Pesahim Part Two, Standard Color [Noe ed.] 9653015699, 9789653015692

Citation preview

Koren Talmud Bavli THE NOÉ EDITION Pesaĥim · Part two

‫תלמוד בבלי‬ koren talmud bavli THE NOÉ EDITION

‫פסחים ב‬

pesaĤim · Part two Commentary by

Rabbi Adin Even-Israel (Steinsaltz)

Editor-in-chief

Rabbi Dr Tzvi Hersh Weinreb executive Editor

Rabbi Joshua Schreier

· Shefa foundation koren publishers jerusalem

Supported by the Matanel Foundation

Koren Talmud Bavli Volume 7: Tractate Pesaĥim, Part Two The Noé Edition ISBN 978 965 301 569 2 First Hebrew/English Edition, 2013 Koren Publishers Jerusalem Ltd. PO Box 4044, Jerusalem 91040, ISRAEL PO Box 8531, New Milford, CT 06776, USA www.korenpub.com Shefa Foundation Shefa Foundation is the parent organization of institutions established by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel (Steinsaltz) PO Box 45187, Jerusalem 91450 ISRAEL Telephone: +972 2 646 0900, Fax +972 2 624 9454 www.hashefa.co.il Talmud Commentary © 1965, 2013 Adin Steinsaltz and Shefa Foundation Talmud Translation © 2013 Shefa Foundation Vocalization and punctuation of the Hebrew/Aramaic text © 2013 Shefa Foundation Koren Tanakh & Siddur Fonts © 1962, 1981, 2013 Koren Publishers Jerusalem Ltd. Talmud Design © 2013 Koren Publishers Jerusalem Ltd. Original Illustrations © 1965, 2013 Shefa Foundation Revised Illustrations © 2013 Koren Publishers Jerusalem Ltd. (except as noted) Cover image © Mattes, http://tinyurl.com/triclinium-mattes Hardcover design by Ben Gasner Considerable research and expense have gone into the creation of this publication. Unauthorized copying may be considered geneivat da’at and breach of copyright law. No part of this publication (content or design, including use of the Talmud translations and Koren fonts) may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embedded in critical articles or reviews.

,‫ וְ ִה ׁ ְש ַל ְח ִּתי ָר ָעב ָּב ָא ֶרץ‬,‫ נְ ֻאם ֲאדֹנָי יֱ הֹוִ ה‬,‫ִה ֵּנה יָ ִמים ָּב ִאים‬ .‫ם־ל ׁ ְשמ ַֹע ֵאת דִּ ְב ֵרי יהוה‬ ִ ‫ ִּכי ִא‬,‫ֹא־ר ָעב ַל ֶּל ֶחם וְ ל ֹא־צָ ָמא ַל ַּמיִ ם‬ ָ ‫ל‬ Behold, days are coming – says the Lord God – I will send a hunger to the land, not a hunger for bread nor a thirst for water, but to hear the words of the Lord. 

(Amos 8:11)

The Noé edition of the Koren Talmud Bavli with the commentary of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz (Even-Israel) is dedicated to all those who open its cover to quench their thirst for Jewish knowledge, in our generation of Torah renaissance. This beautiful edition is for the young, the aged, the novice and the savant alike, as it unites the depth of Torah knowledge with the best of academic scholarship. Within its exquisite and vibrant pages, words become worlds. It will claim its place in the library of classics, in the bookcases of the Beit Midrash, the classrooms of our schools, and in the offices of professionals and business people who carve out precious time to grapple with its timeless wisdom. For the Student and the Scholar Dedicated by Leo and Sue Noé

Managing Editor

Senior Content Editor

Editors

Avi Steinhart Rabbi David Strauss Amiel Vick Rabbi Abe Y. Weschler

Rabbi Jason Rappoport

Rabbi Joshua Amaru, Coordinating Editor Menucha Chwat Rabbi David Jay Derovan Rabbi Yoel Domb Betzalel Philip Edwards Rabbi Yonatan Shai Freedman Rabbi Dov Karoll Rabbi Tzvi Chaim Kaye Rabbi Adin Krohn Sally Mayer Rabbi Avishai Magence, Content Curator Rabbi Jonathan Mishkin Sarit Nagus Yedidya Schwartz Rabbi David Sedley Jay Shapiro Shira Shmidman Rabbi Michael Siev

Design & Typesetting

Raphaël Freeman, Design & Typography Dena Landowne Bailey, Typesetting Tani Bayer, Jacket Design

Images

Rabbi Eliahu Misgav, Illustration Yehudit Cohen, Image Acquisition

Rabbi Dr. Shalom Z. Berger

Copy Editors

Aliza Israel, Coordinator Bracha Hermon Ita Olesker Debbie Ismailoff Shira Finson Ilana Sobel Deena Nataf

Language Consultants

Dr. Stephanie E. Binder, Greek & Latin Yaakov Hoffman, Arabic Dr. Shai Secunda, Persian

Once upon a time, under pressure of censorship, printers would inscribe in the flyleaves of volumes of the Talmud:

Whatever may be written herein about gentiles does not refer to the gentiles of today, but to gentiles of times past.

Today, the flyleaves of our books bear a similar inscription, albeit an invisible one:

Whatever may be written herein about Jews does not refer to the Jews of today, but to Jews who lived in other times. So we are able to sit down and study Torah, Talmud, books of ethics, or books of faith without considering their relevance to our lives. Whatever is written there does not apply to us or to our generation, but only to other people, other times.

We must expunge from those invisible prologues

the notion that the words are written about someone else, about others, about anyone but us. Whether the book is a volume of Torah, a tractate of the Talmud, or a tract of faith, the opposite must be inscribed: Whatever is written herein refers only to me; is written for me and obligates me. First and foremost, the content is addressed to me. — From a public address by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz as quoted in ‫( חיי עולם‬Talks on Parashat HaShavua) Maggid Books, 2011

Contents

Haskamotx Message from Rabbi Adin Even-Israel (Steinsaltz)xiv Acknowledgmentsxv Introduction by the Editor-in-Chiefxvii Preface by the Executive Editorxix Introduction by the Publisherxxi Introduction to Pesaĥim

1

Pesaĥim, Part II

5

Index of Background

303

Index of Language

304

Index of Personalities

304

Image Credits

304

Haskama

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein

…These new commentaries – which include a new interpretation of the Talmud, a halakhic summary of the debated issues, and various other sections – are a truly outstanding work; they can be of great benefit not only to those familiar with talmudic study who seek to deepen their understanding, but also to those who are just beginning to learn, guiding them through the pathways of the Torah and teaching them how to delve into the sea of the Talmud. I would like to offer my blessing to this learned scholar. May the Holy One grant him success with these volumes and may he merit to write many more, to enhance the greatness of Torah, and bring glory to God and His word… Rabbi Moshe Feinstein New York, 7 Adar 5743

I have seen one tractate from the Talmud to which the great scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz ‫ שליט״א‬has added nikkud (vowels) and illustrations to explain that which is unknown to many people; he has also added interpretations and innovations, and is evidently a talmid hakham. Talmidei hakhamim and yeshiva students ought to study these volumes, and synagogues and batei midrash would do well to purchase them, as they may find them useful. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein New York, Adar 5730

x 

This haskama refers to the original Hebrew edition of the steinsaltz Talmud, upon which this volume is based

Haskama

Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson

…I have just had the pleasant surprise of receiving tractate Shabbat (part one), which has been published by [Rabbi Steinsaltz] along with his explanations, etc. Happy is the man who sees good fruits from his labors. May he continue in this path and increase light, for in the matters of holiness there is always room to add – and we have been commanded to add – for they are linked to the Holy One, Blessed be He, Who is infinite. And may the Holy One grant him success to improve and enhance this work, since the greater good strengthens his hand… Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson The Lubavitcher Rebbe Brooklyn, 5 Marĥeshvan, 5729

This haskama refers to the original Hebrew edition of the steinsaltz Talmud, upon which this volume is based 

xi

Haskama

Rabbi Moshe Zvi Neria

The translation of the books of our past into the language of the present – this was the task of the sages of every generation. And in Israel, where the command to “teach them repeatedly to your children” applies to all parts of the nation, it was certainly the task of every era. This is true for every generation, and in our time – when many of those who have strayed far are once again drawing near – all the more so. For many today say, “Who will let us drink from the well” of Talmud, and few are those who offer up the waters to drink. We must, therefore, particularly commend the blessed endeavor of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz to explain the chapters of the Talmud in this extensive yet succinct commentary, which, in addition to its literal interpretation of the text, also explicates the latter’s underlying logic and translates it into the language of our generation. It appears that all those who seek to study Talmud – the diligent student and the learned adult – will have no difficulty understanding when using this commentary. Moreover, we may hope that the logical explanation will reveal to them the beauty of the talmudic page, and they will be drawn deeper and deeper into the intellectual pursuit which has engaged the best Jewish minds, and which serves as the cornerstone of our very lives… Rabbi Moshe Zvi Neria

xii 

This haskama refers to the original Hebrew edition of the steinsaltz Talmud, upon which this volume is based

Haskama

Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu

The Talmud in Eruvin 21b states: “Rava continued to interpret verses homiletically. What is the meaning of the verse: ‘And besides being wise, Kohelet also taught the people knowledge; and he weighed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs’? (Ecclesiastes 12:9). He explains: He taught the people knowledge; he taught it with the accentuation marks in the Torah, and explained each matter by means of another matter similar to it. And he weighed [izen], and sought out, and set in order many proverbs; Ulla said that Rabbi Eliezer said: At first the Torah was like a basket without handles [oznayim] until Solomon came and made handles for it.” And as Rashi there explains: “And thus were Israel able to grasp the mitzvot and distance themselves from transgressions – just as a vessel with handles is easily held, etc.” Such things may be said of this beloved and eminent man, a great sage of Torah and of virtue. And far more than he has done with the Oral Torah, he does with the Written Torah – teaching the people knowledge. And beyond that, he also affixes handles to the Torah, i.e., to the Talmud, which is obscure and difficult for many. Only the intellectual elite, which are a precious few, and those who study in yeshiva, can today learn the Talmud and understand what it says – and even though we have Rashi, still not everyone uses him. But now the great scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz ‫ שליט״א‬has come and affixed handles to the Torah, allowing the Talmud to be held and studied, even by simple men. And he has composed a commentary alongside the text, a fine commentary in clear, comprehensible language, “a word fitly spoken” with explanations and illustrations, so that all those who seek to study the work of God can do so. Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu Former Chief Rabbi of Israel, 7 Tishrei, 5754 This haskama refers to the original Hebrew edition of the steinsaltz Talmud, upon which this volume is based 

xiii

Message from Rabbi Adin Even-Israel (Steinsaltz)

The Talmud is the cornerstone of Jewish culture. True, our culture originated in the Bible and has branched out in directions besides the Talmud, yet the latter’s influence on Jewish culture is fundamental. Perhaps because it was composed not by a single individual, but rather by hundreds and thousands of Sages in batei midrash in an ongoing, millennium-long process, the Talmud expresses not only the deepest themes and values of the Jewish people, but also of the Jewish spirit. As the basic study text for young and old, laymen and learned, the Talmud may be said to embody the historical trajectory of the Jewish soul. It is, therefore, best studied interactively, its subject matter coming together with the student’s questions, perplexities, and innovations to form a single intricate weave. In the entire scope of Jewish culture, there is not one area that does not draw from or converse with the Talmud. The study of Talmud is thus the gate through which a Jew enters his life’s path. The Koren Talmud Bavli seeks to render the Talmud accessible to the millions of Jews whose mother tongue is English, allowing them to study it, approach it, and perhaps even become one with it. This project has been carried out and assisted by several people, all of whom have worked tirelessly to turn this vision into an actual set of books to be studied. It is a joyful duty to thank the many partners in this enterprise for their various contributions. Thanks to Koren Publishers Jerusalem, both for the publication of this set and for the design of its very complex graphic layout. Thanks of a different sort are owed to the Shefa Foundation and its director, Rabbi Menachem Even-Israel, for their determination and persistence in setting this goal and reaching it. Many thanks to the translators, editors, and proofreaders for their hard and meticulous work. Thanks to the individuals and organizations that supported this project, chief among them the Matanel Foundation and the Noé family of London. And thanks in advance to all those who will invest their time, hearts, and minds in studying these volumes – to learn, to teach, and to practice. Rabbi Adin Even-Israel (Steinsaltz) Jerusalem 5772

xiv 

A Message from Rabbi Adin Even-israel (Steinsaltz)

Acknowledgments

We are indeed privileged to dedicate this edition of the Koren Talmud Bavli in honor of the generous support of Leo and Sue Noé of London. The name Noé is synonymous with philanthropy. The family’s charitable endeavors span a vast range of educational projects, welfare institutions, and outreach organizations across the globe, with a particular emphasis on the “nurturing of each individual.” Among so many other charitable activities, the Noés have been deeply involved with Kisharon, which provides the British Jewish community with vital support for hundreds of people with learning difficulties and their families; they provide steadfast support of SEED, which stands at the forefront of adult Jewish education in the UK, and Kemach, an organization in Israel that “helps Haredi students sustain themselves in dignity,” providing both professional and vocational training for the Haredi community in Israel. The Noés are not simply donors to institutions. They are partners. Donors think of a sum. Partners think of a cause, becoming rigorously and keenly involved, and giving of their time and energy. We are honored that they have chosen to partner with our two organizations, Shefa and Koren Publishers Jerusalem, enabling us to further and deepen learning among all Jews. Leo and Sue are the proud parents and grandparents of five children and their families. The next generation has been taught by example that with life’s gifts come the responsibilities to be active within and contribute to society – both Jewish and non-Jewish – as is consistent with the noblest of Jewish values.



Rabbi Adin Even-Israel (Steinsaltz) Matthew Miller, Publisher Jerusalem 5773

Acknowledgments 

xv

Introduction by the Editor-in-Chief

The vastly expanded audience of Talmud study in our generation is a phenomenon of historical proportions. The reasons for this phenomenon are many, and include the availability of a wide array of translations, commentaries, and study aids. One outstanding example of such a work is the translation of the Talmud into modern Hebrew by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel (Steinsaltz). The product of a lifetime of intense intellectual labor, this translation stands out in its uniqueness. But what can the interested student do if he or she does not comprehend the Hebrew, even in its modern form? Where is the English speaker who wishes to access this instructive material to turn? The Koren Talmud Bavli that you hold in your hand is designed to be the answer to those questions. This work is the joint effort of Rabbi Steinsaltz himself, his closest advisory staff, and Koren Publishers Jerusalem. It is my privilege to have been designated Editor-in-Chief of this important project, and to have worked in close collaboration with a team of translators and proofreaders, artists and graphic designers, scholars and editors. Together we are presenting to the English-speaking world a translation that has all the merits of the original Hebrew work by Rabbi Steinsaltz, and provides assistance for the beginner of any age who seeks to obtain the necessary skills to become an adept talmudist. This is the seventh volume of the project, tractate Pesaĥim, part Ii. It includes the entire original text, in the traditional configuration and pagination of the famed Vilna edition of the Talmud. This enables the student to follow the core text with the commentaries of Rashi, Tosafot, and the customary marginalia. It also provides a clear English translation in contemporary idiom, faithfully based upon the modern Hebrew edition. At least equal to the linguistic virtues of this edition are the qualities of its graphic design. Rather than intimidate students by confronting them with a page-size block of text, we have divided the page into smaller thematic units. Thus, readers can focus their attention and absorb each discrete discussion before proceeding to the next unit. The design of each page allows for sufficient white space to ease the visual task of reading. The illustrations, one of the most innovative features of the Hebrew edition, have been substantially enhanced and reproduced in color.

Introduction by the Editor-in-Chief, Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb 

xvii

The end result is a literary and artistic masterpiece. This has been achieved through the dedicated work of a large team of translators, headed by Rabbi Joshua Schreier, and through the unparalleled creative efforts of Raphaël Freeman and the gifted staff at Koren. The group of individuals who surround Rabbi Steinsaltz and support his work deserve our thanks as well. I have come to appreciate their energy, initiative, and persistence. And I thank the indefatigable Rabbi Menachem Even-Israel, whom I cannot praise highly enough. The quality of his guidance and good counsel is surpassed only by his commitment to the dissemination and perpetuation of his father’s precious teachings. Finally, in humility, awe, and great respect, I acknowledge Rabbi Adin Even-Israel (Steinsaltz). I thank him for the inspirational opportunity he has granted me to work with one of the outstanding sages of our time. Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb Jerusalem 5772

xviii 

Introduction by the Editor-in-Chief, Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb

Preface by the Executive Editor

Toward the beginning of tractate Pesaĥim (3a), the Gemara questions the mishna’s use of the term or rather than the standard term leil when referring to the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan. The Gemara introduces a discussion of the value of euphemism and refraining from the use of crude language. It concludes that despite the importance of euphemism, if the euphemism comes at the expense of clarity and requires a less succinct formulation, it is preferable to speak concisely. Only when the choice is between equally concise phrases is the euphemism preferred. In his peirush, Rav Steinsaltz’s language is both concise and aesthetic. While explaining often difficult passages, he avoids the temptation to over-explain, inviting the reader to study the Talmud with him rather than doing all the thinking in the reader’s place. We have attempted to follow his path in translating and editing the Koren Talmud Bavli. My involvement in the production of the Koren Talmud Bavli has been both a privilege and a pleasure. The Shefa Foundation, headed by Rabbi Menachem Even-Israel and devoted to the dissemination of the wide-ranging, monumental works of Rabbi Adin Even-Israel (Steinsaltz), constitutes the Steinsaltz side of this partnership; Koren Publishers Jerusalem, headed by Matthew Miller, with the day-to-day management of the project in the able hands of Dena Landowne Bailey, constitutes the publishing side of this partnership. The combination of the inspiration, which is the hallmark of Shefa, with the creativity and professionalism for which Koren is renowned and which I experience on a daily basis, has lent the Koren Talmud Bavli its outstanding quality in terms of both content and form. I would like to express my appreciation for Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, the Editorin-Chief, whose insight and guidance have been invaluable. The contribution of my friend and colleague, Rabbi Dr. Shalom Z. Berger, the Senior Content Editor, cannot be overstated; his title does not begin to convey the excellent direction he has provided in all aspects of this project. In addition, I would like to thank Rabbi Jason Rapoport, Managing Editor; Rabbi Joshua Amaru, Coordinating Editor, and Rabbi Avishai Magence, Content Curator, whose tireless devotion to this project has been and continues to be crucial to the continued success of this project. The erudite and articulate men and women who serve as translators, editors and copy editors have ensured that this project adheres to the highest standards.

preface by the Executive editor 

xix

There are several others whose contributions to this project cannot be overlooked. On the Steinsaltz side: Meir HaNegbi, Yacov Elbert, and Tsipora Ifrah. On the Koren side, my colleagues at Koren: Rabbi David Fuchs, Rabbi Hanan Benayahu, Efrat Gross, Rachel Hanstater Meghnagi, Rabbi Eliahu Misgav, and Rabbi Yinon Chen. Their assistance in all matters, large and small, is appreciated. At the risk of being repetitious, I would like to thank Rabbi Dr. Berger for introducing me to the world of Steinsaltz. Finally, I would like to thank Rabbi Menachem Even-Israel, with whom it continues to be a pleasure to move forward in this great enterprise. Rabbi Joshua Schreier Jerusalem 5772

xx 

preface by the Executive editor

Introduction by the Publisher

The Talmud has sustained and inspired Jews for thousands of years. Throughout Jewish history, an elite cadre of scholars has absorbed its learning and passed it on to succeeding generations. The Talmud has been the fundamental text of our people. Beginning in the 1960s, Rabbi Adin Even-Israel (Steinsaltz) ‫ שליט״א‬created a revolution in the history of Talmud study. His translation of the Talmud, first into modern Hebrew and then into other languages, as well the practical learning aids he added to the text, have enabled millions of people around the world to access and master the complexity and context of the world of Talmud. It is thus a privilege to present the Koren Talmud Bavli, an English translation of the talmudic text with the brilliant elucidation of Rabbi Steinsaltz. The depth and breadth of his knowledge are unique in our time. His rootedness in the tradition and his reach into the world beyond it are inspirational. Working with Rabbi Steinsaltz on this remarkable project has been not only an honor, but a great pleasure. Never shy to express an opinion, with wisdom and humor, Rabbi Steinsaltz sparkles in conversation, demonstrating his knowledge (both sacred and worldly), sharing his wide-ranging interests, and, above all, radiating his passion. I am grateful for the unique opportunity to work closely with him, and I wish him many more years of writing and teaching. Our intentions in publishing this new edition of the Talmud are threefold. First, we seek to fully clarify the talmudic page to the reader – textually, intellectually, and graphically. Second, we seek to utilize today’s most sophisticated technologies, both in print and electronic formats, to provide the reader with a comprehensive set of study tools. And third, we seek to help readers advance in their process of Talmud study. To achieve these goals, the Koren Talmud Bavli is unique in a number of ways: • The classic tzurat hadaf of Vilna, used by scholars since the 1800s, has been reset for great clarity, and opens from the Hebrew “front” of the book. Full nikkud has been added to both the talmudic text and Rashi’s commentary, allowing for a more fluent reading with the correct pronunciation; the commentaries of Tosafot have been punctuated. Upon the advice of many English-speaking teachers of Talmud, we have separated these core pages from the translation, thereby enabling the advanced student to approach the text without the distraction of the translation. This also reduces the number of volumes in the set. At bottom of each daf, there is a reference to the corresponding English pages. In addition, the Vilna edition was read against other manuscripts and older print editions, so that texts which had been removed by non-Jewish censors have been restored to their rightful place. Introduction by the publisher 

xxi

• The English translation, which starts on the English “front” of the book, reproduces the menukad Talmud text alongside the English translation (in bold) and commentary and explanation (in a lighter font). The Hebrew and Aramaic text is presented in logical paragraphs. This allows for a fluent reading of the text for the non-Hebrew or non-Aramaic reader. It also allows for the Hebrew reader to refer easily to the text alongside. Where the original text features dialogue or poetry, the English text is laid out in a manner appropriate to the genre. Each page refers to the relevant daf. • Critical contextual tools surround the text and translation: personality notes, providing short biographies of the Sages; language notes, explaining foreign terms borrowed from Greek, Latin, Persian, or Arabic; and background notes, giving information essential to the understanding of the text, including history, geography, botany, archeology, zoology, astronomy, and aspects of daily life in the talmudic era. • Halakhic summaries provide references to the authoritative legal decisions made over the centuries by the rabbis. They explain the reasons behind each halakhic decision as well as the ruling’s close connection to the Talmud and its various interpreters. • Photographs, drawings, and other illustrations have been added throughout the text – in full color in the Noé and Electronic editions, and in black and white in the Daf Yomi edition – to visually elucidate the text. This is not an exhaustive list of features of this edition, it merely presents an overview for the Englishspeaking reader who may not be familiar with the “total approach” to Talmud pioneered by Rabbi Steinsaltz. Several professionals have helped bring this vast collaborative project to fruition. My many colleagues are noted on the Acknowledgements page, and the leadership of this project has been exceptional. Rabbi Menachem Even-israel, Director of the Shefa Foundation, was the driving force behind this enterprise. With enthusiasm and energy, he formed the happy alliance with Koren and established close relationships among all involved in the work. Rabbi dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb ‫שליט״א‬, Editor-in-Chief, brought to this project his profound knowledge of Torah, intellectual literacy of Talmud, and erudition of Western literature. It is to him that the text owes its very high standard, both in form and content, and the logical manner in which the beauty of the Talmud is presented. Rabbi Joshua Schreier, Executive Editor, assembled an outstanding group of scholars, translators, editors, and proofreaders, whose standards and discipline enabled this project to proceed in a timely and highly professional manner. Rabbi Meir Hanegbi, Editor of the Hebrew Edition of the Steinsaltz Talmud, lent his invaluable assistance throughout the work process, supervising the reproduction of the Vilna pages. Raphaël Freeman created this Talmud’s unique typographic design which, true to the Koren approach, is both elegant and user-friendly. It has been an enriching experience for all of us at Koren Publishers Jerusalem to work with the Shefa Foundation and the Steinsaltz Center to develop and produce the Koren Talmud Bavli. We pray that this publication will be a source of great learning and, ultimately, greater Avodat Hashem for all Jews. Matthew Miller, Publisher Koren Publishers Jerusalem Jerusalem 5772

xxii 

Introduction by the publisher

Introduction to Pesahim

And this day shall be to you for a memorial, and you shall keep it as a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations you shall keep it as a feast by an ordinance forever. Seven days shall you eat matzot, yet on the first day you shall remove leaven out of your houses; for whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel. And on the first day there shall be a sacred convocation, and on the seventh day there shall be a sacred convocation to you; no kind of labor shall be done on them, save that which every man must eat, only that may be done by you. (Exodus 12:14–16) Matzot shall be eaten seven days; and no leavened bread shall be seen with you, neither shall there be leaven seen with you, in all your quarters. (Exodus 13:7) Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year; you shall take it from the sheep, or from the goats. And you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it in the afternoon...And they shall eat the meat on that night, roast with fire, and matzot; with bitter herbs they shall eat it. Do not eat of it raw, nor boiled in water; but roast it with fire, its head with its legs and with its inner parts. (Exodus 12:5–6, 8–9) Observe the month of aviv, and offer the Paschal lamb to the Lord your God; for in the month of aviv the Lord your God brought you out of Egypt by night. And you shall slaughter the Paschal offering to the Lord your God from the flock and from the herd, in the place which the Lord shall choose to rest His name there. You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shall you eat matzot with it, the bread of affliction; for you came out of the land of Egypt in haste, that you may remember the day when you came out of the land of Egypt all the days of your life. (Deuteronomy 16:1–3) Speak to the children of Israel, saying: Any man of you or your generations who shall be impure by reason of a corpse, or on a distant journey, he shall keep the Passover to the Lord. On the fourteenth day of the second month at evening they shall keep it, and eat it with matzot and bitter herbs. They shall leave none of it to the morning, nor break any bone of it; according to the entire statute of the Paschal lamb they shall offer it. But the man who is ritually pure, and is not on a journey, and refrains from offering the Paschal lamb, that soul shall be cut off from his people; because he did not bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season, that man shall bear his sin. (Numbers 9:10–13)

The Torah actually describes two distinct Festivals collectively referred to as Passover, although they are often thought of as a single holiday. First is the festival of Pesaĥ, referring specifically to the Festival surrounding the Paschal lamb, which is sacrificed on the afternoon of the fourteenth day of Nisan and consumed later that night. This parallels the events immediately preceding the exodus from Egypt. Distinct from this is the festival of Matzot, the weeklong Festival beginning on the fifteenth of Nisan and characterized by the prohibitions against consuming or possessing leaven throughout the week, and the obligation to eat matza on the first night. This commemorates the actual exodus. There is a confluence of these two Festivals on the evening of the fifteenth, when the Paschal lamb is eaten and the festival of Matzot begins.

1

Tractate Pesaĥim, which deals with both Festivals, is classically divided into two sections. The first, tractate Pesaĥ Rishon, discusses the halakhot of the festival of Matzot, including the prohibition of leaven, its elimination from one’s possession, and the mitzva to consume matza. The second, tractate Pesaĥ Sheni, deals with the festival of Pesaĥ and the halakhot of the Paschal lamb. Some suggest that it is for this reason that the tractate as a whole is entitled Pesaĥim, the plural of Pesaĥ, since it includes within it these two tractates of Pesaĥ. The tractate also deals with two Pesaĥim in a different sense. Ideally, the Paschal lamb is to be sacrificed on the fourteenth of Nisan and consumed later that night. However, those who are unable to do so have a second opportunity a month later, on the fourteenth of Iyyar and later that night. The first opportunity is called Pesaĥ Rishon, the first Passover, and the second is called Pesaĥ Sheni, the second Passover. As stated, the festival of Matzot is characterized by the prohibition against eating or possessing leaven. Remarkably, the reason for this prohibition is neither explained by the Torah nor discussed in the Gemara. It is instructive, however, that a similar prohibition of leaven also applies to the sacrificial rite; namely, that no leaven may be offered on the altar. Instead, all grain-based offerings are unleavened. This may indicate that the exclusive consumption of unleavened produce achieves elements of purity and sanctity. The Torah states the prohibitions concerning leaven only in general terms but never defines precisely what is intended: Which types of food can become leavened, what is the precise definition of being leavened, and does the prohibition apply to items that will not be eaten? Similarly, the prohibition against possessing leaven necessitates that it be removed from one’s home. However, the many practical implications of this are not explained by the Torah. When and how should the leaven be removed from one’s possession? Obviously, throughout the year leaven is constantly found in the home. Which areas of the home need to be checked? In what manner and to what extent? The prohibition against leaven includes both eating it and deriving benefit from it. What is included in this prohibition? This question itself raises more general issues regarding other prohibited foods and items from which one is not allowed to gain benefit. All these topics are discussed in the first section of the tractate, Pesaĥ Rishon. The second section of the tractate, Pesaĥ Sheni, provides a detailed discussion of all aspects of the rite of the Paschal lamb and the Temple service surrounding it. This section closely resembles tractates within the order of Kodashim, which deals with the sacrificial rite. The style of the Gemara’s analysis of the sacrificial rite differs significantly from that employed by the Gemara in other areas. Heavy emphasis is placed on hermeneutics, and references to halakhot given to Moses at Sinai are more prominent. Principles derived in one area of the Temple service are not always immediately applied to another, as each aspect of the service maintains an independent identity. Owing to the great sanctity of the offerings, there is a plethora of rules that apply to every stage of their rites. Significantly, and unlike most other mitzvot, emphasis is placed not only on the correct physical performance of the rite but also on the intentions of those involved. Improper intent can even, at times, entirely disqualify an offering. The Paschal lamb is, in one regard, just one of the many different offerings sacrificed in the Temple. As such, all the halakhot that apply to regular offerings apply to a Paschal lamb. For example, the sacrifice of all offerings comprises four sacrificial rites, all indispensable: The animal is slaughtered; its blood is collected in a holy vessel; it is carried to the altar; and then the blood is sprinkled upon the altar. Each of these rites must be performed correctly, and failure to do so can disqualify the offering. In addition, the many types of offerings are grouped into different subcategories, each with its own halakhot. The Paschal lamb is included within various subcategories, which provide a second level of halakhot that must be followed.

2

However, there are many halakhot that are unique to the Paschal lamb. For most offerings, the consumption of its meat, whether by the priests or by those bringing the offering, is of minor importance. Even if an offering might never be consumed, it may still be permissible to bring it. Not so for the Paschal lamb. The consumption of its meat by those bringing it is one of its central purposes, and a Paschal lamb that will not be eaten may not be brought at all. There are therefore numerous halakhot pertaining to its preparation and consumption. This includes the way it is roasted, the need for those who wish to partake of it to be registered into a group beforehand, and the manner in which it is eaten. The Paschal lambs that were sacrificed by the children of Israel in Egypt provide a paradigm for the Paschal lambs that are to be sacrificed each year throughout the generations. Accordingly, many of the halakhot of the Paschal lamb parallel those that were given to the children of Israel in Egypt. In this way the Paschal lamb is able to serve as a remembrance of the exodus from Egypt throughout the generations. The tractate is structured chronologically, beginning with the required preparations before the Festival begins, including the elimination of leaven from one’s possession. It then proceeds to discuss the sacrificing of the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth of Nisan, and concludes with the details of the Seder night on the fifteenth. In the first few chapters of the tractate, incidental to the discussion of the elimination of leaven from one’s possession, it provides a more general discussion of the nature of the prohibitions pertaining to leavened bread. The following chapters comprise tractate Pesaĥ Sheni: Chapter Five, which was printed in Volume One of tractate Pesaĥim, discusses the time and the manner in which the Paschal lamb is sacrificed. Chapter Six deals with the special case in which the fourteenth of Nisan occurs on Shabbat. It discusses how the Paschal lamb is to be sacrificed in such a case. It delineates which aspects of the rite are maintained just as they are when it occurs on a weekday and which ones are changed in consideration for the sanctity and prohibitions of Shabbat. Chapter Seven describes the manner in which the Paschal lamb is roasted as well as other more general topics that pertain to offerings. It also includes a discussion of what should be done if an animal consecrated as a Paschal lamb is lost or disqualified in some other way before its consumption. Chapter Eight delineates for whom a Paschal lamb may be sacrificed and some of the halakhot pertaining to registering in a group for a Paschal lamb. Chapter Nine discusses the rules of who fulfills his obligation with the first Pesaĥ and who is considered unable to do so and must postpone his fulfillment to the following month with the second Pesaĥ, as well as the halakhot of the second Pesaĥ. It also discusses the differences between the Paschal lamb in Egypt and the ones sacrificed throughout the generations. Chapter Ten is considered part of tractate Pesaĥ Rishon. It details the halakhot of the seder and describes the various practices involved, including the recitation of the Haggadah and its associated songs and praises.



3

Let the children of Israel offer the Paschal lamb in its appointed time. In the fourteenth day of this month, at evening, you shall offer it in its appointed season; according to all its statutes and according to all its ordinances shall you offer it. (Numbers 9:2–3)

Introduction to Perek VI

And you shall slaughter the Paschal offering to the Lord your God from the flock and from the herd, in the place which the Lord shall choose to rest His name there. (Deuteronomy 16:2) And they roasted the Paschal offering with fire according to the ordinance; but the other sacred offerings they boiled in pots and in cauldrons and in pans, and carried them swiftly among all the people. (II Chronicles 35:13)

The previous chapter discussed the slaughter of the Paschal lamb in broad terms. This chapter focuses on the specific case of when Passover eve occurs on Shabbat. Tradition teaches that the Paschal lamb is slaughtered even on Shabbat. However, clearly not every action associated with the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat, and it must be clarified which aspects of the rite may be performed in the same manner as they are on a weekday and which aspects must be adjusted or even neglected so as not to desecrate the sanctity of Shabbat. It must be identified which aspects of the rite of the Paschal lamb are a fundamental part of it. Just as the Paschal lamb itself overrides Shabbat, these aspects do as well. In addition, it must be clarified whether the dispensation to sacrifice the Paschal lamb on Shabbat always applies to all the activities performed for that goal or whether it is limited to cases in which a valid Paschal lamb is sacrificed properly. For example, if one slaughtered a Paschal lamb, and it turns out to have been invalid, is he considered to have desecrated Shabbat, obligating him to bring a sin-offering? In essence, the question is whether a person’s attempt to fulfill a mitzva exempts him from any unwitting violation of Shabbat caused in the process. Essentially an independent topic, the Festival peace-offering that is often brought together with the Paschal lamb is also dealt with in this chapter. While hinted to in the Torah, the details of this offering are not clear. The chapter attempts to clarify many of the halakhot of this offering, especially whether it may be sacrificed on Shabbat.

5

Perek VI Daf 65 Amud b ‫ֹוחין‬ ִ ּ‫מתני׳ ֵא ּל ּו דְּ ָב ִרים ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח ד‬ ,‫ וּזְ ִר ַיקת דָּ מֹו‬,‫יטתֹו‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ְש ִח‬:‫ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬.‫ וְ ַה ְק ָט ַרת ֲח ָל ָביו‬,‫ו ִּמיחוּי ְק ָר ָביו‬ ‫ֹוחין‬ ִ ּ‫צְ ִלּיָ יתֹו וַ ֲה ָד ַחת ְק ָר ָביו – ֵאינָן ד‬ ‫ ַה ְר ָּכ ָבתֹו וַ ֲה ָב ָאתֹו ִמחוּץ‬.‫ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫ֹוחין‬ ִ ּ‫יַב ְל ּתֹו – ֵאין ד‬ ּ ַ ‫יכת‬ ַ ‫ וַ ֲח ִת‬,‫ַל ְּתחוּם‬ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬.‫ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ .‫ֹוחין‬ ִ ּ‫ד‬

‫ וַ ֲהל ֹא דִּ ין הוּא; ָמה‬:‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ – ‫אכה‬ ָ ‫יטה ׁ ֶש ִהיא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ְמ ָל‬ ָ ‫ִאם ׁ ְש ִח‬ ‫ ֵאלּ ּו ׁ ֶש ֵהן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ָ ּ‫ד‬ ‫ׁ ְשבוּת – ל ֹא יִ ְדח ּו ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת? ָא ַמר‬ ,‫יֹוכ ַיח‬ ִ ‫ יֹום טֹוב‬:‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫אכה וְ ָאסוּר‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ִה ִּתיר ּו ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ְמ ָל‬ .‫ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְשבוּת‬

mishna 

These are the matters related to the Paschal lamb that override Shabbat, when the eve of Passover occurs on Shabbat: Its slaughter,b the sprinkling of its blood,b the cleaning of its intestinesn and the burning of its fats on the altar, all of which are services that must be performed on Passover eve while it is still day. However, its roastingb and the washing of its intestines, which need not be done by day, do not override Shabbat; rather, one waits until after Shabbat to perform these tasks. Carrying the Paschal lamb through a public domain does not override Shabbat. The Paschal offering consisted of either a lamb or a goat, sometimes quite young and unable to walk the entire way, so that it had to be carried on a person’s shoulders. Similarly, bringing it from outside the Shabbat limit and cutting off its wart do not override Shabbat, as all these tasks could have been performed before Shabbat. A wart is considered a blemish that disqualifies the animal from being brought as an offering, but once the wart is removed, the animal is fit to be sacrificed on the altar. Rabbi Eliezer says: All of these procedures override Shabbat.h Rabbi Eliezer said: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference?n If slaughter, which is ordinarily forbidden on Shabbat as a biblically prohibited labor, nonetheless overrides Shabbat when performed for the sake of the Paschal lamb, then these activities, namely carrying the animal, bringing it from outside the Shabbat limit, and the like, which are prohibited due to rabbinic decree,n should they not override Shabbat? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: The law governing a Festival proves otherwise, for the Torah permitted on it acts that are normally prohibited as labor, such as slaughtering, cooking, and baking, and yet it is forbidden to do on it acts that are prohibited due to rabbinic decree. Thus, we cannot derive policy with regard to rabbinic prohibitions from the rules that govern Torah laws.

background

Its slaughter – ‫יטתֹו‬ ָ ‫ש ִח‬: ְׁ

Slaughter of the Paschal lamb Sprinkling of its blood – ‫זְ ִר ַיקת דָּ מֹו‬: The requirement to slaughter the Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood must be performed on the eve of Passover and cannot be postponed, even when the eve of Passover falls on Shabbat.

Priests sprinkling the blood of the Paschal lambs Roasting – ‫צְ ִלּיָ תֹו‬: The Paschal lamb may not be roasted on the eve of Passover if the eve of Passover falls on Shabbat.

notes

The cleaning of its intestines – ‫מיחוּי ְק ָר ָביו‬:ִ It is explained in the Jerusalem Talmud that this was done so that people would not say that the sacrificial parts are brought from a filthy offering. Therefore, cleaning the intestines is listed among the activities performed for the sake of God rather than for those eating the sacrifice, since according to this interpretation, its purpose is for the glory of Heaven (Melekhet Shlomo). Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference – ‫וַ ֲהל ֹא דִּ ין הוּא‬: Tosafot explain that Rabbi Eliezer put forward this argument only according to the opinion of the Rabbis. He, himself, does not need this proof because he maintains that all activities that facilitate the performance of a commandment that overrides Shabbat may be performed on Shabbat, even if they violate primary categories of labor, and even if they could have been done before Shabbat. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer’s argument must be understood as follows: He himself

maintains that even a primary category of labor is permitted in preparation for the Paschal lamb. However, the Rabbis should at least permit activities that are generally prohibited by rabbinic decrees. Roasting of the Paschal lamb These activities, which are prohibited due to rabbinic decree – ‫א ּל ּו ׁ ֶש ֵהן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְשבוּת‬:ֵ It is possible that the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, maintain that even these activities, which Rabbi Eliezer took for granted as rabbinically prohibited, are actually prohibited as primary categories of labor. For instance, carrying the animal falls into a primary category, because the Rabbis do not accept the opinion of ben Beteira that a living being carries itself. Bringing the animal from outside the Shabbat limit is a Torah prohibition, because the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Akiva that the law of Shabbat limits is a Torah law (Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishna).

halakha

Overriding Shabbat for the Paschal lamb – ‫דְּ ִחּיַ ית ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫צֹור ְך ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ֶ ‫ל‬:ְ If the eve of Passover occurs on Shabbat, slaughtering the Paschal lamb, sprinkling its blood, cleaning its intestines, and burning its fats override the laws of Shabbat and are performed in the usual manner. However, roasting it and washing its intestines do not override Shabbat law. In



addition, carrying the animal and transporting it from outside the Shabbat limit do not override Shabbat law, although they are prohibited only by rabbinic decree. Using a utensil to remove a moist wart from the animal also does not override Shabbat. The halakha follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 1:18). ‫הס ףד‬: ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Perek VI . 65b  

7

background

Sprinkling – ‫הּזָ ָאה‬:ַ

?‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ י‬,‫ ַמה ּזֶ ה‬:‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ָמה ְר ָאיָ ה ְר ׁשוּת ְל ִמצְ וָ ה? ֵה ׁ ִשיב ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ִהיא‬,‫ֹוכ ַיח‬ ִ ‫ ַהּזָ ָאה ּת‬:‫יבא וְ ָא ַמר‬ ָ ‫ֲע ִק‬ – ‫ וְ ִהיא ִמ ׁ ּש ּום ׁ ְשבוּת‬,‫ִמ ׁ ּש ּום ִמצְ וָ ה‬ ‫ ַאף ַא ָּתה ַאל‬.‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ָ ּ‫וְ ֵאינָ ּה ד‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵהן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,ּ‫ִּת ְת ַמ ּה ַעל ֵאלּ ו‬ ‫ִמצְ וָ ה וְ ֵהן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְשבוּת – ל ֹא יִ ְדח ּו ֶאת‬ .‫ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: What is this, Yehoshua? How can you suggest such a weak proof? What proof can be deduced from optional activities that would apply to a mitzva? How does the fact that rabbinic decrees remain in effect on a Festival with respect to optional activities prove that one is also forbidden to transgress a rabbinic decree in order to fulfill the mitzva of offering the Paschal lamb? Rabbi Akiva responded and said in defense of Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion: Sprinklingb the purifying water of a red heifer upon someone who had contracted ritual impurity through contact with a corpse proves the matter, for it is done for the sake of a mitzva, in order to allow the person to offer the Paschal lamb, and it is prohibited only due to rabbinic decree, and nonetheless it does not override Shabbat, for the purification rite is not performed on the eve of Passover that falls on Shabbat.h So, too, you should not be surprised about these activities, namely carrying the animal, bringing it from outside the Shabbat limit, and cutting off its wart, that although they are performed for the sake of a mitzva and they are prohibited only due to rabbinic decree, they do not override Shabbat.

‫ ו ָּמה‬,‫יה ֲאנִי דָּ ן‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָע ֶל‬:‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ָא ַמר לֹו ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ‫ֹוחה‬ ָ ּ‫אכה ד‬ ָ ‫יטה ׁ ֶש ִהיא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ְמ ָל‬ ָ ‫ִאם ׁ ְש ִח‬ ‫ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – ַהּזָ ָאה ׁ ֶש ִהיא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְשבוּת‬ ?‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ָ ּ‫ֵאינֹו דִּ ין ׁ ֶשד‬

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: I do not accept this proof. With regard to this sprinkling itself, I infer that it, too, is permitted for the same reason: If slaughter, which is a biblically prohibited labor, overrides Shabbat, is it not right that sprinkling the purifying water of a red heifer, which is prohibited only due to rabbinic decree, should override Shabbat? You cannot challenge me based on a premise with which I disagree.

‫ אֹו ִחלּ וּף; ָמה ִאם‬:‫ָא ַמר לֹו ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ ‫ֹוחה‬ ָ ּ‫ַהּזָ ָאה ׁ ֶש ִהיא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְשבוּת ֵאינָ ּה ד‬ ‫יטה ׁ ֶש ִהיא ִמ ׁ ּש ּום‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ְש ִח‬,‫ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫אכה – ֵאינֹו דִּ ין ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִּת ְד ֶחה ֶאת‬ ָ ‫ְמ ָל‬ ,‫ ֲע ִק ָיבא‬:‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ָא ַמר לֹו ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬.‫ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ – ‫מֹועדֹו״‬ ֲ ‫״ב‬ ּ ְ ‫ָע ַק ְר ָּת ַמה ׁ ּ ֶש ָּכתוּב ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה‬ .‫ֵ ּבין ַ ּבחֹול ֵ ּבין ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬

Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Eliezer: Or perhaps we can reverse the order of your argument and say the opposite: If, as we know by accepted tradition, sprinkling the purifying water on Shabbat, which is prohibited only due to rabbinic decree, does not override Shabbat, then with regard to slaughter, which is prohibited as a biblically prohibited labor, is it not right that it should not override Shabbat? Therefore, it should be prohibited to slaughter the Paschal lamb when the eve of Passover occurs on Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva, how can you say this? You have thus uprooted what is written in the Torah: “Let the children of Israel offer the Paschal lamb in its appointed time” (Numbers 9:2); the phrase “at its appointed time” indicates that the offering must be brought on that day, whether it is a weekday or Shabbat.

‫מֹועד ָל ֵא ּל ּו‬ ֵ ‫ ָה ֵבא ִלי‬,‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ָא ַמר לֹו‬ :‫יטה! ְּכ ָלל ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ ָ ‫מֹועד ַל ׁ ּ ְש ִח‬ ֵ ‫ְּכ‬ ‫ֹות ּה ֵמ ֶע ֶרב‬ ָ ‫אכה ׁ ֶש ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ַל ֲע ׂש‬ ָ ‫ָּכל ְמ ָל‬ ‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ְש ִח‬.‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ָ ּ‫ׁ ַש ָ ּבת – ֵאינָ ּה ד‬ – ‫ֹות ּה ֵמ ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ִאי ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ַל ֲע ׂש‬ .‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ָ ּ‫ד‬

Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Eliezer: My teacher, bring me an appointed time stated in the Torah for these tasks, namely, carrying the animal or bringing it from outside the Shabbat limits, like the appointed time stated with respect to slaughter. The Paschal lamb must be slaughtered on the fourteenth of Nisan, but there is no fixed time when the animal must be brought to the Temple, and it is therefore possible to transport it before Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva stated a principle: Any prohibited labor required for the offering of the sacrifice that can be performed on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat; slaughter, which cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat, overrides Shabbat.

Family waiting to be sprinkled with the purifying waters halakha

Sprinkling on Shabbat – ‫הּזָ ָאה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬:ַ If one is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse and the seventh day of his impurity occurs on the eve of Passover that is also Shabbat, the purifying waters are not sprinkled on him, although the prohibition involved is only of rabbinic origin. The person will have to bring his offering during the second Pesaĥ, following the opinions of Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 6:6).

Perek VI Daf 66 Amud a

8 

Perek VI . 66a . ‫וס ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ו‬

‫ ֲה ָל ָכה זֹו נִ ְת ַע ְּל ָמה ִמ ְ ּבנֵי‬:‫גמ׳ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫ ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת ָחל ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ָע ָ ׂשר‬.‫ְב ֵת ָירא‬ ‫ ׁ ָש ְכח ּו וְ ל ֹא יָ ְדע ּו ִאם‬,‫ִל ְהיֹות ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ :ּ‫ ָא ְמרו‬.‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ִאם ָלאו‬ ֶ ּ‫ּ ֶפ ַסח ד‬ ‫ֹוחה‬ ֶ ּ‫ּיֹוד ַע ִאם ּ ֶפ ַסח ד‬ ֵ ‫ְּכלוּם יֵ ׁש ָא ָדם ׁ ֶש‬ ‫ ָא ָדם‬:‫ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ִאם ָלאו? ָא ְמר ּו ָל ֶהם‬ ‫ וְ ִה ֵּלל ַה ַ ּב ְב ִלי‬,‫ֶא ָחד יֵ ׁש ׁ ֶש ָע ָלה ִמ ָ ּב ֶבל‬ ‫דֹולי ַהדּ ֹור ׁ ְש ַמ ְעיָ ה‬ ֵ ‫ימ ׁש ׁ ְשנֵי ְ ּג‬ ֵּ ‫ ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ִש‬,‫ׁ ְשמֹו‬ ‫ֹוחה ֶאת‬ ֶ ּ‫יֹוד ַע ִאם ּ ֶפ ַסח ד‬ ֵ ְ‫וְ ַא ְב ַט ְליֹון ו‬ ‫ ָא ְמר ּו‬.‫ ׁ ָש ְלח ּו וְ ָק ְרא ּו לֹו‬.‫ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ִאם ָלאו‬ ‫ֹוחה ֶאת‬ ֶ ּ‫יֹוד ַע ִאם ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ד‬ ֵ ‫ ְּכלוּם ַא ָּתה‬:‫לֹו‬ ‫ וְ ִכי ּ ֶפ ַסח‬:‫ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ִאם ָלאו? ָא ַמר ָל ֶהם‬ ?‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ֶ ּ‫ֶא ָחד יֵ ׁש ָלנ ּו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה ׁ ֶשד‬ ‫אתיִ ם ּ ְפ ָס ִחים יֵ ׁש‬ ַ ‫יֹותר ִמ ָּמ‬ ֵ ‫וַ ֲהל ֹא ַה ְר ֵ ּבה‬ .‫ֹוחין ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ִ ּ‫ָלנ ּו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה ׁ ֶשד‬ ‫ נֶ ֱא ַמר‬:‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ְלךָ ? ָא ַמר ָל ֶהם‬:‫ָא ְמר ּו לֹו‬ .‫״מֹועדֹו״ ַ ּב ָּת ִמיד‬ ֲ ‫״מֹועדֹו״ ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח וְ נֶ ֱא ַמר‬ ֲ ‫ֹוחה ֶאת‬ ֶ ּ‫ֹועדֹו ָה ָאמוּר ַ ּב ָּת ִמיד – ד‬ ֲ ‫ַמה ּמ‬ ‫ֹוחה‬ ֶ ּ‫מֹועדֹו ָה ָאמוּר ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח – ד‬ ֲ ‫ ַאף‬,‫ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ .‫ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬

gemara 

The Sages taught a baraita with regard to the basic halakha governing the eve of Passover that occurs on Shabbat: This law was forgotten by the sons of Beteira,np who were the leaders of their generation. The fourteenth of Nisan once occurred on Shabbat, and they forgot and did not know whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not. They said: Is there any person who knows whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not? They said to them: There is a certain man in Jerusalem who came up from Babylonia, and Hillelp the Babylonian is his name. At one point, he served the two most eminent scholars of the generation, Shemaya and Avtalyon, and he certainly knows whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not. The sons of Beteira sent messengers and called for him. They said to him: Do you know whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not? He said to them: Have we but one Paschal lamb during the year that overrides Shabbat? Do we not have many more than two hundred Paschal lambs,n i.e., sacrifices, during the year that override Shabbat?

They said to him: From where do you know this? He said to them: “Its appointed time” is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb and “its appointed time” is also stated with regard to the daily offering, for the verse says: “Command the children of Israel and say to them, My offering, the provision of My sacrifice made with fire, for a sweet savor to Me, shall you observe to offer Me at its appointed time” (Numbers 28:2). From here we learn that the daily offering is brought even on Shabbat. Thus, the daily morning and afternoon offerings are brought on more than fifty Shabbatot over the course of the year, and two sheep are offered every Shabbat as additional offerings, for a total of more than two hundred sacrifices a year that override Shabbat. Just as the expression “its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the daily offering, indicates that it overrides Shabbat, so too “its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb, indicates that it overrides Shabbat.

notes

This law was forgotten by the sons of Beteira – ‫ֲה ָל ָכה‬ ‫זֹו נִ ְת ַע ְּל ָמה ִמ ְ ּבנֵי ְב ֵת ָירא‬: The question is asked in the Jerusalem Talmud: How could they have forgotten this halakha, seeing that Passover eve occurs on Shabbat at least once every twenty years, or as it says there, once every two sabbatical cycles? The answer is given that their forgetfulness was caused by heaven in order to allow Hillel’s rise to prominence. The author of the Terumat HaDeshen suggests that in those times, when the month was sanctified based on the testimony of witnesses to the new moon, it would have been possible for Passover eve not to occur on Shabbat for many years. An alternate explanation is that the court that had served previously had been dominated by Sadducees and was not proficient in halakha. Still other commentaries assert that their question was not whether or not the Paschal lamb should be offered on Shabbat, but whether or not it was necessary to perform the biblically prohibited labors that the offering involved in an unusual manner, such as two people slaughtering together. In this way, the violation of Shabbat law on the Torah level would be avoided. Their concern was the possibility that the Sages had made a rabbinic decree prohibiting the violation of the primary categories of labor even for the purpose of the Paschal lamb (Rabbi Elazar Moshe Horowitz). More than two hundred Paschal lambs – ‫יֹותר‬ ֵ ‫אתיִ ם ּ ְפ ָס ִחים‬ ַ ‫מ ָּמ‬:ִ Three versions of this statement are cited in the Jerusalem Talmud: The first reading is more than a hundred sacrifices, which includes only the daily offerings sacrificed on Shabbat. The second text is more than two hundred, indicating the daily offerings as well as the additional offerings of Shabbat. The third version, following the reading of the Tosefta, is more than three hundred, which also includes the additional offerings of Festivals and those of New Moons that occur on Shabbat.

Personalities

The sons of Beteira – ‫בנֵי ְב ֵת ָירה‬:ּ ְ The sons of Beteira were the heads of a well-known family that produced prominent individuals even several generations after the destruction of the Temple. The sons of Beteira appear to have had a unique standing in the spiritual leadership of the nation over the course of several generations, despite the fact that they may never have enjoyed the formal status of Nasi. Even after the destruction of the Temple, Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai consulted with them before establishing an important halakha.

forgotten (Sukka 20a). His disciples were praised, as well. According to the Gemara, Hillel the Elder had eighty students: Thirty of them were worthy that the Divine Presence should rest upon them like Moses, thirty that the sun should stand still for them, as it did for Joshua the son of Nun, twenty were average, with the greatest among them Yonatan ben Uzziel and the least among them Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai (Sukka 28a).

Hillel – ‫ה ֵּלל‬:ִ Hillel, referred to as the Elder due to his position in the Sanhedrin, was born in Babylonia and lived in Jerusalem during the time of King Herod and the Roman Emperor Augustus, about a hundred years before the destruction of the Second Temple. He and his colleague Shammai were the last of the zugot, the pairs of tanna’im who played a role in establishing the Mishna. Although Hillel and Shammai established two distinct schools, Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, and their disciples were involved in many controversies, Hillel and Shammai themselves disagreed only with regard to three or four cases. The real difference between them was one of character. Hillel was a calm and gentle individual Burial cave of Hillel on Mount Meron who avoided conflict whenever possible, whereas Shammai was stern and uncompromising. When approached by a potential convert whom Shammai had rejected because he wished to learn the entire Torah on one leg, Hillel offered him the maxim: That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah, and the rest is its interpretation; go and learn. According to tradition, Hillel arrived in Eretz Yisrael to study at age forty in a state of poverty, but his perseverance brought him to the attention of Shemaya and Avtalyon, the heads of the academy, who welcomed him into the study hall. Ultimately, serving those scholars allowed him to settle questions whose solutions were unknown to others, and he was appointed head of the Sanhedrin. The Gemara compares Hillel to Ezra the Scribe, crediting him with reestablishing Torah at a period in history when it was being View of the burial cave of Hillel from inside



‫וס ףד‬. ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Perek VI . 66a 

9

notes

A fortiori inference – ‫חֹומר‬ ֶ ָ‫קל ו‬:ַ One of the fundamental principles of rabbinic exegesis, the a fortiori inference appears in all of the standard lists of exegetical rules. In essence, it is a rule of logical argumentation by means of which a comparison is drawn between two cases, one lenient and the other stringent. It asserts that if the halakha is stringent in a case where we are usually lenient, then it will certainly be stringent in a more serious case; likewise, if the halakha is lenient in a case where we are usually not lenient, it will certainly be lenient in a less serious case. A fortiori argumentation is already found in the Bible, and lists of biblical verses containing a fortiori arguments are found in the Talmud. This is one of the most commonly encountered exegetical principles since a fortiori inferences can be drawn even without support from tradition, as opposed to the verbal analogy, for example. Sometimes, the Sages referred to a fortiori inferences as logical argumentation [din]. What caused this to happen to you, that I should come up from Babylonia – ‫מי ָ ּג ַרם ָל ֶכם ׁ ֶש ֶא ֱע ֶלה ִמ ָ ּב ֶבל‬:ִ Based on the wording of the Gemara, some commentaries posited that Hillel the Elder returned to Babylonia after having studied intensively with Shemaya and Avtalyon, and he happened to make a pilgrimage from Babylonia that Passover (Maharsha; Iyyei HaYam). Forgot and did not bring a knife – ‫ס ִּכין ׁ ָש ַכח וְ ל ֹא ֵה ִביא‬:ַ In the Jerusalem Talmud it states that this discussion took place on that very Shabbat, and that most of the people had forgotten to bring knives before Shabbat. If they are not prophets – ‫יאים ֵהן‬ ִ ‫אם ֵאין נְ ִב‬: ִ The Tosefta reads: Leave it to them, for the Divine Spirit is upon them; if they are not prophets, they are the sons of prophets. Verbal analogy – ‫ ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ָשוָ ה‬: A fundamental talmudic principle of biblical interpretation, appearing in all standard lists of exegetical principles. If the same word or phrase appears in two places in the Torah, and a certain halakha is explicitly stated in one of these places, one may infer on the basis of a verbal analogy that the same halakha must apply in the other case as well. Consequently, the inferences drawn on the basis of verbal analogy rely on verbal identity, rather than on conceptual similarity. For example, the Torah states that those convicted of certain types of sorcery “shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:27). Since this verse uses the expression: “Their blood shall be upon them,” when speaking of death by stoning, the Talmud infers by verbal analogy that in all cases where this expression is used, capital punishment is inflicted by stoning. Usually inferences can be drawn through verbal analogy only if the identical word or phrase appears in both of the verses being compared, although a verbal analogy may occasionally be drawn even if the words being compared are not identical, provided that their meanings are similar. language

Rebuking them [mekanteran] – ‫נְט ָרן‬ ְ ‫מ ַק‬:ְ Related to the Greek root κέντρον, kentron, meaning something sharp and stinging. The Hebrew-Aramaic root is derived from this word and means to sting with words.

‫ ו ַּמה ָּת ִמיד ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָענו ּׁש‬:‫חֹומר הוּא‬ ֶ ָ‫ ַקל ו‬,‫ וְ עֹוד‬And furthermore, it is an a fortiori inference:n If the daily of– ‫ ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֶש ָענו ּׁש ָּכ ֵרת‬,‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ֶ ּ‫ ָּכ ֵרת ד‬fering, the neglect of which is not punishable by karet, over.‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ֶ ּ‫ ֵאינֹו דִּ ין ׁ ֶשד‬rides Shabbat, is it not right that the Paschal lamb, the neglect of which is punishable by karet, should override Shabbat? ,‫נָשיא ֲע ֵל ֶיהם‬ ׂ ִ ‫ֹאש ו ִּמינּ וּה ּו‬ ׁ ‫הֹושיבוּה ּו ְ ּבר‬ ִ ׁ ‫ִמּיָ ד‬ .‫וְ ָהיָ ה דּ ֵֹור ׁש ָּכל ַהּיֹום ּכוּלּ ֹו ְ ּב ִה ְלכֹות ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ‫ ִמי ָ ּג ַרם‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָל ֶהן‬,‫נְט ָרן ִ ּב ְד ָב ִרים‬ ְ ‫ִה ְת ִחיל ְמ ַק‬ – ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫נָשיא ֲע ֵל‬ ׂ ִ ‫ָל ֶכם ׁ ֶש ֶא ֱע ֶלה ִמ ָ ּב ֶבל וְ ֶא ֱהיֶ ה‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ׁ ִש ַּמ ׁ ְש ֶּתם ׁ ְשנֵי‬,‫ַעצְ לוּת ׁ ֶש ָהיְ ָתה ָ ּב ֶכם‬ .‫דֹולי ַהדּ ֹור ׁ ְש ַמ ְעיָ ה וְ ַא ְב ַט ְליֹון‬ ֵ ‫ְ ּג‬

After Hillel brought these proofs, they immediately seated him at the head and appointed him Nasi over them, and he expounded the laws of Passover that entire day. In the course of his teaching, he began rebuking them [mekanteran]l them with words. He said to them: What caused this to happen to you, that I should come up from Babylonian and become Nasi over you? It was the laziness in you that you did not serve the two most eminent scholars of the generation living in Eretz Yisrael, Shemaya and Avtalyon.

‫ ׁ ָש ַכח וְ ל ֹא ֵה ִביא ַס ִּכין ֵמ ֶע ֶרב‬,‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ָא ְמר ּו לֹו‬ ‫ ֲה ָל ָכה זֹו ׁ ָש ַמ ְע ִּתי‬:‫ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ַמהוּ? ָא ַמר ָל ֶהן‬ ‫ ַה ַּנח ָל ֶהן ְליִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ִאם ֵאין‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא‬.‫וְ ׁ ָש ַכ ְח ִּתי‬ .‫יאים ֵהן‬ ִ ‫יאים ֵהן – ְ ּבנֵי נְ ִב‬ ִ ‫נְ ִב‬

They said to Hillel: Our teacher, if one forgot and did not bring a knifen on the eve of Shabbat and cannot slaughter his Paschal lamb, what is the law? Since he could have brought the knife before Shabbat, he cannot bring it on Shabbat; but what should he do in this situation? He said to them: I once heard this halakha from my teachers but I have forgotten it. But leave it to the Jewish people; if they are not prophetsn to whom God has revealed His secrets, they are the sons of prophets, and will certainly do the right thing on their own.

‫ ִמי‬,‫ֹוחבֹו ְ ּבצַ ְמרֹו‬ ֲ ‫ ִמי ׁ ֶש ּ ִפ ְסחֹו ָט ֶלה – ּת‬,‫ְל ָמ ָחר‬ ‫ ָר ָאה ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬.‫ֹוחבֹו ֵ ּבין ַק ְרנָיו‬ ֲ ‫ׁ ֶש ּ ִפ ְסחֹו ְ ּג ִדי – ּת‬ ‫ ָּכךְ ְמקו ְ ּּב ַלנִי ִמ ּ ִפי ׁ ְש ַמ ְעיָה‬:‫ וְ ָא ַמר‬,‫וְ נִזְ ַּכר ֲה ָל ָכה‬ .‫וְ ַא ְב ַט ְליֹון‬

The next day, on Shabbat that was the eve of Passover, one whose Paschal offering was a lamb took the knife and stuck it in its wool; and one whose Paschal offering was a goat, which does not have wool, stuck it between its horns. Hillel saw the incident and remembered the halakha that he had once learned and said: This is the tradition I received from the mouths of Shemaya and Avtalyon, meaning that this is in fact the proper course of action.h This concludes the text of the baraita and the Gemara will begin to elucidate it.

‫מֹועדֹו‬ ֲ ‫מֹועדֹו ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח וְ נֶ ֱא ַמר‬ ֲ ‫ נֶ ֱא ַמר‬:‫ָא ַמר ָמר‬ ‫ֹוחה‬ ֶ ּ‫ֹועדֹו ָה ָאמוּר ַ ּב ָּת ִמיד ד‬ ֲ ‫ ַמה ּמ‬,‫ַ ּב ָּת ִמיד‬ ‫מֹועדֹו ָה ָאמוּר ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ֲ ‫ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – ַאף‬ ?‫יה ְמ ַנָלן דְּ ָד ֵחי ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ֶ ּ‫ד‬ ּ ‫ וְ ָת ִמיד ּגו ֵּפ‬.‫ֹוחה ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫מֹועדֹו – ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ֲ ‫יה ְ ּב‬ ָ ‫ִא ֵיל‬ ּ ‫ימא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דִּ ְכ ִתיב ֵ ּב‬ ,‫מֹועדֹו‬ ֲ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫נַ ִמי ָהא ְּכ ִתיב ֵ ּב‬

The Master said above: “Its appointed time” is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb and “its appointed time” is stated with regard to the daily offering. Just as “its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the daily offering, indicates that it overrides Shabbat, so too “its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb, indicates that it overrides Shabbat. And from where do we derive that the daily offering itself overrides Shabbat? If we say because “in its appointed time” is written in its regard, “in its appointed time” is also written with regard to the Paschal lamb. Were it possible to derive from this expression that the sacrifice is offered even on Shabbat, it would not be necessary to derive the law governing the Paschal lamb from a verbal analogyn between the daily offering and the Paschal lamb.

:‫ ָה ָכא נַ ִמי‬,‫יה‬ ֲ ‫ֶא ָּלא‬ ּ ‫מֹועדֹו ל ֹא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ֵל‬ :‫ ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬.‫יה‬ ֲ ּ ‫מֹועדֹו ל ֹא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ֵל‬ ‫עֹולת ַה ָּת ִמיד״‬ ַ ‫״עֹולת ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ְ ּב ׁ ַש ַ ּב ּתֹו ַעל‬ ַ .‫[עֹולה] דְּ ָת ִמיד ְק ֵר ָבה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ָ ‫ִמ ְּכ ָלל‬

Rather, you must conclude that the expression “its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb, does not indicate to Hillel that the Torah was so particular about the timing of the Paschal lamb that its slaughter overrides Shabbat. Here too, with regard to the daily offering, you must say that “its appointed time” does not indicate to him that it is brought on Shabbat, and so this expression is not the source of this law. Rather, the law is derived from the verse that states: “The burnt-offering of Shabbat on its Shabbat, beside the continual burnt-offering and its libation” (Numbers 28:10), from which it may be inferred that the daily burnt-offering is brought even on Shabbat. halakha

Carrying a knife for the Paschal lamb – ‫הֹול ַכת ַס ִּכין ַל ּ ֶפ ַסח‬: ָ This applies if, on the eve of Passover that occurs on Shabbat, one had forgotten to bring a knife to the Temple before Shabbat. If his sacrifice is a lamb, he should stick the knife in its wool; and if his sacrifice is a goat, he should stick

10 

Perek VI . 66a . ‫וס ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ו‬

the knife between its horns. Although this involves a violation of the prohibition to drive a laden animal on Shabbat, since it is being done in an unusual fashion for the purpose of a mitzva, it is permitted (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 1:19).

‫ ו ַּמה‬:‫חֹומר‬ ֶ ָ‫ ַקל ו‬,‫ וְ עֹוד‬:‫ָא ַמר ָמר‬ ‫ֹוחה ֶאת‬ ֶ ּ‫ָּת ִמיד ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָענו ּׁש ָּכ ֵרת ד‬ ‫ ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֶש ָענו ּׁש ָּכ ֵרת – ֵאינֹו‬,‫ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫יכא‬ ֶ ּ‫דִּ ין ׁ ֶשד‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬.‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫ ַמה ַּל ָּת ִמיד – ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ָּת ִדיר‬:‫ְל ִמ ְיפ ַר ְך‬ ‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫חֹומר ֲא ַמר ְלה ּו ְ ּב ֵר‬ ֶ ָ‫וְ ָכ ִליל! ַקל ו‬ .‫ וַ ֲה ַדר ֲא ַמר ְלה ּו ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ָשוָ ה‬,‫ו ְּפ ָרכו ּּה‬

The Gemara raises another question: The Master said in that same baraita: And furthermore, it is an a fortiori inference: If the daily offering, the neglect of which is not punishable by karet, overrides Shabbat, is it not right that the Paschal lamb, the neglect of which is punishable by karet, should override Shabbat? The Gemara points out that there is room to refute the logic of this argument: What is unique about the daily offering that enables it to override Shabbat? That it is frequent, and something that is frequent always takes precedence; and also that it is totally consumed on the altar, unlike the Paschal lamb, most of which is eaten by human beings. The Gemara explains that this is what happened: Hillel first told them the a fortiori inference, but they refuted itn and proved that it was not reliable, as explained above; and then he told them the verbal analogy, and a verbal analogy is based on an oral tradition originating from Moses at Sinai and must be accepted.

‫ ַקל‬,‫וְ ִכי ֵמ ַא ַחר דְּ גָ ַמר ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ָשוָ ה‬ ‫חֹומר ָל ָּמה ִלי? ֶא ָּלא ְל ִד ְידה ּו‬ ֶ ָ‫ו‬ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ָשוָ ה ָלא‬:ּ‫ָק ָא ַמר ְלהו‬ ‫ָ ּג ְמ ִרית ּו – דְּ ֵאין ָא ָדם דָּ ן ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ָשוָ ה‬ ‫חֹומר דְּ ָא ָדם דָּ ן‬ ֶ ָ‫ ֶא ָּלא ַקל ו‬,‫ֵמ ַעצְ מֹו‬ ‫יב ֵעי ְלכ ּו ְל ֵמ ַידן! ָא ְמר ּו‬ ּ ָ ‫ֵמ ַעצְ מֹו – ִא‬ .‫יכא הוּא‬ ָ ‫חֹומר ּ ְפ ִר‬ ֶ ָ‫ ַקל ו‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬

The Gemara asks: But since Hillel learned this verbal analogy from his teachers, why do I need an a fortiori inference? Why did he add a logical argument of his own if he had an explicit verbal tradition that this was the halakha? The Gemara answers: Rather, he said it for them, to show that they had not sufficiently exerted themselves in clarifying this halakha: Granted, you did not learn the verbal analogy on your own, because you acted according to the principle that one may not expound a verbal analogy on one’s own. Since there is no limit to the laws that one can extract using this method of derivation, such a derivation is only legitimate if it has been transmitted as part of the oral tradition, and apparently they did not learn this verbal analogy from their teachers. But an a fortiori inference, which one can derive on one’s own, you should have derived and you would then have known how to resolve this question. They said to him: It is a faulty a fortiori inference, as we have shown that it can be easily refuted.

notes

Hillel first told them the a fortiori inference, but they refuted it – ‫ישא ו ְּפ ָרכו ּּה‬ ָ ׁ ‫חֹומר ֲא ַמר ְלה ּו ְ ּב ֵר‬ ֶ ָ‫ ַקל ו‬: The Jerusalem Talmud quotes a different version of this incident. There, it also says that the sons of Beteira refuted Hillel’s attempt to derive this law from a juxtaposition and from an a fortiori inference by differentiating between the Paschal lamb and the daily offering. The daily offering is more clearly defined, which apparently refers to the fact it must be brought every day and cannot be delayed (Tziyyun LeNefesh Ĥayya), while the Paschal lamb is not. In addition, the daily offering is one of the sacrifices of the most sacred order, while the Paschal lamb is of lesser sanctity.

– ‫ ְל ָמ ָחר ִמי ׁ ֶש ּ ִפ ְסחֹו ָט ֶלה‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָמר‬The Master said further in the baraita: The next day, one whose ‫ֹוחב לֹו‬ ֵ ‫ ְ ּג ִדי – ּת‬,‫ֹוחב לֹו ְ ּבצַ ְמרֹו‬ ֵ ‫ ּת‬Paschal offering was a lamb stuck the knife in its wool, and one .‫ ֵ ּבין ַק ְרנָיו‬whose Paschal offering was a goat stuck it between its horns so as to avoid carrying the knife on Shabbat.

Perek VI Daf 66 Amud b !‫בֹודה ְ ּב ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬ ָ ‫וְ ָהא ָקא ָע ֵביד ֲע‬ ,‫ ָא ְמר ּו ָע ָליו ַעל ִה ֵּלל‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫ְּכ ִה ֵּלל‬ ,‫ ֶא ָּלא‬.‫עֹולתֹו‬ ָ ‫ִמּיָ ָמיו ל ֹא ָמ ַעל ָא ָדם ְ ּב‬ ,‫יש ּה‬ ָ ׁ ִּ‫יא ּה חו ִּּלין ָל ֲעזָ ָרה ו ַּמ ְקד‬ ָ ‫ְמ ִב‬ .‫ֹוח ָט ּה‬ ֲ ‫יה וְ ׁש‬ ָ ‫סֹומךְ יָ דֹו ָע ֶל‬ ֵ ְ‫ו‬

But surely he did work with consecrated animals, using the lambs and goats that had been consecrated as sacrifices to transport the knife, and it is forbidden to make use of consecrated animals. The Gemara answers that the person acted here in accordance with the opinion of Hillel, as it was taught in a baraita: They said about Hillel that no one ever misused his burnt-offering. How did he ensure this? He was careful not to consecrate the animal in advance, but rather he would bring it in an unconsecrated state to the Temple courtyardn and there he would consecrate it, and then immediately he would place his hand on its headb and slaughter it. On that day, those who used their Paschal lambs and goats to transport knives consecrated their animals only after they arrived in the Temple courtyard.

background

Place his hand on its head – ‫יה‬ ָ ‫סֹומ ְך יָ דֹו ָע ֶל‬: ֵ When the hands are placed on the sacrifice, it becomes consecrated and may no longer be used for non-sacred matters.

notes

He would bring it in an unconsecrated state to the Temple courtyard – ‫יא ּה חו ִּּלין ָל ֲעזָ ָרה‬ ָ ‫מ ִב‬:ְ Tosafot question this practice, pointing out that bringing an unconsecrated animal into the Temple courtyard is prohibited. Consistent with their own view of this prohibition, they answer that merely bringing an unconsecrated animal into the Temple courtyard is in fact permitted.



According to Rashi and the Rambam, however, bringing an unconsecrated animal into the Temple courtyard is indeed prohibited. Therefore, it must be explained that Hillel did not actually bring the animals into the courtyard and then consecrate them, but rather he consecrated them at the entrance to the courtyard (Ran; Me’iri).

Placing of the hands on a sacrifice ‫וס ףד‬: ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Perek VI . 66b 

11

notes

Consecrating a Paschal lamb on Shabbat – ‫ה ְקדָּ ַשת ּ ֶפ ַסח ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬:ַ It is noted in the Jerusalem Talmud that this poses no difficulty: Consecrating on Shabbat is prohibited due to rabbinic decree, and the animals used for sacrifices were consecrated inside the Temple. Since rabbinic decrees do not apply to the Temple, it is clearly permitted to consecrate animals there even on Shabbat. Anyone who acts haughtily – ‫כל ַה ִּמ ְתיַ ֵהר‬:ָּ The phrase, anyone who acts haughtily, includes even someone who is generally very humble and acts with haughtiness only momentarily. Indeed, one who is generally haughty will not succeed in his Torah study in the first place. In addition, even if one acts haughtily out of pure intentions, he will be punished. This applies to Hillel, who did not mean to boast about himself, but merely to emphasize the value of Torah study (Iyyun Ya’akov). This understanding of the phrase can be derived from Hillel’s statement itself. Rather than just saying that he did not know the law, he said: I heard this halakha and forgot it, thus emphasizing that he had known the law but forgot it at that moment, owing to his arrogance (Maharsha). His wisdom departs – ‫ח ְכ ָמתֹו ִמ ְס ַּת ֶּל ֶקת‬:ָ There are sources that cite other instances when Moses became angry, e.g., on the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle when he became angry with the sons of Aaron, and when he hit the rock. At those times, Moses forgot many laws due to his anger. The commentaries state that the Gemara chose to quote one specific incident, because it is the only one in which it is absolutely clear that the anger preceded the statement of the halakha, and that Moses had previously known the halakha and had forgotten it. halakha

Consecrations on Shabbat and Festivals – ‫ה ְקדָּ שֹות ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת וְ ַחג‬:ַ One may not consecrate animals, take a valuation vow, consecrate objects for use by the priests or the Temple, or separate terumot and tithes on Shabbat and festivals, unless it involves a matter that affects the entire community (Taz; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 339:4). Consecrating the Paschal lamb and Festival peace-offering – ‫ה ְקדָּ ַשת ּ ֶפ ַסח וַ ֲחגִ יגָ ה‬:ַ It is permitted to consecrate a Paschal lamb on Shabbat and a Festival peace-offering on a Festival. Since they must be brought at a specific time, the rabbinic decree prohibiting consecrations on Shabbat and Festivals does not apply (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 23:14 and Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 1:19). Haughtiness and anger – ‫יְ ִהירוּת וְ ַּכ ַעס‬: Haughtiness and anger are negative character traits from which a person must distance himself. Not only are these traits inherently sinful, but they cause one to lose wisdom and prophecy (Rambam Sefer HaMadda, Hilkhot Deot 2:3).

12 

Perek VI . 66b . ‫וס ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ו‬

?‫יה‬ ִ ‫ּ ֶפ ַסח ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ֵה‬ ּ ‫יכי ָמצֵ י ַמ ְקדִּ ׁיש ֵל‬ ‫יכין וְ ֵאין‬ ִ ‫ישין וְ ֵאין ַמ ֲע ִר‬ ִ ׁ ִּ‫ ֵאין ַמ ְקד‬:‫וְ ָה ְתנַן‬ ,‫ימין וְ ֵאין ַמגְ ִ ּב ִיהין ְּתרו ָּמה ו ַּמ ַע ְ ׂשרֹות‬ ִ ‫ַמ ֲח ִר‬ ‫חֹומר‬ ֶ ָ‫ ַקל ו‬,‫ָּכל ֵא ּל ּו ְ ּביֹום טֹוב ָא ְמר ּו‬ !‫ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬

The Gemara asks: If so, how could they consecrate the Paschal offerings that year when Passover eve occurred on Shabbat? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: One may not consecrate animals, take a valuation vow, consecrate objects for use by the priests or the Temple, or separate terumot and tithes. They stated all of these prohibitions with regard to a Festival, and it is an a fortiori inference that these activities are prohibited on Shabbat as well, for the Sages decreed that one should not engage in these activities because they are similar to business transactions and weekday activities.nh

ֵּ ‫ָהנֵי ִמ‬ ‫ילי ְ ּבחֹובֹות ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָקב ּו ַע ָל ֶהן‬ – ‫ ֲא ָבל ְ ּבחֹובֹות ׁ ֶש ָ ּקב ּו ַע ָל ֶהן זְ ַמן‬,‫זְ ַמן‬ ‫ ַמ ְקדִּ ׁיש ָא ָדם‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ישין‬ ִ ׁ ִּ‫ַמ ְקד‬ .‫ֶאת ּ ִפ ְסחֹו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת וַ ֲחגִ יגָ תֹו ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬

The Gemara answers: This prohibition of consecrating an animal as a sacrifice on Shabbat or a Festival applies only to obligatory sacrifices that do not have a set time to be brought. But obligatory sacrifices that have a set time, such as the Paschal lamb, one may consecrate even on Shabbat. For Rabbi Yoĥanan said: A person may consecrate his Paschal lamb on Shabbat and his Festival peace-offering on the Festival.h Since these sacrifices must be brought on a specific day, they may be consecrated on that day even when it is Shabbat or a Festival, as the Sages did not uphold their decree in this circumstance.

‫ ְמ ַח ֵּמר‬.‫ וַ ֲהל ֹא ְמ ַח ֵּמר! ְמ ַח ֵּמר ִּכ ְל ַא ַחר יָ ד‬The Gemara asks: But is he not driving a laden animal? One who leads ‫אֹוריְ ָיתא‬ ַ ְּ‫ נְ ִהי דְּ ִא ּיסו ָּרא ד‬,‫ ִּכ ְל ַא ַחר יָ ד נַ ִמי‬a lamb that is carrying a knife is considered as one who is driving a laden !‫יכא‬ ָ ‫יכא – ִא ּיסו ָּרא ִמדְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן ִמ‬ ָּ ‫יהא ִא‬ ָּ ‫ ֵל‬animal, which is prohibited on Shabbat. The Gemara answers: It is driving a laden animal in an unusual manner, as a lamb is not typically used to carry loads. The Gemara asks: Even driving a laden animal in an unusual manner is problematic; granted that there is no prohibition by Torah law, but there is at least a rabbinic prohibition. When one performs a prohibited act on Shabbat in an unusual manner, he does not transgress a Torah prohibition, but nonetheless, he violates a rabbinic prohibition. ‫ דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש לֹו ֶה ֵּיתר‬:‫ֵיה‬ ּ ‫ַהיְ ינ ּו דְּ ָקא ָ ּב ֵעי ִמ ּינ‬ ,‫עֹומד ְל ָפנָיו‬ ֵ ‫ ו ְּד ַבר ׁ ְשבוּת‬,‫ִמן ַה ּת ָֹורה‬ ?‫ְל ָע ְקרֹו ִּכ ְל ַא ַחר יָ ד ִ ּב ְמקֹום ִמצְ וָ ה ַמאי‬ .‫ ֲה ָל ָכה זֹו ׁ ָש ַמ ְע ִּתי וְ ׁ ָש ַכ ְח ִּתי‬:‫ָא ַמר ָל ֶהן‬ ‫ ַה ּנִיח ּו ָל ֶהן ְליִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ִאם ֵאין‬,‫ֶא ָּלא‬ .‫יאים ֵהן‬ ִ ‫יאים ֵהן – ְ ּבנֵי נְ ִב‬ ִ ‫נְ ִב‬

The Gemara answers: This is precisely what the sons of Beteira asked Hillel: If there is an act that is permitted by Torah law, and a rabbinic decree stands before it and disallows it, what is the law with regard to the permissibility of uprooting the rabbinic decree in an unusual manner, in a situation in which one does so in order to fulfill a mitzva? Bringing the sacrifice is a mitzva, whereas leading the animal while it carries a knife is an unusual way of violating a rabbinic prohibition. Is this permitted? Hillel said to them: I once heard this halakha but I have forgotten it. But leave it to the Jewish people and rely on them to come up with a solution on their own, for if they are not prophets, they are the sons of prophets.

,‫ ָּכל ַה ִּמ ְתיַ ֵהר‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ,ּ‫ִאם ָח ָכם הוּא – ָח ְכ ָמתֹו ִמ ְס ַּת ֶּל ֶקת ִמ ֶּמנּ ו‬ ‫ִאם נָ ִביא הוּא – נְ בו ָּאתֹו ִמ ְס ַּת ֶּל ֶקת‬ ‫ ִאם ָח ָכם הוּא ָח ְכ ָמתֹו ִמ ְס ַּת ֶּל ֶקת‬.ּ‫ִמ ֶּמנּ ו‬ ‫ ִה ְת ִחיל‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ָמר‬.‫ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו – ֵמ ִה ֵּלל‬ ‫ ֲה ָל ָכה‬:ּ‫ וְ ָק ָא ַמר ְלהו‬.‫ְמ ַקנְ ְט ָרן ִ ּב ְד ָב ִרים‬ ‫ ִאם נָ ִביא הוּא‬.‫זֹו ׁ ָש ַמ ְע ִּתי וְ ׁ ָש ַכ ְח ִּתי‬ ,‫בֹורה‬ ָ ְּ‫נְ בו ָּאתֹו ִמ ְס ַּת ֶּל ֶקת ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו – ִמד‬ ‫״ח ְדל ּו ְפ ָרזֹון ְ ּביִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ָח ֵדלּ ּו ַעד‬ ָ :‫דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ‫בֹורה ׁ ַש ַ ּק ְמ ִּתי ֵאם ְ ּביִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ָ ְּ‫ׁ ַש ַ ּק ְמ ִּתי ד‬ ‫בֹורה עו ִּרי עו ִּרי‬ ָ ְּ‫ ״עו ִּרי עו ִּרי ד‬:‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫וגו׳״‬ .‫דַּ ְ ּב ִרי ׁ ִשיר וגו׳״‬

With regard to the incident with Hillel, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Anyone who acts haughtily,n if he is a Torah scholar, his wisdom departs from him; and if he is a prophet, his prophecy departs from him.h The Gemara explains: That if he is a Torah scholar, his wisdom departs from him is learned from Hillel, for the Master said in this baraita: Hillel began to rebuke them with words. Because he acted haughtily, he ended up saying to them: I once heard this halakha, but I have forgotten it, as he was punished for his haughtiness by forgetting the law. That if he is a prophet his prophecy departs from him is learned from Deborah, as it is written: “The villagers ceased, they ceased in Israel, until I, Deborah, arose, I arose a mother in Israel” ( Judges 5:7). For these words of self-glorification, Deborah was punished with a loss of her prophetic spirit, as it is written later that it was necessary to say to her: “Awake, awake, Deborah; awake, awake, utter a song” ( Judges 5:12), because her prophecy had left her.

‫ ִאם‬,‫ֹועס‬ ֵ ‫ ָּכל ָא ָדם ׁ ֶש ּכ‬:‫ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ִאם‬,ּ‫ָח ָכם הוּא – ָח ְכ ָמתֹו ִמ ְס ַּת ֶּל ֶקת ִמ ֶּמנּ ו‬ .ּ‫נָ ִביא הוּא – נְ בו ָּאתֹו ִמ ְס ַּת ֶּל ֶקת ִמ ֶּמנּ ו‬ – ‫ִאם ָח ָכם הוּא ָח ְכ ָמתֹו ִמ ְס ַּת ֶּל ֶקת ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו‬ ‫ ״וַ ּיִ ְקצֹוף מ ׁ ֶֹשה ַעל ּ ְפקו ֵּדי‬:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬.‫ִממ ׁ ֶֹשה‬ ‫ֹאמר ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ַה ּכ ֵֹהן‬ ֶ ‫ ״וַ ּי‬:‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫ֶה ָחיִ ל וגו׳״‬ ‫נְשי ַה ָ ּצ ָבא ַה ָ ּב ִאים ַל ִּמ ְל ָח ָמה זֹאת‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ֶאל ַא‬ ‫ֻח ַ ּקת ַה ּת ָֹורה ֲא ׁ ֶשר צִ ָּוה ה׳ ֶאת מ ׁ ֶֹשה וגו׳״‬ .‫ֵיה‬ ַ ‫ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ מ ׁ ֶֹשה ִא‬ ּ ‫יע ֵּלם ִמ ּינ‬

Similarly, Reish Lakish said: Any person who becomes angry, if he is a Torah scholar, his wisdom departsn from him, and if he is a prophet, his prophecy departs from him. The Gemara explains: That if he is a Torah scholar his wisdom departs from him is learned from Moses, as it is written: “And Moses became angry with the officers of the host, the captains over thousands and the captains over hundreds, who came from the battle” (Numbers 31:14). And what was his punishment? As it is written afterward: “And Elazar the priest said to the men of war who went to the battle: This is the statute of the law, which the Lord commanded Moses” (Numbers 31:21), which proves by inference that this law had become hidden from Moses due to his anger.

– ‫ִאם נָ ִביא הוּא נְ בו ָּאתֹו ִמ ְס ַּת ֶּל ֶקת ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו‬ ְ‫הֹוש ָפט ֶמ ֶלך‬ ָ ׁ ְ‫ ״לו ֵּלי ּ ְפנֵי י‬:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ישע‬ ָ ׁ ‫ֵמ ֱא ִל‬ ‫נֹושא ִאם ַא ִ ּביט ֵא ֶליךָ וְ ִאם‬ ׂ ֵ ‫יְ הו ָּדה ֲאנִי‬ ‫ ״וְ ַע ָּתה ְקח ּו ִלי ְמנַ ֵ ּגן‬:‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫ֶא ְר ֶא ָּך וגו׳״‬ .‫וְ ָהיָ ה ְּכנַ ֵ ּגן ַה ְמנַ ֵ ּגן וַ ְּת ִהי ָע ָליו יַ ד ה׳ וגו׳״‬

And that if he is a prophet, his prophecy departsn from him, we learn from Elisha, as it is written that he became angry with the king of Israel and said to him: “Were it not that I have regard for the presence of Jehoshaphat the king of Judea, I would not look toward you, nor see you” (II Kings 3:14), and it is afterward written: “But now bring me a minstrel; and it came to pass when the minstrel played that the hand of the Lord came upon him” (II Kings 3:15). Because Elisha became angry with the king of Israel, his prophetic spirit departed from him and a minstrel was needed to rouse it anew.

‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬,‫ֹועס‬ ֵ ‫ ּכֹל ׁ ֶש ּכ‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ָמנִי ַ ּבר ּ ַפ ִט ׁיש‬ ‫מֹור ִידין‬ ִ – ‫ֹוס ִקין ָע ָליו ְ ּגדו ָּּלה ִמן ַה ׁ ּ ָש ַמיִ ם‬ ְ ‫ּפ‬ ‫ ״וַ ּיִ ַחר‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫יאב‬ ָ ‫ ְמ ַנָלן – ֵמ ֱא ִל‬.‫אֹותֹו‬ ‫ֹאמר ָל ָּמה [ זֶ ה] יָ ַר ְד ָּת‬ ֶ ‫יאב ְ ּב ָדוִ ד וַ ּי‬ ָ ‫ַאף ֱא ִל‬ ‫נָט ׁ ְש ָּת ְמ ַעט ַה ּצֹאן ָה ֵה ָּנה ַ ּב ִּמ ְד ָ ּבר‬ ַ ‫וְ ַעל ִמי‬ ‫רֹוע ְל ָב ֶבךָ ִּכי‬ ַ ‫ֲאנִי יָ ַד ְע ִּתי ֶאת זְ דֹנְ ךָ וְ ֵאת‬ ‫ וְ ִכי ֲאזַ ל‬.‫ְל ַמ ַען ְראֹות ַה ִּמ ְל ָח ָמה יָ ָר ְד ָּת״‬ ‫ ״ל ֹא‬:‫ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ְל ִמ ְמ ׁ ַש ִחינְ ה ּו ְ ּב ֻכ ְּלה ּו ְּכ ִתיב‬ ‫ֹאמר‬ ֶ ‫ ״וַ ּי‬:‫יאב ְּכ ִתיב‬ ָ ‫ ו ֶּב ֱא ִל‬,‫ָבזֶ ה ָ ּב ַחר ה׳״‬ ‫ה׳ ֶאל ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַאל ַּת ִ ּביט ֶאל ַמ ְר ֵאה ּו וְ ֶאל‬ ‫קֹומתֹו ִּכי ְמ ַא ְס ִּתיהוּ״ – ִמ ְּכ ָלל דַּ ֲהוָ ה‬ ָ ‫ְ ּגב ַֹּה‬ .‫יה ַעד ָה ִאידָּ נָ א‬ ּ ‫ָר ֵחים ֵל‬

Rabbi Mani bar Patish said: Whoever becomes angry, even if greatness has been apportioned to himn from heaven, he is lowered from his greatness. From where do we derive this? From Eliab, David’s older brother, as it is stated: “And Eliab’s anger burned against David and he said: Why did you come down, and with whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know your insolence and the evil of your heart, for you have come down to see the battle” (I Samuel 17:28); we see that Eliab became angry. And when Samuel went to anoint him after God had told him that one of Yishai’s sons was to be the king, concerning all of the other brothers it is written: “The Lord has not chosen this one” (I Samuel 16:8), whereas with regard to Eliab it is written: “And the Lord said to Samuel: Look not at his appearance, nor at the height of his stature, for I have rejected him” (I Samuel 16:7). This proves by inference that until now He had loved him, and it was only at this point that Eliab was rejected. Had it not been for his anger, Eliab would have been fit for greatness; but owing to this shortcoming, God rejected him.

‫ דְּ ָדח ּו‬,‫ַא ׁ ְש ַּכ ַחן ָּת ִמיד ו ֶּפ ַסח דְּ ָדח ּו ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫יכי דְּ יַ ֵּליף‬ ִ ‫ ִּכי ֵה‬:‫טו ְּמ ָאה ְמנָ א ָלן? ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ‫ ָה ִכי נַ ִמי יַ ֵּליף‬,‫ּ ֶפ ַסח ִמ ָּת ִמיד ְל ִענְיַ ן ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ .‫ָּת ִמיד ִמ ּ ֶפ ַסח ְל ִענְיַ ן טו ְּמ ָאה‬

The Gemara raises an additional question incidental to the previous discussion proving that the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat: We have found proofs that the daily offering and the Paschal lamb override Shabbat. From where do we derive that they also override ritual impurity? For we have a tradition that if the entire community is ritually impure, they nonetheless offer the communal sacrifices and the Paschal lamb. They say: Just as the law governing the Paschal lamb is derived from the law governing the daily offering in regard to the overriding of Shabbat, so too the law concerning the daily offering is derived from the law concerning the Paschal lamb in regard to ritual impurity; just as the Paschal lamb overrides communal impurity, so does the daily offering.h

,‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫יה ְמנָ א ָלן? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ו ֶּפ ַסח גּ ו ֵּפ‬ ‫״א ׁיש ִא ׁיש ִּכי יִ ְהיֶ ה ָט ֵמא‬ ִ :‫דְּ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬ ‫ וְ ֵאין‬,‫ָלנֶ ֶפ ׁש״ – ִא ׁיש נִ ְד ֶחה ְל ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ָע ְב ִדי‬,‫נִיד ִחין ְל ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬ ְ ‫יב ּור‬ ּ ִ‫צ‬ .‫ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Paschal lamb itself, from where do we derive that if most of the nation is ritually impure, the sacrifice is offered anyway? Rabbi Yoĥanan said: For the verse states: “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: Any man of you or your generations who shall be impure by reason of a corpse, or on a distant journey, he shall keep the Passover to the Lord. On the fourteenth day of the second month at evening they shall keep it, and eat it with matzot and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:10–11). We can infer from here that a single individual or a group of individuals are deferred to the second Pesaĥ if they are ritually impure, but the entire community or the majority thereof is not deferred to the second Pesaĥ; rather, they observe the first Pesaĥ in a state of ritual impurity.

:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫יבוּר ֵלית‬ ּ ִ‫ימא ִא ׁיש ְנִד ֶחה ְל ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי – צ‬ ָ ‫ֵא‬ ‫אשֹון וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח‬ ׁ ‫ְלה ּו ַּת ַ ּקנְ ָּתא ל ֹא ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח ִר‬ !‫ׁ ֵשנִי‬

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to Rabbi Yoĥanan: This verse cannot serve as proof, for you can say that it is to be understood as follows: A single individual or a group of individuals is deferred to the second Pesaĥ, but the community has no remedy, neither on the first Pesaĥ nor on the second Pesaĥ.

:‫ ֵמ ָה ָכא‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬ ‫יש ְּלח ּו ִמן ַה ַּמ ֲחנֶ ה ָּכל צָ רו ַּע וְ ָכל זָ ב וְ כֹל‬ ַ ׁ ִ‫״ו‬ ‫ֹאמר ְט ֵמ ֵאי ֵמ ִתים וְ ַאל‬ ַ ‫ י‬.‫ָט ֵמא ָלנָ ֶפ ׁש״‬ ‫ ִאם‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ וַ ֲאנִי‬,‫צֹור ִעין‬ ָ ‫ֹאמר זָ ִבין ּו ְמ‬ ַ ‫י‬ ‫צֹור ִעין‬ ָ ‫ְט ֵמ ֵאי ֵמ ִתים ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ְּל ִחין – זָ ִבין ו ְּמ‬ !?‫ל ֹא ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬

Rather, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish rejected this proof and said that a different proof may be brought from here: “Command the children of Israel that they send out from the camp any leper and any zav and anyone impure by reason of a corpse” (Numbers 5:2). Let the verse say only that they are to send out those who are ritually impure due to a corpse, and not say anything about zavin and lepers, and I would say this law on my own through an a fortiori inference: If those ritually impure due to a corpse, whose impurity is not so severe as it is contracted from an external source, are sent out from the camp, with regard to zavin and lepers who are the source of their own impurity, all the more so is it not clear that they should be sent out? Thus, the verse contains unnecessary information.



notes

His prophecy departs – ‫נְ בו ָּאתֹו ִמ ְס ַּת ֶּל ֶקת‬: Losing wisdom or prophecy is not a punishment for haughtiness; rather, it is a natural consequence of anger and pride, which does not allow one to focus his thoughts on such sublime matters as wisdom or prophecy. In the example in the Gemara, it is only when the musician’s playing calms Elisha that he is able to properly concentrate and attain prophecy once more (Midrash Shlomo). Even if greatness has been apportioned to him – ‫ֹוס ִקין ָע ָליו ְ ּגדו ָּּלה‬ ְ ‫א ִפ ּיל ּו ּפ‬:ֲ The author of the Sefat Emet explains that the Gemara does not mean to suggest that Eliab was originally fit to be king, and was not appointed because he became angry. This is especially clear since David was anointed before the incident in which Eliab became angry with him. Rather, Eliab was fit for some other form of greatness; but God, Who sees into man’s heart, saw that Eliab had a bad temper. Therefore, he lost the greatness that would otherwise have been suitable for him. halakha

The daily offering with impurity – ‫ָק ְר ַ ּבן ָּת ִמיד‬ ‫בטו ְּמ ָאה‬: ּ ְ The daily offering overrides ritual impurity and its sacrificial limbs may be burned on the altar even if they are impure, in accordance with the ruling of the Gemara (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Temidin UMusafin 1:7).

‫וס ףד‬: ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Perek VI . 66b 

13

Perek VI Daf 67 Amud a ‫צֹור ִעין‬ ָ ‫ֶא ָּלא יֵ ׁש ְלךָ ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶשּזָ ִבין ו ְּמ‬ ‫ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ְּל ִח ין וְ ֵא ין ְט ֵמ ֵא י ֵמ ִתים‬ ‫ וְ ֵאיזֶ ה זֶ ה – ּ ֶפ ַסח ַה ָ ּבא‬.‫ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ְּל ִחין‬ .‫ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬

Rather, it teaches you that you have a time when zavin and lepers are sent out from the camp, but those who are ritually impure due to contact with a corpse are not sent out. And what is this time? When a Paschal lamb is brought in impurity, when those impure due to contact with a corpse are permitted to participate, but a zav and a leper may not. From here we learn that when most of the nation is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, the Paschal lamb is brought anyway in a state of ritual impurity.

‫ֹאמר‬ ַ ‫ימא נַ ִמי י‬ ָ ‫ ֵל‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬:‫ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ,‫צֹורע‬ ָ ‫ֹאמר ְמ‬ ַ ‫זָ ב ו ְּט ֵמ ֵאי ֵמ ִתים וְ ַאל י‬ ‫צֹורע‬ ָ ‫ זָ ב ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ֵּל ַח – ְמ‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫וַ ֲאנִי‬ ‫ יֵ ׁש ְלךָ ׁ ָש ָעה‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא‬.‫ל ֹא ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬ ‫צֹור ִעין ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ְּל ִחין וְ ֵאין ִזָבין ו ְּט ֵמ ֵאי‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ְּמ‬ ‫ וְ ֵאיזֶ ה זֶ ה – ּ ֶפ ַסח‬,‫ֵמ ִתים ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ְּל ִחין‬ .‫ַה ָ ּבא ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬

Abaye said: If so, that this is how the verse is to be interpreted, let us also say that the verse should only say zav and those ritually impure due to a corpse and not say leper, and I would say this law on my own through an a fortiori inference: If a zav is sent out, then with regard to a leper, whose ritual impurity is more severe than that of a zav, all the more so is it not clear that he should be sent out? Rather, the seemingly unnecessary mention of a leper teaches that you have a time when only lepers are sent out, but zavin and those ritually impure due to contact with a corpse are not sent out. And what is this time? When a Paschal offering is brought in impurity, when zavin and those impure due to contact with a corpse are permitted to participate, but a leper may not.

‫ ּ ֶפ ַסח‬:‫ימא ָה ִכי נַ ִמי – וְ ָה ְתנַ ן‬ ָ ‫וְ ִכי ֵּת‬ ‫ֹאכל ּו ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו‬ ְ ‫ַה ָ ּבא ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה – ל ֹא י‬ ‫ וְ ִאם ָא ְכל ּו‬,‫יֹולדֹות‬ ְ ְ‫זָ ִבים וְ זָ בֹות נִ דּ ֹות ו‬ .‫ּ ְפטו ִּרין‬

And if you say that it is indeed so that even a zav may participate when the Paschal lamb is brought in a state of impurity, there is a difficulty, for didn’t we learn in a mishna: When a Paschal lamb is brought in a state of ritual impurity, zavim and zavot, menstruating women and women after childbirth, whose impurity is comparable to that of a zav, may not eat from it; but if they ate, they are exempt from karet. This demonstrates that the verse cannot be explained in accordance with Reish Lakish’s inference.

.‫עֹולם ִמ ְּק ָרא ַק ָּמא‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬Rather, Abaye said: Actually, the law can be derived from the first ‫״א ׁיש ִא ׁיש ִּכי‬ ִ ‫נִיכ ּתֹוב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬ ְ ‫ ִאם ֵּכן‬verse quoted by Rabbi Yoĥanan: “Any man who shall be impure by ?‫״לנֶ ֶפ ׁש״ ָל ָּמה ִלי‬ ָ ,‫ יִ ְהיֶ ה ָט ֵמא״‬reason of a corpse.” And the derivation should be understood as follows: If so, that the verse comes to teach that only an individual can rectify his situation on the second Pesaĥ, but not the community, the Merciful One should have written: “Any man who shall be impure.” Why do I need the words “by reason of a corpse”?

14 

Perek VI . 67a . ‫זס ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ו‬

‫״לנֶ ֶפ ׁש״ ְל ָה ִכי הוּא‬ ָ ‫ ַהאי‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫וְ ִכי ֵּת‬ ‫ ַה ְּט ֵמא ֵמת הוּא דְּ נִ ְד ֶחה‬,‫דַּ ֲא ָתא‬ – ‫ ֲא ָבל ׁ ְש ָאר ְט ֵמ ִאין ל ֹא‬,‫ְל ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬ ‫עֹושין ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ִׂ ‫ יָ כֹול ל ֹא יְ ה ּו‬:‫וְ ָה ַתנְ יָ א‬ ְ‫ׁ ֵשנִי ֶא ָּלא ְט ֵמ ֵאי ֵמ ִתים וְ ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ְ ּב ֶד ֶרך‬ ‫ּבֹוע ֵלי נִ דּ ֹות‬ ֲ ‫צֹור ִעין ו‬ ָ ‫ זָ ִבין ו ְּמ‬,‫חֹוקה‬ ָ ‫ְר‬ ,‫״א ׁיש ִא ׁיש״‬ ִ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ִמ ּנַיִ ין? ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ?‫״לנֶ ֶפ ׁש״ דְּ ָכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ָל ָּמה ִלי‬ ָ

And if you say that these words “by reason of a corpse” come for this reason, to teach us that it is only one who is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse that is deferred to the second Pesaĥ but the rest of those who are impure are not deferred to the second Pesaĥ, there is a difficulty. For wasn’t it taught otherwise in the following baraita: One might have thought that only those ritually impure due to contact with a corpse and those on a distant journey observe the second Pesaĥ. From where do we derive that even zavin, lepers and those who had relations with menstruating women may participate in the second Pesaĥ? Therefore, the verse states: “Any man,” to include even people with these types of impurity. If so, why do I need the words “by reason of a corpse” that the Merciful One writes, as it would seem that they teach us nothing?

‫ ִא ׁיש נִ ְד ֶחה ְל ֶפ ַסח‬:‫ֶא ָּלא ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬ ,‫יבוּר נִ ְד ֶחה ְל ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬ ּ ִ‫ וְ ֵאין צ‬,‫ׁ ֵשנִי‬ ‫יבוּר‬ ּ ִ‫ וְ ִכי ָע ְב ִדי צ‬.‫ֶא ָּלא ָע ְב ִדי ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ׁ ְש ָאר‬,‫ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה – ִ ּב ְט ֵמא ֵמת‬ .‫טו ְּמאֹות – ָלא ָע ְב ִדי‬

Rather, this is what the verse is saying: A single individual or a group of individuals are deferred to the second Pesaĥ, but the entire community or the majority thereof is not deferred to the second Pesaĥ; rather, they observe the first Pesaĥ in a state of ritual impurity. And when we say that the community observes it in a state of impurity, that is only when they are ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, as indicated by the expression “by reason of a corpse,” but when they are impure with other types of impurity, they do not observe it in a state of impurity, even if the majority of the community is impure.

‫צֹורע ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְכנַס ִל ְפנִים‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬Having cited verses dealing with the requirement to send out the ritu‫״ב ָדד יֵ ׁ ֵשב‬ ּ ָ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫יצתֹו – ּ ָפטוּר‬ ּ ָ ‫ ִמ ְּמ ִח‬ally impure from the camp, the Gemara addresses several halakhot .‫מֹושבֹו״‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ִמחוּץ ַל ַּמ ֲחנֶ ה‬relevant to that topic. Rav Ĥisda said: A leper, whon must be sent out from all of the camps including the Israelite camp, who went in beyond his boundary, that is, he entered an area that is prohibited to him, is nonetheless exempt from the punishment of lashes. With regard to the ritually impure, the Torah states: “Both male and female shall you send out, outside the camp shall you send them, and they shall defile not their camps in the midst of which I dwell” (Numbers 5:3), from which we learn that an impure person who enters the camp is liable to receive lashes for having violated the prohibition of “they shall not defile.” A leper, however, is exempt, as it is stated: “All the days that the plague shall be in him he shall be impure; he is impure, he shall dwell in isolation, his dwelling shall be outside the camp” (Leviticus 13:46). ‫״מחוּץ ַל ַּמ ֲחנֶ ה‬ ִ ,‫יֵשב‬ ֵ ׁ ‫יֵשב״ – ְל ַבדּ ֹו‬ ֵ ׁ ‫״ב ָדד‬ ּ ָ The Gemara explains that the verse is explicated in the following manner: “He shall dwell in isolation” means he shall dwell alone, without .‫מֹושבֹו״ – ַה ָּכתוּב נִ ְּתקֹו ַל ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬ ָׁ even the company of others who are impure. “His dwelling shall be outside the camp” teaches that the verse has transmuted the negative precept into a positive mitzva.n In other words, the verse establishes that if a leper entered an area that is prohibited to him, he is commanded to leave, and fulfilling this command removes the full force of the prohibition he has already violated. The rule is that lashes are not administered for the violation of a prohibition, if that violation can be rectified by the fulfillment of a positive commandment. ‫צֹור ע ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְכנַ ס ִל ְפ נִ ים‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬: ‫יה‬ ֵ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫ֵא‬ ּ ‫יב‬ ‫ זָ ִבין וְ זָ בֹות‬.‫ִמ ְּמ ִחיצָ תֹו – ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬ .‫יצ ָתן – ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬ ּ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְכנְס ּו ִל ְפנִים ִמ ְּמ ִח‬ .‫יכנֵס ְל ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ְלוִ ּיָ ה‬ ָּ ‫ו ְּט ֵמא ֵמת מו ָּּתר ִל‬

halakha

One who is ritually impure who went in beyond his boundary – ‫יצתֹו‬ ּ ָ ‫ט ֵמא ִל ְפנִים ִמ ְּמ ִח‬:ָ One who is ritually impure may not enter the Temple Mount. If he does so, he receives lashes. A leper is punished with lashes for entering Jerusalem, but does not receive lashes for entering other walled cities in Eretz Yisrael, although he is prohibited from doing so. The Rambam ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda against Rabbi Shimon (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Biat HaMikdash 3:8). One who is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse is permitted to enter the Levite camp – ‫ְט ֵמא‬ ‫יכנֵס ְל ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ְלוִ ּיָה‬ ָּ ‫מת מו ָּּתר ִל‬:ֵ One who is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse and even a corpse itself are permitted to enter the Levite camp, which is the area of the Temple Mount outside of the Temple itself, as stated in the Gemara (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Biat HaMikdash 3:4).

An objection was raised against Rav Ĥisda from a baraita: A leper, who may not even enter the Israelite camp, who went in beyond his boundary, is punished with forty lashes like one who violates a regular Torah prohibition. Similarly, zavin and zavot, who are prohibited from entering the Levite camp, who went in beyond their boundaries, are punished with forty lashes.h And one who is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse is permitted to enter even the Levite camp.h notes

The three camps – ‫של ֹׁש ַמ ֲחנֹות‬: ָ ׁ Various halakhot are derived from the Torah’s account of the activities of the Jews in the wilderness. The halakhic discussions of these topics use terms appropriate for the situation in that era, despite the fact that they are no longer relevant to the later period. Examples of this phenomenon can also be found in the laws of Shabbat. Halakhic discussions with regard to the areas into which the different classes of ritually impure people are forbidden entry adopt the terminology used to describe the camps of Israel in the wilderness. The three camps in the wilderness had their parallels in Eretz Yisrael in later periods. The camp of the Divine Presence, the area within the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting, was paralleled by the Temple and its courtyard inside the Gate of Nicanor. The camp of the Levites, the area where the Levites encamped around the Tabernacle, was paralleled by the Temple Mount as far as the Gate of Nicanor. The camp of Israel was paralleled by the city of Jerusalem outside the Temple Mount and, according to many authorities, all walled cities in Eretz Yisrael. It should be noted that this division into three camps represents the different levels of sanctity of place with respect to ritual impurity according to Torah law. The Sages subdivided these areas further and differentiated within the Temple Mount between the different courtyards, the rampart, and the like (see Me’iri).

The verse has transmuted the negative precept into a positive mitzva – ‫ה ָּכתוּב נִ ְּתקֹו ַל ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬:ַ This is an instance of the category of negative mitzvot, whose violation can be rectified by the fulfillment of a positive mitzva. That is to say, the Torah appends to the prohibition a positive command that is meant to correct the consequences of the original violation. For example, to the prohibition of theft, the Torah appends the positive command that the thief return the article he has stolen. Since there is a positive command associated with the prohibition, lashes are not administered for the original violation, unless it can never be rectified.

Above: Inscription found on an ossuary at Nicanor Cave on Mount Scopus reading in Greek: Bones of the family Nicanor of Alexandria who made the doors Left: Model of the Second Temple showing the Gate of Nicanor in the middle, at the top of the stairs



‫זס ףד‬. ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Perek VI . 67a 

15

halakha

A camp for this one and a camp for that one – ‫ַמ ֲחנֶ ה‬ ‫לזֶ ה ו ַּמ ֲחנֶ ה ָלזֶ ה‬:ָ Anyone who is ritually impure is prohibited from entering the Temple, which is the camp of the Divine Presence. A zav, a zava, a menstruating woman, and a woman after childbirth may not enter the Levite camp, which is the Temple Mount. A leper is excluded from all three camps, which means that he may not enter Jerusalem, as stated in the Gemara (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Biat HaMikdash 3:2–3).

‫ ֶא ָּלא‬,ּ‫וְ ל ֹא ְט ֵמא ֵמת ִ ּב ְל ַבד ָא ְמרו‬ ּ ‫ֲא ִפ‬ ‫ ״וַ ּיִ ַ ּקח‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬.‫יל ּו ֵמת ַעצְ מֹו‬ – ‫״ע ּמֹו״‬ ִ ,‫יֹוסף ִע ּמֹו״‬ ֵ ‫מ ׁ ֶֹשה ֶאת ַעצְ מֹות‬ !‫יצתֹו‬ ּ ָ ‫ִ ּב ְמ ִח‬

And not only did they say that one who is ritually impure due to a corpse may enter this area, but even a corpse itself may be brought into the Levite camp, as it is stated: “And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him” (Exodus 13:19), the words “with him” implying that the bones were taken within his boundary, i.e., that Joseph’s coffin was found in the same area in which Moses dwelled. Since Moses was a Levite and lived in the Levite camp, it follows that even a corpse may be brought into the Levite camp. In any event, we see from the first clause of the baraita that a leper does in fact receive lashes for entering an area prohibited to him, against Rav Ĥisda.

‫יֵשב״ – ְל ַבדּ ֹו‬ ֵ ׁ ‫״ב ָדד‬ ּ ָ :‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫ַּת ּנ ֵָאי ִהיא‬ ‫יֹוש ִבין‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יְ ה ּו ְט ֵמ ִאין ֲא ֵח ִרים‬,‫יֵ ׁ ֵשב‬ ‫ יָ כֹול יְ ה ּו זָ ִבין ו ְּט ֵמ ֵאי ֵמ ִתים‬.‫ִע ּמֹו‬ ‫ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ְּל ִחין ְל ַמ ֲחנֶ ה ַא ַחת – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ – ‫נֵיהם״‬ ֶ ‫ ״וְ ל ֹא יְ ַט ְּמא ּו ֶאת ַמ ֲח‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי‬,‫יתן ַמ ֲחנֶ ה ָלזֶ ה ו ַּמ ֲחנֶ ה ָלזֶ ה‬ ֵּ ‫ִל‬ .‫ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬

The Gemara answers: This is a matter that is subject to dispute between tanna’im, for it was taught in a different baraita: “He shall dwell in isolation” indicates that he shall dwell alone, meaning that other ritually impure people, such as zavin and those who are ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, should not dwell with him. One might have thought that zavin and those who are ritually impure due to contact with a corpse are sent to one camp, meaning that the laws governing which camps they may or may not enter are the same for both. Therefore, the verse states: “Both male and female shall you send out, outside the camp shall you send them out, and they shall defile not their camps in the midst of which I dwell” (Numbers 5:3). The plural term “camps” teaches that there are multiple camps for those who are ritually impure, so that we give a camp for this one and a camp for that one;h this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Thus, in his opinion, there are three camps: One which a leper may not enter, one which a zav may not enter, and one which even someone ritually impure due to contact with a corpse may not enter.

‫ ֲה ֵרי‬,‫יך‬ ְ ‫ ֵאינֹו צָ ִר‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ ‫יש ְּלח ּו ִמן ַה ַּמ ֲחנֶ ה ָּכל‬ ַ ׁ ִ‫ ״ו‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫הוּא‬ ‫ֹאמר‬ ַ ‫ י‬,‫צָ רו ַּע וְ ָכל זָ ב וְ כֹל ָט ֵמא ָלנָ ֶפ ׁש״‬ ‫ וַ ֲאנִי‬,‫ֹאמר ְט ֵמ ֵאי זָ ב‬ ַ ‫ְט ֵמ ֵאי ֵמת וְ ַאל י‬ ‫ ְט ֵמ ֵאי ֵמ ִתים ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ְּל ִחין – זָ ִבין‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יתן לֹו‬ ֵּ ‫ל ֹא ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן? ָל ָּמה נֶ ֱא ַמר זָ ב – ִל‬ .‫ַמ ֲחנֶ ה ׁ ְשנִּיָה‬

Rabbi Shimon says: It is not necessary to derive this law from the plural term “camps,” for surely the verse says: “Command the children of Israel that they send out from the camp any leper and any zav and anyone impure by reason of a corpse” (Numbers 5:2). The verse includes an unnecessary phrase: Let the verse say only that they are to send out those who are ritually impure due to a corpse, and not say anything about those impure as a zav, and I would say on my own that a zav is obviously included in this law: If those ritually impure due to a corpse are sent out from the camp, all the more so is it not clear that zavin should be sent out? If so, why is a zav stated? To give him a second camp, that is, to teach us that the law governing a zav is more severe than the law relating to one who is impure due to a corpse and there is an additional camp that he may not enter.

‫ וַ ֲאנִי‬,‫צֹורע‬ ָ ‫ֹאמר ְמ‬ ַ ‫ֹאמר זָ ב וְ ַאל י‬ ַ ‫וְ י‬ ּ ‫צֹור ִעין ל ֹא‬ ָ ‫ זָ ִבין ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ְל ִחין – ְמ‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫צֹורע – ִל ֵּיתן לֹו‬ ָ ‫ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן? ָל ָּמה נֶ ֱא ַמר ְמ‬ ‫״ב ָדד‬ ּ ָ ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא‬.‫ישית‬ ִ ׁ ‫ַמ ֲחנֶ ה ׁ ְש ִל‬ .‫יֵ ׁ ֵשב״ – ַה ָּכתוּב נִ ְּתקֹו ַל ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬

And furthermore: Let the verse say only that they are to send out a zav, and not say anything about a leper, and I would say on my own that a leper is obviously included in this law as well: If zavin are sent out, all the more so is it not clear that lepers should be sent out? Why then is a leper stated? To give him a third camp that he may not enter. When the verse says with regard to a leper: “He shall dwell alone,” the verse has transmuted the negative precept into a positive command. This teaches us that a leper who enters a camp that is prohibited to him does not receive lashes for his violation of a negative commandment, which is consistent with the ruling of Rav Ĥisda.

‫יה דְּ זָ ב ִמ ְּט ֵמא ֵמת – ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬ ּ ‫ַמאי חו ְּמ ֵר‬ ,‫ ַאדְּ ַר ָ ּבה‬.‫טו ְּמ ָאה יֹוצְ ָאה ָע ָליו ִמגּ וּפֹו‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ָטעוּן ַהּזָ ָאה‬,‫ְט ֵמא ֵמת ָחמוּר‬ !‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ישי ו ׁ ְּש ִב‬ ִ ׁ ‫ׁ ְש ִל‬

The Gemara questions the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: We see from the discussion cited above that it was clear to Rabbi Shimon that the impurity of a zav is more severe than that of one who is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, and that the impurity of a leper is even more severe than that of a zav. What is the stringency of a zav over one who is ritually impure due to a corpse?n That the impurity of the zav issues out upon him from his own body, rather than coming from an external source, as is the case when impurity is contracted from a corpse. But on the contrary, it may be argued that the legal status of one who is ritually impure due to a corpse is more severe, as he requires sprinkling of the purifying waters on the third and seventh days of his purification process, whereas a zav, who is also impure for seven days, does not require such sprinkling.

notes

Levels of ritual impurity – ‫דַּ ְרגּ ֹות ַה ּטו ְּמאֹות‬: There is no single criterion that can be used to determine the relative severity of the different sources of ritual impurity. Indeed, each source of impurity has its own set of severities and leniencies. An almost complete list of the factors that can cause ritual impurity is found in the first chapter of tractate Kelim, from contact with creeping animals, which is the most lenient source of impurity, to a corpse, which is the most severe source of impurity. There is a similar list of the ten types of ritual impurity due to bodily emissions, which differs slightly in its order from the first list. The different sources of impurity can be ranked in accordance with the power they have to impart impurity to others. They can also be ordered in accordance with the manners in which they impart impurity to others, e.g., a man suffering from gonorrhea [zav] imparts impurity to objects that he causes to move, and a leper imparts impurity to objects found in the same enclosure with him. The sources of impurity can also be arranged based on the measure that is required in order to impart impurity. Consequently, it is difficult to state absolutely that one type of impurity is more severe than another type.

16 

Perek VI . 67a . ‫זס ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ו‬

– ‫״ט ֵמא״ ״וְ כֹל ָט ֵמא״‬ ָ :‫ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states not just “impure” ‫ וְ זָ ב ָחמוּר ִמ ְּט ֵמא‬,‫ ְל ַר ּבֹות ְט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬but “and anyone impure.” The additional words come to include .‫ ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬one who is ritually impure due to contact with a creeping animal. He, too, is sent out from the camp like one who is impure due to contact with a corpse, and it is clear that the legal status of a zav is more severe than one who is ritually impure due to contact with a creeping animal. ,‫ ַאדְּ ַר ָ ּבה‬.‫יה? ְּכ ַד ֲא ַמ ַרן‬ ּ ‫ ּו ַמאי ח ּו ְמ ֵר‬The Gemara asks: And what is his stringency? In what way is a zav !‫ ׁ ֶש ֶרץ ָחמ ּור ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ְמ ַט ֵּמא ְ ּבאֹונֶ ס‬more stringent than one who has contracted ritual impurity from a :‫ ָא ְמ ִרי‬creeping animal? The Gemara answers: As we have said, that his impurity issues out upon him from his own body, unlike one who has contracted impurity from a creeping animal. But on the contrary, it is possible to say that the legal status a creeping animal is more severe, for it imparts ritual impurity even through an accident. A zav only becomes impure when it is clear that his discharge did not result from sickness or some other accident, but a person who comes into contact with a creeping animal contracts ritual impurity regardless of the circumstances of that contact. They say in answer to this question:

Perek VI Daf 67 Amud b ‫ִּכי ַהאי ַ ּגוְ ונָ א זָ ב נַ ִמי ַט ּמוּיֵ י ְמ ַט ֵּמי‬ :‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬.‫ְ ּבאֹונֶס ִּכ ְד ַרב הוּנָ א‬ ‫אשֹונָ ה ׁ ֶשל זָ ב ְמ ַט ְּמ ָאה‬ ׁ ‫ְר ִא ּיָ ה ִר‬ .‫ְ ּבאֹונֶס‬

In a case like this, meaning, if we compare the two cases in this way, a zav also becomes impure through an accident, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, for Rav Huna said: The first sightingh of a zav establishes ritual impurity even through an accident.n In order to contract the more severe ritual impurity of a zav that lasts seven days, a man must experience at least two zav discharges. If he has only a single discharge, he contracts a less severe ritual impurity that lasts until evening, like one who experienced a seminal emission. This first discharge establishes impurity even if it results from some accident, and no effort is made to attribute it to some other factor.

‫צֹורע ִמּזָ ב – ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬ ָ ‫יה דִּ ְמ‬ ּ ‫ַמאי חו ְּמ ֵר‬ ‫ימה וְ ָאסוּר ְ ּב ַת ׁ ְש ִמ ׁיש‬ ָ ‫יעה ו ְּפ ִר‬ ָ ‫ָטעוּן ּ ְפ ִר‬ ‫ זָ ב ָחמוּר ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬,‫ ַאדְּ ַר ָ ּבה‬.‫ַה ִּמ ָּטה‬ ‫ ּו ְמ ַט ֵּמא ְּכ ֵלי ֶח ֶרס‬,‫מֹושב‬ ָ ׁ ‫ִמ ׁ ְש ָּכב ּו‬ !‫יסט‬ ֵּ ‫ְ ּב ֶה‬

The Gemara asks further: What is the stringency of a leper over a zav? That a confirmed leper is required to let his hair grow and rend his garments and he is prohibited from marital relations,n none of which applies to a zav. But on the contrary, there is room to say that the legal status of a zav is more severe, for a zav imparts ritual impurity to that upon which he lies or sits even if he does not come into direct contact with it, and he imparts ritual impurity to an earthenware vessel through movement. If he causes an earthenware vessel to move, it becomes ritually impure even if he touches it on the outside, and even if he does not touch the vessel at all. Ordinarily, an earthenware vessel becomes impure only through contact on the inside of the vessel.

‫ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא ״זָ ב״ ״וְ ָכל זָ ב״ – ְל ַר ּבֹות‬The Gemara answers: The verse states not just “zav” but “and any – ‫צֹורע ָחמוּר ִמ ַ ּב ַעל ֶק ִרי‬ ָ ‫ ו ְּמ‬,‫ ַ ּב ַעל ֶק ִרי‬zav,” and this inclusive expression “any” comes to include a person who experienced a seminal emission,n whose impurity is of the same type as a zav, and it is clear that the legal status of a leper is more severe than a person who experienced a seminal emission. We can therefore derive through an a fortiori inference that if one who experienced a seminal emission is prohibited from entering a certain camp, a leper is certainly prohibited from entering that camp.

halakha

The first sighting – ‫אשֹונָ ה‬ ׁ ‫ר ִאּיָ ה ִר‬:ְ Examining a zav to determine whether his discharge was a true zav discharge or due to some external factor is essential for the second discharge. For with the first discharge, the zav becomes ritually impure, even if it was due to some external factor. Ideally, however,



he should be examined even after his first discharge to determine whether it should be included among the three sightings that would necessitate bringing a sacrifice as part of the purification process (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Meĥusrei Kappara 2:5).

notes

The ritual impurity of a man suffering from gonorrhea [zav] – ‫טו ְּמ ַאת זָב‬: The details of the laws relating to a man suffering from gonorrhea [zav] are laid down in a special tractate of the Mishna called Zavim, which is in the order of Taharot. The zav becomes ritually impure as a result of a white, pus-like discharge from his penis. The severity of his impurity depends upon the number of times he experiences such a discharge. After the first sighting, he is like someone who experienced a seminal emission with respect to the length of his impurity, i.e., until evening, and the severity of the impurity. If he then has a second discharge, he contracts the more severe impurity of a zav: He imparts ritual impurity by touching articles or people; he imparts ritual impurity to an earthenware vessel by moving it; he imparts ritual impurity through the medium of a large stone; and the fluids that he secretes impart ritual impurity at the level of a primary source of impurity. He cannot undergo purification until seven clean days have passed without any discharge. If he experiences a third emission, he must also bring a special sacrifice as part of the purification process. The ritual impurity of a leper – ‫צֹורע‬ ָ ‫טו ְּמ ַאת ְמ‬: The laws of tzara’at, traditionally rendered as leprosy but not necessarily identified medically with that illness, are recorded in the Torah in the book of Leviticus in the portions of Tazria and Metzora. They are detailed in the tractate of Nega’im, which deals exclusively with the different types of leprosy. The halakha distinguishes between the impurity of a quarantined leper, i.e., a suspected leper who is isolated for a period of up to two weeks until the matter is clarified, and that of a confirmed leper. A leper must grow his hair long, rend his garments, and cover his head in a particular way. A leper is a particularly severe source of ritual impurity in that he imparts ritual impurity to objects found in the same enclosure with him, similar to a corpse. A zav and a person who experienced a seminal emission – ‫זָב ו ַּב ַעל ֶק ִרי‬: There are significant differences between semen and the discharge of a zav. However, owing to the external similarities between the two with respect to the manner in which the person becomes impure and the location of the emission, one who experiences a seminal emission is included in the category of zav, albeit at a lower level of impurity. Therefore, we derive certain halakhot of a zav from one who has experienced a seminal emission and vice versa. ‫זס ףד‬: ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Perek VI . 67b 

17

halakha

The minimum measure of a zav discharge – ‫שיעוּר זִ ָיבה‬: ִׁ There is no minimum measure of discharge necessary to cause impurity as a zav, as one who sees even a minute amount becomes ritually impure (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Meĥusrei Kappara 2:9). notes

The tunnels were not sanctified – ‫מ ִחילּ ֹות ל ֹא נִ ְת ַקדְּ ׁש ּו‬:ְ Rashi explains that Rabbi Yoĥanan’s two statements are not inherently connected; rather, they were simply conveyed by Rabbi Yoĥanan’s teacher during the same study session. Contrary to this, some commentaries explain that the two statements are in fact intertwined. They cite the mishnayot in tractates Tamid (1:1) and Middot (1:9) that teach that a priest who experienced a seminal emission would walk to the ritual bath via the tunnels under the Temple courtyard. It is apparent that a priest who experienced a seminal emission must exit the two camps and may leave through the tunnels since they are not sanctified and are therefore not defined as being part of those camps (Me’iri; see Tosefot Rid and Mishne LaMelekh).

‫ ַ ּב ַעל‬:‫ ַאדְּ ַר ָ ּבה‬.‫יה – ְּכ ַד ֲא ַמ ַרן‬ ּ ‫ ו ַּמאי חו ְּמ ֵר‬The Gemara asks: And what is his stringency? In what way is !ּ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ְמ ַט ֵּמא ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ּ ֶשהו‬,‫ ֶק ִרי ָחמוּר‬the legal status of a leper more severe than one who experienced a seminal emission? As we said, that he must let his hair grow and rend his garments and he is prohibited to engage in marital relations. But we may ask: On the contrary, there is room to say that the legal status of one who experienced a seminal emission is more severe, for he becomes ritually impure even with any amount. For the Torah did not specify an amount of semen that must be emitted in order to become impure, and one therefore becomes impure upon emitting even a minute amount, whereas leprous signs do have a minimum measure. ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן‬,‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫ָס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן‬ ‫ימת‬ ַ ‫ זָ ב צָ ִריךְ ַּכ ֲח ִת‬:‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬ ‫ וְ ִא ְית ַק ׁש‬.‫ וְ ל ֹא הֹוד ּו לֹו ֲח ָכ ִמים‬.‫ּ ִפי ָה ַא ָּמה‬ .‫יה ַ ּב ַעל ֶק ִרי ְלזָ ב‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬

The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: In order for a zav to become ritually impure, he needs to experience a discharge substantial enough to cause a blockage of the tip of the male organ.h But the Rabbis did not agree with him. Thus, according to Rabbi Natan, a zav only becomes ritually impure if he experiences a discharge of a particular amount. And one who experienced a seminal emission is compared to a zav and therefore the same amount of discharge is required in order to cause ritual impurity. Therefore, the ritual impurity of a leper is more severe than that of one who experienced a seminal emission, and the original a fortiori inference applies.

‫״כל‬ ָּ ‫ ״וְ ָכל צָ רו ַּע״ ָל ָּמה ִלי? ַאּיְ ֵידי דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬The Gemara asks: The expressions “any zav” and “anyone impure” .‫״כל צָ רו ַּע״‬ ָּ ‫ זָ ב״ ְּכ ִתיב נַ ִמי‬teach that their respective categories are more inclusive than one would otherwise have thought. But why do I need the inclusive expression “and any leper”? What does the word “any” include? The Gemara explains: Since it is written “any zav,” it is also written “any leper,” so that the wording of the verse will be consistent. !‫ ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר ָק ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬,‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬The Gemara challenges the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda quoted above: Rabbi Shimon spoke well when he derived the three camps from which the three different classes of people are sent out from the verse: “That they send out from the camp any leper and any zav and anyone impure by reason of a corpse.” How does Rabbi Yehuda counter this argument?

18 

Perek VI . 67b . ‫זס ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ו‬

‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫יה ְל ִכ ְד ַתנְיָא‬ ּ ָ ‫ַההוּא ִמ‬ ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ ‫צֹור ִעין וְ נִ ְכנְס ּו‬ ָ ‫ יָ כֹול דָּ ֲחק ּו זָ ִבין ו ְּמ‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ָל ֲעזָ ָרה ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח ַה ָ ּבא ְ ּבט ּו ְמ ָאה יָ כֹול‬ ‫יש ְּלח ּו‬ ַ ׁ ִ‫ ״ו‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫יבין – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ִ ָ‫יְ ה ּו ַחּי‬ ‫ִמן ַה ַּמ ֲח נֶ ה ָּכל צָ ר ּו ַע וְ ָכל זָ ב וְ כֹל‬ ‫ ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש ְּט ֵמ ֵאי ֵמ ִתים‬,‫ָט ֵמא ָלנָ ֶפ ׁש״‬ ,‫צֹור ִעין ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ְּל ִחין‬ ָ ‫ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ְּל ִחין – זָ ִבין ו ְּמ‬ ‫ֵאין ְט ֵמ ֵאי ֵמ ִתים ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ְּל ִחין – ֵאין זָ ִבין‬ .‫צֹור ִעין ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ְּל ִחין‬ ָ ‫ו ְּמ‬

The Gemara answers: He needs that verse for that which was taught in a different baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: One might have thought that if zavin and lepers pushed and entered the Temple courtyard during the offering of a Paschal lamb that is brought in a state of impurity, when the majority of the nation are ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, that perhaps they would be liable for punishment for having violated the prohibition of entering the Temple while ritually impure. They are prohibited from entering even under such circumstances. Therefore the verse states: “That they send out from the camp any leper and any zav and anyone impure by reason of a corpse” (Numbers 5:2), which teaches us that at a time when those impure due to a corpse are sent out, zavin and lepers are sent out and are liable to karet for entering the Temple; but when those impure due to a corpse are not sent out, zavin and lepers are not sent out, meaning, they are not liable to receive karet for entering the Temple.

.‫ זָ ב וְ ָכל זָ ב – ְל ַר ּבֹות ַ ּב ַעל ֶק ִרי‬:‫ָא ַמר ָמר‬ :‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ְמ ַסּיַ יע ֵל‬ ‫ ו ַּב ַעל ֶק ִרי ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ֵּל ַח‬,ּ‫ְמ ִחילּ ֹות ל ֹא נִ ְת ַקדְּ ׁשו‬ .‫חוּץ ִל ׁ ְש ֵּתי ַמ ֲחנֹות‬

The Master said above: The fact that the verse does not just say “zav” but rather the inclusive expression “and any zav” comes to include a person who experienced a seminal emission. The Gemara notes: This exposition supports the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan, for Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The tunnels under the Temple were not sanctifiedn with the sanctity of the Temple; and a person who experienced a seminal emission is sent outside the two camps just like a zav. The exposition quoted above supports this second ruling of Rabbi Yoĥanan.

‫ ַמאי‬.‫ ַ ּב ַעל ֶק ִרי ְּכ ַמ ַ ּגע ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬:‫ית ִיבי‬ ִ ‫ ֵמ‬The Gemara raises an objection based on what we learned in a .‫ ְלטו ְּמ ָא ָתם‬,‫נֹותם! ל ֹא‬ ָ ‫ ָלאו – ְל ַמ ֲח‬mishna: The law governing a person who experienced a seminal emission is like the law governing someone who became ritually impure through contact with a creeping animal. What, is the intent not to compare them with regard to their respective camps, that one who experienced a seminal emission is prohibited from the same camps that are prohibited to one who touched a creeping animal? Thus, it follows that a person who experienced a seminal emission is permitted to enter the Levite camp. The Gemara answers: No, they are compared with regard to their impurity, in that each is impure only until the evening.

halakha

Seminal emission through an accident – ‫אֹונֶס ְ ּב ֶק ִרי‬: A person who experiences a seminal emission becomes ritually impure, whether that emission was intentional or unintentional, as stated by the Gemara (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 5:1).

‫ ְלטו ְּמ ָא ָתם?! ַהאי טו ְּמ ַאת ֶע ֶרב ְּכ ִתיב‬The Gemara expresses surprise: Why did the mishna need to teach !‫יה‬ ּ ‫ וְ ַהאי טו ְּמ ַאת ֶע ֶרב ְּכ ִתיב ֵ ּב‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֵ ּב‬that they are comparable with regard to their impurity? Impurity !‫נֹותם‬ ָ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ָלאו – ְל ַמ ֲח‬until evening is explicitly written in the Torah about this one, meaning that one who came into contact with a creeping animal is impure until the evening and then must undergo ritual immersion in order to become pure, as it states: “And for these you shall be unclean; whoever touches the carcass of them shall be unclean until evening” (Leviticus 11:24). And impurity until evening is explicitly written about that one, one who experienced a seminal emission, as it states: “And if semen goes out from a man, then shall he bathe all his flesh in water and be unclean until evening” (Leviticus 15:16). Rather, is it not that they are compared with regard to their camps, which is not explicit in the Torah? ‫ וְ ָהא ָק ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬.‫עֹולם ְלטו ְּמ ָא ָתם‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬,‫ל ֹא‬ ‫ ַמה ַּמ ַ ּגע‬,‫ דְּ ַב ַעל ֶק ִרי ְּכ ַמ ַ ּגע ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬:‫ָלן‬ ‫ׁ ֶש ֶרץ ְמ ַט ֵּמא ְ ּבאֹונֶס – ַאף ַ ּב ַעל ֶק ִרי‬ .‫ְמ ַט ֵּמא ְ ּבאֹונֶס‬

The Gemara answers: No, actually it is possible to say that the comparison relates to their impurity, and it teaches us that a person who experienced seminal emission is governed by the same law as someone who became ritually impure through contact with a creeping animal in another regard: Just as contact with a creeping animal imparts ritual impurity through an accident, even when the contact is unintentional, so too a person who experienced a seminal emission becomes ritually impure through an accident,h even when the emission of semen is unintentional, unlike the law governing a zav.

:‫ית ִיבי‬ ִ ‫ ֵמ‬The Gemara raises an objection:

Perek VI Daf 68 Amud a ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ְל ַמאי? ִא ֵיל‬.‫ֹועל נִדָּ ה ִּכ ְט ֵמא ֵמת‬ ֵ ‫ּב‬ ‫ְלט ּו ְמ ָא ָתם – ַהאי ט ּו ְמ ַאת ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ ‫ וְ ַהאי ט ּו ְמ ַאת ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ְּכ ִתיב ֵ ּב‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫ְּכ ִתיב ֵ ּב‬

We learned in the continuation of the previously cited mishna that the law governing one who had relations with a menstruating woman is like the law governing one who is ritually impure due to a corpse. With regard to what did they formulate this comparison? If we say they made the comparison with regard to their impurity, that they are both impure for seven days, impurity for seven days is explicitly written about this one, someone who had relations with a menstruating woman, and impurity for seven days is explicitly written about that one, someone who is impure due to a corpse, and so there would be no need for the mishna to inform us of these laws.

‫יפא‬ ָ ‫ ּו ִמדְּ ֵס‬.‫נֹותם‬ ָ ‫ֶא ָּלא ָלאו – ְל ַמ ֲח‬ !‫נֹותם‬ ָ ‫ישא נַ ִמי ְל ַמ ֲח‬ ָ ׁ ‫נֹותם – ָהוֵ י ֵר‬ ָ ‫ְל ַמ ֲח‬ ‫יתא וְ ָהא‬ ָ ‫ִמידֵּ י ִא ְיריָ א?! ָהא ִּכ ְד ִא‬ .‫יתא‬ ָ ‫ִּכ ְד ִא‬

Rather, is it not that they are compared with regard to their camps, to teach that one who had relations with a menstruating woman is sent out from the same camp as someone ritually impure due to a corpse? And from the fact that the comparison in the latter clause of the mishna relates to their camps, it stands to reason that the comparison in the earlier clause of that same mishna between one who experienced a seminal emission and one who became ritually impure through contact with a creeping animal also relates to their camps, and not as we explained it earlier. The Gemara rejects this argument: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is; each part of the mishna formulates its own comparison.



‫חס ףד‬. ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Perek VI . 68a 

19

notes

halakha

‫ וְ זָ ב ָחמוּר‬,‫צֹורע ָחמוּר ִמּזָ ב‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬:‫ית ִיבי‬ ִ ‫ ֵמ‬The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught: The ‫ יָ צָ א ַ ּב ַעל ֶק ִרי ׁ ֶש ְּט ֵמא ֵמת‬,‫ ִמ ְּט ֵמא ֵמת‬legal status of a leper is more severe than a zav and the legal .ּ‫ ָחמוּר ִמ ֶּמנּ ו‬status of a zav is more severe than one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, with regard to which camps they are prohibited to enter; to the exclusion of a person who experienced a seminal emission, for the legal status of one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse is more severe than his status.

Sending out those who are impure – ‫שילו ַּח ְט ֵמ ִאים‬: ִ ׁ One who is ritually impure and prohibited from entering the Temple Mount, corresponding to the Levite camp, violates a Torah prohibition if he enters, as it says: “And he shall go outside the camp” (Deuteronomy 23:11), which signifies the camp of the Divine Presence; and this is followed by the phrase “and he shall not come within the camp,” which refers to the Levite camp. He is punished with lashes for violating this prohibition. It seems that the Rambam’s version of the Gemara was missing the continuation of the Gemara, which challenges this interpretation. Therefore, he accepted the original formulation of how this law is derived from the verse (Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Biat HaMikdash 3:8).

‫ ַמאי יָ צָ א? ָלאו יָ צָ א ִמ ְּכ ָלל זָ ב ו ָּבא‬The Gemara wishes to clarify this enigmatic statement: What is ‫ דְּ ָהא ְט ֵמא ֵמת ָחמוּר‬,‫ ִל ְכ ָלל ְט ֵמא ֵמת‬the meaning of the words, to the exclusion of a person who expe?‫ ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו וּמו ָּּתר ְ ּב ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ְלוִ ּיָ ה‬rienced a seminal emission? Is the intent not that he is excluded from the category of a zav and enters the category of one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, for the legal status of one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse is more severe than his status, as his impurity lasts for seven days, and nonetheless he is permitted in the Levite camp. We should therefore learn from here that someone who experienced a seminal emission is also permitted in the Levite camp.

Within [tokh] the camp, this is the camp of the Divine Presence – ‫ זֹו ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ׁ ְש ִכינָ ה‬,‫תֹוךְ ַה ַּמ ֲחנֶ ה‬:ּ Support for this statement can be brought from the wording of the verse, because the word tokh, translated here as within, is frequently used in the sense of tavekh, middle, and the Tabernacle was indeed located in the very center of the Jewish camp (Rashash).

20 

Perek VI . 68a . ‫חס ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ו‬

‫ יָ צָ א ִמ ַּמ ֲחנֵ ה ְט ֵמא ֵמת וְ נִ ְכנַ ס‬,‫ל ֹא‬ ‫ וְ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דִּ ְט ֵמא ֵמת‬.‫ְל ַמ ֲחנֵ ה זָ ב‬ – ‫ָחמוּר ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ( דְּ מו ָּּתר) ְ ּב ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ְלוִ ּיָ ה‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ְמ ַד ִּמינַן ֵל‬ ּ ‫ְל ַמאי דְּ ָד ֵמי ֵל‬

The Gemara rejects this proof: No, the intent is that one who experienced a seminal emission is excluded from the camp of one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, and he enters the camp of a zav, meaning that he is excluded from the Levite camp, just like a zav. And although the legal status of one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse is more severe than his status and he is permitted in the Levite camp, and so it would seem that one who experienced a seminal emission should similarly be permitted, nonetheless, we compare him to that to which he is similar. The ritual impurity of one who experienced a seminal emission is fundamentally similar to that of a zav, and different from that of one who is ritually impure due to a corpse.

:‫ימי‬ ִ ִּ‫יה דְּ ַרב יִ צְ ָחק ַ ּבר ַא ְבד‬ ּ ‫ָּתנֵי ַּת ָּנא ַק ֵּמ‬ ‫״וְ יָ צָ א ֶאל ִמחוּץ ַל ַּמ ֲחנֶ ה״ – זֹו ַמ ֲחנֵ ה‬ ‫ׁ ְש ִכינָ ה ״ל ֹא יָ בֹא ֶאל ּתֹוךְ ַה ַּמ ֲחנֶ ה״ – זֹו‬ ‫ ִמ ָּכאן ְל ַב ַעל ֶק ִרי ׁ ֶשּיֵ צֵ א‬,‫ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ְלוִ ּיָ ה‬ .‫חוּץ ִל ׁ ְש ֵּתי ַמ ֲחנֹות‬

A tanna taught a baraita before Rav Yitzĥak bar Avdimi: “If there be among you a man that is impure by reason of a nocturnal occurrence, he shall go outside the camp, he shall not come within the camp” (Deuteronomy 23:11). This verse may be expounded as follows: “He shall go outside the camp,” this is the camp of the Divine Presence. “He shall not come within the camp,” this is the Levite camp. From here we derive that a person who experienced a seminal emission must go out from two camps.

‫יה‬ ְ ֵ‫ ַא ַּכ ִּתי ָל א ַעּי‬: ‫יה‬ ּ ‫יל ֵּת‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמ ר ֵל‬ ‫ ַא ַּכ ִּתי‬:‫ישנָ א ַא ֲח ִרינָ א‬ ָ ּ ׁ ‫יה?! ִל‬ ְ ‫ַא ּ ִפ‬ ּ ‫יק ֵּת‬ :‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יה?! ֶא ָּלא ֵא‬ ּ ‫יה ַעּיֵ ְיל ֵּת‬ ּ ‫ל ֹא ַא ּ ִפ ְיק ֵּת‬ ‫ ״ל ֹא‬,‫״מחוּץ ַל ַּמ ֲחנֶ ה״ – זֹו ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ְלוִ ּיָ ה‬ ִ ‫ֹוך ַה ַּמ ֲחנֶ ה״ – זֹו ַמ ֲחנֵ ה‬ ְ ‫יָ בֹא ֶאל ּת‬ .‫ׁ ְש ִכינָ ה‬

Rav Yitzĥak said to the tanna: Something is amiss in the wording of this baraita: You have not yet brought him in and you already send him out? In other words, in order to say that the words “he shall not come within the camp” teach that a person who experienced a seminal emission must leave the Levite camp, you must first prove that he was there to begin with. Another version, which differs from the previous one only in formulation but not in substance: You have not yet sent him out and you already bring him in? In other words, how can you say that the words “he shall not come within the camp” refer to the Levite camp if we have not yet learned that he must leave that camp in the first place? Rather, emend the baraita and say that it reads as follows: “Outside the camp,” this is the Levite camp. “He shall not come within the camp,” this is the camp of the Divine Presence.nh

‫ימא ִא ִידי וְ ִא ִידי‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬:‫ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ָר ִבינָ א‬ ‫ וְ ַל ֲעבֹור ָע ָליו ַ ּב ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬,‫ְל ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ׁ ְש ִכינָ ה‬ ‫ימא ְק ָרא ״וְ יָ צָ א‬ ָ ‫וְ ל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה! ִאם ֵּכן ֵל‬ ,‫ֶאל ִמחוּץ ַל ַּמ ֲחנֶ ה וְ ל ֹא יָ בֹא ֶאל ּתֹוךְ ״‬ ‫יתן‬ ֵּ ‫ ִל‬:‫״ה ַּמ ֲחנֶ ה״ ָל ָּמה ִלי? ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ ַ .‫לֹו ַמ ֲחנֶ ה ַא ֶח ֶרת‬

Ravina strongly objects to this exposition of the verse: Say that both this and that refer to the camp of the Divine Presence, that he must leave the camp of the Divine Presence and may not enter it; and the repetition comes to teach that he violates a positive command to leave the camp and a negative command barring entry into the camp. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse say only: “He shall go outside the camp, he shall not come within,” or “within it.” Why do I need the repetition of the word “the camp”? Conclude from this that it is to give him a different camp; it refers not to the same camp that he left but rather to a different one.

?‫ ַמאי ִמיחוּי ְק ָר ָביו‬.‫״ו ִּמיחוּי ְק ָר ָביו וכו׳״‬ )‫ ַ(רב‬.‫ ׁ ֶש ְּמנַ ְּק ָבן ַ ּב ַּס ִּכין‬:‫ַרב הוּנָ א ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ׁ ִש ְיר ָקא דְּ ֵמ ַעּיָ יא‬:‫ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַרב ָא ַמר‬ .‫דְּ נָ ְפ ָקא ַא ַ ּגב דּ ו ֲּח ָקא דְּ ַס ִּכינָ א‬

We learned in the mishna that cleaning the intestines of the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is meant by cleaning the intestines? Rav Huna said: It means that he punctures them with a knife allowing the excrement to exit. Rav Ĥiyya bar Rav said: It refers to the removal of the secretions of the intestine, which come out through the pressure of the knife and would ruin the entire sacrifice and cause it to become putrid were they allowed to remain in the intestines.

‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ִחּיָ יא‬:)‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫(א ִל‬ ֱ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ״וְ ָח ְרבֹות ֵמ ִחים ָ ּג ִרים‬:‫ַ ּבר ַרב – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ‫ ַמאי ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע – ְּכ ִד ְמ ַת ְר ֵ ּגם‬.‫ֹאכל ּו״‬ ֵ ‫י‬ ‫יעּיָ א צַ דִּ ַיקּיָ א‬ ַ ‫יהן דְּ ַר ׁ ּ ִש‬ ֶ ‫ וְ נִ ְכ ֵס‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ַרב‬ .‫יַ ְח ְסנוּן‬

Rabbi Eliezer said: What is Ĥiyya bar Rav’s reason for explaining the term in this manner? As it is written: “Then shall the lambs feed as in their pasture, and the ruins of the fat ones [meĥim] shall wanderers eat” (Isaiah 5:17). From where may it be inferred that this verse is in any way connected to our discussion? As Rav Yosef translates this verse: “And the righteous shall inherit the possessions of the wicked.” This indicates that the word meĥim, understood by Rav Yosef as referring to the wicked,n is a term of degradation. This led Ĥiyya bar Rav to interpret the mishna’s clause with regard to cleaning [miĥui] the intestines as referring to removing the repulsive matter inside.

‫נַשיָ א‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ָא ַמר ְמ‬,‫״וְ ָרע ּו ְכ ָב ִ ׂשים ְּכ ָד ְב ָרם״‬ ‫ ַמאי‬.‫ ַּכ ְמדו ָ ּּבר ָ ּבם‬:‫ַ ּבר יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ‫ ״וְ ָח ְרבֹות‬:‫ַּכ ְמדו ָ ּּבר ָ ּבם? ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ‫יה‬ ֵ ‫ֵמ ִח ים ָ ּג ִר ים י‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמ ר ֵל‬.‫ֹאכל ּו ״‬ – ‫״ח ְרבֹות״‬ ָ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ִאי ְּכ ִתיב‬:‫ָר ָבא‬ – ‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא דִּ ְכ ִתיב ‘וְ ָח ְרבֹות׳‬,‫ִּכ ְד ָק ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬ .‫יתי ָק ָא ַמר‬ ִ ‫ִמ ְּיל ָתא ַא ֲח ִר‬

Having explained the latter part of the verse in Isaiah, the Gemara turns to the beginning of that same verse. “Then shall the lambs feed as in their pasture [kedavram].” Menashya bar Yirmeya said that Rav said: As was said about them [ka­ medubar bam], i.e., as the prophet promised. To what prophecy does the verse refer with the expression “as was said about them”? Abaye said: It is referring to the continuation of the verse: “And the ruins of the fat ones shall wanderers eat.” Rava said to him that this cannot be: Granted, were it written only “the ruins of the fat ones,” it would be possible to explain as you said. Now that it is written “and the ruins,” with the addition of the word “and,” this indicates that it states something else, and the verse contains two separate prophecies.

‫ ִּכ ְד ַרב ֲחנַ נְ ֵאל ָא ַמר‬:‫ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ‫ ֲע ִת ִידין‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב ֲחנַ נְ ֵאל ָא ַמר ַרב‬.‫ַרב‬ :‫ ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָכא‬,‫ּיְחּי ּו ֶאת ַה ֵּמ ִתים‬ ַ ‫צַ דִּ ִיקים ׁ ֶש‬ :‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָתם‬,‫״וְ ָרע ּו ְכ ָב ִ ׂשים ְּכ ָד ְב ָרם״‬ .‫עֹולם״‬ ָ ‫ימי‬ ֵ ‫״יִ ְרע ּו ָב ׁ ָשן וְ גִ ְל ָעד ִּכ‬

Rather, Rava said: This verse should be understood in accordance with what Rav Ĥananel said that Rav said. For Rav Ĥananel said that Rav said: In the future, the righteous will resurrect the dead. It is written here: “Then shall the lambs feed [vera’u] as in their pasture,” the lambs serving as an allusion to the righteous, and it is written there: “Tend your people with your staff, the flock of your heritage, who dwell alone in the wood, in the midst of Carmel; let them feed [yiru] in Bashan and Giladb as in the days of old” (Micah 7:14).

,‫ישע ַה ָ ּבא ִמן ַה ָ ּב ׁ ָשן‬ ָ ׁ ‫ָ ּ‘ב ׁ ָשן׳ – זֶ ה ֱא ִל‬ :‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫ ״וְ יַ ְענַי וְ ׁ ָש ָפט ַ ּב ָ ּב ׁ ָשן״‬:‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ ‫ישע ֶ ּבן ׁ ָש ָפט ֲא ׁ ֶשר יָ צַ ק ַמיִ ם ַעל‬ ָ ׁ ‫״פֹה ֱא ִל‬ ּ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,ּ‫ ‘ ִ ּג ְל ָעד׳ זֶ ה ֵא ִלּיָ הו‬.‫יְ ֵדי ֵא ִלּיָ הוּ״‬ ‫ֹוש ֵבי ִ ּג ְל ָעד‬ ָ ׁ ‫ֹאמר ֵא ִלּיָ ה ּו ַה ִּת ׁ ְש ִ ּבי ִמ ּת‬ ֶ ‫״וַ ּי‬ .‫וגו׳״‬

“Bashan” is an allusion to the prophet Elisha, who came from the Bashan. How do we know that Elisha came from Bashan? As it is stated: “Joel the chief, and Shafam the next, and Yanai and Shafat in the Bashan” (I Chronicles 5:12), and it is written: “Here is Elisha ben Shafat who poured water on the hands of Elijah” (II Kings 3:11). “Gilad” is an allusion to Elijah, as it is stated: “And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants of Gilad, said” (I Kings 17:1). Based on the similarity of the verses and the verbal analogy between the two instances of the word “feed,” we learn that in the future the righteous will be like Elijah and Elisha, who resurrected the dead.

‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר נַ ְח ָמנִי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ,‫יקים ׁ ֶשּיְ ַחּי ּו ֵמ ִתים‬ ִ ִּ‫ ֲע ִת ִידים צַ ד‬:‫יֹונָ ָתן‬ ‫ ״עֹוד יֵ ׁ ְשב ּו זְ ֵקנִים ּוזְ ֵקנֹות‬:‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ ‫ִ ּב ְרחֹבֹות יְ רו ׁ ָּש ָליִ ם וְ ִא ׁיש ִמ ׁ ְש ַענְ ּתֹו ְ ּביָ דֹו‬ ‫ֵמרֹב יָ ִמים״ ו ְּכ ִתיב ״וְ ַ ׂש ְמ ָּת ִמ ׁ ְש ַענְ ִּתי ַעל‬ .‫ּ ְפנֵי ַה ּנ ַָער״‬

This idea is derived from a different source as well. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naĥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: In the future the righteous will resurrect the dead, as it is stated: “Old men and old women shall yet again dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, and every man with his staff in his hand for very age” (Zechariah 8:4). And the staff will then be used as it was used by Gehazi when Elisha sent him to bring the son of the Shunamite woman back to life, as it is written: “And you shall lay my staff on the face of the child” (II Kings 4:29).



notes

Meĥim is referring to the wicked – ‫מ ִחים ְר ׁ ָש ִעים‬:ֵ The ge’onim explained that this repulsive matter strongly adheres to the intestines and, due to the difficulty in removing it, is called wicked secretions. This is similar to the wicked who take possession of the property of the righteous. The Maharsha explains that the term meĥim refers to the wicked because it literally means something soft and fatty. This is a fitting description of the wicked, who grow fat by exploiting the righteous. background

Bashan and Gilad – ‫ב ׁ ָשן וְ גִ ְל ָעד‬:ּ ָ

Map showing location of Bashan and Gilad

‫חס ףד‬. ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Perek VI . 68a 

21

notes

The youngest shall die a hundred years old – ‫ַה ּנ ַַער‬ ‫בן ֵמ ָאה ׁ ָשנָ ה יָ מוּת‬: ּ ֶ According to Rashi, this means that when someone will pass away at the age of one hundred, people will say that he died while still a youth. As the light of seven days – ‫כאֹור ׁ ִש ְב ַעת ַהּיָ ִמים‬:ְּ The Midrash explains that the light will be brighter than the light that shined during the seven days of creation (Bereshit Rabba).

,‫״ב ַּלע ַה ָּמוֶ ת ָלנֶצַ ח״‬ ּ ִ :‫ ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫עו ָּּלא ָר ֵמי‬ !‫״כי ַה ּנ ַַער ֶ ּבן ֵמ ָאה ׁ ָשנָ ה יָ מוּת״‬ ִּ :‫ו ְּכ ִתיב‬ – ‫ ָּכאן‬,‫ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א; ָּכאן – ְ ּביִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ :‫ וְ גֹויִ ם ַמאי ָ ּבע ּו ָה ָתם? דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬.‫ְ ּבגֹויִ ם‬ ‫״וְ ָע ְמד ּו זָ ִרים וְ ָרע ּו צֹאנְ ֶכם ו ְּבנֵי נֵ ָכר‬ .‫יכם״‬ ֶ ‫יכם וְ כ ְֹר ֵמ‬ ֶ ‫ִא ָּכ ֵר‬

As we have been discussing the world of the future and the resurrection of the dead, the Gemara cites additional statements on these topics. Ulla raised a contradiction between two verses: In one verse it is written: “He will destroy death forever, and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces, and the insult of His people shall He take away from off all the earth; for the Lord has spoken” (Isaiah 25:8). And in another verse it is written: “There shall be no more there an infant who lives a few days, nor an old man who has not filled his days; for the youngest shall die a hundred years old”n (Isaiah 65:20), implying that people will live long lives, but death will not be totally eradicated. Ulla answers: This is not difficult: Here, in the first verse, it is referring to Jews, who will not die at all, while there, in the second verse, it is referring to gentiles, who will live exceedingly long lives but eventually die. The Gemara asks: What are gentiles doing there in the future world? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vineyard workers” (Isaiah 61:5).

‫ ״וְ ָח ְפ ָרה ַה ְּל ָבנָ ה‬:‫ ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א ָר ֵמי‬ ‫ ״וְ ָהיָ ה אֹור‬:‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫ּבֹושה ַה ַח ָּמה״‬ ָׁ ‫ו‬ ‫ַה ְּל ָבנָ ה ְּכאֹור ַה ַח ָּמה וְ אֹור ַה ַח ָּמה‬ !‫יִ ְהיֶ ה ׁ ִש ְב ָע ַתיִ ם ְּכאֹור ׁ ִש ְב ַעת ַהּיָ ִמים״‬ ,‫עֹולם ַה ָ ּבא‬ ָ ‫ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א; ָּכאן – ָל‬ .‫ָּכאן – ִלימֹות ַה ָּמ ׁ ִש ַיח‬

Rav Ĥisda raised a contradiction between two verses: In one verse it is written: “Then the moon shall be confounded and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of Hosts shall reign in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and before His elders will be His glory” (Isaiah 24:23), which indicates that in the future there will be no light at all from the sun or the moon. And elsewhere it is written: “Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days,n on the day that the Lord binds up the breach of His people and heals the stroke of their wound blow” (Isaiah 30:26), which indicates that the light of the sun and moon will be even brighter than before. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: Here, where it says that the sun and the moon will be ashamed before the glow of the Divine Presence, it is referring to the World-to-Come, which is an entirely different world; while there, where it says that their light will increase, it is referring to the days of the Messiah.

‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ ֵאין ֵ ּבין ָה‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫וְ ִל ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫יע ּבוּד‬ ְ ‫ַהּזֶ ה ִלימֹות ַה ָּמ ׁ ִש ַיח ֶא ָּלא ׁ ִש‬ ?‫ימר‬ ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬ ָּ ‫ ַמאי ִא‬,‫ַמ ְל ִכּיֹות ִ ּב ְל ַבד‬ :‫ וְ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬,‫עֹולם ַה ָ ּבא‬ ָ ‫ִא ִידי וְ ִא ִידי ָל‬ ‫ ָּכאן ְ ּב ַמ ֲחנֵ ה‬,‫ָּכאן ְ ּב ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ׁ ְש ִכינָ ה‬ .‫צַ דִּ ִיקים‬

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Shmuel, who said that there is no difference between this world and the days of the Messiah except for subjugation to foreign kingdoms, but in all other ways, including the illumination of the celestial bodies, the world order will remain unchanged, what is there to say to reconcile these verses? The Gemara answers: This and that refer to the World-to-Come, and it is not difficult: Here, where it says that the sun and the moon will be totally ashamed, it refers to the camp of the Divine Presence; while there, where it says that the light of the sun and moon will be greatly magnified, it refers to the camp of the righteous.

,‫״אנִי ָא ִמית וַ ֲא ַחּיֶ ה״‬ ֲ :‫ ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫ָר ָבא ָר ֵמי‬ ‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא‬,‫״מ ַחצְ ִּתי וַ ֲאנִי ֶא ְר ּ ָפא״‬ ָ :‫ו ְּכ ִתיב‬ ?‫ַאחֹויֵ י ֵמ ַחּיֵ י – ִמ ַר ּ ֵפא ל ֹא ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬ ‫ ַמה‬:‫דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא‬ ׁ ‫ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַה ָ ּק‬ ‫ ְּכמֹו ׁ ֶש ָּמ ַחצְ ִּתי‬,‫ׁ ּ ֶש ֲאנִי ֵמ ִמית ֲאנִי ְמ ַחּיֶה‬ .‫וַ ֲאנִי ֶא ְר ּ ָפא‬

Rava raised a contradiction between two parts of a verse. It is written: “I put to death and I make live” (Deuteronomy 32:39) and in that same verse it is written: “I wound and I heal.” Now once it says that He gives life to the dead, all the more so is it not clear that He can heal those who are still alive? What then does the second clause add to the first? Rather, the second clause clarifies the first one: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Those same people whom I put to death I will bring to life, just as those people whom I wounded I will heal. In other words, the verse means to say that just as God will heal the same people He wounded, so will He revive those He put to death; and not, as the verse might otherwise have been understood, that He puts some people to death and gives life to others.

‫״אנִי ָא ִמית וַ ֲא ַחּיֶ ה״ יָ כֹול‬ ֲ :‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫יתה ְ ּב ֶא ָחד וְ ַחּיִ ים ְ ּב ֶא ָחד ְּכ ֶד ֶר ְך‬ ָ ‫ִמ‬ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫נֹוהג – ַּת ְלמ ּוד‬ ֵ ‫עֹול ם‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ָה‬ ‫״מ ַחצְ ִּתי וַ ֲאנִ י ֶא ְר ּ ָפא״ ַמ ה ַּמ ָּכה‬ ָ ‫יתה וְ ַחּיִ ים‬ ָ ‫ו ְּרפו ָּאה ְ ּב ֶא ָחד – ַאף ִמ‬ ‫אֹומ ִרים ֵאין‬ ְ ‫ ִמ ָּכאן ְּת ׁשו ָּבה ָל‬.‫ְ ּב ֶא ָחד‬ :‫ דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר‬.‫ְּת ִחּיַ ית ַה ֵּמ ִתים ִמן ַה ּת ָֹורה‬ ,‫ַ ּב ְּת ִח ָּלה ַמה ׁ ּ ֶש ֲאנִי ֵמ ִמית ֲאנִי ְמ ַחּיֶ ה‬ .‫וַ ֲה ַדר ַמה ׁ ּ ֶש ָּמ ַחצְ ִּתי וַ ֲאנִי ֶא ְר ּ ָפא‬

Similarly, the Sages taught in a baraita: “I put to death and I make live”; one might have thought that this refers to death for one person and life, i.e., birth, for another person, in the customary manner of the world. Therefore, the verse states: “I wound and I heal”; just as the wounding and the healing mentioned here clearly refer to the same person, so too death and life refer to the same person. From this verse, there is a refutation to those who say that there is no Torah source for the resurrection of the dead, for it is explicitly mentioned in this verse. Alternatively, the verse can be explained as follows: At first, those whom I put to death I will bring to life,n but they will be revived with the same injuries that they had when they died; and subsequently, those whom I wounded I will heal, meaning that their injuries will be healed after they are resurrected.

At first, those whom I put to death I will bring to life – ‫ב ְּת ִח ָּלה ַמה ׁ ּ ֶש ֲאנִי ֵמ ִמית ֲאנִי ְמ ַחּיֶה‬:ּ ַ The Midrash explains that it will be necessary to revive people with the same injuries that they had when they died, so that nobody will say that these are not the same people who already passed away (Bereshit Rabba; Tanĥuma).

22 

Perek VI . 68a . ‫חס ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ו‬

Perek VI Daf 68 Amud b ‫ ָא ַמר‬,‫ ַּתנְ יָ א‬.‫״וְ ֶה ְק ֵטר ֲח ָל ָביו וכו׳״‬ ‫ ּבֹא ו ְּר ֵאה ַּכ ָּמה ֲח ִב ָיבה‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֲה ֵרי ֶה ְק ֵטר ֲח ָל ִבים‬,‫ִמצְ וָ ה ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָע ָת ּה‬ ,‫וְ ֵא ָב ִרים ו ְּפ ָד ִרים ְּכ ׁ ֵש ִרים ָּכל ַה ַּליְ ָלה‬ . ְ‫וְ ֵאין ַמ ְמ ִּתינִים ָל ֶהם ַעד ׁ ֶש ֶּת ְח ׁ ַשך‬

We learned in the mishna that when the eve of Passover occurs on Shabbat, burning the fats of the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat. The Gemara notes that it was taught in the Tosefta: Rabbi Shimon said: Come and see how dear is a mitzva performed in its proper time. For burning the fats and limbs and inner fats is valid all night and it would have been possible to wait until the conclusion of Shabbat and burn them at night, but nonetheless we do not wait with them until nightfall; rather, we burn them immediately, even on Shabbat.h

:ּ‫ ו ְּר ִמינְ הו‬.‫״ה ְר ָּכ ָבתֹו וַ ֲה ָב ָאתֹו וכו׳״‬ ַ ‫ ֲא ָבל ל ֹא‬,‫חֹות ִכין יַ ֶ ּב ֶלת ַ ּב ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬ ְ ‫ וְ ִאם ַ ּב ְּכ ִלי – ָּכאן וְ ָכאן‬.‫ַ ּב ְּמ ִדינָ ה‬ !‫ָאסוּר‬

The mishna also taught that carrying the Paschal lamb through a public domain, bringing it from outside the Shabbat limit and cutting off its wart do not override Shabbat. The Gemara raises a contradiction from another mishna in tractate Eiruvin, which teaches: One may cut off a wart by hand on Shabbat in the Temple but not in the rest of the country outside the Temple. And if the wart is to be removed with an instrument, it is forbidden both here, in the Temple, and there, outside the Temple. From here we see that in the Temple cutting off a wart, at least by hand, is permitted.

‫ ַחד‬.‫יֹוסי ַ ּבר ֲחנִינָ א‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ,‫ ָהא – ְ ּב ַל ָחה‬,‫ ִא ִידי וְ ִא ִידי ַ ּבּיָ ד‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ִא ִידי וְ ִא ִידי‬:‫ וְ ַחד ָא ַמר‬.‫ָהא – ִ ּב ֵיב ׁ ָשה‬ – ‫ ָהא‬,‫ ָהא – ַ ּבּיָ ד‬:‫ וְ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬,‫ְ ּב ַל ָחה‬ ,‫ַ ּב ְּכ ִלי‬

Two amora’im, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei bar Ĥanina, disagreed about how to resolve this contradiction. One of them said: Both this mishna in Pesaĥim and that mishna in Eiruvin speak of cutting off the wart by hand. This mishna that forbids cutting it off refers to a moist wart, which is considered like the flesh of the animal. It is therefore prohibited by rabbinic decree to cut off the wart; and since it could have been removed before Shabbat, the decree applies even in the Temple, where rabbinic decrees are generally not applicable. That mishna that permits cutting it off refers to a dry wart, which breaks apart by itself, and so there is no prohibition even by rabbinic decree to cut it off. And the other one said: Both this mishna and that mishna speak of cutting off a moist wart, and it is not difficult. This mishna that says it is permitted talks about removing the wart by hand, which is prohibited only by a rabbinic decree that was not applied to the Temple; whereas that mishna that says it is prohibited talks about removing the wart with an instrument, which is prohibited by Torah law and forbidden everywhere.nh

‫ו ְּל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ָהא ַ ּבּיָ ד ָהא ַ ּב ְּכ ִלי ַמאי‬ ‫ַט ְע ָמא ל ֹא ָא ַמר ִא ִידי וְ ִא ִידי ַ ּבּיָ ד וְ ָלא‬ ‫ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ָהא ְ ּב ַל ָחה ָהא ִ ּב ֵיב ׁ ָשה? ָא ַמר‬ .‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ ֵיְב ׁ ָשה ְמ ָפ ֵרךְ ּ ְפ ִר‬: ְ‫ָלך‬

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that this mishna speaks about cutting off the wart by hand and that mishna speaks about cutting it off with an instrument, what is the reason that he did not state like the other amora that this and that talk about cutting off the wart by hand, and it is not difficult; this mishna speaks of a moist wart, while that mishna speaks of a dry wart? The Gemara answers that he could have said to you: A dry wart breaks apart by itself, and so there would be no need to teach us that it may be removed. Both mishnayot must therefore refer to a moist wart, and the difference between them is whether the wart is being removed by hand or with an instrument.

‫ וְ ָלא‬,‫ו ְּל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ִא ִידי וְ ִא ִידי ַ ּבּיָ ד‬ ‫ ַמאי‬,‫ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ָהא ְ ּב ַל ָחה ָהא ִ ּב ֵיב ׁ ָשה‬ ‫ַט ְע ָמא ל ֹא ָא ַמר ִא ִידי וְ ִא ִידי ְ ּב ַל ָחה‬ ?‫וְ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ָהא ַ ּבּיָ ד ָהא ַ ּב ְּכ ִלי‬ ‫ ִאם‬:‫ ְּכ ִלי – ָהא ָק ָתנֵי ָה ָתם‬: ְ‫ָא ַמר ָלך‬ .‫ַ ּב ְּכ ִלי – ָּכאן וְ ָכאן ָאסוּר‬

The Gemara reverses the question: And according to the one who says that both this mishna and that mishna talk about removing the wart by hand, and it is not difficult; this speaks of a moist wart while that speaks of a dry wart. What is the reason that he did not state like the other amora that this and that are discussing a moist wart and it is not difficult; this mishna in Eiruvin speaks about cutting off the wart by hand and that mishna in Pesaĥim speaks about cutting it off with an instrument? The Gemara answers that he could have said to you: The case of cutting off the wart with an instrument is taught there in Eiruvin in that very same mishna: If the wart is to be removed with an instrument, it is forbidden both here, in the Temple, and there, outside the Temple. Therefore, there would be no reason to repeat the same halakha here in this mishna, as it is stated explicitly in the other mishna.



halakha

Burning the fats and limbs – ‫ה ְק ֵטר ֲח ָל ִבים וְ ֵא ָב ִרים‬:ֶ Although it is permitted to burn the fats and limbs the night after a sacrifice has been offered, the burning should not be delayed ab initio. Rather, these sacrificial portions should be burned on the day the sacrifice is slaughtered. Even the limbs of sacrifices offered on Shabbat, which can be burned at night after the conclusion of Shabbat, are burned during the day, because a mitzva performed at its time is beloved (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 4:3). Cutting off a wart – ‫יַב ֶלת‬ ּ ֶ ‫יכת‬ ַ ‫ח ִת‬:ֲ It is permitted to cut a wart off of a sacrifice on Shabbat in the Temple, but not outside the Temple. A moist wart may be removed by hand but not with an instrument, while a dry wart may be removed even with an instrument, because rabbinic decrees do not apply in the Temple. The Rambam ruled in accordance with the opinion in the Gemara that interprets both mishnayot as referring to a moist wart (Maggid Mishne; Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 1:18). notes

Cutting off a wart – ‫יַב ֶלת‬ ּ ֶ ‫יכת‬ ַ ‫ח ִת‬:ֲ In the Jerusalem Talmud there is also about the question of the apparent contradiction between our mishna and the mishna in tractate Eiruvin and different answers are given. For instance, the cases differ with respect to whether or not the wart disintegrates on its own. The author of the Mirkevet HaMishne, based on his explanation of the Rambam’s ruling, suggests that the mishna in Eiruvin refers to a wart on the body of the priest, which disqualifies him from performing the Temple service, while the mishna in our tractate concerns a wart on the sacrifice itself.

‫חס ףד‬: ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Perek VI . 68b 

23

halakha

Half of it for God and half of it for you – ‫חצְ יֹו ַלה’ וְ ֶחצְ יֹו ָל ֶכם‬:ֶ A Festival day should be divided, half for Torah study and half for eating and drinking. The halakha generally accepts Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinions over those of Rabbi Eliezer. In addition, the unattributed Gemara in tractate Berakhot confirms his position (Vilna Gaon; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 529:1).

– ‫ ָהא דְּ ָק ָתנֵי ְּכ ִלי ָה ָכא‬:‫ וְ ִא ָיד ְך‬The Gemara asks: And the other amora, how does he account for the ‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יעזֶ ר וְ ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ֶ ‫ ּ ְפלוּגְ ָּתא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬repetition according to his explanation? The mishna here teaches the .‫ ֲא ָתא ְל ַא ׁ ְשמו ִּעינַן‬law with regard to an instrument because it comes to teach us the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua; for according to our mishna, Rabbi Eliezer permits cutting off a moist wart even with an instrument in order to render the animal fit to be brought as a Paschal offering. ‫יטה‬ ָ ‫יעזֶ ר ו ָּמה ִאם ׁ ְש ִח‬ ֶ ‫״א ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ָ We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer said that if slaughter, :‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫יה‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ַר ִ ּבי י‬.‫ וכו׳״‬which is ordinarily forbidden on Shabbat as a biblically prohibited ּ ‫הֹוש ַע ְל ַט ְע ֵמ‬ .‫ ִ ׂש ְמ ַחת יֹום טֹוב נַ ִמי ִמצְ וָ ה ִהיא‬labor, nevertheless overrides Shabbat when performed for the sake of the Paschal lamb, then activities that are prohibited by rabbinic decree should certainly override Shabbat when performed for that purpose. Rabbi Yehoshua disagreed, arguing that the law governing a Festival proves otherwise. Rabbi Eliezer countered that the law governing an optional activity, such as preparing food on a Festival, cannot be brought as proof with regard to the mitzva of offering the Paschal lamb. The Gemara notes that Rabbi Yehoshua follows his regular line of reasoning, for he said that rejoicing on a Festivaln is also a mitzva, and therefore whatever one does in order to enhance one’s enjoyment of the Festival is considered an act performed for the sake of a mitzva, just like the offering of a sacrifice. ‫ ֵאין לֹו‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ ‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ ‫ָל ָא ָדם ְ ּביֹום טֹוב ֶא ָּלא אֹו‬ ‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ַר ִ ּבי י‬.‫יֹושב וְ ׁשֹונֶ ה‬ ֵ ׁ ‫וְ ׁש ֶֹותה אֹו‬ ‫ילה‬ ָ ‫ ֶחצְ יֹו ַל ֲא ִכ‬, ‫ ַח ְּל ֵקה ּו‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ .‫ו ׁ ְּש ִתּיָ ה וְ ֶחצְ יֹו ְל ֵבית ַה ִּמ ְד ָר ׁש‬

For it was taught in a baraita that these two tanna’im disagreed about this matter: Rabbi Eliezer says: A person has nothing but to choose on a Festival; he either eats and drinks or sits and learns the entire day, but there is no specific mitzva to eat on the Festival. Rabbi Yehoshua, on the other hand, says: Divide the day, half of it for eating and drinking and half of it for the study hall, for he holds that eating and drinking are obligatory on the Festival.

‫נֵיהם ִמ ְק ָרא‬ ֶ ‫ ּו ׁ ְש‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ָּכתוּב ֶא ָחד‬,‫ֶא ָחד דָּ ְר ׁש ּו‬ ‫ וְ ָכתוּב ֶא ָחד‬,‫״ע ֶצ ֶרת ַלה׳ ֱאל ֶֹהיךָ ״‬ ֲ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫״ע ֶצ ֶרת ִּת ְהיֶ ה ָל ֶכם״‬ ֲ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ אֹו ּכוּלּ ֹו ַלה׳ אֹו ּכוּלּ ֹו‬:‫יעזֶ ר ָס ַבר‬ ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬ ,ּ‫ ַח ְּל ֵקהו‬:‫הֹוש ַע ָס ַבר‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי י‬.‫ָל ֶכם‬ .‫ֶחצְ יֹו ַלה׳ וְ ֶחצְ יֹו ָל ֶכם‬

And Rabbi Yoĥanan said: And both of them derived their opinions from one verse, i.e., the two of them addressed the same textual difficulty, resolving it in different ways. For one verse says: “It shall be an assembly for the Lord your God; you shall do no labor” (Deuteronomy 16:8), which indicates that the day is set aside for Divine service, and another verse says: “It shall be an assembly for you; you shall do no servile labor” (Numbers 29:35), which indicates a celebratory assembly for the Jewish people. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the two verses should be understood as offering a choice: The day is to be either entirely for God or entirely for you. And Rabbi Yehoshua holds that it is possible to fulfill both verses: Split the day into two, half of it for God and half of it for you.h

:‫ימן) ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ָ ‫(עב״ם ִס‬ ‫מֹודים ַ ּב ֲע ֶצ ֶרת דְּ ָב ֵעינַ ן נַ ִמי‬ ִ ‫ַה ּכֹל‬ ‫ִיתנָ ה‬ ְּ ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – יֹום ׁ ֶש ּנ‬.‫ָל ֶכם‬ ‫ ַה ּכֹל‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה‬.‫ּבֹו ּת ָֹורה הוּא‬ ‫ ַמאי‬.‫מֹודים ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת דְּ ָב ֵעינַן נַ ִמי ָל ֶכם‬ ִ .‫את ַל ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת עֹונֶ ג״‬ ָ ‫ַט ְע ָמא – ״וְ ָק ָר‬ ‫מֹודים ְ ּבפו ִּרים‬ ִ ‫ ַה ּכֹל‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – ״יְ ֵמי‬.‫דְּ ָב ֵעינַן נַ ִמי ָל ֶכם‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫ִמ ׁ ְש ֶּתה וְ ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה״ ְּכ ִתיב ֵ ּב‬

Ayin, beit, mem is a mnemonicn consisting of the first letter of Atzeret, the middle letter of Shabbat and the final letter of Purim. Rabbi Elazar said: All agree with regard to Atzeret, the holiday of Shavuot, that we require that it be also “for you,”n meaning that it is a mitzva to eat, drink, and rejoice on that day. What is the reason? It is the day on which the Torah was given, and one must celebrate the fact that the Torah was given to the Jewish people. Rabba said: All agree with regard to Shabbat that we require that it be also “for you.” What is the reason? Because the verse states: “If you proclaim Shabbat a delight, the sacred day of God honored” (Isaiah 58:13). Rav Yosef said: All agree with regard to Purim that we require that it be also “for you.” What is the reason? Because it is written: “To observe them as days of feasting and gladness” (Esther 9:22).

notes

Rejoicing on a Festival – ‫ש ְמ ַחת יֹום טֹוב‬: ׂ ִ Although there is certainly a mitzva of “And you shall rejoice on your feast” (Deuteronomy 16:14), Rabbi Eliezer explains that it is limited to the festival of Sukkot, which is the context of that verse. Consequently, the mitzva does not apply to the other Festivals (Tosefot Rid). In the Jerusalem Talmud it is added that Rabbi Eliezer could have challenged Rabbi Yehoshua, by pointing out that there is nonetheless a difference between the mitzvot: The mitzva of rejoicing on a Festival is a regular positive command, while the Paschal lamb is a positive command that carries the punishment of karet for those who neglect it. The answer is given

24 

Perek VI . 68b . ‫חס ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ו‬

that he in fact could have made that claim, but chose another of the multiple possible responses at his disposal. It has also been proposed that because rejoicing on a Festival applies to the masses, it has the same level of importance as a mitzva that carries the punishment of karet (Mitzpe Eitan).

pears in the Gemara, ayin, beit, mem is a mnemonic for the days on which everyone agrees that one must eat (Melo HaRo’im).

With regard to Atzeret we require that it be also “for you” – ‫ע ֶצ ֶרת דְּ ָב ֵעינַן נַ ִמי ָל ֶכם‬:ֲ Some commentaries add that Shavuot is Ayin, beit, mem is a mnemonic – ‫ימן‬ ָ ‫עב״ם ִס‬: There is a variant the only Festival on which there is a communal peace-offering, reading of the text: read, Alef, beit, samekh, which is a mnemonic which is a sacrifice meant for eating and rejoicing (Roke’aĥ). consisting of the first letter of Elazar, the middle letter of Rabba According to the Ramban, this is even hinted at in the story of and the middle consonant of Yosef, who are the three amora’im the giving of the Torah, where it is written (Exodus 24:11): “And whose opinions will be cited. According to the version that ap- they beheld God, and did eat and drink” (Avnei Nezer).

‫יה דְּ ָר ִבינָ א ּכו ָּּל ּה ׁ ַש ָּתא ֲהוָ ה יָ ֵתיב‬ ּ ‫ָמר ְ ּב ֵר‬ ‫ ְל ַבר ֵמ ֲעצַ ְר ָּתא וּפו ְּריָא ו ַּמ ֲע ֵלי‬,‫נִיתא‬ ָ ‫ְ ּב ַת ֲע‬ ‫ִיתנָ ה ּבֹו‬ ְּ ‫ ֲע ֶצ ֶרת – יֹום ׁ ֶש ּנ‬.‫יֹומא דְּ ִכ ּיפו ֵּרי‬ ָ ‫ ּפו ְּריָ א – ״יְ ֵמי ִמ ׁ ְש ֶּתה וְ ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה״‬,‫ּת ָֹורה‬ ‫יֹומא דְּ ִכ ּיפו ֵּרי – דְּ ָתנֵי ִחּיָ יא‬ ָ ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵלי‬,‫ְּכ ִתיב‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ִיתם ֶאת נַ ְפ ׁש ֵֹות‬ ֶ ‫ ״וְ ִע ּנ‬:‫ַ ּבר ַרב ִמדִּ ְפ ִּתי‬ )‫(הם‬ ֵ ‫ְ ּב ִת ׁ ְש ָעה ַלח ֶֹד ׁש״ וְ ִכי ְ ּב ִת ׁ ְש ָעה‬ ‫ִמ ְת ַע ּנִין? וַ ֲהל ֹא ַ ּב ֲע ִ ׂש ִירי ִמ ְת ַע ּנִין! ֶא ָּלא‬ ‫ֹותה ְ ּב ִת ׁ ְש ָעה‬ ֶ ‫אֹוכל וְ ׁש‬ ֵ ‫ ּכֹל ָה‬: ָ‫לֹומר ְלך‬ ַ ‫ּבֹו – ַמ ֲע ֶלה ָע ָליו ַה ָּכתוּב ְּכ ִאילּ ּו ִמ ְת ַע ֶּנה‬ .‫יעי וַ ֲע ִ ׂש ִירי‬ ִ ‫ְּת ׁ ִש‬

The Gemara relates: Mar, son of Ravina,n would spend the entire year fasting during the day and eating only sparsely at night, except for Shavuot, Purim, and the eve of Yom Kippur. He made these exceptions for the following reasons: Shavuot because it is the day on which the Torah was given and there is a mitzva to demonstrate one’s joy on that day; Purim because “days of feasting and gladness” is written about it; the eve of Yom Kippur, as Ĥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught: “And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth day of the month in the evening, from evening to evening you shall keep your Sabbath” (Leviticus 23:32). But does one fast on the ninth of Tishrei? Doesn’t one fast on the tenth of Tishrei? Rather, this comes to tell you: One who eats and drinks on the ninth,h the verse ascribes him credit as if he fasted on both the ninth and the tenthn of Tishrei.

halakha

Eating on the ninth of Tishrei – ‫יעי‬ ִ ‫א ִכ ָילה ַ ּב ְּת ׁ ִש‬:ֲ It is a mitzva to eat heartily on the eve of Yom Kippur, and the Bible considers anyone who is careful to do so as though he had fasted on that day as well (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 604:1).

‫ ָע ְב ִדי ִלי‬:‫יֹומא דַּ ֲעצַ ְר ָּתא ֲא ַמר‬ ָ ‫יֹוסף ְ ּב‬ ֵ ‫ ַרב‬The Gemara relates that Rav Yosef, on the day of Shavuot, would say: n ‫יֹומא‬ ָ ‫ ִאי ָלא ַהאי‬:‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫ ֶעגְ ָלא ִּת ְל ָּתא‬Prepare me a choice third-born calf. He said: If not for this day on have the ?‫יכא ְ ּב ׁשו ָּקא‬ ֵ ‫ ַּכ ָּמה‬,‫ דְּ ָקא ָ ּג ֵרים‬which the Torah was given that caused the Jewish people to ָּ ‫יֹוסף ִא‬ Torah, how many Yosefs would there be in the market?n It is only due to the importance of Torah study that I have become a leader of the Jewish people, and I therefore have a special obligation to rejoice on this day. ‫יה‬ ִ ‫ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת ָּכל ְּת ָל ִתין‬ ּ ‫יֹומין ְמ ַהדַּ ר ֵל‬ ּ ‫ וְ ָת ֵלי וְ ָק ֵאי ְ ּב ִע ְיב ָרא דְּ ַד ׁ ָשא‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ַּת ְלמו ֵּד‬ ,‫ ֲח ַדאי נַ ְפ ׁ ָשאי‬,‫ ֲח ַדאי נַ ְפ ׁ ָשאי‬:‫וַ ֲא ַמר‬ ‫ ִאינִי?! וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ָלךְ ְק ָר ֵאי ָלךְ ְּתנָ ֵאי‬ ‫ ִא ְיל ָמ ֵלא ּת ָֹורה ל ֹא נִ ְת ַקּיְ ימ ּו‬:‫ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫״אם ל ֹא ְב ִר‬ ִ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם וָ ָא ֶרץ‬ ‫יֹומם וָ ָליְ ָלה ֻח ּקֹות ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם וָ ָא ֶרץ ל ֹא‬ ָ ּ ָ ‫ָ ׂש ְמ ִּתי״! ֵמ ִע‬ – ‫ינִיש‬ ׁ ‫יק ָרא ִּכי ָע ֵביד ִא‬ .‫יה ָקא ָע ֵביד‬ ּ ‫ַאדַּ ֲע ָתא דְּ נַ ְפ ׁ ֵש‬

A somewhat similar story is told about Rav Sheshet, that every thirty days he would review his studies that he had learned over the previous month, and he would stand and lean against the bolt of the door and say: Rejoice my soul, rejoice my soul, for you I have read Scripture, for you I have studied Mishna. The Gemara asks: Is that so, that Torah study is beneficial only for the soul of the person who has studied? But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say: If not for the Torah and its study, heaven and earth would not be sustained, as it is stated: “If not for My covenant by day and by night, I would not have set up the laws of heaven and earth” ( Jeremiah 33:25). It is the Torah, the eternal covenant that is studied day and night, that justifies the continued existence of the world. The Gemara answers: This is indeed correct, but at the outset when a person does this mitzva, he does it for himself, and only afterward does he have in mind the benefit that will be brought to the entire world.

‫ ו ְּל ַמאי דְּ ָק ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ‫יה‬ ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬ ּ ‫יעזֶ ר נַ ִמי יֹום טֹוב ְר ׁשוּת – ִאית ֵל‬ ‫אכה‬ ָ ‫ ו ַּמה יֹום טֹוב ׁ ֶש ִה ִּתיר ּבֹו ְמ ָל‬:‫ּ ִפ ְיר ָכא‬ ,‫ׁ ֶשל ְר ׁשוּת – ל ֹא ִה ִּתיר ׁ ְשבוּת ׁ ֶש ִע ָּמה‬ ‫אכה‬ ָ ‫ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִה ִּתיר ָ ּב ּה ֶא ָּלא ְמ ָל‬ ‫ׁ ֶשל ִמצְ וָ ה – ֵאינֹו דִּ ין ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ַּת ִּתיר ׁ ְשבוּת‬ !?‫ׁ ֶש ִע ָּמה‬

Rav Ashi said: And even according to what Rabbi Eliezer said, that rejoicing on a Festival is optional, there is a refutation: If on a Festival, when a biblically prohibited labor, such as slaughtering, baking, or cooking, is permitted even when it is performed for an optional activity, nonetheless a rabbinic decree that is with it is not permitted, and we do not say that since they permitted an optional activity they permitted everything associated with it; how much more so on Shabbat, when a biblically prohibited labor is only permitted when it is performed for a mitzva, isn’t it right not to permit a rabbinic decree that is with it? Activities that are forbidden due to a rabbinic decree should thus be prohibited on Shabbat even for the purpose of a mitzva, against the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. notes

Mar, son of Ravina – ‫יה דְּ ַר ִבינָא‬ ּ ‫מר ְ ּב ֵר‬:ָ The custom of Mar, the son of Ravina, has raised several questions among the commentaries and halakhic authorities. Some argue that he followed the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who does not require one to eat on Festivals, and that this is a proof that the halakha adopts his view. Other commentaries distinguish between different types of fasts: A fast of mourning, which is prohibited on Shabbat and the Festivals, including the day of the New Moon and Hanukkah; an unwitting fast due to preoccupation with one’s activities, which is only prohibited on Shabbat and the Festivals; a fast for the purpose of asking for mercy, which is only prohibited on Purim; and a fast due to Torah study, which is prohibited on Shabbat, Shavuot, Purim, and the eve of Yom Kippur (Rabbi Zeraĥya HaLevi). However, Rav Hai Gaon and the Ra’avad reject this explanation entirely. It would seem that the explanation is that Mar, son of Ravina, would for some reason vow to fast the entire year, specifically excluding particular days. Consequently,



the vow also applied to Festivals on which it is generally prohib- offers an opportunity for a different type of repentance, by ited to fast, and so it is impossible to derive rules about when it serving God while eating and drinking (Ein Ayah). is permitted to fast based on his conduct (Me’iri). A third-born [tilta] calf – ‫עגְ ָלא ִּת ְל ָּתא‬:ֶ Some commentaries explain that this expression refers to a calf that has reached a One who eats and drinks on the ninth, the verse ascribes him third of its expected lifespan and is of particularly high quality credit as if he fasted on both the ninth and the tenth – ‫( ָּכל‬Rashi). Alternatively, the word tilta, like its Hebrew equivalent, ּ ‫ֹותה ְ ּב ִת ׁ ְש ָעה ּבֹו ַמ ֲע ֶלה ָע ָליו ַה ָּכתוּב ְּכ ִא‬ ‫יעי‬ ִ ‫יל ּו ִמ ְת ַע ֶּנה ְּת ׁ ִש‬ ֶ ‫אֹוכל וְ ׁש‬ ֵ ‫ ָה‬shelish, refers to something of uniquely choice quality (Tosafot). ‫וַ ֲע ִ ׂש ִירי‬: There are two distinct aspects to repentance. A person If not for this day…how many Yosefs would there be in the must control his base wants and desires by refraining from market – ‫יכא ְ ּב ׁשו ָּקא‬ ֵ ‫א…כ ָּמה‬ ָ ‫אי ָלא ַהאי‬: ִ According to ָּ ‫יֹוסף ִא‬ ַּ ‫יֹומ‬ the harmful pleasures of the world, but he must also develop the Gemara in tractate Horayot, Rav Yosef’s exceptional charachabits that allow him to function in the real world without teristic was his vast erudition; he knew and remembered the succumbing to those desires in the future. This practical aspect entire Torah. Had the Torah been given directly by God to the of repentance can only be accomplished when an individual Jewish people, no part of it would ever have been forgotten. It successfully faces those challenges. On Yom Kippur, the aspira- is only because the Torah was transmitted by Moses on Mount tion is to reach beyond the physical world by shunning worldly Sinai on the festival of Shavuot that Rav Yosef’s unique quality pleasures on a one-time basis. It is the eve of Yom Kippur that stood out (Iyyun Ya’akov). ‫חס ףד‬: ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Perek VI . 68b 

25

Perek VI Daf 69 Amud a Personalities

Rabbi Eliezer – ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬:ַ Whenever the name Rabbi Eliezer occurs in the Talmud without a patronymic, it refers to Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, also known as Rabbi Eliezer the Great, one of the leading Sages in the period after the destruction of the Second Temple. Rabbi Eliezer was born to a wealthy family of Levites who traced their lineage back to Moses. Rabbi Eliezer began studying Torah late in life, but quickly became an outstanding disciple of Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai. Indeed, Rabban Yoĥanan remarked: If all the Sages of Israel were on one side of a scale and Eliezer ben Hyrcanus was on the other, he would outweigh them all. Rabbi Eliezer was blessed with a remarkable memory. All his life he attempted, in his Torah study and his halakhic rulings, to follow the traditions of his Rabbis without any additions. Nevertheless, despite being the primary student of Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai, who was a disciple of Beit Hillel, Rabbi Eliezer was considered to tend toward the views of Beit Shammai. Rabbi Eliezer’s close friend, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ĥananya, entirely followed the views of Beit Hillel, and many fundamental halakhic disputes between these Sages are recorded in the Mishna. Because of Rabbi Eliezer’s staunch and unflinching adherence to tradition, he was unwilling to accede to the majority view. His conduct generated so much tension among the Sages that Rabban Gamliel, the brother of his wife, Ima Shalom, was forced to excommunicate him to prevent the proliferation of controversy. This ban was lifted only after Rabbi Eliezer’s death. Virtually all of the Sages of the next generation were Rabbi Eliezer’s students, most prominent among them Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer’s son, Hyrcanus, was also a Sage. Rabbi Akiva – ‫ר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬:ַ Rabbi Akiva, who lived just after the destruction of the Second Temple, was one of the greatest of the tanna’im. Unlettered until the age of forty, Akiva was encouraged by his wife Rachel to devote himself to the study of Torah. After years of study under the tutelage of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, Yehoshua ben Ĥananya, and others, he acquired thousands of students and established his own academy in Bnei Brak. Rabbi Akiva systematized and arranged the many oral traditions, and it was the mishna of Rabbi Akiva as received by his disciple, Rabbi Meir, that ultimately became the basis of the six orders of the Mishna. Rabbi Akiva was the spiritual leader of the bar Kokheva revolt. He even proclaimed bar Kokheva to be the Messiah early in the struggle, but he later retracted this opinion. Despite Roman decrees against disseminating Torah, the aged Rabbi Akiva continued to teach. Rabbi Akiva was arrested by the Romans, imprisoned, tried, and sentenced to death. As one of the Ten Martyrs, he suffered a martyr’s death at the hands of the Romans. As the Romans were torturing him to death, he recited Shema and explained to his students that he now has the opportunity to fulfill the true meaning of loving God with all of one’s soul. halakha

Sprinkling on Shabbat – ‫הּזָ ָאה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬:ַ Sprinkling purifying water on someone who is ritually impure is prohibited on Shabbat by rabbinic decree (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 23:8).

‫יעזֶ ר – ׁ ְשבוּת דְּ ִמצְ וָ ה ָע ִדיף‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬And Rabbi Eliezerp rejects this refutation because, in his opinion, .‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֵל‬permitting a rabbinic decree for the sake of a mitzva is preferable. We cannot derive through an a fortiori inference that since rabbinic decrees were not permitted for optional activities associated with rejoicing on festivals, they must not be permitted for the purpose of a mitzva on Shabbat. This is because it is possible that they permitted rabbinic decrees for mitzva purposes due to the importance of the mitzva. ‫ ּו ַמה ִּלי‬:‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫ַּתנְ יָ א‬ ּ ‫ִאם דָּ ח ּו ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ֵירי ִמצְ וָ ה ׁ ֶש ְל ַא ַחר‬ ‫ית ֲע ֵביד‬ ְ ‫ דְּ ִא‬,‫יטה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְש ִח‬ ‫יה ִמצְ וָ ה – ל ֹא יִ ְדח ּו ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ֵירי ִמצְ וָ ה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ !‫יטה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ִּל ְפנֵי ׁ ְש ִח‬

It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer said: What reason do I have? If actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva and are done after the slaughter, such as cleaning the intestines which is permitted according all opinions, override Shabbat even though the mitzva has already been done, is it possible to say that actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva and must be done before the slaughter do not also override Shabbat?

‫ ִאם דָּ ח ּו‬,‫ דְּ ַמה ִּלי‬:‫ָא ַמר לֹו ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ ‫יטה ֶאת‬ ָ ‫ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ֵירי ִמצְ וָ ה ׁ ֶש ְּל ַא ַחר ׁ ְש ִח‬ ‫יטה ֶאת‬ ָ ‫ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – ׁ ֶש ֲה ֵרי דָּ ֲח ָתה ׁ ְש ִח‬ ‫ֹאמר יִ ְדח ּו ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ֵירי ִמצְ וָ ה‬ ַ ‫ ּת‬.‫ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫יטה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ִּל ְפנֵי ׁ ְש ִח‬ ‫ דָּ ָבר‬.‫יטה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ָ ‫דָּ ֲח ָתה ׁ ְש ִח‬ ‫ וְ נִ ְמצָ א‬,‫ ׁ ֶש ָּמא יִ ְמצָ א זֶ ַבח ּ ָפסוּל‬:‫ַא ֵחר‬ .‫ְמ ַח ֵּלל ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ְל ַמ ְפ ֵר ַע‬

Rabbi Akivap said to him: What reason do I have to reject this comparison? If actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva that are done after the slaughter override Shabbat, that is because slaughter has already overridden Shabbat and therefore an action that violates a rabbinic decree is performed, after Shabbat has already been overridden; can you say that actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva and are done before the slaughter should override Shabbat even though slaughter has not yet overridden Shabbat? Alternatively, Rabbi Akiva has another reason: Perhaps the offering will be found to be disqualifiedn due to a blemish and the person will be found to have violated Shabbat retroactively when he slaughtered the animal without fulfilling a mitzva.

‫ ׁ ֶש ָּמא‬,‫נִש ַחט‬ ְ ׁ ‫ִאי ָה ִכי ִמ ׁ ְש ַחט נַ ִמי ָלא‬ ‫יִ ְמצָ א זֶ ַבח ּ ָפסוּל וְ נִ ְמצָ א ְמ ַח ֵּלל ֶאת‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ְל ַמ ְפ ֵר ַע! ֶא ָּלא ָהא ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ְ‫יה ַהך‬ ָ ׁ ‫ְ ּב ֵר‬ ּ ‫ וַ ֲה ַדר ֲא ַמר ֵל‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ישא ו ְּפ ָר ֵכ‬ .‫״מה ִּלי ִאם דָּ חוּ״‬ ַ ְּ‫ד‬

Rabbi Eliezer rejects this argument: If so, if you are concerned about this possibility, it should also not be slaughtered; for perhaps the offering will be found to be invalid and the person will be found to have violated Shabbat retroactively. Rather, the course of the discussion must have gone as follows: Rabbi Akiva said this last reason to Rabbi Eliezer at the beginning and he refuted it as explained above; and then Rabbi Akiva said to him this other reason of: What reason do I have to reject this comparison? If actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva override, etc.

‫יבא וְ ָא ַמר ַהּזָ ָאה‬ ָ ‫״ה ׁ ִשיב ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק‬ ֵ ‫ ָא ַמ ר לֹו‬,‫ ַּתנְ יָ א‬.‫ֹוכ ַיח וכו׳״‬ ִ ‫ּת‬ ‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִח‬,‫יבא‬ ָ ‫ ֲע ִק‬:‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ .‫יתתֹו‬ ָ ‫יטה ְּת ֵהא ִמ‬ ָ ‫ֵה ׁ ַש ְב ַּתנִי – ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִח‬ ‫ ַאל ַּת ְכ ּ ִפ ֵירנִי ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת‬,‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ָא ַמר לֹו‬ ‫ ַהּזָ ָאה ׁ ְשבוּת‬: ָ‫ ָּכךְ ְמקו ְ ּּב ַלנִי ִמ ְּמך‬,‫ַהדִּ ין‬ .‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ָ ּ‫ וְ ֵאינָ ּה ד‬,‫ִהיא‬

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva responded and said to Rabbi Eliezer that the law governing the sprinkling of the purifying water of a red heifer proves that actions prohibited by a rabbinic decree, even when they are performed for the sake of a mitzva, do not override Shabbat. He then goes on to argue that we can reverse the order of the argument and conclude by way of an a fortiori inference that even slaughter does not override Shabbat. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said to him about this: Akiva, you have lightheartedly responded to me with a faulty a fortiori inference with regard to slaughter.n His death will be with slaughter; meaning, as punishment for this disrespect you will be slaughtered by other people. Rabbi Akiva said to him: My teacher, do not deny my contention at the time we are discussing this inference, for this is the tradition I received from you: Sprinkling is forbidden by rabbinic decree and does not override Shabbat.h notes

Perhaps the offering will be found to be disqualified – ‫ׁ ֶש ָּמא‬ ‫יִ ְמצָ א ַזֶבח ּ ָפסוּל‬: This argument is quoted differently in the Jerusalem Talmud: Perhaps the offering will be found to be invalid and it will turn out that Shabbat was violated without the animal being slaughtered. And it is the slaughter of the sacrifice that is the essence of the mitzva, while everything that precedes it merely facilitates that mitzva. According to this version, there is no room for the Gemara’s question that we should also not slaughter the animal (see Sefat Emet). You have responded to me with regard to slaughter – ‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִח‬ ‫ה ׁ ַש ְב ַּתנִי‬:ֵ This statement can perhaps be understood in light of

26 

Perek VI . 69a . ‫טס ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ו‬

what is found in the Jerusalem Talmud: Rabbi Akiva studied with Rabbi Eliezer for thirteen years without Rabbi Eliezer recognizing his greatness, and this was the first question. Rabbi Akiva posed to Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Eliezer was surprised by the difficult question posed by a student he had not appreciated up to this point. With regard to Rabbi Eliezer’s condemnation of Rabbi Akiva with the statement that: His death will be by slaughter, a similar statement appears elsewhere: I will be surprised if he will die naturally. Apparently, this statement is cited here to hint to the Sages’ teaching that even an unwarranted curse of a sage is fulfilled, since Rabbi Akiva was in fact tortured to death by the Romans.

‫יה ַמאי‬ ּ ‫וְ ִכי ֵמ ַא ַחר דְּ הוּא ַאגְ ְמ ֵר‬ :‫יה? ָא ַמר עו ָּּלא‬ ּ ‫ַט ְע ָמא ָקא ֲה ַדר ֵ ּב‬ ‫יה – ַהּזָ ָאה‬ ֶ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ּ ‫יעזֶ ר ִּכי ַאגְ ְמ ֵר‬ ‫ דִּ ְתרו ָּמה גּ ו ָּפ ּה‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫דִּ ְתרו ָּמה ַאגְ ְמ ֵר‬ .‫ָלא דָּ ְחיָ א ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬

The Gemara asks: Seeing that Rabbi Eliezer taught Rabbi Akiva this halakha that sprinkling purifying water does not override Shabbat, what is the reason he retracted his opinion? Ulla said: When Rabbi Eliezer taught him this halakha, he taught it to him with respect to sprinkling that is performed in order to enable a ritually impure priest to partake of teruma. This sprinkling does not override Shabbat because even separating teruma itself does not override Shabbat. But he never taught Rabbi Akiva this halakha with respect to sprinkling that is performed in order enable someone to eat of the Paschal lamb.

– ‫יה‬ ְ ‫ ִּכי‬,‫יבא נַ ִמי‬ ָ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק‬ ּ ‫אֹות ֵב‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ִהיא‬,‫יה‬ ְ ‫ַהּזָ ָאה דִּ ְתרו ָּמה‬ ּ ‫אֹות ֵב‬ ‫ וְ הוּא‬.‫ִמצְ וָ ה וְ ִהיא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְשבוּת‬ .‫יה‬ ִ ‫ ַהּזָ ָאה דְּ ֶפ ַסח ָקא‬:‫ָס ַבר‬ ּ ‫מֹותיב ֵל‬

The Gemara notes that Rabbi Akiva as well, when he challenged Rabbi Eliezer, challenged him with regard to the halakha of sprinkling for teruma, and his objection should be understood as follows: Eating teruma is a mitzva, and sprinkling purifying water on someone who is ritually impure is only prohibited due to a rabbinic decree; nevertheless, sprinkling purifying water on a ritually impure priest, in order to enable him to eat teruma, is prohibited on Shabbat. Thus it follows by a fortiori inference that slaughter, which is a biblically prohibited labor, should certainly be forbidden on Shabbat, even when performed for the sake of a mitzva. And Rabbi Eliezer thought Rabbi Akiva was challenging him with regard to the halakha of sprinkling that is performed in order to enable someone to eat of the Paschal lamb; that is why he said that he disagreed about sprinkling as well.

