash Tehillim 113; cf. Cant. rabba 1(37), Mekhilta deR. Ismael, Shirah 1; deR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 71]. Cf. The Scholar’s Haggadah, pp. 314–319.! That is something else since it was the beginning of their redemption. They objected. There is redemption of Mardocai and Esther! That is something else since they were outside the Land; some want to say that Mardocai and Esther were freed of their enemies, they were not freed from [Gentile] government. Why? That he should not get drunk. Is he not already drunk? What is the difference between wine with the meal and wine after the meal? Wine after the meal intoxicates, wine with the meal does not intoxicate108Tosaphot (in Babli 117b s.v. רביעי deduce from here that drinking water is permitted between the third and the fourth cups.. Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Inainy bar Sisay: kinds of songs109He reads the word as ἐπικῶμιον “drinking song”, one of the more objectionable aspects of the κῶμος. The other explanations do not seem to be based on any Greek word. Babli 119b.. Rebbi Joḥanan says, sweets. Samuel says, truffles and chick pigeons prepared by Ḥanania bar Shilat.
MISHNAH: If part of them slept, they may eat; if all of them, they may not eat106Sacrifices become disqualified if they are not permanently guarded. If the entire company sleeps before the Pesaḥ is consumed, the meat automatically is disqualified and impure. Rebbi Yose says, if they107The entire company subscribing to one Pesaḥ. were sleepy, they may eat, if they slept they may not eat. The Pesaḥ after midnight110When rabbinically it may no longer be eaten (Mishnah Zevaḥim 5:8), it is treated as leftover. makes hands impure. Piggul111A sacrifice slaughtered with the intention of consuming it after its allotted time or at an unauthorized place. While it is a deadly sin to consume piggul, the impurity imposed on it is purely rabbinical and weaker than biblical impurity. and leftover112A qualified sacrifice left after the time allotted to its consumption. make the hands impure. If he recited the benediction for the Pesaḥ113“Praise to You, Eternal, our God, King of the universe, Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to eat Pesaḥ” (Tosephta 10:13). it exempted that of the family sacrifice114“Praise to You, Eternal, our God, King of the universe, Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to eat sacrifice.” For R. Ismael, the Pesaḥ is the main dish, the family sacrifice is a filler and does not need a separate benediction (Mishnah Berakhot 6:7). For R. Aqiba the two are coordinate, neither is subordinate to the other.; the one for the family sacrifice does not exempt the one for the Pesaḥ, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba said, neither one exempts the other. HALAKHAH: Why? Because they did not think of it or because midnight had passed? Think of it, if there was another group and midnight had not passed? Therefore the reason only is because they did not think of it115It seems that this paragraph does not refer to Mishnah 9 but to Mishnah 8. Why is the Pesaḥ disqualified if the participants were sleeping? Is it rabbinically, for they may miss the deadline of midnight, or biblically because nobody guards the sacrifice? Since the Mishnah implies that the Pesaḥ is disqualified even if there is another group in the house which would see to it that the first group would not miss the deadline, it follows that the reason must be the lack of attention given to the Pesaḥ.. 116This paragraph is copied from Halakhah 7:11, Notes 300–309. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Piggul and leftovers add together to make hands impure in the amount that exposes to punishment, the volume of an olive. Do they disqualify heave? It is a argument de minore ad maius. If they make hands impure to disqualify heave, they themselves not so much more? This which was left, what are you doing with it? Does it make hands impure or does it not make hands impure? If you are saying that this which was left makes hands impure, would piggul and leftovers not disqualify heave? About that which was left they did not decide anything4Babli 99b, Tosephta Berakhot 5:1. The Babli denies that in the special case of Passover Eve R. Yose disagrees.. For if it were not so, the outer part would make the inner part impure5Babli 100a.. Rebbi Abbin said, who holds that something can become impure by touching itself? Rebbi Meïr. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, everything becomes pure by its greater part? When he cut off the greater part, is it not separated? Then it would be touching and be disqualified. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, if he cuts off minimal pieces and throws away. Can you say, because midnight has passed? No, because they did not think of it. Therefore the reason only is because they did not think of it117Since the preceding paragraph is about the Pesaḥ taken out from its place, long before midnight, it follows that also in that case it is disqualified and makes hands impure because one no longer guards it.. Rebbi Zeˋira said, should not making the benediction for Pesaḥ not exempt the sacrifice, but for the sacrifice exempt the Pesaḥ, since the Pesaḥ is included in the notion of sacrifice118Since the formulation of the benediction for the festival sacrifice is general, and making a general benediction in general makes it impossible to recite the more appropriate specific benediction (Mishnah Berakhot 6:2), one can understand the position neither of R. Ismael nor that of R. Aqiba.? Rebbi Mana said, the Pesaḥ is the main item, the {family} sacrifice a minor part119The principle of Mishnah Berakhot6:2 is not applicable here for either R. Ismael or R. Aqiba..
About this book
Jerusalem Pesachim
1 connection
Chapter 35 1 connections
No connections match.