‫יבא‬ ָ ‫ ֵה ׁ ִשיב ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק‬:‫ְמ ִתיב ַר ָ ּבה‬ ,‫ֹוכ ַיח‬ ִ ‫ ַהּזָ ַאת ְט ֵמא ֵמת ּת‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר‬ ‫יעי ׁ ֶש ּלֹו ִל ְהיֹות ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ִ ‫ׁ ֶש ָחל ׁ ְש ִב‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ִהיא ִמצְ וָ ה וְ ִהיא‬,‫ו ְּב ֶע ֶרב ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ‫ֹוחה ֶאת‬ ָ ּ‫ִמ ׁ ּש ּום ׁ ְשבוּת וְ ֵאינָ ּה ד‬ !‫ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬

Rabba raised an objection to Ulla’s explanation, based on a different baraita which states: Rabbi Akiva responded and said: The sprinkling of purifying water on someone who is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse proves the matter when his seventh day of impurity occurs on Shabbat and it is also the eve of Passover, for it is done for the sake of a mitzva, in order to allow the person to eat of the Paschal lamb, and it is prohibited only due to a rabbinic decree, and nonetheless it does not override Shabbat. From this baraita it is clear that Rabbi Akiva challenged Rabbi Eliezer with regard to the halakha of sprinkling that is performed in order to enable someone to eat the Paschal lamb.

,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֶא ָּלא וַ ודַּ אי ַהּזָ ָאה דְּ ֶפ ַסח ַאגְ ְמ ֵר‬ ‫יה ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬ ּ ‫וְ ִכי ֵמ ַא ַחר דְּ ַאגְ ְמ ֵר‬ ‫יעזֶ ר? ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֶ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ְ ‫ָקא ּ ָפ ִר‬ ּ ‫יך ֵל‬ ‫יה‬ ְ ‫יה ִא‬ ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬ ּ ‫ית ַע ַקר ֵל‬ ּ ‫יעזֶ ר ְ ּג ָמ ֵר‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫וַ ֲא ָתא ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ְל ַא ְד ּכ ֵֹורי ְ ּג ָמ ֵר‬ ‫אֹורח‬ ַ ‫יה ְ ּב ֶה ְדיָ ה! ָס ַבר ָלאו‬ ָ ְ‫ו‬ ּ ‫נֵימא ֵל‬ .‫ַא ְר ָעא‬

Rather, we must reject Ulla’s explanation and say instead that Rabbi Eliezer certainly taught Rabbi Akiva about sprinkling that is performed in order to enable someone to eat of the Paschal lamb. And with regard to the question that seeing that Rabbi Eliezer himself taught him this halakha, what is the reason that Rabbi Eliezer refutes it, the Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer forgot his own teaching and Rabbi Akiva came to remind him of his teaching by drawing an a fortiori inference that would cause Rabbi Eliezer to remember what he himself had taught. The Gemara asks: If so, then let Rabbi Akiva say explicitly that this is what Rabbi Eliezer himself had taught him. The Gemara answers: He thought that it would not be proper to tell his teacher that he had forgotten his teaching, and therefore his initial attempt was to remind him indirectly.

‫וְ ַהּזָ ָאה ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא ָלא דָּ ְחיָ א‬ ,‫ׁ ַש ָ ּבת? ִמ ְּכ ִדי ִט ְלטו ֵּלי ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא הוּא‬ :‫ִּת ְד ֵחי ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ּ ֶפ ַסח! ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה‬ ‫ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ֶש ָּמא יִ ְּט ֶל ָּנה וְ יַ ֲע ִב ֶיר ָּנה ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬ .‫ַא ּמֹות ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים‬

The Gemara questions the reason for the halakha under discussion. What is the reason that the sprinkling of purifying water does not override Shabbat? Since it involves the mere moving of the liquid from the utensil in his hand to the body of the person seeking purification, why should it be forbidden on Shabbat? Let it at least override Shabbat on account of the mitzva of the Paschal lamb. Rabba said: The prohibition against sprinkling is a rabbinic decree that was instituted lest one take the utensil containing the purifying water and carry it a distance of four cubits in the public domain,n thus violating an actual Torah prohibition. This is consistent with Rabba’s opinion in several other places in the Talmud that the Sages forbade the fulfillment of certain mitzvot due to a similar concern about carrying in the public domain.



notes

Lest one take the utensil and carry it four cubits in the public domain – ‫ש ָּמא יִ ְּט ֶל ָּנה וְ יַ ֲע ִב ֶיר ָּנה ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים‬: ֶ ׁ The fact that the rationale for the rabbinic decree was the concern that one might come to carry a utensil four cubits in the public domain, and not the simpler concern that one might carry it from a private domain to the public domain, follows from the reality of the period. Most of the streets in Eretz Yisrael were not halakhically defined as public domains, either because they were not sufficiently wide or because the city wall closed off the ends of the street. Therefore, to carry something from a private domain to a public domain, one would generally have to pass through the intermediate domain known as a karmelit, in which case there would be no violation of the Torah prohibition against carrying from one domain to another (Tosefot Rid).

‫טס ףד‬. ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Perek VI . 69a 

27

notes

Actions that facilitate the performance of a mitzva override Shabbat – ‫ֹוחין ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ִ ּ‫מ ְכ ׁ ִש ֵירי ִמצְ וָ ה ד‬:ַ Based on the source of this halakha, it is clear that Rabbi Eliezer maintains that just as the mitzva itself overrides Shabbat law, so too any activity that facilitates its performance overrides Shabbat law, as well. Apparently, this provision is not just for pressing circumstances, but rather one may perform a prohibited labor on Shabbat for the sake of a mitzva ab initio, even if it would have been possible to prepare for the mitzva before Shabbat.

‫ דְּ ָהא ָא ַמר‬,‫יה‬ ַ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ו ְּל ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ּ ‫נִיע ְב ֵר‬ ‫ֹוחין‬ ִ ּ‫ ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ֵירי ִמצְ וָ ה ד‬:‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי – ֵה‬:‫ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת! ָא ְמ ִרי‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫ וְ ָר ֵמי ִחּיו ָּבא ֲע ֵל‬,‫יה ֲחזִ י‬ ּ ‫דְּ גַ ְב ָרא גּ ו ֵּפ‬ ‫יה ָלא ֲחזִ י – ָלא‬ ּ ‫ דְּ גַ ְב ָרא ּגו ֵּפ‬,‫ֲא ָבל ָה ָכא‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָר ֵמי ִחּיו ָּבא ֲע ֵל‬

The Gemara asks: At least according to Rabbi Eliezer, let us carry the purifying water even in the public domain, for Rabbi Eliezer said as a general rule that actions that facilitate the performance of a mitzva override Shabbat,n even if they are not mitzvot themselves and involve transgression of Torah prohibitions. They say that there is room to distinguish between different situations: The rule that actions necessary to facilitate a mitzva override Shabbat only applies when the person himself is fit to fulfill the mitzva and the obligation to fulfill it is incumbent upon him. But here where the person himself is not fit to eat the Paschal lamb, as he is presently ritually impure, the obligation to fulfill the mitzva is incumbent upon him, and therefore actions that would enable him to fulfill the mitzva do not override Shabbat.

‫ ָק ָטן‬,‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ְל ִד ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה‬ ‫ָ ּב ִריא – ְמ ַח ִּמין לֹו ַח ִּמין ְל ַה ְברֹותֹו‬ ‫ ָק ָטן‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ָהא ֲחזִ י ֵל‬,‫ו ְּלמוּלֹו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫חֹולה – ֵאין ְמ ַח ִּמין לֹו ַח ִּמין ְל ַה ְברֹותֹו‬ ֶ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫ו ְּלמוּלֹו – דְּ ָהא ָלא ֲחזִ י ֵל‬

Rabba said: According to the statement of Rabbi Eliezer that when a person is unfit no obligation is incumbent upon him, in the case of a healthy baby, one may heat water for him to strengthen him even further in order to circumcise him on Shabbat, as he is already now fit to be circumcised. But in the case of a sickly baby, one may not heat water for him to strengthen him in order to circumcise him, for owing to his sickliness he is not presently fit for the mitzva, and acts that facilitate a mitzva do not override Shabbat if the person is not currently fit for the mitzva.

‫יה‬ ּ ‫ וְ ִאי ָ ּב ִריא הוּא – ָל ָּמה ֵל‬:‫ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ‫ ַה ּכֹל‬:‫ַח ִּמין ְל ַה ְברֹותֹו? ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ‫ ֶא ָחד ָק ָטן ָ ּב ִריא‬,‫חֹולין ֵהן ֵאצֶ ל ִמ ָילה‬ ִ ‫חֹולה – ֵאין ְמ ַח ִּמין לֹו ַח ִּמין‬ ֶ ‫וְ ֶא ָחד ָק ָטן‬ ‫ דְּ ָהא ָלא‬,‫ְל ַה ְברֹותֹו ו ְּלמוּלֹו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ .‫ֲחזִ י‬

Rava said: But if the baby is healthy, why does he need hot water to strengthen him? Rather, Rava said: All babies are considered sickly with respect to circumcision, as they all need to be washed with hot water. Therefore, both in the case of a healthy baby and in the case of a sickly baby, one may not heat water for him to strengthen him in order to circumcise him on Shabbat, even according to Rabbi Eliezer, as he is not presently fit for the mitzva.

‫ ָע ֵרל ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ָמל – ָענו ּׁש‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫ֵא ִית ֵיב‬ ,‫ וְ ָהא ָה ָכא‬.‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫ָּכ ֵרת‬ ‫יה ָלא ֲחזִ י וְ ָק ָתנֵי ָענ ּו ׁש‬ ּ ‫דְּ גַ ְב ָרא גּ ו ֵּפ‬ !‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ָר ֵמי ִחּיו ָּבא ֲע ֵל‬:‫ ַא ְל ָמא‬,‫ָּכ ֵרת‬

Abaye raised an objection to Rabba’s distinction between someone who is currently fit for the mitzva and someone who is not, based on what was taught elsewhere in a baraita: An uncircumcised adult who did not circumcise himselfh before Passover is liable to the punishment of karet for having intentionally violated the mitzva to bring the Paschal lamb, as an uncircumcised person may not eat of the offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. But here the person himself is not fit, for as long as he is uncircumcised he is not obligated to bring the Paschal lamb, and nonetheless the baraita is teaching that he is punished with karet. Apparently, the obligation is incumbent upon him even though he is presently unfit to perform the mitzva.

halakha

An uncircumcised adult who did not circumcise himself – ‫ע ֵרל ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ָמל‬:ָ If an uncircumcised adult deliberately failed to circumcise himself before the time for bringing the Paschal lamb passed, and he did not bring the sacrifice on the second Pesaĥ, even unwittingly, he is liable to receive the punishment of karet for having violated the positive commandment to bring the Paschal lamb (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 5:4).

‫ ֵאין‬:‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ָק ָס ַבר ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה‬Rabba said in answer to this objection: Rabbi Eliezer holds that one .‫זֹור ִקין ַעל ְט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬ ְ ְ‫ֹוח ִטין ו‬ ֲ ‫ ׁש‬may not slaughter the Paschal lamb or sprinkle its blood for someone who is ritually impure due to contact with a creeping animal because he is currently impure, even though he can immerse in a ritual bath and become pure by the night of Passover.

Perek VI Daf 69 Amud b notes

If the entire community is uncircumcised – ‫יה‬ ּ ‫דְּ ִאי ּכו ֵּּל‬ ‫יבוּר ֲע ֵר ִלים‬ ּ ִ‫צ‬: It is necessary to circumcise even an entire community before Passover in order to enable them to eat the Paschal lamb. This is hinted at in the Torah. It is explicitly related that all those who entered Eretz Yisrael were circumcised before eating the Paschal lamb (Joshua 5).

28 

Perek VI . 69b . ‫טס ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ו‬

ּ ‫וְ כֹל ׁ ֶש ִא‬ ‫יבוּר‬ ּ ‫יל ּו ַ ּבּיָ ִחיד נִ ְד ֶחה – ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬ ‫יתא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָכל ִמ ְּיל ָתא דְּ ִא‬.‫ָע ְב ִדי ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬ ‫ וְ ָכל ִמ ְּיל ָתא‬,‫יתא ַ ּבּיָ ִחיד‬ ָ ‫יבוּר – ִא‬ ּ ‫ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬ .‫יתא ַ ּבּיָ ִחיד‬ ָ ‫יבוּר – ֵל‬ ּ ‫יתא ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬ ָ ‫דְּ ֵל‬

And Rabbi Eliezer further maintains with regard to any form of impurity due to which an individual is deferred to the second Pesaĥ, that if the entire community is afflicted with it, they observe the first Pesaĥ in a state of ritual impurity. And he accepts yet another principle: Anything that applies to the community applies to an individual, and anything that does not apply to the community does not apply to an individual.

‫יבוּר ֲע ֵר ִלים‬ ּ ִ‫יה צ‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ִאי ּכו ֵּּל‬,‫ֲע ֵרילוּת‬ ‫נִינְ ה ּו – ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן ְלה ּו ק ּומ ּו ְמהֹול ּו‬ ‫ יָ ִחיד נַ ִמי‬,‫נַ ְפ ׁ ַשיְ יכ ּו וַ ֲע ִב ִידי ּ ִפ ְס ָחא‬ .‫ קוּם ְמהֹול וַ ֲע ֵביד ּ ִפ ְס ָחא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָא ְמ ִרינַן ֵל‬ .‫וְ ִאי ָלא ָמ ֵהיל וְ ָע ֵביד – ָענו ּׁש ָּכ ֵרת‬

On the basis of these principles, we can say as follows: With regard to lack of circumcision, if the entire community is uncircumcisedn we say to them: Arise, and circumcise yourselves, and offer the Paschal lamb, and we do not allow them to offer the sacrifice while uncircumcised. Therefore, with regard to an individual as well, we say to him: Arise, and circumcise yourself, and offer the Paschal lamb; and if he does not circumcise himself and offer the Paschal lamb, he is liable to the punishment of karet.

‫יבו ָּרא ְט ֵמ ִאין‬ ּ ִ‫יה צ‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ִאי ּכו ֵּּל‬,‫ טו ְּמ ָאה‬With regard to impurity, however, if the whole community is ‫ ֶא ָּלא ָע ְב ִדי‬,ּ‫ נִינְ ה ּו ָלא ַמדֵּ ינַן ֲע ַליְ יהו‬impure we do not sprinkle the purifying water on them; rather, .‫ ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה – יָ ִחיד נַ ִמי ּ ָפטוּר‬they offer the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity. Therefore, an individual, as well, is exempt from sprinkling; and since he is exempt, sprinkling does not override Shabbat. A distinction may be drawn between the two cases: An uncircumcised person must circumcise himself, but a person who is ritually impure need not undergo purification. ‫יְהֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ ּ ‫יה ַרב הוּנָ א ְ ּב ֵר‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫יה‬ ֵ ‫ דְּ ֵל‬,‫ וַ ֲה ֵרי ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬:‫ְל ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ית‬ :‫יה‬ ֵ ‫יבוּר וְ ִא‬ ּ ‫ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬ ּ ‫יה ַ ּבּיָ ִחיד! ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ּ ‫ית‬ ‫יבו ָּרא‬ ּ ִ‫יה צ‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ָהא ֲע ַבד ֵל‬,‫ׁ ָשאנֵי ָה ָתם‬ .‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ָ ּב ִר‬

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: Are these principles really correct? But there is the second Pesaĥ, which does not apply to the community and yet it applies to an individual. Rava said to Rav Huna: It is different there, as the community already offered the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ in a state of ritual impurity, and therefore the second Pesaĥ can apply to individuals although it does not apply to the community.

‫ יָ כֹול ל ֹא יְ ֵהא ָענו ּׁש ָּכ ֵרת‬:‫ית ִיבי‬ ִ ‫ֵמ‬ ְ‫ וְ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ָהיָ ה ְ ּב ֶד ֶרך‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ָטהֹור‬ ‫ ָע ֵרל ּו ְט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ֶרץ ּו ׁ ְש ָאר‬.‫חֹוקה‬ ָ ‫ְר‬ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ָּכל ַה ְּט ֵמ ִאים ִמ ּנַיִ ן? ַּת ְלמוּד‬ .‫״וְ ָה ִא ׁיש״‬

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita in which it was taught: One might have thought that only one who was pure and not on a distant journey is punishable by karet for having neglected to offer the Paschal lamb, as the Torah explicitly states that a person who was ritually impure or on a distant journey is exempt from the first Pesaĥ and obligated in the second Pesaĥ. But as for one who was uncircumcised or ritually impure from a creeping animal and all the others who are ritually impure not from a corpse, and they did not undergo circumcision or purification before Passover, from where do we know that they are also liable to receive karet? The verse states: “But the man that is clean, and is not on a journey, and fails to keep the Passover, then that person shall be cut off from his people” (Numbers 9:13); the expression “but the man” comes to include anyone who can become pure and fit to participate in the Paschal lamb, but fails to do so.h

‫ִמדְּ ָקא ְמ ַהדַּ ר ַא ְּט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ֶרץ – ָק ָס ַבר‬ .‫זֹור ִקין ַעל ְט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬ ְ ְ‫ֹוח ִטין ו‬ ֲ ‫ֵאין ׁש‬ – ‫זֹור ִקין ַעל ְט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬ ְ ְ‫ֹוח ִטין ו‬ ֲ ‫דְּ ִאי ׁש‬ ‫יה – ַהיְ ינ ּו‬ ֵ ‫יה ְל ַא ֲה‬ ּ ‫יה ֲע ֵל‬ ּ ‫דֹור‬ ּ ‫ָל ָּמה ֵל‬ ‫ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ָלא ֲחזִ י‬:‫ָטהֹור! ַא ְל ָמא‬ ‫יה‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ֵל‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ית‬ ּ ‫ִחּיו ָּבא ֲע ֵל‬ .‫יה ַ ּבּיָ ִחיד‬ ֵ ‫יבוּר – ִא‬ ּ ‫ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬ ּ ‫ית‬

The Gemara infers from this baraita: From the fact that he searches for a source to include one who is ritually impure from a creeping animal, it is clear that he holds that one may not slaughter the Paschal lamb or sprinkle its blood for someone who is ritually impure from a creeping animal. For if one may slaughter and sprinkle for someone impure from a creeping animal, why did he search for a source to include it? He is the same as anyone who is pure and did not offer the Paschal lamb, for he could have sent his offering with someone else and eaten from it in the evening after having undergone ritual immersion. Rather, it is clear that one may not slaughter or sprinkle for him; and, nonetheless, if he neglected the mitzva of the Paschal lamb, he is liable to receive karet. Apparently then, although he was not fit at that time to offer the Paschal lamb, the obligation is nonetheless incumbent upon him to render himself fit. And although this does not apply to the community, for a community that is impure with the impurity of a creeping animal brings the Paschal lamb in a state of impurity, it does apply to an individual.

:‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ָק ָס ַבר ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ‫ וְ הוּא‬,‫זֹור ִקין ַעל ְט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬ ְ ְ‫ֹוח ִטין ו‬ ֲ ‫ׁש‬ ‫ ַהּזָ ָאה‬.‫יעי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹו‬ ִ ‫ַהדִּ ין ִל ְט ֵמא ֵמת ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִב‬ ‫ ֲא ִכ ַילת ּ ְפ ָס ִחים‬,‫ְל ַמאי – ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה‬ !‫ָלא ְמ ַע ְּכ ָבא‬

Rather, Rava said that we should reject the previous statement and say instead that Rabbi Eliezer holds that one may slaughter the Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood for someone who is ritually impure from a creeping animal, and the same is true with regard to someone who is ritually impure from a corpse on his seventh day of impurity. If so, for what purpose is the sprinkling of the purifying water? If it is possible to slaughter the Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood on this person’s behalf even when he is impure, the only reason to sprinkle the purifying water is for the purpose of eating the Paschal lamb. However, eating of the Paschal lamb is not essentialn for the fulfillment of the mitzva, for if the blood of the sacrifice is sprinkled in a permitted fashion on someone’s behalf and afterward he is unable to eat the meat of the sacrifice, e.g., it became impure or was lost, he has fulfilled his obligation and is not liable to receive karet. This being the case, sprinkling the purifying waters is not an act that is necessary to facilitate a mitzva and does not override Shabbat even according to Rabbi Eliezer.



halakha

People who are uncircumcised or ritually impure – ‫ֲע ֵר ִלים‬ ‫ו ְּט ֵמ ִאים‬: A ritually impure person who was able to purify himself before Passover but failed to do so, or an uncircumcised person who did not undergo circumcision until after the time for bringing the Paschal lamb, is regarded as having deliberately violated the mitzva to bring the Paschal lamb. If he does not bring the sacrifice on the second Pesaĥ, even unwittingly, he is liable to the punishment of karet (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 5:4). notes

Eating of the Paschal lamb is not essential – ‫ֲא ִכ ַילת ּ ְפ ָס ִחים‬ ‫לא ְמ ַע ְּכ ָבא‬:ָ According to the Gemara’s conclusion, in order for one to fulfill his obligation with regard to the Paschal lamb, the offering must be fit to be eaten both from the perspective of the sacrifice, i.e., the time of its slaughter and the sprinkling of its blood, and from the perspective of the person intending to eat it. However, the actual eating is not essential. Therefore, if it cannot be eaten for some reason, e.g., if the animal was found to have a condition that would have caused it to die within twelve months [tereifa], or if the meat was lost, or if the person who was to eat it contracted ritual impurity, the individual has already fulfilled his obligation.

‫טס ףד‬: ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Perek VI . 69b 

29

halakha

The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva with regard to the Paschal lamb – ‫ה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬:ֲ Slaughtering the Paschal lamb and other actions that could not have been performed for the sacrifice before Shabbat, override Shabbat law. However, actions necessary to facilitate offering the sacrifice that could have been performed before Shabbat, but were not done then, do not override Shabbat law, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva and the ruling of Rav (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 1:18). The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva with regard to circumcision – ‫ה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ְ ּב ִמ ָילה‬:ֲ Circumcising, uncovering the flesh at the area of the circumcision, which is an essential part of the circumcision, and caring for the baby after circumcision are all activities that cannot be performed before Shabbat. Consequently, these actions override Shabbat law. However, something that can be done before Shabbat does not override Shabbat law, even if it is prohibited only by rabbinic decree, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva and the ruling of Rav (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 331:6 and Yoreh De’a 266:2).

‫ ִאם‬:‫יה ַרב ַאדָּ א ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא ְל ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ !‫אֹוכ ָליו‬ ְ ‫נִש ָחט ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ְל‬ ְ ׁ ‫ֵּכן נִ ְמצָ א ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ‫חֹולה ו ְּלזָ ֵקן‬ ֶ ‫אֹוכ ָליו ְל‬ ְ ‫ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ְל‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ,‫יחזָ א ֲחזִ י‬ ֱ ‫ ֲא ָבל ַהאי – ֶמ‬,‫דְּ ָלא ֲחזִ י‬ .‫ַּת ּקוּנֵי הוּא דְּ ל ֹא ְמ ַת ֵ ּקן‬

Rav Adda bar Abba said to Rava: If it is so, that one may slaughter the Paschal lamb for someone who is ritually impure from a creeping animal, it turns out that the Paschal lamb is slaughtered for people who cannot eat it, and it is stated elsewhere that such a sacrifice is disqualified. Rava said to him: When it says that a Paschal lamb that is slaughtered for people who cannot eat is disqualified, this refers to a case where it is slaughtered for a sick or elderly person who is not at all fit to eat the sacrifice. But this person is essentially fit to eat the sacrifice but has not yet been made ready to actually eat it. He himself is regarded as fit to eat the sacrifice, and it is only some external factor that prevents him from doing so.

‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬.‫״כ ָלל ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא וכו׳״‬ ְּ .‫ ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬:‫יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ,‫ילה ִּכי ַהאי ַ ּגוְ ונָ א‬ ָ ‫ו ְּתנַ ן נַ ִמי ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ִמ‬ ‫אכה‬ ָ ‫ ָּכל ְמ ָל‬:‫ְּכ ָלל ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ – ‫ֹות ּה ֵמ ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ַל ֲע ׂש‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ִאי‬,‫ ִמ ָילה‬.‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ָ ּ‫ֵאינָ ּה ד‬ ‫ֹוחה‬ ָ ּ‫ֹות ּה ֵמ ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת – ד‬ ָ ‫ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ַל ֲע ׂש‬ :‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַרב‬.‫ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ .‫ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva stated a principle that any prohibited labor required for the offering of the sacrifice that can be performed before Shabbat does not override Shabbat; whereas slaughter, which cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat, overrides Shabbat. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva with regard to the Paschal lamb.h The Gemara points out that we also learned something similar to this in another mishna with regard to circumcision: Rabbi Akiva stated a principle: Any prohibited labor required for circumcision that can be performed on the eve of Shabbatn because it need not be done specifically on the day of the circumcision does not override Shabbat; the circumcision itself, which cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat, since it is not yet time to perform the circumcision, overrides Shabbat. And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva with regard to circumcision.h

– ‫ דְּ ִאי ַא ׁ ְש ַמ ִעינַ ן ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ּ ֶפ ַסח‬,‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ּוצְ ִר‬ ‫ָה ָתם (דְּ הוּא ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ֵירי) ִמצְ וָ ה ל ֹא דָּ ח ּו‬ ‫יה ׁ ְשל ֹ ֹׁש‬ ָ ‫ׁ ַש ָ ּבת – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ל ֹא נִ ְכ ְרת ּו ָע ֶל‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ִמ ָילה דְּ נִ ְכ ְרת ּו‬,‫ֶע ְ ׂש ֵרה ְ ּב ִריתֹות‬ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יה ׁ ְשל ֹ ֹׁש ֶע ְ ׂש ֵרה ְ ּב ִריתֹות – ֵא‬ ָ ‫ָע ֶל‬ .‫ִל ְיד ִחי‬

The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to state this ruling in both cases, for had Rav taught us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva only with regard to the Paschal lamb, the conclusion would have been: It is specifically there that the facilitators of a mitzva that can be performed the day before do not override Shabbat because thirteen covenants were not established upon the Paschal lamb, and it is therefore not so significant. But with regard to circumcision, upon which thirteen covenants were established,n as is evidenced by the fact that the word covenant appears thirteen times in the chapter relating to circumcision (Genesis 17), which serves as a covenant between God and the Jewish nation, I would say that even facilitating actions that could have been performed on Shabbat eve should override Shabbat.

‫ילה – ָה ָתם הוּא‬ ָ ‫וְ ִאי ַא ׁ ְש ַמ ִעינַ ן ִמ‬ ‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫דְּ ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ֵירי ִמצְ וָ ה ל ֹא דָּ ח ּו ׁ ַש ָ ּבת דְּ ֵל‬ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יכא ָּכ ֵרת – ֵא‬ ָּ ‫ ֲא ָבל ּ ֶפ ַסח דְּ ִא‬,‫ָּכ ֵרת‬ .‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ צְ ִר‬,‫ִל ְיד ִחי‬

And had Rav taught us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva only with regard to circumcision, the conclusion would have been: It is specifically there that the facilitators of a mitzva that can be performed before Shabbat do not override Shabbat, as there is no punishment of karetn if the circumcision is delayed, since liability for karet only applies when the child becomes obligated in mitzvot and chooses not to circumcise himself. But with regard to the Paschal lamb, where there is karet for one who fails to offer the sacrifice at its proper time, I would say that such facilitators should override Shabbat. It is therefore necessary to teach that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in both cases.

notes

Any prohibited labor that can be performed on the eve of Shabbat – ‫אכה ׁ ֶש ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ַל ֲע ׂש ָֹות ּה ֵמ ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ָ ‫מ ָל‬:ְ In the Jerusalem Talmud the question is asked: If it turns out that a prohibited labor could not have been performed before Shabbat, what is the law? For example, what if the animal developed a wart on Shabbat? It answers that Rabbi Akiva’s principle does not relate to specific situations concerning warts, but to the class of warts. Since the removal of a wart is essentially an activity that can be performed before Shabbat, it does not override Shabbat.

explanation that is offered for this is that the word covenant appears thirteen times in the chapter relating to circumcision. The Tosefot Yom Tov elaborates at length, arguing that the repetition of the word covenant alludes to the significance of circumcision. This number is representative of God’s thirteen attributes of mercy, in relation to which the term covenant is also mentioned.

nents: A father is obligated to circumcise his son on the eighth day after birth and if he fails to do so he has neglected one element of the mitzva, which is to circumcise on the eighth day. If he fails to circumcise his son entirely, he has neglected the mitzva incumbent upon a father to circumcise his son. Once the son reaches the age of majority, the mitzva applies to him; and if he does not circumcise himself, he is liable to receive the punishment of karet. But unlike one who fails to offer the Circumcision where there is no karet – ‫יכא ָּכ ֵרת‬ ָּ ‫מ ָילה דְּ ֵל‬:ִ The Paschal lamb at its proper time, who is immediately liable to mitzva of circumcision, like that of the Paschal lamb, is a positive receive karet, one who does not undergo circumcision at the Circumcision, upon which thirteen covenants were es- commandment, whose deliberate violation is punishable by proper time can still perform the mitzva at some later point and tablished – ‫יה ׁ ְשל ֹׁש ֶע ְ ׂש ֵרה ְ ּב ִריתֹות‬ ָ ‫מ ָילה דְּ נִ ְכ ְרת ּו ָע ֶל‬:ִ The simple karet. However, the mitzva of circumcision has various compo- thereby avoid punishment.

30 

Perek VI . 69b . ‫טס ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ו‬

– ‫ימ ַתי ֵמ ִביא ֲחגִ יגָ ה ִע ּמֹו‬ ָ ‫מתני׳ ֵא‬ ,‫ ְ ּב ָט ֳה ָרה‬,‫ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶשהוּא ָ ּבא ַ ּבחֹול‬ ,‫ ו ִּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶשהוּא ָ ּבא ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬.‫ו ְּבמו ָּעט‬ ‫יאין‬ ִ ‫ ו ְּבטו ְּמ ָאה – ֵאין ְמ ִב‬,‫ִ ּב ְמרו ֶ ּּבה‬ .‫ִע ּמֹו ֲחגִ יגָ ה‬

‫ ִמן‬,‫ֲחגִ יגָ ה ָהיְ ָתה ָ ּב ָאה ִמן ַה ּצֹאן‬ ‫ ִמן‬,‫ ִמן ַה ְּכ ָב ִ ׂשים ו ִּמן ָה ִעּזִ ים‬,‫ַה ָ ּב ָקר‬ ‫נֶא ֶכ ֶלת ִל ׁ ְשנֵי‬ ֱ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ַהּזְ ָכ ִרים ו ִּמן ַה ּנ ְֵקבֹות‬ .‫יָ ִמים וְ ַליְ ָלה ֶא ָחד‬

‫גמ׳ ַמאי ְּתנָ א דְּ ָק ָתנֵי ֲחגִ יגָ ה? ְּתנָ א‬ ‫ַה ְר ָּכ ָבתֹו וַ ֲה ָב ָאתֹו דְּ ָלא דָּ ֵחי ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ,‫וְ ָק ָתנֵי נַ ִמי ֲחגִ יגָ ה דְּ ָלא דָּ ְחיָ א ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫יאין ִע ּמֹו‬ ִ ‫ימ ַתי ְמ ִב‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬:‫וְ ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬ ‫ֲח גִ יגָ ה – ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶשהוּא ָ ּבא ַ ּבחֹול‬ .‫ְ ּב ָט ֳה ָרה ו ְּבמו ָּעט‬

mishna 

When does one bring a Festival peaceoffering with the Paschal lamb?h A special offering is brought on the fourteenth of Nisan together with the Paschal lamb when the Paschal lamb comes on a weekday rather than on Shabbat, and when it comes in a state of ritual purityn as opposed to when it is brought in a state of impurity because most of the community is impure, and when many people are registered for the Paschal lamb so that each person will receive only a small portion from it. When these three conditions are met, the Festival peace-offering is eaten first and the Paschal lamb is eaten afterward. When, however, the Paschal lamb comes on Shabbat, or when few people are registered for it so that each person will receive a large portion, or when it is brought in a state of ritual impurity, one does not bring a Festival peace-offering with it.

With regard to the extra offering itself, the Festival peaceoffering would come from the flock, from the herd, from sheep or from goats, from males or from females, as the Festival peace-offering is not bound by the limitations governing the Paschal offering, which must be specifically a young male sheep or goat. And the Festival peace-offering is eaten for two days and one night like other peace-offerings.h

gemara 

The Gemara questions why this halakha is recorded here: What did the mishna previously teachn that made it relevant to teach this halakha with regard to a Festival peace-offering despite the fact that it seems to be unconnected to the previous mishnayot? The Gemara answers: Since it taught that carrying the Paschal lamb through a public domain and bringing it from outside the Shabbat limit do not override Shabbat, it also taught with regard to the halakha of a Festival peace-offering, that it does not override Shabbat. And this is what the mishna is saying: When does one bring a Festival peace-offering with the Paschal lamb? When it comes on a weekday, in a state of ritual purity, and when each person’s portion is small.

halakha

When does one bring a Festival peace-offering with the Paschal lamb – ‫יאים ֲחגִ יגָ ה ִעם ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ִ ‫ימ ַתי ְמ ִב‬ ָ ‫א‬:ֵ A Festival peace-offering is brought with the Paschal lamb that is offered on a weekday, in a state of ritual purity, and when many people are registered for it and the Paschal lamb cannot satiate them all. If these conditions are not all met, the Festival peace-offering is not brought, in accordance with the mishna (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 10:12). The time for eating the Festival peace-offering – ‫זְ ַמן ֲא ִכ ַילת ֲחגִ יגָ ה‬: The Festival peace-offering brought with the Paschal lamb is eaten for two days and the intervening night, in accordance with the mishna (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 10:13). notes

On a weekday and in a state of ritual purity – ‫בחֹול ו ְּב ָט ֳה ָרה‬:ּ ַ Tosefot Yom Tov asks: Why does the mishna change the order of these conditions? First, it states that the Festival peace-offering is brought when the Paschal lamb is offered on a weekday, in purity and when each person’s portion is small; and then it states that the offering is not brought on Shabbat, or when each person’s portion of it is large, or when it is brought in a state of ritual impurity. There are those who explain that the mishna inserts the case of a Paschal lamb with large portions between the cases of Shabbat and ritual impurity to teach us: Just as one is prohibited from offering the Festival peaceoffering on Shabbat, so too when the portions of the Paschal lamb are large, bringing the Festival peace-offering is not optional but is absolutely prohibited (Tiferet Yisrael; see Rashash). What did the mishna teach – ‫ ַמאי ְּתנָ א‬: This seems to be a twofold question: First, why is the Festival peace-offering discussed in the middle of the laws of the Paschal lamb? Second, why does the mishna address the details of the Festival peace-offering when it has not yet clarified the basic obligation to bring that sacrifice? The answer is that the Gemara relies upon the primary discussion of the laws of Festival peace-offerings in tractate Ĥagiga. Here, incidental to the discussion of which actions associated with the Paschal lamb override Shabbat and which do not, the Gemara also discusses the halakha governing the Festival peace-offering that accompanies the Paschal lamb.

‫ ֲחגִ יגַ ת‬:‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬,‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬Rav Ashi said: Learn from this that the Festival peace-offering ‫ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ָע ָ ׂשר‬of the fourteenth of Nisan, which comes with the Paschal lamb and is the subject of our mishna, as opposed to the Festival peace-offering that is brought on the first day of Passover and is called the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth,

Perek VI Daf 70 Amud a ְ‫ דְּ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָתך‬,‫חֹובה ִהיא‬ ָ ‫ ָלאו‬is not an obligation, meaning there is no Torah obligation to bring this offering. For if it should enter your mind to say that ‫יתי‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ֵת‬,‫יתי ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ֵ ‫חֹובה ִהיא – ֵּת‬ ָ .‫יתי ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ֵת‬,‫ ִ ּב ְמרו ֶ ּּבה‬it is an obligation, it should come even on Shabbat, and it should come even when each member of the group will receive a large portion of the Paschal lamb, and it should come even in a state of ritual impurity. ?‫ו ְּבמו ָּעט ִמיה ּו ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא ָא ְתיָ א‬ ‫ ֲחגִ יגָ ה ַה ָ ּב ָאה ִעם ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬:‫ִּכ ְד ַתנְיָא‬ ָּ ‫נֶ ֱא ֶכ ֶלת ְּת ִח‬ ‫ ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא ּ ֶפ ַסח‬,‫ילה‬ .‫״נֶ ֱא ָכל ַעל ַה ּ ׂש ַֹבע״‬



The Gemara asks: If there is no obligation to bring this offering, what is the reason that it nevertheless comes when each person’s portion of the Paschal lamb is small? The Gemara explains that the reason is as it was taught in a baraita: The Festival peace-offering that comes with the Paschal lamb is eaten first;h the reason for this is so that the Paschal lamb will be eaten when one is already satiated.n The Paschal lamb should not be eaten in a needy manner, but rather in joy and when one is already filled to satisfaction.

halakha

The Festival peace-offering…is eaten first – ‫חגִ יגָ ה…נֶ ֱא ֶכ ֶלת ְּת ִח ָּילה‬:ֲ It is preferable to consume the Paschal lamb when already satiated. Therefore, when one brings a Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth of Nisan, he should eat the meat of that offering first, and then consume the meat of the Paschal lamb, as taught in the baraita (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 8:3). notes

So that the Paschal lamb will be eaten when one is already satiated – ‫ש ַבע‬ ֹ ׂ ּ ‫שּיְ ֵהא ּ ֶפ ַסח נֶ ֱא ָכל ַעל ַה‬: ֶ ׁ The Jerusalem Talmud explains that the Paschal lamb must be eaten while one is satiated, for if those eating the offering are hungry, they are more likely to violate the Torah prohibition against breaking the bones of the Paschal lamb. Some commentaries understand that all sacrificial meat must be eaten on a full stomach, because such meat should not be consumed in a ravenous manner, but in a dignified manner that displays greatness, as kings eat (Mordekhai). ‫ע ףד‬. ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Perek VI . 70a 

31

notes

Festival peace-offering – ‫חגִ יגָ ה‬:ֲ This is a peace-offering that was sacrificed in honor of the three pilgrim Festivals. Everyone required to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the Festival was obligated to bring this offering, which was sacrificed on the first day of the Festival. However, if one did not do so, it could be sacrificed during the intermediate days of the Passover and Sukkot Festivals, on the last day of Passover, on the Eighth Day of Assembly, or during the six days following the festival of Shavuot.

‫נִיתין‬ ִ ‫ ַמ ְת‬.‫״וְ נֶ ֱא ֶכ ֶלת ִל ׁ ְשנֵי יָ ִמים וכו׳״‬ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ֶ ּבן ֵּת‬,‫ דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬.‫ימא‬ ָ ‫דְּ ָלא ְּכ ֶבן ֵּת‬ ‫ ֲחגִ יגָ ה ַה ָ ּב ָאה ִעם ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח – ֲה ֵרי‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ֵאינָ ּה נֶ ֱא ֶכ ֶלת ֶא ָּלא ְליֹום‬,‫ִהיא ַּכ ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ‫ וַ ֲחגִ יגַ ת ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר נֶ ֱא ֶכ ֶלת‬.‫וָ ַליְ ָלה‬ .‫ִל ׁ ְשנֵי יָ ִמים וְ ַליְ ָלה ֶא ָחד‬

halakha

The Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth – ‫ֲחגִ יגַ ת‬ ‫א ְר ָ ּב ָעה ָע ָ ׂשר‬:ַ The Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth is optional. One cannot use it to fulfill his obligation to bring a Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth, but he can use it to fulfill the mitzva of bringing a peace-offering of rejoicing on the Festival. In this regard, the Rabbis do not disagree with ben Teima (Kesef Mishne). The Ra’avad asserts that since it is optional, if one stipulates that it should serve as one’s regular Festival peace-offering, one can fulfill that obligation with it, because the baraita cited in the Gemara follows the opinion of ben Teima and the halakha does not follow his view (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Ĥagiga 2:10).

The mishna taught that the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth is eaten for two days and the intervening night. The Gemara notes that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of ben Teima, for it was taught in a baraita that ben Teima says: The Festival peace-offeringn that comes with the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth of Nisan is like the Paschal lamb and is eaten for only a day and a night, whereas the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth, i.e., the Festival peace-offering brought on the first day of Passover, just as it is brought on the first day of each of the other Festivals, is treated like a regular peace-offering and is eaten for two days and one, i.e., the intervening, night.

‫ וַ ֲחגִ יגַ ת ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ָע ָ ׂשר יֹוצֵ א ָ ּב ּה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬And if one consecrated an animal to be used as a Festival peaceh .‫ וְ ֵאין יֹוצֵ א ָ ּב ּה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֲחגִ יגָ ה‬,‫ ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה‬offering of the fourteenth, but it was not slaughtered on that day, on the next day he can fulfill with it his obligation to bring a peaceoffering of rejoicing, as it is stated: “And you shall rejoice on your Festival,” but he cannot fulfill with it his obligation to bring a Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth. ‫ימא? ִּכ ְד ַמ ְתנֵי ַרב‬ ָ ‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ֶבן ֵּת‬ ‫ ״וְ ל ֹא יָ ִלין ַל ּב ֶֹקר זֶ ַבח‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ְל ִחּיָ יא ְ ּב ֵר‬ ,‫ ״זֶ ַבח ַחג״ – זֶ ה ֲחגִ יגָ ה‬.‫ַחג ַה ּ ָפ ַסח״‬ ‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬.‫״ה ּ ָפ ַסח״ – ְּכ ַמ ׁ ְש ָמעֹו‬ ַ .‫״ל ֹא יָ ִלין״‬

The Gemara asks: What is the reason and scriptural basis for ben Teima’s opinion? The Gemara explains: As Rav taught his son Ĥiyya based on the following verse: “Neither shall the offering of the feast of the Passover be left to the morning” (Exodus 34:25). “The offering of the feast,” this is referring to the Festival peaceoffering; “the Passover,” as per its plain meaning, i.e., this is referring to the Paschal lamb itself. And with regard to both sacrifices, the Merciful One states in the Torah: “It shall not be left to the morning.” This proves that the Festival peace-offering may be eaten for only a day and a night.

‫ נֶ ֱא ֶכ ֶלת‬,‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ְל ֶבן ֵּת‬:ּ‫יב ֲעיָ א ְלהו‬ ּ ַ ‫ִא‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫צָ ִלי אֹו ֵאין נֶ ֱא ֶכ ֶלת צָ ִלי? ִּכי ַא ְק ׁ ֵש‬ – ‫ ֲא ָבל ְלצָ ִלי‬,‫ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ַל ּ ֶפ ַסח – ְל ִלינָ ה‬ ?‫ אֹו דִּ ְיל ָמא ָלא ׁ ְשנָ א‬.‫ל ֹא‬

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the opinion of ben Teima, is the Festival peace-offering that is brought with the Paschal lamb eaten roasted like the Paschal lamb itself or is it not eaten roasted? The possible considerations are as follows: When the Merciful One compares the Festival peace-offering to the Paschal lamb in the Torah, was that only with regard to leaving it over until the morning, but with regard to the mitzva of roasting, no such comparison is made? Or perhaps there is no difference; the comparison was complete, and the Festival peace-offering is roasted just like the Paschal lamb.

. ‫״ה ַּליְ ָלה ַהּזֶ ה ּכוּלּ ֹו צָ ִלי״‬ ַ :‫ ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution from what was .‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ זֹו דִּ ְב ֵרי ֶ ּבן ֵּת‬:‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬taught in a mishna: In the time of the Temple, one of the questions .‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬that the children would ask on the night of Passover was: How is this night different from all other nights? For on all other nights we eat meat that is roasted, stewed, or boiled, whereas on this night it is all roasted. And Rav Ĥisda said: This is the statement of ben Teima, indicating that even the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth must be roasted. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that the Festival peace-offering must be roasted just like the Paschal lamb. ‫ ָ ּב ָאה ִמן‬,‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ְל ֶבן ֵּת‬:ּ‫יב ֲעיָ א ְלהו‬ ּ ַ ‫ִא‬ ,‫ַה ָ ּב ָקר אֹו ֵאינָ ּה ָ ּב ָאה ִמן ַה ָ ּב ָקר‬ ‫ָ ּב ָאה ִמן ַה ְּנ ֵקבֹות אֹו ֵאינָ ּה ָ ּב ָאה ִמן‬ ‫ ָ ּב ָאה ַ ּבת ׁ ְש ֵּתי ׁ ָשנִים אֹו‬,‫ַה ְּנ ֵקבֹות‬ ?‫ֵאינָ ּה ָ ּב ָאה ַ ּבת ׁ ְש ֵּתי ׁ ָשנִים‬

Another dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the opinion of ben Teima, does the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth come from the herd or does it not come from the herd, like the Paschal offering, which must be brought from the flock? Does it come even from females or does it not come from females, just like the Paschal offering comes only from males? Does it come even from a two-year-old animal or does it not come from a twoyear-old animal, but rather only from a one-year-old animal, like the Paschal offering itself?

‫יה ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ַל ּ ֶפ ַסח – ְל ִמידֵּ י‬ ּ ‫ ִּכי ַא ְק ׁ ֵש‬The Gemara explains that this dilemma is based on a fundamental ‫ אֹו‬.‫ ֲא ָבל ְל ָכל ִמ ֵּילי – ָלא‬,‫ דַּ ֲא ִכ ָילה‬question similar to the one raised earlier: When the Merciful One ?‫ דִּ ְיל ָמא ָלא ׁ ְשנָ א‬compares the Festival peace-offering to the Paschal lamb in the Torah, was that only with regard to matters pertaining to eating and the time during which the Paschal lamb must be eaten, but for everything else there is no comparison? Or perhaps there is no difference and the Torah compared these two offerings in every way.

32 

Perek VI . 70a . ‫ע ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ו‬

– ‫ ֲחגִ יגָ ה ַה ָ ּב ָאה ִעם ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ‫ֲה ֵרי ִהיא ַּכ ּ ֶפ ַסח; ָ ּב ָאה ִמן ַה ּצֹאן וְ ֵאינָ ּה‬ ‫ ָ ּב ָאה ִמן ַהּזְ ָכ ִרים‬,‫ָ ּב ָאה ִמן ַה ָ ּב ָקר‬ ‫ ָ ּב ָאה ַ ּבת‬,‫וְ ֵאינָ ּה ָ ּב ָאה ִמן ַה ְּנ ֵקבֹות‬ .‫ׁ ְשנָ ָת ּה וְ ֵאינָ ּה ָ ּב ָאה ַ ּבת ׁ ְש ֵּתי ׁ ָשנִים‬ ,‫וְ ֵאינָ ּה נֶ ֱא ֶכ ֶלת ֶא ָּלא ְליֹום וָ ַליְ ָלה‬ ‫ וְ ֵאינָ ּה‬,‫וְ ֵאינָ ּה נֶ ֱא ֶכ ֶלת ֶא ָּלא צָ ִלי‬ .‫נֶ ֱא ֶכ ֶלת ֶא ָּלא ִל ְמנוּיָ ו‬

Come and hear an answer to these questions from what was taught in a baraita: The Festival peace-offering that comes with the Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan is like the Paschal offering in every respect. It comes from the flock and does not come from the herd, it comes from males and does not come from females, it comes from an animal that is a year old and does not come from an animal that is two years old, and it is eaten for only a day and a night, and it is eaten only roasted, and it is eaten only by those who registered for it in advance.

‫יה ַהאי‬ ּ ‫יה דְּ ִאית ֵל‬ ּ ‫ ַמאן ׁ ָש ְמ ַע ְּת ֵל‬The Gemara explains how this baraita answers the questions ‫ ּכו ְּּלה ּו‬:‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬,‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ְס ָב ָרא – ֶ ּבן ֵּת‬raised above: Who have you heard adopts this reasoning, .‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬.‫ ִמ ְּיל ָתא ָ ּב ֵעינַן‬comparing the Paschal offering and the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth? Surely it is ben Teima. Learn from this that we require everything,n that the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth must parallel the Paschal offering in all its details. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that they are comparable in every way.n ‫ יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ּה‬,‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ְל ֶבן ֵּת‬:‫יב ֲעיָ א ְלה ּו‬ ּ ַ ‫ִא‬ ‫ִמ ׁ ּש ּום ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ֶעצֶ ם אֹו ֵאין ָ ּב ּה‬ ‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ָה ֶעצֶ ם? ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ִכי‬ ‫יה ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ַל ּ ֶפ ַסח – ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬ ּ ‫ַא ְק ׁ ֵש‬ ‫ אֹו דִּ ְיל ָמא‬.‫״בֹו״ – ּבֹו וְ ל ֹא ַ ּב ֲחגִ יגָ ה‬ ּ ‫״בֹו״ – ְ ּב ָכ ׁ ֵשר וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב ָפסוּל הוּא‬ ּ ‫ַהאי‬ ?‫דַּ ֲא ָתא‬

‫ ַס ִּכין ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמצֵ את ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ָע ָ ׂשר‬,‫ֹוחט ָ ּב ּה ִמּיָ ד‬ ֵ ‫ָע ָ ׂשר – ׁש‬ ‫ ֵ ּבין ָ ּבזֶ ה ו ֵּבין‬,‫קֹופיץ‬ ִ .‫ׁשֹונֶ ה ו ַּמ ְט ִ ּביל‬ .‫ָ ּבזֶ ה – ׁשֹונֶ ה ו ַּמ ְט ִ ּביל‬

Yet another dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the opinion of ben Teima, is the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth subject to the prohibition against breaking a bone, as is the Paschal lamb, with regard to which the Torah explicitly states: “And you shall not break a bone in it” (Exodus 12:46), or is it not subject to the prohibition against breaking a bone? The possible considerations are as follows: Do we say that even though the Merciful One compares the Festival peace-offering to the Paschal lamb, the verse that teaches the prohibition against breaking a bone says “in it,” and these words serve as a qualifying statement, indicating that the prohibition applies only in it, the Paschal lamb, and not in the Festival peace-offering that comes with it? Or perhaps this term, “in it,” teaches that the prohibition applies only to a fit Paschal lamb but not to a disqualified one.

halakha

If a knife was found on the fourteenth – ‫ַס ִּכין ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמצֵ את ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ ‫ע ָ ׂשר‬:ָ If one finds a knife in Jerusalem on the fourteenth of Nisan, he may use it immediately to slaughter sacrifices such as the Paschal lamb and the Festival peace-offering. The Sages did not decree that it should be considered ritually impure, because presumably it was previously immersed (Kesef Mishne; see Ra’avad). This halakha applies even if the fourteenth occurred on Shabbat. There is no difference between a slaughtering knife and a cleaver, as the distinction found in the baraita is only according to the opinion of ben Teima (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 13:5; Kesef Mishne). If a knife was found on…the thirteenth – ‫את…ב ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬ ִּ ֵ‫ַס ִּכין ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמצ‬ ‫ע ָ ׂשר‬:ָ If one finds a knife in Jerusalem on the thirteenth day of Nisan, he must sprinkle the purifying waters on it and then immerse it. This is the meaning of the phrase shoneh umatbil (Kesef Mishne). According to the Ra’avad, immersion alone is sufficient and the sprinkling is unnecessary (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 13:6). language

Cleaver [kofitz] – ‫קֹופיץ‬: ִ From the Greek κοπίς, kopis, a large knife used for cutting or chopping hard items. background

Cleaver – ‫קֹופיץ‬: ִ A long, curved knife from Roman times.

Roman-era cleaver

The Gemara proposes: Come and hear a solution based on the following mishna: If a slaughtering knife was foundn on the fourteenthh day of Nisan in Jerusalem, one may slaughter with it immediately without concern that perhaps it is ritually impure, for presumably any knife that is valid for slaughtering had already been immersed on the previous day so that it could be used for slaughtering the Paschal lamb. But if it was found on the thirteenthh day of Nisan, he must immerse it againn due to the possibility that it had not yet been immersed and purified. As for a cleaver [kofitz],lb a large knife that is used primarily for chopping bones, whether it was found on this day, the fourteenth, or on the other day, the thirteenth, he must immerse it again.

notes

We require everything – ‫כו ְּּלה ּו ִמ ְּיל ָתא ָ ּב ֵעינַן‬:ּ The Gemara does not clarify whether the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth of Nisan follows the halakhot of a Paschal lamb or those of a regular peace-offering with regard to the time of its slaughter and the manner in which its blood is sprinkled on the altar. It would seem that it must be slaughtered with the Paschal lamb after the afternoon daily offering. However, its blood is sprinkled in the manner of a regular peace-offering, and not like the Paschal lamb. That is, the blood is sprinkled in the manner of two presentations that constitute four, on the two opposite corners of the altar, so that it will run down on each of its four sides (Tosefot Rid).

they may be slaughtered anywhere within the Temple courtyard. Their blood is sprinkled on the two opposite corners of the altar in such a manner that it will descend on each of the altar’s four sides. Part of each peace-offering is burned on the altar; part, i.e., the breast and the right hind leg, is given to the priests; and the rest is eaten by the person bringing the offering, with his family, anywhere in the city, either on the day the animal is sacrificed, on the following day, or during the intervening night. With the exception of the Festival peace-offering and a few other cases, peace-offerings were brought voluntarily, i.e., they were free-will offerings.

with one’s other belongings or are carried by hand, one is careful to purify them so that they do not impart impurity to the other utensils. A knife, however, is not carried in this manner, and therefore one is not always careful to purify it.

He must immerse it again – ‫שֹונֶ ה ו ַּמ ְט ִ ּביל‬:ׁ The Rambam explains that here the word shoneh means sprinkles. The mishna is saying that one must sprinkle the purifying water upon the knife in case it had become ritually impure through contact with a corpse, and then he must immerse it. It cannot mean that one must immerse the knife again, as the word shoneh would ordinarily indicate, because the whole point of imIf a knife was found – ‫ס ִּכין ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמצֵ את‬:ַ The Me’iri explains that un- mersing the knife stems from a concern that it was not yet Peace-offerings – ‫ש ָל ִמים‬: ְ ׁ Male and female cattle or sheep may like other utensils, knives found in Jerusalem must be immersed. immersed at all. Consequently, the use of the word: Again, be sacrificed as peace-offerings. As offerings of lesser holiness, Because other utensils are generally kept in a basket together is meaningless.



‫ע ףד‬. ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Perek VI . 70a 

33

halakha

If a cleaver was found tied to a slaughtering knife – ‫נִ ְמצֵ את‬ ‫קֹופיץ ְק ׁשו ָּרה ַל ַּס ִּכין‬: ִ If one finds a cleaver tied to a slaughtering knife whose status is known, both knives are presumed to have the same status, for according to the Rambam, the Sages did not distinguish between a slaughtering knife and a cleaver (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 13:7).

‫ימא ַר ָ ּבנַן – ַמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ַס ִּכין‬ ָ ‫ ַמ ּנִי? ִא ֵיל‬The Gemara clarifies: Whose opinion is taught in this mishna? If ‫קֹופיץ נַ ִמי‬ ִ ,‫ דְּ ַמ ְט ִ ּביל – דְּ ַחזְ יָ א ַל ּ ֶפ ַסח‬you say it is the opinion of the Rabbis, who permit breaking the !‫ ָהא ֲחזִ י ַל ֲחגִ יגָ ה‬bones of the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth, what is different about a slaughtering knife found on the fourteenth that we say its owner presumably immersed it on the previous day? Is it because it is fit for slaughtering the Paschal lamb? If so, a cleaver found on the fourteenth should also not require immersion before being used, for presumably its owner already immersed it, as it is fit for chopping the bones of the Festival peace-offering. ‫ ּו ׁ ְש ַמע‬,‫ימא ִהיא‬ ָ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ָלאו דְּ ֶבן ֵּת‬Rather, is it not the opinion of ben Teima, and learn from this .‫ יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ּה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ָה ֶעצֶ ם‬:‫ ִמ ָּינ ּה‬that even the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth is subject to the prohibition against breaking a bone, and therefore a cleaver must be immersed again even if it was found on the fourteenth. Since no bones may be broken on the fourteenth of Nisan, neither those of the Paschal lamb nor those of the Festival peace-offering, it is possible that the knife was not immersed in preparation for the Festival. .‫ ו ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ָ ּבא ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬,‫עֹולם ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬,‫ ל ֹא‬The Gemara rejects this proof: No, actually one can explain that the mishna reflects the opinion of the Rabbis, and it is referring to a case where the time to slaughter the Paschal lamb comes on Shabbat. In this circumstance, all agree that the Festival peaceoffering of the fourteenth is not sacrificed. Since there is no need for a cleaver, there is no reason to assume that the knife had been immersed in preparation for the Festival. ‫ ָחל ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬:‫יפא‬ ָ ‫וְ ָהא ִמדְּ ָק ָתנֵי ֵס‬ ‫ֹוחט ָ ּב ּה‬ ֵ ‫ָע ָ ׂשר ִל ְהיֹות ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – ׁש‬ .‫ֹוחט ָ ּב ּה ִמּיָ ד‬ ֵ ‫ ו ַּב ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר ׁש‬,‫ִמּיָ ד‬ ‫קֹופיץ ְק ׁשו ָּרה ַל ַּס ִּכין – ֲה ֵרי‬ ִ ‫נִ ְמצֵ את‬ ‫ישא ָלאו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ֵר‬.‫ִהיא ַּכ ַּס ִּכין‬ !‫ָע ְס ִקינַן‬

The Gemara asks: But from the fact that the latter clause of that same mishna teaches that if the fourteenth of Nisan occurred on Shabbat he may slaughter with the knife immediately, without immersing it, and similarly, if he found it on the fifteenth, i.e., on the first day of the Festival, he may slaughter with it immediately, as it was certainly immersed the day before, and if a cleaver was found tied to a slaughtering knife,h then even if it was found on the fourteenth on a weekday, it is like the slaughtering knife, as they were certainly immersed together, it follows by inference that in the first clause of the mishna we are not dealing with a case where the fourteenth of Nisan occurred on Shabbat.

‫ וְ ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ָ ּבא‬Rather, this understanding must be rejected and instead we should say that the mishna is talking about a case where the Paschal lamb came

Perek VI Daf 70 Amud b notes

How do the owners know – ‫מנָ א יָ ְד ִעי‬:ְ Even though one can know that there are many animals being sacrificed as Paschal lambs, one cannot know how many people will register for any particular offering, since people may register until the time it is sacrificed (Me’iri).

!?‫ ְמנָ א יָ ְד ִעי‬.‫ ִ ּב ְמרו ֶ ּּבה‬with few people registered for it, so that each person receives a large portion of the offering. Therefore, there is no need for a Festival peace-offering or for a cleaver. The Gemara questions this answer: How do the owners known already on the thirteenth that only a small number of people will be registered for the Paschal lamb? Perhaps more people will register for the offering before it is slaughtered, in which case we should assume that the cleaver was immersed, as it might be necessary to bring a Festival peaceoffering together with the Paschal lamb. ‫ סֹוף סֹוף ְמנָ א‬.‫ וְ ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ָ ּבא ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬Rather, we must say that we are talking about a Paschal lamb that ?‫ יָ ְד ִעי‬came in a state of ritual impurity, in which case a Festival peaceoffering is not brought, and consequently there is no need for a cleaver. The Gemara asks: Ultimately, how do the owners know already on the thirteenth when they are immersing their knives that the Paschal lamb will be brought in ritual impurity, so that they need not immerse their chopping knives? Perhaps it will turn out that most of the community is ritually pure.

34 

Perek VI . 70b . ‫ע ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ו‬

?‫ימת‬ ַ ‫נָשיא ֵא‬ ׂ ִ ‫ דְּ ִמית‬.‫נָשיא‬ ׂ ִ ‫דְּ ִמית‬ ‫ימא דְּ ִמית ִ ּב ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ָע ָ ׂשר – ַס ִּכין‬ ָ ‫ִא ֵיל‬ ‫יה? וְ ֶא ָּלא דְּ ִמית‬ ּ ‫ָל ָּמה ִלי דְּ ַמ ְט ְ ּב ֵל‬ ‫ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ָע ָ ׂשר – ַמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ַס ִּכין‬ ‫קֹופיץ דְּ ָלא‬ ִ ‫ ּו ַמאי ׁ ְשנָ א‬,‫דְּ ַמ ְט ִ ּביל‬ ?‫ַמ ְט ִ ּביל ָל ּה‬

The Gemara answers that we are talking about a situation where the Nasi died,n in which case all of Israel must defile themselves in order to participate in his burial. The Gemara asks: When did the Nasi die? If you say that he died on the thirteenth and everyone became ritually impure as a result, why do I need to immerse the slaughtering knife to begin with? It will become ritually impure again in any event. Rather, he died on the fourteenth and they did not know in advance that the Paschal lamb would be brought in a state of impurity. But if so, what is different about the slaughtering knife that he immerses it and what is different about the cleaver that he does not immerse it?

‫ֹוסס ִ ּב ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬ ֵ ּ‫נָשיא ג‬ ׂ ִ ְּ‫יכא ד‬ ָ ‫ ָלא צְ ִר‬The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach this halakha only ,‫ ַס ִּכין דְּ ַחד ְס ֵפ ָיקא – ַמ ְט ִ ּביל ָל ּה‬.‫ ָע ָ ׂשר‬in a case where the Nasi was in a dying state on the thirteenth. With regard to a slaughtering knife, about which there is only .‫קֹופיץ דִּ ְת ֵרי ְס ֵפ ֵיקי – ָלא ַמ ְט ִ ּביל ָל ּה‬ ִ one doubt, that perhaps the Nasi will die before the Festival and the Paschal lamb will be brought in a state of ritual impurity, he immerses it, for if the Nasi does not die he will need a ritually pure knife to slaughter his Paschal lamb. With regard to a cleaver, about which there are two doubts, that perhaps the Nasi will die and a ritually pure knife will not be needed, and that even if he does not die, perhaps the meat of the Paschal lamb will be plentiful and the Festival peace-offering will not be brought, he does not immerse it. ‫ַּתנְיָ א יְ הו ָּדה ֶ ּבן דּ ְֹור ַתאי ּ ֵפ ֵיר ׁש הוּא‬ .‫דֹור ַתאי ְ ּבנֹו וְ ָה ַל ְך וְ יָ ׁ ַשב לֹו ַ ּבדָּ רֹום‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬ ‫ֹאמר ָל ֶהם‬ ַ ‫ ִאם יָבֹוא ֵא ִלּיָ ה ּו וְ י‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ָמה ל ֹא ֲחגַ גְ ֶּתם ֲחגִ יגָ ה‬:‫ְליִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ‫אֹומ ִרים לֹו? ְּת ֵמ ַהנִי‬ ְ ‫ ָמה ֵהן‬,‫ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫דֹולי ַהדּ ֹור ׁ ְש ַמ ְעיָ ה וְ ַא ְב ַט ְליֹון‬ ֵ ‫ַעל ׁ ְשנֵי ְ ּג‬ ,‫דֹולים‬ ִ ‫דֹולים וְ ַד ְר ׁ ָשנִין ְ ּג‬ ִ ‫ׁ ֶש ֵהן ֲח ָכ ִמים ְ ּג‬ ‫ֹוחה‬ ָ ּ‫ ֲחגִ יגָ ה ד‬:‫וְ ל ֹא ָא ְמר ּו ָל ֶהן ְליִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ .‫ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬

It was taught in a baraita: Yehuda ben Dortai separated himself from the other Rabbis, he and Dortai his son,n and went and settled in the south so that he would not be obligated to bring the Paschal lamb, seeing that he was at a great distance from Jerusalem. He did this because he disagreed with the Rabbis with regard to the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth, which in their view does not override Shabbat. He said: If Elijahn will come and say to the Jewish people: For what reason did you not sacrifice the Festi­ val peace-offering on Shabbat, what will they say to him? I am astounded at the two most eminent scholars of the generation, She­maya and Avtalyon,p who are great sages and great expositors of the Torah, and yet they did not tell the Jewish people that even the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth overrides Shabbat.

– ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ֶבן דּ ְֹור ַתאי‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ‫ ״וְ ַזָב ְח ָּת ּ ֶפ ַסח ַלה׳ ֱאל ֶֹהיךָ צֹאן‬:‫דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ‫ו ָּב ָקר״ וַ ֲהל ֹא ֵאין ּ ֶפ ַסח ֶא ָּלא ִמן‬ – ‫ ״צֹאן״‬:‫ַה ְּכ ָב ִ ׂשים ו ִּמן ָה ִעּזִ ים! ֶא ָּלא‬ ‫ וְ ָא ַמר‬.‫״ב ָקר״ – זֹו ֲח גִ יגָ ה‬ ּ ָ ,‫זֶ ה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ .‫ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ״וְ זָ ַב ְח ָּת ּ ֶפ ַסח״‬

Rav said: What is ben Dortai’s reason? As it is written: “And you shall slaughter the Paschal offering to the Lord your God from the flock and from the herd, in the place which the Lord shall choose to rest His name there” (Deuteronomy 16:2). A question must be asked: Does the Paschal offering come from the herd, i.e., from cattle? Doesn’t the Paschal offering come from only the sheep and from the goats, as commanded in the book of Exodus (12:5)? Rather, the verse should be understood as follows. “Flock”; this is referring to the Paschal offering. “Herd”; this is referring to the Festival peace-offering that is brought along with it. And the Merciful One says: “And you shall slaughter the Paschal offering,” thus teaching that the two offerings are sacrificed together. From here ben Dortai derived that the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth is like the Paschal offering in every way, and so it too overrides Shabbat.

‫ וַ ֲאנַן ַט ְע ָמא דִּ ְפרו ׁ ִּשים‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ‫נֵיק ּו וְ נִ ְפרו ּׁש?! ֶא ָּלא ְק ָרא ְל ִכ ְד ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ ‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ָא ַמר‬.‫הוּא דַּ ֲא ָתא‬ ‫מֹותר ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ַ ‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ין ְל‬:‫ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ֲאבו ּּה‬ – ‫ׁ ֶש ָ ּק ֵרב ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬

Rav Ashi said: Need we arise and explain the reason of those who separated themselves from the other Rabbis? Ben Dortai and his son broke away from all the other sages of the Jewish people, and we need not occupy ourselves with the opinions of such people. Rather, the verse comes to explain the opinion of Rav Naĥman,n for Rav Naĥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: From where is it derived that a leftover Paschal offering is sacrificed as a peaceoffering? A leftover Paschal offering is an animal that had been consecrated as a Paschal offering but was subsequently lost and later found after a different animal had already been sacrificed in its place. Alternatively, if one set aside and consecrated money for the purchase of a Paschal lamb and then the price of livestock dropped so that there was money left over after the purchase was made, the extra money has the status of a leftover Paschal lamb.



notes

The Nasi died – ‫נָשיא‬ ׂ ִ ‫מית‬:ִ When an ordinary person passes away, his immediate relatives may contract ritual impurity through proximity to him, in order to tend to the needs of his burial, even if they are priests. Owing to his dignified standing, the Nasi is considered to be a relative of the entire nation. Consequently, everyone participates in his burial and contracts ritual impurity through proximity to him. In the Jerusalem Talmud it is related that some of the Sages were compelled to become ritually impure for the honor of the Nasi. Separated himself, he and Dortai his son – ‫ּ ֵפ ֵיר ׁש הוּא‬ ‫דֹור ַתאי ְ ּבנֹו‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬: Even though Yehuda ben Dortai neglected the mitzvot to appear in the Temple on the Festival and to rejoice through offering the special sacrifices, nevertheless, he thought that it was preferable to do so in order to publicize his opinion and correct what he considered to be misguided policy with regard to the Festival peace-offering (Ĥazon Ish). Elijah – ‫א ִליָ ּה ּו‬:ֵ In many places in the Talmud and the Midrash, Elijah the Prophet appears to people, especially to the Sages, and resolves their dilemmas. As stated in the Prophets (II Kings 2:11), Elijah did not die, and he continues to serve as an emissary of God. On the one hand, he is the zealous angel of the covenant. On the other hand, he is a person who alleviates problems in the world. The verse comes to explain the opinion of Rav Naĥman – ‫ק ָרא ְל ִכ ְד ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬:ְ There is a similar mishna that expounds this verse differently: While cattle cannot be brought as a Paschal offering, this verse teaches that just as the Paschal offering must be an otherwise unconsecrated animal, the same principle applies to all sacrifices (Menaĥot 7:6). Personalities

Shemaya and Avtalyon – ‫ש ַמ ְעיָ ה וְ ַא ְב ַט ְליֹון‬: ְ ׁ Shemaya and Avtalyon were the fourth pair of rabbinic Sages listed in the Ethics of the Fathers, who served as leaders of the Sanhedrin during the reign of Herod the Great in the first century BCE and played a role in establishing the Mishna. According to tradition they were converts or descendants of converts whose lineage was traced to Sennacherib, king of Assyria. Only a small number of halakhot appear in the Talmud quoted in their names, but their ethical teachings include statements warning to avoid political engagement, perhaps reflecting the political upheaval that was taking place in the last years of the Second Temple period. According to tradition, they are buried in the village of Gush Ĥalav in northern Israel.

Ancient synagogue in Gush Ĥalav

‫ע ףד‬: ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Perek VI . 70b 

35

notes

What is the reason that the Festival peace-offering does not override Shabbat – ‫מאי ַט ְע ָמא ָלא דָּ ֵחי ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬:ַ Some commentaries explain that the question relates specifically to the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth of Nisan. The Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth of Nisan is optional according to the Rabbis, but the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth is obligatory. Therefore, like other communal offerings, it should override the halakhot of Shabbat (Tosefot Rid). Peace-offerings that one slaughtered on the eve of the Festival – ‫ש ָל ִמים ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ָח ָטן ֵמ ֶע ֶרב יֹום טֹוב‬: ְ ׁ There is a difficulty here. Even if it were an unconsecrated animal, and he consecrated it as a Festival peace-offering, the owner would not fulfill his obligation to bring the Festival peace-offering, for he slaughtered it on the eve of the Festival when the time for the mitzva had not yet arrived. Rather, we must be talking about a peace-offering that was not slaughtered on the eve of the Festival, but left over to the next day. And the owner does not fulfill the mitzva to bring a Festival peace-offering on the fifteenth, because it had been previously consecrated. According to this explanation, the Gemara is really talking about two separate cases: First, that if one slaughtered a peace-offering on the fourteenth of Nisan, he does not fulfill the mitzva to bring offerings for rejoicing on the Festival. Second, if he left over the offering to be slaughtered on the Festival itself, he still does not fulfill the mitzva to bring a Festival peace-offering (Tosefot Rid; see Tosafot).

‫ ״וְ זָ ַב ְח ָּת ּ ֶפ ַסח ַלה׳ ֱאל ֶֹהיךָ צֹאן‬:‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ ‫ו ָּב ָקר״ וְ ִכי ּ ֶפ ַסח ִמן ַה ָ ּב ָקר ָ ּבא? וַ ֲהל ֹא‬ ‫ֵאין ּ ֶפ ַסח ָ ּבא ֶא ָּלא ִמן ַה ְּכ ָב ִ ׂשים ו ִּמן‬ ‫מֹותר ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח יְ ֵהא ְל ָד ָבר‬ ַ :‫ ֶא ָּלא‬.‫ָה ִעּזִ ים‬ .‫ַה ָ ּבא ִמן ַה ּצֹאן ו ִּמן ַה ָ ּב ָקר‬

As it is stated: “And you shall slaughter the Paschal offering to the Lord your God from the flock and from the herd.” Does the Paschal offering come from the herd? Doesn’t it come from only the sheep and from the goats? Rather, the verse comes to teach that a leftover Paschal offering shall be brought as something that comes from the flock and from the herd, that is, as a peace-offering, which may be brought from all types of flock and cattle, including both males and females.h

‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא ָלא דָּ ֵחי ׁ ַש ָ ּבת? ָהא‬,‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬The Gemara asks about the crux of the matter: And according !‫יבוּר הוּא‬ ּ ִ‫ וַ דַּ אי ָק ְר ַ ּבן צ‬to the opinion of the Rabbis, what is the reason that the Festival peace-offering does not override Shabbat?n It is certainly a communal offering, and all communal offerings override Shabbat. ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִא ְיל ָעא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ֶ ּבן‬ ‫ ״וְ ַח ּג ֶֹתם אֹתֹו ַחג ַלה׳‬:‫ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬,‫ָס ְפ ָרא‬ ‫ ׁ ִש ְב ָעה?! ׁ ְשמֹונָ ה‬.‫ׁ ִש ְב ַעת יָ ִמים ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה״‬ ‫ֹוחה‬ ָ ּ‫ָהווּ! ֶא ָּלא ִמ ָּכאן ַל ֲחגִ יגָ ה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ד‬ .‫ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬

Rabbi Ile’a said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Safra: The verse said with regard to the festival of Sukkot: “And you shall celebrate it as a Festival for the Lord, seven days in the year; it shall be a statute forever in your generations; you shall celebrate it in the seventh month” (Leviticus 23:41). Now is the festival of Sukkot seven days? They are eight days, as the Eighth Day of Assembly is always celebrated at the conclusion of Sukkot. Rather, from here we derive that the Festival peace-offering [ĥagiga], about which the verse states: “And you shall celebrate [veĥagotem] it,” does not override Shabbat.h Since every eight-day period contains a Shabbat, the Torah said that the Festival [ĥag] is celebrated, i.e., the Festival peace-offering [ĥagiga] can be brought the entire seven days of the Festival.

:‫ ָא ַמ ְר ִּתי ִל ְפנֵי ַר ּב ַֹותי‬,‫ִּכי ֲא ָתא ָר ִבין ָא ַמר‬ ,‫ּ ְפ ָע ִמים ׁ ֶש ִאי ַא ָּתה מֹוצֵ א ֶא ָּלא ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה‬ ‫אשֹון ׁ ֶשל ַח ג‬ ׁ ‫ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ָחל יֹום טֹוב ָה ִר‬ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ָא ִבין ִּת ְכ ָלא ֵל‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬.‫ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫ִּכי ָהא ִמ ְּיל ָתא?! ׁ ְשמֹנָ ה – ָלא ַמ ׁ ְש ַּכ ַח ְּת‬ .‫יתא ְ ּברֹוב ׁ ָשנִים‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ִש ְב ָעה – ִא‬.‫ָל ּה ְּכ ָלל‬

When Ravinp came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: I said before my teachers, pointing out the following difficulty with regard to this source: There are times when you find only six days on which the Festival peace-offering can be brought, for example, when the first day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat, in which case the Eighth Day of Assembly also falls on Shabbat, and so there are only six days on which the Festival peace-offering may be brought. Abaye said: Would the bereaved Avin, another name for Ravin, say such a thing and be so careless as to ask an unfounded question? There is a big difference: Eight you do not find at all; the eight days of the Festival cannot possibly pass without a Shabbat. But seven days on which the Festival peaceoffering can be brought are in fact found in most years.

‫ ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬:‫ָא ַמר עו ָּּלא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ‫ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ָח ָטן ֵמ ֶע ֶרב יֹום טֹוב ֵאינֹו יֹוצֵ א‬ ‫ָ ּב ֶהן ל ֹא ִמ ׁ ּש ּום ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה וְ ל ֹא ִמ ׁ ּש ּום‬ ‫ ״וְ זָ ַב ְח ָּת‬:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה‬.‫ֲחגִ יגָ ה‬ ‫יחה‬ ָ ‫וְ ָ ׂש ַמ ְח ָּת״ – ָ ּב ֵעינַן זְ ִב‬

Ulla said that Rabbi Elazar said: With regard to peace-offerings that one slaughtered on the eve of the Festival,n one fulfills with them neither the mitzva to bring peace-offerings of rejoicing nor the mitzva to bring a Festival peace-offering. The mitzva of bringing peace-offerings of rejoicing is not fulfilled, as it is written: “And you shall slaughter peace-offerings and eat there, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 27:7). Based on this verse, we require that the slaughter be halakha

A leftover Paschal lamb – ‫מֹותר ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬: ַ An animal consecrated as a Paschal lamb that for some reason was not sacrificed at its proper time is brought after Passover as a peace-offering, in accordance with the view of Rav Naĥman (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 4:10).

The Festival peace-offering does not override Shabbat – ‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ָ ּ‫חגִ יגָ ה ֵאינָ ּה ד‬:ֲ A Festival peace-offering does not override Shabbat because it can be sacrificed the entire seven days of the Festival (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Ĥagiga 1:8).

Personalities

Ravin – ‫ר ִבין‬:ָ Ravin, which is an abbreviation for Rabbi Avin, or Rabbi Bun as he is called in the Jerusalem Talmud, was a third-generation amora from Eretz Yisrael. Ravin was among the greatest of the scholars from Eretz Yisrael who went to Babylonia to teach the Torah of Eretz Yisrael. He primarily transmitted the teachings of Rabbi Yoĥanan and his most eminent students. The traditions that Ravin brought with him are considered particularly reliable and authoritative. He was famous for his precision. Consequently, in the many disputes between Rav Dimi and Ravin with regard to the formulation and content of

36 

Perek VI . 70b . ‫ע ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ו‬

various verbal traditions, the halakha generally accepts Ravin’s version. This is certainly the case when he disagrees with other authorities on the matter of verbal traditions. The Jerusalem Talmud also relates several miraculous stories involving Ravin and cites more of his original teachings as well. Ravin was born an orphan, as his father died before he was born and his mother died during childbirth. It is perhaps for this reason that he was called the bereaved one. He is listed in the midrash among those about whom it was said: The sun sets and the sun rises, for on the day that Ravin died, another great scholar, Rabbi Oshaya of Tarya, was born.

Perek VI Daf 71 Amud a halakha

‫ ִמ ׁ ּש ּו ם‬.‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ִ ׂש ְמ ָח ה – וְ ֵל‬at the time of rejoicing, on the Festival itself, and if it was slaughtered ‫ וְ ָכל דָּ ָבר‬,‫חֹובה‬ ָ ‫ ֲחגִ יגָ ה – ָהוֵ י דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ְ ּב‬on the fourteenth it is not. The mitzva to bring a Festival peaceּ .‫חֹובה ֵאינֹו ָ ּבא ֶא ָּלא ִמן ַהחו ִּלין‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ֶש ְ ּב‬offering is also not fulfilled, for it is something that is an obligation, as everyone is obligated to bring this offering, and the principle is that anything that is an obligation must come only from that which is unconsecrated,h meaning that one cannot bring an obligatory offering from an animal that has already been consecrated for another purpose.

Anything that is an obligation must come only from that which is unconsecrated – ‫חֹובה ֵאינֹו ָ ּבא‬ ָ ‫דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ְ ּב‬ ‫א ָּלא ִמן ַהחו ִּּלין‬:ֶ An obligatory offering must be brought from an unconsecrated animal. One cannot fulfill his obligation by sacrificing an animal that has already been consecrated for a different purpose (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 16:15).

– ‫ ״וְ ָהיִ ָית ַאךְ ָ ׂש ֵמ ַח״‬:‫יה‬ ָ ‫ֵל‬ ּ ‫ימא ְמ ַסּיַ יע ֵל‬ .‫ְל ַר ּבֹות ֵל ֵילי יֹום טֹוב ָה ַא ֲחרֹון ְל ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה‬ ,‫אֹומר ֵל ֵילי יֹום טֹוב ָה ַא ֲחרֹון‬ ֵ ‫ַא ָּתה‬ ?‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫אֹו ֵאינֹו ֶא ָּלא ֵל ֵילי יֹום טֹוב ָה ִר‬ .‫(ש ֵמ ַח) – ִח ֵּלק‬ ׂ ָ ‫‘אךְ ׳‬ ַ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ַּת ְלמוּד‬

To include the last night of the Festival – ‫ְל ַר ּבֹות ֵל ֵילי‬ ‫יֹום טֹוב ָה ַא ֲחרֹון‬: Rashi in tractate Sukka explains that the last day of the Festival is certainly included in the mitzva of rejoicing, based on an a fortiori inference from the previous night, since the main time for rejoicing is during the day.

The Gemara proposes: Let us say that a baraita supports him. The verse states: “Seven days shall you celebrate to the Lord your God in the place that the Lord shall choose, for the Lord your God shall bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands, and you shall be but joyous” (Deuteronomy 16:15). This verse seems superfluous, as it was already stated in the previous verse: “And you shall rejoice in your Festival.” The baraita expounds: “And you shall be but joyous” comes to include the last night of the Festival.n Even then you must make sure there is rejoicing by eating the appropriate peace-offerings. The baraita considers: Do you say that the verse comes to include the last night of the Festival? Or perhaps it comes to include only the first night of the Festival. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall be but joyous”; the word “but” restricts this mitzva, meaning that there is not always a mitzva to be joyous.

notes

For there is rejoicing preceding it – ‫שּיֵ ׁש ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה ְל ָפנָיו‬: ֶׁ Since there is rejoicing before it and also after it (as the final day is also a Festival with its own special offerings), it is unreasonable to assume that there would be an interruption in the mitzva of rejoicing. This is not the case with regard to the first night; since there is no rejoicing preceding it, there would be no interruption (Ĥazon Ish).

‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – ָלאו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ֵאין לֹו‬The Gemara clarifies how this baraita supports Ulla: What is the ?‫ ַ ּב ֶּמה יִ ְ ׂש ַמח‬reason that we learn from this expression that it is specifically on the first night that there is no mitzva of rejoicing? Is it not because on the first night he has nothing with which to rejoice? As Ulla said, one cannot fulfill the mitzva of rejoicing with a peace-offering that was slaughtered on the eve of the Festival, because it was not slaughtered at the time of rejoicing. On the last night of the Festival, on the other hand, one can rejoice with a peace-offering that was slaughtered the previous day, i.e., the last intermediate day of the Festival, which is also a time of rejoicing. ‫ית ְל ַר ּבֹות‬ ָ ‫ ָמה ָר ִא‬:‫ ִּכ ְד ָתנֵי ַט ְע ָמא‬,‫ָלא‬ ‫ֵל ֵילי יֹום טֹוב ָה ַא ֲחרֹון ו ְּלהֹוצִ יא ֵל ֵילי‬ ‫אשֹון? ַמ ְר ֶ ּבה ֲאנִי ֵל ֵילי יֹום‬ ׁ ‫יֹום טֹוב ִר‬ ,‫טֹוב ָה ַא ֲחרֹון – ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה ְל ָפנָיו‬ ‫אשֹון ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬ ׁ ‫וּמֹוצִ יא ֲאנִי ֵל ֵילי יֹום טֹוב ִר‬ .‫ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה ְל ָפנָיו‬

The Gemara rejects this support: No, it is not for this reason, but rather for the reason taught in the continuation of the baraita: What did you see to include the last night of the Festival in the mitzva of rejoicing and to exclude the first night of the Festival, a distinction that is not even hinted at in the verse? The baraita explains: I include the last night of the Festival in the mitzva of rejoicing, for there is rejoicing on the days of the Festival preceding it,n and I exclude the first night of the Festival, for there is no day of rejoicing preceding it. Thus, no support for Ulla can be deduced from the baraita.

‫ ֲחגִ יגַ ת ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ָע ָ ׂשר‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ְמ ִתיב ַרב‬ ‫ וְ ֵאין יֹוצֵ א‬,‫יֹוצֵ א ָ ּב ּה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה‬ ‫ ַא ַּמאי? ָהא ָ ּב ֵעינַן‬.‫ָ ּב ּה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֲחגִ יגָ ה‬ ‫יכא! ָא ַמר‬ ָ ‫זְ ִב‬ ָּ ‫ וְ ֵל‬,‫יחה ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה‬ .‫יכב ו ׁ ְּש ָח ָט ּה‬ ֵּ ‫ ׁ ֶש ִע‬:‫ַרב ִא ִידי ַ ּבר ָא ִבין‬

Rav Yosef raised an objection against the opinion of Ulla: It was taught in a baraita with regard to the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth that one fulfills with it the mitzva to bring peace-offerings of rejoicing, but one does not fulfill with it the mitzva to bring a Festival peace-offering. We can ask, why? Surely, according to Ulla, we require that the slaughter be performed at a time of rejoicing, and this requirement is not fulfilled in this case. The Gemara answers: Rav Idi bar Avin said that the baraita is referring here to a case where he delayed and slaughtered it only on the fifteenth, i.e., on the Festival, which is a time of rejoicing.

‫ דְּ ִאי‬,‫ ָה ִכי נַ ִמי ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ‫נִיתא ַמאן‬ ָ ‫ימא ָה ִכי – ָהא ַמ ְת‬ ָ ‫ָלא ֵּת‬ ‫ימא – ָהא‬ ָ ‫ ֶ ּבן ֵּת‬,‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ָק ָתנֵי ָל ּה – ֶ ּבן ֵּת‬ .‫ּ ָפ ְס ָלה ָל ּה ְ ּב ִלינָ ה! ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬

Rav Ashi said: So too, it is reasonable to understand the baraita in this manner, for if you do not say so, but rather that the Festival peaceoffering was slaughtered on the fourteenth, there is a difficulty, for who taught this baraita? Is it not ben Teima who taught it? According to ben Teima, however, he has disqualified it by leaving it overnight, for in his view this Festival peace-offering is similar to a Paschal lamb and may not be eaten the following day. Learn from this that the baraita must be referring to a case where the Festival peace-offering was slaughtered not on the fourteenth, but on the fifteenth.



‫אע ףד‬. ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Perek VI . 71a 

37

notes

Are eaten raw – ‫חי נֶ ֱא ָכ ִלין‬:ַ In other words, these goats may be eaten on that day but only raw, since cooking them does not override the halakhot of Shabbat. Even for the priests who would eat the meat raw, consuming the meat of the offering in this manner cannot be described as rejoicing. If they would wait until after Shabbat and eat it roasted, then the slaughter would not have been performed at the time of rejoicing (ge’onim). With what do ordinary Israelites rejoice – ‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ַ ּב ֶּמה‬ ‫ש ֵמ ִחים‬: ׂ ְ The Gemara’s discussion with regard to rejoicing is connected to what is stated elsewhere, that in the time of the Temple there is no rejoicing without meat and wine. Accordingly, whenever the Torah speaks of rejoicing on a Festival, it means that one must eat the meat of the Festival offerings. Other activities that lead to joy and pleasure are not inherently included in the mitzva of rejoicing on the Festival. Nevertheless, the Gemara’s conclusion seems to be that even during the time of the Temple, the mitzva of rejoicing on Festivals included such things as clean clothes, wine, and new clothes for the women. The sacrificial parts of the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth – ‫אימו ֵּרי ֲחגִ יגַ ת ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר‬: ֵ All the commentaries agree that this halakha is not limited to the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth of Nisan. Some authorities explain that the halakha with regard to other offerings is derived from the halakha governing the Festival peace-offering (Tosafot). According to the Tosefot Rid, the derivation in this context applies directly to all those offerings about which the Torah does not explicitly state how long the burning of their sacrificial parts may be delayed. The Gemara is referring specifically to the Festival peace-offering, because the verse that serves as the source of this halakha pertains to that offering.

.‫ ַה ַה ֵּלל וְ ַה ּ ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה ׁ ְשמֹנָ ה‬:‫ְמ ִתיב ָר ָבא‬ ‫יחה ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת‬ ָ ‫וְ ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ָ ּב ֵעינַ ן זְ ִב‬ ‫יאין דְּ ָלא‬ ִ ‫ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה – ָהא זִ ְמנִין ַס ִ ּג‬ ‫ ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ָחל‬,‫ַמ ׁ ְש ַּכ ַח ְּת ָל ּה ֶא ָּלא ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ ‫אשֹון ִל ְהיֹות ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת! ָא ַמר‬ ׁ ‫יֹום טֹוב ָה ִר‬ ‫ ְמ ַ ׂש ְּמחֹו‬:‫יה דְּ ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬ ּ ‫ַרב הוּנָ א ְ ּב ֵר‬ .‫ִ ּב ְ ׂש ִע ֵירי ָה ְרגָ ִלים‬

Rava raised an objection against the opinion of Ulla: It was taught in a baraita that the hallel is recited and the mitzva of rejoicing with the peace-offerings of rejoicing is observed on the festival of Sukkot for eight days. Now if you say we require that the slaughter be performed at a time of rejoicing, many times you find that the mitzva of rejoicing is observed for only seven days, such as when the first day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat, when a peace-offering of rejoicing may not be slaughtered. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehuda, said: One rejoices with the male goats of the Festivals. That is to say, in such a situation the mitzva of rejoicing can be fulfilled with the meat of the goats that are brought on the Festivals as sin-offerings, as these offerings, being communal offerings, may be slaughtered even on Shabbat.

.‫ ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְת ׁשוּבֹות ַ ּבדָּ ָבר‬:‫ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ,‫ דִּ ְ ׂש ִע ֵירי ָה ְרגָ ִלים ַחי נֶ ֱא ָכ ִלין‬:‫ֲח ָדא‬ .‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ וְ ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה ְ ּב ַחי ִל‬,‫צָ ִלי ֵאין נֶ ֱא ָכ ִלין‬ ‫ וְ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ַ ּב ֶּמה‬,‫אֹוכ ִלין‬ ְ ‫ ּכ ֲֹהנִים‬:‫וְ עֹוד‬ ‫ ְמ ַ ׂש ְּמחֹו‬:‫ְ ׂש ֵמ ִחים? ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ .‫ִ ּב ְכסוּת נְ ִקּיָ ה וְ יַ יִ ן יָ ׁ ָשן‬

Rava said: There are two possible responses to refute this. One is that the male goats of the Festivals are eaten rawn and are not eaten roasted. Being a non-essential part of the service, roasting the meat is forbidden on Shabbat. Therefore, the meat can be eaten only raw, and there is no rejoicing with raw meat. And furthermore, only the priests eat of the meat of these sin-offerings. With what then do ordinary Israelites rejoice?n Rather, Rav Pappa said: In such a situation, one rejoices with clean clothes and old wine.

:‫ִּכי ֲא ָתא ָר ִבין ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ‫ׁ ְש ָל ִמים ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ָח ָטן ֵמ ֶע ֶרב יֹום טֹוב יֹוצֵ א‬ ‫ וְ ֵאין יֹוצֵ א ָ ּב ֶהן‬,‫ָ ּב ֶהן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה‬ – ‫ יֹוצֵ א ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה‬.‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֲחגִ יגָ ה‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא‬.‫יחה ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה‬ ָ ‫ָלא ָ ּב ֵעינַן זְ ִב‬ ,‫חֹובה‬ ָ ‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֲחגִ יגָ ה – ָהוֵ י דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ְ ּב‬ ‫חֹובה ֵאינֹו ָ ּבא ֶא ָּלא ִמן‬ ָ ‫וְ ָכל דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ְ ּב‬ .‫ַהחו ִּּלין‬

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he related a different version of what Rabbi Elazar said: With regard to peaceofferings that one slaughtered on the eve of the Festival,h one fulfills with them the mitzva to bring peace-offerings of rejoicing, but one does not fulfill with them the mitzva to bring a Festival peaceoffering. He explains: One fulfills the mitzva of rejoicing, because we do not require that the slaughter be performed at the time of rejoicing as long as the offering is eaten at the time of rejoicing. But one does not fulfill the mitzva of the Festival peace-offering, because the Festival peace-offering is something that is an obligation, and the principle is that anything that is an obligation must come only from unconsecrated animals.

‫ית ַאךְ ָ ׂש ֵמ ַח״ – ְל ַר ּבֹות‬ ָ ִ‫ ״וְ ָהי‬:‫ית ִיבי‬ ִ ‫ֵמ‬ ‫ ַא ָּתה‬.‫ֵל ֵילי יֹום טֹוב ָה ַא ֲחרֹון ְל ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה‬ ,‫אֹומר ְל ַר ּבֹות ֵל ֵילי יֹום טֹוב ָה ַא ֲחרֹון‬ ֵ ‫אֹו ֵאינֹו ֶא ָּלא ְל ַר ּבֹות ֵל ֵילי יֹום טֹוב‬ – ‫‘א ְך׳‬ ַ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫אשֹון – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ׁ ‫ָה ִר‬ .‫ִח ֵּלק‬

The Gemara raises an objection against Ravin from the baraita that was taught above: “And you shall be but joyous” comes to include the last night of the Festival in the mitzva of rejoicing. The baraita considers: Do you say that the verse comes to include the last night in the mitzva of rejoicing? Or perhaps it comes to include only the first night of the Festival? Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall be but joyous”; the word “but” restricts this mitzva, meaning that there is not always a mitzva to be joyous.

‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – ָלאו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ֵאין לֹו‬ ‫ ָמ ה‬:‫ ִּכ ְד ַתנְ יָ א‬,‫ַ ּב ֶּמ ה יִ ְ ׂש ַמח? ל ֹא‬ ‫ית ְל ַר ּבֹות ֵל ֵילי יֹום טֹוב ָה ַא ֲחרֹון‬ ָ ‫ָר ִא‬ – ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ו ְּלהֹוצִ יא ֵל ֵילי יֹום טֹוב ָה ִר‬ ‫ַמ ְר ֶ ּבה ֲאנִי ֵל ֵילי יֹום טֹוב ָה ַא ֲחרֹון ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש‬ ‫ וּמֹוצִ יא ֲאנִי ֵל ֵילי יֹום‬,‫ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה ְל ָפנָיו‬ .‫אשֹון ׁ ֶש ֵאין ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה ְל ָפנָיו‬ ׁ ‫טֹוב ָה ִר‬

The Gemara explains how this baraita is difficult according to Ravin: What is the reason that we learn from here that it is specifically on the first night that there is no mitzva of rejoicing? Is it not because on the first night he has nothing with which to rejoice, as one cannot fulfill the mitzva of rejoicing with peace-offerings slaughtered not at a time of rejoicing? The Gemara rejects this argument: No, the reason is as it was taught in the continuation of the baraita: What did you see to include the last night of the Festival in the mitzva of rejoicing and to exclude the first night of the Festival? The baraita explains: I include the last night of the Festival, for there is rejoicing on the days of the Festival preceding it, and I exclude the first night of the Festival, for there is no day of rejoicing preceding it.

‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ְל ֵאימו ֵּרי ֲחגִ יגַ ת‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬ – ‫ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְפ ָס ִלין ְ ּב ִלינָ ה‬ ‫ ״וְ ל ֹא יָ ִלין ֵח ֶלב ַח ִ ּגי ַעד ּב ֶֹקר״‬:‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ ‫ימ ָרא דְּ ַהאי‬ ְ ‫ ְל ֵמ‬.‫אשית׳‬ ִ ׁ ‫יה ֵ‘ר‬ ּ ‫ו ְּס ִמיךְ ֵל‬ .‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ּ‘ב ֶֹקר׳ – ּב ֶֹקר ִר‬

Rav Kahana said: From where is it derived that the sacrificial parts of the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenthnh of Nisan, i.e., those portions of the offering that are consumed on the altar, are disqualified when left overnight on the first night after the offering is slaughtered, despite the fact that the meat of the offering may be consumed for an additional day? As it is stated: “You shall not offer the blood of My offering with leaven; neither shall the fat of my Festival offering be left over until morning” (Exodus 23:18), and, juxtaposed with it is the word first, in the verse: “The first of the first fruits of your land you shall bring to the house of the Lord your God” (Exodus 23:19). This comes to say to us that the morning mentioned in the first verse is the first morning after the offering has been sacrificed.

halakha

Peace-offerings that one slaughtered on the eve of the Festival – ‫ש ָל ִמים ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ָח ָטן ֵמ ֶע ֶרב יֹום טֹוב‬: ְ ׁ One can fulfill the mitzva to bring peace-offerings of rejoicing with a peace-offering that he slaughtered on the eve of the Festival, and he need not slaughter additional animals for this purpose during the time of rejoicing. The halakha follows Ravin and not Ulla, because Rabba and Rabbi Yosef challenged Ulla’s ruling. Although these questions were answered, Ravin’s opinion remained unchallenged and is therefore accepted (Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Ĥagiga 2:11). The sacrificial parts of the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth – ‫אימו ֵּרי ֲחגִ יגַ ת ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר‬: ֵ The sacrificial parts of the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth of Nisan are disqualified if they were left overnight without being burned (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 1:7).

38 

Perek VI . 71a . ‫אע ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ו‬

‫ ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ָכ ַתב‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב‬ – ‫אשית‬ ִ ׁ ‫אשית׳ ָהא ל ֹא ָּכ ַתב ֵר‬ ִ ׁ ‫ֵ‘ר‬ .‫ ַמאי ּ‘ב ֶֹקר׳ – ּב ֶֹקר ׁ ֵשנִי‬:‫ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬ ‫יה‬ ָּ ‫ִמי ִא‬ ּ ‫יכא ִמידֵּ י דְּ ָב ָ ׂשר ִא ְיפ ִסיל ֵל‬ ?‫ וְ ֵאמו ִּרין ַעד צַ ְפ ָרא‬,‫אֹור ָתא‬ ְ ‫ֵמ‬

Rav Yosef strongly objects to this proof: The reason is that it wrote the word first. But had it not written the word first, I would have said: What is the meaning of the term morning? The second morning after it was sacrificed. This raises a question: Is there anything like this where the meat of an offering that is to be eaten is disqualified already from the evening, as the meat of a Festival peace-offering may be eaten only for two days and the night between them, while the sacrificial parts to be consumed on the altar are permitted until the next morning?

‫ ַא ָּל ָּמה ָלא? וַ ֲה ֵרי‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ דְּ ָב ָ ׂשר‬,‫ּ ֶפ ַסח ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן ֲעזַ ְריָ ה‬ ‫יה ֵמ ֲחצֹות וְ ֵאמו ִּרין ַעד‬ ְ ‫ִא‬ ּ ‫יפ ִסיל ֵל‬ !‫צַ ְפ ָרא‬

Abaye said to him: Why not? For there is the Paschal offering according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who holds that the meat that is to be eaten is disqualified already from midnight and may no longer be eaten after that time, while the sacrificial parts to be consumed on the altar may be offered until morning.

‫יֹוסף ָה ִכי ָקא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ ֵ ‫ ַרב‬,‫ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ‫ דְּ ִא ּל ּו ַּת ָּנא‬,‫יכא ִמידֵּ י‬ ָּ ‫ ִמי ִא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫ וְ ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬,‫אשית‬ ִ ׁ ‫ְל ָב ָ ׂשר ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי ֵר‬ .‫אשית‬ ִ ׁ ‫ְל ֵאימו ִּרין ָ ּב ֵעי ֵר‬

Rava said: This is what was difficult to Rav Yosef: Is there anything like this, i.e., that the tanna does not need the word “first” to teach us that the word “morning,” written with regard to the meat of an offering, is referring to the first morning, whereas Rav Kahana requires the word “first” to teach us that the word “morning,” written with regard to the sacrificial portions to be consumed on the altar, is referring to the first morning? This is despite the fact that the latter, owing to their greater sanctity, are obviously more easily disqualified than the former.

‫ ״ל ֹא יָ ִלין ִמן‬:‫ ַמאי ִהיא – דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬The Gemara asks: What is this source alluded to by Rava? The ‫ ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ֲא ׁ ֶשר ִּתזְ ַ ּבח ָ ּב ֶע ֶרב ַ ּבּיֹום‬Gemara explains: As it was taught in a baraita with regard to – ‫אשֹון ַל ּב ֶֹקר״‬ ׁ ‫ ָה ִר‬the verse: “Nor shall any of the meat that you sacrifice on the first day at evening remain overnight until the morning” (Deuteronomy 16:4),

Perek VI Daf 71 Amud b ‫ימד ַעל ֲח גִ יגַ ת ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ָע ָ ׂשר‬ ֵּ ‫ִל‬ .‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ֶכ ֶלת ִל ׁ ְשנֵי יָ ִמים וְ ַליְ ָלה ֶא ָחד‬ ‫אֹו ֵאינֹו ֶא ָּלא ְליֹום וָ ַליְ ָלה? ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא‬ ‫אשֹון ַל ּב ֶֹקר״ – ֲה ֵרי‬ ׁ ‫״בּיֹום ָה ִר‬ ּ ַ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ .‫ּב ֶֹקר ׁ ֵשנִי ָאמוּר‬

this verse teaches that the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth is eaten for two days and one night; that is, it may not remain overnight until the morning of the sixteenth. Or perhaps it is eaten for only a day and a night; that is, it may not remain overnight until the morning of the fifteenth. Since for that it would have sufficed to say that an offering sacrificed “on the first day shall not remain overnight,” when it says that an offering sacrificed “on the first day shall not remain overnight until the morning” (Deuteronomy 16:4), the extra phrase “until the morning” indicates that the verse speaks of the second morning.

‫ ו ָּמה‬,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫אֹו ֵאינֹו ֶא ָּלא ּב ֶֹקר ִר‬ ‫ֲאנִי ְמ ַקּיֵ ים ֲחגִ יגָ ה ַה ֶּנ ֱא ֶכ ֶלת ִל ׁ ְשנֵי‬ .‫יָ ִמים וְ ַליְ ָלה ֶא ָחד – ח ּו ץ ִמּזֹו‬ ‫״אם נֶ ֶדר אֹו‬ ִ ‫אֹומר ּבֹו‬ ֵ ‫ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא‬ ‫ימד ַעל ֲחגִ יגַ ת ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ ֵּ ‫נְ ָד ָבה״ – ִל‬ ‫ָע ָ ׂשר ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ֶכ ֶלת ִל ׁ ְשנֵי יָ ִמים וְ ַליְ ָלה‬ .‫ֶא ָחד‬

There is still room to say: Or perhaps it is eaten only until the first morning, and how do I establish what the Torah says, that a Festival peace-offering may be eaten for two days and one night? This applies to Festival peace-offerings other than this one. The baraita explains: When it says with regard to a peaceoffering: “But if the sacrifice of his offering is a vow or a freewill offering, it shall be eaten on the same day that he sacrifices his offering; and on the morrow also, the remainder of it shall be eaten” (Leviticus 7:16), it teaches that any peace-offering, whether a vow or a free-will offering, or an obligation, including the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth, is eaten for two days and one night.



‫אע ףד‬: ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Perek VI . 71b 

39

notes

The entire other verse is referring to the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth – ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ּכו ֵּל‬ ‫ק ָרא ַל ֲחגִ יגַ ת ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ָע ָ ׂשר‬:ְ This does not contradict the view that the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth is optional rather than obligatory. The Torah established procedures and limits with regard to this offering even though it is optional, just as it did with regard to other peace-offerings, which are certainly optional. Is eaten for two days and one night – ‫נֶ ֱא ֶכ ֶלת‬ ‫ל ׁ ְשנֵי יָ ִמים וְ ַליְ ָלה ֶא ָחד‬:ִ Some of the tosafists argued that according to this gemara, the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth is governed by a unique halakha that permits it to be eaten for two days and two nights, for it becomes disqualified only on the second morning, i.e., that of the sixteenth, but on the night of the sixteenth it may still be eaten. The dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua – ‫יְהֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ‫יעזֶ ר וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֶ ‫יכו ַּח ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ּ ִ‫ו‬‎: In the Jerusalem Talmud it is noted that both these arguments can be refuted: Rabbi Yehoshua can refute Rabbi Eliezer’s argument by stating that one cannot ask a question with regard to an offering that can be changed into a different offering from the halakhot governing an offering that cannot be changed into a different offering. Rabbi Yehoshua’s argument can be refuted by pointing to the case of a Paschal lamb that was slaughtered for the sake of someone other than its owner, which is disqualified, even though the change was for something that is permitted, i.e., for a Paschal lamb. halakha

Offerings slaughtered for the purpose of a Paschal offering – ‫זְ ָב ִחים ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ְִש ֲחט ּו ְל ׁ ֵשם ּ ֶפ ַסח‬: With regard to one who unwittingly slaughtered on the eve of Passover that occurred on Shabbat an animal that had been consecrated as another offering for the purpose of a Paschal offering, if the animal was disqualified to be brought as a Paschal offering, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. If, however, it was fit to be brought as a Paschal offering, he is exempt. The halakha follows Rabbi Yehoshua, whose view is generally accepted when he disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Shegagot 2:12).

40 

Perek VI . 71b . ‫אע ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ו‬

,‫אשֹון״‬ ׁ ‫ ״אֹו ֵאינֹו ֶא ָּלא ּב ֶֹקר ִר‬:‫ָא ַמר ָמר‬ ‫״בּיֹום‬ ּ ַ ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ָהא ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא‬ !‫אשֹון ַ(ל ּב ֶֹקר)״ ֲה ֵרי ּב ֶֹקר ׁ ֵשנִי ָאמוּר‬ ׁ ‫ָה ִר‬ ‫ אֹו ֵאינֹו ֶא ָּלא ִ ּב ׁ ְש ֵּתי‬:‫ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ַא ַחת ֲחגִ יגַ ת‬,‫ֲחגִ יגֹות ַה ָּכתוּב ְמ ַד ֵ ּבר‬ ‫ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ָע ָ ׂשר וְ ַא ַחת ֲחגִ יגַ ת ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה‬ .‫בֹוק ָר ּה‬ ְ ‫בֹוק ָר ּה וְ זֹו ְל‬ ְ ‫ וְ זֹו ְל‬,‫ָע ָ ׂשר‬

The Master said above in the baraita: Or perhaps it is only the first morning. The Gemara asks: But you already said that when it says that any offering sacrificed “on the first day shall not remain overnight until the morning,” the extra phrase “until the morning” indicates that the verse speaks of the second morning. What need is there then to prove this a second time? The Gemara explains that this is what the baraita is saying: Or perhaps it is only that the verse is speaking about two different Festival peace-offerings, one being the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth and one the Festival peaceoffering of the fifteenth, and the halakha is that this, the Festival peaceoffering of the fourteenth, may be eaten for only a day and a night until its morning, the morning of the fifteenth, and this, the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth, may be eaten for only a day and a night until its morning, the sixteenth of Nisan.

‫ימא ָלן ֲחגִ יגָ ה‬ ָ ְ‫ ֶא ָּלא דְּ ָקי‬:‫ֲה ַדר ָא ַמר‬ ,‫ַה ֶּנ ֱא ֶכ ֶלת ִל ׁ ְשנֵי יָ ִמים וְ ַליְ ָלה ֶא ָחד‬ ‫״אם נֶ ֶדר אֹו נְ ָד ָבה״ ְ ּב ַמאי? ִאי‬ ִ ‫ִאם ֵּכן‬ ‫ֲחגִ יגַ ת ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ָע ָ ׂשר – ָהא ְּכ ִתיב ָ ּב ּה‬ – ‫ ִאי ֲחגִ יגַ ת ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר‬,‫יֹום וָ ַליְ ָלה‬ .‫ָהא ְּכ ִתיב ָ ּב ּה יֹום וָ ַליְ ָלה‬

It then says: But with regard to that which we maintain, that a Festival peace-offering may be eaten for two days and one night, if so, the verse that addresses a peace-offering and says: “But if the sacrifice of his offering is a vow or a free-will offering,” with regard to what case is it discussing? If it is talking about the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth, surely it is written about it, according to this interpretation, that it is eaten for only a day and a night. And if it is talking about the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth, surely it is written about it that it too is eaten for only a day and a night.

,‫ֶא ָּלא ַהאי ַל ֲח גִ יגַ ת ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר‬ ‫יה ְק ָרא ַל ֲחגִ יגַ ת ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ ְ ‫וְ ָה ֵא‬ ּ ‫יך ּכו ֵּל‬ ‫ימד ַעל ֲחגִ יגַ ת ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ָע ָ ׂשר‬ ֵּ ‫ ִל‬.‫ָע ָ ׂשר‬ .‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ֶכ ֶלת ִל ׁ ְשנֵי יָ ִמים וְ ַליְ ָלה ֶא ָחד‬

Rather, this verse that discusses a vow or free-will offering clearly must be discussing the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth, and the entire other verse: “Nor shall…remain overnight until the morning,” is referring to the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenthn and thus has taught that the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth is eaten for two days and one night.n

,‫אשֹון ַל ּב ֶֹקר״‬ ׁ ‫״בּיֹום ָה ִר‬ ּ ַ ‫ַט ְע ָמא דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ ָהא ָּכל ֵה‬.‫דְּ ַמאי ּב ֶֹקר – ּב ֶֹקר ׁ ֵשנִי‬ ,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫דִּ ְכ ִתיב ּב ֶֹקר ְס ָת ָמא – ּב ֶֹקר ִר‬ .‫אשית׳‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ֵ‘ר‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫וְ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ל ֹא ְּכ ַתב ֵ ּב‬

The Gemara returns to what it wanted to prove with regard to the term “first”: The reason is that it is written that an offering sacrificed “on the first day shall not remain overnight until the morning,” for what is the implication of the word morning? The second morning. We can infer from here that wherever the term morning is written unmodified and without further specification, it is referring to the first morning after the offering was sacrificed, even though the word “first” is not written in relation to “morning.” Thus, Rav Kahana’s derivation from the word “first” was unnecessary.

‫מתני׳ ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ָחטֹו ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִל ׁ ְשמֹו‬ .‫ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – ַחּיָ יב ָע ָליו ַח ָּטאת‬

mishna 

A Paschal lamb that one slaughtered for a different purpose on Shabbat, not knowing that it is prohibited for him to do so, is disqualified, and he is liable to bring a sin-offering for it because he unwittingly performed a prohibited labor on Shabbat.

‫ּו ׁ ְש ָאר ָּכל ַהּזְ ָב ִחים ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ָח ָטן ְל ׁ ֵשם‬ ‫ וְ ִאם‬,‫ ִאם ֵאינָ ן ְראוּיִ ין – ַחּיָ יב‬,‫ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ‫יעזֶ ר ְמ ַחּיֵ יב‬ ֶ ‫ְרא ּויִ ין ֵהן – ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ .‫ֹוטר‬ ֵ ‫הֹוש ַע ּפ‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי י‬,‫ַח ָּטאת‬

As for all other offerings, such as a peace-offering, that one unwittingly slaughtered on Shabbat for the purpose of a Paschal offering, if they were not fit for the Paschal offering, e.g., if they were female or cattle or more than a year old and clearly ineligible for the Paschal offering, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. Because he did not fulfill the mitzva to bring a Paschal offering, his act of slaughter was therefore unnecessary. And if they were fit, Rabbi Eliezer nevertheless deems him liable to bring a sin-offering for his unwitting transgression. But Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him, because he maintains that if someone intended to perform a mitzva, and despite his error he in fact performed a mitzva, he is not liable to bring a sin-offering. And in this case he performed a mitzva, because offerings that are sacrificed for a different purpose are still fit.h

‫ ָמה ִאם ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬:‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ִש ָּינה ֶאת‬,‫ׁ ֶשהוּא מו ָּּתר ִל ׁ ְשמֹו‬ ‫ זְ ָב ִחים ׁ ֶש ֵהן ֲאס ּו ִרין‬.‫ׁ ְשמֹו – ַחּיָ יב‬ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ִש ָּינה ֶאת ׁ ְש ָמן – ֵאינֹו דִּ ין‬,‫ִל ׁ ְש ָמן‬ :‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ּ ‫ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא ַחּיָ יב? ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ ִאם ָא ַמ ְר ָּת ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ִש ָּינה ּו ְ ּב ָד ָבר‬,‫ל ֹא‬ ‫ֹאמר ִ ּבזְ ָב ִחים ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ִש ּינָן ְ ּב ָד ָבר‬ ַ ‫ָאסוּר – ּת‬ .‫ַה ּמו ָּּתר‬

Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: If, with regard to the Paschal lamb, which is permitted to be slaughtered on Shabbat for its own purpose, when one changed its purpose he is nevertheless liable, then, with regard to other offerings that are forbidden to be slaughtered on Shabbat even for their own purpose, when one changed their purpose, is it not right that he should be liable? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, this reasoning is faulty. If you say that one is liable to bring a sin-offering if he slaughtered a Paschal lamb for a different purpose, it is because he changed its purpose for something forbidden, as the offering he intended it to be may not be slaughtered on Shabbat. But can you necessarily say the same thing about other offerings that he slaughtered for the purpose of a Paschal offering and thus changed their purpose for something that is permitted to be sacrificed on Shabbat?n

‫יבוּר‬ ּ ִ‫ ֵאימו ֵּרי צ‬:‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ֹוחט‬ ֵ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵהן מו ָּּת ִרין ִל ׁ ְש ָמן וְ ַה ׁ ּש‬,ּ‫יֹוכיחו‬ ִ :‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ּ ‫ִל ׁ ְש ָמן ַחּיָ יב! ָא ַמר ֵל‬ – ‫יבוּר‬ ּ ִ‫ ִאם ָא ַמ ְר ָּת ְ ּב ֵאימו ֵּרי צ‬,‫ל ֹא‬ – ‫ֹאמר ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ַ ‫ ּת‬,‫ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָל ֶהן ִקצְ ָ ּבה‬ .‫ׁ ֶש ֵאין לֹו ִקצְ ָ ּבה‬

Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Let the communal offerings,h such as the daily offering and the additional-offerings of Shabbat and the Festivals,n prove the matter, for they are permitted to be slaughtered on Shabbat for their own purpose, and nevertheless, one who unnecessarily slaughters a different offering for their purpose is liable. This indicates that even when a particular offering may be slaughtered, one is nevertheless liable if he slaughtered a different offering for the purpose of the permitted offering. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, if you say this halakha with regard to communal offerings, it is because they have a limit, as there is a specific number of communal offerings that must be offered on any particular day and there is no reason one would mistakenly sacrifice extra offerings for this purpose. But can you necessarily say the same thing about the Paschal lamb, which does not have a limit,n making it more likely for someone to make a mistake?

‫ֹוחט ְל ׁ ֵשם‬ ֵ ‫ ַאף ַה ׁ ּש‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬Rabbi Meir says: According to Rabbi Yehoshua, even one who .‫יבוּר ּ ָפטוּר‬ ּ ִ‫ ֵאימו ֵּרי צ‬unwittingly slaughters other offerings for the purpose of communal offerings beyond their daily limit is exempt for the same reason, i.e., that he intended to fulfill a mitzva that is permitted on Shabbat. ,‫אֹוכ ָליו וְ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִל ְמנוּיָ ו‬ ְ ‫ׁ ְש ָחטֹו ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ְל‬ ‫אֹוכ ָליו‬ ְ ‫ ְל‬.‫ָל ֲע ֵר ִלין וְ ַל ְּט ֵמ ִאין – ַחּיָ יב‬ ,‫ ִל ְמנוּיָ ו וְ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִל ְמנוּיָ ו‬,‫אֹוכ ָליו‬ ְ ‫וְ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ְל‬ – ‫הֹורין‬ ִ ‫ ַל ְּט ֵמ ִאין וְ ַל ְּט‬,‫ַל ּמו ִּלין וְ ָל ֲע ֵר ִלים‬ .‫ּ ָפטוּר‬

The mishna continues with another halakha with regard to the Paschal lamb: If one slaughtered a Paschal lamb on Shabbat and mistakenly intended it for those who cannot eat it, such as sick or elderly people who are unable to eat the meat, or for those who did not register for it, or for the sake of the uncircumcised or for those ritually impure, the offering is disqualified and he is liable to bring a sin-offering for his unnecessary act of slaughter. If, however, he slaughtered it for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, or for those who registered for it and for those who did not register for it, or for the circumcised and for those who are uncircumcised, or for those who are ritually impure and those who are ritually pure, he is exempt. Since a Paschal lamb slaughtered with dual intentions of these types is valid, the act of slaughter was justified.h

notes

One who slaughters for the purpose of communal offerings – ‫יבוּר‬ ּ ִ‫ֹוחט ְל ׁ ֵשם ֵאימו ֵּרי צ‬ ֵ ‫ה ׁ ּש‬:ַ The Rambam explains that this is referring to one who slaughters the Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan for the purpose of a daily offering or the additional offerings brought on Shabbat and Festivals. Limit – ‫קצְ ָ ּבה‬:ִ In the Jerusalem Talmud two opinions are cited with regard to the meaning of the term: Limit, in this context. One opinion is that daily offerings and additional offerings are different from Paschal offerings, in that the large numbers sacrificed as Paschal lambs makes it impossible to know exactly how many there really are. The other view is that the Torah did not limit the number of Paschal lambs that can override the halakhot of Shabbat. Based on the number of people who register for each offering, there will be a larger or smaller number of Paschal lambs. This is not the case with regard to daily offerings and additional offerings, where the Torah requires that a specific number of those offerings be brought. A blemished animal – ‫ב ַעל מוּם‬: ּ ַ The blemishes that serve to render an animal prohibited from being sacrificed as an offering are enumerated in the Torah (Leviticus 22:17–25) and explained in detail in tractate Bekhorot. A distinction is made between permanent blemishes and passing blemishes. Permanent blemishes, e.g., when an animal is missing a leg, disqualify an animal from being sacrificed as an offering forever. Passing blemishes also disqualify an animal for as long as it is suffering from that condition. Once the animal recovers, however, it can be brought as an offering. Tereifa – ‫ט ֵר ָיפה‬:ְ Generally speaking, a tereifa is an animal that is suffering from a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months. It is prohibited by the Torah to eat an animal that has been injured or is stricken with a disease of this nature, although the actual source for this prohibition is a matter of dispute. Some authorities cite Exodus 22:30: “You shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field,” while others suggest Deuteronomy 14:21: “You shall not eat of any thing that died of itself.” According to the Minĥat Ĥinukh and others, both verses together serve as the source for the prohibition.

.‫ ׁ ְש ָחטֹו וְ נִ ְמצָ א ַ ּב ַעל מ ּום – ַחּיָ יב‬If he slaughtered it and it was found to have a blemish,n the of.‫ ׁ ְש ָחטֹו וְ נִ ְמצָ א ְט ֵר ָיפה ַ ּב ֵּס ֶתר – ּ ָפטוּר‬fering is disqualified, and he is liable to bring a sin-offering for having unwittingly performed a prohibited labor on Shabbat, as he should have examined the animal before it was slaughtered. If he slaughtered it and it was found to have a hidden condition that would cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa]n and that could not have been discovered before the slaughter even if it were examined properly, the offering is disqualified, but he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. This is not a case of shogeg, unwitting violation of Shabbat, but rather of ones, an unavoidable accident. ‫נֹודע ׁ ֶש ָּמ ׁ ְשכ ּו ַה ְ ּב ָע ִלים ֶאת‬ ַ ְ‫ ׁ ְש ָחטֹו ו‬If he slaughtered it and afterward it became known that the own,‫ אֹו ׁ ֶש ּנ ְִט ְמא ּו – ּ ָפטוּר‬,ּ‫ אֹו ׁ ֶש ֵּמתו‬,‫ יָ ָדם‬ers had withdrawn from it and registered for a different Paschal .‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ַחט ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת‬lamb, in which case this one was slaughtered unnecessarily, as no one was registered for it, or it became known that they had died or became ritually impure, in all these cases he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, because he slaughtered with permission. At the time of the slaughter, he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the offering would be disqualified.h

halakha

Communal offerings – ‫יבוּר‬ ּ ִ‫אימו ֵּרי צ‬: ֵ One who unwittingly slaughters an animal to serve as an extra communal offering on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering, as stated in the mishna (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Shegagot 2:13).

who cannot eat it is liable to bring a sin-offering. If he intended it both for people who can eat it and also for people who cannot eat it, the offering is valid and he is not liable to bring a sin-offering (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Shegagot 2:12).

A disqualified Paschal lamb on Shabbat – ‫פ ַסח ּ ָפסוּל ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬:ֶ ּ One who slaughtered a Paschal lamb on Shabbat for people

A Paschal lamb found to have a disqualification – ‫ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמצָ א‬ ‫פסוּל‬:ָ ּ If one slaughtered a Paschal lamb on Shabbat and it was



found to have a hidden condition, such as a punctured intestine or lung, that would cause it to die within twelve months, or it turned out that the owners of the offering had withdrawn from it or had become ritually impure or had died, one is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, as he has slaughtered an offering that cannot be eaten (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Shegagot 2:10). ‫אע ףד‬: ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Perek VI . 71b 

41

Perek VI Daf 72 Amud a language

Multitude [okhlosa] – ‫לֹוסא‬ ָ ‫אֹוכ‬: ְ From the Greek ὄχλος, okhlos, meaning a multitude of people.

gemara 

When the mishna speaks of one who slaugh‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יל‬ ֵ ‫גמ׳ ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַ ן? ִא‬ tered a Paschal lamb on Shabbat for a different ‫ ֲע ִק ָירה‬:‫טֹועה – ׁ ָש ְמ ַע ְּת ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ ֶ ‫ְ ּב‬ purpose, with what precisely are we dealing? If you say we are dealing .‫עֹוקר‬ ֵ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב‬.‫ ְ ּב ָטעוּת ָהוְ יָ א ֲע ִק ָירה‬with one who erred in that he actually thought this was a different offering and not a Paschal offering, learn from it, i.e., from the fact that the offering is disqualified and he is therefore liable to bring a sinoffering, that the erroneous uprooting of the status of an offering constitutes uprooting, even though he had no intention to do so. It would, however, be surprising to find the mishna taking a stand on this issue, as we find elsewhere that it is the subject of an amoraic dispute (Tosafot). Rather, the mishna must certainly be referring to one who intentionally uprooted the animal’s designation as a Paschal lamb and offered it as a different offering. ‫ ּו ׁ ְש ָאר ָּכל ַהּזְ ָב ִחים‬:‫יפא‬ ָ ‫ימא ֵס‬ ָ ‫ֵא‬ ‫ ִאם ֵאינָ ן‬,‫ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ָח ָטן ְל ׁש ּום ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ִאם ְראוּיִ ין ֵהן‬.‫ְראוּיִ ין – ַחּיָ יב‬ ‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יעזֶ ר ְמ ַחּיֵ יב ַח ָּטאת וְ ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬ ‫עֹוקר – ַמה ִּלי ְראוּיִ ין ַמה‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ִאי ְ ּב‬.‫ֹוטר‬ ֵ ‫ּפ‬ ?‫ִּלי ׁ ֶש ֵאינָן ְראוּיִ ין‬

If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: As for all other offerings that one unwittingly slaughtered on Shabbat for the purpose of a Paschal offering, if they were not fit for the Paschal offering, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. And if they are fit, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him. Now if the mishna is referring to one who intentionally uprooted the original designation of the animal, which he knew was not a Paschal offering, what does it matter to me whether the animal was fit or unfit? He certainly does not think that he is performing a mitzva; why then does Rabbi Yehoshua exempt him from bringing a sin-offering?

‫עֹוקר‬ ֵ ‫ישא ְ ּב‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬.‫טֹועה‬ ֶ ‫יטא ְ ּב‬ ָ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬Rather, it is obvious that we must be dealing with one who erred. ,‫ ִאין‬:‫טֹועה?! ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ָא ִבין‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ֵס ָיפא ְ ּב‬But if so, we have a contradiction in the mishna, as the first clause is .‫טֹועה‬ ֶ ‫עֹוקר וְ ֵס ָיפא ְ ּב‬ ֵ ‫ישא ְ ּב‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬referring to one who intentionally uprooted the animal’s designation, whereas the latter clause is referring to one who erred about it. Rabbi Avin said: Yes, we must accept this conclusion even though it is unusual: The first clause deals with one who uprooted the animal’s designation, whereas the latter clause deals with one who erred about it. ‫יֹוסף ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֵ ‫יה ַרב יִ צְ ָחק ַ ּבר‬ ּ ‫ַא ׁ ְש ַּכ ֵח‬ ‫לֹוסא‬ ָ ‫אֹוכ‬ ְ ‫ַא ָ ּבה ּו דַּ ֲה וָ ה ָק ֵא י ְ ּב‬ ?‫נִיתין ַמאי‬ ִ ‫ ַמ ְת‬:‫יה‬ ֵ ׁ ‫דֶּ ֱא‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ֵל‬,‫ינָשי‬ ‫יפא‬ ָ ‫עֹוקר וְ ֵס‬ ֵ ‫ישא ְ ּב‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ,‫ימנִין‬ ְ ִ‫ֵיה ַא ְר ְ ּב ִעין ז‬ ֶ ‫ְ ּב‬ ּ ‫ ְּתנָ א ִמ ּינ‬.‫טֹועה‬ .‫יה‬ ֵ ‫יה ְּכ ַמאן דְּ ַמנְ ָחא ְ ּב ִכ‬ ּ ‫יס‬ ּ ‫וְ ָד ֵמי ֵל‬

The Gemara relates that Rav Yitzĥak bar Yosef once found Rabbi Abbahu standing among a multitude [okhlosa]l of people, and he said to him: What is the meaning of our mishna? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: The first clause is referring to one who intentionally uprooted the animal’s status, whereas the latter clause is referring to one who erred about it. Rav Yitzĥak bar Yosef learned this statement from him forty times,n and it seemed to him as though it were resting in his pouch; i.e., he repeated it many times until the mishna became crystal clear to him and etched in his memory.

‫ ָמה ִאם‬:‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫ְּתנַ ן‬ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ִש ָּינה ֶאת‬,‫ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֶש ּמו ָּּתר ִל ׁ ְשמֹו‬ ‫ זְ ָב ִחים ׁ ֶש ֵהן ֲאסו ִּרין‬,‫ׁ ְשמֹו – ַחּיָ יב‬ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ִש ָּינה ֶאת ׁ ְש ָמן – ֵאינֹו דִּ ין‬,‫ִל ׁ ְש ָמן‬ ‫יתא – ָהא ָלא‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא ַחּיָ יב! וְ ִאם ִא‬ !‫טֹועה‬ ֶ ‫עֹוקר וְ ֵס ָיפא ְ ּב‬ ֵ ‫ישא ְ ּב‬ ָ ׁ ‫ דְּ ֵר‬:‫דָּ ֵמי‬

The Gemara raises a difficulty with this understanding of the mishna: We learned in the continuation of the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: If with regard to the Paschal lamb, which is permitted to be slaughtered on Shabbat for its own purpose, when one changed its purpose he is nevertheless liable, then with regard to other offerings that are forbidden to be slaughtered on Shabbat even for their own purpose, when he changed their purpose is it not right that he should be liable? And if it is so that the two parts of the mishna are not talking about the same case, surely they are not similar and cannot be compared; as the first clause is referring to one who intentionally uprooted the animal’s status, whereas the latter clause is referring to one who erred about it.

notes

Learned this statement from him forty times – ‫ֵיה ַא ְר ְ ּב ִעין‬ ּ ‫ְּתנָ א ִמ ּינ‬ ‫ימנִין‬ ְ ִ‫ז‬: This expression and similar ones that appear in several places are connected to the method of study prevalent in talmudic times, which was primarily memorization that required a considerable amount of review. At times, when a scholar would

42 

Perek VI . 72a . ‫בע ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ו‬

hear something new that he wanted to remember well, especially if it was somewhat surprising, he would repeat it many times so that he would remember it precisely. Here too, Rabbi Abbahu’s response was unique in that it explained the mishna in an unusual manner, the likes of which was not ordinarily accepted.

‫ ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫יה‬ ֶ ‫ ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Eliezer, who put forward ּ ‫יעזֶ ר ָלא ׁ ָשנֵי ֵל‬ n !‫יה ָה ִכי‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ִל‬,‫יה‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ י‬this a fortiori argument, there is no difference, for in his opinion ּ ‫ישנֵי ֵל‬ ּ ‫הֹוש ַע דְּ ׁ ָשנֵי ֵל‬ someone who erred while intending to perform a mitzva is liable to bring a sin-offering, even if he made a reasonable mistake. Thus, he does not differentiate between the deliberate uprooting of the animal’s status and the erroneous sacrificing of the offering for a different purpose. The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Yehoshua, for whom there is a difference between the two cases, let him answer Rabbi Eliezer in this way, that the first clause of the mishna is referring to one who intentionally uprooted the status of an offering, while the latter clause is referring to one who erred about it. Why does he introduce another factor, that in the first clause he changed the animal’s purpose for something forbidden, whereas in the latter clause he changed it for something permitted? ‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬,‫ ְל ִד ִידי ָלא דָּ ֵמי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ ְל ִד ָיד ְך – ל ֹא‬.‫טֹועה‬ ֶ ‫עֹוקר וְ ֵס ָיפא ְ ּב‬ ֵ ‫ְ ּב‬ ‫ִאם ָא ַמ ְר ָּת ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ִש ָּינה ֶאת ׁ ְשמֹו‬ ‫ֹאמר ִ ּב ָזְב ִחים ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ִש ָּינה‬ ַ ‫ ּת‬,‫ְל ָד ָבר ָה ָאסוּר‬ .‫ֶאת ׁ ְש ָמן ְל ָד ָבר ַה ּמו ָּּתר‬

The Gemara explains that this is what Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer: According to me, these cases are not comparable, because the first clause deals with one who intentionally uprooted the animal’s designation, whereas the latter clause deals with one who erred about it. However, even according to you, who do not differentiate in this manner, I can still answer as follows: No, if you say that one is liable if he slaughtered a Paschal lamb for a different purpose, it is because he changed its purpose for something prohibited. But can you say the same thing about other offerings that he slaughtered for the purpose of a Paschal offering and thus changed their purpose for something permitted?

‫יבוּר‬ ּ ִ‫ ֵאימו ֵּרי צ‬:‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ֹוחט‬ ֵ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵהן מו ָּּת ִרין ִל ׁ ְש ָמן וְ ַה ׁ ּש‬,ּ‫יֹוכיחו‬ ִ ‫ ל ֹא‬:‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ָא ַמר לֹו ַר ִ ּבי י‬.‫ִל ׁ ְש ָמן ַחּיָ יב‬ ‫יבוּר – ׁ ֶש ֵּכן יֵ ׁש‬ ּ ִ‫ִאם ָא ַמ ְר ָּת ְ ּב ֵאימו ֵּרי צ‬ ‫ֹאמר ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח – ׁ ֶש ֵאין לֹו‬ ַ ‫ ּת‬,‫ָל ֶהן ִקצְ ָ ּבה‬ .‫ִקצְ ָ ּבה‬

The mishna continues with what Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Let the communal offerings prove the matter, for they are permitted for slaughter on Shabbat for their own purpose, and nevertheless, one who unnecessarily slaughters different offerings for their purpose is liable. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, if you said this halakha with regard to communal offerings, it is because they have a limit. But can you necessarily say the same thing with regard to the Paschal lamb, which does not have a limit?

‫יה ִקצְ ָ ּבה‬ ְ ‫ְל ֵמ‬ ּ ‫ימ ָרא דְּ ָכל ֵה ָיכא דְּ ִאית ֵל‬ ‫יְהֹוש ַע? וַ ֲה ֵרי ִּתינֹוקֹות דְּ ׁיֵש‬ ֻ ׁ ‫ְמ ַחּיֵ יב ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ִמי ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו לֹו ׁ ְשנֵי‬:‫ ו ְּתנַ ן‬,‫ָל ֶהן ִקצְ ָ ּבה‬ ‫ ֶא ָחד ְלמוּלֹו ַא ַחר ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬,‫ִּתינֹוקֹות‬ ‫ וְ ׁ ָש ַכח ו ָּמל ֶאת‬.‫וְ ֶא ָחד ְלמוּלֹו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ .‫ׁ ֶשל ַא ַחר ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – ַחּיָ יב‬

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that wherever there is a limit, Rabbi Yehoshua deems liable one who erred while intending to perform a mitzva? But with regard to the circumcision of babies on Shabbat, which has a limit,n we nevertheless learned in a mishna that with regard to one who had two babies to circumcise, one of whom he needed to circumcise after Shabbat and one of whom he needed to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one that should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. This is because he performed the prohibited labor of causing a wound not in the framework of performing a mitzva, as no obligation yet existed to circumcise the child.

‫ֶא ָחד ְלמוּלֹו ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת וְ ֶא ָחד ָלמוּל‬ ‫ וְ ׁ ָש ַכח ו ָּמל ֶאת ׁ ֶשל ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬,‫ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ,‫יעזֶ ר ְמ ַחּיֵ יב ַח ָּטאת‬ ֶ ‫ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ !‫ֹוטר‬ ֵ ‫הֹוש ַע ּפ‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי י‬

If, however, there were two babies, one of whom he needed to circumcise on Shabbat eve, and one of whom he needed to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one that he should have circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering. As circumcision after its appointed time does not override Shabbat, he has therefore unwittingly violated Shabbat. And Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him. Since he intended to perform a mitzva, and despite his error in fact performed a mitzva, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering.h Thus, we see that even though there is a limit in the case of the babies, Rabbi Yehoshua nevertheless exempts one who errs while intending to perform a mitzva.

notes

According to Rabbi Eliezer there is no difference – ‫ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫יה‬ ֶ ‫א ִל‬: ֱ Several commentaries explain that ּ ‫יעזֶ ר ָלא ׁ ָשנֵי ֵל‬ Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, which does not differentiate between deliberately and unwittingly uprooting the status of an offering, is based on his acceptance of the view of Beit Shammai that the erroneous consecration of property is effective. It stands to reason that if full intent is not necessary to establish the identity of an offering, then unintentionally uprooting the status of an offering should also be effective (Rabbi Elazar Moshe Horowitz). The circumcision of babies, which has a limit – ‫ִּתינֹוקֹות‬ ‫דְּ יֵ ׁש ָל ֶהן ִקצְ ָ ּבה‬: While in the Babylonian Talmud it is deemed certain that the case of circumcising babies has a limit, in the Jerusalem Talmud it is considered uncertain that this is correct. It seems that the reason for the doubt is that although there may be a limited number of babies physically present in any given situation, there is no specific limit to the number of babies who may be circumcised on Shabbat. This is different from the case of communal offerings, of which only a specific number are sacrificed on Shabbat.

halakha

One who had two babies to circumcise – ‫ִמי ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו לֹו ׁ ְשנֵי ִּתינֹוקֹות‬ ‫למוּל‬:ָ If one had two babies to circumcise, one that should have been circumcised on Shabbat and one on either Friday or Sunday, and he forgot and circumcised both on Shabbat, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, because he made his mistake while preoccupied with a mitzva. However, if neither of them was to be circumcised on Shabbat and he circumcised one of them on Shabbat, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. The Rambam ruled



in this regard in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua as explained by Rabbi Ĥiyya and Rabbi Yannai. This ruling is supported by the fact that the discussion in the Gemara with regard to circumcision seems to follow Rabbi Meir. With regard to offerings, however, the Rambam ruled against this view, because the talmudic discussion pertaining to offerings follows the opinion of Rabbi Shimon (Rabbi Avraham, son of the Rambam; Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Shegagot 2:8). ‫בע ףד‬. ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Perek VI . 72a 

43

notes

From Avel Arav – ‫מ ָא ֵבל ֲע ָרב‬:ֵ Some variant readings of the text omit these words. One commentator prefers the reading: From Ararav, or: Meir arav, which hints to the fact that Rabbi Meir is the one who says that the dispute is not referring to the eve of Shabbat (Ittur). And how can you understand – ‫וְ ִת ְס ְ ּב ָרא‬: Some commentaries explain that this expression of surprise is not a rejection of the previous question. Rather, it is a continuation of it, as if to say: The opinion of Rabbi Meir clearly cannot be based solely on the consideration of preoccupation. Rather, it must be understood as Rabbi Yannai explained it (Tosefot Rid).

– ‫ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי‬ ‫ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ָ ּק ַדם ו ָּמל ֶאת ׁ ֶשל ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫יכא ַה ְך דְּ ׁ ַש ָ ּבת דִּ ְט ִריד‬ ָּ ‫ דְּ ִא‬,‫ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫ ָה ָכא – ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ָ ּק ַדם ו ׁ ְּש ַח ִּטינְ ה ּו‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵ ּב‬ .‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫יבוּר ְ ּב ֵר‬ ּ ִ‫ְל ֵאימו ֵּרי צ‬

Rabbi Ami said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the circumciser first unwittingly circumcised the baby who should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat, when there is still this other baby who should be circumcised on Shabbat with whom he is preoccupied. Since he was legitimately preoccupied with a mitzva, as he knew that there was a baby that needed to be circumcised, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. Here, however, with regard to offerings, we are dealing with a case where he first slaughtered the required communal offerings at the beginning, so that there was no need to slaughter any more offerings, as communal offerings have a limit. Since he had no reason to make a mistake, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for having unnecessarily slaughtered an animal on Shabbat.

‫ֹוחט‬ ֵ ‫ ַאף ַה ׁ ּש‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬,‫ִאי ָה ִכי‬ ‫ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב‬.‫יבוּר ּ ָפטוּר‬ ּ ִ‫ְל ׁ ֵשם ֵאימו ֵּרי צ‬ ‫יב ּור‬ ּ ִ‫דְּ ָק ֵדים ּו ׁ ְש ַח ִּטינְ ה ּו ְל ֵאימ ּו ֵרי צ‬ ‫[מ ָא ֵבל‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא‬,‫ישא?! וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ְ ּב ֵר‬ ‫ ל ֹא נֶ ְח ְלק ּו ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ֲע ָרב] ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ ‫הֹוש ַע ַעל ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו לֹו ׁ ְשנֵי‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יעזֶ ר וְ ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬ ‫ ֶא ָחד ָלמוּל ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת וְ ֶא ָחד‬,‫ִּתינֹוקֹות‬ ‫ָלמוּל ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת וְ ׁ ָש ַכח ו ָּמל ֶאת ׁ ֶשל ֶע ֶרב‬ .‫ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – דְּ ַחּיָ יב‬

The Gemara asks: If so, how do we understand the continuation of the mishna, where Rabbi Meir says that according to Rabbi Yehoshua, even one who unwittingly slaughters other offerings for the purpose of communal offerings beyond their daily limit is exempt? According to our explanation, this must be true even though he first slaughtered the required communal offerings at the beginning. But didn’t Rabbi Ĥiyya from the village of Avel Aravn teach in a baraita another version of the dispute, according to which Rabbi Meir said: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree over one who had two babies to circumcise, one to circumcise on Shabbat eve and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat; in that case, everyone agrees that he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

‫ַעל ַמה ֶּנ ְח ְלק ּו – ַעל ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו לֹו ׁ ְשנֵי‬ ‫ ֶא ָחד ָלמוּל ַא ַחר ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬,‫ִתינֹוקֹות‬ ‫ וְ ׁ ָש ַכח ו ָּמל ֶאת‬,‫וְ ֶא ָחד ָלמוּל ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫ׁ ֶשל ַא ַחר ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ .‫ֹוטר‬ ֵ ‫הֹוש ַע ּפ‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ְמ ַחּיֵ יב ַח ָּטאת וְ ַר ִ ּבי י‬

With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to one who had two babies to circumcise, one to circumcise after Shabbat and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the baby who should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat, as Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him.

‫ וְ ִת ְס ְ ּב ָרא?! ַמה ָה ָתם דְּ ָלא ָע ֵביד‬The Gemara expresses surprise: And how can you understandn this ‫יכא דְּ ָקא‬ ָ ‫ ֵה‬,‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ִמצְ וָ ה – ּ ָפ ַטר ַר ִ ּבי י‬baraita in its current formulation? If there, in the latter clause, where !?‫ ָע ֵביד ִמצְ וָ ה ְמ ַחּיֵ יב‬he circumcised the baby who should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat, so that he did not perform a mitzva because the baby was not yet eight days old and the mitzva did not yet apply, Rabbi Yehoshua nevertheless exempted him because he erred while intending to perform a mitzva. Then where he did perform a mitzva, i.e., where he circumcised a baby on Shabbat who was already eight days old before Shabbat and to whom the mitzva of circumcision applied, would Rabbi Yehoshua deem him liable? ‫ישא ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ָ ּק ַדם‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬:‫ ָא ְמ ִרי דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי יַ ַּנאי‬The Rabbis of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: The first clause of ,‫ ו ָּמל ׁ ֶשל ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬the baraita is referring to a unique situation, where the circumciser first unwittingly circumcised on Shabbat eve the baby who should have been circumcised on Shabbat.

Perek VI Daf 72 Amud b ‫יפא‬ ָ ‫ [וְ ֵס‬.‫ ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא נִ ְּתנָ ה ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ִל ְדחֹות‬In that case, Shabbat does not stand to be overridden at all. Since .]‫ נִ ְּתנָ ה ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ִל ְדחֹות ֶאצְ לֹו‬the baby who should have been circumcised on Shabbat was already circumcised, and the only one left is the baby who should have been circumcised on Friday, the circumciser should have known that he has no circumcisions to perform on Shabbat, because a circumcision that was delayed beyond the eighth day does not override Shabbat. Therefore, he is liable if he performed the circumcision on Shabbat. In the latter clause, however, the circumcision was performed in a situation where Shabbat stands to be overridden for him, as the baby who should have been circumcised on Shabbat was not yet circumcised.

44 

Perek VI . 72b . ‫בע ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ו‬

‫ ָה ָכא – ֲה ֵרי נִ ְּתנָ ה ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ִל ְדחֹות ֵאצֶ ל‬Based on the understanding that everything depends on .‫יבוּר‬ ּ ִ‫ ָק ְר ַ ּבן צ‬whether or not Shabbat stands to be overridden, it may be argued that here too, Shabbat stands to be overridden with regard to a communal offering. Therefore, one who on Shabbat unwittingly slaughters other offerings for the purpose of communal offerings is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, because he knows that communal offerings must be brought on Shabbat, and consequently there is some justification for his error. ‫ ָה ָכא נַ ִמי‬:‫יה ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ְל ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ֲה ֵרי נִ ְּתנָ ה ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ִל ְדחֹות ֵאצֶ ל ִּתינֹוקֹות‬ ‫ ְלגַ ֵ ּבי דְּ ַהאי ַ ּג ְב ָרא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫דְּ ָע ְל ָמא! ָא ַמר ֵל‬ .‫יתיְ ִהיב‬ ְ ‫יהת ָלא ִא‬ ַ ‫ִמ‬

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana that this explanation is difficult: Here too, it may be argued that Shabbat stands to be overridden with regard to babies in general, as it is permitted to circumcise a baby whose eighth day occurs on Shabbat, and so there is some minimal justification for his mistake. Rav Kahana said to him: That is indeed so. However, with regard to this person, Shabbat does not stand to be overridden, as there is no longer any child who is supposed to be circumcised on Shabbat. Therefore, if he unwittingly performed a circumcision on Shabbat, it is not considered as if he performed a transgression while preoccupied with the performance of a mitzva.

‫״ ּו ׁ ְש ָאר ָּכל ַהּזְ ָב ִחים ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ָח ָטן ְל ׁשוּם‬ ‫ּ ֶפ ַסח ִאם ֵאינָן ְראוּיִ ין ַחּיָ יב וְ ִאם ְראוּיִ ין‬ ‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יעזֶ ר ְמ ַחּיֵ יב ַח ָּטאת וְ ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ֶ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ‫יה ֵ ּבין ְראוּיִ ין‬ ֵ ‫ּפ‬ ּ ‫ ַמאן ַּת ָּנא דְּ ׁ ָשנֵי ֵל‬.‫ֹוטר״‬ ?‫ְל ׁ ֶש ֵאינָן ְראוּיִ ין‬

We learned in the mishna with regard to all other offerings that one unwittingly slaughtered on Shabbat for the purpose of a Paschal offering, that if they were not fit for the Paschal offering, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, and if they were fit, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna that distinguishes between offerings that are fit for the Paschal lamb and those that are not fit?

‫ ֶא ָחד ַהּזְ ָב ִחים‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ִהיא‬ ‫ וְ ֵכן‬,‫ָה ְראוּיִ ין וְ ֶא ָחד ָזְב ִחים ׁ ֶש ֵאינָן ְראוּיִ ין‬ ,‫יבוּר – ּ ָפטוּר‬ ּ ִ‫ֹוחט ְל ׁ ֵשם ֵאימו ֵּרי צ‬ ֵ ‫ַה ׁ ּש‬ :‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬.‫דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ ‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יעזֶ ר וְ ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ֶ ‫ל ֹא נֶ ְח ְלק ּו ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ‫ ַעל ַמה‬,‫ַעל ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ן ְרא ּויִ ין ׁ ֶש ַחּיָ יב‬ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ׁ ֶש ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬.‫ֶּנ ְח ְלק ּו – ַעל ָה ְראוּיִ ין‬ .‫ֹוטר‬ ֵ ‫הֹוש ַע ּפ‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי י‬,‫ְמ ַחּיֵ יב ַח ָּטאת‬

The Gemara explains: It is Rabbi Shimon, as it was taught in a baraita: If one unwittingly slaughters other offerings on Shabbat for the purpose of a Paschal offering, whether they are offerings that are fit for the Paschal lamb or they are offerings that are not fit, and similarly, if he unwittingly slaughters other offerings for the purpose of communal offerings on Shabbat, he is exempt from bringing a sinoffering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree about one who slaughtered offerings that are not fit, for in that case all agree that he is liable. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to one who slaughtered offerings that are fit, for Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him. This indicates that the unattributed ruling of our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

‫ֹוטר‬ ֵ ‫ ּפ‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ֵ ּב ָיבי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ּ ‫ָהיָ ה ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ֲא ִפ‬ ‫יל ּו ֵעגֶ ל ׁ ֶשל זִ ְב ֵחי‬ ‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫ׁ ְש ָל ִמים ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ָחטֹו ְל ׁשוּם ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ‫ וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫יה ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא ְל ַרב ֵ ּב ָיבי‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫מֹודה ָהיָ ה ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ְ ּב ַב ֲע ֵלי‬ ֶ ‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ ְ ּב ַב ֲע ֵלי מו ִּמין – ָלא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫מו ִּמין! ָא ַמר ֵל‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫ וְ ַהאי – ְט ִריד ֵ ּב‬,ּ‫ְט ִריד ְ ּבהו‬

Rav Beivai said that Rabbi Elazar said: Rabbi Meir would exempt him even in the case of a calf of a peace-offering that he slaughtered for the purpose of the Paschal offering, even though one does not ordinarily mistake a calf for a lamb. Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Beivai: But didn’t Rabbi Yoĥanan say that Rabbi Meir conceded that if one slaughtered blemished animals on Shabbat he is liable to bring a sin-offering? He said to him: With regard to blemished animals, he is not at all preoccupied with them, because he knows that they are ineligible to be offered as sacrifices. But as for this calf, he is preoccupied with sacrificing it as an offering, and he may therefore make a mistake.

‫ חו ִּּלין‬:‫ֵיה ָר ָבא ֵמ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ ּ ‫ְ ּב ָעא ִמ ּינ‬ ?‫ְל ׁשוּם ּ ֶפ ַסח ַמאי ִלי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ ‫ֹוטר ָהיָ ה ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬ ֵ ‫ ּפ‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ .‫חו ִּּלין ְל ׁשוּם ּ ֶפ ַסח‬

Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naĥman: If one unwittingly slaughtered an unconsecrated animal for the purpose of a Paschal offering, what would Rabbi Meir say? Would he exempt him in this case as well? Rav Naĥman said to him: Rabbi Meir would exempt him even if he slaughtered an unconsecrated animal for the purpose of a Paschal offering.



‫בע ףד‬: ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Perek VI . 72b 

45

notes

One confused leftover sacrificial meat with roasted sacrificial meat – ‫נֹותר ְ ּבצָ ִלי‬ ָ ‫נִ ְת ַח ֵּלף לֹו‬: In the Jerusalem Talmud there is a different reading, according to which Reish Lakish maintains that one who intended to perform a mitzva is exempt from bringing a sin-offering only if he actually performs some mitzva, whereas Rabbi Yoĥanan is of the opinion that it suffices if he intended to perform a mitzva. Therefore, in the case of the two spits, Rabbi Yoĥanan says that he is exempt, in accordance with one of the formulations in the Gemara. Levirate marriage – ‫יִבוּם‬: ּ A man whose brother died without children is obliged by Torah law to marry his deceased brother’s widow or grant her ĥalitza (see Deuteronomy 25:5–10). As long as neither levirate marriage nor ĥalitza has taken place, it is prohibited for her to marry another man. According to the Torah, levirate marriage is effected by the act of sexual intercourse. The Sages, however, instituted the practice of ma’amar, in which the deceased husband’s brother betroths the widow, even though this betrothal is not effective by Torah law without intercourse. Sexual relations consummate the marriage between the deceased’s brother and the widow, and she is thereafter considered his wife in all respects. Nowadays, in most Jewish communities the brother-in-law is required to free his brother’s widow of her obligation through ĥalitza, and he is not allowed to marry her through levirate marriage.

‫מֹודה ָהיָ ה ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֶ :‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬Rava asked him: But didn’t Rabbi Yoĥanan say that Rabbi Meir ‫ ֵמ ִאיר ְ ּב ַב ֲע ֵלי מו ִּמין! ַ ּב ֲע ֵלי מו ִּמין‬concedes that if one slaughtered blemished animals on Shabbat he .‫יח ְּל ִפי‬ ַ ‫ ָהנֵי – ִמ‬,‫יח ְּל ִפי‬ ַ ‫ ָלא ִמ‬is liable to bring a sin-offering, as they are never sacrificed as offerings, and similarly, unconsecrated animals are never sacrificed as offerings? Rav Naĥman responded: There is room for a distinction. Blemished animals cannot be confused with unblemished ones, and so there is no legitimate reason for error; but these, i.e., unconsecrated animals, can easily be confused with consecrated animals, as they are externally indistinguishable from one another, and therefore one who confuses them is exempt. ‫יחלּ ֵֹופי‬ ַ ‫וְ ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ִא‬ ‫ֹופי?! וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַרב ֵ ּב ָיבי‬ ֵ ‫יח ּל‬ ַ ‫וְ ָלא ִא‬ ‫ֹוטר ָהיָ ה ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֵ ‫ ּפ‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ‫ֵמ ִאיר ֲא ִפילּ ּו ֵעגֶ ל ׁ ֶשל זִ ְב ֵחי ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬ :‫ ַא ְל ָמא‬.‫ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ָחטֹו ְל ׁש ּום ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ – ‫ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דִּ ְט ִריד‬

Rava asked further: And is Rabbi Meir’s reason really that these can be confused and these cannot be confused with a legitimate offering? But didn’t Rav Beivai say that Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Meir would exempt him even in the case of a calf of a peaceoffering that he slaughtered for the purpose of the Paschal offering, even though there is no way to mistake a calf for an animal that can be brought for the Paschal offering? Therefore, it is apparent that Rabbi Meir’s reason is that he is preoccupied with sacrificing the calf as an offering, and consequently he is exempt if he erred and slaughtered it for the purpose of a Paschal lamb. But why should one be exempt if he brought an unconsecrated animal for the purpose of a Paschal offering? He is not preoccupied with bringing it as an offering.

‫ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ָלא‬,‫ ְט ִריד‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ .‫ ִמ ַח ַּלף ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ָלא ְט ִריד‬,‫ִמ ַח ַּלף‬ ‫יחלּ ֵֹופי‬ ַ ‫ דְּ ָלא ִא‬,‫ְל ַא ּפ ֵֹוקי ַ ּב ֲע ֵלי מו ִּמין‬ .‫ִמ ַח ַּלף וְ ָלא ַמ ְט ִריד ְט ִריד‬

Rav Naĥman said to him: Both reasons apply according to Rabbi Meir. If one is preoccupied with bringing the animal as an offering, he is exempt even though the animal cannot easily be confused with the one he was supposed to sacrifice. And when the animal can easily be confused with the one set aside as an offering, he is exempt, even though he is not preoccupied with bringing it as an offering. This comes to exclude blemished animals, which cannot be confused with unblemished animals and with whose sacrifice he is not preoccupied.

‫יְ ֵתיב ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר ַרב‬ ‫יִ צְ ָחק ַא ִּק ְיל ָעא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר‬ ‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫ וְ יָ ְת ִבי וְ ָקא ָא ְמ ִרי‬,‫ַרב יִ צְ ָחק‬ ‫ נִ ְת ַח ֵּלף לֹו‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬ ‫נֹותר ְ ּב ׁ ַש ּפוּד ׁ ֶשל צָ ִלי‬ ָ ‫ׁ ַש ּפוּד ׁ ֶשל‬ .‫וַ ֲא ָכלֹו – ַחּיָ יב‬

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzĥak were sitting on the porch of Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzĥak, and they sat and said: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: If one unwittingly confused a spit of leftover sacrificial meat, which it is prohibited to eat and which makes one liable to receive the punishment of karet when one eats it intentionally, with a spit of roasted sacrificial meat,n which is a mitzva to eat, and he ate it, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. Although he intended to do a mitzva, since he unwittingly transgressed the prohibition against eating leftover sacrificial meat, he must bring a sin-offering.h

halakha

Leftover sacrificial meat was confused with roasted sacrificial meat – ‫נֹותר ְ ּבצָ ִלי‬ ָ ‫נִ ְת ַח ֵּלף‬: If one confused a spit of leftover sacrificial meat with a spit of roasted sacrificial meat that is still valid and ate it, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. The Rambam ruled in accordance with the view that Rabbi Yoĥanan and Reish Lakish did not disagree on this matter (Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Shegagot 2:16). His wife and his sister-in-law who was waiting for levirate marriage – ‫א ׁ ְש ּתֹו וִ ִיב ְמ ּתֹו‬:ִ If one unwittingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his sister-in-law, who was to become his wife through levirate marriage, while she was menstruating, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, because he was involved in the fulfillment of a mitzva. If, however, he unintentionally engaged in sexual intercourse with his wife while she was menstruating, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, because he is not shy about clarifying her status, and he should have done so. The rationale for the Rambam’s ruling is that the answer with regard to a man’s shyness or lack thereof concerning his wife and his sister-in-law is that the Gemara’s final conclusion stands on its own and is not a continuation of the previous answers (Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Shegagot 2:8).

– ‫ ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו נִ דָּ ה ָ ּב ַעל‬:‫יֹוחנָן ָא ַמר‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬And they further reported that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: If one unwit.‫ ִיְב ְמ ּתֹו נִ דָּ ה ָ ּב ַעל – ּ ָפטוּר‬,‫ ַחּיָ יב‬tingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his wife while she was menstruating, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. But if he unwittingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his sister-in-law who was waiting to become his wife through levirate marriage while she was menstruating, he is exempt, because the act of intercourse itself is a mitzva.h A man whose brother died without children is obliged by Torah law to marry his deceased widow and “come to her” (Deuteronomy 25:5), so that even if he mistakenly transgressed while attempting to fulfill the mitzva, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering.n ‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ְ ּב ַה ִהיא‬:‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬The Gemara attempts to determine whether Rabbi Yoĥanan agrees .‫ דְּ ל ֹא ָע ָ ׂשה ִמצְ וָ ה‬,‫ דִּ ְמ ַחּיֵ יב‬or disagrees with Reish Lakish’s ruling: Some say that all the more so in the first case, where one unwittingly ate a spit of leftover sacrificial meat, Rabbi Yoĥanan would deem him liable to bring a sin-offering, for he did not actually perform a mitzva when he ate the meat, even though he intended to do so. This stands in contrast to the second case, where the person unwittingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his wife while she was menstruating, where he at least performed a small mitzva, as will be explained shortly.

46 

Perek VI . 72b . ‫בע ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ו‬

‫ ַמאי‬.‫ ְ ּב ַה ִהיא ּ ָפט ּור‬:‫ִאית דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ,‫ּיֹולי‬ ֵ ‫יה ְל ׁ ַש‬ ּ ‫ַט ְע ָמא? ָה ָתם הוּא דַּ ֲהוָ ה ֵל‬ – ‫ּיֹולי‬ ֵ ‫יה ְל ׁ ַש‬ ּ ‫ֲא ָבל ָה ָכא דְּ ָלא ֲהוָ ה ֵל‬ .‫ָלא‬

Others say that according to Rabbi Yoĥanan in that case where one ate leftover sacrificial meat, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. What is the reason? There, where he had sexual intercourse with his wife while she was menstruating, he is liable, for he should have asked her if she was menstruating, and because he failed to do so he is liable to bring a sin-offering. But here, where he ate a spit of leftover sacrificial meat, he did not have anyone to ask, and so he is not liable to bring a sin-offering.

‫ ַמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ִיְב ְמ ּתֹו – דְּ ָקא‬,‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yoĥanan, what is ‫ ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו נַ ִמי ָקא ָע ֵביד‬,‫ ָע ֵביד ִמצְ וָ ה‬different about one who unwittingly engaged in sexual inter.‫ ִמצְ וָ ה! ְ ּב ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו ְמעו ֶ ּּב ֶרת‬course with his sister-in-law, in that he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering? Is it that he performed a mitzva, i.e., the mitzva of levirate marriage? If so, then also in the case where he unwittingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his wife while she was menstruating, he performed a mitzva, for he occupied himself in the fulfillment of the mitzva of procreation. The Gemara answers that we are dealing here with a case where his wife is pregnant, such that intercourse cannot lead to procreation. ‫יכא ִ ׂש ְמ ַחת עֹונָ ה! ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא‬ ָּ ‫ וְ ָהא ִא‬The Gemara raises another question: Nevertheless, there is the .‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת עֹונָ ָת ּה‬mitzva of the enjoyment of conjugal rights. One of a husband’s marital obligations is to engage in sexual intercourse with his wife at regular intervals (see Exodus 21:10), and this is considered a mitzva. The Gemara answers that we are talking about a case where it is not the time of her conjugal rights. ‫ ַחּיָ יב ָא ָדם ְל ׁ ַש ֵּמ ַח‬:‫ וְ ָה ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬The Gemara asks further: Even so, didn’t Rava say that a man h .‫וס ָּת ּה‬ ְ ִ‫ ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו ְ ּב ָד ָבר ִמצְ וָ ה! ָסמוּךְ ְלו‬is obligated to please his wife through a mitzva? That is to say, he must engage in sexual intercourse with her when she so desires, even if it is not the time of her conjugal rights. The Gemara answers that we are dealing with a case where it was near her expected date of menstruation, when sexual relations are prohibited due to a concern that the woman may already be menstruating or that she may begin to menstruate during the sexual act. ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if they engaged in sexual intercourse ‫יל ּו ִיְב ְמ ּתֹו נַ ִמי! ִיְב ְמ ּתֹו‬ .‫ ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו ָלא ָ ּבזֵ יז ִמ ָּינ ּה‬,‫ ָ ּבזֵ יז ִמ ָּינ ּה‬near the woman’s expected date of menstruation when he should have refrained from doing so, then even in the case where he had sexual intercourse with his sister-in-law and she turned out to be menstruating, he should also be liable, as the mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply at that time. The Gemara explains that with regard to his sister-in-law, he is still shy [ba­ zeiz]l in front of hern and uncomfortable asking her whether she is close to her expected menstruation date, whereas with regard to his wife, he is not shy in front of her, and so he should have asked her. ‫ימא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָ ‫יל‬ ֵ ‫יֹוחנָ ן ְּכ ַמאן? ִא‬ ָ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ יֹום‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יֹוסי – דִּ ְתנַ ן‬ ֵ ‫אשֹון ׁ ֶשל ַח ג ׁ ֶש ָחל ִל ְהיֹות‬ ׁ ‫טֹוב ָה ִר‬ ‫ וְ ׁ ָש ַכח וְ הֹוצִ יא ֶאת ַה ּלו ָּלב‬,‫ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶשהֹוצִ יא‬,‫ִל ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים – ּ ָפטוּר‬ .‫ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת‬

halakha

To please his wife through a mitzva – ‫ל ׁ ַש ֵּמ ַח ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו ְ ּב ָד ָבר ִמצְ וָ ה‬:ְ If a man sees that his wife wishes to have sexual intercourse with him, he is obligated to please her even if it is not the time of his conjugal duty, in accordance with the Gemara. The Rambam derived from this that a man should only engage in sexual intercourse with his wife amid their mutual consent and joy (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 240:1). One who carries his lulav out on Sukkot – ‫ה ּמֹוצִ יא לו ָּלב ְ ּבסו ּּכֹות‬:ַ If one carried a lulav out into the public domain on the first day of Sukkot that occurs on Shabbat, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, because he carried it out with the intent to perform a mitzva (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Shegagot 2:10). language

Shy [bazeiz] – ‫בזֵ יז‬:ּ ָ Apparently, the variant reading of the Arukh, which is kaziz, is preferable. Kaziz is from the Aramaic root koz, which means to be shy or fearful. It is close to the Arabic ‫ه ّزة‬, hazzah, meaning fear or trembling. notes

He is shy in front of her – ‫יְב ְמ ּתֹו ָ ּבזֵ יז ִמ ָּינ ּה‬: ִ According to several commentators, this last answer supersedes the previous ones, which are no longer necessary. The difference between a man’s wife and his sister-in-law is not that he does not fulfill a mitzva while engaging in sexual intercourse with his wife, but rather that a man is not shy about asking his wife if she is menstruating. In the case of his sister-in-law, on the other hand, he is shy about asking this question, and therefore he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. background

Lulav – ‫לו ָּלב‬:ּ The lulav, one of the four species, played a significant role in the Temple during Sukkot as it is only in the Temple that biblical decree states the four species must be lifted for all seven days of the Festival. Toward the end of the Second Temple period the lulav was widely used as a Jewish symbol. The image shows a coin minted during the bar Kokheva revolt, 132–136 CE. The facade of the Temple is imprinted on one side (left); a lulav and etrog are imprinted on the other.

Coin imprinted with the Temple, lulav, and etrog

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yoĥanan, in accordance with whose opinion did he rule with regard to one who erred while engaged in a mitzva? If you say he ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Yosei says: If the first Festival day of the festival of Sukkot occurs on Shabbat, and he forgot and carried his lulavb out into the public domain and continued to transport it there, unwittingly performing a prohibited labor, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. That is because he carried it out with permission, that is to say, he was acting with the intention of fulfilling a mitzva.h

.‫ דִּ ְיל ָמא ׁ ָשאנֵי ָה ָתם דִּ זְ ַמנּ ֹו ָ ּבהוּל‬There is room to differentiate between Rabbi Yosei’s ruling and that of Rabbi Yoĥanan: Perhaps it is different there, as he is pressed for time. Since by Torah law the mitzva of lulav applies only one day a year, he is anxious to fulfill the mitzva and therefore does not realize that he is violating a Torah prohibition. This is unlike the case of levirate marriage, which need not be performed at any specific time and about which he is less pressured. 

‫בע ףד‬: ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Perek VI . 72b 

47

notes

A priest was eating teruma – ‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ ‫ָהיָ ה‬ ‫ב ְּתרו ָּמה‬: ּ ַ Rabbi Akiva Eiger notes that the Gemara could have proposed that Rabbi Yoĥanan’s ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to the case mentioned earlier in that same mishna, for Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree there whether or not the wife of a priest, who ate teruma and then found out that her husband had died, must pay the extra fifth. This argument is, however, incorrect, for the wife of the priest had actually been permitted to eat teruma until her husband died. Therefore, she is different from a priest who found out that he was disqualified from priesthood due to his blemished lineage, in which case he had never been permitted to eat teruma to begin with (Minĥat Ĥinukh; Rashash; Rabbi Yehuda Bakhrakh). Rabbi Yehoshua validates them – ‫יְהֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫מ ְכ ׁ ִשיר‬:ַ The Rambam rules that even if a disqualified priest performs the sacrificial service after finding out that he is disqualified, which he is not permitted to do, the offering remains valid after the fact. Support for this position can be derived from the Jerusalem Talmud, where it is stated that this verse pertains to service performed by members of the tribe of Levi, indicating that the service of anyone of priestly descent is valid after the fact. I was performing service – ‫בֹודה ָע ַב ְד ִּתי‬ ָ ‫ע‬:ֲ Even though Torah study is generally considered more important than the fulfillment of other mitzvot, Rabbi Tarfon maintains that the actual fulfillment of mitzvot is more significant than Torah study (Ha’amek She’eila).

‫הֹוש ַע דִּ זְ ָב ִחים – דִּ ְיל ָמא ָה ָתם‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ וְ ֶא ָּלא ַר ִ ּבי י‬Rather, one might say that Rabbi Yoĥanan issued his ruling in accordance .‫ נַ ִמי זְ ַמנּ ֹו ָ ּבהוּל‬with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua in our mishna with regard to offerings, for according to Rabbi Yehoshua, one who unwittingly slaughtered another offering on Shabbat for the purpose of a Paschal offering, and the animal was fit to be brought as a Paschal offering, is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. Here too, however, there is room to differentiate. Perhaps there also we can say that Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him because he is pressed for time. ‫הֹוש ַע דְּ ִתינֹוקֹות – ָה ָתם נַ ִמי‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ וְ ֶא ָּלא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי י‬Rather, one might say that Rabbi Yoĥanan’s ruling is in accordance with .‫ זְ ַמנּ ֹו ָ ּבהוּל‬the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to babies, one that should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve and the other on Shabbat, and the circumciser forgot and circumcised the one that should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat. In that case the circumciser is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. But once again there is room to differentiate: Perhaps there too, Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him because he is pressed for time. ‫ ָהיָ ה‬:‫הֹוש ַע דִּ ְתרו ָּמה – דִּ ְתנַן‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫וְ ֶא ָּלא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ‫נֹודע ׁ ֶשהוּא ֶ ּבן ְ ּגרו ׁ ָּשה אֹו‬ ַ ְ‫אֹוכל ַ ּב ְּתרו ָּמה ו‬ ֵ ,‫חֹומ ׁש‬ ֶ ָ‫יעזֶ ר ְמ ַחּיֵ יב ֶק ֶרן ו‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫ֶ ּבן ֲחלוּצָ ה‬ .‫ֹוטר‬ ֵ ‫הֹוש ַע ּפ‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ַר ִ ּבי י‬

Rather, we should say that Rabbi Yoĥanan’s ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to teruma, as we learned in a mishna: If a priest was eating teruma,n and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or a woman who underwent ĥalitza and he is therefore disqualified from the priesthood and may not eat teruma, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to pay the value of the principal and an additional fifth, like any non-priest who unwittingly ate teruma, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him.h In this case, one who thought he was a priest and therefore fulfilling a mitzva when he ate the teruma was actually committing a transgression, but nevertheless, Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him from the ordinary penalty. On the face of it, this is similar to Rabbi Yoĥanan’s ruling.

‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב ֵ ּב ָיבי‬.‫ דִּ ְיל ָמא ִּכ ְד ַרב ֵ ּב ָיבי ַ ּבר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬This comparison can, however, be rejected, for perhaps that case should ‫ דִּ זְ ַמ ָּנ ּה‬,‫ ַ ּב ְּתרו ָּמה ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬:‫ ַ ּבר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rav Beivai bar Abaye. .‫ ָ ּבהוּל‬For Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: The mishna is talking about a disqualified priest who ate teruma which is leaven on the eve of Passover, whose time is pressing, because if he does not eat it quickly he will have to burn it. ,‫בֹודה‬ ָ ‫יק ֵרי ֲע‬ ְ ‫ ׁ ָשאנֵי ְּתרו ָּמה דְּ ִא‬:‫ ִאי נַ ִמי‬Alternatively, there may be another reason to differentiate: Eating teruma .‫בֹודה ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ַא ְכ ׁ ַשר‬ ָ ‫ וַ ֲע‬is different, because it is called sacred service, and the Merciful One validates service performed by someone of priestly descent even if he is not fit for the priesthood. ‫נֹודע ׁ ֶשהוּא‬ ַ ְ‫עֹומד ו ַּמ ְק ִריב ו‬ ֵ ‫ ָהיָ ה‬:‫דִּ ְתנַ ן‬ ‫ֶ ּבן ְ ּגרו ׁ ָּשה אֹו ֶ ּבן ֲחלוּצָ ה – ָּכל ַה ָ ּק ְר ָ ּבנֹות‬ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ּכו ָּּלן ׁ ֶש ִה ְק ִריב ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח ּ ְפסו ִּלין‬ ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרינַן‬.‫הֹוש ַע ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫י‬ ‫״ב ֵרךְ ה׳ ֵחילֹו ּופ ַֹעל יָ ָדיו‬ ּ ָ :‫הֹוש ַע – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫י‬ .‫ִּת ְרצֶ ה״‬

As we learned in a mishna: If a priest was standing and sacrificing offerings on the altar, and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or the son of a woman who underwent ĥalitza, all the offerings that he offered on the altar until that time are disqualified, because only service performed by a priest deemed fit is acceptable. And Rabbi Yehoshua validates them.nh And we said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehoshua? As it is written with regard to the tribe of Levi: “Bless, Lord, his substance and accept the work of his hands” (Deuteronomy 33:11), which teaches that after the fact, God accepts the work of a priest’s hands, even if it becomes clear that he was actually disqualified at the time he performed the service.

:‫בֹודה – דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬ ָ ‫יק ֵרי ֲע‬ ְ ‫יכא ִא‬ ָ ‫ו ְּתרו ָּמה ֵה‬ ‫ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ַט ְרפֹון ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ָ ּבא ֶא ֶמ ׁש ְל ֵבית‬ ‫ ָא ַמר‬,‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ ְל ׁ ַש ֲח ִרית ְמצָ אֹו ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬.‫ַה ִּמ ְד ָר ׁש‬ ?‫את ֶא ֶמ ׁש ְל ֵבית ַה ִּמ ְד ָר ׁש‬ ָ ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ָמה ל ֹא ָ ּב‬:‫לֹו‬ ָ‫ ָּכל דְּ ָב ֶריך‬:‫ ָא ַמר לֹו‬.‫בֹודה ָע ַב ְד ִּתי‬ ָ ‫ ֲע‬:‫ָא ַמר לֹו‬ ‫בֹודה ַ ּבּזְ ַמן‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִכי ֲע‬,‫ימ ּה‬ ַ ‫ֵאינָ ן ֶא ָּלא דִּ ְב ֵרי ֵּת‬ ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ֲה ֵרי הוּא‬:‫ַהּזֶ ה ִמ ּנַיִ ן? ָא ַמר לֹו‬

The Gemara questions what was stated above: And where is teruma called service? The Gemara explains: As it was taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabbi Tarfon, who did not come in the evening to the study hall. In the morning, Rabban Gamliel found him and said to him: For what reason did you not come in the evening to the study hall? He said to him: I was performing sacred service.n He said to him: All your words are astonishing; from where do we have service in this time after the destruction of the Temple? He said to him: It says in Scripture:

halakha

A priest who was eating teruma and it became known that he was disqualified – ‫נֹודע ׁ ֶשהוּא ּ ָפסוּל‬ ַ ְ‫אֹוכל ַ ּב ְּתרו ָּמה ו‬: ֵ If a priest was eating teruma and discovered that he was the son of a divorced woman or a woman who underwent ĥalitza and was therefore disqualified from the priesthood, he must pay the value of the teruma he consumed, but not the extra fifth. If the teruma was leaven and it was the eve of Passover, when he is

48 

Perek VI . 72b . ‫בע ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ו‬

pressed for time he is exempt even from paying the principal. Apparently, the Rambam ruled that Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him only from the payment of the extra fifth, and that the Gemara’s two answers are not mutually exclusive (Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Terumot 10:12). A priest who was sacrificing offerings and it became known

that he was disqualified – ‫נֹודע ׁ ֶשהוּא ּ ָפסוּל‬ ַ ְ‫כ ֵֹהן ׁ ֶש ִה ְק ִריב ו‬:ּ If a priest performed a sacrificial service and discovered that he was disqualified from the priesthood, his past service is valid but he may not continue to perform the service. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, since the talmudic discussion in tractate Kiddushin adopts his view (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Biat HaMikdash 6:10).

Perek VI Daf 73 Amud a “I have given you the priesthood as a service of gift; and the ‫בֹודת ַמ ָּתנָ ה ֶא ֵּתן ֶאת ְּכ ֻה ַּנ ְת ֶכם וְ ַהּזָ ר‬ ַ ‫״ע‬ ֲ ‫ ַה ָ ּק ֵרב יו ָּמת״ – ָע ׂש ּו ֲא ִכ ַילת ְּתרו ָּמה‬stranger that comes near shall be put to death” (Numbers .‫בֹודת ֵ ּבית ַה ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬ ַ ‫ ַ ּב ְ ּגבו ִּלין ַּכ ֲע‬18:7). This verse is found in the context of the priestly gifts, including teruma, and comes to teach us that they made the eating of teruma in the outlying areas, i.e., outside the Temple, like the service of the Temple. ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן‬,‫יטא‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬.‫אֹוכ ָליו״‬ ְ ‫״ש ָחטֹו ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ְל‬ ְ ׁ We learned in our mishna that if one unwittingly slaughtered ּ ‫ דְּ ָה ָתם ּ ָפסוּל ָה ָכא ַחּיָ יב! ִמ ׁשוּם דְּ ָתנָ א‬the Paschal lamb on Shabbat for those who cannot eat it or for .‫ישא ַחּיָ יב‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ֵס ָיפא ּ ָפטוּר – ָּתנָ א ֵר‬those who did not register for it, he is liable to bring a sinoffering. The Gemara asks: It is obvious. Since there, with regard to the slaughter itself, it is invalid, here, with regard to Shabbat, he is liable,n for it turns out that he performed a prohibited labor that was not necessary for sacrificing an offering. The Gemara answers: Since the latter clause of the mishna taught cases in which he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, the first clause taught cases in which he is liable, even though it does not really teach us anything new. ‫יטא – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָה ָתם ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬ ָ ‫וְ ָהא נַ ִמי ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ ‫ ַאּיְ ֵידי דְּ ָתנָ א ׁ ְש ָחטֹו‬:‫ָה ָכא ּ ָפטוּר! ֶא ָּלא‬ ‫ ָּתנָ א נַ ִמי ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא‬,‫ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִל ׁ ְשמֹו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ‫ וְ ִהיא גּ ו ָּפא ָל ָּמה ִלי? ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬.‫אֹוכ ָליו‬ ְ ‫ְל‬ ‫יעזֶ ר וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֶ ‫יפלֹוגֵ י ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ְ ‫דְּ ָק ָב ֵעי ְל ִא‬ .‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫י‬

The Gemara asks: But this also is obvious, since there, the offering is valid, here with regard to Shabbat he is exempt, as the slaughter did not involve a desecration of Shabbat. Rather, since the mishna taught the case of one who slaughtered the Paschal lamb for a different purpose on Shabbat, it also taught the case of one who slaughtered it for those who cannot eat it. The Gemara asks further: And it itself, the case of slaughtering the Paschal offering for a different purpose, why do I need it? The halakha there is also obvious. The Gemara answers: Since the mishna wished to teach the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, it taught all these other halakhot as well.

‫ ִּכי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ַרב הוּנָ א ַ ּבר ִח ָּיננָ א ִל ְב ֵר‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ :‫ֵיה‬ ּ ‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי זְ ִר ָיקא ְ ּב ֵעי ִמ ּינ‬ ּ ‫ָאזְ ַל ְּת ְל ַק ֵּמ‬ ,‫אֹומר ְמ ַק ְל ֵקל ְ ּב ַח ּבו ָּרה ּ ָפטוּר‬ ֵ ‫ְל ִד ְב ֵרי ָה‬ ּ ֵ ‫ ַמה ִּת‬.‫אֹוכ ָליו ַחּיָ יב‬ ?‫יקן‬ ְ ‫ׁ ְש ָחטֹו ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ְל‬

The Gemara relates that Rav Huna bar Ĥinnana said to his son: When you go before Rabbi Zerika, ask him: According to the opinion that says that one who inflicts a destructive wound is exempt, i.e., that one who causes a wound on Shabbat that has no constructive effect but rather is purely destructive in nature has not performed a prohibited labor and is therefore exempt from bringing a sin-offering, how are we to understand the mishna’s ruling that one who slaughtered the Paschal lamb for those who cannot eat it is liable? Since the slaughter is invalid, he should be seen as having wounded the animal in a way that brings no benefit and is simply destructive. What has he improvedn through the slaughter that he should be liable for having performed a prohibited labor?n

notes

Since there it is invalid, here he is liable – ‫ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ָה ָתם ּ ָפסוּל ָה ָכא‬ ‫חּיָ יב‬:ַ In the Jerusalem Talmud it is discussed that there is not always a clear correlation between these two halakhot, for in certain situations one is exempt from bringing a sin-offering for having slaughtered the offering, but the offering is nevertheless invalid. ּ ֵ ‫מה ִּת‬:ַ Tosafot and other commenWhat has he improved – ‫יקן‬ taries posit that for the purposes of the halakhot of Shabbat, it is not necessary for the constructive element of the action to be as significant as the destructive element. Indeed, on Shabbat, as long as there is some constructive effect, it is enough to define the action as planned, thoughtful, and creative labor [melekhet maĥshevet], for which one is liable. One who slaughtered it for those who cannot eat it…what ּ ֵ ‫יו…מה ִּת‬ has he improved – ‫יקן‬ ַ ‫אֹוכ ָל‬ ְ ‫ש ּל ֹא ְל‬: ֶ ׁ Some of the commentaries ask: What has he improved when he slaughtered the Paschal lamb for the purpose of a different offering? The Maharsha answers that he has prevented it from attaining the status of leftover sacrificial meat. The Sefat Emet clarifies the Maharsha’s answer: Since he slaughtered it as a peace-offering rather than as a Paschal lamb, he may keep the meat for an additional day, like a regular peace-offering, rather than having to finish it in one night like a Paschal lamb. ּ ֵ ‫ת‬:ִּ He has improved it if it was on the eyelid – ‫יקן ְ ּבדו ִּּקין ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ַעיִ ן‬ All blemishes mentioned in the Torah are treated alike with regard to the prohibition against offering a blemished animal, but nevertheless Rabbi Akiva distinguishes between blemishes that disqualify a bird from being sacrificed as an offering and those that do not. A bird is disqualified only if it is missing a limb. Smaller blemishes disqualify an animal, but the disqualification is not absolute. Therefore, if the sacrificial parts of an animal that has a small blemish ascended to the top of the altar, they do not descend from it.

ּ ֵ ‫ ִּת‬The Gemara answers: He has improved it in that if the sacrificial .ּ‫ ִאם ָעל ּו – ל ֹא יֵ ְרדו‬,‫יקן‬ parts of the offering ascended to the top of the altar, they do not descend. The halakha is that if the sacrificial parts of a disqualified offering are inadvertently brought up to the top of the altar, they need not be removed and they may be burned on the altar. Thus, the slaughter had some constructive effect. ‫ ַמה‬.‫ׁ ְש ָחטֹו וְ נִ ְמצָ א ַ ּב ַעל מוּם – ַחּיָ יב‬ ּ ֵ ‫יקן? ִּת‬ ּ ֵ ‫ִּת‬ ‫יבא‬ ּ ָ ‫ וְ ַא ִּל‬,‫יקן ְ ּבדו ִּּקין ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ַעיִ ן‬ ‫ ִאם ָעל ּו – ל ֹא‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ .ּ‫יֵ ְרדו‬



The Gemara asks further: We learned in the mishna that if one slaughtered the Paschal lamb and it was found to have a blemish, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. Here too, it may be asked: What has he improved through the slaughter, so that he should be liable? The Gemara answers: He has improved it if the blemish was small, e.g., if it was on the animal’s eyelid,n and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said that in the case of an offering with such a small blemish, if its sacrificial parts ascended to the top of the altar, they do not descend from it, because it is not a disgrace to the altar for the sacrificial parts of such an offering to be burned on it. ‫גע ףד‬. ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Perek VI . 73a 

49

halakha

If one slaughtered it and it was found to be a tereifa – ‫ש ָחטֹו וְ נִ ְמצָ א ְט ֵר ָיפה‬: ְ ׁ If one slaughtered a Paschal lamb on Shabbat and it was found to have an externally visible condition that would cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], he is liable to bring a sin-offering, because he should have examined the animal beforehand (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Shegagot 2:10). A sin-offering on Shabbat outside the Temple for idolatry – ‫בֹודה זָ ָרה‬ ָ ‫ח ָּטאת ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ַ ּבחוּץ ַל ֲע‬:ַ If one unwittingly slaughtered a sin-offering on Shabbat outside of the Temple for the purpose of idolatry and he said that his intention was to worship with the animal at the time of the completion of the slaughter, he is liable to bring three sin-offerings (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Shegagot 4:1). A guilt-offering whose owner has died or whose owner has achieved atonement – ‫ָא ׁ ָשם ׁ ֶש ֵּמת ּו ְ ּב ָע ָליו אֹו‬ ‫ש ִּנ ְת ַּכ ּ ְפר ּו ְ ּב ָע ָליו‬: ֶ ׁ A guilt-offering whose owners have died or achieved atonement through a different offering is left to graze until it develops a blemish. It is then sold and the proceeds are used to purchase a free-will burnt-offering (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 4:14). notes

From the category of limbs from a living creature – ‫מ ֵידי ֵא ֶבר ִמן ַה ַחי‬:ִ Rashi and others understand that the improvement brought about by slaughtering the animal is that the prohibition against eating the limb of a living creature that governs even gentiles no longer applies to this animal. Others explain that there is a practical difference for Jews as well: The prohibition against eating the limb of a living creature applies to even a minimal amount, less than an olive-bulk. On the other hand, the prohibition against eating meat dedicated to idolatry applies only when one consumes an olive-sized piece of meat (Rabbeinu Ĥananel; Me’iri). A limb from a living animal – ‫א ֶבר ִמן ַה ַחי‬:ֵ The prohibition against eating flesh taken from a living animal is one of the seven Noahide commandments that are universal laws binding on all mankind. They are the prohibition against idolatry, the prohibition against murder, the prohibition against incest and adultery, the prohibition against robbery and kidnapping, the prohibition against blasphemy, the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal, and the obligation to establish courts of law. A gentile who disobeys one of these commandments is liable to receive the death penalty. Death and grazing – ‫יתה ו ְּר ִעּיָ ה‬ ָ ‫מ‬:ִ When an animal becomes disqualified from being sacrificed as an offering, the disqualification is sometimes so severe that the animal must be removed from the world. Actively killing the animal is prohibited, as one may not cause a consecrated animal to acquire a blemish. The animal is therefore locked away in a sealed area without food until it dies on its own. If the disqualification is less severe, the animal is left to graze in the field until it develops a blemish. At that point, the animal may be sold, and the proceeds from the sale are used to buy an offering of the same type or of a different type, depending on the circumstances.

,‫ ׁ ְש ָחטֹו וְ נִ ְמצָ א ְט ֵר ָיפה ְ ּב ֵס ֶתר – ּ ָפטוּר‬We learned in the next clause of our mishna that if one slaughtered ּ ֵ ‫יקן? ִּת‬ ּ ֵ ‫ ַמה ִּת‬.‫ ָהא ְ ּבגָ לוּי – ַחּיָ יב‬the Paschal lamb and it was found to have a hidden condition that ‫יקן‬ .‫ ְלהֹוצִ יא ִמ ֵידי נְ ֵב ָילה‬would cause it to die withinhtwelve months [tereifa], he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. The mishna’s wording indicates that if the animal’s condition is visible, its owner is liable. It may be asked: What has he improved by slaughtering an animal with a such a condition? The Gemara answers: He has improved it in that he removed it from the category of an animal carcass [neveila], i.e., an animal that died of natural causes or as the result of an improperly carried out act of ritual slaughter. Had the animal died on its own it would have been treated as a neveila, which is a primary source of ritual impurity, rendering those who touch or carry it ritually impure. Proper slaughter of the animal prevents it from falling into that category and imparting ritual impurity. ‫ֹוחט‬ ֵ ‫ ַה ׁ ּש‬:‫ ָהא דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,‫ ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ָר ִבינָא‬Ravina strongly objects to this: With regard to that which was – ‫בֹודה זָ ָרה‬ ָ ‫ ַח ָּטאת ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ַ ּבחוּץ ַל ֲע‬taught elsewhere in a baraita, that one who unwittingly slaughters a h ּ ֵ ‫ ַמה ִּת‬,‫ ַחּיָ יב ָע ֶל ָיה ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ַח ָּטאֹות‬sin-offering on Shabbat outside the Temple for the sake of idolatry ?‫יקן‬ is liable to bring three sin-offerings for it: For desecrating Shabbat, for slaughtering an offering outside the Temple, and for practicing idolatry; here too, the question may be raised: What has he improved by slaughtering the animal? Here we cannot answer that he removed it from the category of an animal carcass and prevented it from becoming a primary source of ritual impurity, because any animal that was used as an idolatrous offering imparts ritual impurity. Therefore, it would seem that the slaughter served no constructive purpose. ‫ ׁ ֶש ּמֹוצִ יאֹו ִמ ֵידי ֵא ֶבר‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ֲעוִ ָירא‬Rav Avira said: Even here he has improved it in that he removed it n .‫ ִמן ַה ַחי‬from the category of limbs from a living creature. Even a gentile is liable if he eats meat taken from a living animal,n but once the animal is slaughtered there is no longer any liability. Accordingly, even this act of slaughter has achieved a productive result. ‫ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬.‫נֹודע וכו׳״‬ ַ ְ‫״ש ָחטֹו ו‬ ְׁ ‫ִיתק ִל ְר ִעּיָ ה ו ׁ ְּש ָחטֹו‬ ַּ ‫ ָא ׁ ָשם ׁ ֶש ּנ‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב‬ :‫ ַא ְל ָמא ָק ָס ַבר‬.‫עֹולה‬ ָ ‫ְס ָתם – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר ְל‬ .‫ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי ֲע ִק ָירה‬

‫נִיתק נַ ִמי! ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ְל ַא ַחר‬ ַּ ‫ ִּכי ל ֹא‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬The Gemara asks: If so, even when it has not yet been consigned to .‫ ַּכ ּ ָפ ָרה ַא ּט ּו ִל ְפנֵי ַּכ ּ ָפ ָרה‬grazing, it should also be valid, for any guilt-offering whose owner has achieved atonement through a different offering is presumably going to be brought as a free-will burnt-offering. The Gemara answers: This invalidation stems from a rabbinic decree with regard to a guiltoffering after its owner achieved atonement with a different offering due to concern about a guilt-offering before its owner achieved atonement with a different offering. Before the owner achieves atonement the animal is certainly considered a guilt-offering; it is only after the owner achieves atonement that the offering becomes valid for use as a burnt-offering, and then by strict halakha it is immediately valid for that purpose, even before the animal develops a blemish. ‫ ָא ׁ ָשם ׁ ֶש ֵּמת ּו‬:‫ימ ָרא – דִּ ְתנַ ן‬ ְ ‫ו ְּמנָ א ֵּת‬ ‫ְ ּב ָע ָליו אֹו ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַּכ ּ ְפר ּו ְ ּב ָע ָליו – יִ ְר ֶעה ַעד‬ .‫ וְ יִ ָּמ ֵכר וְ יִ ּ ְפל ּו דָּ ָמיו ִלנְ ָד ָבה‬,‫ׁ ֶשּיִ ְס ָּת ֵאב‬ ‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ַר ִ ּבי י‬.‫ יָ מוּת‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ .‫עֹולה‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִיָביא ְ ּב ָד ָמיו‬,‫ יִ ָּמ ֵכר‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ

50 

Perek VI . 73a . ‫גע ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ו‬

We learned in the mishna that if one slaughtered the Paschal lamb and it became known afterward that the owners had died, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. Rav Huna said that Rav said: Regarding a guilt-offering that was consigned to grazing: If the owner of a guilt-offering dies or achieves atonement through a different guilt-offering, the animal is sent out to graze in the field until it develops a blemish, at which point it can be sold. The money from the sale is used to purchase a burnt-offering. And if, before it developed a blemish, someone slaughtered it without specifying its purpose, it is valid as a burnt-offering. The Gemara concludes that Rav apparently holds that it does not require uprooting. There is no need for an explicit declaration in order to change the status of the offering; even if it is slaughtered without its purpose specified it is valid.

From where do you say that this is the case? As we learned elsewhere in a mishna: A guilt-offering whose owner has died or whose owner has achieved atonementh through a different guilt-offering grazes until it becomes unfit, whereupon it is sold and its money is used for a communal free-will burnt-offering. Rabbi Eliezer says: This guilt-offering is made to die on its own.n Rabbi Yehoshua says: When it develops a blemish, it is sold, and he brings a burnt-offering for himself with its money.

‫ דְּ גָ זַ ר‬,‫ ֲא ָבל גּ וּפֹו – ָלא‬,‫ ְ ּב ָד ָמיו – ִאין‬This indicates that according to Rabbi Yehoshua, as soon as the owner ‫ ׁ ְש ַמע‬,‫ ְל ַא ַחר ַּכ ּ ָפ ָרה ַא ּט ּו ִל ְפנֵי ַּכ ּ ָפ ָרה‬achieves atonement, his animal loses its status as a guilt-offering and .‫ ִמ ָּינ ּה‬it becomes a burnt-offering. Nevertheless, even he says that the animal that is bought with its money may indeed be brought as a burntoffering, but the guilt-offering itself must not be sacrificed as a burntoffering. Undoubtedly, his reason must be that the Sages issued a decree with regard to a guilt-offering after its owner achieved atonement with a different offering, due to concern about a guilt-offering before its owner achieved atonement with a different offering. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is correct. ‫“ש ָחטֹו‬ ְ ׁ :‫יה ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א ְל ַרב הוּנָ א‬ ּ ‫ ֵא ִית ֵיב‬Rav Ĥisda raised an objection to Rav Huna with regard to his opinion .“‫נֹודע ׁ ֶש ָּמ ׁ ְשכ ּו ְ ּב ָע ִלים ֶאת יָ ָדם וכו׳‬ ַ ְ‫ ו‬about uprooting the status of an offering from what we learned in our mishna: If one slaughtered a Paschal lamb on Shabbat and afterward it became known that the owners had withdrawn from it and registered for a different one, or that they had died or become ritually impure, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, because he slaughtered with permission.

Perek VI Daf 73 Amud b – ‫ ַ ּבחֹול ִּכי ַהאי ַ ּגוְ נָ א‬:‫וְ ָתנֵי ֲע ָל ּה‬ ‫ ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ָ ּב ֵעי‬.‫יִ ּ ָ ׂש ֵרף ִמּיָ ד‬ ‫ וְ ֵכיוָ ן דְּ ֵלית‬,‫ֲע ִק ָירה – ַהאי ּ ֶפ ַסח הוּא‬ ,‫יה ּ ְפסוּלֹו ְ ּבגוּפֹו‬ ּ ‫יה ְ ּב ָע ִלים – ֲהוָ ה ֵל‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ .‫ַא ְּמט ּו ְל ָה ִכי יִ ּ ָ ׂש ֵרף ִמּיָ ד‬

And it was taught in a baraita with regard to this mishna that on a weekday, in a case like this, where it turns out that there is no one to eat the Paschal offering, it should be burned immediately.h Granted, if you say that an offering that has no owner requires uprooting from its previous status in order for its status to change and in the absence of explicit uprooting it retains its original status, here too it can be argued that this is still a Paschal offering. And since it has no owners, its disqualification is in the body of the offering itself, because it was sacrificed for no purpose, and therefore it should be burned immediately.

– ‫ֶא ָּלא ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי ֲע ִק ָירה‬ ‫ ּ ְפסוּלֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬.‫יה ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬ ָ ׁ ‫ֵמ ֵר‬ ּ ‫ישא ֲהוָ ה ֵל‬ ‫ דְּ ָקא ׁ ָש ֵחיט‬,‫ַמאי – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר‬ ‫יבוּר‬ ּ ‫ ִע‬,‫יה ַא ַחר ָּת ִמיד ׁ ֶשל ֵ ּבין ָה ַע ְר ַ ּביִ ם‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ !‫צו ָּרה ָ ּב ֵעי‬

But if you say that an offering such as this does not require uprooting, but rather its original status is automatically void upon the death of its owner, and it was a peace-offering from the beginning, as a Paschal offering whose status has been revoked is considered a peace-offering, due to what then is its disqualification? Due to something else, i.e., that he slaughtered it after the daily afternoon offering, which is the proper time to slaughter the Paschal lamb. But a peace-offering that is slaughtered then is disqualified. In that case, however, it should require that it be left overnight until its form decays,n thus attaining the status of leftover sacrificial meat, and only then should it be burned.

halakha

On a weekday it should be burned immediately – ‫חֹול…יִש ֵרף ִמּיָ ד‬ ָׂ ּ ‫ב‬:ּ ַ If a Paschal lamb was slaughtered after it was known that its owners had died or withdrawn their participation, it should be burned immediately (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 4:3).

– ‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶש ּ ְפסוּלֹו ְ ּבגוּפֹו‬:‫ זֶ ה ַה ְּכ ָלל‬,‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬As it was taught in a baraita: This is the principle: Any offering whose ‫ ַ ּבדָּ ם ו ַּב ְ ּב ָע ִלים – ְּתעו ַ ּּבר‬,‫ יִ ּ ָ ׂש ֵרף ִמּיָ ד‬disqualification is in the body of the offering itself should be burned .‫ וְ יֵ צֵ א ְל ֵבית ַה ּ ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה‬,‫ צו ָּרתֹו‬immediately and without delay. But if the disqualification is in the blood of the offering or in the owners, the meat must be kept overnight, so that its form is allowed to decay, and only then should it be taken out to the place of burning.n Thus, the baraita that says that a Paschal lamb that was slaughtered on a weekday, and afterward it became known that the owners had died, should be burned immediately proves, against the opinion of Rav Huna, that an offering that has no owners still requires explicit uprooting from its previous status for its status to change.n notes

Its form decays – ‫יבוּר צו ָּרה‬ ּ ‫ע‬:ִ Rashi explains that decay of form means that the meat of the offering is left overnight past its normal time limit, at which point it acquires the status of leftover sacrificial meat and should be burned. Rabbeinu Ĥananel and the Rambam appear to have understood the phrase literally: The disqualified meat is left until it rots or decays and no longer looks like regular meat.

was situated to the southeast of the altar. It was to here that the ashes were first removed from the altar every day, and where the ashes from the candelabrum were placed as well. In addition, there were two other places where the ashes were deposited. One was on the Temple Mount, where sacrificial bulls and goats that had become disqualified were burned, while the other was outside Jerusalem, where the ashes from offerings of bulls and goats that were burned according to their sacrificial requirements were brought.

The place of burning – ‫יפה‬ ָ ‫בית ַה ּׂ ְש ֵר‬: ּ ֵ The place of burning includes the three places where consecrated objects that required burning were set on fire. It is also where the ashes from The Paschal offering and the guilt-offering – ‫פ ַסח וְ ָא ׁ ָשם‬:ֶ ּ The the Temple were brought. An alternative name for it is the place Gemara’s question is based upon a comparison between the of the ashes. In the Temple courtyard the place of burning halakhot pertaining to a Paschal offering and those pertaining



to a guilt-offering. The relationship between these two offerings is based on a particular similarity between the unique halakhot that apply to each. In general, an animal that is consecrated as a particular offering retains its status indefinitely. A guilt-offering is unique in that if it becomes disqualified, the animal is redeemed and the money is used to bring a burntoffering. The Paschal lamb is governed by a similar halakha: If it is not sacrificed at its proper time, it automatically becomes a peace-offering. It is due to this unique similarity that the details pertaining to how and when a Paschal lamb becomes a peace-offering are relevant to the halakhot that apply to a guilt-offering. ‫גע ףד‬: ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Perek VI . 73b 

51

halakha

If one slaughtered a guilt-offering consigned to grazing as a burnt-offering, it is valid – ‫ׁ ְש ָחטֹו ְל ׁשוּם‬ ‫עֹולה ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬: ָ If a guilt-offering that was consigned to grazing was slaughtered as a burnt-offering, it is valid. However, it is not offered as a burnt-offering ab initio due to a decree lest some guilt-offerings be offered as burnt-offerings even before their owners have achieved atonement (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 4:15).

notes

Fit and rejected – ‫נִ ְר ֶאה וְ ְנִד ֶחה‬: The policy of rejecting animals or objects that were from the outset unfit for their intended purpose or that were originally fit and later became unfit applies not only to the halakhot of offerings but to other areas of halakha as well in which an object is designated for a particular mitzva. The essential difference between something that was rejected from the start and something that was fit and then rejected is that with regard to something that was unfit from the start, since the full level of sanctity never applied to it, its disqualification is also not complete. In contrast, something that was originally fit acquires sanctity, and when it later becomes disqualified, that amounts to a disqualification of the sanctity itself. Therefore, even if it becomes fit once again, there are situations in which it remains disqualified. Rejection of living creatures – ‫דִּ יחוּי ְ ּב ַב ֲע ֵלי ַחּיִ ים‬: That which is stated here, that living creatures cannot be permanently rejected, does not mean that there is no disqualification that applies to living creatures. Animals that have a blemish, that have been given as a gift to a prostitute, that have been used to pay for a dog, or that have been used by human beings for sexual relations are all disqualified for use as offerings even while they are alive. Rather, the intent is that as long as an animal that had been consecrated as an offering is inherently fit for that purpose, temporary disqualifications do not make it permanently unfit. Therefore, if the temporary disqualification is removed, the animal can be sacrificed as an offering.

‫ימא ׁ ְש ָחטֹו ְס ָתם ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬ ָ ‫ ָלא ֵּת‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא‬Rather, do not say that Rav said that a guilt-offering that one slaugh‫ ׁ ְש ָחטֹו ְל ׁשוּם‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ֵא‬,‫עֹולה‬ ָ ‫ ְל ׁשוּם‬tered without specification is valid as a burnt-offering. Say rather that he said that if one took a guilt-offering whose owner had already achieved .‫ ָ ּב ֵעי ֲע ִק ָירה‬:‫ ַא ְל ָמא‬.‫עֹולה – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬ ָ atonement through a different animal and he explicitly slaughtered it as a burnt-offering, it is valid.h And conclude from this that Rav apparently holds that changing the status of an offering requires explicit uprooting. ‫ נִזְ ְר ָקה ִמ ּ ִפי‬:‫ ו ְּל ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַ ּג ְמדָּ א דְּ ָא ַמר‬The Gemara asks: A difficulty arises according to Rabbi Ĥiyya bar ‫ ֲחבו ָּרה וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ְ ּב ָע ִלים ְט ֵמ ֵאי‬Gamda, who dealt with the question whether a Paschal lamb requires .‫ ֵמ ִתים וְ נִ ְד ִחין ְל ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬uprooting and said that it was thrown out from the group of scholars who were studying the issue, and they all said as follows: Uprooting is required in a case where the owners of the offering were ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse during the first Pesaĥ and they were pushed off to the second Pesaĥ, for in that case, they presumably want to sacrifice this animal as their Paschal offering on the second Pesaĥ, and therefore its status does not change unless it is explicitly uprooted. ‫ ָהא ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא‬,‫ ַהאי הוּא דְּ ָב ֵעי ֲע ִק ָירה‬The Gemara infers from this that it is only this offering that requires !?‫ימר‬ ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬ ָּ ‫ ַמאי ִא‬,‫ ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי ֲע ִק ָירה‬explicit uprooting, because it is reasonable to assume that its owners still intend to use it for its original purpose, but in general it does not require uprooting. According to this opinion, what is there to say, as it would seem that our mishna indicates that explicit uprooting is necessary? :‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יה דְּ ַרב י‬ ּ ‫ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א ְ ּב ֵר‬ ‫ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַ ן – ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ִה ְפ ִר ׁיש ּו‬ ,‫ ו ֵּמת ּו ְ ּב ָע ִלים ַא ַחר ֲחצֹות‬,‫קֹודם ֲחצֹות‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ָכל ַה ִּנ ְר ֶאה‬.‫יה נִ ְר ֶאה וְ נִ ְד ֶחה‬ ּ ‫דַּ ֲהוָ ה ֵל‬ .‫וְ נִ ְד ֶחה – ׁשוּב ֵאינֹו חֹוזֵ ר וְ נִ ְר ֶאה‬

Rather, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: With what are we dealing here in our mishna? We are dealing with a case where they designated the animal to be sacrificed as their Paschal offering before midday, and midday came and it was firmly established as their Paschal offering, and the owners died after midday, such that the offering was first considered fit and then rejected: It was originally fit to be sacrificed as either a Paschal offering or a peace-offering, and then it was rejected as a peaceoffering when it was firmly established as a Paschal offering, and rejected as a Paschal offering when its owners died. And the principle is that anything that was first fit and afterward rejectedn does not return to being fit. The offering is therefore disqualified and burned immediately, as it can never be brought as a Paschal offering or as a peace-offering.

‫ ָהא ָא ַמר‬,‫ ִמידֵּ י הוּא ַט ְע ָמא ֶא ָּלא ְל ַרב‬The Gemara rejects this answer: Is this reason necessary for anyone but !‫ ַ ּב ֲע ֵלי ַחּיִ ים ֵאינָ ם נִ ְד ִחים‬:‫ ַרב‬Rav, who holds that explicit uprooting is not required? But Rav himself said that living creatures cannot be permanently rejected.n The halakha of rejection applies only to animals that were already slaughtered, but living creatures cannot be permanently rejected from their sanctified status or eligibility for a mitzva. ‫ ָהא ַמ ּנִי – ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ‫ֹוח ט‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ֵכן ַה ׁ ּש‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫יעזֶ ר ִה יא‬ ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ דַּ ֲהוָ ה ֵל‬,‫ֲא ֵח ִרים ְל ׁ ֵשם ּ ֶפ ַסח ּ ָפסוּל‬ .‫ּ ְפסוּלֹו ְ ּבגוּפֹו‬

Rather, Rav Pappa said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita that adds to the mishna the detail that on a weekday the disqualified offering is immediately burned? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: And similarly, if one slaughtered another offering, such as a peace-offering, for the purpose of a Paschal offering, it is disqualified. If so, its disqualification is in the body of the offering itself, and so it should be burned immediately.

‫יעזֶ ר ִהיא – ַח ָּטאת נַ ִמי‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ִאי ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬The Gemara asks: But if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ָהא ֵלית ֵל‬,‫ ְמ ַחּיֵ יב‬Eliezer, he would deem him liable also to bring a sin-offering for having slaughtered an invalid offering on Shabbat, for Rabbi Eliezer does !‫טֹועה ִ ּב ְד ַבר ִמצְ וָ ה ּ ָפטוּר‬ ֶ not accept the position that one who errs in regard to a mitzva is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. This explanation must, therefore, be rejected. ‫יה דְּ ַרב ַס ָּלא‬ ֵ ‫ֶא ָּלא ַּת ְר ְ ּג ָמא ַרב‬ ּ ‫יֹוסף ְ ּב ֵר‬ ‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ – ‫ ָהא ַמ ּנִי‬:‫יה דְּ ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ּ ‫ֲח ִס ָידא ַק ֵּמ‬ ‫יֹוסף ֶ ּבן חֹונַ אי‬ ֵ ,‫ דִּ ְתנַ ן‬.‫ֶ ּבן חֹונַ אי ִהיא‬ ‫ ַה ּנ ׁ ְִש ָח ִטים ְל ׁ ֵשם ּ ֶפ ַסח ו ְּל ׁ ֵשם‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ּ ְפסוּלֹו ְ ּבגוּפֹו‬:‫ ַא ְל ָמא‬.‫ַח ָּטאת – ּ ְפסו ִּלים‬ ‫ ו ִּב ְפטו ֵּרי‬,‫ ו ִּמ ׁ ּשוּם ָה ִכי יִ ּ ָ ׂש ֵרף ִמּיָ ד‬,‫ִהיא‬ .‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ָס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי י‬

52 

Perek VI . 73b . ‫גע ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ו‬

Rather, Rav Yosef, son of Rav Salla the Ĥasid, explained before Rav Pappa as follows: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Yosef ben Ĥonai. As we learned in a mishna that Yosef ben Ĥonai says: Other offerings that are slaughtered for the purpose of a Paschal offering or for the purpose of a sin-offering are disqualified, as he agrees with Rabbi Eliezer in this regard. It is apparent that its disqualification is in the body of the offering itself and therefore it should be burned immediately. But with regard to exemptions from sin-offerings in cases of unintentional desecration of Shabbat, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, that one who errs in regard to a mitzva is exempt.

‫יִש ָמ ֵעאל‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ַרב דְּ ָא ַמר ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫רֹוקה‬ ָ ‫יֹוחנָן ֶ ּבן ְ ּב‬ ָ ‫ְ ּבנֹו ׁ ֶשל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫רֹוקה‬ ָ ‫יֹוחנָן ֶ ּבן ְ ּב‬ ָ ‫יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ְ ּבנֹו ׁ ֶשל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ִאם יֵ ׁש ׁ ָשהוּת ַ ּבּיֹום ֵל ַידע ִאם‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ אֹו ׁ ֶש ֵּמת ּו אֹו‬,‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ָמ ׁ ְשכ ּו ְ ּב ָע ִלים ֶאת יְ ֵד‬ ‫ ו ְּתעו ַ ּּבר צו ָּרתֹו וְ יֹוצֵ א‬,‫ׁ ֶש ּנ ְִט ְמא ּו – ַחּיָ יב‬ ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – ָלאו‬.‫יפה‬ ָ ‫ְל ֵבית ַה ּ ְ ׂש ֵר‬ ?‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי ֲע ִק ָירה‬

Rav Ashi said a different answer to this question: Rav said his ruling with regard to a guilt-offering in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Beroka. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Beroka, says: If one slaughtering the Paschal offering on Shabbat still has time in the day to clarify whether the owners withdrew or died or became ritually impure, he is liable to bring a sinoffering for having slaughtered on Shabbat, and the meat must be kept overnight so that its form be allowed to decay, and then it should be taken out to the place of burning. What is the reason that its form must be allowed to decay? Is it not because he holds that it does not require uprooting? And for that reason the disqualification is not inherent in the offering, and so it must be left overnight to attain the status of leftover sacrificial meat before being burned.

‫ִמ ַּמאי?! דִּ ְיל ָמא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכ ַת ָּנא‬ ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ּ ִפי ּגוּל‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬.‫דְּ ֵבי ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ֲאבו ּּה‬ ‫ דְּ יָ ֵליף ָע�ֹון ָע�ֹון‬,‫יבוּר צו ָּרה‬ ּ ‫נַ ִמי ָ ּב ֵעי ִע‬ .‫ֹותר‬ ָ ּ‫ִמנ‬

The Gemara rejects this argument: From where is this known to be correct? Perhaps it requires uprooting and the disqualification is inherent. And the fact that he requires decay of form is because he agrees with the tanna of the school of Rabba bar Avuh, who said that even piggul, an offering disqualified by improper intent, which is considered an inherent disqualification, also requires decay of form, for he derived this requirement by way of a verbal analogy between the word “iniquity” (Leviticus 7:18) stated in relation to an offering disqualified by improper intent and the word “iniquity” (Leviticus 19:7) stated with regard to leftover sacrificial meat.

‫ימא ָה ִכי – נִ ְט ְמא ּו ְ ּב ָע ִלים‬ ָ ‫דְּ ִאי ָלא ֵּת‬ ‫ימר? ָהא וַ דַּ אי ָ ּב ֵעי‬ ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬ ָּ ‫ַמאי ִא‬ ,‫ֲע ִק ָירה! דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַ ּג ְמדָּ א‬ ‫ ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ְ ּב ָע ִלים‬:‫נִ זְ ְר ָקה ִמ ּ ִפי ֲחבו ָּרה‬ .‫ וְ נִ ְדח ּו ְל ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬,‫ְט ֵמ ֵאי ֵמת‬

For if you do not say so, i.e., that the baraita was taught in accordance with this opinion, then in a case in which the owners became ritually impure, what is there to say? In that case it certainly requires uprooting, for Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Gamda said that it was thrown out from the group of scholars who were studying the issue: Uprooting is required in a case where the owners of the offering were ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse during the first Pesaĥ and they were pushed off to the second Pesaĥ. Since their offering is presumably set to be used on the second Pesaĥ, explicit change of the offering’s status is required.

ּ ָ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ְמ ַח ַּו ְור ָּתא ִּכ ְד ׁ ָשנֵי ֵמ ִע‬Rather, it is clear that it is as he answered at the beginning, that ‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ :‫יק ָרא‬ .‫ ֶ ּבן חֹונַ אי ִהיא‬our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Yosef ben Ĥonai. Therefore, on weekdays the offering is burned immediately, and on Shabbat, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, one does not become liable to bring a sin-offering. ‫הדרן עלך אלו דברים‬



‫גע ףד‬: ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Perek VI . 73b 

53

Summary of Perek VI Tradition teaches that the Paschal lamb is sacrificed even on Shabbat. However, this dispensation applies only once the Paschal lamb is ready to be slaughtered. At that point, any activities may be performed that are necessary for it to be brought as an offering. However, activities that are necessary only in order to prepare the lamb for sacrificing, but could have been completed the previous day, do not override Shabbat. This applies even to activities whose performance violates a rabbinic decree. Furthermore, the Gemara concluded that all this holds true even in the event that the preparatory activities were not performed the previous day and even if the result is that the Paschal lamb will not be brought at all. The principle that preparatory activities do not override Shabbat applies equally to other mitzvot whose performance overrides Shabbat. For example, the activities that are an integral part of a circumcision override Shabbat, but not the preparations necessary for the circumcision. The chapter also discussed the Festival peace-offering that is often brought together with the Paschal lamb. The Gemara established that it is an optional offering. As such, it is clear that it may not be sacrificed on Shabbat. Given the above principles, the question arose whether one who sacrifices a Paschal lamb that is later found to be invalid is considered to have unwittingly violated Shabbat and is therefore obligated to bring a sin-offering. The Gemara concluded that any labor performed while engaged in trying to perform a mitzva that overrides Shabbat does not render one liable to bring a sin-offering. Although he did not succeed in fulfilling the mitzva of the Paschal lamb, he is not considered to have violated Shabbat because he was involved in an activity that is essentially permitted in order to enable the fulfillment of the mitzva.

55

And they shall eat the meat on that night, roast with fire and matzot; with bitter herbs they shall eat it. Do not eat of it raw, nor boiled in water; but roast it with fire, its head with its legs and with its inner parts. And you shall not leave any of it until morning; and that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire. (Exodus 12:8–10)

Introduction to Perek VII

And they roasted the Paschal offering with fire according to the ordinance; but the other sacred offerings they boiled in pots, and in cauldrons, and in pans, and carried them swiftly among all the people. (II Chronicles 35:13)

The Torah provides many halakhot concerning the consumption of the Paschal lamb: It must be roasted, not cooked; it must be prepared and eaten in ritual purity; when eating it, one is not allowed to break the bones; and any of the meat left over must be burned. Each one of these halakhot needs to be fully defined. With regard to the roasting of the lamb: What precisely is considered roasting, especially in contradistinction to cooking? Is there one specific method that must be used, or are there different options? An individual who is ritually impure may not prepare or partake of a Paschal lamb. Instead, his fulfillment of the mitzva is postponed until the second Pesaĥ. This is true unless the majority of the Jewish people are ritually impure, in which case there is a special dispensation and the Paschal lamb may be brought despite the impurity. It remains to be clarified, though, which categories of ritual impurity disqualify a person from participating in the mitzva of the Paschal lamb, or in the case where the majority of the people are impure, which allow for it to be brought in impurity. Concerning the prohibition against breaking the bones of the Paschal lamb, which bones are included in the prohibition, and when does the prohibition apply? Furthermore, does this prohibition also apply to a Paschal lamb that became impure or was disqualified? Any meat that remains after the night of Passover must be burned. It needs to be clarified how exactly the meat should be burned, where is it burned, and with which types of wood. Also, which sections of the lamb must be burned and which do not need to be? The Torah defines that the Paschal lamb should be eaten by a group within a single house. Immediately the question arises as to how to define a house for this purpose. Does any structure qualify? Can more than one house be used? All these issues and related ones are discussed and clarified in this chapter, including whether these obligations are only the ideal way for the mitzvot to be performed or whether their violation actually disqualifies the offering.



57

Perek VII Daf 74 Amud a ?‫צֹולין ֶאת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ִ ‫מתני׳ ֵּכיצַ ד‬ ‫תֹוחבֹו‬ ֲ ְ‫יאין ׁ ַש ּפ ּוד ׁ ֶשל ִר ּמֹון ו‬ ִ ‫ְמ ִב‬ ‫נֹותן ֶאת‬ ֵ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ְלתֹוךְ ּ ִפיו ַעד ֵ ּבית נְ קו ָּבתֹו‬ ‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ְּכ ָר ָעיו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֵי ֵמ ָעיו ְלתֹוכֹו‬ ‫ ְּכ ִמין‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬.‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי‬ ֵ ּ ׁ ‫ִ ּב‬ .‫ ֶא ָּלא ּת ִֹולין חוּצָ ה לֹו‬,‫ישוּל הוּא זֶ ה‬ ‫צֹולין ֶאת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ל ֹא ַעל ַה ׁ ּ ַש ּפוּד‬ ִ ‫ֵאין‬ :‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי צָ דֹוק‬.‫וְ ל ֹא ַעל ָה ַא ְס ְּכ ָלא‬ ‫יאל ׁ ֶש ָא ַמר ְל ָט ִבי‬ ֵ ‫ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ ‫ ״צֵ א וּצְ ֵלה ָלנ ּו ֶאת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ַעל‬:‫ַע ְבדּ ֹו‬ .‫ָה ַא ְס ְּכ ָלא״‬ ‫נֵיתי ׁ ֶשל ַמ ֶּת ֶכת! ַאּיְ ֵידי דְּ ַחם‬ ֵ ְ‫גמ׳ ו‬ ‫ וְ ָק ִמ ְּטוֵ י ֵמ ֲח ַמת‬,‫ִמ ְקצָ תֹו ַחם ּכו ּּלֹו‬ ‫ וְ ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ָא ַמר ״צְ ִלי ֵא ׁש״‬.‫ַה ׁ ּ ַש ּפוּד‬ ‫נֵיתי ׁ ֶשל‬ ֵ ְ‫ ו‬.‫וְ ל ֹא צָ ִלי ֵמ ֲח ַמת דָּ ָבר ַא ַחר‬ ‫יבי ַמ ּ ִפיק‬ ּ ֵ ‫יה ׁ ִש‬ ּ ‫דֶּ ֶקל! ַאּיְ ֵידי דְּ ִאית ֵל‬ !‫נֵיתי ׁ ֶשל ְּת ֵאנָ ה‬ ֵ ְ‫ ו‬.‫ וְ ָהוֵ י ִּכ ְמבו ׁ ּ ָּשל‬,‫ַמּיָ א‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ וַ ֲהוָ ה ֵל‬,‫ַאּיְ ֵידי דִּ ְמ ַח ְל ֵחל ַמ ּ ִפיק ַמּיָ א‬ .‫ִּכ ְמבו ׁ ּ ָּשל‬

mishna 

How does one roast the Paschal lamb?h One brings a spit [shappud]l of pomegranate wood and thrusts it into the mouth of the lamb until it reaches its anus, and one then puts its legs and entrails inside itn and roasts it all together; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: One does not insert its legs and entrails inside it, as this is a type of cooking. Anything placed inside the offering does not get roasted directly by the fire and is considered to have been cooked. Rather, one suspends the legs and entrails from the spit above the animal’s head outside it.h One may not roast the Paschal lamb on the metal spithn nor on a metal grill [askela].lbh However, Rabbi Tzadok said: There was an incident with Rabban Gamliel, who said to his slave Tavi:p Go and roast the Paschal lamb for us on the grill.

language

Spit [shappud] – ‫ש ּפוּד‬: ַ ׁ From the Greek σποδός, spodos, meaning metal or ashes. This term refers to a wooden or metal spit that one thrusts into meat in order to roast it on a fire. Grill [askela] – ‫א ְס ְּכ ָלא‬: ַ Apparently from the Greek word

ἐσχάρα, eskara, meaning sacrificial hearth or fire sticks. Some

linguists are of the opinion that it is related to the Latin word scala, meaning ladder, and refers to a utensil that resembles a ladder that is made for roasting. background

Grill – ‫א ְס ְּכ ָלא‬:ַ

gemara 

The Gemara suggests: Let them bring a metal spit. The Gemara answers: With regard to a metal utensil, once part of it is hot, it is all hot, and the meat is roasted due to the heat of the spit. And the Merciful One states in the Torah that the Paschal lamb must be roasted in fire and not roasted through something else. The Gemara asks why it is necessary to use specifically a spit of pomegranate wood: Let them bring a spit of palm wood. The Gemara answers: Since the palm branch has grooves between the leaves, it gives off a small amount of water from the grooves during roasting. The meat of the offering that touches the spit is as though it is cooked. The Gemara suggests: Let them bring a spit of fig wood. The Gemara answers: Since it is hollow and has sap inside, it gives off water, and it is as though the meat is cooked.

!‫נֵיתי ׁ ֶשל ַאלּ ֹון ׁ ֶשל ָחרוּב וְ ׁ ֶשל ׁ ִש ְק ָמה‬ ֵ ְ‫ ו‬The Gemara suggests: Let them bring a spit made from an oak or .‫יט ֵרי ַמ ּ ִפיק ַמּיָ א‬ ְ ‫יה ִק‬ ּ ‫ ַאּיְ ֵידי דְּ ִאית ֵ ּב‬from a carob tree or from a sycamore, which are hard and do not have sap. The Gemara answers: With regard to each one of these trees, since it has knots and one must cut them off in order to smooth the branch, it gives off water from the locations of the cuts during roasting, and the meat is considered cooked.

halakha

The roasting of the Paschal lamb – ‫צְ ִלּיַ ית ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬: The Paschal lamb is roasted in the following manner: A wooden spit is inserted into the lamb, and it is then roasted over an open fire. A spit fashioned out of pomegranate wood is preferred because it does not secrete water, and therefore there is no concern that the meat will be cooked. Since the Rambam did not quote the further qualifications for the spit mentioned by the Gemara, it appears that he did not consider them to be accepted as halakhic requirements (Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 8:10). Its entrails outside it – ‫מ ָעיו…חוּצָ ה לֹו‬:ֵ The legs and entrails of the Paschal lamb are hung next to it on the spit. None of the entrails are left inside, so as to ensure that they will not be cooked. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, in keeping with the principle that his is the

accepted opinion in disputes with other individual Sages (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 8:10).

Metal grill similar to those used in talmudic times Personalities

Tavi – ‫ט ִבי‬:ָ Tavi, the slave of Rabban Gamliel, is the most famous slave in the Talmud. Some go so far as to draw a parallel between Tavi, the slave of Rabban Gamliel, and Eliezer, the slave of Abraham. Rabban Gamliel was very fond of Tavi and appreciated his character and Torah knowledge. The Gemara relates that when Rabban Gamliel thought he had discovered a way to free Tavi, he was overjoyed. Ultimately, though, he did not free him, due to concern about the prohibition to free a slave. Despite this, Rabban Gamliel treated him as a member of his family. Consequently, he accepted condolences when Tavi died. The Sages said about Tavi: There were many who were worthy to be ordained, like Tavi, the slave of Rabban Gamliel, yet due to their lineage, they did not achieve that status.

Metal spit – ‫ש ּפוּד ַמ ֶּת ֶכת‬: ַ ׁ The Paschal lamb may not be roasted on a metal spit because the metal is heated by the fire to the point that the meat is roasted by the heat of the spit and not directly by the fire. This does not fulfill the requirement that the Paschal lamb be roasted in fire (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 8:9). Grill – ‫א ְס ְּכ ָלא‬: ַ The Paschal lamb may not be roasted on metal utensils because the meat would then be roasted by the utensil rather than directly by the fire. However, if the utensil is perforated and the fire reaches the meat, it is permitted (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 8:9).

notes

One puts its legs and entrails inside it – ‫נֹותן ֶאת ְּכ ָר ָעיו וְ ֶאת‬ ֵ ‫בנֵי ֵמ ָעיו ְלתֹוכֹו‬:ּ ְ Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva both agree that the entire Paschal lamb must be roasted, as the verse states: “But roast with fire; its head with its legs and with its inner parts” (Exodus 12:9). Their dispute is whether “its head with its legs” means that the legs are roasted next to the rest of the animal or inside it (see Ĥatam Sofer). Not…on the spit – ‫ל ֹא ַעל ַה ׁ ּ ַש ּפוּד‬: Most commentaries



assert that this is referring to a standard spit, which is passed through the body of the animal so that it is suspended over the fire. A spit made of metal may not be used to roast the Paschal lamb. However, there are some authorities who interpret the phrase: On a spit, as referring to one who rests the Paschal lamb on top of a wide spit, or multiple spits, instead of passing the spit through the offering. According to both interpretations, the disqualification is similar to that of a grill (Me’iri). ‫דע ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 74a 

59

notes

Would call it tokh, tokh – ‫״תֹוךְ ּתֹוךְ ״‬ ֵ Rashi quotes ּ ‫קֹוריה ּו‬: a different text that reads tokhbar, which is a contraction of the Hebrew words for inside [tokh] and outside [bar]. The dispute about the meaning of this statement dates back to the Jerusalem Talmud, in which certain Sages maintain that Rabbi Yishmael agreed with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, while Rabbi Tarfon sided with Rabbi Akiva. According to this view, the word tokhbar may indicate that what was previously inside, i.e., the entrails, is now outside. Additionally, the term that Rabbi Tarfon used, mekulas, which is generally translated as helmeted, would mean handsome, a reference to the fact that the kid was roasted whole. The prohibition of blood and the requirement of salting – ‫יחה‬ ָ ‫א ּיסוּר דָּ ם ו ְּמ ִל‬:ִ The prohibition against consuming blood is mentioned several times in the Torah and carries the punishment of karet. Although the Torah prohibition applies in its full severity only to blood that leaves the animal’s body as it is slaughtered, every effort is made to remove all the blood that is absorbed in the meat before eating it. This is the reason for salting the raw meat before cooking it. The salt absorbs the blood from the meat, and it is then removed through rinsing. Another method of removing the blood from the meat is roasting it over a fire. The fire causes the meat to discharge the blood; therefore, no salting or very little salting is required. However, practically speaking, there are many questions that arise with regard to different types of meat and the necessary measures that must be taken in order to remove the blood from them. halakha

A kid roasted whole – ‫ ְ ּג ִדי ְמקו ָּּלס‬: Wherever it is customary not to eat roasted meat on the night of Passover, one may not eat roasted meat. Even in places in which the custom is to permit the eating of roasted meat, it is prohibited to consume a kid or lamb that is roasted whole. However, if it is cut into pieces, or if part of it is missing, or one of its limbs is boiled, it is no longer considered a kid roasted whole, and it may be eaten on the night of Passover (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Ĥametz UMatza 8:11). Stuffing is permitted – ‫מו ְּליְ ָיתא ׁ ָש ְריָ א‬: Birds and animals that are stuffed with unsalted meat may be roasted and then eaten. This is permitted even if the opening in the bird or animal is facing upward and even if the outer meat has been salted (Tosafot). Nevertheless, they may not be boiled together. However, the Rema prohibits even roasting them together ab initio, in accordance with the opinion of Rashi (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 77:1).

‫יעי‬ ֵ ‫יט ֵרי! ׁ ִש‬ ְ ‫יה ִק‬ ּ ‫ׁ ֶשל ִר ּמֹון נַ ִמי ִאית ֵ ּב‬ ‫ ְ ּבנִ ְב ָ ּגא ַ ּבר‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫ וְ ִא‬.‫יט ֵרי‬ ְ ‫ִק‬ ‫יכא‬ ְ ‫יה ִק‬ ָּ ‫ וְ ָהא ִא‬.‫יט ֵרי‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ֵלית ֵ ּב‬,‫ׁ ַש ָּתא‬ .‫יה ְל ַבר‬ ּ ‫יה! דְּ ַמ ּ ִפיק ְל ֵבי ּ ְפ ַס ֵק‬ ּ ‫ֵ ּבי ּ ְפ ַס ֵק‬

The Gemara asks: A branch from a pomegranate tree also has knots. The Gemara answers: Its knots are smooth. There is no need to straighten the branch with a knife in order to use it, and therefore it does not emit water. And if you wish, say that the mishna is referring to a branch within its first year, which does not yet have knots. The Gemara asks: But there is the place it was cut from the tree, and water will come from there. The Gemara answers: One leaves the place it was cut outside of the animal rather than inserting that side of the branch into the animal.

,‫ דְּ ַתנְיָ א‬.‫נִיתין דְּ ל ֹא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ִ ‫ַמ ְת‬ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵשם ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ַש ּפוּד ׁ ֶשל‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ‫ ָּכךְ ׁ ַש ּפוּד ׁ ֶשל ַמ ֶּת ֶכת‬,‫נִש ָרף‬ ׂ ְ ‫ֵעץ ֵאינֹו‬ ‫ זֶ ה – ַחם‬:‫ ָא ְמר ּו לֹו‬.‫ֵאינֹו ַמ ְר ִּת ַיח‬ ‫ וְ זֶ ה – ַחם ִמ ְקצָ תֹו‬,‫ִמ ְקצָ תֹו ַחם ּכוּלּ ֹו‬ .‫ֵאינֹו ַחם ּכוּלּ ֹו‬

The Gemara notes that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: Just as the part of a spit of wood that is inside the animal is not burned, although it is over the fire, so the part of a spit of metal that is inside the animal does not become burning hot. There is no concern that the meat will be roasted from the heat of the spit. The Rabbis said to him: This is not the case. With regard to this, the metal, when part of it is hot, it is all hot. And with regard to that, the wood, when part of it is hot, not all of it is hot, and therefore the meat is cooked by the heat of the fire and not by the heat of the spit.

‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ ַּתנְ יָ א‬.‫נֹותן ֶאת ְּכ ָר ָעיו וכו׳״‬ ֵ ְ‫ ״ו‬It was taught in the mishna that according to the opinion of Rabbi ‫ֹוך״ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ְ ‫ֹוך ּת‬ ְ ‫״ת‬ ֵ ‫ יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬Yosei HaGelili, one places the legs and entrails inside the lamb’s body ּ ‫קֹוריה ּו‬ ּ ְ ‫קֹוריה ּו‬ .‫״ג ִדי ְמקו ָּּלס״‬ ֵ ‫ ַט ְרפֹון‬and roasts them together. It was taught inna baraita: Rabbi Yishmael would call the Paschal lamb: Tokh, tokh, because when one roasts the legs and entrails inside the lamb they make that sound, like other things that are cooked. Rabbi Tarfon would call it: Helmeted kid. In his opinion, the entrails must be roasted when they are suspended from the spit above the head of the animal, somewhat resembling a helmet. ‫ ֵאיזֶ ה ּו ְ ּג ִדי ְמקו ָּּלס דְּ ָאסוּר‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫ֶל ֱאכֹול ְ ּב ֵל ֵילי ֶפ ַסח ַ ּבּזְ ַמן ַהּזֶ ה – ּכֹל‬ ‫ נֶ ְח ַּת ְך ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו‬.‫ׁ ֶש ְ ּצ ָלאֹו ּכו ּּלֹו ְּכ ֶא ָחד‬ ‫נִש ַלק ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ֵא ֶבר – ֵאין זֶ ה ְ ּג ִדי‬ ְ ׁ ,‫ֵא ֶבר‬ .‫ְמקו ָּּלס‬

The Sages taught: Which is the kid roasted whole that it is prohibited to eat on the nights of Passover in modern times, so as not appear as though one sacrificed the Paschal lamb outside the Temple? It is any kid that one roasted all at once in the manner that the Paschal lamb was roasted. However, if one of its limbs is severed or one of its limbs is boiled, it is no longer considered a kid roasted whole.h

,‫לֹומר נֶ ְח ַּת ְך ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ֵא ֶבר‬ ַ ‫ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא יֵ ׁש‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ַ ּב ֲה ֵד‬ ּ ‫דְּ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ָקא ִמ ְּטוֵ י ֵל‬ ‫יב ֲעיָ א?! ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ּ ָ ‫נִש ַלק ִמ‬ ְ ׁ ,‫ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ָלא‬ .‫ ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ָלקֹו ִ ּב ְמחו ָ ּּבר‬:‫ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת‬

The Gemara expresses surprise at the formulation of this baraita. Now, one can say that if one of its limbs is severed, although one roasts it together with the rest of the animal, you said that it is no longer considered a kid roasted whole, and it is permitted in modern times. If one of its limbs is severed and boiled, which is not an approved method of preparation of the Paschal lamb, is it necessary to say that that it is not considered roasted whole? Rav Sheshet said: This is referring to a case where one boiled the limb while it was attached to the rest of the animal. The halakha teaches that even if the animal remains whole, if one of its limbs is cooked it is no longer considered a kid roasted whole.

‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫ ַהאי מו ְּליְ ָיתא ׁ ָש ְריָ א‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה‬The Gemara raises a general halakhic discussion related to the mishna. ‫ וְ ָהא ָקא ָ ּב ַלע דְּ ָמא! ָא ַמר‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫ ֵל‬Rabba said: This stuffing of raw meat inside another animal that is h .‫בֹול ָע ּה ָּכךְ ּפ ְֹול ָט ּה‬ ְ ‫ ְּכ‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֵל‬being roasted is permitted, even if the meat that is stuffed inside has not been salted to remove the blood. Abaye said to him: But the meat of the animal being roasted absorbs blood from the stuffing.n He said to him: As it absorbs it, so it then emits it. The heat of the fire causes blood to be released from the meat used as stuffing into the meat of the animal being stuffed, and the heat then draws the blood out of that meat as well. ‫נֹותן ֶאת ְּכ ָר ָעיו וְ ֶאת‬ ֵ :‫יה‬ ָ ּ ‫נֵימא ְמ ַסּיַ יע ֵל‬ ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ָלאו‬.‫ְ ּבנֵי ֵמ ָעיו ְלתֹוכֹו‬ ?‫בֹולעֹו ָּכךְ ּפ ְֹולטֹו״‬ ְ ‫״כ‬ ְּ ‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָא ְמ ִרינַן‬ ‫יכא ֵ ּבית‬ ָּ ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ִא‬,‫ ׁ ָשאנֵי ָה ָתם‬:‫ָא ְמ ִרי‬ – ‫יטה דִּ ְמ ַח ְל ֵחל‬ ָ ‫ַה ׁ ּ ְש ִח‬

60 

Perek VII . 74a . ‫דע ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this mishna supports him: He places its legs and its entrails inside the Paschal lamb and roasts them together. What is the reason that it is permitted to do this? Is it not because we say: As it absorbs it, so it emits it? Although Rabbi Akiva disputes this statement, his opinion is due to the unique halakhot of the Paschal lamb. It seems that everyone agrees that there is no concern about the prohibition against consuming blood. The Gemara refutes this proof: Say it is different there, in the case of the Paschal lamb. Since there is the place of the slaughter, which is hollow and open,

Perek VII Daf 74 Amud b .‫ ֵמ ַידב דָּ יְ ִיבי‬the blood flows out. However, in the case of regular stuffing, which is closed on all sides, there is no way for the blood to drain. ‫קֹורעֹו וּמֹוצִ יא‬ ְ ‫ ַה ֵּלב‬: ‫יה‬ ָ ּ ‫נֵימא ְמ ַסּיַ יע ֵל‬ ‫קֹורעֹו ְל ַא ַחר‬ ְ – ‫ ל ֹא ְק ָרעֹו‬.‫ֶאת דָּ מֹו‬ ּ ׁ ‫ִ ּב‬ ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – ָלאו‬.‫ וּמו ָּּתר‬,‫ישוּלֹו‬ ?‫בֹולעֹו ָּכךְ ּפ ְֹולטֹו״‬ ְ ‫״כ‬ ְּ ‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָא ְמ ִרינַן‬

The Gemara suggests further: Let us say that the following mishna supports him: With regard to the heart of an animal, one must tear it and remove its bloodh before one roasts or cooks it. And if he did not tear it beforehand, he tears it after it is cooked, i.e., roasted, and it is permitted. What is the reason the heart is permitted although there is presumably still blood inside? Is it not because we say that as it absorbs it, so it emits it, and therefore as the heart is roasted the blood is absorbed in the meat and then discharged, so that no blood is left in the meat, and whatever is still inside the hollow part of the heart can be removed when it is torn open? This would support the opinion of Rabba.

.‫ ׁ ָשאנֵי ֵלב דְּ ׁ ִש ַיע‬The Gemara refutes the proof: A heart is different because it is smooth and does not absorb much blood. However, generally one does not necessarily rely on the principle that as it absorbs it so it emits it. ‫יה ֲה ִהיא‬ ִ ּ ‫(אינִי?) וְ ָהא ָר ִבין ָס ָבא ְט ַפ ֵל‬ ‫ ִאי ַמ ֲע ֵלי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ וַ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬,‫ַ ּבר גּ ֹוזָ ָלא ְל ַרב‬ ‫יה – ַהב ִלי וְ ֵא יכ ּול! ַה ִה יא‬ ּ ‫ְט ַפ ֵל‬ .‫ דְּ ַמ ְפ ִריר‬,‫ִ ּב ְס ִמ ָידא‬

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Ravin the Elder wrap a particular young dove in dough for Rav and roast it, and Rav said to him: If its doughn tastes good, give me some and I will eat? Apparently, according to Rav, although the breading absorbed blood, it also certainly discharged it during the roasting. The Gemara refutes this point: That incident involved fine flour [semida],l which is crumbly and allows the blood to flow through it.

,‫יק ַלע ְל ֵבי ֵר ׁיש ָ ּגלו ָּתא‬ ְ ‫וְ ָהא ָר ָבא ִא‬ ‫ ִאי ָלא‬:‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫יה ַ ּבר ַאוְ וזָ א‬ ּ ‫ו ְּט ַפל ּו ֵל‬ ‫יה דְּ זִ יג ְּכזוּזָ א ִחיוְ ָרא – ָלא ָא ְכ ִלי‬ ּ ‫דַּ ֲחזִ ֵית‬ ְ‫בֹולעֹו ָּכך‬ ְ ‫״כ‬ ְּ ְ‫ וְ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָתך‬.‫ֵיה‬ ּ ‫ִמ ּינ‬ ‫ּפ ְֹולטֹו״ ַמאי ִא ְיריָ א ִּכי זִ יג? ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִּכי‬ .‫ דְּ ׁ ָש ִריר‬,‫ָלא זִ יג נַ ִמי! ָה ָתם ְ ּב ִחי ַּו ְר ָּתא‬

The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rava happen to comen to the house of the Exilarch,b and they breaded a young goose for him, and he said: If I had not seen that the breading is as clear as a white, i.e., new, coin,n I would not eat from it out of concern that it absorbed some of the blood?h And if it should enter your mind to accept the principle that as it absorbs it so it emits it, why note that he ate it particularly because it was clear? Even if it was not clear, it should also be permitted. The Gemara responds: There, it was talking about white flour, which is firm and does not allow the blood to pass through; Rava ate it only because its color indicated that no blood remained in the breading.

‫ ֵ ּבין ַא ְס ִמיק ֵ ּבין‬,‫ דִּ ְס ִמ ָידא‬:‫וְ ִה ְיל ְכ ָתא‬ ‫ ִאי זִ יג‬,‫ דְּ ִחי ָּו ְר ָּתא‬.‫ָלא ַא ְס ִמיק – ׁ ָש ְריָ א‬ .‫ ִאי ָלא – ֲא ִסיר‬,‫ְּכזוּזָ א ִחיוְ ָרא – ׁ ָש ְריָ א‬ ‫ ָלא‬,‫ ַא ְס ִמיק – ָאסוּר‬,‫דִּ ׁ ְש ָאר ְק ָמ ִחים‬ .‫ַא ְס ִמיק – ׁ ָש ֵרי‬

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that if one makes the breading of fine flour, whether it turned red from blood or did not turn red, it is permitted. The following rule applies to breading of white flour: If it is clear like a white coin, it is permitted; if not, it is prohibited. With regard to breading of other types of flour, which are not especially firm or crumbly, if the breading turned red, it is prohibited; if it did not turn red, it is permitted.

ּ ‫ ַמאן דַּ ֲא ַסר – ֲא ִפ‬,‫יתא‬ ‫יל ּו‬ ָ ְ‫ַהאי מו ְּלי‬ ּ ‫ ו ַּמאן דְּ ׁ ָש ֵרי – ֲא ִפ‬.‫ּפו ָּמא ְל ַת ַחת‬ ‫יל ּו‬ ,‫ מו ְּליְ ָיתא ׁ ָש ֵרי‬:‫ וְ ִה ְיל ְכ ָתא‬.‫ּפו ָּמא ְל ֵעיל‬ .‫ֲא ִפילּ ּו ּפו ָּמא ְל ֵעיל‬

With regard to this meat stuffing in an animal: The one who prohibits one to eat it, Abaye, does so even if the opening is facing downward, allowing the blood to escape more easily. And the one who permits one to eat it, Rabba, does so even if the opening is facing upward. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that stuffing is permitted even if the opening is facing upward, in accordance with the lenient opinion.

halakha

One must tear it and remove its blood – ‫קֹורעֹו וּמֹוצִ יא‬ ְ ‫את דָּ מֹו‬:ֶ One must tear or slice open an animal’s heart to allow the blood to drain. Afterward, the heart is salted in the usual manner, and it may then be cooked. However, the Rema rules that the heart should be roasted over a fire before it is cooked as a safety measure, lest it be cooked without having been torn open. If the heart is salted or roasted without being torn open, it may be torn open afterward due to the principle: As it absorbs it, so it emits it. This ruling is in accordance with the conclusion of the Gemara (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 72:1–2). Meat covered with dough – ‫ב ָ ׂשר ַה ְּמצו ּ ֶּפה ְ ּב ָבצֵ ק‬:ּ ָ The Rambam, ruling in accordance with the Gemara, states: If one spreads dough on top of meat, the breading’s status depends upon the circumstances. If the dough is made from flour whose particles are large, it may be eaten. If it is made from finely ground flour, it is prohibited to eat it. However, if the breading is made from regular flour, it is permitted to eat it only if the breading did not turn red at all. Nevertheless, the Shulĥan Arukh, based on the Shibbolei HaLeket, ruled that nowadays, no one is sufficiently expert to make these distinctions, and consequently, it is always prohibited to eat the flour. Nevertheless, if the meat is salted first and allowed to sit for the appropriate amount of time, it is always permitted to eat it (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 6:19; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 78:1). notes

Its dough – ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ט ַפ ֵל‬:ְ Some commentaries suggest the following explanation, which seems to be supported by the language of the Rambam: The discussion in this context is not about the meat. Rather, it concerns whether the dough itself may be eaten, or whether there is concern that since the blood passed through it, some of the blood might still be left in the dough, rendering it prohibited (Me’iri). Didn’t Rava happen to come – ‫וְ ָהא ָר ָבא ִא ְיק ַלע‬: It would be unusual to challenge Rabba on the basis of the practice of Rava, who was Rabba’s student. It seems that the Gemara’s proof is based on the assumption that Rava would not disagree with his teacher and was acting in accordance with his ruling (see Sefat Emet). Clear as a white, new coin – ‫זִ יג ְּכזוּזָ א ִחיוְ ָרא‬: Some commentaries explain that if the breading is exceptionally white, it is a sign that it has been baked very well. All the blood will certainly leave the meat due to the baking (Me’iri). language

Fine flour [semida] – ‫ס ִמ ָידא‬:ְ From the Greek σεμίδαλις, semidalis, meaning high-quality flour.

background

The Exilarch – ‫ר ׁיש ָ ּגלו ָּתא‬:ֵ The Exilarch, who descended from the House of David, was recognized by the Jews as the heir to the throne of Judah and entrusted with broad official powers. He was the leader of the Jews of the Persian Empire and their representative to the authorities, who regarded him as a member of a royal dynasty. Consequently, he enjoyed a lofty position within the Persian court. During various periods, he was even consid-



ered third in the royal hierarchy. The Exilarch was responsible for the collection of a major portion of the government taxes from the Jewish community, and he could appoint leaders and judges whose powers included the imposition of corporal, and sometimes capital, punishment. Adjacent to the Exilarch’s home was a special rabbinical court appointed by him to deal with cases involving money and

property in particular. He also seems to have had the authority to make certain appointments within the Jewish community throughout the country, although most of them were made in consultation with the heads of the great academies. The Exilarchs were referred to in the Talmud by the honorific title Mar before or after their name, and they were devoted to the Torah. Some of them were indeed significant scholars in their own right. ‫דע ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 74b 

61

language

Raw meat [umtza] – ‫או ְּמצָ א‬: Possibly related to the two Middle Persian words xāmīz, referring to a marinated meat, and āmiz, a side dish. halakha

Raw meat that became red – ‫או ְּמצָ א דְּ ַא ְס ִמיק‬: If an animal suffered a wound that resulted in a visible hematoma, it is prohibited to cook that section of the meat until it is cut open and salted well. However, it is permitted to roast it over a fire even if one does not cut and salt it. This is in accordance with the explanations of Rabbeinu Gershom and the Rosh (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 67:4). Testicles and veins – ‫יעי ו ִּמזְ ְר ֵקי‬ ֵ ‫ב‬:ּ ֵ The testicles of an animal that is thirty days old or older may not be cooked without being either peeled or cut and salted (Shakh). However, they may be roasted. It is customary to remove the large tendons and make many cuts, in accordance with the Gemara here. In addition, blood vessels are forbidden due to the blood they contain. Salting does not remove the blood, unless they have first been cut open. They do not need cutting and salting if they are to be roasted over a fire, as indicated in the Gemara (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 65:1). Raw meat whose vinegar became red – ‫יה‬ ּ ֵ‫או ְּמצָ א דְּ ַא ְס ִמיק ַח ְלי‬: If one places unsalted meat in vinegar to prevent the blood from coming out and the meat turns red, the vinegar is forbidden. The meat may be consumed only after it is roasted over a fire. If it is to be cooked, it must be cut and salted prior to being cooked. If the meat does not turn red, the meat and vinegar are permitted, in accordance with the interpretation of the Gemara given by Tosafot (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 67:5). Vinegar in which he had soaked meat one time – ‫ַח ָּלא דְּ ָח ֵליט‬ ‫ימנָ א‬ ְ ִ‫יה ֲח ָדא ז‬ ּ ‫ב‬:ּ ֵ Vinegar that has already been used to soak meat in order to keep its blood inside should not be used again for this purpose, because it has become weak. However, it is permitted to use vinegar that is weak to begin with. Some say that nowadays one should not harden unsalted meat in vinegar because no one is sufficiently expert in this process. However, it is permitted to eat the meat after the fact (Rema, citing Rabbeinu Yeruĥam; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 67:6). notes

Testicles – ‫יעי‬ ֵ ‫ב‬:ּ ֵ Some authorities maintain that this rule applies because there is a membrane full of blood on the testicles, and this blood cannot be removed through salting alone. According to Rashi, it appears that it is prohibited to consume this membrane, and it must be completely removed. The discussion in the Gemara, however, is referring to a case where it has been removed. Even in that case, the testicles themselves must be cut open if they have turned red (Sefat Emet). Salting and soaking – ‫יטה‬ ָ ‫יחה וְ ֲח ִל‬ ָ ‫מ ִל‬:ְ According to Torah law, the only blood that is prohibited is blood that leaves the animal during the slaughtering. There is no Torah prohibition against eating blood that remains in the meat and has not moved after the slaughtering. Therefore, it is permitted to eat a piece of raw meat that has not been salted or cooked. However, if the meat is to be cooked the blood must be removed beforehand, because when the meat is cooked the heat of the water draws out the blood. Nevertheless, if various steps are taken to ensure that the blood remains in its place and does not come out, e.g., soaking the meat in strong vinegar to dry and harden it, then the blood is not drawn out, and the meat may be cooked without salting. However, the ge’onim prohibited this practice.

62 

Perek VII . 74b . ‫דע ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

‫ ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ָ ּב ּה ַרב‬,‫יעי ו ִּמיזְ ְר ֵקי‬ ֵ ‫או ְּמצָ א ֵ ּב‬ ‫ ְ ּב ָכל ַה ּת ָֹורה ּכו ָּּל ּה‬.‫ַא ָחא וְ ָר ִבינָ א‬ ,‫ַרב ַא ָחא ְלחו ְּמ ָרא וְ ָר ִבינָ א ְלקו ָּּלא‬ ‫ ְל ַבר ֵמ ָהנֵי‬.‫וְ ִה ְיל ְכ ָתא ְּכ ָר ִבינָ א ְלקו ָּּלא‬ ‫ דְּ ַרב ַא ָחא ְל קו ָּּלא וְ ָר ִבינָ א‬,‫ְּת ָלת‬ ‫ְלח ּו ְמ ָרא – וְ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא ְּכ ַרב ַא ָח א‬ .‫ְלקו ָּּלא‬

The Gemara quotes a further discussion concerning the topic of blood absorbed in meat and the preparation of meat permitted for eating. The Gemara addresses three cases: Raw meat [umtza]l that is eaten without being salted, testicles of an animal, and the large veins of the neck. Rav Aĥa and Ravina disagreed about this. The Gemara points out: In all their discussions about the Torah, whenever there is a dispute between them and there is no explanation as to which of them holds which opinion, the opinion of Rav Aĥa is stringent and the opinion of Ravina is lenient, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ravina to be lenient. This applies to all their disputes except for these three, in which Rav Aĥa is lenient and Ravina is stringent, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Aĥa to be lenient.

‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲח ַת ֵכ‬,‫ַה אי א ּו ְמצָ א דְּ ַא ְס ִמיק‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ׁ ְש ַפ ֵד‬.‫יה – ֲא ִפילּ ּו ַל ְּק ֵד ָרה ׁ ָש ֵרי‬ ּ ‫ו ְּמ ַל ֵח‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ַא ְח ֵּת‬.‫ ֵמ ַידב דָּ יֵ יב‬,‫ְ ּב ׁ ַש ּפו ָּדא – ׁ ָש ֵרי‬ .‫ַאגּ ו ְּמ ֵרי – ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ָ ּב ּה ַרב ַא ָחא וְ ָר ִבינָ א‬ – ‫ ַמאן דְּ ָא ַסר‬.‫ַחד ָא ַסר וְ ַחד ׁ ָש ֵרי‬ ‫יש ַאב‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ו ַּמאן דְּ ׁ ָש ֵרי – ִמ‬,‫ַמצְ ִמית צָ ֵמית‬ .‫יש ַאב ׁ ָש ֵאיב‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ִמ‬:‫ וְ ִה ְיל ְכ ָתא‬.‫ׁ ָש ֵאיב‬

The Gemara explains: With regard to this piece of raw meat that became redh from the blood inside it, if one cut it and salted it, it is permitted even to cook them in a pot because it is clear that salt removes blood from meat. If one put it on a spit in order to roast it, it is permitted because the blood flows out. With regard to a case where one placed it on coals, Rav Aĥa and Ravina disagreed about the halakha in this case; one prohibited it and one permitted it. The one who prohibited it reasoned that the coals cause the meat to shrivel and harden, trapping the blood inside. And the one who permitted it reasoned that the heat of the coals draws out the blood, leaving only the meat.

‫ ֲח ַת ִכינְ ה ּו ו ְּמ ַל ִחינְ ה ּו – ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬,‫יעי‬ ֵ ‫וְ ֵכן ֵ ּב‬ – ‫ ְּת ִלינְ ה ּו ְ ּב ׁ ַש ּפו ָּדא‬.‫ַל ְּק ֵד ָרה ׁ ָש ְריָ ין‬ – ‫ ַא ְח ִּתינְ ה ּו ַא ּגו ְּמ ֵרי‬.‫ ֵמ ַידב דָּ יֵ יב‬,‫ׁ ָש ְריָ ין‬ ‫ ַחד ָא ַסר‬.‫יה ַרב ַא ָחא וְ ָר ִבינָ א‬ ּ ‫ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ֵ ּב‬ ,‫ ַמאן דְּ ָא ַסר – ַמצְ ִמית צָ ֵמית‬,‫וְ ַחד ׁ ָש ֵרי‬ .‫יש ַאב ׁ ָש ֵאיב‬ ְ ׁ ‫ו ַּמאן דְּ ׁ ָש ֵרי – ִמ‬

And, so too, with regard to testicles:n If one cut them and salted them, they are permitted even to be cooked in a pot. If one hung them on a spit in order to roast them, they are permitted because the blood flows out. With regard to a case where one placed them on coals, Rav Aĥa and Ravina disagreed about this; one prohibited it and one permitted it. The one who prohibited it reasoned that it shrivels, and the one who permitted it reasoned that the heat draws out the blood.

‫יה – ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬ ּ ‫יה ו ְּמ ַל ֵח‬ ּ ‫ ֲח ַת ֵכ‬,‫וְ ֵכן ִמיזְ ְר ֵקי‬ ‫יה ְ ּב ׁ ַש ּפו ָּדא ֵ ּבית‬ ּ ֵ‫ ַּת ְלי‬,‫ַל ְּק ֵד ָרה ׁ ָש ֵרי‬ ‫ ֵמ ַידב‬,‫יטה ְל ַת ַּתאי – ׁ ָש ֵרי‬ ָ ‫ַה ׁ ּ ְש ִח‬ ‫יה ַאגּ ו ְּמ ֵרי – ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ַרב‬ ּ ‫ ַא ְח ֵּת‬.‫דָּ ֵאיב‬ .‫ ַחד ָא ַסר וְ ַחד ׁ ָש ֵרי‬,‫ַא ָחא וְ ָר ִבינָ א‬ ‫ ו ַּמאן‬,‫ַמאן דְּ ָא ַסר – ַמצְ ִמית צָ ֵמית‬ :‫ וְ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬.‫יש ַאב ׁ ָש ֵאיב‬ ְ ׁ ‫דְּ ׁ ָש ֵרי – ִמ‬ .‫יש ַאב ׁ ָש ֵאיב‬ ְ ׁ ‫ִמ‬

And, so too, with regard to large veins:h If one cut them and salted them, it is permitted even to cook them in a pot. If one hung them on a spit and the place of the incision of the slaughter is facing downward, it is permitted because the blood flows out. With regard to a case where one placed it on coals, Rav Aĥa and Ravina disagreed about this matter; one prohibited it and one permitted it. The one who prohibited it reasoned that it shrivels, and the one who permitted it reasoned that the heat draws out the blood. And the halakha is that the heat of the coals draws out the blood, and it is permitted.

,‫יה – ֲא ִסיר‬ ּ ֵ‫ַהאי או ְּמצָ א דְּ ַא ְס ִמיק ַח ְלי‬ :‫ ָר ִבינָ א ָא ַמר‬.‫יה – ׁ ָש ֵרי‬ ּ ֵ‫ָלא ַא ְס ִמיק ַח ְלי‬ .‫יה ֲא ִסיר‬ ּ ֵ‫ ַח ְלי‬,‫ֲא ִפילּ ּו ָלא ַא ְס ִמיק נַ ִמי‬ .‫ִאי ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר דְּ ֵלית ָ ּב ּה ׁשו ְּריָ ֵיקי דְּ ָמא‬ :‫ימר ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ַ ‫יה ָמר ַ ּבר ָא ֵמ‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ :‫ ִא ָּיכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬.‫ֹועי‬ ֵ ‫יה ַ ּג ּמ‬ ּ ‫ַא ָ ּבא ְמגַ ַּמע ֵל‬ .‫ֹועי‬ ֵ ‫יה ַ ּג ּמ‬ ּ ‫יה ְמגַ ַּמע ֵל‬ ּ ‫ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי גּ ו ֵּפ‬

The Gemara raises another discussion with regard to blood absorbed in meat. People would soak raw meat (Tosafot) in vinegar in order to ensure that none of the blood would separate from its original place and prohibit the meat from being eaten, as it is permitted to eat blood that has not separated from its original place. This piece of raw meat, whose vinegar became redh due to the blood absorbed in it, is forbidden. If its vinegar did not become red, it is permitted. Ravina said: Even if its vinegar did not become red, it is forbidden; it is impossible that it does not have streaks of blood. Mar bar Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: Father, i.e., Ameimar, would swallow the vinegar and was unconcerned that there may be blood in it. Some say Rav Ashi himself would swallow it.

:‫ימר ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ַ ‫יה ָמר ַ ּבר ָא ֵמ‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫יה ֲח ָדא‬ ּ ‫ ַהאי ַח ָּלא דְּ ָח ֵליט ֵ ּב‬,‫ַא ָ ּבא‬ ‫ ַמאי‬.‫יה‬ ְ ִ‫ז‬ ּ ‫ימנָ א – ּת ּו ָלא ָּתאנֵי ָח ֵליט ֵ ּב‬ ?‫יה‬ ּ ‫ׁ ְשנָ א ֵמ ַח ָּלא ַמ ְת ְמ ָהא דְּ ָח ְל ִטינַן ֵ ּב‬ ‫יה‬ ֵ ‫ָה ָתם ִא‬ ּ ‫ית‬

Mar bar Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: The practice of my father, Ameimar, was that with regard to vinegar in which he had soaked meat one timeh to keep in its blood, he would not soak meat in it again.n It could no longer keep the blood in the meat. The Gemara asks: In what way is vinegar that has been used once different from weak vinegar, in which we soak meat without concern that it will be unable to keep the blood in the meat? The Gemara explains: There, the

Perek VII Daf 75 Amud a ‫ ָה ָכא – ֵל ָיתא‬,‫ינֵיה‬ ּ ‫ ְל ִקּיו ָּהא דְּ ֵפ ָירא ְ ּב ֵע‬sharpness of the fruit remains present in the vinegar in its pure, .‫ינֵיה‬ ּ ‫ ְל ִקּיו ָּהא דְּ ֵפ ָירא ְ ּב ֵע‬unadulterated form, despite the fact that the vinegar itself is not sharp. Here, the sharpness of the fruit does not remain present in the vinegar in its pure, unadulterated form because it has already been used with the meat. Therefore, the vinegar is no longer potent enough to keep the blood in the meat. ‫ ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬.‫צֹולין ֶאת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח וכו׳״‬ ִ ‫״אין‬ ֵ :‫יח ְּס ָרא וְ ָה ִכי ָק ָתנֵי‬ ַ ‫ִל ְס ּתֹור? ַח ּס ֵֹורי ִמ‬ ‫ וְ ָא ַמר‬.‫וְ ִאם ַא ְס ְּכ ָלא ְמנו ֶ ּּק ֶבת – מו ָּּתר‬ ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי צָ דֹוק‬ ‫ׁ ֶש ָא ַמר ְל ָט ִבי ַע ְבדּ ֹו צֵ א ּוצְ ֵלה ָלנ ּו‬ .‫ֶאת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ַעל ָה ַא ְס ְּכ ָלא ְמנו ֶ ּּק ֶבת‬

It was taught in the mishna that one may not roast the Paschal lamb on a grill. Subsequently, the mishna quotes an incident in which Rabban Gamliel instructed his servant to roast the Paschal lamb for him on a grill. The Gemara expresses surprise: Was an incident cited to contradict what was previously stated? The Gemara responds: The mishna is incompleteb and is teaching the following: And if it is a perforated grill, so that the fire reaches each part of the meat and the animal will not be roasted from the heat of the grill itself, it is permitted. And with regard to this Rabbi Tzadok said that there was an incident with Rabban Gamliel, who said to his slave Tavi: Go and roast the Paschal lamb for us on the perforated grill.nh

‫ֵיה ַרב ִּחינָ נָ א ַ ּבר ִא ִידי ֵמ ַרב‬ ּ ‫ְ ּב ָעא ִמ ּינ‬ ‫ ַּתנּ ּור ׁ ֶש ִה ִּסיקֹו‬:‫ַאדָּ א ַ ּבר ַא ֲה ָבה‬ ‫ וּגְ ָרפֹו וְ ָא ָפה ּבֹו ֶאת‬,‫יפי ָע ְר ָלה‬ ֵ ּ ‫ִ ּב ְק ִל‬ :‫יה‬ ֵ ‫ ְל ִד ְב ֵרי ָה‬,‫ַה ּ ַפת‬ ּ ‫אֹוסר ַמהוּ? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ .‫ַה ּ ַפת מו ֶּּת ֶרת‬

The Gemara cites a discussion related to the subject of roasting the Paschal lamb. Rav Ĥinnana bar Idi raised a dilemma before Rav Adda bar Ahava: In the case of an oven that one fired with peels of fruit that are orla,nh i.e., fruit that grows on a tree the first three years after it was planted, from which one may not receive any benefit, if, after the oven became very hot, he swept it and removed the fuel and the ashes, and he baked bread in it, according to the opinion that prohibits bread baked directly with heat from orla fuel, what is the halakha with regard to this bread? It was baked with the heat trapped in the oven only after the fuel was removed. He said to him: The bread is permitted.

‫ וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַרב ִּחינָ נָ א ָס ָבא‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ ַּתנּ וּר‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ – ‫ וּגְ ָרפֹו וְ צָ ָלה ּבֹו ֶאת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬,‫ׁ ֶש ִה ִּסיקֹו‬ ‫ ״צְ ִלי ֵא ׁש״‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ֵאין זֶ ה צְ ִלי ֵא ׁש‬ .‫״צְ ִלי ֵא ׁש״ ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְפ ָע ִמים‬

Rav Ĥinnana said to him: But didn’t Rav Ĥinnana the Elder say that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: If there is an oven that one fired and swept so that the heat remains but there is no longer any fire in the oven, and one then roasted the Paschal lamb in it,h this is not a fulfillment of the Torah’s command that the Paschal lamb must be roasted in fire, as it is stated in the Torah: “And they shall eat the meat on that night, roasted in fire, and matzot; with bitter herbs they shall eat it. Do not eat of it raw, nor boiled in water, but roasted in fire; its head with its legs and with its inner parts” (Exodus 12:8–9), and since it says the phrase: Roasted in fire, two times, the verse emphasizes that the Paschal lamb must literally be roasted on the fire?

background

The mishna is incomplete – ‫יח ְּס ָרא‬ ַ ‫ח ּס ֵֹורי ִמ‬:ַ This method of explanation is often found in the Gemara. However, generally speaking, it does not suggest an actual emendation of the text of the mishna. The addition introduced by the Gemara is a necessary elaboration upon that which is written in the mishna, which is insufficiently clear in its current form. The addition provides the necessary clarification. notes

Go and roast…on the perforated grill – ‫ה…על‬ ַ ‫צֵ א וּצְ ֵל‬ ‫ה ַא ְס ְּכ ָלא‬:ָ Perhaps Rabban Gamliel insisted on roasting his Paschal lamb on a grill rather than on a spit of pomegranate wood so as not to ruin pomegranate trees and thereby damage the settlement of Eretz Yisrael (Ĥatam Sofer). Orla – ‫ע ְר ָלה‬:ָ It is prohibited to eat or derive benefit from the fruit that grows during the first three years after a tree has been planted (see Leviticus 19:23). This prohibition applies only to the fruit but not to the other parts of the tree. In addition, the prohibition does not apply to trees planted as a fence for property or as a wind buffer rather than for their fruit.

‫ ַט ְע ָמא – דְּ גַ ֵּלי ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ״צְ ִלי ֵא ׁש״‬The following can now be inferred: The reason is specifically because ‫ ָהא ָלא ַ ּג ֵּלי‬.‫ ״צְ ִלי ֵא ׁש״ ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְפ ָע ִמים‬the Merciful One reveals this halakha with regard to the Paschal lamb !‫ ַר ֲח ָמנָ א – ָהוֵ י ָא ִמינָ א צְ ִלי ֵא ׁש הוּא‬in the Torah by repeating: Roasted in fire, roasted in fire, twice. But if the Merciful One had not revealed this halakha by emphasizing the need to roast it directly on the fire, I would have said a Paschal lamb roasted in an oven that has already been swept is nonetheless considered roasted in fire. Therefore, in other situations in which something is roasted in an oven, even if it is not roasted directly from the heat of a fire, its status should be comparable to something that was roasted directly from the fuel. If the fuel is forbidden, the food should be forbidden.

halakha

Perforated grill – ‫א ְס ְּכ ָלא ְמנו ֶ ּּק ֶבת‬:ַ It is permitted to roast a Pas- Nevertheless, according to the Vilna Gaon this may not be done chal lamb on a perforated grill (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot ab initio (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 142:4). Korban Pesaĥ 8:9). A Paschal lamb roasted in an oven that has been swept – An oven that one fired with…orla – ‫יקֹו…ב ָע ְר ָלה‬ ְּ ‫תנּ וּר ׁ ֶש ִה ִּס‬:ַּ If one ‫פ ַסח ַה ּנִצְ ֶלה ְ ּב ַתנּ וּר ָ ּגרוּף‬:ֶ ּ If one fired an oven with wood and then fueled the fire in an oven with peels of orla, from which one may removed the wood, he is prohibited from roasting a Paschal not derive benefit, and then he removed the peels and the ashes lamb in it because it would not be considered roasted over a fire and only then baked bread in the oven, the bread is permitted. (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 8:10).



‫הע ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 75a 

63

halakha

If one cuts it and places it on coals – ‫ֲח ָתכֹו וּנְ ָתנֹו ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי‬ ‫ג ָח ִלים‬:ּ ֶ If one made cuts in the Paschal lamb and placed it on coals, it is considered to be roasted over a fire. Although this is the opinion of only one of the Sages, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion because no conflicting opinion is cited (Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 8:10). A burn with regard to leprosy – ‫כוִ יָה ִ ּבנְ גָ ִעים‬:ְּ A burn caused by fire, coal, hot ash, hot lime, or anything heated by fire is considered a burn with regard to the halakhot of leprosy (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Tzara’at 5:1). They would prepare for her a molten bar of lead – ‫ּ ְפ ִת ָילה‬ ‫עֹושין ָל ּה‬ ׂ ִ ‫של ֲא ָבר ָהי ּו‬: ֶ ׁ If one was liable to receive the death penalty of burning, the executioners would force open his mouth and pour in burning lead, in accordance with the statement of Rav Mattana (Rambam Sefer Shofetim, Hilkhot Sanhedrin 15:3). notes

Burns and leprosy – ‫מ ְכ�ֹות וּנְ גָ ִעים‬:ִ The halakhot of leprosy, which the Torah details in Leviticus 13–14, are explained in tractate Nega’im. The term used in the Torah, tzara’at, is not necessarily the medical equivalent of the modern form of the disease, but refers to symptoms that cause severe ritual impurity. Leprosy may appear on skin, hair, articles of clothing, and houses. When a symptom appears, it is examined by a priest, and only a priest is authorized to determine whether to quarantine the affected person for a certain period or to declare immediately that the symptom is or is not leprosy. Leprosy is one of the primary sources of ritual impurity, and it is particularly severe in that it imparts ritual impurity to objects found in the same enclosure with it, similar to the impurity imparted by corpses. One afflicted with leprosy is sent out of the Israelite camp and must live alone until his affliction is cured. A garment affected by leprosy is burned, and a contaminated house is entirely destroyed, with its rubble disposed of in a ritually impure place. A cured leper undergoes special rites outside the city and a purification ceremony in the Temple itself. He is obligated to bring specific offerings as part of his purification. There are unique halakhot that apply to symptoms of leprosy that appear on the skin in places where there had previously been an inflammation or a burn. Such symptoms are treated somewhat differently than symptoms of leprosy on otherwise healthy tissue. Symptoms of leprosy that appear in the location of a previous inflammation or burn caused by anything other than fire are treated in the same manner as symptoms that appear in the location of a previous burn caused by fire or by extreme heat. However, symptoms in each of these locations cannot combine to equal a symptom the size of a bean, the minimum required legal measure to constitute a plague of leprosy. Therefore, if there is a leprous symptom less than the size of a bean on the spot of a previous inflammation, and next to it there is another spot of similar size on the location of a previous burn, they do not combine to equal the legal measure of leprosy, and the afflicted person is not ritually impure. Consequently, it is important to define precisely what is considered an inflammation and what is considered a burn. Burned by lime or plaster – ‫ נִ ְכוָ ה ְ ּב ִסיד אֹו ְ ּבגִ ּ ְפ ִסיס‬: Tosafot ask: What is the difference between burning-hot lime and plaster, for which a derivation is required to indicate that their legal status is like that of fire, and a hot oven, which does not require an independent derivation? Apparently, lime and plaster are heated by means of hot water that is poured over them. Their heat does not come from fire as directly as the heat of an oven does (Rabbi Yitzĥak Isaac Ĥaver). language

Plaster [gipsis] – ‫ג ּ ְּפ ִסיס‬:ִ From the Greek γύψος, gupsos, meaning plaster.

64 

Perek VII . 75a . ‫הע ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

‫ וְ יָ ְל ִפינַ ן‬,‫ ַ ּג ֵּלי ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ָה ָתם‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rav Ĥinnana bar Idi: The Merciful .‫ ִמ ָּינ ּה‬One reveals it there, with regard to the Paschal lamb, and we learn from it that even in other areas of halakha, only something that is roasted directly by a fire is considered roasted in fire. ‫ ָה ָתם ַט ְע ָמא – דְּ ָכ ַתב‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫וְ ִאי ָ ּב ֵעית ֵא‬ ‫ ָהא‬,‫ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ״צְ ִלי ֵא ׁש״ ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְפ ָע ִמים‬ ‫ל ֹא ָּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ״צְ ִלי ֵא ׁש״ ׁ ְש ֵּתי‬ ‫ ַא ֵא ׁש ָק ֵפיד‬:‫ְפ ָע ִמים – ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬ ּ ‫ וַ ֲא ִפ‬,‫ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬ ‫יל ּו ְ ּג ָרפֹו נַ ִמי צְ ִלי ֵא ׁש‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ָה ָכא – ַא ֵעצִ ים דְּ ִא ּיסו ָּרא‬.‫הוּא‬ .ּ‫יתנְ הו‬ ַ ‫ וְ ָהא ֵל‬,‫ָקא ָק ֵפיד ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬

And if you wish, say a different answer instead: There, in the case of the Paschal lamb, the reason one may not roast the lamb if one has already swept out the oven is that the Merciful One writes “roasted in fire” twice. But if the Merciful One had not written “roasted in fire” twice, I would have said that the Merciful One is particular about fire, meaning that the source of the heat in the oven should be fire, and even if one swept it, it is still considered roasted in fire. It was therefore necessary to repeat the phrase “roasted in fire.” But here, in the case of orla, the Merciful One is particular about the prohibited fuel, and it is not here in the oven. Therefore, there is no reason to prohibit the bread.

.‫ ֲח ָתכֹו וּנְ ָתנֹו ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ֶ ּג ָח ִלים‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫ ָר ֵמי‬.‫אֹומר ֲאנִי ׁ ֶשּזֶ ה צְ ִלי ֵא ׁש‬ ֵ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ :‫יה ַרב ֲא ַח ְדבֹוי ַ ּבר ַא ִמי ְל ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ,ּ‫ִמי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶ ּג ָח ִלים ֵא ׁש נִינְ הו‬

The Sages taught: If one cuts the Paschal lamb superficially in several places and places it on coals,h Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that this is considered roasted in fire, as coals have the status of real fire. Rav Aĥadvoi bar Ami raised a contradiction to Rav Ĥisda: Did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi actually say that coals are considered like fire?

‫״מ ְכוַ ת ֵא ׁש״ ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָּלא‬ ִ :ּ‫ו ְּר ִמינְ הו‬ ,‫ ָ ּב ֶר ֶמץ‬,‫ נִ ְכוָ ה ַ ּב ַ ּג ֶח ֶלת‬,‫ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְכוָ ה ָ ּב ֵא ׁש‬ ‫רֹות ַח וְ ָכל דָּ ָבר‬ ֵ ‫ ְ ּבגִ ּ ְפ ִסיס‬,‫רֹות ַח‬ ֵ ‫ְ ּב ִסיד‬ ,‫יתֹויֵ י ַח ֵּמי ָהאוּר‬ ּ ‫ ְל ִא‬,‫ַה ָ ּבא ִמן ָהאוּר‬ ‫ ִ׳מ ְכוָ ה׳ ִ׳מ ְכוָ ה׳‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ִמ ּנַיִ ין? ַּת ְלמוּד‬ .‫יבה‬ ּ ָ ‫ִר‬

Rav Aĥadvoi bar Ami raised a contradiction based on the Torah’s statement with regard to the laws of leprosy: “Or flesh that shall have on its skin a burn from fire” (Leviticus 13:24).n From the fact that it says a burn from fire, I have derived nothing other than a case in which it is burned by fire itself; if it is burned by a coal, by burning ash, by burning lime, by burning plaster [gipsis],nlb or by anything else that is burning and whose source of heat comes from fire, to include also water heated by fire, from where is it derived that these are also considered a burn from fire? The verse states: A burn, a burn, twice. By repeating the term, it includes all these types of burns.h

,‫״מ ְכוָ ה״‬ ִ ‫״מ ְכוָ ה״‬ ִ ‫ ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַר ֵ ּבי ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬The following can now be inferred: The reason is that the Merciful – ‫״מ ְכוָ ה״‬ ִ ‫״מ ְכוָ ה״‬ ִ ‫ ָהא ָלא ַר ֵ ּבי ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬One includes these types of burns in the Torah through the words: !ּ‫ ֶ ּג ָח ִלים ָלאו ֵא ׁש נִינְ הו‬A burn, a burn. But if the Merciful One had not included them through the repetitive expression a burn, a burn, one would have assumed that coals are not considered fire, which contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that any usage of the term fire includes coals as well. ְ‫יה ַ ּג ֶח ֶלת ׁ ֶשל ֵעץ ָלא ִאיצְ ְט ִריך‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬He said to him: With regard to a red-hot wood coal, it is not nec– ‫יך ְק ָרא‬ ְ ‫ ִּכי ִאיצְ ְט ִר‬.‫ ְק ָרא ְל ַר ּבֹויֵ י‬essary for the verse to include it. As long as it is burning, it is .‫ ְלגַ ֶח ֶלת ׁ ֶשל ַמ ֶּת ֶכת‬certainly considered a fire. Where a verse is necessary is with regard to a red-hot piece of metal that was heated by a fire. Without the verse, it would have been possible to think a person burned by hot metal it is not considered burned by fire. !?‫וְ גֶ ָח ִלים ׁ ֶשל ַמ ֶּת ֶכת ָלאו ֵא ׁש הוּא‬ ‫״ב ֵא ׁש‬ ּ ָ :‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫וְ ָהא ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַ ּבת ּכ ֵֹהן‬ ‫ ּ ְפ ִת ָילה ׁ ֶשל‬:‫ִּת ּ ָ ׂש ֵרף״ וְ ָא ַמר ַרב ַמ ָּתנָ ה‬ !‫עֹושין ָל ּה‬ ׂ ִ ‫ֲא ָבר ָהי ּו‬

The Gemara expresses surprise at the previous answer: And are red-hot pieces of metal not considered fire? But with regard to a daughter of a priest who committed adultery after betrothal, it is written: “And the daughter of a priest, if she profanes herself through adultery, she profanes her father; in fire she shall be burned” (Leviticus 21:9), and Rav Mattana said: They would not literally burn her in fire; rather, they would prepare for her a molten bar of lead.h They would execute her by pouring molten lead down her throat. This proves that burning metal is considered fire.

background

Burning plaster – ‫רֹות ַח‬ ֵ ‫ג ּ ְּפ ִסיס‬:ִ The halakha of burning plaster, which is considered to be heated by a derivative of fire, is based on the method in which the plaster is produced. Plaster is found in several different places in large quantities and with varying levels of density and water saturation. The

raw plaster is put into an oven and heated, creating a powder. When water is added to this powder, significant heat is created. The source of the plaster’s heat, though it is not immediately apparent, is the heat of the oven in which the raw plaster was heated.

‫״ב ֵא ׁש ִּת ּ ָ ׂש ֵרף״‬ ּ ָ :‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬,‫ ׁ ָשאנֵי ָה ָתם‬The Gemara responds: It is different there, as the verse states not .‫״ת ּ ָ ׂש ֵרף״ ְל ַר ּבֹות ָּכל ְ ׂש ֵריפֹות ַה ָ ּבאֹות ִמן ָה ֵא ׁש‬ ִּ simply fire, but “in fire she shall be burned.” The expression “she shall be burned” comes to include all burnings that come from fire. ‫וְ ָכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ֵא ׁש ַעצְ ָמ ּה; וְ נַ ִּקיף ָל ּה ֲח ִב ֵילי זְ מֹורֹות‬ ‫ ַמה‬,‫וְ נִ ְק ָל ּה! ָא ְתיָ א ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה ִמ ְ ּבנֵי ַא ֲהרֹן‬ – ‫ ַאף ָּכאן‬,‫נְש ָמה וְ גוּף ַקּיָ ים‬ ָ ׁ ‫ְּל ַה ָּלן – ְ ׂש ֵר ַיפת‬ .‫נְש ָמה וְ גוּף ַקּיָ ים‬ ָ ׁ ‫ְ ׂש ֵר ַיפת‬

The Gemara suggests: If so, all the more so fire itself fulfills the requirement of burning. Let us surround her with bundles of branches and burn her with them. The Gemara responds: It comes from a verbal analogy between the word “burning” stated here and the word “burning” stated and in the context of the death of the sons of Aaron: Just as below, with regard to the sons of Aaron, the verse states that they were burned with fire (see Leviticus 10:2), and it was a burning of the soul and the body remained, as even their clothes were not burned, so too, here, with regard to the daughter of a priest, it means the burning of the soul and the body remains.

.‫נַע ִביד ָל ּה ַח ֵּמי ָהאוּר! ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ ֲ ְ‫ ו‬The Gemara challenges: Let us execute her with boiling water heated ָ‫ ״וְ ָא ַה ְב ָּת ְל ֵר ֲעך‬:‫ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬,‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬by fire. The Gemara answers: It is due to the statement of Rav Naĥ­ .‫יתה יָ ָפה‬ ָ ‫ ָּכמֹוךָ ״ – ְ ּברֹור לֹו ִמ‬man, as Rav Naĥman said that the verse states: “And you shall love your fellow as yourself ” (Leviticus 19:18). When executing someone, select for him a kind death.n Even when someone must be executed, his dignity should be protected. He should be executed in the most comfortable way possible. ‫ ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ָשוָ ה ָל ָּמה‬,‫יכא ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ ָּ ‫וְ ִכי ֵמ ַא ַחר דְּ ִא‬ :‫ ִאי ָלאו ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ָשוָ ה – ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬:‫ִלי? ָא ְמ ִרי‬ .‫נְש ָמה וְ גוּף ַקּיָ ים – ָלאו ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה ִהיא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ְ ׂש ֵר ַיפת‬ ‫נֵיפ ּו ׁש ָל ּה ֲח ִב ֵילי‬ ּ – ‫וְ ִאי ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ ‫ ָקא‬,‫יכי דְּ ָתמוּת ַ ּב ֲעגָ ָלא‬ ִ ‫ ִּכי ֵה‬,‫זְ מֹורֹות טו ָּבא‬ .‫ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬

The Gemara asks: Once there is the reason of Rav Naĥman, why do I need the verbal analogy derived from the sons of Aaron? Even without it, Rav Naĥman’s ruling requires the court to carry out the execution with molten lead, which provides an easier death. Say in answer to this question: If not for the verbal analogy, I would have said that burning the soul while the body remains is not considered burning. And if it were only due to the statement of Rav Naĥman that one must select a kind death, we should add many bundles of branches so that she would die quickly. Therefore, the verbal analogy teaches us that executing with molten lead is considered burning.

.‫ וְ ֶא ָּלא ָ ּ׳ב ֵא ׁש׳ ָל ָּמה ִלי? ְל ַא ּפ ֵֹוקי ֲא ָבר ֵמ ִע ָ ּיקרֹו‬But if it so that the verse says “she shall be burned” to include all methods of burning, for what do I need the expression “in fire”? The Gemara answers: To exclude lead from its source.n ‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָכל ֵה‬:‫יה ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ְל ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫״ב ֵא ׁש ִּת ּ ָ ׂש ֵרף״ ְל ַר ּבֹות ָּכל ְ ׂש ֵריפֹות‬ ּ ָ ‫דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ‫ַה ָ ּבאֹות ֵמ ֲח ַמת ֵא ׁש הוּא?! וְ ָהא ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ּ ָפ ִרים‬ ‫ ״וְ ָ ׂש ַרף אֹתֹו ַעל ֵעצִ ים‬:ּ‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב ְ ּבהו‬,‫ִש ָר ִפים‬ ׂ ְ ‫ַה ּנ‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא‬,‫רֹות ַח‬ ֵ ‫ ָ ּ׳ב ֵא ׁש׳ – וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב ִסיד‬:‫ָ ּב ֵא ׁש״ וְ ַתנְיָא‬ !‫רֹות ַח‬ ֵ ‫ְ ּבגִ ּ ְפ ִסיס‬

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: Is it true that anywhere that it is written: “In fire she shall be burned” it comes to include all methods of burning that come from fire? But what of bulls that are burned, about which it is written: “And he shall burn it on wood in fire, where the ash is poured it shall be burned” (Leviticus 4:12), and it was taught in a baraita: In fire, and not in burning lime and not in burning plaster? Why aren’t all methods of burning permitted in this case as well?

,‫ ָה ִכי ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא! ָה ָתם ְּכ ִתיב ָ ּ׳ב ֵא ׁש׳‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫וַ ֲה ַדר ִּ׳ת ּ ָ ׂש ֵרף׳ – ְל ַר ּבֹות ָּכל ְ ׂש ֵריפֹות ַה ָ ּבאֹות‬ ‫ ָה ָכא ְּכ ִתיב ״וְ ָ ׂש ַרף אֹתֹו ַעל‬.‫ֵמ ֲח ַמת ָה ֵא ׁש‬ – ‫ימ ָרא דְּ ֵא ׁש‬ ְ ‫ ְל ֵמ‬,‫ֵעצִ ים ָ ּב ֵא ׁש״ – ְל ַב ּסֹוף ֵא ׁש‬ .‫ ִמידֵּ י ַא ֲח ִרינָ א – ָלא‬,‫ִאין‬

He said to him: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the daughter of a priest, it is written: “In fire,” and the verse subsequently states that she shall be burned, which comes to include all methods of burning that come from fire. Here, in the case of a bull, it is written: “And he shall burn it on wood in fire.” At the end it says fire, to say that with regard to fire, yes, it may be used, but with regard to something else, no, it may not be used.

:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ ָה ָתם נַ ִמי ְּכ ִת ָיבא ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה ְל ַב ּסֹוף‬The Gemara objects: There, too, with regard to bulls that are burned, burning is written at the end, as it is written at the end of that verse: notes

Select for him a kind death – ‫ברֹור לֹו ִמ ָיתה יָ ָפה‬:ּ ְ Some commentaries explain that the verse must be interpreted in the following way. As long as the person is alive, it is impossible to fully fulfill the command to “love your fellow as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18) because the halakha dictates that one’s own life take precedence over the life of his fellow. Therefore, the command must also refer to a situation such as this, where the issue of whose life takes precedence is no longer relevant (Tosafot).

state may be explained by the effect of geothermal heat in deep mines and radioactive decay that produces heat. Nevertheless, there are no known occurrences of newly mined lead found in a boiling hot state. An alternative approach that has been suggested is that, in this context, lead from its source stands in contrast to a molten bar of lead, which is required for the execution of an adulterous daughter of a priest. The molten bar of lead consists of lead that has been refined and can be heated to a point that it will glow red from the heat. Such ּ ָ ‫ל ַא ּפ ֵֹוקי ֲא ָבר ֵמ ִע‬:ְ Rashi and metal is similar to wood coal and meets the requirement to execute To exclude lead from its source – ‫יקרֹו‬ other early commentaries appear to understand that lead can be the daughter of a priest by burning her in fire. Lead from its source is found in a naturally molten state when it is mined, but this burn- lead that remains in a rougher state and is mixed with slag and other ing lead cannot be used for executions because its heat does not impurities. This will prevent it from becoming red-hot, and it cannot come from fire. The phenomenon of lead found in a naturally molten be used to fulfill the requirement to burn her in fire.



‫הע ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 75a 

65

Perek VII Daf 75 Amud b

66 

Perek VII . 75b . ‫הע ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

‫ ַההוּא‬:‫״על ׁ ֶש ֶפ ְך ַהדֶּ ׁ ֶשן יִ ּ ָ ׂש ֵרף״! ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ַ ‫ ״יִ ּ ָ ׂש ֵרף״ – ַאף‬:‫יה ְל ִכ ְד ַתנְיָא‬ ּ ָ ‫יִ ּ ָ ׂש ֵרף ִמ‬ ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ ‫ ״יִ ּ ָ ׂש ֵרף״ – ַאף ַעל‬,‫ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ׁ ָשם דֶּ ׁ ֶשן‬ .‫ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ִה ִ ּצית ָהאוּר ְ ּברו ּּבֹו‬

“Where the ash is poured it shall be burned” (Leviticus 4:12). The Gemara responds: Say: That usage of the expression “it shall be burned” is needed for that which was taught in a baraita: It shall be burned even though there is no ash there, as the presence of ash from the altar is not essential for burning the bulls. “It shall be burned” also teaches that although the fire has consumed most of it, that is not sufficient. One must take care to complete the burning process.

– ‫״מ ְכוַ ת ֵא ׁש״‬ ִ ‫רֹוך ו ְּתנֵי‬ ְ ‫ ְּכ‬:‫ָר ִבינָ א ָא ַמר‬ ‫ נִ ְכוָ ה‬,‫ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְכוָ ה ָ ּב ֵא ׁש ו ַּב ַ ּג ֶח ֶלת‬ ‫ ו ְּב ָכל‬,‫רֹות ַח‬ ֵ ‫רֹות ַח ו ְּבגִ ּ ְפ ִסיס‬ ֵ ‫ָ ּב ֶר ֶמץ ְ ּב ִסיד‬ ‫יתֹויֵ י ַח ֵּמי‬ ּ ‫דָּ ָבר ַה ָ ּבא ֵמ ֲח ַמת ָהאוּר ְל ִא‬ ‫ ִ׳מ ְכוָ ה׳‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ָהא ּור – ִמ ּנַיִ ין? ַּת ְלמוּד‬ .‫יבה‬ ּ ָ ‫ִ׳מ ְכוָ ה׳ ִר‬

Ravina said that the contradiction cited earlier between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement, that roasting over coal is considered roasting over fire, and the baraita, which requires a derivation to indicate that coal is considered fire with regard to leprosy, can be answered by changing the text of the baraita. Combine and teach the first two types of burns together. From the phrase “a burn from fire,” I have derived nothing other than a case in which one was burned by a fire or by a coal. With regard to one who is burned by hot ash, by burning lime, or by burning plaster, or by anything else that is burning and whose source of heat comes from fire, to include water heated by fire, from where is it derived that these cases are also considered a burn from fire? The verse states: A burn, a burn, twice. By repeating the term, it includes all these types of burns.

ְּ ‫ ִמי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶ ּג ָח ִלים ִא‬:‫ָר ָבא ָר ֵמי‬ ,‫יקר ּו ֵא ׁש‬ ּ ַ :‫ו ְּר ִמינְ ִהי‬ ‫עֹוממֹות – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ְ ‫״ג ֲח ֵלי״ יָ כֹול‬ – ‫ ִאי ֵא ׁש יָ כֹול ׁ ַש ְל ֶה ֶבת‬.‫״א ׁש״‬ ֵ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ ָהא ֵּכיצַ ד? ֵמ ִביא‬.‫ ״ ַ ּג ֲח ֵלי״‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ְּ ‫(א ְל ָמא ֶ ּג ָח ִלים ָלא ִא‬ ‫יק ִרי‬ ַ .‫ֹוח ׁשֹות‬ ֲ ּ‫ִמן ַהל‬ .‫ֵא ׁש‬

Rava raised a contradiction: Did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi actually say that coals are called fire? And we raise a contradiction based on the verse: “And he shall take a pan full of burning coals from upon the altar before the Lord” (Leviticus 16:12). From the verse’s use of the word coals, I might have thought that one may bring smoldering coals, meaning that the fire is almost extinguished and is not noticeable from the outside. Therefore, the verse states: Fire. If it had stated only fire, I might have thought it was referring to a flame. Therefore, the verse states: Coals. How are these two requirements reconciled? One brings from the coals that are flickering, meaning that the fire is visible. Apparently, plain coals are not called fire.

‫ ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬:‫ָא ְמ ִר י) וְ ָה א גּ ּו ָפא ַק ׁ ְש יָ א‬ ‫לֹוח ׁשֹות‬ ֲ :‫ ַא ְל ָמא‬,‫עֹוממֹות‬ ְ ‫״ ַ ּג ֲח ֵלי״ – יָ כֹול‬ ‫ ִאי ֵא ׁש יָ כֹול‬:‫יפא‬ ָ ‫ימא ֵס‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬.ּ‫ֵא ׁש נִינְ הו‬ ּ ַ ‫לֹומר‬ :‫ ַא ְל ָמא‬.‫״ג ֲח ֵלי״‬ ַ ‫ׁ ַש ְל ֶה ֶבת – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ !ּ‫ ָלאו ֵא ׁש נִינְ הו‬,‫לֹוח ׁשֹות‬ ֲ ‫ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬

Say in answer to this question: Isn’t this baraita itself difficult? You said: From the verse’s use of the word coals, I might have thought the verse is referring to coals that are smoldering. Apparently, it is clear that flickering coals are considered fire. Say the latter clause of that same baraita as follows: If it had stated only fire, I might have thought it was referring to a flame. Therefore, the verse states: Coals. Apparently, even flickering coals are not considered fire, and there is an internal contradiction in the baraita.

ּ ַ :‫ ָה ִכי ָק ָתנֵי‬,‫וְ ָא ַמר ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת‬ – ‫״ג ֲח ֵלי״‬ ‫לֹוח ׁשֹות – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ֲ ‫עֹוממֹות ֵ ּבין‬ ְ ‫יָ כֹול ֵ ּבין‬ ,‫ ִאי ֵא ׁש – יָ כֹול ׁ ַש ְל ֶה ֶבת‬.‫״א ׁש״‬ ֵ ‫לֹומר‬ ַ ּ ַ ‫לֹומר‬ ‫ ָהא ֵּכיצַ ד? ֵמ ִביא‬.‫״ג ֲח ֵלי״‬ ַ ‫ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ‫ ֶ ּג ָח ִלים ָלא‬,‫ ִמ ָּכל ָמקֹום‬.‫ֹוח ׁשֹות‬ ֲ ‫ִמן ַה ּל‬ ְּ ‫ִא‬ !‫ ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יק ֵרי ֵא ׁש‬

And Rav Sheshet said, in order to resolve this contradiction: This is what the baraita is teaching: From the verse’s use of the word coals, I might have thought he can take whatever he wants, whether smoldering or flickering. Therefore, the Torah states: Fire. If it had stated only fire, I might have thought it was referring to a flame. Therefore, the verse states: Coals. How is this to be understood? He brings from the flickering coals. In any event, it is derived from here that coals, even if they are flickering, are not called fire. This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, according to which coals are considered fire.

ּ ַ :‫ ָּת ֵריץ ָה ִכי‬,‫ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ‫״ג ֲח ֵלי״ – יָ כֹול‬ ‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫לֹוח ׁשֹות – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ֲ ‫עֹוממֹות וְ ל ֹא‬ ְ ,‫ יָ כֹול ָרצָ ה ׁ ַש ְל ֶה ֶבת ִיָביא‬,‫ ִאי ֵא ׁש‬.‫״א ׁש״‬ ֵ ּ ַ ‫לֹומר‬ .‫״ג ֲח ֵלי״‬ ַ ‫ָרצָ ה ַ ּג ֶח ֶלת ִיָביא – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ .‫ֹוח ׁשֹות‬ ֲ ּ‫ָהא ֵּכיצַ ד? ֵמ ִביא ִמן ַהל‬

Abaye said that the answer is as follows: Based on the word coals, I might have thought they must be smoldering and not flickering. Therefore, the verse states: Fire. If it had stated only fire, I might have thought that if one wanted a flame he may bring it, and if he wanted a coal he may bring it. Therefore, the Torah states: Coals. How is this to be understood? He brings from the flickering coals. According to this, it is clear that coals are considered fire, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

– ‫ ָרצָ ה‬,‫ ָרצָ ה – ַ ּג ֶח ֶלת ִיָביא‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה‬ ‫ ׁ ַש ְל ֶה ֶבת ְ ּבל ֹא ַ ּג ֶח ֶלת‬.‫ׁ ַש ְל ֶה ֶבת ִיָביא‬ ‫יה‬ ִ ‫ֵה‬ ּ ֵ‫יכי ַמ ׁ ְש ַּכ ַח ְּת ָל ּה – ְּכגֹון דִּ ׁ ְש ָפי‬ .‫יה נו ָּרא‬ ּ ‫ וְ ִא ְּת ֵלי ֵ ּב‬,‫ְל ָמנָ א ִמ ׁ ְש ָחא‬ ‫עֹוטי? ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא‬ ֵ ‫ַההוּא ָל ָּמה ִלי ְק ָרא ְל ָמ‬ ,‫עֹושין ֵּכן‬ ׂ ִ ‫ִל ְפנֵי ֶמ ֶל ְך ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וָ ָדם ֵאין‬ ‫דֹוש‬ ׁ ‫ִל ְפנֵי ֶמ ֶל ְך ַמ ְל ֵכי ַה ְּמ ָל ִכים ַה ָ ּק‬ !?‫ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא ל ֹא ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬

– ‫ ״ ַ ּג ֲח ֵלי״‬:‫ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ָר ָבא ָּת ֵריץ ָה ִכי‬ ‫ ַּת ְלמוּד‬,‫לֹוח ׁשֹות‬ ֲ ‫עֹוממֹות וְ ל ֹא‬ ְ ‫יָ כֹול‬ ‫ ִאי ֵא ׁש – יָ כֹול ִיָביא‬.‫״א ׁש״‬ ֵ ‫לֹומר‬ ַ .‫ֶמ ֱחצָ ה ַ ּג ֶח ֶל ת ּו ֶמ ֱחצָ ה ׁ ַש ְל ֶה ֶבת‬ ,‫יה ַ ּג ֶח ֶלת‬ ָ ‫ַאדְּ ָעיֵ יל ְל‬ ּ ‫גֹוב ֵאי ָהוֵ י ּכו ֵּל‬ ‫ ״וְ ָל ַקח ְמל ֹא ַה ַּמ ְח ָּתה‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ‫ַ ּג ֲח ֵלי ֵא ׁש ֵמ ַעל ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח״ – ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ַעת‬ .‫נֶיהוֵ י ֶ ּג ָח ִלים‬ ֱ ‫יחה‬ ָ ‫ְל ִק‬

Rabba said: In this last explanation, it was stated that one might have thought that if he wanted a coal he may bring it, and if he wanted a flame he may bring it. Under what circumstances can a flame without a coaln be found? The Gemara answers: In a case where one smears a utensil with oil and lights it on fire. However, for a case like this, why do I need a verse to exclude it and indicate that one may not bring such a flame? Now, in front of a king of flesh and blood one does not do this, as it is considered disgraceful to bring such a flame before a king; in front of the King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, is it not all the more so a disgrace? Therefore, the verse would not need to exclude this type of flame. Rather, Rava said that one should answer as follows: Based on the word coals, I might have thought they must be smoldering and not flickering; therefore, the verse states: Fire. If it had said only fire, I might have thought one should bring half coal and half fire,n meaning that when one takes the coals from the altar they should be burning strongly and their flame should be visible, and by the time he enters the inside of the Holy of Holies the fire will die down and it will be all coal. Therefore, the verse states: “And he shall take a coal-pan full of burning coals from upon the altar” (Leviticus 16:12), which indicates that from the time of their taking they should be coals and not flames.

halakha

Touched the earthenware surface of an oven – ‫נָ גַ ע ְ ּב ַח ְרסֹו‬ ‫של ַּתנּ וּר‬: ֶ ׁ If a Paschal lamb touches the earthenware surface of an oven, one must peel off the place of contact and it may not be eaten (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 8:11). If some of the gravy dripped – ‫רֹוט ּבֹו‬ ְ ‫נָטף ֵמ‬: ַ If gravy drips from the Paschal lamb onto an earthenware oven and splatters back onto the offering, that part of the offering must be removed and may not be eaten (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 8:12). Dripped onto flour – ‫רֹוט ּבֹו ַעל ַה ּס ֶֹולת‬ ְ ‫נָטף ֵמ‬: ַ If gravy drips from the Paschal lamb onto hot flour (Leĥem Mishne), one must take a handful of the flour from that place and throw it away (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 8:13).

?‫עֹוממֹות‬ ְ ‫אֹוממֹות אֹו‬ ְ :ּ‫יב ֲעיָ א ְלהו‬ ּ ַ ‫ ִא‬Since the discussion until now has focused on smoldering coals, the ‫״א ָרזִ ים ל ֹא ֲע ָמ ֻמה ּו‬ ֲ :‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק‬Gemara mentions that a dilemma was raised before the Sages in .‫ ְ ּבגַ ן ֱאל ִֹהים״‬the study hall about whether the word smoldering should be rendered omemot with an alef or omemot with an ayin. Rabbi Yitzĥak said: It should be rendered with an ayin, as it is stated: “The cedars in the garden of God could not hide it [amamuhu]” (Ezekiel 31:8), as the word amamuhu in the verse is spelled with an ayin. – ‫מתני׳ נָ גַ ע ְ ּב ַח ְרסֹו ׁ ֶשל ַּתנּ וּר‬ ‫רֹוט ּבֹו ַעל‬ ְ ‫נָטף ֵמ‬ ַ .‫יִ ְקלֹוף ֶאת ְמקֹומֹו‬ .‫ַה ֶח ֶרס וְ ָחזַ ר ֵא ָליו – יִ ּטֹול ֶאת ְמקֹומֹו‬ ‫רֹוט ּבֹו ַעל ַה ּס ֶֹולת – יִ ְקמֹוץ‬ ְ ‫נָ ַטף ֵמ‬ .‫ֶאת ְמקֹומֹו‬

mishna 

If the Paschal lamb touched the earthenwaren surface of an oven,h one must peel off its place on the Paschal lamb, as it was roasted by the heat of the oven and not by the fire itself. If some of the gravy of the Paschal lamb drippedh on the earthenware and then returned to it, i.e., the gravy splattered back onto the meat, one must remove its place.n Peeling off the outer layer is not enough, and one must remove some of the meat underneath the outer layer, because it is considered to have been cooked by the liquid rather than roasted by the fire. If some of the Paschal lamb’s gravy dripped onto hot flour,h one must remove a handful of flour from its place, i.e., the place where the gravy landed in the flour, and destroy it.

notes

A flame without a coal – ‫ש ְל ֶה ֶבת ְ ּבל ֹא ַ ּג ֶח ֶלת‬: ַ ׁ The topic of a flame without a coal is also discussed in the context of the halakhot of Shabbat. There, the Gemara states that this term refers to a flame fueled by oil smeared on a utensil. However, the discussion there focuses on the possibility that such a flame could exist. In this context, use of the flame in the Temple service is discussed.

which a Paschal lamb itself touches the earthenware oven and a case in which part of a Paschal lamb absorbs gravy that had touched the oven. When the flesh of the offering touches the oven, it is considered inherently disqualified. However, when gravy splatters back onto part of the meat, the disqualification is of a lower status. Therefore, the section of the offering that was splattered is burned only after it has undergone what is described as a Half coal and half fire – ‫מ ֱחצָ ה ַ ּג ֶח ֶלת ו ֶּמ ֱחצָ ה ׁ ַש ְל ֶה ֶבת‬:ֶ Similar resodecay of form, meaning that it is left over beyond the period lutions are found in other areas as well. When there appear to of time in which it may be eaten. be two contradictory verses, at times it is decided to practically fulfill both by acting partially in accordance with one verse and If it touched its gravy, one must remove its place – ‫נָ גַ ע‬ partially in accordance with the other. The solution resembles ‫רֹוט ּבֹו יִ ּטֹול ֶאת ְמקֹומֹו‬ ְ ‫ב‬: ּ ְ The Gemara states elsewhere that if the ruling that one divide one’s time on Festivals, half of it for fat from forbidden meat is absorbed entirely into a piece of God, i.e., for prayer and Torah study, and half of it for oneself, i.e., permitted meat, it renders the permitted meat completely for festive meals and enjoying the Festival. forbidden. However, this does not apply to gravy, which is Touched the earthenware – ‫נָ גַ ע ְ ּב ַח ְרסֹו‬: It is explained in the composed of liquid and fat and is not absorbed as easily as Jerusalem Talmud that there is a difference between a case in hot fat (Tosafot).



‫הע ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 75b 

67

background

Teruma – ‫תרו ָּמה‬:ְּ Whenever the term teruma appears without qualification, it refers to the teruma gedola, which is given to the priest. The Torah commands that teruma be separated from grain, wine, and oil, and the Sages extended the scope of this commandment to include all produce. This commandment applies only in Eretz Yisrael. The Torah does not specify the amount of teruma that must be set aside; one may theoretically fulfill his obligation by giving even a single kernel of grain from an entire crop. The Sages established the following measures: One-fortieth of the produce for a generous gift, one-fiftieth for an average gift, and one-sixtieth for a miserly gift. One should not set aside other tithes until he has set aside teruma. Teruma is considered sanctified and may be eaten only by a priest and his household while they are in a state of ritual purity (see Leviticus 22:9–15). To emphasize that teruma may be eaten only in a state of purity, the Sages obligated the priests to wash their hands before partaking of it. This is the source for the practice of washing the hands before eating bread. A ritually impure priest or a non-priest who eats teruma is subject to the penalty of death at the hand of Heaven. If teruma contracts ritual impurity, it may no longer be eaten and must be burned. Nevertheless, it remains the property of the priest and he may benefit from its being burned. Nowadays, teruma is not given to the priests because they have no definite proof of their priestly lineage. Nevertheless, the obligation to separate teruma still remains, but only a small portion of the produce is separated. The second tithe – ‫מ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ׁ ֵשנִי‬:ַ The second tithe was a tenth of the produce that remained after teruma had been given to the priests and the first tithe had been given to the Levites. The second tithe was separated during the first, second, fourth, and fifth years of the Sabbatical cycle. After the second tithe was set aside, it was brought to Jerusalem to be consumed there by its owner. If the journey to Jerusalem was too long, so that it would be difficult to carry all the second tithe there, or if the produce became ritually impure, it could be redeemed for an equivalent sum of money. If the owner redeemed his own produce he had to add one-fifth of its value. This redemption money was brought to Jerusalem, where it could be spent only to purchase food. Nowadays, second tithe may not be eaten, and it is therefore redeemed for less than its market value.

‫ ִאם ֲחב ּו ַרת‬,‫ָסכֹו ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶמן ְּתר ּו ָמה‬ ‫ ִאם‬,‫ ִאם ׁ ֶשל יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬,ּ‫ֹאכלו‬ ְ ‫ּכ ֲֹהנִים – י‬ – ‫ וְ ִאם צָ ִלי הוּא‬,ּ‫יחנּ ו‬ ֶ ‫ַחי הוּא – יְ ִד‬ ‫ ָסכֹו ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶמן ׁ ֶשל‬.‫יִ ְקלֹוף ֶאת ַה ִחיצֹון‬ ‫ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ׁ ֵשנִי – ל ֹא יַ ֲע ֶ ׂשנּ ּו דָּ ִמים ַעל‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּפ ִֹודין ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ׁ ֵשנִי‬,‫ְ ּבנֵי ֲחבו ָּרה‬ .‫ִ ּבירו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם‬

‫ ַחם ְלתֹוךְ ַחם – דִּ ְב ֵרי‬:‫ית ַמר‬ ְּ ‫ִא‬

‫גמ׳‬

In a case where one smears the Paschal lamb with terumab oil, if the Paschal lamb belongs to a group of priests they may eat it, as they are permitted to eat teruma. If the Paschal lamb belongs to a group of Israelites, then if it is still raw, one must rinse it in order to remove the teruma oil; and if it is roasted, one must peel off the outer layer that has absorbed the oil, so that the Israelites do not eat the teruma, which is prohibited to them. If one smears the Paschal lamb with oilh of the second tithe,b he may not demand money for it from the members of the group, as one may not redeem second tithe in Jerusalem.n Second-tithe produce that is in Jerusalem is meant to be eaten; it may be given as a gift to others, but may not be redeemed or sold.

gemara 

Based on the mishna, the Gemara introduces a general discussion concern‫ַה ּכֹל‬ ing the halakhot of forbidden foods that come into contact with other foods. It was stated that the amora’im disagreed with regard to these matters, but first the Gemara mentions the cases that are clear: If a hot food item falls into another hot item, e.g., hot meat falls into boiling milk or hot permitted meat falls into hot prohibited soup, all agree

halakha

If one smears it with oil – ‫סכֹו ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶמן‬:ָ If one smears teruma oil on a Paschal lamb belonging to a group of priests, they may eat it. When this is done to a Paschal lamb belonging to a group of people who are not priests, if the Paschal lamb has not yet been roasted, one should rinse it off. If it has

already been roasted, one should peel off the outer layer of the meat. If one smeared it with oil from the second tithe, it may be eaten, but the owner of the oil may not demand payment from the other members of the group (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 8:14).

notes

One may not redeem second tithe in Jerusalem – ‫ ֵאין ּפ ִֹודין‬opinion that the second tithe is considered God’s property. ‫מ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ׁ ֵשנִי ִ ּבירו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם‬:ַ Rabbi Shimshon of Saens and the Tosefot Therefore, the person who possesses it has the right only to Yom Tov explain this ruling of the mishna on the basis of the eat it but not to sell it.

Perek VII Daf 76 Amud a halakha

The lower one prevails – ‫ת ָּת ָאה ָ ּג ַבר‬:ַּ If permitted food falls into forbidden food or vice versa, or if meat falls into milk or vice versa, the halakha is as follows: If both foods are hot or if cold food falls into hot food, all the food is forbidden, unless the amount of permitted food is sixty times greater than the amount of the forbidden food, or the amount of meat or milk is sixty times greater than the amount of the other food type (Shakh). If hot food falls into cold food, only the outer layer of the permitted food or the meat or milk food item becomes forbidden. The authorities agreed to rule in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel and against the opinion of Rav because the baraita supports Shmuel’s view (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 91:4, 105:3).

‫תֹוך צֹונֵ ן – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל‬ ְ ‫ צֹונֵ ן ְל‬.‫ָאסוּר‬ ;‫ וְ צֹונֵן ְלתֹוךְ ַחם‬,‫ ַחם ְלתֹוךְ צֹונֵן‬.‫מו ָּּתר‬ :‫ ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר‬,‫ ִע ָּיל ָאה ָ ּג ַבר‬:‫ַרב ָא ַמר‬ .‫ַּת ָּת ָאה ָ ּג ַבר‬

that the permitted foods become forbidden, because they absorb some of the forbidden food. If a cold food item falls into another cold item, all agree it is permitted; the food needs only to be rinsed off. The dispute pertains to a hot food item that falls into a cold one or a cold food item that falls into a hot one. Rav said: The upper one prevails. The halakha is determined based upon the state of the upper substance. If the upper food is hot, the case is judged as though a hot food fell into another hot food because the upper food heats the lower food. If the upper food is cold, the case is similar to a situation where a cold food falls into another cold food because the upper food cools down the lower one and prevents absorption. And Shmuel said: The lower one prevails.hn In his opinion, if the upper substance is hot and the lower one is cold, the permitted food remains permitted; if the lower one is hot and upper one is cold, they are forbidden.

notes

The upper one prevails or the lower one prevails – ‫ִע ָּיל ָאה‬ ‫ ָ ּג ַבר אֹו ַּת ָּת ָאה ָ ּג ַבר‬: To a certain extent this is a dispute based on the reality of the situation with regard to whether the upper or lower food prevails in affecting the temperature of the other. However, there is clearly no absolute answer to this question, as each food will always have some effect on the other, as the

68 

Perek VII . 76a . ‫וע ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

Gemara will discuss shortly. Therefore, the question must have been with regard to the extent to which the halakha takes into account the heat of the upper and lower foods. The halakha is ruled in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. Support for his position can be derived from the following fact: Although heat spreads in a variety of ways, it usually rises. Therefore, when

something hot is placed on top of something cold, the heat rises and the cold substance below prevails. On the other hand, when something cold is placed on top of something hot, it is naturally heated by the lower substance. Here, too, the lower one prevails.

– ‫רֹוט ּבֹו ַעל ַה ֶח ֶרס וְ ָחזַ ר ֵא ָליו‬ ְ ‫נָטף ֵמ‬ ַ :‫ְּתנַן‬ ‫ ָקא ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָתךְ ְ ּב ֶח ֶרס‬.‫יִ ּטֹול ֶאת ְמקֹומֹו‬ ָּ ‫׳ע‬ ‫יל ָאה‬ ִ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַרב דְּ ָא ַמר‬.‫צֹונֶ נֶ ת‬ ,‫ָ ּג ַבר׳ – ִמ ׁ ּש ּום ָה ִכי יִ ּטֹול ֶאת ְמקֹומֹו‬ ‫ וַ ֲה ַדר‬,‫יה ַל ֶח ֶרס‬ ֶ ‫דַּ ֲאזַ ל‬ ּ ‫רֹוטב ְמ ַר ַּתח ֵל‬ ‫רֹוטב‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ִכי ֲה ַדר‬.‫רֹוטב‬ ֶ ‫יה ָל‬ ּ ‫ֶח ֶרס ְמ ַר ַּתח ֵל‬ ‫ַא ּ ֶפ ַסח – ָקא ִמ ַּט ֵּוי ּ ֶפ ַסח ֵמ ֲח ַמת ֲח ִמימו ָּתא‬ ‫ וְ ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ָא ַמר ״צְ ִלי ֵא ׁש״ – וְ ל ֹא‬,‫דְּ ֶח ֶרס‬ .‫צָ ִלי ֵמ ֲח ַמת דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר‬

We learned in the mishna: If some of the gravy of the Paschal lamb dripped onto the earthenware and returned to it, one must remove its place. It might enter your mind to say that this is referring to cold earthenware. Granted, according to the opinion of Rav, who said the upper one prevails, it is due to this reason that one must remove its place. According to Rav’s view, the gravy goes and heatsn the earthenware, and then the earthenware heats the gravy, and when the gravy returns to the Paschal lamb, the Paschal lamb becomes roasted from the heat of the earthenware, and the Merciful One states in the Torah: “Roasted in fire” (Exodus 12:8), and not roasted due to something else.

,‫״ת ָּת ָאה ָ ּג ַבר״‬ ַּ ‫ֶא ָּלא ִל ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל דְּ ָא ַמר‬ ‫יה‬ ‫ל‬ ֵ ‫ר‬ ‫יק‬ ַ ‫מ‬ ֵ ‫י‬ ‫ֹור‬ ֵ ‫ֶח ֶרס ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ צֹונֵן הוּא – ַא ּק‬ ּ ‫ ַא ַּמאי יִ ּטֹול ֶאת ְמקֹומֹו? ִּכ ְד ָא ַמר‬,‫רֹוטב‬ ֶ ‫ָל‬ ,‫רֹות ַחת‬ ַ ‫סֹולת‬ ֶ ‫ ְ ּב‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ .‫רֹות ַח‬ ֵ ‫ ְ ּב ֶח ֶרס‬:‫ָה ָכא נַ ִמי‬

But according to the opinion of Shmuel, who said the lower one prevails, since the earthenware is cold, it cools down the gravy. In that case, why must he remove its place? The Gemara answers: As Rabbi Yirmeya said that Shmuel said in explanation of the mishna’s next ruling in the case of gravy that dripped onto flour: The mishna is referring to hot flour. Here, too, it is referring to hot earthenware. Since the earthenware is already hot, it is a case of something hot that fell onto something hot, even according to Shmuel.

‫רֹוט ּבֹו ַעל ַה ּס ֶֹולת – יִ ְקמֹוץ ֶאת‬ ְ ‫נָטף ֵמ‬ ַ :‫ְּתנַן‬ .‫סֹולת צֹונֶ נֶ ת‬ ֶ ‫ ָקא ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָתךְ ְ ּב‬.‫ְמקֹומֹו‬ ָּ ‫״ע‬ – ‫יל ָאה ָ ּג ַבר״‬ ִ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַרב‬ ‫ דִּ ְמ ַר ַּתח‬,‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ָה ִכי יִ ְקמֹוץ ֶאת ְמקֹומֹו‬ ‫סֹולת‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ָה ְד ָרא‬,‫ֵיה‬ ּ ‫ָל ּה ַל ּס ֶֹולת דַּ ֲה ַדר הו ְּד ַר ּנ‬ ‫רֹוטב‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ָקא ִמ ַּט ֵּוי‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ְל ִד ֵיד‬ ּ ‫ו ְּמ ַר ְּת ָחא ֵל‬ ‫ וְ ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ָא ַמר‬,‫סֹולת‬ ֶ ְּ‫ֵמ ֲח ַמת ֲח ִמימו ָּתא ד‬ .‫״צְ ִלי ֵא ׁש״ – וְ ל ֹא צָ ִלי ֵמ ֲח ַמת דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר‬

We also learned in the mishna that if some of the Paschal lamb’s gravy dripped onto flour, one must remove a handful of flour from its place. It could enter your mind to say that this is talking about cold flour. Granted, according to the opinion of Rav, who said the upper one prevails, it is due to this reason that one must remove a handful of flour from its place, as the gravy heats the flour around it, and the flour then heats the gravy, and the gravy is roasted from the heat of the flour, and the Merciful One states in the Torah: “Roasted in fire,” and not roasted due to something else.

‫״ת ָּת ָאה ָ ּג ַבר״‬ ַּ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ִל ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫סֹולת ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ צֹונֶ נֶ ת ִהיא – ַא ּק ֵֹורי ָקא ֵמ ַיקר‬ ֶ ‫(ת ְסגֵ י‬ ִּ ?‫יה ָל ָּמה ִלי יִ ְקמֹוץ ֶאת ְמקֹומֹו‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫יה ְ ּב״יִ ּטֹול ֶאת ְמקֹומֹו״!) ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ .‫רֹות ַחת‬ ַ ‫סֹולת‬ ֶ ‫ ְ ּב‬:‫ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬

But according to the opinion of Shmuel, who said the lower one prevails, since the flour is cold it cools down the gravy. In that case, why do I need to say: One must remove a handful of flour from its place? It should be enough for one to remove a small amount from its place, and it should not be necessary to take anything more. With regard to this Rabbi Yirmeya said that Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to hot flour. The gravy is therefore roasted from the heat of the flour, and an entire handful of flour must be removed.

‫ ִאם ֲחבו ַּרת‬,‫ ָסכֹו ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶמן ׁ ֶשל ְּתרו ָּמה‬,‫ְּתנַן‬ ‫ ִאם ַחי‬,‫ ִאם ׁ ֶשל יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬.ּ‫ֹאכלו‬ ְ ‫ּכ ֲֹהנִים – י‬ ‫ ִאם צָ ִלי הוּא – יִ ְקלֹוף ֶאת‬,ּ‫יחנּ ו‬ ֶ ‫הוּא – יְ ִד‬ ּ ‫יל ָאה‬ ָ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַרב דְּ ָא ַמר ִע‬.‫ַה ִחיצֹון‬ ,‫יפה‬ ָ ‫יה ִ ּב ְק ִל‬ ּ ‫ָ ּג ַבר – ַא ְמט ּו ְל ָה ִכי ַסגִ י ֵל‬ .‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ִע ָּיל ָאה צֹונֵן הוּא‬

We learned in the mishna: In a case where one smears the Paschal lamb with teruma oil, if the Paschal lamb belongs to a group of priests they may eat it, as they are permitted to eat teruma. If it belongs to a group of Israelites, then if the Paschal lamb is still raw, one must rinse it in order to remove the teruma oil; and if it is roasted, one must peel off the outer layer. Granted, according to Rav, who said the lower one prevails, for this reason it is sufficient to remove only the outer peel, because the upper one is cold and therefore the oil is not absorbed deeply into the meat.

‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַּת ָּת ָאה ָ ּג ַבר ֵּכיוָ ן‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ִל ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ַא ַּמאי ַס ִ ּגי ֵל‬,‫דְּ ַחם הוּא – ִמ ְב ַלע ָ ּב ַלע‬ ,‫יכה‬ ָ ‫נִית ַסר ְלגַ ְמ ֵרי! ׁ ָשאנֵי ִס‬ ְ ?‫יפה‬ ָ ‫ִ ּב ְק ִל‬ .‫דְּ ַמ ׁ ּ ֶשה ּו ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא הוּא דַּ ֲע ִב ָידא‬

But according to Shmuel, who said: The lower one prevails, since the meat, which is on the bottom, is hot, it absorbs the oil. In that case, why is it enough for it to be permitted when only the outer peel is removed? It should be entirely forbidden. The Gemara answers: Smearing is different because it is done with only a minute amount. Since one smears only a little bit of oil, there is not enough oil to render the entire offering forbidden.

notes

The gravy goes and heats, etc. – ‫רֹוטב ְמ ַר ַּתח וכו׳‬ ֶ ‫דַּ ֲאזַ ל‬: It seems astonishing that the gravy would be so hot that it would heat the earthenware to the point that the earthen­ware would then be hot enough to heat the gravy. Apparently, it was obvious from the beginning that the oven itself was hot. In fact, Shmuel responded directly only to the Gemara’s upcoming question about gravy that fell into flour, but did not respond to the challenge presented below with regard to the case of gravy that fell onto the earthenware oven (Berakh Moshe).

– ‫ ַחם ְלתֹוךְ ַחם‬:‫יה דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ֵ ָ‫ ַּתנְיָא ְּכו‬It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of ּ ‫ות‬ ‫ וְ ֵכן צֹונֵן ׁ ֶש ָּנ ַתן ְלתֹוךְ ַחם ָאסוּר ַחם‬.‫ ָאסוּר‬Shmuel: If hot permitted food falls into hot forbidden food, it is .‫ ְלתֹוךְ צֹונֵן וְ צֹונֵן ְלתֹוךְ צֹונֵן – ֵמ ִד ַיח‬forbidden. And, so too, cold permitted food that one put into hot forbidden food is forbidden. If hot food falls into cold food, and similarly, if cold food falls into cold food, one must rinse the permitted food, and it remains permitted. 

‫וע ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 76a 

69

halakha

Salted is like boiling – ‫רֹות ַח‬ ֵ ‫מ ִל ַיח ֲה ֵרי הוּא ְּכ‬:ָ A food that has been salted to the point that it cannot be eaten due to its saltiness, e.g., raw meat that was salted to allow it to be cooked in a pot, is considered as though it were hot. Therefore, if it comes into contact with a different food, the salty food transmits flavor to the outer layer of the other food. The Rema rules that this is the case even if the food was salted only on one side. Some say that a food is considered salted even if it is only lightly salted, e.g., meat salted in preparation for roasting (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 91:5). Marinated is like cooked – ‫כבו ּׁש ֲה ֵרי הוּא ִּכ ְמבו ׁ ּ ָּשל‬:ָּ If permitted and forbidden foods were soaked together in cold liquid for a twenty-four-hour period, it is considered as though they were cooked together, and the permitted food becomes prohibited. If they were soaked together for less than twenty-four hours, the permitted food can simply be rinsed off and eaten (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 105:1). Raw and roasted – ‫חי וְ צְ ִלי‬:ַ The distinction between food that is heavily salted and food that is lightly salted applies only to raw meat. However, if hot roasted meat falls into a forbidden food that is salted, even if the food is only lightly salted and would still be eaten despite the salt, the outer layer of the meat is forbidden and must be removed. If the meat has cracks or has been spiced, it is entirely forbidden. Some authorities assert that this halakha applies to roasted meat even if it is cold (Rema, based on Tosafot; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 91:7). language

Kamka – ‫כ ְמ ָּכא‬:ַּ Apparently from the Middle Persian word kāmag, a type of gruel.

,‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ַחם הוּא‬.‫״חם ְלתֹוךְ צֹונֵן ֵמ ִד ַיח״‬ ַ ‫יה ִאי ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר דְּ ָלא ָ ּב ַלע‬ ּ ‫ַאדְּ ֵמ ַיקר ֵל‬ ‫נִיב ֵעי! ֶא ָּלא‬ ּ ָ ‫יהא‬ ָ ‫יפה ִמ‬ ָ ‫ ְק ִל‬,‫ּפו ְּר ָּתא‬ ‫ צֹונֵ ן‬,‫קֹולף‬ ֵ – ‫תֹוך צֹונֵ ן‬ ְ ‫ ַחם ְל‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ֵא‬ .‫ְלתֹוךְ צֹונֵן – ֵמ ִד ַיח‬

The Gemara asks: Is it true that if hot permitted food falls into cold forbidden food, one must rinse the permitted food and it remains permitted? Since it is hot, until the bottom food cools it, it is impossible that it will not absorb a little of the forbidden food. Therefore, it should at least require the removal of the outer peel; rinsing it should not be sufficient. Rather, say the following corrected version: If hot food falls into cold food, one must peel off the outer layer; if cold food falls into cold food, one must rinse it off and that is sufficient.

ְ‫רֹות ַח ׁ ֶש ָּנ ַפל ְלתֹוך‬ ֵ ‫ ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬: ְ‫ַּתנְיָא ִא ָידך‬ ‫תֹוך‬ ְ ‫ וְ ֵכן צֹונֵ ן ׁ ֶש ָּנ ַפל ְל‬,‫רֹות ַח‬ ֵ ‫ָח ָלב‬ ‫ וְ צֹונֵ ן‬,‫תֹוך צֹונֵ ן‬ ְ ‫ ַחם ְל‬.‫ַחם – ָאסוּר‬ ‫תֹוך צֹונֵ ן‬ ְ ‫ ַחם ְל‬.‫תֹוך צֹונֵ ן – ֵמ ִד ַיח‬ ְ ‫ְל‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ַאדְּ ֵמ ַיקר ֵל‬,‫ֵמ ִד ַיח? ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ַחם הוּא‬ ‫ ְק ִל ָיפה‬,‫ִאי ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר דְּ ָלא ָ ּב ַלע ּפו ְּר ָּתא‬ ְ‫ ַחם ְלתֹוך‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫נִיב ֵעי! ֶא ָּלא ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫יהא‬ ָ ‫ִמ‬ .‫ צֹונֵן ְלתֹוךְ צֹונֵן – ֵמ ִד ַיח‬,‫קֹולף‬ ֵ – ‫צֹונֵן‬

It was taught in another baraita: Hot meat that fell into hot milk, and so too, cold meat that fell into hot milk, is prohibited. If hot meat falls into cold milk and similarly, if cold meat falls into cold milk, one must rinse it off and that is sufficient. The Gemara asks: Is it true that if hot meat falls into cold milk, one must rinse it off and that is sufficient? Since it is hot, until the bottom food cools it, it is impossible that it will not absorb a little of the milk. Therefore, it should at least require the removal of the outer peel. Rather, say the following corrected version: If hot meat falls into cold milk, one must peel off the outer layer; if cold meat falls into cold milk, one must rinse it off and that is sufficient.

‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫ צֹונֵן ְלתֹוךְ צֹונֵן ֵמ ִד ַיח‬:‫ָא ַמר ָמר‬ ,‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ְמ ָלחֹו‬:‫ַרב הוּנָ א‬ :‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬.‫ֲא ָבל ְמ ָלחֹו – ָאסוּר‬ ‫ ָּכבו ּׁש ֲה ֵרי‬,‫רֹות ַח‬ ֵ ‫ָמ ִל ַיח ֲה ֵרי הוּא ְּכ‬ .‫הוּא ִּכ ְמבו ׁ ּ ָּשל‬

The Master said in the baraita quoted above: If cold meat falls into cold milk or into a prohibited food, one must rinse it off and that is sufficient. Rav Huna said: They taught this halakha only in a case where he did not salt the food item into which it fell. However, if he salted one of them it is forbidden, as Shmuel said: A salted food item is considered like a boilingh food item with regard to its ability to transmit flavor. Additionally, a food item marinated in vinegar, brine, or the like is considered like a cookedhn food item, as it absorbs flavor from the liquid in which it is marinated or from other foods with which it is marinated.

‫ ָהא דְּ ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ָמ ִל ַיח‬:‫ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ‫רֹות ַח (וכו׳) – ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן‬ ֵ ‫ֲה ֵרי הוּא ְּכ‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא נֶ ֱא ָכל ֵמ ֲח ַמת ִמ ְלחֹו‬ .‫נֶ ֱא ָכל ֵמ ֲח ַמת ִמ ְלחֹו – ל ֹא‬

Rava said: With regard to that which Shmuel said, that a salted food is like a boiling food, we said it only with regard to something salted to the point that it is not typically eaten due to its salt. But if the food is still eaten due to its salt, i.e., despite its having been salted, then it is not considered like something that is boiling, and it does not transmit flavor.

,‫ ַההוּא ַ ּבר ּגֹוזָ ָלא דְּ נָ ַפל ְל ַכדָּ א דְּ ַכ ְמ ָּכא‬There was a particular young bird that fell into a jug of kamka,l also ‫יה דְּ ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ ׁ ָש ְריָ יא ַרב ִּח ינָ נָ א ְ ּב ֵר‬known as kutaĥ, a food item that contains milk. There was a question .‫ ִמ ּ ַפ ׁ ְשרֹונְיָא‬whether the food is considered a forbidden mixture of meat and milk. Rav Ĥinnana, son of Rava of the city of Pashronya, permitted it. ‫יש ָרא‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ַמאן ַח ִּכים ְל ִמ‬:‫ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ְּ ‫ִמ‬ ‫יל ָתא ִּכי ָהא – ִאי ָלאו ַרב ִּחינָ נָ א‬ ‫ דְּ גַ ְב ָרא ַר ָ ּבה‬,‫יה דְּ ָר ָבא ִמ ּ ַפ ׁ ְשרֹונְיָא‬ ּ ‫ְ ּב ֵר‬ ‫ ִּכי ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ָמ ִל ַיח‬: ְ‫ ָא ַמר ָלך‬.‫הוּא‬ ‫רֹות ַח – ׁ ֶש ֵאין נֶ ֱא ָכל ֵמ ֲח ַמת‬ ֵ ‫ֲה ֵרי הוּא ְּכ‬ .‫ ַהאי נֶ ֱא ָכל ֵמ ֲח ַמת ִמ ְלחֹו‬,‫ִמ ְלחֹו‬

Rava said about this: Who is wise enough to permit something as complicated as this, if not Rav Ĥinnana, son of Rava of Pashronya, as he is a great man and can recognize the reason for leniency even in a case that appears to be prohibited? He could have said to you in explanation of his lenient ruling: When Shmuel said that a salted food item is like a boiling food item, that halakha concerned a food that was salted to the point that it is not eaten due to its salt, but this kutaĥ is still eaten due to, i.e., despite, its salt. Therefore, the case is comparable to a cold food that falls into another cold food, which is permitted after it is rinsed.

ֵּ ‫וְ ָהנֵי ִמ‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל צָ ִלי – ָ ּב ֵעי‬,‫ילי – ַחי‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ְק ִל‬ ּ ‫ וְ ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא דְּ ֵלית ֵ ּב‬.‫יפה‬ .‫יה ּ ִפ ֵילי – ָאסוּר‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ָבל ִאית ֵ ּב‬,‫ּ ִפ ֵילי‬ .‫וְ ִאי ְמתו ָ ּּבל ְ ּב ַת ְב ֵלי – ָאסוּר‬

The Gemara points out that this applies only if the bird is raw; but if it is roasted,hn it requires the removal of the outer peel. The roasting softens the meat, enabling it to absorb flavor more easily. And we said that the bird is permitted only when it does not have cracks; but if it has cracks, it is forbidden because the milk is absorbed into the cracks. And if it has been flavored with spices it is forbidden because the spices soften the meat, causing it to be absorbent.

:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬Rav said: notes

Marinated is like cooked – ‫כבו ּׁש ֲה ֵרי הוּא ִּכ ְמבו ׁ ּ ָּשל‬:ָּ The approach taken by Rashi in general is that in order to be considered marinated, food must be soaked in vinegar, as without vinegar the process of marinating cannot take place. However, earlier (Pesaĥim 44b) the Gemara discusses the status of meat that is marinated in milk, which indicates that marinating can take place even without vinegar. One

70 

Perek VII . 76a . ‫וע ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

explanation that is offered is that milk is unique in that it will begin to spoil and become acidic, and then it can act in the place of vinegar (Ĥatam Sofer). In practice, food placed in any liquid for a twenty-four-hour period is viewed as marinated. Raw and roasted – ‫חי וְ צְ ִלי‬:ַ Some commentaries explain that in

this context the term roasted is referring to any meat that was already roasted, even if it is no longer hot, because the roasting softens the meat (Tosafot; Tur; and others). Other authorities explain that in this context the term roasted is referring to hot meat, while the term raw connotes cold meat, and it does not matter whether or not the meat was actually roasted (Me’iri; Sefer HaTerumot).

Perek VII Daf 76 Amud b ‫ ְ ּב ַ ׂשר ׁ ְשחו ָּטה ׁ ָש ֵמן ׁ ֶש ְ ּצ ָלאֹו ִעם ְ ּב ַ ׂשר‬Fatty kosher meat that one roasted in an oven together with – ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬.‫ נְ ֵב ָילה ָּכחו ּׁש – ָאסוּר‬lean non-kosher meat is forbidden, even if the two meats nev.‫ ִמ ּ ַפ ְּט ִמי ֵמ ֲה ָד ֵדי‬er came into contact with one another. What is the reason for this halakha? It is that they are flavored from one another. The fatty meat emits an aroma that is absorbed in the non-kosher meat. The aroma is then transferred back to the kosher meat, causing the kosher meat to absorb some aroma from the nonkosher meat. ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְ ּב ַ ׂשר ׁ ְשחו ָּטה ָּכחו ּׁש‬:‫וְ ֵלוִ י ָא ַמר‬ .‫ׁ ֶש ְ ּצ ָלאֹו ִעם ְ ּב ַ ׂשר נְ ֵב ָילה ׁ ָש ֵמן – מו ָּּתר‬ ,‫יחא ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא הוּא‬ ָ ‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – ֵר‬ ְּ ‫יחא ָלאו ִמ‬ ‫ ָע ֵביד ֵלוִ י‬.‫יל ָתא ִהיא‬ ָ ‫וְ ֵר‬ ‫עו ְּבדָּ א ֵ ּבי ֵר ׁיש ָ ּגלו ָּתא ִ ּבגְ ִדי וְ ָד ָבר‬ .‫ַא ֵחר‬

And Levi said: That aroma does not cause meat to be forbidden. Even lean kosher meat that one roasted with fatty non-kosher meat is permitted. What is the reason for this halakha? Although the non-kosher meat emits an aroma that is absorbed into the kosher meat, it is merely an aroma, and an aroma is nothingn significant.h The Gemara relates that Levi took action, meaning that he put his opinion into practice, in the house of the Exilarch with a kid and something else, i.e., a pig, that had been roasted together. Levi did not prohibit the meat of the kid due to the aroma of the pig.

‫צֹולין ׁ ְשנֵי ְפ ָס ִחים ְּכ ֶא ָחד‬ ִ ‫ ֵאין‬:‫ית ִיבי‬ ִ ‫ֵמ‬ ‫רֹובת‬ ֶ ‫ ַמאי ָלאו ַּת ֲע‬.‫רֹובת‬ ֶ ‫ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ַה ַּת ֲע‬ ‫ ִמ ּ ְפ נֵ י‬,‫ וְ ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ְל ֵל וִ י! ל ֹא‬,‫ְט ָע ִמים‬ .‫רֹובת גּ ו ִּפין‬ ֶ ‫ַּת ֲע‬

The Gemara raises an objection: One may not roast two Paschal lambs togetherh due to the mixing. What, is it not prohibited due to the mixing of flavors, i.e., due to the aromas that waft from one to the other, and it poses a difficulty to the opinion of Levi? The Gemara rejects this challenge: No, it is prohibited due to the mixing of carcasses. The groups who are roasting their Paschal offerings might accidentally switch offerings, in which case the offerings will be eaten by people who did not register for them.

:‫יפא‬ ָ ‫ ִמדְּ ָק ָתנֵי ֵס‬,‫ָה ִכי נַ ִמי ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא‬ ‫ ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא‬.‫ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְ ּג ִדי וְ ָט ֶלה‬ ּ ‫ִמ ּ ְפנֵי גּ ו ִּפין – ַהיְ ינ ּו דְּ ָק ָתנֵי ֲא ִפ‬ ‫יל ּו ְ ּג ִדי‬ ‫רֹובת‬ ֶ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ַּת ֲע‬,‫וְ ָט ֶלה‬ ‫ ַמה ִּלי ְ ּג ִדי‬,‫ְט ָע ִמים ַמה ִּלי ְ ּג ִדי וְ ָט ֶלה‬ ?‫וּגְ ִדי‬

The Gemara adds: So too, one can conclude that this explanation is reasonable from the fact that it is taught in the latter clause that the ruling applies even if the two offerings are a kid and a lamb. Granted, if you say that the reason is due to the mixing of carcasses, this is why it was taught that the halakha applies to even a kid and a lamb. The baraita needed to teach that although they do not look alike, there is still a concern that after they have been skinned they will be mixed up. But if you say that the reason is due to the mixing of flavors, what is the difference between a case in which the two offerings are a kid and a lamb and one in which they are a kid and another kid? The case of the kid and the lamb mentioned at the end of the baraita would not teach anything new.

‫רֹובת‬ ֶ ‫ֶא ָּלא ַמאי – ַעל ָּכ ְר ָחיךְ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ַּת ֲע‬ ‫רֹובת‬ ֶ ‫ ֲא ָבל ַּת ֲע‬,‫גּ ו ִּפין הוּא דְּ ָאס ּור‬ ‫יה‬ ֱ ‫ימא ֶּת‬ ָ ‫ ֵל‬.‫ְט ָע ִמים – ׁ ָש ֵרי‬ ּ ‫יהוֵ י ְּתיו ְּב ֵּת‬ ‫ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי‬:‫דְּ ַרב! ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה‬ .‫ָע ְס ִקינַן – ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ְ ּצ ָלאֹו ִ ּב ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְק ֵדירֹות‬

The Gemara asks: Rather, what do you say? Perforce, it is due to the mixing of carcasses that it is prohibited, but a mixing of flavors is permitted. Let us say that this will be a refutation of the opinion of Rav, who prohibited the mixing of flavors by means of an aroma. Rabbi Yirmeya said: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where one roasted the offerings in two pots. Consequently, they do not absorb flavor from one another.

‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְק ֵדירֹות ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָת ְך?! ֶא ָּלא‬ :‫ וְ ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬.‫ ְּכ ֵעין ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְק ֵדירֹות‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ֵא‬ ‫צֹולין ׁ ְשנֵי ְפ ָס ִחים ְּכ ֶא ָחד ִמ ּ ְפנֵי‬ ִ ‫ֵאין‬ ‫רֹובת‬ ֶ ‫רֹובת – ַּת ֲע‬ ֶ ‫ ַמאי ַּת ֲע‬.‫רֹובת‬ ֶ ‫ַת ֲע‬ ּ ‫ וַ ֲא ִפ‬.‫ְט ָע ִמים‬ ‫יל ּו ְּכ ֵעין ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְק ֵדירֹות‬ ‫רֹובת ְט ָע ִמים – ָאסוּר ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ ֶ ‫דְּ ֵל ָּיכא ַּת ֲע‬ ּ‫יל‬ .‫ וַ ֲא ִפ ּו ְ ּג ִדי וְ ָט ֶלה‬,‫רֹובת גּ ו ִּפין‬ ֶ ‫ַּת ֲע‬

The Gemara expresses surprise: Could it enter your mind to say that they roasted the Paschal offerings in two pots? It is prohibited to the roast the Paschal offering in a pot. Rather, say that they were roasted in a manner similar to two pots, meaning that they were distanced from each other and separated by a partition. And this is what the baraita is saying: One may not roast two Paschal offerings together due to mixing. What is this mixing? It is the mixing of flavors. And even roasting them in a manner similar to two pots, where there is no mixing of flavors, is also prohibited, due to the concern with regard to the mixing of carcasses. And this is the halakha even if the animals are a kid and a lamb.



notes

Aroma is something or is nothing – ‫יחא ִמ ְּיל ָתא ִהיא אֹו ָלאו‬ ָ ‫ֵר‬ ‫מ ְּיל ָתא ִהיא‬:ִ The question of whether or not aroma is considered halakhically significant arises in other areas of halakha. The accepted view is that it is considered significant. For instance, there is a question as to whether or not one may derive pleasure from the aroma of the incense in the Temple ab initio. This would be prohibited if one assumes that aroma is significant. However, the question in this context is whether the aroma of a forbidden food is sufficiently substantial to prohibit a permitted food in which it is absorbed. Indeed, there is a principle that when the taste of a food is present, the food itself is considered present. However, that principle applies only when a bit of actual forbidden food is mixed with permitted food to the point that its taste is noticeable. Aroma, on the other hand, is considered less substantial than taste that comes from a piece of food. halakha

Aroma of forbidden foods – ‫ר ַיח ִאיסוּר‬:ֵ It is prohibited to roast kosher meat and non-kosher meat together in the same oven, even if they are not touching each other. However, if one did roast them together, the kosher meat remains permitted, even if it was lean and the non-kosher meat was fatty. The halakha follows the opinion of Levi rather than Rav. Abaye and Rava disputed the same point in tractate Avoda Zara, and there the halakha is in accordance with Rava’s opinion, which is that of Levi. In addition, both the baraita cited in the Gemara here and the straightforward understanding of a mishna in tractate Terumot support the opinion of Levi. In the Jerusalem Talmud, it is stated that roasting kosher and non-kosher meat together in the same oven is permitted ab initio, and many authorities affirmed this ruling (Tur). The rationale for those who do not permit this ab initio is that even Levi was lenient only after the fact, but he did not allow it ab initio (Rashi; Tosafot). In addition, this solves the contradictions between this and other rulings concerning aroma. Some authorities maintain that if the oven is not somewhat open, it is prohibited (Issur VeHeter HaArokh). If one of the two meats is spicy or if the forbidden meat is meant to give off aroma, it is prohibited (Mordekhai). Some commentaries state that if the amount of kosher meat is sixty times greater than the amount of non-kosher meat, everyone agrees that it is permitted (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 108:1, and in the comment of the Rema). Two Paschal lambs together – ‫שנֵי ְפ ָס ִחים ְּכ ֶא ָחד‬: ְ ׁ It is prohibited to roast two Paschal lambs together in the same oven, lest they be mixed up. The prohibition applies even if the two offerings are a kid and a lamb, in accordance with the baraita (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 8:14).

‫וע ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 76b 

71

notes

Barley draws out – ‫ֹואבֹות‬ ֲ ‫עֹורים ׁש‬ ִ ‫ה ּ ְ ׂש‬:ַ It seems that this expression is meant to be taken literally: Bread made from barley absorbs not only the aroma of the wine but a little bit of the wine itself (Rif ).

‫רֹודה ּ ַפת ַח ָּמה‬ ֶ ‫ ָה‬,‫ ְּכ ַת ָּנ ֵאי‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ָמ ִרי‬ – ‫וּנְ ָתנָ ּה ַעל ּ ִפי ָח ִבית יַ יִ ן ׁ ֶשל ְּתרו ָּמה‬ ,‫אֹוסר וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ַמ ִּתיר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ ‫אֹוסר‬ ֵ ְ‫יטין ו‬ ִּ ‫יֹוסי ַמ ִּתיר ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל ִח‬ ֵ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫עֹורים‬ ִ ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ַה ּ ְ ׂש‬,‫עֹורים‬ ִ ‫ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל ְ ׂש‬ ‫ דְּ ָמר‬,‫ ַמאי ָלאו ַּת ָּנ ֵאי ִהיא‬.‫ֹואבֹות‬ ֲ ‫ׁש‬ ְּ ‫יחא ָלאו ִמ‬ ‫ ו ָּמר‬,‫יל ָתא ִהיא‬ ָ ‫ ֵר‬:‫ָס ַבר‬ ?‫יחא ִמ ְּיל ָתא ִהיא‬ ָ ‫ ֵר‬:‫ָס ַבר‬

Rav Mari said: This is like the following dispute between tanna’im: In the case of one who removes hot bread from an oven and places it on top of a barrel of wineh that is teruma, Rabbi Meir prohibits a non-priest from eating the bread. In his opinion, the bread absorbs the aroma of the teruma wine and therefore attains the status of teruma. And Rabbi Yehuda permits it. And Rabbi Yosei permits bread made of wheat, which is not very absorbent, but prohibits bread made of barley, because barley draws outn and absorbs the aroma. What, is it not a dispute between tanna’im? One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that an aroma is nothing significant, and one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that an aroma is something significant.

‫נֵימא‬ ָ ,‫ ְל ַרב‬.‫ ְל ֵלוִ י – וַ דַּ אי ַּת ָּנ ֵאי ִהיא‬The Gemara says: According to the opinion of Levi, i.e., that aroma ?‫ ַּת ָּנ ֵאי ִהיא‬is insignificant, it certainly is a dispute between tanna’im. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei hold that it is significant, and Levi accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that aroma is insignificant. However, according to the opinion of Rav, shall we say it is a dispute between tanna’im? ‫יחא‬ ָ ‫ דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ֵר‬:‫ָא ַמר ָל ְך ַרב‬ ְּ ‫ִמ‬ ‫ית ַמר ֲע ָל ּה‬ ְּ ‫ ָלאו ִא‬.‫יל ָתא ִה יא‬ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָח נָ ה‬,‫דְּ ַה ִהיא‬ ‫ ְ ּב ַפת ַח ָּמה וְ ָח ִבית‬:‫ָא ַמר ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬ ‫ ְ ּב ַפת‬.‫ּ ְפתו ָּחה – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ָאס ּור‬ ‫צֹונֶ נֶ ת וְ ָח ִבית ְמגו ָּפה – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל‬ ‫ ל ֹא נֶ ְח ְלק ּו ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ַפת ַח ָּמה‬.‫מו ָּּתר‬ ‫ ּ ַפת צֹונֶ נֶ ת וְ ָח ִבית‬,‫וְ ָח ִבית ֲחתו ָּמה‬ ‫ ְּכ ַפת ַח ָּמה וְ ָח ִבית‬,‫ וְ ָהא נַ ִמי‬.‫ּ ְפתו ָּחה‬ .‫ּ ְפתו ָּחה דָּ ְמיָ א‬

Rav could have said to you: Everyone agrees that aroma is something significant. The dispute is about whether bread absorbs aroma in the circumstance under discussion. Was it not stated with regard to that mishna that Rabba bar bar Ĥana said that Reish Lakish said: With regard to hot bread and an open barrel,h everyone agrees that it is prohibited because it certainly draws out the aroma; and with regard to cold bread and a closed barrel, everyone agrees it is permitted? They disagreed only with regard to hot bread and a sealed barrel because perhaps the bread nonetheless draws out aroma through the cracks. Similarly, they disputed the case of cold bread and an open barrel. And this case of two Paschal offerings roasted in the same oven is also considered like the case of hot bread and an open barrel.

:‫יה דְּ ַרב ִּחינָ נָ א ָס ָבא‬ ּ ‫ָּתנֵי ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א ְ ּב ֵר‬ ‫ּ ַפת ׁ ֶש ֲא ָפ ָא ּה ִעם צָ ִלי ַ ּב ַּתנּ וּר – ָאסוּר‬ ‫ינִיתא‬ ָ ‫ ַה ִהיא ִ ּב‬.‫ְל ָא ְכ ָל ּה ְ ּבכו ְּּת ָחא‬ ‫יש ָרא – ֲא ָס ָר ּה‬ ׂ ְ ‫יטוָ וא ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ִ ּב‬ ְ ‫דְּ ִא‬ .‫יה ְ ּבכו ְּּת ָחא‬ ְ ‫ָר ָבא ִמ ּ ַפ ְרזִ ִיקיָ ּא ְל ֵמ‬ ּ ‫יכ ֵל‬ ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְ ּב ִמ ְיל ָחא‬:‫ָמר ַ ּבר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ָא ַמר‬ ‫יחא‬ ָ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ְל ֵר‬,‫נַ ִמי ֲאסו ָּרה‬ .‫ו ְּל ָד ָבר ַא ֵחר‬

Rav Kahana, son of Rav Ĥinnana the Elder, teaches: In the case of bread that one baked together with roasting meath in the oven, it is prohibited to eat the bread with kutaĥ, which contains milk, because the bread absorbs some of the meat’s aroma. The Gemara relates: There was a certain fish that was roasted together with meat,h Rava of Parzikiyya prohibited it from being eaten with kutaĥ, due to the meat flavor absorbed in the fish. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Even to merely eat it with salt is also prohibited because meat that is roasted or cooked with fish is bad for odor, meaning it causes bad breath, and for something else, i.e., leprosy. Therefore, one should avoid eating it due to the danger involved.

halakha

Hot bread…on top of a barrel of wine – ‫ה…על ּ ִפי ָח ִבית‬ ַ ‫ּ ַפת ַח ָּמ‬ ‫יַ יִ ן‬: In the case of hot bread that is placed on top of a barrel of teruma wine, wheat bread remains permitted but barley bread is forbidden. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. In general, the halakha accepts his opinion in his disputes with both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir. The Rambam did not quote the distinction made by Reish Lakish between an open barrel and a closed one, apparently because he ruled in accordance with Levi that aroma is insignificant. Therefore, Reish Lakish’s distinction is not relevant (Rabbi Yosef Kurkos; see Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Terumot 15:13). Hot bread and an open barrel – ‫פת ַח ָּמה וְ ָח ִבית ּ ְפתו ָּחה‬:ַ ּ If hot barley bread is placed on top of an open barrel of forbidden wine, such as wine poured as a libation in an idolatrous ritual, the bread is prohibited. If the bread is cold and the barrel is covered, the bread remains permitted. If the bread is hot and the barrel is sealed, or if the bread is cold and the barrel is open (Shakh), it is prohibited, in accordance with the ruling of Reish

72 

Perek VII . 76b . ‫וע ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

Lakish, which is based on the view of Rabbi Yosei. Apparently, this ruling assumes that Reish Lakish stated his halakha even in accordance with the opinion of Levi, who admits that the aroma of wine is significant (Tosafot; Ramban; see Shakh and Vilna Gaon; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 108:4). Bread that one baked with roasting meat – ‫ּ ַפת ׁ ֶש ֲא ָפ ָא ּה ִעם‬ ‫צָ ִלי ַ ּב ַּתנּ וּר‬: If one bakes bread in the same oven in which meat is roasting, it is prohibited to eat the bread with milk. However, if the oven is big enough to hold twelve isaron measures of food and its top is open, it is permitted to do so (Tur, citing Tosafot). Similarly, the bread may be eaten with milk if the meat in the oven was covered. This basic ruling is in accordance with all the opinions in the Gemara, as even Levi agrees that an aroma is forbidden ab initio (Vilna Gaon; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 97:3). Fish and meat – ‫דָּ ג ו ָּב ָ ׂשר‬: One may not roast fish and meat together in the same oven. One certainly may not cook them together, due to concern that it is dangerous, as stated in the Gemara (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 116:2).

‫מתני׳ ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָש ה דְּ ָב ִר ים ָ ּב ִא ין‬ :‫ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה וְ ֵאינָ ן נֶ ֱא ָכ ִלין ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬ ,‫ וְ ֶל ֶחם ַה ּ ָפנִים‬,‫ ו ׁ ְּש ֵּתי ַה ֶּל ֶחם‬,‫עֹומר‬ ֶ ‫ָה‬ ‫אשי‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ ּו ְ ׂש ִע ֵירי ָר‬,‫וְ זִ ְב ֵחי ׁ ַש ְל ֵמי צִ ּבוּר‬ – ‫ ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֶש ָ ּבא ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬.‫ֳח ָד ׁ ִשים‬ ‫ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ָ ּבא ִמ ְּת ִח ָּילתֹו‬,‫נֶ ֱא ָכל ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬ .‫ֶא ָּלא ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה‬

‫עֹוטי‬ ֵ ‫עֹוטי ַמאי? ְל ַמ‬ ֵ ‫גמ׳ ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ְל ַמ‬ .‫ֲחגִ יגַ ת ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר‬

mishna 

Five items, n i.e., offerings, may be brought in a state of ritual impurity,n but they may not be eaten in a state of ritual impurity.h They are all communal offerings: The omer,b which is brought in Nisan; the two loavesb brought on Shavuot; the shewbread,nb which were arranged each week; the communal peaceofferings, which were brought on Shavuot; and the goats sacrificed on the New Moons, which were sin-offerings eaten by the priests. However, the Paschal lamb that is sacrificed in impurity is eaten even in impurity,h as it is brought to begin with only for eating, which is the essence of the mitzva. With regard to other offerings, the essence of their mitzva is fulfilled when they are sacrificed on the altar, and the eating is non-essential.

gemara 

The mishna mentions the number five. The Gemara asks: To exclude what does the mishna emphasize this number? The Gemara answers: It is to exclude the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth of Nisan,h which is a Festival peace-offering brought on the Festival itself and which may not be sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity.

‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ָק ְר ַ ּבן‬:‫דְּ ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָת ְך ָא ִמינָ א‬ – ‫מֹועד‬ ֵ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ ו ְּק ִב‬,‫יבוּר הוּא‬ ּ ִ‫צ‬ ּ ‫יעא ֵל‬ ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן‬:‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫ִּת ְד ֵחי טו ְּמ ָאה‬ ‫יה ַּת ׁ ְשלו ִּמין ָּכל ׁ ִש ְב ָעה – ָלא‬ ּ ‫דְּ ִאית ֵל‬ – ‫ ו ִּמדְּ ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ָלא דָּ ְחיָ א‬.‫דָּ ְחיָ א ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ .‫ָלא דָּ ְחיָ א טו ְּמ ָאה‬

It could enter your mind to say: Since it is a communal offering, as each individual sacrifices it on the Festival in a public setting, and its time is set, as it cannot be brought every day, it should override ritual impurity like the other communal offerings that have a set time. Therefore, the mishna teaches us: Since there is redress all seven days of the Festival if the offering was not brought on the fifteenth, it does not override Shabbat. And since it does not override Shabbat, it does not override ritual impurity. Therefore, this offering may not be brought in a state of ritual impurity.

‫נִיתנֵי נַ ִמי ְ ׂש ִע ֵירי ָה ְרגָ ִלים! ָהא ָּתנָ א‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬ ‫ ְ ׂש ִע ֵירי‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬.‫יה ְזִב ֵחי ׁ ַש ְל ֵמי צִ ּבוּר‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫ דְּ ָהא‬,‫נִיתנֵי‬ ְ ‫אשי ֳח ָד ׁ ִשים נַ ִמי ָלא‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ָר‬ :‫ָּתנָ א זִ ְב ֵחי ׁ ַש ְל ֵמי צִ ּבוּר! ָא ְמ ִרי‬

The Gemara asks: Let it also teach that the goats brought as sin-offerings on the Festivals override ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: It did teach that, as the goats are included in the category of communal peace-offerings. The Gemara asks: If so, it should also not be necessary to teach separately that the goats sacrificed on the New Moons are brought in a state of ritual impurity, as it already taught the halakha with regard to the communal peace-offerings. Say in answer to this question:

notes

Five items – ‫ח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה דְּ ָב ִרים‬:ֲ In the Jerusalem Talmud it is noted that there seem to be only four items, since the communal peaceoffering and the two loaves were actually two parts of the same offering. It is explained that since there is a dispute as to whether the lambs or the loaves were the main part of the offering, the tanna accounted for both opinions and listed them separately. However, based on the statement in this Gemara that the communal peace-offerings are meant to include the goats sacrificed on the Festivals as well, it is possible that the goats sacrificed on the Festivals are the fifth item. Five items may be brought in a state of ritual impurity – ‫ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה‬ ‫דְּ ָב ִרים ָ ּב ִאין ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬: The offerings listed in the mishna are the only communal offerings that are eaten at all. Consequently, it is understandable that the Gemara asks why the mishna said there are five items in this category. It could have simply stated that this halakha applies to communal offerings that are eaten. The shewbread – ‫ל ֶחם ַה ּ ָפנִים‬:ֶ Tosafot question why the shewbread is considered to be sacrificed, since no part of it is placed or burned on the altar. They answer that the shewbread must be waved, and this is comparable to being sacrificed.

halakha

Communal offerings in impurity – ‫ק ְר ָ ּבנֹות ַה ִ ּצ ּבוּר ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬:ָ All communal offerings are sacrificed even in a state of ritual impurity because they have a set time in which they must be sacrificed. Those that are supposed to be eaten may not be consumed in a state of ritual impurity. Rather, the appropriate parts are sacrificed on the altar and the rest is burned (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Biat HaMikdash 4:10–11). The Paschal lamb…is eaten in impurity – ‫ּ ֶפ ַסח…נֶ ֱא ָכל‬ ‫בטו ְּמ ָאה‬: ּ ְ When the Paschal lamb is sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity, it may also be eaten in ritual impurity. In

that case, it may be consumed only by those who are ritually impure due to contact with a corpse or another source of impurity. People who are ritually impure due to bodily emissions may not eat it (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 7:8). The Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth of Nisan – ‫חגִ יגַ ת ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר‬:ֲ Festival peace-offerings do not override Shabbat or the halakhot of ritual impurity because the time of these offerings is not entirely set, as stated in the Gemara (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Ĥagiga 1:8).

background

Omer – ‫עֹומר‬: ֶ A measure of grain equal to one-tenth of an ephah. This term is used to refer to the measure of barley offered in the Temple on the sixteenth of Nisan, the day following the first day of Passover. Once the omer had been offered, grain from the new harvest could be eaten.

Afterward, they were divided among the priests and eaten in the Temple courtyard.

The shewbread – ‫ל ֶחם ַה ּ ָפנִים‬:ֶ The Torah (Leviticus 24:5–9) describes the offering of the twelve loaves of shewbread The two loaves – ‫ש ֵּתי ַה ֶּל ֶחם‬: ְ ׁ Two loaves were brought as that were placed on the sacred table in the Sanctuary each a communal offering on the festival of Shavuot (Leviticus Shabbat. The bread of the previous week was divided among 23:17). In contrast to most of the other meal-offerings, these the priests, who ate it. The shewbread was unleavened and loaves were leavened. Two lambs, the communal peace- placed on the table in two arrangements of six loaves each. offerings, were brought together with these two loaves. Two bowls of frankincense were placed between them, or on Both the loaves and the lambs were ceremonially waved. top of them according to some opinions.



‫וע ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 76b 

73

Perek VII Daf 77 Amud a notes

Appointed time is not written with regard to them – ‫מֹועד‬ ֵ ‫לא ְּכ ִתיב ְ ּבה ּו‬:ָ The Maharsha explains that the offerings of the New Moon are different than other communal additional offerings. Unlike the Festivals, the New Moon itself does not come at a set time. Rather, at times the New Moon occurs on the thirtieth day counted from the previous month, and at times it occurs on the thirty-first day. Therefore, the expression appointed time is irrelevant with regard to the New Moon.

‫יכא‬ ָ ‫אשי ֳח ָד ׁ ִשים ִאיצְ ְט ִר‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ְ ׂש ִע ֵירי ָר‬ ‫ ָהא ָלא‬:‫ ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָתךְ ָא ִמינָ א‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫מֹועד‬ ֵ ‫ְּכ ִתיב ְ ּבה ּו‬ ְּ ‫ֹאש ח ֶֹד ׁש ִא‬ ,‫מֹועד‬ ֵ ‫יק ֵרי‬ ׁ ‫דְּ ר‬

It was necessary for the mishna to mention the goats sacrificed on the New Moons. It could enter your mind to say that since the term appointed time is not written with regard to them,n these offerings do not override Shabbat or ritual impurity as do other communal offerings during their appointed times. Therefore, it teaches us that even the New Moon is called an appointed time.

‫ ַּת ּמוּז דְּ ַהאי‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬.‫ ִּכ ְד ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬This is in accordance with what Abaye said in order to defend the tradi‫״ק ָרא‬ ָ :‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ ׁ ַש ָּתא ַמ ּלֹויֵ י ַמ ְּליו ּּה‬tion that the spies returned from Eretz Yisrael and the entire Jewish .‫מֹועד ִל ׁ ְש ּבֹר ַ ּבחו ָּרי״‬ ֵ ‫ ָע ַלי‬people cried unnecessarily on the Ninth of Av, which resulted in the Ninth of Av becoming a day of crying for future generations. The calculation of the days does not work out precisely, and therefore Abaye said: They filled out Tammuz of that year, meaning that it was a thirty-day month, rather than a twenty-nine-day month as it is nowadays. There is an allusion to this in a verse, as it is written: “He proclaimed an appointed time against me to crush my young men” (Lamentations 1:15), meaning that the New Moon was proclaimed in order to harm the Jewish people in the future. This proves that even the New Moon is called an appointed time. ,‫״מֹועד״ ָאת ּו‬ ֵ ‫ימ ָרא דְּ כו ְּּלה ּו ִמ‬ ְ ‫ְל ֵמ‬ ‫ ״וַ יְ ַד ֵ ּבר מ ׁ ֶֹשה‬:‫ְמנָ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי? דְּ ָתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫לֹומר? ְל ִפי‬ ַ ‫ֶאת מ ֲֹע ֵדי ה׳״ ַמה ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ‫ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ָל ַמ ְדנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ְל ָת ִמיד ו ֶּפ ַסח‬ – ‫מֹועדֹו״‬ ֲ ‫״ב‬ ּ ְ ,‫מֹועדֹו״‬ ֲ ‫״ב‬ ּ ְ ‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר ְ ּבה ּו‬ ּ‫יל‬ ‫מֹועדֹו״ – וַ ֲא ִפ ּו‬ ֲ ‫״ב‬ ּ ְ ,‫וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ .‫ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that all of them come from, i.e., are derived from, the term appointed time? From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught based upon the verse: “And Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord to the children of Israel” (Leviticus 23:44). What is the meaning when the verse states this phrase? This phrase is necessary because we had learned only that the daily offering and the Paschal lamb override Shabbat and ritual impurity, as it is stated with regard to them: In its appointed time, from which it is derived that each of them must be sacrificed in its appointed time and even on Shabbat, in its appointed time and even in ritual impurity.

:‫יבוּר ִמ ּנַיִ ין – ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ ּ ִ‫ ׁ ְש ָאר ָק ְר ְ ּבנֹות צ‬With regard to the rest of the communal offerings, from where is it derived that they also override Shabbat and ritual impurity? As it is .‫יכם״‬ ֶ ‫מֹוע ֵד‬ ֲ ‫״א ֶּלה ַּת ֲע ׂש ּו ַלה׳ ְ ּב‬ ֵ stated with regard to additional offerings that are brought on the Festivals: “These you shall sacrifice to the Lord in your appointed times” (Numbers 29:39). ‫ ׁ ְש ֵּתי‬,‫עֹומר וְ ַה ָ ּק ֵרב ִע ּמֹו‬ ֶ ‫ִמ ּנַיִ ן ְל ַר ּבֹות‬ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ַה ֶּל ֶחם וְ ַה ָ ּק ֵרב ִע ָּמם – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ‫״וַ יְ ַד ֵ ּבר מ ׁ ֶֹשה ֶאת מ ֲֹע ֵדי ה׳ ֶאל ְ ּבנֵי‬ ‫מֹועד ֶא ָחד‬ ֵ ‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״ ַה ָּכתוּב ְק ָבעֹו‬ .‫ְלכו ָּּלן‬

The baraita continues: From where is it derived to include the omer and the lambs that are sacrificed with it, the two loaves sacrificed on Shavuot, and the communal peace-offerings that are sacrificed with them? The verse states: “And Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord to the children of Israel” after it lists Shabbat and the Festivals. This indicates that the verse established one time for all of them. All of these days are considered appointed times, and their offerings are not deferred.

‫יכי; דְּ ִאי ָּכ ַתב‬ ִ ‫וְ ָכל ָהנֵי ָל ָּמה ִלי? צְ ִר‬ – ‫ ָּת ִמיד‬:‫ ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬,‫ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ָּת ִמיד‬ ,‫ ֲא ָבל ּ ֶפ ַסח – ל ֹא‬,‫ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ָּת ִדיר וְ ָכ ִליל‬ .‫ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬

The Gemara asks: Why do I need all these derivations? It should have been sufficient to provide one derivation and use that as a model for all communal offerings. The Gemara answers: They are all necessary. As, if the Merciful One had written this halakha only with regard to the daily offering in the Torah, I would have said: The daily offering is unique in that it is frequent and it is consumed, as it is entirely consumed as a burnt-offering, and that is why it overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity; but the Paschal lamb, which does not have either of these characteristics, does not override Shabbat and ritual impurity. Therefore, it teaches us that the Paschal lamb also overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity.

‫ וְ ִאי ָּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ּ ֶפ ַסח – ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֶשהוּא‬And if the Merciful One had written that this halakha applies to the ‫ ֲא ָבל ָּת ִמיד דְּ ֵאין ָענו ּׁש‬,‫ ָענו ּׁש ָּכ ֵרת‬Paschal lamb, I would have said that the Paschal lamb, for which one .‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫ימא ָלא‬ ָ ‫ ָּכ ֵרת – ֵא‬is punished with karet if one neglects to sacrifice it, overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity; but with regard to the daily offering, for which one is not punished with karet for neglecting to sacrifice it, say that it does not override Shabbat and ritual impurity. Therefore, it comes to teach us that the daily offering also overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity.

74 

Perek VII . 77a . ‫זע ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

‫וְ ִאי ָּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ָהנֵי ַּת ְר ֵּתי – ֲהוָ ה‬ :‫ ָהנֵי הוּא יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן צַ ד ָחמוּר‬:‫ָא ִמינָ א‬ ‫ ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֶשהוּא ָענו ּׁש‬,‫ָּת ִמיד ָּת ִדיר וְ ָכ ִליל‬ – ‫יבוּר‬ ּ ִ‫ ֲא ָבל ׁ ְש ָאר ָק ְר ְ ּבנֹות צ‬,‫ָּכ ֵרת‬ ‫״א ֶּלה ַּת ֲעשׂ ּו‬ ֵ :‫ ָּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬,‫ימא ָלא‬ ָ ‫ֵא‬ .‫יכם״‬ ֶ ‫מֹוע ֵד‬ ֲ ‫ַלה׳ ְ ּב‬

And if the Merciful One had written this halakha only with regard to these two offerings, I would have said that it is only with regard to these offerings that the halakha applies, because they have a stringent aspect.n The daily offering is frequent and entirely consumed on the altar, and one who neglects to bring the Paschal lamb is punished with karet. But with regard to the rest of the communal offerings, which do not have these stringencies, say that they do not override Shabbat and ritual impurity. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “These you shall sacrifice to the Lord in your appointed times,” to teach that even these override Shabbat and ritual impurity.

‫״א ֶּלה ַּת ֲע ׂש ּו ַלה׳‬ ֵ ‫וְ ִאי ָּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬ ‫ ׁ ְש ָא ר‬:‫ ֲה וָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬,‫יכם״‬ ֶ ‫מֹוע ֵד‬ ֲ ‫ְ ּב‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬.‫יבוּר ַה ָ ּב ִאין ְל ַכ ּ ֵפר‬ ּ ִ‫ָק ְר ְ ּבנֹות צ‬ ,‫עֹומר ו ׁ ְּש ֵּתי ַה ֶּל ֶחם דְּ ֵאין ָ ּב ִאין ְל ַכ ּ ֵפר‬ ֶ ‫ ָקא‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ְל ַה ִּתיר ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא נִינְ ה ּו – ל ֹא‬ .‫ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬

And if the Merciful One had written “These you shall sacrifice to the Lord in your appointed times” and nothing else, I would have said that only the other communal offerings that come to atone for sins are included, such as sin-offerings and burnt-offerings. Burnt-offerings atone for the neglect of positive commandments and for the violation of negative commandments that can be rectified through positive commandments. But the omer and the two loaves, which do not come to atone for sin but merely come to permit,n as the omer permits the consumption of the new crop of grain and the two loaves permit using the new crop of grain as offerings in the Temple, do not override Shabbat and ritual impurity. Therefore, it teaches us that even these override Shabbat and ritual impurity.

‫עֹומר ו ׁ ְּש ֵּתי ַה ֶּל ֶחם‬ ֶ ‫וְ ִאי ָּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬ ‫עֹומר‬ ֶ ,‫ ַאדְּ ַר ָ ּבה‬:‫ ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬,ּ‫ְלחו ַּדיְ יהו‬ ,‫ דְּ ָב ִאין ְל ַה ִּתיר‬,‫ימי‬ ִ ‫ו ׁ ְּש ֵּתי ַה ֶּל ֶחם דְּ ַא ִּל‬ .‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫ֲא ָבל ָהנָ ךְ – ל ֹא‬

And if the Merciful One had written: The omer and the two loaves, by themselves, I would have said: On the contrary, the omer and the two loaves, which are important because they come to permit, override Shabbat and ritual impurity, but these other communal offerings do not. Therefore, it teaches us each of the derivations separately.

‫ דִּ ְלכו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא טו ְּמ ָאה דְּ חוּיָ ה‬:‫ ְס ָברו ּּה‬Since the Gemara has discussed communal offerings that are .‫ ו ָּב ֲעיָ א צִ יץ ְל ַר ּצֹות‬,‫יבוּר‬ ּ ‫ ִהיא ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬brought even in a state of ritual impurity, it addresses the basic halakhot relating to this area. The Gemara posits two assumptions and then compares the opinion of Rabbi Yeho­ shua to the mishna. It states as a preface that the Sages originally assumed that everyone agrees that ritual impurity is overridden in cases involving the public.nh In other words, the prohibition against sacrificing offerings in a state of ritual impurity applies to communal offerings, but it is superseded by the obligation to sacrifice the offering. Therefore, the frontplate of the High Priest is required to appease God for the sacrifice of the offering in a state of ritual impurity. ‫יה דְּ ָא ַמר‬ ָּ ‫דְּ ֵל‬ ּ ‫יכא ַּת ָּנא דְּ ׁ ָש ְמ ַע ְּת ֵל‬ ‫יבוּר ֶא ָּלא ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫טו ְּמ ָאה הו ְּּת ָרה ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬ ‫ ֵ ּבין ׁ ֶשּיֶ ׁ ְשנֹו ַעל‬,‫ צִ יץ‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬.‫יְ הו ָּדה‬ ,‫ִמצְ חֹו ו ֵּבין ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ַעל ִמצְ חֹו – ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה‬ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ ‫עֹודיה ּו‬ ֵ ‫ ֵאין‬,‫עֹודיה ּו ַעל ִמצְ חֹו – ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה‬ ֵ .‫ַעל ִמצְ חֹו – ֵאינֹו ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה‬

There is no tanna that you have heard of who said that ritual impurity is entirely permitted in cases involving the public, i.e., that with regard to the public there is no significance to ritual impurity in the Temple, except for Rabbi Yehuda. As it was taught in a baraita: The frontplate of the High Priest, whether it is on his forehead or whether it is not on his forehead, appeases God and thereby facilitates the acceptance of offerings sacrificed in a state of impurity; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehuda says: When it is still on his forehead it appeases God,h but when it is no longer on his forehead it does not appease Him, as indicated in the verse: “And it shall be on Aaron’s forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the sacred things which the children of Israel shall hallow” (Exodus 28:38).

notes

They have a stringent aspect – ‫יֵש ָ ּב ֶהן צַ ד ָחמוּר‬: ׁ It would seem that if it is possible to utilize the refutation: They have a stringent aspect, then every derivation that is made on the basis of a common denominator between two halakhot should be nullified, as there is always a stringent aspect to one halakha that does not apply to the other. However, in this case each of these two halakhot has a unique stringency that is so significant that it cannot serve as a model for other offerings (Tosafot). Indeed, Tosafot quote Rabbeinu Tam, who cites an additional reason why these two offerings cannot serve as models for other offerings: These offerings were sacrificed before the giving of the Torah. To atone for sin and to permit – ‫ל ַכ ּ ֵפר ו ְּל ַה ִּתיר‬:ְ The two sides of the discussion here pertain to the relative importance of two different concepts: Atonement and permission. On the one hand, there is significance to the extra sanctity inherent in an offering that has the power to atone for sins, such as the goats offered on the Festivals, which atone for ritual impurity concerning the Sanctuary and its sacred articles. Peace-offerings, the Paschal lamb, firstborn animals, and other offerings do not bring atonement. On the other hand, the omer and the two loaves are important because they permit items that had previously been forbidden, while sin-offerings do not permit anything. Consequently, there is reason to think that the omer and the two loaves should be considered more important. Ritual impurity is overridden in cases involving the public – ‫יבוּר‬ ּ ‫טו ְּמ ָאה דְּ חוּיָ ה ִהיא ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬: If the majority of the people or the majority of the priests is ritually impure, the Temple service continues to be performed despite the ritual impurity. This lenient provision applies only to communal offerings and to the Paschal lamb. Individual offerings may not be sacrificed in such circumstances. The High Priest on Yom Kippur – ‫כ ֵֹהן ָ ּגדֹול ְ ּביֹום ַה ִּכ ּפו ִּרים‬:ּ The proof with regard to Yom Kippur is that even if an offering becomes ritually impure in the possession of the High Priest, he is not required to bring another ritually pure offering in its place (Tosafot on tractate Yoma). halakha

Ritual impurity is overridden in cases involving the public – ‫יבוּר‬ ּ ‫טו ְּמ ָאה דְּ חוּיָ ה ִהיא ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬: The statement that ritual impurity is overridden for a public does not mean that it is completely permitted. Rather, it remains prohibited, but the prohibition is overridden out of necessity. Therefore, it is only overridden when there is no other option, and the frontplate worn on the forehead of the High Priest is needed to appease God for the prohibition. Additionally, if there is any possible way to perform the necessary service in a state of ritual purity, this must be done. The halakha was decided in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet rather than the opinion of Rav Naĥman, because the halakha generally follows Rav Sheshet in matters pertaining to prohibitions. Additionally, the Gemara here seems to take Rav Sheshet’s approach, and there are other amora’im quoted later who hold this position (Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Biat HaMikdash 4:15). When it is still on his forehead it appeases God – ‫עֹודה ּו ַעל ִמצְ חֹו‬ ֵ ‫מ ַר ֶ ּצה‬:ְ The frontplate appeases God only when it is on the forehead of the High Priest. The halakha was ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in his dispute with Rabbi Shimon (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Biat HaMikdash 4:8).

‫ ּכ ֵֹהן ָ ּגדֹול ְ ּביֹום‬:‫ ָא ַמר לֹו ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Yehuda: The halakha with regard n ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ַעל ִמצְ חֹו‬,‫יֹוכ ַיח‬ ִ ‫ ַה ִּכ ּפ ּו ִרים‬to the High Priest on Yom Kippur shall prove it, as the frontplate is not on his forehead, and it nonetheless appeases God !‫ו ְּמ ַר ֶ ּצה‬ if communal offerings are brought in a state of ritual impurity. The High Priest spends part of Yom Kippur wearing only the four white garments instead of his usual golden vestments, which include the frontplate. 

‫זע ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 77a 

75

background

There is a small gap between the ramp and the altar – ‫זְב ַח‬ ּ ֵ ‫לוּל ָק ָטן ׁיֵש ֵ ּבין ֶּכ ֶב ׁש ַל ִּמ‬:

Gap between the ramp and the altar

,‫ ַה ַּנח ְליֹום ַה ִּכ ּפ ּו ִרים‬:‫ָא ַמר לֹו‬ ‫ ִמ ְּכ ָלל‬.‫יבוּר‬ ּ ‫ׁ ֶש ּטו ְּמ ָאה הו ְּּת ָרה ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬ ‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ָס ַבר טו ְּמ ָאה דְּ חוּיָ ה‬ .‫יבוּר‬ ּ ‫ִהיא ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Set aside Yom Kippur, as ritual impurity is wholly permitted in cases involving the public. The frontplate is needed only to atone for individual offerings that are brought in a state of ritual impurity. This proves by inference that Rabbi Shimon holds that ritual impurity is overridden in cases involving the public, but it is not wholly permitted. Therefore, the frontplate is needed to appease God for the sacrifice of the offering in a state of ritual impurity.

‫ו ְּדכו ֵּלי ָע ְל ָמא ֵאין ַה ִ ּציץ ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה ַעל‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ֵל ָּיכא ַּת ָּנא דְּ ׁ ָש ְמ ַע ְּת ֵל‬.‫ֲא ִכילֹות‬ ‫דְּ ָא ַמר ַה ִ ּציץ ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה ַעל ֲא ִכילֹות‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬.‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ֶא ָּלא ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ‫ ַה ִ ּציץ ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה ַעל‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬ ‫ ֵאין ַה ִ ּציץ‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ֲא ִכילֹות‬ .‫ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה ַעל ֲא ִכילֹות‬

The Sages also presumed that everyone agrees that the frontplate appeases God only for the sacrifice of the offering and the burning of the requisite parts on the altar in a state of ritual impurity, but it does not appease God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten.h Therefore, although the offering is valid, it may not be eaten. As, the only tanna you have heard say the frontplate appeases God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten is Rabbi Eliezer, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: The frontplate appeases God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that supposed to be eaten. And Rabbi Yosei says: The frontplate does not appease God for the impurity of portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten.

,‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫נִיתין דְּ ָלא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ִ ‫נֵימא ַמ ְת‬ ָ ‫ית עֹל ֶֹתיךָ ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ ָ ‫ ״וְ ָע ִ ׂש‬:‫דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬ ‫ ִאם ֵאין‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ַר ִ ּבי י‬,‫וְ ַהדָּ ם״‬ – ‫ ִאם ֵאין ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬,‫דָּ ם – ֵאין ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ .‫ֵאין דָּ ם‬

On the basis of these two assumptions, let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, as it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And you shall sacrifice your burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God, and the blood of your offerings shall be poured out against the altar of the Lord your God, and you shall eat the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:27), that Rabbi Yehoshua says: If there is no blood that is fit to be sprinkled on the altar, due to the fact that it became ritually impure or was lost, there is no meat, as the meat is also disqualified. Similarly, if there is no meat that is fit for use, due to the fact that it became ritually impure or was lost, there is no bloodh sprinkled on the altar, and the offering does not bring atonement.

‫ דָּ ם – ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ָ‫ ״וְ ַדם זְ ָב ֶחיך‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ ‫ית‬ ָ ‫ ו ָּמה ֲאנִי ְמ ַקּיֵ ים ״וְ ָע ִ ׂש‬.‫יִ ׁ ּ ָש ֵפ ְך״‬ ‫לֹומר‬ ַ – ‫עֹל ֶֹתיךָ ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ ַהדָּ ם״‬ ‫ ַמה דָּ ם ִ ּבזְ ִר ָיקה – ַאף ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬: ָ‫ְלך‬ .‫ִ ּבזְ ִר ָיקה‬

Rabbi Eliezer says: Blood brings atonement although there is no suitable meat, as it is stated: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured out.” Blood is the aspect of the offering most essential for atonement. And how do I uphold the significance of the juxtaposition of flesh and blood in the verse: “And you shall sacrifice your burntofferings, the flesh and the blood”? I hold that it is there to tell you that just as the blood is presented upon the altar via sprinkling, so too, the meat is presented via throwing.h

‫ לוּל ָק ָטן יֵ ׁש ֵ ּבין ֶּכ ֶב ׁש‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ֱהוֵ י‬You must say, based upon this, that there is a small gap between the bh .‫ ַל ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח‬ramp and the altar. In order to fulfill the requirement to throw, the priest would proceed as follows: Rather than walking to the arrangement of wood and putting down the meat, he would stand on the ramp and throw the meat of the offering over the gap between the ramp and the altar, onto the arrangement of wood on the altar. ‫ ָה ְכ ִתיב ״וְ ַדם‬,‫הֹוש ַע נַ ִמי‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי י‬The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua as ‫ ָהא ְּכ ִתיב‬: ְ‫ זְ ָב ֶחיךָ יִ ׁ ּ ָש ֵפךְ ״! ָא ַמר ָלך‬well, isn’t it written: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured .‫ֹאכל״‬ ֵ ‫יה ״וְ ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ּת‬ ּ ‫ ַ ּג ֵ ּב‬out,” which indicates that the blood is the essential part of the offering? He could have said to you that it is written right next to it: “And you shall eat the flesh,” which indicates that the meat is also essential and must still be suitable for eating.

halakha

The frontplate does not appease God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten – ‫ֵאין‬ ‫ה ִ ּציץ ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה ַעל ֲא ִכילֹות‬:ַ The frontplate appeases God for several types of ritual impurity relating to offerings in the Temple. However, it does not appease God with regard to the ritual impurity of the portions of offerings that are consumed by the priests. Therefore, the priests may not eat any part of an offering that is impure (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Biat HaMikdash 4:7). Blood and meat of offerings – ‫דָּ ם ו ְּב ָ ׂשר ַה ָ ּק ְר ָ ּבנֹות‬: If all of the meat of individuals’ offerings, including the portions burned on the altar and those that are eaten, become ritually impure or are

76 

Perek VII . 77a . ‫זע ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

lost, the blood may not be sprinkled on the altar. However, even if all the fats and meat of communal offerings become ritually impure, the blood may be sprinkled on the altar. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, as that the halakha is generally in accordance with his in opinion in his disputes with Rabbi Eliezer. It is also in accordance with the Gemara’s statement later on that Rabbi Yehoshua distinguishes between individual and communal offerings (Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 1:34). Meat is presented via throwing – ‫ב ָ ׂשר ִ ּבזְ ִר ָיקה‬: ּ ָ Just as the blood of offerings is sprinkled on the altar, the meat is thrown

a short distance, from the ramp to the altar. Although this was stated by Rabbi Eliezer, it appears that Rabbi Yehoshua agrees with this halakha and derives two matters from the verse (Leĥem Mishne; Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 6:4). There is a small gap between the ramp and the altar – ‫לוּל‬ ‫זְב ַח‬ ּ ֵ ‫ק ָטן ׁיֵש ֵ ּבין ֶּכ ֶב ׁש ַל ִּמ‬‎ָ : There was a small gap between the ramp and the altar over which the sacrificial portions were thrown onto the altar. This is the presumption of the Gemara in tractate Zevaĥim (Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Beit HaBeĥira 2:13).

Perek VII Daf 77 Amud b ‫עֹולה‬ ָ ‫וְ ָהנֵי ְּת ֵרי ְק ָר ֵאי ָל ָּמה ִלי? ַחד ְ ּב‬ ‫ דְּ ִאי ָּכ ַתב‬,‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ ּו צְ ִר‬.‫וְ ַחד ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬ ‫עֹולה‬ ָ :‫עֹולה – ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬ ָ ‫ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ְ ּב‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬.‫ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ָּכ ִליל‬,‫ִהיא דַּ ֲח ִמ ָירא‬ .‫ימא ָלא‬ ָ ‫דְּ ָלא ֲח ִמ ִירי – ֵא‬

The Gemara asks: Why do I need these two parts of the verse? According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, the halakha that both the blood and meat are essential is derived twice from the verse. The Gemara answers: One part of the verse is referring to a burntoffering and one part is referring to a peace-offering. The Gemara notes that both derivations are necessary, as if the Merciful One had written the halakha that the meat must be suitable for eating only with regard to a burnt-offering, I would have said that it applies only to a burnt-offering, which is stringent, as it is totally consumed on the altar. However, with regard to a peace-offering, which is not stringent, as most of its meat is eaten by the priests and by the one who brought the offering, say that its meat is not essential.

:‫וְ ִאי ָּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ׁ ְש ָל ִמים – ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬.‫ דְּ ִאית ְ ּבה ּו ׁ ְש ֵּתי ֲא ִכילֹות‬,‫ַאדְּ ַר ָ ּבה‬ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫עֹולה דְּ ֵלית ָ ּב ּה ׁ ְש ֵּתי ֲא ִכילֹות – ֵא‬ ָ .‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫ָלא‬

And if the Merciful One had written this halakha with regard to a peace-offering, I would have said: On the contrary, the meat of a peace-offering is more important because it has two forms of consumption. The sacrificial parts are burned on the altar, and the owners and priests eat the rest of the meat. But with regard to a burnt-offering, which is completely burned on the altar and therefore does not have two forms of consumption, say that its meat is not essential. For this reason, it teaches us the halakha in both cases.

‫ ָה ְכ ִתיב ״וְ ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬,‫יעזֶ ר נַ ִמי‬ ֶ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ָ ‫ ַההוּא ִמ‬:‫ֹאכל״! ָא ַמר ָל ְך‬ ֵ ‫ּת‬ ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ ‫ילה ַעד‬ ָ ‫ַא ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר מו ָּּתר ַ ּב ֲא ִכ‬ .‫ׁ ֶשּיִ ּזָ ֵרק ַהדָּ ם‬

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer as well, isn’t it written: “And you shall eat the flesh”? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Eliezer could have said to you: That part of the verse is necessary to teach that the meat of an offering is not permitted to be eaten until the blood is sprinkled.nh

notes

Eating before the blood has been sprinkled – ‫ֲא ִכ ָילה‬ ‫ל ְפנֵי זְ ִר ַיקת ַהדָּ ם‬:ִ Elsewhere, the Gemara derives this prohibition from other sources, such as the verses: “You may not eat within your gates” (Deuteronomy 12:17) or “You shall not eat with the blood” (Leviticus 19:26). Apparently, the Gemara here does not accept those derivations.

‫יה ְל ָה ִכי הוּא‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬The Gemara asks: If so, say that the entire verse comes for this ּ ‫ ּכו ֵּל‬:‫ימא‬ ‫ דָּ ם ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ׁ ָשם ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬,‫ דַּ ֲא ָתא‬purpose, and in that case, from where do we derive the halakha ?‫ ְמ ַנָלן‬that one sprinkles the blood even though there is no suitable meat because it became ritually impure or was lost? ‫״ה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ ַ ‫ ִאם ֵּכן נִ ְכ ּתֹוב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬: ְ‫ָא ַמר ָלך‬ ,‫ֹאכל״ וַ ֲה ַדר ״וְ ַדם זְ ָב ֶחיךָ יִ ׁ ּ ָש ֵפ ְך״‬ ֵ ‫ּת‬ ‫ישא ״וְ ָע ִ ׂש ָית עֹל ֶֹתיךָ ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ ָ ׁ ‫ְּכ ִד ְכ ִתיב ְ ּב ֵר‬ ‫יה ְל ַ״דם‬ ּ ‫ ַמאי ׁ ְשנָ א דְּ ַא ְקדְּ ֵמ‬.‫וְ ַהדָּ ם״‬ ‫ דָּ ם – ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי‬:‫זְ ָב ֶחיךָ ״ – ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬:‫ ו ׁ ְּש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬,‫ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ .‫מו ָּּתר ַ ּב ֲא ִכ ָילה ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ּזָ ֵרק ַהדָּ ם‬

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Eliezer could have said to you: If so, the Merciful One should have written “and you shall eat the flesh” and then “and the blood of your offerings shall be poured out,” as it is written in the first clause of that verse: “And you shall sacrifice your burnt-offerings, the flesh, and the blood,” listing the meat before the blood. What is different that caused the verse to precede “and you shall eat the flesh” with the phrase “the blood of your offerings”? Learn from it that blood brings atonement although there is no meat, and learn from it also that the meat is not permitted to be eaten until the blood is sprinkled.

‫ ֵאין ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר מו ָּּתר ַ ּב ֲא ִכ ָילה‬,‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ‫ ו ָּמה‬:‫חֹומר הוּא‬ ֶ ָ‫ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ּזָ ֵרק ַהדָּ ם – ַקל ו‬ ‫ ִּכי‬,‫יתנְ ה ּו ָלא ְמ ַע ְּכ ִבי‬ ַ ‫ֵאימו ִּרין דְּ ִכי ֵל‬ ‫יה‬ ֵ ‫ דָּ ם – דְּ ִכי ֵל‬,‫יתנְ ה ּו – ְמ ַע ְּכ ִבי‬ ַ ‫ִא‬ ּ ‫ית‬ ‫יה ל ֹא ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬ ֵ ‫ְמ ַע ֵּכב – ִּכי ִא‬ ּ ‫ית‬ !‫דִּ ְמ ַע ֵּכב‬

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yehoshua derive the halakha that the meat is not permitted to be eaten until the blood is sprinkled? The Gemara answers that according to his opinion, it is an a fortiori inference: Just as with regard to sacrificial portions brought on the altar, which do not preclude acceptance of the offering when they are not present, when they are present they do preclude the eating of the meat; with regard to blood, which precludes acceptance of the offering when it is not present, e.g., when it became ritually impure or lost, then when it is present, all the more so is it not clear that it precludes the continuation of the service and the eating the meat until it is sprinkled?

halakha

From when is the meat of an offering permitted – ‫ִמ ָּמ ַתי מו ָּּתר‬ ‫ב ַ ׂשר ָק ְר ַ ּבן‬: ּ ְ It is prohibited to eat the meat of any offering, including offerings of lesser sanctity, before its blood has been sprinkled on the altar. One who does so is punished with lashes



for having violated the prohibition of “You may not eat within your gates” (Deuteronomy 12:17), in accordance with the Gemara in tractate Makkot (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 11:4). ‫זע ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 77b 

77

ְּ ‫ ִמ‬:‫יעזֶ ר‬ ‫יל ָתא דְּ ָא ְתיָ א ְ ּב ַקל‬ ֶ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫חֹומר – ָט ַרח וְ ָכ ַתב ָל ּה ְק ָרא‬ ֶ ָ‫ו‬ – ‫יכא ְל ִמ ְד ָר ׁש‬ ָ ‫ ָּכל ֵה‬:‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫י‬ ָּ ‫יכא דְּ ִא‬ .‫דָּ ְר ׁ ִשינַן‬

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, if there is an a fortiori inference, why did the Torah have to write this halakha explicitly in a verse? The Gemara answers: A matter that could be derived by means of an a fortiori inference, the verse nonetheless exerted itself and wrote it explicitly. Even when a halakha can be derived through an a fortiori inference, the Torah sometimes writes it explicitly in order to emphasize the halakha. The Gemara asks: How does Rabbi Yehoshua respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: Anywhere that there is a possibility to expound the verse and thereby derive a new halakha, we expound it rather than explain that the verse taught only a halakha that could also have been derived in a different manner.

‫נִיתין דְּ ָלא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ִ ‫ימא ַמ ְת‬ ָ ‫ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ֵל‬ ,‫ דְּ ֵכיוָ ן דְּ ָא ַמר ָ ּב ֵעינַ ן ַּת ְר ֵּתי‬,‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫י‬ ‫יכי‬ ִ ‫וְ צִ יץ ַא ֲא ִכילֹות ל ֹא ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה – ֵה‬ ?‫ָא ֵתי ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬

Now, after these introductions, let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua: Since he said that we require the two parts of the offering to be valid, i.e., the meat and the blood, and since he presumably holds that the frontplate does not appease God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten, and consequently only the blood of these offerings is valid, how can they be brought in ritual impurity?

‫ ֶא ָּלא ָק ָס ַבר‬.‫יְהֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ‫ימא ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ֵּת‬The Gemara refutes this statement: Even if you say that the mishna is .‫עֹולין‬ ִ ‫ ַה ִ ּציץ ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה ַעל ָה‬:‫יְהֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, it is not difficult. Rather, Rabbi Yehoshua holds that the frontplate appeases God for the impurity of that which goes up, i.e., the sacrificial parts that are brought onto the altar and burned. These portions may be burned on the altar even when they are impure. This is considered a form of consumption. Since part of meat is therefore suitable for consumption, the blood may be sprinkled. .‫עֹולין‬ ִ ‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ דְּ ִא‬,‫ָהא ֵּתינַ ח זְ ָב ִחים‬ ‫יכא‬ ֶ ‫ֶא ָּלא‬ ָּ ‫ דְּ ֵל‬,‫עֹומר ּו ׁ ְש ֵּתי ַה ֶּל ֶחם‬ ‫ ִּכי‬:‫ימר? ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬ ִ ָּ ‫ ַמאי ִא‬,‫עֹולין‬ – ‫הֹוש ַע נַ ִמי דְּ ָב ֵעינַן ַּת ְר ֵּתי‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬ .‫ ַ ּב ְּמנָ חֹות ל ֹא ָא ַמר‬,‫ַ ּבּזְ ָב ִחים‬

The Gemara asks: This works out well with regard to communal animal offerings, from which there are portions that go up onto the altar. But what of the omer and the two loaves, of which there are no parts that go up onto the altar? These offerings are entirely eaten by the priests except for the handful of flour which is scooped out and burned on the altar, and which serves the same function for a meal-offering as the sprinkling of the blood for an animal offering. What is there to say concerning those offerings? Say in answer to this question: When Rabbi Yehoshua said that we require the two parts of the offering to be valid, he said it with regard to animal offerings; but with regard to meal-offerings he did not say it.

‫נִט ְמא ּו‬ ְ :‫ו ַּב ְּמנָ חֹות ל ֹא ָא ַמר?! וְ ָה ְתנַן‬ ‫יה – ְּכ ִמדַּ ת ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָ ‫ ָא ְבד ּו ׁ ְשיָ ֶר‬,‫יה‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְשיָ ֶר‬ ‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ְּכ ִמדַּ ת ַר ִ ּבי י‬,‫יעזֶ ר ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָירה‬ ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬ .‫ּ ְפסו ָּל ּה‬

The Gemara expresses surprise: Is it true that with regard to mealofferings he did not say that there is a requirement that both the handful and the remainder of the meal-offering remain valid? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: If the remainder of the meal-offering, i.e., everything left after the handful has been separated, became ritually impure, or if the remainder was lost,h according to the principle of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that the blood is fit even if there is no meat, it is valid, but according to the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua it is disqualified?

‫ ְּכ ִמדַּ ת ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ְּכ ִמדַּ ת וְ ל ֹא ְּכ ִמדַּ ת‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא‬,‫הֹוש ַע – דְּ ָב ֵעינַ ן ַּת ְר ֵּתי‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫י‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ִא‬, ‫הֹוש ַע‬ ‫יל ּו ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ְּכ ִמדַּ ת ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ‫ ַ ּב ְּמנָ חֹות ל ֹא‬,‫הֹוש ַע ַ ּבּזְ ָב ִחים ָא ַמר‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫י‬ ‫ָא ַמר – וְ ִאילּ ּו ַהאי ַּת ָּנא ָס ַבר ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬ .‫ַ ּב ְּמנָ חֹות‬

The Gemara responds: It is in accordance with the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua but not entirely in accordance with the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua, meaning that the statement in the mishna is similar but not entirely consistent with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. It is in accordance with the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua in that we need the two parts of the offering to be valid. And it is not in accordance with the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua, because whereas Rabbi Yehoshua himself said so with regard to animal offerings but with regard to meal-offerings he did not say so, this tanna quoted in the mishna extended Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion and holds that it applies even to meal-offerings. halakha

Remainders of meal-offerings that became ritually impure or were lost – ‫שיָ ֵרי ְּמנָ חֹות ׁ ֶש ּנ ְִט ְמא ּו אֹו ָא ְבד ּו‬: ְ ׁ If one took the handful of the meal-offering, and then the remainder became ritually impure or was lost or otherwise disqualified, he should not burn the handful on the altar ab initio. However, if he did burn

78 

Perek VII . 77b . ‫זע ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

it, it is accepted. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua as presented in the Tosefta in tractate Menaĥot, which states that even Rabbi Yehoshua agrees that it is accepted after the fact (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 11:20).

‫יה ו ַּמ ְח ִמיר‬ ֵ ָ‫ו ַּמנּ ּו ַהאי ַּת ָּנא דְּ ָק ֵאי ְּכו‬ ּ ‫ות‬ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ַּתנְ יָ א‬,‫ֵיה? וְ עֹוד‬ ּ ‫ְט ֵפי ִמ ּינ‬ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫רֹואה ֲאנִי ֶאת דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ֶ :‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ וְ ִד ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי י‬,‫ַ ּב ְּמנָ חֹות ו ַּבּזְ ָב ִחים‬ .‫ַ ּבּזְ ָב ִחים ו ַּב ְּמנָ חֹות‬

The Gemara asks: And who is this tanna who holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua and is more stringent than him?n And furthermore, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: I see as correct the statement of Rabbi Eliezer both with regard to meal-offerings and with regard to animal offerings; and I see as correct the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua both with regard to animal offerings and with regard to meal-offerings.

‫יעזֶ ר ַ ּבּזְ ָב ִחים – ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה‬ ֶ ‫דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ,‫ דָּ ם ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ׁ ָשם ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה‬,‫הֹוש ַע ַ ּבּזְ ָב ִחים‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫וְ ִד ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ‫ ִאם‬,‫ ִאם ֵאין דָּ ם ֵאין ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬.‫ֵאין ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ֵאין דָּ ם‬ ‫קֹומץ ַאף‬ ֶ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַ ּב ְּמנָ חֹות – ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה‬ ‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי י‬,‫ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ׁ ְשיָ ִרים‬ ‫קֹומץ‬ ֶ ‫ ִאם ֵאין‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַ ּב ְּמנָ חֹות – ׁ ֶש ָהיָה‬ .‫קֹומץ‬ ֶ ‫ ִאם ֵאין ׁ ְשיָ ִרים ֵאין‬,‫ֵאין ׁ ְשיָ ִרים‬

Rabbi Yosei explains: The statement of Rabbi Eliezer is correct with regard to animal offerings, as he would say that the blood brings atonement although there is no meat. The statement of Rabbi Yehoshuan is correct with regard to animal offerings, as he would say that if there is no blood, there is no meat, and if there is no meat, there is no blood. The statement of Rabbi Eliezer is correct with regard to meal-offerings, as he would say that the handful is fit although there is no remainder. The statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is correct with regard to meal-offerings, as he would say that if there is no valid handful, there is no remainder, and if there is no remainder, there is no handful. This indicates that Rabbi Yehoshua disputes the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer concerning mealofferings, just as he disputes his opinion concerning animal offerings.

‫ ַה ִ ּציץ ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה‬:‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ָק ָס ַבר ַר ִ ּבי י‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא‬Rather, the previous answer should be rejected and the answer is as .‫עֹולין וְ ַעל ] ָה ֲא ִכילֹות‬ ִ ‫[ה‬ ָ ‫ ַעל‬follows: Rabbi Yehoshua holds that the frontplate appeases God both for the impurity of sacrificial limbs that go up onto the altar and for the impurity of portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten. The Gemara has now rejected its previous assumption that, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, the frontplate does not appease God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are eaten. Consequently, the mishna, which rules that impure communal offerings are valid, is consistent with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.

notes

Who holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua and is more stringent than him – ‫יה‬ ּ ‫דְּ ָק ֵאי ְּכוָ ֵות‬ ‫ֵיה‬ ּ ‫ו ַּמ ְח ִמיר ְט ֵפי ִמ ּינ‬: The reason it would be so surprising to find such an opinion is that since this tanna accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, what reason would he have to be more stringent? If the source of Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion is the language of the verse alone, there is no reason to extend it to meal-offerings as well. In addition, if Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion is that the verse pertaining to animal offerings is meant to teach the halakha pertaining to meal-offerings as well, he too would be stringent with regard to meal-offerings. The statement of Rabbi Eliezer…the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua – ‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יעזֶ ר וְ ִד ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ֶ ‫דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬: Rabbi Yosei’s seemingly contradictory statements, in which he accepts both the opinions of Rabbi Eliezer and those of Rabbi Yehoshua, despite the fact that they disagree, will be explained later in the Gemara’s discussion (see 78a). halakha

The meat became ritually impure and the fat remains valid – ‫נִט ָמא ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ ֵח ֶלב ַקּיָ ים‬: ְ If the meat of any animal offering became ritually impure and the fat remains valid, or if the fat became ritually impure and the meat remains valid, the blood may be sprinkled on the altar. Even Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that it is permitted in this instance (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 11:34).

‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ַא ַּמאי ְּכ ִמדַּ ת ַר ִ ּבי י‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬The Gemara expresses surprise: If so, why does the mishna cited .‫ ּ ְפסו ָּלה? ַא ָאבוּד וְ ָ ׂשרוּף‬above say that, in accordance with the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua, an impure offering is disqualified? The Gemara responds: This opinion was stated only with regard to meat that was lost or burned; however, if it became ritually impure, the frontplate appeases God, and the offerings remain valid. ‫ֶא ָּלא נִ ְט ָמא ְל ַמאן ָק ָתנֵ י? ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא יֵ ׁש‬,‫יטא‬ ָ ‫יעזֶ ר – ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬ ‫יתנְ ה ּו ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ַ ‫ָאבוּד וְ ָ ׂשרוּף דְּ ֵל‬ !?‫יב ֲעיָ א‬ ּ ָ ‫יה ִמ‬ ֵ ‫ נִ ְט ָמא דְּ ִא‬,‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬ ּ ‫ית‬ ‫ וְ ָק ָתנֵי‬,‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יטא ְל ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ָ ‫ֶא ָּלא ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ !‫ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬

The Gemara asks: But if so, according to whom is the mishna teaching the case of a meal-offering that became impure? According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, it is obvious that it the meal-offering remains valid: Now that it has been mentioned that in a case where it was lost or burned, when they are not present at all, Rabbi Eliezer validates the offering, is it necessary to mention that when it became impure, when it is still in existence, the offering is valid? Rather, it is obvious that this case is mentioned in order to teach the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, and it is teaching that according to him it is disqualified.

‫ ָּכל‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ַר ִ ּבי י‬,‫ ַּתנְ יָ א‬:‫וְ עֹוד‬ ‫ ֵ ּבין ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְט ָמא ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬,‫זְ ָב ִחים ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה‬ ‫וְ ֵח ֶלב ַקּיָ ים ו ֵּבין ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְט ָמא ֵח ֶלב ו ָּב ָ ׂשר‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל נִ ְט ְמא ּו‬.‫זֹורק ֶאת ַהדָּ ם‬ ֵ – ‫ַקּיָ ים‬ ‫ ַא ְל ָמא ָק ָס ַבר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ַּת ְרוַ ויְ יה ּו – ל ֹא‬ ‫עֹולין‬ ִ ‫ ֵאין ַה ִ ּציץ ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה ַעל ָה‬:‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫י‬ !‫וְ ל ֹא ַעל ָה ֲא ִכילֹות‬

And furthermore, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all animal offerings in the Torah, whether the meat became ritually impure and the fat of the offering, which is the part that is burned on the altar, remains valid,h or the fat became impure and the meat remains valid, one may sprinkle the blood. The following inference can be made from this baraita: But if both of them became ritually impure, he may not sprinkle the blood. Apparently, Rabbi Yehoshua holds that the frontplate does not appease God for the impurity of the parts of the offering that go up onto the altar or for the impurity of portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten.

‫הֹוש ַע ִה יא‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫עֹול ם ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬,‫ֶא ָּלא‬ ,‫ ָּכאן – ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה‬:‫ וְ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָא‬,‫נִיתין‬ ִ ‫ַמ ְת‬ – ‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ִּכי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬.‫יע ַבד‬ ֲ ִּ‫ָּכאן – ד‬ .‫יע ַבד – ל ֹא‬ ֲ ִּ‫ ד‬,‫ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה‬

Rather, the previous answers have been rejected and the answer is as follows: Actually, the mishna is even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, and it is not difficult: There, Rabbi Yehoshua was referring to the halakha ab initio; here, in the mishna, it is referring to the halakha after the fact. When Rabbi Yehoshua said that if the meat is disqualified the blood may not be brought to the altar, that was only ab initio; after the fact he did not disqualify it.



‫זע ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 77b 

79

halakha

Meat became impure or it was disqualified – ‫נִט ָמא ָ ּב ָ ׂשר אֹו‬ ְ ‫ש ִּנ ְפ ַסל‬: ֶ ׁ If sacrificial meat became disqualified or was taken out of its proper area, the blood of that offering should not be sprinkled on the altar. However, if it was sprinkled, it is accepted, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 11:31).

‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ְ ‫ו ְּמנָ א ֵּת‬ ּ ‫ימ ָרא דְּ ׁ ָשנֵי ֵל‬ ‫נִט ָמא‬ ְ :‫יע ַבד – דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ ֲ ‫ֵ ּבין ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה ְל ִד‬ ‫ אֹו ׁ ֶשּיָ צָ א ח ּו ץ‬,‫ אֹו ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְפ ַסל‬,‫ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ ,‫ יִ ּזָ ֵרק‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ַל ְּק ָל ִעים – ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ‫ּמֹודה ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֶ ‫ ו‬.‫ ל ֹא יִ ּזָ ֵרק‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ַר ִ ּבי י‬ .‫הֹוש ַע ׁ ֶש ִאם זָ ַרק – הו ְּרצָ ה‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫י‬

And from where do you say that Rabbi Yehoshua differentiates between ab initio and after the fact? As it was taught in a baraita: If the meat became impure or it was disqualifiedh through contact with one who has immersed during the day but does not become fully pure until nightfall, or if the meat went outside the hangings and was thereby disqualified, Rabbi Eliezer says the blood may be sprinkledn and it is valid; Rabbi Yehoshua says it may not be sprinkled. And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that if one sprinkled the blood, the offering is accepted.

:‫ וְ עֹוד‬,‫יע ַבד ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ֲ ִּ‫ ֲח ָדא – דִּ ְפסו ָּלה ד‬The Gemara rejects this answer for two reasons. One reason to reject it is that the term disqualified indicates that the offering is ‫״ח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה דְּ ָב ִרים ָ ּב ִאין״ – ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה‬ ֲ n .‫ ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬invalid even after the fact and not only ab initio. And furthermore, the mishna’s statement that five items may be brought in a state of ritual impurity indicates that they may be brought even ab initio. notes

Sprinkling – ‫זְ ִר ָיקה‬: This term refers to the presentation of sacrificial blood on the altar. It is one of the four sacrificial rites involved in the sacrifice of every animal offering in the Temple. The manner in which the blood was presented on the altar varied according to the nature of the particular offering. The presentation of blood on the altar was the essential element necessary for an offering to bring about atonement. Accordingly, as soon as the blood was presented as required on the altar, the person who brought the offering was granted atonement, even if the later sacrificial rites connected with the offering were not completed in the required manner.

‫יע ַבד ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ֲ ִּ‫פסו ָּלה ד‬:ְ ּ One of the standard inferences in rabbinic terminology is based on the grammatical tense in which a halakha is expressed: Expressing a halakha in the past tense indicates that it pertains to situations after the fact, while expressing a halakha in the present tense indicates that it concerns cases in which an activity is performed ab initio. Similarly, the term disqualified indicates that something is disqualified even after the fact, and valid indicates that something is valid only after the fact. When the Sages intend that the halakha concern the performance of an activity ab initio, they do not use these terms. Rather, they express the activity in the active sense, such as: He The term disqualified indicates even after the fact – takes the handful, or: He does not take the handful.

Perek VII Daf 78 Amud a notes

There he was referring to the offering of an individual, here it is referring to an offering involving the public – ‫ָּכאן‬ ‫יבוּר‬ ּ ‫ּיָחיד ָּכאן ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬ ִ ‫ב‬:ּ ַ If the source for Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion is the verse in the Torah that indicates that without the meat the blood cannot be sprinkled, how can he differentiate between an individual and the public? The answer is that the wording of the verse does not indicate that the lack of meat precludes the sprinkling of the blood. Rather, the verse emphasizes that it is a mitzva to sprinkle the blood while the meat is still in existence and fit for use, but it does not indicate whether the meat is absolutely necessary (Berakh Moshe). The Gemara’s answer ignores its previous assertion that the word disqualified indicates that Rabbi Yehoshua disqualifies a ritually impure offering even after the fact. Some commentaries explain that, according to the Gemara’s conclusion, the word disqualified was mentioned only with regard to a case where the meat is not present at all, such as if it was burned or lost. In a case where the meat is present but impure, Rabbi Yehoshua holds that the offering is disqualified only ab initio (Rashash). halakha

An offering of an individual and an offering involving the public – ‫יבוּר‬ ּ ‫ּיָחיד ו ַּב ִ ּצ‬ ִ ‫ב‬:ּ ַ If all of the meat and fat of a personal offering becomes ritually impure, the blood should not be sprinkled ab initio. However, if it is a communal offering, the blood may be sprinkled even ab initio, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 1:34).

80 

Perek VII . 78a . ‫חע ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

‫ ֶא ָּלא ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א; ָּכאן ַ ּבּיָ ִחיד ָּכאן‬Rather, it is not difficult: There, where Rabbi Yehoshua said that .‫יבוּר‬ ּ ‫ ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬it is invalid ab initio, he was referring to the offering of an individual. Here, in the mishna, which states that it may be sacrificed even ab initio, it is referring to an offering involving the public.nh ,‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫נִיתין דְּ ָלא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ִ ‫נֵימא ַמ ְת‬ ָ ‫ ַה ִ ּציץ ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה ַעל‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ‫ ֵאין ַה ִ ּציץ‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ֲא ִכילֹות‬ .‫ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה ַעל ֲא ִכילֹות‬

The Gemara asks: Shall we say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says that the frontplate appeases God for the impurity of portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten. Rabbi Yosei says that the frontplate does not appease God for the impurity of portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten; it appeases God only for the impurity of the parts of offerings that are burned on the altar.

‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ָקא ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָת ְך ִמדְּ ָק ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ֵאין ַה ִ ּציץ ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה ַעל ֲא ִכילֹות – ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬ .‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ָ ּב ֵעינַן ַּת ְר ֵּתי‬,‫יה‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫י‬ ּ ‫הֹוש ַע ְס ִב ָירא ֵל‬ !‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫נִיתין דְּ ָלא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ִ ‫נֵימא ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ַמ ְת‬ ָ

The Gemara explains the question: It could enter your mind to say: From the fact that Rabbi Yosei said that the frontplate does not appease God for the impurity of portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten, it can be inferred that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said that we require the two parts of the offering, the blood and the meat, to be valid. If this were not the case, it would be sufficient for the frontplate to appease God for the impurity of the blood, and it would not be necessary for the frontplate to appease God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten. Let us now say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

,‫יה‬ ֶ ‫יֹוסי ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ל ֹא‬The Gemara rejects this assertion: No, Rabbi Yosei holds in acּ ‫יעזֶ ר ְס ִב ָירא ֵל‬ .‫ דְּ ָא ַמר דָּ ם ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬cordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said that the blood of an offering is accepted although there is no meat.

‫ ְל ַמאי ִה ְל ְכ ָתא ֵאין ַה ִ ּציץ‬,‫ִאי ָה ִכי‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יך‬ ְ ‫יט ְע ִמ‬ ַ ‫ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה ַעל ֲא ִכילֹות? וְ ִל‬ ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫יעזֶ ר דְּ ָא ַמר ַה ִ ּציץ ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה‬ ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬ ‫״דָּ ם ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ָ ׂשר״ ַה ִ ּציץ ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה‬ ?‫ַעל ֲא ִכילֹות ְל ַמאי ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬

‫ ו ְּל ַא ּפ ֵֹוקי‬,‫יה ְ ּב ִפיגּ וּל‬ ְ ‫ ְל ִמ‬:‫ֶא ָּלא‬ ּ ‫יק ְ ּב ֵע‬ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬.‫יפ ְלגִ י‬ ַ ּ ‫ִמ ֵידי ְמ ִע ָילה ָק ִמ‬ ָּ ‫ ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה צִ יץ ִע‬:‫ָס ַבר‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ו ַּמ ׁ ְש ֵּוי ֵל‬,‫יה‬ ּ ֵ‫ילו‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ו ַּמ ּ ִפיק ֵל‬,‫יה ְ ּב ִפיגּ וּל‬ ּ ‫ וְ ָק ַבע ֵל‬,‫ְּכ ָטהֹור‬ .‫ִמ ֵידי ְמ ִע ָילה‬

The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to what halakha did Rabbi Yosei say that the frontplate does not appease God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten? Even if it does not appease God for the impurity of these portions, the offering remains valid. The Gemara rejects the question: And according to your reasoning, with regard to Rabbi Eliezern himself, who said that the frontplate appeases God for the impurity of the portions that are supposed to be eaten, since he said that the blood may be sprinkled although there is no meat, with regard to what halakha did he make his other statement that the frontplate appeases God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten? Clearly, whether the frontplate appeases God is significant for reasons other than ensuring that an offering is accepted. Rather, the fact that they disagree about whether the frontplate appeases God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten determines whether it is possible to establish the offering as one disqualified due to improper intent [piggul]n and whether it is possible to exclude the offering from the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.n The dispute is to be understood in this light: Rabbi Eliezer holds that the frontplate appeases God for the impurity of the meat that is supposed to be eaten, and it renders it like pure meat that is not disqualified. Therefore, although the meat may not be eaten, it may be established as piggul. Similarly, because it is treated as though it were pure, the sprinkling of the blood of the offering excludes the meat from the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.

,‫יה‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬And Rabbi Yosei holds that the frontplate does not appease ּ ֵ‫ ל ֹא ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה צִ יץ ִע ָּילו‬:‫יֹוסי ָס ַבר‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ָק ַבע ֵל‬,‫יה ְּכ ָטהֹור‬ ּ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ַמ ׁ ְשוֵ י ֵל‬God for the impurity of sacrificial meat that has become impure, .‫יה ִמ ֵידי ְמ ִע ָילה‬ ּ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ַמ ּ ִפיק ֵל‬,‫ ְ ּב ִפיגּ וּל‬and it does not render it like pure meat. Therefore, sprinkling the blood of the offering does not establish it as piggul and does not exclude it from the prohibition of misusing consecrated property. ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ נְ ִהי נַ ִמי דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב ָמ ִרי‬ – ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא זְ ָב ִחים‬,‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ָס ַבר ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ,‫קֹומץ‬ ֶ ‫יכא‬ ֶ ,‫יכא דָּ ם‬ ָּ ‫עֹומר נַ ִמי – ִא‬ ָּ ‫ִא‬ .‫יכין‬ ִ ִ‫יכא ָ ּבז‬ ָּ ‫ֶל ֶחם ַה ּ ָפנִים נַ ִמי – ִא‬

Rav Mari strongly objects to this conclusion: Even granting that Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that an offering is accepted through the blood alone, even if the meat has become ritually impure, there is still a difficulty. Granted, in the case of animal offerings, which have two permitting factors, the blood and the meat, there is at least one of them, the blood, for which the frontplate appeases God and causes the offering to be accepted. With regard to the omer, too, there is the handful, for which the frontplate appeases God and is thereby validated. With regard to the shewbread, too, there are the bowls of frankincense, which permit the bread in the same manner that the handful permits a meal-offering.

notes

The opinion of Rabbi Eliezer – ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫יטת ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ַ ‫ש‬: ִ ׁ It is taken for granted that, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, one cannot actually eat these portions in a state of ritual impurity. The fact that the frontplate appeases God about these portions must therefore make a difference vis-à-vis a different halakha (Rashi). To establish it as disqualified due to improper intent [piggul] – ‫יה ְ ּב ִפי ּגוּל‬ ּ ‫ל ִמ ְיק ְ ּב ֵע‬:ְ Improper intention can render an offering disqualified, whether it is an animal, a bird, or a meal-offering. If, while engaged in one of the four indispensable rites in the sacrifice of an offering, a priest expresses the intention to perform one of the other rites after the appropriate time or to eat the sacrifice after the appropriate time, this intention disqualifies the offering due to improper intention. An offering that has assumed that status may not be sacrificed, and the person bringing it has not fulfilled his obligation. Anyone willfully eating from an offering of this kind is liable to receive karet. The Sages also decreed that this offering imparts ritual impurity. It is the intention of the priest sacrificing the offering, not that of the person bringing it, that determines whether or not the offering becomes disqualified by improper intention. The full severity of the status of piggul applies only if every other aspect of the sacrifice was fully valid. Therefore, an offering that became ritually impure or was disqualified in any other way cannot attain the status of piggul. To exclude it from the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property – ‫ו ְּל ַא ּפ ֵֹוקי ִמ ֵידי ְמ ִע ָילה‬: Anyone who benefits from consecrated property or damages it through its use is guilty of misuse of consecrated property. Intentional misuse is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven according to some authorities, and by flogging according to others. One who commits misuse unintentionally, or even under duress, must repay the Temple for the loss he caused or the benefit he gained and is fined one-fifth of the value of the loss or of the benefit he accrued. He must also bring a special offering: A guilt-offering for misuse of consecrated property (see Leviticus 5:15–16). The halakhot of misuse apply to all types of consecrated property, whether it is offerings, money, or objects donated to the Temple. The prohibition applies to deriving benefit from offerings of the most sacred order, such as burnt-offerings and sin-offerings, only until they have fulfilled their intended purpose. Consequently, after the sprinkling of the blood, the prohibition no longer applies. However, if the offering became invalid, its purpose has not been fulfilled by the sprinkling of the blood, and the prohibition remains in effect.

?‫ימר‬ ַ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ׁ ְש ֵּתי ַה ֶּל ֶחם ַמאי ִא ָּיכא ְל ֵמ‬But with regard to the two loaves, what is there to say? They are completely eaten, and nothing is brought on the altar. How can they be brought in a state of ritual impurity, as the mishna has stated, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? ‫ימא ַל ָק ֵרב ִע ָּמ ֶהן – ַהיְ ינ ּו ׁ ַש ְל ֵמי‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִכי ֵּת‬And if you say that the two loaves are valid because the front‫ וַ ֲאנַן‬,‫ ִאם ֵּכן ָהו ּו ְלה ּו ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬,‫יבוּר‬ ּ ִ‫ צ‬plate appeases God for the impurity of the two lambs that are !‫ ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ְּתנַן‬sacrificed with them, this is the same as the communal peaceofferings that are mentioned separately in the mishna. If so, there are only four offerings listed in the mishna. But we learned in the mishna that there are five, because the two loaves and the communal peace-offerings are listed separately. ‫ טו ְּמ ָאה הו ְּּת ָרה‬:‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ָק ָס ַבר ַר ִ ּבי‬Rather, the previous suggestion is rejected. Instead, it is sug.‫יבוּר‬ ּ ‫ ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬gested that Rabbi Yosei holds that ritual impurity is permitted in cases involving the public, even without the frontplate. Therefore, the two loaves remain valid. 

‫חע ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 78a 

81

notes

Why do I need sprinkling at all – ‫ל ָּמה ִלי ַהּזָ ָאה ְּכ ָלל‬:ָ The following challenge may be raised: Perhaps it is necessary to sprinkle the waters of the purification offering on the High Priest before Yom Kippur because of the ram that he brings on Yom Kippur, which is a personal offering and which would not be permitted in a state of ritual impurity. However, it seems that in this case, in which the concern is merely that the High Priest may have become impure without realizing it, the opinion that permits ritual impurity for communal offerings would allow the High Priest to sacrifice his personal offering even if he had not been sprinkled with the waters of the purification. This is partially due to the fact that he is most likely pure and partially due to the fact that his offering is similar to a communal offering in that it is sacrificed even on Shabbat (Tosafot). I see as correct…with regard to animal offerings… with regard to meal-offerings – …‫נִי…בּזְ ָב ִחים‬ ּ ַ ‫רֹואה ֲא‬ ֶ ‫ב ְּמנָ חֹות‬:ַ Apparently, Rabbi Yosei made two statements at two separate times: When he studied the halakhot of animal offerings, he stated that the dispute applies to meal-offerings as well, and vice versa. It was the tanna of the baraita who combined the two statements together. There are other instances in which the Sages combined two contradictory statements made at two different times (Tosefot Rid). halakha

Sprinkling on the High Priest – ‫הּזָ ָאה ַעל ּכ ֵֹהן ָ ּגדֹול‬:ַ The High Priest was separated from his home for seven days before Yom Kippur. He was sprinkled with the waters of the purification offering on the third and seventh days only. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as the halakha is ruled in accordance with his opinion in his disputes with Rabbi Meir. In addition, Rabbi Ĥanina agrees with his view in tractate Yoma (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:4).

‫ ֶא ָחד זֶ ה וְ ֶא ָחד זֶ ה ַמּזִ ין ָע ָליו‬:‫וְ ָהא ַּתנְיָא‬ ‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי‬,‫ָּכל ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ִמ ָּכל ַח ָּטאֹות ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ׁ ָשם‬ ‫ ֵאין ַמּזִ ין ָע ָליו‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ .‫יעי ִ ּב ְל ַבד‬ ִ ‫ישי ו ׁ ְּש ִב‬ ִ ׁ ‫ֶא ָּלא ׁ ְש ִל‬

The Gemara asks: But wasn’t the following baraita taught concerning the purity of both the High Priest on Yom Kippur and the priest who burns the red heifer, each of whom is separated from his house for seven days to ensure his purity? The baraita states: In the case of both this priest and that priest, one sprinkles on him all seven days of his separation from all the purification offerings, i.e., the ashes of the red heifers, that are there in the Temple. If he had become impure through contact with a corpse, he will be purified through the sprinkling of the purification offering. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: One does not sprinkle upon him on any day except for the third and seventh days of his separation. This ensures his purification.

‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫וְ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָת ְך ָק ָס ַבר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫יבוּר״ ָל ָּמה ִלי ַהּזָ ָאה‬ ּ ‫״טו ְּמ ָאה הו ְּּת ָרה ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬ ‫נִיתין דְּ ָלא‬ ִ ‫ ַמ ְת‬:‫ְּכ ָלל? ֶא ָּלא ְמ ַח ַּו ְור ָּתא‬ .‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬

And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Yosei holds that ritual impurity is permitted in cases involving the public, why do I need sprinkling at all?nh The offerings of Yom Kippur are communal offerings and may be sacrificed even in a state of ritual impurity. Rather, it is clear that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫יה ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ְל ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ,‫ׁ ְש ָט ָרא ְמזַ ֵּכי ְל ֵבי ְּת ֵרי הוּא?! דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬ ‫רֹואה ֲאנִי ֶאת דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֶ :‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ וְ ִד ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי י‬.‫יעזֶ ר ַ ּבּזְ ָב ִחים‬ ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬ ,‫יעזֶ ר ַ ּב ְּמנָ חֹות‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ִד ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬.‫ַ ּבּזְ ָב ִחים‬ .‫הֹוש ַע ַ ּב ְּמנָ חֹות‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫וְ ִד ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי י‬

With regard to Rabbi Yosei’s statement quoted earlier, Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Rabbi Yosei is like a document that awards something to two conflicting parties, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: I see as correct the statement of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to animal offerings, and the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to animal offerings, and the statement of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to meal-offerings, and the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to meal-offerings.n

‫יעזֶ ר ַ ּבּזְ ָב ִחים – ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה‬ ֶ ‫דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ,‫אֹומר ׳דָּ ם ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ָ ׂשר׳‬ ֵ ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫הֹוש ַע ַ ּבּזְ ָב ִחים ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ‫ ִאם ֵאין ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬,‫״אם ֵאין דָּ ם ֵאין ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ ִ – ‫יעזֶ ר ַ ּב ְּמנָ חֹות‬ ֶ ‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬.‫ֵאין דָּ ם״‬ ‫״קֹומץ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬ ֶ ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה‬ ‫הֹוש ַע ַ ּב ְּמנָ חֹות‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ וְ ִד ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי י‬,‫ׁ ָשם ׁ ְשיָ ִרים״‬ ‫״אם ֵאין ׁ ָשם ׁ ְשיָ ִרים ֵאין‬ ִ ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה‬ .‫קֹומץ ֵאין ׁ ְשיָ ִרים״‬ ֶ ‫קֹומץ ִאם ֵאין‬ ֶ

The statement of Rabbi Eliezer is correct with regard to animal offerings, as he would say that the blood brings atonement although there is no meat. The statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is correct with regard to animal offerings, as he would say that if there is no blood there is no meat, and if there is no meat there is no blood. The statement of Rabbi Eliezer is correct with regard to meal-offerings, as he would say that the handful is fit although there is no remainder. The statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is correct with regard to meal-offerings, as he would say that if there is no valid handful there is no remainder, and if there is no remainder there is no handful. Rabbi Yosei accepted several contradictory statements.

‫ ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא ָק ָא ַמר; ִּכי ָק ֵאי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫יכי‬ ִ ‫ ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא ִּכי ֵה‬:‫ ָא ַמר‬,‫ַ ּבּזְ ָב ִחים‬ .‫דִּ ְפ ִליגִ י ַ ּבּזְ ָב ִחים ּ ְפ ִליגִ י נַ ִמי ַ ּב ְּמנָ חֹות‬ ‫יכי‬ ִ ‫ ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא ִּכי ֵה‬:‫ ָא ַמר‬,‫ָק ֵאי ַ ּב ְּמנָ חֹות‬ .‫דִּ ְפ ִליגִ י ַ ּב ְּמנָ חֹות ּ ְפ ִליגִ י נַ ִמי ַ ּבּזְ ָב ִחים‬

Abaye said to him: Rabbi Yosei did not intend to issue a halakhic ruling in favor of both opinions. Rather, he said what was reasonable. How so? When involved in studying the halakhot of animal offerings, he said: It is reasonable that just as they disagree with regard to animal offerings, they also disagree with regard to meal-offerings. When involved in studying the halakhot of meal-offerings, he said: It is reasonable that just as they disagree with regard to mealofferings, they also disagree with regard to animal offerings.

:‫ ָה ִתינַ ח ִּכי ָק ֵאי ַ ּבּזְ ָב ִחים ָא ַמר‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא ִּכי ֵה ִיכי דִּ ְפ ִליגִ י ַ ּבּזְ ָב ִחים ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬ ּ ַ ‫נַ ִמי ַ ּב ְּמנָ חֹות – דְּ ִע‬ ‫יקר ְק ָר ֵאי ִּכי ְּכ ִת ִיבי‬ ‫ ִּכי ָק ֵאי ַ ּב ְּמנָ חֹות‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא‬.‫ַ ּבּזְ ָב ִחים ְּכ ִת ִיבי‬ ‫יכי דִּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬ ִ ‫ ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא ִּכי ֵה‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר‬ ּ ַ ‫ וְ ָהא ִע‬,‫ַ ּב ְּמנָ חֹות ּ ְפ ִליגִ י נַ ִמי ַ ּבּזְ ָב ִחים‬ ‫יקר‬ !‫ְק ָר ֵאי ִ ּבזְ ָב ִחים הוּא דִּ ְכ ִת ִיבי‬

Rav Pappa said to him: It works out well to say that when he was involved in animal offerings, he said: It is reasonable that just as they disagree with regard to animal offerings, they also disagree with regard to meal-offerings, as the essential verses written about this topic are written with regard to animal offerings. But it does not seem realistic to say that when he was involved in meal-offerings, he said: It is reasonable that just as they disagree with regard to meal-offerings, they disagree with regard to animal offerings. Aren’t the essential verses about this topic written with regard to animal offerings? Clearly, meal-offerings would not serve as a model for animal-offerings.

‫רֹואה ֲאנִי ֶאת דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֶ :‫ ֶא ָּלא ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָא‬Rather, this answer has been refuted, and Rabbi Yosei’s statement is – ‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ וְ ִד ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי י‬,‫נִט ָמא‬ ְ ‫יעזֶ ר – ְ ּב‬ ֶ ‫ ֱא ִל‬not difficult for a different reason. When he said: I see as correct .‫ ְ ּב ָאבוּד וְ ָ ׂשרוּף‬the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, he was referring to cases in which part of the offering became impure. When he said that he agreed with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, he was referring to cases in which part of the offering was lost or burned. In other words, Rabbi Yosei partially accepts the opinions of both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua.

82 

Perek VII . 78a . ‫חע ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

‫ ְ ּבנִ ְט ָמא ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דִּ ְמ ַר ֵ ּצי‬The Gemara asks: In a case in which the offering became im:‫יֹוסי דְּ ָא ַמר‬ ֵ ‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ ָהא ׁ ָש ְמ ַע ְּת ֵל‬,‫ צִ יץ‬pure, what is the reason that Rabbi Yosei accepts the opinion !‫ ֵאין ַה ִ ּציץ ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה ַעל ֲא ִכילֹות‬of Rabbi Eliezer? It is because the frontplate appeases God for the impurity. But this is impossible, as you have heard that Rabbi Yosei said that the frontplate does not appease God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten. ‫רֹואה ֲאנִי ֶאת דִּ ְב ֵרי‬ ֶ :‫ ֶא ָּלא ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬Rather, this answer should be rejected, and Rabbi Yosei’s opin‫רֹואה ֲאנִי ֶאת‬ ֶ ,‫יבוּר‬ ּ ‫יעזֶ ר – ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ion is not difficult for the following reason. When he said: I .‫הֹוש ַע – ַ ּבּיָ ִחיד‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי י‬see as correct the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, he was referring to a case in which of an offering involves the public. When he said: I see as correct the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, he was referring to the offering of an individual. ‫יבוּר ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ טו ְּמ ָאה‬ ּ ‫ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫הו ְּּת ָרה ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬ ּ ‫ דִּ ׁ ְש ַמ ַע ְּת ֵל‬:‫ ֲח ָדא‬,‫יבוּר‬ ‫יֹוסי דְּ ָא ַמר טו ְּמ ָאה דְּ חוּיָ ה ִהיא‬ ֵ ‫ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫יבוּר – ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ּ ‫ ִאי ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬:‫ וְ עֹוד‬,‫יבוּר‬ ּ ‫ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬ !?‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר וְ ל ֹא ַר ִ ּבי י‬

The Gemara asks: With regard to an offering involving the public, what is the reason that Rabbi Yosei accepts the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? It is because ritual impurity is permitted in cases involving the public. This explanation can be rejected for two reasons. One reason is that you have heard that Rabbi Yosei said that ritual impurity is merely overridden in cases involving the public; it is not wholly permitted. And furthermore, if Rabbi Yosei was referring to the offering of the public, is it only Rabbi Eliezer who validates the offering, and not Rabbi Yehoshua?

Perek VII Daf 78 Amud b ‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יבוּר ֲא ִפילּ ּו ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ּ ‫ ָהא ֲא ַמ ְר ְּת ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬Didn’t you say that with regard to an offering involving the public, even Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that ritual impurity is !‫מֹודה‬ ֶ permitted? – ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫רֹואה ֲאנִי דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ֶ ‫ֶא ָּלא‬ .‫הֹוש ַע – ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ וְ ִד ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי י‬,‫יע ַבד‬ ֲ ‫ְ ּב ִד‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬,‫יע ַבד‬ ‫מֹודה‬ ֶ ‫הֹוש ַע נַ ִמי‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יל ּו ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ֲ ִּ‫ד‬ ‫הֹוש ַע ׁ ֶש ִאם‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫מֹודה ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ֶ :‫ דְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬,‫הוּא‬ !‫זָ ַרק – הו ְּרצָ ה‬

Rather, Rabbi Yosei’s statement should be understood differently. When he said: I see as correct the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, he was referring to after the fact. When he said: I see as correct the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, he meant ab initio. The Gemara asks: After the fact Rabbi Yehoshua also concedes, as it teaches: Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that if one sprinkled the blood, it was accepted and the offering is valid.

.‫ ָהא ְ ּב ָאב ּוד וְ ָ ׂשר ּוף‬,‫ָהא ְ ּבט ּו ְמ ָאה‬ ‫הֹוש ַע ׁ ֶש ִאם זָ ַרק‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫מֹודה ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ֶ ‫ִּכי ָק ָתנֵי‬ – ‫ ֲא ָבל ְ ּב ָאבוּד וְ ָ ׂשרוּף‬,‫נִט ָמא‬ ְ ‫הו ְּרצָ ה – ְ ּב‬ ‫רֹואה ֲאנִי ֶאת‬ ֶ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ִּכי ָק ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ל ֹא‬ ‫יע ַבד – ְ ּב ָאבוּד‬ ֲ ‫יעזֶ ר ְ ּב ִד‬ ֶ ‫דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ .‫וְ ָ ׂשרוּף‬

The Gemara responds: This case is with regard to ritual impurity, and that case is with regard to an offering that was lost or burned. The Gemara explains: When it teaches that Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that if one sprinkled the blood it is accepted, that is with regard to a case in which the meat of the offering became impure; but with regard to a case where the meat of the offering was lost or burned, he does not agree,h even after the fact. When Rabbi Yosei said: I see as correct the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer after the fact, that was with regard to cases in which the meat was lost or burned, with regard to which Rabbi Yehoshua did not concede to Rabbi Eliezer.

‫נִט ָמא ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ ֵח ֶלב ַקּיָ ים – ֵאינֹו‬ ְ ‫מתני׳‬ ‫ נִ ְט ָמא ַה ֵח ֶלב וְ ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬.‫זֹורק ֶאת ַהדָּ ם‬ ֵ ‫ ו ַּב ּמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשים‬.‫זֹורק ֶאת ַהדָּ ם‬ ֵ – ‫ַקּיָ ים‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ּנ ְִט ָמא ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬,‫ֵאינֹו ֵּכן‬ .‫זֹורק ֶאת ַהדָּ ם‬ ֵ – ‫וְ ַה ֵח ֶלב ַקּיָ ים‬



mishna 

If the meat of the Paschal lamb became ritually impure,h and the fat remains pure and may be burned on the altar, one may not sprinkle the blood. On the other hand, if the fat became impure and the meat remains pure, one may sprinkle the blood because the meat remains fit to be eaten. This is the halakha with regard to a Paschal lamb, whose primary purpose is to be eaten by those who have registered for it. However, with regard to other offeringsh it is not so. Rather, although the meat has become impure and the fat remains pure, one may sprinkle the blood, because part of the offering still remains valid.

halakha

With regard to lost or burned, he does not agree – ‫ְ ּב ָאבוּד‬ ‫וְ ָ ׂשרוּף ל ֹא‬: If all of the meat and fat was lost or burned, the blood should not be sprinkled. If it is, it is not accepted, even after the fact. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, in accordance with the Gemara in tractate Bekhorot (Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 1:31). A Paschal lamb that became ritually impure – ‫פ ַסח ׁ ֶש ּנ ְִט ָמא‬:ֶ ּ If the sacrificial portions of the Paschal lamb become impure and the meat remains pure, the blood is sprinkled and the meat is eaten. If the meat becomes impure, even if the fat remains pure, the blood may not be sprinkled. If the blood is sprinkled, the offering is not accepted even after the fact. However, if one did not know that the meat became impure before the sprinkling, and he unwittingly sprinkled the blood, it is accepted. The Rambam ruled in accordance with the mishna and in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in their dispute with Rabbi Natan. Although Rav explained the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, since the Rabbis disagreed with him, the halakha accepts their opinion. In addition, the Gemara indicates that this explanation was forced. Although the Gemara later states that, according to the opinion of Rav, the mishna rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, the majority of the Rabbis dispute Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion (Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 4:2). Impurity of the meat and fat with regard to other offerings – ‫טו ְּמ ַאת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ ֵח ֶלב ִ ּבּזְ ָב ִחים‬: If the meat of an offering other than the Paschal lamb becomes ritually impure and the fat remains, or if the fat becomes ritually impure and the meat remains, the blood may be sprinkled ab initio, and it is accepted, in accordance with the mishna (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 1:34).

‫חע ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 78b 

83

notes

Those who are able to eat are juxtaposed to those who registered – ‫אֹוכ ִלין ִל ְמנוּיִ ין‬ ְ ‫א ַּית ַ ּק ׁש‬:ִ The Gemara’s question is based on the straightforward assumption that if slaughtering for the sake of people who cannot eat the Paschal lamb disqualifies it, the eating itself must also be essential, despite the fact that there is a tanna who maintains that intent to slaughter the offering for those who cannot eat it disqualifies the offering while the eating itself is not essential (Tosefot Rid). Rav said in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan – ‫רב דְּ ָא ַמר ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן‬:ַ It is stated in the Jerusalem Talmud that the mishna is certainly not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan. It is also stated that the source of Rabbi Natan’s opinion is the idea that the entire Jewish people can fulfill the obligation of the Paschal lamb with a single offering. If those withdraw it is fit for these – ‫ִאי ִמ ְמ ׁ ְש ִכי ָהנֵי ֲחזִ י‬ ‫ל ָהנֵי‬:ְ The difference is that if the Paschal lamb is not big enough for everyone to eat, it is still possible to view it as though it were slaughtered for specific individuals, and it was only later clarified who these individuals were. In the case of a Paschal lamb that became ritually impure, however, there is no meat that is suitable to be eaten at all (Tosefot Rid). Second Pesaĥ – ‫פ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬:ֶ ּ One who was ritually impure, on a distant journey, or failed to bring the Paschal lamb at its proper time on the fourteenth of Nisan may compensate by bringing the offering on the fourteenth of Iyyar. There is a tannaitic dispute as to whether one who was not obligated to bring a Paschal lamb need bring a second Pesaĥ on the fourteenth of Iyyar. All the halakhot that apply to the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb apply on the second Pesaĥ, with one exception: There is no prohibition against eating or possessing leaven on that day. However, leaven may not be eaten together with the Paschal lamb itself even on the second Pesaĥ. halakha

If one group registered and then another group registered – ‫נִ ְמנוּ…וְ ָחזְ ר ּו וְ נִ ְמנ ּו‬: If one group registered for a Paschal lamb, and then another group registered for that same offering, the members of the first group, for whom there is an olive-bulk of meat for each person, eat the meat of the offering. The members of the second group, who were so numerous that there is not an olive-bulk of meat for each person, do not eat. They are obligated to bring the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis as opposed to that of Rabbi Natan (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 2:14).

gemara 

Rav Giddel said that Rav said: If one sprin– ‫ ִאם זָ ַרק‬:‫גמ׳ ָא ַמר ַרב ִ ּגידֵּ ל ָא ַמר ַרב‬ kled the blood despite the fact that the meat ‫ וְ ָהא ָ ּב ֵעינַן ֲא ִכ ָילה! ֲא ִכ ָילה ָלא‬.‫הו ְּרצָ ה‬ was ritually impure, it was nonetheless accepted; one is not obligated .‫ ְמ ַע ְּכ ָבא‬to observe the second Pesaĥ. The Gemara asks: Don’t we require that the Paschal lamb be eaten, which could not occur in this case? The Gemara answers: Failure to engage in eating the offering does not preclude it from being accepted. .‫״א ׁיש ְל ִפי ָא ְכלֹו״! ְל ִמצְ וָ ה‬ ִ :‫ וְ ָהא ְּכ ִתיב‬The Gemara asks: Isn’t it written: “And if the household be too little for a lamb, then he and his neighbor who is close to his house shall take one according to the number of the souls; according to every man’s eating you shall make your count for the lamb” (Exodus 12:4)? This indicates that the Torah requires one to eat the Paschal lamb. The Gemara responds: This verse is stated as a mitzva only. It should be fulfilled, but it does not preclude acceptance of the offering. – ‫״ב ִמ ְכ ַסת״‬ ּ ְ : ‫ו ְּל ַע ֵּכב ל ֹא? וְ ָה ַתנְ יָ א‬ ,‫נִש ָחט ֶא ָּלא ִל ְמנוּיָ ו‬ ְ ׁ ‫ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ‫עֹובר ַעל‬ ֵ ‫יָ כֹול ׁ ְש ָחטֹו ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִל ְמנוּיָ ו יְ ֵהא ְּכ‬ ‫״א ׁיש‬ ִ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ַה ִּמצְ וָ ה וְ ָכ ׁ ֵשר – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ‫ְל ִפי ָא ְכלֹו ָּתכ ֹּסוּ״ – ַה ָּכתוּב ׁ ָשנָ ה ָע ָליו‬ .‫ְל ַע ֵּכב‬

The Gemara asks: And was it not stated to preclude acceptance of the offering if it cannot be eaten? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: “According to the number of the souls”; this teaches that the Paschal lamb is slaughtered only for those who have registered for it and have thereby included themselves in advance in the number of the souls? I might have thought that if one slaughtered it for those who have not registered for it, he is merely like one who violates a mitzva, but the offering is still valid after the fact. Therefore, the verse states: “According to every man’s eating you shall make your count”; the verse repeated that the Paschal lamb is eaten only by those registered in order to underscore that failure to register precludes the offering from being valid.

!‫אֹוכ ִלין ִל ְמנוּיִ ין‬ ְ ‫ית ַ ּק ׁש‬ ַּ ‫ וְ ִא‬And those who are able to eat the offering, as opposed to the sick or elderly who are unable to eat it, are juxtaposed in the verse to those who registered.n Therefore, just as a Paschal lamb is disqualified if it is slaughtered for those who did not register for it, it is disqualified if it cannot be eaten. This poses a difficulty for the opinion of Rav. :‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא ַרב דְּ ָא ַמר ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן‬The Gemara answers: Rather, Rav said his statement in accordance n .‫ ֲא ִכ ַילת ּ ְפ ָס ִחים ָלא ְמ ַע ְּכ ָבא‬with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who said that failure to engage in eating the Paschal lamb does not preclude one from fulfilling one’s obligation to bring the offering, as the eating is a separate mitzva. – ‫ימא ָהא ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן‬ ָ ‫ֵהי ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן? ִא ֵיל‬ ‫יִש ָר ֵאל‬ ׂ ְ ‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ׁ ֶש ָּכל‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן‬,‫דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫יֹוצְ ִאין ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח ֶא ָחד – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ‫״וְ ׁ ָש ֲחט ּו אֹתֹו ּכֹל ְק ַהל ֲע ַדת יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ֵ ּבין‬ ‫ֹוח ִטין? וַ ֲהל ֹא‬ ֲ ‫ וְ ִכי ָּכל ַה ָ ּק ָהל ׁש‬,‫ָה ַע ְר ָ ּביִ ם״‬ ‫ֹוחט ֶא ָּלא ֶא ָחד! ֶא ָּלא ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ָּכל‬ ֵ ‫ֵאין ׁש‬ .‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל יֹוצְ ִאין ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח ֶא ָחד‬

The Gemara asks: Which statement of Rabbi Natan is this referring to? If we say it is this statement of Rabbi Natan, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that all Jews may fulfill their obligation after the fact with one Paschal lamb? The verse states: “And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it in the afternoon” (Exodus 12:6). He asked: And does the entire assembly slaughter it? Is it a mitzva for each individual to slaughter his own Paschal lamb? Is it not true that only one person slaughters for the entire group? Rather, this formulation of the verse teaches that all Jews may fulfill their obligation with one Paschal lamb. It is considered as though they all slaughtered it and fulfilled their obligation, although they cannot all eat an olivebulk of the offering.

– ‫ דְּ ִאי ִמ ְמ ׁ ְש ִכי ָהנֵי‬,‫ דִּ ְיל ָמא ׁ ָשאנֵי ָה ָתם‬The Gemara responds that this is not comparable to the case at hand: .‫ וְ ִאי ִמ ְמ ׁ ְש ִכי ָהנֵי – ֲחזִ י ְל ָהנֵי‬,‫ ֲחזִ י ְל ָהנֵי‬Perhaps it is different there, as, if these withdraw from the offering, it is fit for those, and if those withdraw it is fit for these.n Although it is impossible for all Jews to partake of the same offering, the offering is fit for each individual, who could eat an olive-bulk of it if enough other people would withdraw. ‫ נִ ְמנ ּו‬,‫ דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬:‫ֶא ָּלא ָה א ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן‬ ‫ וְ ָחזְ ר ּו וְ נִ ְמנ ּו ָע ָליו‬,‫ָע ָליו ֲחבו ָּרה ַא ַחת‬ ‫אשֹונִים ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָל ֶהן‬ ׁ ‫ ִר‬,‫ֲחב ּו ָרה ַא ֶח ֶרת‬ ‫אֹוכ ִלין ו ְּפטו ִּרין ִמ ַּל ֲע ׂשֹות ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ְ – ‫ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬ ‫ ַא ֲחרֹונִים ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָל ֶהם ַּכּזַ יִ ת – ֵאין‬,‫ׁ ֵשנִי‬ .‫ וְ ַחּיָ ִיבין ַל ֲע ׂשֹות ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬,‫אֹוכ ִלין‬ ְ

84 

Perek VII . 78b . ‫חע ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

Rather, it is this statement of Rabbi Natan, as it was taught in a baraita: If one group registered for a Paschal lamb and then another group registeredh for it, and there was not enough meat to allow each person to eat an olive-bulk, the first ones, who have an olive-bulk of the Paschal lamb for each person, eat and are exempt from performing the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ;n the latter ones, who do not have an olive-bulk available from the Paschal lamb for each person, do not eat and are obligated to perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ.

‫ ֵא ּל ּו וָ ֵא ּל ּו ּ ְפט ּו ִרין‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן‬Rabbi Natan says: Both these and those are exempt from per.‫ ִמ ַּל ֲעשׂ ֹות ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי – ׁ ֶש ְּכ ָבר נִזְ ַרק ַהדָּ ם‬forming the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ, as the blood has already been sprinkled. Therefore, they have all fulfilled their obligation. This indicates that, according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan, eating is not essential. ‫ דִּ ְיל ָמא ׁ ָשאנֵי ָה ָתם דְּ ִאי ִמ ְמ ׁ ְש ִכי‬,‫ַא ַּכ ִּתי‬ ‫״הֹואיל‬ ִ ‫יתנֵי‬ ְ ‫ ִאם ֵּכן ִל‬.ּ‫ָהנֵי – ֲחזִ י ְלהו‬ ‫״ש ְּכ ָבר נִ זְ ַרק‬ ֶ ׁ ‫ ַמאי‬,‫ימ ׁ ֵש ְך״‬ ָּ ‫ו ְּראוּיִ ים ִל‬ ,‫ ַ ּבדָּ ם ַּת ְליָ א ִמ ְּיל ָתא‬:‫ַהדָּ ם״ – ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ .‫ֲא ָבל ֲא ִכ ָילה ָלא ְמ ַע ְּכ ָבא‬

The Gemara responds that one can still ask: Perhaps it is different there, as, if these members of the first group withdraw, it is fit for the members of the second group. The Gemara rejects the question: If so, let it teach that the second group is exempt from the second Pesaĥ since the members of the first group are fit to withdraw. What is the reason for the statement of the baraita that the blood has already been sprinkled? Learn from this that the matter depends on the blood, but failure to engage in eating the Paschal lamb does not preclude one from fulfilling his obligation.

‫נִיתין‬ ִ ‫מֹוקים ָל ּה ַמ ְת‬ ִ ְּ‫יה דְּ ַרב ד‬ ּ ‫ַמאי דּ ו ֲּח ֵק‬ ,‫נֹוק ָמ ּה ְּכ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ְ ?‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן‬,‫ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה‬ ּ ‫וַ ֲא ִפ‬ ‫נִיתין‬ ִ ‫יע ַבד נַ ִמי ָלא! ַרב ַמ ְת‬ ֲ ִּ‫יל ּו ד‬ ‫זֹורק ֶאת‬ ֵ ‫״אין‬ ֵ )‫(תנֵי‬ ָּ ‫ ַא ַּמאי‬,‫יה‬ ֵ ‫ְק ׁ ִש‬ ּ ‫ית‬ :‫יתנֵי ּ ָ׳פסוּל׳! ֶא ָּלא ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ ְ ‫ ִל‬,‫ַהדָּ ם״‬ – ‫יע ַבד‬ ֲ ִּ‫ ֲא ָבל ד‬,‫זֹורק – ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה‬ ֵ ‫ֵאין‬ .‫ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר דָּ ֵמי‬

The Gemara asks: What compelled Rav to establish the mishna as teaching that the blood may not be sprinkled on the altar ab initio, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan? Let us establish the mishna in accordance with the view of the Rabbis and say that even after the fact, no, one does not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara answers: Rav had difficulty with the mishna:n Why does it teach that one may not sprinkle the blood? It should teach that the offering is disqualified. Rather, learn from this use of language that one may not sprinkle the blood on the altar ab initio, but after the fact it seems well.

?‫״א ׁיש ְל ִפי ָא ְכלֹו״ ָל ָּמה ִלי‬ ִ ,‫ ו ְּל ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן‬The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan, .‫ דְּ ָב ֵעינַן ַ ּג ְב ָרא דַּ ֲחזֵ י ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה‬why do I need the phrase “according to every man’s eating,” if it does not teach that the eating is essential? The Gemara answers: It is necessary, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan, to teach that we require a person who is fit for eating. Although it is possible to fulfill one’s obligation without actually eating the Paschal lamb, if one is physically unable to eat some of it, e.g., one who is sick or elderly, he does not fulfill his obligation. ‫ ׁ ָש ֲחט ּו‬:‫ דְּ ָתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬,‫ַמאן ְּתנָ א ְל ָהא‬ – ‫אֹוכ ָליו‬ ְ ‫אֹוכ ָליו וְ זָ ְרק ּו דָּ מֹו ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ְל‬ ְ ‫ְל‬ ‫ וְ ָא ָדם יֹוצֵ א ּבֹו יְ ֵדי‬,‫ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ַעצְ מֹו ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬ ‫נֵימא ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן ִהיא וְ ל ֹא‬ ָ ,‫ ְּכ ַמאן‬.‫חֹובתֹו‬ ָ ?‫ַר ָ ּבנַן‬

notes

Rav had difficulty with the mishna – ‫יה‬ ֵ ‫נִיתין ְק ׁ ִש‬ ִ ‫רב ַמ ְת‬:ַ ּ ‫ית‬ Although it is clear from the next mishna that if the blood is sprinkled it is valid after the fact, the Gemara wanted to demonstrate that this can be proven even from this mishna (Tosefot Rid). The Paschal lamb itself is valid – ‫ה ּ ֶפ ַסח ַעצְ מֹו ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬:ַ The issue under discussion is whether or not one has fulfilled his obligation to sacrifice the offering. Everyone agrees that there is a positive commandment to eat the Paschal lamb, and one who does not eat it certainly does not fulfill this mitzva. However, the question is whether one who did not eat from the Paschal lamb must sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ, or whether his offering was accepted and he fulfilled his obligation at the time of the sprinkling of the blood. halakha

If one slaughtered it for individuals who are able to eat it and sprinkled its blood for individuals who cannot eat it – ‫אֹוכ ָליו‬ ְ ‫אֹוכ ָליו וְ זָ ְרק ּו דָּ מֹו ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ְל‬ ְ ‫ש ֲחט ּו ְל‬: ָ ׁ If one slaughtered the Paschal lamb for people who can eat it and sprinkled its blood for the sake of the people who cannot eat it, the offering is valid (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 2:6). Intent pertaining to those who will eat the offering disqualifies the offering only during the slaughter – ‫ַמ ֲח ׁ ֶש ֶבת‬ ‫אֹוכ ִלין ִ ּבזְ ִר ָיקה‬: ְ If one slaughtered the Paschal lamb with the intent of sprinkling its blood on behalf of people who cannot eat it, the offering is valid. Improper intent during the sprinkling of the blood concerning who will eat the offering does not disqualify the offering. However, no one fulfills his obligation to sacrifice the Paschal lamb with this offering (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 2:6). Sick and healthy – ‫חֹולה וַ ֲח ִלים‬: ֶ If one is too sick to partake of the Paschal lamb at the time it is slaughtered or when its blood is sprinkled, the offering may not be slaughtered for him and its blood may not be sprinkled for him. One must be healthy from the time of slaughter until the time of sprinkling (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 2:7).

The Gemara raises a discussion based on the views cited above. Who is the tanna that taught this baraita? As the Sages taught: If one slaughtered it for individuals who are able to eat it and sprinkled its blood for individuals who cannot eat it,h the Paschal lamb itself is valid,n and one fulfills his obligation with it. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? Let us say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who holds that eating is not essential, and not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis?

‫אֹוכ ִלין‬ ְ ‫ ֵאין ַמ ֲח ׁ ֶש ֶבת‬,‫ימא ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ֵּת‬The Gemara rejects this suggestion: The baraita can be under.‫ ִ ּבזְ ִר ָיקה‬stood even if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Everyone agrees that improper intent pertaining to those who will eat the offering disqualifies the offering only if it occurs during the slaughter;h it does not disqualify the offering if it occurs during the sprinkling of the blood. ‫ ֲה ֵרי ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה‬:‫ דְּ ָתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬,‫ַמאן ְּתנָ א ְל ָהא‬ ‫יטה וַ ֲח ִלים ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת‬ ָ ‫חֹולה ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ׁ ְש ִח‬ ֶ ‫חֹולה‬ ֶ ְ‫יטה ו‬ ָ ‫ ֲח ִלים ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ׁ ְש ִח‬,‫זְ ִר ָיקה‬ ‫זֹור ִקין‬ ְ ְ‫ֹוח ִטין ו‬ ֲ ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת זְ ִר ָיקה – ֵאין ׁש‬ ‫יטה ַעד‬ ָ ‫ָע ָליו ַעד ׁ ֶש ֵּיְהא ֲח ִלים ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ַעת ׁ ְש ִח‬ ‫נֵימא ַר ָ ּבנַן ִהיא וְ ל ֹא‬ ָ ?‫ ְּכ ַמאן‬.‫ׁ ְש ַעת זְ ִר ָיקה‬ ּ ‫ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן! ֲא ִפ‬ ‫ ַ ּג ְב ָרא‬,‫ימא ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן‬ ָ ‫יל ּו ֵּת‬ .‫דַּ ֲחזִ י ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה ָ ּב ֵעינַן‬



The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna that taught this baraita? As the Sages taught: With regard to one who was sick and not able to eat meat at the time of the slaughter and was healthy at the time of the sprinkling of the blood, or one who was healthy at the time of the slaughter and sick at the time of the sprinkling of the blood, one may not slaughter or sprinkle blood for him until he is healthy from the time of slaughter until the time of the sprinkling of the blood.h In accordance with whose opinion is this? Let us say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that eating the Paschal lamb is essential, and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: The baraita can be understood even if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, because even Rabbi Natan holds that we require a person who is fit for eating. ‫חע ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 78b 

85

halakha

If one slaughtered it in ritual purity and after that the owners became ritually impure – ְ‫ׁ ְש ָחטֹו ְ ּב ָט ֳה ָרה וְ ַא ַחר ָּכך‬ ‫נִט ְמא ּו ַה ְ ּב ָע ִלים‬: ְ If the Paschal lamb is slaughtered in ritual purity, and then most of the public becomes ritually impure after the slaughter but before the blood is sprinkled, the blood should be sprinkled but the meat may not be eaten due to rabbinic decree, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan (see Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 7:9).

‫ ׁ ְש ָחטֹו‬:‫ַמאן ְּתנָ א ְל ָהא דְּ ָתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫נִט ְמא ּו ַה ְ ּב ָע ִלים‬ ְ ְ‫ְ ּב ָט ֳה ָרה וְ ַא ַחר ָּכך‬ ‫יִ ּזָ ֵרק ַהדָּ ם ְ ּב ָט ֳה ָרה וְ ַאל יֵ ָא ֵכל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ ?‫ ְּכ ַמאן‬.‫ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬

The Gemara records a further discussion: Who is the tanna that taught this baraita? As the Sages taught: If one slaughtered the Paschal lamb in ritual purity, and after that the owners became ritually impure,h the blood should be sprinkled in purity and the meat should not be eaten in impurity. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita?

‫לֹוקת‬ ֶ ‫ ְ ּב ַמ ֲח‬:)‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫(א ִל‬ ֱ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ׁ ְשנוּיָ ה וְ ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן ִהיא‬ ‫ימא ַר ָ ּבנַן ִהיא; ָה ָכא‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ֵּת‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ ּ ‫ דַּ ֲא ִפ‬,‫יבוּר‬ ‫יל ּו‬ ּ ‫ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַ ן – ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬ .‫ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה נַ ִמי ָע ְב ִדי‬

Rabbi Eliezer said: This halakha is subject to dispute, and it is taught in this baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who holds that eating is not essential, and not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The baraita can be understood even if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. With what are we dealing here? With a situation in which the majority of the public is ritually impure, in which case everyone agrees that they perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb even in a state of impurity.

‫ ַא ַּמאי ֵאין ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬,‫יב ּור‬ ּ ‫ִאי ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬ ‫נֶ ֱא ָכל ְ ּבט ּו ְמ ָאה? ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ֶש ָּמא‬ ‫יִ ָּט ְמא ּו ַה ְ ּב ָע ִלים ְל ַא ַח ר זְ ִר ָיקה‬ ‫ֹאמר ּו ֶא ׁ ְש ָּת ַקד ל ֹא נִ ְט ֵמאנ ּו‬ ְ ‫וְ י‬ ‫ וְ ָלא‬,‫וְ ָא ַכ ְלנ ּו – ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא נַ ִמי נֵיכוּל‬ – ‫יָ ְד ִעי דְּ ֶא ׁ ְש ָּת ַקד ִּכי ִאיזְ דְּ ִריק דָּ ם‬ ‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ְ ּב ָע ִלים‬,ּ‫ְ ּב ָע ִלים ְט ֵמ ִאים ָהוו‬ .ּ‫הֹורין ָהוו‬ ִ ‫ְט‬

The Gemara asks: If it is in a case involving the public, why is the meat not eaten in a state of impurity? When the majority of the public is impure, they may sacrifice and even consume the Paschal lamb. The Gemara answers that this prohibition is due to a rabbinic decree lest the owners become impure after the sprinkling of the blood, and they will say: Last year, didn’t we become impure, and nevertheless we ate the Paschal lamb? Now too, we will eat. And they will not know that last year, when the blood was sprinkled the owners were already impure, and therefore the offering could be consumed in a state of impurity. Now, the owners were pure when the blood was sprinkled and became impure only afterward, and a Paschal lamb sacrificed in a state of purity cannot be eaten in a state of impurity, even if everyone is impure.

‫ ַרב דְּ ָא ַמר ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫וְ ִא‬ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ַר ִ ּבי י‬,‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫י‬ ‫ ֵ ּבין ׁ ֶש ּנ ְִט ָמא‬,‫ָּכל ַהּזְ ָב ִחים ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה‬ ‫ ֵ ּבין ׁ ֶש ּנ ְִט ָמא ֵח ֶלב‬,‫ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ ֵח ֶלב ַקּיָ ים‬ .‫זֹורק ֶאת ַהדָּ ם‬ ֵ – ‫ו ָּב ָ ׂשר ַקּיָ ים‬

And if you wish, say that Rav, who said that, according to the mishna, if one did sprinkle the blood it is accepted, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, that eating the Paschal lamb is not essential. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all offerings in the Torah, whether the meat became ritually impure and the fat remains pure, or the fat became ritually impure and the meat remains pure, one may sprinkle the blood.

‫נִט ָמא ֵח ֶלב ו ָּב ָ ׂשר‬ ְ ,‫עֹושה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ׂ ֶ ְ‫נָזִ יר ו‬ ‫נִט ָמא ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ ְ ,‫זֹורק ֶאת ַהדָּ ם‬ ֵ – ‫ַקּיָ ים‬ .‫זֹורק ֶאת ַהדָּ ם‬ ֵ ‫וְ ֵח ֶלב ַקּיָ ים – ֵאין‬ .‫וְ ִאם זָ ַרק – הו ְּרצָ ה‬

With regard to the offerings of a nazirite and one who performs the ritual of a Paschal lamb, if the fat became impure and the meat remains pure, one may sprinkle the blood. If the meat became impure and the fat remains pure, one may not sprinkle the blood because eating the offering is a part of the mitzva itself and the impure meat may not be eaten. However, if he sprinkled the blood, it was accepted.

Perek VII Daf 79 Amud a notes

Meat and fat – ‫ב ָ ׂשר וְ ֵח ֶלב‬: ּ ָ It is stated in the Jerusalem Talmud that Rabbi Yehoshua’s proof is from the following verses: “But the firstborn of an ox, or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are holy: Their blood you shall sprinkle upon the altar, and you shall make their fat smoke for an offering made by fire, a satisfying aroma to the Lord. And their flesh shall be yours; like the breast of the waving and the right thigh shall it be yours” (Numbers 18:17–18). When combined with the verse quoted in the Gemara in this context: “And make the fat smoke” (Leviticus 17:6), these verses indicate that as long as there is either meat or fat, the blood may be sprinkled. Half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat – ‫כ ֲחצִ י זַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ ַכ ֲחצִ י זַ יִ ת ֵח ֶלב‬:ַּ Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion with regard to offerings other than burnt-offerings is based on the verse: “And if any of the flesh of the offering of his peace-offerings be at all eaten [he’akhol ye’akhel]” (Leviticus 7:18). From the doubling of the Hebrew verb, he derives that the verse addresses two forms of consumption: The consumption by the people who eat the meat of the offering and the consumption on the altar, where some of the fats of the offering are burned. Since these are different forms of consumption, the meat and fat do not combine to equal the minimum amount of the offering that must remain (Rashi).

,‫נִט ְמא ּו ַה ְ ּב ָע ִלים ְ ּב ֵמת – ל ֹא יִ זְ רֹוק‬ ְ If the owners became ritually impure from a corpse and therefore .‫ וְ ִאם זָ ַרק – ל ֹא הו ְּרצָ ה‬cannot eat the offering, one may not sprinkle the blood; and if one sprinkled it, it was not accepted. Although failure to eat the offering does not preclude it from being accepted, that rule applies only when the owner of the offering is personally fit to eat it. ‫נִיתין‬ ִ ‫ ַמ ְת‬.‫״ב ּמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין ֵאינֹו ֵּכן וכו׳״‬ ּ ַ It was taught in the mishna: With regard to other offerings it is not so; ?‫ ַמ ּנִי‬even if the meat has become ritually impure, if the fat remains pure, the blood is sprinkled on the altar. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna of the mishna? ‫יְהֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יְהֹוש ַע ִהיא דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ ֻ ׁ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ָּכל ַהּזְ ָב ִח ים ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה‬:‫אֹומ ר‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ְִש ַּתּיֵ יר ֵמ ֶהן ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר אֹו ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬ ‫ ַּכ ֲחצִ י זַ יִ ת‬.‫זֹורק ֶאת ַהדָּ ם‬ ֵ – ‫ֵח ֶלב‬ ‫זֹורק‬ ֵ ‫ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ ַכ ֲחצִ י זַ יִ ת ֵח ֶלב – ֵאין‬ .‫ֶאת ַהדָּ ם‬

86 

Perek VII . 79a . ‫טע ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

The Gemara answers: It is Rabbi Yehoshua. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all the offerings in the Torah from which there remains an olive-bulk of meat that is fit to be eaten or an olive-bulk of fatn that is fit to be sacrificed on the altar, one may sprinkle the blood. If all that remains is half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat,n one may not sprinkle the blood. The fat is burned on the altar and the meat is eaten by the priests. Since the meat and fat serve different functions, they do not combine to equal the minimum amount that must remain in order to sprinkle the blood.

ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬,‫עֹולה‬ ‫יל ּו ַּכ ֲחצִ י זַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ ַכ ֲחצִ י‬ ָ ‫ו ְּב‬ ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ּכו ָּּל ּה‬,‫זֹורק ֶאת ַהדָּ ם‬ ֵ – ‫זַ יִ ת ֵח ֶלב‬ ‫ ַא ף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ּכו ָּּל ּה‬,‫ ו ַּב ִּמנְ ָחה‬.‫ָּכ ִליל‬ .‫ימת – ל ֹא יִ זְ רֹוק‬ ֶ ֶ‫ַקּי‬

And with regard to a burnt-offering, even if all that was left was half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat, one may sprinkle the blood because it is all consumed on the altar.h Since both the meat and the fat are sacrificed on the altar, they can be combined. And with regard to a meal-offering, although all of it remains pure, one may not sprinkle the blood of the animal offering that is brought together with it.

:‫ִמנְ ָחה ַמאי ֲע ִב ְיד ָּת ּה?! ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן‬:‫ ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָתךְ ָא ִמינָ א‬.‫נְס ִכים‬ ָ ‫ִמנְ ַחת‬ ‫יה דְּ זֶ ַבח‬ ּ ‫דְּ ָקא ָא ְתיָ א ִמ ּכ ַֹח זֶ ַבח – ְּכגו ֵּפ‬ .‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫דָּ ֵמי‬

The Gemara expresses surprise: What is the mention of a mealoffering doing here? The discussion is about sprinkling blood, which is not relevant in the case of a meal-offering. Rav Pappa said: The meal-offering under discussion is the meal-offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings. It could enter your mind to say: Since it comes due to the offering, it is comparable to the offering itself. One might think that even if the offering became impure but the meal-offering remained pure, one would be permitted to sprinkle the blood of the animal due to the remaining meal-offering. Consequently, it teaches us that this is not the case.

‫יֹוחנָן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָ ‫ֵח ֶלב ְמנָ א ָלן? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ו ָּמט ּו ָ ּב ּה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי י‬,‫יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬ ‫ ״וְ ִה ְק ִטיר ַה ֵח ֶלב‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬,‫ֶ ּבן ֲחנַ נְיָה‬ ‫ְל ֵר ַיח נִיח ַֹח ַלה׳״ – ֵח ֶלב ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬ .‫ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬

From where do we derive that if only the fat remains, one may sprinkle the blood of the offering? Rabbi Yoĥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, and there are those who determined that this hala­ kha was stated in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ĥananya: As the verse states: “And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of the Lord at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting; and he shall make the fat smoke for a satisfying aroma to the Lord” (Leviticus 17:6). This verse indicates that one may sprinkle the blood if the fat remains pure although there is no pure meat.

halakha

Because it is all consumed on the altar – ‫ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ּכו ָּּל ּה‬ ‫כ ִליל‬:ָּ With regard to offerings other than burntofferings, as long as an olive-bulk of meat remains fit for eating or an olive-bulk of fat remains fit to burn on the altar, the blood may be sprinkled. If only half an olive-bulk of each remains, the blood may not be sprinkled. However, the blood of a burnt-offering may be sprinkled in such a case; because the offering is fully consumed on the altar, the meat and fat combine. This halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 1:30). If the entire community or most of it became ritually impure – ‫נִט ָמא ָק ָהל אֹו רו ּּבֹו‬: ְ If the majority of the community is ritually impure, or the majority of the priests or the sacred vessels are ritually impure, everyone sacrifices the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity, in accordance with the baraita cited in the Gemara. The same applies to communal offerings that have a fixed time. However, if only a minority of the community is ritually impure, even if this minority is a large group of people, they sacrifice their Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 7:1).

‫יֹות ֶרת ַה ָּכ ֵבד ו ׁ ְּש ֵּתי ְכ ָליֹות‬ ֶ ,‫ ַא ׁ ְש ַּכ ַחן ֵח ֶלב‬The Gemara asks: We have found a source for the halakha that one ?‫ ְמנָ א ָלן‬may sprinkle the blood if only fat remains; but if all that is left is the diaphragm and the two kidneys, which are also sacrificed on the altar, from where do we derive that one may sprinkle the blood? ‫יכא ָא ְמ ִר ינַ ן דְּ זָ ְר ִק ינַ ן? ִמ דְּ ָק ָתנֵ י‬ ָ ‫ֵה‬ – ‫ימת‬ ֶ ֶ‫ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ּכו ָּּל ּה ַקּי‬,‫״ו ַּב ִּמנְ ָחה‬ ‫יֹות ֶרת‬ ֶ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ ִמנְ ָחה הוּא דְּ ל ֹא‬,‫ל ֹא יִ זְ רֹוק״‬ ‫ ו ׁ ְּש ֵּתי ַה ְּכ ָליֹות – ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר דָּ ֵמי! ְמנָ א‬,‫ַה ָּכ ֵבד‬ ?‫ָלן‬

The Gemara responds: Where did we say that one may sprinkle the blood in such a case? The Gemara answers: The fact that one may sprinkle the blood in that case is clear from the fact that it is taught at the end of the baraita: And with regard to a meal-offering, although all of it remains pure, one may not sprinkle the blood. It can be deduced from this statement that it is a meal-offering for which one may not sprinkle the blood, as the meal-offering is not part of the animal; but with regard to the diaphragm and the two kidneys, it seems well to sprinkle the blood if they remain. That being the case, from where do we derive this halakha?

‫״ל ֵר ַיח‬ ְ ‫ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬:‫יה ָא ַמר‬ ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoĥanan himself said, this time without ּ ‫יֹוחנָן דִּ ֵיד‬ .‫נִיחֹוח‬ ַ ‫ נִיח ַֹח״ – ּכֹל ׁ ֶש ַא ָּתה ַמ ֲע ֶלה ְל ֵר ַיח‬quoting tanna’im: The verse we quoted above states: For a satisfying aroma, which indicates that anything you raise as a satisfying aroma, i.e., anything burned on the altar, is enough to sprinkle the blood. ‫יך‬ ְ ‫ וְ ִאיצְ ְט ִר‬,‫יך ְל ִמ ְכ ַּתב ֵח ֶלב‬ ְ ‫וְ ִאיצְ ְט ִר‬ ‫ דְּ ִאי ָּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬.‫נִיחֹוח‬ ַ ‫ְל ִמ ְכ ַּתב ֵר ַיח‬ ‫יֹות ֶרת‬ ֶ ,‫ ֵח ֶלב – ִאין‬:‫״ח ֶלב״ – ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬ ֵ ‫ ָּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬,‫ַה ָּכ ֵבד ו ׁ ְּש ֵּתי ַה ְּכ ָליֹות – ָלא‬ ‫״ל ֵר ַיח‬ ְ ‫ וְ ִאי ָּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬.‫נִיחֹוח״‬ ַ ‫״ל ֵר ַיח‬ ְ ‫עֹולין ְל ֵר ַיח‬ ִ ‫ ָּכל ָה‬:‫נִיחֹוח״ – ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬ ַ ּ ‫ וַ ֲא ִפ‬,‫נִיחֹוח‬ ‫יל ּו ִמנְ ָחה – ָּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬ ַ .‫״ח ֶלב״‬ ֵ

‫ אֹו ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו‬,‫נִט ָמא ָק ָהל אֹו רו ּּבֹו‬ ְ ‫מתני׳‬ – ‫הֹורים‬ ִ ‫ַה ּכ ֲֹהנִים ְט ֵמ ִאים וְ ַה ָ ּק ָהל ְט‬ – ‫נִט ָמא ִמיעוּט ַה ָ ּק ָהל‬ ְ .‫יַ ֲע ׂש ּו ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬ ‫ וְ ַה ְּט ֵמ ִאין‬,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫עֹושין ֶאת ָה ִר‬ ׂ ִ ‫הֹורין‬ ִ ‫ַה ְּט‬ .‫עֹושין ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ִׂ 

The Gemara notes: And it is necessary to write fat in that verse and it is necessary to write: For a satisfying aroma. As, if the Merciful One had written only fat, I would have said that if fat remains, yes, the blood may be sprinkled, but if only the diaphragm and two kidneys remain, which are not as significant as the fat, no, the blood may not be sprinkled. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: For a satisfying aroma. And if the Merciful One had written only: For a satisfying aroma, I would have said that it includes anything that rises as a satisfying aroma, and even a meal-offering is included. Therefore, the Merciful One writes fat, to teach that this halakha applies only to sacrificial parts of the animal and not to accompanying libations and meal-offerings.

mishna 

If the entire community or most of it became ritually impure,h or the priests were all impure and the community was pure, they should perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in ritual impurity. If a minority of the community became impure, even if they are many people, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ, and those who are impure perform the ritual on the second Pesaĥ. ‫טע ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 79a 

87

halakha

Sacred vessels that became ritually impure – ‫כ ֵלי ׁ ָש ֵרת ׁ ֶש ּנ ְִט ְמא ּו‬:ְּ A Paschal lamb that is sacrificed in state of impurity because the sacred vessels are impure may be eaten only by impure people. This is the halakha if the knives used to slaughter the offering became impure through contact with a corpse. However, if the knives became impure through contact with a creeping animal, only people who are pure may eat the Paschal lamb. The halakha was ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ĥisda because Rabbi Yitzĥak agrees with his opinion (Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 7:9).

‫ ֲה ֵרי ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬:‫גמ׳ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ .‫הֹורין‬ ִ ‫ וְ כ ֲֹהנִים ו ְּכ ֵלי ׁ ָש ֵרת ְט‬,‫ְט ֵמ ִאין‬ ‫הֹורין וְ כ ֲֹהנִים ו ְּכ ֵלי‬ ִ ‫אֹו ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ְט‬ ‫ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל וְ כ ֲֹהנִים‬,‫ׁ ָש ֵרת ְט ֵמ ִאין‬ ‫הֹורין ו ְּכ ֵלי ׁ ָש ֵרת ְט ֵמ ִאין – יַ ֲע ׂש ּו‬ ִ ‫ְט‬ .‫יבוּר ָחלוּק‬ ּ ִ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָק ְר ַ ּבן צ‬,‫ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬

notes

Ritual impurity of the body – ‫טו ְּמ ַאת ַהגּ וּף‬: Some of the early commentaries (see Tosafot) explain that the ritually impure person will have to enter the Temple in order to slaughter the Paschal lamb, and being in the Temple in a state of impurity is punishable by karet. Rabbeinu Ĥananel and the author of the Me’iri explain that the Gemara is referring to the prohibition against one who is ritually impure eating sacrificial meat, which also renders one liable to receive karet. Even those who are ritually impure may also perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb – ‫א ִפילּ ּו ְט ֵמ ִאין נַ ִמי ָע ְב ִדי‬:ֲ Rava states his opinion regardless of the question of whether ritual impurity is overridden or permitted with regard to communal offerings. Even according to the view that ritual impurity is merely overridden in cases involving the public, once the meat is ritually impure, the prohibition against an impure person eating the sacrificial meat no longer applies. However, there is another Gemara that indicates that according to Rava, and perhaps even according to Rav Ĥisda, ritual impurity is permitted, rather than overridden, with regard to communal offerings (Sefat Emet).

‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ‫ דְּ ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬,‫ׁ ֶש ּנ ְִט ָמא ַה ַּס ִּכין ִ ּב ְט ֵמא ֵמת‬ ‫״ב ֲח ַלל ֶח ֶרב״ – ֶח ֶרב ֲה ֵרי הוּא‬ ּ ַ ‫ָא ַמר‬ ,‫ְּכ ָח ָלל‬

gemara 

The Sages taught: If most or all of the Jewish people were impure and the priests and sacred vessels used in the Temple service were pure; or, conversely, if the Jewish people were pure and the priests and sacred vessels were impure; and even in a situation in which the Jewish people and the priests were pure and the sacred vessels were impure, they may perform any part of the ritual of the Paschal lamb in ritual impurity. The reason for this is that a communal offering, which is sacrificed even in a state of ritual impurity, is not divided. Therefore, since some of the service must be performed in a state of ritual impurity, it may all be performed in a state of ritual impurity.

Rav Ĥisda said: They taught that the service may be done in a state of ritual impurity if the sacred vessels are impureh only in a case where the knife to be used for slaughtering became impure through contact with one who was ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, as the Merciful One states: “And whoever shall touch on the open field one slain with a sword, or one that died, or the bone of a man, or a grave, shall be impure for seven days” (Numbers 19:16). The Sages expounded: A sword is like a corpse. Therefore, a sword or another metal implement that touches a corpse attains the same level of impurity as the corpse itself, which is the ultimate primary source of ritual impurity. Similarly, a knife that touches a person who is a primary source of ritual impurity due to contact with a corpse attains that same status.

ּ ָ ‫ דְּ ֵמ ִע‬.‫ וְ ָקא ְמ ַט ֵּמא ְלגַ ְב ָרא‬Therefore, it renders impure the person who uses it for ‫יק ָרא ִּכי‬ ‫ית ֲע ֵביד ְ ּבטו ְּמ ַאת ַהגּ וּף דְּ ָכ ֵרת ָקא‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬slaughtering. In this case, when the ritual of the Paschal lamb it is performed in a state of ritual .‫ית ֲע ֵביד‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬is initially performed, impurity of the body.n Generally, one who is impure in this way is liable to receive karet if he eats sacrificial meat or enters the Temple. ,‫ֲא ָבל נִ ְט ָמא ַה ַּס ִּכין ְ ּבטו ְּמ ַאת ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬ ‫ ְלגַ ְב ָרא ָלא‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫דְּ ָב ָ ׂשר הוּא דִּ ְמ ַט ְּמיָ א ֵל‬ ‫ ְט ֵמ ִאין‬,‫הֹורין ָע ֵביד‬ ִ ‫יה – ְט‬ ּ ‫ְמ ַט ְּמיָ א ֵל‬ ‫ֹאכל ְ ּבטו ְּמ ַאת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ ַ ‫ מו ָּטב י‬.‫ָלא ָע ֵביד‬ ‫ֹאכל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ְ ּבטו ְּמ ַאת ַה ּגוּף‬ ַ ‫ וְ ַאל י‬,‫ְ ּב ָלאו‬ .‫ׁ ֶשהוּא ְ ּב ָכ ֵרת‬

However, if the knife became ritually impure with the impurity of a creeping animal, which renders the meat impure but does not render the person impure, because something rendered impure by a primary source of ritual impurity becomes a secondary source of ritual impurity, which can render food impure but not people, those who are pure may perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb, but those who are impure may not perform the ritual. This is because it is preferable that one eat the Paschal lamb with impurity of the meat, as the nature of its prohibition is that of a regular negative commandment, and one should not eat the meat with impurity of the body, which renders one liable to receive karet.

‫ ט ּו ְמ ָאה‬:‫ ַא ְל ָמא ָק ָס ַבר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬The Gemara comments on Rav Ĥisda’s attempt to distinguish ‫ וְ ֵכן ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫יבוּר‬ ּ ‫ דְּ חוּיָ ה ִהיא ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬between different types of impurity and to claim that the .‫יבוּר‬ ּ ‫ טו ְּמ ָאה דְּ חוּיָ ה ִהיא ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬:‫ יִ צְ ָחק‬entire community sacrifices the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity only when the people have become impure with a severe form of impurity. Apparently, Rav Ĥisda holds that impurity is overridden in cases involving the public. The prohibition of sacrificing offerings in a state of impurity is not wholly permitted for a community; rather, it is overridden in cases of great need. Therefore, whenever it is possible to minimize the severity of the impurity, in is necessary to do so. And, so too, Rabbi Yitzĥak said explicitly: Impurity is overridden in cases involving the public. .‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְט ֵמ ִאין נַ ִמי ָע ְב ִדי‬:‫וְ ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ״וְ ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ֲא ׁ ֶשר‬:‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ‫ַ ּיִגע ְ ּב ָכל ָט ֵמא ל ֹא יֵ ָא ֵכל ָ ּב ֵא ׁש יִ ּ ָ ׂש ֵרף‬ .‫ֹאכל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר״‬ ַ ‫וְ ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ָּכל ָטהֹור י‬

88 

Perek VII . 79a . ‫טע ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

And Rava said that whenever there is any form of ritual impurity involved in the service, even those who are ritually impure may also perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb.n What is the reason for this? As it is written: “And the flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten, it shall be burned in fire; and the flesh, every one that is pure may eat the flesh” (Leviticus 7:19).

‫יה ״וְ ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ֲא ׁ ֶשר‬ ּ ‫ָּכל ֵה ָיכא דְּ ָלא ָק ֵרינַן ֵ ּב‬ ‫ַ ּיִגע ְ ּב ָכל ָט ֵמא ל ֹא יֵ ָא ֵכל״ – ָלא ָק ֵרינַן‬ .‫ֹאכל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר״‬ ַ ‫יה ״וְ ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ָּכל ָטהֹור י‬ ּ ‫ֵ ּב‬ ‫יה ״וְ ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ֲא ׁ ֶשר‬ ָ ‫ָּכל ֵה‬ ּ ‫יכא דְּ ָק ֵרינַ ן ֵ ּב‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ַ ּיִגע ְ ּב ָכל ָט ֵמא ל ֹא יֵ ָא ֵכל״ – ָק ֵרינַן ֵ ּב‬ .‫ֹאכל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר״‬ ַ ‫״וְ ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ָּכל ָטהֹור י‬

Rava derives from this verse that anywhere that we do not apply the halakha that “the flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten” and the meat may be eaten despite being impure, we also do not apply “and the flesh, every one that is pure may eat the flesh.” In that case, the meat may be eaten even by one who is impure. Just as the first half the verse is not applicable, the second half is also not applicable. It is only anywhere that we apply the halakha that “the flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten” that we also apply the second half of the verse: “And the flesh, every one that is pure may eat the flesh.” Therefore, when the offering is sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity, there is no prohibition for impure people to eat it.

‫ ֲה ֵרי ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ֶמ ֱחצָ ה‬:‫ית ַמר‬ ְּ ‫ִא‬ ‫ ֶמ ֱחצָ ה‬:‫ ַרב ָא ַמר‬,‫הֹורין ו ֶּמ ֱחצָ ה ְט ֵמ ִאין‬ ִ ‫ְט‬ ‫ ֶמ ֱחצָ ה‬:‫ וְ ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א ָא ַמר‬,‫ַעל ֶמ ֱחצָ ה ְּכרֹוב‬ .‫ַעל ֶמ ֱחצָ ה ֵאינֹו ְּכרֹוב‬

It was stated that the amora’im disagreed with regard to the mishna’s statement that the Paschal lamb may be sacrificed in a state of impurity if the majority of the public is impure. In a case where the Jewish people were divided, and exactly half were pure and half were impure,h Rav said half and half is like the majority, and Rav Kahana said half and half is not like the majority.

‫ ַה ָּלל ּו‬,‫ ֶמ ֱחצָ ה ַעל ֶמ ֱחצָ ה ְּכרֹוב‬:‫ַרב ָא ַמר‬ ‫ וְ ַרב‬.‫עֹושין ְל ַעצְ ָמן‬ ׂ ִ ‫עֹושין ְל ַעצְ ָמן וְ ַה ָּלל ּו‬ ִׂ ,‫ ֶמ ֱחצָ ה ַעל ֶמ ֱחצָ ה ֵאינֹו ְּכרֹוב‬:‫ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬ ‫ ו ְּט ֵמ ִאין‬,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫עֹושין ֶאת ָה ִר‬ ִׂ ‫הֹורין‬ ִ ‫ְט‬ .‫עֹושין ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ִׂ

The Gemara explains the dispute between Rav and Rav Kahana. Rav said: Half and half is like the majority, meaning that each of the two groups has the status of the majority of the public. Therefore, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of ritual purity. And those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of ritual impurity. They are also considered like the majority of the public, and the sacrifice of the majority of the public is not deferred to the second Pesaĥ. And Rav Kahana said: Half and half is not like the majority. Therefore, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ, and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ.

halakha

Half pure and half impure – ‫הֹורין ו ֶּמ ֱחצָ ה‬ ִ ‫ֶמ ֱחצָ ה ְט‬ ‫ט ֵמ ִאין‬:ְ If exactly half of the community is ritually pure and half is ritually impure, those who are pure sacrifice the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual purity and those who are impure sacrifice it in a state of ritual impurity. The halakha is ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rav in his disputes with his student, Rav Kahana (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 7:2).

‫ ֶמ ֱחצָ ה‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬,‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬Some say that what was stated above is not the correct conclusion ‫עֹושין ֶאת‬ ׂ ִ ‫הֹורין‬ ִ ‫ ְט‬,‫ ַעל ֶמ ֱחצָ ה ֵאינֹו ְּכרֹוב‬based on Rav Kahana’s statement. Rather, Rav Kahana said: Half and .‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ ָה ִר‬half is not like the majority. Therefore, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ,

Perek VII Daf 79 Amud b ‫אשֹון וְ ל ֹא‬ ׁ ‫עֹושין ל ֹא ֶאת ָה ִר‬ ׂ ִ ‫ו ְּט ֵמ ִאין ֵאין‬ ‫אשֹון ָלא ָע ְב ִדי – דְּ ָלא‬ ׁ ‫ ָ ּב ִר‬.‫ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי ָלא ָע ְב ִדי – דְּ ָלא ָהו ּו‬,‫ָהו ּו רו ָ ּּבא‬ .‫ִמיעו ָּטא‬

and those who are impure do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ or the second. They do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ because they are not the majority, and the Paschal lamb may be sacrificed in a state of impurity only when the majority of the community is impure. Additionally, they may not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ because they are not the minority, and only the sacrifice of a minority of the community is deferred to the second Pesaĥ.

‫ אֹו ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו‬,‫ נִ ְט ָמא ָק ָהל אֹו רו ּּבֹו‬:‫ְּתנַ ן‬ ‫הֹורים – יַ ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬ ִ ‫ַה ּכ ֲֹהנִים ְט ֵמ ִאין וְ ַה ָ ּק ָהל ְט‬ ,‫ רו ּּבֹו הוּא דְּ ָע ְב ִדי ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬.‫ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬ ,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ֲא ָבל ּ ַפ ְל ָ ּגא ו ַּפ ְל ָ ּגא – ָלא ָע ְב ִדי ָ ּב ִר‬ !‫ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ְל ַרב‬

The Gemara raises an objection from that which we learned in the mishna: If the entire community became ritually impure, or if most of it became impure, or if the priests were impure and the community was pure, they should perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in impurity. This indicates that it is only when most of the community is impure that they perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in impurity, but if it is half and half, they do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ. This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav.

notes

When a majority is impure, they may all perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in impurity – ‫רו ָ ּּבא‬ ‫ע ְב ִדי ּכו ְּּלה ּו ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬:ָ The principle that a communal offering is not divided applies only when there is a majority and a minority. In such a circumstance, the minority must conform to the majority. If the minority is pure, they are not required, or even permitted according to some opinions (see Berakh Moshe), to sacrifice the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of ritual purity. However, when the community is divided in half and there is no majority, one group is not subordinate to the other.

‫ רו ָ ּּבא – ָע ְב ִדי ּכו ְּּלה ּו‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָל ְך ַרב‬Rav could have said to you: When a majority of the community is ‫עֹושין‬ ׂ ִ ‫ ּ ַפ ְל ָ ּגא ו ַּפ ְל ָ ּגא – ַה ָּלל ּו‬,‫ ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬impure, they may all perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in n .‫עֹושין ְל ַעצְ ָמן‬ ׂ ִ ‫ ְל ַעצְ ָמן וְ ַה ָּלל ּו‬impurity. Even those who are still pure are not required to ensure that they remain pure in order to sacrifice the Paschal lamb. When it is half and half, these who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of purity and these who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of impurity. 

‫טע ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 79b 

89

90 

Perek VII . 79b . ‫טע ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

:‫יפא‬ ָ ‫ דְּ ָק ָתנֵי ֵס‬,‫ָה ִכי נַ ִמי ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא‬ ‫עֹושין‬ ׂ ִ ‫הֹורין‬ ִ ‫נִ ְט ָמא ִמיעוּט ַה ָ ּק ָהל – ְט‬ .‫עֹושין ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ׂ ִ ‫אשֹון ו ְּט ֵמ ִאין‬ ׁ ‫ֶאת ָה ִר‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ּ ַפ ְל ָ ּגא‬,‫ִמיעוּט הוּא דְּ ָע ְב ִדי ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ‫ וְ ַה ָּלל ּו‬,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ וְ ָע ְב ִדי ָ ּב ִר‬.‫ו ַּפ ְל ָ ּגא – ָלא‬ .‫עֹושין ְל ַעצְ ָמן‬ ׂ ִ ‫עֹושין ְל ַעצְ ָמן וְ ַה ָּלל ּו‬ ִׂ

The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable to understand the mishna in this way, as the latter clause teaches: If a minority of the community became impure, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ. This indicates that it is only when the minority has become impure that they perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ. But when it is half and half this is not the case; rather, these perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of purity and those perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of impurity on the first Pesaĥ.

‫וְ ֶא ָּלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ְל ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א! ָא ַמר ָלךְ ַרב‬ ‫הֹורין‬ ִ ‫נִט ְמא ּו ִמיעוּט ַה ָ ּק ָהל – ְט‬ ְ :‫ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬ ‫עֹושין ֶאת‬ ׂ ִ ‫אשֹון ו ְּט ֵמ ִאין‬ ׁ ‫עֹושין ֶאת ָה ִר‬ ִׂ ‫עֹושין‬ ׂ ִ ‫הֹורין‬ ִ ‫ ָהא ּ ַפ ְל ָ ּגא ו ַּפ ְל ָ ּגא – ְט‬.‫ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ‫עֹושין‬ ׂ ִ ‫ ֲא ָבל ְט ֵמ ִאין ֵאינָן‬,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ֶאת ָה ִר‬ .‫אשֹון וְ ל ֹא ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ׁ ‫ל ֹא ֶאת ָה ִר‬

However, if so, it then poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Kahana. The Gemara responds: Rav Kahana could have said to you that the latter clause of the mishna should be understood as follows: If a minority of the community became ritually impure, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ. This indicates that if it is half and half, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ and those who are impure do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first or the second Pesaĥ.

,‫ישנָ א ַ ּב ְת ָרא דְּ ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬ ָ ּ ׁ ‫ָה ֵתינַ ח ְל ִל‬ :‫ישנָ א דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬ ָ ּ ׁ ‫ֶא ָּלא ְל ַה ְך ִל‬ ‫ ו ְּט ֵמ ִאין‬,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫עֹושין ֶאת ָה ִר‬ ׂ ִ ‫הֹורים‬ ִ ‫ְט‬ ?‫ימר‬ ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬ ִׂ ָּ ‫ ַמאי ִא‬,‫עֹושין ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the latter version of Rav Kahana’s statement, according to which this is the halakha when exactly half of the community is pure and half is impure. But according to that first version, in which Rav Kahana said that when half the community is pure and half is impure, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ, what is there to say?

‫ הוּא ַהדִּ ין דַּ ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬:‫ָא ַמר ָלךְ ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬ ‫עֹושין ֶאת‬ ׂ ִ ‫הֹורין‬ ִ ‫ ְט‬,‫ּ ַפ ְל ָ ּגא ו ַּפ ְל ָ ּגא נַ ִמי‬ ‫ וְ ַהאי‬.‫עֹושין ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ׂ ִ ‫אשֹון ו ְּט ֵמ ִאין‬ ׁ ‫ָה ִר‬ ‫דְּ ָק ָתנֵי ִמיעוּט ַה ָ ּק ָהל – ַאּיְ ִידי דְּ ָתנָ א‬ .‫ישא ׳רו ּּבֹו׳ ָּתנָ א נַ ִמי ֵס ָיפא ִ׳מיעוּטֹו׳‬ ָ ׁ ‫ֵר‬

Rav Kahana could have said to you that the mishna should be understood as follows: The same is true even in a case of half and half as well; those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ, and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ. And that which was taught in the mishna that the sacrifice of a minority of the community is deferred to the second Pesaĥ is not meant to indicate that half the community cannot observe the second Pesaĥ. Rather, since it taught in the first clause of the mishna the case in which the majority of the community became ritually impure, it also taught in the latter clause the case in which the minority of the community became impure, so as to employ a parallel formulation.

‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ ֵ ָ‫ ַּתנְיָא ְּכו‬,‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ ֵ ָ‫ַּתנְיָא ְּכו‬ ּ ‫ות‬ ּ ‫ות‬ :‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ ֵ ָ‫ ַּתנְיָא ְּכו‬.‫ישנֵי‬ ָ ּ ׁ ‫ָּכ ֲהנָ א ִּכ ְת ֵרי ִל‬ ּ ‫ות‬ ‫הֹורין ּו ֶמ ֱחצָ ה‬ ִ ‫ָהי ּו יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ֶמ ֱחצָ ה ְט‬ ‫עֹושין ְל ַעצְ ָמן וְ ַה ָּלל ּו‬ ׂ ִ ‫ְט ֵמ ִאין – ַה ָּלל ּו‬ .‫עֹושין ְל ַעצְ ָמן‬ ִׂ

The Gemara points out that it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana, in accordance with each of the two versions of his opinion. It was taught in the following baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: If the Jewish people were divided, and half were pure and half were impure, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of purity, and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of impurity on the first Pesaĥ.

‫ ֲה ֵרי‬:‫ישנָ א ַק ָּמא דְּ ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬ ָ ּ ׁ ‫ַּתנְיָ א ְּכ ִל‬ ‫הֹורין ו ֶּמ ֱחצָ ה‬ ִ ‫ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ֶמ ֱחצָ ה ְט‬ ,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫עֹושין ֶאת ָה ִר‬ ׂ ִ ‫הֹורין‬ ִ ‫ְט ֵמ ִאין – ְט‬ .‫עֹושין ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ׂ ִ ‫ו ְּט ֵמ ִאין‬

It was taught in the following baraita in accordance with the first version of the opinion of Rav Kahana: If the Jewish people were divided, and half were pure and half were impure, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ, and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ.

‫ ֲה ֵרי‬:‫ישנָ א ַ ּב ְת ָרא דְּ ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬ ָ ּ ׁ ‫וְ ַתנְיָא ְּכ ִל‬ ‫הֹורין ו ֶּמ ֱחצָ ה‬ ִ ‫ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ֶמ ֱחצָ ה ְט‬ ,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫עֹושין ֶאת ָה ִר‬ ִׂ ‫הֹורין‬ ִ ‫ ְט‬,‫ְט ֵמ ִאין‬ ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫עֹושין ל ֹא ֶאת ָה ִר‬ ׂ ִ ‫ו ְּט ֵמ ִאין ֵאינָ ן‬ .‫וְ ל ֹא ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬

And it was taught in the following baraita in accordance with the latter version of the opinion of Rav Kahana: If the Jewish people were divided, and half were pure and half were impure, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ, and those who are impure do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ or the second Pesaĥ.

‫ ָהא‬,‫ישנָ א ַ ּב ְת ָרא דְּ ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬ ָ ּ ׁ ‫ְל ַרב ו ְּל ִל‬ ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫עֹושין ֶאת ָה ִר‬ ׂ ִ ‫הֹורין‬ ִ ‫״ט‬ ְ ‫דְּ ָתנָ א‬ ?‫יכי ְמ ָת ְרצִ י ָל ּה‬ ִ ‫ו ְּט ֵמ ִאין ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי״ ֵה‬ ‫הֹורין‬ ִ ‫ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ֶמ ֱחצָ ה ְט‬ ‫נָשים ַמ ׁ ְש ִלימֹות‬ ִ ׁ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ּו ֶמ ֱחצָ ה ְט ֵמ ִאין‬ .‫ַל ְּט ֵמ ִאים‬

The Gemara asks: According to Rav and according to the latter version of the opinion of Rav Kahana, with regard to that which was taught in the second baraita quoted above, that those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ, how do they reconcile it? The Gemara answers: According to them, the case under discussion is one where the Jewish people are divided, and half are pure and half are impure. However, the majority of the men are pure, and the majority of the women are impure and the women complete the number of impure people necessary to reach half of the community.

‫ דַּ ל‬.‫אשֹון – ְר ׁשוּת‬ ׁ ‫נָשים ָ ּב ִר‬ ִ ׁ :‫ וְ ָק ָס ַבר‬And this tanna holds that the participation of women in the first Pesaĥ n ‫נָשים ִמ ְּט ֵמ ִאין – וְ ָהו ּו ְלה ּו ְט ֵמ ִאין‬ ִ ׁ is optional. Therefore, remove the women from those who are n impure, and the impure become the minority. And the sacrifice of the ,‫ ו ִּמיעו ָּטא יִ דָּ ח ּו ְל ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬,‫ִמיעו ָּטא‬ minority is deferred to the second Pesaĥ according to all opinions. ‫ ָהא‬,‫ישנָ א ַק ָּמא דְּ ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬ ָ ּ ׁ ‫ְל ַרב ו ְּל ִל‬ ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫עֹושין ֶאת ָה ִר‬ ׂ ִ ‫הֹורין‬ ִ ‫״ט‬ ְ ‫דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫עֹושין ל ֹא ֶאת ָה ִר‬ ׂ ִ ‫ו ְּט ֵמ ִאין ֵאין‬ ?‫יכי ְמ ָת ְרצִ י ָל ּה‬ ִ ‫וְ ל ֹא ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי״ ֵה‬

The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rav and according to the first version of the opinion of Rav Kahana, with regard to that which was taught in the third baraita cited above: Those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ and those who are impure do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ or on the second Pesaĥ, how do they reconcile it according to their opinions?

‫ ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬:‫ַרב ְמ ָת ֵריץ ָל ּה‬ ‫נָשים‬ ִ ׁ ְ‫ ו‬,‫הֹורין‬ ִ ‫ֶמ ֱחצָ ה ְט ֵמ ִאין ו ֶּמ ֱחצָ ה ְט‬ ‫נָשים‬ ִ ׁ :‫ וְ ָק ָס ַבר‬.‫הֹורים‬ ִ ‫עֹודפֹות ַעל ַה ְּט‬ ְ .‫חֹובה ו ַּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי ְר ׁשוּת‬ ָ ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ָ ּב ִר‬

Rav reconciles the baraita by explaining that it is referring to a case where the men of the Jewish people were divided, and half were impure and half were pure, and the women, a majority of whom were pure, added on to the number of those who were pureh so that the majority of the community was pure. And this tanna holds that the participation of women in the first Pesaĥ is obligatory, and their participation in the second Pesaĥ is optional.h

,‫יה ִמיעוּט‬ ׁ ‫ָ ּב ִר‬ ּ ‫אשֹון ָלא ָע ְב ִדי – דְּ ָהוֵ י ֵל‬ ‫ ו ַּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬.‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ו ִּמיעו ָּטא ָלא ָע ְב ִדי ָ ּב ִר‬ ‫נָשים ִמ ּינַיְ יה ּו וְ ָהו ּו ְלה ּו‬ ִ ׁ ‫ָלא ָע ְב ִדי – דַּ ל‬ .‫ ו ַּפ ְל ָ ּגא ָלא ָע ְב ִדי ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬,‫ּ ַפ ְל ָ ּגא ו ַּפ ְל ָ ּגא‬

Therefore, on the first Pesaĥ, those who are impure do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb because they are a minority, and a minority of the community that is ritually impure may not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ. And on the second Pesaĥ they do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb because when one removes the women from them, those who were impure are half of the community, and half the community does not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ.

‫ו ְּל ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א דְּ ָא ַמר ּ ַפ ְל ָ ּגא נַ ִמי ָע ְב ִדי‬ ‫ ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו‬:‫ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי ָה ִכי ְמ ָת ֵריץ ָל ּה‬ ,‫הֹורין ו ֶּמ ֱחצָ ה ְט ֵמ ִאין‬ ִ ‫יִש ָר ֵאל ֶמ ֱחצָ ה ְט‬ ְׂ :‫ וְ ָק ָס ַבר‬.‫הֹורין‬ ִ ‫נָשים ַמ ׁ ְש ִלימֹות ַל ְּט‬ ִ ׁ ְ‫ו‬ .‫חֹובה ו ַּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי ְר ׁשוּת‬ ָ ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫נָשים ָ ּב ִר‬ ִׁ

And according to the first version of the opinion of Rav Kahana, in which he said that half the community also performs the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ, this is how he would reconcile the baraita with his opinion: It is addressing a case where the Jewish people were divided, and half were pure and half were impure. However, the majority of the men were impure, and it is the women who completed the necessary number of the pure so that the division was half and half. And this tanna holds that the participation of women on the first Pesaĥ is obligatory, and their participation on the second Pesaĥ is optional.

‫אשֹון ָלא ָע ְב ִדי – דְּ ָהו ּו ְלה ּו ּ ַפ ְל ָ ּגא‬ ׁ ‫ָ ּב ִר‬ .‫אשֹון ָלא ָע ְב ִדי‬ ׁ ‫ ו ַּפ ְל ָ ּגא ָ ּב ִר‬,‫ו ַּפ ְל ָ ּגא‬ ‫נָשים‬ ִ ׁ ‫ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי נַ ִמי ָלא ָע ְב ִדי – דַּ ל‬ ‫הֹורין ָהו ּו ְלה ּו ְט ֵמ ִאין‬ ִ ‫ִמ ּינַיְ יה ּו ִמן ַה ְּט‬ .‫ וְ רו ָ ּּבא ָלא ָע ְב ִדי ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬,‫רו ָ ּּבא‬

Therefore, on the first Pesaĥ they may not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb because they are half and half, and according to his opinion, half of the community may not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ in a state of impurity. On the second Pesaĥ as well, they may not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb because one must remove the women from the number of those who are pure, and the impure become the majority, and the majority does not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ.

‫״ה ֵרי ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו‬ ֲ ‫ ָהא דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,‫ו ְּל ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬ ‫הֹורין ו ֶּמ ֱחצָ ה ְט ֵמ ִאין‬ ִ ‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ֶמ ֱחצָ ה ְט‬ ‫עֹושין‬ ִׂ ‫עֹושין ְל ַעצְ ָמן וְ ַה ָּלל ּו‬ ִׂ ‫ַה ָּלל ּו‬ ָ‫יכי ְמ ָת ֵריץ ָל ּה? ָא ַמר ְלך‬ ִ ‫ְל ַעצְ ָמן״ ֵה‬ ‫יכא ְל ַמאן‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬,‫ ַּת ָּנ ֵאי ִהיא‬:‫ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬ ‫״מ ֱחצָ ה ַעל ֶמ ֱחצָ ה ְּכרֹוב״‬ ֶ ‫דְּ ָא ַמר‬ ‫״מ ֱחצָ ה ַעל‬ ֶ ‫יכא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר‬ ָּ ‫וְ ִא‬ .‫ֶמ ֱחצָ ה ֵאינֹו ְּכרֹוב״‬

The Gemara asks further: And according to Rav Kahana, with regard to that which was taught in the first of the three baraitot above: If the Jewish people were divided, half were pure and half were impure, those who were pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves on the first Pesaĥ, and those who were impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves on the second Pesaĥ, how does he reconcile it? Rav Kahana could have said to you: This matter is subject to a dispute between the tanna’im. There is one who said that in a case of half and half, each half by itself is considered like the majority, and there is one who said that half and half is not like the majority.



notes

Women and the Paschal lamb – ‫נָשים ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬: ִ ׁ The primary discussion of this issue is in Chapter Eight. In general, women are exempt from time-bound positive commandments. Nevertheless, they are obligated to sacrifice the Paschal lamb. There is a question as to whether they are fully obligated and whether their obligation is strong enough to obligate them in the second Pesaĥ as well. Remove the women from those who are impure – ‫נָשים ִמ ְּט ֵמ ִאין‬ ִ ׁ ‫דַּ ל‬: The principle in this context is clear: Since women’s participation in the Paschal lamb is optional, they are not included with those who are obligated to sacrifice the offering, and the numbers are calculated without including the women. Although they may participate in the ritual of the Paschal lamb, since they are not obligated to do so, they are not included in the count that determines the status of the majority of the community. halakha

Half were impure and half were pure and the women added on to the number of the pure – ‫הֹורים‬ ִ ‫עֹודפֹות ַעל ַה ְּט‬ ְ ‫נָשים‬ ִ ׁ ְ‫הֹורין ו‬ ִ ‫מ ֱחצָ ה ְט ֵמ ִאין ו ֶּמ ֱחצָ ה ְט‬:ֶ If half the men are ritually pure and half of them are ritually impure, and by including the women in the calculation the majority of the community is ritually pure, those who are pure sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ, and those who are impure do not sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ or on the second Pesaĥ. The halakha is in accordance with the baraita as explained by Rav (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 7:3). Women on the first and second Pesaĥ – ‫נָשים ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח‬ ִׁ ‫אשֹון וְ ׁ ֵשנִי‬ ׁ ‫ר‬:ִ Women are obligated to participate in the first Pesaĥ, but their participation in the second Pesaĥ is optional (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 5:8).

‫טע ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 79b 

91

halakha

Those who were impure outnumbered those who were pure – ‫הֹורין‬ ִ ‫עֹוד ִפין ַעל ַה ְּט‬ ְ ‫ט ֵמ ִאין‬:ְ If those who are ritually impure outnumber those who are ritually pure even by one individual, the entire public sacrifices the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna and not the lone tanna who disagrees (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 7:2).

‫הֹורין‬ ִ ‫ ֲה ֵרי ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ֶמ ֱחצָ ה ְט‬:‫גּ ו ָּפא‬ ‫עֹושין ְל ַעצְ ָמן‬ ִׂ ‫ּו ֶמ ֱחצָ ה ְט ֵמ ִאין – ַה ָּלל ּו‬ ‫עֹוד ִפין‬ ְ ‫ ָהי ּו ְט ֵמ ִאין‬.‫עֹושין ְל ַעצְ ָמן‬ ׂ ִ ‫וְ ַה ָּלל ּו‬ ,‫הֹורין ֲא ִפילּ ּו ֶא ָחד – יַ ֲעשׂ ּו ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬ ִ ‫ַעל ַה ְּט‬ .‫יבוּר ָחלוּק‬ ּ ִ‫ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָק ְר ַ ּבן צ‬

notes

The individual cannot tip the balance of the entire public – ‫יבוּר‬ ּ ‫אין ַהּיָ ִחיד ַמ ְכ ִר ַיע ֶאת ַה ִ ּצ‬:ֵ The formulation of this statement implies that although an individual does not tip the balance of the calculation of the public specifically in the direction of ritual impurity, one person might tip the balance in favor of ritual purity. However, from the continuation of the Gemara this is not clear. It is possible that the status of the public is never determined based on a majority of a single individual.

The Gemara addresses the matter itself discussed in the baraita cited previously. If the Jewish people were divided, half were pure and half were impure, those who were pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves on the first Pesaĥ and those who were impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves on the second Pesaĥ. If those who were impure outnumbered those who were pureh even by one person, they should perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in ritual impurity on the first Pesaĥ because a communal offering is not divided. Therefore, the entire community may sacrifice the Paschal lamb in a state of impurity. This includes those who were pure; they do not need to take care to remain pure in order to sacrifice the Paschal lamb.

‫ ֵאין ַהּיָ ִחיד‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן ַמ ְתיָ א‬Rabbi Elazar ben Matya says: The individual cannot tip the n :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫יבוּר ְלטו ְּמ ָאה‬ ּ ‫ ַמ ְכ ִר ַיע ֶאת ַה ִ ּצ‬balance of the entire public toward ritual impurity, as it is stated:

Perek VII Daf 80 Amud a notes

Tribes and community – ‫ש ָב ִטים וְ ָק ָהל‬: ְ ׁ The opinions mentioned here with regard to the tribes are related to other disputes, primarily in tractate Horayot, that concern the definition of the Jewish community as a whole and the place of individual tribes within the larger community. The question is: Is each tribe considered a community in its own right, so that whenever the majority of a tribe is of the same status, whether it be ritual impurity, unwitting transgression, etc., the halakha is the same as when the majority of the entire nation is in that condition? Or is each tribe merely a part of the community, and as long as it constitutes a minority of the nation as a whole, the people involved are considered many individuals and nothing more? They render impure one of those who was pure with a creeping animal – ‫מ ַט ְּמ ִאין ֶא ָחד ֵמ ֶהן ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֶש ֶרץ‬:ְ The person who has been rendered impure due to contact with the creeping animal does not combine with the rest of the impure people because it is permitted to sacrifice the Paschal lamb only in a state of impurity contracted from a corpse, but not due to other forms of ritual impurity. The purpose of rendering one person impure with a creeping animal is simply to decrease the number of people who are ritually pure.

‫“ ״ ל ֹא תו ַּכל ִלזְ ּב ַֹח ֶאת ַה ּ ָפ ַסח ְ ּב ַא ַחד‬You may not sacrifice the Paschal lamb in any one of your .‫ ׁ ְש ָע ֶריךָ ״‬cities” (Deuteronomy 16:5). Rabbi Elazar ben Matya derived from the expression “in any one” that one person cannot be the determining factor in whether the community sacrifices the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual purity or impurity. ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ׁ ֵש ֶבט ֶא ָחד ָט ֵמא‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ ‫עֹושין‬ ׂ ִ ‫הֹורים – ַה ָּלל ּו‬ ִ ‫ו ׁ ְּש ָאר ָּכל ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָב ִטים ְט‬ ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬.‫עֹושין ְל ַעצְ ָמן‬ ׂ ִ ‫ְל ַעצְ ָמן וְ ַה ָּלל ּו‬ ‫יק ֵרי‬ ְ ‫ ׁ ֵש ֶבט ֶא ָחד ִא‬:‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון? ָק ָס ַבר‬ .‫ָק ָהל‬

Rabbi Shimon says: Even if one tribe is ritually impure and all the rest of the tribes are pure, those tribes who are ritually pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of purity, and those members of the tribe that is impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The Gemara answers: He holds that one tribe is called a community,n and a community may sacrifice the Paschal lamb in a state of impurity.

ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬:‫אֹומר‬ ‫יל ּו ׁ ֵש ֶבט ֶא ָחד‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי יְ ה ּו ָדה‬ ‫הֹורין – יַ ֲע ׂש ּו‬ ִ ‫ָט ֵמא ו ׁ ְּש ָאר ָּכל ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָב ִטים ְט‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫יבוּר ָחלוּק‬ ּ ִ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָק ְר ַ ּבן צ‬,‫ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬ ‫ וְ ָהו ּו‬,‫ ׁ ֵש ֶבט ֶא ָחד ִא ְיק ֵרי ָק ָהל‬:‫יְ הו ָּדה ָס ַבר‬ ,‫יבוּר ָחלוּק‬ ּ ִ‫ְלה ּו ּ ַפ ְל ָ ּגא ו ַּפ ְל ָ ּגא וְ ֵאין ָק ְר ַ ּבן צ‬ .‫וְ ָע ְב ִדי ּכו ְּּלה ּו ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if one tribe is impure and all the rest of the tribes are pure, all the tribes may perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity, as a communal offering is not divided. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda holds that one tribe is called a community, and since an entire community is impure, it is considered as though half the Jewish people were pure and half were impure. And a communal offering is not divided. Therefore, all of them may perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity.

‫הֹורין ו ֶּמ ֱחצָ ה‬ ִ ‫ ָהי ּו יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ֶמ ֱחצָ ה ְט‬:‫ ִא ְּית ַמר‬It was stated that the amora’im disputed the following issue: If ‫ ְמ ַט ְּמ ִאין ֶא ָחד ֵמ ֶהן‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬,‫ ְט ֵמ ִאין‬the Jewish people were divided, and exactly half were pure and .‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֶש ֶרץ‬half were impure, Rav said: They rendern impure one of those who was pure with a creeping animal. The majority of the people will then be ritually impure and they may all sacrifice the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity. ‫יע ְבד ּו ָהנֵ י ְלח ּו ַד יְ יה ּו וְ ָהנֵ י‬ ַ ִ‫וְ ַא ַּמאי? נ‬ ‫עֹושין‬ ִׂ ‫ ַה ָּלל ּו‬:‫ דְּ ָהא ָא ַמר ַרב‬,ּ‫ְלחו ַּדיְ יהו‬ ‫ ָה ָכא‬:‫עֹושין ְל ַעצְ ָמן! ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ׂ ִ ‫ְל ַעצְ ָמן וְ ַה ָּלל ּו‬ ‫עֹוד ִפין‬ ְ ‫ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן – ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ְט ֵמ ִאין‬ .‫הֹורין ֶא ָחד‬ ִ ‫ַעל ַה ְּט‬

92 

Perek VII . 80a . ‫פ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

The Gemara asks: Why do so? Let those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on their own in a state of purity and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on their own in a state of impurity. Didn’t Rav himself say: If half the community is ritually pure and half is ritually impure, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves? Say in answer to this question: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a unique circumstance where the ritually impure outnumbered the ritually pure by one person.

‫נִיע ְבד ּו‬ ַ ,‫ִאי ָה ִכי ָהו ּו ְלה ּו רו ָ ּּבא ְט ֵמ ִאים‬ ‫ּכו ְּּלה ּו ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה! ָס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן‬ ‫יבוּר‬ ּ ‫ּיָחיד ַמ ְכ ִר ַיע ֶאת ַה ִ ּצ‬ ִ ‫ ֵאין ַה‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ַמ ְתיָא‬ :‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲה ַדר קו ׁ ְּשיַ ין ְלדו ְּכ ֵּת‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬.‫ְלטו ְּמ ָאה‬ !ּ‫נִיע ְבד ּו ָהנֵי ְלחו ַּדיְ יה ּו וְ ָהנֵי ְלחו ַּדיְ יהו‬ ַ

The Gemara challenges this answer: If so, the majority of the community is impure. Therefore, let them all perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in a state of impurity. The Gemara answers: Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Matya, who said: An individual cannot tip the balance of the community toward ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: If so, our question has returned to its place. If this situation is considered half and half, let those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on their own in a state of purity and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on their own in a state of impurity.

‫יכא ַּת ָּנא דְּ ָס ַבר ָל ּה‬ ָּ ‫ ִאי ִא‬:‫ֶא ָּלא ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ּ ַפ ְל ָ ּגא ו ַּפ ְל ָ ּגא ָלא ָע ְב ִדי‬,‫ְּכ ַת ָּנא ַק ָּמא‬ ,‫ וְ ָס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ּכו ְּּלה ּו ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬ ‫יבוּר ָחלוּק – ְמ ַט ְּמ ִאין‬ ּ ִ‫דְּ ָא ַמר ֵאין ָק ְר ַ ּבן צ‬ .‫ֶא ָחד ֵמ ֶהן ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֶש ֶרץ‬

Rather, this is what Rav said: If there is a tanna who holds in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, who said that in a case where half the community is pure and half is impure, they do not all perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in a state of impurity, and also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that a communal offering is not divided, there is no way to solve the problem other than to render impure one of those who were pure with a creeping animal.

halakha

They are all redress for the first day – ‫ּכו ְּּלה ּו ַּת ׁ ְשלו ִּמין‬ ‫אשֹון נִינְ ה ּו‬ ׁ ‫דְּ ִר‬: The allowance to bring a Festival peaceoffering on any of the days of the Festival is redress for not having brought it on the first day. Therefore, anyone who was unfit to bring the offering on the first day, such as someone who was lame or blind on the first day and was cured on the second, is exempt from bringing the Festival peace-offering. This matter is disputed by Rabbi Yoĥanan and Rabbi Oshaya, and the Rambam ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan. Apparently, the Rambam posits that this Rabbi Oshaya was a later amora and not the Rabbi Oshaya who was the teacher of Rabbi Yoĥanan (Leĥem Mishne; Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Ĥagiga 1:4).

‫ ְמ ׁ ַש ְּל ִחין ֶא ָחד ֵמ ֶהן ְל ֶד ֶר ְך‬:‫ וְ עו ָּּלא ָא ַמר‬And Ulla said: They do not render one of them impure with a !‫יט ְּמ ֶאנּ ּו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֶש ֶרץ‬ ַ ִ‫ ו‬.‫חֹוקה‬ ָ ‫ ְר‬creeping animal. Rather, they send one of them who is pure to a distant place, so that the majority of the community that is present at the Temple will be ritually impure, and they will all sacrifice the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity. The Gemara suggests: Let them render him impure with a creeping animal as Rav said, which is easier to implement. .‫זֹור ִקין ַעל ְט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬ ְ ְ‫ֹוח ִטין ו‬ ֲ ‫ ׁש‬:‫ ָק ָס ַבר‬The Gemara responds: Ulla holds that one may slaughter the Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood even for someone who is ritually impure from a creeping animal because he can become ritually pure by the evening and eat from the Paschal lamb. Therefore, rendering someone impure with a creeping animal does not disqualify him from participating in the Paschal lamb in a state of purity. .‫יט ְּמ ֶאנּ ּו ְ ּב ֵמת! ַמ ְד ֵחה ּו ַא ָּתה ֵמ ֲחגִ יגָ תֹו‬ ַ ִ‫ ו‬The Gemara suggests: Let them render him impure with a corpse, which causes ritual impurity for seven days. The Gemara responds that this solution is not implemented because you would defer him from his Festival peace-offering. Since he would be impure for the entire Festival, he would be unable to sacrifice a Festival peace-offering, which is the peace-offering brought by each person who visits the Temple on the Festival. He would needlessly be prevented from performing a mitzva. ‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא נַ ִמי ַמ ְד ֵחה ּו ַא ָּתה ִמ ּ ִפ ְסחֹו! ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר‬The Gemara challenges this response: Now, too, by sending one .‫ דְּ ָע ֵביד ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬pure person to a distant place, you disqualify him from sacrificing his Paschal lamb and prevent him from performing a mitzva. The Gemara answers: His sacrifice of the Paschal lamb will not necessarily be totally disqualified. It is possible that he will perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ. ‫ דַּ ֲהוָ ה‬,‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר דְּ ָע ֵביד ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬,‫ ְ ּב ֵמת נַ ִמי‬The Gemara challenges this response: With regard to ritual impu!‫יה ׁ ְש ִמינִי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹו‬ ּ ‫ ֵל‬rity from a corpse also, it is possible that he will perform the ritual of the Festival peace-offering on the seventh day of Passover, which is his eighth day of ritual impurity, since he became impure on the eve of Passover. He can become ritually pure by the seventh day and still sacrifice a Festival peace-offering. ,ּ‫אשֹון נִינְ הו‬ ׁ ‫ ּכו ְּּלה ּו ַּת ׁ ְשלו ִּמין דְּ ִר‬:‫ ָק ָס ַבר עו ָּּלא‬The Gemara answers: Ulla holds that all the days of the Festival on ‫ וְ ָכל ֵה ָיכא דְּ ָלא‬,ּ‫אשֹון – ֲחזִ י ְ ּבכו ְּּלהו‬ ׁ ‫ דַּ ֲחזִ י ָ ּב ִר‬which one may sacrifice a Festival peace-offering are redress for h .ּ‫אשֹון – ָלא ֲחזִ י ְ ּבכו ְּּלהו‬ ׁ ‫ ֲחזִ י ָ ּב ִר‬what one was obligated but unable to bring on the first day. Therefore, one who is fit to bring the offering on the first day is fit on all of them, and whenever one is not fit on the first day, he is not fit on all of them. Consequently, one who is impure on the first day of the Festival is unable to sacrifice a Festival peace-offering the rest of the Festival. :‫יה ְלעו ָּּלא‬ ּ ‫ זִ יל ּו וְ ֵא ַמר ּו ֵל‬:‫ ָא ַמר ְלה ּו ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬Rav Naĥman said to the students: Go and say to Ulla that his ?‫ֵיה וְ ָר ֵהיט‬ ֵּ ‫ ָמאן צָ יֵ ית – דַּ ֲע ַקר ִס‬solution is not practical. Who will listen to uproot his pegs and ּ ‫יה ו ִּמ ׁ ְש ַּכ ּנ‬ ּ ‫יכ‬ tent and run to a distant place? 

‫פ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 80a 

93

halakha

The majority of them were zavim and the minority of them were ritually impure from a corpse – ‫ָהי ּו רו ָ ּּבן זָ ִבין‬ ‫ו ִּמיעו ָּטן ְט ֵמ ֵאי ֵמ ִתים‬: If the majority of the members of the community are zavim and a minority are impure from impurity imparted by a corpse, those who are impure from impurity imparted by a corpse may not sacrifice the Paschal lamb on either the first Pesaĥ or the second Pesaĥ, in accordance with the opinion of Rav (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 7:4). Redress for a Paschal lamb that is brought in a state of ritual impurity – ‫ת ׁ ְשלו ִּמין ַל ּ ֶפ ַסח ַה ָ ּבא ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬:ַּ If the majority of the members of the community are impure with impurity imparted by a corpse and a minority are zavim, those impure from a corpse participate in the first Pesaĥ, and the zavim may not sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ or on the second Pesaĥ. The reason for this is that there is no redress for a Paschal lamb sacrificed in a state of impurity (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 7:5).

‫ ָהי ּו רו ָ ּּבן זָ ִבין ו ִּמיעו ָּטן ְט ֵמ ֵאי‬,‫ית ַמר‬ ְּ ‫ ִא‬It was stated that the amora’im discussed the following matter: ‫אֹותן ְט ֵמ ֵאי ֵמ ִתים – ֵאינָן‬ ָ :‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬.‫ ֵמ ִתים‬If the majority of the public were zavim and a minority of them were ritually impure from impurity imparted by a corpse,h what .‫אשֹון וְ ל ֹא ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ׁ ‫עֹושין ל ֹא ָ ּב ִר‬ ִׂ should they do? The halakha is that even if the majority of the public has the status of zavim, they may not sacrifice the Paschal lamb in a state of impurity. Rav said: Those who are impure from impurity imparted by a corpse do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ or on the second Pesaĥ. ,‫אשֹון ָלא ָע ְב ִדי – דְּ ָה ו ּו ִמיע ּו ָטא‬ ׁ ‫ִר‬ ‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי נַ ִמי‬.‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ו ִּמיעו ָּטא ָלא ָע ְב ִדי ָ ּב ִר‬ ‫יב ּור‬ ּ ִ‫יכא דְּ ָע ְב ִדי צ‬ ָ ‫ָלא ָע ְב ִדי – ָּכל ֵה‬ ‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ ָּכל ֵה‬,‫אשֹון – ָע ֵביד יָ ִחיד ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ׁ ‫ָ ּב ִר‬ ‫אשֹון – ָלא ָע ֵביד‬ ׁ ‫יבוּר ָ ּב ִר‬ ּ ִ‫דְּ ָלא ָע ְב ִדי צ‬ .‫יָ ִחיד ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬

Rav explains: On the first Pesaĥ they do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb because they are the minority, and the minority may not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ in a state of impurity. On the second Pesaĥ, they also do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb because whenever the community performs the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ, the individual performs the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second. Conversely, whenever the community does not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ, the individual does not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ.

:‫יה ְל ַא ָ ּבא‬ ּ ‫ זִ יל ּו ֵא ַמר ּו ֵל‬,‫ֲא ַמר ְלה ּו ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫מֹועדֹו״‬ ֲ ‫״וְ יַ ֲע ׂש ּו ְבנֵי יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ֶאת ַה ּ ָפ ַסח ְ ּב‬ ‫ זִ יל ּו ֵא ַמר ּו‬,ּ‫יה? ֲא ַמר ְלהו‬ ּ ‫ַמאי ָע ְב ַד ְּת ֵל‬ ?‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ִּכי ָהו ּו ּכו ְּּלה ּו זָ ִבין ַמאי ָע ְב ַד ְּת ֵל‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫ ָה ָכא‬,‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ל ֹא ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר – ל ֹא ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר‬,‫ֶא ָּלא‬ .‫ ל ֹא ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר‬,‫נַ ִמי‬

Shmuel said to those who informed him of Rav’s ruling: Go and say to Rav, whose first name was Abba: What do you do with the following verse: “Let the children of Israel offer the Paschal lamb in its appointed time” (Numbers 9:2)? Rav said to those who transmitted Shmuel’s objection: Go and say to him: When they are all zavim, what do you do? Rather, you are forced to say that since it is impossible to fulfill the mitzva, it is impossible. Here, too, it is impossible.n

notes

Here too it is impossible – ‫ה ָכא נַ ִמי ל ֹא ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר‬:ָ Shmuel agrees that zavim may not sacrifice the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity. The reason he disagrees with Rav is as follows: Shmuel holds that the Paschal lamb may not be brought in a state of impurity by the minority of the community only when the majority of the community sacrifices the Paschal lamb. However, in this situation, the majority of the members of the community are zavim, and they are unable to sacrifice the Paschal lamb under any circumstances. Consequently, they are not included in the calculation, and the majority of the other members of the community are impure from a corpse (Sefat Emet). Redress for a Paschal lamb that is brought in ritual impurity – ‫ת ׁ ְשלו ִּמין ַל ּ ֶפ ַסח ַה ָ ּבא ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬:ַּ Some commentaries explain as follows: If one is ritually impure on the first Pesaĥ, his sacrifice of the Paschal lamb is deferred to the second Pesaĥ, and this deferment applies to all types of ritual impurity. However, only a Paschal lamb that is sacrificed when the majority of the community is ritually pure is significant enough to defer those who are impure, whereas this is not the case with regard to a Paschal lamb sacrificed when the majority of the community is impure. Therefore, although those who are impure may not participate in the first Pesaĥ, they also are not deferred to the second Pesaĥ (Rabbeinu Ĥananel). Ritual impurity is overridden in cases involving the public – ‫יבוּר‬ ּ ‫טו ְּמ ָאה דְּ חוּיָ ה ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬: If the majority of the people or the majority of the priests is ritually impure, the Temple service continues to be performed despite this ritual impurity. This lenient provision applies only to communal offerings and to the Paschal lamb. Individual offerings may not be sacrificed in such circumstances.

‫ ָהי ּו רו ָ ּּבן ְט ֵמ ֵאי ֵמ ִתים ו ִּמיעו ָּטן‬,‫ית ַמר‬ ְּ ‫ ִא‬It was stated that the amora’im discussed the following matter: .‫ זָ ִבין‬The majority of the public were ritually impure from impurity imparted by a corpse on the first Pesaĥ, so that the Paschal lamb is sacrificed in a state of impurity, and a minority of them were zavim, whose impurity does not permit them to sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ. ‫ ֵאין ַּת ׁ ְשלו ִּמין ַל ּ ֶפ ַסח ַה ָ ּבא‬:‫ ַרב הוּנָ א ָא ַמר‬In a case where the zavim became pure in time for the second ‫ יֵ ׁש‬:‫ וְ ַרב ַאדָּ א ַ ּבר ַא ֲה ָבה ָא ַמר‬,‫ ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬Pesaĥ, Rav Huna said: There is no redress for a Paschal lamb hn .‫ ַּת ׁ ְשלו ִּמין ַל ּ ֶפ ַסח ַה ָ ּבא ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬that is brought in ritual impurity. Since the Paschal lamb was sacrificed in a state of impurity on the first Pesaĥ, it cannot be sacrificed on the second Pesaĥ that year. And Rav Adda bar Ahava said: There is redress for a Paschal lamb that is brought in a state of impurity. Therefore, one who was unable to participate when the public sacrificed the Paschal lamb in a state of impurity may still bring the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about the ‫ דְּ ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ֵאין‬,‫יפ ְלגִ י‬ ַ ּ ‫נֵימא ְ ּב ָהא ָק ִמ‬ ָ :‫ ַּת ׁ ְשלו ִּמין ַל ּ ֶפ ַסח ַה ָ ּבא ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה ָק ָס ַבר‬following: Rav Huna, the one who said there is no redress for .‫יבוּר‬ ּ ‫ טו ְּמ ָאה דְּ חוּיָ ה ִהיא ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬a Paschal lamb that is brought in a state of impurity, holds that ritual impurity is merely overridden in cases involving the public. It is not fully permitted. Therefore, although those who are impure are deferred to the second Pesaĥ when the Paschal lamb is brought in a state of purity, there is no indication that the same is true when it is brought on the first Pesaĥ in a state of impurity. ‫ ו ַּמאן דְּ ָא ַמר יֵ ׁש ַּת ׁ ְשלו ִּמין ַל ּ ֶפ ַסח ַה ָ ּבא‬Conversely, Rav Adda bar Ahava, the one who said there is re.‫יבוּר‬ ּ ‫ טו ְּמ ָאה הו ְּּת ָרה ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬:‫ ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה ָק ָס ַבר‬dress for a Paschal lamb that is brought in ritual impurity, holds that ritual impurity is wholly permitted in cases involving the public. Therefore, it is considered as though the Paschal lamb were sacrificed on the first Pesaĥ in a state of purity, and those who were unable to sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ sacrifice it on the second Pesaĥ. ‫ דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ״טו ְּמ ָאה דְּ חוּיָ ה‬,‫ ל ֹא‬:‫ ָא ְמ ִרי‬Say: No, it is unnecessary to accept this assumption. It is possible :‫ ו ְּב ָהא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י; ָמר ָס ַבר‬,‫יבוּר״‬ ּ ‫ ַ ּב ִ ּצ‬that everyone agrees that ritual impurity is overridden in cases involving the public,n and they disagree about this other issue: This Master, Rav Huna, who said there is no redress, holds:

94 

Perek VII . 80a . ‫פ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

Perek VII Daf 80 Amud b .‫ טו ְּמ ָאה ָלא ַמ ְד ִחּיָ א‬,‫ ָט ֳה ָרה ַמ ְד ִחּיָ א‬A Paschal lamb offered in a state of purity defers those who are .‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו טו ְּמ ָאה נַ ִמי ַמ ְד ִחּיָ א‬:‫ ו ָּמר ָס ַבר‬unable to bring the offering to the second Pesaĥ, but a Paschal lamb brought in a state of impurity does not defer those who are unable to bring the offering to the second Pesaĥ. And this Master, Rav Adda bar Ahava, who said there is redress, holds that even a Paschal lamb offered in a state of ritual impurity defers those who are unable to bring the offering to the second Pesaĥ. ‫יתן‬ ָ ‫יש‬ ִ ׁ ‫יתן זָ ִבין ו ׁ ְּש ִל‬ ָ ‫יש‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ָהי ּו ׁ ְש ִל‬:‫ית ַמר‬ ְּ ‫ִא‬ ‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫יתן ְט ֵמ ֵאי ֵמ ִתים‬ ָ ‫יש‬ ִ ׁ ‫הֹורין ו ׁ ְּש ִל‬ ִ ‫ְט‬ ‫אֹותן ְט ֵמ ֵאי ֵמ ִתים‬ ָ :‫ַר ִ ּבי ַמ ּנִי ַ ּבר ּ ַפ ִּט ׁיש‬ ‫אשֹון וְ ל ֹא‬ ׁ ‫עֹושין ל ֹא ֶאת ָה ִר‬ ִׂ ‫ֵאינָ ן‬ .‫ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬

It was stated that the Sages discussed the following matter: If onethird of the members of the community were zavim,n and onethird of them were ritually pure, and one-third of them were ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, what is the halakha? Rabbi Manni bar Pattish said: Those who were ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ or the second Pesaĥ.h

‫אשֹון ָלא ָע ְב ִדי – ִהגְ דִּ יל ּו זָ ִבין ַעל‬ ׁ ‫ָ ּב ִר‬ ‫ ֲהוָ ה‬.‫ דְּ ָלא ָע ְב ִדי ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬,‫הֹורים‬ ִ ‫ַה ְּט‬ ‫ ו ִּמיעו ָּטא‬,‫יה ְט ֵמ ֵאי ֵמ ִתים ִמיעו ָּטא‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ – ‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי ָלא ָע ְב ִדי‬.‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ָלא ָע ְב ִדי ָ ּב ִר‬ ‫נִצַ ְרפ ּו ִזָבין ִעם ְט ֵמ ֵאי ֵמ ִתים דְּ ָלא ָע ְב ִדי‬ ‫ וְ רו ָ ּּבא ָלא‬,‫ ָהו ּו ְלה ּו רו ָ ּּבא‬,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ָ ּב ִר‬ .‫ַמ ְדח ּו ְל ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬

On the first Pesaĥ, they do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb because the zavim increased the number of the ritually pure, as zavim may not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in a state of impurity. Therefore, the ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse are the minority, and a minority may not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity on the first Pesaĥ. On the second Pesaĥ, they may not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for a different reason: The zavim are joined with those who were ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, who did not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ. Consequently, they are the majority, and the offering of the majority is not deferred to the second Pesaĥ.n

ְ‫מתני׳ ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֶש ִּנזְ ַרק דָּ מֹו וְ ַא ַחר ָּכך‬ .‫נֹודע ׁ ֶשהוּא ָט ֵמא – ַה ִ ּציץ ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה‬ ַ ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי‬.‫נִט ָמא ַהגּ וּף – ֵאין ַה ִ ּציץ ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה‬ ְ ‫עֹושה ּ ֶפ ַסח – ַה ִ ּציץ‬ ׂ ֶ ְ‫ ַה ָּנזִ יר ו‬:ּ‫ׁ ֶש ָא ְמרו‬ ‫ וְ ֵאין ַה ִ ּציץ‬,‫ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה ַעל טו ְּמ ַאת ַהדָּ ם‬ .‫ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה ַעל טו ְּמ ַאת ַהגּ וּף‬

mishna 

In a case of a Paschal lamb whose blood was sprinkled and subsequently it became known that the meat or blood was ritually impure, the frontplate of the High Priest appeases God for the ritual impurity after the fact, and the owners are exempt from observing the second Pesaĥ. If it became known later that the body of the individual who brought the Paschal lamb had become ritually impure,h the frontplate does not appease God.n The individual has not fulfilled his obligation to bring the Paschal lamb, and therefore he must observe the second Pesaĥ. This is because the Sages said that with regard to the naziriten and one who performs the ritual of the Paschal lamb, the frontplate appeases God for both impurity of the blood and meat of the offering, but the frontplate does not appease God for impurity of the body of the individual bringing the offering.

.‫נִט ָמא טו ְּמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום – ַה ִ ּציץ ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה‬ ְ The mishna introduces a halakha with regard to ritual impurity of the deep, a term that refers to a source of impurity that is unknown to anyone and is discovered only after it has rendered someone impure. If it became known after the offering was brought that the person had become impure due to ritual impurity of the deep,n e.g., if he was informed that there was a concealed grave under the place he had sat in a house where he had previously stayed, the frontplate appeases God and the offering is valid.h

notes

One-third of the members of the community were zavim – ‫יתן זָ ִבין‬ ָ ‫יש‬ ִ ׁ ‫ש ִל‬: ְ ׁ There is a view cited in the Jeru­ salem Talmud that holds that zavim are included in the total number of the ritually impure, and so the majority of the community is considered impure. Therefore, the Paschal lamb is offered in a state of ritual impurity on the first Pesaĥ, and it is only the zavim who are unable to bring the Paschal lamb on either the first Pesaĥ or the second Pesaĥ. According to another opinion, the zavim are not included in the numbers of the ritually pure and impure at all; it is as though they are not present. The majority and the minority – ‫רֹוב ו ִּמיעוּט‬: It is not clear from the Gemara who is counted in order to determine whether the majority of the community is ritually pure or impure. It is stated in the Jerusalem Talmud that only those who are trying to enter the Temple courtyard to offer their Paschal lamb are counted. If the majority of those people are ritually pure and are therefore permitted to enter the courtyard, the Paschal lamb is brought in a state of ritual purity. If not, it is offered in a state of ritual impurity. If the body of the individual who brought the Paschal lamb had become ritually impure, the frontplate does not appease God – ‫נִט ָמא ַהגּ וּף ֵאין ַה ִ ּציץ ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה‬: ְ The verse pertaining to the frontplate states: “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, and Aaron shall bear the iniquity committed in the sacred things, which the children of Israel shall hallow, even in all their sacred gifts” (Exodus 28:38). The formulation of this verse teaches that the frontplate atones only for ritual impurity of the sacred things, i.e., the offerings themselves, but not for the ritual impurity of those consecrating the offerings. Because the Sages said that with regard to the nazirite, etc. – ‫מ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ָא ְמר ּו ַה ָּנזִ יר וכו׳‬:ִ The Sages formulated this halakha specifically with regard to these cases not only because the frontplate appeases God for ritual impurity of the deep in these situations, as discussed in the end of the mishna, but also because the ritual purity of the person bringing the offering is of no consequence with regard to other offerings. It is only with regard to these offerings, in which the consumption of the offering is an integral component, that the ritual purity of the owner of the offering is significant (Rabbeinu Yehonatan). Ritual impurity of the deep – ‫טו ְּמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום‬: This is a principle that applies to a grave found in a place where people had no previous knowledge of its existence. If a nazirite passes over a grave of this kind unknowingly and becomes aware of its existence only after his nazirite vow is completed, he is not considered to have contracted ritual impurity. The same principle applies if one bringing the Paschal lamb passes over such a grave and becomes aware of it only after sacrificing his offering. It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that the frontplate worn by the High Priest on his forehead atones for this inadvertent transgression.

halakha

Those who were ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ or the second Pesaĥ – ‫עֹושין ל ֹא‬ ׂ ִ ‫אֹותן ְט ֵמ ֵאי ֵמ ִתים ֵאינָן‬ ָ ‫אשֹון וְ ל ֹא ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ׁ ‫את ָה ִר‬: ֶ If one-third of the members of the community are zavim, one-third are ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, and one-third are ritually pure, those who are ritually pure participate in the first Pesaĥ and those who are ritually impure do not participate in the first or second Pesaĥ (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 7:6).

chal lamb became ritually impure after it was slaughtered, the blood should not be sprinkled on the altar. Even if the blood is sprinkled, the offering is not valid, and the owners are obligated to bring another offering during the second Pesaĥ (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 4:2).

The frontplate appeasing God for impurity of the deep – ‫ִריצוּי‬ ‫צִ יץ ְ ּבטו ְּמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום‬: If one offered the Paschal lamb with the presumption that he was ritually pure and later discovered that he was impure due to contact with a grave that was previously If the body of the individual who brought the Paschal lamb undiscovered, he is not obligated to observe the second Pesaĥ had become ritually impure – ‫נִט ָמא ַה ּגוּף‬: ְ If the owners of a Pas- (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 6:12).



‫פ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 80b 

95

halakha

Its impurity and its sprinkling – ‫טו ְּמ ָאתֹו וּזְ ִר ָיקתֹו‬: If it was discovered before the blood was sprinkled that the meat of the Paschal lamb had become ritually impure, its blood should not be sprinkled on the altar. Even if the blood is sprinkled, it is not valid after the fact. However, if the impurity was not discovered until after the blood was sprinkled, the offering is accepted, because the frontplate appeases God in cases where the blood is unwittingly sprinkled while the meat is ritually impure, but not in cases where the blood is intentionally sprinkled while the meat is impure, in accordance with the opinion of Ravina (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 4:2).

gemara 

The Gemara begins with an inference ,‫נֹודע‬ ַ ‫גמ׳ ַט ְע ָמא דְּ נִ זְ ַרק וְ ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך‬ with regard to a Paschal lamb that is ‫נֹוד ע וְ ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך נִ זְ ַרק – ל ֹא‬ ַ ‫ֲא ָבל‬ found to be ritually impure after its blood was sprinkled. The .‫ ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה‬reason the frontplate appeases God is that the blood was sprinkled and it subsequently became known that it was ritually impure. However, if it became known that it was ritually impure and its blood was subsequently sprinkled, the frontplate does not appease God and the offering is disqualified. ‫ ַעל ָמה ַה ִ ּציץ ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה? ַעל‬:ּ‫ו ְּר ִמינְ הו‬ ,‫ַהדָּ ם וְ ַעל ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ ַעל ַה ֵח ֶלב ׁ ֶש ּנ ְִט ָמא‬ ‫ ֵ ּבין ְ ּבאֹונֶס ֵ ּבין‬,‫ֵ ּבין ְ ּב ׁשֹוגֵ ג ֵ ּבין ְ ּב ֵמזִ יד‬ !‫יבוּר‬ ּ ‫ ֵ ּבין ְ ּבּיָ ִחיד ֵ ּבין ְ ּב ִ ּצ‬,‫ְ ּב ָרצֹון‬

The Gemara raises a contradiction from what was taught in a baraita: For what does the frontplate appease God? It appeases God for the blood and the meat and the fat that became impure, whether unwittingly or intentionally, whether by circumstances beyond his control or willfully, and whether the offering belonged to an individual or the public. This indicates that the frontplate appeases God even when the blood was sprinkled, despite the fact that it was already known that the meat or blood was ritually impure.

‫ ֵ ּבין ְ ּב ׁשֹוגֵ ג ֵ ּבין‬,‫ טו ְּמ ָאתֹו‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָר ִבינָ א‬Ravina said that the baraita should be understood as follows: – ‫ ְ ּב ׁשֹוגֵ ג‬,‫ זְ ִר ָיקתֹו‬.‫ ְ ּב ֵמזִ יד – הו ְּרצָ ה‬With regard to its ritual impurity, regardless of whether it .‫ ְ ּב ֵמזִ יד – ל ֹא הו ְּרצָ ה‬,‫ הו ְּרצָ ה‬became impure unwittingly or intentionally, the frontplate appeases God for the impurity and the offering is accepted. However, with regard to the sprinkling of its blood,h if it was unwittingly sprinkled while the meat was ritually impure, then the offering is accepted, but if it was intentionally sprinkled while the meat was impure, it is not accepted. ‫ ֵ ּבין ְ ּב ׁשֹוגֵ ג‬,‫ זְ ִר ָיקתֹו‬:‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ֵש ָילא ָא ַמר‬Rabbi Sheila said that the baraita should be understood as – ‫ ְ ּב ׁשֹוגֵ ג‬,‫ טו ְּמ ָאתֹו‬.‫ ֵ ּבין ְ ּב ֵמזִ יד – הו ְּרצָ ה‬follows: With regard to sprinkling the blood of the impure of.‫ ְ ּב ֵמזִ יד – ל ֹא הו ְּרצָ ה‬.‫ הו ְּרצָ ה‬fering, whether it was done unwittingly or intentionally, it is accepted. However, with regard to the manner in which it contracted its ritual impurity, if it became impure unwittingly the offering is accepted, and if it became impure intentionally it is not accepted. ‫״בין ְ ּב ׁשֹוגֵ ג ֵ ּבין‬ ּ ֵ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ָהא דְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬The Gemara explains: However, that which was taught in the ,‫ נִ ְט ָמא ְ ּב ׁשֹוגֵ ג‬:‫ ְ ּב ֵמזִ יד״ – ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬baraita that the frontplate appeases God regardless of whether .‫ וּזְ ָרקֹו ֵ ּבין ְ ּב ׁשֹוגֵ ג ֵ ּבין ְ ּב ֵמזִ יד – הו ְּרצָ ה‬the impure offering was brought unwittingly or intentionally, this is what it is saying: If the offering became impure unwittingly and one sprinkled its blood, whether unwittingly or intentionally, it is accepted.

96 

Perek VII . 80b . ‫פ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

‫וְ ָהא דְּ ָק ָתנֵי ״דָּ ם ׁ ֶש ִּנזְ ַרק וְ ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך‬ ,‫נֹודע‬ ַ ְ‫ ַט ְע ָמא דְּ נִ זְ ַרק וְ ַא ַחר ָּכך‬,‫נֹודע״‬ ַ ‫נֹודע וְ ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך נִ זְ ַרק ל ֹא! הוּא‬ ַ ‫ֲא ָבל‬ ,‫נֹודע וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ נִ זְ ַרק‬ ַ ‫ַהדִּ ין דַּ ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬

And from that which was taught in this mishna with regard to blood that was sprinkled and subsequently it became known that the offering was impure, one should not infer that the reason the frontplate appeases God is specifically that the blood was sprinkled and subsequently it became known that the offering was impure, but if it became known that the offering was impure and subsequently the blood was sprinkled, even unwittingly, the frontplate does not appease God. In fact, the same is true, i.e., the frontplate appeases God, even if the impure status of the offering became known and the blood was subsequently sprinkled.

,‫נֹודע‬ ַ ‫וְ ַהאי דְּ ָק ָתנֵי נִ זְ ַרק וְ ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך‬ ‫נִט ָמא ַהגּ וּף‬ ְ ‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָב ֵעי ְל ִמ ְתנֵי ֵס ָיפא‬ ‫ דַּ ֲא ִפילּ ּו נִ זְ ַרק וְ ַא ַחר‬,‫ֵאין ַה ִ ּציץ ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה‬ ‫ישא נַ ִמי נִ זְ ַרק‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ָק ָתנֵי ֵר‬,‫נֹודע – ל ֹא‬ ַ ְ‫ָּכך‬ .‫נֹודע‬ ַ ְ‫וְ ַא ַחר ָּכך‬

And that which was taught in the mishna with regard to blood that was sprinkled and subsequently it became known that it was impure, was formulated in that particular way because the tanna wanted to teach the latter clause of the mishna, which states that if the body of the individual bringing the Paschal lamb became impure, the frontplate does not appease God for his impurity. In this case, even if the blood was sprinkled and subsequently it became known that the body of the individual had been impure, the frontplate does not appease God. Therefore, he also taught the first clause in a parallel way, as one in which the blood was sprinkled and subsequently it became known that the offering was impure. However, the halakha holds true even if the ritual impurity of the blood or meat of the offering was known before the sprinkling of the blood.

‫ ָ ּב ֵעי ָר ִמי‬.‫״נִט ָמא טו ְּמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום וכו׳״‬ ְ ‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫נֹות‬ ֵ ‫ ּכ ֵֹהן ַה ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה ְ ּב ָק ְר ְ ּב‬:‫ַ ּבר ָח ָמא‬ ?‫הו ְּּת ָרה לֹו טו ְּמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום אֹו ל ֹא‬ – ‫ִמי ָא ְמ ִרינַן ִּכי ְ ּג ִמ ִירי טו ְּמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום‬ :‫ אֹו דִּ ְיל ָמא‬.‫ ְ ּבכ ֵֹהן ָלא ְ ּג ִמ ִירי‬,‫ִ ּב ְב ָע ִלים‬ ‫ ָלא ׁ ְשנָ א ְ ּבכ ֵֹהן וְ ָלא‬,‫ְ ּבזִ ְב ָחא ְ ּג ִמ ִירי‬ .‫ׁ ְשנָ א ִ ּב ְב ָע ִלים‬

It was taught in the mishna that if one became ritually impure through impurity of the deep, the frontplate appeases God. Rami bar Ĥama raised a dilemma: With regard to the priest who facilitates acceptance of their offerings, i.e., who performs the service of the Paschal lamb or the offerings of the nazirite, is ritual impurity of the deepnh permitted for him too or not?n Do we say that they learned the leniency of impurity of the deep through oral tradition only with regard to the owners of the offering, but they did not learn through oral tradition that it applies also to a priest? Or perhaps they learned through oral tradition that this leniency applies to the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb and the offering of a nazirite, and therefore it is no different whether the priest was impure or whether the owners were impure.

:‫ דְּ ָתנֵי ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא‬,‫ ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬:‫ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ‫ל ֹא ָא ְמר ּו ט ּו ְמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום ֶא ָּלא‬ ‫עֹוטי ַמאי – ָלאו‬ ֵ ‫ ֵמת ְל ַמ‬.‫ְל ֵמת ִ ּב ְל ַבד‬ ?‫עֹוטי טו ְּמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום דְּ ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬ ֵ ‫ְל ַמ‬

Rava said: Come and hear a resolution to this question, as Rabbi Ĥiyya taught that they stated the rule of impurity of the deep only with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse.h The Gemara infers: Ritual impurity imparted by a corpse was specified to exclude what? Is it not to exclude impurity of the deep of a creeping animal, so that in a case of impurity caused by a creeping animal that had not been known, the frontplate does not appease God?

,‫נֵימא ִ ּב ְב ָע ִלים‬ ָ ‫ ִאי‬,‫ ו ְּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַ ן‬And with what are we dealing? If we say that we are dealing with ‫״כי‬ ִּ ,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ו ְּב ַמאן? ִאי ְ ּבנָ זִ יר – ִמי ְמ ַה ּנֵי ֵ ּב‬a case where the owners became impure, to whom does this apply? .‫ יָ מוּת ֵמת ָע ָליו״ ָא ַמר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬If it applies to a nazirite, is impurity imparted by a creeping animal effective in interrupting his term as a nazirite and requiring him to bring offerings? The Merciful One states: “And if any man shall die very suddenly beside him and contaminate his nazirite head, he shall shave his head on the day of his purification; on the seventh day shall he shave it” (Numbers 6:9). This indicates that one’s term as a nazirite is interrupted only due to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse and not due to the impurity imparted by a creeping animal. ‫נִיחא ְל ַמאן‬ ָ ‫ ָה‬,‫עֹושה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב‬ ‫זֹור ִקין ַעל ְט ֵמ ֵאי‬ ְ ְ‫ֹוח ִטין ו‬ ֲ ‫דְּ ָא ַמר ֵאין ׁש‬ ‫ֹוח ִטין‬ ֲ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ׁש‬.‫ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬ ‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא‬,‫זֹור ִקין ַעל ְט ֵמ ֵא י ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬ ‫טו ְּמ ָאה יְ דו ָּעה הו ְּּת ָרה לֹו – טו ְּמ ַאת‬ !?‫ַה ְּתהֹום ל ֹא ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬

Rather, say that we are dealing with one performing the ritual of the Paschal lamb. If so, it works out well according to the one who said one may not slaughter the Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood for those who are impure from creeping animals, and therefore there is reason to discuss impurity of the deep. However, according to the one who said that one may slaughter and sprinkle the blood of the Paschal lamb for those who are impure from creeping animals so that they will be able to eat its meat at night, when they are pure, now you have said that known impurity is permitted for him, meaning that even when it is clear that one is ritually impure from a creeping animal, he is not prevented from participating in the Paschal lamb. In that case, with regard to impurity of the deep, is it not all the more so true that he is permitted to offer the Paschal lamb?

‫ הו ְּּת ָרה‬:‫ ו ׁ ְּש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא ָלאו ְ ּבכ ֵֹהן‬Rather, is Rabbi Ĥiyya not referring to a priest who has become .‫ לֹו טו ְּמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום‬ritually impure? Learn from here that impurity of the deep is permitted for a priest. ,‫עֹולם ִ ּב ְב ָע ִלים‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬,‫ ל ֹא‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬Rav Yosef said: No, this cannot be proven from Rabbi Ĥiyya’s state‫עֹוטי ט ּו ְמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום‬ ֵ ‫ ו ְּל ַמ‬,‫ ו ְּב ֶפ ַסח‬ment. Actually, it is possible to say that Rabbi Ĥiyya was referring .‫ דְּ זִ ָיבה‬to a case where the owners became ritually impure with impurity of the deep, and they intended to offer the Paschal lamb. And the limitation of the leniency to a case of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse is meant to exclude impurity of the deep imparted by the discharge of a zava. The frontplate does not appease God with regard to ritual impurity from impure discharges that are unknown. ?‫יבה ל ֹא ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה‬ ָ ִ‫ וְ טו ְּמ ַאת ְּתהֹום דְּ ז‬The Gemara asks: Does the frontplate not appease God with regard ‫ֹומ ֶרת יֹום‬ ֶ ‫ ׁש‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬to ritual impurity of the deep imparted by the discharge of a zava? ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ ְּכנֶ גֶ ד יֹום ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ֲחט ּו וְ זָ ְרק ּו ָע ֶל‬Wasn’t it taught in a baraita nthat Rabbi Yosei says: A woman who keeps watch a day for a day is a woman who discharges blood for one or two days at a time when she does not expect her menstrual period. The case under discussion is one where she experienced a discharge for one day and they slaughtered a Paschal lamb and sprinkled the blood for her 

notes

Ritual impurity of the deep with regard to a priest – ‫בטו ְּמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום ְ ּבכ ֵֹהן‬:ּ ְ Several a fortiori inferences are cited in the Jerusalem Talmud that indicate that the leniency with regard to impurity of the deep applies to a priest as well. The category of people who can eat the Paschal lamb is more limited than those who can perform the sacrificial rites for the Paschal lamb, in that the elderly and sick cannot eat it. Therefore, if the leniency with regard to impurity of the deep applies to those eating the Paschal lamb, it should certainly apply to the priest performing its service. However, it should be noted that the view accepted in the Jerusalem Talmud is that there is a biblical source for the law of impurity of the deep, and it is for this reason that it is possible to derive its parameters based on logical analysis, such as a fortiori inference. The conclusion in the Babylonian Talmud, on the other hand, is that the law of ritual impurity of the deep comes from an oral tradition transmitted to Moses at Sinai. Consequently, the rule that a fortiori inferences are not derived from oral traditions is applicable (see Yefe Einayim). Is ritual impurity of the deep permitted for him too or not – ‫הו ְּּת ָרה לֹו טו ְּמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום אֹו ל ֹא‬: The question seems difficult to understand: Even if the priest is ritually impure and renders impure the blood that he sprinkles upon the altar, since the impurity is not known with certainty, the frontplate should appease God for the possible impurity of the blood, and the offering should remain valid. Apparently, when a ritually impure priest performs the service, he invalidates the service itself because he is unfit for priestly service at that time. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss whether or not the leniency of impurity of the deep applies to him (Tosefot Rid). A woman who keeps watch a day for a day – ‫ֹומ ֶרת יֹום‬ ֶ ‫ׁש‬ ‫כנֶ גֶ ד יֹום‬:ְּ A woman is considered to be a full-fledged zava only if she experiences a discharge of uterine blood on three consecutive days at a time when she does not expect her menstrual period. The biblical source is the phrase: “Many days not in the time of her impurity” (Leviticus 15:25). Nevertheless, as soon as she has even one discharge, she becomes ritually impure as a minor zava and may not engage in sexual relations. According to Torah law, she need wait until only one day has passed without any discharge of blood, keeping watch a day for a day, in order to become pure. Even if she immerses in a ritual bath before the clean day is complete, if she does not experience a discharge for the rest of the day, she is considered retroactively pure from the time of her immersion. Today it is customary for women to follow all the laws pertaining to a full-fledged zava whenever they have even a slight discharge of uterine blood, and they count seven full clean days without discharge before immersing. halakha

Ritual impurity of the deep with regard to a priest – ‫טו ְּמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום ְ ּבכ ֵֹהן‬: If a priest becomes ritually impure with impurity of the deep, even if he discovers this before sprinkling the blood on the altar and sprinkles it anyway, the offering is accepted. However, with regard to the Paschal lamb, he may sprinkle the blood even ab initio (Kesef Mishne), as indicated by the continuation of the Gemara (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Biat HaMikdash 4:6). Impurity of the deep only with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse – ‫הֹום…ל ֵמת ִ ּב ְל ַבד‬ ְ ‫טו ְּמ ַאת ַה ְּת‬: The leniency of impurity of the deep applies to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse that has not been discovered. According to the Ra’avad, this leniency does not apply to impurity from bodily discharges. Apparently, the Rambam maintains, based on the Gemara in tractate Nazir (Leĥem Mishne), that the leniency of impurity of the deep applies even to bodily discharges (Rambam Sefer Hafla’a, Hilkhot Nezirut 6:18).

‫פ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 80b 

97

Perek VII Daf 81 Amud a notes

A zav who has had two sightings of discharge – ‫זָב ַ ּב ַעל‬ ‫ש ֵּתי ְר ִאּיֹות‬: ְ ׁ A zav becomes ritually impure as a result of the secretion of a white, pus-like discharge from his penis. A man who experiences a discharge of that kind on one occasion becomes ritually impure for one day, like a man who has discharged semen. If he experiences a second discharge on the same day or the following day, or if he experiences a prolonged initial discharge, he contracts the more severe ritual impurity of a zav, which lasts seven days. If he experiences a third discharge within the following twenty-four hours, he is obligated to bring an offering as part of his purification process. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Oshaya says, etc. – ‫אֹומר וכו׳‬ ֵ ‫אֹוש ֲעיָא‬ ַ ׁ ‫דְּ ַתנְיָא ַר ִ ּבי‬: This text is difficult because it appears to be a baraita that quotes the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya, who lived in the transitional generation between tanna’im and amora’im, and the opinion of the amora Rabbi Yoĥanan. Although there are several instances of a baraita citing Rabbi Yoĥanan, it appears that they do not refer to Rabbi Yoĥanan the amora (see Seder HaDorot). There are variant texts from which it appears that Rabbi Oshaya was teaching this halakha to his students and they commented upon it, in which case this is not a baraita. This would also explain the word but, which introduces Rabbi Oshaya’s statement, since it makes it seem that he was commenting on the mishna in the tractate Zavim that addresses this topic (see Gilyon HaShas; Hagahot Ben Arye). halakha

Render objects designed for lying and sitting impure retroactively – ‫ּמֹושב ְל ַמ ְפ ֵר ַע‬ ָ ׁ ‫מ ַט ְּמ ִאין ִמ ׁ ְש ָּכב ו‬‎ְ : A zav or a zava who experiences a discharge on the seventh of his or her clean days after he or she has immersed is considered ritually impure retroactively, in accordance with the baraita (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 5:9).

‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי ׁ ֶש ָּל ּה וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ ָר ֲא ָתה – ֵאינָ ּה‬on her second day, after she immersed in a ritual bath. At that point, it is unclear whether she will remain clean of discharges for the re.‫אֹוכ ֶלת ו ְּפטו ָּרה ִמ ַּל ֲע ׂשֹות ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬ ֶ mainder of the day, in which case she was pure from the time she immersed and may eat the Paschal lamb at night, or whether she will experience a discharge of blood during the day, in which case her immersion is retroactively invalid and she was impure the entire time. And after that, she saw blood, thus retroactively clarifying that at the time the Paschal lamb was slaughtered she was unfit to participate in it. The halakha is that she may not eat from the Paschal lamb due to her ritual impurity, but she is exempt from performing the ritual of the second Pesaĥ. ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – ָלאו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דִּ ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה‬The Gemara explains: What is the reason that she is exempt from the ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָק ָס ַבר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ל ֹא‬:‫ צִ יץ? ָא ְמ ִרי‬second Pesaĥ? Is it not because the frontplate appeases God, and therefore her first Paschal lamb was valid? Consequently, it is clear that .‫יֹוסי ִמ ָּכאן ו ְּל ַה ָ ּבא ִהיא ְמ ַט ְּמ ָאה‬ ֵ the frontplate does appease God for uncertain ritual impurity related to the discharge of a zava. Say in refutation of this proof: No, this is not the reason. Rather, it is because Rabbi Yosei holds that she renders objects impure from now and onward. When a woman who keeps watch a day for a day experiences another discharge on the second day after she immersed in a ritual bath, she is not retroactively considered to have been impure the entire time; rather, she begins a new period of impurity from the time of her second discharge. Therefore, when the Paschal lamb was slaughtered on her behalf, she was ritually pure. ‫ זָ ב ַ ּב ַעל ׁ ְש ֵּתי‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬ ‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ְר ִאּיֹות ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ֲחט ּו וְ זָ ְרק ּו ָע ָליו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ ‫ֹומ ֶרת יֹום‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ֵכן ׁש‬,‫ׁ ֶשלּ ֹו וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ ָר ָאה‬ ‫יה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ָ ‫ְּכנֶ גֶ ד יֹום ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ֲחט ּו וְ זָ ְרק ּו ָע ֶל‬ ‫ׁ ֶש ָּל ּה וְ ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך ָר ֲא ָתה – ֲה ֵרי ֵא ּל ּו‬ ,‫ּמֹושב ְל ַמ ְפ ֵר ַע‬ ָ ׁ ‫ְמ ַט ְּמ ִאין ִמ ׁ ְש ָּכב ו‬

They are exempt from performing the second Pesaĥ – ‫פטו ִּרים ִמ ַּל ֲע ׂשֹות ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬:ְ ּ If a zav or zava immersed on his or her seventh clean day, and a Paschal lamb is slaughtered for either of them, and then he or she experienced another bodily discharge, he or she is exempt from the second Pesaĥ (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 6:3). It cancels the clean days that preceded it – ‫סֹותר ֶאת‬ ֵ ‫ש ְּל ָפנָיו‬: ֶ ׁ If a zav experiences a discharge, even after he has immersed on the seventh day, it cancels all the clean days he has counted. He must begin to count his seven clean days from the beginning (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Meĥusrei Kappara 3:1).

The Gemara questions this refutation: Wasn’t the following taught in a baraita? Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a zav who has had two sightings of dischargen for whom they slaughtered a Paschal lamb and sprinkled its blood on his seventh day, after he immersed in a ritual bath, and subsequently on that same day he saw an additional discharge, which makes him ritually impure for another seven days; and similarly, with regard to a woman who keeps watch a day for a day for whom they slaughtered a Paschal lamb and sprinkled its blood on her second day after she immersed in a ritual bath, and subsequently she saw an additional discharge on that same day; these zavim render objects designed for lying and sitting impure retroactively.h Once they experience an additional discharge, any object designed for lying or sitting upon which the zav or zava leaned between his or her immersion and the new discharge is considered to be retroactively impure from the time he or she leaned on it.

.‫ ו ְּפטו ִּרים ִמ ַּל ֲע ׂשֹות ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬However, they are exempt from performing the ritual of the second Pesaĥ.h This is proof that Rabbi Yosei holds that their ritual impurity is retroactive. Therefore, at the time the Paschal lamb is slaughtered, it is uncertain whether they are ritually pure or impure, because if they have another discharge before the end of the day, they are retroactively considered to have been impure the entire time. From the fact that they are exempt from the second Pesaĥ even if it turns out that they were ritually impure, it appears that the frontplate does appease God for uncertain ritual impurity due to the discharge of a zava. .‫ ַמאי ְל ַמ ְפ ֵר ַע – ִמדְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬:‫ ָא ְמ ִרי‬The Gemara responds to this attempted proof. Say: What is the meaning of Rabbi Yosei’s statement that the ritual impurity applies retroactively? It means that the ritual impurity applies by rabbinic decree. However, according to Torah law, the zav or zava is impure only from the time of the new sighting and onward. ‫אֹוש ֲעיָא ָס ַבר ְמ ַט ֵּמא ְל ַמ ְפ ֵר ַע‬ ַ ׁ ‫וְ ַאף ַר ִ ּבי‬ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫אֹוש ֲעיָ א‬ ַ ׁ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫ִמדְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫סֹותר‬ ֵ – ‫יעי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹו‬ ִ ‫ֲא ָבל זָ ב ׁ ֶש ָר ָאה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ ‫ ל ֹא‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ וַ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ֶאת ׁ ֶש ְּל ָפנָיו‬ !‫יִ ְס ּתֹור ֶא ָּלא יֹומֹו‬

98 

Perek VII . 81a . ‫אפ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

The Gemara points out that even Rabbi Oshaya holds that, according to Rabbi Yosei, a zav or zava renders objects designed for sitting or lying impure retroactively only by rabbinic decree in these circumstances. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Oshaya says:n But with regard to a zav who saw a discharge on his seventh day, it cancels the clean days that preceded it.h And Rabbi Yoĥanan said to him: It should cancel only its day, i.e., the day on which he experienced the discharge, and he should require only one additional clean day.

‫״ל ַמ ְפ ֵר ַע הוּא‬ ְ ‫ ִאי ָק ָס ַבר‬, ְ‫ִמ ַּמה ַּנ ְפ ׁ ָשך‬ ‫ ִאי‬.‫נִס ּתֹור‬ ְ ‫ְמ ַט ֵּמא״ – ֲא ִפילּ ּו ּכו ְּּלה ּו‬ – ‫״מ ָּכאן ו ְּל ַה ָ ּבא הוּא ְמ ַט ֵּמא״‬ ִ ‫ָק ָס ַבר‬ ‫ ל ֹא‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫נִס ּתֹור! ֶא ָּלא ֵא‬ ְ ‫יֹומֹו נַ ִמי ל ֹא‬ .‫יִ ְס ּתֹור וְ ל ֹא יֹומֹו‬

The Gemara expresses surprise: Whichever way you look at Rabbi Yoĥanan’s statement, it is difficult: If he holds that that the zav renders objects impure retroactively, the new discharge should cancel all the days. Conversely, if he holds that the zav renders objects impure from now and onward, it should not cancel even its own day. Since part of the seventh day was clean, the zav is considered to have successfully completed his seven clean days, and the new discharge renders him impure for only one day. Rather, say instead that Rabbi Yoĥanan said as follows: It should not cancel even its own day.

.‫ות ְך‬ ָ ָ‫יֹוסי ָק ֵאי ְּכו‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫וַ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫אֹומר ְמ ַט ְּמ ִאין ִמ ׁ ְש ָּכב‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫וְ ָהא ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫מֹושב ְל ַמ ְפ ֵר ַע! ֶא ָּלא ָלאו ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ָ ׁ ‫ּו‬ ‫ ׁ ְש ַמע‬,‫ ְמ ַט ֵּמא ְל ַמ ְפ ֵר ַע ִמדְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬:‫ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ .‫ִמ ָּינ ּה‬

And Rabbi Oshaya said to him: I do not agree with you, but know that Rabbi Yosei, who exempts one in this circumstance from the second Pesaĥ, holds in accordance with your opinion. The Gemara analyses Rabbi Oshaya’s statement: But didn’t Rabbi Yosei say that they render objects designed for lying and sitting impure retroactively, whereas Rabbi Yoĥanan holds that they render these items impure only from the time of the new discharge and onward? Rather, must one not conclude from this that when Rabbi Yosei said he renders these items impure retroactively, he meant that this ruling is due to rabbinic decree and is not Torah law? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this.

‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא דְּ ָא ַמר ִמ ָּכאן‬,‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ו ְּל ַר ִ ּבי‬The Gemara returns to its discussion of whether the leniency of ‫[ל ֵמת] ִ ּב ְל ַבד‬ ְ ‫ ו ְּל ַה ָ ּבא הוּא ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬impurity of the deep applies to priests and Rava’s attempt to prove ?‫עֹוטי ַמאי‬ ֵ ‫ ְל ַמ‬that it does, based upon Rabbi Ĥiyya’s statement that impurity of the deep is permitted only with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Yosei, now that he said that a zav who immersed and then saw an additional discharge renders items impure only from now and onward according to Torah law, and not retroactively, Rabbi Ĥiyya’s statement that the leniency of impurity of the deep applies only to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse was stated to exclude what other case? Rabbi Ĥiyya could not have been excluding impurity due to the discharge of a zav or zava, as suggested above, because their offerings are valid even without the frontplate placating God. ‫ נִ ְפ ׁשֹוט ִמ ָּינ ּה דִּ ְבכ ֵֹהן וְ הו ְּּת ָרה לֹו‬Let us resolve the dilemma from this statement of Rabbi Ĥiyya, as !‫ טו ְּמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום‬it must come to exclude impurity from a creeping animal. If so, it must be referring to a priest, and impurity of the deep is permitted for him. ,‫עֹולם ִ ּב ְב ָע ִלים ו ְּב ֶפ ַסח‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬:‫ ָא ְמ ִרי‬Say in response to this attempted proof: Actually, you can explain ‫זֹור ִקין ַעל ְט ֵמ ֵאי‬ ְ ְ‫ֹוח ִטין ו‬ ֲ ‫ ֵאין ׁש‬:‫ וְ ָק ָס ַבר‬that it refers to the impurity of the owners and to a case where they .‫עֹוטי‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ִאיצְ ְט ִריךְ ְל ַמ‬,‫ ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬are offering the Paschal lamb, and Rabbi Ĥiyya holds that one may not slaughter an offering and sprinkle its blood for those who are impure from a creeping animal. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify whether this halakha applies to those unknowingly rendered impure by a creeping animal, and it was necessary to exclude this case and teach that the leniency of impurity of the deep applies only to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse and not to impurity from a creeping animal. ‫יכי‬ ִ ‫ זָ ָבה ְ ּגמו ָּרה ֵה‬,‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬The Gemara asks another question: But, according to the opinion ?‫ ַמ ׁ ְש ַּכ ַח ְּת ָל ּה‬of Rabbi Yosei, in the case of a woman who keeps watch a day for a day, under what circumstances can a full-fledged zava be found?n If a new sighting does not retroactively render her impure, and it is considered as though it were the first sighting in a new series of discharges, how is it possible to link three sightings together to produce a full-fledged zava? The three sightings will always be considered separate. ‫ ְּכגֹון‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ִאי ָ ּב ֵעית ֵא‬.‫ֹופ ַעת‬ ַ ‫ ְ ּב ׁש‬The Gemara answers: A case of a full-fledged zava is found in a .‫ ׁ ֶש ָר ֲא ָתה ָּכל ׁ ְשנֵי ֵ ּבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות‬woman who continuously flows, i.e., she experiences a continuous discharge of blood that spans three days. If you wish, say instead that the case is where she saw a discharge for two entire twilights, meaning that she experienced a discharge for the entire twilight period on two consecutive days. In this case, there is no clean period separating the discharges at the beginning of a calendar day, and all of them are linked. 

notes

Under what circumstances can a full-fledged zava be found – ‫יכי ַמ ׁ ְש ַּכ ַח ְּת ָל ּה‬ ִ ‫זָבה ְ ּגמו ָּרה ֵה‬: ָ According to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, a woman who keeps watch a day for a day, who is considered a minor zava, is not rendered impure retroactively on her third day. The third day is not considered to be connected to the first two if she does not bleed at the beginning of the day. Consequently, it is difficult to understand how there can ever be three consecutive days of bleeding. Therefore, it is necessary to say that a woman is a zava when there is no clean separation between the days because she either bled continuously over the course of three days or she bled at twilight. In those circumstances, a new day did not begin in a state of cleanliness. The expression: The entire twilight, may be understood in accordance with the opinions that part of twilight is day and part is night. If she bled for the entire twilight period, she certainly began the new calendar day with a discharge of blood. ‫אפ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 81a 

99

notes

The priest who facilitates acceptance of the daily offering – ‫כ ֵֹהן ַה ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה ְ ּב ָת ִמיד‬:ּ The discussion in this context concerns a priest who discovers that he became ritually impure through impurity of the deep before he sprinkles the blood of the daily offering. If he finds out after sprinkling the blood, the offering is certainly be valid after the fact, like all communal offerings that are brought in a state of ritual impurity (Tosefot Rid).

,‫ ּכ ֵֹהן ַה ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה ְ ּב ָת ִמיד‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ָ ּב ֵעי ַרב‬ ‫הו ְּּת ָרה לֹו טו ְּמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום אֹו ל ֹא? ִאם‬ ‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫נֹות‬ ֵ ‫ ּכ ֵֹהן ַה ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה ְ ּב ָק ְר ְ ּב‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ִּת ְמצָ א‬ ‫עֹושה ּ ֶפ ַסח) הו ְּּת ָרה לֹו‬ ׂ ֶ ְ‫(של נָ זִ יר ו‬ ֶׁ ‫ ּכ ֵֹהן ַה ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה ְ ּב ָת ִמיד‬,‫טו ְּמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום‬ ‫ַמאי? ִמי ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן ִּכי ְ ּג ִמ ִירי ט ּו ְמ ַאת‬ .‫ ְ ּב ָת ִמיד ָלא ְ ּג ִמ ִירי‬,‫ַה ְּתהֹום – ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח‬ ?‫ יָ ֵליף ָּת ִמיד ִמ ּ ֶפ ַסח‬:‫אֹו דִּ ְיל ָמא‬

Rav Yosef raised a dilemma: With regard to the priest who facilitates acceptance of the daily offering,n is ritual impurity of the deep permitted for him or not? The two sides of the dilemma are as follows: If you say that the priest who facilitates acceptance of the offerings of the nazirite and of one who performs the ritual of the Paschal lamb, ritual impurity of the deep is permitted for him, then in the case of the priest who facilitates acceptance of the daily offering, what is the halakha? Do we say that when we learned the halakha of impurity of the deep through oral tradition, it was with regard to the Paschal lamb, but with regard to the daily offering we did not learn it? Or perhaps we can derive that the halakha applies to the daily offering from the fact that it applies to the Paschal lamb?

‫חֹומר ו ַּמה ְ ּב ָמקֹום ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬ ֶ ָ‫ ַקל ו‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה‬ ‫הו ְּּת ָרה לֹו טו ְּמ ָאה יְ דו ָּעה – הו ְּּת ָרה לֹו‬ ‫ ָמקֹום ׁ ֶשהו ְּּת ָרה לֹו‬,‫טו ְּמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום‬ – ‫טו ְּמ ָאה יְ דו ָּעה‬

Rabba said: This dilemma can be resolved through an a fortiori inference: Just as in a place where known ritual impurity is not permitted for him, e.g., with regard to the Paschal lamb, for which known impurity disqualifies the offering and one would have to observe the second Pesaĥ, nonetheless impurity of the deep is permitted for him, all the more so in a place where known ritual impurity is permitted for him, with regard to communal offerings, as such offerings may be sacrificed even in a known state of impurity if there is no way to sacrifice the offering in a state of purity,

Perek VII Daf 81 Amud b notes

The size of a grain of barley – ‫עֹורה‬ ָ ‫כ ְ ׂש‬:ַּ A bone from a corpse can render other objects ritually impure if it is equal to at least a single barleycorn in volume. Quarter-log [revi’it]– ‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ר ִב‬:ְ Revi’it literally means quarter. When unqualified, it refers to a quarter-log, a standard unit of liquid measurement for certain matters. For example, a quarterlog is the minimum amount of wine over which kiddush may be recited, the amount of wine that a nazirite is punished for drinking, and the minimum quantity of certain liquids for which one is liable for violating the prohibition against transferring objects from one domain to another on Shabbat. A quarter-log of blood from a corpse conveys ritual impurity. Deriving an a fortiori inference from a halakha – ‫חֹומר‬ ֶ ָ‫ַקל ו‬ ‫מ ֲה ָל ָכה‬:ֵ The hermeneutical principle of a fortiori inference is one that is simple and logical. The principle that an a fortiori inference is not derived from a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai is not the consequence of any deficiency in the principle of a fortiori inference. Rather, it is due to the unique nature of halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The difference between halakhot written explicitly in the Torah and those transmitted to Moses from Sinai is not related to their source or authority. Rather, it is related specifically to the utilization of a halakha as a model for other halakhot. Halakhot written in the Torah may serve as models for other halakhot as well. On the other hand, a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai is considered exceptional, which is the very reason it was not written in the Torah. Therefore, other halakhot cannot be derived from it.

100 

Perek VII . 81b . ‫אפ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

?‫ ֵאינֹו דִּ ין ׁ ֶשהו ְּּת ָרה לֹו טו ְּמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום‬is it not right that impurity of the deep is permitted for him completely, even if there are other priests who are ritually pure? ?‫חֹומר ֵמ ֲה ָל ָכה‬ ֶ ָ‫ ו ִּמי דָּ יְ ינִינַן ַקל ו‬:‫ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ,‫ ֲע ִק ָיבא‬:‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ָא ַמר לֹו ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬ – ‫יעית דָּ ם‬ ִ ‫ ְר ִב‬,‫עֹורה – ֲה ָל ָכה‬ ָ ‫ֶעצֶ ם ַּכ ּ ְ ׂש‬ !‫חֹומר ֵמ ֲה ָל ָכה‬ ֶ ָ‫ וְ ֵאין דָּ נִין ַקל ו‬,‫חֹומר‬ ֶ ָ‫ַקל ו‬

Say in refutation of this proof: And do we derive an a fortiori inference from a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, such as the halakha of ritual impurity of the deep? Wasn’t the following taught in a baraita? Rabbi Akiva employed an a fortiori inference to derive that a nazirite must shave if he touches or carries blood, just as he must shave if he touches or carries a bone from a corpse, and Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva, a bone the size of a grain of barleyn is able to transmit ritual impurity due to a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and you want to derive that the same is true of a quarter-logn of blood on the basis of an a fortiori inference, and one may not derive an a fortiori inference from a halakhan transmitted to Moses from Sinai.

‫מֹועדֹו‬ ֲ ‫מֹועדֹו‬ ֲ ‫ יָ ֵליף‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬Rather, Rava said: It is derived on the basis of a verbal .‫ ִמ ּ ֶפ ַסח‬analogy of the expressions “its appointed time” (Numbers 9:13) stated with regard to the Paschal lamb, and “its appointed time” (Numbers 28:2) stated with regard to the daily offering. Since the Torah uses this expression in both cases, the halakha with regard to the daily offering can be derived from the halakha in the case of the Paschal lamb: Just as impurity of the deep is permitted with regard to the Paschal lamb, it is permitted with regard to the daily offering. ?‫יכא ְּכ ִת ָיבא‬ ָ ‫ וְ טו ְּמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום גּ ו ָּפא ֵה‬The Gemara asks: And with regard to impurity of the deep it‫ ״וְ ִכי יָ מוּת‬:‫ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬,‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬self, which is permitted in the cases of a nazirite and one who .‫ ֵמת ָע ָליו״ – ִ ּב ְמח ּו ֶּו ֶרת ָע ָליו‬sacrifices the Paschal lamb, due to the fact that the frontplate appeases God for the impurity, where is it written? Rabbi Elazar said that the verse states with regard to a nazirite: “And if any man shall die very suddenly beside him” (Numbers 6:9). The emphasis provided by the expression “beside him” indicates that it is clear to him that he has become impure. However, one is not impure if the presence of the corpse is unknown.

‫עֹושה ּ ֶפ ַסח ְמ ַנָלן? ָא ַמר‬ ׂ ֶ ,‫ ַא ׁ ְש ַּכ ַחן נָ זִ יר‬The Gemara asks: We found a source for impurity of the deep with re‫חֹוקה‬ ָ ‫״ב ֶד ֶרךְ ְר‬ ּ ְ :‫ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬,‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬gard to a nazirite; from where do we derive that impurity of the deep .‫ ָל ֶכם״ – ִ ּב ְמח ּו ֶּו ֶרת ָל ֶכם‬is also permitted with regard to one who performs the ritual of the Paschal lamb? Rabbi Yoĥanan said that the verse states: “Any man of you [lakhem] who shall be ritually impure due to a corpse or on a road far away” (Numbers 9:10). The term lakhem is interpreted as indicating that the impurity must be clear to you [lakhem]. However, any ritual impurity that is not clearly identified does not render one who wishes to sacrifice the Paschal lamb impure. ‫ ַמה‬, ְ‫ ְּכ ֶד ֶרך‬:‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש ָא ַמר‬Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: This halakha may be derived in a dif.‫ דֶּ ֶרךְ ְ ּבגָ לוּי – ַאף טו ְּמ ָאה נַ ִמי ְ ּבגָ לוּי‬ferent way, from the word “road,” which is juxtaposed in the verse to the phrase “ritually impure.” This indicates that the impurity is like a road. Just as a road is in the open, so too, the impurity is in the open. ‫ ֵאי זֶ ה ּו טו ְּמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום – ּכֹל‬: ‫ית ִיבי‬ ִ ‫ֵמ‬ ,‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִה ִּכיר ָ ּב ּה ֶא ָחד ְ ּבסֹוף ָה‬ ‫עֹולם – ֵאין זֶ ה‬ ָ ‫ִה ִּכיר ָ ּב ּה ֶא ָחד ְ ּבסֹוף ָה‬ ‫ ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר דְּ ָא ַמר‬.‫טו ְּמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום‬ ,‫ִ ּב ְמח ּו ֶּו ֶרת ָע ָליו – ַעד דְּ יָ ַדע הוּא‬

The Gemara raises an objection to these derivations from that which was taught in the following baraita: Which is the impurity of the deeph that was permitted for both a nazirite and one who sacrifices the Paschal lamb? It is impurity imparted by any corpse of which no one is aware,n even at the end of the earth; but if even one person is aware of it, even at the end of the earth, this is not impurity of the deep. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said that the expression “beside him” indicates that the impurity must be clear to him, it would be considered impurity of the deep until he knew about it; it would not be enough for some other person to be aware of the corpse.

‫יֹוחנָ ן דְּ ָא ַמר ָל ֶכם ִ ּב ְמח ּו ֶּו ֶרת‬ ָ ‫ ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬According to Rabbi Yoĥanan, who said that the halakha is derived ,‫ ָל ֶכם – ַעד דְּ יָ ְד ִעי ָ ּב ּה ְּת ֵרין‬from the term lakhem, which teaches that it must be clear to you, it is considered impurity of the deep until two people know about it, as the word lakhem is plural. – ְ‫ ְל ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש דְּ ָא ַמר ְּכ ֶד ֶרך‬According to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who said that the impurity .‫ ַעד דְּ יָ ְד ִעי ּכו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא‬must be like a road, it is impurity of the deep until the entire world knows about it.

halakha

Impurity of the deep – ‫טו ְּמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום‬: Impurity of the deep is imparted by a source of impurity of which no one is aware. Therefore, the corpse of one who was killed cannot be considered impurity of the deep, because the killer is aware of it (Rambam Sefer Hafla’a, Hilkhot Nezirut 6:18). Before and after sprinkling – ‫ל ְפנֵי וְ ַא ַחר זְ ִר ָיקה‬:ִ If a priest finds out that he became ritually impure with impurity imparted by a grave deep in the ground, even if he finds out before he sprinkles the blood and he subsequently sprinkles the blood, the offering is accepted. This ruling is in accordance with the conclusion of the Gemara with regard to the statement of Mar bar Rav Ashi (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Biat HaMikdash 4:6). notes

Of which no one is aware – ‫ש ּל ֹא ִה ִּכיר ָ ּב ּה ֶא ָחד‬: ֶ ׁ It is explained in the Jerusalem Talmud that there is certainty that a particular case falls into the category of ritual impurity of the deep only when it is clear that the person whose corpse has been found died so long ago that there is no one alive who knows where he was buried. Mere support – ‫א ְס ַמ ְכ ָּתא ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא‬: ַ Sometimes the Gemara states that a verse cited as the basis for a halakha is merely an allusion to the halakha rather than its actual source. In such cases, the verse is called a support for the halakha. Since halakhot of this kind are not actually derived from the biblical text, which serves instead as a mnemonic device, they are generally rabbinic decrees. This is indicated in the Talmud by the phrase: The law is rabbinic, and the verse is a mere support.

‫ טו ְּמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום ִה ְל ְכ ָתא ְ ּג ִמ ִירי‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא‬Rather, one must conclude that the previous sources cited are insuffi.‫ ו ְּק ָרא ַא ְס ַמ ְכ ָּתא ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא‬,‫ ָל ּה‬cient and say that they learned the principle of impurity of the deep as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the verse that the amora’im quoted is a mere supportn for the halakha and not its actual source.

A corpse lying across the width of a road – ‫ֵמת‬ ‫מו ׁ ְּש ָּכב ְל ָר ְח ּבֹו ׁ ֶשל דֶּ ֶר ְך‬: Some commentaries explain that although it is likely that passersby touched or passed over the corpse, it is not absolutely certain that that is the case. It is possible that the corpse was not yet there when a particular person passed by or that the passerby happened to move off the road at that particular place (Me’iri).

‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא‬:‫ָא ַמר ָמר ַ ּבר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ‫ דְּ ִכי ִאזְ דְּ ִריק‬,‫ׁ ֶשנּ ַֹודע לֹו ְל ַא ַחר זְ ִר ָיקה‬ ‫נֹודע לֹו‬ ַ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬.‫דָּ ם – ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר ִאיזְ דְּ ִריק‬ .‫ִל ְפנֵי זְ ִר ָיקה – ל ֹא ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה‬

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: They taught that the frontplate appeases God for impurity of the deep with regard to a nazirite and one bringing the Paschal lamb only when the fact that he is impure became known to him after the sprinkling of the blood of the offering, as when the blood was sprinkled, it was sprinkled well, because the impurity of the one bringing the offering was unknown. However, if his impurity was known to him before the sprinkling of the blood, the frontplate does not appease God.

Before sprinkling – ‫ל ְפנֵי זְ ִר ָיקה‬:ִ This rule applies only if one becomes aware of the impurity of the deep after the Paschal lamb is slaughtered. However, if one becomes aware of it before the Paschal lamb is slaughtered, he is considered ritually impure and must observe the second Pesaĥ (Tosefot Rid).

‫ ַה ּמֹוצֵ א ֵמת מו ׁ ְּש ָּכב ְל ָר ְח ּבֹו‬:‫ית ִיבי‬ ִ ‫ֵמ‬ ‫ ְלנָ זִ יר‬,‫ ִל ְתר ּו ָמה – ָט ֵמא‬,‫ׁ ֶשל דֶּ ֶר ְך‬ ‫ וְ ָכל ָט ֵמא וְ ָטהֹור‬,‫עֹושה ּ ֶפ ַסח – ָטהֹור‬ ׂ ֶ ְ‫ו‬ .‫ְל ַה ָ ּבא הוּא‬

The Gemara raises an objection based on the following baraita: In the case of one who finds a corpse lying across the width of a road,n meaning that it had been buried there in such a way that it was impossible that the passerby could have avoided becoming impure by touching, moving, or passing over the corpse, then with regard to teruma, the passerby is impure. Therefore, if he is a priest, he may not eat teruma. However, with regard to both a nazirite and one performing the ritual of the Paschal lamb, the passerby is pure because the frontplate appeases God for impurity of the deep in these cases. And any time it says: Impure, and: Pure, it is for the future. These terms indicate a halakhic ruling that may be followed ab initio and not just as a leniency after the fact, if the blood of the offering was already sprinkled.

‫ ָא ַמר ָמר‬:‫ֶא ָּלא ִאי ִא ְּית ַמר ָה ִכי ִא ְּית ַמר‬ ‫נֹודע לֹו ְל ַא ַחר‬ ַ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ָלא ֵּת‬:‫ַ ּבר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ‫נֹודע לֹו ִל ְפנֵי‬ ַ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫זְ ִר ָיקה הוּא דִּ ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה‬ ‫נֹודע‬ ַ ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא‬,‫זְ ִר ָיקה ל ֹא ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה‬ .‫לֹו ִל ְפנֵי זְ ִר ָיקה – ְמ ַר ֶ ּצה‬

Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows: Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Do not say that it is only when it became known to him after the sprinkling of the blood that the frontplate appeases God, but if it became known to him before the sprinkling it does not appease God. Rather, even if it became known to him before the sprinkling,hn the frontplate appeases God because impurity of the deep is insignificant with regard to both the Paschal lamb and a nazirite.



‫אפ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 81b 

101

halakha

One who finds a corpse lying – ‫ה ּמֹוצֵ א ֵמת מו ׁ ְּש ָּכב‬:ַ If one walked on a certain path and a corpse was later discovered buried across its width, he may still offer the Paschal lamb, unless he knows with certainty that he became ritually impure. This applies if one walked on the path in a normal fashion. However, if one carried a heavy burden or rode an animal, he is impure (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 6:11). With regard to the consumption of teruma, a person who walked on the path is considered ritually impure. However, if the corpse is broken or dismembered, so that it is possible that the passerby walked between its different parts, he is considered ritually pure (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 18:3). If one finds it hidden in hay, etc. – ‫מצָ אֹו ָטמוּן ַ ּב ֶּת ֶבן וכו׳‬:ְ If one finds a corpse hidden in hay, dirt, or pebbles, it is possible that no one knows about it, and it is considered ritual impurity of the deep. However, if the corpse is found in water, a dark place, or between rocks, it is not considered impurity of the deep (Rambam Sefer Hafla’a, Hilkhot Nezirut 6:19). If the Paschal lamb became ritually impure – ‫נִט ָמא‬ ְ ‫ה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬:ַ If all or most of the Paschal lamb became ritually impure, it is burned in the Temple with the wood of the arrangement, in order to embarrass the members of the group that brought the offering for not having been careful enough with it. If only part of it became impure or was left over, it may be burned anywhere in Jerusalem with wood belonging to its owners (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 4:3). notes

Only with regard to a corpse – ‫א ָּלא ְל ֵמת ִ ּב ְל ַבד‬:ֶ Some authorities explain that when the Gemara states that ritual impurity of the deep applies only to a corpse, it means that it applies only when the person died by himself. However, if he was killed, ritual impurity of the deep is not relevant because the killer knows about the corpse (Rabbeinu Ĥananel; Rambam). Before the Temple [habira] – ‫ל ְפנֵי ַה ִ ּב ָירה‬:ִ There is a dispute among the amora’im whether the term bira refers to the entire Temple or to a specific location in the Temple (see Yoma 2a; see Zevaĥim 104b).

‫ ַה ּמֹוצֵ א ֵמת מו ׁ ְּש ָּכב ְל ָר ְח ּבֹו ׁ ֶשל‬:‫ גּ ו ָּפא‬Since the Gemara quoted a baraita with regard to impurity of the ‫עֹושה‬ ׂ ֶ ְ‫ ְלנָ זִ יר ו‬,‫ ִל ְתר ּו ָמה – ָט ֵמא‬,‫ דֶּ ֶר ְך‬deep, it returns to discuss the matter itself. In the case of one who h .‫ ּ ֶפ ַסח – ָטהֹור‬finds a corpse lying across the width of the road, with regard to teruma he is impure, and with regard to a nazirite and one who performs the ritual of the Paschal lamb he is pure. ‫ ַ ּב ֶּמה דְּ ָב ִרים ֲאמו ִּרים – ׁ ֶש ֵאין לֹו ָמקֹום‬In what case is this statement, that the person is considered impure ‫ ֲא ָבל יֵ ׁש ָמקֹום ַל ֲעבֹור – ַאף‬,‫ ַל ֲעבֹור‬with regard to teruma, said? It is said in a case where he does not .‫ ִל ְתרו ָּמה ָטהֹור‬have space to pass by on the road without passing over the corpse. However, if there is space to pass by, even for the purposes of teruma he is pure. There is a principle that if a doubt arises concerning the ritual purity of a person or object in the public domain, they are considered pure. In this case, there is doubt because it is possible that the passerby did not become ritually impure. Therefore, he is considered pure. ,‫ַ ּב ֶּמה דְּ ָב ִרים ֲאמו ִּרים – ׁ ֶש ְּמצָ אֹו ׁ ָש ֵלם‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ָּמא ֵ ּבין‬,‫פֹורק – ָטהֹור‬ ָ ‫ֲא ָבל ְמ ׁשו ָ ּּבר ו ְּמ‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬,‫ ו ַּב ֶ ּק ֶבר‬.‫ַה ּ ְפ ָר ִקים ָע ַבר‬ ‫יל ּו ְמ ׁשו ָ ּּבר‬ .‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ַה ֶ ּק ֶבר ְמצָ ְרפֹו‬,‫פֹורק – ָט ֵמא‬ ָ ‫ו ְּמ‬

Similarly, in what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where one finds the body whole. However, if it is broken or dismembered, he is pure. One can say that perhaps he passed between the parts of the corpse and did not touch or pass over any of them. However, this applies only when he finds the corpse out in the open; but if he finds it in a grave, even if it is broken or dismembered, he is impure, because the grave joins it into one unit and renders one impure if one passed over any part of the grave, even if he did not pass over part of the corpse.

,‫ַ ּב ֶּמה דְּ ָב ִרים ֲאמו ִּרים – ִ ּב ְמ ַה ֵּלךְ ְ ּב ַרגְ ָליו‬ ְ‫ ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ְּמ ַה ֵּלך‬.‫ֲא ָבל ָטעוּן אֹו ָרכוּב – ָט ֵמא‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ְ ּב ַרגְ ָליו ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יִ ַ ּגע וְ ל ֹא יֶ ֱא ַהל‬ ‫ָטעוּן אֹו ָרכוּב – ִאי ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ַ ּיִגע וְ ל ֹא‬ .‫יֶ ֱא ַהל‬

In what case is this statement, that if the corpse was dismembered the passerby is pure, said? It is said with regard to a passerby who travels by foot, but if he was loaded with a heavy burden or riding an animal, he is impure. The reason for this is because one who travels by foot, it is possible that he will not touch the corpse and will not pass over it; but one who is loaded with a heavy burden and therefore does not walk in a straight line or someone riding an animal, it is impossible that he will not touch and will not pass over the corpse.

,‫ ַ ּב ֶּמה דְּ ָב ִרים ֲאמו ִּרים – ְ ּבטו ְּמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום‬In what case is this statement, that a nazirite and one bringing a .‫ ֲא ָבל ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה יְ דו ָּעה – ָט ֵמא‬Paschal lamb are considered pure, said? It is said with regard to impurity of the deep. However, if the source of impurity was known to some but not to the individual who became impure, he is nevertheless impure. ‫וְ ֵאי זֶ ה ִהיא טו ְּמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום – ּכֹל ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ִה ִּכיר‬,‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ִה ִּכיר ָ ּב ּה ֶא ָחד ְ ּבסֹוף ָה‬ ‫עֹולם – ֵאין זֶ ה טו ְּמ ַאת‬ ָ ‫ָ ּב ּה ֶא ָחד ְ ּבסֹוף ָה‬ .‫ַה ְּתהֹום‬

The baraita continues: And which corpse is considered impurity of the deep? Any corpse of which no one is aware, even at the end of the earth; but if even one individual is aware of it, even if that individual is at the end of the earth, this is not considered impurity of the deep.

– ‫ְמצָ אֹו ָטמוּן ַ ּב ֶּת ֶבן ֶ ּב ָע ָפר ו ַּב ְ ּצרֹורֹות‬ ,‫ ַ ּב ַּמיִ ם ָ ּב ֲא ֵפ ָילה‬.‫ֲה ֵרי זֶ ה טו ְּמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום‬ ‫ִ ּבנְ ִק ֵיקי ַה ְּס ָל ִעים – ֵאין זֶ ה ט ּו ְמ ַאת‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ָא ְמר ּו טו ְּמ ַאת ַה ְּתהֹום ֶא ָּלא‬.‫ַה ְּתהֹום‬ .‫ְל ֵמת ִ ּב ְל ַבד‬

In order to ascertain whether anyone ever knew about the corpse, its condition is taken into account. If one finds it hidden in hayh or in dirt or in pebbles, and it is possible that the person died in an avalanche, in which case it is likely that the corpse had never been found, this is impurity of the deep. But if he finds it in water, or in a dark place, or in the clefts of the rocks, this is not impurity of the deep. Although these are places where people do not often go, with the passage of time the corpse is likely to be discovered, and it is quite possible that someone already passed by and saw it. And they said the leniency of impurity of the deep only with regard to a corpse,n but not with regard to other sources of ritual impurity.

‫נִט ָמא ׁ ָש ֵלם אֹו רו ּּבֹו – ׂש ְֹור ִפין‬ ְ ‫מתני׳‬ .‫אֹותֹו ִל ְפנֵי ַה ִ ּב ָירה ֵמ ֲעצֵ י ַה ַּמ ֲע ָר ָכה‬ ‫ֹותר – ׂש ְֹור ִפין אֹותֹו‬ ָ ּ‫ וְ ַהנ‬,‫נִ ְט ָמא ִמיעוּטֹו‬ .‫יהן ֵמ ֲעצֵ י ַעצְ ָמן‬ ֶ ‫ֹות‬ ֵ ּ‫יהן אֹו ַעל ַ ּגג‬ ֶ ‫רֹות‬ ֵ ְ‫ְ ּב ַחצ‬ ,‫ַה ַ ּציְ ָקנִין ׂש ְֹור ִפין אֹותֹו ִל ְפנֵי ַה ִ ּב ָירה‬ .‫יהנֹות ֵמ ֲעצֵ י ַה ַּמ ֲע ָר ָכה‬ ָ ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ֵל‬

102 

Perek VII . 81b . ‫אפ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

mishna 

If the whole Paschal lamb or most of it became ritually impure,h one burns it before n the Temple [habira] with wood from the arrangement of wood on the altar that was given to the owners of the Paschal lamb for this purpose. If a minority of it became impure, and similarly, with regard to the parts of the Paschal lamb that are leftover, which must be burned, the owners of the Paschal lamb burn it in their courtyards or on their roofs, with their own wood. Only the miserly, who want to save the expenditure of wood, burn it before the Temple in order to benefit from the wood of the arrangement.

‫יֹוסי ַ ּבר‬ ֵ ‫גמ׳ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ .‫ישן‬ ָ ׁ ְ‫ ְּכ ֵדי ְל ַבּי‬:‫ֲחנִינָ א‬

‫ וְ ֵכן ִמי‬:ּ‫ ו ְּר ִמינְ הו‬.‫״נִט ָמא ִמיעוּטֹו וכו׳״‬ ְ ‫ׁ ֶשּיָ צָ א ִמיר ּו ׁ ָש ַליִ ם וְ נִ זְ ַּכר ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ְ ּביָ דֹו‬ ‫צֹופים – ׂש ְֹורפֹו‬ ִ ‫ ִאם ָע ַבר‬,‫ְ ּב ַ ׂשר ק ֶֹד ׁש‬ ‫ וְ ִאם ָלאו‬,‫ִ ּב ְמקֹומֹו‬

gemara 

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Paschal lamb must be burned before the Temple and that those who prefer to burn it elsewhere are not permitted to do so? Rabbi Yosei bar Ĥanina said: In order to embarrass them.n Presumably, the reason that most of the offering became impure is because the owners were not sufficiently careful with it. Therefore, the Sages decreed that it be burned in a public place.

notes

In order to embarrass them – ‫ישן‬ ָ ׁ ְ‫כ ֵדי ְל ַבּי‬:ְּ In general, it is improper to embarrass sinners. Nevertheless, in this case, the embarrassment motivates them to be diligent in the future and to ensure that their Paschal lambs do not become impure (Hagahot Maharsham).

It was stated in the mishna that if a minority of it became ritually impure, and similarly, if part of it was left over, it is burned in the owners’ courtyards with their own wood. The Gemara raises a contradiction based on what was taught in a different mishna: And similarly, with regard to one who left Jerusalem and remembers that there is consecrated meat in his hand, which is now disqualified because it has left Jerusalem and must therefore be burned, if he passed Mount Scopus, he burns the meat at the site where he is located, and he need not return to burn it in Jerusalem; and if he has not yet passed Mount Scopus,

Perek VII Daf 82 Amud a ‫ חֹוזֵ ר וְ ׂש ְֹורפֹו ִל ְפ נֵ י ַה ִ ּב ָירה ֵמ ֲעצֵ י‬he must return and burn it before the Temple with wood from !‫ ַה ַּמ ֲע ָר ָכה‬the arrangement. The mishna’s formulation uses the word remembered, implying that not only a large piece of meat that became ritually impure or somehow disqualified, but even a piece that is so small that it could become forgotten, must be burnt with wood from the arrangement.

halakha

A visitor and a resident – ‫א ְכ ְסנַ אי ו ַּב ַעל ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬:ַ One who does not live in Jerusalem is permitted to burn the Paschal lamb or other sacrificial meat that has become ritually impure in the Temple using wood from the arrangement, in accordance with the rulings of Rav Ĥama bar Ukva and Rav Zevid (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 19:8).

,‫ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ָח ָמא ַ ּבר עו ְּק ָבא‬Rav Ĥama bar Ukva said: It is not difficult. Here, where it is .‫ ָּכאן – ְ ּב ַב ַעל ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬,‫ ָּכאן – ְ ּב ַא ְכ ְסנַ אי‬stated that one burns it in the Temple with wood from the arrangement, it is referring to a visitor who does not live in Jerusalem or have wood there, and he may therefore use wood from the arrangement. While there, where it is stated that one burns it at home with one’s own wood, it is referring to a resident of Jerusalem. ,‫ ָהא וְ ָהא ְ ּב ַא ְכ ְסנַ אי‬:‫ ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ָא ַמר‬Rav Pappa said: This case and that case both refer to a visitor. ‫ ָּכאן – ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא‬,‫ ָּכאן – ׁ ֶש ֶה ֱחזִ יק ַ ּבדֶּ ֶר ְך‬Here, where it is stated that one may use wood from the arrange. ְ‫ ֶה ֱחזִ יק ַ ּבדֶּ ֶרך‬ment, it is referring to one who already set out on the road, and it is difficult for him to collect wood. There, where it is stated that one must use his own wood, it is referring to a case in which the visitor has not yet set out on the road, and he can gather his own wood. ,‫עֹולם ְּכ ַד ֲא ַמר ֵמ ִע ָ ּיק ָרא‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬:‫ַרב ִזְביד ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ָּכאן – ְ ּב ַב ַעל‬,‫ָּכאן – ְ ּב ַא ְכ ְסנַ אי‬ , ְ‫ וְ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ל ֹא ֶה ֱחזִ יק ַ ּבדֶּ ֶרך‬.‫ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬ ‫יה – ֲע ָ ׂשאוּה ּו‬ ּ ‫ַא ְכ ְסנַ אי ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ֵלית ֵל‬ ‫ ַה ַ ּציְ ָקנִין ׂש ְֹור ִפין אֹותֹו‬:‫ דִּ ְתנַ ן‬.‫ַּכ ַ ּציְ ָקנִין‬ ‫יהנֹות ֵמ ֲעצֵ י‬ ָ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ֵל‬,‫ִל ְפנֵי ַה ִ ּב ָירה‬ .‫ַה ַּמ ֲע ָר ָכה‬

Rav Zevid disagreed with Rav Pappa and clarified Rav Ĥama bar Ukva’s opinion. He said: Actually, it can be explained as Rav Ĥama initially said: Here, it is referring to a visitor; there, it is referring to a resident.h And even though he did not yet set out on the road, a visitor may use wood from the arrangement for the following reason: Since he does not have his own wood, the Sages treated him like the misers, as we learned in a mishna: The misers burn it before the Temple in order to benefit from the wood of the arrangement. This indicates that anyone who is unconcerned about his reputation, like a miser, may use wood from the arrangement, and this is not considered to be a misuse of consecrated property. Similarly, the Sages also permitted a visitor to use wood from the arrangement.

‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫רֹות‬ ֵ ְ‫ ָ ּבא ּו ְל ׂש ְֹורפֹו ְ ּב ַחצ‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ .‫ֹומ ִעין ָל ֶהן‬ ְ ‫ו ֵּמ ֲעצֵ י ַה ַּמ ֲע ָר ָכה – ֵאין ׁש‬ ‫ֹומ ִעין‬ ְ ‫ִל ְפנֵי ַה ִ ּב ָירה ו ֵּמ ֲעצֵ י ַעצְ ָמן ֵאין ׁש‬ .‫ָל ֶהן‬

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: If individuals came and wanted to burn the Paschal lamb that had become ritually impure in their courtyards and wanted to take wood from the arrangement to use for this purpose, one does not listen to them. Similarly, if they wanted to burn it before the Temple with their own wood, one does not listen to them.



‫בפ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 82a 

103

halakha

Lest they leave over some of the wood – ‫ישן‬ ָ ׁ ְ‫דִּ ְיל ָמא ּ ָפי‬: It is prohibited to take wood from the arrangement in order to burn one’s Paschal lamb in one’s own courtyard, lest one benefit from the wood for a different purpose (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 4:3). Before the Temple with their own wood – ‫ִל ְפנֵי ַה ִ ּב ָירה‬ ‫מ ֲעצֵ י ַעצְ ָמן‬:ֵ It is prohibited to burn one’s Paschal lamb in the Temple with his own wood, because one might be suspected of stealing wood from the Temple by taking home the unused wood. Therefore, it is permitted to bring wood that is not fit for the arrangement on the altar, such as reeds and palm branches. This ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rava, who was the last of the amora’im to state an opinion on this issue (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 4:3). Would stand the ritually impure priests – ‫ָהיָה ַמ ֲע ִמיד ֶאת‬ ‫ה ְּט ֵמ ִאין‬:ַ The head of the watch would stand the ritually impure priests at the eastern gate so the people would not suspect them of neglecting the Temple service in order to engage in their professions. This is the opinion of Rava, who was the last of the amora’im to state an opinion on this issue (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Temidin UMussafin 6:5).

‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫רֹות‬ ֵ ְ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ֵמ ֲעצֵ י ַה ַּמ ֲע ָר ָכה ְ ּב ַחצ‬ ‫ישן‬ ָ ׁ ְ‫ֹומ ִעין ָל ֶהן – דִּ ְיל ָמא ּ ָפי‬ ְ ‫ֵאין ׁש‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא‬.‫ִמ ּינַיְ יה ּו וַ ֲאת ּו ְ ּבה ּו ִל ֵידי ַּת ָ ּק ָלה‬ ‫ִל ְפנֵי ַה ִ ּב ָירה ֵמ ֲעצֵ י ַעצְ ָמן ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬ ?‫ל ֹא‬

The Gemara asks: Granted, if people want to burn it with wood from the arrangement in their own courtyards one does not listen to them. This is because the Sages were concerned lest they leave over some of the woodh they took to burn the Paschal lamb and come to experience a mishap with it by using the wood for another purpose. But in the case in which they wanted to burn the offering before the Temple with their own wood,hn what is the reason one does not listen to them?

‫ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ְל ַבּיֵ ׁיש ֶאת ִמי‬:‫יֹוסף ָא ַמר‬ ֵ ‫ ַרב‬Rav Yosef said: It is in order not to embarrass one who does not .‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ַה ֲח ׁ ָשד‬:‫ ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬.‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאין לֹו‬have the means to bring his own wood. If it were permitted to bring one’s own wood to burn in the Temple, people would realize that only the poor people take wood from the Temple. This would be embarrassing to the poor. Rava said: It is due to suspicion. People would take back their own unused wood that they had brought, and others might suspect that they were stealing consecrated wood from the Temple. ‫ דְּ ַאיְ ִיתי‬:ּ‫יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יהו‬ ָּ ‫ ַמאי ֵ ּבינַיְ יהוּ? ִא‬The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two .‫ דְּ ָלא ֲחזִ י ַל ַּמ ֲע ָר ָכה‬,‫יֹותא‬ ָ ‫ ָקנֵי וְ ָח ָר‬answers? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is the case of one who brings reeds or palm branchesn that are not fit for the arrangement. Since these types of branches are not used for the arrangement of wood on the altar, there is no concern that people would be wrongly suspected of stealing them from the Temple; therefore, Rava would permit it. However, the concern that the poor will be embarrassed is still relevant, and so Rav Yosef would prohibit it. ‫ֹאש ַה ַּמ ֲע ָמד ָהיָ ה ַמ ֲע ִמיד‬ ׁ ‫ ר‬:‫ְּתנַן ָה ָתם‬ ‫ ַמאי‬.‫ֶאת ַה ְּט ֵמ ִאין ַעל ׁ ַש ַער ַה ִּמזְ ָרח‬ .‫ישן‬ ָ ׁ ְ‫ ְּכ ֵדי ְל ַבּי‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ַט ְע ָמא? ָא ַמר ַרב‬ .‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ַה ֲח ׁ ָשד‬:‫ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬

Another mishna teaches a similar dispute between Rav Yosef and Rava on a different subject: We learned in a mishna there, in tractate Tamid: The headn of the watchn would stand the ritually impuren priestsh at the entrance to the eastern gate each morning. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they did not simply send them home without making them stand at the entrance to the eastern gate? Rav Yosef said: It was in order to embarrass them for not having been careful to avoid becoming impure. Rava said: They would stand them there to avoid suspicion,n so that people would realize that they were not performing the Temple service because they were impure, rather than in order to work in their regular professions.

,‫ ְמ ַפ ְּנ ִקי‬:ּ‫יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יהו‬ ָּ ‫ ַמאי ֵ ּבינַיְ יהוּ? ִא‬The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two .‫ דְּ ָקא ָ ּג ֵדיל ׁ ִש ׁישו ָּרא‬:‫ ִאי נַ ִמי‬opinions? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is the case of pampered people who never work, whom others would not suspect of avoiding Temple service in order to work in their regular professions. Alternatively, it is the case of one who twists ropesn for a living. No one would suspect someone of missing the Temple service in order to work in such a lowly and non-profitable occupation. These two categories of people would not have to stand at the gate according to Rava’s opinion, but would have to according to Rav Yosef ’s opinion. notes

Before the Temple with their own wood – ‫ִל ְפנֵי ַה ִ ּב ָירה ֵמ ֲעצֵ י‬ ‫עצְ ָמן‬:ַ In the Jerusalem Talmud, a different reason is given: If people would bring their own wood to the Temple, it would be impossible to identify the misers who would use wood from the arrangement to burn part of their offering, since one would never know who was using his own wood and who was using wood from the arrangement. Therefore, the Sages decreed that no one may use his own wood before the Temple, so that the misers would be clearly identifiable, as the only ones burning the minority of a Paschal lamb before the Temple would be those who were too miserly to use their own wood. Reeds or palm branches – ‫יֹותא‬ ָ ‫קנֵי וְ ָח ָר‬:ָ It is stated explicitly in the Mishna that the only wood used for the arrangement was wood that burned well and that came from trees that were common in Eretz Yisrael. Wood that did not burn nicely or wood from trees whose felling would harm the settlement of Eretz Yisrael was not used.

who was in charge of the Jews who came to the Temple. The members of the non-priestly watch worked together with the members of the priestly watch. Each non-priestly watch had a permanent head (Me’iri; see Rashash). A non-priestly watch – ‫מ ֲע ָמד‬:ַ Each priestly watch in turn was responsible for sacrificing the offerings for one week. They were called upon to perform this service twice a year on average. Corresponding to each of these watches was a group of nonpriests, called a non-priestly watch. The entire Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael was divided into twenty-four non-priestly watches, and each time a priestly watch went to Jerusalem to sacrifice offerings, part of the corresponding non-priestly watch would go there as well. The remainder of the non-priestly watch would remain at home and would fast during that week on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and they would read special portions from the Torah and recite additional prayers.

it refers to the lepers who have purified themselves and are waiting to sacrifice their offerings in order to complete their purification process. The head of the watch would line them up at the eastern gate so that they would be ready to have the blood of the guilt-offering sprinkled on their behalf. Tosefot Yom Tov explains how this approach fits into the Gemara. To avoid suspicion – ‫מ ּ ְפנֵי ַה ֲח ׁ ָשד‬:ִ Rabbeinu Ĥananel explains that the concern was that people would suspect the ritually impure priests of performing the Temple service in a state of impurity.

One who twists ropes – ‫דְּ ָקא ָ ּג ֵדיל ׁ ִש ׁישו ָּרא‬: The Arukh explains that this is not meant as a description of a profession. Rather, it is a verb that describes the person’s activity at that moment in time. If the ritually impure priest is actually twisting ropes at the time, passersby will not realize that he is standing Would stand the ritually impure – ‫היָ ה ַמ ֲע ִמיד ֶאת ַה ְּט ֵמ ִאין‬:ָ In there because he is impure, as they will assume he is simply Head – ‫ֹאש‬ ׁ ‫ר‬: Apparently, the term: Head of the watch, in this the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishna, he explains that this engaged in the activity of twisting ropes. Therefore, he will not context, is referring to the head of the non-priestly watch, does not refer to the ritually impure priests (Tamid 5:6). Rather, be embarrassed.

104 

Perek VII . 82a . ‫בפ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

– ‫מתני׳ ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֶשּיָ צָ א אֹו ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְט ָמא‬ – ‫נִט ְמא ּו ַה ְ ּב ָע ִלים אֹו ׁ ֶש ֵּמת ּו‬ ְ .‫יִש ֵרף ִמּיָ ד‬ ָׂ ּ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ְּתעו ַ ּּבר צו ָּרתֹו וְ יִ ּ ָ ׂש ֵרף ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר‬ ‫ ַאף זֶ ה יִ ּ ָ ׂש ֵרף‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫רֹוקה‬ ָ ‫יֹוחנָ ן ֶ ּבן ְ ּב‬ ָ .‫אֹוכ ִלין‬ ְ ‫ ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין לֹו‬,‫ִמּיָ ד‬

mishna 

A Paschal lamb that was taken outn of its permissible area or that became ritually impureh should be burned immediately on the eve of Passover. If the owners became ritually impureh or died, its form must be allowed to decay by leaving it for a period of time instead of burning it immediately, and it should be burned on the sixteenth of Nisan, immediately after the first day of the Festival. Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Beroka says: This, too, should be burned immediately, because it has no one to eat it, which is also so severe a disqualification that decay of form is not required.

gemara 

The Gemara asks: Granted, the fact that ‫ ״וְ ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬:‫גמ׳ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ָט ֵמא – ְּכ ִתיב‬ ritually impure sacrificial meat must be ‫ֲא ׁ ֶשר ַ ּיִגע ְ ּב ָכל ָט ֵמא ל ֹא יֵ ָא ֵכל ָ ּב ֵא ׁש‬ burned is written in the Torah, as it says: “The flesh that touches ?‫ ֶא ָּלא יֹוצֵ א ְמ ַנָלן‬.‫ יִ ּ ָ ׂש ֵרף״‬any impure item shall not be eaten, it shall be burned in fire” (Leviticus 7:19). But sacrificial meat that is taken out of its permissible area, from where do we derive that it must be burned? ‫״הן ל ֹא הו ָּבא ֶאת דָּ ָמ ּה ֶאל‬ ֵ :‫דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ :‫ ָא ַמר לֹו מ ׁ ֶֹשה ְל ַא ֲהרֹן‬,‫נִימה״‬ ָ ‫ַה ּק ֶֹד ׁש ּ ְפ‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ָּמא‬,‫ַמדּ ו ַּע ל ֹא ֲא ַכ ְל ֶּתם ֶאת ַה ַח ָּטאת‬ .‫ ָלאו‬:‫נִ ְכנַס דָּ ָמ ּה ִל ְפנַי וְ ִל ְפנִים? ָא ַמר לֹו‬

The Gemara responds: It is derived from the verses describing Moses admonishing Aaron and his sons about the fact that they did not eat the sin-offering on the eighth day of inauguration, as it is written: “Behold, its blood was not brought into the Sanctuary within; you should have eaten it in the Sanctuary, as I commanded” (Leviticus 10:18). This should be understood as follows: Moses said to Aaron: Why didn’t you eat the sin-offering? Perhaps its blood entered the innermost chamber, the Sanctuary, in which case it must be burned? Aaron said to him: No.

?‫יצ ָת ּה יָ צְ ָתה‬ ּ ָ ‫ ׁ ֶש ָּמא חוּץ ִל ְמ ִח‬:‫ָא ַמר לֹו‬ :‫ ָא ַמר לֹו‬.‫ ַ ּב ּק ֶֹוד ׁש ָהיְ ָתה‬,‫ ָלאו‬:‫ָא ַמר לֹו‬ ‫ ״וְ ֵהן ל ֹא הו ָּבא ֶאת‬,‫ִאי ַ ּב ּק ֶֹוד ׁש ָהיְ ָתה‬ ‫נִימה״ ַמדּ ּו ַע ל ֹא‬ ָ ‫דָּ ָמ ּה ֶאל ַה ּק ֶֹד ׁש ּ ְפ‬ ,‫אֹות ּה? ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ִאי נָ ְפ ָקא‬ ָ ‫ֲא ַכ ְל ֶּתם‬ ‫ִאי נַ ִמי ָעיֵ יל דָּ ָמ ּה ִל ְפנִים – ַ ּבת ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה‬ .‫ִהיא‬

Moses said to him: Perhaps it was taken outside of its boundary, and that is the reason you did not eat it? He said to him: No, it was in the sacred area, i.e., the courtyard. Moses said to him: If it was in the sacred area the entire time, behold, its blood was not brought into the Sanctuary within, why didn’t you eat it? This proves by inference that if it leaves its boundary, or alternatively, if its blood enters within the Sanctuary of the Temple, it must be burned. This can serve as a model for all offerings.

‫נִט ָמא – ַ ּג ֵּלי ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ְ ּב ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬ ְ ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא‬.‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ְ ּב ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬,‫ַק ִּלים‬ – ‫ ַא ׁ ְש ַּכ ַחן ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ַה ֳ ּק ָד ׁ ִשים‬,‫יֹוצֵ א‬ :‫ ָהא דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,ּ‫ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַק ִּלים ְמ ַנָלן? וְ תו‬ ,‫ָלן דָּ ָמ ּה‬

The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to sacrificial meat that became ritually impure, the Merciful One reveals that halakha in the Torah with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity, as the verse: “The flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten,” is referring to a peace-offering, and it applies all the more so with regard to offerings of the most sacred order. However, with regard to sacrificial meat that is taken out of its boundary, we have found a source that this applies to offerings of only the most sacred order. With regard to offerings of lesser sanctity, such as the Paschal lamb, from where do we derive that they too must be burned? And furthermore, with regard to that which is taught in a baraita: If the blood of an offering was left overnight instead of being sprinkled on the altar on the day it was slaughtered,

notes

A Paschal lamb that was taken out – ‫ה ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֶשּיָ צָ א‬:ַ In the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishna, he explains that this is referring to a Paschal lamb that was removed from the house in which it was to be eaten, which is also improper movement for the Paschal lamb. See Ĥazon Naĥum, which addresses the questions of the commentaries concerning the Rambam’s explanation. halakha

A Paschal lamb that was taken out or that became ritually impure – ‫פ ַסח ׁ ֶשּיָ צָ א אֹו ׁ ֶש ּנ ְִט ָמא‬:ֶ ּ A Paschal lamb that was taken out of Jerusalem or that became ritually impure should be burned immediately on the eve of Passover, in accordance with the mishna (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 4:3). If the owners became ritually impure – ‫נִט ְמא ּו ַה ְ ּב ָע ִלים‬: ְ If the owners of a Paschal lamb became ritually impure or died, the meat is allowed to decay and is then burned on the sixteenth of Nisan, in accordance with the mishna (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 4:3).

Perek VII Daf 82 Amud b ,‫ יָ צָ א דָּ ָמ ּה חוּץ ַל ְּק ָל ִעים‬,‫נִש ּ ַפ ְך דָּ ָמ ּה‬ ְ ׁ or its blood was spilled, or its blood was taken outside the hang?‫ימא ָלן ִ ּב ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה ְמ ַנָלן‬ ָ ְ‫ דְּ ָקי‬ings that denoted the courtyard of the Tabernacle, we maintain that it must be burned; from where do we derive this halakha? ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ דְּ ַתנְיָ א‬.‫ נָ ְפ ָקא ָלן ִמדְּ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬The Gemara answers: We derive it from the exposition of Rabbi – ‫״ב ּק ֶֹד ׁש ָ ּב ֵא ׁש ִּת ּ ָ ׂש ֵרף״‬ ּ ַ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬Shimon, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: The ּ .‫ימד ַעל ַח ָטאת ׁ ֶש ּ ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפ ָת ּה ַ ּב ּק ֶֹוד ׁש‬ ֵּ ‫ ִל‬verse that states: “Any sin-offering from which some blood has been brought to the Tent of Meeting, to make atonement in the sacred place, shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in fire” (Leviticus 6:23), has taught that the burning of a sin-offering is in the sacred area, the Temple courtyard. 

‫בפ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 82b 

105

halakha

Burning disqualified offerings – ‫ש ֵר ַפת ּ ְפסו ֵּלי מו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין‬: ׂ ְ It is a positive mitzva to burn all consecrated animals and sacrificial items that have become ritually impure, as stated in the Gemara (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 19:1).

‫ ׁ ְש ָאר ּ ְפסו ֵּלי‬,‫ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָּלא זֹו ִ ּב ְל ַבד‬ ‫ וְ ֵאימו ֵּרי ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַק ִּלים‬,‫ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬ ‫ ״(וְ ָכל) ַ ּב ּק ֶֹד ׁש‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ִמ ּנַיִ ן? ַּת ְלמוּד‬ .‫ָ ּב ֵא ׁש ִּת ּ ָ ׂש ֵרף״‬

I have derived only that the halakha applies to this alone, a sin-offering; with regard to the rest of the disqualified offerings of the most sacred order and the portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that are consumed on the altar, from where do we derive that they must be burned in the Temple courtyard, which is their boundary when they are valid? The verse states: “Any…in the sacred place… shall be burned in fire,” which teaches that any consecrated item must be burned in a sacred place.

‫ ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬,‫ַא ׁ ְש ַּכ ַח ן ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬ ‫ ָּכל ּ ְפסוּלֹו ַ ּב ּק ֶֹד ׁש‬:‫ַק ִּלים ְמ ַנָלן? ֶא ָּלא‬ ‫ ָלא ׁ ְשנָ א ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַק ִּלים וְ ָלא‬,‫ִ ּב ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה‬ ‫ׁ ְשנָ א ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ָק ָד ׁ ִשים – ְ ּג ָמ ָרא ְ ּג ִמ ִירי‬ ‫ וְ ַח ָּטאת דְּ ַא ֲהרֹן – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬.‫ָל ּה‬ .‫ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ָּכךְ ָהיָ ה‬

The Gemara asks further: We found a source for offerings of the most sacred order; from where do we derive that it also applies to offerings of lesser sanctity? Rather, we must say as follows: Anything disqualified in the sacred area, the Temple courtyard, must be burned.h It is no different whether it is an offerings of lesser sanctity, and it is no different whether it is offerings of the most sacred order; they learned it as a tradition. And the sin-offering of Aaron that was burned on the eighth day of inauguration was mentioned only because the incident that took place,n took place in this way. It was not mentioned in order to teach the halakhot of offerings.

notes

The incident that took place – ‫מ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה‬:ַ Halakha is derived from expositions and inferences made from verses that teach how mitzvot are to be performed. This is not necessarily the case with regard to verses that relate a particular narrative episode. Although halakha is at times derived from such verses, the general assumption is that they were written to record the details of the incident and not to teach the halakha. Provisional edict – ‫הֹור ַאת ׁ ָש ָעה‬: ָ This concept explains numerous incidents described in the Torah that do not conform to permanent halakhic guidelines, some of which occurred when the pertinent halakha had not yet been given to the Jewish people. In these instances, a specific mitzva was given as a temporary measure and the Jewish people acted on it; however, practical halakha cannot be derived from it. None of the events of the eight days of inauguration were ever repeated, nor could they ever be repeated, because they were all included in the category of provisional edicts. There are also some examples of provisional edicts instituted by the Sages, when the unique needs of the time required acting more leniently or more strictly than the halakha generally allows or requires. The principle “It is time to act for the Lord; they have made void Your law” (Psalms 119:126) dictates that at times even Torah law may be violated in order to uphold the Torah.

:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ ו ְּל ַת ָּנא דְּ ֵבי ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ֲאבו ּּה‬The Gemara proceeds to ask an unrelated question with regard to ‫ ְמנָ א‬,‫יבוּר צו ָּרה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ּ ִפיגּ וּל ָטעוּן ִע‬piggul: And according to the opinion of the tanna from the school ?‫ ָלן‬of Rabba bar Avuh, who said that even piggul, which is a disqualification of the animal itself, requires decay of form, meaning that it must be left over until the next day so that it will begin to decay and is only then burned, from where do we derive that it requires decay of form? .‫ֹותר‬ ָ ּ‫״ע�ֹון״ ִמנ‬ ָ ‫״ע�ֹון״‬ ָ ‫ יָ ֵליף‬The Gemara answers: It is derived from a verbal analogy from the parallel words “iniquity” and “iniquity.” With regard to piggul, the verse states: “It remains rejected [piggul]; and the soul that eats it shall bear its iniquity” (Leviticus 7:18), and with regard to leftover sacrificial meat, the verse states: “And whatever is leftover…shall be burned in fire…and each of those who eat it shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 19:6–8). Just as leftover sacrificial meat is burned after it has been left over to the next day, so too, piggul is burned only after it has been left over to the next day and its form has decayed. .‫״ע�ֹון״ ֵמ ַח ָּטאת דְּ ַא ֲהרֹן‬ ָ ‫״ע�ֹון״‬ ָ ‫נֵילף‬ ַ ְ‫ו‬ ּ ‫ ַח ָטאת דְּ ַא ֲהרֹן ִּכי ַהאי‬:‫ָא ַמר ָל ְך‬ ,‫יבוּר צו ָּרה ְלדֹורֹות ָ ּב ֲעיָ א‬ ּ ‫ַ ּגוְ ונָ א נַ ִמי ִע‬ .‫הֹור ַאת ׁ ָש ָעה ָהיְ ָתה‬ ָ – ‫וְ ָה ָתם‬

The Gemara asks: Let us instead learn the rules of piggul through a verbal analogy based on the parallel words “iniquity” and “iniquity” from the sin-offering of Aaron, with regard to which the verse states: “Why did you not eat the sin-offering in the place of sanctity…and He gave it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation” (Leviticus 10:17). The sin-offering of Aaron was burned immediately, without decay of form, so why can it not be learned from there that piggul does not require decay of form either? That tanna could have said to you: The sin-offering of Aaron in a case like this would also require decay of form were it to occur in future generations; but there, when it was burned immediately, it was a provisional edictn issued in exigent circumstances.

‫ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן ָּכל ּ ְפסו ֵּלי דְּ ק ֶֹד ׁש‬ ‫ ָלא ׁ ְשנָ א דְּ ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬,‫יפה‬ ָ ‫ִ ּב ְ ׂש ֵר‬ ּ ּ ּ ‫וְ ָלא ׁ ְשנָ א ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַק ִלים ְג ָמ ָרא ְג ִמ ִירי‬ ?‫״ב ּק ֶֹד ׁש ָ ּב ֵא ׁש ִּת ּ ָ ׂש ֵרף״ ָל ָּמה ִלי‬ ּ ַ .‫ָל ּה‬ .‫יה ׁ ֶש ּ ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפ ָת ּה ַ ּב ּק ֶֹד ׁש‬ ּ ‫ַההוּא ִמ ָ ּב ֵעי ֵל‬

The Gemara asks: Now that we say that we have accepted the conclusion that all disqualified sacred offerings must be burned, and it is no different whether they are disqualified offerings of the most sacred order or offerings of lesser sanctity, because in both cases they learned it as a tradition, with regard to the verse that says: “In the sacred place…shall be burned in fire,” why do I need it? What does this verse teach that is not known from oral tradition? The Gemara answers: That verse is required to teach that the requirement of burning that is learned from the oral tradition cannot take place anywhere; its burning must take place only in the sacred place, the Temple courtyard.

‫ ״וְ ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ֲא ׁ ֶשר יִ ַ ּגע ְ ּב ָכל ָט ֵמא ל ֹא‬The Gemara asks further: If the source of the halakha is an oral ‫ יֵ ָא ֵכל ָ ּב ֵא ׁש יִ ּ ָ ׂש ֵרף״ ָל ָּמה ִלי? ַההוּא‬tradition, with regard to the verse that states: “The flesh that touch. ְ‫יה ִאיצְ ְט ִריך‬ ּ ‫ ְלגו ֵּפ‬es any impure item shall not be eaten, it shall be burned in fire” (Leviticus 7:19), why do I need it? This halakha is included in the oral tradition and should not require its own verse.

106 

Perek VII . 82b . ‫בפ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

‫ ְּכגֹון ָלן‬,‫ ָּכל ּ ְפסו ֵּלי דְּ ק ֶֹד ׁש‬:‫ ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָתךְ ָא ִמינָ א‬The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary for itself. It could enter ‫נִש ֲח ָטה ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה‬ ְ ׁ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ וְ יָ צָ א דָּ ָמ ּה‬,‫נִש ּ ַפךְ דָּ ָמ ּה‬ ְ ׁ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ דָּ ָמ ּה‬your mind to say that disqualified sacred offerings include only a case .‫יתנְ ה ּו ְ ּבחו ִּּלין‬ ְ ‫ דְּ ִב ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה – דְּ ֵל‬where its blood was left overnight instead of being sprinkled on the altar on the day the offering was slaughtered; or its blood was spilled; or its blood was taken outside the hangings; and similarly, the case of an offering that was slaughtered at night. In all these cases, the offering must be burned because these are disqualifications unique to sanctified offerings that do not exist with regard to unconsecrated items. ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ דִּ ְבחו ִּלין נַ ִמי ִמ ְפ ִסיל – ֵא‬,‫ֲא ָבל נִ ְט ָמא‬ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬,‫עֹוב ִדין דְּ חֹול‬ ָ ‫יה‬ ְ ‫הֹואיל וְ ִא‬ ִ ּ ‫ית ֲע ִביד ֵ ּב‬ ‫ ָקא‬,‫יה ִ ּב ְקבו ָּרה‬ ְ ‫ וְ ִת‬,‫יב ֵעי ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה‬ ּ ָ ‫ָלא ִּת‬ ּ ‫יסגֵ י ֵל‬ .‫ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬

But if the meat became ritually impure, which disqualifies unconsecrated meat also, say that since it was treated in the manner of unconsecrated items, as the disqualification is not unique to consecrated items, it should not require burning, and burial should be sufficient for it.n Therefore, the verse teaches us that an offering that is disqualified through ritual impurity must also be burned.

‫״נִ ְט ְמא ּו ַה ְ ּב ָע ִלים אֹו ׁ ֶש ֵּמת ּו ְּתעו ַ ּּבר צו ָּר ָתן‬ ‫לֹוקת ׁ ֶש ּנ ְִט ְמא ּו ְ ּב ָע ִלים‬ ֶ ‫ ַמ ֲח‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬.‫וכו׳״‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬.‫ית ְחזִ י ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה‬ ַּ ‫ דְּ ִא‬,‫ַא ַחר זְ ִר ָיקה‬ ‫ית ְחזִ י ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ ַּ ‫ דְּ ָלא ִא‬,‫נִט ְמא ּו ְ ּב ָע ִלים ִל ְפנֵי זְ ִר ָיקה‬ ְ .‫ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל יִ ּ ָ ׂש ֵרף ִמּיָ ד‬

It was taught in the mishna that if the owners of the offering became ritually impureh or died before the offering was completed, its form must be left to decay, and it is burned after the first day of the Festival. Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Beroka disagrees and says that it is burned immediately. Rav Yosef said: This dispute is about a case in which the owners became ritually impure after the sprinkling of the blood, because the meat was fit for eating since all its services were completed in a valid way. But if the owners became ritually impure before the sprinkling of the blood, such that the meat was not fit for eating even for a moment, all agree that it should be burned immediately.

‫ ּכֹל ׁ ֶש ּ ְפסוּלֹו ְ ּבגוּפֹו – יִ ּ ָ ׂש ֵרף‬:‫ זֶ ה ַה ְּכ ָלל‬:‫ית ִיבי‬ ִ ‫ ֵמ‬The Gemara raises an objection to this statement based on the Tosefta: ‫ וְ יֵ צֵ א‬,‫ ַ ּבדָּ ם ו ַּב ְ ּב ָע ִלים – ְּתעו ַ ּּבר צו ָּרתֹו‬,‫ ִמּיָ ד‬This is the principle: In all cases in which its disqualification is in .‫ ְל ֵבית ַה ּ ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה‬itself, it should be burned immediately. If the disqualification is in the blood of the offering or in the owners, its form should be left to decay, and then it should be taken out to the place designated for burning. – ‫ ַמה דָּ ם ִל ְפנֵי זְ ִר ָיקה‬,‫ ָק ָתנֵי ְ ּב ָע ִלים דּ ו ְּמיָ א דְּ ָדם‬The following inference can be made based on the formulation of the !‫ ַאף ְ ּב ָע ִלים ִל ְפנֵי זְ ִר ָיקה‬Tosefta: It is teaching that the case of disqualified owners is similar to the case of disqualified blood:n Just as in the case of blood the disqualification necessarily occurred before the sprinkling of the blood, as the offering is not disqualified if anything happens to the blood after sprinkling, so too, the case of owners is referring to one in which they became disqualified even before the sprinkling of the blood, which contradicts the statement of Rav Yosef. ‫לֹוקת‬ ֶ ‫ ַמ ֲח‬:‫ית ַמר‬ ְּ ‫ית ַמר ָה ִכי ִא‬ ְּ ‫ ִאי ִא‬,‫ֶא ָּלא‬ ‫ית ְחזִ י‬ ַּ ‫ ְל ָלא ִא‬,‫ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְט ְמא ּו ְ ּב ָע ִלים ִל ְפנֵי זְ ִר ָיקה‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬.‫יה ִּכ ְפסוּלֹו ְ ּבגוּפֹו‬ ּ ‫ דַּ ֲהוָ ה ֵל‬,‫ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה‬ ‫ית ְחזִ י ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ ַּ ‫ דְּ ִא‬,‫נִ ְט ְמא ּו ְ ּב ָע ִלים ְל ַא ַחר זְ ִר ָיקה‬ ,‫ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ּ ְפסוּלֹו ֵמ ֲח ַמת דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר‬ .‫יבוּר צו ָּרה‬ ּ ‫ו ָּב ֲעיָ א ִע‬

Rather, if this was stated in the name of Rav Yosef, it was stated as follows: This dispute is specifically about a case in which the owners became ritually impure before the sprinkling of the blood, such that the meat was never fit for eating, which makes it as though its disqualification is in itself. But if the owners became ritually impure after sprinkling of the blood, such that the meat was fit for eating, all agree that its disqualification is due to a different matter, i.e., an external factor, and it requires decay of form.

.‫לֹוקת‬ ֶ ‫ ַאף ְל ַא ַחר זְ ִר ָיקה נַ ִמי ַמ ֲח‬:‫יֹוחנָן ָא ַמר‬ ָ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫יה‬ ָ ‫וְ ָאזְ ָדא ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫יֹוחנָן ְל ַט ְע ֵמ‬ .‫רֹוקה וְ ַר ִ ּבי נְ ֶח ְמיָ ה ָא ְמר ּו דָּ ָבר ֶא ָחד‬ ָ ‫יֹוחנָן ֶ ּבן ְ ּב‬ ָ .‫רֹוקה – ָהא דַּ ֲא ַמ ַרן‬ ָ ‫יֹוחנָן ֶ ּבן ְ ּב‬ ָ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬

And Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Even a case in which the owners became ritually impure after sprinkling the blood is included in the dispute about whether decay of form is necessary. And Rabbi Yoĥanan follows his line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Beroka and Rabbi Neĥemya said the same thing. The statement of Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Beroka is that which we said.

notes

Burial should be sufficient for it – ‫יה‬ ְ ‫ִּת‬ ּ ‫יסגֵ י ֵל‬ ‫ב ְקבו ָּרה‬:ּ ִ The general rationale behind burying certain disqualified, consecrated items is so that people do not benefit from them in a prohibited manner. However, Rashi gives a different reason: The impure sacrificial meat would have been buried to prevent it from being treated disrespectfully. The case of owners is similar to the case of blood – ‫ב ָע ִלים דּ ו ְּמיָא דְּ ָדם‬:ּ ְ The Gemara could have challenged Rav Yosef’s statement based on the halakha pertaining to the blood itself: If the blood becomes ritually impure even before its sprinkling, the meat of the offering must be set aside so it will decay. Apparently, the Gemara preferred to base its question on the case of owners who became ritually impure because they are totally disqualified from participating in the Paschal lamb. In the case of blood that became impure, however, the owner may still bring another Paschal lamb if he has time to do so (Sefat Emet). Aaron’s sin-offering – ‫ח ָּטאת ַא ֲהרֹן‬:ַ The Torah does not clearly explain why the sin-offering of the inauguration was burned instead of being eaten. The tanna’im disputed this point. Some Sages said that it was burned due to Aaron’s acute mourning, while others maintained it was burned because the sin-offering became ritually impure (Zevaĥim 101a). Acute mourning – ‫אנִינוּת‬: ֲ Acute mourning is the term utilized to describe the status of a person on the day an immediate relative dies, before the burial. The halakha is that if a common priest performs the Temple service while in acute mourning, his service is disqualified. A High Priest may perform the service in the Temple while in acute mourning but is not permitted to eat consecrated food. halakha

If the owners became ritually impure, etc. – ‫נִט ְמא ּו ַה ְ ּב ָע ִלים וכו׳‬: ְ If the owners of an offering became ritually impure or died, the offering should be left to decay and should then be burned after the first day of the Festival. This rule applies even if the owners became impure or died before the sprinkling of the blood, because the halakha is in accordance with the anonymous opinion cited in the mishna (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 4:3).

‫ ַר ִ ּבי נְ ֶח ְמיָ ה‬,‫ ַר ִ ּבי נְ ֶח ְמיָ ה ַמאי ִהיא – דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬With regard to Rabbi Neĥemya, what is the ruling in which he expressed his opinion? It is as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Neĥemya ‫ ְל ָכ ְך נֶ ֱא ַמר‬,‫נִש ְר ָפה זֹו‬ ׂ ְ ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ֲאנִינוּת‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ n .‫״כ ֵא ֶּלה״‬ ָּ says: Aaron’s sin-offering that was burned onn the eighth day of inauguration was burned due to acute mourning, as that was the day his sons Nadav and Avihu died. For this reason, it is stated that Aaron explained to Moses: “Now that events such as these befell me, were I to eat this day’s sin-offering would the Lord approve?” (Leviticus 10:19). In other words, it was due to the deaths of his sons, which Aaron referred as “events such as these,” that Aaron burned the sin-offering instead of eating it. 

‫בפ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 82b 

107

,‫ וְ ָהא ֲאנִינוּת ִּכ ְל ַא ַחר זְ ִר ָיקה ָהוְ יָ א‬Rabbi Yoĥanan analyzes Rabbi Neĥemya’s statement: Now, acute )‫(נִש ָּתרוּף‬ ׂ ְ ‫ וְ ִכי ִא ְ ׂש ָּתרוּף – ְל ַא ְל ַּתר‬mourning is similar to a case of disqualification after sprinkling of the blood, because acute mourning merely disqualifies the owners from eating the offering. It does not disqualify the actual performance of the sacrificial service by a High Priest, such as Aaron. Therefore, it is like other disqualifications that take effect after the sprinkling, which simply prohibit the eating of the meat. And when it was burned, it was burned immediately, without waiting until the following day. This shows that Rabbi Neĥemya agrees that an offering that becomes disqualified after its blood has been sprinkled should be burned immediately.

Perek VII Daf 83 Amud a notes

Bulls…and goats that are burned – ‫ּ ָפ ִרים… ּו ְ ׂש ִע ִירין‬ ‫ִש ָר ִפין‬ ׂ ְ ‫ה ּנ‬:ַ There are different types of sin-offerings, and a distinction is made between inner sin-offerings, which are also known as bulls and goats that are burned, and regular sin-offerings, which are outer sin-offerings. Inner sin-offerings are sacrificed to atone for the sins of the community or the High Priest. Their blood is sprinkled on the curtain of the Holy of Holies and on the golden altar inside the Sanctuary of the Temple (see Leviticus 4). These sin-offerings are not eaten at all, and their meat is burned. The blood of outer sin-offerings is sprinkled on the outer altar in the courtyard of the Temple, and their meat is eaten by the priests. Inside the Sanctuary – ‫ל ְפנַי וְ ִל ְפנִים‬:ִ This expression, which usually refers to entering the Holy of Holies, is not meant to be understood literally in this context, as only the blood of the bull and goat sacrificed on Yom Kippur is sprinkled in the Holy of Holies. In this context, it refers to the entire Sanctuary, as an outer sin-offering is disqualified if its blood is sprinkled on the golden altar in the Sanctuary. Should all be burned on the sixteenth – ‫יִ ּ ָ ׂש ְרפ ּו ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה‬ ‫ע ָ ׂשר‬:ָ The reason that the inedible portions of the Paschal lamb are burned on the morning of the sixteenth and not at night immediately after the fifteenth is due to the derivation of the tanna of the school of Ĥizkiya that there is a special mitzva to burn them during the day rather than at night (see Halakha; see Tosefot Yom Tov). If the sixteenth occurs on Shabbat – ‫ָחל ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר ִל ְהיֹות‬ ‫ב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬: ּ ַ Several of the ge’onim, relying on the Jerusalem Talmud, claimed that the sixteenth of Nisan never occurred on Shabbat. Indeed, according to the Jewish calendar currently in use, the first day of Passover never occurs on a Monday, a Wednesday, or a Friday. In the view of these ge’onim, the mishna simply states that if the sixteenth of Nisan were theoretically to occur on Shabbat, the burning of these portions would be delayed by an additional day. However, it seems likely that when the new month was still determined on the basis of testimony, the first day of Passover could occur on a Friday (see Rabbeinu Ĥananel). Does not override…the Festival – ‫ין…את יֹום‬ ֶ ‫ֹוח‬ ִ ּ‫ׁ ֶש ֵאינָן ד‬ ‫טֹוב‬: Rabbi Ovadya Bartenura gives an additional reason for this rule: Although burning the leftover parts of the Paschal lamb is a positive mitzva from the Torah, and there is a principle that performance of a positive mitzva supersedes a prohibition, the Torah formulates the obligation to refrain from primary categories of labor on Festivals as both a positive mitzva and a prohibition. Consequently, a positive mitzva, such as burning leftover sacrificial parts, does not override both a positive and a prohibition.

.‫ילי‬ ִ ‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל‬ ֵ ‫מֹוסיף ַאף ַר ִ ּבי‬ ִ ‫ַר ָ ּבה‬ ‫ ָּכל‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ ‫ָה ִענְיָ ן ּכוּלּ ֹו ֵאינֹו ְמ ַד ֵ ּבר ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ָפ ִרים‬ ‫ ִל ְ ׂשרֹוף‬,‫ִש ָר ִפין‬ ׂ ְ ‫ִש ָר ִפים ו ִּב ְ ׂש ִע ִירין ַה ּנ‬ ׂ ְ ‫ַה ּנ‬ ‫יתן ל ֹא‬ ֵּ ‫יהן ַא ֵ ּבית ַה ִ ּב ָירה וְ ִל‬ ֶ ‫ּ ְפסו ֵּל‬ .‫ַת ֲע ֶ ׂשה ַעל ֲא ִכ ָיל ָתן‬

Rabba adds that these tanna’im were not the only ones who maintain this opinion; even Rabbi Yosei HaGelili agreed with them, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The entire matter that is stated in the verse: “Any sin-offering from which some blood has been brought to the Tent of Meeting, to make atonement in the sacred place, shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in fire” (Levi­ ticus 6:23) is not stated with regard to a regular sin-offering improperly brought inside the Sanctuary; rather, it speaks only about bulls that are burned and goats that are burned.n These are unique sinofferings, and the Torah states that their blood should be brought inside the Sanctuary. The verse is stated with regard to these sinofferings both in order to command the Jewish people to burn the disqualified ones in the place of the bira on the Temple Mount and in order to establish a prohibition with regard to their consumption.

‫ ַח ָּטאת ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְכנַס דָּ ָמ ּה ִל ְפנַי‬:‫ָא ְמר ּו לֹו‬ ‫״הן ל ֹא הו ָּבא‬ ֵ :‫וְ ִל ְפנִים ִמ ּנַיִ ן? ָא ַמר ָל ֶהן‬ ‫ ִמ ְּכ ָלל‬.‫נִימה״‬ ָ ‫ֶאת דָּ ָמ ּה ֶאל ַה ּק ֶֹד ׁש ּ ְפ‬ – ‫ ִאי נַ ִמי ָעיֵ יל דָּ ָמ ּה‬,‫יהי‬ ִ ‫דְּ ִאי נָ ֵפיק ִא‬ .‫ִ ּב ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה‬

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: If you expound the verse in this fashion, then with regard to a regular sin-offering whose blood entered inside the Sanctuary,n from where is it derived that it must be burned? He said to them: It is derived from the verse: “Behold, its blood was not brought into the Sanctuary within” (Leviticus 10:18). This proves by inference that if the sin-offering is taken out of its permitted area, or alternatively, if its blood enters the Sanctuary, it must be burned immediately without waiting for decay of form.

‫ דָּ ם ו ָּב ָ ׂשר – ֲח ָדא‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן ָס ַבר‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬The Gemara explains: And Rabbi Yoĥanan did not include Rabbi ְּ ‫ ִמ‬Yosei HaGelili because Rabbi Yoĥanan holds that there is a difference ‫ ְ ּב ָע ִלים – ִמ ְּל ָתא‬,‫יל ָתא ִה יא‬ .‫יתי ִהיא‬ ִ ‫ ַא ֲח ִר‬between the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and those of Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Beroka and Rabbi Neĥemya. The reason for this difference is that impurity of blood and meat, about which Rabbi Yosei HaGelili was speaking, is one matter, and impurity of the blood can therefore be considered a disqualification in the animal itself, but disqualification of the owners is a different matter. Therefore, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili does not necessarily agree with the tanna’im who allow the offering to be burned immediately in the case of disqualification of the owners. – ‫ֹותר‬ ָ ּ‫מתני׳ ָה ֲעצָ מֹות וְ ַה ִ ּג ִידין וְ ַהנ‬ ‫ ָחל ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר‬.‫יִ ּ ָ ׂש ְרפ ּו ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר‬ ‫ִל ְהיֹות ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – יִ ּ ָ ׂש ְרפ ּו ְ ּב ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ ‫ֹוחין ל ֹא ֶאת‬ ִ ּ‫ ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ן ד‬,‫ָע ָ ׂשר‬ .‫ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת וְ ל ֹא ֶאת יֹום טֹוב‬

mishna 

The bones of the Paschal lamb that contain edible marrow but cannot be eaten because it is prohibited to break the bones of the Paschal lamb; and the sinews; and the leftover meat should all be burned on the sixteenthn of Nisan, immediately after the first day of the Festival. If the sixteenth occurs on Shabbat,n they should be burned on the seventeenth, because the mitzva to burn them does not override Shabbat or the Festival.n Therefore, they are burned on the first weekday.h

halakha

Burning the bones, sinews, and leftover meat – ‫ ְ ׂש ֵר ַפת ָה ֲעצָ מֹות‬bat. Additionally, even when leftover sacrificial meat becomes ‫ֹותר‬ ָ ּ‫וְ ַה ִ ּג ִידים וְ ַהנ‬: Burning the leftover parts of an offering does prohibited at night, it is not burned until the day (Rambam Sefer not override a Festival and certainly does not override Shab- Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 19:5).

108 

Perek VII . 83a . ‫גפ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

‫גמ׳ ָא ַמר ַרב ָמ ִרי ַ ּבר ֲאבו ּּה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ – ‫נֹותר‬ ָ ‫ימ ׁש ּו‬ ְּ ‫ ַעצְ מֹות ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ִש‬:‫יִ צְ ָחק‬ ‫נַע ָ ׂשה ָ ּב ִסיס‬ ֲ ְ‫הֹואיל ו‬ ִ ,‫ְמ ַט ְּמ ִאין ֶאת ַהּיָ ַדיִ ם‬ ‫ ָה ֲעצָ מֹות‬:‫יה‬ ָ .‫ְל ָד ָבר ָה ָאסוּר‬ ּ ‫נֵימא ְמ ַסּיַ יע ֵל‬ .‫ֹותר – יִ ּ ָ ׂש ְרפ ּו ְל ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר‬ ָ ּ‫וְ ַה ִ ּג ִידים וְ ַהנ‬

gemara 

Rav Mari bar Avuh said that Rabbi Yitzĥak said: Bones of offerings that served as a base for leftover,h meaning that they have leftover meat on them or inside them after the time of eating, render hands impure, just as the leftover sacrificial parts themselves render hands impure. Since the bones have become a base for an intrinsically prohibited object,n they are treated in the same manner as the prohibited object itself. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following expression in the mishna supports him: The bones, and the sinews, and the leftover should be burned on the sixteenth of Nisan.

‫ימא דְּ ֵלית‬ ָ ‫יכי דָּ ֵמי? ִא ֵיל‬ ִ ‫ ָהנֵי ֲעצָ מֹות ֵה‬The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which these !‫נִשדִּ ינְ ה ּו‬ ְ ׁ ?‫יפה‬ ָ ‫מֹוח – ָל ָּמה ִ ּב ְ ׂש ֵר‬ ַ ‫ ְ ּבה ּו‬bones must be burned? If we say that there is no marrow in them, .‫מֹוח‬ ַ ‫יטא – דְּ ִאית ְ ּבה ּו‬ ָ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬why must they be burned? We should discard them, as the Torah requires that leftover parts of offerings be burned only when they are edible. Rather, it is obvious that we are dealing with bones that have marrow in them. The marrow is part of the meat of the offering, and in other offerings one would have broken the bones in order to eat the marrow. ‫נֹותר ִמ ְּיל ָתא‬ ָ ‫ימו ּׁש‬ ּ ‫ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ׁ ִש‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא‬.‫יפה‬ ָ ‫ִהיא – ַא ְמט ּו ְל ָה ִכי ָ ּב ֵעי ְ ׂש ֵר‬ ְּ ‫נֹותר ָלאו ִמ‬ ‫יל ָתא‬ ָ ‫ימ ּו ׁש‬ ּ ‫ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ׁ ִש‬ ‫יפה? נִ ְת ְ ּב ִרינְ ה ּו‬ ָ ‫ִהיא – ָל ָּמה ְלה ּו ְ ׂש ֵר‬ ‫נִשדִּ ינְ ה ּו‬ ְ ׁ ְ‫ ו‬,‫יה‬ ׂ ְ ְ‫ ו‬,ּ‫וּנְ ַח ְּלצָ ה ַל ּמ ַֹוח דִּ ְידהו‬ ּ ‫נִש ְר ֵפ‬ ‫ימו ּׁש‬ ּ ‫ ׁ ִש‬:‫ְל ִד ְידהוּ! ֶא ָּלא ָלאו ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ .‫נֹותר ִמ ְּיל ָתא ִהיא‬ ָ

Granted, if you say that an item that serves as a base or container for leftover is something significant and becomes disqualified in the same manner as the leftover themselves, because of this it needs burning like the leftover itself. But if you say that serving as a base for leftover is nothing significant, why do these bones need to be burned? Let us break them, and remove their marrow, and burn the marrow, and discard the bones. Rather, must one not conclude from it that serving as a base for leftover is something significant, and the bones themselves become prohibited and impart ritual impurity due to their consecrated contents?

‫נֹותר‬ ָ ‫ימו ּׁש‬ ָ ‫עֹולם ֵא‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬,‫ ל ֹא‬:‫ ָא ְמ ִרי‬Say in refutation of this proof: No. Actually, I could say to you that ּ ‫ימא ָלךְ ׁ ִש‬ ‫ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬,‫ ּ׳בֹו׳ – ְ ּב ָכ ׁ ֵשר‬:‫ וְ ָק ָס ַבר‬,‫ ָלאו ִמ ְּיל ָתא‬serving as a base for leftover is nothing significant, and the tanna .‫ ְ ּב ָפסוּל‬of the mishna holds that the prohibition stated in the Torah: “And you shall not break a bone in it” (Exodus 12:46), applies even to a disqualifiedh Paschal lamb. The prohibition to break the bones of the Paschal lamb applies even when the Paschal lamb itself may no longer be eaten. Thus, the bones must be burned because there is no way to extract the marrow. They are not burned because they themselves have served as a base for the leftover marrow. ּ ‫ֲא ִפ‬ ‫יל ּו ְ ּב ָפס ּול ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָת ְך ?! וְ ָהא‬ ‫ֹובר‬ ֵ ‫ֹותיר ַ ּב ָּטהֹור וְ ַה ׁ ּש‬ ִ ‫ ֲא ָבל ַה ּמ‬:‫ְּתנַ ן‬ ‫סֹופג ֶאת ָה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים! ָלא‬ ֵ ‫ַ ּב ָּט ֵמא – ֵאינֹו‬ ,‫ֹושר‬ ֶ ׁ ‫ַק ׁ ְשיָ א; ָּכאן – ׁ ֶש ָהיְ ָתה לֹו ׁ ְש ַעת ַה ּכ‬ .‫ֹושר‬ ֶ ׁ ‫ָּכאן – ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ָהיְ ָתה לֹו ׁ ְש ַעת ַה ּכ‬

The Gemara expresses surprise at the previous answer: Can it enter your mind to say that the prohibition applies even to a disqualified Paschal lamb? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: But one who leaves over part of a pure Paschal lamb or one who breaks the bone of a ritually impure Paschal lamb does not receive forty lashes, which indicates that the Torah prohibition to break a bone applies only to a Paschal lamb that is still valid? The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Here, when the mishna indicates that it is prohibited to break even the bone of a disqualified Paschal lamb, it is referring to a case where it had a time when it was valid, such as leftover sacrificial meat, which was valid before it was left over, and the prohibition therefore became relevant when it was valid. There, when the other mishna stated that the prohibition does not apply, it is referring to sacrificial meat that did not have a time when it was valid.

‫יה ֵ ּבין ׁ ֶש ָהיְ ָתה לֹו ׁ ְש ַעת‬ ּ ‫ו ַּמאן ַּת ָּנא דְּ ׁ ָשנֵי ֵל‬ ‫ֹושר – ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֶ ׁ ‫ֹושר ְלל ֹא ָהיְ ָתה לֹו ׁ ְש ַעת ַה ּכ‬ ֶ ׁ ‫ַה ּכ‬ ,‫ ״וְ ֶעצֶ ם ל ֹא ִת ׁ ְש ְ ּבר ּו בֹו״‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫יַ ֲעקֹב ִהיא‬ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יַ ֲעקֹב‬.‫ּ׳בֹו׳ – ְ ּב ָכ ׁ ֵשר וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב ָפסוּל‬ ‫ֹושר וְ נִ ְפ ַסל – יֵ ׁש ּבֹו‬ ֶ ׁ ‫ָהיְ ָתה לֹו ׁ ְש ַעת ַה ּכ‬ ‫ ל ֹא ָהיְ ָתה לֹו ׁ ְש ַעת‬,‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ָה ֶעצֶ ם‬ .‫ֹושר – ֵאין ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ָה ֶעצֶ ם‬ ֶ ׁ ‫ַה ּכ‬ ‫ ֶא ָחד זֶ ה וְ ֶא ָחד זֶ ה ֵאין‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ .‫ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ָה ֶעצֶ ם‬

The Gemara adds: And who is the tanna who differentiates between a Paschal lamb that had a time when it was valid and one that did not have a time when it was valid? It is Rabbi Ya’akov, as it was taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And you shall not break a bone in it,” and the emphasis of the expression “in it” teaches that the prohibition applies only to a valid Paschal lamb and not to a disqualified one. Rabbi Ya’akov says: If an offering had a time when it was valid and then became disqualified, it is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone; if it did not have any time when it was valid, it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to both this and that, whether the offering was valid at some point or not, once it becomes disqualified it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone.



halakha

Bones of offerings that served as a base for leftover – ‫נֹותר‬ ָ ‫ימ ׁש ּו‬ ְּ ‫עצְ מֹות ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ִש‬:ַ Bones of offerings that are part of the leftover sacrificial meat can cause ritual impurity just like the leftover itself. Therefore, if one touches a bone that contains leftover marrow or the bone of an offering disqualified due to piggul, he becomes ritually impure, even if the bone is completely whole (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 8:4). Breaking the bones of a disqualified Paschal lamb – ‫ש ִב ַירת ֶעצֶ ם ְ ּב ָפסוּל‬: ְ ׁ Even if a Paschal lamb becomes disqualified through ritual impurity or because it was taken out of Jerusalem, the prohibition against breaking a bone still applies. However, this is true only if it was initially valid. If it was disqualified from the start, the prohibition against breaking a bone does not apply. Apparently, the Rambam ruled in this manner because this halakha is subject to a dispute among the tanna’im and the opinion of the first, anonymous tanna is in accordance with that of Rabbi Ya’akov in the Gemara (Kesef Mishne). In addition, this seems to be the assumption of the Gemara (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 10:6). notes

A base for a prohibited object – ‫ב ִסיס ְל ָד ָבר ָה ָאסוּר‬: ָּ The principle of a base for a prohibited object is relevant to several different areas of halakha. In the halakhot of Shabbat, it applies to an item that serves as a base for a different object that is set-aside [muktze] and may not be moved. With regard to ritual purity, the entire tractate of Uktzin is concerned with items that are not ritually impure in and of themselves but serve as handles for ritually impure items. If one picks up the impure item by the handle, the handle and the impure item are viewed as a single unit, and the handle itself is also considered impure.

‫גפ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 83a 

109

halakha

Burning the bones of sacrifices – ‫ש ֵר ַיפת ַעצְ מֹות ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬: ְׂ One is not required to burn bones of offerings that no longer contain marrow. The exception is the bones from the Paschal lamb, which must be burned to prevent possible transgression of the prohibition against breaking them. The Rambam ruled in accordance with Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak that the case is one in which the person finds the bones broken. Apparently, this is also the explanation of the Ra’avad (Kesef Mishne). In the case of other offerings, it is probable that the marrow was removed before it became leftover. However, this assumption cannot be made with regard to the Paschal lamb. Therefore, its bones are considered to have served as a base for leftover sacrificial meat (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 10:2 and Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 19:9).

‫ית ִיבי ָּכל ַעצְ מֹות ַה ֳ ּק ָד ׁ ִשים ֵאין ְטעוּנִין‬ ִ ‫ֵמ‬ ,‫ חוּץ ֵמ ַעצְ מֹות ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ַה ַּת ָ ּק ָלה‬,‫ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה‬ ‫ימא דְּ ֵלית ְ ּבה ּו‬ ָ ‫יכי דָּ ֵמי? ִא ֵיל‬ ִ ‫ָהנֵי ֲעצָ מֹות ֵה‬ – ‫יטא‬ ָ ‫מֹוח – ָל ָּמה ְלה ּו ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה? ֶא ָּלא ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ ַ ‫ימו ּׁש‬ ַ ‫דְּ ִאית ְ ּבה ּו‬ ּ ‫ וְ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָתךְ ׁ ִש‬.‫מֹוח‬ ‫נֹותר ִמ ְּיל ָתא ִהיא – ַעצְ מֹות ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַא ַּמאי‬ ָ ?‫ֵאין ְטעוּנִין ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה‬

The Gemara raises an objection based on what was taught in the following baraita: No bones of offerings require burning except for the bones of the Paschal lamb, due to the possibility that leaving the bones around will lead to a mishap because one may eventually transgress the prohibition of breaking the bones. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which these bones must be burned? If we say we are dealing with a case where there is no marrow in the bones, why must they be burned? They should simply be discarded. Rather, it is obvious that there is marrow in them. And if it should enter your mind that serving as a base for leftover meat of an offering is something significant, why do bones of other offerings not require burning? They are serving as a base for the leftover marrow in them.

‫ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק‬ ‫ ַעצְ מֹות‬.‫ָע ְס ִקינַ ן – ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ְּמצָ ָאן ֲחל ּוצִ ין‬ – ‫ָק ָד ׁ ִשים דְּ ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ָה ֶעצֶ ם‬ ‫ימו ּׁש‬ ָ ‫ַק ֵּמי דְּ נֶ ֱהו ּו‬ ּ ‫ וְ ָלא ָהו ּו ׁ ִש‬,ּ‫נֹותר ָח ְלצִ ינְ הו‬ .‫ וְ ָלא ְ ּבע ּו ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה‬,‫נֹותר‬ ָ

Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a special case where one finds bones from which the marrow had already been removed. Therefore, there is room to differentiate between the different cases: With regard to bones of other offerings, to which the prohibition of breaking a bone does not apply, one may presume that before they became leftover one removed the marrow from them and ate it. Therefore, these bones were not serving as a base for leftover sacrificial meat, and they do not require burning and may be discarded.h

‫ דְּ יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת‬,‫ ַעצְ מֹות ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬On the other hand, bones of the Paschal lamb, to which the ,ּ‫נֹותר הוּא דְּ ָח ְלצִ ינְ הו‬ ָ ‫ ָה ֶעצֶ ם – ְל ָב ַתר דְּ נֶ ֱהו ּו‬prohibition of breaking a bone does apply, were certainly not .‫ ו ְּבע ּו ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה‬,‫נֹותר‬ ָ ‫ימו ּׁש‬ ּ ‫ וְ ָהו ּו ְלה ּו ׁ ִש‬broken while the prohibition applied; rather, it was after they became leftover that one removed the marrow from them, when the prohibition of breaking a bone no longer applied, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon above. In that case, the bones temporarily served as a base for leftover sacrificial meat, and therefore they require burning. ‫ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן – ְּכגֹון‬:‫ ַרב זְ ִביד ָא ַמר‬Rav Zevid said that one can answer in a different way: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case such as

Perek VII Daf 83 Amud b notes

They do not require burning – ‫וְ ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה‬: In general, it is not permitted to rely on a presumption when it is possible to check the facts and arrive at a definite conclusion. Why, then, aren’t the bones examined to make sure that they have been cracked open in order to facilitate removal of their marrow? The answer is that there is significant effort entailed in checking each bone (Melo HaRo’im). Additionally, even if the bones have been cracked open, this is not a definitive indication that the marrow was removed before it became leftover. Consequently, the Sages relied on the presumption.

.‫ ּו ֵמ ֶהן ֲחל ּוצִ ין‬,‫ׁ ֶש ְּמצָ ָאן צִ ּב ּו ִרין צִ ּב ּו ִרין‬ ‫ דְּ ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת‬,‫ַעצְ מֹות ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬ ,ּ‫ָה ֶעצֶ ם – ְלכו ְּּלה ּו ֲהוָ ה ָח ֵליץ ְלה ּו וְ ָא ֵכיל ְלהו‬ .‫וְ ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה‬

when one finds them in piles, and he sees that some of them have had their marrow removed. If these bones are bones of offerings to which the prohibition of breaking a bone does not apply, one can assume that the owner removed the marrow from all the bones before the marrow became leftover and ate it, and they do not require burning.n

‫ דְּ יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת‬,‫ ַעצְ מֹות ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬On the other hand, with regard to the bones of the Paschal ‫ ו ְּל ָהנָ ךְ ָלא‬,ּ‫ ָה ֶעצֶ ם – דִּ ְיל ָמא ָהנֵי דְּ ָח ְלצִ ינְ הו‬lamb, to which the prohibition of breaking a bone does apply, .‫ ו ָּב ֵעי ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה‬,ּ‫ ָח ְלצִ ינְ הו‬perhaps the owner removed the marrow from these, and from those he did not remove the marrow, and they require burning. Therefore, although one needs to check all the bones of the Paschal lamb he finds to ensure that they do not have marrow left in them, he does not need to burn them due to the unconfirmed possibility that the marrow was removed after it became leftover. The bones would need to be burned only if there was still marrow in them or if one knew for certain that they had served as a base for leftover sacrificial meat. ,‫ ָּכל ַה ִ ּג ִידין ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַרב‬Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: All the sinews in an animal are .‫ חוּץ ִמ ִ ּג ֵידי ַצ ָּואר‬considered like meat. Therefore, one can fulfill his obligation to eat the Paschal lamb by eating them and one can register for them, except for the sinews of the neck, which are so hard that they are not considered meat.

110 

Perek VII . 83b . ‫גפ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

‫ֹותר – יִ ּ ָ ׂש ְרפ ּו‬ ָ ּ‫ ָה ֲעצָ מֹות וְ ַה ִ ּג ִידים וְ ַהנ‬:‫ְּתנַ ן‬ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יכי דָּ ֵמי? ִא ֵיל‬ ִ ‫ ָהנֵי ִ ּג ִידין ֵה‬.‫ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר‬ ‫יתֹותר – ַהיְ ינ ּו‬ ַ ‫נֵיכ ִלינְ הוּ! וְ ִאי דְּ ִא‬ ְ – ‫ִ ּג ֵידי ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ .‫יטא ִ ּג ֵידי ַצ ָּואר‬ ָ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬.‫נֹותר‬ ָ

We learned in the mishna: The bones, and the sinews, and the leftover shall be burned on the sixteenth. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which these sinews must be burned? If we say they are sinews of meat, let us eat them. Why are they burned? And if they are sinews that were left over and not eaten for some other reason, they are leftover, so why does the mishna list sinews separately? Rather, it is obvious that the mishna is referring to sinews of the neck, which are different than other sinews and are therefore mentioned separately.

‫ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ָ ּב ָ ׂשר נִינְ ה ּו ָא ְמט ּו ְל ָה ִכי‬ ‫יפה ֶא ָּלא ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ָלאו ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ ָ ‫ָ ּב ֵעי ְ ׂש ֵר‬ :‫נִינְ ה ּו – ָל ָּמה ְלה ּו ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה? ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ‫יבא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ָ ‫ וְ ַא ִּל‬,‫ָלא נִצְ ְר ָכא ֶא ָּלא ְלגִ יד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה‬ .‫יְ הו ָּדה‬

Granted, if you say they are meat, due to that they require burning; but if you say they are not meat, why do they require burning? One should simply discard them like other waste. Rav Ĥisda said: The mishna’s mention of sinews is necessary only for the sciatic nerve,bh in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

‫נֹוהג ֶא ָּלא‬ ֵ ‫ ֵאינֹו‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: The prohi.‫ וְ ַהדַּ ַעת ַמ ְכ ַר ַעת ׁ ֶשל יָ ִמין‬,‫ ְ ּב ַא ַחת‬bition to eat the sciatic nerve according to Torah law applies only to the sciatic nerve in one of the animal’s thighs, and not to both, and logic dictates that it is the right thigh.n However, since there is no absolute proof that this is correct, the sciatic nerve must be removed from both sides. Although in theory the forbidden sciatic nerve may be discarded and the permitted one may be eaten, since there is uncertainty as to which one is permitted, neither of them may be eaten. Both must be burned.n ‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫וְ ֶא ָּלא ִּת ְפ ׁשֹוט דְּ ַס ּפ ֵֹוקי ְמ ַס ּ ְפ ָקא ֵל‬ ‫יה – ַה ִהיא‬ ָ ‫ דְּ ִאי ִמ ְיפ ׁ ִשיט ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬,‫יְ הו ָּדה‬ ּ ‫יטא ֵל‬ ‫ ָל ָּמה‬,‫יה‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ו ְּד ִא ּיסו ָּרא‬,‫יה‬ ְ ‫דְּ ֶה ֵּית ָירא‬ ּ ֵ‫נִישדִּ ּי‬ ּ ‫נֵיכ ֵל‬ ?‫יה ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬

The Gemara asks: Shall we then conclude that Rabbi Yehuda was uncertain about which sciatic nerve is forbidden? The Sages were unsure whether Rabbi Yehuda was absolutely convinced that it is the sciatic nerve from the right side that is forbidden, or if he was saying that this would seem likely to be the case, but he was not certain. As, if it were clear to him that it is the sciatic nerve from the right thigh that is forbidden, the proper procedure would be different: The one that is permitted we should eat, and the one that is forbidden we should discard. Why should he require burning?

‫ ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶשהו ְּּכר ּו‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ִא ָיקא ַ ּבר ִּח ָּיננָ א‬Rav Ika bar Ĥinnana said, in response to this attempted proof: .ּ‫ ו ְּל ַב ּסֹוף נִ ְת ָע ְרבו‬The mishna addresses a case where the two sciatic nerves were known, but in the end became mixed together. In other words, at first it was known which was the forbidden right nerve and which was the permitted left nerve. However, they were then mixed together and can no longer be identified. Therefore, due to the uncertainty, they must both be burned. ‫ ל ֹא נִצְ ְר ָכא ֶא ָּלא ְל ׁ ַש ְמנֹו‬:‫ ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ָא ַמר‬Rav Ashi said: The mishna’s ruling that the sinews must be ‫ וְ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬,‫ ׁ ַש ְמנֹו מו ָּּתר‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫ דְּ גִ יד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה‬burned is necessary only with regard to the fat of the sciatic .‫נֹוהגִ ין ּבֹו ִא ּיסוּר‬ ֲ ְ‫דֹושים ֵהם ו‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ְק‬nerve,h as it was taught in a baraita: The fat around the sciatic nerve is permitted according to Torah law, but the Jewish people are holyn and treat it as forbidden. Since it is permitted according to Torah law, it has the status of meat and may not be simply discarded. However, since the Jewish people treat it as forbidden, they do not eat it even from the Paschal lamb. Therefore, it is left until after the time when the meat may be eaten and burned in accordance with the general halakha of leftover.

background

The sciatic nerve – ‫גיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה‬:ּ ִ In Latin, this nerve is known as nervus ischiadicus. It runs down the back of the hind leg of an animal. The sciatic nerve is one of the parts of a kosher domesticated animal and a kosher nondomesticated animal that are prohibited to be con­sumed by Torah law (see Genesis 32:33). In addition to the nerve itself, it is prohibited by rabbinic law to eat any of the flesh surrounding it or the fat that encloses it.

Schematic drawing of the sciatic nerve notes

The sciatic nerve of the right thigh – ‫גּיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה ׁ ֶשל יָ ִמין‬:ִ The prohibition against consuming the sciatic nerve is mentioned in the Torah in the verse: “Therefore the children of Israel may not eat the sciatic nerve that is upon the hollow of the thigh, until this day; because he touched the hollow of Jacob’s thigh, in the sciatic nerve” (Genesis 32:33). The details of the mitzva are explained in Chapter Seven of tractate Ĥullin. Since the Torah does not fully clarify the parameters of the prohibition, the tanna’im disagreed about whether or not it applies to all animals and about whether it applies to the nerve in only one thigh, since Jacob was struck on only one side, or to both. The sciatic nerve in the Paschal lamb – ‫ ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬: The author of the Sha’agat Arye asked why the positive mitzva to eat the Paschal lamb does not supersede the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve, in accordance with the general principle that positive mitzvot supersede negative mitzvot. Some commentaries answer that the prohibition to eat the sciatic nerve is particularly strict because it was already in place before the Torah was given. The question is even more acute with regard to the fat surrounding the sciatic nerve, which is certainly only prohibited by rabbinic decree. It appears that in several instances the Sages upheld their decrees consistently, even when they conflict with a positive mitzva (Sefat Emet). The Jewish people are holy – ‫דֹושים ֵהם‬ ִ ׁ ‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ְק‬: Similar expressions are used with regard to several halakhot in which a matter was not prohibited by Torah law or formal rabbinic decree, but nevertheless the Jewish community accepted a particular stringency upon itself. Once the stringency is accepted by the entire community in this manner, it attains the status of a rabbinic decree and may not be violated.

halakha

The sciatic nerve – ‫ ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה‬: The prohibition against consuming the sciatic nerve applies to the nerves in both of the animal’s thighs. The halakha does not accept the minority opinion of Rabbi Yehuda (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 65:5).



The fat around the sciatic nerve – ‫ש ְמנֹו ׁ ֶשל ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה‬: ַ ׁ The fat surrounding the sciatic nerve is permitted, but the Jewish people accepted an additional stringency and treat it as forbidden (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 65:8). ‫גפ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 83b 

111

halakha

There are two sinews – ‫שנֵי ִ ּג ִידין ֵהן‬: ְ ׁ There are two sinews in the sciatic nerve. The inner sinew, which passes through the entire thigh, is prohibited according to Torah law, while the outer one is prohibited by rabbinic decree. Both must be removed before the meat is consumed, in accordance with the ruling of Shmuel (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 65:8).

‫ וְ ִכ ְד ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ ַ ּב ִחיצֹון‬:‫ָר ִבינָ א ָא ַמר‬ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר‬.‫ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ְ‫נִימי ַה ָּסמוּך‬ ִ ‫ ּ ְפ‬,‫ ׁ ְשנֵי ִ ּג ִידין ֵהן‬:‫ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫ ִחיצֹון‬.‫ וְ ַחּיָ ִיבין ָע ָליו‬,‫ָל ֶעצֶ ם – ָאסוּר‬ ‫ וְ ֵאין ַחּיָ ִיבין‬,‫ַה ָּסמוּךְ ַל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר – ָאסוּר‬ .‫ָע ָליו‬

Ravina said: This discussion pertains to the outer nerve, and it is in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: There are two sinewsh in the sciatic nerve: The inner sinew that is next to the bone is forbidden according to Torah law, and one is liable to be flogged for eating it. The outer sinew that is next to the meat is forbidden by rabbinic law, and therefore one is not liable to be flogged for eating it. Since the outer sinew is permitted according to Torah law, it attains the status of leftover when it is not eaten.

‫נֵיתי‬ ֵ ?‫ וְ ַא ַּמאי‬.‫״חל ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר וכו׳״‬ ָ It was taught in the mishna that if the sixteenth of Nisan occurs on !‫ ֲע ֵ ׂשה וְ יִ ְד ֵחי ל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬Shabbat, the burning of the leftover does not override Shabbat, and they are burned on the seventeenth. The Gemara asks: And why isn’t the leftover of the Paschal lamb burned on the Festival day itself? The positive mitzva to burn the leftover should come and override the prohibition that prohibits the performance of labor on Festivals. ‫ ָא ַמר‬,‫ וְ ֵכן ָּתנֵי דְּ ֵבי ִחזְ ִקּיָה‬,‫ָא ַמר ִחזְ ִקּיָה‬ ‫תֹותיר ּו ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ַעד ּב ֶֹקר‬ ִ ‫ ״ל ֹא‬:‫ְק ָרא‬ .‫וְ ַהנּ ָֹותר ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ַעד ּב ֶֹקר ָ ּב ֵא ׁש ִּת ְ ׂשרֹפוּ״‬ ‫ ַמה‬,‫״עד ּב ֶֹקר״‬ ַ ‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ‫יתן לֹו‬ ֵּ ‫״עד ּב ֶֹקר״ – ִל‬ ַ ‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ַּת ְלמוּד‬ .‫ּב ֶֹקר ׁ ֵשנִי ִל ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפתֹו‬

Ĥizkiya said, and similarly, one of the Sages in the school of Ĥizkiya taught: The verse states: “And you shall not leave any of it until morning; and that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire” (Exodus 12:10). As there is no need for the verse to state “until morning,” and repeating that phrase adds nothing to the verse, what is the meaning when the verse states “until morning”? It is to give it a second morning for its burning. In other words, it comes to teach that the mitzva to burn the leftover does not apply on the first morning, i.e., the morning of the Festival when they become prohibited to eat, but on the second morning, the sixteenth of Nisan. However, when the sixteenth falls on Shabbat, the burning is delayed until the seventeenth.

‫ ״ע ַֹלת ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬:‫ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬,‫ ַא ַ ּביֵ י ָא ַמר‬Abaye said: The reason is because the verse states: “The burnt,‫עֹולת חֹול ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ַ ‫ ְ ּב ׁ ַש ַ ּב ּתֹו״ – וְ ל ֹא‬offering of each Shabbat on its Shabbat in addition to the continual .‫עֹולת חֹול ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬ ַ ‫ וְ ל ֹא‬burnt-offering and its libation” (Numbers 28:10). This indicates that the burnt-offering of Shabbat may be offered on the altar on Shabbat or burned if it is disqualified, but not the burnt-offering of a weekday on Shabbat, and not the burnt-offering of a weekday on a Festival. It is derived from here that one may not burn anything on Shabbat that is not an obligation of that day. ‫ ״הוּא ְל ַבדּ ֹו‬:‫ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬,‫ ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬Rava said a different reason: The verse states concerning Festivals: ,‫ ״הוּא״ – וְ ל ֹא ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ָיריו‬,‫“ יֵ ָע ֶ ׂשה ָל ֶכם״‬And on the first day there shall be a sacred convocation; no kind of – ‫״ל ַבדּ ֹו״‬ ְ labor shall be done on them, save that which every man must eat, only that may be done for you” (Exodus 12:16). From this verse one can infer the following: That, i.e., the food itself, you may prepare, but you may not perform acts that facilitate its preparation, which must be done beforehand. The word only is also exclusive; it indicates that only food preparation is permitted,

Perek VII Daf 84 Amud a notes

Circumcision would have come through an a fortiori inference – ‫חֹומר‬ ֶ ָ‫ה…מ ַ ּקל ו‬ ִ ‫מ ָיל‬:ִ Even if the circumcision was not performed on the eighth day, its performance is still sufficiently important to override the prohibition against cutting off leprous spots. Although the Torah prohibits removing leprous spots on one’s skin, if such a spot appears on the foreskin it is permitted to perform the circumcision, although one thereby removes the leprosy. The general prohibition with regard to leprosy is so severe that it overrides the Temple service: A priest may not remove a spot of leprosy in order to become fit for the Temple service. In addition, certain aspects of the Temple service override the prohibitions of Shabbat and the Festivals. Therefore, one could have derived through a fortiori inference that circumcision should override Shabbat and Festivals, even when it is performed after the eighth day.

112 

Perek VII . 84a . ‫דפ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

‫ וְ ל ֹא ִמ ָילה ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִ ּבזְ ַמ ָּנ ּה ַה ָ ּב ָאה ִמ ַ ּקל‬but not a circumcision that is not at its ideal time. If, for some reason, .‫חֹומר‬ ֶ ָ‫ ו‬circumcision was not performed on the eighth day after birth, its performance at a later date does not override a Festival, because the obligation to perform the circumcision is not particular to that specific day. This needed to be emphasized. Otherwise, it would have come to be derived through an a fortiori inferencen that circumcision does override Shabbat and Festivals, based on the fact that it overrides the laws of leprosy. Therefore, the Torah emphasized that circumcision performed later than the eighth day does not override Festivals. ‫ ׁ ַש ָ ּבתֹון דְּ יֹום טֹוב ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬:‫ ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ָא ַמר‬Rav Ashi said a different reason that the leftover Paschal lamb is not ‫ֹוחה ל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬ ֶ ּ‫ וְ ֵאין ֲע ֵ ׂשה ד‬,‫ הוּא‬burned on the Festival: The obligation of solemn rest stated with regard .‫ וַ ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬to Festivals is a positive mitzva. Therefore, the halakhot of Festivals include both a positive mitzva to rest from performing prohibited labor and a prohibition to avoid such labor, and a positive mitzva such as burning leftover sacrificial meat does not override both a prohibition and a positive mitzva.

‫מתני׳ ָּכל ַה ֶּנ ֱא ָכל ַ ּב ׁ ּשֹור ַה ָ ּגדֹול יֵ ָא ֵכל‬ .‫אשי ְכנָ ַפיִ ם וְ ַה ְּסחו ִּסים‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ וְ ָר‬, ְ‫ַ ּב ְ ּג ִדי ָה ַרך‬

‫ ָּכל ַה ֶּנ ֱא ָכל ַ ּב ׁ ּשֹור‬:‫ ְּתנַ ן‬,‫גמ׳ ַר ָ ּבה ָר ֵמי‬ ‫ וְ ׁ ֶש ֵא ינֹו‬, ‫ַה ָ ּגדֹול יֵ ָא ֵכל ַ ּב ְ ּג ִד י ָה ַר ְך‬ ‫אשי ְכנָ ַפיִ ם‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ ָר‬:‫ימא ֵס ָיפא‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬.‫נֶ ֱא ָכל – ל ֹא‬ ‫ וְ ָהא ָהנֵי ָלא ִמ ְת ַא ְּכ ִלי ַ ּב ׁ ּשֹור‬.‫וְ ַה ְּסחו ִּסים‬ !‫ַה ָ ּגדֹול‬

mishna 

Anything that is fit to be eaten in an adult ox, whose bones have fully hardened, may be eaten in a young kid.nh One may register for a Paschal offering in order to eat any of these parts, and eating any such part is considered a fulfillment of the mitzva to eat the Paschal lamb. However, any part of the animal that is inedible in an adult ox is not considered meat, even if it is soft enough to be eaten in a young kid. One may not register for a Paschal offering in order to eat one of these parts, and eating it is not a fulfillment of the mitzva to eat the Paschal lamb. And the soft ends of the ribsb and the cartilage are soft enough to be considered edible and may therefore be eaten from the Paschal lamb.

gemara 

Rabba raised a contradiction: We learned in the mishna that anything that is fit to be eaten in an adult ox may be eaten in a young kid, which indicates clearly that anything that is not eaten in an adult ox is not eaten even when it comes from a young kid. Say the latter clause of the mishna: The ends of the ribs and the cartilage of the young kid may be eaten. But these are not eaten in an adult ox, because they have already become as hard as bone and are no longer edible.

‫ ָּכל ַה ֶּנ ֱא ָכל‬:‫ וְ ָה ִכי ָק ָתנֵי‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ַּת ָּנ ֵאי ִהיא‬ ‫ וְ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו‬, ְ‫ַ ּב ׁ ּשֹור ַה ָ ּגדֹול – יֵ ָא ֵכל ַ ּב ְ ּג ִדי ָה ַרך‬ ‫אשי‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ ַאף ָר‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ וְ יֵ ׁש‬.‫נֶ ֱא ָכל – ל ֹא‬ .‫ְכנָ ַפיִ ם וְ ַה ְּסחו ִּסים‬

Rather, it is a dispute between tanna’im, and both opinions are mentioned in the mishna, and this is what it is teaching: Anything eaten in an adult ox may be eaten in a young kid, and anything that is not eaten in an adult ox is not eaten in a young kid. And some say that even the ends of the ribs and the cartilage are eaten from a young kid, because even these parts of an adult ox can be made edible through extensive cooking.

‫ ָּכל‬:‫ וְ ָה ִכי ָק ָתנֵי‬,‫״מה ֵהן״ ָק ָתנֵי‬ ָ :‫ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬ ‫ַה ֶּנ ֱא ָכל ַ ּב ׁ ּשֹור ַה ָ ּגדֹול ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָקא – יֵ ָא ֵכל‬ ‫אשי ְכנָ ַפיִ ם‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ ו ָּמה ֵהן – ָר‬,‫ַ ּב ְ ּג ִדי ָה ַרךְ ְ ּבצָ ִלי‬ .‫וְ ַה ְּסחו ִּסים‬

Rava said: The mishna teaches employing the style: What are they, in which the mishna establishes a principle and then provides detail, and this is what it is teaching: Anything that is fit to be eaten in an adult ox through cooking may be eaten in a young kid through roasting, even if this part of an adult ox cannot be made edible through roasting. And what are these parts? They are the ends of the ribs and the cartilage.

‫ ָּכל ַה ֶּנ ֱא ָכל ַ ּב ׁ ּשֹור‬:‫יה דְּ ָר ָבא‬ ֵ ָ‫ַּתנְיָא ְּכו‬ ּ ‫ות‬ ּ ,‫ַה ָ ּגדֹול ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָקא יֵ ָא ֵכל ַ ּב ְג ִדי ָה ַרךְ ְ ּבצָ ִלי‬ ‫ וְ גִ ִידין‬,‫אשי ְכנָ ַפיִ ם וְ ַה ְּסחו ִּסים‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ו ָּמה ֵהן – ָר‬ .‫ָה ַר ִּכין נִידּ ֹונִין ַּכ ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬

It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: Anything that is fit to be eaten in an adult ox through cooking may be eaten in a young kid through roasting; and what are these parts? They are the ends of the ribs and the cartilage; and the soft sinews are judged as meat.

‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ ִ ּג ִידין ׁ ֶש ּס ָֹופן ְל ַה ְק ׁשֹות‬,‫ִא ְּית ַמר‬ ‫ ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬,‫יהן ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ֶ ‫ נִ ְמנִין ֲע ֵל‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ ‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫יהן ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ֶ ‫ ֵאין נִ ְמנִין ֲע ֵל‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ .‫ ָ ּב ַתר ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ָאזְ ִלינַן‬,‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ נִ ְמנִין ֲע ֵל‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ָ ּב ַתר‬,‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ ֵאין נִ ְמנִין ֲע ֵל‬:‫ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש ָא ַמר‬ .‫ַ ּב ּסֹוף ָאזְ ִלינַן‬

It was stated that the Sages disputed the issue of sinews that will eventually hardenh but are currently soft. Rabbi Yoĥanan said: One may register for them in the Paschal lamb. Reish Lakish said: One may not register for them in the Paschal lamb. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yoĥanan said that one may register for them in the Paschal lamb because we follow the current condition of the sinews; since they are edible in their current state, they are considered meat. Reish Lakish said that one may not register for them in the Paschal lamb because we follow the eventual condition of the sinews, and they eventually become inedible.

‫ ָּכל‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫יה ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֵ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫ֵא‬ ּ ‫יב‬ ,‫ַה ֶּנ ֱא ָכל ַ ּב ׁ ּשֹור ַה ָ ּגדֹול יֵ ָא ֵכל ַ ּב ְ ּג ִדי ָה ַר ְך‬ – ‫ ָהנֵי‬.‫אשי ְכנָ ַפיִ ם וְ ַה ְּסחו ִּסים‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ו ָּמה ֵהן – ָר‬ !‫ ֲא ָבל ִ ּג ִידין ׁ ֶש ּס ָֹופן ְל ַה ְק ׁשֹות – ל ֹא‬,‫ִאין‬ .‫ וְ הוּא ַהדִּ ין ְל ָהנָ ְך‬,‫ ָּתנָ א ָהנֵי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ָהנֵי ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – דְּ ָהא ִמ ְת ַא ְּכ ִלי ַ ּב ׁ ּשֹור‬ ‫ ָהנָ ךְ נַ ִמי ִמ ְת ַא ְּכ ִלי ַ ּב ׁ ּשֹור‬,‫ַה ָ ּגדֹול ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָקא‬ .‫ַה ָ ּגדֹול ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָקא‬

Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoĥanan: It was stated that anything eaten in an adult ox may be eaten in a young kid, and what are these parts? They are the ends of the ribs and the cartilage. This indicates that with regard to these items, yes, they may be eaten; but with regard to sinews that will eventually harden, no, they may not. This contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan. Rabbi Yoĥanan said to him: It taught these, the ends of the ribs and the cartilage, and the same is true for those, i.e., the same halakha applies to sinews that will eventually harden. What is the reason that people may register for these, the ends of the ribs and the cartilage? It is because they are eaten in an adult ox through cooking. These, too, the sinews that will eventually harden, are eaten in an adult ox through cooking.



notes

Anything that is eaten in an adult ox may be eaten in a young kid – ְ‫כל ַה ֶּנ ֱא ָכל ַ ּב ׁ ּשֹור ַה ָ ּגדֹול יֵ ָא ֵכל ַ ּב ְ ּג ִדי ָה ַרך‬:ָּ There are three opinions with regard to the halakhic ramifications of the mishna’s ruling. Rashi explains that whatever is considered meat in an adult ox is considered meat in a young kid. Indeed, one can register for it and fulfill the mitzva to consume the Paschal lamb by eating it. The Rambam and the author of the Me’iri assert that this halakha was stated with regard to the prohibition to break the bones of the Paschal lamb: Any part of an adult ox that is edible after being well cooked, such as the ends of the ribs and the cartilage, is not considered a bone; therefore, it is permitted to chew or otherwise break that part of the Paschal lamb. The view of the Ra’avad is that this ruling was stated with regard to leftover. It is prohibited to leave over any part of the meat, which includes any part that is edible in an adult ox. halakha

Anything that is eaten in an adult ox may be eaten in a young kid – ‫כל ַה ֶּנ ֱא ָכל ַ ּב ׁ ּשֹור ַה ָ ּגדֹול יֵ ָא ֵכל ַ ּב ְ ּג ִדי ָה ַר ְך‬:ָּ Any part of an adult ox that can be eaten after extensive cooking may be eaten from a young kid after it has been roasted, in accordance with the view of Rava, who is the last autho­ rity quoted in the Gemara on this issue (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 10:9). Sinews that will eventually harden – ‫ ִ ּג ִידין ׁ ֶש ּס ָֹופן ְל ַה ְק ׁשֹות‬: Soft sinews that will eventually harden are not considered meat, and one may not register for that part of a Paschal lamb. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish because Rabbi Yoĥanan agreed with his view (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 10:10). background

The ends of the ribs – ‫אשי ְּכנָ ַפיִ ם‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ר‬:ָ

Diagram of the location of the ends of the ribs in a bovine

‫דפ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 84a 

113

notes

The contradiction within the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan – ‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ה ְּס ִת ָירה ְ ּב ִד ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬:ַ In the Jerusalem Talmud, it is stated that Reish Lakish also seems to contradict himself (Tosafot). The answer given there is that the opinions should be switched, which would resolve the difficulties. Was not concerned for his flour – ‫יה‬ ּ ‫לא ָח ׁש ְל ִק ְמ ֵח‬:ָ Elsewhere, Rashi explains the phrase metaphorically: The person grinds without paying attention to his final product, as if to say that the one continuously utters words that are incorrect. Rabbeinu Ĥananel explains that the person does not care about the flour he eats, which is wasted because he does not study Torah properly. Although he spends money on food, he still does not achieve Torah knowledge. Breaking the bone of a Paschal lamb – ‫ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ֶעצֶ ם‬ ‫ב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬:ּ ַ Several commentaries explain that the rationale for the prohibition of breaking the bones of the Paschal lamb is to demonstrate that the Paschal lamb is consumed in the manner of free, prominent people. Such people do not bother to break the bones of the meat they eat, because they are not that hungry and would rather not take the trouble to do so. Some commentaries ask why the Torah’s statement: “And you shall not break a bone in it” (Exodus 12:46) is interpreted as a mitzva. Perhaps it is permission not to break the bones in order to remove the marrow, although one is prohibited from leaving over meat from the Paschal lamb. The answer is based on the phrase “in it,” which provides emphasis. Indeed, the emphasis makes sense only if the phrase: “And you shall not break a bone in it,” is meant as a new prohibitive mitzva (Tzon Kodashim; Sha’ar HaMelekh; see Melo HaRo’im). A prohibition that can be rectified by a positive mitzva – ‫ִיתק ַל ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬ ַּ ‫לאו ַה ּנ‬:ָ Rashi explains (Makkot 14b) that when a positive mitzva takes effect after a prohibition has been violated, the positive mitzva itself is in lieu of the punishment for the transgression. It rectifies the transgression and obviates the need for punishment. Consequently, the court does not impose a punishment upon the person for his transgression. A prohibition that does not involve an action – ‫ָלאו‬ ‫ש ֵאין ּבֹו ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬: ֶ ׁ This is a Torah prohibition that is transgressed by thought or speech and which does not involve a physical act, e.g., the prohibition against hating one’s fellow man or bearing a grudge against him (see Leviticus 19:17–18). Generally, punishment is not administered for violating a prohibition of this kind; however, an exception is made in the following cases: One who curses another or himself by the name of God and one who attempts to substitute another animal for a sacrificial animal. halakha

One who breaks the bone of a Paschal lamb that is ritually pure – ‫ה ׁ ּש ֵֹובר ַ ּב ָּטהֹור‬:ַ One who breaks the bone of a ritually pure Paschal lamb is flogged for having violated a Torah prohibition, as stated in the mishna (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 10:1). One who leaves over part of a ritually pure Paschal lamb – ‫ה ּמ ִֹותיר ַ ּב ָּטהֹור‬:ַ One who leaves over a portion of a ritually pure Paschal lamb is not flogged, although he violated a Torah law, because this prohibition can be rectified by a positive mitzva (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 10:11). One who breaks the bone of a ritually impure Paschal lamb – ‫ה ׁ ּש ֵֹובר ַ ּב ָּט ֵמא‬:ַ One who breaks the bone of a ritually impure Paschal lamb is not flogged (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 10:1).

114 

Perek VII . 84a . ‫דפ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

‫ ִּכי‬:‫יה ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ְל ַר ִ ּבי ָא ִבין‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ ִמי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבה ּו ְר ֵמי ֵל‬ ּ ‫ָאזְ ַל ְּת ְל ַק ֵּמ‬ ‫יֹוחנָן ִ ּג ִידין ׁ ֶש ּס ָֹופן ְל ַה ְק ׁשֹות‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ָ ּב ַתר‬:‫ ַא ְל ָמא‬,‫יהן ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ֶ ‫נִ ְמנִין ֲע ֵל‬ ‫ֵיה ֵר ׁיש‬ ּ ‫ וְ ָהא ְ ּב ָעא ִמ ּינ‬,‫ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ָאזְ ִלינַן‬ ‫ֹאש ׁ ֶשל‬ ׁ ‫ עֹור ָהר‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ָל ִק ׁיש ֵמ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ֵאין‬:‫ֵעגֶ ל ָה ַרךְ ַמה ּו ׁ ֶשּיִ ָּט ֵמא? וַ ֲא ַמר לֹו‬ !‫ ָ ּב ַתר ַ ּב ּסֹוף ָאזְ ִלינַן‬:‫ ַא ְל ָמא‬.‫ִמ ַּט ֵּמא‬

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Avin: When you go before Rabbi Abbahu, raise the following contradiction to him: Did Rabbi Yoĥanan actually say: With regard to sinews that will eventually harden, people may register for them in the Paschal lamb, which would apparently indicate that we go according to the current condition of the sinews? But Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yoĥanan: With regard to the hide of the head of a young calf, which is still edible, what is the halakha with regard to the possibility of it becoming ritually impure as a food? Do we view it as a food and apply the rules of ritual impurity of foods, or do we view it as a hide? And he said to him: It does not become ritually impure. Apparently, we go according to the eventual condition of the hide, which contradicts Rabbi Yoĥanan’s own opinion with regard to sinews.n

‫ דִּ ְר ָמא ָל ְך ָהא ָלא ָח ׁש‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫יֹוחנָן ְלגַ ֵ ּבי‬ ָ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ ָהא ֲה ַדר ֵ ּב‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ְל ִק ְמ ֵח‬ ,‫נִיטנִי‬ ֵ ‫ ַאל ַּת ְק‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ וַ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬,‫דְּ ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬ .‫אֹות ּה‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ְל ׁשֹון יָ ִחיד ֲאנִי ׁשֹונֶ ה‬

When Rabbi Avin came before Rabbi Abbahu and asked him this question, Rabbi Abbahu said to him: Whoever asked you this question was not concerned for his flour,n meaning he did not carefully consider what he said. Rabbi Yoĥanan retracted his opinion in this regard in favor of the opinion of Reish Lakish, and Rabbi Yoĥanan said to him, at the end of their discussion on the topic: Do not trouble me by asking a question based on a mishna that seems to prove that we follow the current state of the hide, as I teach it in the singular. That mishna, on which I previously relied, is the opinion of one Sage and should not be relied upon. This proves that Rabbi Yoĥanan changed his mind and concluded that the status of parts of the animal is established based on their eventual condition. The opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan with regard to the Paschal lamb was stated before he changed his mind.

mishna 

One who breaks the bone of a Paschal lamb ‫מתני׳ ַה ׁ ּש ֵֹובר ֶאת ָה ֶעצֶ ם ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ that is ritually pureh receives forty lashes for ‫ ֲא ָבל‬.‫לֹוקה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬ ֶ ‫ַה ָּטהֹור – ֲה ֵרי זֶ ה‬ having violated a prohibition stated in the Torah.n But one who leaves ‫ ַה ּמ ִֹותיר ַ ּב ָּטהֹור וְ ַה ׁ ּש ֵֹובר ַ ּב ָּט ֵמא – ֵאינֹו‬over part of a ritually pure Paschal lambh and one who breaks the .‫לֹוקה ֶאת ָה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬ ֶ bone of a ritually impure Paschal lambh do not receive forty lashes.

gemara 

:‫מֹותיר ַ ּב ָּטהֹור – דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ ִ ‫גמ׳ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא‬ ‫תֹותיר ּו ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ַעד ּב ֶֹקר וְ ַהנּ ָֹתר‬ ִ ‫״ל ֹא‬ ‫יתן‬ ֵּ ‫ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ַעד ּב ֶֹקר וגו׳״ ָ ּבא ַה ָּכתוּב ִל‬ ‫לֹומר ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬ ַ ,‫ֲע ֵ ׂשה ַא ַחר ל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬ .‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫לֹוקה‬ ֶ

The Gemara analyzes the mishna’s rulings: Granted, one who leaves over part of a ritually pure Paschal lamb is not flogged for having violated Torah law. There is good reason for this, as it was taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And you shall not leave any of it until morning; and that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire” (Exodus 12:10). The verse comes to provide a positive mitzva to burn the leftover after the prohibition against leaving it over, to say that one is not flogged because any prohibition that can be rectified by the performance of a positive mitzvan does not carry a punishment of lashes. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

,‫ ל ֹא ִמן ַה ׁ ּ ֵשם הוּא זֶ ה‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי יַ ֲעקֹב‬ ‫יה ָלאו ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּבֹו‬ ּ ‫ֶא ָּלא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דַּ ֲהוָ ה ֵל‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ׁש ֵֹובר‬.‫לֹוקין ָע ָליו‬ ִ ‫ וְ ֵאין‬.‫ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬ ‫ ״וְ ֶעצֶ ם‬:‫נָלן? דְּ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬ ַ ‫ַ ּב ָּט ֵמא ְמ‬ ‫״בֹו״ – ַ ּב ָּכ ׁ ֵשר וְ ל ֹא‬ ּ ,‫ל ֹא ִת ׁ ְש ְ ּבר ּו בֹו״‬ .‫ַ ּב ּ ָפסוּל‬

Rabbi Ya’akov says: This is not for that reason. Rather, it is because it is a prohibition that does not involve an action.n The transgression is simply the failure to consume all the meat during the allotted time rather than the performance of an action. And one is not flogged for any prohibition that does not involve an action. But with regard to one who breaks the bone of a ritually impure Paschal lamb, from where do we derive that he, too, does not receive lashes? The Gemara answers that the source is as the verse states: “In one house shall it be eaten; you shall not remove any of the meat from the house to the outside, and you shall not break a bone in it” (Exodus 12:46). It may be inferred that the prohibition applies “in it,” in a valid Paschal lamb, and not in a disqualified one.

– ‫ ״וְ ֶעצֶ ם ל ֹא ִת ׁ ְש ְ ּבר ּו בֹו״ ״בֹו״‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫״ב ַביִ ת‬ ּ ְ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ַ ּב ָּכ ׁ ֵשר וְ ל ֹא ַ ּב ּ ָפסוּל‬ ,‫ֶא ָחד יֵ ָא ֵכל״ ״וְ ֶעצֶ ם ל ֹא ִת ׁ ְש ְ ּבר ּו בֹו״‬ ‫ָּכל ָה ָראוּי ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה – יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ – ‫ וְ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָראוּי ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה‬,‫ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ֶעצֶ ם‬ .‫ֵאין ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ֶעצֶ ם‬

The Sages taught with regard to that same topic: “And you shall not break a bone in it”; the prohibition applies in it, i.e., in a valid Paschal lamb and not in a disqualified one. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that this halakha should be learned in the following manner: It states: “In one house shall it be eaten,” and shortly thereafter the verse states: “And you shall not break a bone in it,” from which one can derive that any Paschal lamb fit for eating is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, and any Paschal lamb that is not fit for eating is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone.

‫ ּ ֶפ ַסח‬:‫ ַמאי ֵ ּבינַיְ יהוּ? ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה‬The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? ‫ ְל ַמאן‬.ּ‫יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יהו‬ ָּ ‫ ַה ָ ּבא ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה ִא‬Rabbi Yirmeya said: The practical difference between them is – ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬with regard to a Paschal lamb that is broughthwhen the majority of the nation is in a state of ritual impurity. According to the one who says that the prohibition of breaking a bone applies only to a valid Paschal lamb,

halakha

A Paschal lamb that is brought when the majority of the nation is in a state of ritual impurity – ‫פ ַסח ַה ָ ּבא ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬:ֶ ּ The prohibition of breaking a bone does not apply to a Paschal lamb offered when the majority of the nation is in a state of ritual impurity (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 10:1).

Perek VII Daf 84 Amud b – ‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ָראוּי ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה‬.‫ ַהאי ּ ָפסוּל‬this one is disqualified, and the prohibition does not apply. How.‫ ַהאי נַ ִמי ָראוּי ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה הוּא‬ever, according to the one who says that it depends on whether the offering is fit for eating, this offering that is brought in a state of ritual impurity is also fit for eating, and the prohibition of breaking a bonen therefore applies. ‫ ִּכי ַהאי ַ ּגוְ ונָ א דְּ כו ֵּּלי‬:‫יֹוסף ָא ַמר‬ ֵ ‫ַרב‬ ,‫ָע ְל ָמא ֵאין ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ָה ֶעצֶ ם‬ ‫ וְ ַהאי ָהא ּ ָפסוּל‬.‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ְל ַא ּק ֵֹולי ָקא ָא ֵתי‬ .‫הוּא‬

Rav Yosef said: In a case like this, in which the Paschal lamb was brought in a state of ritual impurity, everyone agrees that it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. This is because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi only came to be lenient, and this offering is disqualified due to the fact that it is ritually impure, despite the fact that such an offering is accepted and therefore obligatory.

‫ֹושר וְ נִ ְפ ַסל‬ ֶ ׁ ‫ ָהיְ ָתה לֹו ׁ ְש ַעת ַה ּכ‬:‫ֶא ָּלא‬ ‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ָּכ ׁ ֵשר – ָהא‬.ּ‫יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יהו‬ ָּ ‫ִא‬ – ‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ָראוּי ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה‬,‫ָּכ ׁ ֵשר הוּא‬ .‫ָהא ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ָלאו ָראוּי ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה הוּא‬

Rather, the practical difference between them is with regard to a Paschal lamb that had a time when it was validh and then became disqualified. According to the one who says that the verse should be understood as indicating that the prohibition of breaking a bone applies only to a valid Paschal lamb, this one is valid and the prohibition applies. According to the one who says that the prohibition applies only to an offering that is fit for eating, it is not fit for eating now, and therefore the prohibition does not apply.

‫ ּכו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ָּכל ִּכי ַהאי‬:‫ַא ַ ּביֵ י ָא ַמר‬ .‫ַ ּגוְ ונָ א ֵאין ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּש ּום ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ָה ֶעצֶ ם‬ ‫יהת ָהא ּ ָפסוּל‬ ַ ‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ִמ‬ ‫ ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ָה ֶעצֶ ם ִמ ְ ּבעֹוד יֹום‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא‬.‫הוּא‬ ‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ָּכ ׁ ֵשר – ָהא‬.ּ‫יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יהו‬ ָּ ‫ִא‬ – ‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ָראוּי ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה‬,‫ָּכ ׁ ֵשר הוּא‬ .‫ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ָלאו ַ ּבר ֲא ִכ ָילה הוּא‬

Abaye said: In any case like this, everyone agrees that it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. What is the reason? Now, at least, it is disqualified. Rather, the halakha with regard to breaking a bone while it is still day on Passover eve is the practical difference between them. According to the one who says the verse should be understood as applying the prohibition to any Paschal lamb that is valid, this one is valid and the prohibition applies. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to a Paschal lamb that is fit for eating, now it is not fit for eating and therefore the prohibition does not yet apply.

‫מֹוח‬ ַ ‫ נִ ְמנִין ַעל‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יבי‬ ִ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫ֵמ‬ .‫מֹוח ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ּקו ִּלית‬ ַ ‫ וְ ֵאין נִ ְמנִין ַעל‬,‫ֹאש‬ ׁ ‫ׁ ֶש ָ ּבר‬ ‫הֹואיל‬ ִ – ‫ֹאש ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬ ׁ ‫מֹוח ׁ ֶש ָ ּבר‬ ַ ‫ַעל‬ ‫ וְ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא‬.‫גֹוררֹו ו ְּלהֹוצִ יאֹו‬ ְ ‫וְ יָ כֹול ְל‬ ‫דַּ ֲע ָתךְ ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ָה ֶעצֶ ם ִמ ְ ּבעֹוד יֹום ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר‬ ‫יה ִמ ְ ּבעֹוד יֹום‬ ּ ‫ נִ ְת ְ ּב ֵר‬,‫דָּ ֵמי – קו ִּלית נַ ִמי‬ !‫יה‬ ּ ‫ וְ נִ ְמנ ּו ֲע ֵל‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫וְ נַ ּ ְפקו ּּה ַל ּמ ַֹוח דִּ ֵיד‬

The Gemara raises an objection: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One may register for a Paschal lamb to eat the marrow of the head, and one may not register for the purpose of eating the marrow of the thigh bone.h The Gemara clarifies: What is the reason one may register for the marrow of the head? It is since one can extract it from inside the head and remove it without breaking any of the bones, which is not the case with regard to marrow from the thigh bone. And if it should enter your mind to say that breaking a bone while it is still day seems well, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi should hold that we may break the thigh bone as well and remove its marrow, and it should be permitted to register for it.

‫יכה‬ ָ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ֲח ׁ ֵש‬,‫יך‬ ְ ‫ ו ְּל ַט ְע ִמ‬:‫ָא ַמר ָל ְך ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ‫יה וְ נִ ְק ָל ּה‬ ֵ ְ‫ נַי‬:‫נַ ִמי‬ ּ ‫יתי גּ ו ַּמ ְר ָּתא וְ נֵיחֹות ֲע ֵל‬ ‫ דְּ ָהא‬.‫יה‬ ְ ְ‫ ו‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫נִימנִי ֲע ֵל‬ ּ ‫וְ נַ ּ ְפ ָק ּה ַל ּמ ַֹוח דִּ ֵיד‬ ְ‫ ֲא ָבל ַה ּ ׂש ֵֹורף ָ ּב ֲעצָ מֹות וְ ַה ְמ ַח ֵּתך‬:‫ַּתנְיָא‬ .‫ַ ּב ִ ּג ִידין – ֵאין ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ָה ֶעצֶ ם‬

The Gemara responds: Abaye could have said to you: And according to your reasoning, after nightfall there is also a permissible way to consume the marrow of the thigh bone: We should bring a coal, and place it on the bone, and burn it, and remove its marrow, and therefore it should be permissible to register for it, for it was taught explicitly in a baraita: But one who burns bones of the Paschal lamb and one who cuts sinewsh do not transgress the prohibition of breaking a bone.



notes

Breaking a bone – ‫ש ִב ַירת ֶעצֶ ם‬: ְ ׁ In the Jerusalem Talmud, the following additional details of the halakhot of this prohibition are recorded: One is liable separately for each bone that one breaks. In the Jerusalem Talmud, there is a discussion concerning the size of the crack one must make in a bone in order to violate the prohibition. There is a debate whether any crack that one would notice when running one’s fingernail over the bone is considered a break and a violation of the prohibition, or whether the prohibition applies only to a crack large enough to notice when running one’s finger over the bone. halakha

Had a time when it was valid – ‫ֹושר‬ ֶ ׁ ‫היְ ָתה לֹו ׁ ְש ַעת ַה ּכ‬:ָ A Paschal lamb that was valid and became disqualified remains subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 10:6). One may register for the marrow of the head, and one may not register for the marrow of the thigh bone – ‫נִ ְמנִין‬ ‫מֹוח ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ּקו ִּלית‬ ַ ‫ֹאש וְ ֵאין נִ ְמנִין ַעל‬ ׁ ‫מֹוח ׁ ֶש ָ ּבר‬ ַ ‫על‬:ַ One may register for a Paschal lamb in order to consume the marrow of the head, but not in order to eat the marrow from the thigh bone, because it cannot be removed in a manner that will ensure that no bone is broken (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 10:10). One who burns bones and one who cuts sinews – ‫ַה ּ ׂש ֵֹורף‬ ‫ב ֲעצָ מֹות וְ ַה ְמ ַח ֵּתךְ ַ ּב ִ ּג ִידין‬:ּ ָ Burning the bones of a Paschal lamb and cutting its sinews are not considered violations of the prohibition of breaking a bone (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 10:5).

‫דפ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 84b 

115

notes

Due to ruining sacrificial food – ‫מ ׁ ּשוּם ֶה ְפ ֵסד ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬:ִ Several commentaries ask why Rava is concerned about the possibility of burning some of the marrow. If the bone is not opened, all of the marrow will go to waste. Indeed, it is clear from several sources that in that case it is permitted to ruin some of the consecrated food in order to save the rest. Some commentaries explain that the reason is that one would be actively ruining the marrow, while otherwise it would go to waste on its own (Avnei Nezer; see also Sho’el UMeshiv; Hagahot Maharsham).

‫ימר – ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ַ ‫ֶא ָּלא ַמאי ִאית ָל ְך ְל ֵמ‬ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬:‫ ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬.‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ּ ֶפ ַקע‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ָקא ַמ ְפ ִסיד ֵל‬,‫ֶה ְפ ֵסד ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬ ‫יל ָמא ָא ֵכיל נ ּו ָרא ִמ ּמ ַֹוח‬ ְ ִּ‫ ד‬,‫ַ ּבּיָ ַדיִ ם‬ ‫ ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ִמ ְ ּבעֹוד‬,‫ ִמ ְ ּבעֹוד יֹום נַ ִמי‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫דִּ ֵיד‬ .‫יכה‬ ָ ‫יֹום ַא ּט ּו ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ֲח ׁ ֵש‬

Rather, what have you to say in order to explain why one may not remove the marrow from the thigh bone by burning the bone? It must be due to a rabbinic prohibition. Why did the Sages enact this prohibition? Abaye said: It is because the heat might cause the bone to burst at a location other than where the coal is placed, which would be considered breaking rather than burning. Rava said: It is due to ruining sacrificial food,n as one who burns a hole in the bone ruins it actively because it is possible that the fire will consume some of its marrow. Similarly, breaking a bone while it is still dayh is also prohibited due to rabbinic decree. The Sages prohibited the breaking a bone while it still day due to the concern lest one do so after dark.

‫ ָּכל ִּכי ַהאי ַ ּגוְ נָ א ּכו ֵּּלי‬:‫ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ָא ַמר‬ .‫ָע ְל ָמא יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ָה ֶעצֶ ם‬ ‫יחזֵ י‬ ֱ ‫אֹור ָתא ֶמ‬ ְ ‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – ְל‬ ‫ ְ ּב ֵא ֶבר ׁ ֶשּיָ צָ א ִמ ְקצָ תֹו‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא‬.‫ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה‬ ‫ ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ָּכ ׁ ֵשר – ָהא ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬.‫ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְל ִ ּגי‬ – ‫ ו ַּמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ָראוּי ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה‬,‫הוּא‬ .‫ַהאי ָלאו ַ ּבר ֲא ִכ ָילה הוּא‬

Rav Pappa said: With regard to any case like this, everyone agrees it is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. What is the reason? It is because at night it will be fit for eating. Rather, it is with regard to a portion of a limb that has gone out of its permissible boundary and thereby become disqualified that they disagree. In such an instance, one removes the disqualified part in order to be able to eat the rest, and the Sages disagree about whether one may cut the bone. According to the one who said that the verse limits the prohibition of breaking a bone to a Paschal lamb that is valid, this one is valid, and it is therefore prohibited to break a bone. And according to the one who said the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is fit for eating, this one is not fit for eating, and it should therefore be permitted to break its bones.

‫ ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ְ ּבנֹו ׁ ֶשל ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ִּכ ְד ַתנְיָא‬ ‫ ֵא ֶבר ׁ ֶשּיָ צָ א‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫רֹוקה‬ ָ ‫יֹוחנָ ן ֶ ּבן ְ ּב‬ ָ ‫ִמ ְקצָ תֹו ו ׁ ְּש ָברֹו – ֵאין ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת‬ .‫ָה ֶעצֶ ם‬

As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Beroka, says: If a portion of a limb has gone out of its permissible boundary and one broke it, one has not transgressed. It is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. This is in accordance with the view that the prohibition of breaking bones applies only to a Paschal lamb that is fit for eating.

‫ ָּכל‬:‫יה דְּ ַרב ִא ִידי ָא ַמר‬ ּ ‫ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת ְ ּב ֵר‬ ‫ִּכי ַהאי ַ ּגוְ ונָ א – דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ֵאין ּבֹו‬ ‫ דְּ ַהאי ֵא ֶבר‬,‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ָה ֶעצֶ ם‬ ‫ ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ָה ֶעצֶ ם‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא‬.‫ָהא ּ ָפסוּל הוּא‬ ‫ ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר‬.‫יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יה ּו‬ ָּ ‫ְ ּבנָ א ִא‬ ‫ ו ַּמאן דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ָּכ ׁ ֵשר – ָהא ָּכ ׁ ֵשר הוּא‬ ‫ָראוּי ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה – ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ֵאינֹו ָראוּי‬ .‫ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה‬

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: With regard to any case like this, everyone agrees that it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, as this limb is disqualified and not merely unfit for eating. Rather, breaking a bone of a Paschal lamb when it is not yet fully roasted and still rawh is the practical difference between them. According to the one who said the prohibition applies only to a Paschal lamb that is valid, this one is valid, and it is therefore prohibited to break a bone. And according to the one who said the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is fit for eating, the prohibition does not apply to this offering because now it is not fit for eating.

‫ ָּכל ִּכי ַהאי‬:‫ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק ָא ַמר‬ .‫ַ ּגוְ ונָ א יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ָה ֶעצֶ ם‬ ,‫ילה‬ ָ ‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – דְּ ָהא ֲחזִ י ַל ֲא ִכ‬ ‫ ׁ ְש ִב ַירת‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה וְ ָא ֵכיל ֵל‬ ּ ‫דִּ ְמ ַט ֵּוי ֵל‬ ‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר‬.ּ‫יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יהו‬ ָּ ‫ָה ַא ְליָ ה ִא‬ ‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ָּכ ׁ ֵשר – ָהא ָּכ ׁ ֵשר הוּא‬ ‫ילה – ַהאי ֵאינֹו ָרא ּוי‬ ָ ‫ָרא ּוי ַל ֲא ִכ‬ .‫בֹוה ָס ְל ָקא‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ַא ְליָ ה ַל ָ ּג‬,‫ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה‬

Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said: Any case like this is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. What is the reason? It is because it is still considered fit for eating, since one can roast it and eat it. Rather, breaking a bone in the tailh is the practical difference between them. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is valid, this one is valid and the prohibition applies. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is fit for eating, this is not fit for eating, as the tail is consecrated to God, meaning that it is burned on the altar.

‫ ָּכל ִּכי ַהאי ַ ּגוְ ונָ א וַ דַּ אי‬:‫ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ָא ַמר‬ ‫ דְּ ָהא‬,‫ֵאין ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ָה ֶעצֶ ם‬ :‫ ֶא ָּלא‬.‫וַ דַּ אי ֵאינֹו ָראוּי ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה ְּכ ָלל‬ ‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ֵא ֶבר ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָע ָליו ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ִא‬ ‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ָּכ ׁ ֵשר – ָהא ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬.ּ‫ֵ ּבינַיְ יהו‬ – ‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ָראוּי ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה‬,‫הוּא‬ .‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ָ ּב ֵעינַן ׁ ִשיעוּר ֲא ִכ ָילה וְ ֵל‬

Rav Ashi said: A case like this is certainly not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, as the tail is certainly not fit for eating at all. Rather, the case of a limb upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meath is the practical difference between them. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is valid, this is valid, and the prohibition applies. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is fit for eating, we require the minimal measure of meat that would constitute an act of eating, and there is not enough meat on this bone; therefore, the prohibition does not apply.

halakha

Breaking a bone while it is still day – ‫ש ִב ַירת ֶעצֶ ם ִמ ְ ּבעֹוד יֹום‬: ְׁ One who breaks a bone of the Paschal lamb during the day of Passover eve is liable to be flogged (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 10:1). Breaking a bone when it is raw – ‫ש ִב ַירת ָה ֶעצֶ ם ְ ּבנָ א‬: ְ ׁ One who breaks a bone from a Paschal lamb that is still raw is liable to be flogged (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 10:6). Breaking the tail – ‫ש ִב ַירת ָה ַא ְליָה‬: ְ ׁ One who breaks the tail of the Paschal lamb is not liable to be flogged, since it is not fit for human consumption. The Rambam ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ashi, who was a later amora (Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 10:7). A limb upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat – ‫ֵא ֶבר‬ ‫ש ֵאין ָע ָליו ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬: ֶ ׁ One is not liable to be flogged for breaking a bone that has neither an olive-bulk of meat on it nor an olive-bulk of marrow inside it (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 10:3).

116 

Perek VII . 84b . ‫דפ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

‫יה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ ּ ‫ ָּכל ִּכי ַהאי ַ ּגוְ ונָ א ֵלית ֵ ּב‬:‫ָר ִבינָ א ָא ַמר‬ :‫ ֶא ָּלא‬.‫ דְּ ָב ֵעינַ ן ׁ ִשיעוּר ֲא ִכ ָילה‬,‫ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ָה ֶעצֶ ם‬ ‫ וְ יֵ ׁש ָע ָליו‬,‫ֵא ֶבר ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָע ָליו ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ְ ּב ָמקֹום זֶ ה‬ ‫ ְל ַמאן‬.ּ‫יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יהו‬ ָּ ‫ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ְ ּב ָמקֹום ַא ֵחר ִא‬ ‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ָראוּי‬,‫דְּ ָא ַמר ָּכ ׁ ֵשר – ָהא ָּכ ׁ ֵשר הוּא‬ ,‫ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה – ָ ּב ֵעינַן ׁ ִשיעוּר ֲא ִכ ָילה ִ ּב ְמקֹום ׁ ְש ִב ָירה‬ .‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫וְ ָהא ֵל‬

Ravina said: Any case like this is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, as we require the minimal measure of meat that would constitute an act of eating. Rather, the case of a limb upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat in this place and there is an olive-bulk of meat in another place is the practical difference between them. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is valid, this one is valid, and it is prohibited to break a bone. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is fit for eating, we require the minimal measure of meat that would constitute an act of eating in the place of the break, and there is not enough meat there. Therefore, the prohibition of breaking a bone does not apply.

‫״ב ַביִ ת‬ ּ ְ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,ּ‫ ַּתנְיָא ְּכ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ִמ ּינַיְ יהו‬The Gemara points out that it was taught in a baraita in accordance ‫ ַעל ַה ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬.‫ ֶא ָחד יֵ ָא ֵכל״ ״וְ ֶעצֶ ם ל ֹא ִת ׁ ְש ְ ּבר ּו בֹו״‬with four of the interpretations cited above. As it was taught in a ,‫ הוּא ַחּיָ יב וְ ֵאינֹו ַחּיָ יב ַעל ַה ּ ָפסוּל‬baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse “In one house shall it be eaten…and you shall not break a bone in it” (Exodus 12:46) teaches that one is liable for breaking the bone of a valid Paschal lamb, and one is not liable for breaking the bone of a disqualified Paschal lamb. – ‫ֹושר וְ נִ ְפ ַסל ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ֲא ִכ ָילה‬ ֶ ׁ ‫ ָהיְ ָתה לֹו ׁ ְש ַעת ַה ּכ‬If it had a time in which it was valid and it became disqualified at .‫ ֵאין ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ֶעצֶ ם‬the time of eating, it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. This supports the opinion of Rav Yosef. ‫ יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ׁ ִשיעוּר ֲא ִכ ָילה – יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת‬If it has the minimal measure of meat that would constitute an act ‫ ֵאין ּבֹו ׁ ִשיעוּר ֲא ִכ ָילה – ֵאין ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫ ֶעצֶ ם‬of eating, it is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone; if it .‫ ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ֶעצֶ ם‬does not have the minimal measure of meat necessary to constitute an act of eating, it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. This supports the opinion of both Rav Ashi and Ravina. ,‫ ָה ָראוּי ַל ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח ֵאין ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ָה ֶעצֶ ם‬That which is fit for the altar, such as the tail, is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. This supports the opinion of Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak. ,‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ֲא ִכ ָילה – יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ֶעצֶ ם‬At the time of eating, it is subject to the prohibition of breaking a .‫ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ֲא ִכ ָילה ֵאין ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ֶעצֶ ם‬bone; when it is not the time for eating, it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. This supports the opinion of Abaye. ,‫ ֵא ֶבר ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָע ָליו ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ְ ּב ָמקֹום זֶ ה‬,‫ית ַמר‬ ְּ ‫ִא‬ :‫יֹוחנָן ָא ַמר‬ ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫וְ יֵ ׁש ָע ָליו ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ְ ּב ָמקֹום ַא ֵחר‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬,‫יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ָה ֶעצֶ ם‬ .‫ ֵאין ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ֶעצֶ ם‬:‫ָא ַמר‬

It was stated that the amora’im argued about the following matter: In the case of a limb upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat in this place in which one breaks the bone,h and there is an olivebulk of meat in a different place, has one violated the prohibition of breaking a bone? Rabbi Yoĥanan said: It is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone.

‫ ״וְ ֶעצֶ ם‬:‫יֹוחנָן ְל ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬ ָ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ֵא ִית ֵיב‬ ‫ל ֹא ִת ׁ ְש ְ ּבר ּו בֹו״ – ֶא ָחד ֶעצֶ ם ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָע ָליו ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ ‫״אין‬ ֵ ‫ ַמאי‬.‫וְ ֶא ָחד ֶעצֶ ם ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָע ָליו ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ ‫ימא דְּ ֵאין ָע ָליו ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ ָ ‫ָע ָליו ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר״? ִא ֵיל‬ ‫ְּכ ָלל – ַא ַּמאי יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ָה ֶעצֶ ם? ֶא ָּלא‬ ‫ ֶא ָחד ֶעצֶ ם ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָע ָליו ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬:‫ָלאו ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬ ‫ וְ ֶא ָחד ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָע ָליו ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ְ ּב ָמקֹום‬,‫ְ ּב ָמקֹום זֶ ה‬ ‫ ַ(ק ׁ ְשיָא ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫זֶ ה וְ ׁיֵש ָע ָליו ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ְ ּב ָמקֹום ַא ֵחר‬ )!‫ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬

Rabbi Yoĥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a baraita: The verse states: “And you shall not break a bone in it,” which indicates that the prohibition applies to both a bone upon which there is an olive-bulk of meat and a bone upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat. What is the meaning of the phrase: Upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat? If we say that it does not have an olive-bulk of meat on it at all, it is not fit for eating at all. Why, then, is it subject to the prohibition against breaking a bone? Rather, is it not true that this is what it is saying: The prohibition applies both to a bone upon which there is an olive-bulk of meat in this place, and to a bone upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat in this place and there is an olive-bulk of meat in a different place? This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish.

:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ֵל‬He said to him:

halakha

Breaking a bone at a place where there is no meat – ‫ׁ ְש ִב ָירה ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬ ‫ב ְמקֹום ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬: ּ ִ If one breaks a bone in a place that does not have an olive-bulk of meat, but there is an olive-bulk of meat elsewhere on



the bone, one is liable to be flogged. In general, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan when he disagrees with Reish Lakish (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 10:3). ‫דפ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 84b 

117

Perek VII Daf 85 Amud a halakha

An olive-bulk of meat on the inside – ‫ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ ‫מ ִ ּב ְפנִים‬:ִ Any bone of the Paschal lamb that has an olive-bulk of meat or marrow may not be broken (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 10:3). Piggul and leftover sacrificial meat render hands impure – ‫ה ּ ִפיגּ וּל וְ ַהנּ ָֹותר ְמ ַט ְּמ ִאין ֶאת ַהּיָ ַדיִ ם‬:ַ The Sages decreed that leftover sacrificial meat and an offering disqualified as piggul have the status of first-degree ritual impurity. If one’s hands touch an egg-bulk of these types of meat, one’s hands become impure (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 8:3). notes

The positive mitzva comes and overrides the prohibition – ‫יָ בֹא ֲע ֵ ׂשה וְ יִ ְד ֶחה ל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬: This is a general halakhic principle that has broad application, but with certain qualifications. For example, the principle applies only when one violates the prohibition at the same time that one fulfills the positive mitzva. The halakhic midrash cited in this context proves that the principle is inapplicable in this instance, but not because the positive mitzva would have to override a prohibition expressed in two different places. Rather, the reason is due to the unnecessary verse concerning the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ. This extra verse is meant to neutralize the general principle that the positive mitzva takes precedence over the prohibition. Piggul and leftover sacrificial meat – ‫ה ּ ִפיגּ וּל וְ ַהנּ ָֹותר‬:ַ Some texts add the words: And a ritually impure offering. The Jerusalem Talmud serves as the basis for interpreting this added phrase: The different forms of disqualified offerings combine with regard to the legal measure required to impart ritual impurity. Therefore, the Gemara states that an offering disqualified by improper intention [piggul], leftover sacrificial meat, and ritually impure sacrificial meat all combine to equal the legal measure of meat necessary to impart ritual impurity to a person’s hand. Priests who were suspected – ‫ח ׁ ָש ֵדי ְכהו ָּּנה‬:ֲ Some commentaries explain that if priests were to touch the offering disqualified by piggul, they might be suspected by others of wanting to eat it, which is a transgression that incurs the punishment of karet. Therefore, the Sages decreed that an offering disqualified through piggul be considered ritually impure, to prevent priests from touching it (Rabbeinu Ĥananel; Arukh). The author of the Or Same’aĥ explains that priests who disqualified an offering through improper intent might not inform the owner of the offering, due to embarrassment or for some other reason. Instead, they would simply allow the meat to become leftover. Consequently, the Sages decreed that the meat be considered ritually impure in order to encourage the priests to burn it quickly. Lazy priests – ‫עצֵ ֵלי ְכהו ָּּנה‬:ֲ One commentary explains that the priests were lazy about burning the meat once it became leftover. The decree was meant to encourage them to burn it as soon as possible.

118 

Perek VII . 85a . ‫הפ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

‫ ֶא ָחד ֶעצֶ ם ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָע ָליו‬:‫ ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬,‫ָלא‬ ‫ וְ ֶא ָחד ֶעצֶ ם ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬,‫ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ִמ ַ ּבחוּץ‬ ‫ָע ָליו ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ִמ ַ ּבחוּץ וְ יֵ ׁש ָע ָליו ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬ .‫ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ִמ ִ ּב ְפנִים ִ ּב ְמקֹום ׁ ְש ִב ָירה‬

No, that is not what it means to say. Rather, this is what it is saying: It is prohibited to break both a bone upon which there is an olive-bulk of meat on the outside and a bone upon which there is not an olivebulk of meat on the outside, but there is an olive-bulk of meat, i.e., bone marrow, on the insideh at the place of the break.

‫ ״וְ ֶעצֶ ם ל ֹא ִת ׁ ְש ְ ּבר ּו בֹו״ – ֶא ָחד‬:‫וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬ ‫ וְ ֶא ָחד ֶעצֶ ם ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬,‫מֹוח‬ ַ ‫ֶעצֶ ם ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ּבֹו‬ ‫ ו ָּמה ֲאנִי ְמ ַקּיֵ ים ״וְ ָא ְכל ּו ֶאת‬.‫מֹוח‬ ַ ‫ּבֹו‬ ‫ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה ַהּזֶ ה״ – ְ ּב ָב ָ ׂשר ׁ ֶש ַעל‬ .‫ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ָה ֶעצֶ ם‬

And as a proof, the Gemara cites that which was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And you shall not break a bone in it” (Exodus 12:46). This prohibition includes both a bone in which there is marrow and a bone in which there is no marrow. How do I establish the positive mitzva expressed in the verse: “And they shall eat the meat on that night” (Exodus 12:8)? It is to be fulfilled exclusively with meat that is on the bone.

,‫אֹו ֵאינֹו ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ָב ָ ׂשר ׁ ֶש ְ ּבתֹוךְ ָה ֶעצֶ ם‬ ‫ו ָּמה ֲאנִי ְמ ַקּיֵ ים ״וְ ֶעצֶ ם ל ֹא ִת ׁ ְש ְ ּבר ּו‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫מֹוח‬ ַ ‫בֹו״ – ְ ּב ֶעצֶ ם ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּבֹו‬ .‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ ְ‫מֹוח – ׁש ֵֹובר ו‬ ַ ‫ְ ּב ֶעצֶ ם ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ּבֹו‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֲה ֵרי יָ בֹא ֲע ֵ ׂשה וְ יִ ְד ֶחה‬,‫וְ ַאל ִּת ְת ַמ ּה‬ .‫ל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬

Or perhaps it means only that the positive mitzva also applies to the marrow meat that is inside the bone. And if so, how do I establish the prohibition: And you shall not break a bone in it? It is referring specifically to a bone that does not have marrow. However, in the case of a bone that does have marrow, one may break and eat the marrow. And do not be surprised that one may violate the prohibition of breaking a bone in order to eat the marrow, as it is possible to say that the positive mitzva to eat the meat comes and overrides the prohibitionn prohibiting one to break a bone, in accordance with the general principle that positive mitzvot override negative mitzvot.

‫ ״וְ ֶעצֶ ם ל ֹא יִ ׁ ְש ְ ּבר ּו בֹו״‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֲה ֵרי‬,‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַּת ְלמוּד‬,‫ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬ ‫״כ ָכל ֻח ַ ּקת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח יַ ֲע ׂש ּו‬ ְּ :‫ְּכ ָבר נֶ ֱא ַמר‬ ‫אֹומר; ֶא ָחד ֶעצֶ ם ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ּבֹו‬ ֵ ‫ ֱהוֵ י‬,‫אֹתֹו״‬ .‫מֹוח‬ ַ ‫מֹוח וְ ֶא ָחד ֶעצֶ ם ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּבֹו‬ ַ

When it says: “They shall leave none of it until the morning, nor break a bone in it” (Numbers 9:12), with regard to the Paschal lamb of the second Pesaĥ, for which there is no need for the verse to state this prohibition, as it is already stated “according to all the statute of the Paschal lamb they shall keep it,” which includes the prohibition to break a bone, you must say that it is repeated in order to emphasize the prohibition and indicate that it applies to both a bone in which there is marrow and a bone in which there is no marrow.

ְ‫חֹותך‬ ֵ – ‫ ֵא ֶבר ׁ ֶשּיָ צָ א ִמ ְקצָ תֹו‬:‫ית ִיבי‬ ִ ‫ ֵמ‬The Gemara raises an objection to the view of Rabbi Shimon ben La‫קֹולף ַעד‬ ֵ ְ‫ ַעד ְמקֹום ׁ ֶש ַּמ ִ ּג ַיע ָל ֶעצֶ ם ו‬kish: If a portion of a limb has gone out of its permissible boundary, . ְ‫חֹותך‬ ֵ ְ‫ ׁ ֶש ַּמ ִ ּג ַיע ַל ּ ֶפ ֶרק ו‬one must cut through the meat until one reaches the bone, and then peel the meat that did not go out of the boundary away from the bone until one reaches the joint, and cut off the limb. One then eats the meat that has been detached from the bone and discards the bone and the portion of the limb that went out of the appropriate location. ‫וְ ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ֵא ֶבר ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָע ָליו ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ ‫ְ ּב ָמקֹום זֶ ה וְ יֵ ׁש ְ ּב ָמקֹום ַא ֵחר ֵאין ּבֹו‬ ‫קֹולף‬ ֵ ְּ‫ ָל ָּמה ִלי ד‬,‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ָה ֶעצֶ ם‬ ‫יה‬ ֵ ְ‫ַעד ׁ ֶש ַּמ ִ ּג ַיע ַל ּ ֶפ ֶרק ו‬ ּ ‫חֹותךְ ? נִ ְקלֹוף ֵ ּב‬ !‫יה‬ ּ ‫ּפו ְּר ָּתא וְ נִ ְת ְ ּב ֵר‬

And if you say that a limb upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat in this place but there is an olive-bulk of meat in a different place is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, why do I need the halakha requiring one to peel the meat until he reaches the joint and then cut off the bone? Let him peel a little bit from the section of bone that adjoins the portion that went out of the boundary and break the bone once there is no meat at the location of the break.

:‫ ָר ִבינָ א ָא ַמר‬.‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ּ ֶפ ַקע‬:‫ ַא ַ ּביֵ י ָא ַמר‬Abaye said: One may not do this, due to a concern that the entire bone .‫ ְ ּבקו ִּלית‬will crack, including a part of the bone that has meat on it. Ravina said: This ruling was stated with regard to a thigh bone, which has a large amount of marrow in it. It cannot be broken even if one peels away the meat from the location of the break. )‫ֹותר (וְ ַה ָּט ֵמא‬ ָ ּ‫ ַה ּ ִפיגּ וּל וְ ַהנ‬:‫ְּתנַ ן ָה ָתם‬ ‫ ַרב הוּנָ א וְ ַרב‬.‫ְמ ַט ְּמ ִאין ֶאת ַהּיָ ַדיִ ם‬ ,‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ֲח ׁ ָש ֵדי ְכהו ָּּנה‬:‫ִח ְסדָּ א; ַחד ָא ַמר‬ .‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ֲעצֵ ֵלי ְכהו ָּּנה‬:‫וְ ַחד ָא ַמר‬

We learned in a mishna there, at the end of the tractate: Piggul and leftover sacrificial meatn render hands impureh due to rabbinic edict, although they are not ritually impure by Torah law. Rav Huna and Rav Ĥisda disagreed with regard to the reason for this. One said: The reason is due to priests, who were suspectedn of purposely disqualifying the offerings of people they disliked via improper intentions. The Sages decreed that the disqualified offerings immediately render the hands of the priest impure as a penalty. And one said: The reason is due to lazy priests.n The decree is meant to stop them from allowing offerings to go uneaten.

‫ ַמאן‬.‫ֹותר‬ ָ ּ‫ ו ָּמר ַמ ְתנֵי ַאנ‬,‫ ָמר ַמ ְתנֵי ַא ּ ִפיגּ וּל‬The Gemara explains that they do not really argue: One Sage teaches ‫ ו ַּמאן‬,‫ דְּ ַמ ְתנֵי ַא ּ ִפיגּ וּל – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֲח ׁ ָש ֵדי ְכהו ָּּנה‬his reason with regard to piggul, and the other Sage teaches his reason .‫ֹותר – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֲעצֵ ֵלי ְכהו ָּּנה‬ ָ ּ‫ דְּ ַמ ְתנֵי ַאנ‬with regard to leftover sacrificial meat. The one who teaches the reason with regard to piggul says: The decree is due to priests suspected of purposely disqualifying offerings via improper intentions, as an offering only becomes piggul through intent. And the one who teaches the reason with regard to leftover sacrificial meat says: It is due to lazy priests who would not eat the meat. ‫ ַמאן דְּ ַמ ְתנֵי‬.‫ ו ָּמר ַמ ְתנֵי ַּכ ֵ ּביצָ ה‬,‫ ָמר ַמ ְתנֵי ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬One Sage teaches that this ritual impurity applies to meat in the – ‫ ּו ַמאן דְּ ַמ ְתנֵי ַּכ ֵ ּביצָ ה‬,‫יס ּורֹו‬ ּ ‫ ַּכּזַ יִ ת – ְּכ ִא‬amount of an olive-bulk, and the other Sage teaches that the mini.‫ ְּכטו ְּמ ָאתֹו‬mum amount of meat necessary for the decree to apply is an egg-bulk. The Gemara explains: The reason for the one who teaches that the minimum amount of meat necessary for the decree to apply is an olivebulk is that the decree is like its prohibition; one violates the prohibition to eat piggul or leftover sacrificial meat only when one eats an olive-bulk. And the one who teaches that the decree applies only when there is an egg-bulk of meat reasons that it is like its ritual impurity; by Torah law, only an egg-bulk of food can impart ritual impurity. ‫ יֹוצֵ א – ָ ּגזְ ר ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן טו ְּמ ָאה אֹו‬:ּ‫יב ֲעיָ א ְלהו‬ ּ ַ ‫ִא‬ ‫נֹותר דְּ גָ זְ ר ּו טו ְּמ ָאה – דְּ ָא ֵתי‬ ָ :‫ל ֹא? ִמי ָא ְמ ִרינַן‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל יֹוצֵ א – ַא ּפ ֵֹוקי ַ ּבּיָ ַדיִ ם ָלא‬.‫יה‬ ַ ‫ְל ִא‬ ּ ‫יע ּצ ֵֹולי ֵ ּב‬ .‫יה ַר ָ ּבנַן טו ְּמ ָאה‬ ּ ‫יה ַ ּבּיָ ַדיִ ם – ל ֹא ָ ּגזְ ר ּו ֵ ּב‬ ּ ‫ַמ ּ ְפ ֵקי ֵל‬ ?‫אֹו דִּ ְיל ָמא ָלא ׁ ְשנָ א‬

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to sacrificial meat that has gone out of its permitted boundaries, did the Sages decree that it attains ritual impurity or not? Do we say that a decree had to be made with regard to leftover sacrificial meat, as the priests would come to be lazy about it and not eat it; but with regard to sacrificial meat that has gone out there is no reason for concern, because priests would not actively take it out of its boundaries and thereby disqualify it, and therefore the Sages did not decree that it be considered ritually impure? Or perhaps it is no different, as the Sages decreed that all disqualified sacrificial meat be considered ritually impure, so that the people handling it would do so with greater care.

‫חֹות ְך ַעד‬ ֵ – ‫ ֵא ֶבר ׁ ֶשּיָ צָ א ִמ ְקצָ תֹו‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ . ְ‫חֹותך‬ ֵ ְ‫קֹולף ַעד ׁ ֶש ַּמ ִ ּג ַיע ַל ּ ֶפ ֶרק ו‬ ֵ ְ‫ׁ ֶש ַּמ ִ ּג ַיע ָל ֶעצֶ ם ו‬ ְ‫ ִּכי ָח ֵתיך‬,‫יה ַר ָ ּבנַן טו ְּמ ָאה‬ ּ ‫וְ ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ָ ּגזְ ר ּו ֵ ּב‬ !‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ַמאי ָהוֵ י? ָהא ָק ְמ ַט ֵּמא ֵל‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to this dilemma based on the following mishna: If a portion of a limb has gone out of its permissible boundary, one must cut through the meat until one reaches the bone, and then peel the meat away from the bone until one reaches the joint, and cut off the limb. And if you say the Sages decreed ritual impurity on sacrificial meat that has gone out of its boundary, when one cuts it, what has been accomplished? The portion that has gone out renders impure the rest of the sacrificial meat through contact.

‫ וְ טו ְּמ ַאת ְס ָת ִרים ָלא‬,‫ טו ְּמ ַאת ְס ָת ִרים ִהיא‬The Gemara answers: It is a case of ritual impurity in a concealed .‫ ְמ ַט ְּמיָ א‬place, as the part that has gone out would impart ritual impurity to the portion that has not gone out due to the contact they make underneath the skin, which is concealed from view; and the principle is that ritual impurity in a concealed placen does not render other objects impure. ‫יבוּר‬ ּ ‫אֹוכ ִלין ָלאו ִח‬ ָ ‫יבו ֵּרי‬ ּ ‫ ִח‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ו ְּל ָר ִבינָ א‬ ?‫ימר‬ ַ ‫ ַמאי ִא ָּיכא ְל ֵמ‬,‫ ו ְּכ ַמאן דְּ ַמ ְפ ְר ִתי דָּ ֵמי‬,‫הוּא‬ ‫ ְל ַמאן‬:‫ָהא ָקנָ גַ ע ַ ּב ֲה ָד ֵדי וְ ָקא ְמ ַט ֵּמא! ֶא ָּלא‬ ‫ ו ַּמאן דְּ ַמ ְתנֵי‬,‫יה ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬ ּ ‫דְּ ַמ ְתנֵי ַּכּזַ יִ ת – דְּ ֵלית ֵ ּב‬ .‫יה ַּכ ֵ ּביצָ ה‬ ּ ‫ַּכ ֵ ּביצָ ה – דְּ ֵלית ֵ ּב‬

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Ravina, who said that connections between two pieces of food are not considered true connections and are comparable to foods that are separate, and therefore it cannot be considered ritual impurity in a concealed place, what is there to say? They touch each other, and one imparts ritual impurity to the other. The Gemara answers: Rather, according to his opinion, this must be explained differently: According to the one who teaches that the decree applies only when there is an olive-bulk of meat, the mishna may be addressing a case in which it does not have an olive-bulk of meat. And according to the one who teaches that the decree applies only when there is an egg-bulk of meat, the mishna may be addressing a case in which it does not have an egg-bulk of meat.

notes

Ritual impurity in a concealed place – ‫טו ְּמ ַאת ְס ָת ִרים‬: There is a not impart ritual impurity, just as a dead fetus in its mother’s womb general principle that concealed ritual impurity does not render other cannot impart ritual impurity. The carcass of a kosher bird is an excepitems impure. For example, a ritually impure item in one’s mouth can- tion to this rule and has unique halakhot pertaining to it in this regard.



‫הפ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 85a 

119

halakha

A Paschal lamb that was removed from of the location of its group – ‫פ ַסח ׁ ֶשּיָ צָ א ֵמ ֲחבו ָּרתֹו‬:ֶ ּ If meat from a Paschal lamb is taken out of the area in which its group is sitting, it may no longer be eaten. It is treated like other sacrificial meat that is taken out of its boundary. It must be burned, and one who eats it is liable to be flogged (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 9:2). Meat that goes out of its location from the Paschal lamb – ‫יֹוצֵ א ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬: A Paschal lamb that is taken out of the location where its group is eating it may no longer be eaten but remains ritually pure. The Sages did not decree ritual impurity, because the members of the group are generally zealous in ensuring the proper treatment of the offering (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 8:5). notes

One who eats it is in violation of a prohibition – ‫אֹוכלֹו ֲה ֵרי‬ ְ ‫ָה‬ ‫זֶ ה ְ ּבל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬: Although the Torah does not explicitly prohibit eating sacrificial meat that has been taken out of its boundary, a source for this prohibition is derived from the verse: “You shall not eat any abominable item” (Deuteronomy 14:3). The principle that anything defined as abominable may not be eaten is derived from this verse. This means that any food item that is produced in a manner that violates halakha may not be eaten due to this prohibition (Berakh Moshe).

‫ ַה ּמ ֹוצִ יא ְ ּב ַ ׂשר ּ ֶפ ַסח‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ‫ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶשהוּא‬,‫ֵמ ֲחבו ָּרה ַל ֲחבו ָּרה‬ ‫ ָטהֹור‬:‫ ַמאי ָלאו‬.‫ְ ּבל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה – ָטהֹור‬ ‫ דְּ יֹוצֵ א ֵמ ֲחב ּו ָרה ַל ֲחב ּו ָרה‬,‫וְ ָאס ּור‬ ,‫יצתֹו דָּ ֵמי ו ִּמ ְפ ִסיל‬ ּ ָ ‫ְּכיֹוצֵ א חוּץ ִל ְמ ִח‬ ‫ ל ֹא‬:‫ ַא ְל ָמא‬.‫וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ָה ִכי ָק ָתנֵי ָ׳טהֹור׳‬ !‫ָ ּגזְ ר ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן טו ְּמ ָאה‬

Come and hear a different proof from a baraita: If one removes the meat of a Paschal lamb from the location of one group to the location of another group, although he violates a prohibition, as the Torah prohibits removing the Paschal lamb from the location of the group that registered for it, the Paschal lamb remains pure. The Gemara seeks to clarify: What, is it not that the meat remains pure, and yet it is prohibited to eat it, because a Paschal lamb that goes out from the location of one group to that of another group is comparable to any offering that goes out of its boundary, and it is disqualified? And even so, it is teaching that the meat remains pure. Apparently, based on this it seems that the Sages did not decree ritual impurity on meat that goes out of the location of its group.

‫ דְּ יֹוצֵ א ֵמ ֲחבו ָּרה‬,‫ ָטהֹור וּמו ָּּתר‬,‫ ל ֹא‬The Gemara rejects this proof: No, the baraita should be under‫יצתֹו‬ ּ ָ ‫ ַל ֲחבו ָּרה ָלאו ְּכיֹוצֵ א חוּץ ִל ְמ ִח‬stood as teaching that the meat is pure and permitted to be eaten .‫ וְ ָלא ִמ ְפ ִסיל‬,‫ דָּ ֵמי‬because meat that goes from the location of one group to the location of another group is not comparable to sacrificial meat that goes out of its boundary, and it is not disqualified. ‫אֹוכלֹו – ֲה ֵרי זֶ ה‬ ְ ‫ ָה‬:‫וְ ָהא ָקא ָּתנֵי ֵס ָיפא‬ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר‬.‫ְ ּבל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ַּכּזַ יִ ת וְ ֵלית ֵ ּב‬ ּ ‫ַּכ ֵ ּביצָ ה – דְּ ִאית ֵ ּב‬ ‫ ַמאי‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬.‫ַּכ ֵ ּביצָ ה‬ ?‫ימר‬ ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬ ָּ ‫ִא‬

The Gemara asks: But didn’t the latter clause of the baraita teach that one who eats the meat of a Paschal lamb that was removed from the location of its grouph is in violation of a prohibition?n Granted, according to the one who said that the Sages decreed ritual impurity on offerings only when there is at least an egg-bulk, the case in this baraita may be one in which there is an olive-bulk, which is the minimal measure one must eat to violate the prohibition, and there is not an egg-bulk, which is the minimal measure necessary for the rabbinic decree of ritual impurity to take effect. But according to the one who says that the Sages decreed ritual impurity even on an olive-bulk, what is there to say?

‫יב ֲעיָ א ָלן‬ ּ ָ ‫ ְ ּביֹוצֵ א ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח ָלא ִמ‬:‫ֶא ָּלא‬ – ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬,‫דְּ ל ֹא ָ ּגזְ ר ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן טו ְּמ ָאה‬ ‫ ו ִּמזְ ַהר זְ ִה ִירי‬,‫ְ ּבנֵי ֲחבו ָּרה זְ ִריזִ ין ֵהן‬ ‫יב ֲעיָ א ָלן ְ ּביֹוצֵ א‬ ּ ָ ‫ ִּכי ָק ִמ‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵ ּב‬ .ּ‫ְ ּב ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַמאי? ֵּתיקו‬

Rather, the previous answers may be withdrawn in favor of the following: With regard to meat that goes out of its location that is from the Paschal lamb,h it is not necessary for us to say that the Sages did not decree ritual impurity on it, because it is obvious. What is the reason the Sages did not decree it to be ritually impure? It is because the members of the group are zealous and are very careful to ensure that the meat remains in its proper location, making it unnecessary to penalize those who allow the meat to leave the location of its group. Rather, when this question was asked, it was with regard to other sacrificial meat that has gone out of its boundary. What is the halakha? The Gemara does not have an answer to this question and concludes: Let it stand unresolved.

‫ וּמֹוצִ יא ְ ּב ַ ׂשר ּ ֶפ ַסח‬The Gemara questions the source of a halakha mentioned above: And with regard to one who carries out meat from the Paschal lamb

Perek VII Daf 85 Amud b ‫ ״ל ֹא‬:‫ֵמ ֲחבו ָּרה ַל ֲחבו ָּרה ִמ ּנַיִ ן? דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ ‫תֹוצִ יא ִמן ַה ַ ּביִ ת ִמן ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר חוּצָ ה״‬ ‫ ֵמ ֲחבו ָּרה‬,‫ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָּלא ִמ ַ ּביִ ת ְל ַביִ ת‬ – ‫ ״חוּצָ ה״‬:‫ַל ֲחבו ָּרה ִמ ּנַיִ ן – ל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬ .‫חוּץ ַל ֲא ִכ ָילתֹו‬

120 

Perek VII . 85b . ‫הפ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

from the location of its group to the location of another group, from where is it derived that he has violated a prohibition? As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “In one house shall it be eaten; you shall not carry out any of the meat from the house to the outside” (Exodus 12:46), I have derived only that it is prohibited to remove meat from house to house; from where do I derive that it is prohibited even to transfer the meat from group to group within one house? The verse states: To the outside, which includes any case in which one brings the meat outside of the place where it may be eaten.

‫ ַה ּמֹוצִ יא ְ ּב ַ ׂשר ּ ֶפ ַסח‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי‬ ‫ֵמ ֲחב ּו ָרה ַל ֲחב ּו ָרה ֵאינֹו ַחּיָ יב ַעד‬ ‫ ַמה‬.‫יה ַּכ ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ּ ‫ הֹוצָ ָאה ְּכ ִתיב ֵ ּב‬,‫ׁ ֶשּיַ ּנ ִַיח‬ ‫ ַאף‬,‫ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – ַעד דַּ ֲע ַבד ֲע ִק ָירה וְ ַה ָּנ ָחה‬ .‫ָה ָכא נַ ִמי – ַעד דַּ ֲע ַבד ֲע ִק ָירה וְ ַה ָּנ ָחה‬

Rabbi Ami said: One who carries out the meat of the Paschal lamb from the location of one group to another group is not liable until he places the meat in the location of the second group. The reason for this is that the term carrying out is written about it, as the Torah says: “You shall not carry out,” which is similar to the prohibited labor of the same name pertaining to Shabbat. Therefore, just as when it comes to Shabbat one is not liable for carrying from one domain to another until he performs an act of lifting from one domain and placing in the other domain, so too, here also one is not liable until he performs an act of lifting the meat from the location of one group and placing it in the location of another group.h

‫סֹוב ִלים‬ ְ ‫ ָהי ּו‬:‫ֵמ ִתיב ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא ַ ּבר ַמ ָּמל‬ ‫אשֹונִים יָ צְ א ּו‬ ׁ ‫ ָה ִר‬,‫אֹותן ְ ּבמֹוטֹות‬ ָ ‫חֹומת ָה ֲעזָ ָרה וְ ָה ַא ֲחרֹונִים ל ֹא‬ ַ ‫חוּץ ְל‬ ‫אשֹונִים ְמ ַט ְּמ ִאין ְ ּבגָ ִדים‬ ׁ ‫יָ צְ א ּו – ָה ִר‬ ‫ וְ ָהא‬,‫וְ ָה ַא ֲחרֹונִים ֵאין ְמ ַט ְּמ ִאין ְ ּבגָ ִדים‬ !‫ל ֹא נָ ח‬

Rabbi Abba bar Mammal raised an objection based upon the halakha that those who remove the inner sin-offerings from the Temple become ritually impure. A baraita with regard to that halakha teaches as follows: If those carrying the inner sin-offeringsn were carrying them on poles,h and those in front already went outside the wall around the Temple courtyard, and those in the rear had not yet gone out, the ones in front nonetheless immediately cause their garments to become ritually impure, and the ones in the rear do not cause their garments to become ritually impure until they also leave. This proves that the people carrying these offerings become impure immediately. But the meat has not yet been placed outside the courtyard, so why should it already be considered to have been taken out?

:‫מֹותיב ָל ּה וְ הוּא ְמ ָפ ֵרק ָל ּה‬ ִ ‫ הוּא‬He raised the objection and he resolved it: The baraita addresses a .‫ ְ ּבנִ גְ ָר ִרין‬case in which the people are dragging the offerings, and therefore as soon as they leave the courtyard the offerings are considered to have been placed on the ground.

mishna 

If a portion of a limb has gone outh of its permis‫חֹותךְ ַעד‬ ֵ ‫מתני׳ ֵא ֶבר ׁ ֶשּיָ צָ א ִמ ְקצָ תֹו‬ sible boundary, one must cut the meat until one ‫קֹולף ַעד ׁ ֶש ַּמ ִ ּג ַיע ַל ּ ֶפ ֶרק‬ ֵ ְ‫ׁ ֶש ַּמ ִ ּג ַיע ָל ֶעצֶ ם ו‬ reaches the bone at the point that separates between the part of the ,‫ֹופיץ‬ ִ ‫ ו ְּבמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין קֹוצֵ ץ ַ ּב ּק‬.‫חֹות ְך‬ ֵ ְ‫ ו‬limb that went out of its boundary and the part that did not, and then .‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ַירת ָה ֶעצֶ ם‬peel the meat away from the bone until one reaches the joint, and cut off the limb at the joint, as it is prohibited to break the bone itself. And with regard to other offerings, one may chop off the part that exited with a hatchet, as it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. ‫ ִמן ָה ֲאגַ ף‬,‫ ִמן ָה ֲאגַ ף וְ ִל ְפנִים – ְּכ ִל ְפנִים‬How does one determine the outer boundaries of a particular location? bn ‫עֹובי‬ ִ ְ‫ ַה ַח ּלֹונֹות ו‬.‫ וְ ַלח ּוץ – ְּכ ַלח ּוץ‬Anything that is located from the inside of the doorway inward is considered as though it is inside, and anything that is located from .‫חֹומה – ְּכ ִל ְפנִים‬ ָ ‫ַה‬ the doorway outward is considered as though it is outside.h And the windows in the wall and the thickness of the wall are considered as though they are inside, such that an offering is considered to have exited the premises only if it is taken outside the wall. ‫ וְ ֵכן‬:‫גמ׳ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ו ְּפ ִליגָ א דְּ ַר ִ ּבי י‬.‫ַל ְּת ִפ ָּלה‬ ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬:‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ֵלוִ י דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ‫יצה ׁ ֶשל ַ ּב ְרזֶ ל ֵאינָ ּה ַמ ְפ ֶס ֶקת ֵ ּבין‬ ּ ָ ‫ְמ ִח‬ .‫יהם ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָש ַמיִ ם‬ ֶ ‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ַל ֲא ִב‬

gemara 

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: And the halakha is similar with regard to prayer,h in that a one who is standing outside the doorway cannot be included together with those praying inside. The Gemara notes that Rav disagrees with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Even a barrier of ironhn does not separate between the Jewish people and their Father in Heaven. Barriers are irrelevant with regard to prayer.

halakha

Taking meat from the Paschal lamb from the location of one group to another – ‫הֹוצָ ָאה ֵמ ֲחבו ָּרה‬ ‫ל ֲחבו ָּרה‬:ַ One who takes meat from the Paschal lamb from the location of one group to the location of another group is flogged. However, he is not liable until he sets it down, since the prohibition is only fully violated if one lifts up the meat from the location of its group and places it in the location of a different group, similar to the primary category of labor of carrying out on Shabbat (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 9:1). They were carrying them on poles – ‫אֹותן‬ ָ ‫סֹוב ִלים‬ ְ ‫ָהי ּו‬ ‫במֹוטֹות‬:ּ ְ Those who removed the inner sin-offerings to the place where the burning took place carried them on poles. Once the people carrying the front end of the pole exited the walls around the Temple courtyard, their clothes immediately became impure (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Para Aduma 5:5). A portion of a limb has gone out – ‫א ֶבר ׁ ֶשּיָ צָ א ִמ ְקצָ תֹו‬:ֵ If a portion of a limb of the Paschal lamb leaves the area in which it may be located, one must cut the meat at the place where the limb exited until one reaches the bone, then peel away the meat from the part of the limb that did not exit the appropriate location until reaching the nearest joint, and then cut off the limb at the joint. With regard to other offerings, one may simply cut off the portion of the limb that exited the appropriate location (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 9:2). Inside and outside – ‫פנִים וְ חוּץ‬:ְ ּ Anything located inside of the doorway is considered to be inside, while anything located in the doorway or outside is considered to be outside (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 9:1). And the halakha is similar with regard to prayer – ‫וְ ֵכן‬ ‫ל ְּת ִפ ָּילה‬:ַ All ten members of a prayer quorum must be in the same location. One who is standing in a doorway is considered to be outside of the room (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 55:13). Barrier of iron – ‫יצה ׁ ֶשל ַ ּב ְרזֶ ל‬ ּ ָ ‫מ ִח‬:ְ With regard to the priestly benedictions, even if a wall separates the priests from the rest of the congregation, it does not prevent the blessings from taking effect (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 128:24). background

Doorway – ‫אגַ ף‬:ֲ This refers to the width of the doorway itself. As the Gemara states, when a wall serves as a barrier between two areas of different status, it is not always clear what status is applied to the space inside the wall. The practical ramification of this concerns the doorway in the wall.

notes

The inner sin-offerings – ‫נִימּיֹות‬ ִ ‫ח ָטאֹות ַה ּ ְפ‬:ַּ Some authorities maintain that the halakha distinguishes between removal of the Paschal lamb and removal of the inner sin-offerings. One is liable for removing the Paschal lamb from its proper location only if one lifts it up from its original location and places it in a different location, similar to the laws of carrying out on Shabbat. However, those who remove the inner sin-offerings from the Temple courtyard become ritually impure immediately upon leaving the courtyard, even if they do not put down the carcass (Me’iri; see Mishne LaMelekh). From the doorway, etc. – ‫מן ָה ֲאגַ ף וכו׳‬:ִ Apparently, this statement



applies to any case in which the partition around a location defines that location for a particular halakha. This includes the wall around the Temple courtyard, as pertains to the consumption of offerings of the most sacred order; the wall around Jerusalem, with regard to the consumption of sacrifices of lesser sanctity; as well as the walls of each house in which the Paschal lamb is eaten (see Me’iri). Barrier of iron – ‫יצה ׁ ֶשל ַ ּב ְרזֶ ל‬ ּ ָ ‫מ ִח‬:ְ In the Jerusalem Talmud, it is stated that blessings and prayers break through barriers, even if they are made of iron.

Thickness of doorway in a wall ‫הפ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 85b 

121

notes

Lepers protect themselves under them – ‫צֹור ִעין‬ ָ ‫ְמ‬ ‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫מגִ ּינִין ַּת ְח ֵּת‬:ְ During the forty years in the desert, the lepers were excluded from all three sections of the Israelite camp. Consequently, when the Temple was built they were prohibited from entering the Temple Mount, the entire city of Jerusalem, or any other walled city in Eretz Yisrael, as the latter were considered the equivalent of the Israelite camp in the desert. Therefore, a leper who finds himself near Jerusalem when it is hot or raining outside has nowhere to seek shelter other than under the gates of the city. ּ ָ ‫ש ַער‬: The Gate of Nicanor – ‫נִיקנֹור‬ ַ ׁ The early commentaries questioned why they could not have sanctified the inside of the gate as well and allowed the lepers to stand outside the gate and insert their thumbs into the space under the gate. They explained that the sprinkling of the blood on their thumbs needed to take place before the Lord, and the inside of the gate is not considered before the Lord, even if it has the sanctity of the Temple courtyard (Tosafot; Rabbeinu Yehonatan). Rabbeinu Tam explained that the policy with regard to the Gate of Nicanor was also established with the purpose of allowing the lepers to seek shelter under the gate. The purification of lepers – ‫צֹור ִעים‬ ָ ‫ט ֳה ַרת ְמ‬:ָ The halakhot governing the purification process for lepers are detailed in the Torah (Leviticus 14). Among these halakhot are the requirements that a priest apply oil that has been sanctified for this purpose and blood from the guilt-offering upon the leper’s right earlobe, right big toe, and right thumb. For this reason, the leper had to extend his thumb, big toe, and head into the courtyard.

‫ ִמן ָה ֲאגַ ף‬:‫ָהא גּ ו ָּפא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א; ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬ – ‫ ָהא ֲאגַ ף ַעצְ מֹו‬.‫וְ ִל ְפנִים ְּכ ִל ְפנִים‬ – ‫ ִמן ָה ֲאגַ ף וְ ַלחוּץ‬:‫ימא ֵס ָיפא‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬.‫ְּכ ַלחוּץ‬ !‫ ָהא ֲאגַ ף ַעצְ מֹו – ְּכ ִל ְפנִים‬,‫ְּכ ַלחוּץ‬

– ‫ ָּכאן‬,‫ ָּכאן – ְ ּב ׁ ַש ֲע ֵרי ֲעזָ ָרה‬,‫ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬The Gemara answers: It is not difficult, as one can explain that these .‫ ְ ּב ׁ ַש ֲע ֵרי יְ רו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם‬two statements are referring to different situations: Here, in the first clause of the mishna’s ruling, it is referring to the gates of the Temple courtyard, where the inside of the doorways were considered as though they were inside the courtyard and had the sanctity of the courtyard itself. There, in the latter clause, it is discussing the gates of Jerusalem, where the insides of the gates were considered like the outside and did not have the sanctity of Jerusalem. ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי‬:‫דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר ַרב יִ צְ ָחק‬ ‫ָמה ל ֹא נִ ְת ַקדְּ ׁש ּו ׁ ַש ֲע ֵרי יְ רו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם – ִמ ּ ְפנֵי‬ ‫יהן ַ ּב ַח ָּמה ִמ ּ ְפנֵי‬ ֶ ‫צֹור ִעין ְמגִ ּינִין ַּת ְח ֵּת‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ְּמ‬ .‫ ו ַּב ְ ּג ׁ ָש ִמים ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ַה ְ ּג ׁ ָש ִמים‬,‫ַה ַח ָּמה‬

As Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzĥak said: For what reason were the insides of the gates of Jerusalem not sanctified? Because lepers protect themselves by sitting under them;n in the sun they protect themselves from the sun and in the rain they sit in the gateway to protect themselves from the rain. Lepers are not permitted to enter Jerusalem. In order to allow them to use the gates of the city as shelter from the elements, the gateways were not sanctified.

‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר ַרב יִ צְ ָחק‬ ‫ָמה ל ֹא נִ ְת ַקדְּ ׁ ָשה ׁ ַש ַער נִ ָ ּקנֹור – ִמ ּ ְפנֵי‬ ‫יסין‬ ִ ִ‫עֹומ ִד ין ׁ ָשם ּו ַמ ְכנ‬ ְ ‫צֹור ִעין‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ְּמ‬ .‫ְ ּבהֹונֹות יָ ָדם‬

Similarly, Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzĥak said: For what reason was the inside of the Gate of Nicanorn not sanctified with the sanctity of the Temple courtyard? It is because lepers who had healed and needed to bring their purification offerings would stand there and insert their thumbs into the courtyard, so that the blood of the offerings could be sprinkled on them, which would allow them to be purified.nh These sources indicate that the insides of the other gates of the Temple courtyard were sanctified and that the insides of the gates of Jerusalem were not sanctified.

‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫חֹומה וכו׳״‬ ָ ‫עֹובי ַה‬ ִ ְ‫״ה ַח ּלֹונֹות ו‬ ַ !?‫ ִאינִי‬.ּ‫ ַ ּג ִ ּגין וַ ֲע ִלּיֹות ל ֹא נִ ְת ַקדְּ ׁשו‬:‫ַרב‬ ‫יתא‬ ָ ֵ‫״כז‬ ְּ :‫וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַרב ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא‬ .‫ּ ִפ ְס ָחא וְ ַה ֵּל ָילא ּ ָפ ַקע ִאיגְ ָרא״‬

The mishna states that the windows and the thickness of the wall are considered to be on the inside. Rav said: Roofs and upper storiesh were not sanctified. Therefore, the roofs of the chambers in the Temple courtyard did not have the sanctity of the courtyard, and the roofs of buildings in Jerusalem did not have the sanctity of Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rav say the following aphorism in the name of Rabbi Ĥiyya: The Paschal lamb is the size of an olivebulk, as it was common for so many people to register for a single Paschal lamb that each one would receive only an olive-bulk of its meat. And the hallel that is said during its consumption breaks the roof; there were so many people who said hallel together, it seemed as though the roofs were breaking due to all the commotion and noise.

halakha

Lepers in the Gate of Nicanor – ‫צֹור ִעים ְ ּב ׁ ַש ַער נִ ָ ּקנֹור‬ ָ ‫מ‬:ְ Lepers who had been healed would stand outside the Temple courtyard in the Gate of Nicanor, where they would insert their heads as well as their right thumbs and right big toes into the courtyard, so that they could have the blood and oil applied to them (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Meĥusrei Kappara 4:2).

The Gemara questions the mishna: This matter itself is difficult; the mishna itself contains an internal contradiction. At first you said that the space from the doorway inward is considered as though it is inside, which indicates that the space of the doorway itself is like the outside. Now you say the latter clause of the mishna’s ruling, which states that from the doorway outward is considered as though it is outside, which indicates that the doorway itself is considered as though it is inside.

Roofs and upper stories – ‫ ַ ּג ִ ּגין וַ ֲע ִלּיֹות‬: The roofs and upper stories in Jerusalem and the Temple courtyard were not invested with the sanctity of Jerusalem and the Temple courtyard (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Beit HaBeĥira 6:7).

Perek VII Daf 86 Amud a ‫ ַמאי ָלאו דְּ ָא ְכ ִלי ְ ּב ִאיגְ ָרא וְ ָא ְמ ִרי‬What, is it not the case that they eat the Paschal lamb on the roof and ‫ דְּ ָא ְכ ִלי ְ ּב ַא ְר ָעא וְ ָא ְמ ִרי‬,‫ ְ ּב ִאיגְ ָרא? ָלא‬say hallel on the roof, which would mean that roofs have the sanctity .‫ ְ ּב ִאיגְ ָרא‬of Jerusalem? The Gemara responds: No, there is no proof from here, as it is possible that they eat on the ground and say hallel on the roof. ‫ ֵאין ַמ ְפ ִט ִירין ַא ַחר ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬:‫ִאינִי?! וְ ָה ְתנַן‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יַ ַע ְקר ּו‬:‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַרב‬,‫יקֹומן‬ ָ ‫ֲא ִפ‬ – ‫ ָּכאן‬:‫ֵמ ֲחבו ָּרה ַל ֲחבו ָּרה! ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ ‫ ָּכאן – ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת‬,‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ֲא ִכ ָילה‬ .‫ֲא ִכ ָילה‬

122 

Perek VII . 86a . ‫ופ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t we learn in a mishna: We do not conclude after eating the Paschal lamb with afikoman, and Rav said that this means that after eating the Paschal lamb one may not say: Afikoman, which refers to removing the utensils in order to go eat somewhere else, because they may not uproot themselves from one group to another group. This would indicate that one must complete the entire Passover seder in one place. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult. Here, where it says that one may not change places, it is during the time of eating. There, where it says they would say hallel on the roof, it is not during the time of eating.

‫ ֲע ִלּיַ ית‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַא ָ ּבא ׁ ָשאוּל‬,‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ‫ֵ ּבית ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ַה ֳ ּק ָד ׁ ִשים ֲחמו ָּרה ִמ ֵ ּבית‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבית ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ַה ֳ ּק ָד ׁ ִשים‬,‫ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ַה ֳ ּק ָד ׁ ִשים‬ ,‫ּכ ֵֹהן ָ ּגדֹול נִ ְכנָס לֹו ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה‬ ‫נָסין‬ ִ ‫וַ ֲע ִלּיַ ית ֵ ּבית ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ַה ֳ ּק ָד ׁ ִשים ֵאין נִ ְכ‬ ‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי‬,‫ָל ּה ֶא ָּלא ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָשבו ַּע‬ ‫ ּ ַפ ַעם‬:‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה‬,‫ ּ ַפ ֲע ַמיִ ם ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָשבו ַּע‬:‫ָל ּה‬ .‫יכה‬ ָ ‫ ֵל ַידע ַמה ִהיא צְ ִר‬,‫ּיֹובל‬ ֵ ‫ַא ַחת ַ ּב‬

The Gemara attempts to bring another proof with regard to this issue. Come and hear a resolution to this issue based upon the following baraita: Abba Shaul says: The upper story of the chamber of the Holy of Holies is more stringent with regard to the prohibition to enter it than the chamber of the Holy of Holies itself. How so? With regard to the chamber of the Holy of Holies, the High Priest would enter it once a year on Yom Kippur in order to offer the incense and sprinkle the blood between the staves of the ark, whereas the upper story of the chamber of the Holy of Holiesh is not entered except for once in seven years; and some say twice in seven years, and some say just one time in a Jubilee, i.e., once in fifty years, to see what it needs in case there are renovations that must be done. This indicates that the sanctity of the upper story was even greater than that of the Sanctuary itself.

‫נֵיתיב‬ ִ ְ‫יכל נֵיקוּם ו‬ ָ ‫ ֵמ ֵה‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ‫ ״וַ ּיִ ֵּתן‬:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫יכל‬ ָ ‫ינִיש?! ׁ ָשאנֵי ֵה‬ ׁ ‫ִא‬ ‫דָּ וִ ד ִל ׁ ְשלֹמֹה ְבנֹו ֶאת ַּת ְבנִית ָהאו ָּלם‬ ‫וְ ֶאת ָ ּב ָּתיו וְ ֶאת ַ ּגנְ זַ ָּכיו וַ ֲע ִלּי ָֹתיו וַ ֲח ָד ָריו‬ ‫״ה ּכֹל‬ ַ :‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫נִימים ו ֵּבית ַה ַּכ ּפ ֶֹורת״‬ ִ ‫ַה ּ ְפ‬ .‫ִ ּב ְכ ָתב ִמּיַ ד ה׳ ָע ַלי ִה ְ ׂש ִּכיל״‬

Rav Yosef said: Can a person get up and ask based on the Sanctuary? The Sanctuary is different,n as it is written: “Then David gave to Solomon his son the pattern of the Entrance Hall of the Temple, and of its houses, and of its treasuries, and of its upper rooms, and of its inner chambers, and of the place of the ark cover” (I Chronicles 28:11), and it is written with regard to the plans for the construction of the Temple: “All this is put in writing by the hand of the Lord, Who has instructed me” (I Chronicles 28:19). Therefore, the general rules of sanctity of roofs do not apply to the Sanctuary, as the details of its construction were determined through divine inspiration.

‫ ַה ְּל ׁ ָשכֹות ַה ְ ּבנוּיֹות ַ ּב ּק ֶֹוד ׁש‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ֹות‬ ֵ ּ‫ֹוכן חֹול וְ גַ ג‬ ָ ‫ו ְּפתוּחֹות ַלחֹול – ּת‬ ‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ֹות‬ ֵ ּ‫ ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ַ ּגג‬:‫קֹוד ׁש! ַּת ְר ְ ּג ָמא ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ֶ .‫ׁ ָשוִ ין ְל ַק ְר ַקע ֲעזָ ָרה‬

Come and hear another possible proof based on the following mishna: With regard to the chambers in the Temple that were built in the sanctified area and open to the unsanctified areah of the Temple Mount, their interiors are unsanctified and their roofs are sanctified. This states explicitly that the roofs are sanctified. The Gemara answers: Rav Ĥisda interpreted it as referring to chambers that were built under the Temple courtyard, and their roofs were level with the ground of the courtyard. In this case, the reason their roofs were sanctified is because they were part of the courtyard itself.

‫ ְ ּבנוּיֹות ַ ּבחֹול‬:‫יפא‬ ָ ‫ימא ֵס‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬,‫ִאי ָה ִכי‬ ‫קֹוד ׁש‬ ֶ ‫ֹוכן‬ ָ ‫ּו ְפ ת ּוחֹות ַל ּק ֶֹוד ׁש – ּת‬ ‫ וְ ִא י ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָת ְך‬.‫יהן חֹול‬ ֶ ‫ֹות‬ ֵ ּ‫וְ גַ ג‬ ‫יהן ׁ ָשוִ ין ְל ַק ְר ַקע ֲעזָ ָרה – ָהוְ יָ א‬ ֶ ‫ֹות‬ ֵ ּ‫ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ַ ּגג‬ ‫ ְמ ִחילּ ֹות‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ָל ּה ְמ ִחילּ ֹות‬ – ‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ל ֹא נִ ְת ַקדְּ ׁשוּ! ִּכי ָק ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ – ‫ ִּכי ַּתנְיָא ַה ִהיא‬,‫ִ ּב ְפתוּחֹות ְל ַהר ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬ .‫ִ ּב ְפתוּחֹות ָל ֲעזָ ָרה‬

The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna as follows: If the chambers were built in the unsanctified area and open to the sanctified area,h their interiors are sanctified and their roofs are unsanctified.n And if it should enter your mind to say that this is referring to chambers whose roofs were level with the ground of the courtyard, such chambers would be tunnels, and Rabbi Yoĥanan said that the tunnels were not sanctified. The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Yoĥanan said that, he was referring to tunnels that were open to the Temple Mount; when that ba­ raita, which says that the interiors were sanctified was taught, it was referring to rooms that open to the Temple courtyard itself.h

halakha

The upper story of the chamber of the Holy of Holies – ‫ע ִלּיַ ית ֵ ּבית ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ַה ֳ ּק ָד ׁ ִשים‬:ֲ The upper story of the Holy of Holies is entered only once every seven years in order to determine if any renovations are necessary (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Beit HaBeĥira 7:23). Chambers that were built in the sanctified area and open to the unsanctified area – ‫ַה ְּל ׁ ָשכֹות ַה ְ ּבנוּיֹות ַ ּב ּק ֶֹוד ׁש ו ְּפתוּחֹות‬ ‫לחֹול‬:ַ With regard to rooms in the Temple that were built in sanctified areas and whose entrances were open to unsanctified areas, if their roofs were level with the courtyard, the interiors of the rooms were not sanctified but the roofs were sanctified (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Beit HaBeĥira 6:7). Built in the unsanctified area and open to the sanctified area – ‫בנוּיֹות ַ ּבחֹול ו ְּפתוּחֹות ַל ּק ֶֹוד ׁש‬: ּ ְ The interiors of rooms in the Temple that were built in unsanctified areas and open to sanctified areas were considered sanctified, and it was permitted to eat offerings of the most sacred order there. However, they were not considered to be before God. Therefore, one was prohibited from slaughtering offerings of lesser sanctity there. In addition, a ritually impure person would not be liable for entering such a room (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Beit HaBeĥira 6:8). ּ ‫מ ִח‬:ְ The tunThe tunnels in the Temple – ‫ילֹות ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬ nels that opened onto the courtyard were sanctified, while the tunnels that opened onto the Temple Mount were not sanctified (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Beit HaBeĥira 6:9).

ּ ‫ ְמ ִח‬:‫אֹומר‬ ‫ילֹות‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ וְ ָה ַתנְ יָ א‬The Gemara asks: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi – ‫ ִמ ַּת ַחת ַה ֵה ָיכל – חֹול! ִּכי ַּתנְיָא ַה ִהיא‬Yehuda says: The tunnels under the Sanctuary are unsanctified? .‫ ׁ ֶש ּ ְפתוּחֹות ַלחֹול‬The Gemara answers: When that baraita was taught, it was pertaining to tunnels that open to the unsanctified area, which are considered unsanctified, as stated previously. notes

The Sanctuary is different – ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫שאנֵי ֵה‬: ָ ׁ The reasoning behind this answer is that the general principles that determine which areas have sanctity are not operative when there is a specific set of instructions that override them. Since the layout of the Temple was dictated through divine inspiration, as the verse states: “By the hand of the Lord” (I Chronicles 28:19), the general principles are suspended. However, these principles do apply to the courtyards and other areas of the Temple Mount not specified in the verses. If the chambers were built in the unsanctified area and open to the sanctified area, their interiors are sanctified



and their roofs are unsanctified – ‫ְ ּבנוּיֹות ַ ּבחֹול ו ְּפתוּחֹות ַל ּק ֶֹוד ׁש‬ ‫יהן חֹול‬ ֶ ‫ֹות‬ ֵ ּ‫קֹוד ׁש וְ גַ ג‬ ֶ ‫ת ָֹוכן‬:ּ The chambers in the Temple served a variety of different purposes. Among them were six chambers on the side of the Temple courtyard that are discussed in the Mishna (Middot 5:3–4). These chambers differed in their dimensions and positioning. Some were located in the ground of the Temple, but their doors faced away from the Temple onto the Temple Mount, others extended from the Temple grounds onto the Temple Mount and had doors on both sides. As to their status with regard to the sanctity of the Temple, the mishna teaches that their sanctity is based on their openings. ‫ופ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 86a 

123

notes

The roof of the Sanctuary was considered sanctified – ‫ ַ ּגגֹּו ק ֶֹד ׁש‬: Rashi, Tosafot, and others explain that the two measuring rods were stored on the roof. Consequently, the roof was considered sanctified because it serviced sanctified items. Two cubits – ‫ש ֵתי ַא ּמֹות‬:ְׁ Rashi and other commentaries explain that these two cubits were measuring rods made of gold or silver that were kept in the corners of that chamber. Other authorities explain that these measures were built into the room itself: One part of the room was built according to the cubit of Moses, while other sides of the room were built using the other cubit measurement (Rabbeinu Ĥananel; Arukh). Would take by the small cubit and return by the large cubit – ‫דֹולה‬ ָ ‫נֹוט ִלין ַ ּב ְּק ַט ָּנה ו ַּמ ֲחזִ ִירין ַ ּב ְ ּג‬: ְ Many transactions involving the Temple were undertaken in ways similar to the one described in this context in order to prevent possible misuse of consecrated property. The prohibition against misusing consecrated property is not limited to purposeful misuse of such property. It primarily applies to one who unwittingly uses or gains personal benefit from consecrated property. Therefore, artisans working in the Temple or merchants doing business with the Temple would forgo some of their payment in order to ensure that no mistake had been made and they had not overcharged the Temple. One for silver and gold – ‫א ַחת ְל ַכ ְס ּ ָפא וְ ַד ֲה ָבא‬:ַ The measuring rod for gold and silver was kept in the northeast corner, as the verse states (Job 37:22): “Gold comes out of the north” (Tosafot).

.‫קֹוד ׁש‬ ֶ ‫ וְ גַ גּ ֹו‬:‫ ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬The Gemara attempts another proof: Come and hear another proof from the same source cited above: It says in the baraita that the roof of the Sanctuary was sanctified, and the roof of the Sanctuary is not mentioned in the plans for the Temple laid out in the book of Chronicles. Therefore, the answer mentioned earlier, that everything in those plans was based upon divine inspiration, is not relevant. In that case, one should be able to derive that all the roofs were sanctified. ‫ ַ ּג ִ ּגין ַה ָּלל ּו ֵאין‬:‫וְ ִת ְס ְ ּב ָרא? וְ ָהא ָק ָתנֵי‬ ‫ֹוח ִטין‬ ֲ ‫ וְ ֵאין ׁש‬,‫אֹוכ ִלין ׁ ָשם ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬ ְ ּ ַ ‫ׁ ָשם ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַק ִּלים! וְ ֶא ָּלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ ‫״גגּ ֹו‬ ‫אֹותן‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬:‫ק ֶֹד ׁש״! ָא ַמר ַרב ָח ָמא ַ ּבר ּגו ְּריָ א‬ .‫ְׁש ֵתי ַא ּמֹות‬

The Gemara responds: And how can you understand it that way? Isn’t it teaching: In the case of these roofs of the courtyard and the chambers located there, one may not eat offerings of the most sacred order and one may not slaughter offerings of lesser sanctity there because they do not have the sanctity of the courtyard? However, that is difficult. It contradicts the previous statement that the roof is sanctified. Rav Ĥama bar Gurya said: The roof of the Sanctuary was considered sanctifiedn only because those two measuring rods used to measure cubitsn were stored there.

,‫ ׁ ְש ֵתי ַא ּמֹות ָהיָ ה ְ ּב ׁשו ׁ ַּשן ַה ִ ּב ָירה‬:‫דִּ ְתנַן‬ ‫ַא ַחת ַעל ֶק ֶרן ִמזְ ָר ִחית צְ פֹונִית וְ ַא ַחת‬ ‫ זֹו ׁ ֶש ַעל ֶק ֶרן‬.‫רֹומית‬ ִ ְּ‫ַעל ֶק ֶרן ִמזְ ָר ִחית ד‬ ‫ִמזְ ָר ִחית צְ פֹונִית ָהיְ ָתה יְ ֵת ָירה ַעל ׁ ֶשל‬ ‫ וְ זֹו ׁ ֶש ַעל ֶק ֶרן ִמזְ ָר ִחית‬,‫מ ׁ ֶֹשה ֲחצִ י ֶאצְ ַ ּבע‬ ,‫יה ֲחצִ י ֶאצְ ַ ּבע‬ ָ ‫רֹומית ָהיְ ָתה יְ ֵת ָירה ָע ֶל‬ ִ ְּ‫ד‬ .‫נִ ְמצֵ את יְ ֵת ָירה ַעל ׁ ֶשל מ ׁ ֶֹשה ֶאצְ ַ ּבע‬

As we learned in a mishna: There were two rods for measuring cubits in the chamber called Shushan the Capital, one in the northeast corner and one in the southeast corner. The one in the northeast corner was longer than the cubit mentioned in the Torah from the time of Moses, which was six handbreadths, by half a fingerbreadth, and the one in the southeast corner was longer than that by another half a fingerbreadth. Consequently, the second measuring rod was longer than Moses’ cubit by a full fingerbreadth.

– ‫דֹולה וְ ַא ַחת ְק ַט ָּנה‬ ָ ‫וְ ָל ָּמה ָהי ּו ַא ַחת ְ ּג‬ ‫נֹוט ִלין ַ ּב ְּק ַט ָּנה ו ַּמ ֲחזִ ִירין‬ ְ ‫ׁ ֶשּיִ ְהי ּו ָהאו ָּּמנִין‬ .‫ ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יָבֹוא ּו ִל ֵידי ְמ ִע ָילה‬,‫דֹולה‬ ָ ‫ַ ּב ְ ּג‬ ,‫וְ ַת ְר ֵּתי ָל ָּמה ִלי? ַא ַחת ְל ַכ ְס ּ ָפא וְ ַד ֲה ָבא‬ .‫וְ ַא ַחת ְל ִבנְיָ נָ א‬

And why did they construct two measures for cubits, one large and one small? It was so that the artisans who were working in the Temple would take payment according the amount of work they did, as measured by the small cubit, and return it to the Temple through their work, as measured by the large cubit,nh so they would not come to misuse consecrated property. If they would accept any payment that they did not deserve, they would be misusing consecrated property. Therefore, this system of measuring was instituted in order to slightly reduce their payment and prevent accidental misuse of Temple funds. The Gemara asks: And why do I need two large cubits? The Gemara answers: One, the shorter of the two, was for silver and gold,n so that the artisans would not lose too much, and one was for construction.

.‫חֹומה – ְּכ ִל ְפנִים‬ ָ ‫עֹובי ַה‬ ִ ְ‫ ַה ַחלּ ֹונֹות ו‬:‫ְּתנַן‬ ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ַה ַח ּלֹונֹות – ַמ ׁ ְש ַּכ ַח ְּת ָל ּה‬ ‫עֹובי‬ ִ ‫ ֶא ָּלא‬.‫דְּ ׁ ַשוְ יָ ה ְל ַק ְר ַקע ֲעזָ ָרה‬ ?‫יכי ַמ ׁ ְש ַּכ ַח ְּת ָל ּה‬ ִ ‫חֹומה ֵה‬ ָ ‫ַה‬

We learned in the mishna: The space within the windows and the thickness of the wall were considered to be inside. The Gemara clarifies: Granted, with regard to the windows, you will find it to be sanctified with the sanctity of the Temple courtyard when it is level with the ground of the court­yard. But with regard to the thickness of the wall, which must have been significantly above the ground, under what circum­ stances can you find it to be level with the ground of the courtyard? Even the roofs of chambers in the courtyard were not sanctified; therefore, if the thickness of the wall was not level with the floor of the courtyard, it would certainly not have been sanctified.

halakha

Would take by the small cubit and return by the large cubit – ‫דֹולה‬ ָ ‫נֹוט ִלין ַ ּב ְּק ַט ָּנה ו ַּמ ֲחזִ ִירין ַ ּב ְ ּג‬: ְ When artisans would work in the Temple, their payment was determined based on the measure of a cubit of twenty fingerbreadths, and

124 

Perek VII . 86a . ‫ופ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

they would work with a cubit that measured twenty-four fingerbreadths, in order to ensure that they did not misuse consecrated property (see Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Me’ila 8:5).

:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ַמ ׁ ְש ַּכ ַח ְּת ָל ּה ְ ּב ַבר ׁשו ָּרא‬ ‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫חֹומה״‬ ָ ְ‫״וַ ּיַ ֲא ֶבל ֵחל ו‬ ‫ ׁשו ָּרא‬:‫ימא ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א‬ ָ ‫ית‬ ֵ ‫ַא ָחא וְ ִא‬ .‫ו ַּבר ׁשו ָּרא‬

‫אֹוכ ִלין‬ ְ ‫מתני׳ ׁ ְש ֵּתי ֲחבוּרֹות ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו‬ ‫הֹופ ִכין ֶאת‬ ְ ‫ְ ּב ַביִ ת ֶא ָחד – ֵא ּל ּו‬ ‫הֹופ ִכין‬ ְ ‫ וְ ֵאלּ ּו‬,‫אֹוכ ִלין‬ ְ ְ‫נֵיהם ֵה ָיל ְך ו‬ ֶ ‫ּ ְפ‬ ‫יחם‬ ַ ‫ וְ ַה ֵּמ‬,‫אֹוכ ִלין‬ ְ ְ‫נֵיהם ֵה ָילךְ ו‬ ֶ ‫ֶאת ּ ְפ‬ – ‫עֹומד ִל ְמזֹוג‬ ֵ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָּמ ׁש‬.‫ָ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע‬ ‫קֹופץ ֶאת ּ ִפיו ו ַּמ ֲחזִ יר ֶאת ּ ָפנָיו ַעד‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ַה ַּכ ָּלה‬.‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ ְ‫ׁ ֶש ַּמ ִ ּג ַיע ֵאצֶ ל ֲחבו ָּרתֹו ו‬ .‫אֹוכ ֶלת‬ ֶ ְ‫נֶיה ו‬ ָ ‫הֹופ ֶכת ֶאת ּ ָפ‬ ֶ

The Gemara answers: You find it in the case of the low wall on the Temple Mount, which was the same height as the floor of the courtyard. This low wall is mentioned in the Bible, as it is written: “He has made the rampart and wall mourn” (Lamentations 2:8), and Rabbi Aĥa said, and some say it in the name of Rabbi Ĥanina, that this double language of both rampart and wall in the verse is referring to a wall and a low wallh that were next to each other. This low wall was the same height as the floor of the courtyard.

mishna 

Two groups that were eating one Paschal lamb in one house need not be concerned that they will appear to be one group. Rather, these turn their faces this way and eat, and these turn their facesh that way and eat. And it is permissible for them to have the boiler from which they pour hot water in the middle, so that the waiter can easily serve both groups. When the attendant who is serving both groups gets up to pour for the group of which he is not a member, he must close his mouth and turn his face so that he does not accidentally eat with the other group, until he reaches his group again and eats with it. And the bride,h who is embarrassed to eat in the presence of men she does not know, turns her facen away from her group and eats, although this may make it seem as though she is part of a different group.

gemara 

,‫נִיתין ַמ ּנִי – ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ִהיא‬ ִ ‫גמ׳ ַמ ְת‬ ‫ֹאכל ּו‬ ְ ‫״על ַה ָ ּב ִּתים ֲא ׁ ֶשר י‬ ַ :‫דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬ ‫אֹתֹו ָ ּב ֶהם״ – ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח נֶ ֱא ָכל‬ ‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ ‫ יָ כֹול יְ ֵהא ָה‬.‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ֵּתי ֲחבוּרֹות‬ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫אֹוכל ִ ּב ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְמקֹומֹות – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ֵ .‫״ב ַביִ ת ֶא ָחד יֵ ָא ֵכל״‬ ְּ

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna of the mishna? The Gemara answers: It is Rabbi Yehuda. As it was taught in a baraita: The verse states: “Upon the houses wherein they shall eat it” (Exodus 12:7). This teaches that one Paschal lamb may be eaten in two separate groups, even if the groups eat it in separate houses. I might have thought that one person who eats from it may eat it in two separate places; therefore, the Torah states: “In one house shall it be eaten [ye’akhel]” (Exodus 12:46).h

‫ ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָּמ ׁש ׁ ֶש ָא ַכל ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬:ּ‫ִמ ָּכאן ָא ְמרו‬ ‫ ִאי ּ ִפ ֵ ּק ַח הוּא – ְמ ַמ ֵּלא‬,‫ְ ּבצַ ד ַה ַּתנּ וּר‬ ‫ וְ ִאם ָרצ ּו ְ ּבנֵי ֲחבו ָּרה‬,ּ‫ְּכ ֵריסֹו ִמ ֶּמנּ ו‬ ‫יֹוש ִבין‬ ְ ׁ ְ‫טֹובה – ָ ּב ִאין ו‬ ָ ‫ַל ֲע ׂשֹות ִע ּמֹו‬ .‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ְ ּבצִ דּ ֹו‬

From here they stated that if an attendant who was registered for a Paschal lamb ate an olive-bulk of it next to the oven in which it is being roasted, and thereby made himself into an independent group at that location, if he is prudent he will fill his stomach with it because when the Paschal lamb is moved to a different location he will no longer be able to eat it. And if the members of the group wanted to do him a favor so that he may continue eating, they would come and sit at his side. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

halakha

A wall and a low wall – ‫שו ָּרא ו ַּבר ׁשו ָּרא‬:ׁ The Temple Mount was surrounded by a wall. Inside of that wall, there was a lower wall of ten handbreadths, and inside that wall, there was another, higher wall that was ten cubits tall (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Beit HaBeĥira 5:1, 3). These turn their faces – ‫נֵיהם‬ ֶ ‫הֹופ ִכין ֶאת ּ ְפ‬ ְ ‫אלּ ּו‬:ֵ If two groups are eating a Paschal lamb in the same location, they must turn their faces away from each other so that they do not appear to be one group (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 9:3). The attendant and the bride – ‫ה ׁ ּ ַש ָּמ ׁש וְ ַה ַּכ ָּלה‬:ַ If an attendant serves two groups in the same location, when he serves the group with which he is not eating, he must turn his face toward his group and keep his mouth closed. A bride is permitted to turn her face away from the members of her own group because she is embarrassed to face them (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 9:4). Eating in one group – ‫א ִכ ָילה ַ ּב ֲחבו ָּרה ַא ַחת‬:ֲ One may not eat the Paschal lamb with two different groups. One may eat it only in one location and with a group with which one is registered (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 9:1). notes

And the bride turns her face – ‫נֶיה‬ ָ ‫הֹופ ֶכת ֶאת ּ ָפ‬ ֶ ‫וְ ַה ַּכ ָּלה‬: Tosafot cite two interpretations of this ruling. The first is that it is permitted for the bride to turn away if she is embarrassed because members of the group are looking at her and her jewelry. The second is that the bride must turn away as an expression of modesty.

‫״על ַה ָ ּב ִּתים ֲא ׁ ֶשר‬ ַ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬Rabbi Shimon says that the verses should be understood in the op‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ ‫ֹאכל ּו אֹתֹו ָ ּב ֶהם״ – ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ָה‬ ְ ‫ י‬posite manner: “Upon the houses wherein they shall eat it” teaches that one person who eats the Paschal lamb may eat it in two places. ,‫אֹוכל ִ ּב ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְמקֹומֹות‬ ֵ

Perek VII Daf 86 Amud b – ‫ יָ כֹול יְ ֵהא נֶ ֱא ָכל ִ ּב ׁ ְש ֵּתי ֲחבוּרֹות‬I might have thought that a single Paschal lamb may be eaten in two .‫״ב ַביִ ת ֶא ָחד יֵ ָא ֵכל״‬ ּ ְ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ ַּת ְלמוּד‬separate groups; therefore, the verse states: “In one house shall it be eaten.” ‫ יֵ ׁש‬:‫ ְ ּב ַמאי ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י? ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ָס ַבר‬The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? ‫ יֵ ׁש‬:‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ָס ַבר‬,‫סֹורת‬ ֶ ‫ ֵאם ַל ָּמ‬The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda holds that the consonantal text .‫ ֵאם ַל ִּמ ְק ָרא‬of the Torah is authoritative; meaning, the primary understanding of the verse is according to the way it is spelled. If this is the case, the verse may be rendered: In one house shall he eat it [yokhal], referring to the person eating the Paschal lamb. This would indicate that one eating from the Paschal lamb must eat in one location, but the verse does not prohibit dividing the offering between multiple groups. And Rabbi Shimon holds that the vocalized text of the Torah is authoritative.n Since the word is pronounced ye’akhel, it is clear that it is referring to the Paschal lamb itself, and the verse requires that the offering be consumed by a single group of people (Rabbeinu Ĥananel). 

notes

The consonantal text is authoritative or the vocalized text is authoritative – ‫סֹורת וְ ֵאם ַל ִּמ ְק ָרא‬ ֶ ‫אם ַל ָּמ‬:ֵ The question as to whether the consonantal or the vocalized text is authoritative raises the issue of whether or not conclusions can be drawn from the way words are written in the Torah, even if those interpretations contradict the accepted pronunciations of those words. This dispute arises in several places in the Talmud. It is difficult to understand how these categories apply to this discussion (see Rashi and Tosafot). One commentary adds that if the word can be read yokhal, meaning: He shall eat, it is understood as referring to one individual. Consequently, it serves to limit the locations in which one may consume the Paschal lamb. If the word is interpreted purely according to the way it is pronounced, which is ye’akhel, it can even refer to the way many people consume the Paschal lamb and limit them to consuming it in one group (Rabbi Elazar Moshe Horowitz). ‫ופ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 86b 

125

halakha

Removal of a partition or the construction of a partition – ‫יצה‬ ּ ָ ‫יצה וַ ֲע ִ ׂשּיַ ית ְמ ִח‬ ּ ָ ‫ס ּילוּק ְמ ִח‬:ִ If two groups are eating the Paschal lamb while separated by a partition and the partition is removed, they may not continue eating, because one may not eat the Paschal lamb in two separate places. In addition, if a partition is erected between members of one group, they may not continue eating. Since Rav Ashi was unsure about this matter and the Gemara let the question stand, the Rambam ruled stringently (Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 9:5). Anything the master of the house says – ‫ָּכל ַמה‬ ‫ֹאמר ַ ּב ַעל ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬ ַ ‫שּי‬: ֶ ּ ׁ A guest should follow the instructions of his host (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 170:5).

,‫ינֵיהם‬ ֶ ‫יצה ֵ ּב‬ ְ ׁ ‫ָהי ּו‬ ּ ָ ‫יֹוש ִבין וְ נִ ְפ ְר ָסה ְמ ִח‬ ‫אֹומר ּ ֶפ ַסח נֶ ֱא ָכל ִ ּב ׁ ְש ֵּתי‬ ֵ ‫ְל ִד ְב ֵרי ָה‬ ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ְל ִד ְב ֵרי ָה‬,‫אֹוכ ִלין‬ ְ – ‫ֲחבוּרֹות‬ – ‫ֵאין ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח נֶ ֱא ָכל ִ ּב ׁ ְש ֵּתי ֲחבוּרֹות‬ .‫אֹוכ ִלין‬ ְ ‫ֵאין‬

The Gemara attempts to clarify this halakha: If members of a group were sitting and eating the Paschal lamb, and a partition was spread between them such that they now constitute two separate groups, according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says a Paschal lamb may be eaten in two groups, they may continue to eat; according to Rabbi Shimon, who says a Paschal lamb may not be eaten in two groups, they may not continue to eat because they now constitute two groups.

,‫ינֵיהן‬ ֵ ‫יצה ֵ ּב‬ ְ ְ‫יֹוש ִבין ו‬ ְ ׁ ‫ָהי ּו‬ ּ ָ ‫נִס ַּת ְּל ָקה ְמ ִח‬ ‫אֹוכל ִ ּב ׁ ְשנֵי‬ ֵ ‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ ‫אֹומר ָה‬ ֵ ‫ְל ִד ְב ֵרי ָה‬ ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ְל ִד ְב ֵרי ָה‬,‫אֹוכ ִלין‬ ְ – ‫ְמקֹומֹות‬ – ‫אֹוכל ִ ּב ׁ ְשנֵי ְמקֹומֹות‬ ֵ ‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ ‫ֵאין ָה‬ .‫אֹוכ ִלין‬ ְ ‫ֵאין‬

On the other hand, if they were sitting in two separate groups separated by a partition, and the partition between them was removed, according to Rabbi Shimon, who says that one who eats the Paschal lamb may eat it in two places, they may eat; according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says that one who eats the Paschal lamb may not eat it in two places, they may not eat. The removal of the partition defines a new place and it is as though they are eating in a new location.

.‫יה ִמ ְפ ׁ ַשט‬ ּ ‫יְ ֵתיב ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א ָקא ּ ָפ ׁ ֵשיט ֵל‬ ‫יב ֵעי‬ ּ ָ ‫ וְ ִת‬:‫יה ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ְל ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫יצה וַ ֲע ִ ׂשּיַ ית‬ ּ ַ ‫ָלךְ ִא‬ ּ ָ ‫ ִסילּ וּק ְמ ִח‬:‫יב ֲעיָ א‬ ‫ ִמי ָהוֵ י ִּכ ׁ ְשנֵי ְמקֹומֹות ו ִּכ ְׁש ֵתי‬,‫יצה‬ ּ ָ ‫ְמ ִח‬ .ּ‫ֲחבוּרֹות דָּ ֵמי אֹו ל ֹא? ֵּתיקו‬

The Gemara relates that Rav Kahana sat and taught this lesson simply, as though it were absolutely clear that erecting a partition divides a group into two distinct groups and removing a partition causes the area to be regarded as a new location. Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: You should raise this dilemma as a question: Does removal of a partition or the construction of a partitionh in one location during the eating of the Paschal lamb render the place comparable to two locations and cause the people to be considered two groups, or not? In fact, there is no clear answer to this dilemma, and the Gemara concludes: Let the question stand unresolved.

‫ ַמאי‬.‫נֶיה וכו׳״‬ ָ ‫הֹופ ֶכת ֶאת ּ ָפ‬ ֶ ‫״ה ַּכ ָּלה‬ ַ It was taught in the mishna that a bride turns her face. The Gemara asks: ‫ ַט ְע ָמא? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא‬What is the reason she turns her face? Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba said that .‫ֹושה‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ִהיא ּב‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabbi Yoĥanan said: It is because she is embarrassed by other members of the group looking at her. ‫יה דְּ ַרב נָ ָתן ִא ְיק ַלע ְל ֵבי‬ ּ ‫ַרב הוּנָ א ְ ּב ֵר‬ ‫ ַמה‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ָא ְמר ּו ֵל‬.‫ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק‬ :ּ‫ ָא ְמרו‬.‫ ַרב הוּנָ א‬:ּ‫ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ְך? ָא ַמר ְלהו‬ ‫יה‬ ֵ ּ ‫ יְ ַהב ּו ֵל‬.‫ יְ ֵתיב‬.‫נֵיתיב ָמר ַא ּפו ְּריָ א‬ ‫יה‬ ְ ִ‫יה ְ ּב ַחד ז‬ ּ ֵ‫ וְ ׁ ַש ְתי‬,‫ימנָ א‬ ּ ‫ָּכ ָסא – ַק ְ ּב ֵל‬ .‫יה‬ ְ ִ‫ִ ּב ְת ֵרי ז‬ ּ ‫ וְ ָלא ַא ְהדַּ ר ַא ּ ֵפ‬,‫ימנֵי‬

In this regard, the Gemara relates that Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, happened to come to the house of Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak. They said to him: What is your name? He said to them: Rav Huna, even though using his title appeared to show conceit. They said: Our master may sit on the bed due to his great stature. He sat immediately, despite the fact that common etiquette dictated that he initially refuse. They gave him a cup of wine that he accepted the first time, without initially refusing it. And he drank it in two sips and did not turn his face from the rest of the people who were present.

‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא ָק ֵרית ָלךְ ַרב‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָא ְמר ּו ֵל‬ ‫ ַמאי‬.‫ ַ ּב ַעל ַה ׁ ּ ֵשם ֲאנִי‬:ּ‫הוּנָ א? ָא ַמר ְלהו‬ ‫״נֵיתיב ַא ּפו ְּריָ א״‬ ֵ ָ‫ַט ְע ָמא ִּכי ָא ְמר ּו ְלך‬ ‫ֹאמר‬ ַ ‫״כל ַמה ׁ ּ ֶשּי‬ ָּ :ּ‫יְ ֵת ְב ְּת? ָא ַמר ְלהו‬ .)‫ְלךָ ַ ּב ַעל ַה ַ ּביִ ת ֲע ֵ ׂשה (חוּץ ִמ ֵ ּצא״‬

These actions all appeared to be departures from the common etiquette and surprised his hosts, who said to him: What is the reason you call yourself Rav Huna? He said to them: I am known by that namen since my youth, and therefore referring to myself with that title does not indicate conceit. They asked him: What is the reason that when they told you to sit on the bed, you sat immediately and did not initially refuse? He said to them: We have learned that anything the master of the house saysh to you, you should do, except for an inappropriate request, such as if he says to leave.n notes

I am known by that name – ‫ב ַעל ַה ׁ ּ ֵשם ֲאנִי‬:ּ ַ One explanation is that Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, told them that he had received rabbinical ordination in his youth and had been called by this name since then. Indeed, if he would call himself Huna bar Natan without the title, people would not know who he was (ge’onim). Except if he says leave [tze] – ‫חוּץ ִמ ֵ ּצא‬: These words are difficult to understand and many interpretations have been suggested with regard to the plain meaning of the phrase, the allegorical meanings, and even the possible esoteric messages. The early commentaries assert that these words are entirely superfluous. The author of the Me’iri even posits that they were added in jest and should be erased. However, most commentaries attempt to find meaning in this phrase. Some of them explain that one should comply with any request his host makes except a request that requires the guest to go outside to the marketplace (Baĥ; Magen Avraham). Other authorities explain that if the host asks his guest to leave, the guest need not comply immediately, due to the embarrassment it causes him. He may remain until the host forcefully removes him from the

126 

Perek VII . 86b . ‫ופ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ז‬

premises, as the Gemara says in tractate Arakhin: Until they throw his belongings (Mateh Moshe; Perisha). The Maharsha writes that once the host asks his guest to leave, he is no longer considered a host and the guest may do as he pleases. Some commentaries interpret the word tze, in this context, as alluding to something filthy or improper, just as the Sages of the Jerusalem Talmud interpreted the phrase: Go out [tze] and tell him, as being related to the word tzo’a, feces (Shabbat 57b). Still others interpreted the word as an acronym for tzad issur, a prohibited matter, indicating that one should comply with the requests of one’s host as long as it does not involve a transgression. This explanation is supported by the parallel text in tractate Derekh Eretz Rabba, which adds: When it is a matter that is permitted. An alternative explanation is that it may be an acronym for Sadducee [tzeduki] and heretic [apikores], meaning that one need not listen to one’s host if he is a Sadducee or heretic. The word may also hint at the needs of the host’s wife [tzorkhei ishto], because it is not considered appropriate for the guest to concern himself with the needs of his host’s wife (Ben Yehoyada).

‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא ִּכי יְ ַה ִבי ָל ְך ָּכ ָסא ַק ֵ ּב ְל ְּת‬ ‫ ְמ ָס ְר ִבין ַל ָ ּק ָטן‬:ּ‫ימנָ א? ָא ַמר ְלהו‬ ְ ִ‫ְ ּב ַחד ז‬ ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬.‫וְ ֵא ין ְמ ָס ְר ִבין ַל ָ ּגדֹול‬ :‫ימנֵי? ָא ַמר ְלה ּו‬ ְ ִ‫יה ִ ּב ְת ֵרי ז‬ ֵ ‫ִא ׁ ְש ִת‬ ּ ‫ית‬ ‫ ַה ׁ ּש ֶֹותה ּכֹוסֹו ְ ּב ַבת ַא ַחת – ֲה ֵרי‬,‫דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ – ‫ ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬,‫ ׁ ְשנַיִ ם – דֶּ ֶרךְ ֶא ֶרץ‬,‫זֶ ה ַ ּג ְר ְ ּג ָרן‬ ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא ָלא ַא ְהדַּ ְר ְּת‬.‫ִמ ַ ּג ֵּסי ָהרו ַּח‬ ,‫נֶיה‬ ָ ‫הֹופ ֶכת ּ ָפ‬ ֶ ‫ ַּכ ָּלה‬:ּ‫ַא ּ ָפ ְך? ָא ַמר ְלהו‬ .‫ְּתנַן‬

They continued to question his conduct: What is the reason that when they gave you the cup, you accepted it the first time and did not politely demur? He said to them: One may refuse a lesser person, but one may not refuse a great person; when an important person makes a request, it is respectful to comply immediately. They persisted in their questioning: What is the reason you drank it in two sips? He said to them: As it was taught in a baraita: One who drinks his cup at one time is a guzzler; drinking it in two sips is proper manners; one who drinks his cup in three sips is haughty, as he thereby demonstrates that he is pampered and indulgent.h They continued to question his conduct: What is the reason you did not turn your face in accordance with the common etiquette? He said to them: We learned in the mishna that a bride turns her face; however, there is no reason for anyone else to turn his face.

‫יק ַלע ְל ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יֹוסי ִא‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ יְ ַהב ּו‬,‫יֹוסי ֶ ּבן ָלקֹונְיָא‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫יה‬ ְ ִ‫יה ְ ּב ַחד ז‬ ּ ֵ‫ימנָ א וְ ׁ ַש ְתי‬ ּ ‫יה ָּכ ָסא ַק ְ ּב ֵל‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫ ָלא ָס ַבר ָל ּה‬:‫יה‬ ְ ִ‫ְ ּב ַחד ז‬ ּ ‫ ָא ְמ ִרי ֵל‬.‫ימנָ א‬ ‫ֹותה ּכֹוסֹו ְ ּב ַבת ַא ַחת – ֲה ֵרי‬ ֶ ‫״ה ׁ ּש‬ ַ ‫ָמר‬ ָ‫כֹוסך‬ ְ ‫ ָלא ָא ְמ ִרי ְ ּב‬:ּ‫זֶ ה ַ ּג ְר ְ ּג ָרן״? ָא ַמר ְלהו‬ .‫יסי ְר ָח ָבה‬ ִ ‫ ו ְּכ ֵר‬,‫ וְ יֵ ינְ ךָ ָמתֹוק‬,‫ָק ָטן‬

The Gemara relates another incident that is somewhat similar to the one just quoted: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei,p happened to come to the house of Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yosei ben Lakonya. They gave him a cup of wine to drink. He accepted it the first time it was offered and drank it at one time. They said to him: Does our master not hold of the halakha that one who drinks his cup at one time is a guzzler? He said to them: They did not say this rule with regard to your small cup, and your sweet wine, and my wide stomach.

‫ ְ ּבנֵי ֲחב ּו ָרה נִ ְכנָ ִסין‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬ ‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫ִ ּב ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה וְ יֹוצְ ִאין ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְ ּב ֶא ָחד‬ ‫ילי‬ ִ ִ‫ַר ָ ּבה; וְ הוּא דְּ ָעיֵ יל ְ ּב ִעידָּ נָ א דִּ ְרג‬ .‫ וְ הוּא דְּ ָרגַ ש ְ ּבה ּו דַּ ּיָ ָילא‬,‫יעל‬ ַ ‫ְל ֵמ‬

Rav Huna said: Members of a groupn enterh with three, meaning that when there are three members present the waiter must start serving them, and they may leave even with one, meaning that they may leave one at a time, and the waiter must continue serving those who remain until they are finished. Rabba said: And that is true only when the last member of the group entered at a time when it is common to enter the meal and not unusually early or late, and it is true only when the waiter [dayyala]l knew about them, i.e., he knew that the members of this group leave one by one as they finish their meals and do not eat the entire meal together.

ְ‫ וְ צָ ִריך‬,‫נֹותנִין ְ ׂש ַכר דָּ ִמים‬ ְ ְ‫ ו‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָר ִבינָ א‬Ravina said: And the people who stayed late and extended their ‫ וְ ֵלית ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬,‫הֹוסיף דָּ ִמים‬ ִ ‫ ָה ַא ֲחרֹון ְל‬meal must give the waiter extra money for the wages he earned .‫יה‬ ֵ ָ‫ ְּכו‬during the extra time that he served them, and the last one must ּ ‫ות‬ add money for the time the waiter stayed to serve him individually. The Gemara notes: And the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Ravina. Rather, the waiter must serve until the last member of the group has completed his meal without additional compensation. ‫הדרן עלך כיצד צולין‬

halakha

Drinking a cup – ‫ש ִתּיָ ית ּכֹוס‬: ְ ׁ One who drinks his entire cup in one swallow is considered a guzzler. It is good manners to drink the cup in two sips, and it is an act of conceit to drink it in three sips. However, one may drink a very small cup, one that contains less than a quarter-log (Magen Avraham), all at once, and one may drink an unusually large cup in three or four sips (Rema; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 170:8). Members of a group enter – ‫נָסין‬ ִ ‫בנֵי ֲחבו ָּרה נִ ְכ‬:ּ ְ If at least three members of a group arrive at the time people generally eat the Paschal lamb, they need not wait for the other members of the group. They may eat their fill of the Paschal lamb. Even if they eat more than their fair share of the offering, they need not compensate the other members of the group. Each member of the group may leave when he is finished, even without waiting for other members of the group. According to the Rambam, the Gemara discusses a group of people eating the Paschal lamb and not a group of people eating a regular meal (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 9:6). Personalities

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei – ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי‬:ַ Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, was a member of the last generation of tanna’im, during which the Mishna was completed. He was the most renowned son of Rabbi Yosei ben Ĥalafta, who is the most commonly cited Rabbi Yosei in the Mishna. Rabbi Yishmael was a disciple-colleague of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and was apparently the same age or even slightly older than the Nasi. Rabbi Yishmael accepted the authority of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, but always emphasized that he received the bulk of his Torah from his father, whom he regarded as a greater Torah authority than Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi respected Rabbi Yishmael largely due to the fact that he was the son of Rabbi Yosei and transmitted the teachings of his father, whom Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi revered. Rabbi Yishmael was once appointed by the authorities as chief of police and apparently left Eretz Yisrael for a brief period to avoid assuming that position. He was a close friend of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoĥai. Many anecdotes recorded in the Talmud speak of his sharp mind and keen intellect, both in conversations with his friends and in the interpretation of dreams. notes

Members of a group – ‫בנֵי ֲחבו ָּרה‬: ּ ְ The early Sephardic commentaries and the Rambam interpret this statement as referring to a group of people eating the Paschal lamb. Rashi and the Ra’avad understand that it is referring to any group eating a meal at any time during the year. The requirement that the waiter know about them may be interpreted to mean that if the waiter searched for the remaining members of the group and did not find them, he need not look for them again. One commentary explains that extra money must be paid by those who came to the meal early and ate more than those who came later. They must pay for part of the latecomers’ share of hiring the waiter for the meal (Arukh). language

Waiter [dayyala] – ‫דַּ ּיָ ָילא‬: Some linguists assert that this word is derived from the Greek word δοῦλος, doulos, which means a slave or servant.



‫ופ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Perek VII . 86b 

127

Summary of Perek VII The halakhot relating to the consumption of the Paschal lamb may be divided into two distinct categories: The principles and mitzvot relating to the manner in which it must be eaten, and the various halakhot of ritual purity and impurity as they apply. The Paschal lamb must be entirely roasted directly over a fire. The chapter discussed how this is practically achieved and how to ensure that no part of the lamb is cooked through any other method. The Gemara concluded that the prohibition against breaking the bones of the Paschal lamb applies only to parts of the lamb that are objectively categorized as bones, irrespective of whether they are soft or hard. Consequently, there is no difference in this regard between a tender kid whose bones are soft and a tougher older goat. The requirement to burn the remains of the Paschal lamb applies to any parts of the lamb that are edible. The actual burning does not override Shabbat or the Festival; rather, the leftovers are burned at the first opportunity during the intermediate days. The Torah mandates that the Paschal lamb be eaten by a group within a single house. The definition of a house is any closed-in, self-defined unit. A few groups may share a single house, but meat from one group’s lamb may not be shared with another group. The halakhot of ritual purity and impurity as they relate to the Paschal lamb are as follows: Ideally, the Paschal lamb should be sacrificed in a state of ritual purity. This means that both the lamb and the owners of the lamb, who will eat it, must remain in a state of purity throughout. In the event that a state of purity was not maintained, the halakha depends on whether the problem arose before or after the blood of the lamb was sprinkled on the altar. If the blood was sprinkled while both the lamb and the owners were still ritually pure, it is considered a valid offering and the owners fulfill their obligation. However, due to the impurity, they may not partake of the lamb’s meat, and it must be burnt. In the event that the problem arose before the blood was sprinkled, the lamb is disqualified from use, its blood may not be sprinkled, and those sacrificing it must bring another Paschal lamb. If the owners became impure and are unable to become pure in time to bring another Paschal lamb that day, they must wait until the second Pesaĥ. There is an exception to the rule that an owner who is impure defers bringing the offering until the second Pesaĥ, and that is when the majority of the Jewish people have become impure. In that case, there is a specific dispensation, and the Paschal lamb may be brought despite the impurity. However, this dispensation applies only to impurity imparted by a corpse. Those who have become impure due to a different type of impurity are still not permitted to sacrifice the Paschal lamb in a state of impurity.

129

Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying: On the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to their fathers’ houses, a lamb for a household; and if the household be too little for a lamb, then shall he and his neighbor next to his house take one according to the number of the souls; according to every man’s eating you shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year; you shall take it from the sheep, or from the goats.

Introduction to Perek VIII

(Exodus 12:3–5) But every man’s servant that is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then shall he eat from it. A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat from it. In one house shall it be eaten; you shall not remove any of the meat from the house to the outside, and you shall not break a bone in it. (Exodus 12:44–46) And when a stranger shall sojourn with you, and will offer the Paschal lamb to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land; but no uncircumcised person shall eat from it. (Exodus 12:48)

This chapter deals entirely with one topic: The group of people who join together to be registered for a Paschal lamb. That the Paschal lamb may be eaten only by those who registered as a group was already mentioned at the end of the previous chapter. This chapter details who may be registered in a group, when and how it is possible to be registered, and when one can withdraw from being registered. Other questions also arise: Are women, slaves, and minors able to create their own groups, or must they join an already existing group? Must a group consist of a number of people, or may a single individual constitute his own group? The discussion about registration also considers the protocol in various cases of doubt. What happens when there is a doubt about which group a person is registered with? What if there is doubt about which animal belongs to the group; either because different animals were intermingled, or because they are unsure which animal they registered for? As discussed in the previous chapter, one who is ritually impure may not partake of the Paschal lamb. This chapter continues that discussion and examines which types of impurity exclude a person. What should be done if a person is still impure at the time the Paschal lamb is sacrificed, but by the evening, when it will be eaten, he will have already become pure?



131 

Perek VIII Daf 87 Amud a ‫מתני׳ ָה ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ִהיא ְ ּב ֵבית‬ ‫יה ַ ּב ֲע ָל ּה וְ ׁ ָש ַחט‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ָש ַחט ָע ֶל‬,‫ַ ּב ֲע ָל ּה‬ .‫ֹאכל ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשל ַ ּב ֲע ָל ּה‬ ַ ‫יה – ּת‬ ָ ‫יה ָא ִב‬ ָ ‫ָע ֶל‬ ‫אשֹון ַל ֲע ׂשֹות ְ ּב ֵבית‬ ׁ ‫ָה ְל ָכה ֶרגֶ ל ִר‬ ‫ ׁ ָש ַחט ָע ֶל ָיה ָא ִב ָיה וְ ׁ ָש ַחט ָע ֶל ָיה‬,‫ָא ִב ָיה‬ .‫ֹאכל ְ ּב ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ִהיא רֹוצָ ה‬ ַ ‫ַ ּב ֲע ָל ּה – ּת‬

– ‫רֹופ ִסין‬ ְ ּ ‫ֹוט‬ ְ ‫יָ תֹום ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ֲחט ּו ָע ָליו ַא ּפ‬ ‫ ֶע ֶבד ׁ ֶשל‬.‫ֹאכל ְ ּב ָמקֹום ׁ ֶשהוּא רֹוצֶ ה‬ ַ ‫י‬ .‫נֵיהן‬ ֶ ‫ֹאכל ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשל ׁ ְש‬ ַ ‫ׁ ְשנֵי ׁשו ָּּת ִפין – ל ֹא י‬ ‫חֹורין – ל ֹא‬ ִ ‫ִמי ׁ ֶש ֶחצְ יֹו ֶע ֶבד וְ ֶחצְ יֹו ֶ ּבן‬ .‫ֹאכל ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשל ַר ּבֹו‬ ַ ‫י‬

‫ ַמאי‬.‫ יֵ ׁש ְ ּב ֵר ָירה‬:‫גמ׳ ׁ ָש ְמ ַע ְּת ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ .‫יטה‬ ָ ‫‘רֹוצָ ה׳ – ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ׁ ְש ִח‬

– ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ ֶרגֶ ל ָה ִר‬,‫ ִא ׁ ּ ָשה‬:‫ּו ְר ִמינְ ה ּו‬ ,‫ ִמ ָּכאן וְ ֵא ָיל ְך‬.‫יה‬ ָ ‫אֹוכ ֶלת ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשל ָא ִב‬ ֶ – ‫ רֹוצֶ ה‬,‫יה‬ ָ ‫אֹוכ ֶלת ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשל ָא ִב‬ ֶ – ‫רֹוצָ ה‬ !‫ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשל ַ ּב ֲע ָל ּה‬

mishna 

A woman,n when she is living in her husband’s house, if her husband slaughtered the Paschal lamb on her behalf and her father also slaughtered the Paschal lamb on her behalf, she should eat from her husband’s lamb because it is assumed that the wife intended to be included in her husband’s group.h However, if, as was often customary, she went on the first Festival following her marriage to observe the Festival in her father’s house, then, if both her husband slaughtered the Paschal lamb on her behalf and her father also slaughtered the Paschal lamb on her behalf, she may eat in whichever place she wishes, since it is not obvious with whose group she intended to be included.h In the case of an orphan with multiple guardians, if each of his guardians [apotropsin]l slaughtered a Paschal lamb on his behalf,h intending that he be included in their group, he may eat in whichever place he wishes. A slave jointly owned by two partners may not eat from the lamb of either of them, unless it was stipulated beforehand from whose lamb he will partake.h One who is half slave and half free mannh may not eat from his master’s lamb.n It is assumed that the master did not intend to allow this person’s free half to partake of the lamb, and therefore the master did not slaughter the lamb with him in mind. Consequently, the half slave is not included among those registered for his master’s offering unless he was explicitly included.

gemara 

The mishna states that in certain cases one partakes of the lamb of whichever group he desires. One’s inclusion in a group requires that he be registered with that group from the outset, before the lamb is slaughtered. The Gemara suggests: You learn from it that there is retroactive clarification.n One’s ultimate decision as to which group he wishes to be part of retroactively indicates that, from the outset, he was registered in that group. This is problematic, as no halakhic conclusion has been reached in the matter of retroactive clarification. The Gemara therefore rejects this suggestion: What is the meaning of the phrase: She may eat in whichever place she wishes? It is referring to a case where a woman has already expressed her choice before the time of slaughter. Therefore, this case does not relate to the principle of retroactive clarification, and no conclusion concerning it may be drawn from it.

notes

A woman – ‫ה ִא ׁ ּ ָשה‬:ָ The beginning of this chapter thematically follows the end of the preceding one. The previous chapter concluded by addressing the case of a newly married bride. This chapter therefore continues with the halakha of a woman who has been married for some time (Melekhet Shlomo). One who is half slave and half free man – ‫ִמי ׁ ֶש ֶחצְ יֹו ֶע ֶבד‬ ‫חֹורין‬ ִ ‫וְ ֶחצְ יֹו ֶ ּבן‬: This unique legal status may be realized in various ways: A slave who was jointly owned by two partners and then freed by only one of them has this hybrid status. Similarly, if a slave is given money in a manner through which his master does not gain automatic rights to the money, he may then use that money to redeem himself. If he redeems half of his value, he is half slave, half free man. May not eat from his master’s lamb – ‫ֹאכל ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשל ַר ּבֹו‬ ַ ‫ל ֹא י‬: Some explain the rationale for this ruling as follows: With the exception of a master registering his slave, one cannot be registered as part of a group without his knowledge. Therefore, a half slave, by virtue of his free half, cannot be included without his knowledge (Tosefot Rid). Retroactive clarification – ‫ב ֵר ָירה‬:ּ ְ The Sages differed with one another with regard to the principle that an object that was not explicitly designated initially for a certain purpose may retroactively be considered as if it were designated for that purpose from the outset. This could apply, for example, in a case where one declares that the tithe from his granary will consist of the last tenth remaining after the rest of the produce has been consumed. If the principle of retroactive clarification is accepted, his separation of the tithe is valid, for although the tithe he designated did not exist as a distinct and separate entity when he made his statement, the tithe is retroactively that remaining tenth. It is considered as if it were so from the outset. There is a debate among the Sages whether to accept the principle of retroactive clarification or not. In practice, the principle is generally accepted with regard to questions of rabbinic law but not concerning matters of Torah law. language

Guardians [apotropsin] – ‫רֹופ ִסין‬ ְ ּ ‫ֹוט‬ ְ ‫א ּפ‬: ַ From the Greek ἐπίτροπος, epitropos, meaning one appointed to watch over people who need protection.

The Gemara raises a contradiction between the ruling in the mishna and a parallel ruling in a baraita. The baraita states: A woman, on the first Festival following her marriage, eats from her father’s Paschal lamb. From here on, if she wishes, she eats from her father’s lamb, and if she wishes, she eats from her husband’s lamb. Whereas the mishna teaches that after the first Festival, she eats exclusively with her husband, the baraita teaches that she may continue to choose. halakha

A woman for whom a Paschal sacrifice was slaughtered – ‫יה‬ ָ ‫א ׁ ּ ָשה ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ֲחט ּו ּ ֶפ ַסח ָע ֶל‬:ִ If a woman is in her husband’s house and her husband and father both slaughter the Paschal lamb on her behalf, she eats from her husband’s sacrifice (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 2:11).

known at the time of the slaughter (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, masters of a jointly owned slave insist the slave eat from his Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 2:11). offering, the slave may not eat from the Paschal lamb of either of them. However, if the masters do not insist, the slave may An orphan, if each of his guardians slaughtered a Paschal eat from whichever lamb he chooses (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, lamb on his behalf – ‫רֹופ ִסין‬ ְ ּ ‫ֹוט‬ ְ ‫יָ תֹום ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ֲחט ּו ָע ָליו ַא ּפ‬: If multiple Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 2:12). guardians slaughtered Paschal lambs on behalf of an orphan, The first Festival and beyond – ְ‫אשֹון וְ ֵא ָילך‬ ׁ ‫רגֶ ל ִר‬:ֶ If a woman he may eat from whichever offering he prefers. However, this One who is half slave and half free man – ‫ִמי ׁ ֶש ֶחצְ יֹו ֶע ֶבד וְ ֶחצְ יֹו‬ eagerly hurries to go to her father’s house during the first Festi- ruling applies only to an orphan who is a minor. If he is an adult, ‫חֹורין‬ ִ ‫בן‬:ּ ֶ One who is half slave and half free man may neither val of her marriage, and her father and husband each slaughter he must eat from whichever Paschal lamb was slaughtered first eat from his master’s Paschal lamb nor from his own lamb until the Paschal lamb on her behalf, she eats from her father’s of- (Jerusalem Talmud; Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban his master releases him from slavery outright. This is the conclufering. From then on, she may eat from the lamb slaughtered Pesaĥ 2:11). sion of the Gemara, according to the Rambam’s understandby whomever of the two that she chooses (see Kesef Mishne; ing (see Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Leĥem Mishne; Me’iri ), as long as she makes her preference A slave of two partners – ‫ע ֶבד ׁ ֶשל ׁ ְשנֵי ׁשו ָּּת ִפין‬:ֶ If each of the two Pesaĥ 2:13).



‫זפ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Perek VIII . 87a 

133

notes

Eagerly hurries as one pursued to go – ְ‫רדו ָּפה ֵל ֵילך‬:ְ Rashi explains that the Gemara is referring to a woman who often returns to her father’s house, in addition to returning for the Festival. However, the Rambam rules that the case is specifically of a woman who hurries back to her father’s house for the first Festival. These differing interpretations lead to different halakhic rulings: According to the Rambam, if a woman didn’t hurry back to her father’s home on the first Festival after her marriage, she eats the Paschal lamb with her husband. If she hurried back, she eats with her father. In subsequent years, even if she hurries back, she eats with whomever she chooses. According to Rashi, if she did not actually return to her father’s house for the first Festival of her marriage, she certainly eats with her husband. If she returned but did not do so eagerly, she may eat with whomever she prefers. If she often returns and did so for the first Festival, then in the first year she eats with her father, and in subsequent years she may choose to eat with whom she prefers to eat (Me’iri ). Like a bride in her father-in-law’s house – ‫יה‬ ָ ‫כ ַכ ָּלה ְ ּב ֵבית ָח ִמ‬:ְּ While a bride is still in her father’s house, she is not yet fully at ease with her husband. Therefore, she refers to him more formally: My master. Once in her father-in-law’s house, following consummation of the marriage, the relationship is closer and she uses the more loving term: My husband (Rashi ). Corners of the altar – ‫זְב ַח‬ ּ ֵ ‫זָ וִ ּיֹת ִמ‬‎: The corners of the altar were hollow and the blood of the offerings would collect in them. They are therefore an appropriate metaphor for Jewish women, who would preserve their virginity for their husbands. Before marriage, their wombs are empty; only menstrual blood collects in them. background

Eilam – ‫ע ָילם‬:ֵ Eilam was situated in the far west-southwest region of modern-day Iran, stretching from the lowlands of what are now Khuzestan and Ilam provinces, as well as a small part of southern Iraq.

Eilam and its surrounding area in Babylonia

Elamite ziggurat, part of a temple complex in Khuzestan province, Iran

, ְ‫ ָּכאן – ִ ּב ְרדו ָּפה ֵל ֵילך‬:‫ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬This is not difficult. There, the baraita is referring to the case of n .‫ ָּכאן – ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְרדו ָּפה‬a woman who eagerly hurries as one pursued to go to her father’s house. It is therefore reasonable that, even after the first year of her marriage, she wishes to be included in her father’s group. However, here the mishna is referring to the case of a woman who does not eagerly hurry as one pursued to go to her father’s house, and it is therefore presumed she wishes to be included in her husband’s group. ‫״אז ָהיִ ִיתי ְ ּב ֵעינָיו ְּכמֹוצְ ֵאת‬ ָ :‫דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ‫ ְּכ ַכ ָּלה‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ׁ ָשלֹום״‬ ,‫יה‬ ָ ‫ימה ְ ּב ֵבית ָח ִמ‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמצֵ את ׁ ְש ֵל‬ ‫ו ְּרדו ָּפה ֵל ֵילךְ ְל ַה ִ ּגיד ׁ ְש ָב ָח ּה ְ ּב ֵבית‬ ‫ ״וְ ָהיָ ה ַבּיֹום ַההוּא‬:‫ ְּכ ִד ְכ ִתיב‬.‫יה‬ ָ ‫ָא ִב‬ ‫ישי וְ ל ֹא ִת ְק ְר ִאי‬ ִ ׁ ‫נְ ֻאם ה׳ ִּת ְק ְר ִאי ִא‬ :‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ִלי עֹוד ַ ּב ְע ִלי״‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ְּכ ַכ ָּלה‬,‫יה‬ ָ ‫ְּכ ַכ ָּלה ְ ּב ֵבית ָח ִמ‬ .‫יה‬ ָ ‫ְ ּב ֵבית ָא ִב‬

There is a homiletic interpretation of verses that conveys a similar idea, as it is written: “I am a wall, and my breasts are like towers; then I was in his eyes as one who finds peace” (Song of Songs 8:10). And Rabbi Yoĥanan said: She is like a bride who was found perfect. She was warmly received in her fatherin-law’s house. And she eagerly hurries, as one pursued, to go to tell of her praise, i.e., her warm welcome, in her father’s house. As it is written: “And it shall be at that day, says the Lord, that you shall call Me: My Husband, and shall call Me no more: My Master” (Hosea 2:18), of which Rabbi Yoĥanan said: She shall be like a bride in her father-in-law’s house,n where she experiences a close relationship with her husband. And she shall not be like a bride still in the betrothal period and living in her father’s house, during which time her relationship with her husband has still not developed.

.‫״אחֹות ָלנ ּו ְק ַט ָּנה וְ ׁ ָש ַדיִ ם ֵאין ָל ּה״‬ ָ Apropos the verse from Song of Songs cited previously, the ‫ ׁ ֶשּזָ ְכ ָתה‬,‫ זֹו ֵע ָילם‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬Gemara homiletically interprets an adjacent verse: “We have a .‫ ִל ְלמֹוד וְ ל ֹא זָ ְכ ָתה ְל ַל ֵּמד‬little sister, and she has no breasts” (Song of Songs 8:8). Rabbi Yoĥanan said: This is an allusion to the Jewish community of Eilam,b which was privileged to study Torah and become Torah scholars, but was not privileged to teach and influence the masses. ,‫חֹומ ה וְ ׁ ָש ַד י ַּכ ִּמ גְ דָּ לֹות״‬ ָ ‫״אנִ י‬ ֲ ‫חֹומה״ – זֹו‬ ָ ‫״אנִי‬ ֲ :‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ״וְ ׁ ָש ַדי ַּכ ִּמגְ דָּ לֹות״ – ֵא ּל ּו‬,‫ּת ָֹורה‬ ‫״אנִי‬ ֲ :‫ וְ ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬.‫ַּת ְל ִמ ֵידי ֲח ָכ ִמים‬ ‫ ״וְ ׁ ָש ַדי‬,‫נֶסת יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ֶ ‫חֹומה״ – זֹו ְּכ‬ ָ ‫נֵסּיֹות ו ָּב ֵּתי‬ ִ ‫ַּכ ִּמגְ דָּ לֹות״ – ֵאלּ ּו ָ ּב ֵּתי ְכ‬ .‫ִמ ְד ָר ׁשֹות‬

The Gemara interprets another verse: “I am a wall and my breasts are like towers” (Song of Songs 8:10). Rabbi Yoĥanan said: “I am a wall”; this is a reference to the Torah. “And my breasts are like towers”; these are the Torah scholars, who, by disseminating their Torah and influencing the masses protect them like watchtowers. And Rava said: “I am a wall”; this is the Congregation of Israel. “And my breasts are like towers”; these are the synagogues and study halls in which the Congregation of Israel is nurtured by the Torah, from which it draws its spiritual strength.

,‫טֹובּיָ ה ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ִ ‫ָא ַמר ַרב זו ְּט ָרא ַ ּבר‬ ‫נְט ִעים‬ ִ ‫״א ׁ ֶשר ָ ּבנֵינ ּו ִּכ‬ ֲ :‫ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ‫נֹותינ ּו ְכזָ וִ ּיֹת‬ ֵ ‫יהם ְ ּב‬ ֶ ‫ְמגֻ דָּ ִלים ִ ּבנְעו ֵּר‬ .‫יכל״‬ ָ ‫ְמ ֻח ָּטבֹות ַּת ְבנִית ֵה‬

Rav Zutra bar Toviya said that Rav said a homiletic interpretation of another verse in praise of Israel: What is the meaning of that which is written: “We whose sons are as plants grown up in their youth; whose daughters are as corner pillars carved after the fashion of a palace” (Psalms 144:12)?

‫נְט ִעים״ – ֵאלּ ּו ַ ּבחו ֵּרי‬ ִ ‫״א ׁ ֶשר ָ ּבנֵינ ּו ִּכ‬ ֲ .‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ָט ֲעמ ּו ַט ַעם ֵח ְטא‬ ‫נֹותינ ּו ְכזָ וִ ּיֹת״ – ֵא ּל ּו ְ ּבתוּלֹות‬ ֵ ‫״ב‬ ְּ ‫יה ן‬ ֶ ‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵא ל ׁ ֶש אֹוגְ דֹות ּ ִפ ְת ֵח‬ ‫ ״ו ָּמ ְלא ּו‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ֵכן הוּא‬,‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ְל ַב ֲע ֵל‬ ‫יב ֵעית‬ ּ ָ ‫ ִא‬.‫ַּכ ִּמזְ ָרק ְּכזָ וִ ּיֹת ִמזְ ֵ ּב ַח״‬ ‫״מזָ וֵ ינ ּו ְמ ֵל ִאים‬ ְ :‫ימא ֵמ ָה ָכא‬ ָ ‫ֵא‬ .‫ְמ ִפ ִיקים ִמּזַ ן ֶאל זַ ן״‬

The Gemara interprets each phrase of this verse: “We whose sons are as plants” indicates they are healthy and undamaged; these are the young men of Israel who have not tasted the taste of sin. “Whose daughters are as corner pillars” indicates that they are filled and sealed; these are the virgins of Israel, who bind and seal their openings exclusively for their husbands. And similarly, another verse demonstrates that a corner refers to something full: It is stated: “And they shall be filled like the basins, like the corners of the altar” (Zechariah 9:15).n If you wish, say an alternative support for this idea from here: “Our corners are full, affording all manner of store” (Psalms 144:13).

‫יכל״ – ֵא ּל ּו‬ ָ ‫״מ ֻח ָּטבֹות ַּת ְבנִית ֵה‬ ְ The Gemara returns and interprets the final phrase of the verse: ‫יהן ַה ָּכתוּב ְּכ ִאילּ ּו‬ ֶ ‫“ וָ ֵאלּ ּו ַמ ֲע ֶלה ֲע ֵל‬Carved after the fashion of a palace”; the verse ascribes to .‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ימ‬ ֵ ‫יכל ִ ּב‬ ָ ‫ נִ ְבנָ ה ֵה‬both these and those, the young men and women who vigilantly preserve their modesty, as though the Sanctuary were built in their days.

134 

Perek VIII . 87a . ‫זפ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ח‬

‫ימי ֻעּזִ ּיָה ּו‬ ֵ ‫הֹוש ַע וגו׳ ִ ּב‬ ֵ ׁ ‫״דְּ ַבר ה׳ ֲא ׁ ֶשר ָהיָה ֶאל‬ ‫ ְ ּב ֶפ ֶרק ֶא ָחד‬.‫יֹותם ָא ָחז יְ ִחזְ ִקּיָ ה ֶמ ֶלךְ יְ הו ָּדה״‬ ָ ‫ וְ גָ דֹול ׁ ֶש ְ ּבכו ָּּלן‬,‫יאים‬ ִ ‫נִ ְתנַ ְ ּבא ּו ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה נְ ִב‬ .‫הֹוש ַע״‬ ֵ ׁ ‫״ת ִח ַּלת דִּ ֶ ּבר ה׳ ְ ּב‬ ְּ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֵׁ ‫מ ֶֹשה ַעד‬ ֹ ּ ‫הֹוש ַע דִּ ֵ ּבר ְּת ִח ָּלה? וַ ֲהל ֹא ִמ‬ ֵ ׁ ‫וְ ִכי ְ ּב‬ ‫ ְּת ִח ָּלה‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫יאים! ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ִ ‫הֹוש ַע ַּכ ָּמה נְ ִב‬ ֵׁ ,‫יאים ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְתנַ ְ ּבא ּו ְ ּבאֹותֹו ַה ּ ֶפ ֶרק‬ ִ ‫ְל ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה נְ ִב‬ .‫יכה‬ ָ ‫ ו ִּמ‬,‫ ָעמֹוס‬,‫ יְ ׁ ַש ְעיָ ה‬,‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֵ ׁ :‫וְ ֵאלּ ּו ֵהן‬

Apropos the verse from Hosea, the Gemara interprets additional verses there: “The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judea, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel” (Hosea 1:1). The Sages explained: Four prophets prophesied in one era and the oldest of them was Hosea, as it is stated: “When the Lord spoke at first with Hosea” (Hosea 1:2), indicating that Hosea was the first of these prophets. If not, the question arises: And was it with Hosea that the Lord spoke first of all the prophets? Weren’t there several prophets who lived and prophesied during the period from Moses until Hosea? Rather, Rabbi Yoĥanan said: He was the first of the four prophets who prophesied during that period, and these are they: Hosea, Isaiah, Amos, and Micah.

ָ‫ ָ ּבנֶיך‬:‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֵ ׁ ‫דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא ְל‬ ׁ ‫ָא ַמר לֹו ַה ָ ּק‬ ָ‫ ְ ּבנֵי ֲחנוּנֶיך‬,‫ ָ ּבנֶיךָ ֵהם‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה לֹו‬.ּ‫ָח ְטאו‬ ָ‫ ַ ּג ְל ֵ ּגל ַר ֲח ֶמיך‬,‫ ְ ּבנֵי ַא ְב ָר ָהם יִ צְ ָחק וְ יַ ֲעקֹב‬,‫ֵהם‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר‬,‫ ל ֹא דַּ ּיֹו ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ָא ַמר ָּכ ְך‬.‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ֲע ֵל‬ ָ‫עֹולם ׁ ֶש ְּלך‬ ָ ‫ ָּכל ָה‬,‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ ִר ּבֹונֹו ׁ ֶשל‬:‫ְל ָפנָיו‬ .‫הוּא – ַה ֲע ִב ֵירם ְ ּבאו ָּּמה ַא ֶח ֶרת‬

The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Hosea: Your sons, the Jewish people, have sinned. Hosea should have said to God in response: But they are Your sons; they are the sons of Your beloved ones, the sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Extend Your mercy over them. Not only did he fail to say that, but instead he said before Him: Master of the Universe, the entire world is Yours; since Israel has sinned, exchange them for another nation.

‫ ָמה ֶא ֱע ֶ ׂשה ְלזָ ֵקן‬:‫דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא‬ ׁ ‫ָא ַמר ַה ָ ּק‬ ‫הֹוליד‬ ֵ ְ‫ ֵל ְך וְ ַקח ִא ׁ ּ ָשה זֹונָ ה ו‬:‫אֹומר לֹו‬ ַ ?‫זֶ ה‬ ‫אֹומר לֹו ׁ ְש ָל ֶח ָה‬ ַ ְ‫ וְ ַא ַחר ָּכך‬,‫ְלךָ ָ ּבנִים זְ נוּנִים‬ ‫לֹוח – ַאף ֲאנִי‬ ַ ‫ ִאם הוּא יָ כֹול ִל ׁ ְש‬. ָ‫ֵמ ַעל ּ ָפנֶיך‬ ‫ֹאמר ה׳ ֶאל‬ ֶ ‫ ״וַ ּי‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬.‫ֶא ׁ ְש ַלח ֶאת יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ,‫הֹוש ַע ֵלךְ ַקח ְלךָ ֵא ׁ ֶשת זְ נוּנִים וְ יַ ְל ֵדי זְ נוּנִים״‬ ֵׁ .‫ ״וַ ּיֵ ֶל ְך וַ ּיִ ַ ּקח ֶאת גּ ֶֹמר ַ ּבת דִּ ְב ָליִ ם״‬:‫ו ְּכ ִתיב‬ ּ ‫״בת‬ ּ ַ .‫ֹומ ִרים ָ ּב ּה‬ ְ ‫ ׁ ֶש ַה ּכֹל ּג‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬,‫״ג ֶֹמר״‬

The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: What shall I do to this Elder who does not know how to defend Israel? I will say to him: Go and take a prostitute and bear for yourself children of prostitution. And after that I will say to him: Send her away from before you. If he is able to send her away, I will also send away the Jewish people. This deliberation provides the background of the opening prophecy in Hosea, as it is stated: “The Lord said to Hosea: Go, take for yourself a wife of prostitution and children of prostitution” (Hosea 1:2). And then it is written: “So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim” (Hosea 1:3), and the Sages interpreted her name homiletically. “Gomer”; Rav said she was so called because everyone would finish [gomerim] having relations with her and satisfy their desires with her. “The daughter of

Perek VIII Daf 87 Amud b ‫ ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל‬.‫ דִּ ְב ָליִ ם״ – דִּ ָ ּבה ָר ָעה ַ ּבת דִּ ָ ּבה ָר ָעה‬Diblaim”; the name Diblaim can be taken as the dual form of ‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ ׁ ֶש ְּמתו ָּקה ְ ּב ִפי ַה ּכֹל ַּכדְּ ֵב ָלה‬:‫ ָא ַמר‬the word dibba, ill repute. It suggests that she was a woman of .‫ ׁ ֶש ַה ּכֹל דָּ ׁ ִשין ָ ּב ּה ַּכדְּ ֵב ָלה‬:‫ ָא ַמר‬ill repute, daughter of a woman of ill repute. And Shmuel said: The name Diblaim is the plural of the word deveila, a cake of pressed figs, indicating that she was as sweet as a cake of pressed figs, and therefore everyone used her services. Rabbi Yoĥanan, based on a similar derivation, said the name signifies that everyone would tread [dashin] upon her, a euphemism for sexual relations, like a cake of pressed figs. ‫ ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ְּק ׁש ּו‬:‫ֹּומר״ – ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה‬ ֶ ‫ ״ג‬:‫דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר‬ ‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫יה‬ ָ ‫ְלגַ ֵּמר ָממֹונָ ן ׁ ֶשל יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ְ ּביָ ֶמ‬ ְ‫״כי ִא ְ ּב ָדם ֶמ ֶלך‬ ִּ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,ּ‫ ָ ּבזְ ז ּו וְ גָ ְמרו‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ .‫ֲא ָרם וַ יְ ִ ׂש ֵמם ֶּכ ָע ָפר ָל ֻד ׁש״‬



Alternatively, with regard to the name Gomer, Rav Yehuda said: The name can be understood as deriving from the root gamar, to finish. It alludes to the fact that the gentiles sought to finish the money of the Jewish people in her days. Rabbi Yoĥanan said: They did not just seek to do so, but were successful. They plundered and finished it, as it is stated: “For the king of Aram destroyed them and made them like the dust in threshing” (II Kings 13:7). ‫זפ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Perek VIII . 87b 

135

notes

Two sons and one daughter – ‫שנֵי ָ ּבנִים ו ַּבת‬: ְ ׁ Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai debate whether the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply is fulfilled by having a boy and a girl or two boys. Hosea had therefore fulfilled the mitzva according to all opinions. One of the four acquisitions – ‫א ָחד ֵמ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ִקנְיָנִין‬:ֶ In some manuscripts, the Gemara mentions only three acquisitions, omitting the Holy Temple. In another, four acquisitions are mentioned, but Eretz Yisrael is listed instead of the Temple. In tractate Avot, five acquisitions are mentioned, including Abraham.

136 

Perek VIII . 87b . ‫זפ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ח‬

‫ֹאמר ה׳ ֵא ָליו ְק ָרא ׁ ְשמֹו‬ ֶ ‫״וַ ַּת ַהר וַ ֵּת ֶלד לֹו ֵ ּבן וַ ּי‬ ‫יִ זְ ְר ֶעאל ִּכי עֹוד ְמ ַעט ו ָּפ ַק ְד ִּתי ֶאת דְּ ֵמי יִ זְ ְר ֶעאל‬ ‫ַעל ֵ ּבית יֵ הוּא וְ ִה ׁ ְש ַ ּב ִּתי ַמ ְמ ְלכוּת ֵ ּבית יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ֹאמר לֹו ְק ָרא ׁ ְש ָמ ּה‬ ֶ ‫וַ ַּת ַהר עֹוד וַ ֵּת ֶלד ַ ּבת וַ ּי‬ ‫אֹוסיף עֹוד ֲא ַר ֵחם ֶאת ֵ ּבית‬ ִ ‫ל ֹא ֻר ָח ָמה ִּכי ל ֹא‬ ‫נָשא ֶא ּ ָ ׂשא ָל ֶהם וַ ַּת ַהר וַ ֵּת ֶלד ֵ ּבן‬ ׂ ‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ִּכי‬ ‫ֹאמר (ה׳ ֵא ָליו) ְק ָרא ׁ ְשמֹו ל ֹא ַע ִּמי ִּכי ַא ֶּתם‬ ֶ ‫וַ ּי‬ .‫ל ֹא ַע ִּמי וְ ָאנ ִֹכי ל ֹא ֶא ֱהיֶ ה ָל ֶכם״‬

The passage in Hosea continues: “And she conceived, and bore him a son. And the Lord said to him: Call his name Jezreel; for soon I will visit the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will obliterate the kingdom of the house of Israel… And she conceived again, and bore a daughter. And He said to him: Call her name Lo-ruhamah, for I will no more have compassion upon the house of Israel that I should bear them…And she conceived, and bore a son. And He said: Call his name Lo-ammi; for you are not My people, and I will not be yours” (Hosea 1:3–9).

‫ְל ַא ַחר ׁ ֶשנּ ְֹולד ּו [לֹו] ׁ ְשנֵי ָ ּבנִים ו ַּבת ַא ַחת ָא ַמר לֹו‬ ‫ ל ֹא ָהיָ ה ְלךָ ִל ְלמֹוד‬:‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֵ ׁ ‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא ְל‬ ׁ ‫ַה ָ ּק‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵּכיוָ ן ׁ ֶשדִּ ַ ּב ְר ִּתי ִע ּמֹו – ּ ֵפ ֵיר ׁש ִמן‬, ָ‫מ ֶֹשה ַר ְ ּבך‬ ֹ ּ ‫ִמ‬ :‫ ָא ַמר לֹו‬.‫ ַאף ַא ָּתה ְ ּבדֹול ַעצְ ְמךָ ִמ ֶּמ ָּנה‬,‫ָה ִא ׁ ּ ָשה‬ ‫ יֵ ׁש ִלי ָ ּבנִים ִמ ֶּמ ָּנה וְ ֵאין ֲאנִי‬,‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ִר ּבֹונֹו ׁ ֶשל‬ !‫יא ּה וְ ל ֹא ְלגָ ְר ׁ ָש ּה‬ ָ ִ‫יָ כֹול ְלהֹוצ‬

After two sons and one daughtern had been born to him, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Hosea: Shouldn’t you have learned from the example of your master Moses, who, once I spoke with him, separated from his wife? You too, separate yourself from your wife. He said to him: Master of the Universe, I have sons from her and I am unable to dismiss her or to divorce her.

,‫ ּו ָמה ַא ָּתה‬:‫דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא‬ ׁ ‫יה ַה ָ ּק‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ וְ ֵאין ַא ָּתה‬,‫[בנֵי] זְ נוּנִים‬ ּ ְ ָ‫ׁ ֶש ִא ׁ ְש ְּתךָ זֹונָ ה ו ָּבנֶיך‬ .‫יֹוד ַע ִאם ׁ ֶש ְּלךָ ֵהן ִאם ׁ ֶשל ֲא ֵח ִרים ֵהן – ָּכ ְך‬ ֵ ‫ ְ ּבנֵי ַא ְב ָר ָהם יִ צְ ָחק‬,‫ ְ ּבנֵי ְ ּבחוּנַי‬,‫ ׁ ֶש ֵהן ָ ּבנַי‬,‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ .‫עֹול ִמי‬ ָ ‫נִיתי ְ ּב‬ ִ ‫ ֶא ָחד ֵמ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ִקנְיָנִין ׁ ֶש ָ ּק‬,‫וְ יַ ֲעקֹב‬

In response to Hosea’s show of loyalty to his family, the Holy One, Blessed be He, rebuked him and said to him: Just as you, whose wife is a prostitute and your children from her are children of prostitution, and you do not even know if they are yours or if they are children of other men, despite this, you are still attached to them and will not forsake them, so too, I am still attached to the Jewish people, who are My sons, the sons of My faithful who withstood ordeals, the sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They are so special that they are one of the four acquisitionsn that I acquired in My world.

‫אשית‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ״ה׳ ָקנָ נִי ֵר‬:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ּת ָֹורה ִקנְ יָ ן ֶא ָחד‬ ‫ ״קֹנֵ ה‬:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם וָ ָא ֶרץ ִקנְיָ ן ֶא ָחד‬.‫דַּ ְר ּכֹו״‬ :‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ ֵ ּבית ַה ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש ִקנְיָ ן ֶא ָחד‬.‫ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם וָ ָא ֶרץ״‬ :‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫יִש ָר ֵאל ִקנְיָ ן ֶא ָחד‬ ׂ ְ .‫״הר זֶ ה ָקנְ ָתה יְ ִמינֹו״‬ ַ ‫ וְ ַא ָּתה ָא ַמ ְר ָּת ַה ֲע ִב ֵירם ְ ּבאו ָּּמה‬.‫נִית״‬ ָ ‫״עם ז ּו ָק‬ ַ !‫ַא ֶח ֶרת‬

The Gemara proceeds to enumerate all four: Torah is one acquisition, as it is written: “The Lord acquired me as the beginning of His way” (Proverbs 8:22). Heaven and earth are one acquisition [kinyan], as it is written: “Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Creator [koneh] of heaven and earth” (Genesis 14:19). The Holy Temple is one acquisition, as it is written: “And He brought them to His sacred border, to this mountain, which His right hand had acquired” (Psalms 78:54). The Jewish people are one acquisition, as it is written: “The nation that You have acquired” (Exodus 15:16). And you, Hosea, said that I should replace them with another nation?

‫ֵּכיוָ ן ׁ ֶשּיָ ַדע ׁ ֶש ָח ָטא ָע ַמד ְל ַב ֵ ּק ׁש ַר ֲח ִמים ַעל‬ ‫ ַעד ׁ ֶש ַא ָּתה‬:‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא‬ ׁ ‫ ָא ַמר לֹו ַה ָ ּק‬.‫ַעצְ מֹו‬ ‫ְמ ַב ֵ ּק ׁש ַר ֲח ִמים ַעל ַעצְ ְמךָ – ַ ּב ֵ ּק ׁש ַר ֲח ִמים ַעל‬ . ָ‫ ׁ ֶש ָ ּגזַ ְר ִּתי ֲע ֵל ֶיהם ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ְ ּגזֵ ירֹות ַ ּב ֲעבו ְּרך‬,‫יִש ָר ֵאל‬ ְׂ

Once Hosea realized that he had sinned, he got up to request that God have compassion upon him for having spoken ill of the Jewish people. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: Before you request compassion upon yourself, first request compassion upon the Jewish people, since I have already decreed upon them three harsh decrees on your account, in response to your condemnation of them. There is an allusion to these three decrees in the names of the children born of the prostitute. Jezreel is an allusion to a decree for Jehu’s actions in the Jezreel Valley (see II Kings 9–10). Lo-ruhamah, one that had not received compassion, suggests that God will no longer have compassion for the Jewish people. Lo-ammi, not My people, indicates that the Jewish people will no longer be considered God’s people.

,‫ וְ ִה ְת ִחיל ְל ָב ְר ָכן‬,‫ָע ַמד ו ִּב ֵ ּק ׁש ַר ֲח ִמים ו ִּב ֵּטל ְ ּגזֵ ָירה‬ ‫יִש ָר ֵאל ְּכחֹול ַהּיָ ם וגו׳‬ ׂ ְ ‫ ״וְ ָהיָה ִמ ְס ּ ַפר ְ ּבנֵי‬:‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ ‫וְ ָהיָ ה ִ ּב ְמקֹום ֲא ׁ ֶשר יֵ ָא ֵמר ָל ֶהם ל ֹא ַע ִּמי ַא ֶּתם‬ ‫יֵ ָא ֵמר ָל ֶהם ְ ּבנֵי ֵאל ָחי וְ נִ ְק ְ ּבצ ּו ְ ּבנֵי יְ הו ָּדה ו ְּבנֵי‬ ‫יה ִּלי ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ וְ ִר ַח ְמ ִּתי‬ ָ ‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל יַ ְחדָּ ו וגו׳ וּזְ ַר ְע ִּת‬ .‫ֶאת ל ֹא ֻר ָח ָמה וְ ָא ַמ ְר ִּתי ְלל ֹא ַע ִּמי ַע ִּמי ַא ָּתה״‬

Hosea stood and requested compassion upon the Jewish people and nullified the decree. God responded and began to bless them, as it is stated: “Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered. And it will be that instead of that which was said to them: You are not My people, it shall be said to them: You are the children of the living God. And the children of Judea and the children of Israel shall be gathered together” (Hosea 2:1). And I will sow her to Me in the land; and I will have compassion upon her that had not received compassion; and I will say to them that were not My people: You are My people” (Hosea 2:25).

‫ אֹוי ָל ּה ָל ַר ָ ּבנוּת ׁ ֶש ְּמ ַק ֶ ּב ֶרת ֶאת‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְלךָ ָּכל נָ ִביא וְ נָ ִביא ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִק ּ ַיפח‬,‫יה‬ ָ ‫ְ ּב ָע ֶל‬ ‫״חזֹון יְ ׁ ַש ְעיָ ה ּו‬ ֲ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬.‫ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ְמ ָל ִכים ְ ּביָ ָמיו‬ .‫ֶבן ָאמֹוץ ֲא ׁ ֶשר ָחזָ ה ַעל יְהו ָּדה וִ ירו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם וגו׳״‬

Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Woe to authority, which shortens the life and buries its holders. This is evident from the fact that you don’t have any prophetn who did not outlast four kings in his lifetime, as the kings’ positions of authority caused them to die young. A prophet outliving four kings is demonstrated in the opening verses of Hosea, and similarly, as it is stated with regard to Isaiah: “The vision of Isaiah, the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judea and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judea” (Isaiah 1:1).

‫יֹוא ׁש‬ ָ ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ָמה זָ ָכה יָ ָר ְב ָעם ֶ ּבן‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Due to what reason was the less than righ‫ ֶמ ֶלךְ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ְל ִה ָּמנֹות ִעם ַמ ְל ֵכי יְ הו ָּדה – ִמ ּ ְפנֵי‬teous Jeroboam, son of Joash, king of Israel, privileged to be n .‫ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִק ֵ ּבל ָל ׁשֹון ָה ַרע ַעל ָעמֹוס‬counted in the verse together with the righteous kings of Judea? It is due to the fact that he did not accept slander about Amos. ‫ ״דְּ ַבר ה׳ ֲא ׁ ֶשר ָהיָ ה‬:‫ימנִי – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ְ ‫ְמ ַנָלן דְּ ִא‬ ‫יֹותם ָא ָחז‬ ָ ‫ימי ֻעּזִ ּיָ ה‬ ֵ ‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ְ ּב ֵא ִרי ִ ּב‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ֶאל‬ ‫יֹוא ׁש‬ ָ ‫ימי יָ ָר ְב ָעם ֶ ּבן‬ ֵ ‫יְ ִחזְ ִקּיָ ה ַמ ְל ֵכי יְ הו ָּדה ו ִּב‬ .‫ֶמ ֶלךְ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״‬

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that he was counted together with the righteous kings of Judea? As it is written: “The word of the Lord that came to Hosea, son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judea, and in the days of Jeroboam, the son of Joash, king of Israel” (Hosea 1:1).

‫ ״וַ ּיִ ׁ ְש ַלח‬:‫יבל ָל ׁשֹון ָה ַרע – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ּ ֵ ‫ו ְּמ ַנָלן דְּ ל ֹא ִק‬ ‫ֲא ַמצְ יָ ה ּכ ֵֹהן ֵ ּבית ֵאל ֶאל יָ ָר ְב ָעם ֶמ ֶלךְ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ‫״כי כֹה ָא ַמר‬ ִּ :‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫ֵלאמֹר ָק ׁ ַשר ָע ֶליךָ וגו׳״‬ ‫ ַחס‬:‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫ָעמֹוס ַ ּב ֶח ֶרב יָ מוּת יָ ָר ְב ָעם וגו׳״‬ ‫ וְ ִאם ָא ַמר – ָמה‬, ְ‫וְ ׁ ָשלֹום ָא ַמר אֹותֹו צַ דִּ יק ָּכך‬ .‫ֶא ֱע ֶ ׂשה לֹו? ׁ ְש ִכינָ ה ָא ְמ ָרה לֹו‬

And from where do we derive that he did not accept slander?n As it is written: “Then Amaziah the priest of Beth-El sent to Jeroboam king of Israel, saying: Amos has conspired against you in the midst of the house of Israel” (Amos 7:10). And it is written: “For thus said Amos: Jeroboam shall die by the sword and Israel shall surely be led away captive out of his land” (Amos 7:11). Jeroboam said: Heaven forfend that that righteous person, Amos, said this, that I will die by the sword; and if he indeed said it, what shall I do to him and why should I punish him? The Divine Presence said it to him, and he is required to transmit his prophecy.

ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ‫יל ּו ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ַּכ ֲעסֹו ׁ ֶשל‬ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫זֹוכר ֶאת ָה ַר ֲח ִמים‬ ֵ ‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא‬ ׁ ‫ַה ָ ּק‬ .‫אֹוסיף עֹוד ֲא ַר ֵחם ֶאת ֵ ּבית יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״‬ ִ ‫״כי ל ֹא‬ ִּ ‫נָשא‬ ׂ ‫״כי‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ ִּ :‫יֹוסי ַ ּבר ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א ָא ַמר ֵמ ָה ָכא‬ .‫ֶא ּ ָ ׂשא ָל ֶהם״‬

Rabbi Elazar said: Even at the time of the anger of the Holy One, Blessed be He, He remembers the attribute of compassion, as it is stated: “For I will no more have compassionn upon the house of Israel” (Hosea 1:6). Even when implementing His attribute of justice, God still mentions His attribute of compassion. Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ĥanina said that this is also indicated from here, from the continuation of the verse, which states: “That I should bear them,” indicating that God promised to eventually bear Israel’s sins and pardon them.

‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא‬ ׁ ‫ ל ֹא ֶהגְ ָלה ַה ָ ּק‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ‫ֹוספ ּו‬ ְ ‫ֶאת יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ְל ֵבין ָהאו ּּמֹות ֶא ָּלא ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיִ ּת‬ .‫יה ִּלי ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ״‬ ָ ‫ ״וּזְ ַר ְע ִּת‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫יהם ֵ ּג ִרים‬ ֶ ‫ֲע ֵל‬ ‫זֹור ַע ְס ָאה – ֶא ָּלא ְל ַה ְכנִיס ַּכ ָּמה‬ ֵ ‫ְּכלוּם ָא ָדם‬ .‫ּכ ִֹורין‬

And Rabbi Elazar said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, exiled Israel among the nations only so that converts would join them, as it is stated: “And I will sow her to Me in the land” (Hosea 2:25). Does a person sow a se’a of grain for any reason other than to bring in several kor of grain during the harvest? So too, the exile is to enable converts from the nations to join the Jewish people.

notes

You don’t have any prophet – ‫אין ְלךָ ָּכל נָ ִביא‬: ֵ This apparently is referring exclusively to the four prophets of that particular era. It is stated with regard to each of them that they prophesied during the reigns of four kings (Ben Yehoyada). Privileged to be counted – ‫ה…ל ִה ָּמנֹות‬ ְ ‫זָ ָכ‬: Jero­bo­ am was not the only king of Israel to reign during the era of these four kings of Judea. It is therefore suggestive that specifically he is mentioned (Iyyun Ya’akov). And from where do we derive that he did not accept slander – ‫יבל ָל ׁשֹון ָה ַרע‬ ּ ֵ ‫ו ְּמ ַנָלן דְּ ל ֹא ִק‬: Although it is not explicit that Jeroboam did not accept the slander, it can be demonstrated from the succession of the verses. Initially, Amaziah sent the report of Amos’ devastating prophecy to Jeroboam (Amos 7:10). Subsequently, the verse states that Amaziah himself instructed Amos to flee to the kingdom of Judea and to cease from prophesying in the kingdom of Israel (Amos 12). Apparently, Jeroboam did not prevent Amos from prophesying, despite the harsh content of his prophecy. Presumably, this is because he did not accept Amaziah’s message that Amos had so prophesied, since to do so would be an acceptance of slander. For I will no more have compassion [araĥem] – ‫אֹוסיף עֹוד ֲא ַר ֵחם‬ ִ ‫ל ֹא‬: Some explain that the derivation is based on the fact that God’s anger is not mentioned outright; rather, it is only implied by the fact He will not have compassion. Others suggest that by using the conjugation araĥem, I will have mercy, as opposed to the more simple choice of leraĥem, to have compassion, the verse suggests that there will be a time when God will once again have compassion upon the Jewish people (Rabbi Yeshaya HaLevi Horowitz).

‫ ״וְ ִר ַח ְמ ִּתי ֶאת ל ֹא‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן ָא ַמר ֵמ ָה ָכא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬And Rabbi Yoĥanan said that this idea may be derived from here: .‫“ ֻר ָח ָמה״‬And I will have compassion upon her that had not received compassion; and I will say to them that were not My people: You are My people” (Hosea 2:25). Even those who were initially “not My people,” i.e., gentiles, will convert and become part of the Jewish nation. ‫ ַמאי‬,‫יֹוחי‬ ַ ‫יֹוחנָן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָ‫״אל ַּת ְל ׁ ֵשן ֶע ֶבד ֶאל ֲאדֹונָיו ּ ֶפן יְ ַק ֶּל ְלך‬ ַ :‫דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ‫ ״דּ ֹור ָא ִביו יְ ַק ֵּלל וְ ֶאת ִא ּמֹו‬:‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫וְ ָא ׁ ָש ְמ ָּת״‬ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָא ִביו יְ ַק ֵּלל וְ ֶאת ִא ּמֹו ל ֹא‬.‫ל ֹא ָיְב ֵרךְ ״‬ ?‫ָיְב ֵרךְ ַאל ַּת ְל ׁ ֵשן‬

Rabbi Yoĥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoĥai: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Slander not a servant to his master, lest he curse you, and you be found guilty” (Proverbs 30:10), and it is then written in the next verse: “There is a generation that curses its father, and does not bless its mother” (Proverbs 30:11). Is it because they curse their father and do not bless their mother that you should not slander them? Clearly that is absurd.

‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו דּ ֹור ׁ ֶש ָא ִביו יְ ַק ֵּלל וְ ֶאת ִא ּמֹו‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא‬Rather, the juxtaposition serves to emphasize that even in a wicked .‫ ל ֹא ָיְב ֵר ְך – ַאל ַּת ְל ׁ ֵשן ֶע ֶבד ֶאל ֲאדֹונָיו‬generation that curses its father and does not bless its mother, .‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ ְמ ַנָלן – ֵמ‬one should not slander a servant to his master. From where do we derive this? From Hosea, whose criticism of the Jewish people, God’s servants, to God, their master, aroused His ire, despite the fact that it was a wicked generation. 

‫זפ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Perek VIII . 87b 

137

language

Gappa of the Romans – ‫רֹומ ֵאי‬ ָ ְּ‫ ַ ּג ּ ָפא ד‬: The commentaries provide different explanations of this term. Some suggest that it means stronghold, as in “The highest places [gappei] of the city” (Proverbs 9:3). Gappa of the Romans would therefore refer to the capital of the Roman Empire. Others explain that it is a derivative of the word agaf (with both words sharing the root letters gimmel, peh), which means wing. According to this, Gappa refers to a god who would defend the city through, metaphorically speaking, the spread of its wings. Some assert that the text should be changed from Gappa to Gadda of the Romans, referring to the guardian angel of Rome. Others posited that it is the distorted name, perhaps purposely so, of the chief Roman god Jupiter (Rabbi Binyamin Musafya). Yet other authorities suggest that it is an abbreviation of the Greek ἀγάπη, agapè, meaning love. According to this, the apostate swore by the love of Rome.

:‫ ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫אֹוש ֲעיָ א‬ ַ ׁ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫״צִ ְד ַקת ּ ִפ ְרזֹונֹו ְ ּביִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״ – צְ ָד ָקה‬ ‫דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא ְ ּביִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ׁ ‫ָע ָ ׂשה ַה ָ ּק‬ ‫ וְ ַהיְ ינ ּו דַּ ֲא ַמר‬.‫ׁ ֶש ּ ִפּזְ ָרן ְל ֵבין ָהאו ּּמֹות‬ ‫ ֲאנַ ן‬:‫יה ַההוּא ִמינָ א ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫״כי‬ ִּ :‫ ְּכ ִתיב ְ ּבכ ּו‬,‫ַמ ֲע ִלינַ ן ִמ ּינַיְ יכ ּו‬ ‫ וְ ִא ּל ּו‬,‫ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת ֳח ָד ׁ ִשים יָ ׁ ַשב ׁ ָשם וגו׳״‬ ‫ וְ ָלא‬,‫יתינְ כ ּו ַ ּג ָ ּבן ַּכ ָּמה ׁ ְשנֵי‬ ִ ‫ֲאנַ ן – ִא‬ , ָ‫ ְרצֹונְ ך‬:‫ ָא ַמר לֹו‬.‫ָקא ָע ְב ִדינַן ְלכ ּו ִמידֵּ י‬ .‫יְ ַט ּ ֵפל ְלךָ ַּת ְל ִמיד ֶא ָחד‬

Rabbi Oshaya said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The righteous acts of His rulers [pirzono] in Israel” ( Judges 5:11)? The Holy One, Blessed be He, performed a charitable deed toward Israel in that He scattered them [pizran] among the nations;n had He exiled them to one place, they could have all been destroyed at once. And this concept is that which a certain apostate said to Rabbi Ĥanina: We gentiles are superior to you Jews in that we have patience. It is written of you: “For Joab and all Israel remained there six months until he had cut off every male in Edom” (I Kings 11:16), whereas we, although you have been with us for several years, are not doing anything to you. He said to him: With your consent, let one student deal with your assertion and answer you.

:‫יה‬ ַ ׁ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫אֹוש ֲעיָ א‬ ּ ‫נִ ְט ּ ַפל ֵל‬ :ּ‫יכי ַּת ַע ְבדו‬ ִ ‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָלא יָ ְד ִעית ּו ֵה‬ ‫ ַמאי‬,ּ‫יתנְ ה ּו ַ ּג ַ ּביְ יכו‬ ְ ‫ְּת ַכ ִּלינַן ּכו ְּּלה ּו – ֵל‬ ‫יכא ַ ּג ַ ּביְ יכ ּו – ָק ִרי ְלכ ּו ַמ ְלכו ָּתא‬ ָּ ‫דְּ ִא‬ .‫רֹומ ֵאי‬ ָ ְּ‫ ַ ּג ּ ָפא ד‬:‫יה‬ ֲ ‫ְק ִט‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫יע ָתא‬ .‫ְ ּב ָהא נָ ְח ִתינַן ו ְּב ָהא ָס ְל ִקינַן‬

Rabbi Oshaya dealt with his assertion and said to him: This is not a sign of your righteousness but is simply because you do not know how to do it, to destroy us. If you seek to destroy all of the Jewish people, you cannot because they are not all with you in your kingdom. If you destroy only those Jews who are with you in your kingdom, you will be called a severed kingdom for murdering part of its own population. The apostate said to him: I swear by Gappa, god of the Romans,l with this problem we lie down and with this problem we rise up, for we are constantly struggling with the dilemma of how to eliminate the Jewish people.

‫״אל ִֹהים‬ ֱ :‫ ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ָּתנֵי ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא‬ – ‫קֹומ ּה״‬ ָ ‫ֵה ִבין דַּ ְר ָּכ ּה וְ הוּא יָ ַדע ֶאת ְמ‬ ‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא ֶאת יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ׁ ‫יֹוד ַע ַה ָ ּק‬ ֵ ‫כֹולין ְל ַק ֵ ּבל ְ ּגזֵ ירֹות ׁ ֶשל‬ ִ ְ‫ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ן י‬ .‫אֹותם ְל ָב ֶבל‬ ָ ‫יכךְ ֶהגְ ָלה‬ ָ ‫ ְל ִפ‬,‫רֹומּיִ ים‬ ִ ‫דֹוש‬ ׁ ‫ ל ֹא ֶהגְ ָלה ַה ָ ּק‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ‫ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא ֶאת יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ְל ָב ֶבל ֶא ָּלא‬ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ֲעמ ּו ָקה ִּכ ׁ ְשאֹול‬ .‫״מּיַ ד ׁ ְשאֹול ֶא ְפדֵּ ם ִמ ָּמוֶ ת ֶאגְ ָא ֵלם״‬ ִ ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ָ ּקרֹוב ְל ׁשֹונָ ם‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א ָא ַמר‬ .‫ִל ְל ׁשֹון ּת ָֹורה‬

Rabbi Ĥiyya teaches: What is the meaning of that which is written: “God understands its ways and He knows its place” ( Job 28:23)? The Holy One, Blessed be He, knows the Jewish people, who are unable to withstand the harsh decrees of the Romans. Therefore, He exiled them to Babylonia, whose people are less cruel. And Rabbi Elazar said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, exiled Israel to Babylonia only due to the fact it is a land as deep as the netherworld, i.e., it is a land of plains and valleys, which alludes to that which is stated: “I shall ransom them from the power of the netherworld, I shall redeem them from death” (Hosea 13:14). Rabbi Ĥanina said: It is due to the fact that their language, Aramaic, is similar to the language of the Torah, which enables the Jews who live there to study Torah.

language

notes

Performed a charitable deed…that He scattered them among the nations – ‫ה…ש ּ ִפּזְ ָרן ְל ֵבין ָהאו ּּמֹות‬ ֶ ׁ ‫צְ ָד ָקה ָע ָ ׂש‬: The notion that God scattered the Jews among the nations seems to contradict the Gemara’s later statements concerning the exile, which imply that the Jews were exiled only to Babylonia. One possible explanation is that although the Jewish people were scattered among the nations, the majority of the Diaspora community was established in Babylonia. Alternatively, it can be said that in the exile that followed the destruction of the Second Temple, the Jewish people were scattered among the nations, while after the First Temple was destroyed, the community was exiled specifically to Babylonia (Maharsha).

Pillar of the Boatmen, a square-section stone with depictions of several deities, both Gaulish and Roman, dating to the first quarter of the first century CE

138 

Perek VIII . 87b . ‫זפ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ח‬

Jupiter on the Pillar of the Boatmen

‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ִש ְ ּיג ָרן ְל ֵבית‬:‫יֹוחנָן ָא ַמר‬ ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabbi Yoĥanan said: It is due to the fact that He sent them to ,‫ ָמ ׁ ָשל ְל ָא ָדם ׁ ֶש ָּכ ַעס ַעל ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו‬.‫ ִא ָּמן‬their mother’s house, i.e., the birthplace of the forefathers of .‫יכן ְמ ׁ ַש ְ ּג ָר ּה – ְל ֵבית ִא ָּמ ּה‬ ָ ‫ ְל ֵה‬the Jewish people, who lived in Aram-Nahara’im, which is in Babylonia. This is comparable to a man who is angry at his wife; to where does he send her? He sends her to her mother’s house. :‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫וְ ַה יְ ינ ּו דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֲא ֶל ְּכ ַסנְ דְּ ִרי‬ :‫ ֵא ּל ּו ֵהן‬,‫ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ָחזְ ר ּו ְל ַמ ַּט ְע ָּתן‬ .‫ ו ְּכ ָתב לוּחֹות‬,‫ ֶּכ ֶסף ִמצְ ַריִ ם‬,‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ – ‫ ֶּכ ֶסף ִמצְ ַריִ ם‬.‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל – ָהא דַּ ֲא ַמ ַרן‬ ְ‫ישית ַל ֶּמ ֶלך‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ״וַ ִיְהי ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה ַה ֲח ִמ‬:‫דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ‫ישק ֶמ ֶל ְך ִמצְ ַריִ ם‬ ַ ׁ ‫ְר ַח ְב ָעם ָע ָלה ׁ ִש‬ – ‫ ְּכ ָתב ַה ּלוּחֹות‬.‫ַעל יְ רו ׁ ָּש ָליִ ם וגו׳״‬ :‫ ָּתנָ א‬.‫ינֵיכם״‬ ֶ ‫ ״וָ ֲא ׁ ַש ְ ּב ֵרם ְל ֵע‬:‫דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ .‫אֹותּיֹות ּפ ְֹורחֹות‬ ִ ְ‫נִש ְ ּבר ּו ו‬ ְ ׁ ‫לוּחֹות‬

And this is expressed in the statement of Rabbi Alexandri, who said: There are three that returned to their points of origin, and these are they: The Jewish people, the money of Egypt, and the writing on the Tablets of the Covenant. The Jewish people; that which we just said, they returned to Babylonia. The money of Egypt; as it is written: “And it came to pass in the fifth year of King Rehoboam, that Shishak,b king of Egypt, came up against Jerusalem; and he took away the treasures of the house of the Lord and the treasures of the king’s house; he took everything” (I Kings 14:25–26). The writing on the Tablets of the Covenant; as it is written: “And I took hold of the two tablets, and cast them out of my two hands, and broke them before your eyes” (Deuteronomy 9:17). And it was taught in the Tosefta: The tablets were broken and the letters are flyingn and returning to their point of origin.

notes

The tablets were broken and the letters are flying – ‫נִש ְ ּבר ּו‬ ְ ׁ ‫לוּחֹות‬ ‫אֹותּיֹות ּפ ְֹורחֹות‬ ִ ְ‫ו‬: The simple reading of the Torah notwithstanding, the Sages understood that Moses smashed the tablets not in rage but with a deep understanding of the implications of the sin of the Golden Calf. The people who had accepted the Torah with cries of “We will do and we will listen” failed to see a contradiction between belief in a single God and creating the Golden Calf as a representation of God. Moses channeled his anger into a practical lesson, whose aim was to impress upon the people that building the Golden Calf was a repudiation of God’s Torah and the mitzvot that they had accepted. The flying letters of the tablets symbolize the elevation of the words on the tablets and indicate that, paradoxically, destroying the tablets ensured their ultimate endurance (Midrash Shlomo).

‫ֹאכל ּו‬ ְ ‫ עו ָּּלא ָא ַמר ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּי‬Ulla said that Israel was exiled to Babylonia in order to enable them to eat

background

Shishak – ‫ישק‬ ַ ׁ ‫ש‬: ִ ׁ Shishak, also known as Sheshonk, recorded on a wall of a temple in Karnak the campaign mentioned in the verses. A rock with Shishak’s name was found in Tel Megiddo in northern Israel, which suggests that Shishak not only raided the Judean kingdom but also broadened his campaign to the kingdom of Israel.

City gate in Tel Megiddo



Above: Rock with Shishak’s inscription found in Tel Megiddo Left: Relief of Shishak’s campaign list at the southern exterior walls of the temple in Karnak, north of Luxor, Egypt ‫זפ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Perek VIII . 87b 

139

Perek VIII Daf 88 Amud a Personalities

Ulla – ‫עו ָּּלא‬: Ulla bar Yishmael was an amora and one of the most important emissaries from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia. He was one of Rabbi Yoĥanan’s students who would regularly bring the Torah of Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia. He would then return to Eretz Yisrael and transmit the innovations of the Babylonian Sages. Ulla journeyed often and traveled from place to place to teach Torah. The Babylonian Sages held him in high regard and treated him with great respect. Rav Ĥisda referred to him as: Our teacher who comes from Eretz Yisrael, and Rav Yehuda sent his son to Ulla to learn practical halakha. In the Jerusalem Talmud, he is usually referred to as Ulla bar Yishmael or Ulla the descender, as one who leaves Eretz Yisrael for another country is considered to have descended. Many halakhot are cited in his name, and numerous Sages of the succeeding generation were his students. The amora Rabba bar Ulla may have been his son, but nothing is known of his private life. He died during one of his journeys to Babylonia and was brought back to Eretz Yisrael for burial. language

Basket [tirina] – ‫ט ִירינָ א‬:ִ Apparently from the Middle Iranian tiryān, meaning wicker basket.

‫ עו ָּּלא ִא ְיק ַלע‬.‫ְּת ָמ ִרים וְ יַ ַע ְסק ּו ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה‬ ‫יה ִט ִירינָא דְּ ַת ְמ ֵרי‬ ּ ‫ ְק ִריב ּו ֵל‬,‫ְלפו ְּמ ַ ּב ִד ָּיתא‬ ‫ ַּכ ָּמה ִּכי ָהנֵי ְ ּבזוּזָ א? ֲא ַמר ּו‬:ּ‫ֲא ַמר ְלהו‬ ‫ ְמל ֹא צַ ָּנא‬:‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫ ְּת ַלת ְ ּבז ּוזָ א‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫דְּ דו ְּב ׁ ָשא ְ ּבז ּוזָ א ו ַּב ְב ָל ֵאי ָלא ָע ְס ִקי‬ !‫יתא‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ ַ ‫ְ ּב‬

‫ ְמל ֹא צַ ָּנא ַס ָּמא‬:‫ ֲא ַמר‬.ּ‫ ְ ּב ֵל ְיליָ א צִ ֲערוּהו‬That night, the dates he ate afflicted him and he suffered from indiges‫ ו ַּב ְב ָל ֵאי ָע ְס ִקי‬,‫מֹותא ְ ּבזוּזָ א ְ ּב ָב ֶבל‬ ָ ְּ‫ ד‬tion. In light of this, Ulla retracted his original assessment of the !‫יתא‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ ַ ‫ ְ ּב‬Babylonians and instead praised them and said: A basketful of lethal poison, i.e., the dates that cause indigestion, sells for a zuz in Babylonia, and despite the fact that they suffer its effects the Babylonians still engage in Torah study. ‫ ״וְ ָה ְלכ ּו‬:‫ ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ‫נַע ֶלה ֶאל ַהר ה׳‬ ֲ ְ‫ַע ִּמים ַר ִ ּבים וְ ָא ְמר ּו ְלכ ּו ו‬ ‫ֶאל ֵ ּבית ֱאל ֵֹהי יַ ֲעקֹב וגו׳״ ֱאל ֵֹהי יַ ֲעקֹב‬ !?‫וְ ל ֹא ֱאל ֵֹהי ַא ְב ָר ָהם וְ יִ צְ ָחק‬

The Gemara returns to its discussion of prophecies of consolation that are related to those in the book of Hosea. And Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And many peoples shall go and say: Go and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths” (Isaiah 2:3)? The Gemara notes that Jacob is the only Patriarch mentioned and asks: Is He the God of Jacob and not the God of Abraham and Isaac?

‫ ל ֹא ְּכ ַא ְב ָר ָהם ׁ ֶש ָּכתוּב ּבֹו ַ‘הר׳‬:‫ֶא ָּלא‬ ‫״א ׁ ֶשר יֵ ָא ֵמר ַהּיֹום ְ ּב ַהר ה׳‬ ֲ :‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ ,‫ וְ ל ֹא ְּכיִ צְ ָחק ׁ ֶש ָּכתוּב ּבֹו ָ ׂש ֶדה‬,‫יֵ ָר ֶאה״‬ .‫ ״וַ ּיֵ צֵ א יִ צְ ָחק ָל ׂשו ַּח ַ ּב ּ ָ ׂש ֶדה״‬:‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ְּכיַ ֲעקֹב ׁ ֶש ְּק ָראֹו ַ ּביִ ת‬ ‫״וַ ּיִ ְק ָרא ֶאת ׁ ֵשם ַה ָּמקֹום ַההוּא ֵ ּבית‬ .‫ֵאל״‬

Rather, the verse specifically mentions Jacob to allude to the fact that the Temple will ultimately be described in the same way that Jacob referred to it. It will not be referred to as it was referred to by Abraham. It is written of him that when he prayed at the location of the Temple mountain, he called it mount, as it is stated: “As it is said on this day: On the mount where the Lord is seen” (Genesis 22:14). And it will not be referred to as it was referred to by Isaac. It is written of him that he called the location of the Temple field when he prayed there, as it is stated: “And Isaac went out to meditate in the field”n (Genesis 24:63). Rather, it will be described as it was referred to by Jacob, who called it house, as it is stated: “And he called the name of that place Beth-El” (Genesis 28:19), which means house of God.

‫ ָ ּגדֹול ִק ּבוּץ ָ ּג ֻלּיֹות ַּכּיֹום‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְב ְרא ּו ּבֹו ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם וָ ָא ֶרץ‬ ‫״וְ נִ ְק ְ ּבצ ּו ְ ּבנֵי יְ הו ָּדה ו ְּבנֵי יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל יַ ְחדָּ ו‬ ‫ֹאש ֶא ָחד וְ ָעל ּו ִמן ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ׁ ‫וְ ָ ׂשמ ּו ָל ֶהם ר‬ ‫ ״וַ יְ ִהי ֶע ֶרב‬:‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫ִּכי ָ ּגדֹול יֹום יִ זְ ְר ֶעאל״‬ .‫וַ יְ ִהי ב ֶֹקר יֹום ֶא ָחד״‬

Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The day of the ingathering of exiles is as great as the day on which heaven and earth were created.n This is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the word day in these two contexts, as it is stated concerning the ingathering of exiles: “And the children of Judea and the children of Israel shall be gathered together, and they shall appoint themselves one head, and shall go up out of the land; for great shall be the day of Jezreel” (Hosea 2:2), and it is written in the narrative of Creation: “And there was evening and there was morning, one day” (Genesis 1:5).

notes

It is written of him that he called it mount…field – ‫ר…ש ֶדה‬ ׂ ָ ‫ש ָּכתוּב ּבֹו ַה‬: ֶ ׁ Some explain the Patriarchs’ different appellations of the Temple prophetically as characterizing the difference between the three Temples. The first Temple was like a mountain in all its grandeur; the second was but a field, especially in of the wake of its destruction. The Third Temple will once again be called the House of God (Maharsha; Rabbi Yoshiya Pinto). The ingathering of the exiles and Creation – ‫ִק ּבוּץ‬ ‫יאה‬ ָ ‫ג ֻלּיֹות ו ְּב ִר‬:ּ ָ The Gemara’s analogy suggests that the ingathering of the exiles is tantamount to an act of creation ex nihilo. Before the ingathering of the exiles, the Jewish people will appear virtually nonexistent, engulfed by their exile. Their ingathering will therefore be akin to creating the nation anew (Maharsha).

the dates that grow there plentifully, which gave them strength and allowed them to engage in Torah study. The Gemara records a related incident: Ullap visited Pumbedita, and his hosts brought him a basket [tirina]l of dates. He said to them: How many baskets of dates like these can one purchase for a zuz? They said to him: One can purchase three for a zuz. He said: How can it be that it is possible to purchase a basketful of date honey for just a single zuz, and yet the Babylonians do not engage in Torah study more extensively? Since the cost of food is so low and they do not need to work hard to support themselves, the Babylonians should be more extensively engaged in Torah study.

.‫רֹופ ִסין וכו׳״‬ ְ ּ ‫ֹוט‬ ְ ‫ ״יָ תֹום ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ֲחט ּו ָע ָליו ַא ּפ‬We learned in the mishna: In the case of an orphan with multiple :‫ ׁיֵש ְ ּב ֵר ָירה! ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬:‫ ׁ ָש ְמ ַע ְּת ִמ ָּינ ּה‬guardians, if each of his guardians slaughtered a Paschal lamb on his behalf, he may eat in whichever place he wishes. The Gemara sug.‫״שה ַל ָ ּביִ ת״ – ִמ ָּכל ָמקֹום‬ ֶׂ gests: You can learn from it that there is retroactive clarification, and one’s ultimate decision as to which group he wishes to be part of retroactively indicates that from the outset he was registered in that group. This is problematic, as no halakhic conclusion has been reached in the matter of retroactive clarification. The Gemara therefore rejects this suggestion: Rabbi Zeira said: The halakha in the mishna is not based on retroactive clarification, but rather on the following principle: The verse states: “They shall take to them every man a lamb, according to their fathers’ houses, a lamb for a household” (Exodus 12:3), indicating that a minor’s membership in the household is sufficient for him to be registered in the household’s Paschal lamb in any case, even without his agreement.

140 

Perek VIII . 88a . ‫חפ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ח‬

‫״שה ַל ָ ּביִ ת״ – ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ָא ָדם‬ ׂ ֶ :‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ,‫ֹוחט ַעל יְ ֵדי ְ ּבנֹו ו ִּב ּתֹו ַה ְּק ַט ּנִים‬ ֵ ‫ֵמ ִביא וְ ׁש‬ ‫ ֵ ּבין‬,‫נַענִים‬ ֲ ‫וְ ַעל יְ ֵדי ַע ְבדּ ֹו וְ ׁ ִש ְפ ָחתֹו ַה ְּכ‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ֵאינֹו‬.‫ִמדַּ ְע ָּתן ֵ ּבין ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִמדַּ ְע ָּתן‬ ‫ וְ ַעל יְ ֵדי‬,‫דֹולים‬ ִ ‫ֹוחט ַעל יְ ֵדי ְ ּבנֹו ו ִּב ּתֹו ַה ְ ּג‬ ֵ ‫ׁש‬ ‫ַע ְבדּ ֹו וְ ׁ ִש ְפ ָחתֹו ָה ִע ְב ִרים וְ ַעל יַ ד ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו‬ .‫ֶא ָּלא ִמדַּ ְע ָּתן‬

‫ ל ֹא יִ ׁ ְשחֹוט ָא ָדם ל ֹא ַעל‬:‫ַּתנְ יָ א ִא ָיד ְך‬ ‫ וְ ַעל יְ ֵדי ַע ְבדּ ֹו‬,‫דֹולים‬ ִ ‫יְ ֵדי ְ ּבנֹו ו ִּב ּתֹו ַה ְ ּג‬ ‫ וְ ַעל יַ ד ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו ֶא ָּלא‬,‫וְ ׁ ִש ְפ ָחתֹו ָה ִע ְב ִרים‬ ‫ֹוחט הוּא ַעל יְ ֵדי ְ ּבנֹו‬ ֵ ‫ ֲא ָבל ׁש‬.‫ִמדַּ ְע ָּתן‬ ‫ וְ ַעל יְ ֵדי ַע ְבדּ ֹו וְ ׁ ִש ְפ ָחתֹו‬,‫ו ִּב ּתֹו ַה ְּק ַט ּנִים‬ .‫ ֵ ּבין ִמדַּ ְע ָּתן ו ֵּבין ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִמדַּ ְע ָּתן‬,‫נַענִים‬ ֲ ‫ַה ְּכ‬ ‫וְ כו ָּּלן ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ֲחט ּו וְ ׁ ָש ַחט ַר ָ ּבן ֲע ֵל ֶיהן – יֹוצְ ִאין‬ ,‫ וְ ֵאין יֹוצְ ִאין ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל ַעצְ ָמן‬,‫ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל ַר ָ ּבן‬

The Sages taught in a baraita: A lamb for a household teaches that a person brings and slaughters a Paschal lamb on behalf of his minor son and daughter and on behalf of his Canaanite slave and maidservant, whether with their consent or without their consent. Since they do not have a legal identity independent of their household membership, their membership is sufficient to include them, even without their consent.h However, one may not slaughter the Paschal lamb on behalf of his adult son or daughter, or on behalf of his Hebrew slave and maidservant, or on behalf of his wife unless he has their consent. Since they have legal identities independent of their household membership, their inclusion can be achieved only through their consent. It was taught in another baraita: A person may not slaughter a Paschal lamb on behalf of his minor son or daughter, or on behalf of his Hebrew slave and maidservant, or on behalf of his wife unless he has their consent. However, he may slaughter on behalf of his son or daughter who are minors, or on behalf of his Canaanite slave or maidservant, both with their consent or without their consent. And if any of them who slaughtered a Paschal lamb for themselves, and their master, i.e., the father or owner, also slaughtered on their behalf, they can fulfill their obligation only with the Paschal lamb of their master, and they do not fulfill their obligation with their own.h

halakha

The Paschal lamb for minors and slaves – ‫ּ ֶפ ַסח ִל ְק ַט ּנִים‬ ‫וַ ֲע ָב ִדים‬: One may slaughter a Paschal lamb for his minor children and his Canaanite slaves and maidservants, with or without their consent (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 2:8). Minors and slaves who slaughtered a Paschal lamb for themselves – ‫ש ֲחט ּו ְק ַט ּנִים וַ ֲע ָב ִדים ְל ַעצְ ָמן‬: ָ ׁ If one slaughtered a Paschal lamb for his minor children or Canaanite slaves and they slaughtered a Paschal lamb for themselves, they may partake of his lamb but not of their own (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 2:9). A Paschal lamb for one’s wife and children – ‫ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ‫ל ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו ו ָּבנָיו‬:ְ One may slaughter a Paschal lamb for his wife, adult children, and Hebrew slaves only with their consent. If they are silent and do not protest, it is as though they consented (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 2:8).

.‫כֹולה ִל ְמחֹות‬ ָ ְ‫ חוּץ ִמן ָה ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ׁ ֶשּי‬The baraita concludes that this is the halakha except with regard to the wife, who is able to protest to her husband and say: I choose not to be supported by you and will therefore not grant you the proceeds of my labor. She therefore retains the ability to slaughter her own Paschal lamb, despite the fact that her husband slaughtered one on her behalf. ‫ ִא ׁ ּ ָשה וְ ָכל‬:‫ ַמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ִא ׁ ּ ָשה? ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬The fact that the conclusion of the baraita specifically mentions a .‫ דְּ ָד ֵמי ָל ּה‬wife implies she is the only exception, but adult children or Hebrew slaves would perforce be included in their father’s and master’s Paschal lamb, even if they slaughtered one for themselves. The Gemara challenges this: What is different about a wife; how is her status any different from that of adult children or Hebrew slaves? Rava said: The conclusion of the baraita is not limited to a wife, rather, it is referring to a wife and all who are similar to her, including adult children and Hebrew slaves. Since they all enjoy legal identities independent of their master, they may slaughter a Paschal lamb for themselves despite the master’s intention to include them in his. However, minor children and Canaanite slaves lack any legally independent identity, and so their master’s intention for them to be included in his Paschal lamb precludes their ability to offer their own. ‫ חוּץ ִמן ָה ִא ׁ ּ ָשה‬:‫ ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬:‫ָהא ּגו ָּפא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ ‫ ָהא‬,‫ ַט ְע ָמא – דְּ ָמ ֵחי‬.‫כֹולה ִל ְמחֹות‬ ָ ְ‫ׁ ֶשּי‬ ‫ וְ ָהא ָק ָתנֵי‬.‫ָלא ָמ ֵחי – נָ ְפ ָקא ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל ַ ּב ֲע ָל ּה‬ ,‫ וְ ל ֹא ַעל יְ ֵדי ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו ֶא ָּלא ִמדַּ ְע ָּתן‬:‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ֵר‬ !‫ָהא ְס ָת ָמא – ָלא נָ ְפ ָקא‬

The Gemara notes that this matter itself is difficult. You said in the conclusion of the baraita: Except for a wife, who is able to protest. She may therefore slaughter her own Paschal lamb, despite the fact that her husband slaughtered one on her behalf. The baraita states that the reason she can slaughter her own Paschal lamb is that she protests, which implies that if she does not protest, she must fulfill her obligation with her husband’s Paschal lamb. But doesn’t the first clause of that same baraita teach that a man slaughters a Paschal lamb on behalf of his adult children, Hebrew slaves, and his wife only with their consent, from which one can infer that in an indeterminate case, where the woman did not explicitly give her consent, she does not fulfill her obligation with her husband’s lamb?

,‫‘אין׳‬ ִ ‫״א ָּלא ִמדַּ ְע ָּתן״ ָלאו דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ֶ ‫ ַמאי‬The Gemara resolves this difficulty: What does the first clause mean ‫יכא דְּ ַאמוּר‬ ָ ‫ ְל ַא ּפ ֵֹוקי ֵה‬.‫ ֶא ָּלא ִ ּב ְס ָת ָמא‬when it teaches that one may slaughter the Paschal lamb only with .‫ ָ‘לא׳‬their consent? It is not referring to a case where they explicitly said yes, thereby clarifying their intent; rather, it is referring to an indeterminate case where they did not explicitly agree, but their implicit consent is presumed. The ruling of the baraita comes to exclude only the case where they explicitly said no, clearly excluding themselves from their master’s Paschal lamb.h 

‫חפ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Perek VIII . 88a 

141

halakha

If one’s wife and children slaughtered – ‫ש ֲחט ּו ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו ו ָּבנָיו‬: ָׁ If one slaughtered a Paschal lamb for his wife, adult children, or Hebrew slaves who also slaughtered a Paschal lamb for themselves, they fulfill the mitzva only with their own lamb, not with the lamb of their husband, father, or master, respectively (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 2:10). A slave of two partners – ‫ע ֶבד ׁ ֶשל ׁ ְשנֵי ׁשו ָּּת ִפים‬:ֶ A slave that belongs to two partners may not eat from the Paschal lamb of either one if they are exacting with each other. However, if they are not exacting, he may partake of the Paschal lamb of whichever master he chooses (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 2:12). language

Pot [ patya] – ‫פ ְתיָא‬:ַ ּ From the Akkadian pattū, meaning chest.

‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫״כו ָּּלם ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ֲחט ּו וְ ׁ ָש ַחט ַר ָ ּבן ֲע ֵל‬ ּ ‫ וְ ָהא‬The Gemara challenges this reading of the first clause. But wasn’t ‫ וְ ָק ָתנֵי ״חוּץ‬,‫ יֹוצְ ִאין ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל ַר ָ ּבן״ דְּ ִב ְס ָת ָמא‬it taught in the baraita: Any of them, i.e., minor children and !‫כֹולה ִל ְמחֹות״‬ ָ ְ‫ ִמן ָה ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶשּי‬Canaanite slaves, who slaughtered a Paschal lamb and their master also slaughtered a Paschal lamb on their behalf, fulfills his obligation only with the lamb of their master, which is an indeterminate case, and the baraita teaches: This is the halakha, except for the wife, because she is able to protest, and except for adult children and Hebrew slaves, who share her independent status, as explained previously in the Gemara? Apparently, a person is included in his master’s sacrifice, unless he explicitly indicates intent to the contrary. ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ֲחט ּו – ֵאין ְלךָ ִמיחוּי‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬Rava resolved this difficulty and said: Since they slaughtered .‫ ָ ּגדֹול ִמּזֶ ה‬their own Paschal lambs, you do not have a protest greater than this. The act of slaughtering their own Paschal lambs clearly demonstrates they intend to partake of their own lambs and do not intend to be included in the master’s group.h ‫יה ַרב‬ ֶ ּ ‫ ָר ֵמי ֵל‬.‫״ע ֶבד ׁ ֶשל ׁ ְשנֵי ׁשו ָּּת ִפין וכו׳״‬ ‫ ֶע ֶבד ׁ ֶשל ׁ ְשנֵי‬:‫ ְּתנַן‬,‫ֵעינָ א ָס ָבא ְל ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ :‫ וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬.‫נֵיהן‬ ֶ ‫ֹאכל ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשל ׁ ְש‬ ַ ‫ׁשו ָּּת ִפין ל ֹא י‬ !‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ ‫אֹוכל ָרצָ ה ִמּזֶ ה‬ ֵ ‫ָרצָ ה ִמּזֶ ה‬

We learned in the mishna: A slave jointly owned by two partners may not eat from the lamb of either of them unless it was stipulated beforehand from whose lamb he will partake. Rav Eina the Elder raised a contradiction before Rav Naĥman. We learned in the mishna: A slave jointly owned by two partners may not eat from the lamb of either of them. But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: If he wanted to, he may eat from this one, and if he wanted to, he may eat from that one.

‫ ּ ַפ ְתיָ א‬:‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה‬,‫ ֵעינָ א ָס ָבא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ .‫ ִמ ּינִי ו ִּמ ָּינךְ ִּת ְס ַּתּיֵ ים ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ָת ָתא‬,‫או ָּּכ ָמא‬ – ‫יתא‬ ָ ְ‫ ָ ּב ַרי‬,‫נִיתין – ִ ּב ְד ָק ְפ ִדי ַא ֲה ָד ֵדי‬ ִ ‫ַמ ְת‬ .‫דְּ ָלא ָק ְפ ִדי ַא ֲה ָד ֵדי‬

Rav Naĥman said to him: Eina the Elder, and some say that he called him black pot [patya],l a term of endearment for a scholar who works hard studying Torah: From me and from you, clarification of this halakha will be concluded. The mishna is referring to a case where the partners are exacting with each other.n Therefore, presumably, neither partner will allow his half of the slave to partake from his partner’s Paschal lamb. The barai­ ta is referring to a case where they are not exacting with each other. In that case, the slave may eat from the Paschal lamb of whichever partner he chooses.h

‫חֹורין ל ֹא‬ ִ ‫״מי ׁ ֶש ֶחצְ יֹו ֶע ֶבד וְ ֶחצְ יֹו ֶ ּבן‬ ִ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשל ַר ּבֹו הוּא‬.‫ֹאכל ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשל ַר ּבֹו וכו׳״‬ ַ ‫י‬ .‫ֹאכל‬ ַ ‫ ֲא ָבל ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשל ַעצְ מֹו – י‬,‫ֹאכל‬ ַ ‫דְּ ל ֹא י‬ ‫ֹאכל ל ֹא ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ּלֹו וְ ל ֹא‬ ַ ‫ ל ֹא י‬:‫וְ ָהא ַּתנְ יָ א‬ !‫ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשל ַר ּבֹו‬

We learned in the mishna: One who is half slave and half free man may not eat from his master’s Paschal lamb. It is specifically from his master’s lamb that he may not eat; however, from his own lamb he may eat. But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: He may eat neither from his own nor from his master’s Paschal lamb?

‫ ָּכאן‬,‫אשֹונָ ה‬ ׁ ‫ ָּכאן – ְּכ ִמ ׁ ְשנָ ה ִר‬:‫ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ ‫ ִמי ׁ ֶש ֶחצְ יֹו ֶע ֶבד‬:‫ דִּ ְתנַן‬.‫ְּכ ִמ ׁ ְשנָ ה ַא ֲחרֹונָ ה‬ ‫עֹובד ֶאת ַר ּבֹו יֹום ֶא ָחד‬ ֵ – ‫חֹורין‬ ִ ‫וְ ֶחצְ יֹו ֶ ּבן‬ ,‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ֵ ּבית ִה ֵּלל‬,‫וְ ֶאת ַעצְ מֹו יֹום ֶא ָחד‬ :‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬

The Gemara answers that this is not difficult: Here, the baraita that rules that the half slave may partake neither of his own nor of his master’s lamb, is in accordance with the original version of the mishna, which cites Beit Hillel’s opinion that the master retains his rights to the half slave. There, the mishna that allows the half slave to partake of his own lamb, is in accordance with the ultimate version of the mishna, which cites Beit Hillel’s revised opinion, according to which the status of the half slave is altered such that he is considered like a free man as pertains to his inclusion in a group for the Paschal lamb.n As we learned in a mishna: One who is half slave and half free man serves his master one day and himself one day; this is the statement of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai say:

notes

Are exacting with each other – ‫ק ְפ ִדי ַא ֲה ָד ֵדי‬:ָ The Rambam explains that the two masters of the slave are concerned that if the other master provides for the slave, the slave will be drawn to that master. Therefore, neither permits the slave to eat from the other master’s offering. The original version of the mishna and the ultimate version of the mishna – ‫אשֹונָ ה ו ִּמ ׁ ְשנָ ה ַא ֲחרֹונָ ה‬ ׁ ‫מ ׁ ְשנָ ה ִר‬:ִ The Rambam

142 

Perek VIII . 88a . ‫חפ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ח‬

explains the Gemara’s answer in a manner contrary to Rashi’s explanation, upon which the above translation is based. According to the Rambam, since the first mishna accords the slave a particular legal status, he is able to partake of his own Paschal lamb. According to the later mishna, which requires the master to free the slave, the half slave does not have a fixed legal status and may not even eat from his own Paschal lamb until he is actually freed (Me’iri ).

Perek VIII Daf 88 Amud b ‫ וְ ֶאת ַעצְ מֹו ל ֹא‬,‫ִּת ַ ּקנְ ֶּתם ֶאת ַר ּב ֹו‬ ,‫ישא ׁ ִש ְפ ָחה – ֵאינֹו יָ כֹול‬ ׂ ָ ּ ‫ ִל‬,‫ִּת ַ ּקנְ ֶּתם‬ ּ – ‫חֹורין‬ ִ ‫ישא ַ ּבת‬ ׂ ָ ‫ ִל‬.‫חֹורין‬ ִ ‫ׁ ֶש ְּכ ָבר ֶחצְ יֹו ֶ ּבן‬ – ‫יִב ֵטל‬ ּ ָ .‫ ׁ ֶש ֲע ַדיִ ין ֶחצְ יֹו ֶע ֶבד‬,‫ֵאינֹו יָ כֹול‬ ‫עֹולם ֶא ָּלא ְל ִפ ְריָ ה‬ ָ ‫וַ ֲהל ֹא ל ֹא נִ ְב ָרא ָה‬ ‫ ״ ל ֹא תֹה ּו ְ ּב ָר ָא ּה״‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫וְ ִר ְביָ ה‬ ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי‬:‫״ל ׁ ֶש ֶבת יְ ָצ ָר ּה״! ֶא ָּלא‬ ָ )‫(א ָּלא‬ ֶ ּ ‫ִּת‬ ‫עֹושה‬ ׂ ֶ ְ‫ֹופין ֶאת ַר ּבֹו ו‬ ִ ‫עֹולם ּכ‬ ָ ‫יקוּן ָה‬ ‫כֹותב ׁ ְש ָטר ַעל ֲחצִ י‬ ֵ ְ‫ ו‬,‫חֹורין‬ ִ ‫אֹותֹו ֶ ּבן‬ .‫דָּ ָמיו‬

You have remedied the situation of his master, who benefits fully from all his rights to the slave, but his own situation you have not remedied. How so? He is not able to marry a maidservant, since half of him is already free, and a free Jew may not marry a Canaanite maidservant. He is also not able to marry a free woman, since half of him is still a slave, and a Jewish woman may not marry a Canaanite slave. And if you say he should be idle and not marry, but is it not true that the world was created only for procreation, as it is stated: “He did not create it to be a waste;n He formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18)? Rather, for the improvement of the world we force his masterh to make him a free man, and the slave writes a bill accepting his responsibility to pay half his value to his master. This was the original version of the mishna.

.‫ וְ ָחזְ ר ּו ֵ ּבית ִה ֵּילל ְלהֹורֹות ְּכ ֵבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬The ultimate version of the mishna records the retraction of Beit Hillel: And Beit Hillel retracted its position and ruled like Beit Shammai.

mishna 

In the case of one who says to his slave: Go ‫ צֵ א ו ׁ ְּשחֹוט‬:‫אֹומר ְל ַע ְבדּ ֹו‬ ֵ ‫מתני׳ ָה‬ and slaughter the Paschal offering on my ‫ ׁ ָש ַחט‬,‫ֹאכל‬ ַ ‫ ׁ ָש ַחט ְ ּג ִדי – י‬.‫ָע ַלי ֶאת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ behalf,h but does not specify which type of animal to slaughter, the ‫ֹאכל‬ ַ ‫ ׁ ָש ַחט ְ ּג ִדי וְ ָט ֶלה – י‬.‫ֹאכל‬ ַ ‫ ָט ֶלה – י‬halakha is as follows: If the slave slaughtered a kid, his master may .‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ ִמן ָה ִר‬eat it; if he slaughtered a lamb, his master may eat it. If the slave slaughtered both a kid and a lamb, his master should eat from the first one that was slaughtered; the second is invalid and should be burned. – ‫ׁ ָש ַכח ָמה ָא ַמר לֹו ַר ּבֹו ֵּכיצַ ד יַ ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬ ‫ ִאם ְ ּג ִדי ָא ַמר‬:‫ֹאמר‬ ַ ‫ וְ י‬,‫יִ ׁ ְש ַחט ָט ָלה וּגְ ִדי‬ ‫ וְ ִאם ָט ֶלה‬,‫ִלי ַר ִ ּבי – ְ ּג ִדי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹו וְ ָט ֶלה ׁ ֶש ִּלי‬ .‫ָא ַמר ִלי ַר ִ ּבי – ַה ָּט ֶלה ׁ ֶשלּ ֹו וּגְ ִדי ׁ ֶש ִּלי‬

If the master had stated explicitly which type of animal to slaughter, but the slave forgot what his master said to him,h what should he do? He should slaughter both a lamb and a kid and say the following stipulation: If my master said to me that I should slaughter a kid, the kid is for his Paschal offering and the lamb is for mine;n and if my master said to me that I should slaughter a lamb, the lamb is for his Paschal offering and the kid is for mine. In this way, once the master ultimately clarifies what he had originally said, both animals may be used accordingly.

‫נֵיהן יֵ צְ א ּו‬ ֶ ‫ ׁ ָש ַכח ַר ּבֹו ָמה ָא ַמר לֹו – ׁ ְש‬If his master also forgot what he said to him, neither animal may ‫ ו ְּפטו ִּרין ִמ ַּל ֲע ׂשֹות ּ ֶפ ַסח‬,‫ ְל ֵבית ַה ּ ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה‬be used, since it has not been clarified which of the animals the slave .‫ ׁ ֵשנִי‬and master are registered for. Therefore, both of them, the lamb and the kid, go out to the place designated for burning, in accordance with the halakha pertaining to offerings that may not be eaten. However, despite this, both the master and slave are exempt from observing the second Pesaĥ if the blood of the animals has already been applied to the altar before the master forgot.

gemara 

The mishna teaches that if the master did ‫ֹאכל ַאף ַעל‬ ַ ‫יטא! ׁ ָש ַחט ְ ּג ִדי י‬ ָ ‫גמ׳ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ not specify which type of animal he wishes ‫ֹאכל – ַאף‬ ַ ‫ ׁ ָש ַחט ָט ֶלה י‬.‫ַ ּגב דְּ ָרגִ יל ְ ּב ָט ֶלה‬ to use, he eats from whichever type the slave slaughters. The Ge.‫ ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ָרגִ יל ִ ּבגְ ִדי‬mara exclaims: It is obvious. Since the master did not specify, he apparently does not have a preference. Therefore, whichever animal is used will be acceptable. The Gemara answers: The mishna’s ruling is necessary in the case where the slave slaughtered a kid. His master may eat it even though the master is accustomed to use a lamb. Even though he is accustomed to do so, it is not presumed that he is particular to use only a lamb, since he did not explicitly say so. Similarly, if the slave slaughtered a lamb, his master may eat it, although he is accustomed to use a kid for his Paschal offering.

notes

He did not create it to be a waste – ‫ל ֹא תֹה ּו ְ ּב ָר ָא ּה‬: The commentators discuss why the mishna does not cite the command “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:22) as the impetus to force the master to free the half slave, but instead utilizes the verse from Isaiah, which states that the world was formed “to be inhabited.” Some suggest that the individual obligation of the half slave to be fruitful and multiply is not sufficient reason to force the master to free the slave. The master can be forced to free him only because the verse in Isaiah indicates that populating the world is of such significance that it is part of the purpose of Creation (Tosafot). And the lamb is for mine – ‫וְ ָט ֶלה ׁ ֶש ִּלי‬: If, as the Gemara explains, a half slave is unable to fulfill his obligation with his own offering due to the objection of his master, why is a full slave able to do so? Some suggest that clearly, in this case, the master does not object to the slave fulfilling his obligation with his own offering. This is because the only way for the master to fulfill his own obligation is by allowing the slave to make a stipulation on two animals and fulfill his own obligation with the one the master had not requested (Rashash). His master should eat from the first one – ‫ֹאכל ִמן‬ ַ ‫י‬ ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ה ִר‬:ָ The Gemara establishes that this ruling is limited to a case of a king and queen. However, in the Jerusalem Talmud a different explanation is suggested. The Sages stipulated that any time two different types of animals are slaughtered as an offering, one should eat from the first one that was slaughtered. However, some commentaries assert that this applies only to a case in which two animals of the same type were slaughtered as the Paschal lamb. Since, in such a case, there is no clear preference for one over the other, the first one slaughtered should be used (Gilyonei HaShas). halakha

We force his master – ‫כ ִֹופין ֶאת ַר ּבֹו‬:ּ If one is half slave and half free man, his master is forced to free him, and the slave must pay the master half his value (Rambam Sefer Kinyan, Hilkhot Avadim 7:7). One who says to his slave, go and slaughter the Paschal offering on my behalf – ‫אֹומר ְל ַע ְבדּ ֹו צֵ א ו ׁ ְּשחֹוט ָע ַלי ֶאת‬ ֵ ‫ָה‬ ‫ה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬:ַ If one tells his slave to slaughter a Paschal lamb on his behalf, even if he is accustomed every year to slaughter a lamb and the slave slaughters a kid or vice versa, the master eats whatever his slave has slaughtered. If the slave slaughters both a lamb and a kid, neither may be eaten and both are burned (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 3:1). If the slave forgot what his master said to him – ‫ׁ ָש ַכח‬ ‫מה ָא ַמר לֹו ַר ּבֹו‬:ָ If a messenger received explicit instructions pertaining to which type of animal to slaughter on someone’s behalf, and the messenger forgot which type was specified, he should slaughter a kid and a lamb and stipulate that whichever one he was requested to slaughter should be for the person who sent him, and the other one should be for himself (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 3:2).

‫אשֹון״‬ ׁ ‫ֹאכל ִמן ָה ִר‬ ַ ‫״ש ַחט ְ ּג ִדי וְ ָט ֶלה י‬ ָ ׁ We learned in the mishna: If the slave slaughtered a kid and a lamb, n ‫ ֵאין נִ ְמנִין ַעל ׁ ְשנֵי ְפ ָס ִחים‬:‫ וְ ָהא ַּתנְיָ א‬his master should eat from the first one the slave slaughtered. To allow for the possibility of eating from whichever one is slaughtered !‫ְּכ ֶא ָחד‬ first, the master must have been registered to eat from either animal. The Gemara cites a baraita that appears to contradict this: Wasn’t it taught: One may not be registered for two Paschal offerings at once? 

‫חפ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Perek VIII . 88b 

143

notes

.‫נִיתין ְ ּב ֶמ ֶלךְ ו ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬ ִ ‫ ַמ ְת‬The Gemara answers: The mishna discusses a case of a king and queennh and similar cases of those for whom food is supplied by slaves. They are content with whatever food is presented to them, since all their food is of good quality. Such people have the intent to be registered with whichever animal their slaves select to slaughter first, and only with that animal.

King and queen – ‫מ ֶל ְך ו ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬:ֶ Rashi explains that the unique halakha of a king and queen is due to the fact they are always satisfied with whatever food is presented to them by their slaves, since all their foods are of good quality. Therefore, the first animal the slave slaughters is certainly acceptable, and it is unnecessary to slaughter a second. However, the Rambam explains that the halakha in this case is due to a special leniency in the interests of maintaining good relations with the monarchy. Some commentaries explain that there is a concern that the king and queen may become angry at their slaves, who made the mistake, and punish them harshly, perhaps even executing them. Others submit that there is a fear that the king may become angry at the Sages for disqualifying both animals. To forestall these possibilities, the Sages permitted the king and queen to eat whichever animal was slaughtered first (see Me’iri ). The Tosefot Yom Tov proposes another explanation. Since the king and queen relied on the Sages’ decisions with regard to all ritual matters, the Sages could decide for them which animal would be their offering. This would well explain why the Gemara immediately cites the incident of the lizard in the royal kitchen. It illustrates the extent to which the king and queen relied upon the Sages. Acquisition for a slave – ‫קנְיָ ן ְל ֶע ֶבד‬:ִ This principle applies only to a Canaanite slave; a Jewish slave has full financial independence like any other Jew. A Canaanite slave is unable to acquire his own property because his body belongs to his master. Therefore, anything a slave attempts to acquire is immediately and automatically acquired by his master. There is one exception to this: If another person presents a gift to the slave with the explicit condition that the slave’s master should not gain any rights to it, the item belongs exclusively to the slave.

,‫ ֵאין נִ ְמנִין ַעל ׁ ְשנֵי ְפ ָס ִחים ְּכ ֶא ָחד‬:‫וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬ :‫ו ַּמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ֶמ ֶלךְ ו ַּמ ְל ָּכה ׁ ֶש ָא ְמר ּו ְל ַע ְב ֵד ֶיהם‬ ‫ וְ יָ צְ א ּו‬,‫צְ א ּו וְ ׁ ַש ֲחט ּו ָע ֵלינ ּו ֶאת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ‫ ָ ּבא ּו וְ ׁ ָש ֲאל ּו‬.‫יהן ׁ ְשנֵי ְפ ָס ִחים‬ ֶ ‫וְ ׁ ָש ֲחט ּו ֲע ֵל‬ ‫ ְלכ ּו וְ ׁ ַש ֲאל ּו ֶאת‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָל ֶהם‬,‫ֶאת ַה ֶּמ ֶל ְך‬ ‫ ָא ְמ ָרה‬,‫ ָ ּבא ּו וְ ׁ ָש ֲאל ּו ִמן ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬.‫ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬ .‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ ְלכ ּו וְ ׁ ַש ֲאל ּו ֶאת ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬:‫ָל ֶהם‬

And similarly, it was taught in a baraita: One may not register for two Paschal offerings at once. And there was an incident involving a king and queen who said to their slaves: Go and slaughter the Paschal offering on our behalf. And they went out and slaughtered two Paschal offerings on their behalf. They came and asked the king which one he wished to eat. He said to them: Go and ask the queen. They came and asked the queen. She said to them: Go and ask Rabban Gamlielp to rule which one should be used.

:‫ ָא ַמר ָל ֶהם‬,‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ָ ּבא ּו וְ ׁ ָש ֲאל ּו ֶאת ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ ‫ֹאכל ּו‬ ְ ‫יהן – י‬ ֶ ‫ַמ ְל ָּכה ו ֶּמ ֶלךְ דְּ ַד ְע ָּתן ַק ָּלה ֲע ֵל‬ ‫ֹאכל ל ֹא ִמן‬ ַ ‫ ֲאנַ ן – ל ֹא נ‬,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ִמן ָה ִר‬ .‫אשֹון וְ ל ֹא ִמן ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ׁ ‫ָה ִר‬

They came and asked Rabban Gamliel. He said to them: A king and queen, who are easily accepting of whichever foods their slaves choose to present to them, should eat from the first one that was slaughtered, since it is presumed they wished to be registered for any animal the slaves selected. But we, the general populace, who have limited supplies of food and so are particular about what food is served to us, would not eat from the first or from the second, since it is not permitted to be registered for two Paschal lambs at once.

‫וְ ׁשוּב ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת נִ ְמצֵ את ַה ְּל ָט ָאה ְ ּב ֵבית‬ ‫ ו ִּב ְּק ׁש ּו ְל ַט ֵּמא ָּכל ַה ְּסעוּדָּ ה‬,‫ַה ִּמ ְט ָ ּב ַחיִ ם‬ :‫ ָא ַמר ָל ֶהם‬, ְ‫ ָ ּבא ּו וְ ׁ ָש ֲאל ּו ֶאת ַה ֶּמ ֶלך‬.‫ּכו ָּּל ּה‬ ‫ ָ ּבא ּו וְ ׁ ָש ֲאל ּו ֶאת‬.‫ְלכ ּו וְ ׁ ַש ֲאל ּו ֶאת ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬ ‫ ְלכ ּו וְ ׁ ַש ֲאל ּו ֶאת‬:‫ ָא ְמ ָרה ָל ֶהם‬,‫ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬ .‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬

And another time there was a similar incident involving the king, queen, and Rabban Gamliel. It happened that a dead lizard was found in the kitchen of the royal house. Since a lizard is one of the creeping animals whose carcasses impart ritual impurity upon contact, they wanted to pronounce the entire meal ritually impure. They came and asked the king. He said to them: Go and ask the queen. They came and asked the queen. She said to them: Go and ask Rabban Gamliel to rule on the matter.

‫ ֵ ּבית‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָל ֶהם‬.‫ָ ּבא ּו וְ ׁ ָש ֲאל ּו אֹותֹו‬ .‫רֹות ַח‬ ֵ :‫רֹות ַח אֹו צֹונֵן? ָא ְמר ּו לֹו‬ ֵ ‫ַה ִּמ ְט ָ ּב ַחיִ ם‬ .‫ ְלכ ּו וְ ַה ִּטיל ּו ָע ֶל ָיה ּכֹוס ׁ ֶשל צֹונֵן‬:‫ָא ַמר ָל ֶהם‬ .‫יח ׁ ָשה‬ ֲ ‫ וְ ִר‬,‫ָה ְלכ ּו וְ ִה ִּטיל ּו ָע ֶל ָיה ּכֹוס ׁ ֶשל צֹונֵן‬ .‫יאל ָּכל ַה ְּסעוּדָּ ה ּכו ָּּל ּה‬ ֵ ‫וְ ִט ֵהר ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬

They came and asked him, and he said to them: Is the kitchen boiling or cold? They said to him: It is boiling. He said to them: Go and pour a cup of cold liquid upon the lizard. They went and poured a cup of cold liquid on it and it quivered, demonstrating that it was still alive. That being the case, Rabban Gamliel pronounced the entire meal to be ritually pure, as a live creeping animal does not impart ritual impurity.b

‫ וְ נִ ְמצֵ את‬,‫ נִ ְמצָ א ֶמ ֶל ְך ָּתל ּוי ְ ּב ַמ ְל ָּכה‬The Gemara comments: It turns out that the king is dependent on the ‫ נִ ְמצֵ את ָּכל‬,‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ ַמ ְל ָּכה ְּתלוּיָ ה ְ ּב ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬queen, and it turns out that the queen is dependent on Rabban Gamliel. .‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ ַה ְּסעוּדָּ ה ְּתלוּיָ ה ְ ּב ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬And so it turns out that the entire royal meal is dependent upon Rabban Gamliel.

halakha

!?‫״ש ִּלי״‬ ֶ ׁ .‫״ש ַכח ַמה ׁ ּ ֶש ָא ַמר לֹו ַר ּבֹו וכו׳״‬ ָ ׁ We learned in the mishna: If the master had explicitly stated which type of !‫ ַמה ׁ ּ ֶש ָ ּקנָ ה ֶע ֶבד ָקנָ ה ַר ּבֹו‬animal to slaughter, but the slave forgot what his master said to him, the slave should slaughter both a lamb and a kid and stipulate: If my master said to slaughter a kid, the kid is for his Paschal offering and the lamb is for mine. The Gemara asks: How does it help if the slave stipulates that lamb will be for mine? Whatever a slave acquires, he does not gain ownership of it; rather, his master acquires it in his stead.n

King and queen – ‫מ ֶל ְך ו ַּמ ְל ָּכה‬:ֶ If a king and queen sent their slaves to slaughter a Pas­chal offering for them, and the slaves slaughtered both a kid and a lamb, the king and queen should eat from the one that was slaughtered first (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 3:1). Personalities

The king and queen and Rabban Gamliel – ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫מ ֶל ְך ו ַּמ ְל ָּכה וְ ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬:ֶ The Rabban Gamliel mentioned here is Rabban Gamliel the Elder, the grandson of Hillel. The king and queen are presumably Agrippa I and his wife. This is one of the many stories told of the righteousness of Agrippa I , and the fact that he used to consult with the Sages concerning every matter.

background

The lizard that quivered – ‫יח ׁ ָשה‬ ֲ ‫ל ָט ָאה ׁ ְש ִר‬:ְ Lizards, like other reptiles, do not have a static blood temperature, and so their behavior changes according to the ambient temperature. However, even reptiles cannot endure very high temperatures. They can die from the stress of heat causing rapidly changing conditions in their bodies. Nevertheless, Rabban Gamliel considered the possibility that the lizard may still be alive but only appear to be dead due to the high temperature. He therefore advised them to pour cool liquid on it. When indeed the lizard displayed signs of life, Rabban Gamliel was able to declare the meal ritually pure.

Mexican spiny-tailed iguana in Caye Caulker, Belize, a small island in the Caribbean Sea, lying on a branch in a hot environment. It is not immediately apparent whether or not it is alive.

144 

Perek VIII . 88b . ‫חפ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ח‬

‫רֹועה ָה ָרגִ יל‬ ֶ ‫הֹולךְ ֵאצֶ ל‬ ֵ :‫ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ‫יה ְ ּב ַת ַ ּקנְ ָּתא‬ ָ ְּ‫ ד‬,‫ַר ּבֹו ֶאצְ לֹו‬ ּ ‫נִיחא ֵל‬ ‫יה ַחד ִמ ּינַיְ יה ּו ַעל‬ ּ ‫ ו ַּמ ְקנֵי ֵל‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫דְּ ַר ֵ ּב‬ .‫ְמנָ ת ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְל ַר ּבֹו ְר ׁשוּת ּבֹו‬

Abaye said the slave can retain ownership of the lamb in the following manner: The slave goes to a shepherd that his master regularly patronizes, since it can be assumed such a person is pleased to find a solution for his master. The shepherd grants the slave ownership of one of the animals on condition that his master has no rights to it. With this condition, the slave is able to retain ownership of the animal, thus allowing him to effectively make the stipulation described in the mishna.

.‫״ש ַכח ַר ּבֹו ַמה ׁ ּ ֶש ָא ַמר לֹו וכו׳״‬ ָׁ ‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ַכח‬:‫ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ‫ דִּ ְב ִעידָּ נָ א דְּ ִאיזְ ִריק דָּ ם‬,‫ַא ַחר זְ ִר ָיקה‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ׁ ָש ַכח ִל ְפנֵי‬.‫ֲהוָ ה ֲחזִ י ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה‬ ‫ דְּ ִכי ִאיזְ ִריק דָּ ם ָלא ֲהוָ ה ֲחזִ י‬,‫זְ ִר ָיקה‬ .‫ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה – ַחּיָ ִיבין ַל ֲע ׂשֹות ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬

We learned in the mishna: If a slave forgot which animal his master had specified and therefore offered a lamb and a kid with a stipulation, and his master also forgot what he said to him,h neither animal may be used. Instead, both are burned. However, despite this, both the master and the slave are exempt from observing the second Pesaĥ. Abaye said: They taught that they are exempt from the second Pesaĥ in a case where the master forgot only after the sprinklingn of the blood on the altar, for at the time the blood of each animal was sprinkled, it was still fit to be eaten, since the master still knew which animal he desired. Both animals are therefore considered to have been offered properly, and so both master and slave are exempt from the second Pesaĥ. But if the slave had already forgotten which animal he specified before the sprinkling, so that when the blood was sprinkled the offering was not fit to be eaten, the animals are not considered to have been properly offered. Consequently, the master and slave are both obligated to observe the second Pesaĥ.

‫ ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה‬:‫יכא דְּ ַמ ְתנֵי ָל ּה ַא ָ ּב ַריְ ָיתא‬ ָּ ‫ִא‬ ,‫יהן זֶ ה ָ ּבזֶ ה‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ָע ְרב ּו עֹורֹות ּ ִפ ְס ֵח‬ ‫יַב ֶלת ְ ּב ֶא ָחד ֵמ ֶהן – ּכו ָּּלן‬ ּ ֶ ‫וְ נִ ְמצֵ את‬ ‫ ו ְּפט ּו ִרין‬,‫יפה‬ ָ ‫יֹוצְ ִאין ְל ֵבית ַה ּ ְ ׂש ֵר‬ .‫ִמ ַּל ֲע ׂשֹות ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬

Some teach this statement of Abaye as referring to the following barai­ ta: Five people had the hides of their Paschal lambs mixed up together, and a wart was found on one of them. Since a wart is one of the blemishes that disqualify an animal from being used as an offering, the Paschal lamb from which the hide came is invalid. Since it is not possible to identify which lamb the hide came from, the meat of all of the lambs must go out to the place designated for burning. Nevertheless, all five people are exempt from observing the second Pesaĥ.

‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ָע ְרב ּו‬:‫ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ‫ דִּ ְב ִעידָּ נָ א דְּ ִאיזְ ִריק‬,‫ְל ַא ַחר זְ ִר ָיקה‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬.‫יהא ֲהוָ ה ֲחזִ י ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה‬ ָ ‫דָּ ם ִמ‬ ‫נִ ְת ָע ְרב ּו ִל ְפנֵי זְ ִר ָיקה – ַחּיָ ִיבין ַל ֲעשׂ ֹות‬ .‫ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬

It is with regard to this baraita that Abaye said: They taught that they are all exempt from the second Pesaĥ in a case where the hides were mixed up together only after the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, for at the time the blood of each of the other four animals was sprinkled, each one of the four unblemished lambs was, at any rate, fit to be eaten, and therefore the owners are considered to have fulfilled their obligation to slaughter a fit Paschal lamb. As such, they are exempt from the second Pesaĥ. But if they were mixed up together before the sprinkling, each of the five lambs could possibly be the blemished one. Because of the doubt that exists with regard to all of them, they are all disqualified from being offered. Therefore, none of the five people fulfill their obligation, and they are all obligated to observe the second Pesaĥ.h

‫נִיתין – ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬ ִ ‫ַמאן דְּ ַמ ְתנֵי ַא ַּמ ְת‬ – ‫יתא‬ ָ ְ‫ ַמאן דְּ ַמ ְתנִי ַא ָ ּב ַרי‬.‫יתא‬ ָ ְ‫ַא ָ ּב ַרי‬ ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דִּ ְכ ׁ ֵש ִירין‬,‫נִיתין ָלא‬ ִ ‫ֲא ָבל ַא ַּמ ְת‬ – ‫ דְּ ִאי ִא ְיד ַּכר ָהוֵ י ֲחזִ י ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה‬,ּ‫נִינְ הו‬ .‫ַק ֵּמי ׁ ְש ַמּיָ א ַ ּג ְליָ א‬

The Gemara comments: The one who teaches this statement of Abaye as referring to the case in the mishna, where the disqualification is due only to a lack of awareness of which animals are registered for whom, but the animals themselves are inherently valid to be used, he would say that Abaye’s ruling applies all the more so to the baraita, where the disqualification is due to a blemish in the body of the animal itself. However, the one who teaches Abaye’s statement as referring to the case in the baraita would say that with regard to the mishna, no, it does not apply. Since both animals are inherently valid to be used, for if the slave remembers which animal the master requested, each one will be fit to be eaten, the following may be said: It is revealed before God in Heaven which offering belongs to which person; the lack of awareness of this information does not impinge of the offerings’ validity, and therefore both the master and slave are exempt from the second Pesaĥ.

halakha

His master forgot what he said to him – ‫ׁ ָש ַכח ַר ּבֹו ַמה‬ ‫ש ָא ַמר לֹו‬: ֶ ּ ׁ If a master told his slave precisely which type of animal to slaughter for his Paschal offering, and the slave forgot what the master said, the slave should offer both a lamb and a kid and stipulate that whichever one the master desired is for him. If the master himself forgot what he told his slave, both animals must be burned. However, if the master had already forgotten before the blood was sprinkled on the altar, they are both obligated to bring the second Pesaĥ. If he forgot only after the blood was sprinkled on the altar, they are both exempt from the second Pesaĥ (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 3:2). If the hides of the Paschal lambs became mixed up – ‫נּ ְת ָע ְרב ּו עֹורֹות ַה ּ ְפ ָס ִחים‬: If the hides of the Paschal lambs belonging to different people became mixed up, and a wart, which is a disqualifying blemish, is found on one of them, the meat of the all of those Paschal lambs must be burned. If the hides were mixed up before the blood was sprinkled on the altar, they are all obligated to bring the second Pesaĥ. However, if they were mixed up only after the blood was sprinkled on the altar, they are not obligated to bring the second Pesaĥ (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 3:9). notes

Sprinkling – ‫זְ ִר ָיקה‬: This term refers to the presentation of sacrificial blood on the altar. The manner in which the blood was presented on the altar varied according to the nature of the particular offering. The presentation of blood on the altar was the essential element necessary for an offering to bring about atonement. Accordingly, as soon as the blood was presented as required on the altar, the person who brought the offering was granted atonement, even if the later sacrificial rites connected with the offering were not completed in the required manner.

‫ ״ו ְּפטו ִּרין ִמ ַּל ֲע ׂשֹות ּ ֶפ ַסח‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָמר‬The Gemara returns to discuss the previously mentioned baraita con!‫יכא ַחד דְּ ָלא נָ ֵפיק‬ ָּ ‫ וְ ָהא ִא‬.‫ ׁ ֵשנִי״‬cerning five people who offered Paschal lambs, and it was made clear that one of the lambs was invalid: The Master said: All of them are exempt from observing the second Pesaĥ. The Gemara asks: But there is one, the owner of the lamb with the blemished hide, who did not fulfill his obligation to bring a valid Paschal lamb. How then can all five be exempt? 

‫חפ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Perek VIII . 88b 

145

‫יע ֵביד? ֵל ֵיתי‬ ֲ ‫יכי ִל‬ ִ ‫ ֵה‬.‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָלא ֶא ְיפ ׁ ָשר‬The Gemara answers: Because it is not possible to do otherwise; ‫יתי חו ִּּלין‬ ֵ ְ‫ ָּכל ַחד וְ ַחד ּ ֶפ ַסח – ָקא ַמי‬for what should he do? Let each one of the five bring a Paschal .ּ‫ דְּ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ִמ ּינַיְ יה ּו ָע ְב ִדי ְלהו‬,‫ ָל ֲעזָ ָרה‬lamb. This would not be a solution. They would be bringing unconsecrated animals into the Temple courtyard, since four of them, i.e., the owners of the unblemished lambs, have already validly performed the ritual of the Paschal lamb. They are not obligated to bring another Paschal lamb; therefore, they are unable to consecrate another Paschal lamb. If they attempt to do so, the lamb remains unconsecrated and may not be brought into the Temple courtyard. ‫ ֵל ֵיתי ּכו ְּּלה ּו ַחד ּ ֶפ ַסח – נִ ְמצָ א ּ ֶפ ַסח נֶ ֱא ָכל‬The Gemara suggests an alternative way for the five to ensure that .‫ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִל ְמנוּיָ ו‬they have all fulfilled their obligations: Let them all bring one Paschal lamb as a unified group. The Gemara rejects this as well: This would also not be a solution. It would turn out that the Paschal lamb was eaten by those who have not registered for it, since one who has already fulfilled his obligation to bring a Paschal lamb is unable to be registered in a group formed in order to offer another one. ,‫נֵיתי ָּכל ַחד ִמ ּינַיְ יה ּו ּ ִפ ְסחֹו‬ ִ !?‫ַהאי ַמאי‬ ‫ ִאי דִּ ִידי ַ ּב ַעל מוּם – ַהאי‬:‫נֵימא‬ ָ ְ‫נִיתנִי ו‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬ – ‫ וְ ִאי דִּ ִידי ָּתם‬,‫נֶיהוֵ י ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ֱ ‫יְיתי ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא‬ ִ ‫דְּ ַא‬ .‫נֶיהוֵ י ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬ ֱ ‫יתי ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא‬ ִ ְ‫ַהאי דְּ ַאי‬

What is this? Surely a solution can be found by using the following stipulation: Let each one bring his Paschal lamb and stipulate and say: If mine was the blemished lamb, this lamb that I am bringing now shall be a Paschal lamb, and if mine was unblemished, this lamb that I am bringing now shall be a peace-offering.

,‫ ל ֹא ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר‬It is not possible to do this,

Perek VIII Daf 89 Amud a notes

Let all five bring one priest – ‫נֵיתי ָּכל ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ַחד ּכ ֵֹהן‬ ִ ְ‫ו‬: Several manuscripts of the Gemara write that even in this case five priests should be used, each of them registering with all five Paschal lambs. While it is clear that technically, one priest would be sufficient for the stipulation to work (Rashi), it may be that practically speaking, five priests must be utilized, since it is difficult for a single priest to eat the large quantity of meat provided by five breasts and five hind legs (Tosefot Rid ).

146 

Perek VIII . 89a . ‫טפ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ח‬

‫ דְּ כ ֲֹהנִים הוּא‬,‫יכא ָחזֶ ה וְ ׁשֹוק‬ ָּ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ִא‬because there are the breast and the hind leg, which the priests .‫יה‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ָא ְכ ִלי ֵל‬eat only if the offering is a peace-offering, but not if it is a Paschal lamb. Due to the distinction between the two types of offerings, the proposed stipulation does not provide a solution. It would remain unclear who should eat these portions of the offering. !‫יה‬ ִ ְ‫ ו‬The Gemara suggests that it may still be possible to find a way to use ּ ‫נֵיתי ָּכל ַחד וְ ַחד ּכ ֵֹהן ַ ּב ֲה ֵד‬ the stipulation: Let each one of these five people bringing a new Paschal lamb bring a priest to be registered with him for their Paschal lamb. Then the priest will eat the breasts and hind legs. Since the priest eats these portions of the offering in any event, there is no longer any practical distinction between the two types of offerings. The stipulation should therefore provide a solution. – ‫יכי דָּ ֵמי? ִאי דְּ ָע ֵביד ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ִ ‫ַהאי ּכ ֵֹהן ֵה‬ ‫ וְ נִ ְמצָ א ּ ֶפ ַסח‬,‫דִּ ְיל ָמא ַהאי ּ ֶפ ַסח הוּא‬ ‫ וְ ִאי דְּ ָלא ָע ֵביד‬.‫נֶ ֱא ָכל ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִל ְמנ ּויָ ו‬ ‫ וְ ָלא ָע ֵביד‬,‫ּ ֶפ ַסח – דִּ ְיל ָמא ׁ ְש ָל ִמים הוּא‬ .‫ּ ֶפ ַסח‬

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: What are the circumstances of this priest? If he had already performed the ritual of the Paschal lamb during the first Pesaĥ, then, as the Gemara explained previously, he is unable to be registered to partake of a new Paschal lamb. If so, there is concern that perhaps this offering is a Paschal lamb and not a peace-offering, and it will turn out that a Paschal lamb is eaten by those who did not register for it. And if, on the other hand, the priest had not performed the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ, there is concern that perhaps this offering is a peaceoffering, and it would turn out that this priest did not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb at all.

,‫נֵיתי ָּכל ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ַחד ּכ ֵֹהן דְּ ָלא ֲע ַבד ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ִ ְ‫ו‬ ‫ דְּ ִמ ַּמה‬,‫יה ָהנֵי ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ּ ְפ ָס ִחים‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬ ּ ֵ‫נִימנֵי ִע ָּילו‬ ‫ וְ ָקא‬,‫יכא ַחד דְּ ָלא ָע ֵביד ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ָּ ‫ַּנ ְפ ׁ ָשךְ ִא‬ !‫יה‬ ּ ‫נָ ְפ ֵקי ֵ ּב‬

The Gemara modifies its suggestion: Let all five together bring one priest,n who has not yet performed the ritual of the Paschal lamb. And let the priest register for all these five Paschal lambs. This should provide a solution. Whichever way you look at it, there is one person who has not yet performed the ritual of the Paschal lamb, and the priest will now fulfill his obligation together with him. If the priest then eats the breasts and hind legs of all the offerings, the stipulation should provide a viable solution.

‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָקא ַמ ְמ ִעיט ַ ּב ֲא ִכ ַילת‬:‫ֶא ָּלא‬ ,‫ דְּ ִאילּ ּו ּ ֶפ ַסח – ְליֹום וָ ַליְ ָלה‬.‫ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬ ּ ‫וְ ִא‬ ‫יל ּו ׁ ְש ָל ִמים – ִל ׁ ְשנֵי יָ ִמים וְ ַליְ ָלה‬ .‫ֶא ָחד‬

The Gemara identifies a further distinction between a peaceoffering and the Paschal lamb that precludes the use of the stipulation: Rather, the reason it is not possible to use the stipulation is because it would reduce the amount of time available for eating the peace-offering, for a Paschal lamb may be eaten only for a day and a night, whereas a peace-offering may be eaten for two days and one night. Were the stipulation to be made, all the offerings would have an uncertain status of either being a peace-offering or a Paschal lamb. They would therefore all be treated with the strictures of a Paschal lamb, and any meat remaining on the morning after the first night would have to be burnt. However, in the event that the offering was actually a peace-offering, this would be premature, since it may still be eaten for another day.

,‫מֹותר ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ַ ‫נֵיתי‬ ִ ְ‫ ו‬The Gemara modifies the proposed stipulation: Instead of making a stipulation between a Paschal lamb and a regular peaceoffering, let each one of them specify that if they have already fulfilled their obligations to bring a Paschal lamb, their intention is to consecrate and bring the current offering as a surplus Paschal lamb. The status of a surplus Paschal lamb is usually achieved when an animal is originally consecrated as a Paschal lamb but for some reason is not offered. Such an animal is offered as a type of peace-offering. ‫ ִאי דִּ ִידי ַ ּב ַעל מוּם – ַהאי‬:‫נֵימא‬ ָ ְ‫ו‬ ‫ ִאי דִּ ִידי‬,‫נֶיהוֵ י ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ֱ ‫יתי ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא‬ ִ ְ‫דְּ ַאי‬ ‫נֶיהוֵ י ַהאי דְּ ַאיְ ִיתי ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא‬ ֱ – ‫ָּתם הוּא‬ ‫מֹותר ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח נֶ ֱא ָכל ְליֹום‬ ַ ְּ‫ ד‬.‫ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬ .‫וָ ַליְ ָלה ֶא ָחד‬

The Gemara assumes here that it is also possible to consecrate an animal directly with this status, and therefore the following stipulation could be used. And when bringing their lambs they should each say: If mine was the blemished lamb, this lamb that I am bringing now shall be a Paschal lamb; and if mine was unblemished, this lamb that I am bringing now shall be a surplus Paschal lamb, which is type of peace-offering and may therefore be offered even if one has already fulfilled his obligation to bring a Paschal lamb. Although a surplus Paschal lamb has the sanctity of a peace-offering, it may be eaten for only one day and one night,n similar to a Paschal lamb. Since there is no distinction between the time allotted to eat the two types of offerings, this stipulation should provide a solution.n

?‫מֹותרֹות‬ ָ ‫ישין ְּת ִח ָּלה ְל‬ ִ ׁ ‫ וְ ִכי ַמ ְפ ִר‬The Gemara challenges this suggestion: But can we designate !‫מֹותר ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ַ ‫יתי‬ ִ ְ‫נִט ְרח ּו וְ נַי‬ ְ ְ‫ ו‬animals initially as surplus Paschal lambs? This cannot be done; the sanctity of a surplus Paschal lamb is achieved only with an animal that was initially designated for a Paschal lamb but remained unused. If so, how is the suggested stipulation tenable? The Gemara explains: Let them trouble themselves to find and bring an unused leftover animal already invested with the sanctity of a surplus Paschal lamb, and let them make the suggested stipulation upon it. In this way, the stipulation should work and provide a solution.

notes

A surplus Paschal lamb may be eaten for one day and one night – ‫מֹותר ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח נֶ ֱא ָכל ְליֹום וָ ַליְ ָלה ֶא ָחד‬: ַ Even this suggestion leaves an apparent difficulty: Although a surplus Paschal lamb may indeed be eaten the following day, a regular Paschal lamb must be eaten that night. If so, when there is a stipulation made between a Paschal lamb and a surplus Paschal lamb, there is still a problem of reducing the amount of time available for eating the offering. Some suggest that while it is true that the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ must be eaten during the night, on the second Pesaĥ, which is the case under discussion, it may be eaten during the following day (Sefat Emet). Alternatively, even if it is assumed that on the second Pesaĥ the lamb must be eaten during the nighttime, the offering can be slaughtered shortly before nightfall, so that practically speaking, there is no significant reduction in the amount of time during which it can be consumed (Sha’ar HaMelekh). A surplus Paschal lamb – ‫מֹותר ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬: ַ A further distinction not mentioned in the Gemara can be made between a Paschal lamb and a surplus Paschal lamb: The prohibition against breaking the bones applies only to a Paschal lamb, but not to a surplus Paschal lamb. As such, the marrow inside the bones of a Paschal lamb is never eaten. However, both of the other offerings, including a surplus Paschal lamb, may certainly be broken, and therefore the prohibition to leave over meat beyond the allotted time for the offering includes the marrow. As such, the question arises: Why doesn’t this distinction preclude the possibility of using the stipulation suggested by the Gemara? Since there is a possibility that the lamb is a regular Paschal lamb, the bones must be left unbroken and the marrow untouched. However, doing so would be problematic, because if the lamb were actually a surplus Paschal lamb, then one would be prohibited from leaving over any meat, including the marrow. Some suggest that this problem can easily be avoided by selecting a young lamb that does not yet have an olive-bulk of marrow in its bones, in which case there is no possibility of leaving the marrow uneaten (see Sha’ar HaMelekh; Ĥazon Ish). halakha

The act of placing one’s hands on offerings – ‫יכה ַעל ָק ְר ָ ּבנֹות‬ ָ ‫ס ִמ‬:ְ All offerings require the placing of the hands on the head of the animal, except for offerings of firstborn animals, tithed animals, and the Paschal lamb (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 3:6).

ּ ‫ דְּ ִא‬:‫יכה‬ ‫יל ּו ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ָ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ְס ִמ‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא‬The Gemara identifies a distinction that exists even between a ּ ‫ וְ ִא‬,‫יכה‬ ‫מֹותר ָ ּב ֵעי‬ ָ ‫יל ּו‬ ָ ‫ ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי ְס ִמ‬Paschal lamb and a surplus Paschal lamb that precludes the use .‫יכה‬ ָ ‫ ְס ִמ‬of even this suggested stipulation. Rather, it is not possible to use the stipulation because of the requirement to perform the act of placing one’s hands on the head of the offering, for a Paschal lamb does not need the act of placing one’s hands, whereas a surplus Paschal lamb, since it is a type of peaceoffering, does need the act of placing one’s hands.h Due to this distinction, the proposed stipulation cannot provide a solution. It would remain unclear whether the offering requires one to perform the act of placing one’s hands on its head, an act that one is prohibited to do on an offering that does not require it. ‫נָשים‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ָק ְר ַ ּבן‬,‫נָשים‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ָהא ֵּתינַ ח – ָק ְר ַ ּבן ֲא‬This distinction works out well to explain why the stipulation ?‫ימר‬ ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬ ָּ ‫ ַמאי ִא‬can’t be used for an offering of men, since a man’s offering requires the act of placing one’s hands. However, if the case involved an offering of women, for which there is no such requirement, what is there to say? In such a case, there is no distinction between a Paschal lamb and a surplus Paschal lamb, and therefore the stipulation should provide a solution. 

‫טפ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Perek VIII . 89a 

147

notes

Two that constitute four – ‫ש ַּתיִ ם ׁ ֶש ֵהן ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬: ְ ׁ This is the manner in which the blood of burnt-offerings, guiltofferings, and peace-offerings is presented on the altar. The blood is sprinkled on the northeastern and south­ western corners of the altar. halakha

Presentations of blood upon the altar – ‫זְב ַח‬ ּ ֵ ‫מ ָּתנֹות ַעל ַה ִּמ‬:ַ The blood of a peace-offering is sprinkled upon the altar in two presentations that constitute four. The blood of the Paschal lamb is sprinkled upon the altar just once (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 5:6, 17). One presentation has atoned – ‫ב ַמ ָּתן ַא ַחת ִּכ ּ ֵפר‬: ּ ְ In the case of all offerings whose blood is sprinkled on the outer altar, if the blood is applied just once, one has fulfilled the obligation after the fact (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 2:1). The blood of the Paschal lamb is poured – ‫יכה‬ ָ ‫פ ַסח ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִפ‬:ֶ ּ The blood of the Paschal lamb is not thrown or sprinkled upon the altar. Rather, it is poured out at the base of the altar (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 1:6). Offerings whose blood must be applied to the altar by sprinkling, if one applied their blood by pouring – ‫ִיתנִין‬ ָּ ‫ַה ּנ‬ ‫יכה‬ ָ ‫בזְ ִר ָיקה ׁ ֶש ְּנ ָתנָן ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִפ‬: ּ ִ If the blood of any offering that is supposed to be sprinkled upon the altar is poured, it is acceptable after the fact (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 2:2). Only if he already did it but not ab initio – ‫יע ַבד ו ְּל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה‬ ֲ ִּ‫ד‬: In the case of offerings whose blood is required to be thrown on the altar, such as peace-offerings, the blood cannot be poured ab initio. Therefore, in the case of five people whose Paschal lambs became mixed up, they are all exempt from bringing the second Pesaĥ (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 3:9).

‫ דְּ ִאילּ ּו ּ ֶפ ַסח‬:‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַמ ָּתנֹות‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא‬The Gemara identifies a further distinction between a Paschal lamb ‫ וְ ִאילּ ּו ׁ ְש ָל ִמים ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם‬,‫ ַמ ָּתנָ ה ַא ַחת‬and a surplus Paschal lamb that precludes the use of the stipulation: .‫ ׁ ֶש ֵהן ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬Rather, it is not possible to use the stipulation because of the requirement to apply presentations of sacrificial blood upon the altar. For whereas the blood of a Paschal lamb is applied to the altar in one presentation, the blood of a peace-offering is applied to the altar with two that constitute four,n i.e., the blood is applied on two opposite corners so that it runs down all four sides of the altar.h ‫ ָּכל‬:‫ ַמאי נָ ְפ ָקא ִמ ָּינ ּה? וְ ָהא ְּתנַ ן‬What difference does the distinction in the number of presentations ‫ִיתנִין ַעל ִמזְ ַ ּבח ַה ִחיצֹון ׁ ֶש ְּנ ָתנָ ן‬ ָּ ‫ ַה ּנ‬make? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: With regard to all offerings whose !‫ ְ ּב ַמ ָּתן ַא ַחת – ִּכ ּ ֵפר‬blood must be presented upon the outer altar, once the blood has been presented with one presentation, the offering has atoned, even if more presentations are ideally required? If so, it should be possible to use the stipulation and then make a single presentation of blood upon the altar, which would be valid for whichever type of offering it turned out to be.h ‫יכה‬ ָ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ִאילּ ּו ּ ֶפ ַסח ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִפ‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא‬The Gemara identifies a further distinction: Rather, the proposal is .‫ וְ ִאילּ ּו ׁ ְש ָל ִמים ִ ּבזְ ִר ָיקה‬not possible because of the following: Whereas the blood of the Paschal lamb must be applied to the altar by pouring it on the base of the altar,h the blood of a peace-offering is applied by sprinkling it upon the altar. ‫ ָּכל‬:‫ַמאי נָ ְפ ָקא ִמ ָּינ ּה? וְ ָהא ַּתנְיָא‬ – ‫יכה‬ ָ ‫ִיתנִין ִ ּבזְ ִר ָיקה ׁ ֶש ְּנ ָתנָן ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִפ‬ ָּ ‫ַה ּנ‬ ,‫ימר דְּ ָקא ָא ְמ ִרינַן דְּ ִאי ָע ַבד‬ ַ ‫יָ צָ א! ֵא‬ !?‫ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה נַ ִמי‬

What difference does the manner of applying the blood make? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: In the case of all offerings whose blood must be applied to the altar by sprinkling, if one applied their blood by pouring,h one has nonetheless fulfilled one’s obligation? If so, it should be possible to use the stipulation and then pour the blood upon the base of the altar. This pouring would be valid, whichever type of offering it turned out to be. The Gemara answers: Say in response that we say that one fulfilled his obligation only if he already did it this way; but would he be allowed to do so ab initio as well?h Certainly not. Since the offering cannot be offered in a manner that is permissible ab initio, the distinction in the manner of applying the blood will preclude the use of the stipulation.

mishna 

‫ֹוחט‬ ֵ ‫ ֲה ֵרינִי ׁש‬:‫אֹומר ְל ָבנָיו‬ ֵ ‫מתני׳ ָה‬ ‫ֶאת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ַעל ִמי ׁ ֶשּיַ ֲע ֶלה ִמ ֶּכם‬ ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן ׁ ֶש ִה ְכנִיס‬.‫אשֹון ִליר ּו ׁ ָש ַליִ ם‬ ׁ ‫ִר‬ ,‫ֹאשֹו וְ רו ּּבֹו – זָ ָכה ְ ּב ֶח ְלקֹו‬ ׁ ‫אשֹון ר‬ ׁ ‫ָה ִר‬ .‫ו ְּמזַ ֶּכה ֶאת ֶא ָחיו ִע ּמֹו‬

In the case of one who says to his children: I am slaughtering the Paschal lamb on behalf of whomever of you goes up first to Jerusalem, as soon as the first of the children has entered his head and the majority of his body into Jerusalem, he has acquired his portion and acquires on behalf of his brothers their portions together with him.

!‫ יֵ ׁש ְ ּב ֵר ָירה‬:‫גמ׳ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬

The Gemara suggests: You can learn from the case in the mishna that there is retroactive clarification. Although when the father slaughters the Paschal lamb it cannot be known which child will ultimately enter Jerusalem first, once one of the children does enter, the children are considered to have been registered for the father’s Paschal lamb from the outset. This is problematic, as no halakhic conclusion has been reached in the matter of retroactive clarification.

gemara 

‫ ְּכ ֵדי ְלזָ ְרזָ ן ְ ּב ִמצְ �ֹות‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The mishna is not based on retroactive clarifica.‫ ָק ָא ַמר‬tion. Rather, the father included all his children in his Paschal lamb from the outset. He created this competition only in order to enthuse them, so that they would be expeditious in their fulfillment of mitzvot; but in fact his statement had no halakhic implications. ‫ ו ְּמזַ ֶּכה ֶא ָחיו‬:‫ דְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬,‫דַּ יְ ָקא נַ ִמי‬ ‫ ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא דְּ ַא ְמנִינְ ה ּו‬.‫ִע ּמֹו‬ ּ ָ ‫ֵמ ִע‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬.‫יק ָרא – ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר‬ ּ ָ ‫דְּ ָלא ַא ְמנִינְ ה ּו ֵמ ִע‬ ‫ ְל ָב ַתר‬,‫יק ָרא‬ :‫דְּ ׁ ָש ֵחיט ִמי ָקא ִמ ְת ַמנּ וּ? וְ ָהא ְּתנַן‬ ‫יהן ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ַעד‬ ֶ ‫מֹוש ִכין יְ ֵד‬ ְ ׁ ‫נִ ְמנִין ּו‬ .‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬.‫ׁ ֶשּיִ ׁ ּ ָש ֵחט‬

148 

Perek VIII . 89a . ‫טפ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ח‬

According to the explanation of Rabbi Yoĥanan, the language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: And he acquires on behalf of his brothers their portions together with him. Granted, if you say that the father registered them from the beginning, before slaughtering the Paschal lamb, the case is well understood. But if you say that he did not register them from the beginning, but only after he slaughtered the Paschal lamb, can they then be registered? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: People can be registered and withdraw themselves from being registered for a Paschal lamb until it is slaughtered, but not after? Clearly, then, the children must have already been registered from the outset, and we may learn from this precise reading of the mishna that Rabbi Yoĥanan’s explanation is correct.

‫ ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה וְ ָק ְדמ ּו ָ ּבנֹות‬:‫ ַּתנְ יָ א נַ ִמי ָה ִכי‬That the competition was meant only to enthuse his children to ‫ וְ נִ ְמצָ א ָ ּבנֹות זְ ִריזֹות ו ָּבנִים‬,‫ ְל ָבנִים‬be expeditious in their fulfillment of mitzvot was also implied .‫ ׁ ְש ָפ ִלים‬by that which was taught in the conclusion of a baraita that also records this competition: There was an incident such as this, and the daughters preceded the sons. And it turned out that the daughters demonstrated that they were enthusiastic, whereas the sons demonstrated that they were lazy.

halakha

Until when can one register – ‫עד ָמ ַתי נִ ְמנִין‬:ַ It is possible to continually register people for a Paschal lamb as long as there is an olive-bulk of meat for each person (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 2:14).

mishna 

Additional people can always be regis‫עֹולם נִ ְמנִין ָע ָליו ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ְהיֶ ה‬ ָ ‫מתני׳ ְל‬ tered for a Paschal lamb, as long as ‫ּמֹוש ִכין‬ ְ ׁ ‫ נִ ְמנִין ו‬.‫ּבֹו ַּכּזַ יִ ת ְל ָכל ֶא ָחד וְ ֶא ָחד‬ there will be at least an olive-bulk of the lamb’s meat for each ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬,‫ ֶאת יְ ֵד ֶיהן ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ׁ ּ ָש ֵחט‬and every person registered.h People can be registered and .‫ ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ זְ רֹק ֶאת ַהדָּ ם‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ withdraw themselves from being registered for a Paschal lamb until it is slaughtered. Rabbi Shimon says: Even until the priest sprinkles the blood.

gemara 

What is the first clause of the mishna ‫גמ׳ ַמאי ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן? ָהא ָקא‬ teaching us? It is obvious that addi‫ימנִי ָע ָליו‬ ְ ‫ דְּ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ִא‬:‫ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬ tional people can be registered. This comes to teach us that ‫ וְ נִ ְמנִין ָע ָליו ֲחבו ָּרה‬,‫ ֲחבו ָּרה זֹו – חֹוזֶ ֶרת‬although this group was registered for it, the entire group can .‫ ַא ֶח ֶרת‬withdraw and a different group can register for it, despite the fact that no one from the original group remains. ‫יהן ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ׁ ּ ָש ֵחט‬ ֶ ‫ּמֹוש ִכין ֶאת יְ ֵד‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ״נִ ְמנִין ו‬We learned in the mishna: People can be registered and with, ְ‫ימ ׁ ֵשך‬ ָּ ‫לֹוקת ִל‬ ֶ ‫ ַמ ֲח‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬.‫ וכו׳״‬draw themselves from being registered for a Paschal lamb until it is slaughtered. Rabbi Shimon says: Even until the priest sprinkles the blood. The Gemara discusses the scope of the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon: Abaye said: The dispute is only with regard to when one is able to withdraw from being registered. Both sides derive their opinions from the following verse: “And if the household be too little for a lamb [miheyot miseh], then shall he and his neighbor next to his house take one according to the number of the souls; according to every man’s eating you shall make your count for the lamb” (Exodus 12:4). The phrase miheyot miseh literally means: From being from a lamb. It is exegetically interpreted to refer to withdrawing from being registered for a lamb. ‫יה‬ ִ :‫דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן ָס ְב ִרי‬ ּ ‫״מ ְהיֹות ִמ ּ ֶ ׂשה״ – ֵמ ַחּיו ֵּת‬ ‫יה‬ ֵ ָ‫ ֵמ ֲהוָ י‬:‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ָס ַבר‬,‫דְּ ֶ ׂשה‬ ּ ‫ית‬ ‫ימנֹות – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ַעד‬ ָּ ‫ ֲא ָבל ִל‬.‫דְּ ֶ ׂשה‬ ‫״ב ִמ ְכ ַסת נְ ָפ ׁשֹת״‬ ּ ְ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬,‫ׁ ֶשּיִ ׁ ּ ָש ֵחט‬ .‫״תכ ֹּסוּ״‬ ָּ ‫וַ ֲה ַדר‬

The Rabbis hold that “from being [miheyot] from a lamb” indi­ cates that one can withdraw only during the life [meiĥayutei] of the lamb, i.e., while the lamb is still alive. And Rabbi Shimon holds that the phrase indicates that one can withdraw during the happenings [meihavayatei] of the lamb,n i.e., as long as the sacrificial service is still being performed, which culminates with the application of the blood upon the altar. But with regard to being registered for the Paschal lamb, all agree that one can be registered for a lamb only until it is slaughtered, as the previously cited verse concerning registration states, in its conclusion: “According to the number [bemikhsat] of the people,” and then “you shall make your count [takhosu].” The word takhosu is taken to mean: You shall slaughter, in accordance with its meaning in Aramaic. The order of the verse therefore indicates that people can be registered only prior to the animal’s slaughter.

‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ּמֹוש ִכין ֶאת יְ ֵד‬ ְ ׁ ‫ נִ ְמנִין ו‬:‫ַּתנְיָא נַ ִמי ָה ִכי‬ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬,‫ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ׁ ּ ָש ֵחט‬ ‫ּמֹוש ִכין ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ּזָ ֵרק‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ו‬,‫נִ ְמנִין ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ׁ ּ ָש ֵחט‬ .‫ַהדָּ ם‬

That was also taught in a baraita: People can be registered and withdraw themselves from being registered for a Paschal lamb until it is slaughtered. Rabbi Shimon says: They can be registered until it is slaughtered and withdraw themselves from being registered until the priest sprinkles the blood.

notes

During the happenings of the lamb – ‫יה דְּ ֶ ׂשה‬ ּ ‫מ ֲהוָ יָ ֵית‬:ֵ Accord­ ing to the versions of the text recorded by Rabbeinu Ĥananel and the Arukh, Rabbi Shimon also took the phrase miheyot miseh to mean: From the life of the lamb. However, unlike the first tanna, who limits this to the life of the animal, Rabbi



Shimon understands this phrase as referring to the blood of the animal, the essence of its life. Therefore, as long as the service of the blood has not been completed, people may still withdraw themselves from being registered for the lamb. ‫טפ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Perek VIII . 89a 

149

Perek VIII Daf 89 Amud b halakha

One who registers another with him – ‫ה ַּמ ְמנֶ ה ִע ּמֹו ֲא ֵחר‬:ַ If one includes an additional person in his share of the Paschal lamb without the consent of the other members of the group, they have a right to tell him that he and his friend should eat from his single portion and they will eat their own portions (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 2:15). notes

Fine hands – ‫יָ ָדיו יָ פֹות‬: This is one example of many euphemisms used throughout the Gemara (see Pesaĥim 3a). In a similar expression, a person who is not overly fastidious is referred to as one whose mind is fine. In the Tosefta, instead of saying a person has fine hands, the following expression is used: One whose hands are loose.

150 

Perek VIII . 89b . ‫טפ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ח‬

mishna 

If one who is registered for a Paschal lamb uni­ ‫מתני׳ ַה ַּמ ְמנֶ ה ִע ּמ ֹו ַא ֵח ר‬ laterally registers another person with him ‫ְ ּב ֶח ְלקֹו – ַר ׁ ּ ָש ִאין ְ ּבנֵי ֲחבו ָּרה ִל ֵּיתן‬ in his portion of the Paschal lamb, the other members of his group ‫אֹוכל ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ּלֹו‬ ֵ ‫ וְ הוּא‬,‫ לֹו ֶאת ׁ ֶש ּלֹו‬are permitted to give him, i.e., the one who included the additional .‫אֹוכ ִלין ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָּל ֶהן‬ ְ ‫ וְ ֵהן‬person, only his portion, which was originally allotted to him. And he, the additional person, eats from his portion, i.e., the portion of he who added him; and they, the other members of the group, eat from theirs.h This is because they did not agree to the inclusion of the additional person.

gemara 

‫ ְ ּבנֵי ֲחבו ָּרה‬:ּ‫יב ֲעיָ א ְלהו‬ ּ ַ ‫גמ׳ ִא‬ ,‫ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו יָ ָדיו ׁ ֶשל ֶא ָחד ֵמ ֶהן יָ פֹות‬ ָ‫ֹאמר ּו לֹו ״טֹול ֶח ְל ֶקך‬ ְ ‫ַמה ּו ׁ ֶשּי‬ ‫ ָמצֵ י ָא ַמר ְלה ּו‬:‫וְ צֵ א״? ִמי ָא ְמ ִרינַן‬ ‫ ָמצ ּו‬:‫ אֹו דִּ ְיל ָמא‬,‫״הא ַק ִ ּב ְיל ּתוּן״‬ ָ ּ ‫״כי ַק ְ ּב ִלינַן – ְל ִת‬ ‫יקוּנֵי‬ ַ ‫ְל ֵמ‬ ִּ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ימר ֵל‬ ‫ ַאדַּ ֲע ָתא דְּ ָא ַכ ְל ְּת ְט ֵפי‬,‫יחה‬ ָ ‫זְ ִב‬ .‫ִמ ּינַן – ָלא ַק ְ ּב ִלינָ ךְ ״‬

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If there is among the members of a group one of them who has fine hands, a euphemism for one who always hastens to take a large quantity of food,n what is the halakha concerning whether they can say to him: Take your allotted portion to eat and leave; and don’t take any more from the other’s members portions? Do we say that he can say to them: You accepted me in the group without preconditions, and you therefore have no right to limit how much I can take now? Or perhaps they can say to him: When we accepted you, it was only for the preparation of the offering, to ensure that enough people would be registered to guarantee that the entire offering would be eaten with none left over. However, we did not accept you with the understanding that you would eat considerably more than us.

‫ ַה ַּמ ְמנֶ ה ֲא ֵח ִרים ִע ּמֹו‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ]‫[בנֵי ֲחבו ָּרה‬ ּ ְ ‫ַעל ֶח ְלקֹו – ַר ׁ ּ ָש ִאין‬ ‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ ‫ וְ הוּא‬,‫יתן לֹו ֶאת ׁ ֶש ּלֹו‬ ֵּ ‫ִל‬ .‫אֹוכ ִלין ֶאת ׁ ֶש ָּל ֶהן‬ ְ ‫ֶאת ׁ ֶשלּ ֹו וְ ֵהן‬ ‫ ָלאו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָהוֵ י‬,‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬ ?‫יה ְּכיָ ַדיִ ם ׁ ֶשל ֶא ָחד ֵמ ֶהן יָ פֹות‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫וְ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָתךְ יָ ָדיו יָ פֹות ָמצֵ י‬ ‫נֶיהוֵ י ַהאי‬ ֱ – ‫ָא ַמר ְלה ּו ַק ִ ּב ְיל ּתוּן‬ !‫ְּכיָ ָדיו יָ פֹות‬

Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from what we learned in the mishna: If one who registered for a Paschal lamb registers other people with him in his portion, the other members of the group are permitted to give him only his portion. And then he and the additional people eat from his portion, and they, the other members of the group, eat from theirs. What is the reason for this? Is it not because it is comparable to a case where one of them has fine hands, because in the case of one who adds a person, he and the additional person together eat more than one portion? And if it could enter your mind to say that one with fine hands can say to them: You accepted me without preconditions, then this person, who registered an additional person to join him, should be considered as though he had fine hands, and he should be able to take a double portion. Therefore, the mishna rules that the group can limit the quantity of food he takes. It is apparent that the claim of one with fine hands is not accepted.

‫ דְּ ִאי נַ ִמי‬.‫ דֵּ עֹות ׁ ָשאנֵי‬,‫ ָלא‬:‫ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ‫ַּת ְרוַ יְ יה ּו ְּכ ַחד ִמ ְ ּבנֵי ֲחבו ָּרה הוּא‬ ‫ דְּ ָלא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫דְּ ָא ְכ ִלי – ָמצֵ י ָא ְמ ִרי ֵל‬ .‫ינָש נו ְּכ ָרא ַ ּג ַ ּבן‬ ׁ ‫נִיחא ָלן ֱא‬ ָ

The Gemara rejects this proof: They say: No, a comparison should not be drawn. Including additional people of individual minds is different. Even if both of them together would eat a quantity equivalent to a single member of the group, the other members of the group can nonetheless say to him: It is not pleasant for us to have a strange person among us. Therefore, no proof can be offered from the mishna.

‫ ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָּמ ׁש ׁ ֶש ָא ַכל ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ‫ ִא ם ָה יָ ה‬,‫ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ְ ּבצַ ד ַה ַּתנּ ּו ר‬ ‫ ִאם‬.ּ‫ּ ִפ ֵ ּק ַח – ְמ ַמ ֵּלא ְּכ ֵריסֹו ִמ ֶּמנּ ו‬ ‫טֹובה‬ ָ ‫ָרצ ּו ְ ּבנֵי ֲחבו ָּרה ַל ֲע ׂשֹות‬ ‫יֹוש ִבין ְ ּבצִ דּ ֹו‬ ְ ׁ ְ‫ִע ּמ ֹו – ָ ּב ִא ין ו‬ – ‫ ָרצ ּו‬.‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫אֹוכ ִלין‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬ ‫נֵימא‬ ָ ?‫ וְ ַא ַּמאי‬.‫ ל ֹא ָרצ ּו – ָלא‬,‫ִאין‬ !‫ ָהא ַק ִ ּב ְיל ּתוּן‬:ּ‫ְלהו‬

Come and hear a resolution to the question from another mishna: In the case of an attendant who ate an olive-bulk of meat of the Paschal lamb next to the oven in which it is being roasted, if he were judicious, he should continue eating there to fill his stomach with it. By eating an olive-bulk, he has established his current location as his place for eating his Paschal lamb, and he may not eat any more in an additional location. If the members of the group wanted to do him a favor so that he may continue eating, they can come and sit at his side and eat there; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara makes the following inference: If they wanted to do him a favor, yes; but if they did not want to do so, no. But why should this be left to their discretion? Let him say to them: You accepted me unconditionally into the group, and therefore you have no right to prevent me from continuing to eat. The latter claim is not accepted, as is apparent by the mishna’s ruling that it is left to the group’s discretion

– ְ‫ ִּכי ַק ְ ּב ִלינָ ך‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי ֵל‬,‫ ׁ ָשאנֵי ָה ָתם‬It is different there, in the case of an attendant, for they can say to ‫ ְל ִמ ְט ַרח ָלן‬,‫ ַאדַּ ֲע ָתא דְּ נַ ְט ַר ָח ְך ַק ַּמן‬him: When we accepted you, it was with the understanding that . ְ‫ ְל ִד ָידךְ – ָלא ַק ְ ּב ִלינָ ך‬you would exert yourself before us and provide our needs by serving as our waiter; but for us to exert ourselves by moving to a place that is convenient for you, we did not accept you. Therefore, no proof can be derived from the mishna. ‫ ְ ּבנֵי ֲחבו ָּרה ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה יָ ָדיו ׁ ֶשל‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ‫ טֹול‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ ַר ׁ ּ ָש ִאין‬,‫ֶא ָחד ֵמ ֶהן יָ פֹות‬ ּ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ֲא ִפ‬,‫ וְ ל ֹא עֹוד‬.‫ֶח ְל ְקךָ וְ צֵ א‬ ‫יל ּו‬ ‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫יב ֶֹולת – ַר ׁ ּ ָש ִאין‬ ּ ‫ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה וְ ָע ׂש ּו ִס‬ .‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬.‫ טֹול ֶח ְל ְקךָ וְ צֵ א‬:‫לֹו‬

Come and hear an explicit resolution to this question from the Tosefta: Members of a group in which one of the group had fine hands are permitted to say to him:n Take your allotted portion to eat and leave; don’t take any more from the other members’ portions.h And not only is this true of a group sharing a Paschal lamb, but even five people who made a shared meal of friends [sibolet]hl throughout the year are permitted to say to one who has fine hands: Take your portion and leave. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that that is the ruling.

:‫יב ֲעיָ א ָק ָא ַמר‬ ּ ָ ‫ַמאי ״וְ ל ֹא עֹוד״? ָלא ִמ‬ ‫ ִּכי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ָ ‫ָלא ִמ‬ ּ ‫יב ֲעיָ א ּ ֶפ ַסח דְּ ָמצֵ י ָא ְמ ִרי ֵל‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬.‫יחה‬ ָ ‫ַק ְ ּב ִלינָ ךְ – ְל ִת ּקוּנֵי ִזְב‬ – ‫ דְּ צַ וְ ָּותא ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא הוּא‬,‫יב ֶֹולת נַ ִמי‬ ּ ‫ִס‬ .‫לֹומר לֹו טֹול ֶח ְל ְקךָ וְ צֵ א‬ ַ ‫ַר ׁ ּ ָש ִאין‬

The Gemara discusses the text of the Tosefta: What new ruling is introduced by the expression: And not only? The Tosefta is speaking employing the style of: There is no need. The Gemara explains: There is no need to state this rule in the case of a group sharing a Paschal lamb, since they have a strong claim, as they can say to him: When we accepted you, it was only for the preparation of the offering, to ensure that there would be enough people to guarantee that the entire offering would be eaten. It is therefore immediately understood that the group retains a right to limit the size of the portion he takes. Rather, the Tosefta emphasizes that even with regard to a shared friendly meal, which is for the sake of companionship only, they are permitted to say to him: Take your portion and leave.

,‫יב ֲעיָ א ָלן‬ ּ ַ ‫ ָהא ָלא ִא‬:‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫ִא‬ ‫ ְ ּבנֵי‬:‫יב ֲעיָ א ָלן‬ ּ ַ ‫ֶא ָּלא ָה ִכי הוּא דְּ ִא‬ ‫ֲחבו ָּרה ַר ׁ ּ ָש ִאין ֵל ָח ֵלק אֹו ֵאינָן ַר ׁ ּ ָש ִאין‬ ?‫ֵל ָח ֵלק‬

There are those who say that this question concerning what a group may say to a member who has fine hands is not our dilemma. Rather, this is our dilemma: Are members of a group permitted to divide up into smaller separate groups, or are they not allowed to divide up if there is no special reason to do so?

‫ ְ ּבנֵי ֲחבו ָּרה ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו יָ ָדיו ׁ ֶשל‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ‫ טֹול‬:‫לֹומר לֹו‬ ַ ‫ ַר ׁ ּ ָש ִאין‬,‫ֶא ָחד ֵמ ֶהן יָ פֹות‬ ‫ ֵאין יָ ָדיו‬,‫ יָ ָדיו יָ פֹות – ִאין‬.‫ֶח ְל ְקךָ וְ צֵ א‬ .‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬.‫יָ פֹות – ָלא‬

Come and hear a resolution: Members of a group in which one of them had fine hands are permitted to say to him: Take your portion and leave, which is equivalent to instructing him to form his own group, albeit of only one person. This indicates that only if his hands are fine, yes, they may divide into separate groups, but if his hands are not fine, no, they may not.h The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that they are not allowed to divide up into separate groups for no reason.n

‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יה דְּ ַרב י‬ ּ ‫ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא וְ ַרב הוּנָ א ְ ּב ֵר‬ ‫ ַאדְּ ָא ֵכיל‬.‫ֲע ִריב ּו ִר ְיפ ָּתא ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ֲה ָד ֵדי‬ ,‫הֹוש ַע ֲח ָדא‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יה דְּ ַרב י‬ ּ ‫ַרב הוּנָ א ְ ּב ֵר‬ ‫ ּ ְפ ַלג‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ָא ֵכיל ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬ .‫ ַק ִ ּב ְיל ּתוּן‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ִלי! ֲא ַמר ֵל‬

Incidental to this discussion, the Gemara recounts a related incident: Rav Pappap and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, mixed their breadn together in order to share it between them. By the time Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, ate one slice, Rav Pappa ate four slices. Rav Huna said to him: Let us stop sharing. Instead, divide the meal with me so that I can eat my portion. He said to him: You accepted my companionship, and it is improper to now retract.

notes

Are permitted to say to him – ‫לֹומר לֹו‬ ַ ‫ר ׁ ּ ָש ִאין‬:ַ In the Jerusalem Talmud it is stated that if the group knew about his eating habits in advance, they may not tell him to leave, because they were fully aware that by accepting him their portions would be smaller. Are they permitted to divide up – ‫ר ׁ ּ ָש ִאין ֵל ָח ֵלק‬:ַ The Rambam rules in accordance with the baraita that a group may not divide up into smaller groups without good reason. The Me’iri disagrees and maintains that they may do so if they so desire. In his view, the baraita relates only to forcibly separating people from the group. This may be done only with good reason, e.g., where one member takes more than his fair share. Otherwise, any group may divide up if all its members agree. In support of the position of the Me’iri, some suggest that the rationale presented in the Gemara for allowing a group to divide up is to ensure the benefit of the other members of the group, and therefore being particular and not allowing a group to divide up in a case where no one stands to lose out would be comparable to the spiteful selfishness characteristic of Sodom. Consequently, it should certainly be permitted (Sefat Emet). Mixed their bread – ‫ע ִריב ּו ִר ְיפ ָּתא‬:ֲ Some commentaries explain that they were both students in the same academy, lived in the same lodging, and shared their food (Me’iri ). halakha

One who had fine hands – ‫מי ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו יָ ָדיו יָ פֹות‬:ִ If a member of a group for a Paschal lamb is a glutton, the others are entitled to give him his portion and tell him to eat it by himself (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 2:15). A shared meal of friends– ‫יב ֶֹולת‬ ּ ‫ס‬:ִ If a group is sharing a common meal, they are entitled to tell a gluttonous member of the group to take his portion and eat elsewhere by himself (Shulĥan Arukh, Ĥoshen Mishpat 176:10, and in the comment of the Rema). One who does not have fine hands – ‫אין יָ ָדיו יָ פֹות‬:ֵ A member of a group who is not a glutton cannot be told by the other members to eat by himself (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 2:15). language

A shared meal of friends [sibolet] – ‫יב ֶֹולת‬ ּ ‫ס‬:ִ From the Greek συμβολή, sumbolè, meaning a meal shared by friends.

Personalities

Rav Pappa – ‫רב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬:ַ Rav Pappa belonged to the fifth gene­ ration of the amora’im of Babylon. He was a student of both Abaye and Rava in Pumbedita. Rav Pappa established an academy in Neharde’a, where he was joined by his close friend Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, who was appointed Chief Lecturer. After Rava’s death, many of his students came to study in Neharde’a under Rav Pappa, who had more than two hundred students attending his lectures. Rav Pappa’s father was a wealthy merchant, and supported him throughout many years of Talmud study. Rav Pappa became a wealthy businessman in his own right, a successful brewer of date beer as well as prospering in other business ventures. The Talmud records that he engaged in trade with both Jews and gentiles and had a reputation for fairness and generosity in his business dealings. Rav Huna became his partner in many such under­takings and became wealthy as well.



Rav Pappa had great respect for the Sages, and upon entering a city he would immediately call upon the rabbinic head of the community. Once, Rav Pappa felt that he had spoken inappropriately about one of the Sages, and he took upon himself a personal fast as penance for his act. He was reluctant to offer final rulings in areas of Jewish law, and he often chose to be stringent in accordance with both opinions in the Talmud rather than rule in accordance with a single viewpoint. Rav Pappa was blessed with ten sons, all of whom were Torah scholars. Traditionally, the names of the ten sons of Rav Pappa are recited as part of the ceremony at the completion of the study of a tractate. While the source of this tradition is unclear and the identities of the sons are uncertain as well, the Rema suggests that it commemorates the celebrations made by Rav Pappa with his sons upon completing a course Rav Pappa’s tomb, according to some traditions, located on the border between of study. Israel and Lebanon ‫טפ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Perek VIII . 89b 

151

Personalities

Ravina – ‫ר ִבינָ א‬:ָ The Gemara here refers to Ravina I , who belonged to the sixth generation of the amora’im of Babylon. He studied in Sura, as a pupil and as a colleague of Rav Ashi, with whom he co-edited what became the Babylonian Talmud. The amora of the same name, Ravina II , a nephew of Ravina I , belonged to the eighth and last generation of amora’im. In the first decades of the fifth century, Rav Ashi (d. 427) and Ravina I (d. 421) led a group of amorai’m in the significant endeavor of compiling the Babylonian Talmud, i.e., collecting and editing the discussions, debates, and rulings of hundreds of scholars and Sages that had taken place over more than two hundred years since the compilation of the Mishna by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The last of these editors and compilers was Ravina II , after whose time the Talmud was completed and, with the exception of relatively minor editing, became the basis for all further discussion and development of Jewish law. halakha

One who registers others with him for his Paschal lamb – ‫ַה ַּמ ְמנֶ ה‬ ‫א ֵח ִרים ִע ּמֹו ַעל ּ ִפ ְסחֹו‬:ֲ If one registers others with him for his Paschal lamb or Festival peace-offering, the money they pay for their share is considered non-sacred (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 4:10). One who sells his burnt-offering or peace-offerings – ‫ַה ּמ ֵֹוכר‬ ‫עֹולתֹו ו ׁ ְּש ָל ָמיו‬: ָ If one attempts to sell his burnt-offering or peaceoffering, the sale is invalid. According to Torah law, the money remains non-sacred. However, the Sages imposed a fine and decreed that the money be used for free-will offerings (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Me’ila 4:8).

‫ וְ ׁ ָשנֵי‬,‫יה ָּכל ָהנֵי ְּתיו ָּב ָתא‬ ֵ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫ֵא‬ ּ ‫יב‬ .‫יה ְ ּבנֵי ֲחב ּו ָרה‬ ֵ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫ ֵא‬.‫ִּכ ְד ׁ ָשנֵינַ ן‬ ּ ‫יב‬ ‫ ִּכי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ָה ָתם – דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי ֵל‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ּ ‫ַק ְ ּב ִלינָ ךְ – ְל ִת‬ ‫יה‬ ִ ‫ ֵא‬.‫יחה‬ ָ ‫יקוּנֵי זְ ִב‬ ּ ‫ית ֵיב‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫ִס‬ ּ ‫ ּ ְפ ַלג ֵל‬,‫יב ֶֹולת‬

Rav Huna raised all these objections mentioned previously, and Rav Pappa answered him as we answered that those cases dealt with exceptional circumstances. Rav Huna then raised an objection from the mishna with regard to the members of a group sharing a Paschal lamb. Rav Pappa said to him: There, they are permitted to limit his portion only because they can say to him: When we accepted you it was for the preparation of the sacrifice, but when friends share a meal it is with the understanding that each one will fully participate regardless of how much he eats. Rav Huna finally raised an objection from the ruling of the Tosefta concerning a shared meal. Rav Pappa accepted the proof and divided the meal with him.

‫ ַאדְּ ָא ֵכיל‬.‫ֲאזַ ל ָע ִריב ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ָר ִבינָ א‬ – ‫הֹוש ַע ֲח ָדא‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יה דְּ ַרב י‬ ּ ‫ַרב הוּנָ א ְ ּב ֵר‬ ‫ ְמ ָאה ּ ַפ ּ ֵפי‬:‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫ָא ֵכיל ָר ִבינָ א ְּת ָמנְיָא‬ !‫וְ ָלא ֲח ָדא ָר ִבינָ א‬

On another occasion Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, went and mixed his bread together with Ravina.p By the time Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, ate one slice, Ravina ate eight. Rav Huna said jokingly: It is better to eat together with one hundred Pappas and not with one Ravina,n because Ravina eats significantly more.

‫ ַה ַּמ ְמנֶ ה ֲא ֵח ִרים ִע ּמֹו ַעל‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫ּ ִפ ְסחֹו וְ ַעל ֲחגִ יגָ תֹו – ָמעֹות ׁ ֶש ְ ּביָ דֹו‬ ‫עֹולתֹו ו ׁ ְּש ָל ָמיו – ל ֹא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַה ּמ ֵֹוכר‬.‫חו ִּּלין‬ ‫ ו ָּמעֹות ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵהן‬,‫ָע ָ ׂשה וְ ל ֹא ְּכלוּם‬ .‫יִ ּ ְפל ּו ִלנְ ָד ָבה‬

The Sages taught in a baraita: One who registers others with him for his Paschal lamb or for his Festival peace-offering for the fourteenth of Nisan and takes money from them for their share, the money in his hand that he took for them is non-sacred.h And one who sells his burnt-offering or peaceofferingsh to another person has not done anything; the sale is completely invalid, and any money he receives for the transaction should go to the Temple fund to be used for the purchase of public free-will offerings which will be sacrificed as burnt-offerings.

,‫וְ ִכי ֵמ ַא ַחר דְּ ל ֹא ָע ָ ׂשה וְ ל ֹא ְּכלוּם‬ ‫ָמעֹות ַא ַּמאי יִ ּ ְפל ּו ִלנְ ָד ָבה?! ָא ַמר‬ ‫״כל ׁ ֶש ֵהן״ – ַאף‬ ָ ‫ ְק‬:‫ָר ָבא‬ ָּ ‫ ו ַּמאי‬.‫נָסא‬ ,‫ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ָלא ָהו ּו ׁ ָשו ּו ֶא ָּלא ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬.‫יה ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה‬ ‫יל ּו ְ ּב ַה ִהיא‬ ַ ִ‫ו‬ ּ ‫יהב ּו ֵל‬ .‫יְ ֵת ָירא נַ ִמי ְקנָסוּה ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬

The Gemara asks: But since he has not done anything, the sale being completely invalid, why does the money fall to the fund used for free-will offerings? The money should remain nonsacred. Rava said: It is a fine that the Sages imposed to dissuade people from attempting to purchase others’ offerings. And what is the meaning of the phrase: And any money? It indicates that, although these offerings were worth only four zuz and they mistakenly gave him five zuz, even with regard to that extra zuz the Sages also fined him. They required it to be used for freewill offerings rather than considering the extra money a gift to the seller.n

:‫אֹוש ֲעיָ א‬ ַ ׁ ‫ימא ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִא ֵית‬,‫ָא ַמר עו ָּּלא‬ ‫ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר יָ ְד ִעי ַח ְב ִרין ַ ּב ְב ָל ֵאי ַט ְע ָמא‬ ‫ זֶ ה ִה ְפ ִר ׁיש ָט ֶלה‬:‫דְּ ַהאי ִמ ְּל ָתא‬ ,‫ְל ִפ ְסחֹו וְ זֶ ה ִה ְפ ִר ׁיש ָמעֹות ְל ִפ ְסחֹו‬ :‫ דְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬,‫יאךְ ֶה ְקדֵּ ׁש ָחל ַעל ֶה ְקדֵּ ׁש‬ ַ ‫ֵה‬ ּ ?‫״מעֹות ׁ ֶש ְ ּביָ דֹו חו ִּלין״‬ ָ

Ulla said, and some say it was Rabbi Oshaya: Is it possible that our Babylonian friends know the reason of this following matter: This person designated a lamb for his Paschal lamb, consecrating it as such; and this other person designated money to give to the owner of the lamb in order to register with his Paschal lamb, consecrating the money for that purpose. The sanctity endowed in the money can be removed from it only when transferred to the lamb upon purchasing a portion in it. Ulla questions the rationale for this: How does the sanctity of the money take effect upon and transfer to the Paschal lamb, which is itself already sacred, as implied by the baraita that teaches that the money in his hand is non-sacred, clearly indicating that the sanctity was indeed transferred from the money? Surely, if it is already sacred, no more sanctity can be transferred to it. notes

With one hundred Pappas and not with one Ravina – ‫ְמ ָאה‬ ‫פ ּ ֵפי וְ ָלא ֲח ָדא ָר ִבינָא‬:ַ ּ Some calculated that had Rav Huna eaten with one hundred people who all ate at the speed of Rav Pappa all bringing their own loaves, Rav Huna would still be able to eat a quarter of a loaf. However, by sharing a single loaf with Ravina, Rav Huna wouldn’t be able to eat even a quarter of it before Ravina had eaten the rest. Any money – ‫מעֹות ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵהן‬:ָ When it comes to consecrated

152 

Perek VIII . 89b . ‫טפ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ח‬

property, the regular rules of fraud do not apply. Whatever money is paid for an item is considered the legitimate payment for that item. In other instances, however, if one tricked the buyer and overcharged him, the extra money is returned and the transaction may even be nullified. The novel element in this case is that although the sale is invalid, the fine is applied to the entire sum that the buyer paid, and he does not get his money back (Sefer Hafla’a).

Perek VIII Daf 90 Amud a ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי‬ ְ ְּ‫ ִאי ָלאו ד‬:‫ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫אֹוק ֵמ‬ ‫אֹוש ֲעיָ א ְל ַה ִהיא ְ ּב ַמ ְמנֶ ה זֹונָ ה ַעל‬ ַׁ ‫מֹוק ִמינָ א ָל ּה‬ ְ ‫ ֲהוָ ה‬,‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ִהיא‬,‫ּ ִפ ְסחֹו‬ ‫יבא‬ ּ ָ ‫ וְ ַא ִּל‬,‫ְל ַה ִהיא ְ ּב ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַק ִּלים‬ ‫ ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי‬ ֵ ‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ,‫ַק ִּלים ָממֹון ְ ּב ָע ִלים הוּא‬

A mishna and baraita that the Gemara cites later on in the discussion teach that, logically, were it not for a verse teaching otherwise, the prohibition against using as an offering an animal given as payment for a prostitute’s servicesn should apply even in a case where the animal had already been consecrated as an offering before being given as payment. Abaye said: If not that Rabbi Oshaya established that that mishna is referring to a case of one who registers a prostituten for his Paschal lamb as her payment, and this position is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, whom Rabbi Oshaya apparently understood and who holds that a person retains monetary rights to his Paschal lamb even after consecration, which is why one is able to register the prostitute for it, I would have established that mishna as referring only to offerings of lesser sanctity and claimed it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said: Offerings of lesser sanctity are the monetary property of their owners, and therefore it is possible for the owner to use them as payment for a prostitute.

,‫ינִיש‬ ׁ ‫ֲא ָבל ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח ל ֹא ְמ ׁ ַשּיֵ יר ִא‬ .‫ינִיש‬ ׁ ‫ְ ּב ָמעֹות – וַ דַּ אי ְמ ׁ ַשּיֵ יר ִא‬ ּ ָ ‫דְּ ֵמ ִע‬ ‫יק ָרא ִּכי ַמ ְפ ִר ׁיש ְלה ּו ַאדַּ ֲע ָתא‬ .ּ‫דְּ ָה ִכי ַמ ְפ ִר ׁיש ְלהו‬

But I would have presumed that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that a Paschal lamb is unlike regular offerings of lesser sanctity, in that a person does not restrict its consecration in order to retain monetary rights to it, and it is therefore not considered to be his property at all. However, with regard to money consecrated for a Paschal lamb, a person certainly restricts its consecration. When one initially designates it, he designated it with this intent: If he should wish to purchase a portion in someone else’s Paschal lamb that was already consecrated, then the money should remain non-sacred in order to allow for that purchase to take hold.

‫ ו ִּמ ׁ ּשוּם ָה ִכי ָמעֹות‬,‫וְ ָהא ַר ִ ּבי ִהיא‬ ‫ דְּ ַב ּ ֶפ ַסח ָלא ְמ ׁ ַשּיֵ יר‬,‫ׁ ֶש ְ ּביָ דֹו חו ִּּלין‬ ‫ ו ְּב ָמעֹות וַ דַּ אי ְמ ׁ ַשּיֵ יר‬, ‫ִא ינִ ׁיש‬ .‫ינִיש‬ ׁ ‫ִא‬

I would have therefore been able to explain that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Due to this opinion of his, the money in the hand of the owner of the lamb, which he received for selling a share in his Paschal lamb, is non-sacred because, although with regard to the Paschal lamb a person does not restrict its consecration, with regard to money a person certainly restricts its consecration.

‫אֹוש ֲעיָ א‬ ַ ׁ ‫מֹוקי ָל ּה ַר ִ ּבי‬ ִ ‫וְ ַה ִהיא דְּ ָקא‬ ‫יה ֲאנָ א‬ ְ ‫ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי – ָלא‬ ּ ‫מֹוק ִמינָ א ֵל‬ ,‫ינִיש‬ ׁ ‫ דְּ ַב ּ ֶפ ַסח ָלא ְמ ׁ ַשּיֵ יר ִא‬,‫ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ָ ‫ דְּ ֵמ ִע‬.‫ינִיש‬ ‫יק ָרא‬ ׁ ‫ו ַּב ָּמעֹות ְמ ׁ ַשּיֵ יר ִא‬ ‫ִּכי ַמ ְפ ִר ׁיש ְלה ּו – ַאדַּ ֲע ָתא דְּ ָה ִכי‬ .ּ‫ַמ ְפ ִר ׁיש ְלהו‬

Abaye continues his line of thinking: And that mishna that Rabbi Oshaya established as being in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, I would not establish it as being in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. According to him, when designating a Paschal lamb, a person does not limit its consecration from fully taking effect, and therefore he retains monetary rights to the lamb; whereas with regard to money, a person does limit its consecration, for when one originally designates it, he designates it with this intent.

notes

A prostitute’s payment – ‫א ְתנָן זֹונָ ה‬:ֶ The Torah prohibits using as an offering in the Temple an animal used as a prostitute’s payment or exchanged with a dog as its price (Deuteronomy 23:19). The Sages explain that the disqualification applies only to animals used directly for these purposes, but not to anything else that was exchanged for those animals. Therefore, if money is given to a prostitute and she then uses it to purchase an animal, that animal is not disqualified. Similarly, only the animal that was actually exchanged for a dog is disqualified. Prostitute [zona] – ‫זֹונָ ה‬: Halakhically, the term zona refers to a woman who has had sexual relations with a man prohibited to her by the Torah, with whom she cannot establish a marriage bond. Every female convert is included in this category, regardless of the age at which she converted and regardless of her past history. A woman is categorized as a zona whether she engaged in these prohibited relations voluntarily or against her will. In either case, she is prohibited thereafter from marrying a priest or remaining married to one (Leviticus 21:7). There is no connection between the halakhic definition of this term and its everyday usage in biblical and modern Hebrew.

‫ דְּ ָהא‬,‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫אֹוק ֵמי ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ְ ‫ וְ ָהא ֵל ָּיכא ְל‬Abaye admits that there is a problem with explaining the baraita in this – ‫עֹולתֹו ו ׁ ְּש ָל ָמיו‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַה ּמ ֵֹוכר‬:‫ ָּתנֵי ָ ּב ּה‬way: However, this, the baraita we are addressing, cannot be estab.‫ ל ֹא ָע ָ ׂשה וְ ל ֹא ְכלוּם‬lished in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, for it also teaches in a different clause that one who sells his burnt-offering and peace-offerings has not done anything. Meanwhile, Rabbi Yosei maintains that a peace-offering is one’s personal property, and therefore if one sells it the sale is valid. ‫אֹוש ֲעיָ א‬ ַ ׁ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי‬ ְ ְּ‫וְ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ד‬ ּ ‫אֹוק ֵמ‬ ‫ְל ַה ִהיא ְ ּב ַמ ְמנֶ ה זֹונָ ה ַעל ּ ִפ ְסחֹו‬ ‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה דִּ ְס ִב ָירא‬,‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי ִהיא‬ .‫ינִיש‬ ׁ ‫יה ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְ ּב ִפ ְסחֹו ְמ ׁ ַשּיֵ יר ִא‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬



Nevertheless, now that Rabbi Oshaya has established that mishna as referring to one who registers a prostitute for his Paschal lamb, and he established that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, learn from it that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that even with regard to one’s Paschal lamb, a person restricts its consecration. Should someone wish to purchase a portion of it, he will be able to do so. In such a case, from the outset that portion was not considered consecrated. This will answer the question raised by Ulla as to how the sanctity of the money can be transferred to a Paschal lamb that was already consecrated. In such a case, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, one does not fully consecrate the animal from the outset. Therefore, the animal is considered non-sacred for this purpose, and the sanctity may be transferred from the money to the animal. ‫צ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Perek VIII . 90a 

153

halakha

Animals consecrated as offerings for a prostitute’s payment – ‫מו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין ְ ּב ֶא ְתנָ נָ ּה‬: If one gives a prostitute consecrated animals, they are not disqualified for use as offerings. However, consecrated birds are disqualified (see Kesef Mishne and Leĥem Mishne; Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Issurei Mizbe’aĥ 4:15). notes

Birds that were non-sacred are prohibited – ‫עֹופֹות דְּ חו ִּּלין‬ ‫אסו ִּרין‬: ֲ The Rambam’s manuscript of the Gemara did not read: Birds that are non-sacred. Rather, just: Birds. In addition, the Rambam rules explicitly that even birds that have already been consecrated as offerings can be disqualified if used as payment for a prostitute. The Ra’avad criticizes this ruling, and the Kesef Mishne attempts to interpret the Rambam in a manner not commensurate with the simple meaning of his words. One commentator suggests that birds are unique in that, unlike animals, they remain the legal property of their owners even after they are consecrated as offerings. Therefore, they will still become disqualified if their owner uses them as payment for a prostitute (Even HaAzel). A blemish in birds – ‫מוּם ְ ּבעֹופֹות‬: Although the Torah requires that animal offerings be unblemished, there is no such requirement with regard to birds. Only birds that have a serious defect such as a missing limb are disqualified, as it would be disgraceful to offer such a sacrifice to God.

‫ נָ ַתן‬:‫אֹוש ֲעיָ א? דִּ ְתנַן‬ ַ ׁ ‫ ַמאי ִהיא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬What is this teaching of Rabbi Oshaya that Abaye alluded to? Rab‫ ָל ּה מו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין ְ ּב ֶא ְתנָ נָ ּה – ֲה ֵרי ֵא ּל ּו‬bi Oshaya’s teaching concerns the following mishna in Temura: As .‫ מו ָּּת ִרין‬we learned in a mishna: If one gave animals consecrated as offerings for a prostitute’s payment, they are nevertheless permitted to be sacrificed. Although generally, animals given to a prostitute as payment are disqualified for use as offerings, this disqualification does not apply to an animal that was consecrated beforehand.h .‫עֹופֹות דְּ חו ִּּלין – ֲה ֵרי ֵא ּל ּו ֲאסו ִּרין‬ ‫ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ַ ּבדִּ ין; ּו ָמה ִאם מ ּו ְקדָּ ׁ ִשים‬ ‫ֹוסל ָ ּב ֶהן – ֵאין ֶא ְתנָן ו ְּמ ִחיר‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ֶש ַה ּמוּם ּפ‬ ‫ֹוסל‬ ֵ ‫ עֹופֹות ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַה ּמוּם ּפ‬.‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ָחל ֲע ֵל‬ ‫ָ ּב ֶהן – ֵאינֹו דִּ ין ׁ ֶש ֵאין ֶא ְתנָן ו ְּמ ִחיר ָחל‬ – ‫״ל ָכל נֶ ֶדר״‬ ְ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫יהן? ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ֶ ‫ֲע ֵל‬ .‫ְל ַר ּבֹות ֶאת ָהעֹופֹות‬

However, if one gave her birds that were non-sacred, they are prohibited for use as an offering.n The ruling concerning birds needs to be stated as, by right, it should have been permitted based on the following a fortiori inference: What? If consecrated animals, for which a blemish disqualifies them for use, may nevertheless be used as an offering, since the status of a prostitute’s payment or the status of a dog’s price does not take effect upon them, then with regard to birds, for which a blemish does not disqualify them for use as an offering,n is it not logically right that the status of a prostitute’s payment or a dog’s price should not take effect upon them? In repudiation of this argument, the verse states: “You shall not bring the payment of a prostitute, or the price of a dog, into the House of the Lord your God for any vow” (Deuteronomy 23:19). A derivation is made from the extraneous phrase “for any vow” to include birds, which may be brought as vows.

‫ ָמה‬:‫חֹומר ַל ּמ ּו ְקדָּ ׁ ִשין ֵמ ַע ָּתה‬ ֶ ָ‫ַקל ו‬ ‫ֹוסל ָ ּב ֶהן – ֶא ְתנָן‬ ֵ ‫עֹופֹות ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַה ּמוּם ּפ‬ ‫ מו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין ׁ ֶש ַה ּמוּם‬,‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ו ְּמ ִחיר ָחל ֲע ֵל‬ ‫ֹוסל ָ ּב ֶהן – ֵאינֹו דִּ ין ׁ ֶש ֶא ְתנָן ו ְּמ ִחיר‬ ֵ ‫ּפ‬ – ‫״ל ָכל נֶ ֶדר״‬ ְ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ָחל ֲע ֵל ֶיהן? ַּת ְלמוּד‬ .‫ּ ְפ ָרט ַל ָּנדוּר‬

The Gemara cites a baraita that expands the argument made in the mishna and suggests that the opposite argument can also be made: From now, since it is known that birds used as a prostitute’s payment are disqualified, the following a fortiori inference can be made to disqualify an animal already consecrated: Just as with regard to birds, for which a blemish does not disqualify them, the status of a prostitute’s payment and a dog’s price takes effect upon them, so too, with regard to animals consecrated as offerings, for which a blemish does disqualify them, is it not logically right that the status of a prostitute’s payment and a dog’s price should take effect upon them? In repudiation of this argument, the verse states: “For any vow,” indicating that the disqualification applies to everything except for something that has already been vowed to be offered and consecrated for that purpose.

‫ ָהא‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ָכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ‘נֶ ֶדר׳‬ ‫ מו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשים ָחל‬:‫ָלאו ָה ִכי ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬ ‫ וְ ָהא ֵאין ָא ָדם‬,‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫יסוּר ֶא ְתנָ ן ֲע ֵל‬ ּ ‫ִא‬ !‫אֹוסר דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ׁ ֶשלּ ֹו‬ ֵ

The Gemara analyzes the assumption of this baraita: But the only reason consecrated animals are disqualified is that the Torah writes the word vow; but if not for that I would have said that even with regard to consecrated animals, the prohibition of a prostitute’s payment takes effect upon them. The Gemara questions this assumption: But there is the following established principle: A person cannot make forbidden something that is not his. A consecrated animal is considered to be the property of the Temple and no longer of the individual who consecrated it. If so, how can one make it forbidden by giving it to a prostitute?

‫ ְ ּב ַמ ְמנֶ ה זֹונָ ה ַעל‬:‫אֹוש ֲעיָ א‬ ַ ׁ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabbi Oshaya said: The mishna and baraita are referring to one .‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ִהיא‬,‫ ּ ִפ ְסחֹו‬who registers a prostitute for his Paschal lamb, giving her a portion in it as payment for her services, and the mishna and baraita are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that a Paschal lamb is considered a person’s personal property for the purposes of allowing additional people to register for it. ‫״אם יִ ְמ ַעט ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬ ִ :‫ ַמאי ַר ִ ּבי – דְּ ַתנְיָא‬What is this teaching of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that Abaye alluded ‫ ִמ ְּכ ֵדי‬,‫ ִמ ְהיֹות ִמ ּ ֶ ׂשה״ – ַה ֲחיֵ יה ּו ִמ ּ ֶ ׂשה‬to? As it was taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And if the house.‫ וְ ל ֹא ִמ ְּכ ֵדי ִמ ָ ּקח‬,‫ ֲא ִכ ָילה‬hold be too little for a lamb, then shall he and his neighbor next to his house take one” (Exodus 12:4). The phrase “if the household be too little” is taken to mean the household cannot afford the basic necessities of the Festival. Continuing this interpretation, the phrase “for a lamb [miheyot miseh]” is then taken to mean: sustain him [haĥayeihu] from the lamb, i.e., he may use the Paschal lamb as a means of supporting himself. He takes money from his neighbor in return for registering his neighbor for a portion of his Paschal lamb and then uses that money to purchase his needs. However, this applies only if one lacks sufficient means to purchase food to eat, but not if he lacks only sufficient means to purchase other items.

154 

Perek VIII . 90a . ‫צ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ח‬

‫ ׁ ֶש ִאם‬.‫ ַאף ִמ ְּכ ֵדי ִמ ָ ּקח‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ֵאין לֹו – ַמ ְמנֶ ה ַא ֵחר ִע ּמֹו ַעל ּ ִפ ְסחֹו‬ ,‫וְ ַעל ֲח גִ יגָ תֹו ּו ָמעֹות ׁ ֶש ְ ּביָ דֹו ח ו ִּּלין‬ ‫ׁ ֶש ַעל ְמנָ ת ֵּכן ִה ְקדִּ ׁיש ּו יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ֶאת‬ .‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ּ ִפ ְס ֵח‬

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It applies even if one lacks sufficient means to purchase other necessary items, for if he does not have sufficient funds he may register another person with him for his Paschal lamb and for his Festival peace-offering. And the money in his hand that he receives for registering that person is non-sacred, for it is on this condition that the Jewish people consecrate their Paschal lambs.

‫ ְ ּב ֵעצִ ים‬:‫ ַחד ָא ַמר‬:‫ַר ָ ּבה וְ ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬ ,‫ִלצְ ִלּיָ יתֹו – ּכו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬ ‫דְּ ֵכיוָ ן דְּ ַת ַ ּקנְ ָּתא דְּ ֶפ ַסח הוּא – ְּכגו ָּפא‬ .‫ ִּכי ּ ְפ ִליגִ י – ְ ּב ַמ ָ ּצה ו ָּמרֹור‬.‫דְּ ֶפ ַסח דָּ ֵמי‬

Rabba and Rabbi Zeira disagreed with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis. One said: If one needs wood to roast the Paschal lamb, everyone agrees that since it is for the preparation of the Paschal lamb, it is comparable to something necessary for the Paschal lamb itself, and both Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis agree that one may register additional people for the Paschal lamb and use the money received to procure wood. Where they disagree is in the case of one who doesn’t have sufficient means to purchase matza and bitter herbs.

notes

Matza, bitter herbs, and wood – ‫מ ָ ּצה ָמרֹור וְ ֵעצִ ים‬:ַ The Rambam presents a different interpretation of this Gemara. In his view, the Gemara at this point is no longer discussing a case where money is taken to be registered with the Paschal lamb. In such a case, the Rambam rules that the money is completely non-sacred and may be used for any purpose. Rather, the Gemara is discussing a case where a person takes money from another to share with him his matza, bitter herbs, or wood. It is unique to this case that there is a question as to whether the use of the money may be limited (see Leĥem Mishne and Mirkevet HaMishne).

,‫ ָהא ֲא ִכ ָילה ַא ֲח ִר ִיתי ִהיא‬:‫ ַר ָ ּבנַן ָס ְב ִרי‬The Rabbis hold that this is considered a different eating, not ,‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשירֹו דְּ ֶפ ַסח הוּא‬:‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ָס ַבר‬directly related to the Paschal lamb. Therefore, one may not use .‫ ְּכגו ָּפא דְּ ֶפ ַסח דָּ ֵמי‬money for registering additional people for purchasing these items. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that since it facilitates the consumption of the Paschal lamb, since the Paschal lamb must be eaten together with matza and bitter herbs, it is like the Paschal lamb itself and the money may therefore be used to purchase them.n ‫ ּכו ֵּּלי‬,‫ ְ ּב ַמ ָ ּצה ו ָּמרֹור נַ ִמי‬:‫וְ ַחד ָא ַמר‬ ‫״על ַמ ּצֹות‬ ַ :‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ָע ְל ָמא ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬ ‫ דְּ ֵכיוָ ן דְּ ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ִירין‬,‫ֹאכ ֻלהוּ״‬ ְ ‫ו ְּמר ִֹרים י‬ – ‫ ִּכי ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬.‫דְּ ֶפ ַסח נִינְ ה ּו – ַּכ ּ ֶפ ַסח דָּ ֵמי‬ ּ ַ ‫ ִל‬,‫יקח ּבֹו ָחלוּק‬ ּ ַ ‫ִל‬ ‫ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬.‫יקח ּבֹו ַט ִּלית‬ ּ – ‫״מ ְהיֹות ִמ ֶ ׂשה״ ָא ַמר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬ ִ :‫ָס ְב ִרי‬ ָ‫ ַה ֲחיֵ ה ַעצְ ְמך‬:‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ָס ַבר‬.‫ַה ֲחיֵ יה ּו ְל ֶ ׂשה‬ .‫ִמ ּ ֶ ׂשה‬

And one said: Also with regard to matza and bitter herbs everyone agrees, as it is written: “They shall eat it with matza and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:11), for since they are items that facilitate the consumption of the Paschal lamb, they are like the Paschal lamb itself. Where they disagree is when the money is to be used to purchase a shirt with it or to purchase a cloak with it. The Rabbis hold that the Torah stated “miheyot miseh,” which should be taken to mean sustain the lamb [haĥayeihu leseh], allowing the use of funds only for the direct needs of the Paschal lamb. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that it should be interpreted to mean sustain yourself from the lamb [haĥayei atzmekha miseh], which includes taking care of all one’s needs.h

‫אֹוק ָמ ּה‬ ְ ְּ‫ ִאי ָלאו ד‬:‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר‬,‫ו ְּל ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ‫אֹוש ֲעיָ א ְל ַה ִהיא ְ ּב ַמ ְמנֶ ה זֹונָ ה‬ ַ ׁ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫מֹוק ִמינַן ָל ּה‬ ְ ‫ ָהוֵ י‬,‫ַעל ּ ִפ ְסחֹו וְ ַר ִ ּבי ִהיא‬ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫יבא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ָ ‫ וְ ַא ִּל‬,‫ְ ּב ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַק ִּלים‬ ‫ ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַ[ק ִּלים] ָממֹון‬:‫ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי דְּ ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח – ל ֹא ְמ ׁ ַשּיֵ יר‬,‫ְ ּב ָע ִלים הוּא‬ ,‫ינִיש‬ ׁ ‫ִא‬

The Gemara questions the plausibility of Abaye’s opinion: And according to Abaye, who said: If Rabbi Oshaya had not established that mishna as referring to one who registers a prostitute for his Paschal lamb and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, I would have established it as referring to sacrifices of lesser sanctity and according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said: Sacrifices of lesser sanctity are the property of their owners, but in the case of the Paschal sacrifice one does not leave any of it unconsecrated. Rather, it is fully consecrated.

‫״ש ַעל ְמנָ ת ֵּכן‬ ֶ ׁ ‫ָהא ָק ָתנֵי ְ ּב ֶה ְדיָ א‬ !‫יהן״‬ ֶ ‫ִה ְקדִּ ׁיש ּו יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵא ל ֶאת ּ ִפ ְס ֵח‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ַעל ְמנָ ת ֵּכן ִה ְקדִּ ׁיש ּו יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ֵא‬ .‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ָמעֹות ּ ִפ ְס ֵח‬

The Gemara asks: How could Abaye have ever claimed that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that a Paschal lamb is fully consecrated to the extent that it is no longer considered the property of its owners, but the baraita teaches explicitly that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: It is on this condition, that the consecration should not be complete, that the Jewish people consecrate their Paschal lamb? The Gemara answers that the conclusion of the baraita should be emended to say: For it is on this condition that the Jewish people consecrated money for their Paschal lambs. This version leaves open the possibility of understanding Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as Abaye suggested. halakha

Use of money for the Paschal lamb – ‫ׁ ִש ּמו ּׁש ְ ּב ֶכ ֶסף ֲעבוּר‬ ‫ה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬:ַ If the owner of a Paschal lamb takes money from another person in order to take a share of the matza, the bitter herbs, or the wood used to roast the Paschal lamb, the money is non-sacred, since these items are considered similar to the Paschal lamb itself. The Rambam ruled in



accordance with the view of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi because the Gemara discusses his opinion, suggesting his view is the accepted halakha. This ruling is also in accordance with the stricter opinion in the dispute between Rabba and Rabbi Zeira (Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 4:11). ‫צ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Perek VIII . 90a 

155

mishna 

A zav, a man who experiences a gonorrheal – ‫מתני׳ זָ ב ׁ ֶש ָר ָאה ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְר ִאּיֹות‬ discharge, who saw two sightings of dis– ‫ ָר ָאה ׁ ָשל ֹׁש‬.‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ֹוח ִטין ָע ָליו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ ֲ ‫ׁש‬ charge is ritually impure. To become ritually pure and able to partake .‫ֹוח ִטין ָע ָליו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹו‬ ֲ ‫ ׁש‬of offerings, he must wait seven clean days during which he does not see any discharge. Then he immerses in a ritual bath. He will then be considered ritually pure upon nightfall. One slaughters the Paschal lamb on his behalf if Passover eve is on his seventh day, despite the fact he is still not ritually pure at the time of slaughter, since by the night of Passover he will be ritually pure and able to eat it. If he saw three sightings, in which case, in addition to the seven clean days he must bring an offering on the eighth day to be allowed to partake of offerings, one slaughters the Paschal lamb on his behalf if Passover eve is on his eighth day. It is presumed that by the evening his offering will have been brought and his purification complete. ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ֹוח ִטין ָע ֶל‬ ֲ ‫ֹומ ֶרת יֹום ְּכנֶ גֶ ד יֹום – ׁש‬ ֶ ‫ ׁש‬A woman who keeps watch a day for a day is one who became ritu‫ֹוח ִטין‬ ֲ ‫ ָר ֲא ָתה ׁ ְשנֵי יָ ִמים – ׁש‬.‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי ׁ ֶש ָּל ּה‬ally impure after experiencing a discharge of blood outside of her .‫ישי‬ ִ ׁ ‫יה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִל‬ ָ ‫ ָע ֶל‬regular menstrual cycle on one day or two consecutive days. She must keep watch on the day following her last discharge to be certain she does not experience any additional discharges. To ritually purify herself, she should, on that day, immerse in a ritual bath, and on condition that she doesn’t experience any discharges throughout that day, she is considered ritually pure already from the time she immersed. If she saw a discharge on one day, one slaughters the Paschal lamb on her behalf after she has immersed on her second day, despite the possibility that she may see additional discharges later that day. If she saw a discharge on two days, one slaughters the Paschal lamb on her behalf on the third day.h .‫יה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי‬ ָ ‫ֹוח ִטין ָע ֶל‬ ֲ ‫ וְ ַהּזָ ָבה ׁש‬And a zava is a woman who experienced discharges on three consecutive days. She must, like a zav, wait a full seven clean days with no discharges, immerse, and then bring a sacrifice on the eighth day. One slaughters a Paschal lamb on her behalf only on the eighth day. ‫ֹוח ִטין‬ ֲ ‫ ׁש‬:‫גמ׳ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ,‫זֹור ִקין ַעל ְטבוּל יֹום ו ְּמחו ַּּסר ִּכ ּפו ִּרים‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬

gemara 

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One slaughters the Paschal lamb and sprinkles its blood on behalf of one who has immersed himself during the day due to a type of ritual impurity from which he will become fully ritually pure upon nightfall. If he immerses on the fourteenth of Nisan, a Paschal lamb may be offered on his behalf.h And a Paschal lamb may be offered on behalf of one who is ritually impure with a type of ritual impurity that requires that he also bring an atonement offering to fully complete his purification process, even if he still lacks the atonement offering,h i.e., it has not yet been offered. Since he will be ritually pure and able to partake of the Paschal lamb by the evening, the Paschal lamb may be slaughtered on his behalf during the day, although at the time of slaughter he has not yet completed his purification process.

halakha

Slaughtering a Paschal lamb for a zav and a woman who keeps watch a day for a day – ‫ֹומ ֶרת יֹום‬ ֶ ‫יטת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ְלזָ ב וְ ׁש‬ ַ ‫ׁ ְש ִח‬ ‫כנֶ גֶ ד יֹום‬:ְּ If a man who is suffering from gonorrhea saw two sightings, counted seven clean days, and then immersed in a ritual bath, the Paschal lamb may be slaughtered for him on the seventh day and he may eat it at night. In like manner, the Paschal lamb may be slaughtered for a woman who keeps watch a day for a day (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 6:3).

156 

Perek VIII . 90a . ‫צ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ח‬

Slaughtering for one who has immersed himself during the day – ‫יטה ִל ְטבוּל יֹום‬ ָ ‫ש ִח‬: ְ ׁ The Paschal lamb is slaughtered for one who has immersed himself during the day and may eat it at night (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 6:1). He lacks the atonement offering – ‫מחו ַּּסר ִּכ ּפו ִּרים‬:ְ If the day on which one lacking atonement is required to bring his offering occurs on the Passover eve, the Paschal lamb is slaughtered on his behalf (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 6:4).

Perek VIII Daf 90 Amud b .‫זֹור ִקין ַעל ְט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬ ְ ְ‫ֹוח ִטין ו‬ ֲ ‫ וְ ֵאין ׁש‬And one does not slaughter the Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood ‫זֹור ִקין ַעל‬ ְ ְ‫ֹוח ִטין ו‬ ֲ ‫ ַאף ׁש‬:‫ וְ עו ָּּלא ָא ַמר‬on behalf of one who is ritually impure due to contact with a creeping that day and thereby ensure he will .‫ ְט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬animal, although he could immerse be ritually pure for the evening.h And Ulla said: One slaughters the Paschal lamb and sprinkles its blood even for one who is ritually impure due to contact with a creeping animal. ‫ ַמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ְטבוּל יֹום – דַּ ֲחזִ י‬,‫ ְל ַרב‬The Gemara discusses the rationale behind Rav’s ruling: According !‫אֹור ָתא‬ ְ ‫ ְט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ֶרץ נַ ִמי ֲחזִ י ְל‬,‫אֹור ָתא‬ ְ ‫ ְל‬to Rav, what is different about one who is ritually impure with a type .‫ ְמחו ַּּסר ְט ִב ָילה‬of ritualn impurity such that once he has immersed himself during the day he will become fully ritually pure upon nightfall that, despite presently being impure, one may offer the Paschal lamb on his behalf? It is due to the fact that he is fit to eat it by night. But why, then, is the Paschal lamb not offered on behalf of one who is ritually impure due to contact with a creeping animal? He can also be fit to eat it by night by immersing in a ritual bath. The Gemara answers: He lacks immersion in a ritual bath.

halakha

One does not slaughter…on behalf of one who is ritually impure due to contact with a creeping animal – ‫ים…על ְט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬ ַ ‫ֹוח ִט‬ ֲ ‫אין ׁש‬:ֵ The Paschal lamb is not slaughtered and its blood is not poured on the altar on behalf of one who is ritually impure due to contact with a creeping animal, until he immerses in a ritual bath (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 6:1). The halakha is according to Rav, since he was a greater Sage than Ulla. He handed his offerings over to the court – ‫ְמ ָס ָרם‬ ‫ל ֵבית דִּ ין‬:ְ If the day on which one who lacks atonement must bring his offering occurs on Passover eve, once he gives his offerings to the court of priests, the Paschal lamb can be slaughtered and its blood poured on his behalf (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 6:4).

!‫ ְטבוּל יֹום נַ ִמי ְמחו ַּּסר ֶה ֱע ֵרב ׁ ֶש ֶמ ׁש‬But one who immersed himself during the day and will become ritu.‫ ׁ ִש ְמ ׁ ָשא ִמ ֵּמ ָילא ָע ְר ָבא‬ally pure upon nightfall also lacks the setting of the sun, i.e., nightfall. The Gemara explains the distinction: The sun sets by itself, and no action on the part of the one who is ritually impure is required to complete the purification process. A Paschal lamb may therefore be brought on his behalf. !‫ ָהא ְמחו ַּּסר ַּכ ּ ָפ ָרה‬,‫ ְמחו ַּּסר ִּכ ּפו ִּרים נַ ִמי‬But one who still lacks an atonement offeringn to complete his purifi.‫ ׁ ֶש ִּקינּ ֹו ְ ּביָ דֹו‬cation process also lacks an action, because he must still bring his atonement offering. Why may he nevertheless be registered for a Paschal lamb? The Gemara answers: His nest, i.e., the pair of doves he will offer as his atonement, is already in his possession, ready to be offered. It is therefore presumed he will immediately do so. !‫ ֲה ֵרי ִמ ְקוֶ ה ְל ָפנָיו‬,‫ְט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ֶרץ נַ ִמי‬ ‫ ְמחו ַּּסר ִּכ ּפו ִּרים‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬.‫דִּ ְיל ָמא ּ ָפ ׁ ַשע‬ ‫נַ ִמי – דִּ ְיל ָמא ּ ָפ ׁ ַשע! ְּכגֹון דִּ ְמ ָס ִרינְ ה ּו‬ ,‫ְל ֵבית דִּ ין‬

But one ritually impure due to contact with a creeping animal is also immediately able to become ritually pure, because the ritual bath is before him and he can immerse in it. Why does this not permit him to be registered for a Paschal lamb? The Gemara answers: The reason a Paschal lamb may not be brought on his behalf is due to concern that perhaps he will be neglectful and not immerse. Therefore, it cannot be assumed with certainty that by the evening he will be ritually pure. If so, in the case of one who still lacks an atonement offering, shouldn’t there also be concern that perhaps he will be neglectful and will not bring his offering? The baraita deals with a case such as one in which he has already handed over his pair of doves to the court of priests, in order that they offer them on his behalf. Therefore, it may be assumed with certainty that by the evening he will be ritually pure.h

‫ ֵאין ֵ ּבית‬,‫ ֲחזָ ָקה‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬.‫ וְ ִכ ְד ַרב ׁ ְש ַמ ְעיָ ה‬And this is in accordance with the teaching of Rav Shemaya, who said ‫עֹומ ִדין ִמ ׁ ּ ָשם ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ְכל ּו‬ ְ ‫ דִּ ין ׁ ֶשל ּכ ֲֹהנִים‬that there is a presumption that the court of priests will not stand up in the Temple, until all the .‫ ָמעֹות ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ׁ ּש ָֹופרֹות‬from there, i.e., their place of meeting money in the collection boxes,n which was placed there in order that the priests should use the money to bring offerings on the donors’ behalf, is used up. The priests ensure that any money they receive for offerings is used to purchase the offering and sacrifice it that same day. Certainly, if they were actually entrusted with an animal in order to sacrifice it, they would also do that on the very same day. notes

One who has immersed himself during the day – ‫טבוּל יֹום‬:ְ There are many instances of ritual impurity whose elimination involves a two-step process: Immersion in a ritual bath, and the occurrence of nightfall on the day during which the ritually impure person immersed himself. During the period between immersion and nightfall, a certain measure of impurity remains. Consequently, it is prohibited for one who immersed himself during the day to eat sacrifices or teruma if he is a priest, but it is permitted for him to eat the second tithe.



One who lacks an atonement offering – ‫מחו ַּּסר ִּכ ּפו ִּרים‬:ְ This category includes various types of people who are ritually impure: A woman after childbirth, a zav, a zava, and a healed leper, all of whom must bring offerings to complete their purification process. Until they bring these offerings, they are considered to be lacking atonement, and they are not permitted to enter the Temple or to partake of sacrificial foods. Money in the collection boxes – ‫ֹופרֹות‬ ָ ‫מעֹות ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ׁ ּש‬:ָ There were thirteen boxes [shofarot] in the Temple in which

people would deposit money for the offerings they were obligated to bring. Each box had a label indicating the purpose for which the money in that box would be used. To prevent any mis­understandings on the part of the donors, who may assume that their offerings had already been brought when they had not and subsequently take action on their assumption, the priests were careful to bring the offerings for all the money in each box the same day it was deposited. They would not leave over any of it for the following day. ‫צ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Perek VIII . 90b 

157

notes

It is the Sages who decreed – ‫ר ָ ּבנַן הוּא דְּ גָ זְ ר ּו‬:ַ The Gemara at this point suggests that the fact that some categories of people are considered unfit to bring the Paschal lamb, despite the fact they could become ritually pure by the evening, is entirely due to a rabbinic decree. Even though, according to Torah law, anyone who can ensure they will be ritually pure by the evening may have a Paschal lamb brought on their behalf, the Sages decreed that wherever a concern exists that a person might be negligent in completing his purification process, he is to be considered unfit. However, the Gemara ultimately concludes that even according to Torah law some categories of people are considered unfit. According to the conclusion, one who has already begun the purification processs and there­fore removed a certain degree of impurity from upon himself is considered fit, whereas a person who is still in a state of absolute impurity and has not removed from upon himself any degree on impurity is considered unfit despite the fact it is within his control to ensure he will be pure by the evening. They were ritually impure from a corpse that had no one to bury it [met mitzva] – ‫ט ֵמ ֵאי ֵמת ִמצְ וָ ה ָהי ּו‬:ְ Rashi explains this does not refer to the classic case of a met mitzva, where a particular corpse has no one to bury it. Rather, these people had become ritually impure from contact with their relatives, who had died in the desert and for whom it was a mitzva to be involved in their burial. Such a case is also categorized in certain instances as a met mitzva. background

A corpse that had no one to bury it – ‫מת ִמצְ וָ ה‬:ֵ It is an important religious obligation to take part in the burial of the dead. If the deceased has no acquaintances or relatives to bury him, everyone is obligated to assist in his burial. The halakha is that a corpse with no one available to bury it acquires his place, i.e., the body must be interred where it was found. This is the case provided that it is an honorable location; otherwise, the body must be buried in the nearest cemetery. This religious duty is so important that even priests and nazirites, who are ordinarily prohibited from coming into contact with a corpse, may bury a deserted corpse if there is no one else available to do so. Likewise, the obligation to bury this corpse takes precedence over nearly all other religious obligations.

‫יחזָ א ֲחזִ י וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן הוּא‬ ֱ ‫אֹוריְ ָיתא ֶמ‬ ַ ְּ‫ ו ְּל ַרב ִמד‬The Gemara asks: And according to Rav, it would appear that ‫ ְמ ַט ְּמ ִאין‬:‫ ַא ָּל ָמה ָא ַמר ַרב‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ דְּ גָ זְ ר ּו ֵ ּב‬by Torah law one who is ritually impure due to contact with a ?‫ ֶא ָחד ֵמ ֶהן ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬creeping animal is fit to have the Paschal nlamb slaughtered on his behalf, and it is the Sages who decreed that he is unfit, out of concern that he will be negligent. If so, why did Rav say with regard to a community that was half ritually pure and half impure: We contaminate one of them with a creeping animal so that the majority will be ritually impure, which will permit the entire community to offer the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity? If, by Torah law, one who is ritually impure due to contact with a creeping animal is fit to have an offering brought on his behalf, how then can he tip the balance of the entire community such that the majority is considered ritually impure and unfit to bring the Paschal lamb in purity? ,‫יתא נַ ִמי ָלא ֲחזִ י‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ ַ ְּ‫ ְל ַרב ִמד‬:‫ֶא ָּלא‬ ‫״א ׁיש ִא ׁיש ִּכי יִ ְהיֶ ה ָט ֵמא‬ ִ :‫דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ‫יעי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹו‬ ִ ‫ָלנֶ ֶפ ׁש״ ִמי ָלא ָע ְס ִקינַן ׁ ֶש ָחל ׁ ְש ִב‬ ‫ דְּ ַהיְ ינ ּו טו ְּמ ַאת‬,‫ִל ְהיֹות ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ .‫נִיד ֵחי‬ ְ ‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬,‫ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬

?‫ ִמ ַּמאי דְּ ָה ִכי‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִכי ֵּת‬And if you say: From where do we know that this is so, that the verse is referring to those who are able to become ritually pure by that evening? Perhaps it is referring specifically to one who is ritually impure from a corpse before the completion of his sevenday purification process and will therefore not be ritually pure that evening. ‫ ְט ֵמ ֵאי ֵמת‬:‫ָס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק דְּ ָא ַמר‬ ‫יעי ׁ ֶש ָּל ֶהן ִל ְהיֹות‬ ִ ‫ ׁ ֶש ָחל ׁ ְש ִב‬,ּ‫ִמצְ וָ ה ָהיו‬ ‫ ״וְ ל ֹא יָ ְכל ּו‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ‫ ַ ּבּיֹום ַההוּא‬.‫ַל ֲעשׂ ת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ַ ּבּיֹום ַההוּא״‬ – ‫ ֲא ָבל ְל ָמ ָחר‬,‫כֹולין ַל ֲעשׂ ֹות‬ ִ ְ‫הוּא דְּ ֵאינָן י‬ .ּ‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א נִ ְדחו‬.‫כֹולין ַל ֲע ׂשֹות‬ ִ ְ‫י‬

He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzĥak, who said: The ritually impure people in the desert asked Moses what they should do concerning their obligation to bring a Paschal lamb. It is about them that the verses pertaining to the second Pesaĥ were originally stated. They were ritually impure from a corpse that had no one to bury it [met mitzva],nb and their seventh day occurred on Passover eve, as it is stated: “They could not perform the Paschal lamb on that day” (Numbers 9:6). By inference, it was only on that day that they were unable to perform it, but the next day they would have been able to perform it by completing their purification process; and nonetheless the Torah said that they should be deferred.h

‫ֹוח ִטין‬ ֲ ‫ זָ ב ׁ ֶש ָר ָאה ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְר ִאּיֹות – ׁש‬:‫ְּתנַן‬ ,‫ ַמאי ָלאו – דְּ ָלא ְט ֵביל‬.‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ָע ָליו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ ‫זֹור ִקין ַעל ְט ֵמא‬ ְ ְ‫ֹוח ִטין ו‬ ֲ ‫ ׁש‬:‫ו ׁ ְּש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ !‫ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬

The Gemara presents a challenge from the mishna to the opinion of Rav that a Paschal lamb may not be offered on behalf of someone who is ritually impure from a creeping animal: We learned in the mishna: In the case of a zav who saw two sightings of gonorrheal discharge, one slaughters the Paschal lamb on his behalf if Passover eve is on his seventh day. The Gemara suggests: What, is it not referring to a case in which he has not yet immersed in a ritual bath, and we may therefore learn from it that we also may slaughter and sprinkle on behalf of one who is ritually impure from a creeping animal, since his level of impurity is identical to a zav who saw two sightings?

‫ ִאי ְט ֵביל ַמאי ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬.‫ דִּ ְט ֵביל‬,‫ל ֹא‬ ‫ דְּ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב‬:‫ָלן? ָהא ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬ ‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬,‫דִּ ְמחו ַּּסר ַה ֲע ֵרב ַה ׁ ּ ֶש ֶמ ׁש‬ .‫ דְּ ׁ ִש ְמ ׁ ָשא ִמ ֵּמ ָילא ָע ְר ָבא‬:‫ָלן‬

No, the mishna is referring to a zav who already immersed. But if he already immersed, what is it teaching us? Since he will become ritually pure upon nightfall, surely it is obvious that a Paschal lamb may be offered on his behalf. It teaches us this: That even though he still lacks the setting of the sun, a Paschal lamb may nevertheless be brought on his behalf. It therefore teaches us that since the sun sets by itself, and no action of his own is required to complete his purification process, the fact that he currently has still not completed his purification process does not disqualify him.

halakha

The seventh day of one impure from a corpse – ‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ׁ ְש ִב‬ ‫של ְט ֵמא ֵמת‬: ֶ ׁ If the seventh day of one who is impure from a corpse occurs on Passover eve, the Paschal lamb is not slaughtered on his behalf, even if he has already immersed and was sprinkled upon. This is due to a biblical decree that defers this person’s offering to the second Pesaĥ (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 6:2). The Ra’avad disagrees, holding that his status resembles those who have immersed on that day and will become ritually pure at night.

158 

Perek VIII . 90b . ‫צ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ח‬

Rather, according to Rav, by Torah law he is also unfit to have an offering brought on his behalf, as it is written: “If any man of you or of your posterity shall be ritually impure due to a dead body...he shall still offer the Paschal lamb to the Lord. The fourteenth day of the second month…they shall offer it” (Numbers 9:10–11). Are we not dealing with all who are “ritually impure due to a dead body”? This includes one whose seventh day occurred on Passover eve. If they sprinkle on him that day he will immediately become ritually pure, which is the same situation as ritual impurity caused by a creeping animal, and nonetheless the Torah states that he shall be deferred, as he is considered unfit.

‫ ָר ָאה‬:‫ ִמדְּ ָק ָתנֵי ֵס ָיפא‬,‫ָה ִכי נַ ִמי ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא‬ ‫ ִאי‬.‫ֹוח ִטין ָע ָליו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי‬ ֲ ‫ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ְר ִאּיֹות – ׁש‬ ‫ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא זָ ב ׁ ֶש ָר ָאה ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְר ִאּיֹות‬ . ְ‫ דִּ ְט ֵביל – ִאיצְ ְט ִריך‬,‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ֹוח ִטין ָע ָליו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ ֲ ‫ׁש‬

So too, it is reasonable to establish the mishna as referring to a zav who had already immersed, from the fact that the last clause of the mishna taught: With regard to a zav who saw three sightings, one slaughters the Paschal lamb on his behalf on the eighth day. Granted, if you say that the first clause, which states: With regard to a zav who saw two sightings, one slaughters on his behalf on the seventh day, is referring to a case in which he had already immersed, then it is necessary to teach the last clause for the following reason:

– ‫ ָר ָאה ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְר ִאּיֹות‬:‫ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָתךְ ָא ִמינָ א‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬.‫יעי הוּא דְּ ל ֹא ְמחו ַּּסר ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬ ִ ‫ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ ,‫ דִּ ְמח ו ַּּסר ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬,‫ָר ָאה ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי‬ ‫ דְּ ַאף‬:‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫ְמחו ַּּסר ַּכ ּ ָפ ָרה – ָלא‬ ‫זֹור ִקין‬ ְ ְ‫ֹוח ִטין ו‬ ֲ ‫ַעל ַ ּגב דִּ ְמחו ַּּסר ַּכ ּ ָפ ָרה ׁש‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ֵ‫ִע ָּילו‬

It could enter your mind to say that it is true only with regard to a zav who saw two sightings and is now on his seventh day, for he, having already immersed, does not lack any action; but a zav who saw three sightings and is now on his eighth day, who lacks an action in that he still lacks his atonement offering, no, a Paschal lamb may not be offered on his behalf. The last clause therefore must teach us that although he still lacks his atonement offering, one slaughters and sprinkles on his behalf.

‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ָר ָאה ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְר ִאּיֹות ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬But if you say that the first clause, which states: With regard to a zav who ?‫ ָר ָאה ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי ָל ָּמה ִלי‬,‫ דְּ ָלא ְט ֵביל‬saw two sightings, one slaughters on his behalf on the seventh day, is referring to a case in which he had not already immersed, then why do I need the last clause, which states: With regard to a zav who saw three sightings, one slaughters on his behalf on the eighth day? This clause could be logically deduced from the first one, as follows: ‫יעי‬ ִ ‫לֹומר ָר ָאה ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְר ִאּיֹות ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ ַ ‫ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ׁיֵש‬ ‫ דְּ ָט ֵמא ְמ ַע ְּליָ א הוּא – ׁ ָש ֲח ִטינַן‬,‫דְּ ָלא ְט ֵביל‬ ‫ ָר ָאה ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי דְּ ָט ֵביל‬,‫יה‬ ּ ֵ‫וְ זָ ְר ִקינַן ִע ָּילו‬ ‫ישא טו ְּמ ָאה – ל ֹא ָּכל‬ ָ ׁ ‫ דִּ ְק ִל‬,‫יעי‬ ִ ‫יה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ?‫יה‬ ּ ֵ‫ׁ ֶש ֵּכן דְּ ׁ ָש ֲח ִטינַן וְ זָ ְר ִקינַן ִע ָּילו‬

Now, it can be said: In the case of a zav who saw two sightings and is on his seventh day and has not yet immersed, and he is therefore still completely impure, one nevertheless slaughters and sprinkles the Paschal lamb on his behalf, since he can become pure by the evening. So too, with regard to a zav who saw three sightings and is now on his eighth day, and who has already immersed on the seventh day, and his impurity is therefore weakened in that he does not impart impurity to that which he touches, despite the fact that he is still prohibited to enter the Temple or partake of offerings until he brings his atonement offering, is it not all the more so true that one should slaughter and sprinkle on his behalf? Therefore, the last clause would be superfluous.

‫ ָר ָאה ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְר ִאּיֹות‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא ָלאו ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬Rather, must one not conclude from the preceding analysis that the first .‫יה – דִּ ְט ֵביל‬ ִ ‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬clause, which states: With regard to a zav who saw two sightings, one ּ ֵ‫ דְּ ׁ ָש ֲח ִטינַן ִע ָּילו‬,‫יעי‬ slaughters on his behalf on the seventh day, is referring to a case in which he has already immersed? .‫ימא ָל ְך דְּ ָלא ְט ֵביל‬ ָ ‫עֹול ם ֵא‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬,‫ ל ֹא‬No, one should not come to such a conclusion. Actually, I can say to you ‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬:‫ וְ ִאיצְ ְט ִריךְ ; ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָתךְ ָא ִמינָ א‬that the mishna is referring to a case in which one did not yet immerse, ,‫ הוּא דִּ ְביָ דֹו ְל ַת ֵ ּקן‬and it is necessary to teach the last clause concerning a zav who saw three sightings, because it could enter your mind to say that it is only for a zav who saw two sightings that the Paschal lamb may be offered on his behalf on the seventh, for it is within his ability to remedy the situation and purify himself by immersing in a ritual bath. – ‫ ֲא ָבל ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי דְּ ֵאין ְ ּביָ דֹו ְל ַה ְק ִריב ָק ְר ָ ּבן‬But then, on the eighth day of a zav who saw three sightings, when it is ‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫יה ּכ ֲֹהנִים‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬not within his ability to sacrifice the necessary offering, as he dependent ּ ‫ימא ּ ָפ ׁ ְש ִעי ֵ ּב‬ .‫ ִּכ ְד ַרב ׁ ְש ַמ ְעיָ ה‬upon the priests to do it for him, say that perhaps the priests will be negligent with him. Perhaps his offering will not be brought, leaving him unfit for the Paschal lamb. Due to this concern, a Paschal lamb should not be offered on his behalf. The last clause therefore teaches us that there is no such concern, in accordance with the teaching of Rav Shemaya, who maintains that the court of the priests may be relied upon with certainty. ‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ ֲ ‫״וְ ַהּזָ ָבה ׁש‬ ּ ‫ ָּתנֵי ַּת ָּנא ַק ֵּמ‬.‫ֹוח ִטין וכו׳״‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ֹוח ִטין ָע ֶל‬ ֲ ‫ וְ ַהּזָ ָבה ׁש‬:‫ַאדָּ א ַ ּבר ַא ֲה ָבה‬ ‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ זָ ָבה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬:‫יה‬ ִ ‫ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ֵל‬.‫יעי ׁ ֶש ָּל ּה‬ ּ ‫ׁ ֶש ָּל ּה ִמי ַחזְ יָ א? ֲא ִפ‬ ‫יל ּו ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר‬ ‫זֹור ִקין ַעל ְט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ֶרץ – ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי‬ ְ ְ‫ֹוח ִטין ו‬ ֲ ‫ׁש‬ ‫ ָהא – ַעד ְל ָמ ָחר‬,‫אֹור ָתא‬ ְ ‫ דַּ ֲחזִ י ְל‬,‫ְט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬ .‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬.‫דְּ ַמ ְתיָ א ַּכ ּ ָפ ָרה ָלא ַחזְ יָ א‬



We learned in the mishna: And with regard to a zava; one slaughters a Paschal lamb on her behalf on the eighth day after her sightings. The tanna taught a baraita before Rav Adda bar Ahava: And with regard to a zava, one slaughters a Paschal lamb on her behalf on her seventh day. He said to him: Is a zava fit to have a Paschal lamb offered on her behalf on her seventh day? Even according to the one who says one slaughters and sprinkles on behalf of one who is impure from a creeping animal, this applies only to one who is ritually impure from a creeping animal, who will be fit to eat the Paschal lamb by the evening, but this zava will not be fit until the following day, when she brings her atonement offering. Rather, emend the baraita you quoted and say: Her eighth day instead of: Her seventh day. ‫צ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Perek VIII . 90b 

159

halakha

A menstruating woman on the eighth day – ‫נִדָּ ה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי‬: The Paschal lamb is not slaughtered on behalf of a menstruating woman on the seventh day of her impurity, because she will not be completely pure and able to partake of sacrificial foods until the night after the following day. However, the Paschal lamb may be slaughtered on her behalf on her eighth day (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 6:3). Times of immersion – ‫זְ ַמ ּנֵי ְט ִב ָילה‬: All those required to immerse do so in the daytime, except a menstruating woman and a woman after childbirth. They must immerse at night, even if the immersion is after the eighth day (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 197:3). An acute mourner – ‫האֹונֵן‬:ָ If one’s immediate relative dies on the fourteenth of Nisan after midday, the Paschal lamb is slaughtered and its blood poured on his behalf. He immerses and eats it in the evening. If the death occurs before midday, when the obligation to offer the Paschal lamb had not yet begun, the mourner is deferred until the second Pesaĥ (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 6:9).

‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דִּ ְמ ַח ְּס ָרא‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יטא! ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬The Gemara asks: It is obvious that a Paschal lamb may be offered ‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן ִּכ ְד ַרב‬,‫ ַּכ ּ ָפ ָרה – ָלא‬on behalf of a zava on her eighth day. It is necessary to teach this .‫ ׁ ְש ַמ ְעיָ ה‬halakha lest you say that since she lacks the offering of an atonement to complete her purification process, there is a concern that the priests will be negligent and she will not be ritually pure by the evening. This halakha therefore teaches us that there is no such concern, in accordance with the teaching of Rav Shemaya that the court of the priests may be relied upon with certainty. ‫יה ״וְ ַה ִּנדָּ ה‬ ּ ‫ נִ דָּ ה ָּתנָ א ַק ֵּמ‬:‫ ָר ִבינָ א ָא ַמר‬Ravina said: The tanna didn’t teach the case of a zava; rather, he .‫יעי״‬ ִ ‫יה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ ָ ‫ֹוח ִטין ָע ֶל‬ ֲ ‫ ׁש‬taught the case of a menstruating woman who is ritually impure due to her menstruation. She must count seven days from her first flow of blood, and then from the following night she can become ritually pure by immersing in a ritual bath. According to this, the baraita teaches: And with regard to a menstruating woman, one slaughters for her on the seventh day of her impurity. ?‫יעי ִמי ַחזְ יָ א‬ ִ ‫ נִ דָּ ה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ּ ‫ֲא ִפ‬ ‫זֹור ִקין‬ ְ ְ‫ֹוח ִטין ו‬ ֲ ‫יל ּו ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ׁש‬ ‫ נִ דָּ ה‬.‫אֹור ָתא‬ ְ ‫ַעל ְט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ֶרץ – דַּ ֲחזִ י ְל‬ ‫ ַעד‬,‫יעי הוּא דְּ ָט ְב ָלה‬ ִ ‫אֹור ָתא דִּ ׁ ְש ִב‬ ְ ‫ְל‬ ‫ׁ ְש ִמינִי דְּ ָע ְב ָדה ַה ֲע ֵרב ׁ ֶש ֶמ ׁש – ָלא‬ .‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ֵא‬.‫ַחזְ יָ א‬

He said to him: Is a menstruating woman fit on the seventh? Even according to the one who says one slaughters and sprinkles on behalf of one who is impure from a creeping animal, this is because he will be fit to eat the Paschal lamb by the evening. But a menstruating woman only immerses on the night following the seventh day, and until the eighth day, when she experiences the setting of the sun,n she is not fully ritually pure and is not fit to partake of offerings. Rather, emend the baraita you quoted and say: Her eighth day, instead of: Her seventh day.h

‫יח ְּס ָרא‬ ַ ‫ ו ַּמה ּזָ ָבה דְּ ִמ‬,‫יטא! ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא‬ ָ ‫ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ ,‫יה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי‬ ָ ‫זֹור ִקין ָע ֶל‬ ְ ְ‫ֹוח ִטין ו‬ ֲ ‫ַּכ ּ ָפ ָרה ׁש‬ ‫יכה‬ ָ ‫יח ְּס ָרא ַּכ ּ ָפ ָרה – צְ ִר‬ ַ ‫נִ דָּ ה דְּ ָלא ִמ‬ ?‫ימר דְּ ׁ ָש ֲח ִטינַן וְ זָ ְר ִקינַן ֲע ָל ּה‬ ַ ‫ְל ֵמ‬

The Gemara asks: It is obvious that a Paschal lamb may be offered on behalf of a menstruating woman on her eighth day, as demonstrated by the following argument: Now, just as in the case of a zava who lacks the offering of an atonement to complete her purification process, one slaughters and sprinkles on her behalf on the eighth day, so too, with regard to a menstruating woman, who does not lack the offering of an atonement to complete her purification process, is it necessary to say that one slaughters and sprinkles on her behalf?

‫ ָהא ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬,‫יה‬ ָ ‫נִ דָּ ה ִאיצְ ְט ִר‬ ּ ‫יכא ֵל‬ .‫יעי – ָלא‬ ִ ‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬,‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי – ִאין‬:‫ָלן‬ ‫ ָּכל ַחּיָ ֵיבי ְט ִבילֹות ְט ִב ָיל ָתן‬:‫ִּכ ְד ַתנְיָא‬ .‫יֹול ֶדת ְט ִב ָיל ָתן ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה‬ ֶ ְ‫ נִ דָּ ה ו‬,‫ַ ּבּיֹום‬

The Gemara explains that it was necessary for the baraita to teach the case of a menstruating woman because it teaches us that on the eighth day, yes, a Paschal lamb is offered on her behalf, but on the seventh day, no, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to all those who are ritually impure and are obligated to immerse, their immersion is in the day, except for a menstruating woman and a woman after childbirth, whose immersion is at night.hn

‫טֹוב ֶלת ִמ ְ ּבעֹוד‬ ֶ ‫ יָ כֹול ְּת ֵהא‬:‫דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬ ‫״ש ְב ַעת יָ ִמים‬ ִ ׁ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ ַּת ְלמוּד‬,‫יֹום‬ ‫ִּת ְהיֶ ה ְבנִ דָּ ָת ּה״ – ְּת ֵהא ְ ּבנִ דָּ ָת ּה ָּכל‬ .‫ית ַ ּק ׁש ְלנִ דָּ ה‬ ַּ ‫יֹול ֶדת ִא‬ ֶ ְ‫ ו‬.‫ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬

As it was taught in a different baraita: I might have thought that a menstruating woman or a woman after childbirth should immerse while still day, like others who are obligated to immerse. Therefore, the verse states: “And if a woman should have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days” (Leviticus 15:19), which indicates that she shall be in her state of impurity for a full seven days and doesn’t immerse until the night following the seventh day. And this is also true of a woman after childbirth, who is compared in the Torah to a menstruating woman in the verse “If a woman conceives and gives birth to a male, then she shall be unclean seven days, as in the days of her menstrual flow shall she be unclean” (Leviticus 12:2).

‫מתני׳ ָהאֹונֵן‬

mishna 

An acute mourner,h i.e., a mourner on the day of the death of an immediate relative;

notes

The setting of the sun – ‫ה ֲע ֵרב ׁ ֶש ֶמׁש‬:ַ This concept is connected to the halakhot of ritual impurity. If a ritually impure person immersed himself in a ritual bath, he remains ritually impure with regard to the eating of teruma until the sun has set and the stars have come out on the evening following his immersion. After the stars have come out, he may eat teruma. However, certain categories of ritually impure people who have already immersed themselves in a ritual bath are

160 

Perek VIII . 90b . ‫צ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ח‬

not allowed to enter the Temple or come into contact with offerings until they bring expiatory offerings on the day after their immersion.

she immerses and on condition she experiences no further discharge that day, she is ritually pure. In contrast, a menstruating woman need not count clean days; she counts seven day from the first discharge and after seven complete days, even if A menstruating woman immerses at night – ‫טֹוב ֶלת ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה‬ ֶ ‫נִדָּ ה‬: she saw blood throughout, she may immerse on the following According to Torah law, a zava waits until her discharges stop night. Today, based on various rabbinical ordinances and cusand then needs to count seven clean days on which she must toms, a menstruating woman counts seven clean days, due to not experience any further discharges. On the seventh day, the concern that perhaps she is actually a zava.

Perek VIII Daf 91 Amud a ‫ וְ ֵכן ִמי ׁ ֶש ִה ְב ִטיחוּה ּו‬,‫וְ ַה ְמ ַפ ֵ ּק ַח ֶאת ַה ַ ּגל‬ ‫חֹולה‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ַה‬,‫ְלהֹוצִ יאֹו ִמ ֵ ּבית ָה ֲאס ּו ִרים‬ ‫ֹוח ִטין‬ ֲ ‫כֹולין ֶל ֱאכֹול ַּכּזַ יִ ת – ׁש‬ ִ ְ‫וְ ַהּזָ ֵקן ׁ ֶש ֵהן י‬ .‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ֲע ֵל‬

and one clearing a pile of stonesh that collapsed on top of a person, in which case there is a possibility that the person buried underneath is dead and his corpse will impart ritual impurity to the person clearing the pile; and similarly, one whom the governing body promised to release from prison on the night of Passover; and an ill person and an elderly person who are still capable of eating an olive-bulk of meat, one slaughters the Paschal lamb on their behalf, since they are currently fit to eat the Paschal lamb.

,‫יהן ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ ָמן‬ ֶ ‫ֹוח ִטין ֲע ֵל‬ ֲ ‫ ַעל ּכו ָּּלם ֵאין ׁש‬However, with regard to all of them, this is only true when they .‫ ׁ ֶש ָּמא ִיָביא ּו ֶאת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ִל ֵידי ּ ְפסוּל‬are included in a group with other people who will definitely be able to partake of the lamb; but we do not slaughter the Paschal lamb on their behalf if they are by themselves, either as individuals or in a group composed entirely of such people, because perhaps they will cause the Paschal lamb to become disqualified, since there is a possibility that by the night of Passover they will be unable to partake of the Paschal lamb.

halakha

One clearing a pile of stones – ‫ה ְמ ַפ ֵ ּק ַח ֶאת ַה ַ ּגל‬:The ַ Paschal lamb is not slaughtered on behalf of one who is clearing a pile of stones in order to save someone buried underneath. If the Paschal lamb was slaughtered on his behalf, and it was then discovered that there was no corpse in the pile, he may eat it (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 6:10). Since they promised him they would release him they will certainly release him – ‫יה‬ ּ ‫כיוָ ן דְּ ַא ְב ַט ִחינְ ה ּו ַמ ּ ִפיק ֵל‬:ֵּ If one is imprisoned outside of Jerusalem and is promised by his captors that he will be released by the evening, the Paschal lamb is slaughtered on his behalf. However, this rule applies only if one is imprisoned by Jews. The Paschal sacrifice is not slaughtered on behalf of prisoners in a prison owned by gentiles. However, if it is slaughtered on his behalf and he is not released from prison, he is exempt from the second Pesaĥ (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 5:9).

‫ ִאם ֵא ַירע ָ ּב ֶהן ּ ְפסוּל – ּ ְפטו ִּרין‬,‫יכ ְך‬ ָ ‫ ְל ִפ‬Therefore, since they were registered for a Paschal lamb and it ‫ חוּץ ִמן ַה ְמ ַפ ֵ ּק ַח ַ ּב ַ ּגל‬,‫ ִמ ַּל ֲעשׂ ֹות ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬was slaughtered when they were still fit to partake of it, even if a .‫ ׁ ֶשהוּא ָט ֵמא ִמ ְּת ִח ָּלתֹו‬disqualification occurred to them later, preventing them from partaking of the Paschal lamb, they are nevertheless exempt from observing the second Pesaĥ. The exemption from the second Pesaĥ is dependent not on whether they partook of a Paschal lamb, but on whether it was validly slaughtered on their behalf. This holds true except for one who was clearing a pile of stones where the person buried underneath was eventually found dead, because in such a case the person searching for him certainly stood over the corpse at some point. He had therefore become ritually impure from the outset, even before the Paschal lamb was slaughtered. Consequently, he would not have been fit even during the slaughter and will have to observe the second Pesaĥ.

gemara 

:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫גמ׳ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר הוּנָ א ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ֵ ּבית ָה ֲאסו ִּרין דְּ גֹוי‬ ‫ֹוח ִטין ִ ּב ְפנֵי‬ ֲ ‫ֵ ּבית ָה ֲאסו ִּרין דְּ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל – ׁש‬ ,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ַא ְב ַט ִחינְ ה ּו – ַמ ּ ִפיק ֵל‬,‫ַעצְ מֹו‬ ‫יִש ָר ֵאל ל ֹא יַ ֲעשׂ ּו ַעוְ ָלה‬ ׂ ְ ‫״ש ֵא ִרית‬ ְ ׁ :‫דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ .‫וְ ל ֹא יְ ַד ְ ּבר ּו ָכזָ ב״‬

The mishna teaches that the Paschal lamb may be slaughtered on behalf of a prisoner only if he is included in a group with other people. Rabba bar Huna said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: They taught this only if he is in a prison belonging to gentiles; but if he is in a prison belonging to Jews,n one slaughters on his behalf even if he is by himself and not included in a group with other people. Since they promised him they would release him they will certainly release him,h as it is written: “The remnant of Israel will not do iniquity nor speak lies” (Zephaniah 3:13). Therefore, there is no concern that on the night of Passover he will not be able to partake of the Paschal lamb.

‫ ָהא דְּ ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ֵ ּבית‬,‫ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ‫ָה ֲאסו ִּרין דְּ גֹויִ ם – ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא חוּץ‬ ‫חֹומת‬ ַ ‫ ֲא ָבל ִל ְפנִים ֵמ‬,‫חֹומת ֵ ּבית ּ ָפאגֵ י‬ ַ ‫ְל‬ .‫ֹוח ִטין ָע ָליו ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ מֹו‬ ֲ ‫ֵ ּבית ּ ָפאגֵ י – ׁש‬ ‫יה וְ ָא ֵכיל‬ ּ ‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר דְּ ַא ְמט ּו ֵל‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬

Rav Ĥisda said: With regard to that which you said, that the mishna’s ruling permitting a the Paschal lamb to be slaughtered on behalf of a prisoner, but only when he is included in a group with others, refers to a prisoner in a prison belonging to gentiles, they said this only with regard to a prison outside the wall of Beit Pagei, i.e., the prison is located outside the area where the Paschal lamb may be consumed. But if the prison is located within the wall of Beit Pagei, one slaughters on his behalf even if he is by himself and not included in a group with other people. What is the reason? Even if he is not released from prison, it is possible for them to bring him a portion of the Paschal lamb while still in prison, and he will eat it there.

notes

A prison belonging to Jews – ‫יִש ָר ֵאל‬ ׂ ְ ְּ‫בית ָה ֲאסו ִּרין ד‬:ּ ֵ In general, Jewish law does not employ prison sentences as punishments. Rather, people are immediately punished monetarily or corporeally. Nevertheless, one can be incarcerated until the facts surrounding his case are clarified. In certain cases, where the standard court



procedures do not allow for the standard capital punishments to be applied, serious criminals can be imprisoned in a kippa, a narrow, vaulted chamber, and left there to die. Prisons have also been used at various times as a means of coercion, e.g., to force a person to grant his wife a legal divorce or to pay his debts. ‫אצ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Perek VIII . 91a 

161

halakha

Round and long piles – ‫גל ָעגֹול וַ ָארו ְּך‬:ּ ַ In a case where the Paschal lamb was slaughtered on behalf of someone while he was digging in a pile of rubble looking for a corpse, and a corpse is later found, if the one digging is certain that he was ritually impure at the time it was slaughtered, such as in the case of a round pile of rubble, he is obligated to offer the second Pesaĥ. However, if it was a long pile and it is unclear whether or not he was impure when the Paschal lamb was slaughtered, he is exempt from the second Pesaĥ (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 6:10). A Paschal lamb on behalf of an individual – ‫ּ ֶפ ַסח ַעל‬ ‫ּיָחיד‬ ִ ‫ה‬:ַ It is permissible to slaughter a Paschal lamb for an individual if he is able to eat the entire sacrifice. However, ideally, each Paschal lamb should be slaughtered for at least two people. The halakha accepts the view of Rabbi Yosei over Rabbi Yehuda. However, the Rambam understood that even according to Rabbi Yosei, it is not ideal to slaughter the Paschal lamb for one person (Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 2:2). A group of women, slaves, and minors – ‫נָשים‬ ִ ׁ ‫ֲחבו ַּרת‬ ‫וַ ֲע ָב ִדים ו ְּק ַט ּנִים‬: Groups composed of women and slaves or children and slaves are not permitted to slaughter a Paschal lamb, due to concerns of promiscuity. However, it is permissible to form a group consisting only of women or a group consisting only of slaves (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 2:4).

‫ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר‬.‫יכךְ ִאם ֵא ַירע וכו׳״‬ ָ ‫״ל ִפ‬ ְ ,‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ַ ּגל ָעגֹול‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ָחנָ ה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ,‫ֲא ָבל ַ ּגל ָארוּךְ – ּ ָפטוּר ִמ ַּל ֲע ׂשֹות ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬ .‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ ָטהֹור ָהיָ ה ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ׁ ְש ִח‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ֵא‬

We learned in the mishna: Therefore, even if a disqualification occurred to them, they are exempt from observing the second Pesaĥ. This holds true except for one who was clearing a pile of stones. The Gemara qualifies this ruling: Rabba bar bar Ĥana said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: They taught that one who clears a pile of stones is required to observe the second Pesaĥ only if he was clearing a round pile. While clearing it, he certainly stood over the corpse and became ritually impure. But if it was a long pile of stones, it is possible that the corpse was to one side of the pile and the person clearing the stones had not yet stood over the corpse at the time the Paschal lamb was slaughtered. Therefore, he is exempt from observing the second Pesaĥ, because one can say that perhaps he was ritually pure at the time of the slaughter. Since the matter is in doubt, he is exempt from observing the second Pesaĥ.

‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ְ ּבנֹו ׁ ֶשל ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ַּתנְ יָ א נַ ִמי ָה ִכי‬ ‫ ִע ִּתים‬,‫ ְמ ַפ ֵ ּק ַח ַ ּב ַ ּגל‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫רֹוקה‬ ָ ‫יֹוחנָן ֶ ּבן ְ ּב‬ ָ ‫ ֵּכיצַ ד? ַ ּגל ָעגֹול וְ נִ ְמצֵ את‬.‫ּ ָפטוּר ִע ִּתים ַחּיָ יב‬ ‫ ַ ּגל ָארֹוךְ וְ נִ ְמצֵ את‬,‫טו ְּמ ָאה ַּת ְח ָּתיו – ַחּיָ יב‬ ‫ ָטהֹור ָהיָ ה‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬,‫טו ְּמ ָאה ַּת ְח ָּתיו – ּ ָפטוּר‬ .‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ׁ ְש ִח‬

That was also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Beroka, says: One who clears a pile of stones that collapsed on top of a person is sometimes exempt from observing the second Pesaĥ and sometimes obligated. How so? If it is a round pile of stones and ritual impurity was found underneath it, he is obligated to observe the second Pesaĥ, as he certainly stood over the corpse before his Paschal lamb was slaughtered. However, if it is a long pile of stones and ritual impurity was found underneath it, he is exempt, because one can say that perhaps he was pure at the time of the slaughter.h

mishna 

We do not slaughter the Paschal lamb on ,‫ּיָחיד‬ ִ ‫ֹוח ִטין ֶאת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ַעל ַה‬ ֲ ‫מתני׳ ֵאין ׁש‬ behalf of an individual, only for a group ‫ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬.‫יֹוסי ַמ ִּתיר‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ of people; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi ‫כֹולין ֶל ֱאכֹול‬ ִ ְ‫ ֲחבו ָּרה ׁ ֶשל ֵמ ָאה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ן י‬Yosei permits it.h And even if there is a group of one hundred .‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ֹוח ִטין ֲע ֵל‬ ֲ ‫ ַּכּזַ יִ ת ֵאין ׁש‬who together are unable to eatn an olive-bulk of it, we do not slaughter on their behalf. .‫נָשים וַ ֲע ָב ִדים ו ְּק ַט ּנִים‬ ִ ׁ ‫עֹושין ֲחבו ַּרת‬ ׂ ִ ‫ וְ ֵאין‬And we do not make a group for a Paschal lamb that consists of women, slaves, and minors.h ‫ֹוח ִטין ֶאת‬ ֲ ‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ׁ ֶש ֵאין ׁש‬:‫גמ׳ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫ ״ל ֹא‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ַעל ַהּיָ ִחיד – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ‫תו ַּכל ִלזְ ּב ַֹח ֶאת ַה ּ ָפ ַסח ְ ּב ַא ַחד״ דִּ ְב ֵרי‬ ‫ יָ ִחיד וְ יָ כֹול‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ‫כֹולין‬ ִ ְ‫ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה וְ ֵאין י‬,‫ֹוח ִטין ָע ָליו‬ ֲ ‫ְל ָא ְכלֹו – ׁש‬ .‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ֹוח ִטין ֲע ֵל‬ ֲ ‫ְל ָא ְכלֹו – ֵאין ׁש‬

gemara 

The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that we do not slaughter a Paschal lamb on behalf on an individual? The verse states: “You may not sacrifice the Paschal lamb in any one of your gates,n which the Lord your God has given you” (Deuteronomy 16:5). The phrase “in any one” is expounded to mean: For any one person, which indicates that the Paschal lamb is not slaughtered on behalf of an individual; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yosei says: If there is an individual and he is able to eat an olive-bulk of the Paschal lamb, one slaughters it on his behalf; whereas if there are ten people and they are unable to eat together an olive-bulk of the Paschal lamb, we do not slaughter it on their behalf.

notes

One hundred who together are unable to eat – ‫כֹולין‬ ִ ְ‫ֵמ ָאה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָן י‬ ‫ל ֱאכֹול‬:ֶ Rashi’s comments here are not entirely clear. He appears to indicate that this case occurs when even all the members of the group combined are still unable to eat an olive-bulk. However, some interpreted his comments as explaining that each member of the group is unable to eat an olive-bulk by himself (Sefat Emet). Similarly, the Rambam maintains that each member of the group must be capable of eating an olive-bulk by himself. Other authorities interpret Rashi to mean that ideally, each member of the group must be able to eat an olive-bulk by himself, but at the

162 

Perek VIII . 91a . ‫אצ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ח‬

very least the entire group combined must be able to consume an olive-bulk (see Melo HaRo’im). You may not sacrifice the Paschal lamb in any one of your gates – ָ‫זְב ַֹח ֶאת ַה ּ ָפ ַסח ְ ּב ַא ַחד ׁ ְש ָע ֶריך‬ ּ ‫ל ֹא תו ַּכל ִל‬: It would have been sufficient had the verse stated: You may not slaughter the Paschal lamb in your gates, or: In any of your gates. The word “one” is superfluous. Rabbi Yehuda therefore expounded it to exclude any manner of individuality in offering the Paschal lamb (Rabbeinu Yehonatan).

‫״ב ַא ַחד״ ַמאי ָע ֵביד‬ ּ ְ ‫ ַהאי‬,‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬ .‫יה ִל ְכ ָד ַר ׁש ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ ּ ָ ‫יה? ִמ‬ ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫זֹוב ַח‬ ֵ ‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ין ְל‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬,‫דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ִא ּיסוּר‬,‫ֶאת ּ ִפ ְסחֹו ְ ּב ָב ַמת יָ ִחיד‬ – ‫ ׁ ֶשהוּא ְ ּבל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬,‫ַה ָ ּבמֹות‬

The Gemara proceeds to analyze the opinions taught in the baraita: And what does Rabbi Yosei do with this phrase, “in any one,”n from which Rabbi Yehuda derived the halakha he taught in the mishna? He needs it for that which Rabbi Shimon expounded, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to improvised altars used by individuals for their private offerings, which are permitted for use only when there is no permanent national altar, Rabbi Shimon says: From where do we know that with regard to one who sacrifices his Paschal lamb on an improvised altar, at a time when the prohibition of sacrificing offerings on improvised altars applies, he is in violation of a negative mitzva?n

‫ ״ל ֹא תו ַּכל ִלזְ ּב ַֹח ֶאת‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ‫ יָ כֹול ַא ף‬.‫ַה ּ ָפ ַסח ְ ּב ַא ַחד ׁ ְש ָע ֶריךָ ״‬ ‫יתר ַה ָ ּבמֹות ֵּכן – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ֵּ ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ֶה‬ ‫ ל ֹא ָא ְמר ּו‬,‫״ב ַא ַחד ׁ ְש ָע ֶריךָ ״‬ ּ ְ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש ָּכל יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל נִ ְכנָ ִסין‬ .‫ְ ּב ׁ ַש ַער ֶא ָחד‬

The verse states: “You may not slaughter the Paschal lamb in any one of your gates.” The phrase “any one of your gates” is referring to the use of improvised altars.h I might have thought that even at a time when it is permitted to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars this is so; therefore the verse states “in any one of your gates,” which indicates that this prohibition was said only when all of the Jewish people enter into one gate, i.e., when they all come together to sacrifice their offerings on a permanent national altar, such as the Temple. However, where there is no permanent national altar, it is indeed permitted to offer the Paschal lamb on an improvised altar.

notes

And what does Rabbi Yosei do with this phrase, “in any one” – ‫יה‬ ֵ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬: In the Jerusalem Talmud, Rabbi ּ ‫ ַהאי ְ ּב ַא ַחד ַמאי ָע ֵביד ֵל‬,‫יֹוסי‬ Yosei expounds this verse as teaching that when determining whether or not the majority of a community is ritually impure, a majority of one person is insufficient. Improvised altars – ‫במֹות‬:ּ ָ Before the Temple was built, there were periods when sacrificing on improvised altars was permitted. Any Jew, including a non-priest, was permitted to construct an altar and sacrifice certain offerings, primarily voluntary burntofferings and peace-offerings. During this period, only obligatory offerings and public offerings were brought on the public altar, such as the one in Nob or Gibeon. After the construction of the Temple in Jerusalem, improvised altars were prohibited forever. Still, for many generations people continued to unlawfully bring offerings to God upon improvised altars.

‫יה? ַּת ְר ֵּתי‬ ּ ‫ ַהאי ְמנָ א ֵל‬,‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬And Rabbi Yehuda, who already used the phrase “in any one” .‫ ׁ ָש ְמ ַע ְּת ִמ ָּינ ּה‬to derive the halakha he taught in the mishna, from where does he derive this halakha concerning improvised altars? According to Rabbi Yehuda, you learn two things from the same phrase. ‫ ִמ ַּמאי דִּ ְל ָה ִכי דְּ ָק ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ו ְּל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ דִּ ְיל ָמא ִּכ ְד ָק ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ ‫ ָלא ָס ְל ָקא‬:‫הוּא דַּ ֲא ָתא? ָא ַמר ָל ְך‬ .‫״א ׁיש ְל ִפי ָא ְכלֹו״‬ ִ :‫ דְּ ָהא ְּכ ִתיב‬, ְ‫דַּ ֲע ָתך‬

And for Rabbi Yosei, from where does he know that the phrase “in any one” should be expounded as Rabbi Shimon said it should be? Perhaps it comes to teach what Rabbi Yehuda said? Rabbi Yosei could have said to you: This cannot enter your mind, because it is written with regard to the Paschal lamb: “According to every man’s eating you shall make your count for the lamb” (Exodus 12:4). Since the verse states “man” in the singular, it indicates that the Paschal lamb can be slaughtered even for an individual.

‫יה ַרב ע ּו ְק ָבא ַ ּבר ִח ינָ נָ א‬ ּ ‫ְר ֵמי ֵל‬ ‫ ִמי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬:‫ישנָ א ְל ָר ָבא‬ ְ ׁ ‫ִמ ּ ְפ ִר‬ ,‫ֹוח ִטין ֶאת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ַעל ַהּיָ ִחיד‬ ֲ ‫ֵאין ׁש‬ ‫ֹוח ִטין‬ ֲ ‫אשֹון – ׁש‬ ׁ ‫ ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ָ ּב ִר‬:ּ‫ו ְּר ִמינְ הו‬ ‫אֹות ּה‬ ָ ‫עֹושין‬ ׂ ִ ‫ ו ַּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬,‫יה ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ ָמ ּה‬ ָ ‫ָע ֶל‬ !‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ְט ֵפ ָילה ַל ֲא ֵח ִרים‬ ‫״ב ְפנֵי ַעצְ ָמ ּה״‬ ּ ִ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ָלא ֵּת‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ .‫״ב ְפנֵי ַעצְ ָמן״‬ ּ ִ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ֶא ָּלא ֵא‬

Rav Ukva bar Ĥinana from Perishna raised a contradiction to Rava: Did Rabbi Yehuda actually say: We do not slaughter the Paschal lamb on behalf of an individual? But we may raise a contradiction from a baraita: In the case of a woman, on the first Pesaĥ, one slaughters the Paschal lamb on her behalf, even if she is by herself. And on the second Pesaĥ, we make her ancillary to others, i.e., she may join others in a group registered for a Paschal lamb but we do not slaughter a lamb on her behalf if she is by herself; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. The baraita clearly records Rabbi Yehuda as permitting the offering of a Paschal lamb on behalf of an individual. Rava said to him: Do not say Rabbi Yehuda allows slaughtering the Paschal lamb for a woman by herself; rather, say he allows slaughtering only for a group of women by themselves.

‫ ִמי ָע ְב ִדינַן ֲחבו ָּרה ׁ ֶש ּכו ָּּל ּה‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫עֹושין ֲחב ּו ַרת‬ ִׂ ‫ ֵאין‬:‫נָשים? וְ ָה ְתנַ ן‬ ִׁ – ‫ ַמאי ָלאו‬.‫נָשים וַ ֲע ָב ִדים ו ְּק ַט ּנִים‬ ִׁ ,ּ‫ וַ ֲע ָב ִדים ְלחו ַּדיְ יהו‬,ּ‫נָשים ְלחו ַּדיְ יהו‬ ִׁ : ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ּו ְק ַט ִּנים ְל ח ּו ַד יְ יה ּו ? ֲא ַמ ר ֵל‬ ‫נָשים‬ ִ ׁ .‫נָשים וַ ֲע ָב ִדים ּו ְק ַט ּנִים‬ ִ ׁ ,‫ל ֹא‬ ‫ ְק ַט ּנִים‬,‫וַ ֲע ָב ִדים – ִמ ׁ ּש ּום ִּת ְפלוּת‬ ‫וַ ֲע ָב ִדים – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬

Rav Ukva questioned this answer and said to him: Do we make a group that is entirely composed of women? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: We do not make a group for a Paschal lamb that consists of women, slaves, and minors. What, is the mishna not referring to forming a group that is composed exclusively of women by themselves and slaves by themselves and minors by themselves? Rava said to him: No, the mishna is referring only to forming a group that is composed of women and slaves and minors together, but a group composed exclusively of women, or slaves, or minors would be permitted. It is prohibited to form a group containing both women and slaves, due to a concern that it may lead to frivolity. It is prohibited to form a group of minors and slaves, due to a concern that it may lead to



Replica of an ancient altar whose remnants were excavated in Tel Be’er Sheva. The altar was probably dismantled during the time of Hezekiah.

Excavations at Tel Be’er Sheva halakha

The Paschal lamb on an improvised altar – ‫יָחיד‬ ִ ‫ה ּ ֶפ ַסח ְ ּב ָב ַמת‬:ַ The Paschal lamb can be slaughtered only in the Temple courtyard. Indeed, even when improvised altars were permitted, it was prohibited to offer the Paschal lamb on a personal altar (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 1:3).

‫אצ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Perek VIII . 91a 

163

Perek VIII Daf 91 Amud b halakha

Women and the Paschal lamb – ‫נָשים ְ ּב ָק ְר ָ ּבן ּ ֶפ ַסח‬: ִ ׁ The Paschal lamb may be slaughtered on behalf of a woman both on the first Pesaĥ and the second Pesaĥ (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 2:4). The halakha was decided in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, since the halakha generally adopts his opinion, as opposed to those of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon.

.‫ ּ ְפ ִריצו ָּתא‬promiscuity, i.e., homosexual behavior. ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ֹוח ִטין ָע ֶל‬ ֲ ‫אשֹון – ׁש‬ ׁ ‫ ָ ּב ִר‬,‫ ִא ׁ ּ ָשה‬:‫ּגו ָּפא‬ ‫אֹות ּה‬ ָ ‫עֹושין‬ ׂ ִ – ‫ ו ַּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬,‫ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ ָמ ּה‬ .‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ְט ִפ ָילה ַל ֲא ֵח ִרים‬ ‫ֹוח ִטין‬ ֲ ‫ ִא ׁ ּ ָשה – ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי ׁש‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫יך‬ ְ ‫ וְ ֵאין צָ ִר‬,‫יה ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ ָמ ּה‬ ָ ‫ָע ֶל‬ ,‫ ִא ׁ ּ ָשה‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬.‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ָ ּב ִר‬ ‫ילה‬ ָ ‫אֹות ּה ְט ִפ‬ ָ ‫עֹושין‬ ִׂ – ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ָ ּב ִר‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ֹוח ִטין ָע ֶל‬ ֲ ‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי – ֵאין ׁש‬,‫ַל ֲא ֵח ִרים‬ ּ ָ ‫ָּכל ִע‬ .‫יקר‬

The Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself, i.e., the baraita partly cited previously, the full version of which states: A woman; on the first Pesaĥ, one slaughters the Paschal lamb on her behalf even if she is by herself. And on the second Pesaĥ, we make her ancillary to others, i.e., she may join others in a group registered for a Paschal lamb but we do not slaughter a lamb on her behalf if she is by herself; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: A woman; on the second Pesaĥ, one slaughters the Paschal lamb on her behalf even if she is by herself. And needless to say we also slaughter on her behalf even if she is by herself on the first Pesaĥ. Rabbi Shimon says: A woman; on the first Pesaĥ we make her ancillary to others, and on the second Pesaĥ we do not slaughter on her behalf at all.h

:‫יפ ְלגִ י? ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ָס ַבר‬ ַ ּ ‫ְ ּב ַמאי ָק ִמ‬ ּ ‫״ב ִמ ְכ ַסת נְ ָפ ׁשֹת״ – וַ ֲא ִפ‬ .‫נָשים‬ ִ ׁ ‫יל ּו‬ ְּ – ‫ימא ִאי ָה ִכי ֲא ִפילּ ּו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי נַ ִמי‬ ָ ‫וְ ִכי ֵּת‬ ,‫״ח ְטאֹו יִ ּ ָ ׂשא ָה ִא ׁיש ַההוּא״‬ ֶ :‫ְּכ ִתיב‬ .‫ ִא ׁ ּ ָשה – ָלא‬,‫ִא ׁיש – ִאין‬

With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara explains that they disagree about how to interpret the various verses that refer to the first and second Pesaĥ: Rabbi Yehuda holds that the use of the word souls in the verse: “According to the number of the souls…you shall make your count for the lamb” (Exodus 12:4), includes everyone, and even women, in the first Pesaĥ. And if you say that if so, even on the second Pesaĥ, women should also be included, but it is written with regard to one who had not offered a Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ and then neglected to bring one on the second Pesaĥ: “That man shall bear his sin” (Numbers 9:13), which indicates that a man, yes, he is liable for not having brought a Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ, but a woman, no, she is not liable.

‫ ִאי ָה ִכי ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְט ִפ ָילה נַ ִמי‬,‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִכי ֵּת‬And if you say that if so, a woman should be totally excluded from ‫״כ ָכל ֻח ַ ּקת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח״‬ ְּ ‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי ָלא – ַא ֲהנֵי‬participating in the second Pesaĥ, and even in a group in an ancillary .‫ ִל ְט ִפ ָילה ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא‬manner on the second Pesaĥ she should have no part, this is not correct, because the verse states: “According to the entire statute of the Paschal lamb they shall offer it” (Numbers 9:12). The verse compares the first Pesaĥ to the second, and it is therefore effective to enable women to be included in a group in a merely ancillary manner. ‫יֹוסי ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ֵ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫״ב ִמ ְכ ַסת נְ ָפ ׁשֹת״ – וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬ ּ ְ :‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ָ ּב ִר‬ ‫ ״וְ נִ ְכ ְר ָתה‬:‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬,‫ִא ׁ ּ ָשה‬ ‫ נֶ ֶפ ׁש – וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬,‫יה״‬ ָ ‫ַה ֶּנ ֶפ ׁש ַה ִהוא ֵמ ַע ֶּמ‬ ‫״ח ְטאֹו יִ ּ ָ ׂשא ָה ִא ׁיש‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ֶא ָּלא‬.‫נָשים‬ ִׁ ‫עֹוטי ָק ָטן‬ ֵ ‫עֹוטי ַמאי? ְל ַמ‬ ֵ ‫ַההוּא״ ְל ַמ‬ .‫ִמ ָּכ ֵרת‬

And Rabbi Yosei, what is the reason for his opinion? As it is written with regard to the first Pesaĥ: “According to the number of the souls,” which includes even a woman. And it is written with regard to the second Pesaĥ: “The man who is ritually pure, and is not on a journey, and refrains from offering the Paschal lamb, that same soul shall be cut off from among his people” (Numbers 9:13). The word soul includes even women. But if so, the conclusion of that verse, which states: “That man shall bear his sin,” which appears to emphasize that specifically a man is liable for not participating in the second Pesaĥ, is there to exclude what case? It is there to exclude a minor who did not participate in the Paschal lamb from the punishment of karet.n

– ‫״א ׁיש״‬ ִ ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ ְּכ ִתיב ָ ּב ִר‬:‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ ‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬,‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִכי ֵּת‬.‫ ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ָלא‬,‫ִא ׁיש ִאין‬ ּ ‫ֲא ִפ‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫יל ּו ְט ִפ ָילה נַ ִמי ָלא – ַא ֲהנִי ֵל‬ .‫״ב ִמ ְכ ַסת נְ ָפ ׁשֹת״ ִל ְט ִפ ָילה‬ ְּ

And Rabbi Shimon, what is the reason for his opinion? It is written in a verse concerning the first Pesaĥ “man.” This teaches that a man, yes, a Paschal lamb may be brought on his behalf alone, but a woman, no. And if you say that if so, a woman should be totally excluded from participating even in a group in an ancillary manner, this is not correct, because the verse states: “According to the number of the souls,” which certainly includes women, and it is therefore effective to enable women to be included in a group in an ancillary manner.

notes

To exclude a minor from karet – ‫עֹוטי ָק ָטן ִמ ָּכ ֵרת‬ ֵ ‫ל ַמ‬:ְ Since a minor is not obligated to perform any of the mitzvot, why is it necessary to state that he is not liable to receive karet if he fails to offer the Paschal sacrifice? Some suggest this may be understood based

164 

Perek VIII . 91b . ‫אצ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ח‬

upon the view that young children can be punished for the sins of their parents. It is therefore necessary to teach that a minor is not liable to karet, even if his parents neglect to offer the Paschal lamb (Sefat Emet).

ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬:‫ימא‬ ‫יעט‬ ֵ ‫יל ּו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי נַ ִמי – ִמ‬ ָ ‫וְ ִכי ֵּת‬ ‫״ח ְטאֹו יִ ּ ָ ׂשא‬ ֶ ‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ‫ ִמ ַּמאי‬.‫ ִא ׁ ּ ָשה – ָלא‬,‫ָה ִא ׁיש״ – ִא ׁיש – ִאין‬ ‫יה? ִאי ֵמ ִחּיוּב – ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא‬ ּ ‫ָק ַמ ְמ ִעיט ֵל‬ – ‫ ֶא ָּלא ָלאו‬.‫יב ֲעיָא‬ ּ ָ ‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי ִמ‬,‫אשֹון ל ֹא‬ ׁ ‫ָ ּב ִר‬ .‫ִמ ְּט ִפ ָילה‬

And if you say that according to this, even on the second Pesaĥ women should be able to participate as part of a group, this is not correct, because the Torah excludes women from participating on the second Pesaĥ, as it is written: “That man shall bear his sin.” This indicates that a man, yes; a woman, no. From what precisely does the verse exclude women? If you say it is from the obligation to participate in the second Pesaĥ, this cannot be. Since now, on the first Pesaĥ, a woman has no obligation, on the second Pesaĥ is it necessary to say that a woman is not obligated? This is obvious, since the second Pesaĥ exists only as a second opportunity for those who neglected to participate in the first Pesaĥ. Rather, is it not clear that the verse excludes women from participating even in an ancillary fashion?

‫ו ַּמאי ִא ׁיש דְּ ָק ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון? ִאי‬ ‫נֵימא ״וְ יִ ְקח ּו ָל ֶהם ִא ׁיש ֶ ׂשה ְל ֵבית ָאבֹות‬ ָ ,‫יה ְל ִכ ְד ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק‬ ּ ָ ‫וגו׳״ – ַההוּא ִמ‬ ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ .‫זֹוכה‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ֵאין ָק ָטן‬,‫זֹוכה‬ ֶ ‫ ִא ׁיש‬:‫דְּ ָא ַמר‬

The Gemara clarifies the source for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that women are excluded also from the first Pesaĥ. And what is the verse that employs the term “man” that Rabbi Shimon spoke of with regard to the first Pesaĥ? If we say that he is referring to the verse: “They shall take to them every man a lamb, according to their fathers’ houses, a lamb for a household” (Exodus 12:3), this is incorrect, because he needs that verse for the derivation of Rabbi Yitzĥak, who said: We learn from that verse that only a man, i.e., an adult, can acquire an object on behalf of others;h but a minor cannot acquire on behalf of others.n

‫״א ׁיש ְל ִפי ָא ְכלֹו״ – ָהא ִמדְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ִ ‫וְ ֶא ָּלא ֵמ‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬,‫יֹוסי ָס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ ֵ ‫יב ֵעי‬ ּ ָ ‫ וְ ַההוּא ִמ‬,‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫נַ ִמי ָס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬ !‫ֹוח ִטין ֶאת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ַעל ַהּיָ ִחיד‬ ֲ ‫יה דְּ ׁש‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬

Rather, perhaps Rabbi Shimon derived his halakha from the verse: “According to every man’s eating you shall make your count for the lamb” (Exodus 12:4). This is problematic. Since Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that a Paschal lamb cannot be offered on an improvised altar, presumably Rabbi Shimon also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, that a Paschal lamb can be slaughtered for an individual. If so, Rabbi Shimon needs that verse, “according to every man’s eating,” in order to teach that we may slaughter the Paschal lamb for an individual, since that verse is the source of Rabbi Yosei’s halakha.

‫״ל ִפי‬ ְ ‫ ִאם ֵּכן נִ ְכ ּתֹוב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָל ְך‬The Gemara justifies that Rabbi Shimon does indeed use the verse as ‫״א ׁיש״ – ׁ ָש ְמ ַע ְּת ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ ִ ‫ ָא ְכלֹו״ ַמאי‬the source of his opinion with regard to the first Pesaĥ: Rabbi Shimon .‫ ַּת ְר ֵּתי‬could have said to you: If so, if it were true that the verse was only meant to teach Rabbi Yosei’s halakha concerning improvised altars, the Torah should have simply written: According to his eating, which is phrased in the singular and therefore indicates that the Paschal lamb may be slaughtered for an individual. What then is the significance of the additional term “man”? It must be that you learn from the verse two separate halakhot, that the Paschal lamb may be slaughtered for an individual and that it must be for a man and not a woman. :‫ְּכ ַמאן ָאזְ ָלא ָהא דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ,‫ ו ַּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי ְר ׁשוּת‬,‫חֹובה‬ ָ ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ָ ּב ִר‬ ‫ ַא ַּמאי‬,‫ ִאי ְר ׁשוּת‬.‫דֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ֶ ְ‫ו‬ ‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת? ֶא ָּלא ֵא‬ ֶ ּ‫ד‬ ‫דֹוחה ֶאת‬ ֶ ְ‫ ו‬,‫חֹובה‬ ָ ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ ו ָּב ִר‬,‫ְר ׁשוּת‬ .‫ ְּכ ַמאן ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬

halakha

A man can acquire on behalf of others – ‫זֹוכה‬ ֶ ‫א ׁיש‬:ִ An adult can legally acquire something for others and serve as an agent. However, a minor does not have the legal right to acquire on behalf of others and cannot serve as an agent (Rambam Sefer Kinyan, Hilkhot Sheluĥin VeShutafin 2:2). The second Pesaĥ is optional for a woman – ‫ִא ׁ ּ ָשה‬ ‫ב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי ְר ׁשוּת‬:ּ ַ The second Pesaĥ is optional for women. Therefore, if the second Pesaĥ occurs on Shabbat, the Paschal lamb may not be slaughtered solely for women. In this regard, the Rambam rules in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda and not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Yehuda holds that women do not have an absolute obligation with regard to the second Pesaĥ. The Rambam relies on Rabbi Elazar, who agrees with Rabbi Yehuda (Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 5:8 and 7:3). A group of converts – ‫חבו ַּרת ֵ ּג ִרים‬:ֲ A group composed entirely of converts is not allowed to eat the Paschal lamb ab initio, due to the concern that they will be overly meticulous and will end up causing the sacrifice to be disqualified. After the fact, a group composed entirely of converts is valid (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 2:4). The Paschal lamb and matza and bitter herbs – ‫פ ַסח ו ַּמ ָ ּצה ו ָּמרֹור‬:ֶ ּ Eating matza, which fulfills a mitzva from the Torah even today, and eating bitter herbs, which nowadays fulfills a rabbinic decree, are mandatory on the first night of Passover and optional for the duration of the Festival (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 475:7). notes

A minor cannot acquire on behalf of others – ‫ֵאין‬ ‫זֹוכה‬ ֶ ‫ק ָטן‬:ָ Some explain that this principle is specifically written in the verse concerning the Paschal lamb. Since it is possible to include minors in one’s offering and they may partake of it, the verse therefore emphasizes that a minor still may not acquire a portion for others, because even his own portion is not independently his (Tosafot on tractate Kiddushin).

In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabbi Elazar said: A woman’s participation in the first Pesaĥ is mandatory, and her participation in the second Pesaĥ is optionalh and overrides Shabbat? Before resolving this question, the Gemara questions whether Rabbi Elazar’s opinion is even reasonable: If offering the second Pesaĥ is optional for a woman, why does it override Shabbat? Rather, emend his statement and say: A woman’s participation in the second Pesaĥ is optional, and her participation in the first Pesaĥ is mandatory and overrides Shabbat. In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yehuda, as stated previously.

‫ ֵאין‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יַ ֲעקֹב ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabbi Ya’akov said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: We do not make a group for the Paschal lamb that is composed entirely of converts, because ‫ ׁ ֶש ָּמא‬,‫עֹושין ֲחב ּו ָרה ׁ ֶש ּכו ָּּל ּה ֵ ּג ִרים‬ ִׂ .‫ יְ ַד ְקדְּ ק ּו ּבֹו וִ ִיביאוּה ּו ִל ֵידי ּ ְפסוּל‬perhaps they will be overly meticulous with it and cause it to become unnecessarily disqualified. Converts can be especially zealous in their observance, and out of ignorance may cause an offering to be unnecessarily disqualified by adding extra details to the requirements of the offering.h ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ ּ ֶפ ַסח ו ַּמ ָ ּצה ו ָּמרֹור – ָ ּב ִר‬:‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬The Sages taught in a baraita: Eating the Paschal lamb and matza and bitter herbsh on the first night of Passover is mandatory. From here ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬.‫ ִמ ָּכאן וְ ֵא ָילךְ ְר ׁשוּת‬,‫חֹובה‬ ָ on, i.e., the remaining days, it is optional. Rabbi Shimon says: For .‫נָשים ְר ׁשוּת‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ו ְּב‬,‫חֹובה‬ ָ ‫נָשים‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ַ ּב ֲא‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ men it is mandatory and for women it is optional. 

‫אצ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Perek VIII . 91b 

165

notes

Women and the mitzva to eat matza – ‫נָשים ַ ּב ֲא ִכ ַילת ַמ ָ ּצה‬: ִׁ Although women are exempt from time-bound, positive mitzvot, a category which includes the consumption of matza, there are some exceptions to this rule, including, among others, the mitzvot to eat matza on the first night of Passover and to recite kiddush on Shabbat. An acute mourner immerses and eats – ‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ ְ‫טֹובל ו‬ ֵ ‫אֹונֵ ן‬: The halakhot of acute mourning are derived from the verses concerning Aaron on the day his sons died. The verse “Behold, this day have they offered their sin-offering” (Leviticus 10:19) teaches that, by Torah law, the period of acute mourning applies only on the day of death (Rabbeinu Yehonatan). The Gemara further derives from the verse “and its end as a bitter day” (Amos 8:10) that the halakhot of acute mourning apply the entire day, but only to the day. The extension of the halakhot of acute mourning to the night following the first day is by rabbinic decree. Although the mourning period continues into the following seven- and then thirty-day period, only the period of acute mourning carries prohibitions related to the Temple and offerings. halakha

An acute mourner with regard to the Paschal sacrifice and other sacrificial food – ‫אֹונֵן ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח ו ַּב ָ ּק ָד ׁ ִשים‬: An acute mourner immerses and eats his Paschal sacrifice in the evening. However, he may not eat other sacrificial food (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 6:9 and Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Biat HaMikdash 2:10).

– ‫ימא ַא ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ָ ‫יל‬ ֵ ‫ַא ַהּיָ יא ָק ֵאי? ִא‬ ‫יכא? וְ ֶא ָּלא‬ ָּ ‫ּ ֶפ ַסח ָּכל ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ִמי ִא‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יפא‬ ָ ‫ימא ֵס‬ ָ ‫ַא ַּמ ָ ּצה ו ָּמרֹור – ֵא‬ ‫חֹובה‬ ָ ‫ ַ ּב ֲאנָ ׁ ִשים‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ .‫נָשים ְר ׁשוּת‬ ִ ׁ ‫ו ְּב‬

The Gemara clarifies the precise intention of the last clause of the first tanna: To which part of the baraita does the halakha that eating after the first night is optional refer? If you say it is referring to the Paschal lamb, is there a Paschal lamb all seven days? Certainly not, and consequently it does not make sense to speak of whether eating it is mandatory or optional after the first night. Rather, if you say that it is referring to matza and bitter herbs, how will you say and explain accordingly the last part of the baraita, i.e., Rabbi Shimon says: For men it is mandatory and for women it is optional. If the second clause is referring only to matza and bitter herbs, then Rabbi Shimon would appear to be saying that women are exempt from eating them.

‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ָהא דְּ ָא ַמר‬ ּ ‫ֵלית ֵל‬ ‫נָשים ַחּיָ יבֹות ַ ּב ֲא ִכ ַילת‬ ִ ׁ :‫ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ‫ ״ל ֹא‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ַמ ָ ּצה דְּ ַבר ּת ָֹורה‬ ‫ֹאכל ָע ָליו ָח ֵמץ ׁ ִש ְב ַעת יָ ִמים‬ ַ ‫ת‬ ‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶשּיֶ ׁ ְשנֹו‬.‫ֹאכל ָע ָליו ַמ ּצֹות״‬ ַ ‫ּת‬ ‫ֹאכל ָח ֵמץ״ – יֶ ׁ ְשנֹו ְ ּבקוּם‬ ַ ‫״בל ּת‬ ַ ‫ְ ּב‬ ‫יֶשנָן‬ ְ ׁ ְ‫הֹואיל ו‬ ִ ,‫נָשים‬ ִ ׁ ‫ וְ ָהנֵי‬.‫ֱאכֹול ַמ ָ ּצה‬ ‫ֹאכל ָח ֵמץ – יֶ ׁ ְשנָ ן ְ ּבק ּום‬ ַ ‫ְ ּב ַבל ּת‬ !‫ֱאכֹול ַמ ָ ּצה‬

This is difficult: Does Rabbi Shimon not accept that which Rabbi Elazar said, that women are obligated in the command of eating matza by Torah law, despite the fact that it is a time-bound, positive mitzva, as it is stated: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shall you eat matzot with it” (Deuteronomy 16:3), which teaches that all who are subject to the prohibition to not eat leavened bread are also subject to the positive mitzva to arise and eat matza? And those women, since they are subject to the prohibition to not eat leavened bread, since women are required to observe all the prohibitions of the Torah, they are subject also to the positive mitzva to arise and eat matza.n Clearly, Rabbi Shimon was not referring to matza.

– ‫ ּ ֶפ ַסח ַמ ָ ּצה ו ָּמרֹור‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ֶא ָּלא ֵא‬ .‫ ִמ ָּכאן וְ ֵא ָילךְ ְר ׁשוּת‬,‫חֹובה‬ ָ ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ָ ּב ִר‬ ‫נָשים‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ּ ֶפ ַסח ַ ּב ֲא‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ .‫נָשים ְר ׁשוּת‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ְ ּב‬,‫חֹובה‬ ָ

Rather, say instead that the baraita should be read as follows: Eating the Paschal lamb, matza, and bitter herbs on the first day of Passover is mandatory. From here on, i.e., the remaining days of Passover, it is optional to eat matza and bitter herbs. Rabbi Shimon says: The Paschal lamb is mandatory for men and optional for women, in accordance with his opinion stated previously.

mishna 

An acute mourner, i.e., a mourner on the day ‫אֹוכל ֶאת‬ ֵ ְ‫טֹובל ו‬ ֵ ‫מתני׳ אֹונֵ ן‬ of the death of an immediate relative, is pro.‫ ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ְ ּב ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬,‫ּ ִפ ְסחֹו ָל ֶע ֶרב‬ hibited from eating sacrificial food. By Torah law, the prohibition ‫ֹומ ַע ַעל ֵמתֹו‬ ֵ ‫ ַה ׁ ּש‬applies only to the day of death itself, but it is permitted to partake of sacrificial food on the following night. By rabbinic decree, the period of acute mourning is extended to include the night as well. Despite this, an acute mourner immerses and eatsn his Paschal lamb in the evening. But he may still not eat other sacrificial food.h However, one who hears about the death of his dead, i.e., he discovers that one of his immediate relatives died more than thirty days after the death, his status of acute mourning applies on a rabbinic level.

Perek VIII Daf 92 Amud a background

Gathering bones – ‫ליקוּט ֲעצָ מֹות‬:ִ There was a different burial custom in the period of the Second Temple and for hundreds of years thereafter. The custom was to temporarily bury the deceased in the ground and to wait a few years until all the flesh decayed. The bones would then be collected together and placed in a stone ossuary, which was then placed in a niche in the family burial cave.

‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ ְ‫טֹובל ו‬ ֵ – ‫ וְ ַה ְמ ַל ֵ ּקט לֹו ֲעצָ מֹות‬And one who gathers the bones of his parents, who are buried in a .‫ ַ ּב ֳ ּק ָד ׁ ִשים‬temporary location for their flesh to decay and who is moving them to a permanent burial placeb must also observe a day of acute mourning by rabbinic decree. These mourners immerse and eat all types of sacrificial food at night.h Since in these cases, even during the day, the mourning is by rabbinic decree, the Sages did not extend it into the evening.

Burial cave and ossuary in Beit She’arim

One who hears about the death of his dead and one who gathers the bones of his parents – ‫ֹומ ַע ַעל ֵמתֹו‬ ֵ ‫ַה ׁ ּש‬ ‫וְ ַה ְמ ַל ֵ ּקט ֲעצָ מֹות‬: One who hears that a relative has passed away after the day of death and one who gathers a relative’s bones may not consume sacrificial food on that day,

halakha

166 

Perek VIII . 92a . ‫בצ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ח‬

due to rabbinic decree. However, they may immerse and then eat sacrificial food at night, and they may certainly eat the Paschal sacrifice (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Biat HaMikdash 2:10 and Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 6:9).

‫ ֵ ּבית‬,‫ֵ ּגר ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַ ּגּיֵ יר ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ ְ‫טֹובל ו‬ ֵ :‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬ ‫ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל‬,‫ֶאת ּ ִפ ְסחֹו ָל ֶע ֶרב‬ ‫ ַה ּפ ֵֹור ׁש ִמן ָה ָע ְר ָלה‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ .‫פֹור ׁש ִמן ַה ֶ ּק ֶבר‬ ֵ ‫ְּכ‬

:‫גמ׳ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ָקא ָס ַבר‬ ‫ וְ גַ ֵ ּבי ּ ֶפ ַסח‬,‫ֲאנִינוּת דְּ ַליְ ָלה דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫יהם ִ ּב ְמקֹום‬ ֶ ‫ל ֹא ֶה ֱע ִמיד ּו דִּ ְב ֵר‬ ‫ ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ָק ָד ׁ ִשים – ֶה ֱע ִמיד ּו‬.‫ָּכ ֵרת‬ .‫יהם ִ ּב ְמקֹום ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬ ֶ ‫דִּ ְב ֵר‬

‫ ְמ ַל ֵ ּקט‬.‫ֹומ ַע ַעל ֵמתֹו וכו׳״‬ ֵ ‫״ה ׁ ּש‬ ַ ‫ישי‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ָהא ָ ּב ֵעי ַהּזָ ַאת ׁ ְש ִל‬,‫ֲעצָ מֹות‬ ְּ ‫ ׁ ֶש ִּל‬:‫ימא‬ ‫יקט ּו לֹו‬ ָ ‫יעי! ֵא‬ ִ ‫ּו ׁ ְש ִב‬ .‫ֲעצָ מֹות‬

With regard to a convert who converted on Passover eve, Beit Shammai say: He immerses and eats his Paschal lamb in the evening. And Beit Hillel say: One who separates from the foreskinn by being circumcised is ritually impure, like one who separates from the grave after coming in contact with a corpse. Consequently, he must first observe the seven-day purification process necessary to remove ritually impurity imparted by a corpse. Only then, from the eighth day onward, may he partake of sacrificial meat.

gemara 

What is the reason that an acute mourner may eat the Paschal lamb in the evening? The tanna of the mishna holds that the observance of acute mourning at night after the day of one’s relative’s death is a rabbinic prohibition. And with regard to the Paschal lamb, the Sages waived their prohibition because they did not uphold their statement prohibiting consumption of sacrificial food in a situation in which doing so would violate a prohibition that carries the punishment of karet, as is the case with one who neglects to offer the Paschal lamb. On the other hand, with regard to other sacrificial food, they maintained the prohibition, because they upheld their statement in a situation in which neglecting to eat the sacrificial food entails only the neglect of a positive mitzva.

We learned in the mishna: One who hears about the death of his dead relative more than thirty days after the death and one who gathers bones immerse and eat sacrificial food in the evening. The Gemara expresses surprise: Can this apply to one who gathers bones? But by doing so he came in contact with the bones of a corpse, and he needs sprinkling on the third and seventh days in order to become ritually pure. The Gemara answers: Emend the teaching of the mishna and instead say: One for whom they gathered bones, meaning that other people gathered the bones of his parents to transfer them to a new grave but he himself did not touch them, has a rabbinical requirement to observe a day of acute mourning, but he is not ritually impure.

notes

One who separates from the foreskin – ‫ה ּפ ֵֹור ׁש ִמן ָה ָע ְר ָלה‬:ַ Wouldn’t it make more sense to state: One whose foreskin is separated from him? One commentator explains that the mishna’s unusual manner of expression specifically relates to a convert. The mishna teaches that gentiles are called uncircumcised even if have been circumcised. Therefore, when a gentile converts, it can be said that in addition to having his foreskin separated from him, he has separated himself from living with the essential character of one who is uncircumcised (Tiferet Yisrael). The dispute with regard to a convert – ‫לֹוקת ְ ּבגֵ ר‬ ֶ ‫ה ַּמ ֲח‬:ַ In the Jerusalem Talmud a different explanation of the dispute is suggested, based upon the verse “Whosoever has killed any person, and whosoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves on the third day and on the seventh day, you and your captives” (Numbers 31:19). Beit Hillel derives from this verse that captives taken as Canaanite slaves, as well as anyone who converts, require sprinkling of the waters of a purification offering on the third and seventh days, similar to one who came in contact with a corpse. Beit Shammai, however, interprets the verse differently. According to his understanding, it teaches that just as the Jewish people did not become susceptible to ritual impurity until they entered the covenant, the same applies to captives. halakha

An uncircumcised person who was circumcised on the eve of Passover – ‫ע ֵרל ׁ ֶש ָּמל ֶע ֶרב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬:ָ If a Jew is circumcised on Passover eve, he may eat the Paschal lamb at night. However, a gentile who converts and becomes circumcised must wait seven days to eat the Paschal lamb, because a gentile who separates from the foreskin is like one who separates from the grave (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 6:7).

ּ ֵ We learned in the mishna: With regard to a convert who con‫ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה‬.‫״גר ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַ ּגּיֵ יר וכו׳״‬ :‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬verted on Passover eve, there is a dispute between Beit Shammai ,‫לֹוקת ְ ּב ָע ֵרל גּ ֹוי‬ ֶ ‫ ַמ ֲח‬and Beit Hillel as to whether he may immerse and eat the Paschal sacrifice in the evening. The Gemara discusses the scope of this dispute: Rabba bar bar Ĥana said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said that the dispute is about an uncircumcised gentile that was circumcised and converted on Passover eve. ‫ ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ֶש ָּמא‬:‫דְּ ֵבית ִה ֵּלל ָס ְב ִרי‬ :‫ֹאמר‬ ַ ‫ וְ י‬,‫יִ ְט ָמא ַל ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה ַה ָ ּב ָאה‬ ‫יש ָּת ַק ד ִמ י ל ֹא ָט ַב ְל ִּתי‬ ְ ׁ ‫ֶא‬ ‫וְ ָא ַכ ְל ִּתי – ַע ְכ ׁ ָשיו נַ ִמי ֶא ְט ּבֹול‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא יָ ַדע דְּ ֶא ׁ ְש ָּת ַקד‬.‫אֹוכל‬ ַ ְ‫ו‬ .‫ וְ ל ֹא ְמ ַק ֵ ּבל טו ְּמ ָאה‬,‫גּ ֹוי ֲהוָ ה‬ ‫ ּו ְמ ַק ֵ ּב ל‬,‫ַע ְכ ׁ ָש יו יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵא ל‬ .‫טו ְּמ ָאה‬

Beit Hillel hold that there is a rabbinic decree due to a concern that perhaps he will become contaminated by a corpse in the following year and he will say: Last year, even though I had come in contact with a corpse previous to Passover, did I not immerse and eat the Paschal lamb without completing the purification process for impurity imparted by a corpse? Now also, I will immerse and eat. And he does not know and understand that last year, before his conversion on Passover eve, he was a gentile and therefore he was not susceptible to ritual impurity, because gentiles do not contract ritual impurity according to Torah law, but now he is a Jew and is susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, the Sages decreed that he should complete the seven-day purification process for impurity imparted by a corpse before he can partake of sacrificial food in order to avoid such a mistake.

.‫ ָלא ָ ּגזְ ִרינַ ן‬:‫ו ֵּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ָס ְב ִרי‬ ‫ֲא ָבל ָע ֵרל יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל‬ ,‫אֹוכל ֶאת ּ ִפ ְסחֹו ָל ֶע ֶרב‬ ֵ ְ‫טֹובל ו‬ ֵ ‫וְ ָלא ָ ּגזְ ִרינַן ָע ֵרל יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ .‫ָע ֵרל גּ ֹוי‬

And Beit Shammai hold that we do not make a decree due to this concern.n But with regard to an uncircumcised Jew who for some reason had not been circumcised until Passover eve, all agree that he may immerse and eat his Paschal lamb in the evening. The concern that he will err the following year does not apply, and we do not decree in the case of an uncircumcised Jew who was circumcised on Passover eve, due to concern that the case will be confused with that of an uncircumcised gentile who was circumcised and converted on Passover eve.h



‫בצ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Perek VIII . 92a 

167

language

Scalpel [izmel] – ‫איזְ ֵמל‬:ִ From the Greek σμίλη, smilè, meaning a small knife for cutting and engraving or a knife used for surgery.

Antique circumcision knife notes

Situations in which the Sages upheld or did not uphold their statement – ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ה ֱע ִמיד ּו וְ ל ֹא ֶה ֱע ִמיד ּו דִּ ְב ֵר‬:ֶ The early commentaries questioned why in some cases the Sages did uphold their decree in the face of karet whereas in other cases they did not. They suggest that wherever the decree was created to prevent a violation of Torah law, the rabbinic prohibition is maintained in all circumstances. For example, in the case of the convert who was circumcised, the rabbinic decree is to prevent the possibility that he will eat the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity the following year. In the cases of sprinkling and the circumcision scalpel, the decrees are to prevent carrying the requisite items on Shabbat in a manner that violates Torah law. However, in the other cases, the reason the rabbinic decrees were instituted was not in order to prevent a violation of Torah law. Therefore, these prohibitions were waived in the face of a prohibition that carries the punishment of karet (Rabbeinu Yehonatan; Me’iri ). The Rambam offers a different explanation: The reason the Sages upheld their decree in the case of one who was circumcised on Passover eve is that it is uncommon for one to be circumcised and immerse on the same day, since one generally waits to heal before immersing. The decree prohibiting sprinkling is also upheld because one remains unable to eat sacrificial food that day. Consequently, the decree would have been overridden on Shabbat for the purpose of changing one’s status after Shabbat, which is considered a dishonor of Shabbat. The Ra’avad disputes this explanation and presumably agreed with the explanation mentioned previously. Sprinkling [haza’a] – ‫הּזָ ָאה‬:ַ The term haza’a refers to the sprinkling of a mixture of the ashes of the red heifer with special water to purify a person from impurity imparted by a corpse. The ritual involves taking a bundle of three hyssop branches and using it to sprinkle the purification waters on the ritually impure person on the third and seventh days after he became ritually impure. Even though these waters purify those who are ritually impure, one who is ritually pure who touches or carries them, and the priest who sprinkles them, become ritually impure for one day. We may not bring it through…courtyards – ‫ֵאין‬ ‫יאין אֹותֹו…דֶּ ֶר ְך ֲחצֵ רֹות‬ ִ ‫מ ִב‬:ְ Most commentaries explain that the case of the scalpel is mentioned because refraining from performing the circumcision of one’s son or servant prevents one from being able to offer the Paschal lamb. Other authorities interpret the Gemara as referring to the fact that the rabbinic decree prevents performing the circumcision, although failing to perform the circumcision itself carries a punishment of karet (Rashash).

‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן‬,‫ַּתנְ יָ א נַ ִמי ָה ִכי‬ ‫ ל ֹא נֶ ְח ְלק ּו ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ו ֵּבית‬:‫ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ‫אֹוכל ֶאת‬ ֵ ְ‫ִה ֵּלל ַעל ָע ֵרל יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ׁ ֶש ּט ֵֹובל ו‬ ‫ ַעל ָמה נֶ ְח ְלק ּו – ַעל ָע ֵרל‬,‫ּ ִפ ְסחֹו ָל ֶע ֶרב‬ ‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ ְ‫טֹובל ו‬ ֵ :‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬.‫גּ ֹוי‬ :‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל‬,‫ֶאת ּ ִפ ְסחֹו ָל ֶע ֶרב‬ .‫פֹור ׁש ִמן ַה ֶ ּק ֶבר‬ ֵ ‫ַה ּפ ֵֹור ׁש ִמן ָה ָע ְר ָלה ְּכ‬

That was also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about the fact that an uncircumcised Jew who was circumcised on Passover eve may immerse and eat his Paschal lamb in the evening. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to an uncircumcised gentile who converted on Passover eve. Beit Shammai say that he may immerse and eat his Paschal lamb in the evening, and Beit Hillel say that one who separates from the foreskin is ritually impure like one who separates from the grave.

‫ ָע ֵרל ַהּזָ ָאה וְ ִאיזְ ֵמל – ֶה ֱע ִמיד ּו‬:‫ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ‫צֹורע ו ֵּבית‬ ָ ‫ אֹונֵן ו ְּמ‬.‫יהן ִ ּב ְמקֹום ָּכ ֵרת‬ ֶ ‫דִּ ְב ֵר‬ ‫יהן ִ ּב ְמקֹום‬ ֶ ‫ַה ּ ְפ ָרס – ל ֹא ֶה ֱע ִמיד ּו דִּ ְב ֵר‬ .‫ָּכ ֵרת‬

Rava said: With regard to an uncircumcised gentile who converted, sprinkling the purification waters to purify impurity imparted by a corpse, and a circumcision scalpel [izmel],l the Sages upheld their statement even in a situation in which doing so would violate a prohibition that carries the punishment of karet. However, with regard to an acute mourner, a leper, and a beit haperas, an area in which a doubt exists concerning the location of a grave or a corpse, they did not uphold their statement in a situation in which doing so would violate a prohibition that carries the punishment of karet.n

.‫ ָע ֵרל – ָהא דַּ ֲא ַמ ַרן‬The Gemara details all the cases Rava referred to: The case of an uncircumcised gentile who converted is as we have said previously. Beit Hillel disqualify a convert from offering the Paschal lamb, despite the fact that neglecting to do so renders one liable to receive karet. ‫ וְ ֵאינֹו‬,‫ ַהּזָ ָאה ׁ ְשבוּת‬:‫ ַהּזָ ָאה – דְּ ָא ַמר ָמר‬The case of sprinklingn the purification waters to purify impurity .‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ֶ ּ‫ ד‬imparted by a corpse is as the Master said in a mishna: Sprinkling is prohibited on Shabbat due to rabbinic decree,h and it does not override Shabbat even on Passover eve, despite the fact that one who requires sprinkling will then be unable to offer the Paschal lamb. ‫יאין‬ ִ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵשם ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְמ ִב‬:‫ִאיזְ ֵמל – דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬ ‫יאין‬ ִ ‫ ָּכךְ ֵאין ְמ ִב‬,‫אֹותֹו דֶּ ֶרךְ ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים‬ ‫אֹותֹו דֶּ ֶר ְך ַ ּגגּ ֹות וְ ֶד ֶר ְך ֲחצֵ רֹות וְ ֶד ֶר ְך‬ .‫ַק ְר ּ ֵפיפֹות‬

The case of the circumcision scalpel is as it was taught in a baraita: If a circumcision scalpel was not brought to the location of the baby from before Shabbat, just as we may not bring it through a public domain in violation of Torah law, so too we may not bring it through roofs, through courtyards,n and through enclosures, even though carrying in this manner is prohibited by rabbinic decree.h One who has an uncircumcised member of his household may not bring a Paschal lamb and is liable for karet. The Sages maintained the prohibition of carrying the scalpel in all circumstances, even when doing so would mean the baby would remain uncircumcised on Passover eve, preventing his household from offering a Paschal lamb.

.‫ אֹונֵן – ָהא דַּ ֲא ַמ ַרן‬The Gemara lists the cases where the Sages waived their prohibition in the face of a prohibition carrying the punishment of karet: The case of an acute mourner is that which we said in the mishna. ‫צֹורע ׁ ֶש ָחל‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬:‫צֹורע ַמאי ִהיא – דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬The case of the leper, what is it? It is as it was taught in a baraita: A ‫ וְ ָר ָאה ֶק ִרי ּבֹו‬,‫ ׁ ְש ִמינִי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹו ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬leper is ritually impure and must undergo an involved, eight-day .‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ ְ‫טֹובל ו‬ ֵ – ‫ ַ ּבּיֹום‬purification process, which culminates on the eighth day with the bringing of various offerings in the Temple. If his eighth day occurs on Passover eve, such that it would be possible to bring his offerings and be fit to partake of the Paschal lamb that evening, and he saw an occurrence of semen on that day, and one who experiences such a discharge is ritually impure and prohibited from entering the Temple, he may immerse in order to purify himself from the discharge and then bring his offerings and eat the Paschal lamb at night.h halakha

Sprinkling is prohibited due to rabbinic decree – ‫הּזָ ָאה ׁ ְשבוּת‬:ַ If one has become ritually impure due to contact with a corpse and the seventh day of his purification process is on Shabbat, he may not be sprinkled with the waters of a purification offering on Shabbat. If Passover eve is on Shabbat, he is not able to offer the Paschal lamb until the second Pesaĥ (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 6:6).

rabbinic decrees will be violated while transporting the scalpel (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 331:6).

A leper whose eighth day occurs on Passover eve – ‫צֹורע‬ ָ ‫ְמ‬ ‫ש ׁ ְּש ִמינִי ׁ ֶש ּלֹו ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬: ֶ ׁ If the eighth day of a leper’s purification process occurs on Passover eve and he experiences a discharge of semen on that day, he may immerse and then enter the Women’s Courtyard and sacrifice his offerings. The Sages waived the rabbinic Bringing the scalpel for a circumcision – ‫ה ָב ַאת ִאיזְ ֵמל ְל ִמ ָילה‬:ֲ prohibition of one who has immersed on that day from enterIf one forgot to bring the circumcision scalpel before Shabbat, ing the Women’s Courtyard, in order to allow the offering of the he may not violate Shabbat to bring it on that day, even if only Paschal lamb (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 6:5).

168 

Perek VIII . 92a . ‫בצ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ח‬

‫ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ְּטבוּל יֹום‬:‫ָא ְמר ּו ֲח ָכ ִמים‬ ‫ מו ָּטב יָ בֹא‬.‫ֵאינֹו נִ ְכנָ ס – זֶ ה נִ ְכנָ ס‬ ‫ וְ יִ ְד ֶחה ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬,‫ֲע ֵ ׂשה ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ּבֹו ָּכ ֵרת‬ .‫ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּבֹו ָּכ ֵרת‬

The Sages said: Although normally, with regard to ritual impurity from seminal discharge, one who has immersed on that day may not enter the Temple until nightfall, this one may enter. The reason is that it is better for a positive mitzva that has a punishment of karet, i.e., the bringing of the Paschal lamb, to come and override a positive mitzva that does not have a punishment of karet, i.e., the mitzva of “They shall send out from the camp every leper and whoever has had issue, and whoever is unclean by the dead” (Numbers 5:2), which requires the removal from the Temple of one who has immersed that day and will become pure only upon nightfall.

ּ ‫ דְּ ַבר ּת ָֹורה ֲא ִפ‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ‫יל ּו‬ ָ ‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ״וַ ּיַ ֲעמֹד‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ֲע ֵ ׂשה ֵא ין ּב ֹו‬ ‫הֹוש ָפט ִ ּב ְק ַהל יְ הו ָּדה וִ יר ּו ׁ ָש ַליִ ם‬ ָ ׁ ְ‫י‬ ‫ ַמאי‬.‫ְ ּב ֵבית ה׳ ִל ְפנֵי ֶה ָחצֵ ר ַה ֲח ָד ׁ ָשה״‬ ,‫ָחצֵ ר ַה ֲח ָד ׁ ָשה – ׁ ֶש ִחדְּ ׁש ּו ּבֹו דָּ ָבר‬ ‫ ְטבוּל יֹום ל ֹא יִ ָּכנֵס ְ ּב ַמ ֲחנֵ ה‬:ּ‫וְ ָא ְמרו‬ .‫ְלוִ ּיָ ה‬

And furthermore, Rabbi Yoĥanan said: By Torah law, there is not even a positive mitzva that restricts one who has immersed that day and will become pure only upon nightfall from entering the Temple, as it is stated: “And Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judea and Jerusalem, in the House of the Lord, before the new courtyard” (II Chronicles 20:5). What is indicated by identifying the courtyards as the new courtyard?n It indicates that they innovated something in it, and they said: One who has immersed on that day but will become pure only upon nightfall may not enter the Levite camp, which includes the entire Temple Mount. This suggests that the prohibition is of rabbinic origin and is not a positive mitzva.

notes

The new courtyard – ‫חצֵ ר ַה ֲח ָד ׁ ָשה‬:ָ Support for the idea that they introduced new decrees on that occasion is also alluded to from the fact that all of Israel gathered together to fast and repent. In order to reinforce Torah observance, it makes sense that they would have imposed new decrees at that time (Rashi).

‫ וְ ׁ ָשוִ ין ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬:‫ ֵ ּבית ַה ּ ְפ ָרס – דִּ ְתנַן‬The case of a beit haperas, in which the Sages did not uphold their ‫ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל‬decree, is as it was taught in a mishna: And Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree

Perek VIII Daf 92 Amud b ‫ וְ ֵאין ּב ְֹוד ִקין‬,‫עֹושי ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ׂ ֵ ‫ ׁ ֶש ּב ְֹוד ִקין ְל‬that we examine a beit haperasn that lies in the path to Jerusalem for .‫אֹוכ ֵלי ְּתרו ָּמה‬ ְ ‫ ְל‬those offering the Paschal lamb to determine whether there is actually any ritual impurity present, in order to enable those who pass through it to know whether they are still ritually pure and able to offer the Paschal lamb. But we do not examine a beit haperas for the sake of those eating teruma in order that they should be able to eat teruma in purity. The Gemara asks: ‫עֹושי ּ ֶפ ַסח)? ָא ַמר‬ ׂ ֵ ‫ַמאי ּב ְֹוד ִקין ְ(ל‬ ‫ ְמנַ ּ ֵפ ַח ֵ ּבית‬:‫ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫ ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ַ ּבר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬.‫הֹול ְך‬ ֵ ְ‫ַה ּ ְפ ָרס ו‬ ‫ ֵ ּבית ַה ּ ְפ ָרס‬:‫יה דְּ ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר‬ ּ ‫ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬ .‫ׁ ֶש ּנִידַּ ׁש ָטהֹור‬

‫הדרן עלך האשה‬

What is meant when we say that we examine for those offering the Paschal lamb?n Practically, how is it examined? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One must blow the dust on the path before taking each step in the beit haperash as he walks through it, in order to see if there is a hidden bone there. Rav Yehuda bar Abaye in the name of Rav Yehuda said: A beit haperas that has been trodden underfoot is considered ritually pure, since it is assumed that any bones that were there have been removed or broken. The impurity of a beit haperas is due to a rabbinic decree. The Sages waived this decree in a case where the necessary examination is made, in order to allow people to be able to offer their Paschal lambs. However, this leniency is limited to the case of the Paschal lamb, since its neglect carries the prohibition of karet. It is not extended to other cases, such as the prohibition to eat impure teruma.

notes

Beit haperas – ‫בית ַה ּ ְפ ָרס‬:ּ ֵ A beit haperas is a place that the Sages decreed ritually impure, as though it were a cemetery. There are three cases that are defined as a beit haperas: The first type is a field known to contain a grave, but the location of the grave within the field in not known. Therefore, the concern is that any particular part of the field may be where the grave is located. A second type is a field in which a grave was plowed over, and there is concern that the bones may have been scattered throughout an area the size of a onehundred-cubit furrow. The third kind is a field where people would eulogize the dead. It is considered a beit haperas because there is concern that part of a corpse may have fallen there. In all these cases, the concern is that there may be a bone even as small as the size of a kernel of barley, which can transmit ritual impurity but may be too small to notice. We examine for those offering the Paschal lamb – ‫ּב ְֹוד ִקין‬ ‫עֹושי ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ׂ ֵ ‫ל‬:ְ In the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishna, he explains in tractate Ohalot that if one traveling to offer the Paschal lamb realizes that he has already walked through a beit haperas, he may take the dirt upon which he walked and pass it through a sifter in order to check for small bones (see Tosafot). halakha

One must blow the dust in the beit haperas – ‫ְמנַ ּ ֵפ ַח ֵ ּבית‬ ‫ה ּ ְפ ָרס‬:ַ One who is traveling to offer the Paschal lamb may blow the dirt along the path of a beit haperas as he travels through it. If he does not find any bones, he may slaughter and eat his Paschal lamb. Similarly, one who passed through a well-trodden beit haperas remains ritually pure and may offer the Paschal lamb (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 6:8).



‫בצ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Perek VIII . 92b 

169

Summary of Perek VIII

This chapter primarily focused on the halakhot pertaining to the group a person must be part of in order to partake of the Paschal lamb. A person may not be registered with two different groups. As such, the Gemara considered situations in which a person is unsure with which group he is registered. In such cases, sometimes it is assumed the person is registered with whichever group he expressed a preference for, and other times the Sages provided specific guidelines to determine which group a person is assumed to be registered with. A similar problem presents itself when a group is unsure for which animal they are registered, since they may not be registered for two animals. For example, if an agent is appointed by a group to slaughter the Paschal offering, but it was never specified whether he should slaughter a lamb or a kid, it is assumed the group intends to be registered with whichever animal the agent selects. If they did specify a specific type, but the agent doesn’t recall what was said, the only recourse is for him to slaughter two animals using the specific stipulation developed by the Gemara, and then, when he returns to the group, they will identify for him which one they had instructed him to slaughter. If they themselves don’t recall which one they specified, they may certainly not partake of either animal, but in certain cases they still fulfill their obligation to sacrifice it. The Gemara recorded a debate concerning at which point a person may register with a group and withdraw from being registered and concluded that movement is possible only before the lamb is slaughtered. The Gemara also delineated which compositions of groups are permitted. It is permitted for a single individual to be registered alone for a Paschal lamb. It is also permitted to form a group comprised entirely of women or slaves. However, the Sages warned against creating groups of certain combinations of people, such as slaves and women, out of concern for improprieties. One who will be unable to partake of the Paschal lamb, for example, if he will be ritually impure or if he will be physically unable to do so, is not permitted to join a group. However, where there is a realistic possibility that a person will be able to consume the Paschal lamb, even if he is currently in a state in which he is unable to do so, he may join a group with others. Even in such a case, it is permitted for him only if he will join other people who will definitely be able to eat, but a lamb may not be slaughtered exclusively for him, due to the possibility that he will not be fit to partake of the Paschal lamb by the evening.

171

The Gemara related to cases where, due to various rabbinic decrees, a person would not be permitted to partake of sacrificial foods on the night of Passover. In certain cases, due to the importance of partaking of the Paschal lamb, the neglect of which carries the punishment of karet, the Sages waived their decrees. For example, the Sages permitted an acute mourner following his or her day of acute mourning to partake of the Paschal lamb despite the standard rabbinic decree prohibiting that person from eating sacrificial foods. However, in certain cases the Sages maintained their decrees, despite the fact that doing so would prevent a person from partaking of the Paschal lamb, for example, in the cases of a gentile who converted during the week prior to Passover.

172

Speak to the people of Israel, saying: If any man of you or of your generations shall be ritually impure due to a dead body, or is on a journey far away, he shall still offer the Paschal lamb to the Lord. The fourteenth day of the second month at evening they shall offer it; they shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs. They shall leave none of it to the morning, nor break a bone in it; according to the entire statute of the Paschal lamb they shall offer it. But the man who is ritually pure, and is not on a journey, and refrains from offering the Paschal lamb, that soul shall be cut off from his people; because he did not bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season, that man shall bear his sin. And if a stranger shall sojourn among you, and will offer the Paschal lamb unto the Lord: According to the statute of the Paschal lamb, and according to its ordinance, so shall he do; you shall have one statute, both for the stranger, and for him that is born in the land.

Introduction to Perek IX

(Numbers 9:10–14) Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year; you shall take it from the sheep, or from the goats. (Exodus 12:5)

This chapter addresses two central issues: The halakhot of the second Pesaĥ and the halakhot of a Paschal lamb with various problematic statuses or one that was lost or intermingled with other animals. Although the basic halakhot of the second Pesaĥ are explained in the Torah, there remain some unanswered questions. The central issue is the precise relationship between the first and second Pesaĥ. Does the second Pesaĥ exist only as a second opportunity for those who failed to bring the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ, or is it viewed as an independent Festival? The distinction lies in the case of one who was not obligated in the first Pesaĥ. Can he nevertheless be required to participate in the second? Similarly, one who is liable to receive karet for willingly neglecting to bring a Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ may still achieve atonement for his error on the second Pesaĥ. Is this true only if he succeeds in actually bringing a Paschal lamb then, or even in cases in which he is exempted from the second Pesaĥ, such as in a case where he was ritually impure at that point? Another matter that requires clarification is the extent to which the halakhot of the Paschal lamb on the two Pesaĥim are similar. This chapter also deals with problematic statuses and disqualifications that apply to offerings, for example, an offering whose owners have died, an offering that was to be brought at a specific time but was not, or an animal that was substituted for another that has already been consecrated, in which case the substitute attains a certain level of sanctity. In all these circumstances, the halahka depends in part on the type of offering involved. This chapter therefore seeks to determine the halakhot as they apply to the Paschal lamb. Also discussed is the protocol in a case in which a Paschal lamb is mixed up with other animals, including cases in which it is mixed up with other types of offerings or even with another Paschal lamb belonging to a different group.



173

Perek IX Daf 92 Amud b ‫מתני׳ ִמי ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ָט ֵמא אֹו ְ ּב ֶד ֶר ְך‬ – ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫חֹוקה וְ ל ֹא ָע ָ ׂשה ֶאת ָה ִר‬ ָ ‫ְר‬ ‫ ׁ ָשגַ ג אֹו נֶ ֱאנַס וְ ל ֹא‬.‫יַ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ .‫אשֹון – יַ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ׁ ‫ָע ָ ׂשה ֶאת ָה ִר‬ ‫ִאם ֵּכן ָל ָּמה נֶ ֱא ַמר ָט ֵמא אֹו ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה‬ ,‫חֹוקה – ׁ ֶש ֵאלּ ּו ּ ְפטו ִּרין ֵמ ִה ָּכ ֵרת‬ ָ ‫ְ ּב ֶד ֶרךְ ְר‬ .‫וְ ֵאלּ ּו ַחּיָ ִיבין ְ ּב ִה ָּכ ֵרת‬

mishna 

One who was ritually impure or on a distant journeyh and did not observe the first Pesaĥn by participating in the offering of the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth of Nisan should observe the second Pesaĥ by participating in the offering on the fourteenth of Iyyar. If one unwittingly forgot or was prevented due to circumstances beyond his control and did not observe the first Pesaĥ, he too should observe the second Pesaĥ. If so, that the second Pesaĥ is observed even by someone who forgot or was prevented from observing the first Pesaĥ, why is it stated in the Torah that the second Pesaĥ is observed only by one who was ritually impure or on a distant journey? These cases were specified in order to teach that these two groups of people are exempt from karet if they do not observe the second Pesaĥ, but those who were not ritually impure or on a distant journey are liablehn to receive karet, as the Gemara will explain.

gemara 

,‫חֹוקה‬ ָ ‫ ָהיָ ה ְ ּב ֶד ֶר ְך ְר‬:‫ית ַמר‬ ְּ ‫גמ׳ ִא‬ :‫ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ָא ַמר‬.‫וְ ׁ ָש ֲחט ּו וְ זָ ְרק ּו ָע ָליו‬ ‫ ַרב‬.‫ ל ֹא הו ְּרצָ ה‬:‫ ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת ָא ַמר‬,‫הו ְּרצָ ה‬ ‫יחס הוּא דְּ ָחס‬ ַ ‫נַ ְח ָמן ָא ַמר הו ְּרצָ ה – ֵמ‬ ‫ וְ ִאי ָע ֵביד – ָּתבֹא ָע ָליו‬,‫ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ָע ָליו‬ ,‫ ל ֹא הו ְּרצָ ה‬:‫ וְ ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת ָא ַמר‬.‫ְ ּב ָר ָכה‬ .‫יה ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ְּכ ָט ֵמא‬ ּ ֵ‫ִמ ְיד ָחא דַּ ְחי‬

It was stated that the amora’im disagreed about the following issue: If one was on a distant journeyh and others slaughtered the Paschal lamb and sprinkled its blood on his behalf, and he arrived in time to eat the Paschal lamb, does he need to observe the second Pesaĥ since he was far away at the time that the sacrifice was offered? Rav Naĥman said: His offering was accepted, and he need not observe the second Pesaĥ. Rav Sheshet said: His offering was not accepted, and he must sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ. The Gemara explains their opinions. Rav Naĥman said: His offering was accepted because the Torah has mercy on one who was on a distant journey and allows him the option of observing the second Pesaĥ; but if he nonetheless did participate in the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ, may blessing come upon him. And Rav Sheshet said: His offering is not accepted because the Torah deferred his observance to the second Pesaĥ just as it does for one who is ritually impure. Just as one who is ritually impure may not voluntarily participate in the Paschal lamb, neither may one who is on a distant journey.

– ‫ ְמנָ א ָא ִמינָ א ָל ּה‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ ‫חֹוקה‬ ָ ‫ ִמי ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ָט ֵמא אֹו ְ ּב ֶד ֶרךְ ְר‬:‫דִּ ְתנַן‬ ‫אשֹון – יַ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ֶאת‬ ׁ ‫וְ ל ֹא ָע ָ ׂשה ֶאת ָה ִר‬ .‫ ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ִאי ָ ּב ֵעי – ָע ַבד‬.‫ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬

Rav Naĥman said: From where do I say my opinion? As we learned in the mishna: One who was ritually impure or on a distant journey and did not observe the first Pesaĥ should observe the second Pesaĥ. The expression: And did not observe, indicates by inference that regarding one who was on a distant journey, had he wished, he could have observed it and would thereby be exempt from participating in the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ.

‫יפא‬ ָ ‫ ֵס‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬:‫וְ ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת ָא ַמר ָל ְך‬ ‫ ׁ ָשגַ ג אֹו נֶ ֱאנַס וְ ל ֹא ָע ָ ׂשה ֶאת‬:‫דְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬ ‫ ִמדְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬.‫אשֹון – יַ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ׁ ‫ָה ִר‬ ,‫״וְ ל ֹא ָע ָ ׂשה״ – ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ִאי ָ ּב ֵעי ָע ַבד‬ !‫ֲה ֵרי ׁ ָשגַ ג וַ ֲה ֵרי נֶ ֱאנַס‬

And Rav Sheshet said in response: If so, consider the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches: If one unwittingly forgot or was prevented due to circumstances beyond his control and did not observe the first Pesaĥ, he should observe the second Pesaĥ. According to your reasoning, from the fact that it is taught: And did not observe, conclude by inference that had he wished, he could have observed it. However, this is not possible, as the mishna states explicitly that he unwittingly forgot or was prevented due to circumstances beyond his control and was unable to observe the first Pesaĥ.

halakha

Ritually impure or on a distant journey – ‫ָט ֵמא אֹו ְ ּב ֶד ֶר ְך‬ ‫חֹוקה‬ ָ ‫ר‬:ְ One who was ritually impure or on a distant journey at the time of the slaughtering of the Paschal lamb, or one who unwittingly forgot or was prevented from participating due to circumstances beyond his control, should observe the second Pesaĥ by offering the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth of the month of Iyyar (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 5:1, 6:1). These are exempt…but those are liable – …‫ֵא ּל ּו ּ ְפטו ִּרין‬ ‫וְ ֵאלּ ּו ַחּיָ ִיבין‬: If one unwittingly forgets to observe the first Pesaĥ or is prevented from doing so due to circumstances beyond his control, but he then intentionally refrains from observing the second Pesaĥ, he is liable to receive karet. In addition, one who intentionally refrains from observing the first Pesaĥ is liable to receive karet, even if he later unwittingly fails to bring the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ. However, one who is ritually impure or on a distant journey at the time of the first Pesaĥ is exempt from karet even if he intentionally refrains from observing the second Pesaĥ (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 5:2). If one was on a distant journey – ‫חֹוקה‬ ָ ‫היָה ְ ּב ֶד ֶרךְ ְר‬:ָ If one is on a distant journey and others slaughter the Paschal lamb on his behalf, and he arrives in the evening, his participation in the offering is not accepted and he is obligated to observe the second Pesaĥ by bringing a Paschal lamb on the fourteenth of Iyyar. The halakha is according to the opinion of Rav Sheshet, since the halakha always follows him in matters of ritual law in disputes with Rav Naĥman (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 5:3).

notes

The first Pesaĥ – ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫פ ַסח ִר‬:ֶ ּ In the Torah, there is a clear distinction between Ĥag HaPesaĥ, the Festival of Pesaĥ, which occurs on the fourteenth of Nisan, the day on which the Paschal lamb is sacrificed, and Ĥag HaMatzot, the Festival of Matzot, the sevenday Festival beginning on the evening of the fifteenth of Nisan. Over the generations, due to the cessation of the Paschal lamb offering, the terms were confused and the term Pesaĥ, Passover, is the name used for the seven-day Festival. As the mishna is referring to the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb, using the terms first Passover and second Passover would be misleading. Therefore, they are rendered as first Pesaĥ and second Pesaĥ.



These are exempt…but those are liable – ‫ֵא ּל ּו ּ ְפטו ִּרין…וְ ֵא ּל ּו‬ ‫חּיָ ִיבין‬:ַ According to Rashi, the ruling that they are exempt from karet applies not only to one who was ritually impure or on a distant journey, but even to one who unwittingly forgot or was unable to bring the offering due to circumstances beyond his control. Apparently, they are exempt even if they intentionally refrained from observing the second Pesaĥ. The phrase: These are liable, according to Rashi, does not apply to any of the cases mentioned explicitly in the mishna, but to cases such as one who intentionally refrained from observing the first Pesaĥ. ‫בצ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Perek IX . 92b 

175

‫ ָה ָכא‬.ּ‫ ֵמזִ יד ָק ָתנֵי ַ ּב ֲה ַדיְ יהו‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא‬Rather, the mishna must be explained differently, as follows: .ּ‫ אֹונֵן ָק ָתנֵי ַ ּב ֲה ַדיְ יהו‬:‫ נַ ִמי‬Even though it does not say so explicitly, the mishna is teaching with the phrase: And he did not observe, the case of one who intentionally refrained from observing the first Pesaĥ together with the other cases in the mishna. Here, too, in the first part of the mishna, the phrase: And he did not observe, must be understood as including another category of people: It is teaching the case of an acute mourner, i.e., one whose relative died that same day and has not yet been buried,n together with the other cases. The first part of the mishna includes three cases: One who was ritually impure, one who was on distant journey, and one who was an acute mourner. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that had he wished to observe the first Pesaĥ, he could have done so. ,‫נִיתין נַ ִמי דַּ יְ ָקא‬ ִ ‫ ַמ ְת‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ‫ וְ ֵאלּ ּו‬,‫ ֵאלּ ּו ּ ְפטו ִּרין ֵמ ִה ָּכ ֵרת‬:‫דְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ַא ַהּיָ יא? ִא ֵיל‬.‫ַחּיָ ִיבין ְ ּב ִה ָּכ ֵרת‬ ‫ַא ׁ ּשֹוגֵ ג וְ נֶ ֱאנַס – ׁשֹוגֵ ג וְ נֶ ֱאנַס ְ ּבנֵי‬ ‫ָכ ֵרת נִינְ הוּ?! ֶא ָּלא ָלאו – ַא ֵּמזִ יד‬ .‫וְ אֹונֵן‬

Rav Ashi said: The mishna is also precisely formulated according to this interpretation, as it teaches: These are exempt from karet, but those are liable to receive karet. To which part of the mishna is this referring? If we say that this statement is referring to one who unwittingly forgot and one who was prevented due to circumstances beyond his control, are one who unwittingly forgot and one who was prevented due to circumstances beyond his control subject to the punishment of karet? One is liable to receive karet only for performing a transgression intentionally. Rather, is it not referring to the case of one who intentionally refrained from observing the Pesaĥ, which is included in the phrase in the latter clause: And he did not observe, and to the case of an acute mourner, which is included in the parallel phrase in the first clause? These two categories of people are liable to receive karet if they fail to sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ.

‫עֹולם ַא ֵּמזִ יד‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬: ְ‫וְ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ָא ַמר ָלך‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ָ ‫ ו ְּב ִדין הוּא דְּ ִא‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ ּ ‫ְלחו ֵּד‬ ‫ וְ ַהאי דְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬,‫״חּיָ יב״‬ ַ ‫יתנָ א‬ ְ ‫ְל ִמ‬ ‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫״חּיָ ִיבין״ – ַאּיְ ֵידי דִּ ְתנָ א ֵר‬ ַ .‫ ְּתנָ א ֵס ָיפא ַחּיָ ִיבין‬,‫ּ ְפטו ִּרין‬

And Rav Naĥman could have said to you in response: Actually, the mishna refers only to the case of one who intentionally refrains from observing the first Pesaĥ and not to the case of an acute mourner; and by right it should have taught this ruling with the expression: He is liable, in the singular. And the reason that it teaches this ruling with the phrase: These are liable, in the plural, is that since the first clause of the mishna teaches its ruling with the expression: These are exempt, in the plural, the latter clause also teaches its ruling with the expression: Those are liable, in the plural. Therefore, the phrase in the first clause: And did not observe the first Pesaĥ, teaches that one on a journey has the option of observing the first Pesaĥ if he wishes. And the same phrase in the latter clause: And did not observe, comes to include the case of one who intentionally refrains from observing the first Pesaĥ.

– ‫ ְמנָ א ָא ִמינָ א ָל ּה‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת‬Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say my opinion? As it was ‫ נֶ ֱא ַמר‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: It is stated that one ‫חֹוקה״‬ ָ ‫״ב ֶד ֶרךְ ְר‬ ּ ְ ‫״ט ֵמא״ וְ נֶ ֱא ַמר‬ ָ who is ritually impure on the first Pesaĥ observes the second Pesaĥ, and it is stated that one who is on a distant journey observes the second Pesaĥ;

notes

Acute mourning – ‫אנִינוּת‬:ֲ Aninut is the period of mourning on the day of the death of a close relative. The mourner is exempt from all positive mitzvot from the time of the death of the close relative until after the burial. At that point, the mourner’s status changes from that of an onen, i.e., one

176 

Perek IX . 92b . ‫בצ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ט‬

who is in aninut, to that of a regular mourner [avel]. In Temple times an acute mourner was prohibited from eating second tithe, first fruits, and sacrificial meat. A priest who is an acute mourner may not take part in the Temple service; however, this prohibition does not apply to the High Priest.

Perek IX Daf 93 Amud a ‫ ַמה ָּט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ִּס ּ ֵפק ְ ּביָ דֹו ַל ֲע ׂשֹות וְ ֵאינֹו‬just as the case of one who was ritually impure is referring to one who has the means to observe the first Pesaĥ via an agent but does ‫חֹוקה נַ ִמי ׁ ֶש ִּס ּ ֵפק‬ ָ ‫עֹושה – ַאף דֶּ ֶרךְ ְר‬ ֶׂ .‫עֹושה‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ ְ ּביָ דֹו ַל ֲע ׂשֹות וְ ֵאינֹו‬not do so because the Torah prohibited him from doing so, so too, the case of one who was on a distant journey also refers to one who has the means to observe the first Pesaĥ via an agent and eat the offering at night, but does not do so because the Torah prohibited him from doing so. ‫יבא‬ ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק‬:‫וְ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ָא ַמר ָל ְך‬ ‫ֹוח ִט ין‬ ֲ ‫ ֵא ין ׁש‬:‫ דְּ ָק ָס ַבר‬, ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ְל ַט ְע ֵמ‬ ‫ וַ ֲאנָ א ְס ִב ָירא‬.‫זֹור ִקין ַעל ְט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬ ‫זֹור ִקין ַעל‬ ְ ְ‫ֹוח ִטין ו‬ ֲ ‫יה ְּכ ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ׁש‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ .‫ְט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬

And Rav Naĥman could have said to you: Rabbi Akiva conforms to his standard line of reasoning,n as he holds that one may not slaughter a Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood on behalf of one who is ritually impure due to contact with a dead creeping animal, even though he could immerse and become ritually pure in time to partake of the Paschal lamb in the evening. This indicates that according to Rabbi Akiva, one who is unfit when the blood is sprinkled is completely disqualified from participating in the offering. But I hold in accordance with the one who said: One may slaughter a Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood on behalf of one who is ritually impure due to contact with a dead creeping animal, and therefore Rabbi Akiva’s ruling is not relevant to my opinion.

:‫עֹושין ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ׂ ִ ‫ ֵא ּל ּו ׁ ֶש‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫צֹורעֹות‬ ָ ‫צֹור ִעין וְ ַה ְמ‬ ָ ‫ ַה ְמ‬,‫ַהּזָ ִבין וְ ַהּזָ בֹות‬ ,‫ּיֹולדֹות‬ ְ ‫ וְ ַה‬,‫ּבֹוע ֵלי נִ דּ ֹות‬ ֲ ‫[וְ נִ דּ ֹות] ו‬ ,‫ וְ ָט ֵמא‬,‫ַה ׁ ּשֹוגְ גִ ין וְ ָה ֲאנו ִּסין וְ ַה ְמזִ ִידין‬ ,‫חֹוקה‬ ָ ‫וְ ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ְ ּב ֶד ֶרךְ ְר‬

The Gemara cites a baraita in support of Rav Naĥman’s opinion. The Sages taught that these are the people who observe the second Pesaĥ:h Zavim and zavot; male lepers and female lepers; and menstruating women and those men who had sexual relations with menstruating women; and women after childbirth; those who failed to observe the first Pesaĥ unwittingly, and those who were prevented due to circumstances beyond their control, and those who intentionally refrained from doing so; and one who was ritually impure; and one who was on a distant journey.

‫ִאם ֵּכן ָל ָּמה נֶ ֱא ַמר ָט ֵמא? ָל ָּמה‬ ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫יע ַבד ָ ּב ִר‬ ֱ ‫נֶ ֱא ַמר?! דְּ ִאי ָ ּב ֵעי ְל ֶמ‬ ‫ ָל ָּמה‬,‫ ִאם ֵּכן‬:‫יה! ֶא ָּלא‬ ּ ‫ָלא ׁ ָש ְב ִקינַן ֵל‬ ‫פֹוטרֹו ִמן‬ ְ ‫חֹוקה – ְל‬ ָ ‫נֶ ֱא ַמר ְ ּב ֶד ֶר ְך ְר‬ .‫ ו ְּכ ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר הו ְּרצָ ה‬.‫ַה ָּכ ֵרת‬

The baraita continues: If so, if one who missed the first Pesaĥ for any reason observes the second Pesaĥ, why is the case of one who was ritually impure stated explicitly in the Torah? The Gemara expresses surprise at this question: Why is it stated? It was necessary to mention this case to teach that if an impure person wishes to perform the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ we do not allow him to do so. Rather, the question should be: Why is the case of one who is on a distant journey stated in the Torah? It is stated to exempt him from karet even if he does not observe the second Pesaĥ. And this is in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that if the Paschal lamb was slaughtered on behalf of one who was on a distant journey it was accepted, which is the opinion of Rav Naĥman.

:‫יחּיְ ָיבא? וְ ָהא ַּתנְיָא‬ ַ ‫ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי ִמי ִמ‬ ‫עֹושין ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי ֶא ָּלא‬ ׂ ִ ‫יָ כֹול ל ֹא יְ ה ּו‬ ‫ זָ ִבין‬,‫חֹוקה‬ ָ ‫ְט ֵמא נֶ ֶפ ׁש וְ ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ְ ּב ֶד ֶרךְ ְר‬ ‫ּבֹוע ֵלי נִ דּ ֹות ִמ ּנַיִ ן – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ֲ ‫צֹור ִעין ו‬ ָ ‫ו ְּמ‬ !‫״א ׁיש ִא ׁיש״‬ ִ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ

The baraita mentioned several types of ritually impure women who observe the second Pesaĥ rather than the first. The Gemara asks: Is a woman obligated to observe the second Pesaĥ? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: I might have thought that only one who is impure due to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse or one who was on a distant journey observe the second Pesaĥ; with regard to zavim, male lepers, and those men who had sexual relations with menstruating women, from where is it derived that they may observe the second Pesaĥ? The verse states: “If any man [ish ish] of you or of your generations shall be ritually impure due to a dead body or is on a journey far away, he shall still offer the Paschal lamb to the Lord” (Numbers 9:10). The word ish is doubled in order to include these other cases. Women are not included by the repetition of the word ish.

notes

Rabbi Akiva conforms to his standard line of reasoning – ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ְל ַט ְע ֵמ‬:ַ Where is it stated that Rabbi Akiva maintains that one may not slaughter a Paschal lamb for a person who is ritually impure due to contact with a dead creeping animal? (Responsa of the Radbaz) points out that Rabbi Akiva is of the opinion that in the first year in the desert it was Mishael and Elzaphan who were ritually impure and unable to offer the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth of Nisan, and were therefore obligated to bring the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ. They had become ritually impure because they had attended to Nadav and Avihu, the slain sons of Aaron (Leviticus 10:1–5). Nadav and Avihu were killed on the eighth day of inauguration of the Tabernacle (Leviticus 9:1). There is a dispute as to whether this was the eighth day after Moses began setting up the Tabernacle, which would be the first of Nisan, or the eighth day after the Tabernacle was inaugurated, which would be the eighth of Nisan. Radbaz suggests that Rabbi Akiva holds the latter opinion, and therefore if Mishael and Elzaphan became impure on the eighth of Nisan, they would have been impure for one week. At the end of the week, on the fourteenth, they could be sprinkled with the waters of the purification offering and then immerse on that day, and consequently be pure in time to eat the Paschal lamb at night. Their status after bringing their purification offering and immersing would be the same as that of someone who became ritually impure through contact with a dead creeping animal, i.e., they would become pure at nightfall. Since Moses told them that they were unable to observe the first Pesaĥ and that they had to defer until the second Pesaĥ, it may be inferred that similarly, one who is ritually impure at the time of the slaughtering of the Paschal lamb due to contact with a dead creeping animal is also not permitted to observe the first Pesaĥ (Mitzpe Eitan). halakha

Who observe the second Pesaĥ – ‫עֹושין ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ׂ ִ ‫ש‬: ֶ ׁ Anyone who is unable to sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ for any reason does so on the second Pesaĥ (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 5:1).

‫ ָהא – ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ָהא – ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬The Gemara answers that this is not difficult: This first baraita, which .‫ יְ הו ָּדה וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬includes women, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei that one may slaughter the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ for women, and that second baraita, which includes only men, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, who hold that women do not have a full-fledged obligation to observe the second Pesaĥ. 

‫גצ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Perek IX . 93a 

177

halakha

Karet for failing to observe both the first and second Pesaĥ – ‫אשֹון וְ ַעל ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ׁ ‫כ ֵרת ַעל ָה ִר‬:ָּ If one forgets to observe the first Pesaĥ or is unable to do so due to circumstances beyond his control, and he then intentionally refrains from observing the second Pesaĥ, he is liable to receive karet. Furthermore, if one intentionally refrains from observing the first Pesaĥ and then unwittingly fails to observe the second, he is liable to receive karet. Consequently, one is liable for both the first and second Pesaĥ, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Rambam ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi despite the fact that both Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Ĥananya ben Akavya disagree with him, because they also disagree with each other. Therefore, the general principle that the halakha follows Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in his disputes with an individual Sage is applicable (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 5:2). One who becomes obligated in the month between the first and second Pesaĥ – ‫חל ָע ָליו ִחּיוּב ֵ ּבין ׁ ְשנֵי ְפ ָס ִחים‬:ָ A child who comes of age or a gentile who converts between the first and second Pesaĥ is obligated to observe the second Pesaĥ. However, a child who comes of age is exempt from the second Pesaĥ if an adult slaughtered the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ with the intent to include him (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 5:7).

,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ ַחּיָ יב ָּכ ֵרת ַעל ָה ִר‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫וְ ַחּיָ יב ָּכ ֵרת ַעל ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬ ,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ ַחּיָ יב ָּכ ֵרת ַעל ָה ִר‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫נָ ָתן‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנַ נְיָא ֶ ּבן ֲע ַק ְביָא‬.‫ו ָּפטוּר ַעל ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ‫אשֹון ֵאינֹו ַחּיָ יב‬ ׁ ‫[על] ָה ִר‬ ַ ‫ ַאף‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ָּכ ֵרת ֶא ָּלא ִאם ֵּכן ל ֹא ָע ָ ׂשה ֶאת‬ .‫ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: One is liable to receive karet for intentionally refraining from observing the first Pesaĥ; similarly, one who could not observe the first Pesaĥ is liable to receive karet if he intentionally refrained from observing the second Pesaĥ.h This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Natan says: One is liable to receive karet for intentionally refraining from observing the first Pesaĥ; and one is exempt from karet for intentionally refraining from observing the second Pesaĥ even if he unwittingly failed to observe the first Pesaĥ, as the Torah does not specify a punishment of karet with regard to the second Pesaĥ. Rabbi Ĥananya ben Akavya says: Even for intentionally failing to observe the first Pesaĥ one is liable to receive karet only if he intentionally fails to observe the second Pesaĥ.

‫ ֵ ּגר ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַ ּגּיֵ יר‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,ּ‫וְ ָאזְ ד ּו ְל ַט ְע ַמיְ יהו‬ ‫ וְ ֵכן ָק ָטן ׁ ֶש ִהגְ דִּ יל ֵ ּבין‬,‫ֵ ּבין ׁ ְשנֵי ְפ ָס ִחים‬ .‫ׁ ְשנֵי ְפ ָס ִחים – ַחּיָ יב ַל ֲעשׂ ֹות ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬ ‫ ּכֹל ׁ ֶשּזָ קוּק‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן‬.‫דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ּכֹל ׁ ֶש ֵאין זָ קוּק‬,‫אשֹון – זָ קוּק ַל ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ׁ ‫ָל ִר‬ .‫אשֹון – ֵאין זָ קוּק ַל ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ׁ ‫ָל ִר‬

The Gemara adds that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Natan follow their line of reasoning as demonstrated by another dispute between them, which is related to the dispute quoted above. As it was taught in a baraita: A convert who converted during the month between the offering of the two Paschal lambs on the first and second Pesaĥ, and similarly, a minor who grew up and became obligated in mitzvot during the month between the offering of the two Paschal lambs, is obligated to observe the second Pesaĥ;h this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Natan says: Whoever needs to observe the first Pesaĥ needs to observe the second; whoever does not need to observe the first Pesaĥ, e.g., one who is a minor or is not yet Jewish, does not need to observe the second Pesaĥ either.

notes

ּ ‫ת ׁ ְשלו ִּמין אֹו ִּת‬:ַּ Rabbi Natan views Redress or repair – ‫יקוּן‬ the second Pesaĥ as a redress, or substitute, for the first. The obligation to bring the second Pesaĥ is contingent on one’s status at the time that the first Pesaĥ is observed. One who was obligated to bring the offering on the first Pesaĥ but was unable to do so is deferred to the second Pesaĥ. Likewise, one such as a minor, who was not obligated to sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ, or one who intentionally refrained from offering the first offering need not or cannot compensate for it on the second Pesaĥ. Conversely, Rabbi Ĥananya ben Akavya views the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ as rectifying the fact that the person did not sacrifice the offering on first Pesaĥ, and therefore it serves as a replacement. According to this opinion, the two offerings can be viewed as one unit. Indeed, in practice it is as though one can choose to participate in the Paschal lamb on first Pesaĥ or on second Pesaĥ; as long as a person sacrifices the Paschal lamb on one of the two days, he is exempt from punishment. Nevertheless, one is obligated to observe the first Pesaĥ ab initio. Ki, meaning if – ‫כי ְל ׁשֹון ִאי‬:ִּ The Hebrew word ki appears numerous times in the Bible. The Gemara (Rosh HaShana 3a) states that it has four different connotations: If, lest, but and because. For instance, in the verses: “If [ki ] you shall go” (Numbers 10:32) and: “If [ki ] you shall meet” (Exodus 23:4), the word ki means if. In the verse: “No, but [ki ] you did laugh” (Genesis 18:15), ki is used to mean but. In the verse: “Lest [ki ] you say in your hearts: These nations are more than I” (Deuteronomy 7:17), ki means lest. Finally, in the verse: “Because [ki ] she was afraid” (Genesis 18:15), ki means because. Did not bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season – ‫מֹועדו‬ ֲ ‫ק ְר ַ ּבן ה׳ ל ֹא ִה ְק ִריב ְ ּב‬:ָ The Rashash explains that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi understands the word ki in this verse to mean “if.” There are places that the Hebrew word for “if” has the meaning of “or.” Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interprets the verse as stating that if one did not observe the first Pesaĥ or did not observe the second Pesaĥ, he is liable to be punished.

‫ ׁ ֵשנִי ֶרגֶ ל‬:‫יפ ְלגִ י? ַר ִ ּבי ָס ַבר‬ ַ ּ ‫ ְ ּב ַמאי ָק ִמ‬The Gemara explains: With regard to what do they disagree? Rab,‫ ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ מֹו הוּא‬bi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the second Pesaĥ is its own Festival, and anyone who did not participate in the first Pesaĥ is obligated to participate in the second even if he was not fit to bring the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ. ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ ׁ ֵשנִי ַּת ׁ ְשלו ִּמין דְּ ִר‬:‫ ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן ָס ַבר‬Conversely, Rabbi Natan holds that the second Pesaĥ is merely a .‫יה‬ ׁ ‫ ַּת ּקֹונֵי ָל ִר‬,‫ הוּא‬redress for the first Pesaĥ, such that if one was obligated to bring ּ ‫אשֹון ָלא ַמ ְת ִקין ֵל‬ the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ and did not, he may do so on the second Pesaĥ; however, it does not repair the failure to bring the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ. Therefore, one who intentionally refrained from bringing the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ is liable to receive karet even if he brought the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ. However, if one unwittingly failed to sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ, he is not liable to receive karet even if he intentionally refrained from observing the second Pesaĥ. ‫ ׁ ֵשנִי‬:‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנַ נְ יָ א ֶ ּבן ֲע ַק ְביָ א ָס ַבר‬And Rabbi Ĥananya ben Akavya held: The second Pesaĥ repairs n .‫אשֹון הוּא‬ ׁ ‫ ַּת ַ ּקנְ ָּתא דְּ ִר‬the failure to offer the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ. In other words, the Paschal lamb brought on the second Pesaĥ is not an independent obligation; rather, it allows a second chance to avoid the liability to receive karet. ‫ ״וְ ָה ִא ׁיש‬:ּ‫ו ׁ ְּש ָל ׁ ְש ָּתן ִמ ְק ָרא ֶא ָחד דָּ ְר ׁשו‬ .‫ֲא ׁ ֶשר הוּא ָטהֹור ו ְּב ֶד ֶר ְך ל ֹא ָהיָ ה״‬ ‫ ״וְ ָח ַדל ַל ֲע ׂשֹות ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי ָס ַבר‬ ‫ ִאי‬,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫וְ נִ ְכ ְר ָתה״ – דְּ ָלא ֲע ַבד ָ ּב ִר‬ – ‫מֹועדֹו״‬ ֲ ‫״ק ְר ַ ּבן ה׳ ל ֹא ִה ְק ִריב ְ ּב‬ ָ ‫נַ ִמי‬ .‫ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬

And all three of them expounded the same verse to derive their opinions: “But the man who is ritually pure, and is not on a journey, and refrains from offering the Paschal lamb, that soul shall be cut off from his people; because [ki] he did not bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season, that man shall bear his sin” (Numbers 9:13). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the verse should be understood as follows: The phrase: “And refrains from offering the Paschal lamb, that soul shall be cut off,” means that he did not participate in the offering on the first Pesaĥ. In the continuation of the verse, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi understands the word ki to mean: If, as the word ki has various meanings, one of which is: If.n Therefore, the verse can be interpreted in the following manner: If he also “did not bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season,”n with regard to the second Pesaĥ, “that man shall bear his sin.”

‫״ח ְטאֹו יִ ּ ָ ׂשא״ ָּכ ֵרת‬ ֶ )‫ ו ִּמ ַּמאי (דְּ ָהא‬The Gemara asks: And from where do we know that this phrase: ?‫ הוּא‬Shall bear his sin, refers to karet and not to some other punishment?

178 

Perek IX . 93a . ‫גצ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ט‬

Perek IX Daf 93 Amud b ,‫ ְמ גַ דֵּ ף ַהיְ ינ ּו ְמ ָב ֵר ְך ַה ׁ ּ ֵשם‬:‫ ָק ָס ַבר‬He holds that with regard to the case of the blasphemer mentioned ‫נָשא‬ ׂ ָ ְ‫ ״ו‬:‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב ִ ּב ְמ ָב ֵר ְך ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ֵשם‬in the verse: “That person blasphemes the Lord and that soul shall .‫ ֶח ְטאֹו״‬be cut off [karet] from among his people” (Numbers 15:30), this is identical to the case of one who blesses the name of God, a euphemism for cursing God’s name. And it is written with regard to one who blesses the name of God: “Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin” (Leviticus 24:15). Therefore, the punishment of karet applies to a sin about which the Torah states: Shall bear his sin. ‫ וְ גָ ַמר ַהאי ֶח ְטאֹו דְּ ָה ָכא ֵמ ֶח ְטאֹו‬And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi learned the meaning of this phrase: ‫ ַמה ְּל ַה ָּלן ָּכ ֵרת – ַאף ָּכאן‬,‫“ דְּ ָה ָתם‬And he shall bear his sin,” stated here, with regard to one who did .‫ נַ ִמי ָּכ ֵרת‬not sacrifice the Paschal lamb, by way of a verbal analogy from the phrase: “Shall bear his sin” stated there, with regard to the blasphemer. Just as later, with regard to the blasphemer, it is referring to the punishment of karet, so too here, with regard to the Paschal lamb, it is referring to the punishment of karet. This concludes the Gemara’s explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. ‫ ״וְ ָח ַדל ַל ֲע ׂשֹות ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬:‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן ָס ַבר‬ ‫״כי״ ְל ׁשֹון ״דְּ ָהא״‬ ִּ ‫ דְּ ַהאי‬,‫וְ נִ ְכ ְר ָתה״‬ ‫ דְּ ָהא ָק ְר ַ ּבן‬:‫ וְ ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬,‫הוּא‬ .‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫מֹועדֹו ָ ּב ִר‬ ֲ ‫ה׳ ל ֹא ִה ְק ִריב ְ ּב‬

And Rabbi Natan holds that the verse should be understood differently. In the verse: “And refrains from offering the Paschal lamb, that soul shall be cut off from his people; because [ki] he did not bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season” (Numbers 9:13), this word ki has the meaning of: Because. And this is what the Torah is saying: “Because he did not bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season,” referring to participating in the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ, he is liable to receive karet.

?‫יה‬ ֶ ‫ַהאי‬ ּ ‫״ח ְטאֹו יִ ּ ָ ׂשא״ ַמאי ָע ֵביד ֵל‬ ‫ ְמגַ דֵּ ף ָלאו ַהיְ ינ ּו ְמ ָב ֵר ְך ֶאת‬:‫ָק ָס ַבר‬ ‫ וְ גָ ַמר ַהאי ֶח ְטאֹו דְּ ָה ָתם ֵמ ַהאי‬,‫ַה ׁ ּ ֵשם‬ ‫ ַמה ָה ָכא ָּכ ֵרת – ַאף‬,‫ֶח ְטאֹו דְּ ָה ָכא‬ .‫ָה ָתם ָּכ ֵרת‬

The Gemara asks: If so, that part of the verse which says: He shall bear his sin, what does Rabbi Natan do with it? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Natan holds that the case of the blasphemer is not identical with the case of one who blesses the name of God; blasphemy refers instead to one who sings praises to false gods. Thus, the Torah does not specify the punishment of one who curses God. He learned the meaning of that phrase “his sin,” there, with regard to one who curses God, by way of a verbal analogy from this phrase “his sin” here, in the case of one who did not offer the Paschal lamb. Just as here, with regard to the Paschal lamb, the punishment is karet, so too there, with regard to one who curses God, the phrase: He shall bear his sin, is a reference to the punishment of karet.

‫ ״וְ ָח ַדל‬:‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנַ נְיָא ֶ ּבן ֲע ַק ְביָ א ָס ַבר‬And Rabbi Ĥananya ben Akavya holds that the word ki in the verse ‫״ק ְר ַ ּבן ה׳‬ ָ ‫ ַל ֲעשׂ ֹות ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח וְ נִ ְכ ְר ָתה״ ִאי‬should be rendered: If, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interpreted it, but .‫מֹועדֹו״ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ֲ ‫ ל ֹא ִה ְק ִריב ְ ּב‬the verse should be understood as follows: “And refrained from participating in the offering of the Paschal lamb, that soul shall be cut off from his people if he did not bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season,” which is on the second Pesaĥ. ?‫יה‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ַהאי‬The Gemara asks: And with regard to that phrase: “He shall bear ּ ‫״ח ְטאֹו יִ ּ ָ ׂשא״ ַמאי ָע ֵביד ֵל‬ .‫ ְּכ ַד ֲא ַמ ַרן‬his sin,” what does Rabbi Ĥananya ben Akavya do with it? The Gemara answers: He uses it in the same way as Rabbi Natan, as we said above, to derive the punishment for one who curses God. ‫ ֵהזִ יד ָ ּבזֶ ה ו ָּבזֶ ה – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל‬: ְ‫ ִה ְל ָּכך‬Therefore, if one intentionally refrained from offering the Paschal ‫ ׁ ָשגַ ג ָ ּבזֶ ה ו ָּבזֶ ה – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל‬,‫ ַחּיָ יב‬lamb on both the first and second Pesaĥ, all agree that he is liable ,‫ ּ ָפטוּר‬to receive karet. If one unwittingly forgot on bothh the first and second Pesaĥ, all agree that he is exempt from karet. ‫אשֹון וְ ׁ ָשגַ ג ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי – ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ׁ ‫ ֵהזִ יד ָ ּב ִר‬If one intentionally refrained from offering the Paschal lamb on h ‫ ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנַ נְ יָ א ֶ ּבן‬,‫ ו ְּל ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן ְמ ַחּיְ ִיבי‬the first Pesaĥ and unwittingly forgot on the second, according .‫ ֲע ַק ְביָ א ּ ָפטוּר‬to the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Natan he is liable to receive karet, because he intentionally refrained from offering the sacrifice on the first Pesaĥ and did not rectify his mistake on the second Pesaĥ; however, according to the opinion of Rabbi Ĥananya ben Akavya he is exempt, because he holds that one is liable only if he intentionally refrained both times from offering the Paschal lamb. 

halakha

One who intentionally or unwittingly failed to observe both the first and second Pesaĥ – ‫נֵיהם‬ ֶ ‫הזִ יד אֹו ׁ ָשגַ ג ִ ּב ׁ ְש‬:ֵ If one intentionally refrains from sacrificing the Paschal lamb on both the first and second Pesaĥ, he is liable to receive karet. If one errs on both opportunities, he is not liable (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 5:2). If one intentionally refrained from offering the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ and unwittingly forgot on the second – ‫אשֹון וְ ׁ ָשגַ ג ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ׁ ‫הזִ יד ָ ּב ִר‬:ֵ If one intentionally refrains from observing the first Pesaĥ and forgets to observe the second, he is liable to receive karet, in accordance with the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Natan (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 5:2). ‫גצ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Perek IX . 93b 

179

halakha

If one unwittingly forgot on the first Pesaĥ and intentionally refrained from bringing the offering on the second Pesaĥ – ‫אשֹון וְ ִהּזִ יד ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ׁ ‫שגַ ג ָ ּב ִר‬: ָ ׁ If one forgets to observe the first Pesaĥ and then intentionally refrains from observing the second Pesaĥ, he is liable to receive karet. The Rambam ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, despite the fact that both Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Ĥananya disagreed with him. Since in this case they disagreed with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi for different reasons, they do not combine to outnumber him (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 5:2). A distant journey – ‫חֹוקה‬ ָ ‫דֶּ ֶר ְך ְר‬: The definition of a one who is on distant journey with regard to the first Pesaĥ is one who is at a distance of at least fifteen mil from Jerusalem at sunrise on Passover eve. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, which is generally accepted over that of another single disputant (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 5:8). notes

Rabbi Yosei said to him – ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫א ַמר ֵל‬:ָ In the standard version of the Gemara text, this reads: Rabbi Yosei said to him. In several versions, the words: To him, are deleted. The reason is that the phrase: He said to him, typically introduces a challenge. In this case, Rabbi Yosei agrees with Rabbi Eliezer. Therefore the word is dotted – ‫יכ ְך נָ קוּד‬ ָ ‫ל ִפ‬:ְ Dots appear in several places in the Torah, either over an entire word or over certain letters within a word. It is generally explained that the dots limit the meaning of the word or the letters. In the Jerusalem Talmud the following distinction is made: In situations where most letters of a word have dots over them, those letters are considered primary and it is as though the other letters are erased; however, in instances where most letters do not have dots over them, it is as though the dotted letters are erased. Dotted over the letter heh in the word distant [reĥoka] – ‫נָ קוּד ַעל ה׳‬: In the Jerusalem Talmud it is explained that due to the dot, the word should be read as raĥok, in the masculine form, rather than reĥoka, in the feminine form. This hints that it does not refer to the word journey, which is feminine in Hebrew, but to the person, which is masculine in Hebrew. Rabbi Ovadya Bartenura notes that the letter heh has a numerical value of five. This hints that someone who is five cubits away from the threshold of the Temple courtyard is considered to be distant. Some commentaries explain that these five cubits are the thickness of the walls and gates of the courtyard (Rashash).

,‫אשֹון וְ ִהּזִ יד ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשנִי – ְל ַר ִ ּבי ַחּיָ יב‬ ׁ ‫ ׁ ָשגַ ג ָ ּב ִר‬If one unwittingly forgot on the first Pesaĥ and intentionally reh ‫ ְל ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן ו ְּל ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנַ נְ יָ א ֶ ּבן ֲע ַק ְביָ א‬frained from bringing the offering on the second Pesaĥ, according .‫ ּ ָפטוּר‬to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi he is liable, because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi considers the second Pesaĥ an independent Festival that is mandatory for all those who did not offer the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ. According to the opinions of Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Ĥananya ben Akavya, who hold that the second Pesaĥ is a chance to redress the sin of the first Pesaĥ, since he did not intentionally fail to offer the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ, he is exempt from the punishment of karet even if he intentionally failed to offer the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ. ‫חֹוקה? ִמן‬ ָ ‫מתני׳ ֵאיזֹו ִהיא דֶּ ֶר ְך ְר‬ ,‫ ו ְּכ ִמדָּ ָת ּה ְל ָכל רו ַּח‬,‫יעים וְ ַלחוּץ‬ ִ ‫ַה ּמ ִֹוד‬ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬.‫דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ ‫יה‬ ְ ‫ֵמ ִא‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ֵל‬.‫יסקו ּ ַּפת ָה ֲעזָ ָרה וְ ַלחוּץ‬ ‫לֹומר ל ֹא‬ ַ ‫יכךְ נָ קוּד ַעל ה׳‬ ָ ‫ ְל ִפ‬:‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫יסקו ּ ַּפת‬ ְ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ִא‬,‫ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ָרחֹוק וַ דַּ אי‬ .‫ָה ֲעזָ ָרה וְ ַלחוּץ‬

mishna 

What is the definition of a distant journeyh that exempts one from observing the first Pesaĥ? Anywhere from the city of Modi’im and beyond, and from anywhere located an equal distance from Jerusalem and beyond in every direction;b this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer says: From the threshold of the Temple courtyard and beyond is considered a distant journey; therefore, anyone located outside the courtyard at the time that the Paschal lamb is slaughtered is exempt from observing the first Pesaĥ. Rabbi Yosei said to him:n Therefore, the word is dottedn over the letter heh in the word “distant [reĥoka]”nb to say that the meaning of the word should be qualified: It should be understood that it is not because he is really distant; rather, it includes anyone located from the threshold of the Temple courtyardb and beyond.

background

The distance to the city of Modi’im in every direction – ‫ְּכ ִמדַּ ת‬ ‫יעים ְל ָכל רו ַּח‬ ִ ‫מֹוד‬: ִ This map illustrates the areas included within a radius of the distance from Jerusalem to Modi’im. Typically identified with Modi’im, Midi’im is also mentioned in tractate Ĥagiga 3:5 as the farthest point from Jerusalem where one may still accept the word of a potter regarding the purity his wares. It appears that Modi’im is the outermost point that is still considered to be within the range of the Temple.

The threshold [iskupa] of the Temple courtyard – ‫יסקו ּ ַּפת‬ ְ ‫ֵמ ִא‬ ‫ה ֲעזָ ָרה‬:ָ According to Rabbi Eliezer, the iskupa is the point beyond which is considered a “distant journey.”

Map showing the distances of various cities from Jerusalem Dotted over the letter heh in the word distant [reĥoka] – ‫נָ קוּד‬ ‫על ה׳‬:ַ The image shows the dot over the letter heh in the word reĥoka, from the book of Numbers 9:10.

Example of a dot over a letter in the Torah, the heh of reĥoka, from Numbers 9:10

180 

Perek IX . 93b . ‫גצ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ט‬

Threshold of the Temple courtyard

‫יעים ִלירו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם‬ ִ ‫ ִמן ַה ּמ ִֹוד‬:‫גמ׳ ָא ַמר עו ָּּלא‬ ‫ ָס ַבר ָל ּה ִּכי‬.‫ילין ָהוְ יָ א‬ ִ ‫ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר ִמ‬ ‫ָהא דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ַּכ ָּמה ְמ ַה ֵּל ְך ָא ָדם ַ ּבּיֹום – ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ ֵמ ֲעלֹות ַה ׁ ּ ַש ַחר וְ ַעד ָהנֵץ ַה ַח ָּמה‬:‫ּ ַפ ְר ָסאֹות‬ ‫יעת ַה ַח ָּמה וְ ַעד צֵ את‬ ַ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ִק‬,‫ֲח ֵמ ׁ ֶשת ִמ ִילין‬ .‫ ּ ָפ ׁש ּו ָל ּה ְּת ָל ִתין‬.‫ַה ּכ ָֹוכ ִבים ֲח ֵמ ׁ ֶשת ִמ ִילין‬ ‫יסר‬ ַ ‫ וַ ֲח ֵמ‬,‫יֹומא‬ ָ ְּ‫יסר ִמ ַ ּצ ְפ ָרא ְל ַפ ְל ָ ּגא ד‬ ַ ‫ֲח ֵמ‬ .‫אֹור ָתא‬ ְ ‫יֹומא ְל‬ ָ ְּ‫ִמ ּ ַפ ְל ָ ּגא ד‬

gemara 

Ulla said: The distance from the city of Modi’im to Jerusalem is fifteen mil.lb He held like this following opinion that Rabba bar bar Ĥana said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: How far can an average person walk on an average day? One can walk ten parasangs [parsaot],ln which are forty mil. This is divided in the following way: From dawn until sunrise one can walk a distance of five mil, and from sunset until the emergence of the stars one can walk another five mil. There are thirty mil remaining that one can walk in a day: Fifteen from the morning until midday, and fifteen from midday until evening.

‫ ֵאי זֶ ה הוּא‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר עו ָּּלא‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ עו ָּּלא ְל ַט ְע ֵמ‬The Gemara explains that Ulla conforms to his standard line of ‫חֹוקה – ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵאין יָ כֹול ִל ָּיכנֵס ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת‬ ָ ‫ דֶּ ֶרךְ ְר‬reasoning below, as Ulla said: What is the definition of a disn .‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ְש ִח‬tant journey? It is any distance from which one is unable to reach Jerusalem and enter the Temple by the earliest time of the slaughter of the Paschal lamb. The obligation to slaughter the Paschal lamb begins at noon; therefore, if one is a distance of fifteen mil from the Temple in the morning, he will not be able to arrive there before the time that the offering may be slaughtered. ‫ ֵמ ֲעלֹות ַה ׁ ּ ַש ַח ר ַעד ָה נֵ ץ‬:‫ָא ַמ ר ָמ ר‬ :‫ ְמנָ א ָלן? דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬.‫ַה ַח ָּמה – ֲח ֵמ ׁ ֶשת ִמ ִילין‬ ,‫״ו ְּכמֹו ַה ׁ ּ ַש ַחר ָע ָלה וַ ּיָ ִאיצ ּו ַה ַּמ ְל ָא ִכים״ וגו׳‬ ‫״ה ׁ ּ ֶש ֶמ ׁש יָ צָ א ַעל ָה ָא ֶרץ וְ לֹוט ָ ּבא‬ ַ :‫ו ְּכ ִתיב‬ ‫ ְל ִד ִידי ֲחזִ י ִלי‬:‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א‬,‫צֹוע ָרה״‬ ֲ .‫ וְ ָהוְ יָ א ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ִמ ִילין‬,‫ַההוּא ַא ְת ָרא‬

The Gemara addresses the previously mentioned discussion: The Master said that from dawn until sunrise one can walk a distance of five mil. From where do we derive this? As it is written: “And when the morning arose, the angels hastened Lot, saying: Arise, take your wife and your two daughters that are here, lest you be swept away in the iniquity of the city” (Genesis 19:15), and it is written: “The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot came to Zoar” (Genesis 19:23). Therefore, the distance between Sodom and Zoar is the distance one can walk between dawn and sunrise, and Rabbi Ĥanina said: I myself saw that place, and it is a distance of five mil. This serves as a biblical proof that one can walk five mil between dawn and sunrise.

– ‫חֹוקה‬ ָ ‫ ֵאיזֶ ה הוּא דֶּ ֶרךְ ְר‬:‫ ָא ַמר עו ָּּלא‬,‫ּגו ָּפא‬ ‫ וְ ַרב‬.‫יטה‬ ָ ‫יכנֵס ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ׁ ְש ִח‬ ָּ ‫ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵאין יָ כֹול ִל‬ ‫יכנֵס ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת‬ ָּ ‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵאין יָ כֹול ִל‬:‫יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר‬ .‫ֲא ִכ ָילה‬

The Gemara discusses the matter of the above statement itself. Ulla said: What is the definition of a distant journey; any journey of a distance from which one is unable to reach Jerusalem and enter the Temple by the earliest time of the slaughter of the Paschal lamb. And Rav Yehuda said: Any journey of a distance from which one is unable to reach Jerusalem, where the Paschal lamb is eaten, and enter during the time of the eating, the following night.

‫ ו ְּל ַרב‬,‫ ְל ִד ָידךְ ַק ׁ ְשיָא‬:‫יה ַר ָ ּבה ְלעו ָּּלא‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ ְל ִד ָידךְ ַק ׁ ְשיָ א דְּ ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ָּכל‬.‫יְ הו ָּדה ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ ‫יטה – וְ ָהא‬ ָ ‫יכנֵס ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ׁ ְש ִח‬ ָּ ‫ׁ ֶש ֵאין יָ כֹול ִל‬ ‫יכנֵ ס ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת‬ ָּ ‫ דְּ ֵאין יָ כֹול ִל‬,‫ְט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬ ‫זֹור ִקין ַעל‬ ְ ְ‫ֹוח ִטין ו‬ ֲ ‫ וְ ָק ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ׁש‬,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְש ִח‬ .‫ְט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬

Rabba said to Ulla: According to your opinion it is difficult, and according to Rav Yehuda’s opinion it is difficult. According to your opinion it is difficult, as you said that any journey of a distance from which one is unable to reach Jerusalem and enter the Temple courtyard by the time of the slaughter of the Paschal lamb is considered a distant journey. Yet with regard to one who is ritually impure due to contact with a dead creeping animal, who is unable to enter the Temple courtyard at the time of the slaughter due to his impurity, you said: One may slaughter the Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood on behalf of one who is ritually impure due to contact with a dead creeping animal, even though he will only become pure after nightfall, when the Paschal lamb is eaten.

‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵאין יָ כֹול‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬:‫ו ְּל ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ ,‫יכנֵס ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ֲא ִכ ָילה – וְ ָהא ְט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬ ָּ ‫ִל‬ ‫ וְ ָק ָא ַמר ֵאין‬,‫יכנֵס ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ֲא ִכ ָילה‬ ָּ ‫דְּ יָ כֹול ִל‬ !‫זֹור ִקין ַעל ְט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬ ְ ְ‫ֹוח ִטין ו‬ ֲ ‫ׁש‬



And according to Rav Yehuda’s opinion it is difficult, as he said that any journey of a distance from which one is unable to enter Jerusalem during the time of the eating is considered a distant journey; yet with regard to one who is ritually impure due to contact with a dead creeping animal, who is able to enter Jerusalem and participate in consuming the offering at the time of the eating, he said the opposite: One may not slaughter the Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood on behalf of one who is ritually impure due to contact with a dead creeping animal, even though he will be able to immerse and become ritually pure by nightfall, when the offering is to be eaten.

language

Mil – ‫מיל‬:ִ From the Greek μίλιον, milyon, or the Latin millium, indicating a distance of one thousand double steps. Parasangs [parsaot] – ‫פ ְר ָסאֹות‬:ַ ּ From early Iranian languages, farsang, probably via the Greek παρασάγγης, parasangès, which is a unit of measurement. In the Talmud, one parasang [ parsa] is equal to four mil. background

Mil – ‫מיל‬:ִ Although ancient measurements of distance were approximate since they relied on subjective elements such as footsteps, the Romans attempted to standardize these measurements by erecting milestones, also known as mile markers, at set distances apart from each other. Many such ancient stones can still be found throughout Israel and other parts of the world.

Roman milestone found on the road between Acre and Antioch. The name Caesar is visible on the second line notes

Parasang – ‫פ ְר ָסה‬:ַ ּ One parasang is equal to four mil. This equals 3.86 km (2.4 miles) according to Rav Ĥayyim Na’e, and 4.63 km (2.88 miles) according to the Ĥazon Ish. A distant journey – ‫חֹוקה‬ ָ ‫דֶּ ֶר ְך ְר‬: There are two schools of thought in explaining this passage. Rashi and others explain that whether or not a person is considered to be on a distant journey depends upon how far he can travel from the earliest time that the Paschal lamb may be slaughtered, which is midday, until the evening. Conversely, the Rambam and others explain that it depends upon the distance one can travel from sunrise until midday, when the offering may first be slaughtered. There are proofs for each interpretation in the continuation of the Gemara’s discussion.

‫גצ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Perek IX . 93b 

181

‫ ָלא ְל ִד ִידי ַק ׁ ְשיָא וְ ָלא ְל ַרב‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ְ‫ דֶּ ֶרך‬:‫ ְל ִד ִידי ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָא‬,‫יְהו ָּדה ַק ׁ ְשיָא‬ ‫חֹוקה‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵאין דֶּ ֶר ְך ְר‬,‫חֹוקה ַל ָּטהֹור‬ ָ ‫ְר‬ .‫ַל ָּט ֵמא‬

Ulla said to him: According to my opinion it is not difficult, and according to Rav Yehuda’s opinion it is not difficult. According to my opinion it is not difficult because I hold that the concept of a distant journey applies only to one who is ritually pure, and the principle of a distant journey does not apply to one who is ritually impure. If one is ritually impure at the time of the slaughter, his obligation is immediately deferred to the second Pesaĥ regardless of the fact that he will become ritually pure in time to eat the offering at nightfall.

‫ ְט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬:‫ְל ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ ‫״א ׁיש ִא ׁיש‬ ִ :‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫יה‬ ּ ֵ‫ַר ֲח ָמנָ א דַּ ְחי‬ ‫ ִמי ָלא ָע ְס ִקינַן‬,‫ִּכי יִ ְהיֶ ה ָט ֵמא ָלנֶ ֶפ ׁש״‬ ‫יעי ׁ ֶש ּלֹו ִל ְהיֹות ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב‬ ִ ‫ׁ ֶש ָחל ׁ ְש ִב‬ ּ ‫ וַ ֲא ִפ‬,‫ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ‫יל ּו ָה ִכי ָא ַמר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬ .‫ִל ְיד ֵחי‬

According to Rav Yehuda’s opinion it is also not difficult, because in his opinion the Torah itself deferred the obligation of one who is ritually impure through contact with a dead creeping animal to the second Pesaĥ, as it is written: “If any man of you or of your generations shall be ritually impure due to a dead body” (Numbers 9:10). Are we not dealing even with a situation in which his seventh day of purification occurs on Passover eve, such that he can be ritually pure by nightfall and therefore he has the same status on that seventh day as one who became impure due to contact with a dead creeping animal? And nonetheless the Torah stated that his obligation shall be deferred. This teaches that anyone who is ritually impure at the time of the slaughtering has his obligation deferred to the second Pesaĥ, even if he would be able to immerse and become pure in time to eat the offering on the first Pesaĥ with the rest of the Jewish people.

‫יעים‬ ִ ‫עֹומד חוּץ ַל ּמ ִֹוד‬ ֵ ‫ ָהיָ ה‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫ יָ כֹול‬,‫וְ יָ כֹול ִל ָּיכנֵס ְ ּבסו ִּסים ו ִּב ְפ ָר ִדים‬ ְ‫ ״ו ְּב ֶד ֶרך‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫יְ ֵהא ַחּיָ יב – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ . ְ‫ וְ ַה ָּלה ָהיָ ה ְ ּב ֶד ֶרך‬,‫ל ֹא ָהיָ ה״‬

The Sages taught: If one was standing outside the city of Modi’im and was able to enter Jerusalem on horses or mules but not by walking, I might have thought he would be liable to receive karet for failing to come to Jerusalem and offer the Paschal lamb; therefore, the verse states: “And is not on a journey” (Numbers 9:13). This person was on a distant journey and is therefore exempt.h

‫יעים וְ ֵאין‬ ִ ‫עֹומד ִל ְפנִים ִמן ַה ּמ ִֹוד‬ ֵ ‫ָהיָ ה‬ ‫יכנֵ ס ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ְ ּג ַמ ִּלים ו ְּקרֹונֹות‬ ָּ ‫יָ כֹול ִל‬ ‫ יָ כֹול ל ֹא יְ ֵהא‬,‫ַה ְמ ַע ְּכבֹות אֹותֹו‬ ‫ ״ו ְּב ֶד ֶר ְך ל ֹא‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ַחּיָ יב – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ . ְ‫ָהיָ ה״ – וַ ֲה ֵרי ל ֹא ָהיָ ה ַ ּבדֶּ ֶרך‬

On the other hand, if one was standing closer to Jerusalem than Modi’im but was not able to enter due to the camels and carriages that are carrying his family and delaying him, I might have thought he would not be liable for failing to offer the Paschal lamb because he is trying to enter; therefore, the verse states: “And was not on a journey,” and this person was not on a distant journey and is therefore liable.n This person could have dismounted and come to Jerusalem on foot, but he wanted to bring his family with him in a carriage and was consequently delayed. One’s liability is determined based on his distance from Jerusalem.

Perek IX Daf 94 Amud a halakha

What is a distant journey – ‫חֹוקה‬ ָ ‫מה ּו ֶ ּד ֶרךְ ְר‬:ַ If one is within fifteen mil of Jerusalem on Passover eve but does not arrive in time to participate in the Paschal lamb due to pedestrian traffic or camels and carriages, he is not considered to have been on a distant journey. Rather, he is considered to have been unable to offer the sacrifice due to circumstances beyond his control (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 5:9). notes

The liability of one who was not on a distant journey – ‫ִחּיוּב‬ ‫חֹוקה‬ ָ ‫מי ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ָהיָה ְ ּב ֶד ֶר ְך ְר‬:ִ The Gemara addresses the liability of one who was not on a distant journey but was unable to arrive in time to offer the sacrifice due to unavoidable circumstances. However, a more fundamental question is whether or not the obligation applies to him at all. This is especially relevant according to the Rambam, who holds that one who was on a distant journey is not included in the obligation to observe the first Pesaĥ. Therefore, even if he intentionally refrains from observing the second Pesaĥ, he is exempt from punishment because the Torah itself exempted him from offering the Paschal lamb. This case is different than that of one who was obligated to bring the offering but was prevented from doing so due to circumstances beyond his control. Although he certainly is not liable to receive karet for failing to offer the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ, he is obligated to offer it, and he is liable if he intentionally refrains from observing the second Pesaĥ. The size of the world – ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫מדַּ ת ָה‬:ִ It is unclear whether Rava’s measurement is meant to be the length of the world, part of its circumference, or the distance the sun appears to travel across the sky (see Rashi, Rashash, and commentaries on Ein Ya’akov). Six thousand parasangs – ‫יתא ַא ְל ֵפי ַפ ְר ֵסי‬ ָּ ‫ש‬: ִ ׁ The ge’onim noted that talmudic discussions such as these are not part of the corpus of Torah law or theology that Jews must accept. Rather, these statements are based upon a certain conception of the world, with regard to which there were differences of opinion among the Sages themselves. The ge’onim also asserted that because the Sages conceded that the sages of the nations of the world were correct in their description of the world, the model of the world presented in this context is irrelevant. However, it should be noted that according to some later commentators, the elements mentioned in this discussion are related to the spiritual or ethical realms rather than the physical world, as, according to them, the Sages did not differentiate between these realms. For this reason they defined the measurements of the Garden of Eden and Gehenna according to the terms of measurement of the physical world, despite the fact that they are part of a different dimension of reality (see Responsa Maharam Alshakar).

182 

Perek IX . 94a . ‫דצ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ט‬

‫יתא ַא ְל ֵפי ַפ ְר ֵסי ָהוֵ י‬ ָּ ‫ ׁ ִש‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬The discussion above pertaining to the distance that an average ‫יעא ַא ְל ָפא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ס ּו ְמ ָכא דִּ ְר ִק‬,‫ ָע ְל ָמא‬person can walk in a day is based on the assumption that he walks support for .‫ ֲח ָדא ְ ּג ָמ ָרא וַ ֲח ָדא ְס ָב ָרא‬.‫ ּ ַפ ְר ֵסי‬five mil between dawn and sunrise. The Gemara brings this assumption. Rava said: The size of the worldn is six thousand parasangs,n and the thickness of the firmamentb is one thousand parasangs. One of these measurements with regard to the size of the world is a tradition, and one of the measurements is based upon Rava’s own reasoning. background

The thickness of the firmament – ‫יעא‬ ָ ‫סו ְּמ ָכא דִּ ְר ִק‬: According to the Gemara’s description, the firmament is a kind of dome. Over the course of the day the sun travels below the firmament, from the east, point A in the illustration, to the west, point B. During the twilight hours the sun passes through the firmament via openings, and it is not directly visible in the morning until it finishes passing through. The thickness of the firmament, measured by comparing the duration of twilight to the amount of time it takes the sun to travel from point A to point B, is marked by the arrow. Illustration depicting the sun’s daily path

‫ָס ַבר ָל ּה ִּכי ָהא דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר‬ ‫ ַּכ ָּמה ְמ ַה ֵּל ְך‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ָחנָ ה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ .‫ָא ָדם ֵ ּבינֹונִי ַ ּבּיֹום – ֶע ֶ ׂשר ּ ַפ ְר ָסאֹות‬ ‫ֵמ ֲעלֹות ַה ׁ ּ ַש ַחר וְ ַעד ָהנֵץ ַה ַח ָּמה‬ ‫יעת ַה ַח ָּמה ַעד‬ ַ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ִק‬,‫ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ִמ ִילין‬ ‫ נִ ְמצָ א‬,‫צֵ את ַה ּכ ָֹוכ ִבים ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ִמ ִילין‬ .‫עֹוביֹו ׁ ֶשל ָר ִק ַיע ֶא ָחד ִמ ׁ ּ ִש ׁ ָשה ַ ּבּיֹום‬ ְ

The Gemara explains: Rava holds like that statement which Rabba bar bar Ĥana said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: How far can an average person walk in a day? One can walk ten parasangs, which are forty mil. This is explained: From dawn until sunrise one can walk a distance of five mil; from sunset until the emergence of the stars one can walk another five mil. Therefore, it is found that the thickness of the firmament is one-sixth of the distance that the sun travels during the day. Between sunrise and sunset, the sun travels a distance of six thousand parasangs during the amount of time an average person can walk thirty mil. During the dawn and twilight periods in the morning and evening, when the sun passes through the thickness of the firmament, an average person can walk five mil, which is one-sixth of the distance he can walk between sunrise and sunset. Consequently, during dawn and twilight the sun must also travel one-sixth of the distance it travels between sunrise and sunset, i.e., one thousand parasangs, which is the thickness of the firmament.

‫עֹוביֹו‬ ְ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫יבי‬ ִ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫ֵמ‬ ,‫ ֵּת ַדע‬.‫ׁ ֶשל ָר ִק ַיע ֶא ָחד ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ַ ּבּיֹום‬ ‫ַּכ ָּמה ְמ ַה ֵּלךְ ָא ָדם ֵ ּבינֹונִי ַ ּבּיֹום – ֶע ֶ ׂשר‬ ‫ ו ֵּמ ֲעלֹות ַה ׁ ּ ַש ַחר ַעד ָהנֵץ‬,‫ּ ַפ ְר ָסאֹות‬ ‫יעת‬ ַ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ִק‬,‫ילין‬ ִ ‫ַה ַח ָּמה ַא ְר ַ ּב ַעת ִמ‬ ‫ַה ַח ָּמה וְ ַעד צֵ את ַה ּכ ָֹוכ ִבים ַא ְר ַ ּב ַעת‬ ‫עֹוביֹו ׁ ֶשל ָר ִק ַיע ֶא ָחד‬ ְ ‫ נִ ְמצֵ את‬,‫ִמ ִילין‬ ,‫ ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא דְּ ָר ָבא‬.‫ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ַ ּבּיֹום‬ .‫ ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא‬,‫ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא דְּ עו ָּּלא‬

The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: The thickness of the firmament is only onetenth of the distance that the sun travels during the day. Know that this is true because how far can an average person walk in a day between dawn and the emergence of the stars? One can walk ten parasangs, which are forty mil, and from dawn until sunrise one can walk only four mil, which are one parasang. Therefore, it is found that the thickness of the firmament is only one-tenth of the distance that the sun travels during the day. This is a refutation of the opinion of Rava. Similarly, it is a refutation of the opinion of Ulla, who holds that an average person can walk fifteen mil in half a day, whereas Rabbi Yehuda holds that the average person can walk sixteen mil in half a day. The Gemara concludes: It is indeed a conclusive refutation.n

?‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫יהוֵ י ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֱ ‫ימא ֶּת‬ ָ ‫ֵל‬ ,‫ימ ָמא הוּא דַּ ֲא ַמ ִרי‬ ָ ‫ ֲאנָ א ִ ּב‬:‫ָא ַמר ָל ְך‬ ‫ דְּ ָקא ָח ׁ ְש ַבן‬,ּ‫וְ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן הוּא דְּ ָקא ָטעו‬ .‫דְּ ַק ְד ָמא וַ ֲח ׁשו ָּכא‬

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this will be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabba bar bar Ĥana, citing Rabbi Yoĥanan, with regard to how far an average person can walk in a day. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoĥanan could have said to you: I am speaking about the total distance that an average person can walk in an entire day, but I never specified the distance one can walk during different parts of the day. And it was the Sages Ulla and Rava who erred in interpreting my opinion by saying that one can walk five mil and not four during each intermediate period, because when they calculated five mil before sunrise and after sunset they included the distance walked by people who set out earlier in the morning, before dawn, and by those who continued walking after nightfall.

notes

A conclusive refutation [teyuvta] – ‫תיו ְּב ָּתא‬:ְּ This term is usually used when the Gemara presents a conclusive refutation of an amoraic statement on the basis of a tannaitic source that contradicts the statement of the amora. This is one of a number of expressions based on the Aramaic root tvb that have the connotation of refutation. When an amora objects to the opinion of another amora, citing a tannaitic source, the expression used is eitivei, an objection, e.g., X raised an objection [eitivei] against the opinion of Y. When an amora raises an objection against an unattributed amoraic opinion, citing a tannaitic source, the expression employed is meitiv, he raised an objection. When the Gemara itself raises an objection citing a tannaitic source, the term is meitivei, meaning an objection was raised. When the refutation is conclusive, the expression teyuvta is often used, bringing the discussion to a close. background

Cush and Egypt – ‫כו ּׁש ו ִּמצְ ַריִ ם‬:ּ The illustration depicts a map of the world drawn during the mishnaic period, based on data provided by the geographer Ptolemy of Alexandria. This map shows the Egypt’s size relative to Cush, a name which referred to a large part of the African continent in ancient times.

Ancient map of Egypt and Cush

?‫יהוֵ י ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א‬ ֱ ‫ימא ֶּת‬ ָ ‫ ֵל‬The Gemara suggests: Let us say it is a conclusive refutation of .‫ ״וַ ּיָ ִאיצוּ״ ׁ ָשאנֵי‬,‫ ָלא‬the opinion of Rabbi Ĥanina, who proved from biblical verses that the distance from Sodom to Zoar is five mil. The angels and Lot walked that distance between dawn and sunrise, which implies that it is only four mil. The Gemara responds: No, that verse states: “The angels hastened Lot,” which indicates that they traveled very quickly. Therefore, hastened is different; because they hurried, they traveled five mil in the time one would normally walk four mil. ‫ ִמצְ ַריִ ם ָהיָ ה ַא ְר ַ ּבע ֵמאֹות‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ,‫ּ ַפ ְר ָסה ַעל ַא ְר ַ ּבע ֵמאֹות ּ ַפ ְר ָסה‬ ‫ וְ כו ּׁש‬,‫ו ִּמצְ ַריִ ם ֶא ָחד ִמ ׁ ּ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים ְ ּבכו ּׁש‬ ‫עֹולם ֶא ָחד‬ ָ ְ‫ ו‬,‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ֶא ָחד ִמ ׁ ּ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים ָ ּב‬ ,‫ וְ גַ ן ֶא ָחד ִמ ׁ ּ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים ְ ּב ֵע ֶדן‬,‫ִמ ׁ ּ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים ַ ּבגַ ן‬ ‫ נִ ְמצָ א‬,‫יה ָּנם‬ ִ ‫וְ ֵע ֶדן ֶא ָחד ִמ ׁ ּ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים ְ ּב ֵ ּג‬ ‫יס ּוי ְק ֵד ָירה‬ ּ ‫עֹולם ּכו ּּלֹו ְּכ ִכ‬ ָ ‫ָּכל ָה‬ .‫יה ָּנם! ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא‬ ִ ֵ‫ְלג‬



Come and hear a challenge from a baraita to the previous opinion with regard to the size of the world: The size of Egypt was four hundred parasangs by four hundred parasangs, and Egypt is one-sixtieth of the size of Cush,b and Cush is one-sixtieth of the world, and the world is one-sixtieth the size of the Garden of Eden, and the Garden of Eden is one-sixtieth of Eden, and Eden is one sixtieth of the size of Gehenna. Therefore, it is found that the entire world is like a pot cover, which is a small part of the total size of the pot, compared to Gehenna. In any event, based upon the sizes of Egypt and Cush, it is apparent that the entire world is larger than six thousand parasangs. This is indeed a conclusive refutation. ‫דצ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Perek IX . 94a 

183

‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,ּ‫ דְּ ָתנָ א דְּ ֵבי ֵא ִלּיָ הו‬,‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ‫ ָּכל ַהּיִ ׁ ּשוּב ּכו ּּלֹו ַּת ַחת‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫נָ ָתן‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֲה ֵרי‬,‫ ֵּת ַד ע‬.‫יֹושב‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ֹוכב ֶא ָחד‬ ָ ‫ּכ‬ ְ‫הֹולך‬ ֵ ,‫כֹוכב ֶא ָחד‬ ָ ‫נֹותן ֵעינֹו ְ ּב‬ ֵ ‫ָא ָדם‬ ‫ ְל ַא ְר ַ ּבע רוּחֹות‬,‫עֹומד ְּכנֶ גְ דֹו‬ ֵ – ‫ַל ִּמזְ ָרח‬ ‫ ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ָכל‬.‫עֹומד ְּכנֶ גְ דֹו‬ ֵ – ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ָה‬ ‫ֹוכב ֶא ָח ד‬ ָ ‫ַה ּיִ ׁ ּשוּב ּכ ּו ּל ֹו ַּת ַח ת ּכ‬ .‫יֹושב! – ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא‬ ֵׁ

Come and hear another challenge: One of the Sages of the school of Eliyahub taught that Rabbi Natan says: The entire settlement, the area of the world that is inhabited, sits under one star. Know that this is correct because when a person focuses his eye on one star, he can travel east as far as he wishes within the settled part of the world and the star remains opposite him in the same place, and he can travel in the four directions of the world and the star remains in place opposite him. By inference, the entire settlement of the world rests under one star; and since so many stars are visible and each one covers an area of the world comparable in size to the entire settled portion of the world, it must be that the world is larger than six thousand parasangs. The Gemara comments that this is indeed a conclusive refutation of Rava’s opinion.

‫ ֲע גָ ָלה ַ ּב ָ ּצפֹון וְ ַע ְק ָרב‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ‫יֹושב‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ וְ ָכל ַהּיִ ׁ ּשוּב ּכוּלּ ֹו ֵאינֹו‬,‫ַ ּבדָּ רֹום‬ ‫ וְ ָכל ַהּיִ ׁ ּשוּב‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ֵ ּבין ֲעגָ ָלה ְל ַע ְק ָרב‬ ‫ּכו ּּלֹו ֵאינֹו הֹוֶ ה ֶא ָּלא ׁ ָש ָעה ַא ַחת‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַח ָּמה נִ ְכנֶ ֶסת ַלּיִ ׁ ּשוּב‬.‫ַ ּבּיֹום‬ .‫ֶא ָּלא ׁ ָש ָעה ַא ַחת ַ ּבּיֹום‬

Come and hear another challenge from another baraita, which teaches that the constellation Ursa Major is in the north and the constellation Scorpio is in the south, and the entire settlement sits between Ursa Major and Scorpio,b as the relative positions of these two constellations appear to be the same from any location in the settled areas of the world. The ratio of the entire settlement to the world as a whole is comparable to only one hour in a day, as the sun enters the sky above the settlement for only one hour a day while the rest of the day it is outside the settlement.b

‫ ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָח ֵמ ׁש ַח ָּמה ַ ּב ִּמזְ ָרח ו ְּב ׁ ֶש ַבע‬,‫ֵּת ַדע‬ ‫ ֲחצִ י ׁ ֵש ׁש וַ ֲחצִ י ׁ ֶש ַבע‬,‫ַח ָּמה ַ ּב ַּמ ֲע ָרב‬ !‫ֹאש ָּכל ָא ָדם‬ ׁ ‫עֹומ ֶדת ְ ּבר‬ ֶ ‫ַח ָּמה‬ .‫ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא‬

Know that this is correct because at five hours into the day the sun is still in the east, and at seven hours the sun is in the west. During the second half of the sixth hour and the first half of the seventh hour the sun is positioned on top of everyone, as it is in the mid­dle of the sky in every inhabited area during this time. Apparently, the sun travels over the inhabited parts of the world in a single hour while the rest of the day it travels over the uninhabited parts. Therefore, the entire settled portion of the world is equal to one-twelfth of the world. It was established that the settled part of the world itself is several parasangs, so the entire world must be larger than six thousand parasangs. This also serves as a conclusive refutation of Rava’s opinion.

:‫יֹוחנָן ֶ ּבן זַ ַּכאי‬ ָ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ַ ּבן‬,‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ‫ַמה ְּת ׁשו ָּבה ֱה ׁ ִש ַיב ּתֹו ַ ּבת קֹול ְלאֹותֹו‬ ‫״א ֱע ֶלה ַעל‬ ֶ :‫ָר ׁ ָשע ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש ָא ַמר‬ ‫ יָ צְ ָתה‬,‫ָ ּב ֳמ ֵתי ָעב ֶאדַּ ֶּמה ְל ֶע ְליֹון״‬ ‫ ָר ׁ ָשע ֶ ּבן ָר ׁ ָשע‬:‫ַ ּבת קֹול וְ ָא ְמ ָרה לֹו‬

Come and hear another challenge, as Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai said: What response did the Divine Voice answer to that wicked man, Nebuchadnezzar, when he said: “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High” (Isaiah 14:14)? A Divine Voice emerged and said to him: Wicked man, son of a wicked man,

background

School of Eliyahu – ‫בי ֵא ִלּיָ ה ּו‬: ּ ֵ In many places in the Talmud and the midrash, Elijah the Prophet appears to people, especially to Sages, and resolves their dilemmas. As it is stated in the Prophets (I Kings 2:11), Elijah did not die, and he continues to serve as an emissary of God. On the one hand, he is the angel of the covenant. On the other hand, he is a person who alleviates problems in the world. The midrash named Tanna Devei Eliyahu or Seder Eliyahu Rabba and Seder Eliyahu Zuta is an independent entity. It is said in the Talmud (Ketubot 110a) that Elijah revealed halakha and aggada in these books to Rav Anan. However, there are those who believe that Tanna Devei Eliyahu and the school of Eliyahu are not references to Elijah the Prophet; rather, they are named for one of the tanna’im who lived during the Second Temple period (Sefer Be’er Sheva). One could possibly draw the same conclusion from one of the variant readings in the Rambam. According to that opinion, Tanna Devei Eliyahu, especially those sections where Eliyahu tells of his work and conversations with others, are merely statements of that tanna.

which is at the edge of Ursa Minor, marks the direction of true north, with only a slight deviation. The constellation Scorpio is visible during only some months of the year, generally in the summer. When it is visible, it appears in the south, although not always at the same coordinates.

which excludes lands to the far north or south. Most students of science in ancient times believed that the inhabited areas of the world ended near the equator. The angle of the sun at midday depends upon the latitude of each particular location, and since this angle is quite small in almost every place that was inhabited at that time, there was a basis for Rabbi Natan’s conclusion that the entire inhabited area of the world was equal to one-twelfth of half the world’s circumference. The diagram depicts Rabbi Natan’s opinion regarding inhabited and uninhabited areas of the world, and the sun’s path through them.

Ursa Major and Scorpio – ‫עגָ ָלה וְ ַע ְק ָרב‬:ֲ This map presents a view Map of the night sky marking Ursa Major, Ursa Minor, the North Star, and Scorpio of the night sky from the latitude of Jerusalem in July. Only a few stars are marked. The Ursa constellations, which include Ursa The sun over the settlement – ‫ח ָּמה ַ ּבּיִ ׁ ּשוּב‬:ַ The word settleMinor and Ursa Major, are always in the north. The North Star, ment refers to the parts of the world fit for human habitation, The sun’s path through the areas of the world, according to Rabbi Natan

184 

Perek IX . 94a . ‫דצ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ט‬

Perek IX Daf 94 Amud b ‫ ׁ ֶש ִה ְמ ִריד‬,‫ֶ ּבן ְ ּבנֹו ׁ ֶשל נִ ְמרֹוד ָה ָר ׁ ָשע‬ .‫עֹולם ּכוּלּ ֹו ָע ַלי ְ ּב ַמ ְלכוּתֹו‬ ָ ‫ֶאת ָּכל ָה‬ ‫נֹותיו ׁ ֶשל ָא ָדם – ׁ ִש ְב ִעים‬ ָ ‫ַּכ ָּמה ׁ ְש‬ .‫ וְ ִאם ִ ּבגְ בוּרֹות ׁ ְשמֹונִים ׁ ָשנָ ה‬,‫ׁ ָשנָ ה‬ ‫נֹותינ ּו ָ ּב ֶהם ׁ ִש ְב ִעים‬ ֵ ‫ ״יְ ֵמי ׁ ְש‬:‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ ,‫ׁ ָשנָ ה וְ ִאם ִ ּבגְ בוּרֹות ׁ ְשמֹונִים ׁ ָשנָ ה״‬

the disciple in corruption of Nimrod the wicked, who caused the entire world to rebeln against Me during his reign by advising the generation of the dispersion to build a tower in order to fight the Hosts of Heaven, how many are the years of a person altogether? Seventy years, and if he is with strength, eighty years, as it is stated: “The days of our years are seventy years and with strength eighty years” (Psalms 90:10).

‫ִמן ָה ָא ֶרץ ַעד ָל ָר ִק ַיע – ַמ ֲה ַל ְך ֲח ֵמ ׁש‬ ְ‫עֹוביֹו ׁ ֶשל ָר ִק ַיע ַמ ֲה ַלך‬ ְ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ֵמאֹות ׁ ָשנָ ה‬ ‫(כל) ָר ִק ַיע‬ ָּ ‫ ו ֵּבין‬,‫ֲח ֵמ ׁש ֵמאֹות ׁ ָשנָ ה‬ ‫ וְ ֵכן‬,‫ְל ָר ִק ַיע ַמ ֲה ַלךְ ֲח ֵמ ׁש ֵמאֹות ׁ ָשנָ ה‬ ‫״אךְ ֶאל ׁ ְשאֹול‬ ַ ,‫ֵ ּבין ָּכל ָר ִק ַיע וְ ָר ִק ַיע‬ .‫ּתו ָּרד ֶאל יַ ְר ְּכ ֵתי בֹור״! ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא‬

In contrast, from the earth to the first firmament of seven (see Ĥagiga 12b) is a walking distance of five hundred years, and the thickness of the firmament is a walking distance of five hundred years, which is equal to approximately 1.8 million parasangs, and between each firmament is another walking distance of five hundred years, and so too between each and every firmament. Therefore, how can you, Nebuchadnezzar, hope to reach the heavens in your lifetime, such that you say: “I will be like the Most High”? Rather, as the verse continues: “Yet you shall be brought down to the netherworld, to the uttermost parts of the pit” (Isaiah 14:15). In any event, this is a conclusive refutation of Rava’s opinion that the thickness of the firmament is only one thousand parasangs.

:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ַח ְכ ֵמי יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬,‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫ וְ ַח ְכ ֵמי‬,‫ַ ּג ְל ַ ּגל ָקב ּו ַע ו ַּמּזָ לֹות חֹוזְ ִרין‬ ‫ ַ ּג ְל ַ ּגל חֹוזֵ ר‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫או ּּמֹות ָה‬ ‫ ְּת ׁשו ָּבה‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ו ַּמּזָ לֹות ְקבו ִּעין‬ ‫עֹולם ל ֹא ָמצִ ינ ּו ֲעגָ ָלה‬ ָ ‫יהם – ֵמ‬ ֶ ‫ְל ִד ְב ֵר‬ .‫ַ ּבדָּ רֹום וְ ַע ְק ָרב ַ ּב ָ ּצפֹון‬

In a discussion related to the structure of the natural world, the Sages taught: The Jewish Sages say the celestial sphere of the zodiac is stationary, and the constellations revolve in their place within the sphere; and the sages of the nations of the world say the entire celestial sphere revolves, and the constellations are stationary within the sphere.nb Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: A refutation of their words that the entire sphere moves can be derived from the fact that we have never found the constellation of Ursa Major in the South or Scorpio in the North. This indicates that it is the stars themselves that revolve in place and not the celestial sphere as a whole, because otherwise it would be impossible for Ursa Major to remain in the North and Scorpio to remain in the South.

notes

Who caused the entire world to rebel – ‫ׁ ֶש ִה ְמ ִריד ֶאת ָּכל‬ ‫עֹולם ּכו ּּלֹו‬ ָ ‫ה‬:ָ Rashi explains that Nimrod was the leader of those who built the Tower of Babel. In his commentary on Genesis, Rashi explains the verse: “And Nimrod…was a warrior, a hunter before the Lord” (Genesis 10:8–9) to mean that he would hunt people’s minds, so to speak, and turn them away from the service of God. The movement of the celestial sphere – ‫מ ֲה ַל ְך ַה ַ ּג ְל ַ ּגל‬:ַ It appears that there was no consensus among the Jewish Sages themselves. The Maharsha notes that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ĥananya apparently agreed with the opinion citing the gentile sages. A midrash states: We do not know if they float in the air, if they slide over the surface of the firmament, or if they move along their own paths (see also Rabbeinu Ĥananel).

:‫ ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב ַא ָחא ַ ּבר יַ ֲעקֹב‬Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov strongly objects to this proof: And perhaps – ‫ ִאי נַ ִמי‬,‫יחּיָ א‬ ַ ‫ וְ ִד ְיל ָמא ְּכבוּצִ ינָ א ְד ֵר‬the stars are stationary within the sphere like the steel socket of a .‫ ְּכצִ ינּ ָֹורא דְּ ַד ׁ ּ ָשא‬mill, which remains stationary while the stones of the mill revolve around it. Alternatively, perhaps they are stationary like the pivot of a door, which remains stationary while the door makes wide turns around it; similarly, perhaps the constellations are stationary within a sphere, and there is an outer sphere within which the sun revolves around all the constellations. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement is not necessarily true.

background

The celestial sphere and constellations – ‫ג ְל ַ ּגל ו ַּמּזָ לֹות‬:ּ ַ This dispute concerning the movement of the stars was not fully explained in the Talmud or in the works of the early commentators, most of whom accepted the opinions of the gentile sages. It appears that the Jewish Sages maintained that there is a celestial sphere to which the constellations are attached. This sphere remains stationary, while the constellations, including the sun, change their position from time to time. On the other hand, the gentile sages believed that constellations are attached to various celestial spheres, and each entire sphere revolves with its constellation.



Above: Movement of heavenly bodies according to the gentile sages Left: Movement of heavenly bodies according to the Jewish Sages ‫דצ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Perek IX . 94b 

185

background

The sun during the day and the night – ‫ח ָּמה ַ ּבּיֹום ו ַּב ַּליְ ָלה‬:ַ The illustrations show the movement of the sun during the day and night in the opinion of the Jewish Sages. According to this opinion, the firmament is opaque, and light cannot pass through it.

Movement of the sun during the day according to the Jewish Sages

‫ ַ ּבּיֹום ַח ָּמה ְמ ַה ֶּל ֶכת‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫יִש ָר ֵאל‬ ׂ ְ ‫ַח ְכ ֵמי‬ ‫ ו ַּב ַּליְ ָלה ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ִמן‬,‫ְל ַמ ָּטה ִמן ָה ָר ִק ַיע‬ :‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַח ְכ ֵמי או ּּמֹות ָה‬.‫ָה ָר ִק ַיע‬ ,‫ַ ּבּיֹום ַח ָּמה ְמ ַה ֶּל ֶכת ְל ַמ ָּטה ִמן ָה ָר ִק ַיע‬ :‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ו ַּב ַּליְ ָלה ְל ַמ ָּטה ִמן ַה ַ ּק ְר ַקע‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ַ ּבּיֹום ַמ ְעיָ נֹות‬,ּ‫יהן ִמדְּ ָב ֵרינו‬ ֶ ‫וְ נִ ְר ִאין דִּ ְב ֵר‬ .‫רֹות ִחין‬ ְ ‫צֹונְ נִין ו ַּב ַּליְ ָלה‬

The Gemara presents a similar dispute: The Jewish Sages say that during the day the sun travels beneath the firmament and is therefore visible, and at night it travels above the firmament.b And the sages of the nations of the world say that during the day the sun travels beneath the firmament, and at night it travels beneath the earth and around to the other side of the world. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: And the statement of the sages of the nations of the world appears to be more accurate than our statement. A proof to this is that during the day, springs that originate deep in the ground are cold, and during the night they are hot compared to the air temperature, which supports the theory that these springs are warmed by the sun as it travels beneath the earth.

‫ ִ ּבימֹות ַה ַח ָּמה‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן‬,‫ַּתנְ יָ א‬ ‫יכ ְך‬ ָ ‫ ְל ִפ‬,‫גֹוב ּה ׁ ֶשל ָר ִק ַיע‬ ַ ‫ַח ָּמה ְמ ַה ֶּל ֶכת ְ ּב‬ .‫רֹות ַח ו ַּמ ְעיָ נֹות צֹונְ נִין‬ ֵ ‫עֹולם ּכו ּּלֹו‬ ָ ‫ָּכל ָה‬ ‫ִ ּבימֹות ַה ְ ּג ׁ ָש ִמים ַח ָּמה ְמ ַה ֶּל ֶכת ְ ּב ׁ ִש ּיפו ֵּלי‬ ‫עֹולם ּכוּלּ ֹו צֹונֵן ו ַּמ ְעיָ נֹות‬ ָ ‫ ְל ִפ ָיכךְ ָּכל ָה‬,‫ָר ִק ַיע‬ .‫רֹות ִחין‬ ְ

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: During the summer the sun travels high in the sky, above the earth, and therefore the entire world is hot, and springs that originate deep in the ground are cold. On the other hand, during the winter the sun travels low in the sky, over the edges of the earth. Therefore, the entire world is cold, but springs are hot relative to the air temperature.

:‫ ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ׁ ְש ִב ִילין ַח ָּמה ְמ ַה ֶּל ֶכת‬,‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫נִיסן ִאּיָ יר וְ ִסיוָ ן ְמ ַה ֶּל ֶכת ֶ ּב ָה ִרים ְּכ ֵדי ְל ַפ ׁ ּ ֵשר‬ ָ ‫ ַּת ּמוּז ָאב וֶ ֱאלוּל ְמ ַה ֶּל ֶכת‬.‫ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָלגִ ין‬ ‫ ִּת ׁ ְש ֵרי‬.‫ַ ּבּיִ ׁ ּשוּב ְּכ ֵדי ְל ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ֶאת ַה ּ ֵפירֹות‬ ‫יַב ׁש‬ ּ ֵ ‫ַמ ְר ֶח ׁ ְשוָ ן וְ ִכ ְס ֵליו ְמ ַה ֶּל ֶכת ַ ּבּיַ ִּמים ְּכ ֵדי ְל‬ ‫ ֵט ֵבת ׁ ְש ָבט וַ ֲא ָדר ְמ ַה ֶּל ֶכת‬.‫ֶאת ַה ְּנ ָהרֹות‬ .‫יַב ׁש ֶאת ַהּזְ ָר ִעים‬ ּ ֵ ‫ַ ּב ִּמ ְד ָ ּבר ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ְל‬

The Sages taught: The sun travels in four paths during the four seasons of the year, and each causes a unique weather pattern: During the months of Nisan, Iyyar, and Sivan, the sun travels over the mountains in order to melt the snows that collected during the winter. During Tammuz, Av, and Elul, it travels over the areas of the settlement in order to ripen the produce. During Tishrei, Marĥeshvan, and Kislev, it travels over the seas in order to dry the rivers, as the rivers flow more gently during that time of year and the water turns into rain clouds. During Tevet, Shevat, and Adar, it travels over the desert in order to not dry the seeds that were planted in the inhabited areas of settlement, which begin to sprout during this time.

‫ וְ ַאף‬.‫אֹומר ֵמ ִא ְסקו ּ ַּפת״ כו׳‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫״וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ‫יה קוּם‬ ּ ‫ וְ ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַן ֵל‬,‫ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ָמצֵ י ָעיֵ יל‬ ‫ יְ הו ִּדי ָע ֵרל ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ָמל ָענו ּׁש‬:‫ וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬.‫ַעיֵ יל‬ !‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ָּכ ֵרת דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬

It was taught in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone located from the threshold of the Temple courtyardn and beyond is considered to be on a distant journey. The Gemara objects: And even though he is able to enter the courtyard, we do not say to him: Get up and enter; rather, we rely on the fact that at the critical moment he is outside the courtyard. But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: An adult uncircumcised Jew who did not circumcise himself h will be punished with karet for being unable to eat the Paschal lamb on Passover; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Apparently, Rabbi Eliezer himself requires one to take action and circumcise himself so that the obligation to bring the Paschal lamb will apply to him. If one does not do so, he is considered to have intentionally refrained from eating the Paschal lamb and will receive karet. This baraita in which Rabbi Eliezer requires a person to be proactive seems to contradict the mishna in which Rabbi Eliezer permits a person to remain passive.

Movement of the sun at night according to the Jewish Sages

notes

From the threshold of the courtyard – ‫מ ִא ְסקו ּ ַּפת ָה ֲעזָ ָרה‬:ֵ According to Rabbi Eliezer, the practical application of the halakha of one on a distant journey is that the obligation to offer the Paschal lamb applies only to those located in the Temple courtyard at the proper time. Anyone who is not in the courtyard does not have an absolute obligation to sacrifice the Paschal lamb, even if he is near the Temple. The author of the Tziyyun LeNefesh Ĥayya and other commentaries have expressed their astonishment that according to Rabbi Eliezer, a person who is ritually impure or uncircumcised is liable for not making himself fit to sacrifice the Paschal

lamb, but if he were to become pure or circumcise himself and remain outside the Temple courtyard, he would not be obligated to bring the offering. Apparently, according to Rabbi Eliezer, the main obligation is that a person must prepare himself to be fit to offer the Paschal lamb; it is assumed that whoever is fit will actually participate in the offering. According to this opinion, the punishment of karet for failing to offer the Paschal lamb is in order to encourage those who are presently ritually impure to purify themselves, and is not directed at those who are ritually pure but outside the Temple courtyard.

halakha

An uncircumcised Jew who did not circumcise himself – ‫יְהו ִּדי‬ ‫ע ֵרל ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ָמל‬:ָ An uncircumcised man who does not become circumcised in time to offer the Paschal lamb is considered as

186 

Perek IX . 94b . ‫דצ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ט‬

one who intentionally refrained from observing the first Pesaĥ. Therefore, if he does not observe the second Pesaĥ, he is liable to receive karet (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 5:4).

‫חֹוקה ַל ָּטהֹור וְ ֵאין‬ ָ ‫ דֶּ ֶרךְ ְר‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬Abaye said: The exemption from the observing the first Pesaĥ .‫חֹוקה ַל ָּט ֵמא‬ ָ ‫ דֶּ ֶרךְ ְר‬granted to one on a distant journey was stated only for one who is ritually pure, and there is no exemption of a distant journey for one who is ritually impure or is unfit to offer the Paschal lamb for any other reason. One who is unfit to offer the sacrifice must take action to enable him to fulfill his obligation, and he is not included in the exemption of being on a distant journey. Conversely, the exemption does apply to people who are inherently fit to offer the sacrifice, and who are therefore not liable to karet if they do not enter the courtyard. There is no need to warn them to offer the Paschal lamb. ,‫ דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬.‫ ַּת ָּנ ֵאי ִהיא‬:‫ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬ ‫ נֶ ֱא ַמר ִריחוּק‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ‫ וְ נֶ ֱא ַמר ִריחוּק ָמקֹום‬,‫ָמקֹום ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ – ‫ ַמה ְּל ַה ָּלן חוּץ ַל ֲא ִכ ָילתֹו‬.‫ַ ּב ַּמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬ .‫ַאף ָּכאן חוּץ ַל ֲא ִכ ָילתֹו‬

Rava said: It is a dispute between tanna’im as to Rabbi Eliezer’s true opinion, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: The exemption of a distant journey is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb, and the exemption of a distant journey is stated with regard to the second tithe, as the verse states: “And if the way be too long for you, so that you are not able to carry it because the place is too far from you, which the Lord your God shall choose to set His name there” (Deuteronomy 14:24). Just as later in the Torah, with regard to the second tithe, the exemption applies only to someone located outside the area where it may be eaten, as the second tithe may be eaten only in Jerusalem, so too here, with regard to the Paschal lamb, the exemption of a distant journey applies only to one located outside the place in which it may be eaten, which is the entire city of Jerusalem. According to this opinion, anyone located in Jerusalem is included in the obligation to offer the Paschal lamb.

‫אֹומר ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי ַ ּבר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬However, Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says, citing Rabbi .‫ חוּץ ַל ֲע ִ ׂשּיָ יתֹו‬:‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬Eliezer: The exemption of a distant journey applies to anyone located outside the area where the offering of the Paschal lamb may be performed, which is the Temple courtyard. ‫ְּכ ַמאן ָאזְ ָלא ָהא דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק‬ ‫ ַ ּב ְּט ֵמ ִאים – ַה ֵּלךְ ַא ַחר‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ַ ּבר ַרב‬ ‫ ְּכ ַמאן – ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫עֹומ ִדין ָ ּב ֲעזָ ָרה‬ ְ ‫רֹוב ָה‬ ‫יֹוסי ַ ּבר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ׁ ֶש ָא ַמר ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ ֵ .‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabbi Yitzĥak bar Rav Yosef said: In determining whether the majority of the community is ritually pure or ritually impure, follow the majority of those standing in the courtyard,h and do not take into consideration people who are in Jerusalem but have not come to the courtyard. In accordance with whose opinion is it? It is in accordance with the opinion that Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda said, citing Rabbi Eliezer, which is as follows: Circumstances that can change the details of one’s obligation to offer the Paschal lamb, such as whether one is in a state of ritual impurity or whether he is on a distant journey, are determined based on whether or not one is within the Temple courtyard at the time of the slaughter.

.‫יכ ְך״ וכו׳‬ ָ ‫יֹוסי ְל ִפ‬ ֵ ‫״א ַמר לֹו ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָ ‫ ״דֶּ ֶרךְ ״‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ַּתנְיָא‬ ‫ֹומ ַע ֲאנִי ַמ ֲה ַלךְ ׁ ְשנַיִ ם אֹו ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬ ֵ ‫ׁש‬ ‫אֹומר ״ו ְּב ֶד ֶר ְך ל ֹא‬ ֵ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא‬,‫יָ ִמים‬ ‫ָהיָ ה״ – ַמ ִ ּגיד ׁ ֶש ֵּמ ִא ְסקו ּ ַּפת ָה ֲעזָ ָרה‬ . ְ‫וְ ַלחוּץ ָקרוּי דֶּ ֶרך‬

It was taught in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei said to him: Therefore, there is a dot over the letter heh. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: If the verse had said simply: “A distant journey,” One would conclude from it that it means the distance of at least a two- or three-day walk. However, when it says later: “But the man who is ritually pure and is not on a journey” (Numbers 9:13) and does not specify a distant journey, it teaches that from the threshold of the courtyard and beyond is called a journey, and the exemption is not limited to one on a distant journey as the first verse seemed to imply.

halakha

The majority of those standing in the courtyard – ‫רֹוב‬ ‫עֹומ ִדין ָ ּב ֲעזָ ָרה‬ ְ ‫ה‬:ָ How is the calculation made to determine if the majority of the population is ritually pure or impure with regard to the Paschal lamb? The calculation is based



those who are standing outside the courtyard ready to enter. If most of them are ritually impure, the Paschal lamb is offered in a state of ritual impurity (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 7:6). ‫דצ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Perek IX . 94b 

187

Perek IX Daf 95 Amud a notes

What is the difference between the first Pesaĥ and the second Pesaĥ – ‫אשֹון ַל ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ׁ ‫מה ֵ ּבין ּ ֶפ ַסח ָה ִר‬:ַ Tosafot note that the mishna does not list all of the differences between the first Pesaĥ and the second. Other commentaries have added that an additional difference is that no Festival peace-offering is sacrificed along with the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ, as is taught in the Jerusalem Talmud.

?‫אשֹון ַל ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ ׁ ‫מתני׳ ַמה ֵ ּבין ּ ֶפ ַסח ָה ִר‬ ,‫אשֹון ָאסוּר ְ ּב ַבל יֵ ָר ֶאה ו ַּבל יִ ָּמצֵ א‬ ׁ ‫ָה ִר‬ ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ ָה ִר‬.‫וְ ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי ָח ֵמץ ו ַּמ ָ ּצה ִע ּמֹו ַ ּב ַ ּביִ ת‬ ‫ וְ ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי ֵאינֹו‬,‫ילתֹו‬ ָ ‫ָטע ּון ַה ֵּלל ַ ּב ֲא ִכ‬ ‫ זֶ ה וָ זֶ ה ָטעוּן‬.‫ילתֹו‬ ָ ‫ָטעוּן ַה ֵּלל ַ ּב ֲא ִכ‬ ‫יתן וְ נֶ ֱא ָכ ִלין צָ ִלי ַעל ַמ ָ ּצה‬ ָ ָ‫ַה ֵּלל ַ ּב ֲע ִ ׂשּי‬ .‫דֹוחין ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ִ ְ‫רֹורים ו‬ ִ ‫ו ְּמ‬

MISHNA 

What is the difference between  the Paschal lamb offered on the first Pesaĥ and the Paschal lamb offered on the second Pesaĥ?n On the first Pesaĥ, at the time of slaughtering the Paschal lamb, it is prohibited to own leavened bread due to the prohibitions: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found. And on the second Pesaĥ it is permissible for one to have both leavened bread and matza with him in the house. Another difference is that the Paschal lamb offered on the first Pesaĥ requires the recitation of hallel as it is eaten and the second does not require the recitation of hallel as it is eaten. However, they are the same in that the Paschal lambs sacrificed on both the first and second Pesaĥ require the recitation of hallel as they are prepared, i.e., as they are slaughtered, and they are both eaten roasted with matza and bitter herbs, and they override Shabbat in that they may be slaughtered and their blood sprinkled even on Shabbat.h

gemara 

The Sages taught a halakhic midrash per‫״כ ָכל חו ַ ּּקת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ְּ :‫גמ׳ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ taining to the Paschal lamb offered on the ‫יַ ֲעשׂ ּו אֹותֹו״ – ְ ּב ִמצְ וָ ה ׁ ֶש ְ ּבגוּפֹו ַה ָּכתוּב‬ second Pesaĥ. The verse states with regard to the second Pesaĥ: .‫“ ְמ ַד ֵ ּבר‬They shall leave none of it to the morning, nor break a bone in it; according to all the entire statute of the Paschal lamb they shall offer it” (Numbers 9:12). The fact that the verse says “it” indicates that the verse is speaking of a mitzva applicable to the body of the Paschal lamb, meaning that halakhot pertaining to the actual Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ apply equally to the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ. :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ִמצְ וָ ה ׁ ֶש ַעל גּ וּפֹו ִמ ּנַיִ ן – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ‫ יָ כֹול‬.‫ֹאכלוּהוּ״‬ ְ ‫רֹורים י‬ ִ ‫״על ַמ ּצֹות ו ְּמ‬ ַ ‫ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִמצְ ו‍ֹת ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ַעל גּ וּפֹו – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ‫ ַמה‬.‫ ״וְ ֶעצֶ ם ל ֹא יִ ׁ ְש ְ ּבר ּו בֹו״‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ,‫ׁ ּ ְש ִב ַירת ָה ֶעצֶ ם ְמיו ָּחד – ִמצְ וָ ה ׁ ֶש ְ ּבגוּפֹו‬ .‫ַאף ָּכל ִמצְ וָ ה ׁ ֶש ְ ּבגוּפֹו‬

The midrash continues: With regard to a mitzva related to the body of the Paschal lamb but not actually performed on the body of the offering, from where is it derived that it applies to the second Pesaĥ as well? The verse states: “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:11). One might have thought that one must fulfill all mitzvot related to the first Pesaĥ on the second Pesaĥ, even mitzvot not at all related to the body of the Paschal lamb, such as the requirement to destroy all one’s leaven. Therefore, the Torah states: “And they shall not break a bone in it” (Numbers 9:12), which teaches that just as the prohibition of breaking a bone is notable among the mitzvot related to the Paschal lamb in that it is a mitzva applicable to the Paschal lamb itself, so too, any mitzva applicable to the Paschal lamb itself must be fulfilled on the second Pesaĥ. However, other mitzvot pertaining to the first Pesaĥ need not be fulfilled on the second Pesaĥ.

– ‫ ״יַ ֲע ׂש ּו אֹותֹו״‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יסי ֶ ּבן יְ הו ָּדה‬ ִ ‫ ִא‬Isi ben Yehuda says: It is unnecessary to derive that halakha from .‫ ְ ּב ִמצְ ו‍ֹת ׁ ֶש ְ ּבגוּפֹו ַה ָּכתוּב ְמ ַד ֵ ּבר‬the end of the verse quoted, as the phrase in the first half of the verse: “They shall perform it,” indicates that the verse is speaking only of mitzvot applicable to the body of the Paschal lamb itself. ‫ ״יָ כֹול ַאף ִמצְ וָ ה ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ַעל‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָמר‬The Gemara clarifies the details of the baraita. The Master said: One ‫״ב ִמצְ וָ ה ׁ ֶש ְ ּבגוּפֹו‬ ּ ְ ‫ ָהא ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬.‫ גּ וּפֹו״‬might have thought that one must fulfill even a mitzva not at all !‫ ַה ָּכתוּב ְמ ַד ֵ ּבר״‬related to the body of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ. The Gemara expresses surprise: But you said that the verse is speaking only of a mitzva applicable to the body of the Paschal lamb, so why would one think that unrelated mitzvot are also included?

halakha

The first and second Pesaĥ – ‫אשֹון וְ ׁ ֵשנִי‬ ׁ ‫פ ַסח ִר‬:ֶ ּ There are a number of differences between the first and second Pesaĥ. On the first Pesaĥ, it is prohibited to own leaven and the Paschal lamb may not be slaughtered while one is in possession of leaven; however, on the second Pesaĥ, one may have both leaven and matza together in one’s house. Meat from the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ may not be taken outside the area of the group who share it or be eaten with another group, and there

188 

Perek IX . 95a . ‫הצ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ט‬

is a requirement to recite hallel while eating the sacrifice; in contrast, meat from the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ may be taken outside the area of the group who share it or be eaten with another group, and there is no requirement to recite hallel while eating it. In addition, a Festival peace-offering is brought with the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ, but not on the second. Moreover, on the first Pesaĥ the offering may be consumed in a state of ritual impurity if the majority of the community is

ritually impure, but on the second Pesaĥ the offering is neither sacrificed nor eaten in a state of ritual impurity. There are also a number of common elements between the first and second Pesaĥ: the slaughter of the offering overrides Shabbat; one is obligated to recite hallel during the slaughter of the offering; and the offering must be roasted on a fire and eaten with matza and bitter herbs (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 10:15).

‫״על ַמ ּצֹות‬ ַ ‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא דְּ ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬:‫ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ַא ְל ָמא ״יַ ֲע ׂש ּו‬.‫ֹאכלוּהוּ״‬ ְ ‫רֹורים י‬ ִ ‫ּו ְמ‬ ‫ימא ֲהוָ ה‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬,‫אֹותֹו״ ָלאו דַּ וְ ָקא הוּא‬ ‫מֹוסיף‬ ִ ‫נַע ָ ׂשה ְּכ ָלל‬ ֲ ְ‫ ו‬,‫יה ִּכ ְפ ָרט ו ְּכ ָלל‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ֵּ ‫יל ּו ָּכל ִמ‬ ּ ‫ וַ ֲא ִפ‬,‫ַעל ַה ּ ְפ ָרט‬ ‫ ָקא‬,‫ילי נַ ִמי‬ .‫ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬

The Gemara explains that this is what the baraita is saying: Now that you said the additional halakha that they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, apparently the phrase: “They shall perform it,” is not specific and does not limit the halakhot of the second Pesaĥ to those applicable to the Paschal lamb itself, say that this verse is expounded according to the principle of a detail and a generalization,n as it first said: “They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs” and “They shall leave none of it to the morning,” and then it stated a generalization: “According to all the statute of the Paschal lamb they shall perform it.” The principles of halakhic midrash state that in that case, the generalization adds to the detail and even includes everything, such that all the mitzvot of the first Pesaĥ would apply equally to the second, including the removal of leaven. Therefore, the verse “They shall not break a bone in it” teaches us that mitzvot unrelated to the Paschal lamb do not apply to the second Pesaĥ.

‫״עצֶ ם״ ַמאי ָע ֵביד‬ ֶ ‫ ַהאי‬,‫ ִא ִיסי ֶ ּבן יְהו ָּדה‬The Gemara asks: What does Isi ben Yehuda do with the end ‫יה ְל ֶא ָחד ֶעצֶ ם ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ּבֹו‬ ּ ָ ‫יה? ִמ‬ ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ ּ ‫ ֵל‬of the verse: “And they shall not break a bone in it”? The Gemara answers: He needs it to teach that the prohibition of breaking .‫מֹוח‬ ַ ‫מֹוח וְ ֶא ָחד ֶעצֶ ם ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּבֹו‬ ַ a bone applies both to a bone that has marrow and to a bone that does not have marrow. ‫וְ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ַהאי ״יַ ֲע ׂש ּו אֹתֹו״ ַמאי ָע ְב ִדי‬ ‫ֹוח ִטין ֶאת‬ ֲ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ׁש‬:‫יה‬ ּ ָ ‫יה? ִמ‬ ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫ דְּ ַכ ָּמה דְּ ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר‬,‫ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ַעל ַהּיָ ִחיד‬ .‫דֹורי ְמ ַהדְּ ִרינַן‬ ֵ ‫ַל ַא ְה‬

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who expound differently than Isi ben Yehuda, what do they do with this phrase: “They shall perform it”? The Gemara answers: They need it to teach that one does not slaughter the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ on behalf of a single individual.n Since the verse speaks of people performing the second Pesaĥ in the plural, it is derived that as much as it is possible to search for more peopleh to join this individual in his Paschal lamb, we search for them, even if it means causing another individual to become ritually impure to prevent him from performing the first Pesaĥ.

‫״כ ָכל חו ַ ּּקת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח יַ ֲע ׂש ּו‬ ְּ :‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫אשֹון ָאסוּר‬ ׁ ‫אֹותֹו״ יָ כֹול ְּכ ׁ ֵשם ׁ ֶש ָה ִר‬ ‫ ָּכךְ ׁ ֵשנִי ָאסוּר‬,‫ְ ּב ַבל יֵ ָר ֶאה ו ַּבל יִ ָּמצֵ א‬ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ ַּת ְלמוּד‬,‫ְ ּב ַבל יֵ ָר ֶאה ו ַּבל יִ ָּמצֵ א‬ .‫ֹאכלוּהוּ״‬ ְ ‫רֹורים י‬ ִ ‫״על ַמ ּצֹות ו ְּמ‬ ַ

The Sages taught in a different baraita: The verse states: “According to the entire statute of the Paschal lamb they shall offer it” (Numbers 9:12). One might have thought that just as at the time of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ it is prohibited to own leaven due to the prohibitions of: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, so too, at the time of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ it is prohibited to own leaven due to the prohibitions of: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found. Therefore, the Torah states: “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:11), which indicates that the other mitzvot pertaining to the first Pesaĥ do not apply on the second.

‫ ִמצְ וַ ת ל ֹא‬,‫ וְ ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָּלא ִמצְ וַ ת ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬The baraita continues: And from here I have derived only that ‫ ״ל ֹא‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה ִמ ּנַיִ ן – ַּת ְלמוּד‬positive mitzvot related to the first Pesaĥ apply on the second .‫ יַ ׁ ְש ִאיר ּו ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ַעד ּב ֶֹקר״‬Pesaĥ; from where do I derive that the same is true of negative mitzvot? The verse states: “They shall leave none of it to the morning, nor break a bone in it” (Numbers 9:12). ‫ִיתק‬ ַּ ‫וְ ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָּלא ִמצְ וַ ת ל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה ׁ ֶש ּנ‬ – ‫ ִמצְ וַ ת ל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה ָ ּגמוּר ִמ ּנַיִ ן‬,‫ַל ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬ .‫ ״וְ ֶעצֶ ם ל ֹא יִ ׁ ְש ְ ּבר ּו בֹו״‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא‬,‫פֹור ׁש – ִמצְ וַ ת ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬ ָ ‫ָמה ַה ּ ְפ ָרט ְמ‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬,‫ִיתק ַל ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬ ַּ ‫ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה ׁ ֶש ּנ‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬,‫ָ ּגמוּר – ַאף ָּכל ִמצְ וַ ת ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬ .‫ וְ ל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה ָ ּגמוּר‬,‫ִיתק ַל ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬ ַּ ‫ׁ ֶש ּנ‬



The baraita continues: And from this verse I have derived only that a negative mitzva whose violation can be rectified by the fulfillment of a positive mitzvan applies on the second Pesaĥ, e.g., the prohibition of leaving over meat from the Paschal lamb until morning, which can be rectified by the positive mitzva of burning the leftovers;n from where is it derived that the same is true of a full-fledged negative mitzva? The verse states: “They shall not break a bone in it.” It may be concluded from these examples that just as the detail, i.e., the specific mitzvot mentioned in these verses, is explicit and includes a positive mitzva, a prohibition whose violation can be rectified by the fulfillment of a positive mitzva, and a full-fledged negative mitzva; so too, every positive mitzva, every prohibition whose violation can be rectified by the fulfillment of a positive mitzva, and every full-fledged negative mitzva is included.h

notes

A detail and a generalization – ‫פ ָרט ו ְּכ ָלל‬:ְ ּ The principle of a generalization and a detail, and that of a detail and a generalization, are among the thirteen hermeneutical principles of Rabbi Yishmael used by the Sages to expound the Torah. The principle of a generalization and a detail posits that the generalization is limited to the detail that is mentioned afterward. Indeed, the only reason the generalization is mentioned at all is to preclude the possibility of expanding the detail using one of the other hermeneutical principles. In contrast, the principle of a detail and a generalization expands the detail to include anything included in the generalization. The detail is mentioned only to preclude the possibility of limiting the generalization in any other manner. Apparently, in this context the Gemara expounds the verses according to the principle of amplification and restriction, in which only certain, specific mitzvot are restricted from inclusion in the generalization. One does not slaughter the Paschal lamb on behalf of an individual – ‫ֹוח ִטין ֶאת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ַעל ַהּיָ ִחיד‬ ֲ ‫אין ׁש‬:ֵ This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei (see 91a) that a Paschal lamb slaughtered for an individual is valid. Even though there he seems to permit slaughtering for an individual even ab initio, this verse clarifies that ideally, every attempt should be made not to slaughter a Paschal lamb for a single individual. According to Rabbi Yehuda, however, a Paschal lamb may never be slaughtered for an individual under any circumstances. A negative mitzva whose violation can be rectified by the fulfillment of a positive mitzva – ‫ִיתק‬ ַּ ‫ִמצְ וַ ת ל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה ׁ ֶש ּנ‬ ‫ל ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬:ַ The usual punishment of lashes is not administered to an individual who violates a prohibition that can be rectified by the fulfillment of a positive mitzva. For example, the prohibition: “You shall not take the dam with the young” (Deuteronomy 22:6) can be rectified by fulfilling the positive mitzva: “You shall surely let the dam go” (Deuteronomy 22:7). Only if the violation can never be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva will the usual punishment be administered. A prohibition that can be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva – ‫ִיתק ַל ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬ ַּ ‫לאו ַה ּנ‬:ָ It seems strange that a prohibition that can be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva is more definitively included in the Gemara concerning the mitzvot that apply to the second Pesaĥ than a full-fledged prohibition. The answer to this difficulty is that since the basis for comparing the halakhot of the first Pesaĥ and the second is the phrase: They shall perform it, which is formulated as a positive mitzva, it makes more sense that the halakhot of the positive mitzvot with regard to the first and second Pesaĥ are the same. Therefore, the status of prohibitions that can be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva is clearer than those of full-fledged negative mitzvot (Rabbi Elazar Moshe Horowitz). halakha

As much as it is possible to search for more people – ‫ַּכ ָּמה‬ ‫דֹורי‬ ֵ ‫דְּ ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ַל ַא ְה‬: A Paschal lamb slaughtered for an individual is valid. However, every effort is made not to do so ab initio (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 2:2). Negative mitzvot with regard to the second Pesaĥ – ‫ִמצְ וֹות‬ ‫ל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬: Negative mitzvot that apply to the Paschal lamb sacrificed on the first Pesaĥ, such as the prohibitions against breaking a bone from the offering, eating it raw, or leaving its meat uneaten until morning, all apply to the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 10:15).

‫הצ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Perek IX . 95a 

189

‫רֹורים״ ַמאי‬ ִ ‫״מ ּצֹות ו ְּמ‬ ַ ְּ‫יה ד‬ ּ ‫ִ ּב ְכ ָל ֵל‬ ‫יה ַמאי‬ ּ ‫ ִ ּב ְפ ָר ֵט‬.‫ָקא ְמ ַר ֵ ּבי – צְ ִלי ֵא ׁש‬ .‫יה – ַה ׁ ְש ָ ּב ַתת ְ ׂשאֹור‬ ּ ‫ְמ ַמ ֵעיט ֵל‬ .‫יה ָע ִדיף‬ ּ ‫ֵאיפוּךְ ֲאנָ א! – ִמצְ וָ ה דְּ גו ֵּפ‬

Now that the generalization has been interpreted as referring to the specific examples mentioned earlier, what is included through the generalization of unleavened bread and bitter herbs? The Gemara answers: It comes to teach that the mitzva of roasting in fire applies to the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ as well as to the first. Given that unleavened bread and bitter herbs is also a qualifying detail, what does it exclude through its detail? It teaches that the mitzva of removal of leaven does not apply on the second Pesaĥ. The Gemara asks: Perhaps I can reverse it and say that on the second Pesaĥ one is not obligated to roast the offering by fire, but one is obligated to remove all leaven? The Gemara answers: A mitzva relating to the Paschal lamb itself is preferable, as it is more reasonable to assume that the first and second Pesaĥ are comparable with regard to halakhot pertaining to the offering itself.

‫יה דְּ ״ל ֹא יַ ׁ ְש ִאיר ּו ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ַעד‬ ּ ‫ִ ּב ְכ ָל ֵל‬ ‫יה – ל ֹא‬ ּ ‫ּב ֶֹקר״ ַמאי ָקא ְמ ַר ֶ ּבה ֵל‬ ‫ דְּ ַהאי‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ (דְּ ָד ֵמי ֵל‬,ּ‫ּתֹוצִ יא ִמ ֶּמנּ ו‬ ‫יפ ַסל‬ ְ ‫נֹותר – וְ ַהאי ִמ‬ ָ ‫יפ ַסל ְ ּב‬ ְ ‫ִמ‬ .)‫ְ ּביֹוצֵ א‬

The Gemara asks further: What is included through the generalization of: They shall leave none of it to the morning? The Gemara answers that it includes the prohibition of: You shall not remove any of its meat from one group to another, which is similar to it, as through this prohibition mentioned in the verse it is disqualified as leftovers, and through this prohibition of removing the meat of the offering it is disqualified as sacrificial meat that has left its permitted boundary.

‫יה – ל ֹא‬ ּ ‫יה ַמאי ָקא ְמ ַמ ֵעט ֵל‬ ּ ‫ִ ּב ְפ ָר ֵט‬ ‫ דְּ ַהאי‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫יֵ ָר ֶאה וְ ל ֹא יִ ָּמצֵ א (דְּ ָד ֵמי ֵל‬ ‫ִיתק‬ ַּ ‫לֹוקה – דַּ ֲהוָ ה ָלאו ׁ ֶש ּנ‬ ֶ ‫ֵאינֹו‬ ‫לֹוקה – דַּ ֲהוָ ה‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ַהאי ֵאינֹו‬,‫ַל ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬ ‫ ֵאיפו ְּך‬.)‫ִיתק ַל ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬ ַּ ‫יה ָלאו ׁ ֶש ּנ‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ .‫יה ָע ִדיף‬ ּ ‫ֲאנָ א! ִמצְ וָ ה דְּ גו ֵּפ‬

The Gemara asks further: What does it exclude through its detail? It excludes the prohibitions: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, which are similar to it, as one who violates this prohibition of leaving over the meat of the offering until morning is not flogged because it is a prohibition whose violation can be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva by burning the leftovers; and one who violates this prohibition of owning leaven is not flogged because it is a prohibition whose violation can be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva of burning the leaven. The Gemara asks: Perhaps I can reverse it and say that the generalization is meant to include removal of leaven and the detail excludes the prohibition of leaving over the meat of the offering? The Gemara answers: In a comparison of the first Pesaĥ and the second, including a mitzva related to the Paschal lamb itself is preferable to including one that does not relate to the Paschal lamb.

‫״עצֶ ם ל ֹא יִ ׁ ְש ְ ּבר ּו בֹו״‬ ֶ ְּ‫יה ד‬ ּ ‫ ִ ּב ְכ ָל ֵל‬The Gemara continues to ask: Through the generalization: They shall not break a bone in it,

Perek IX Daf 95 Amud b ‫ֹאכל ּו ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו‬ ְ ‫״אל ּת‬ ַ – ‫ַמאי ָקא ַמ ְר ֶ ּבה‬ – ‫יה ַמאי ָקא ְמ ַמ ֲע ִטי‬ ּ ‫ ִ ּב ְפ ָר ֵט‬,‫נָ א״‬ – ‫״ל ֹא ִת ׁ ְש ַחט ַעל ָח ֵמץ דַּ ם זִ ְב ִחי״‬ .‫יה ָע ִדיף‬ ּ ‫ֵאיפוּךְ ֲאנָ א! ִמצְ וָ ה דְּ גו ֵּפ‬

190 

Perek IX . 95b . ‫הצ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ט‬

what is it including, beyond what is mentioned explicitly in the verse? The Gemara answers that it includes the mitzva: “Do not eat from it raw” (Exodus 12:9). The Gemara asks: What does it exclude through its detail? The Gemara answers that it excludes the mitzva: “You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread” (Exodus 34:25). The Gemara asks: Perhaps I can reverse it and say the opposite, that the prohibition against eating the offering raw is excluded, and the prohibition against owning leaven is included. The Gemara answers: Including a mitzva related to the Paschal lamb itself is preferable to including one that does not relate as directly to the Paschal lamb. Therefore, the prohibition against eating the Paschal lamb raw is included, and the prohibition against slaughtering the Paschal lamb with leaven in one’s possession is excluded.

.‫אשֹון ָטעוּן ַה ֵּלל ַ ּב ֲא ִכ ָילתֹו״ וכו׳‬ ׁ ‫״ה ִר‬ ָ ‫יֹוחנָן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ ָ ‫ְמנָ א ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ :‫ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬,‫ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן יְ הֹוצָ ָדק‬ ‫״ה ׁ ּ ִשיר ְיִהיֶה ָל ֶכם ְּכ ֵליל ִה ְת ַקדֶּ ׁש ָחג״‬ ַ ,‫ַליְ ָלה ַה ְמקוּדָּ ׁש ֶל ָחג – ָטעוּן ַה ֵּלל‬ ‫ַליְ ָלה ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְמקוּדָּ ׁש ֶל ָחג – ֵאין ָטעוּן‬ .‫ַה ֵּלל‬

It was taught in the mishna that the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ requires the recitation of hallel as it is eaten, whereas on the second Pesaĥ it does not. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yoĥanan said, citing Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak, that the verse states: “You shall have a songn as in the night when a Festival is sanctified” (Isaiah 30:29). From here it may be derived that a night sanctified as a Festival, on which labor is prohibited, such as the first night of Passover, requires the recitation of hallel; however, a night which is not sanctified as a Festival, such as the night when the Paschal lamb is eaten following the second Pesaĥ, does not require the recitation of hallel.

.‫יתן כו׳״‬ ָ ָ‫״זֶ ה וָ זֶ ה ְטעוּנִין ַה ֵּלל ַ ּב ֲע ִ ׂשּי‬ ‫ ַליְ ָלה‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ִא‬ .‫ יֹום ָלא ָקא ְמ ַמ ֵעט‬,‫ָקא ְמ ַמ ֵעט‬ ‫ ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫וְ ִא‬ ‫נֹוט ִלין ֶאת‬ ְ ְ‫יהן ו‬ ֶ ‫ֹוח ִטין ֶאת ּ ִפ ְס ֵח‬ ֲ ‫ׁש‬ ?‫אֹומ ִרים ַה ֵּלל‬ ְ ‫יהן וְ ֵאין‬ ֶ ‫לו ְּל ֵב‬

It was stated in the mishna that the Paschal lambs sacrificed on both the first and second Pesaĥ require the recitation of hallel as they are prepared. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that hallel must be recited while one prepares the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the verse quoted above: “As in the night when a festival is sanctified,” excludes laws that apply at night, but it does not exclude laws that apply by day; therefore, the recitation of hallel is required while slaughtering the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ just as it is required while slaughtering the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ. And if you wish, say that this halakha simply makes logical sense: Is it possible that the Jewish people are slaughtering their Paschal lambs or taking their lulavim on Sukkot and not reciting hallel?n It is inconceivable that they would not be reciting hallel and there is no need for an explicit biblical source for this halakha.

,‫ ׁ ַש ָ ּבת – ִאין‬.‫״וְ נֶ ֱא ָכ ִלין צָ ִלי״ וכו׳‬ ‫נִיתין דְּ ל ֹא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ִ ‫ ַמ ְת‬.‫טו ְּמ ָאה – ָלא‬ ,‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ֶ ּ‫ ד‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫יְ הו ָּדה‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ּטו ְּמ ָאה‬ ֶ ּ‫וְ ֵאין ד‬ .‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ּטו ְּמ ָאה‬ ֶ ּ‫ ַאף ד‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ

It was also taught in the mishna that the Paschal lambs on both the first and second Pesaĥ are eaten roasted and override Shabbat. It may be inferred from this that with regard to Shabbat, yes, it is overridden by the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ, but with regard to ritual impurity, no, it is not overriddenn for the sake of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ.h The Gemara points out that this understanding of the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita: The Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ overrides Shabbat and does not override ritual impurity. Rabbi Yehuda says: It overrides even ritual impurity.

‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַת ָּנא ַק ָּמא – ִמ ּ ְפנֵי‬ ‫ יַ ֲחזֹור וְ יַ ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬,‫יתיו‬ ִ ‫ט ּו ְמ ָאה דְּ ִח‬ ‫ ַה ּת ָֹורה‬:‫ְ ּבט ּו ְמ ָאה?! וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ‫ ל ֹא‬,‫ָחזְ ָרה ָע ָליו ַל ֲע ׂשֹותֹו ְ ּב ָט ֳה ָרה‬ .‫זָ ָכה – יַ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬

The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the opinion of the first tanna? He holds that once this person was deferred from the first Pesaĥ due to ritual impurity, shall he now return and perform the offering of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ in ritual impurity? And Rabbi Yehuda reasoned: The Torah sought to allow this person the opportunity to perform the offering of the Paschal lamb in ritual purity; if it ultimately becomes clear that he did not merit doing so, let him at least perform the offering of the second Pesaĥ in a state of ritual impurity.

‫ֹוחה ֶאת‬ ֶ ּ‫אשֹון ד‬ ׁ ‫ ּ ֶפ ַסח ִר‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ּ .‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ֶ ּ‫ ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי ד‬,‫ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ,‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ּטו ְּמ ָאה‬ ֶ ּ‫אשֹון ד‬ ׁ ‫ּ ֶפ ַסח ִר‬ ‫ ּ ֶפ ַסח‬.‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ּטו ְּמ ָאה‬ ֶ ּ‫ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי ד‬ ‫ ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי ָטעוּן‬,‫אשֹון ָטעוּן ִלינָ ה‬ ׁ ‫ִר‬ .‫ִלינָ ה‬

The Sages taught in a different baraita: The offering of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ overrides Shabbat, and similarly, the offering of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ overrides Shabbat. The first Pesaĥ overrides ritual impurity, and similarly, the second Pesaĥ overrides ritual impurity. The first Pesaĥ requires remaining until morning, meaning that it is prohibited for people who have participated in the Paschal lamb to return that night to their homes outside Jerusalem, and similarly, the second Pesaĥ requires remaining until morning.

notes

You shall have a song – ‫יִהיֶ ה ָל ֶכם‬ ְ ‫ה ׁ ּ ִשיר‬:ַ In the Jerusalem Talmud it is noted that the verse is primarily addressing the joy related to the victory over Sennacherib. Nevertheless, the customs of the Festivals are derived from it as well. Is it possible that the Jewish people are…not reciting hallel – ‫אֹומ ִרים ַה ֵּלל‬ ְ ‫ל…אין‬ ֵ ‫א ְפ ׁ ָשר יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵא‬:ֶ This rationale applies to the recitation of hallel on all the Festivals, and it indicates that the practice of reciting hallel is of ancient origin. Some commentaries asked why this reasoning does not necessitate the recitation of hallel while eating the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ. They answered that hallel is generally recited only during the day, which is why a special verse was necessary to obligate one to recite hallel while eating the Paschal lamb at night on the first Pesaĥ. Since the second Pesaĥ is not included in that source, hallel is not recited while it is eaten (Sefat Emet). It does not override ritual impurity – ‫ֹוחה טו ְּמ ָאה‬ ֶ ּ‫אינֹו ד‬:ֵ Apparently, this statement is necessary because the phrase: “In its appointed season,” is mentioned in the context of the second Pesaĥ as well. Indeed, this expression served as the source for the halakha that the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ overrides the laws of ritual impurity (Melo HaRo’im).

halakha

What does the second Pesaĥ override – ‫ֹוחה ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬ ֶ ּ‫מה ד‬:ַ The slaughter and sacrificial services of the second Pesaĥ override the halakhot of Shabbat just as they do on the first



Pesaĥ. However, the second Pesaĥ does not override the halakhot of ritual impurity (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 10:15). ‫הצ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Perek IX . 95b 

191

notes

Does not require remaining until morning – ‫אין ָטעוּן ִלינָ ה‬:ֵ The Tosefta emphasizes this by stating that one may eat the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ and if the need arises one may even return home, if it is close enough to Jerusalem to eulogize his father that very night. Exempt for entering the Temple – ‫יאת ִמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬ ַ ‫פטו ִּרים ַעל ִ ּב‬:ְ ּ In the Jerusalem Talmud the following verse is cited as support for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer: “She shall touch no sanctified thing, nor come into the Sanctuary” (Leviticus 12:4). This indicates that only one who is liable for eating, and thereby touching, sacrificial meat is liable for entering the Temple. However, one who is ritually impure and nevertheless is not liable for eating sacrificial meat is not liable for entering the Temple either.

‫ֹוחה ֶאת ַה ּטו ְּמ ָאה ְּכ ַמאן – ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֶ ּ‫ ד‬The Gemara clarifies: With regard to the statement that the sec.‫ יְ הו ָּדה‬ond Pesaĥ overrides ritual impurity, in accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. ,‫ו ְּל ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ָטעוּן ִלינָ ה? וְ ָהא ַּתנְיָא‬ ‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ין ְל ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ‫נִית‬ ָ ‫ ״ו ָּפ‬:‫ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָטעוּן ִלינָ ה – ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ :‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫ַב ּב ֶֹקר וְ ָה ַל ְכ ָּת ְלא ָֹה ֶליךָ ״‬ ‫ֹאכל ַמ ּצֹות״ ַה ֶּנ ֱא ָכל‬ ַ ‫״ש ׁ ֶשת יָ ִמים ּת‬ ֵׁ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאין נֶ ֱא ָכל‬,‫ְל ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה – ָטעוּן ִלינָ ה‬ !‫ְל ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה – ֵאין ָטעוּן ִלינָ ה‬

halakha

Ritually impure people and a Paschal lamb brought in a state of ritual impurity – ‫ט ֵמ ִאין ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֶש ָ ּבא ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬:ְ A Paschal lamb brought in a state of ritual impurity may be eaten by an impure person ab initio only if he is impure due to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse or due to contact with another source of impurity, such as a dead creeping animal. However, one whose own body is the source of his ritual impurity, such as lepers or a zav or a zava, may not eat the Paschal lamb. If he does eat from it, he is not liable to receive karet. He is also prohibited from entering the Temple courtyard; if he does so, he is liable to receive karet (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 7:8 and Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Biat HaMikdash 4:12).

But according to Rabbi Yehuda, does the second Pesaĥ require remaining until morning? Wasn’t it taught explicitly in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: From where is it derived that the second Pesaĥ does not require remaining until morning? As it is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb: “And you shall roast and eat it in the place which the Lord your God shall choose; and you shall turn in the morning and go to your tents” (Deuteronomy 16:7), and it is written immediately after: “Six days you shall eat matzot; and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the Lord your God; you shall do no work on it” (Deuteronomy 16:8). From this juxtaposition it may be concluded that the first Pesaĥ, which is followed by the mitzvah to eat matza for six days, requires remaining until morning, whereas the second Pesaĥ, which is not followed by the mitzva to eat matza for six days, does not require remaining until morning.n This contradicts what was previously stated citing Rabbi Yehuda.

.‫יבא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ּ ָ ‫ ְּת ֵרי ַּת ָּנ ֵאי וְ ַא ִּל‬The Gemara answers: These statements were made by two tanna’im in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but the two tanna’im disagreed about whether or not Rabbi Yehuda maintained that one is required to stay overnight on the second Pesaĥ.

mishna 

When the Paschal lamb is sacrificed in a ‫מתני׳ ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֶש ָ ּבא ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה ל ֹא‬ state of ritual impurity due to the fact ,‫יֹולדֹות‬ ְ ְ‫ֹאכל ּו ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ִזָבין וְ זָבֹות נִדּ ֹות ו‬ ְ ‫י‬ that the majority of the Jewish people are ritually impure, zavim, .‫ וְ ִאם ָא ְכל ּו – ּ ְפטו ִּרין ִמ ָּכ ֵרת‬and zavot, and menstruating women, and women after childbirth may not eat it, because the Paschal lamb overrides only ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, but it does not override other forms of ritual impurity. However, if they violated the halakha and ate from the offering, they are exempt from karet. One who eats sacrificial food in a state of ritual impurity is generally liable to receive karet; however, since in this case the offering is sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity, there is no punishment of karet even for ritually impure individuals who are not permitted to eat it. ‫יאת‬ ַ ‫ֹוטר ַאף ַעל ִ ּב‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר ּפ‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬And Rabbi Eliezer exempts these individuals from karet even n .‫ ִמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬for entering the Temple in a state of ritual impurity, despite their not being permitted to enter, because people who are impure due to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse are permitted to enter the Temple in this situation despite their impurity.h ‫ זָ ִבין וְ זָ בֹות נִ דּ ֹות‬:‫גמ׳ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫יֹול דֹות ׁ ֶש ָא ְכל ּו ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֶש ָ ּבא‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬ ‫ יָ כֹול יְ ה ּו ַחּיָ ִיבין – ַּת ְלמוּד‬,‫ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬ ‫ֹאכל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ ַה ֶּנ ֶפ ׁש‬ ַ ‫״כל ָטהֹור י‬ ַ ָּ :‫לֹומר‬ ‫ֹאכל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ִמּזֶ ַבח ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָל ִמים‬ ַ ‫ֲא ׁ ֶשר ּת‬ .‫ֲא ׁ ֶשר ַלה׳ וְ טו ְּמ ָאתֹו ָע ָליו וְ נִ ְכ ְר ָתה״‬

gemara 

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to zavim, and zavot, and menstruating women, and women after childbirth who ate of the Paschal lamb that was sacrificed while the majority of the Jewish people were in a state of ritual impurity, one might have thought that they would be liable to receive karet; therefore, the verse states: “The meat that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten, it shall be burned in fire; and the meat, every one that is ritually pure may eat the meat. But the soul that eats of the meat of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that belong to the Lord, having his impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off [venikhreta] from his people” (Leviticus 7:19–20).

‫הֹורים – ַחּיָ ִיבים ָע ָליו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ ִ ‫ נֶ ֱא ַכל ַל ְּט‬The baraita continues: The juxtaposition of these verses teaches ‫הֹורין – ֵאין‬ ִ ‫ וְ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו נֶ ֱא ָכל ַל ְּט‬,‫ ָט ֵמא‬that if the offering is eaten only by people who are ritually pure, .‫ ְט ֵמ ִאין ַחּיָ ִיבין ָע ָליו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ָט ֵמא‬ritually impure people are liable for eating it due to being ritually impure, but if it is not eaten only by people who are ritually pure, because it was offered when the majority of the Jewish people were impure, those who are ritually impure are not liable for eating it due to being impure.

192 

Perek IX . 95b . ‫הצ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ט‬

‫ יָ כֹול דָּ ֲחק ּו זָ ִבין‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ ,‫וְ נִ ְכנְס ּו ָל ֲעזָ ָרה ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח ַה ָ ּבא ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫יבין – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ִ ָ‫יָ כֹול יְ ה ּו ַחּי‬ ‫יש ְּלח ּו ִמן ַה ַּמ ֲחנֶ ה ָּכל צָ רו ַּע וְ ָכל זָ ב‬ ַ ׁ ִ‫״ו‬ ‫ ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ְּט ֵמ ֵאי ֵמ ִתים‬.‫וְ כֹל ָט ֵמא ָלנָ ֶפ ׁש״‬ ,‫צֹור ִעין ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ְּל ִחין‬ ָ ‫ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ְּל ִחין – ִזָבין ו ְּמ‬ ‫ֵאין ְט ֵמ ֵאי ֵמ ִתים ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ְּל ִחין – ֵאין ִזָבין‬ .‫צֹור ִעין ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ְּל ִחין‬ ָ ‫ו ְּמ‬

Rabbi Eliezer says: One might have thought that if zavim or lepers pushed their way in and entered the courtyard, which they are prohibited from entering, in order to sacrifice the Paschal lamb that is brought when the majority of the Jewish people are in a state of ritual impurity, one might have thought that they would be liable to receive karet for entering the Temple while ritually impure; therefore, the verse states: “That they send out from the camp any leper and any zav and anyone defiled by the dead” (Numbers 5:2). This teaches that at a time when those who are impure due to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse are sent out from the Temple, zavim and lepers are also sent out; when those who are impure due to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse are not sent out but are permitted to sacrifice the offering in a state of ritual impurity, zavim and lepers are also not sent out.

‫ דָּ ֲחק ּו ְט ֵמ ֵאי ֵמ ִתים‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ָ ּב ֵעי ַרב‬ ‫יכ ל ְ ּב ֶפ ַס ח ַה ָ ּב א‬ ָ ‫וְ נִ ְכ נְ ס ּו ַל ֵה‬ ‫יש ְּת ִרי טו ְּמ ַאת‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ַמהוּ? ִמדְּ ִא‬,‫ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬ ,‫יכל‬ ָ ‫יש ְּת ִרי נַ ִמי טו ְּמ ַאת ֵה‬ ְ ׁ ‫ֲעזָ ָרה – ִא‬ – ‫יש ְּת ִר י‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ַמ אי דְּ ִא‬:‫יל ָמ א‬ ְ ִּ‫אֹו ד‬ ‫יש ְּת ִרי – ָלא‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ַמאי דְּ ָלא ִא‬,‫יש ְּת ִרי‬ ְ ׁ ‫ִא‬ ?‫יש ְּת ִרי‬ ְ ׁ ‫ִא‬

Rav Yosef asked a question related to the halakhot discussed above: If those who are impure due to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse pushed their way in and entered the Sanctuary,bn which is an area in which no services are performed for the Paschal lamb and which only priests may enter ab initio, and this occurs in a case in which the Paschal lamb is brought when the majority of the Jewish people are in a state of ritual impurity, what is the halakha? Is the halakha that since ritual impurity was permitted in the courtyard for the sake of the Paschal lamb, ritual impurity in the Sanctuary was also permitted; or perhaps what was permitted was permitted and what was not permitted was not permitted, and consequently, they are liable for entering the Sanctuary?

‫יש ְּלח ּו ִמן‬ ַ ׁ ִ‫ ״ו‬:‫ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬,‫ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬Rava said in answer to this question that the verse states: “They .‫ ַה ַּמ ֲחנֶ ה״ – ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִמ ְקצַ ת ַמ ֲחנֶ ה‬send out from the camp” (Numbers 5:2); the phrase “from the camp” indicates that the halakha applies even to a part of the camp. Therefore, when the majority of the Jewish people are ritually impure, even though people who are ritually impure are permitted to enter part of the Temple, as they must bring their offerings to the Temple courtyard, they are not permitted to enter everywhere inside the Temple, and the prohibition of entering the Sanctuary remains in place. ‫ ָא ַמר‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬,‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫ִא‬ ‫יש ְּלח ּו ִמן ַה ַּמ ֲחנֶ ה ֶאל ִמחוּץ‬ ַ ׁ ִ‫ְק ָרא ״ו‬ ‫יכא דְּ ָק ֵרינַן‬ ָ ‫ ָּכל ֵה‬,‫ַל ַּמ ֲחנֶ ה ְּת ׁ ַש ְּלחוּם״‬ – ‫״אל ִמחוּץ ַל ַּמ ֲחנֶ ה ְּת ׁ ַש ְּלחוּם״‬ ֶ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵ ּב‬ .‫יש ְּלח ּו ִמן ַה ַּמ ֲחנֶ ה״‬ ַ ׁ ִ‫יה ״ו‬ ּ ‫ָק ֵרינַן ֵ ּב‬

background

Sanctuary – ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫ה‬:ֵ The Sanctuary was entered via the Entrance Hall, and to the west of it lay the Holy of Holies. The illustration shows the Sanctuary in relation to the other areas of the Temple.

The placement of the Sanctuary within the Temple. halakha

People who are impure due to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse who entered the Sanctuary – ‫ְט ֵמ ֵאי ֵמ ִתים ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְכנְס ּו‬ ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫ל ֵה‬:ַ In the case of a Paschal lamb sacrificed when the majority of the Jewish people are in a state of ritual impurity, if people who are impure due to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse enter the Sanctuary, they are exempt from karet, in accordance with Rava’s second answer. The Rambam ruled leniently because in a case of doubt, they cannot be liable to karet (Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Biat HaMikdash 4:13).

Some say that Rava said a different answer: The verse states: “That they send out from the camp any leper and any zav and anyone defiled by the dead…outside the camp you shall send them” (Numbers 5:2–3). This implies that anywhere that we apply the phrase: “Outside the camp you shall send them,” which is referring to a case in which the majority of the Jewish people are ritually pure and indicates that the impure people must be sent outside of the entire camp, we also apply the phrase: “They must send out from the camp,” meaning it is prohibited for people who are ritually impure to enter the Sanctuary. However, if the majority of the Jewish people are impure and the offering is sacrificed in a state of impurity, those who are impure are not liable if they enter the Sanctuary.h

‫ דָּ ֲחק ּו ְט ֵמ ֵאי ֵמ ִתים‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ ָ ּב ֵעי ַרב‬Rav Yosef asked a similar question: If people who are impure ,‫ וְ ָא ְכל ּו ֵאימו ֵּרי ֶפ ַסח ַה ָ ּבא ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬due to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse pushed their way in and ate portions that are supposed to be consumed on the altar, such as the fats, the kidneys, and the fat tail, from a Paschal lambn offered in ritual impurity,

notes

Sanctuary – ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫ה‬:ֵ The Sanctuary was the inner section of the Temple, between the Entrance Hall and the Holy of Holies. It was a roofed building one hundred cubits high in the west of the Temple courtyard. It contained the seven-branched candelabrum, the gold table for the shewbread, and the incense altar, or golden altar. On its western side was the Holy of Holies. The term Sanctuary is sometimes used also in reference to the entire building.



Pushed their way in and ate portions from a Paschal lamb – ‫דָּ ֲחקוּ…וְ ָא ְכל ּו ֵאימו ֵּרי ֶפ ַסח‬: Rabbeinu Ĥananel’s version of the text reads: Pushed their way in and touched portions from a Paschal lamb. It appears that according to this version, the question is according to the opinion that holds that even when sacrifices may be offered and eaten in a state of ritual impurity, the fats which are usually burned may not be offered on the altar if they have become ritually impure. ‫הצ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Perek IX . 95b 

193

Perek IX Daf 96 Amud a halakha

Sacrificial portions of a Paschal lamb offered when the majority of the Jewish people is ritually impure – ‫אימו ִּרין ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח ַה ָ ּבא ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬: ֵ If people who are impure due to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse consume sacrificial portions of a Paschal lamb offered when the majority of the Jewish people are impure, they are not liable to receive karet (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 7:8). The Paschal lambs offered in Egypt and in later generations – ‫פ ַסח ִמצְ ַריִ ם וְ דֹורֹות‬:ֶ ּ Several of the mitzvot stated with regard to the Paschal lamb offered in Egypt applied only to the Paschal lamb in Egypt, but not to the Paschal lamb of later generations. Examples of these mitzvot are: Setting aside the Paschal lamb on the tenth of the month, sprinkling its blood on the lintel and the two doorposts with a bundle of hyssop, and consuming its meat in haste (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 10:15).

– ‫יש ְּת ִרי טו ְּמ ַאת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ ְ ׁ ‫ַמהוּ? ִמדְּ ִא‬ ‫ אֹו‬,‫יש ְּת ִרי נַ ִמי טו ְּמ ַאת ֵאימו ִּרין‬ ְ ׁ ‫ִא‬ ,‫יש ְּת ִרי‬ ְ ׁ ‫יש ְּת ִרי – ִא‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ַמאי דְּ ִא‬:‫דִּ ְיל ָמא‬ ?‫יש ְּת ִרי‬ ְ ׁ ‫יש ְּת ִרי – ָלא ִא‬ ְ ׁ ‫ַמאי דְּ ָלא ִא‬

what is the halakha? Are they liable for eating sacrificial meat while they were ritually impure? Do we say that since ritual impurity of the meat that is eaten was permitted, ritual impurity of the sacrificial portions offered on the altar was also permitted; or perhaps we say that what was permitted was permitted, and what was not permitted was not permitted?

‫ ִמ ְּכ ִדי טו ְּמ ַאת ֵאימו ִּרין‬:‫ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ,‫ית ַר ֵ ּבי – ִמ ּטו ְּמ ַאת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ ְ ‫יכא ִא‬ ָ ‫ֵמ ֵה‬ ‫״א ׁ ֶשר ַלה׳״ – ְל ַר ּבֹות ֶאת‬ ֲ :‫דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ .‫ָה ֵאימו ִּרין‬

Rava said: After all, from where was the halakha pertaining to eating the sacrificial portions in a state of ritual impurity included? It is derived from the halakha with regard to eating the meat in a state of ritual impurity, as it is written: “But the soul that eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings that pertain to the Lord, having his ritual impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 7:20); the apparently superfluous phrase “that pertain to the Lord” is there to include the sacrificial portions and establish that one is liable to receive karet for eating these portions in a state of ritual impurity.

– ‫יה ְלטו ְּמ ַאת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ ֵ ‫יכא דְּ ִא‬ ָ ‫ָּכל ֵה‬ ּ ‫ית‬ ‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ ָּכל ֵה‬,‫יה ְלטו ְּמ ַאת ֵאימו ִּרין‬ ֵ ‫ִא‬ ּ ‫ית‬ ‫יה‬ ֵ ‫יה ְלט ּו ְמ ַאת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר – ֵל‬ ֵ ‫דְּ ֵל‬ ּ ‫ית‬ ּ ‫ית‬ .‫ְלטו ְּמ ַאת ֵאימו ִּרין‬

Since this is the source, there is a limitation to the halakha pertaining to sacrificial portions: Anywhere that there is liability for eating the meat in a state of ritual impurity, there is liability for eating the sacrificial portions in a state of ritual impurity; conversely, anywhere that there is no liability for eating the meat in a state of ritual impurity, such as in the case of a Paschal lamb offered in a state of ritual impurity, there is no liability for eating the sacrificial portions in a state of ritual impurity.h

‫ ֵאימו ֵּרי ֶפ ַסח ִמצְ ַריִ ם‬:‫ ָ ּב ֵעי ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬Rabbi Zeira asked: With regard to the sacrificial portions of the Pas:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ָ ‫ ֵה‬chal lamb that the Jewish people sacrificed in Egypt on the first Passּ ‫יכא ַא ְק ְט ִרינְ הוּ? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ?‫יס ֵקי ַעבוּד‬ ְ ִ‫ימא ָלן דְּ ָלא ׁ ְשו‬ ָ ‫ ו ַּמאן ֵל‬over, just before they left Egypt, where did they burn them? The Torah does not say that they constructed an altar for this purpose. Abaye said to him: What place is there for such a question? Who will tell us that they did not make them roastedn and eat them? The Jewish people had not yet been commanded with regard to the halakhot of sacrifices; therefore, they presumably did not distinguish between meat and forbidden fats, and they roasted and consumed the entire animal (Arukh). ‫ ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ ָהא ָּתנָ א ַרב‬,‫וְ עֹוד‬ ‫ ַעל ַה ַּמ ׁ ְשקֹוף וְ ַעל‬,‫ִמזְ ְ ּבחֹות ָהי ּו ׁ ָשם‬ ‫ וְ ת ּו ִמידֵּ י ַא ֲח ִרינָ א ָלא‬.‫ׁ ְש ֵּתי ַה ְמזוּזֹות‬ .‫ֲהוָ ה‬

‫מתני׳ ַמה ֵ ּבין ּ ֶפ ַסח ִמצְ ַריִ ם ְל ֶפ ַסח‬ ,‫דּ ֹורֹות? ּ ֶפ ַסח ִמצְ ַריִ ם ִמ ָ ּקחֹו ִמ ֶ ּב ָעשׂ ֹור‬ ‫ וְ ַעל‬,‫וְ ָטע ּון ַהּזָ ָאה ַ ּב ֲאגוּדַּ ת ֵאזֹוב‬ ‫ וְ נֶ ֱא ָכל‬,‫ַה ַּמ ׁ ְשקֹוף וְ ַעל ׁ ְש ֵּתי ַה ְּמזוּזֹות‬ ‫ ו ֶּפ ַסח דּ ֹורֹות‬.‫ְ ּב ִח ּ ָפזֹון ְ ּב ַליְ ָלה ֶא ָחד‬ .‫נֹוהג ָּכל ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ ֵ

And furthermore, Rav Yosef taught that there were three parts of the door upon which the blood was sprinkled that took the place of three altarsn there in Egypt. The blood was applied upon the lintel and upon the two doorposts; and there was nothing else. Presumably, the Jewish people did not fulfill any mitzva not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, and since no other altar is mentioned, one can conclude that they did not offer the fats and other sacrificial portions on an altar.

mishna 

What are the differences between the Paschal lamb that the Jewish people offered in Egypt and the Paschal lamb offered in all later generations? The Paschal lamb the Jewish people offered in Egypt had to be taken from the tenth of the month of Nisan and required the people to sprinkle its blood with a bundle of hyssop, unlike the Paschal lamb in all later years, and its blood was also sprinkled upon the lintel and the two doorposts, and it was eaten with haste;h in addition, the Paschal lamb in Egypt was only on one night,n whereas the Paschal lamb throughout the generations is observed for seven days. The Gemara discusses the meaning of this difficult phrase, as obviously, the Paschal lamb is slaughtered on the fourteenth and eaten on the evening of the fifteenth.

notes

Make them roasted – ‫יס ֵקי ַעבוּד‬ ְ ִ‫שו‬: ְ ׁ The Me’iri explains that in the absence of an altar, the sacrificial portions were placed on spits and burned. Three altars – ‫של ׁ ָֹשה ִמזְ ְ ּבחֹות‬: ְ ׁ In the Jerusalem Talmud a dispute is cited with regard to this matter. One opinion is that there were four parts of the door that corresponded

194 

Perek IX . 96a . ‫וצ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ט‬

to four altars: The threshold, the lintel, and the two doorposts. The dispute depends upon the meaning of the word saf, in the verse: “And you shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the saf, and strike the lintel and the two side-posts with the blood that is in the saf ” (Exodus 12:22); it may refer either to the threshold or to a type of vessel.

On one night – ‫ב ַליְ ָלה ֶא ָחד‬:ּ ְ Tosafot ask what difference there was between the Paschal lamb sacrificed in Egypt and those sacrificed in later generations with regard to the requirement to eat it in one night, based on the conclusion of the Gemara. Some commentaries answer that the Paschal lamb of later generations was eaten only until midnight, unlike the Paschal lamb offered in Egypt which was eaten all night (see Tosefot Yom Tov).

gemara

 The Gemara asks: From where do we ‫ ״דַּ ְ ּבר ּו ֶאל ָּכל‬:‫גמ׳ ְמנָ א ָלן? דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ conclude that the requirements of the Pas‫ֲע ַדת יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ֵלאמֹר ֶ ּב ָע ׂשֹור ַלח ֶֹד ׁש‬ chal lamb sacrificed in Egypt do not apply to later generations? As ‫ וְ ֵאין‬,‫ ַהּזֶ ה וְ יִ ְקחוּ״ – זֶ ה ִמ ָ ּקחֹו ִמ ֶ ּב ָעשׂ ֹור‬it is written: “Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying: On .‫ ּ ֶפ ַסח דּ ֹורֹות ִמ ָ ּקחֹו ִמ ֶ ּב ָע ׂשֹור‬the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to their fathers’ houses, a lamb for a household” (Exodus 12:3); and we derive from the superfluous word “this” that this Paschal lamb offered in Egypt had to be taken from the tenth of Nisan, and the Paschal lamb of later generations is not taken from the tenth of Nisan.n ‫ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתה ״וְ ָהיָ ה ָל ֶכם ְל ִמ ׁ ְש ֶמ ֶרת‬ ,‫ַעד ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ָע ָ ׂשר יֹום ַלח ֶֹד ׁש ַהּזֶ ה״‬ ּ ‫ זֶ ה ָטע ּון ִ ּב‬:‫ָה ִכי נַ ִמי‬ ‫יק ּור ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ ‫ וְ ֵאין ַא ֵחר ָטעוּן‬,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫קֹודם ׁ ְש ִח‬ ֶ ‫יָ ִמים‬ ּ ‫ִ ּב‬ ?‫יקוּר‬

The Gemara expresses surprise: However, if that is so, when the verse states later in the same section: “And you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month” (Exodus 12:6), so too it should be inferred that this Paschal lamb in Egypt requires examination four days prior to its slaughter, and no other offering requires examinationn four days prior to its slaughter.

‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ין ְל ָת ִמיד‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ֶ ּבן ַ ּבג ַ ּבג‬,‫וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬ ּ ‫ׁ ֶש ָּטעוּן ִ ּב‬ ‫קֹודם‬ ֶ ‫יקוּר ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה יָ ִמים‬ ‫״ת ׁ ְש ְמר ּו ְל ַה ְק ִריב‬ ִּ : ‫יטה – ׁ ֶשנֶ ֱא ַמר‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְש ִח‬ ‫ ״וְ ָהיָ ה‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫מֹועדֹו״ ו ְּל ַה ָּלן הוּא‬ ֲ ‫ִלי ְ ּב‬ .‫ָל ֶכם ְל ִמ ׁ ְש ֶמ ֶרת ַעד ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ָע ָ ׂשר״‬ ּ ‫ַמה ְּל ַה ָּלן ָטעוּן ִ ּב‬ ‫יקוּר ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה יָ ִמים‬ ּ ‫יטה – ַאף ָּכאן ָטעוּן ִ ּב‬ ‫יקוּר‬ ָ ‫קֹודם ׁ ְש ִח‬ ֶ .‫יטה‬ ָ ‫קֹודם ׁ ְש ִח‬ ֶ ‫ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה יָ ִמים‬

But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that ben Bag Bag says: From where do we know that the daily offering requires examination four days prior to its slaughter? It is stated with regard to the daily offering: “Command the children of Israel, and say to them: My food which is presented to Me for offerings made by fire, of a sweet flavor to Me, you shall safeguard it to sacrifice to Me in its due season” (Numbers 28:2), and it states there, with regard to the Paschal lamb: “And it shall be for you as a safeguard until the fourteenth day of this month” (Exodus 12:6). Just as in the verse there, the Paschal lamb requires examination four days prior to its slaughter, so too here, the daily offering requires examination four days prior to its slaughter.h There is no inference from the phrase “this month” that the requirement of examining an offering four days before is limited to the Paschal lamb sacrificed in Egypt.

.‫״ת ׁ ְש ְמרוּ״‬ ִּ ‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ ׁ ָשאנֵי ָה ָתם‬The Gemara answers: It is different there, with regard to the requirement to examine the daily offering four days prior to its slaughter, as it is written: “You shall safeguard it.”n This halakha is derived from a verbal analogy based the word “safeguard,” which is stated in the context of both offerings. ‫ ״וְ ָע ַב ְד ָּת‬:‫ ָה ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ ו ֶּפ ַסח דּ ֹורֹות נַ ִמי‬Similarly, the Paschal lamb sacrificed in later generations also re‫בֹודה ַהּזֹאת ַ ּבח ֶֹד ׁש ַהּזֶ ה״‬ ָ ‫ ֶאת ָה ֲע‬quires examination four days prior to slaughter, as it is written: !‫“ ׁ ֶשּיְ ה ּו ָּכל ֲעבֹודֹות ח ֶֹד ׁש זֶ ה ָּכזֶ ה‬And it shall be when the Lord shall bring you into the land of the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Amorite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, which He swore to your fathers to give you, a land flowing with milk and honey, that you shall perform this service in this month” (Exodus 13:5). From here it is derived that all the services of this month for all later generations shall be like this, including examination of the animal four days prior to sacrifice. Despite the fact that the verse connects the Paschal lamb in later years to the Paschal lamb in Egypt, the requirement to take the animal on the tenth of Nisan applied only on the first Passover.

notes

Not taken from the tenth of Nisan – ‫ין…מ ָ ּקחֹו ִמ ֶ ּב ָעשׂ ֹור‬ ִ ‫א‬:ֵ The Paschal lamb of later generations after the Exodus may be selected at any time. Although there are those who require that it be examined in advance, that does not mean it must be set aside specifically on the tenth of Nisan. ּ ‫ב‬: Examination – ‫יקוּר‬ ּ ִ The requirement to examine offerings is not entirely clear. Some authorities maintain that this examination must take place after the animal has been consecrated as an offering (Turei Even). Other authorities rule that the examination takes place before it is consecrated (Ĥazon Ish). In addition, there are disputes with regard to whether it must be examined every day and whether or not the inspection before the animal is slaughtered is part of the mitzva of examination. The daily offering is different, as it is written: You shall safeguard it – ‫שאנֵי ָּת ִמיד דִּ ְכ ִתיב ִּת ׁ ְשמר ּו‬: ָ ׁ Apparently, the Gemara’s question is based on the assumption that the requirement to examine the daily offering is derived from a verbal analogy based on the phrase: “In its due season,” stated in the context of both the daily offering and the Paschal lamb for all generations. This challenge is raised because even with regard to the Paschal lamb of later generations, it is not clear that such a requirement should exist. The Gemara answers that this assumption was incorrect, and that the requirement of examination is derived from a verbal analogy based upon the phrase: “You shall observe,” which is also stated in the context of the Paschal lamb sacrificed in Egypt (Beit Yisrael). To exclude the Paschal lamb of the second Pesaĥ – ‫ְל ַמעו ֵּטי‬ ‫פ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬:ֶ ּ Numerous commentaries have attempted to explain how the Rambam interpreted this statement, since he appears to rule that in subsequent generations, the Paschal lamb of the first Pesaĥ does not require prior examination. Some authorities explain that the phrase: To exclude the Paschal lamb of the second Pesaĥ, does not refer specifically to the second Pesaĥ; rather, it is meant as a general reference to the Paschal lamb sacrificed in years following the Exodus. Other commentaries explain that it refers specifically to the Paschal lamb sacrificed in the desert, which was the second time that the Jewish people sacrificed the Paschal lamb. This second Paschal lamb is the source for the halakhot of all future Paschal lambs (Mirkevet HaMishne; HaKetav VeHakabbala). halakha

ּ ‫ב‬:ּ ִ The daily Examination of the daily sacrifice – ‫יקוּר ְּת ִמ ִידין‬ sacrifice must be examined four days prior to its slaughter. It is then examined again immediately before the slaughter (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Temidin UMusafin 1:9).

‫״הּזֶ ה״ ְל ַמעו ֵּטי ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬ ַ ‫ ַההוּא‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא‬Rather, what does that phrase: “this month,” stated with regard to .‫יה‬ ֵ ָ‫ דִּ ְכו‬the Paschal lamb sacrificed in Egypt, come to exclude? The Geּ ‫ות‬ mara answers that it comes to exclude the Paschal lamb of the second Pesaĥ,n which is similar to it, as it is also limited to a one day celebration. The Paschal lamb of the second Pesaĥ does not require examination four days prior to its slaughter. ‫ ״וְ ָא ְכל ּו ֶאת‬:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתה‬ ‫ דְּ זֶ ה‬,‫ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה ַהּזֶ ה״ ָה ִכי נַ ִמי‬ ?‫נֶא ַכל ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה‬ ֱ ‫נֶא ַכל ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה וְ ֵאין ַא ֵחר‬ ֱ .‫בֹודה״‬ ָ ‫ ״וְ ָע ַב ְד ָּת ֶאת ָה ֲע‬:‫ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬



Once again the Gemara questions its assertion that the phrase “this month” stated in the context of the Paschal lamb sacrificed in Egypt indicates that its halakhot are not relevant to other offerings. However, if that is so, with regard to that which is written: “And they shall eat the meat on that night” (Exodus 12:8), so too, should it be inferred that this Paschal lamb offered in Egypt was eaten at night and no other Paschal lamb offered in later generations must be eaten at night? The Gemara answers that the verse states: “You shall perform this service in this month” (Exodus 13:5), in order to teach that the halakhot of the Paschal lamb sacrificed in Egypt apply to later generations as well. ‫וצ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Perek IX . 96a 

195

halakha

An uncircumcised person partaking of the Paschal lamb, matza, and bitter herbs – ‫ע ֵרל ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח ַמ ָ ּצה ו ָּמרֹור‬:ָ An uncircumcised male may not partake of the Paschal lamb. If he eats an olive-bulk of it, he is flogged. However, he must eat matza and bitter herbs, like any other Jew (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 9:8). A stranger with regard to the Paschal lamb – ‫ֶ ּבן נֵ ָכר‬ ‫ב ֶפ ַסח‬:ּ ְ It is prohibited to provide meat from the Paschal lamb to an apostate. One who does so violates a biblical prohibition. The verse that states: “No stranger shall eat from it” (Exodus 12:43) is understood to be directed at the head of the household and not at the apostate himself, who does not consider himself bound by the Torah’s laws (Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 9:7).

‫״הּזֶ ה״ ָל ָּמה ִלי? ְל ִכ ְד ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ַ ‫ ֶא ָּלא‬The Gemara asks: Rather, if so, why do I need the word “this” stated .‫ ֶ ּבן ֲעזַ ְריָ ה וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬with regard to the Paschal lamb sacrificed in Egypt if all the halakhot relevant to that offering apply to the Paschal lambs of later generations? The Gemara answers that the phrase is needed for the derivations cited by Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya and Rabbi Akiva (see Berakhot 9a) with regard to the length of time during which the Paschal lamb may be eaten. ‫ ״וְ ָכל ָע ֵרל ל ֹא‬:‫ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתה דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ,‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ ‫ֹאכל ּבֹו״ ָה ִכי נַ ִמי דְּ בֹו ֵאינֹו‬ ַ ‫י‬ :‫אֹוכל ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח דּ ֹורֹות? ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬ ֵ ‫ֲא ָבל‬ .‫״וְ ָע ַב ְד ָּת‬

notes

A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat from it – ‫ֹאכל ּבֹו‬ ַ ‫ֹושב וְ ָ ׂש ִכיר ל ֹא י‬ ָ ‫ת‬:ּ Rashi notes that this sentence is very difficult, as both a sojourner and a hired servant are Jews who are obligated to partake of the Paschal lamb. Therefore, Rashi rejects this version of the Gemara text. Perhaps he relies partially on his version of this passage, which read: Apostasy does not disqualify with regard to tithes. See tractate Yevamot (70b) with regard to the words: Sojourner and hired servant, in relation to the Paschal lamb.

The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, with regard to that which is written in the context of the Paschal lamb offered in Egypt: “And no uncircumcised person shall eat from it” (Exodus 12:48), so too, should it be inferred that the expression “from it” limits the application of the verse and teaches that “from it,” the Paschal lamb sacrificed in Egypt, he may not eat, but he may eat from the Paschal lamb sacrificed in later generations? The Gemara answers that the verse states: “You shall perform,” which teaches that the halakhot of the Paschal lamb sacrificed in Egypt apply to later generations as well.

,‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ ‫״בֹו״ ָל ָּמה ִלי? ְד ּבֹו ֵאינֹו‬ ּ ‫ ֶא ָּלא‬The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the expression “from it” .‫אֹוכל ְ ּב ַמ ָ ּצה ו ָּמרֹור‬ ֵ ‫ ֲא ָבל הוּא‬stated here? The Gemara answers that it teaches that from it, the Paschal lamb, he may not eat, but he eats from the matza and bitter herbs. An uncircumcised person is obligated to eat matza and bitter herbs on Passover, just like any other Jew.h ‫ֹאכל‬ ַ ‫ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתה (״וְ ָכל) ֶ ּבן נֵ ָכר ל ֹא י‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ ‫ ָה ִכי נַ ִמי דְּ בֹו ֵאינֹו‬,‫ּבֹו״‬ :‫אֹוכל הוּא ּ ֶפ ַסח ְלדֹורֹות? ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬ ֵ .‫״וְ ָע ַב ְד ָּת״‬

The Gemara continues to question: However, if that is so, when the verse states: “No stranger shall eat from it” (Exodus 12:43), so too, should it be inferred that it is only from it, the Paschal lamb sacrificed in Egypt, that he may not eat, but he may eat from the Paschal lamb sacrificed in later generations?h The Gemara answers that the verse states: “You shall perform,” which teaches that the halakhot of the Paschal lamb sacrificed in Egypt apply to future generations as well. Consequently, anyone who was prohibited from eating the Paschal lamb in Egypt may not eat it in subsequent years either.

‫ ֶא ָּלא ּבֹו ָל ָּמה ִלי? ּבֹו ְמ ׁש ּו ָּמדוּת‬The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the qualifying phrase: “From it”? The Gemara answers: It is from it, eating the Paschal lamb, ‫פֹוס ֶל ת‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ֵא ין ְמ ׁש ּו ָּמדוּת‬,‫פֹוס ֶל ת‬ ֶ .‫ ִ ּב ְתרו ָּמה‬that apostasy disqualifies, as the term “stranger” in this context is understood to refer to a Jew whose conduct makes him estranged from God; but apostasy does not disqualify one from eating teruma. Therefore, a priest who has become an apostate may still consume teruma.

196 

Perek IX . 96a . ‫וצ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ט‬

ְ‫ וְ ִאיצְ ְט ִריך‬,‫יכ ַּתב ָע ֵרל‬ ְ ‫וְ ִאיצְ ְט ִריךְ ְל ִמ‬ ‫ דְּ ִאי ָּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬.‫ְל ִמ ְכ ַּתב ֶ ּבן נֵ ָכר‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ֶ ּבן נֵ ָכר‬,‫ָע ֵרל – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דִּ ְמ ִאיס‬ ‫ וְ ִאי‬.‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ צְ ִר‬,‫ימא ָלא‬ ָ ‫ָלא ְמ ִאיס – ֵא‬ ‫ַא ׁ ְש ַמ ִעינַן ֶ ּבן נֵ ָכר – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ֵאין ִל ּבֹו‬ – ‫ ֲא ָבל ָע ֵרל דְּ ִל ּבֹו ַל ׁ ּ ָש ַמיִ ם‬,‫ַל ׁ ּ ָש ַמיִ ם‬ .‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ צְ ִר‬,‫ימא ָלא‬ ָ ‫ֵא‬

The Gemara continues: And it is necessary for the Torah to write the prohibition of an uncircumcised person, and it is necessary for the Torah to write a separate prohibition with regard to a stranger, as, if the Torah had written only about an uncircumcised person, one might have thought that only he is prohibited to eat from the Paschal lamb because the foreskin is repulsive, but a stranger who is not repulsive, say that he may eat from the Paschal lamb. Therefore it is necessary to teach the case of a stranger. And if it would have taught us only the prohibition with regard to a stranger, one might have concluded that only he is prohibited from eating the Paschal lamb because his heart is not directed toward Heaven due to his apostasy, but with regard to an uncircumcised person, whose heart is directed toward Heaven, say that there is no prohibition for him to eat the Paschal lamb. Therefore, it is necessary to teach also the case of an uncircumcised person.

‫ֹאכל‬ ַ ‫ֹושב וְ ָ ׂש ִכיר ל ֹא י‬ ָ ‫״ת‬ ּ ,‫ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתה‬ ,‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ ‫ ָה ִכי נַ ִמי דְּ בֹו הוּא ֵאינֹו‬,‫ּבֹו״‬ ‫אֹוכל הוּא ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח דּ ֹורֹות? ָא ַמר‬ ֵ ‫ֲא ָבל‬ ּ ‫ ֶא ָלא ּבֹו ָל ָּמה ִלי? ּבֹו‬.‫ ״וְ ָע ַב ְד ָּת״‬:‫ְק ָרא‬ ‫ וְ ֵאין ְמ ׁשו ָּּמדוּת‬,‫ֹוס ֶלת‬ ֶ ‫ְמ ׁשו ָּּמדוּת ּפ‬ .‫פֹוס ֶלת ִ ּב ְתרו ָּמה‬ ֶ

The Gemara continues to question its initial derivation: However, if that is so, when the verse pertaining to the Paschal lamb sacrificed in Egypt states: “A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat from it” (Exodus 12:45),n so too, should it be derived that from it, the Paschal lamb sacrificed in Egypt, he may not eat, but he may eat from the Paschal lamb sacrificed in later generations? The Gemara answers that the verse states: “And you shall perform,” which teaches that the halakhot of the Paschal lamb in later generations are the same as the halakhot that applied in Egypt. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the qualifying term “from it”? The Gemara answers that it teaches that from it, the Paschal lamb, apostasy disqualifies one from partaking, but apostasy does not disqualify one from eating teruma.

‫ֹאכל‬ ַ ‫ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתה ״ו ַּמ ְל ָּתה אֹתֹו ָאז י‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ ‫ ָה ִכי נַ ִמי דְּ בֹו ֵאינֹו‬,‫ּבֹו״‬ :‫אֹוכל ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח דּ ֹורֹות? ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬ ֵ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ּבֹו ָל ָּמה ִלי? ּבֹו ִמ ַילת‬.‫״וְ ָע ַב ְד ָּת״‬ ‫ וְ ֵאין ִמ ַילת‬,‫זְ ָכ ָריו וַ ֲע ָב ָדיו ְמ ַע ֶּכ ֶבת‬ .‫זְ ָכ ָריו וַ ֲע ָב ָדיו ְמ ַע ֶּכ ֶבת ִ ּב ְתרו ָּמה‬

The Gemara continues its line of questioning: However, if that is so, when the verse said: “When you have circumcised him, then shall he eat from it” (Exodus 12:44), so too, should it be inferred that from it, the Paschal lamb sacrificed in Egypt, he may not eat unless he first circumcises his sons and slaves,h but he may eat from the Paschal lamb sacrificed in later generations? The Gemara answers that the verse states: “You shall perform,” which teaches that this halakha applies to later generations as well. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the qualifying term “from it”? The Gemara answers that this term teaches that from it, the Paschal lamb, the lack of circumcision of one’s male children and slaves prevents a father or master from eating until he ensures that all of the male members of his household have been circumcised, but the circumcision of one’s male children and slaves does not prevent him from eating teruma if he is himself eligible to eat it.h

‫ ״וְ ֶעצֶ ם ל ֹא‬:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתה‬ ,‫יִ ׁ ְש ְ ּבר ּו בֹו״ ָה ִכי נַ ִמי דְּ בֹו ֵאינֹו ׁש ֵֹובר‬ ‫ֲא ָבל ׁש ֵֹובר ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח דּ ֹורֹות? ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬ – ‫ ֶא ָּלא ּבֹו ָל ָּמה ִלי? ּבֹו‬.‫״וְ ָע ַב ְד ָּת״‬ .‫ְ ּב ָכ ׁ ֵשר וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב ָפסוּל‬

The Gemara asks further: However, if that is so, with regard to that which is written: “And they shall not break a bone in it” (Numbers 9:12), so too, should it be inferred that it is prohibited to break a bone only of it, the Paschal lamb sacrificed in Egypt, but one may break a bone of a Paschal lamb sacrificed in later generations? The Gemara answers that the verse states: You shall perform, which applies the halakhot stated with regard to the Paschal lamb sacrificed in Egypt to the Paschal lambs of later generations as well. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the qualifying expression “in it”? The Gemara explains that this qualification teaches that only a bone in it, a fit Paschal lamb, may not be broken, but there is no prohibition to break the bone of an unfit Paschal lamb.

‫ֹאכל ּו‬ ְ ‫״אל ּת‬ ַ :‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתה‬ – ‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ ‫ ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ִאי ַא ָּתה‬,‫ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו נָ א״‬ ?‫אֹוכל נָ א ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח דּ ֹורֹות‬ ֵ ‫ֲא ָבל ַא ָּתה‬ ‫״מ ֶּמנּ וּ״‬ ִ ‫ ֶא ָּלא‬.‫ָא ַמר ְק ָרא ״וְ ָע ַב ְד ָּת״‬ .‫ָל ָּמה ִלי? ְל ִכ ְד ַר ָ ּבה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק‬

The Gemara asks further: However, if that is so, from that which is written: “Do not eat of it raw, nor boiled in water, but roasted in fire” (Exodus 12:9), should it be inferred that it is only of it, the Paschal lamb sacrificed in Egypt, that you may not eat raw, but you may eat raw meat from the Paschal lamb of later generations? The Gemara answers that the verse states: “You shall perform,” which teaches that the prohibition applies to later generations as well. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the qualifying expression “in it”? The Gemara answers that it is necessary for that which Rabba said that Rabbi Yitzĥak said, that this verse serves as the basis of a verbal analogy which teaches that an uncircumcised man may not eat tithes.

‫ ְמנָ א ָלן? דְּ ָא ַמר‬.‫״וְ נֶ ֱא ָכל ְ ּב ִח ּ ָפזֹון״ וכו׳‬ ,‫ ״וַ ֲא ַכ ְל ֶּתם אֹותֹו ְ ּב ִח ּ ָפזֹון״‬:‫ְק ָרא‬ ‫אֹותֹו נֶ ֱא ַכל ְ ּב ִח ּ ָפזֹון וְ ֵאין ַא ֵחר נֶ ֱא ַכל‬ .‫ְ ּב ִח ּ ָפזֹון‬

The Gemara returns to discuss the mishna, which stated that the Paschal lamb sacrificed in Egypt was eaten with haste but that Paschal lambs sacrificed in later years were not. From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers that it is as the verse states: “You shall eat it in haste; it is the Lord’s Paschal lamb” (Exodus 12:11). The word “it” indicates a detail and teaches that “it” is eaten with haste, and no other Paschal lamb is eaten with haste.

.‫נֹוהג ָּכל ׁ ִש ְב ָעה״ וכו׳‬ ֵ ‫ ״ו ֶּפ ַסח דּ ֹורֹות‬The mishna stated that the Paschal lamb of later generations ‫ימא ַא ּ ֶפ ַסח – ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ָ ‫ ַא ַּמאי ָק ֵאי? ִאי ֵל‬applies all seven days. The Gemara asks: On what does this ?‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ ָּכל ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ִמי ִא‬stand? If we say that it refers to the Paschal lamb itself, is there a Paschal lamb all seven days? It is offered only on the fourteenth of Nisan.

halakha

The circumcision of one’s male children and slaves – ‫ִמ ַילת‬ ‫זְ ָכ ָריו וַ ֲע ָב ָדיו‬: One whose sons or slaves are uncircumcised may not slaughter the Paschal lamb or eat from it (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 9:9).



The circumcision of the members of one’s household with regard to teruma – ‫מ ַילת זְ ָכ ָריו וַ ֲע ָב ָדיו ִ ּב ְתרו ָּמה‬:ִ A priest whose sons or slaves are uncircumcised may eat teruma (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Terumot 7:10, 12). ‫וצ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Perek IX . 96a 

197

Perek IX Daf 96 Amud b notes

One night…and its prohibition against leavened bread applied the entire day – ‫ימוּצֹו ָּכל ַהּיֹום‬ ּ ‫ליְ ָלה ֶא ָחד…וְ ִח‬:ַ Rabbi Ovadya Bartenura explains the Gemara by utilizing the con­ cept that the mishna is incomplete and the prohibition against leaven must be added to the mishna’s discussion. Con­versely, the Rashash explains that the language of the Gemara indicates that the topic of leaven is raised as part of the explanation, and is not meant to be inserted into the text of the mishna. Furthermore, the mishna should have taught that the prohibition against leaven applied during the Passover in Egypt for only one day instead of stating that during the Passover of later generations it applies to all seven days. However, this halakha was taught with regard to the Passover of later generations so that all of the mishna’s formulations would be framed as positive statements rather than as negative ones. Substitute and replacement – ‫תמו ָּרה וְ ִה ְפ ִר ׁיש ַא ֶח ֶרת‬:ְּ In this section, the Gemara commentary uses two terms which sound similar in English, but represent entirely different halakhic concepts. A replacement animal is one that is brought if a sacrifice, in this case a Paschal lamb, is lost. The owner is obligated to bring a replacement for a lost sacrifice. If the original animal is found before the time of slaughter, either the original animal or the replacement is sacrificed. In contrast, the word substitute is used for the Hebrew word temura, discussed in a separate note. A substitute is an attempt by the owners to replace one animal which is separated and fit for sacrifice, with another. It is prohibited to make a substitution, and the halakha is that both the original animal and its substitute have the same status as a sacrifice, but only the original one may be offered. The Gemara will discuss what happens with the substitute of a Paschal lamb, or the substitute of the replacement for a Paschal lamb. It is left to graze until it becomes unfit – ‫יִ ְר ֶעה ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ְס ָּת ֵאב‬: An unblemished animal that has been consecrated as an offer­ ing retains its sanctity, even if it cannot be sacrificed, and it may not be redeemed. However, it may be redeemed once it becomes unfit, and its sanctity is transferred to the money used for the redemption. Substitute [temura] – ‫תמו ָּרה‬:ְּ The halakha of substitution is stated in the Torah as follows: “He shall not alter it nor change it, a good for a bad or a bad for a good; and if he shall at all change beast for beast, then both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy” (Leviticus 27:10). The entire tractate Temura is dedicated to explaining the halakhot of substitution. One who substitutes an unconsecrated animal for one that has been consecrated as an offering violates a biblical prohibition and is therefore flogged. However, the second animal also becomes consecrated and attains a status comparable to the original consecrated animal. This rule does not affect offerings that are sacrificed on a free-will basis, such as peace-offerings and burnt-offerings, as the substitute is simply sacrificed also. However, in the case of a sin-offering, which may not be offered twice for the same transgression, the substitute is left to graze until it becomes unfit. language

Becomes unfit [ yista’ev] – ‫יִ ְס ָּת ֵאב‬: From the Aramaic translation of the biblical word tamei, meaning impure. An animal that becomes unfit is disqualified from being sacrificed as an offering, much like an impure animal.

198 

Perek IX . 96b . ‫וצ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ט‬

‫ ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ֶפ ַסח ִמצְ ַריִ ם‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ַא ָח ֵמץ‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ַליְ ָלה ֶא ָחד וְ ת ּו ל ֹא? וְ ָה ַתנְ יָ א‬ ‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ְל ֶפ ַסח ִמצְ ַריִ ם‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי‬ ֵ – ‫נֹוהג ֶא ָּלא יֹום ֶא ָחד‬ ֵ ‫ימוּצֹו‬ ּ ‫ׁ ֶש ֵאין ִח‬ ְ‫יֵא ֵכל ָח ֵמץ״ ו ְּס ִמיך‬ ָ ‫ ״ל ֹא‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ַּת ְלמוּד‬ !‫״הּיֹום ַא ֶּתם יֹוצְ ִאים״‬ ַ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬

Rather, it refers to leavened bread, which is prohibited all seven days of Passover in the generations following the Exodus. The Gemara asks: Does this prove by inference that during the Passover of Egypt, leaven was prohibited for only one night and not more? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: From where is it derived with regard to the Passover of Egypt that its prohibition of leavened bread applied for only one day? The verse states: “No leavened bread shall be eaten” (Exodus 13:3), and juxtaposed to it the verse states: “This day you go forth” (Exodus 13:4), to teach that the prohibition of leaven applied in Egypt for only one day. In any event, the prohibition applied for an entire night and day, and not just one night.

‫ וְ הוּא‬,‫ ַליְ ָלה ֶא ָחד‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬Rather, this question must be answered by saying that this is what ,‫ימוּצֹו ָּכל ַהּיֹום‬ ּ ‫ וְ ִח‬.‫ ַהדִּ ין ְל ֶפ ַסח דּ ֹורֹות‬it said in the mishna: The Paschal lamb was eaten in Egypt on one .‫נֹוהג ָּכל ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ ֵ ‫ ו ֶּפ ַסח דּ ֹורֹות‬night, and the same is true of the Paschal lamb of later generations; and its prohibition against leavened bread applied the entire day,n and on Passover in later generations it applies to all seven days of the Festival.

mishna 

Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard two rulings ‫ ׁ ָש ַמ ְע ִּתי‬:‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫מתני׳ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬ from my teachers: One ruling was that ‫ ו ְּתמו ַּרת ּ ֶפ ַסח‬,‫ׁ ֶש ְּתמו ַּרת ּ ֶפ ַסח ְק ֵר ָיבה‬ the substitute of a Paschal lamb is sacrificed as a peace-offering .‫ וְ ֵאין ִלי ְל ָפ ֵר ׁש‬,‫ ֵאינָ ּה ְק ֵר ָיבה‬after Passover, and another ruling was that the substitute of a Paschal lamb is not sacrificed as a peace-offering after Passover; and I cannot explain these two rulings, as I do not remember the circumstances to which each ruling applies. ‫ ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬.‫ ֲאנִי ֲא ָפ ֵר ׁש‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ ‫יטת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח – יִ ְר ֶעה‬ ַ ‫קֹודם ׁ ְש ִח‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמצָ א‬ ‫ וְ יִ ָּמ ֵכר וְ יָ ִביא ְ ּב ָד ָמיו‬,‫ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ְס ָּת ֵאב‬ .‫ וְ ֵכן ְּתמו ָּרתֹו‬,‫ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬

Rabbi Akiva said: I will explain: With regard to a lamb that is separated as a Paschal lamb and is then lost, leading the owner to separate another animal as its replacement,n and is later found before the slaughter of the replacement Paschal lamb, it is left to graze until it becomes unfit [yista’ev]nl and disqualified for use as a sacrifice. It is then sold and becomes unconsecrated, and the owner must bring a peace-offering with its proceeds. And so too, the same is true with regard to its substitute:n If one separates another lamb as a substitute for this replacement, the sanctity of the original lamb extends to the substitute as well. In the case outlined above, the substitute would graze, just like the replacement, until it developed a blemish and would then be sold. This is the circumstance in which the substitute of a Paschal lamb is not sacrificed.

,‫יטת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח – ָק ֵרב ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬ ַ ‫ ַא ַחר ׁ ְש ִח‬On the other hand, if the lost lamb is found after the slaughter of .‫ וְ ֵכן ְּתמו ָּרתֹו‬the replacement Paschal lamb, it itself is sacrificed as a peaceoffering, and so too, its substitute is sacrificed, which explains the ruling that the substitute of a Paschal lamb is sacrificed as a peace-offering.

gemara 

The Gemara questions the explanation of ‫ ּ ֶפ ַסח ָק ֵרב ו ֶּפ ַסח ֵאינֹו‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫גמ׳ וְ ֵל‬ Rabbi Akiva: If so, let the mishna say ‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ דְּ ִא‬:‫ָק ֵרב! ָהא ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬ these halakhot more simply, as follows: The Paschal lamb itself is .‫ ְּתמו ַּרת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח דְּ ל ֹא ְק ֵר ָבה‬sacrificed and the Paschal lamb is not sacrificed. According to Rabbi Akiva’s explanation, the same rule applies to both the lamb and its substitute. What additional point is Rabbi Yehoshua making by speaking about the substitute? The Gemara answers: This comes to teach us through this formulation that there is a case of a substitute Paschal lamb that is not sacrificed. One might have thought that a substitute Paschal lamb is always treated as a peaceoffering, even when it was substituted before the time of the slaughter; therefore, the mishna states that there is an instance in which it cannot be sacrificed because it is a substitute for a Paschal lamb that itself cannot be sacrificed.

‫יטה‬ ָ ‫קֹודם ׁ ְש ִח‬ ֶ :‫ ַר ָ ּבה ָא ַמר‬,‫ית ַמר‬ ְּ ‫ ִא‬It was stated that there was a dispute between amora’im about the :‫ ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא ָא ַמר‬,ּ‫יטה ׁ ָשנִינו‬ ָ ‫ ו ְּל ַא ַחר ׁ ְש ִח‬proper text of the mishna. Rabba said: We learned the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in the mishna as referring to the distinction of whether the .ּ‫קֹודם ֲחצֹות ו ְּל ַא ַחר ֲחצֹות ׁ ָשנִינו‬ ֶ lamb is found before the slaughter of the replacement lamb or after the slaughter of the replacement lamb. Rabbi Zeira said: We learned that it depends upon whether it is found before midday or after midday. Midday is the time that determines the status of an animal as a Paschal lamb; therefore, if the lamb is found after midday, even if it is found before the slaughter of the replacement Paschal lamb, its identity as a Paschal lamb is not firmly established and it may be sacrificed as a peaceoffering. ‫יטת‬ ַ ‫״קֹודם ׁ ְש ִח‬ ֶ ‫ ָהא ָק ָתנֵי‬,‫ ו ְּל ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Zeira, isn’t the mishna ‫יטת‬ ַ ‫קֹודם זְ ַמן ׁ ְש ִח‬ ֶ :‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח״! ֵא‬teaching explicitly that it depends upon whether the lamb is found .‫ ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬before the slaughter of the replacement Paschal lamb? How can he disagree with the mishna? The Gemara answers: Say that according to Rabbi Zeira, the mishna must be interpreted as referring not to the act of the slaughter itself but to a lamb that is found before the earliest time for the slaughter of the Paschal lamb, which is midday. – ‫יטה‬ ָ ‫קֹודם ׁ ְש ִח‬ ֶ ‫ ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמצָ א‬:‫ְּכ ַת ָּנ ֵאי‬ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ֱא ִל‬.‫יטה – יִ ְק ַרב‬ ָ ‫ ְל ַא ַחר ׁ ְש ִח‬,‫יִ ְר ֶעה‬ ‫ ְל ַא ַחר‬,‫קֹודם ֲחצֹות – יִ ְר ֶעה‬ ֶ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ .‫ֲחצֹות – יִ ְק ַרב‬

‫יטת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח יָ ִביא ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬ ַ ‫״א ַחר ׁ ְש ִח‬ ַ ‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמצָ א‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬.‫וכו׳״‬ .‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵה ִמיר ּבֹו ַא ַחר ׁ ְש ִח‬,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ַא ַחר ׁ ְש ִח‬ ‫יטה וְ ֵה ִמיר ּבֹו‬ ָ ‫קֹודם ׁ ְש ִח‬ ֶ ‫ֲא ָבל נִ ְמצָ א‬ ‫יטה – ְּתמו ָּרתֹו ִמ ּכ ַֹח ְקדו ׁ ּ ָּשה‬ ָ ‫ַא ַחר ׁ ְש ִח‬ .‫ וְ ל ֹא ְק ֵר ָבה‬,‫דְּ חוּיָ ה ָקא ֲא ָתא‬

The Gemara notes that this dispute among the amora’im is like the following dispute between tanna’im in a mishna: The Paschal lamb that is found before the slaughter of its substitute shall be left to graze until it becomes unfit; it is then sold, and the proceeds are used to purchase an animal that will be sacrificed as a peace-offering. If it is found after the slaughter, it itself is to be sacrificed as a peace-offering. This is parallel to the explanation of Rabba. Rabbi Eliezer says that if it is found before midday it shall be left to graze, but if it is found after midday it is to be sacrificed as a peace-offering, which is parallel to the explanation of Rabbi Zeira.h

halakha

A Paschal lamb that was found before the slaughter – ‫יטה‬ ָ ‫קֹודם ׁ ְש ִח‬ ֶ ‫פ ַסח ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמצָ א‬:ֶ ּ If one loses his Paschal lamb, separates another animal as a replacement Paschal lamb, and then finds the original lamb before the replacement is slaughtered, he may slaughter whichever animal he chooses as his Paschal lamb, and the other is sacrificed as a peace-offering. However, the Ra’avad asserts that the animal not used as the Paschal lamb must be left to graze until it becomes unfit, at which point it can be redeemed and the money used to purchase a peace-offering. It is possible that the Rambam agrees with this opinion (Kesef Mishne). If one designates another animal as a substitute for the Paschal lamb that is found, the substitute is left to graze until it becomes unfit. It is then redeemed, and the money is used to purchase an animal for a peace-offering. If the original Paschal lamb is found after he slaughters the replacement lamb, it is sacrificed as a peace-offering. If he declares another animal as a substitute for the original lamb which was found, then it, too, is brought as a peace-offering. The Rambam ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabba and not that of Rabbi Zeira, because the first opinion quoted in the baraita supports the opinion of Rabba (Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 4:6). notes

If…comes to include – ‫ם…ל ַר ּבֹות‬ ְ ‫א‬:ִ This derivation is based on the seemingly superfluous word if. It comes to extend the halakhot of a peace-offering brought on a voluntary basis to other similar offerings.

It was stated in the mishna that if the original lamb is found after the slaughter of the replacement Paschal lamb, one should bring the original lamb as a peace-offering, and the same applies to its substitute. Rava said: They taught that the substitute may be sacrificed as a peaceoffering only when the original lamb was found after the slaughter of the replacement lamb and one performed the substitution after the slaughter, when the original lamb itself was fit to be offered as a peaceoffering. But if the original lamb was found before the slaughter, even if one performed the substitution after the slaughter of the replacement lamb, the substitute lamb may not be sacrificed as an offering. The reason for this is that the original lamb may no longer be sacrificed as an offering and must be left to graze until it develops a blemish. Therefore, the sanctity of its substitute comes on the strength of deferred sanctity, and the substitute may not be sacrificed.

‫ ַמה ַּת ְלמוּד‬,‫״אם ֶּכ ֶ ׂשב״‬ ִ :‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫ ֵא ִית ֵיב‬Abaye raised an objection to Rava based on a baraita: With regard to the verse: “If he brings a lamb for his offering” (Leviticus 3:7), what is ‫״אם ֶּכ ֶ ׂשב״ – ְל ַר ּבֹות ְּתמ ּו ַרת‬ ִ ‫לֹומר‬ ַ the meaning when the verse states: “If he brings a lamb”? What is .‫ ׁ ֶש ְּק ֵר ָבה ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬,‫ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ַא ַחר ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ added by the word “if ”? It comes to includen the substitute of a Paschal lamb after the slaughter of the replacement Paschal lamb and teaches that it is offered as a peace-offering. ‫ימא ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמצָ א ַא ַחר‬ ָ ‫יל‬ ֵ ‫יכי דָּ ֵמי? ִא‬ ִ ‫ֵה‬ – ‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵה ִמיר ּבֹו ַא ַחר ׁ ְש ִח‬,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְש ִח‬ – ‫יטא! ָל ָּמה ִלי ְק ָרא? ֶא ָּלא ָלאו‬ ָ ‫ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ ‫ וְ ֵה ִמיר ּבֹו ַא ַחר‬,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫קֹודם ׁ ְש ִח‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמצָ א‬ !‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְש ִח‬

Abaye clarifies the meaning of this baraita: What are the circumstances of the case under discussion? If we say it is a case in which the lamb was found after the slaughter and one performed the substitution after the slaughter, it is obvious, as any Paschal lamb found after the slaughter of its replacement becomes a peace-offering; in that case, why do I need a verse to teach this halakha? Rather, is it not addressing a case in which the original lamb was found before the slaughter of its replacement and one performed the substitution after the slaughter of the replacement, and nonetheless the substitute lamb may be offered as a peace-offering, in opposition to Rava’s ruling?

,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫עֹולם ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמצָ א ַא ַחר ׁ ְש ִח‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬,‫ ל ֹא‬The Gemara responds: No; actually, it can be explained as referring to – ‫ ּו ְק ָרא‬,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵה ִמיר ּבֹו ַא ַחר ׁ ְש ִח‬a case in which the original lamb was found after the slaughter of the .‫ ַא ְס ַמ ְכ ָּתא ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא‬replacement, and one performed the substitution after the slaughter. It is indeed obvious and no verse is necessary to teach this halakha; the verse cited is not the source for this ruling but is a mere support. 

‫וצ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Perek IX . 96b 

199

halakha

Peace-offerings that come due to a Paschal lamb – ‫ש ָל ִמים ַה ָ ּב ִאין ֵמ ֲח ַמת ּ ֶפ ַסח‬: ְ ׁ If an animal separated as a Paschal lamb has passed its first year, it is brought as a peace-offering. Peace-offerings that were originally Paschal lambs are treated as peace-offerings in every way and require leaning, libations, and the waving of the breast and thigh (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 4:7). The fat tail of a she-goat – ‫א ְליַ ת ָה ֵעז‬:ַ The fat tail of a goat does not need to be burned on the altar, unlike the fat tail of sheep (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 1:18).

:‫ ֶא ָּלא ְק ָרא ְל ַמאי ֲא ָתא? ִּכ ְד ַתנְ יָ א‬The Gemara asks: But then for what purpose does this verse come? The ,‫״כ ֶ ׂשב״ – ְל ַר ּבֹות ֶאת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ָל ַא ְליָה‬ ֶּ Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita: The word “lamb” comes to include the Paschal lamb in the requirement that the fat tail be offered on the altar, as this halakha is not explicitly mentioned in the verses that relate to the Paschal lamb. ‫״אם ֶּכ ֶ ׂשב״ – ְל ַר ּבֹות‬ ִ ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא‬ ‫ ו ׁ ְּש ָל ִמים ַה ָ ּב ִאין‬,‫ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֶש ָע ְב ָרה ׁ ְשנָ תֹו‬ ,‫ֵמ ֲח ַמת ּ ֶפ ַסח ְל ָכל ִמצְ וַ ת ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬ ‫ ו ְּתנו ַּפת‬,‫ ּונְ ָס ִכים‬,‫יכה‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ָּטע ּון ְס ִמ‬ .‫ָחזֶ ה וָ ׁשֹוק‬

background

A she-goat does not require the fat tail to be burned on the altar – ‫עז ֵאינָ ּה ְטעוּנָ ה ַא ְליָ ה‬:ֵ The fat tail that is burned on the altar is not merely the thick, fatty section found underneath the tail of a sheep. It also includes some of the bone and fat from the body of the animal itself and some sections of the rump bone. Therefore, it was necessary to state that this part of a goat is not burned on the altar even though it does not have any actual fat tail. Nevertheless, it does have the other parts of the body that are removed together with the fat tail.

The baraita continues: When it says: “If he brings a lamb,” which alludes to additional types of offerings it comes to include a lamb consecrated as a Paschal lamb whose first year has passed and is therefore too old to be offered as a Paschal lamb, or peace-offerings that come due to a Paschal lamb,h both those separated as a substitute for a Paschal lamb and those that were actually consecrated as a Paschal lamb but the owner fulfilled his obligation with a different Paschal lamb, in all the mitzvot of peace-offerings. These offerings are no longer considered Paschal lambs and are treated as peace-offerings in every way. Therefore, they require leaning and libations and the waving of the breast and thigh.

‫אֹומר ״וְ ִאם ֵעז״ – ִה ְפ ִסיק‬ ֵ ‫ ו ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא‬The baraita continues: And when it says: “And if his offering is a she-goat” ‫ימד ַעל ָה ֵעז ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְטעוּנָ ה‬ ֵּ ‫ ִל‬,‫( ָה ִענְ יָ ן‬Leviticus 3:12), it interrupted the previous matter and taught that the of a she-goath does not require the fat tail to be burned on the .‫ ַא ְליָ ה‬offering altar.b ‫ ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬:‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫יכא דְּ ַמ ְתנֵי ָל ּה ַא ֵר‬ ָּ ‫ִא‬ ‫יטת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח יִ ְר ֶעה‬ ַ ‫קֹודם ׁ ְש ִח‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמצָ א‬ ‫ וְ ִיָביא ְ ּב ָד ָמיו‬,‫ וְ יִ ָּמ ֵכר‬,‫ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ְס ָּת ֵאב‬ .‫ וְ ֵכן ְּתמו ָּרתֹו‬,‫ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬

The Gemara has concluded one version of the dispute between Rava and Abaye. However, some teach this dispute with regard to the first clause of the mishna, which states that a Paschal lamb which is first lost and then found before the slaughter of the replacement Paschal lamb must be left to graze until it becomes unfit, and it is then sold, and one must bring a peace-offering with its proceeds; and likewise, the same is the case with regard to its substitute.

‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמצָ א‬:‫ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ‫קֹודם‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ֵה ִמיר ּבֹו‬,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫קֹודם ׁ ְש ִח‬ ֶ ‫יטה‬ ָ ‫קֹודם ׁ ְש ִח‬ ֶ ‫ ֲא ָבל נִ ְמצָ א‬.‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְש ִח‬ ‫יטה – ְּתמו ָּרתֹו‬ ָ ‫וְ ֵה ִמיר ּבֹו ַא ַחר ׁ ְש ִח‬ ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – ִּכי‬.‫יבה ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬ ָ ‫ְק ֵר‬ ‫ ִמידֵּ י‬,‫יה‬ ָ ‫ָק ְב ָעה ׁ ְש ִח‬ ּ ‫יטה – ִמידֵּ י דַּ ֲחזִ י ֵל‬ .‫יה – ל ֹא ָק ְב ָעה‬ ּ ‫דְּ ָלא ֲחזִ י ֵל‬

With regard to this halakha, Rava said: They taught this halakha only in a case where the original lamb was found before the slaughter and one performed the substitution before the slaughter; but if the original lamb was found before the slaughter and one performed the substitution after the slaughter of the replacement lamb, its substitute is offered as a peaceoffering. What is the reason for his opinion? The slaughter of the replacement establishes a halakhic reality only with regard to something which is fit for it; in other words, it is only with regard to a Paschal lamb itself that it matters whether it was found before or after the slaughter. However, with regard to something that was not fit for it, such as the substitute, which cannot be offered as a Paschal lamb in any event, the slaughter does not establish its status. Therefore, it can later be sacrificed as a peace-offering.

‫״אם ֶּכ ֶ ׂשב״ ַמה‬ ִ :‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ֵ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫ ֵא‬Abaye raised an objection to Rava based on the same baraita quoted ּ ‫יב‬ ‫לֹומר – ְל ַר ּבֹות ְּתמו ַּרת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ַ ‫ ַּת ְלמוּד‬previously: What is the meaning when the verse states: “If he brings a ,‫ ַא ַחר ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֶש ְּק ֵר ָיבה ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬lamb”? It comes to include the substitute of a Paschal lamb after Passover, which is offered as a peace-offering.

Perek IX Daf 97 Amud a ‫ יָ כֹול ַאף ִל ְפנֵי ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ֵּכן – ַּת ְלמוּד‬One might have thought that even a substitute Paschal lamb that was found before the slaughter of the replacement Paschal lamb should have the ‫ וְ ֵאין ְּתמו ַּרת‬,‫ ״הוּא״; הוּא ָק ֵרב‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ .‫ ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ְק ֵר ָיבה‬same status, and it should be permitted to sacrifice such a lamb as a peaceoffering. Therefore, the verse states: “It,” to emphasize that it, a valid Paschal lamb, is sacrificed, and the substitute of a Paschal lamb is not sacrificed. ‫קֹודם‬ ֶ ‫ימא ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמצָ א‬ ָ ‫יכי דָּ ֵמי? ִא ֵיל‬ ִ ‫ֵה‬ .‫יטה‬ ָ ‫קֹודם ׁ ְש ִח‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ֵה ִמיר ּבֹו‬,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְש ִח‬ – ‫יטא; ָל ָּמה ִלי ְק ָרא? ֶא ָּלא ָלאו‬ ָ ‫ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ ‫ וְ ֵה ִמיר ּבֹו‬,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫קֹודם ׁ ְש ִח‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמצָ א‬ !‫ ְּתי ו ְּב ָּתא דְּ ָר ָבא‬.‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ַא ַח ר ׁ ְש ִח‬ .‫ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא‬

200 

Perek IX . 97a . ‫זצ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ט‬

What are the circumstances of the case under discussion? If we say it is a case in which the lamb is found before the slaughter and one performed the substitution before the slaughter of the replacement, it is obvious; why do I need a specific verse to teach this halakha? Rather, is it not addressing a case in which the original lamb was found before the slaughter and one performed the substitution after the slaughter of the replacement, and the baraita ruled that the substitute lamb may not be sacrificed as a peace-offering, in opposition to the ruling of Rava? The Gemara concludes that the refutation of the opinion of Rava is indeed a conclusive refutation, and his opinion is rejected according to this version.

– ‫ ּכֹל ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ַח ָּטאת ֵמ ָתה‬:‫ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫ וְ כֹל ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ַח ָּטאת‬,‫ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח ָק ֵרב ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬ ‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫רֹועה‬ ֶ ‫רֹועה – ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח נַ ִמי‬ ָ ‫ ֵאין ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ָק ֵרב ׁ ְש ָל ִמים ֶא ָּלא‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ ‫קֹודם‬ ֶ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמצָ א ַא ַחר ׁ ְש ִח‬ .‫יטה – ל ֹא‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְש ִח‬

Shmuel stated a principle pertaining to the halakhot of offerings: With regard to any animal that was consecrated as an offering and becomes unfit such that a sin-offering in its condition would be placed in isolation for it to die,n meaning that it would be caused to die, if it is a Paschal lamb in that condition it is sacrificed as a peace-offering. And with regard to any animal that becomes unfit such that a sin-offering in its condition is left to grazen until it develops a blemish, if it is a Paschal lamb it is also left to graze. And Rabbi Yoĥanan said: A Paschal lamb is sacrificed as a peaceoffering only when the lost lamb was found after the slaughter of the replacement Paschal lamb, but if it was found before the slaughter, there is no instance in which it is brought as a peaceoffering.

‫ ו ְּכ ָל ָלא הוּא? וַ ֲה ֵרי‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב‬ .‫ דְּ ִל ְר ִעּיָ ה ָאזְ ָלא‬,‫ַח ָּטאת ׁ ֶש ָע ְב ָרה ׁ ְשנָ ָת ּה‬ ‫ ַח ָּטאת‬:‫דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬ ּ ‫אֹות ּה ְּכ ִא‬ ‫יל ּו‬ ָ ‫רֹואין‬ ִ ‫ׁ ֶש ָע ְב ָרה ׁ ְשנָ ָת ּה‬ .‫רֹועה‬ ָ ְ‫עֹומ ֶדת ְ ּב ֵבית ַה ְּק ָברֹות ו‬ ֶ ‫ִהיא‬

Rav Yosef strongly objects to Shmuel’s statement: Is that an established principle in every possible circumstance? Isn’t there the case of a sin-offering whose first year has passed and is therefore no longer fit to be offered as a sin-offering, which goes to graze until it develops a blemish? As Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: A sinoffering whose first year has passed, it is viewed as though it were standing in a cemetery where a priest may not enter in order to retrieve it; therefore, it grazes until it develops a blemish. The animal is then sold and its sanctity transferred to the proceeds of the sale, which are used to purchase an animal for a peace-offering.

ּ ‫וְ ִא‬ ‫יל ּו ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח ִּכי ַהאי ַ ּג וְ ונָ א ָק ֵרב‬ ‫״כ ֶ ׂשב״ – ְל ַר ּבֹות ֶאת‬ ֶּ :‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,‫ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬ ‫״אם‬ ִ ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא‬.‫ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ָל ַא ְליָ ה‬ ‫ֶּכ ֶ ׂשב״ – ְל ַר ּבֹות ֶאת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֶש ָע ְב ָרה‬ ‫ ּו ׁ ְש ָל ִמים ַה ָ ּב ִאין ֵמ ֲח ַמת ּ ֶפ ַסח‬,‫ׁ ְשנָ תֹו‬ ,‫יכה‬ ָ ‫ְל ָכל ִמצְ ו‍ֹת ׁ ְש ָל ִמים ׁ ֶש ְּטעוּנִים ְס ִמ‬ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא‬.‫ ו ְּתנו ַּפת ָחזֶ ה וְ ׁשֹוק‬,‫וּנְ ָס ִכים‬ ‫ימד‬ ֵּ ‫ ִל‬,‫״אם ֵעז״ ִה ְפ ִסיק ָה ִענְ יָ ן‬ ִ ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ !‫ַעל ָה ֵעז ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָטעוּן ַא ְליָ ה‬

However, a Paschal lamb in a case like this is sacrificed as a peaceoffering, as it was taught in a baraita: The word “lamb” comes to include the Paschal lamb in the requirement that the fat tail be sacrificed on the altar. When it says: “If he brings a lamb,” it comes to include a lamb consecrated as a Paschal lamb whose first year has passed and peace-offerings that come due to a Paschal lamb. These are considered peace-offerings rather than Paschal lambs, and they are included in all the laws of peace-offerings in that they require leaning and libations and the waving of the breast and thigh. When it says later: “And if his offering is a she-goat” (Leviticus 3:12), it interrupted the previous matter of the halakhot of sheep brought as peace-offerings and began a new discussion in order to teach that the offering of a she-goat does not require the fat tail to be offered on the altar. This baraita teaches that an animal consecrated as a Paschal lamb whose first year has passed is offered as a peace-offering and is not left to graze until it develops a blemish.

,‫ ִּכי ָק ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל – ַ ּב ֲאבו ִּדין‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬He said to him: When Shmuel stated his principle, it was spe­ .‫ ִ ּב ְדחוּיִ ין ל ֹא ָא ַמר‬cifically with regard to Paschal lambs that were lost; he did not state his principle with regard to Paschal lambs that were deferred because they had become unfit for use.n ‫וְ ָאבוּד ִמי ַמ ׁ ְש ַּכ ַח ְּת ָל ּה? וַ ֲה ֵרי ֲאבו ָּדה‬ .‫ דְּ ִל ְר ִעּיָ ה ָאזְ ָלא‬,‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ַה ְפ ָר ׁ ָשה ְל ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫ וְ ִה ְפ ִר ׁיש‬,‫ ִה ְפ ִר ׁיש ַח ָּטאתֹו וְ ָא ְב ָדה‬:‫דִּ ְתנַן‬ ,‫אשֹונָ ה‬ ׁ ‫ וְ נִ ְמצֵ את ָה ִר‬,‫יה‬ ָ ‫ַא ֶח ֶרת ַּת ְח ֶּת‬ ‫עֹומדֹות – ַא ַחת ֵמ ֶהן‬ ְ ‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫וַ ֲה ֵרי ׁ ְש ֵּת‬ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬.‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ו ׁ ְּשנִּיָה ָּתמוּת‬,‫ִּת ְק ַרב‬ ‫ ֵא ין ַח ָּט את ֵמ ָתה ֶא ָּלא‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ .‫ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמצֵ את ְל ַא ַחר ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַּכ ּ ְפר ּו ְ ּב ָע ִלים‬ .‫רֹועה‬ ָ – ‫קֹודם ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַּכ ּ ְפר ּו ְ ּב ָע ִלים‬ ֶ ‫ָהא‬

The Gemara continues its line of questioning: With regard to lost sacrifices do you find Shmuel’s principle to be correct? But what about the case of a sin-offering that was already lost at the time of the separation of a replacement to take its place, and the original animal was found before the second was sacrificed? According to the Rabbis, this animal goes for grazing, as we learned in a mishna: If one separated his sin-offering and it was lost, and he separated another in its place and the first was found, and therefore both are available, then one of them, whichever he chooses, is sacrificed, as he may bring only one offering, and the second shall be caused to die;n this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: A sin-offering is caused to die only when it is found after the owners gained atonement through another offering. Therefore, according to the Rabbis, if the animal was found before the owners gained atonement, it grazes.h

ּ ‫וְ ִא‬ ‫יכא דְּ ָא ַבד וְ נִ ְמצָ א‬ ָ ‫ ֵה‬,‫יל ּו ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ .‫יטה ָק ֵרב ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬ ָ ‫קֹודם ׁ ְש ִח‬ ֶ ‫ַא ַחר ֲחצֹות‬ :‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ְס ִב ָירא ֵל‬ .‫יתה ָאזְ ָלא‬ ָ ‫ֲאבו ָּדה ְל ִמ‬

And yet with regard to the Paschal lamb, in a situation where it is found after midday before the slaughter, it is sacrificed as a peaceoffering. Consequently, Shmuel’s principle is not correct even with regard to offerings that were lost. The Gemara answers: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that a lost sin-offering is put into isolation and goes to its death.



notes

A sin-offering left to die – ‫ח ָּטאת ֵמ ָתה‬:ַ There is an ancient halakhic tradition that some animals consecrated as sinofferings are placed in isolation and left to die. The implication is that certain animals selected as sin-offerings become so significantly disqualified that they are left to die. According to one tradition, there are five sin-offerings that are left to die: The offspring born to an animal that has already been consecrated as a sin-offering; an animal substituted for a sin-offering; a sin-offering whose owners have died; a sin-offering whose owner has already gained atonement through another offering; and a sin-offering that is more than one year old. However, some authorities disagree and reduce the number of sin-offerings that are left to die. Since it is prohibited to cause a blemish in a consecrated animal, one may not kill these animals directly. Rather, they are confined in an enclosure, called a kippa, until they die on their own. Left to graze – ‫רֹועה‬: ָ In contrast to the five categories of disqualified consecrated animals for sin-offerings, which are left to die, most consecrated animals that cannot be sacrificed as their intended offering are left to graze until they develop a blemish that precludes them from being brought on the altar. At this point the animal can be redeemed, with the proceeds being used to purchase a different offering. Lost and deferred – ‫אבו ִּדין ו ְּדחוּיִ ין‬: ֲ The halakhic distinction between consecrated animals that were lost and those that were deferred is as follows: The category of deferred animals includes offerings that were deferred due to halakhic considerations, irrespective of human involvement. This is not the case with regard to lost sacrifices. When the owner separates a replacement, he actively defers the original sacrifice. Therefore, its deferral is more complete. One of them is sacrificed and the second shall be caused to die – ‫א ַחת ֵמ ֶהן ִּת ְק ַרב ו ׁ ּ ְּשנִּיָה ָּתמוּת‬:ַ Apparently, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi it makes no difference which animal one chooses to sacrifice as the sin-offering. However, some commentaries point out that even according to his opinion, it is preferable to sacrifice the second animal, because it has already replaced the first one. Other commentaries note that if the replacement does not disqualify the first animal, the first one should be sacrificed, because its consecration preceded that of the second animal. Still other authorities raise a different consideration: The better animal should be sacrificed as the offering (see Jerusalem Talmud). In any event, it is clear that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, if one did not follow this procedure and sacrificed the other animal, it is valid after the fact, even if there is a preference with regard to which animal should be offered. halakha

A sin-offering caused to die – ‫ח ָּטאת ֵמ ָתה‬:ַ If a sinoffering is lost, and its owner separates a replacement and gains atonement by sacrificing it, and he later finds the original animal, it is left in isolation to die. However, if the animal was found before its owner gained atonement, it is left to graze until it develops a blemish and is then sold. The proceeds from the sale are used to purchase a free-will offering (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 4:8).

‫זצ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Perek IX . 97a 

201

halakha

A sin-offering lost at night – ‫א ֵב ַידת ַליְ ָלה‬:ֲ If a sin-offering is lost at night, even if it remains missing until after the owner gained atonement, when it is found it is left to graze and become blemished and is not left to die (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 4:9). notes

ּ ‫ וְ ִא‬.‫וְ ָהא ָּכל ֲאבו ָּדה ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ָתה‬ ‫יל ּו‬ ‫קֹודם ֲחצֹות‬ ֶ ‫יכא דְּ ָא ַבד‬ ָ ‫ ֵה‬,‫ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ‫קֹודם‬ ֶ !‫רֹועה‬ ֶ – ‫קֹודם ֲחצֹות‬ ֶ ‫וְ נִ ְמצָ א‬ .‫ ִּכ ְד ָר ָבא‬,‫ֲחצֹות ָלאו ָאב ּוד הוּא‬ ‫ ֲא ֵב ַידת ַליְ ָלה ָלאו ׁ ְש ָמ ּה‬:‫דְּ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ .‫ֲא ֵב ָידה‬

A sin-offering lost at night is not called lost – ‫ֲא ֵב ַידת ַליְ ָלה ָלאו‬ ‫ש ָמ ּה ֲא ֵב ָידה‬: ְ ׁ This is the source of the principle that the halakhot pertaining to a lost sin-offering apply only to an offering that was a lost at a time when it was fit to be sacrificed. However, if it was not yet time to sacrifice the offering, it does not have the status of a lost sin-offering. This halakha may be extended to a case in which the sin-offering of a zav or a leper was lost before they became pure. These animals would not be considered lost for the very reason discussed in the Gemara (Ĥazon Ish).

The Gemara asks: But every lost sin-offering is placed in isolation and left to die according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, whereas with regard to the Paschal lamb, when it was lost before midday and then found before midday but after a replacement animal had been separated, it grazes. The Gemara responds: A Paschal lamb lost before midday is not considered lost, in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: A sin-offering lost at nighth and found by the morning is not called lost,n and the halakhot of lost sin-offerings do not apply because a sin-offering cannot be sacrificed at night in any case. Similarly, if a Paschal lamb is lost before midday on the eve of Passover, since it could not be sacrificed at that time, it does not attain the status of a lost sacrifice even if one separates a replacement. In such a case, even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would concede that the original animal would be left to graze rather than being left to die.

?‫רֹועה ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֵה ִיכי ַמ ׁ ְש ַּכ ַח ְּת ָל ּה‬ ָ ‫ ֶא ָּלא‬The Gemara asks: But if so, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, under what circumstances can the case of a sinoffering that is left to graze be found? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that every lost sin-offering is left to die and none is left to graze; therefore, there is no significance to Shmuel’s ruling with regard to any sin-offering that is left to graze.

Perek IX Daf 97 Amud b halakha

If one separated two sin-offerings as a guarantee – ‫ִה ְפ ִר ׁיש‬ ‫ש ֵּתי ַח ָּטאֹות ְל ַא ֲח ָריוּת‬: ְ ׁ If one separates two sin-offerings as a guarantee, he gains atonement through whichever he chooses and the second animal is left to graze until it develops a blemish. It is then redeemed and the money is used to purchase a free-will offering (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 4:5). notes

And what does he teach us, to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan – ‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ ְל ַא ּפ ֵֹוקי ִמדְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ו ַּמאי ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬: When the assumption was that Shmuel agreed with the opinion of either the Rabbis or Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the understanding was that his goal was to introduce a new ruling with regard to different types of lost sin-offerings, some of which are left to graze and some of which are left in isolation to die, or, as in the case of a Paschal lamb, are offered as peace-offerings. However, according to the second version in the Gemara, Shmuel’s statement had only one part and not two. He did not introduce any new rulings with regard to types of lost sin-offerings and, indeed, his point was related to the time that determines when an animal is considered lost. Therefore, Shmuel did not intend to dispute Rabbi Yoĥanan with regard to the essential principles of this halakha or the meaning of the term lost. Rather, he was referring to the critical time that determines the status of a lost animal. According to Rabbi Yoĥanan, the animal is legally declared lost when it is time to slaughter it. According to Shmuel, the critical time in the case of the Paschal lamb is midday, which is when the slaughter may take place (Tosefot Rid).

202 

Perek IX . 97b . ‫זצ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ט‬

:‫אֹוש ֲעיָא‬ ַ ׁ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫אֹוש ֲעיָא‬ ַ ׁ ‫ ִּכ ְד ַר ִ ּבי‬The Gemara answers: Even according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi – ‫ ִה ְפ ִר ׁיש ׁ ְש ֵּתי ַח ָּטאֹות ְל ַא ֲח ָריוּת‬there is a case in which a sin-offering is left to graze, in accordance .‫ ו ׁ ְּשנִּיָה ִּת ְר ֶעה‬,‫ ִמ ְת ַּכ ּ ֵפר ְ ּב ַא ַחת ֵמ ֶהן‬with the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya, as Rabbi Oshaya said: If one separated two sin-offerings from the outset as a guarantee,h so that if one is lost he may gain atonement with the other, he gains atonement with one of them and the second is left to graze. ‫וְ ָהא ִאילּ ּו ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח ִּכי ַהאי ַ ּגוְ ונָ א ָק ֵרב‬ ‫ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬:‫ׁ ְש ָל ִמים! – ֶא ָּלא‬ ‫ ָח ֵמ ׁש ַח ָּטאֹות‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ְס ִב ָירא ֵל‬ .‫ֵמתֹות‬

The Gemara challenges this: But with regard to a Paschal lamb, in a case like this the second animal would be sacrificed as a peace-offering. This, too, does not follow Shmuel’s principle. Rather, it can be explained that Shmuel held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said there are five sin-offerings that are left in isolation to die, including all those which are lost or deferred.

‫יה‬ ָ ‫וְ ָהא‬ ּ ‫רֹועה ְל ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֵלית ֵל‬ :‫ְּכ ָלל! ׁ ְשמ ּו ֵא ל נַ ִמי ֲח ָדא ָק ָא ַמר‬ ‫ּכֹל ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ַח ָּטאת ֵמ ָתה – ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח ָק ֵרב‬ .‫ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬

The Gemara asks: But Rabbi Shimon does not concede in any case at all that a sin-offering is left to graze, as he holds that any sin-offering which is deferred for any reason is left to die, while Shmuel referred to sin-offerings left to graze. The Gemara answers: Shmuel also said only one case. He did not mention sinofferings that are left to graze; he said only that with regard to any offering that became unfit such that a sin-offering in its condition would be left to die, if it is a Paschal lamb in that condition it is sacrificed as a peace-offering.

‫ו ַּמאי ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן – ְל ַא ּפ ֵֹוקי ִמדְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ֵאין ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ָק ֵרב ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמצָ א ַא ַחר ׁ ְש ִח‬ ‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ ַא ְל ָמא ׁ ְש ִח‬.‫יטה – ל ֹא‬ ָ ‫קֹודם ׁ ְש ִח‬ ֶ .‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן ֲחצֹות ָק ַבע‬,‫ָק ַבע‬

The Gemara asks: And what does he teach us with this statement beyond what was taught explicitly in the mishna? The Gemara answers that Shmuel’s statement was meant to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan,n who said that a Paschal lamb is sacrificed as a peace-offering only when it is found after slaughter, but if it is found before the slaughter, no, it is not sacrificed as a peace-offering. Apparently, Rabbi Yoĥanan held that the slaughter determines when a sacrifice is deferred; therefore, Shmuel teaches us that in his opinion midday determines whether it is considered deferred, even if the other animal has not yet been slaughtered, because midday is the time when it may be slaughtered. Consequently, if the Paschal lamb is still lost at midday, it may be offered as a peace-offering when it is found.

‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ ֵה‬,‫ וְ ִאילּ ּו ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬:‫ישנָ א ַא ֲח ִרינָ א‬ ָ ּ ׁ ‫ִל‬ ‫קֹודם‬ ֶ ‫דְּ ָא ַבד וְ נִ ְמצָ א ַא ַחר ֲחצֹות‬ ‫ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ְּכ ַר ָ ּבה‬.‫יטה יִ ְק ַרב ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְש ִח‬ .‫יטה ָק ַבע‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ְש ִח‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ְס ִב ָירא ֵל‬

The Gemara presents another versionn of the discussion, beginning from the proof that the halakhot of a sin-offering cannot be equated to those of a Paschal lamb because with regard to a Paschal lamb, in a situation where it is lost and then found after midday but before the slaughter of its replacement, it is offered as a peaceoffering, which is not consistent with Shmuel’s principle. The Gemara answers: According to this version, Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, who said that the slaughter of the replacement determines the status of a lost offering; therefore, if the original animal is found before the slaughter of the second animal, even after midday, it is not considered to have been lost.

‫ ֵאין‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן ֲע ָל ּה‬ ָ ‫וְ ָהא ִמדְּ ָק ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ָק ֵרב ׁ ְש ָל ִמים ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמצָ א‬ .‫יטה ל ֹא‬ ָ ‫קֹודם ׁ ְש ִח‬ ֶ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ַא ַחר ׁ ְש ִח‬ ‫ ִמ ְּכ ָלל דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬.‫יטה ָק ַבע‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ְש ִח‬:‫ַא ְל ָמא‬ !‫״חצֹות ָק ַבע״‬ ֲ ‫ָס ַבר‬

The Gemara asks: But from the fact that Rabbi Yoĥanan said about this halakha that a Paschal lamb is sacrificed as a peace-offering only when it was found after the slaughter of the replacement, but if it was found before the slaughter, no, it is not, apparently he held that the slaughter determines whether the offering is considered lost. Since there is a dispute about this point, this proves by inference that Shmuel holds that midday determines this status, so that any animal lost at midday is considered lost and is sacrificed as a peace-offering, even if it is found before the slaughter. That does not accord with this second version of Shmuel’s opinion.

,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ְס ִב ָירא ֵל‬:‫ֶא ָּלא‬ ‫ וְ ָהא‬.‫יתה ָאזְ ָלא‬ ָ ‫ ֲאבו ָּדה ְל ִמ‬:‫דְּ ָא ַמר‬ ‫ וְ ִאילּ ּו ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬,‫ָּכל ֲאבו ִּדין ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִתין‬ ‫קֹודם ֲחצֹות וְ נִ ְמצָ א‬ ֶ ‫יכא דְּ ָא ַבד‬ ָ ‫ֵה‬ ‫קֹודם ֲחצֹות‬ ֶ :‫רֹועה! ָק ָס ַבר‬ ֶ ‫קֹודם ֲחצֹות‬ ֶ .‫ ֲחצֹות ָק ַבע‬:‫ וְ ָק ָס ַבר‬,‫ָלאו ָאבוּד הוּא‬

Rather, Shmuel’s statement must be explained differently: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that a lost sin-offering always goes to its death. The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi all lost sin-offerings are left in isolation to die, whereas with regard to the Paschal lamb, in a situation where it is lost before midday and found before midday it is left to graze and is not sacrificed as a peaceoffering. The Gemara answers: He held that a Paschal lamb that is lost before midday is not considered lost because the time for slaughtering the Paschal lamb has not yet arrived, and he held that midday determines the status of a lost Paschal lamb, not the time of the actual slaughter.

notes

Another version – ‫ישנָ א ַא ֲח ִרינָ א‬ ָ ּ ׁ ‫ל‬:ִ Usually this term signals that the Gemara cites an alternate version that presents an entirely different opinion or conclusion. In this case, however, the other version simply presents the development of the discussion in a slightly different manner, but arrives at the same conclusion. Its money is used for free-will offerings – ‫יִ ּ ְפל ּו דָּ ָמיו ִל ָנְד ָבה‬: The text of the mishna actually combines two contradictory texts. One version, which is simpler to understand and is the opinion of Rashi in the Vilna Gemara and the halakha according to the Rambam, states that the proceeds from the sale of the deferred Paschal lamb are used to purchase a peace-offering. The other version, used by the Rambam in his Commentary on the Mishna and cited by the Me’iri as Rashi’s opinion, states that the proceeds are used for a free-will offering. This free-will offering is a burnt-offering, but it is not fully treated as the personal burnt-offering of the owner of the deferred sacrifice. In the case of a personal burnt-offering, the individual leans his hands on the animal prior to its slaughter and provides the accompanying libations. In the case of a free-will burnt-offering, the owner does not lean his hands on the animal, public funds are used for the libations, and the hide of the animal is divided among all members of the priestly watch. halakha

One who separates a female for his Paschal lamb – ‫ה ַּמ ְפ ִר ׁיש נְ ֵק ָבה ְל ִפ ְסחֹו‬:ַ If one separates a female animal or a male animal in its second year as his Paschal lamb, it is left to graze until it develops a blemish; it is then sold and the money is used to purchase a Paschal lamb. If it does not develop a blemish until after the Paschal lamb is sacrificed, the money is used to purchase a peace-offering, as stated in the mishna. The distinction between the cases in which it develops a blemish before or after one sacrifices the Paschal lamb is based on a baraita in tractate Temura (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 4:4).

mishna 

In the case of one who separates a female ,‫מתני׳ ַה ַּמ ְפ ִר ׁיש נְ ֵק ָבה ְל ִפ ְסחֹו‬ animalh for his Paschal lamb although the ‫אֹו זָ ָכר ֶ ּבן ׁ ְש ֵּתי ׁ ָשנִים – יִ ְר ֶעה ַעד‬ Torah requires a male, or a male that is in its second year although ,‫ וְ יִ ּ ְפל ּו דָּ ָמיו ִלנְ ָד ָבה‬,‫ וְ יִ ָּמ ֵכר‬,‫ ׁ ֶשּיִ ְס ָּת ֵאב‬a Paschal lamb must be an animal that is in its first year, the animal .‫ ִל ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬is left to graze until it develops a blemish and becomes unfit, and it is then sold and its money is used for free-will offeringsn or peace-offerings.

Perek IX Daf 98 Amud a ‫יאנּ ּו‬ ֶ ‫ ַה ַּמ ְפ ִר ׁיש ּ ִפ ְסחֹו וָ ֵמת – ל ֹא יְ ִב‬With regard to one who separates his Paschal lamb and then dies,h n ‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ׁ ֵשם‬,‫ ְ ּבנֹו ַא ֲח ָריו ְל ׁ ֵשם ּ ֶפ ַסח‬his son may not bring it after him for the purpose of a Paschal n .‫ ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬lamb because it may no longer be used for that purpose after its owner has died. Rather, it is brought for the purpose of a peaceoffering.

halakha

One who separates his Paschal lamb and dies – ‫ִה ְפ ִר ׁיש‬ ‫פ ְסחֹו וָ ֵמת‬:ִ ּ If one separates an animal as his Paschal lamb and then dies, his son may not sacrifice it as a Paschal lamb. Rather, it is brought as a peace-offering (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 4:5).

notes

His son may not bring it after him – ‫יאנּ ּו ְ ּבנֹו ַא ֲח ָריו‬ ֶ ‫ל ֹא ִיְב‬: Unique halakhot apply to an animal consecrated as an offering that distinguish it from the other assets that a son inherits from his father. Although a son inherits his father’s offerings, they do not become his personal property. There are several differences between types of sacrifices that may be brought as free-will offerings on the one hand and sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, which have been consecrated to atone for the father’s sins and cannot be sacrificed on the other hand. Nevertheless, the son does not inherit his father’s right to sacrifice the Paschal



lamb; he merely attains a certain level of responsibility for it (Tosefot Rid). He may not bring it…for the purpose of a Paschal lamb – ‫ל ֹא‬ ‫ּ…ל ׁ ֵשם ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ְ ‫יאנּ ו‬ ֶ ‫יְב‬: ִ In the Jerusalem Talmud it is explained that this mishna is not referring to the offering itself, but rather to money set aside to purchase an offering. As a result, in contrast to the inferences made in the Gemara here, according to the explanation of the Jerusalem Talmud no halakhot can be derived from this principle with regard to the issue of rejecting animals. ‫חצ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Perek IX . 98a 

203

gemara 

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Con,‫יְהֹושע‬ ֻ ׁ ‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ ּ ‫גמ׳ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א ְ ּב ֵר‬ clude three halakhot from this mishna, con‫ ַ ּב ֲע ֵלי‬:‫ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה ְּת ָלת; ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ cerning one who separates an unfit sheep as a Paschal lamb: Conclude ,‫ ַחּיִ ים נִ ְד ִחין‬from it that living things can be permanently deferred;n not only is a sacrifice that has already been slaughtered permanently deferred, but so is a living animal that has been separated as a sacrifice for which it is unfit. This is clear from the fact that a female animal separated as a Paschal lamb is not offered as a peace-offering, but rather redeemed for money, which is then used for free-will offerings. This mishna clearly supports one side of a dispute on this issue in tractate Yoma 63b. ּ ָ ‫ דִּ חוּי ֵמ ִע‬:‫ ו ׁ ְּש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬And furthermore, conclude from this that deferral at the outset, when ,‫יק ָרא ָהוֵ י דִּ חוּי‬ .‫ יֵ ׁש דִּ חוּי ְ ּב ָד ִמים‬:‫ ו ׁ ְּש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬the lamb is first consecrated, is considered a permanent deferral; even though the female animal was never fit for use as a Paschal lamb and therefore one might have thought that it should be brought as a peaceoffering, the fact that it may not be brought as a peace-offering indicates that it has been completely deferred. (See tractate Sukka 33b for an opposing view.) And conclude from this that there is deferral not only with regard to the offering itself, but also with regard to the money of that offering, as the proceeds from the sale of the offering are used for free-will offerings rather than peace-offerings (Rabbeinu Ĥananel). :‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬.‫״ה ַּמ ְפ ִר ׁיש ּ ִפ ְסחֹו וכו׳״‬ ַ ‫ ִאם ְ ּבנֹו‬,‫ַה ַּמ ְפ ִר ׁיש ֶאת ּ ִפ ְסחֹו וָ ֵמת‬ .‫יאנּ ּו ְל ׁשוּם ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ֶ ‫ְממו ֶּּנה ִע ּמֹו – יְ ִב‬ ‫יאנּ ּו ְל ׁשוּם‬ ֶ ‫ֵאין ְ ּבנֹו ְממו ֶּּנה ִע ּמֹו – ִיְב‬ – ‫ ְל ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר‬.‫ׁ ְש ָל ִמים ְל ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר‬ :‫ ָקא ָס ַבר‬.‫ ַל ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר – ָלא‬,‫ִאין‬ .‫נְ ָד ִרים וּנְ ָדבֹות ֵאין ְק ֵר ִיבין ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬

The mishna states that if one who separates his Paschal lamb dies, his son may not sacrifice that animal as a Paschal lamb. Similarly, the Sages taught in the Tosefta: With regard to one who separates his Paschal lamb and dies, if his son is registered with him for that Paschal lamb, his son brings it for the purpose of a Paschal lamb, because if only one of the individuals registered for a Paschal lamb dies, the offering does not become entirely unfit. However, if his son is not registered with him, his son should bring it for the purpose of a peace-offering on the sixteenth of Nisan.n The Gemara infers that on the sixteenth, yes, the son may sacrifice the offering, but on the fifteenth, which is the Festival day, no, he may not. This indicates that the tanna of this baraita holds that animals brought in order to fulfill vows and free-will offeringsn are not offered on a Festival;n rather, only offerings that must be brought on the Festival are sacrificed on that day.

‫ימא דְּ ִמית‬ ָ ‫ימת? ִא ֵיל‬ ַ ‫דְּ ִמית ָה ָאב ֵא‬ ‫יאנּ ּו‬ ֶ ‫קֹודם ֲחצֹות – ְ ּבנֹו ְממו ֶּּנה ִע ּמֹו ִיְב‬ ֶ ‫יה‬ ּ ֵ‫ְל ׁשוּם ּ ֶפ ַסח?! ָהא ָח ָלה ֲאנִינוּת ִע ָּילו‬ ּ ָ ‫ֵמ ִע‬ !‫יק ָרא‬

The Gemara seeks to clarify the intent of the Tosefta: When did the father die?n If we say the father died before midday on the fourteenth, how is it possible to understand the continuation of the Tosefta, which states that if his son is registered with him, the son should bring it for the purpose of a Paschal lamb? Acute mourning applies to the son from the outset, before the Paschal lamb could be sacrificed, and an acute mourner may not sacrifice the Paschal lamb.

‫ ֵאין ְ ּבנֹו‬.‫ דְּ ִמית ַא ַחר ֲחצֹות‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא‬Rather, can one say that he died after midday? But the continuation !?‫יאנּ ּו ְל ׁשוּם ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬ ֶ ‫ ְממו ֶּּנה ִע ּמֹו – ִיְב‬of the Tosefta says that if his son is not registered with him, the son !‫יה ֲחצֹות‬ ּ ‫ ָהא ְק ַב ְע ֵּת‬should bring it for the purpose of a peace-offering; but midday established it as a Paschal lamb, in which case it should have the status of a Paschal lamb that was fit and then deferred, since the father was the sole registered participant. Such an animal is left to graze until it develops a blemish; it is then sold, and its proceeds are used for free-will offerings. It may not be sacrificed as a peace-offering.

notes

Permanent deferral – ‫דִּ יחוּי‬: In the case of offerings or other mitzvot, when an object is no longer fit for its intended purpose for whatever reason, it is permanently deferred. In general, the halakha is that a deferred object becomes inherently disqualified due to the deferral itself. Therefore, in tractate Yoma (63b) the question was raised as to whether the disqualification that accompanies deferral applies to living animals that have not yet been invested with the full sanctity of a sacrifice. He should bring it…on the sixteenth of Nisan – …ּ‫יאנּ ו‬ ֶ ‫ִיְב‬ ‫ל ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר‬:ְ The son could not offer the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth of Nisan because he was an acute mourner at that time, and an acute mourner may not offer sacrifices (Tosefot Rid ).

204 

Perek IX . 98a . ‫חצ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ט‬

Vows and free-will offerings – ‫נְ ָד ִרים וּנְ ָדבֹות‬: The difference between vows and free-will offerings is that a vow is taken as a personal obligation. In the case of a vow, if one states: I accept upon myself a burnt-offering, he is obligated to bring the offering even if the animal dies or becomes disqualified from being brought on the altar. Conversely, with regard to free-will offerings, the animal itself is set aside to be an offering. In other words, if one states: This animal will be a burnt-offering, and the animal dies or becomes disqualified from being brought on the altar, no replacement is necessary.

sacrificial rites, only those offerings that are required by the Torah for those days may be brought. Vows and free-will offerings, which are not part of the required service, may be brought during the intermediary days of the Festivals but not on the Festivals themselves, when unnecessary labor may not be performed.

When did the father die – ‫ימת‬ ַ ‫דְּ ִמית ָה ָאב ֵא‬: This question should be interpreted as referring to the Tosefta, rather than the mishna, because the mishna can be explained in several different ways, as it offers less detail. In addition, Rav Vows and free-will offerings are not offered on a Festi- Ashi’s answer, for instance, cannot be applied to the mishna, as val – ‫נְ ָד ִרים וּנְ ָדבֹות ֵאין ְק ֵר ִיבין ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬: Although offerings are the mishna rules that living animals are permanently deferred brought in the Temple on Shabbat and Festivals as part of the (Ĥazon Ish).

‫קֹודם‬ ֶ ‫עֹולם דְּ ִמית‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬:)‫ ָא ַמר ָ(ר ָבא‬The Gemara presents several resolutions of this difficulty. Rava – ‫יאנּ ּו ְל ׁשוּם ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ֶ ‫ ו ַּמאי ִיְב‬,‫ ֲחצֹות‬said: Actually, one can answer that the father died before mid.‫ ְל ׁשוּם ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬day, and what does it mean when it says that his son should bring the animal for the purpose of a Paschal lamb? It means that he should bring it for the purpose of a Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ, which is after the period of acute mourning. ‫ ַל ְ ּצ ָד ִדין ָק ָתנֵי; ֵמת ַא ַחר‬:‫ַא ַ ּביֵ י ָא ַמר‬ ‫יאנּ ּו‬ ֶ ‫ ְ ּבנֹו ְממו ֶּּנה ִע ּמֹו – יְ ִב‬,‫ֲחצֹות‬ ‫ ֵאין‬,‫קֹודם ֲחצֹות‬ ֶ ‫ ֵמת‬,‫ְל ׁשוּם ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ‫יאנּ ּו ְל ׁשוּם‬ ֶ ‫ְ ּבנֹו ְממו ֶּּנה ִע ּמֹו – יְ ִב‬ .‫ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬

Abaye said: It teaches it disjunctively, meaning that the two clauses in the Tosefta address two different cases: If the father died after midday and his son was registered with him, the son should bring the animal for the purpose of a Paschal lamb, because midday establishes the son’s obligation to sacrifice the Paschal lamb. This obligation overrides the rabbinic status of acute mourning, which applies the night after one’s relative has died. If the father died before midday and his son was not registered with him, the son should bring it for the purpose of a peace-offering because midday did not formally establish the animal’s identity as a Paschal lamb. The Tosefta does not address the other two possible cases, i.e., the father dying after midday and his son not being registered with him, or the father dying before midday and his son being registered with him.

‫עֹולם דְּ ִמית‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬:‫ ַרב ׁ ֵש ֵר ְביָ א ָא ַמר‬Rav Sherevya said: Actually, the Tosefta is addressing a case in ‫ ו ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ָא ִביו‬,‫ ְל ַא ַחר ֲחצֹות‬which the father died after midday, yet nonetheless the animal is not considered rejected and may be offered as a peace-offering; .‫גֹוסס ַ ּב ֲחצֹות‬ ֵ for example, this is the case if his father was on his death bed at midday. In that case, midday does not irreversibly classify the offering as a Paschal lamb, as it is known in advance that most people in such a condition die. ‫עֹולם דְּ ִמית ְל ַא ַחר‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬:‫ ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ָא ַמר‬Rav Ashi said: Actually, the Tosefta is addressing a case in which ‫ ֵאין‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ִהיא‬,‫ ֲחצֹות‬the father died after midday, and it is in accordance with the .‫ ַ ּב ֲע ֵלי ַחּיִ ים נִ ְד ִחין‬opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as he said that living animals are not deferred. According to this opinion, midday does not irreversibly determine the status of the offering, as long as it has not yet been slaughtered.h

halakha

Before and after midday – ‫קֹודם ֲחצֹות ו ְּל ַא ַחר ֲחצֹות‬: ֶ If one separates his Paschal lamb and then dies, and his son is registered together with him, the son may sacrifice the animal as a Paschal lamb. However, this is true only if the father dies after midday. If he dies before midday, his son’s offering is deferred to the second Pesaĥ, and he sacrifices the animal as his Paschal lamb at that time. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ashi (Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 4:5). A Paschal lamb that was intermingled – ‫ה ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ָע ֵרב‬:ַ If a Paschal lamb is intermingled with sacrifices other than peaceofferings, all the animals are left to graze until they develop a blemish. The owner must then sacrifice an animal as valuable as the most expensive animal in the group for each type of offering that is present, and he supplements the extra cost of the animals from his own funds (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 4:8). notes

Firstborn animals – ‫בכֹורֹות‬:ּ ְ The male firstborn of cattle, sheep, or goats belonging to a Jew is sacred from birth and must be given to a priest to be sacrificed on the altar in the Temple, with its flesh eaten by the priests and their families (Numbers 18:17–18). If a firstborn animal acquired a physical blemish which disqualified it from being sacrificed as an offering, it could be slaughtered and eaten like any other non-sacred kosher animal. Nevertheless, it still had to be given to a priest. It is prohibited to intentionally inflict a disqualifying blemish on a firstborn animal, and it may not be used for any mundane purpose even if it is blemished. It is prohibited to work the animal, and its fleece may not be used. Since the destruction of the Second Temple, a firstborn continues to be considered sacred. However, since it cannot be sacrificed in the Temple, and as it may be slaughtered only if it has a marked disqualifying blemish, various halakhic devices are employed to restrict the classification of animals as firstborn and to permit their slaughter as non-sacred animals after they acquire disqualifying blemishes.

‫ ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ִה ְפ ִר ׁיש ּו ַא ַחר‬:‫ ָר ִבינָ א ָא ַמר‬Ravina said that the Tosefta is referring to a case where one ,‫ ו ֵּמת ּו ְ ּב ָע ִלים ַא ַחר ֲחצֹות‬,‫ ֲחצֹות‬separated this Paschal lamb after midday and the owners died .‫ ֲחצֹות ָק ַבע‬:‫ וְ ָקא ָס ַבר‬after midday; and this tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira stated earlier in the chapter that midday determines the status of the offering, and since it had not yet been separated by midday it cannot be rejected. – ‫מתני׳ ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ָע ֵרב ַ ּבּזְ ָב ִחים‬ ,ּ‫ וְ יִ ָּמ ְכרו‬,ּ‫ּכו ָּּלן יִ ְרע ּו ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ְס ָּת ֲאבו‬ ‫וְ יָ ִביא ִ ּב ְד ֵמי ַהּיָ ֶפה ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ֶהן ִמ ִּמין‬ ,‫ ו ִּב ְד ֵמי ַהּיָ ֶפה ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ֶהן ִמ ִּמין זֶ ה‬,‫זֶ ה‬ .‫ֹותר ִמ ֵ ּביתֹו‬ ָ ‫[וְ יַ ְפ ִסיד] ַה ּמ‬

mishna 

In the case of a Paschal lamb that was intermingledh with other offerings, such as guilt-offerings and burnt-offerings, and it is not known which animal was separated for which offering, all of them are left to graze until they develop a blemish and become unfit; and they are then sold, and with the proceeds of the choicest of them he must bring this type of sacrifice, and with the proceeds of the choicest of them he must bring this other type of sacrifice, meaning that he must purchase one of each type of sacrifice that was intermingled at the value of the most expensive animal in the group. And he loses the difference from his own pocket. Not all the offerings were as expensive as the most valuable animal in the group, yet he must purchase an animal for each type of offering for the value of the most expensive animal in the group.

:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬,‫ נִ ְת ָע ֵרב ַ ּב ְ ּבכֹורֹות‬If a Paschal lamb was intermingled with firstborn animals,n .ּ‫ֹאכלו‬ ְ ‫ ִאם ַחבוּרֹות ּכ ֲֹהנִים – י‬Rabbi Shimon says: If those whose offerings became mixed together were groups of priests, they may eat all of the animals on Passover night. This is because priests are permitted to eat the meat of a firstborn animal, and the slaughter and other services for a firstborn animal are the same as those for a Paschal lamb. The attending priests should state that they intend to sacrifice as a Paschal lamb whichever animal is the Paschal lamb and to sacrifice as a firstborn animal whichever animal is a firstborn. 

‫חצ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Perek IX . 98a 

205

Perek IX Daf 98 Amud b halakha

A Paschal lamb that became intermingled with firstborn animals – ‫פ ַסח ׁ ֶשנִ ְת ָע ֵרב ַ ּב ְ ּבכֹורֹות‬:ֶ ּ If a Paschal lamb is intermingled with firstborn animals, all the animals are left to graze until they develop blemishes. At that point, the sanctity of the Paschal lamb is transferred to another animal that is as fine as the choicest animal in the mixed group, which is then sacrificed as a peace-offering. The animals are then eaten in accordance with the rules governing a blemished firstborn animal (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 4:8). Causing sacrifices to become disqualified – ‫ֲה ָב ַאת ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬ ‫ל ֵבית ַה ּ ְפסוּל‬:ְ One may not minimize the time period in which an offering may be eaten and thereby create a situation in which it may become disqualified (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 6:12). A group whose Paschal lamb was lost – ‫חבו ָּרה ׁ ֶש ָא ַבד ּ ִפ ְס ָח ּה‬:ֲ If a group loses its Paschal lamb and sends one person to search for it and slaughter it on their behalf, and he does so, but meanwhile the other members of the group take another Paschal lamb and slaughter it, then the following halakha applies: If the original Paschal lamb was slaughtered first, the entire group eats from it and the second Paschal lamb is burned. Everything stated in the mishna is accepted as practical halakha (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 3:4–8).

‫יתי ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ְל ֵבית‬ ִ ְ‫גמ׳ וְ ָהא ָקא ַמי‬ !‫ַה ּ ְפסוּל‬

‫יאין‬ ִ ‫ ְמ ִב‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ְל ַט ְע ֵמ‬ ‫ ָא ׁ ָשם‬:‫ דִּ ְתנַ ן‬.‫ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ְל ֵבית ַה ּ ְפסוּל‬ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ָע ֵרב ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ִמים ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ .‫חֹומר ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ֶהן‬ ֶ ‫ וְ יֵ ָא ְכל ּו ַּכ‬,‫יִ ׁ ּ ָש ֲחט ּו ַ ּב ָ ּצפֹון‬

notes

As he said that it is permitted to cause offerings to be considered disqualified – ‫יאין ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ְל ֵבית ַה ּ ְפסוּל‬ ִ ‫דְּ ָא ַמר ְמ ִב‬: In the Jerusalem Talmud it is stated that Rabbi Shimon did not actually permit one to cause offerings to be considered disqualified. He assumed that the members of the group eating the Paschal lamb would be very careful to eat all of the meat and not to leave over any of it to the morning. Go and search – ‫צֵ א ו ַּב ֵ ּק ׁש‬: Apparently, they also say to him that if he does not find it, he should purchase another Paschal lamb for them and sacrifice it (Rabbeinu Yehonatan).

Perek IX . 98b . ‫חצ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ט‬

The Gemara challenges Rabbi Shimon’s statement permitting priests to eat a Paschal lamb that became intermingled with firstborn animals:h How can all of the animals be eaten according to the strictures of the Paschal lamb? They will cause offerings to be considered disqualified unnecessarily. A firstborn animal may be eaten for two days and one night while a Paschal lamb must be eaten in one night; therefore, eating the firstborn animals according to the strictures of the Paschal lamb will cause them to be disqualified and burned once morning arrives, despite the fact that they are not actually disqualified yet.

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said that it is permitted to cause offerings to be considered disqualified,n as we learned in a mishna: If a guilt-offering became intermingled with a peace-offering, what should be done? Rabbi Shimon says: One should slaughter all of them in the northern part of the Temple courtyard, like a guilt-offering, because it is permitted to slaughter a peace-offering there, even though it is not obligatory to do so. And they should be eaten as the stricter of them would be, according to the rules of a guilt-offering, which is a sacrifice of the most sacred order. Therefore, they must be eaten in the Temple courtyard over the course of one day and night, unlike sacrifices of minor sanctity, and may not be distributed to family members of the priests anywhere in Jerusalem,.

‫יאין ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ְל ֵבית‬ ִ ‫ ֵאין ְמ ִב‬:‫ ָא ְמר ּו לֹו‬The Rabbis said to him: One may not cause offerings to be h .‫ ַה ּ ְפסוּל‬considered disqualified, and since one of the animals is a peaceoffering one may not treat it as a guilt-offering, which minimizes the time period in which it may be eaten and which may lead to it being burned unnecessarily. This indicates that Rabbi Shimon is not concerned with this possibility. ‫ נַ ְמ ִּתין‬:‫יכי ָע ְב ִדינַן? ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ִ ‫ ֵה‬,‫וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ,‫ וְ ִיָביא ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ׁ ְש ֵמינָ ה‬,ּ‫לֹו ַעד ׁ ֶשּיו ְּממו‬ – ‫יה ַל ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ֵ ‫יכא דְּ ִא‬ ָ ‫ ָּכל ֵה‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫וְ ֵל‬ ּ ‫ית‬ ‫תֹורת‬ ַ ‫ וְ ָא ֵכיל ְלה ּו ְ ּב‬,‫יה דְּ ַהאי‬ ּ ‫ָּתחוּל ֲע ֵל‬ .‫ְ ּבכֹור ַ ּב ַעל מוּם‬

‫ וְ ָא ְמר ּו‬,‫מתני׳ ֲחבו ָּרה ׁ ֶש ָא ַבד ּ ִפ ְס ָח ּה‬ ְ‫ וְ ָה ַלך‬.ּ‫ צֵ א ו ַּב ֵ ּק ׁש ו ׁ ְּשחֹוט ָע ֵלינו‬:‫ְל ֶא ָחד‬ ‫ ִאם‬.ּ‫ וְ ֵהם ָל ְקח ּו וְ ׁ ָש ֲחטו‬,‫ו ָּמצָ א וְ ׁ ָש ַחט‬ ,‫אֹוכל ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשלּ ֹו‬ ֵ ‫אשֹון – הוּא‬ ׁ ‫נִש ַחט ִר‬ ְ ׁ ‫ׁ ֶשלּ ֹו‬ ‫ וְ ִאם ׁ ֶש ָּל ֶהן‬.‫אֹוכ ִלין ִע ּמֹו ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ּלֹו‬ ְ ‫וְ ֵהם‬ ,‫אֹוכ ִלין ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָל ֶהן‬ ְ ‫אשֹון – ֵהם‬ ׁ ‫נִש ַחט ִר‬ ְׁ .‫אֹוכל ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשלּ ֹו‬ ֵ ‫וְ הוּא‬

206 

gemara 

The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, what should we do if a Paschal lamb is intermingled with firstborn animals? Firstborn animals are sanctified from birth, and their sanctity takes effect on them alone. Rava said: We wait for the owner until the animals are blemished, and at that point he will bring a fat, unsanctified animal and say: Anywhere that the Paschal lamb is, its sanctity should apply to this new animal. The new animal is then brought as a peace-offering. And with regard to the original group of animals, he eats them according to the laws of a blemished firstborn animal. Such an animal is considered unsanctified and is eaten by priests, albeit with certain limitations, such as the fact that the meat cannot be weighed or sold in a degrading manner.

mishna 

With regard to a group whose Paschal lamb was lost,h and they said to one member of the group: Go and searchn for our Paschal lamb, and when you find it, slaughter it on our behalf; and he went and found the missing offering and slaughtered it on behalf of the entire group, but in the meantime they took a different animal and slaughtered it as a Paschal lamb, the halakha is as follows: If his Paschal lamb was slaughtered first, he eats from his offering, as he is considered to be registered specifically for that offering, and they eat with him from his offering, because he included them in his offering and it belongs to the entire group. The second animal does not have any registrants and is therefore burned. And if theirs was slaughtered first, they eat from theirs because they withdrew from the original offering through the act of slaughtering a replacement, and he eats from his because he was not registered for the replacement offering sacrificed by the remainder of his group.

‫נִש ַחט‬ ְ ׁ ‫וְ ִאם ֵאינֹו יָ ד ּו ַע ֵאיזֶ ה ֵמ ֶהן‬ – ‫נֵיהם ְּכ ֶא ָחד‬ ֶ ‫ אֹו ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ֲחט ּו ׁ ְש‬,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ִר‬ ‫אֹוכ ִלין‬ ְ ‫ וְ ֵהם ֵאינָ ם‬,‫אֹוכל ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשלּ ֹו‬ ֵ ‫הוּא‬ ,‫יפה‬ ָ ‫ וְ ׁ ֶש ָּל ֶהן יֵ צֵ א ְל ֵבית ַה ּ ְ ׂש ֵר‬.‫ִע ּמֹו‬ .‫ו ְּפטו ִּרין ִמ ַּל ֲע ׂשֹות ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬

And if it is not known which of the offerings was slaughtered first, or if both the group and the individual slaughtered them together, he eats from his and they do not eat with him in case theirs was slaughtered first, and theirs must be taken out to the place designated for burning. The offering slaughtered by the group may not be eaten due to the concern that it was slaughtered second and the members of the group would therefore have been included in the first offering. However, they are exempt from performing the offering of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ, because they were included in the slaughter of whichever animal was slaughtered first. It is only due to external circumstances that they cannot complete the mitzva by eating the Paschal lamb, and this does not prevent them from fulfilling their obligation.

‫ ִאם ֵא ַח ְר ִּתי צְ א ּו וְ ׁ ַש ֲחט ּו‬:‫ָא ַמר ָל ֶהן‬ ‫ וְ ֵהן ָל ְקח ּו‬,‫ ָה ַל ְך ו ָּמצָ א וְ ׁ ָש ַחט‬,‫ָע ַלי‬ ‫אשֹון – ֵהן‬ ׁ ‫נִש ַחט ִר‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ִאם ׁ ֶש ָּל ֶהן‬.ּ‫וְ ׁ ָש ֲחטו‬ .‫אֹוכל ִע ָּמ ֶהן‬ ֵ ‫ וְ הוּא‬,‫אֹוכ ִלין ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָל ֶהן‬ ְ ‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ ‫אשֹון – הוּא‬ ׁ ‫נִש ַחט ִר‬ ְ ׁ ‫וְ ִאם ׁ ֶשלּ ֹו‬ .‫אֹוכ ִלין ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָּל ֶהם‬ ְ ‫ וְ ֵהן‬,‫ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשלּ ֹו‬

A somewhat different case of a lost Paschal lamb would occur if the group had sent one member as an agent to search for the lost animal, and the agent said to the other members of the group before he left: If I am late, go and slaughter a Paschal lamb for me. He then went and found the lost Paschal lamb and slaughtered it, and they took another animal and slaughtered it as a Paschal lamb. In that case, if theirs was slaughtered first, they eat from theirs and he eats with them, because he requested to be included in their offering and they registered him for their Paschal lamb. And if his was slaughtered first, he eats from his and they eat from theirs, because the fact that they slaughtered a different animal indicates that they have withdrawn from the original offering.

‫נִש ַחט‬ ְ ׁ ‫וְ ִאם ֵאינֹו יָ ד ּו ַע ֵאיזֶ ה ֵמ ֶהן‬ – ‫נֵיהם ְּכ ֶא ָחד‬ ֶ ‫ אֹו ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ֲחט ּו ׁ ְש‬,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ִר‬ ‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ ‫ וְ הוּא ֵאינֹו‬,‫אֹוכ ִלין ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָּל ֶהן‬ ְ ‫ֵהן‬ ,‫יפה‬ ָ ‫ וְ ׁ ֶש ּלֹו יֵ צֵ א ְל ֵבית ַה ּ ְ ׂש ֵר‬,‫ִע ָּמ ֶהן‬ .‫ו ָּפטוּר ִמ ַּל ֲע ׂשֹות ּ ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵשנִי‬

And if it is not known which of the animals was slaughtered first, or if both the group and the individual slaughtered them together, they eat from theirs because they definitely withdrew from the original offering by slaughtering a different one, and he does not eat with them because he also intended to be included in the animal he slaughtered and it is not clear which was slaughtered first. Therefore, his must be taken out to the place designated for burning; and he is exempt from performing the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ.

‫אֹוכ ִלין ּכו ָּּלן‬ ְ – ‫ָא ַמר ָל ֶהן וְ ָא ְמר ּו לֹו‬ ‫ וְ ִאם ֵאין יָ דו ַּע ֵאיזֶ ה ֵמ ֶהן‬.‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ִמן ָה ִר‬ ‫נֵיהן יֹוצְ ִאין ְל ֵבית‬ ֶ ‫אשֹון – ׁ ְש‬ ׁ ‫נִש ַחט ִר‬ ְׁ .‫ַה ּ ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה‬

If he said to them that if he is delayed they should include him in their Paschal lamb, and they said to him that if he finds the original offering he should slaughter it on their behalf, all of them eat from the first sacrifice that was slaughtered. And if it is not known which of them was slaughtered first, both of them must be taken out to the place designated for burning, and the entire group is exempt from participating in the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ.

notes

He did not say anything to them and they did not say anything to him – ‫ל ֹא ָא ַמר ָל ֶהן וְ ל ֹא ָא ְמר ּו לֹו‬: Even if they hinted to each other or it was understood from their actions that each side granted the other authority to slaughter a Paschal lamb on its behalf, it does not take effect if they did not grant authority verbally (Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishna). Whose Paschal lambs have become intermingled – ‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ש ִּנ ְת ָע ְרב ּו ּ ִפ ְס ֵח‬: ֶ ׁ With regard to other offerings, if two offerings of the same type belonging to different individuals become intermingled, the priests proceed with the service of each offering and declare that each one is being slaughtered on behalf of whomever it belongs to. However, the Paschal lamb may be eaten only by those who have registered for it. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify which offering belongs to which group (Tosefot Rid).

‫ ל ֹא ָא ַמר ָל ֶהן וְ ל ֹא ָא ְמר ּו לֹו – ֵאין‬If he did not say anything to them and they did not say anything to n .‫ ַא ֲח ָר ִאין זֶ ה ָלזֶ ה‬him, meaning that neither side granted the other authority to slaughter a Paschal lamb on its behalf, they are not responsible for each other, and the members of the group eat their Paschal lamb while the individual sent to find the lost animal eats from his own offering. The reason for this is that the individual is registered only for the original offering, while the other members of the group withdrew from that lost offering by sacrificing a different Paschal lamb. – ‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ְש ֵּתי ֲחבוּרֹות ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ָע ְרב ּו ּ ִפ ְס ֵח‬ ‫מֹוש ִכין‬ ְ ׁ ‫ וְ ֵאלּ ּו‬,‫מֹוש ִכין ָל ֶהן ֶא ָחד‬ ְ ׁ ‫ֵאלּ ּו‬ ‫ ֶא ָחד ֵמ ֵאלּ ּו ָ ּבא לֹו ֵאצֶ ל‬.‫ָל ֶהן ֶא ָחד‬ .ּ‫ וְ ֶא ָחד ֵמ ֵאלּ ּו ָ ּבא לֹו ֵאצֶ ל ֵאלּ ו‬,ּ‫ֵאלּ ו‬ ‫ ִאם ׁ ֶש ָּלנ ּו הוּא‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫וְ ָכ ְך ֵהם‬ ְ‫ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ַהּזֶ ה – יָ ֶדיךָ ְמ ׁשוּכֹות ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָּלך‬ ‫ וְ ִאם ׁ ֶש ָּל ְך הוּא‬,ּ‫נֵית ַעל ׁ ֶש ָּלנו‬ ָ ‫וְ נִ ְמ‬ ,ּ‫ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ַהּזֶ ה – יָ ֵדינ ּו ְמ ׁשוּכֹות ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָּלנו‬ . ְ‫וְ נִ ְמנִינ ּו ַעל ׁ ֶש ָלך‬



Two groups whose Paschal lambs have become intermingledn and they do not know which one belongs to which group should act in the following manner: These members of the first group draw one of the animals separated as a Paschal lamb for themselves, and those members of the second group draw one for themselves. One of these, a member of one group, comes to those, the members of the other group, and one of those members of the second group comes to these members of the first group. And this is what each group says to the member of the other group who has come to join them: If this Paschal lamb that is now in our possession is ours, you are withdrawn from the Paschal lamb that was yours, and you are registered for our Paschal lamb and you may eat from it. And if this Paschal lamb is yours, meaning that it actually belongs to the other group, including this individual, we are hereby withdrawn from ours and we are registered for your Paschal lamb, which you agree to share with us. The other group makes the same statement. ‫חצ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Perek IX . 98b 

207

‫וְ ֵכן ָח ֵמ ׁש ֲחבוּרֹות ׁ ֶשל ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה‬ ‫מֹוש ִכין ָל ֶהן‬ ְ ׁ – ‫וְ ׁ ֶשל ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬ ‫ וְ ֵכן ֵהם‬,‫ֶא ָחד ִמ ָּכל ֲחבו ָּרה וַ ֲחבו ָּרה‬ .‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ

And similarly, if there were five groups of five people each or of ten people each, they draw one person from each and every group, and they say this statement mentioned in the case of two groups. The remaining member or members of each group will grant the representatives of the other groups that have come to join them a share in the Paschal lamb, and they will acquire a share in it for themselves in case the animal they have chosen belonged originally to one of the other groups.

ְ‫מֹושך‬ ֵ ׁ ‫יהן – זֶ ה‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ָע ְרב ּו ּ ִפ ְס ֵח‬ ‫ זֶ ה ַמ ְמנֶ ה‬.‫מֹושךְ לֹו ֶא ָחד‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ וְ זֶ ה‬,‫לֹו ֶא ָחד‬ ‫ וְ זֶ ה ַמ ְמנֶ ה ִע ּמֹו‬,‫ִע ּמֹו ֶא ָחד ִמן ַה ׁ ּשוּק‬ .‫ֶא ָחד ִמן ַה ׁ ּשוּק‬

In the case of two individuals whose Paschal lambs became intermingled and each person was the only one registered for his offering, what should they do? This person draws one of the Paschal lambs for himself and that person draws one for himself; this person registers someone from the marketplace with him on his Paschal lamb and that person registers someone from the marketplace with him on his Paschal lamb.

ְ‫ וְ ָכך‬.‫ וְ זֶ ה ָ ּבא ֵאצֶ ל זֶ ה‬,‫זֶ ה ָ ּבא ֵאצֶ ל זֶ ה‬ – ‫ ִאם ׁ ֶש ִּלי הוּא ּ ֶפ ַסח זֶ ה‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ֵהם‬ .‫נֵית ַעל ׁ ֶש ִּלי‬ ָ ‫ וְ נִ ְמ‬, ְ‫יָ ֶדיךָ ְמ ׁשוּכֹות ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָּלך‬ ‫וְ ִאם ׁ ֶש ָּלךְ הוּא ּ ֶפ ַסח זֶ ה – יָ ַדי ְמ ׁשוּכֹות‬ . ְ‫נֵיתי ַעל ׁ ֶש ָּלך‬ ִ ‫ וְ נִ ְמ‬,‫ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ִּלי‬

Once this has been done, this one comes to that person from the marketplace who has been added to the other person’s sacrifice, and that one comes to this person from the marketplace who has been added to the first person’s sacrifice, and this is what they say: If this Paschal lamb is mine, you are withdrawn from yours and you are registered for mine, and if this is your Paschal lamb, I am withdrawn from mine and I am hereby registered for yours, as described previously. The reason it is necessary for each individual to add an additional person to his Paschal lamb, is to ensure that when each person withdraws from his original Paschal lamb and registers for the other, no Paschal lamb will be left ownerless for any amount of time.

gemara 

The Sages taught: If he, the agent, said to – ‫ ָא ַמר ָל ֶהן וְ ָא ְמר ּו לֹו‬:‫גמ׳ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ the other members of the group that if they ‫ ל ֹא ָא ַמר ָל ֶהן וְ ל ֹא‬.‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫אֹוכל ִמן ָה ִר‬ ֵ slaughter their Paschal lamb first they should include him, and they .‫ ָא ְמר ּו לֹו – ֵאינָן ַא ֲח ָר ִאין זֶ ה ָלזֶ ה‬said to him that if he slaughters his Paschal lamb first he should include them, all of them eat from the first Paschal lamb that was slaughtered, and the second one must be burned. If he did not say this to them and they did not say this to him, they are not responsible for each other, and each side eats its own Paschal lamb.

Perek IX Daf 99 Amud a ‫ יָ ָפה ׁ ְש ִת ָיקה‬:‫ ִמ ָּכאן ָא ְמר ּו ֲח ָכ ִמים‬From here the Sages stated: Silence is fitting for the wise, and a ,‫חֹומ ר ַל ִּט ּ ְפ ׁ ִש ים‬ ֶ ָ‫ ַק ל ו‬,‫ ַל ֲח ָכ ִמ ים‬fortiori the same is true for fools. In the case under discussion, had .‫יֵח ׁ ֵשב״‬ ָ ‫״אוִ יל ַמ ֲח ִר ׁיש ָח ָכם‬ ֱ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬neither side appointed the other to slaughter the Paschal lamb on its behalf, both offerings would be valid and would be consumed. When each side appointed the other to slaughter the Paschal lamb on its behalf, only the first one slaughtered may be eaten while the second one must be burned. This is as it is stated: “Even a fool, when he holds his peace, is considered wise; and he that shuts his lips is esteemed as a man of understanding” (Proverbs 17:28). .‫יהם וכו׳״‬ ֶ ‫״שנַיִ ם ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ָע ְרב ּו ּ ִפ ְס ֵח‬ ְׁ ,‫נִיתין דְּ ל ֹא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ִ ‫ימא ַמ ְת‬ ָ ‫ֵל‬ ‫ ״וְ ִאם יִ ְמ ַעט ַה ַ ּביִ ת ִמ ְהיֹות‬:‫דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬ ‫הֹול ִכין‬ ְ ְ‫ִמ ּ ֶ ׂשה״ – ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ִּמ ְת ַמ ֲע ִטין ו‬ ‫ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא ֶא ָחד ִמ ְ ּבנֵי ֲחב ּו ָרה‬ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה‬,‫ַקּיָ ים‬ ‫ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יַ ּנִיח ּו ֶאת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ְּכמֹות‬ .‫ׁ ֶשהוּא‬

208 

Perek IX . 99a . ‫טצ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳ט‬

The mishna addressed the question of what two individuals whose Paschal lambs were intermingled should do. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita that the verse which states: “And if the household be too little for a lamb” (Exodus 12:4) teaches that the members of the group may keep decreasing, meaning it is permissible for them to withdraw from the offering, provided one of the original members of the group remains; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: It is permissible for them to withdraw provided they do not leave the Paschal lamb for any amount of time on its own, without anyone registered for it. In the mishna, the two original owners forego their shares in their own Paschal lambs, and the only remaining members of each group are people who were added from the marketplace, who were not original owners from the time the animal was separated as a Paschal lamb. This is apparently not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ‫ימא ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָ ‫יל ּו ֵּת‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ֵאין‬:‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫יְ הו ָּדה‬ – ‫ֹוח ִטין ֶאת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ַעל ַהּיָ ִחיד‬ ֲ ‫ׁש‬ ּ ָ ‫ֵמ ִע‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫יק ָרא ְל ַא ְמנוּיֵ י ַא ֲח ִרינָ א ַ ּב ֲה ֵד‬ .‫ ו ְּכ ֶא ָחד ִמ ְ ּבנֵי ֲחבו ָּרה דָּ ֵמי‬,‫ָק ֵאי‬

Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, since Rabbi Yehuda said elsewhere that one may not slaughter the Paschal lamb for an individual, meaning that there must be at least two people registered for each Paschal lamb, in this case, in which only one person was registered for a Paschal lamb, from the beginning it stood to have another person registered with the original owner. Therefore, the person who joins later is like one of the original members of the group.

,‫נִיתין נַ ִמי דַּ יְ ָיקא‬ ִ ‫ ַמ ְת‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ‫ וְ ֵכן ָח ֵמ ׁש ֲחבוּרֹות ׁ ֶשל ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה‬:‫דְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ׁ ֶשל‬,‫ ׁ ֶשל ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה – ִאין‬.‫ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה‬ ‫ ָלאו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה וְ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה – ָלא‬ ?‫יה‬ ּ ‫דְּ ָלא ּ ָפיֵ ׁיש ַחד ִמ ְ ּבנֵי ֲחבו ָּרה ַ ּג ֵ ּב‬ .‫ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬

Rav Ashi said: The mishna is also precisely worded in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it teaches: And similarly, five groups of five each. This indicates that if each group has five, yes, the solution of sending four of them to join the other groups is viable, but if there were four groups of five and a fifth group of only four,n1 there is no way to employ the solution of the mishna. Is it not because none of the original members of the group would remain with it if all four members of the group would join the other four groups, and it is prohibited to leave a Paschal lamb without any of the original members of its group? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that the mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

‫הדרן עלך מי שהיה טמא‬ ‫וסליקא לה פסח שני‬



‫טצ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Perek IX . 99a 

209

Summary of Perek IX The Gemara established that the second Pesaĥ is considered an independent Festival. Therefore, one who is unable to participate in the first Pesaĥ and willingly neglects to participate in the second is liable to receive karet. However, one who is entirely exempt from participating in the first Pesaĥ is not liable to receive karet even if he willingly neglects to bring a Paschal lamb on the second Pesaĥ. There are two classes of halakhot of Passover. The halakhot relating directly to sacrifice of the Paschal lamb itself are identical for both the first and second Pesaĥ. However, associated halakhot and mitzvot, such as the command to destroy leaven, apply only on the first Pesaĥ. There are two cases in which one is considered exempt from the first Pesaĥ: One who was ritually impure and could not become pure by the time of sacrifice and one who was a distance of more than fifteen mil from the Temple at that time. This chapter also addressed the halakhot of an invalid Paschal lamb. A Paschal lamb is categorized as a type of peace-offering. As such, in many cases, when a Paschal lamb is disqualified from being used for its purpose, it defaults to a peace-offering. For example, a Paschal lamb that was lost and located only after it was supposed to be sacrificed and an animal that has been substituted for such an animal are treated as if they are peace-offerings. Similarly, a Paschal lamb that was lost and then found in time to be sacrificed must be left to graze until it develops a disqualifying blemish, at which point it may be sold and its money used to purchase peace-offerings. Also, a Paschal lamb whose owners died is brought as a peace-offering. If two Paschal lambs belonging to different groups became mixed up or it was unclear for some other reason which lamb belonged to which group, if the animals had still not been slaughtered, then all the members of the groups had to withdraw their registration and then reregister with a particular animal using the appropriate stipulations. If the slaughter had already taken place, or the stipulations could not be made, then although the members were considered to have fulfilled their obligations to sacrifice the Paschal lamb, they may not partake of it.

211

That you shall say: It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s Paschal offering, for He passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when He smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped. (Exodus 12:27) And you shall tell your son on that day, saying: It is because of this which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt. (Exodus 13:8)

Introduction to Perek X

And it shall be when your son asks you in time to come, saying: What is this? that you shall say to him: By strength of hand the Lord brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage. (Exodus 13:14) You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shall you eat matzot with it, the bread of affliction; for you came out of the land of Egypt in haste, that you may remember the day when you came out of the land of Egypt all the days of your life. (Deuteronomy 16:3) You shall have a song as in the night when a feast is hallowed; and gladness of heart, as when one goes with a flute to come into the mountain of the Lord, to the Rock of Israel. (Isaiah 30:29)

This chapter forms the conclusion of the second section of Pesaĥim, tractate Pesaĥ Sheni. It deals with the order of Passover night and the customs and halakhot associated with the consumption of the Paschal lamb and other mitzvot of the night. There are three mitzvot on Passover night mandated by Torah law: The consumption of the Paschal lamb together with matza and maror, the consumption of the matza, and the mitzva to recount the narrative of the Exodus. Additionally, the Sages introduced several enactments in order to emphasize the nature of the holiday and to publicize its miracle. These include the requirement to drink four cups of wine as an expression of freedom and grandeur. A further expression of one’s freedom is achieved by the requirement to recline while eating. Other practices are described whose goal is to spark even young children’s interest in order to encourage them to ask their fathers questions about the activities of the night, therefore providing the ideal context in which to recount the events of the Exodus. All these practices, their details, and the order in which they are to be fulfilled form the content of this chapter.



213

Perek X Daf 99 Amud b ‫מתני׳ ֶע ֶרב ּ ְפ ָס ִחים ָסמוּךְ ַל ִּמנְ ָחה‬ ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬. ְ‫ֹאכל ָא ָדם ַעד ׁ ֶש ֶּת ְח ׁ ַשך‬ ַ ‫ל ֹא י‬ .‫ֹאכל ַעד ׁ ֶשּיָ ֵסב‬ ַ ‫ָענִי ׁ ֶש ְ ּביִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ל ֹא י‬ ,‫וְ ל ֹא יִ ְפ ַחת ּו לֹו ֵמ ַא ְר ַ ּבע ּכֹוסֹות ׁ ֶשל יַ יִ ן‬ .‫וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִמן ַה ַּת ְמחוּי‬

?‫גמ׳ ַמאי ִא ְיריָ א ַע ְר ֵבי ְפ ָס ִחים‬ ּ ‫ֲא ִפ‬ ‫טֹובים‬ ִ ‫יל ּו ַע ְר ֵבי ׁ ַש ָ ּבתֹות וְ יָ ִמים‬ ‫ֹאכל ָא ָדם ְ ּב ַע ְר ֵבי‬ ַ ‫ ל ֹא י‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,‫נַ ִמי‬ ‫טֹובים ִמן ַה ִּמנְ ָחה‬ ִ ‫ׁ ַש ָ ּבתֹות וְ יָ ִמים‬ ‫ ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיִ ָּכנֵס ַל ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא‬,‫ו ְּל ַמ ְע ָלה‬ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ִד ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ַּת ֲאוָ ה‬ . ְ‫הֹולךְ ַעד ׁ ֶש ֶּת ְח ׁ ַשך‬ ֵ ְ‫אֹוכל ו‬ ֵ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ

‫יכא ֶא ָּלא‬ ָ ‫ ל ֹא צְ ִר‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬ ‫הֹול ְך ַעד‬ ֵ ְ‫אֹוכל ו‬ ֵ :‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי – ְ ּב ַע ְר ֵבי ׁ ַש ָ ּבתֹות‬, ְ‫ׁ ֶש ֶּת ְח ׁ ַשך‬ ,‫ ֲא ָבל ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬,‫טֹובים‬ ִ ‫וְ יָ ִמים‬ .‫מֹודה‬ ֶ – ‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ִחּיו ָּבא דְּ ַמ ָ ּצה‬

ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬:‫ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ָא ַמר‬ ‫ימא ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָ ‫יל ּו ֵּת‬ ‫ ָה ָתם ְ ּב ַע ְר ֵבי ׁ ַש ָ ּבתֹות וְ יָ ִמים‬,‫יְ הו ָּדה‬ ‫טֹובים – ִמן ַה ִּמנְ ָחה ו ְּל ַמ ְע ָלה הוּא‬ ִ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬.‫ ָסמו ְּך ַל ִּמנְ ָחה – ׁ ָש ֵרי‬,‫דַּ ֲא ִסיר‬ – ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ָסמוּךְ ַל ִּמנְ ָחה‬,‫ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ .‫נַ ִמי ָאסוּר‬

mishna 

On the eve of Passover,n adjacent to minĥa time, a person may not eath until dark,h so that he will be able to eat matza that night with a hearty appetite. Even the poorest of Jews should not eat the meal on Passover night until he reclineshbn on his left side, as free and wealthy people recline when they eat. And the distributors of charity should not give a poor person lessn than four cupsn of wineh for the Festival meal of Passover night. And this halakha applies even if the poor person is one of the poorest members of society and receives his food from the charity plate.n

gemara 

The Gemara expresses surprise at the mishna’s statement that one may not eat on Passover eve from the time that is adjacent to minĥa. Why discuss this halakha particularly with regard to the eves of Passover? Even on the eves of Shabbat and other Festivals it is also prohibited to eat in the late afternoon, as it was taught in a baraita: A person should not eat on the eves of Shabbat and Festivals from minĥa time onward, so that he will enter Shabbat when he has a desire to eat and he will enjoy the Shabbat meal; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: One may continue eating until dark.h

Rav Huna said: The mishna was necessary only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that one may continue eating until dark. According to his opinion, the mishna is necessary to emphasize that this applies only on the eves of Shabbat and Festivals. But on the eve of Passover, due to the obligation to eat matza,n Rabbi Yosei concedes that one must refrain from eating in the afternoon, so that he will eat matza with a good appetite. Rav Pappa said: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, there is still a difference between the eves of Shabbat and other Festivals, as compared with the eve of Passover. There, on the eves of Shabbat and other Festivals, it is only from minĥa time onward that it is prohibited to eat, but adjacent to minĥa time it is permitted. However, on the eve of Passover, even adjacent to minĥa time, it is also prohibited to eat. For this reason, the mishna is referring specifically to the eve of Passover.

halakha

Eating on the eve of Passover – ‫א ִכ ָילה ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ֶפ ַסח‬: ֲ It is prohibited to eat on Passover eve from shortly before the time of the lesser, i.e., the later, minĥa, from the end of the ninth hour of the day, until nightfall. Some authorities state that one should be stringent and not eat bread after midday, the time of the greater, i.e., earlier, minĥa (Be’er Heitev, citing Ran; Maharil; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 471:1). Until dark – ‫עד ׁ ֶש ֶּת ְח ׁ ַש ְך‬:ַ It is proper to begin the seder on Passover night as soon as possible after nightfall, before the children fall asleep (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 472:1). Eating while reclining – ‫א ִכ ָילה ַ ּב ֲה ָס ָבה‬:ֲ On Passover, everyone must consume the matza and the four cups of wine while reclining to his left (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 472:2). The obligation of four cups of wine – ‫חֹובת ַא ְר ַ ּבע ּכֹוסֹות‬: ַ Those who distribute charity funds are obligated to give four cups of wine to each poor person for Passover night (Mishna Berura, citing the Rambam, Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, and Rashbam). Even a poor person who survives on charity must obtain four cups of wine in any way possible, even if he has no option other than to borrow money or sell his clothes (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 472:13). Eating on the eves of Shabbat and Festivals – ‫ֲא ִכ ָילה ְ ּב ַע ְר ֵבי‬ ‫ש ָ ּבתֹות וְ ַח ִ ּגים‬: ַ ׁ It is preferable not to eat a full meal on the eve of Shabbat or a Festival after the end of the ninth hour, shortly before the later minĥa. However, this is not an absolute prohibition. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 249:2 and 529:1; Rema). background

Reclining – ‫ה ָס ָבה‬:ֲ In ancient times, it was customary to eat at important gatherings in a reclining position. This was performed only by distinguished and wealthy people who had the time to relax and converse while eating.

Greek fresco with men reclining notes

The eve of Passover – ‫ע ֶרב ּ ְפ ָס ִחים‬:ֶ There are two basic textual variations of the opening phrase of the mishna. Some texts read erev, meaning eve in the singular, while others state arvei, eves. Several commentaries explain that the plural form is referring to the eve of Passover each and every year. Alternatively, it alludes to the biblical phrase used in the context of the Paschal lamb: In the afternoon [bein ha’arbayim], which is in the plural (Mordekhai; see also Tosafot). The term Passover eve is apparently imprecise, as the Paschal lamb, which is called the Passover in the Torah, is sacrificed on the fourteenth of the month of Nisan. This means that the eve of the Passover is the thirteenth of Nisan. However, it has been noted that the book of Joshua also calls the Festival itself Passover (Tosefot Rid ). Reclining on Passover – ‫ה ָס ָבה ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח‬:ֲ In the Jerusalem Talmud it is stated that slaves normally ate while standing, as they did not have time to eat. Therefore, on Passover everyone eats in a reclining position as a display of freedom and dignity. Not give less – ‫ל ֹא יִ ְפ ֲחת ּו‬: Some commentaries explain that this phrase, which literally means: They should not have less than, is referring to the poor people themselves, rather than the distributors of charity. According to this interpretation, the



mishna is indicating that even the very poor should sell their belongings to obtain four cups of wine, even if they will have to accept food from the charity plate as a result (Ritva, citing Rabbi Yeĥiel of Paris). Four cups – ‫א ְר ַ ּבע ּכֹוסֹות‬:ַ The Rashbam cites the idea that these four cups correspond to the four expressions of redemption: “I will bring you out,” “I will deliver you,” “I will redeem you,” and “I will take you” (Exodus 6:6–7). The Me’iri explains that each expression is referring to a different stage of the redemption. The phrase: “I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians” is referring to the redemption from actual physical slave labor. “I will deliver you from their bondage” speaks of the release of the Jewish people from the subjugation of a foreign power. “I will redeem you with an outstretched arm” alludes to how God will strike the enemies of the Jewish people and free them until they are even more powerful than their erstwhile masters. “I will take you to me for a people and I will be to you a God” teaches that God will take the Jews as His chosen people and give them His Torah.

Pharaoh’s dream and Joseph’s interpretation. These cups also parallel the four cups of destruction stated with regard to the nations of the world. Furthermore, the four cups allude to the four cups of comfort written concerning Israel: “O Lord, the portion of my inheritance and of my cup” (Psalms 16:5), “My cup runs over” (Psalms 23:5), and “I will raise the cup of salvations” (Psalms 116:13). The latter verse employs the plural salvations, indicating that it is speaking of two cups. Even from the charity plate – ‫א ִפילּ ּו ִמן ַה ַּת ְמחוּי‬:ֲ In the Jerusalem Talmud, it is noted that although it is unpleasant for one to receive his food by means of charity, the Sages required one to do so for the four cups of wine.

Due to the obligation to eat matza – ‫מ ׁ ּשוּם ִחּיו ָּבא דְּ ַמ ָ ּצה‬:ִ Although there is a Torah obligation to recite kiddush and drink wine on Shabbat, the primary duty is the recitation itself, whereas drinking the wine is secondary. This is not the case concerning eating matza on Passover, which is a Torah obligation (Tosefot Rid ). Admittedly, one must eat bread on Shabbat, but it is possible to postpone the night meal to Shabbat day, In the Jerusalem Talmud, other reasons are cited for the provided that one eats a total of three meals on Shabbat. Conmitzva of four cups of wine. One suggestion is that they cor- sequently, matza is the only example of a Torah obligation to respond to the four times a cup is mentioned with regard to eat at night (Mitzpe Eitan). ‫טצ ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 99b 

215

?‫ו ְּב ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ָסמ ּו ְך ַל ִּמ נְ ָח ה ׁ ָש ֵרי‬ ‫ֹאכל ָא ָדם ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ַ ‫ ל ֹא י‬:‫וְ ָה ַתנְ יָ א‬ ,‫טֹובים ִמ ֵּת ׁ ַשע ׁ ָשעֹות ו ְּל ַמ ְע ָלה‬ ִ ‫וְ יָ ִמים‬ ‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי‬,‫ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיִ ָּכנֵס ַל ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא ַּת ֲאוָ ה‬ ְ‫הֹולך‬ ֵ ְ‫אֹוכל ו‬ ֵ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ! ְ‫ַעד ׁ ֶש ֶּת ְח ׁ ַשך‬

The Gemara asks: And on the eve of Shabbat adjacent to minĥa time, is it permitted to eat? But wasn’t the following taught in a baraita? A person may not eat on the eve of Shabbat and Festivals from nine hours onward, so that he will enter Shabbat when he is filled with the desire to eat; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: One may continue eating until dark. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, even on Shabbat eve one may not eat from before the time of the lesser minĥa, which is at nine and a half hours of the day.

‫ימא ָלן דִּ ְּמ ָת ַרצְ ָּתא‬ ָ ‫ ַמאן ֵל‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָמר זו ְּט ָרא‬Mar Zutra said: Who will say to us that this version of the baraita ?‫ ִהיא‬is accurate?

Perek X Daf 100 Amud a notes

Perhaps this baraita is corrupted – ‫דִּ ְיל ָמא ְמ ׁ ַש ַ ּב ׁ ְש ָּתא‬ ‫היא‬:ִ The Sages were familiar with many baraitot. Some were organized into collections, while others were isolated statements. Since most baraitot were not carefully reviewed for accuracy, only a few collections of baraitot were universally accepted as reliable, e.g., those taught in the academies of Rabbi Ĥiyya and Rabbi Oshaya. All other baraitot were suspected of inaccuracies or imprecise formulations.

?‫ דִּ ְיל ָמא ְמ ׁ ַש ַ ּב ׁ ְש ָּתא ִהיא‬Perhaps this baraita is corrupted,n and therefore it cannot serve as the basis of an objection. :‫ימר‬ ָ ֵ‫ימא ַרב י‬ ָ ‫ית‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ִא‬,‫ימר‬ ָ ‫יה ָמ ֵר‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה דְּ ַרב ּ ִפנְ ָחס ְ ּב ֵר‬ ּ ‫ֲאנָ א ִא ְיק ַל ִעי ְל ִפ ְיר ֵק‬ ‫יב ָל ּה‬ ּ ְ ‫ וְ ִק‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ וְ ָקם ַּת ָּנא וְ ָתנֵי ַק ֵּמ‬,‫דְּ ַרב ַא ִמי‬ ‫ ִאי ָה ִכי ַק ׁ ְשיָ א! ֶא ָּלא ְמ ַח ַּו ְור ָּתא‬.‫ֵיה‬ ּ ‫ִמ ּינ‬ .‫ִּכ ְד ַרב הוּנָ א‬

Mareimar said to him, and some say it was Rav Yeimar: I happened to come to the Festival lecture of Rav Pineĥas, son of Rav Ami, and the tanna who recited mishnayot stood up and taught this baraita before him, and he accepted it. This incident proves that the above version of the baraita is accepted and considered accurate. If so, the aforementioned objection to Rav Pappa’s opinion on the basis of the baraita remains difficult. Rather, Rav Pappa’s answer is insufficient, and it is clear that the mishna must be understood in accordance with the explanation of Rav Huna. In other words, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who maintains that although one may eat until dark on the eves of Shabbat and other Festivals, it is prohibited to eat on Passover eve from shortly before the lesser minĥa until nightfall.

‫נִיחא? וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה‬ ָ ‫ו ְּל ַרב הוּנָ א ִמי‬ ‫ימא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבה ּו‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִא ֵית‬,‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫יֹוסי ַ ּבר ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א‬ ֵ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ וַ ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יְ הו ָּדה ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ .‫ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬

The Gemara asks: And according to the explanation of Rav Huna, does it work out well?n But didn’t Rabbi Yirmeya say that Rabbi Yoĥanan said, and some say that Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ĥanina said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the eve of Passover, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei with regard to the eve of Shabbat?

And according to Rav Huna does it work out well – ‫נִיחא‬ ָ ‫ו ְּל ַרב הוּנָ א ִמי‬: Admittedly, Rav Huna’s explanation is challenged only on the basis of the statement of another amora, not from a ruling of tanna’im. However, Rav Pappa’s opinion was also rejected by a decision of an amora, Rav Pineĥas, son of Rav Ami. Therefore, if Rav Huna’s opinion is disputed by amora’im, it is no better than that of Rav Pappa (Rabbi Elazar Moshe Horowitz).

‫ ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח – ִמ ְּכ ָלל‬The Gemara infers from the above statement: From the fact that it !ּ‫יֹוסי ְ ּב ַת ְרוַ יְ יהו‬ ֵ ‫ דְּ ָפ ֵליג ַר ִ ּבי‬was necessary to say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the eve of Passover, this proves by inference that Rabbi Yosei disagrees with regard to both cases, both the eves of Shabbat and other Festivals, as well as Passover eve. Consequently, it is impossible to ascribe to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei the mishna’s prohibition against eating on the eve of Passover, as he evidently permits one to eat until dark even on Passover eve. .‫ ֲה ָל ָכה – ִמ ְּכ ָלל דִּ ְפ ִליגִ י ְ ּב ַה ְפ ָס ָקה‬,‫ ל ֹא‬The Gemara answers: No; the statement should be understood as follows: When it was said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, this proves by inference that they disagree with regard to interruption. Even Rabbi Yosei agrees that one may not start eating on Passover eve from minĥa time onward, but he maintains that one who started to eat is not obligated to interrupt his meal even when the Festival begins. ‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יקין ְל ׁ ַש ָ ּבתֹות‬ ִ ‫ ַמ ְפ ִס‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei .‫ ֵאין ַמ ְפ ִס ִיקין‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ יְ הו ָּדה‬disagree about interrupting a meal: If people were eating on the eve of Shabbat, they must interrupt for Shabbatot, meaning that once Shabbat begins, they must interrupt their meal, clear away the table, and recite the evening prayers and kiddush before continuing their meal; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: These diners need not interrupt their meal.

216 

Perek X . 100a . ‫ק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳י‬

‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ּו ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ ‫יֹוסי ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ְמסו ִ ּּבין‬ ֵ ‫[וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה] וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫יה‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ָק ַד ׁש ֲע ֵל‬,‫ְ ּב ַע ּכֹו‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ֵל‬.‫יהם ַהּיֹום‬ :‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫יאל ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֵ ‫ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ ‫ וְ נֵיחו ּׁש ְל ִד ְב ֵרי‬,‫ ְרצֹונְ ךָ נַ ְפ ִסיק‬,‫ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי‬ ?ּ‫יְ הו ָּדה ֲח ֵב ֵירנו‬

The baraita continues by relating a story: And there was an incident involving Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Yosei, who were reclining and eating together in Akko on Friday afternoon, and the day of Shabbat was sanctified, i.e., Shabbat began. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to Rabbi Yosei: Berabbi, a title for an important man of distinguished lineage, is it your will that we should interrupt and be concerned for the statements of our colleague Yehuda,n who maintains that one is obligated to interrupt his meal?

‫ ְ ּב ָכל יֹום וָ יֹום ַא ָּתה ְמ ַח ֵ ּבב‬:‫ָא ַמר לֹו‬ ‫ וְ ַע ְכ ׁ ָשיו ַא ָּתה‬,‫דְּ ָב ַריי ִל ְפנֵי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ‫״הגַ ם‬ ֲ ?‫ְמ ַח ֵ ּבב דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ְ ּב ָפנַי‬ !‫ִל ְכ ּב ֹׁוש ֶאת ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה ִע ִּמי ַ ּב ָ ּביִ ת״‬

He said to him: Each and every day you cherish my statements before those of Rabbi Yehuda, and rule in accordance with my opinion, and now you cherish the statement of Rabbi Yehuda before me? Rabbi Yosei continued by applying a verse to this situation: “Will he even force the queen before me in the house?” (Esther 7:8).

‫ ׁ ֶש ָּמא‬,‫ ִאם ֵּכן ל ֹא נַ ְפ ִסיק‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ וְ יִ ְק ְ ּבע ּו ֲה ָל ָכה‬,‫יִ ְרא ּו ַה ַּת ְל ִמ ִידים‬ ‫ ל ֹא זָ ז ּו ִמ ׁ ּ ָשם ַעד‬:‫ ָא ְמר ּו‬.‫ְלדֹורֹות‬ .‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ֶש ָ ּק ְבע ּו ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬

Rabban Shimon said to him: If so, if displaying concern for Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion will be viewed as a halakhic ruling, we will not interrupt,n as perhaps the students will see that we have broken off our meal and will establish the halakha for generations in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Sages later said: They did not move from there until they established the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, that one need not interrupt one’s meal on the eve of Shabbat and Festivals.

‫ ֵאין‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ,‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ֲה ָל ָכה ל ֹא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה וְ ל ֹא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ִאינִי? וְ ָהא‬.‫ ּפ ֵֹורס ַמ ּ ָפה ו ְּמ ַקדֵּ ׁש‬:‫ֶא ָּלא‬ ‫ימי ָא ַמר‬ ִ ִּ‫ָא ַמר ַרב ַּת ֲח ִל ָיפא ַ ּבר ַא ְבד‬ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵשם ׁ ֶש ַּמ ְפ ִס ִיקין ַל ִּקידּ ו ּׁש‬:‫ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that one must interrupt one’s meal by removing the table entirely, nor is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who ruled that one need not interrupt one’s meal at all. Rather, one must spread a cloth over one’s table and recite kiddush,nh after which he may continue his meal. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rav Taĥalifa bar Avdimi say that Shmuel said: Just as one interrupts for kiddush,

halakha

Spread a cloth and recite kiddush – ‫פ ֵֹורס ַמ ּ ָפה ו ְּמ ַקדֵּ ׁש‬:ּ With regard to people who are eating a meal on Shabbat eve, even if they started early in the day, once Shabbat arrives they must interrupt their meal, spread a cloth over the bread, and recite kiddush. The bread must be covered so that it will look as though it were brought out after kiddush in honor of the Shabbat meal (Rashbam; Magen Avraham; Shulĥan Arukh HaRav). The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as in the Jerusalem Talmud it is stated that his view is in accordance with the majority of the Sages, who disagreed with the opinions of both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 271:4).

notes

Be concerned for the statements of our colleague Yehuda – ‫נֵיחו ּׁש ְל ִד ְב ֵרי יְהו ָּדה ֲח ֵב ֵירנ ּו‬: Textual variants of this story provide conflicting accounts as to whether or not Rabbi Yehuda was present at the time. According to one version, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel asked Rabbi Yosei if he wished to wait for Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei answered that they were not obligated to wait for reasons of etiquette, and if they were to interrupt their meal to do so, this could be interpreted as a halakhic ruling (see Maharam Ĥalawa).

ge’onim explain that one must cover the food with a cloth before reciting kiddush over the wine. According to the halakha as established in Berakhot, one who neglects to cover the bread must recite the blessing over the bread before the wine. Since this person has ended his previous meal and is about to recite a new set of blessings, if the bread is left on the table he would be obligated to recite the blessing over the bread before kiddush. Therefore, the bread is covered to allow the prior recitation of kiddush. Some commentaries explain that this is the reason for the prevalent custom to cover the bread If so we will not interrupt – ‫אם ֵּכן ל ֹא נַ ְפ ִסיק‬:ִ Had Rabbi Yosei at the beginning of the Shabbat meal. not protested the interruption, the students would have asHowever, most commentaries maintain that Shmuel sumed that they waited out of respect for Rabbi Yehuda, not requires one to cover the food as a symbolic equivalent to that this indicated a halakhic ruling. However, after Rabbi Yosei removing the table entirely, and this is not connected to the expressed his opposition to interrupting the meal, if the other general practices of Shabbat meals. They assert that the comSages had disregarded his wishes, their actions would indeed mon practice to spread a cloth over the bread on Shabbat is have been interpreted as a halakhic ruling in accordance with either due to the issue of reciting a blessing over the wine the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. before that of bread or to commemorate the manna that fell in Spread a cloth and recite kiddush – ‫פ ֵֹורס ַמ ּ ָפה ו ְּמ ַקדֵּ ׁש‬:ּ Some the desert, which was enveloped by layers of dew (see Me’iri).



‫ק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 100a 

217

Perek X Daf 100 Amud b notes

Rabba bar Rav Huna happened – ‫ר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַרב הוּנָ א ִא ְיק ַלע‬:ַ According to one explanation, Rabba bar Rav Huna’s hosts had not yet started to eat. Rabba bar Rav Huna covered the bread, not because they had to interrupt the meal, but to give the appearance that the entire meal had begun with the wine (Maharam Ĥalawa). If this interpretation is accepted, this incident is unrelated to Shmuel’s ruling. And the Sages agree that one may bring…only if – ‫וְ ׁ ָשוִ ין‬ ‫ין…א ָּלא ִאם ֵּכן‬ ֶ ‫יא‬ ִ ‫ש ֵאין ְמ ִב‬: ֶ ׁ The commentaries dispute the identity of the Sages who agree with this halakha. They also dispute the precise circumstances of this case. Some explain that it is referring to Passover, as even Rabbi Yosei agrees that one may not bring the table before kiddush on Passover, ab initio (Rabbi Zeraĥya HaLevi; Ran). However, the Rashbam maintains that this halakha applies to Shabbat as well. Others explain that this halakha applies to all Festivals, as one should not bring or set the table before the Festival commences, so as not to look as though one wants to begin the meal before the Festival itself (She’iltot). And if one brought out the table, he should spread a cloth – ‫וְ ִאם ֵה ִביא ּפ ֵֹורס ַמ ּ ָפה‬: Most commentaries maintain that this statement is not a continuation of the previous section of the baraita. Rather, it is a general comment that serves as the basis for Shmuel’s ruling, contrary to the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei (Tosefot Rid; Rabbi Zeraĥya HaLevi; Maharam Ĥalawa; Ran). Those people who recited kiddush – ‫אֹותם ְ ּבנֵי ָא ָדם‬ ָ ‫ש ִּקידְּ ׁש ּו‬: ֶ ׁ Some commentaries explain that this discussion applies only to the prayer leader, who actually recited the kiddush. It does not apply to those in attendance, who merely listened to his recital (Mikhtam).

?‫ ַמאי ַמ ְפ ִס ִיקין‬.‫ ָּכךְ ַמ ְפ ִס ִיקין ַל ַה ְבדָּ ָלה‬so one interrupts for havdala? People eating a meal on Shabbat .‫ ַל ַּמ ּ ָפה‬,‫ ָלאו ַל ֲע ִק ַירת ׁשו ְּל ָחן? ל ֹא‬until after nightfall must interrupt their meal to recite havdala. The Gemara inquires: What is the meaning of the phrase: One interrupts? Is it not referring to removing the table? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to spreading a cloth, which is sufficient for havdala as well. ‫יק ַלע ְל ֵבי ֵר ׁיש‬ ְ ‫ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַרב הוּנָ א ִא‬ ‫ ּ ָפ ַרס‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ַאיְ ית ּו ַּת ָּכא ַק ֵּמ‬.‫ָ ּגלו ָּתא‬ )‫ (וְ ׁ ָשוִ ין‬:‫ ַּתנְיָא נַ ִמי ָה ִכי‬.‫ַמ ּ ָפה וְ ִקידֵּ ׁש‬ ‫יאין ֶאת ַה ׁ ּשו ְּל ָחן ֶא ָּלא ִאם‬ ִ ‫ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְמ ִב‬ ‫ וְ ִאם ֵה ִביא – ּפ ֵֹורס ַמ ּ ָפה‬,‫ֵּכן ִקידֵּ ׁש‬ .‫ו ְּמ ַקדֵּ ׁש‬

The Gemara relates: Rabba bar Rav Huna happenedn to come to the house of the Exilarch. His hosts were reclining for a meal, and the attendants brought a table before him so he could eat as well. Since Shabbat had already started, he spread a cloth over the food and recited kiddush. That was also taught in a baraita: And the Sages agree that one may bring the table only if n he has already recited kiddush; and if one brought out the table before kiddush, he should spread a clothn over the food and recite kiddush.

‫ וְ ַתנְיָא‬,‫ ׁ ָשוִ ין ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַמ ְת ִח ִילין‬:‫ָּתנֵי ֲח ָדא‬ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ָהא‬.‫ ׁ ָשוִ ין ׁ ֶש ַּמ ְת ִח ִילין‬: ְ‫ִא ָידך‬ ‫דְּ ַתנְיָא ׁ ָשוִ ין ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַמ ְת ִח ִילין – ַמ ׁ ְש ְּכ ַח ְּת‬ .‫ָל ּה ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬

It was taught in one baraita: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, who disagree over whether it is permitted to eat from minĥa time on Shabbat eve and whether one must interrupt his meal, agree that one may not begin a meal from this time. And it was taught in the other baraita that they agree that one may begin a meal. The Gemara explains: Granted, that which was taught in the first baraita, that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei agree that one may not begin a meal, you will find that this is correct with regard to the eve of Passover, as even Rabbi Yosei concedes that one may not start a meal on Passover eve ab initio.

– ‫ֶא ָּלא ָהא דְּ ַתנְיָא ׁ ָשוִ ין ׁ ֶש ַּמ ְת ִח ִילין‬ ‫נֵימא ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת – ָהא‬ ָ ‫ימת? ִאי‬ ַ ‫ֵא‬ ‫קֹודם‬ ֶ – ‫ִמ ְיפ ַלג ּ ְפ ִליגִ י! ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א; ָּכאן‬ .‫ ָּכאן – ְל ַא ַחר ִּת ׁ ְש ָעה‬,‫ִּת ׁ ְש ָעה‬

However, with regard to the other baraita, which taught that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei agree that one may begin, when does this halakha apply? If we say it is referring to the eve of Shabbat, this cannot be the case, as it was taught that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei indeed disagree over whether one may start a meal at that time. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult: Here, the baraita in which Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei agree that it is permitted to start a new meal, is referring to before nine hours of the day have passed, as everyone agrees that it is permitted to commence a meal at this time. Conversely, there, the baraita in which they disagree over whether it is permitted to start a new meal, is referring to later in the day, after nine hours.

The Gemara continues to discuss the halakhot of kiddush: With ‫אֹותם ְ ּבנֵ י ָא ָדם ׁ ֶש ִּקידְּ ׁש ּו ְ ּב ֵבית‬ ָ n ,ּ‫ יְ ֵדי יַ יִ ן ל ֹא יָ צְ או‬:‫נֶסת – ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ֶ ‫ ַה ְּכ‬regard to those people who recited kiddush in the synagogue, as :‫ ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר‬.ּ‫ יְ ֵדי ִקידּ ו ּׁש יָ צְ או‬was customarily done at the conclusion of the prayer service on Shabbat night, Rav said: They have not fulfilled their obligation to recite a blessing over wine. That is, the blessing over the wine in the synagogue does not enable them to drink wine at home without an additional blessing. However, they have fulfilled their obligation of reciting kiddush. And Shmuel said:

Perek X Daf 101 Amud a ,‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַרב‬.ּ‫ ַאף יְ ֵדי ִקידּ ו ּׁש ל ֹא יָ צְ או‬Even the obligation of kiddush they have not fulfilled, and they ‫יה? ְּכ ֵדי‬ ֵ ‫ֹושי ְ ּב ֵב‬ ֵ ׁ ּ‫יה ְל ַקד‬ ּ ‫ית‬ ּ ‫ ָל ָּמה ֵל‬must recite kiddush again at home. The Gemara asks: But according .‫ ְלהֹוצִ יא ָ ּבנָיו ו ְּבנֵי ֵביתֹו‬to the opinion of Rav, why should one have to recite kiddush a second time at home if he has already fulfilled his obligation in the synagogue? The Gemara answers: He must repeat kiddush to fulfill the obligations of his children and the members of his household, who did not come to the synagogue.

218 

Perek X . 100b . ‫ק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳י‬

?‫נִיש ָּתא‬ ְ ׁ ‫ֹושי ְ ּב ֵבי ְכ‬ ֵ ׁ ּ‫ ָל ָּמה ִלי ְל ַקד‬,‫ ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל‬The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Shmuel, why do ‫ דְּ ָא ְכל ּו וְ ׁ ָשת ּו‬,‫חֹוב ָתן‬ ָ ‫אֹור ִחים יְ ֵדי‬ ְ ‫ ְל ַא ּפ ֵֹוקי‬I need to recite kiddush in the synagogue at all, if one does not .‫נִיש ָּתא‬ ְ ׁ ‫ וְ גָ נ ּו ְ ּב ֵבי ְכ‬fulfill his obligation with that kiddush? The Gemara answers: The purpose of kiddush in the synagogue is to fulfill the obligations of the guestsn who eat and drink and sleep in the synagogue.n Since these visitors are staying in the synagogue for Shabbat, they must hear kiddush there.h :‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫וְ ָאזְ ָדא ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ְל ַט ְע ֵמ‬ ‫ ָסבוּר‬.‫ֵאין ִקידּ ו ּׁש ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ָמקֹום ְסעוּדָּ ה‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ִמ ָּמקֹום‬,‫ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי ִמ ַ ּביִ ת ְל ַביִ ת‬:‫ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ .‫יתא – ָלא‬ ָ ‫ְל ָמקֹום ְ ּב ַחד ֵ ּב‬

And Shmuel follows his line of reasoning, as Shmuel said: There is no valid kiddush except in the place of one’s Shabbat meal.nh If one does not eat a meal in the location in which he recites kiddush, he has not fulfilled the mitzva of kiddush. The students understood from this statement that this halakha applies only when one goes from house to house and eats the Shabbat meal in a different house from the one in which he recited kiddush. But if one went from the place where he recited kiddush to another placeh in one house, no, there is no problem, and he has fulfilled the mitzva of kiddush.

‫ימנִין‬ ְ ִ‫ ז‬:‫יפא‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ַמר ְלה ּו ַרב ָענָ ן ַ ּבר ַּת ֲח ִל‬However, Rav Anan bar Taĥalifa said to the students: Many times ,‫יה דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ְ ‫יאין ֲהוָ ה ָק ֵא‬ ִ ‫ ַס ִ ּג‬I stood before Shmuel, and he descended from the roof to the ּ ‫ימנָ א ַק ֵּמ‬ .‫ וְ נָ ֵחית ֵמ ִאיגְ ָרא ְל ַא ְר ָעא וַ ֲה ַדר ְמ ַקדֵּ ׁש‬ground floor and recited kiddush again. This indicates that Shmuel maintains that even if one recites kiddush and eats the Shabbat meal in a different part of the same house, he must recite kiddush a second time. ‫ ֵאין ִקידּ ּו ׁש ֶא ָּלא‬:‫וְ ַאף ַרב הוּנָ א ָס ַבר‬ , ‫ דְּ ַרב ה ּונָ א ַקדֵּ ׁיש‬.‫ְ ּב ָמקֹום ְסע ּודָּ ה‬ ‫נֵיה‬ ּ ‫יה ְל ָמ‬ ּ ‫ וְ ָעיְ ִילי ֵל‬,‫יה ׁ ְש ָרגָ א‬ ּ ‫וְ ִא ְית ַע ְּק ָרא ֵל‬ ,‫יה דַּ ֲהוָ ה ׁ ְש ָרגָ א‬ ּ ‫נֵיה דְּ ַר ָ ּבה ְ ּב ֵר‬ ּ ָ‫ְל ֵבי גְ נ‬ ‫ ֵאין‬:‫ ַא ְל ָמא ָק ָס ַבר‬.‫וְ ַקדֵּ ׁיש וְ ָט ֵעים ִמידֵּ י‬ .‫ִקידּ ו ּׁש ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ָמקֹום ְסעוּדָּ ה‬

With regard to this halakha, the Gemara notes: And Rav Huna also maintains that there is no kiddush except in the place of one’s Shabbat meal. The proof of this is that Rav Huna once recited kiddush and his lamp was extinguished.n And as it was difficult to eat in the dark, he brought his belongings to the wedding home of his son Rabba, where there was a lamp, and he recited kid­ dush there and tasted some food. Apparently, Rav Huna maintains that there is no kiddush except in the place of one’s Shabbat meal.

‫ ֵאין ִקידּ ו ּׁש ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ָמקֹום‬:‫וְ ַאף ַר ָ ּבה ָס ַבר‬ ‫ ִּכי‬,‫ ִּכי ָהוֵ ינָ א ֵ ּבי ָמר‬:‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬.‫ְסעוּדָּ ה‬ ‫ דִּ ְיל ָמא‬,‫ ְט ִעימ ּו ִמידֵּ י‬:‫ֲהוָ ה ְמ ַקדֵּ ׁש ֲא ַמר ָלן‬ ‫ַאדְּ ָאזְ ִלית ּו ְלאו ׁ ְּש ּ ִפיזָ א – ִמ ְת ַע ְּק ָרא ְלכ ּו‬ ,‫ וְ ָלא ְמ ַקדֵּ ׁש ְלכ ּו ְ ּב ֵבית ֲא ִכ ָילה‬,‫ׁ ְש ָרגָ א‬ ‫ו ְּב ִקידּ ּו ׁ ָשא דְּ ָה ָכא ָלא נָ ְפ ִקית ּו דְּ ֵאין‬ .‫ִקידּ ו ּׁש ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ָמקֹום ְסעוּדָּ ה‬

The Gemara further comments: And Rabba also maintains that there is no kiddush except in the place of one’s Shabbat meal,h as Abaye said: When I was in the house of my Master, Rabba, when he would recite kiddush he would say to us: Taste some food here, lest by the time you get to your place of lodging your lamp be extinguished,h and you will not be able to recite kiddush in the place where you will eat. And with the kiddush you heard here you do not fulfill the mitzva, as there is no kiddush except in the place of one’s Shabbat meal.

notes

To fulfill the obligations of the guests – ‫אֹור ִחים‬ ְ ‫ְל ַא ּפ ֵֹוקי‬ ‫חֹוב ָתן‬ ָ ‫יְ ֵדי‬: The custom to recite kiddush in the synagogue in order to enable guests to fulfill their obligation was practiced in many congregations until quite recently. Nevertheless, the ge’onim were unsure whether or not kiddush should be recited in the synagogue in the absence of guests. Some maintain that kiddush should not be recited in a case of this kind (Rav Hai Gaon), whereas other ge’onim ruled that it should be recited for people who do not have wine at home, or because the public recitation of kiddush includes beneficial spiritual effects and provides healing powers. Who eat…in the synagogue – ‫נִיש ָּתא‬ ְ ׁ ‫ּ…ב ֵבי ְכ‬ ּ ְ ‫דְּ ָא ְכלו‬: The early commentaries question how guests could be permitted to eat and sleep in the synagogue, as these activities are generally prohibited inside a synagogue. Some answer that the Gemara is referring to synagogues outside of Eretz Yisrael, to which the full sanctity of a synagogue does not apply (see Tosafot). Alternatively, they would stay in a side room outside the synagogue itself (Tosafot; Ran), or that it was permitted because housing itinerant guests was a communal mitzva (Ran). Yet other commentaries assert that since synagogues were originally constructed with the intention to use them for this purpose, eating and sleeping in them is permitted (Tosefot Rid; Maharam Ĥalawa). Kiddush…in the place of one’s Shabbat meal – …‫ִקידּ ו ּׁש‬ ‫ב ָמקֹום ְסעוּדָּ ה‬:ּ ְ The Sages find an allusion to this idea in the verse “And you shall call Shabbat a delight” (Isaiah 58:13), which indicates that the calling of Shabbat, which is kiddush, should take place in the location in which one delights in the Shabbat meal (She’iltot; Halakhot Gedolot; see Rashbam). Some commentaries have sought to infer from here that one should not recite kiddush if he is going to eat only a very small amount afterward, as this cannot be considered delighting in the Shabbat meal. His lamp was extinguished – ‫יה ׁ ְש ָרגָ א‬ ְ ‫א‬: ִ Alּ ‫ית ַע ְּק ָרא ֵל‬ though it is permitted to recite kiddush and eat one’s Shabbat meal in the absence of light, people generally do not like to eat in the dark. However, if one is able to eat in the dark or by moonlight, he may recite kiddush and eat his Shabbat meal in a dark place (ge’onim).

halakha

Kiddush in the synagogue – ‫נֶסת‬ ֶ ‫קידּ ו ּׁש ְ ּב ֵבית ַה ְּכ‬:ִ It is customary to recite kiddush in the synagogue for the benefit of guests. Even nowadays, when guests do not usually spend Shabbat in the synagogue, this custom is maintained. However, the person who recites kiddush should not drink the wine, as he does not intend to eat his Shabbat meal there. Rather, the wine should be given to a child. The custom in Eretz Yisrael is not to recite kiddush in the synagogue (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 269:1). Kiddush…in the place of one’s Shabbat meal – ‫…ב ָמקֹום‬ ּ ְ ‫ִקידּ ו ּׁש‬ ‫סעוּדָּ ה‬:ְ The mitzva of kiddush can be fulfilled only in the place where the Shabbat meal is eaten. If one recites kiddush and does not eat a meal in that same location, he has not fulfilled the mitzva of kiddush. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, contrary to that of Rav, as even the students of Rav acted in accordance with Shmuel’s ruling (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 273:1–3). From house to house…from place to place – ‫ת…מ ָּמקֹום‬ ִ ִ‫ִמ ַ ּביִ ת ְל ַבי‬ ‫ל ָמקֹום‬:ְ If one recited kiddush and proceeded to eat the Shabbat meal elsewhere, even in a different room or on a different floor in the same house, he must recite kiddush again (Tosafot; Rosh; Rambam). However, moving to a different corner of the same room is not considered a change of place, even if the room is extremely large. Some authorities maintain that if one originally



intended to move after kiddush to a different room in the same house, this is not considered a change of place and it is not necessary to repeat kiddush (Tur, citing the ge’onim). The Rema rules accordingly. Others contend that even one who moved from a house to a courtyard does not have to repeat kiddush, provided that he can see the courtyard from the place where he recited kiddush (Tur, citing Rav Sar Shalom Gaon; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 273:1). Kiddush…in the place of one’s meal – ‫קידּ ו ּׁש ְ ּב ָמקֹום ְסעוּדָּ ה‬:ִ The ge’onim comment that one fulfills the mitzva of kiddush by eating the Shabbat meal in the same location, only if he drinks one quarter-log of wine in addition to the cup upon which he recited kiddush (Shulĥan Arukh HaRav, citing Levush). Likewise, if one eats enough food to obligate himself to recite the concluding blessing abridging the three blessings [me’ein shalosh], he has fulfilled the mitzva of kiddush. It is considered as though he ate an entire meal there, as indicated by the statement of Rabba (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 273:5). Kiddush by the light of a lamp – ‫קידּ ו ּׁש ְלאֹור ַה ֵּנר‬:ִ The Rosh and Mordekhai state that one must recite kiddush in a place where there is light. Other authorities assert that kiddush is not dependent upon light. In fact, one may eat in his courtyard by moonlight, if he so desires (Tur; Rabbeinu Simĥa; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 273:7). ‫אק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 101a 

219

halakha

One may untie ritual fringes from one garment and tie them to another garment – ‫מ ִּת ִירין ִמ ֶ ּבגֶ ד ְל ֶבגֶ ד‬:ַ It is permitted to untie the ritual fringes from one garment to tie them onto another. However, it is prohibited to untie them for any other purpose (Tosafot), as this is considered a disgraceful use of a garment with which a mitzva was fulfilled (Taz), and it would render it impossible to continue fulfilling the mitzva with this garment (Magen Avraham; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 15:1). One may light from one lamp to another lamp – ‫ַמ ְד ִל ִיקין‬ ‫מ ֵּנר ְלנֵ ר‬:ִ One may light one lamp of a mitzva from another. Some commentaries state that this is permitted only if one lights one mitzva lamp directly from the first without transferring the flame to another lamp in between (Rif; Rosh; Ramban; Tosafot). Others maintain that it is permitted even to light a non-mitzva lamp from a mitzva lamp to use the non-mitzva lamp for the lighting of another mitzva lamp (Sefer HaTerumot; Ran; Tosafot). With regard to Hanukkah lamps, the custom is to be stringent and to refrain from lighting one lamp from another, even directly, during the minimum time that the Hanukkah lamps must burn (Rema, based on Tosafot; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 674:1). The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon in the case of dragging – ‫ה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ִ ּבגְ ִר ָירה‬:ֲ One may drag even a large bed or stool without concern that this might create a furrow in the ground, provided that he does not intend to dig a furrow. However, if the piece of furniture is so large that there is no way it could be dragged without causing a furrow, even Rabbi Shimon agrees that it is prohibited to drag it over the ground (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 337:1).

‫ ָּכל ִמ ֵּילי דְּ ָמר ֲהוָ ה‬:‫ִאינִי? וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ‫ ְל ַבר ֵמ ָהנֵי ְּת ָלת דְּ ָע ֵביד‬,‫ָע ֵביד ְּכ ַרב‬ ,‫ ַמ ִּת ִירין ִמ ֶ ּב גֶ ד ְל ֶב גֶ ד‬:‫ִּכ ׁ ְשמ ּו ֵא ל‬ ,‫ו ַּמ ְד ִל ִיקין ִמ ֵּנר ְלנֵ ר‬

The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Is that so? But didn’t Abaye say: With regard to all the customs of my Master, Rabba, he would act in accordance with the opinion of Rav, except for these three instances, in which he acted in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: Rabba maintained that one may untie ritual fringes [tzitzit] from one garment and tie them to another garment,h contrary to Rav’s opinion that this constitutes a disgrace of the mitzva. He also maintained that on Hanukkah one may light from one lamp to another lamp,h despite Rav’s opinion that this is prohibited as a mundane usage of the lamp of the mitzva.

,‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫וַ ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ִ ּבגְ ִר ָירה‬ ‫ גּ ֵֹורר ָא ָדם ִמ ָּטה‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ ‫ ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא‬,‫ִּכ ֵּסא וְ ַס ְפ ָסל ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ .‫יִ ְת ַּכ ֵּוין ַל ֲע ׂשֹות ָח ִריץ‬

In addition, Rabba maintained that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of dragging.h As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: A person may drag a bed, chair, or stool on Shabbat if it is difficult for him to lift them, provided that he does not intend to dig a furrow in the ground. In the event that he does create a furrow, he has not violated a prohibition, as an unintentional act does not constitute a prohibited act of labor on Shabbat. In light of Abaye’s statement that with the exception of those three rulings Rabba always acted in accordance with Rav, why didn’t Rabba follow the opinion of Rav with regard to kiddush, as Rav maintains that one fulfills the mitzva of kiddush even if he does not eat his Shabbat meal in the same location?

‫ ְּכחו ְּמ ֵרי דְּ ַרב ֲהוָ ה ָע ֵביד; ְּכקו ֵּּלי דְּ ַרב‬The Gemara answers: He would act in accordance with Rav’s strin.‫ ָלא ֲהוָ ה ָע ֵביד‬gencies, but he would not act in accordance with Rav’s leniencies. In the three cases listed above, Rabba was lenient despite Rav’s stringent ruling. However, with regard to kiddush, Rabba did not follow Rav’s lenient opinion. .ּ‫ ַאף יְ ֵדי יַ יִ ן נַ ִמי יָ צְ או‬:‫יֹוחנָן ָא ַמר‬ ָ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יה‬ ָ ‫וְ ָאזְ ָדא ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫יֹוחנָן ְל ַט ְע ֵמ‬ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ָחנִין ַ ּבר ַא ַ ּביֵ י ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ּ ְפ ָדת‬ ‫ ֶא ָחד ׁ ִשינּ וּי יַ יִ ן‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ

And Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Not only do those who recite kiddush in the synagogue fulfill the mitzva of kiddush, they fulfill even their obligation to recite a blessing over the wine they will drink during their meal at home. Since they intend to eat the Shabbat meal and drink wine at home, they do not divert their attention from the blessing and need not recite another one. And Rabbi Yoĥanan follows his regular line of reasoning, as Rabbi Ĥanin bar Abaye said that Rabbi Pedat said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Both in a case of a change of wine during a meal to a new type,

. ְ‫וְ ֶא ָחד ׁ ִשינּ וּי ָמקֹום – ֵאין צָ ִריךְ ְל ָב ֵרך‬ ;‫יך ְל ָב ֵר ְך‬ ְ ‫ ׁ ִשינּ וּי ָמקֹום – צָ ִר‬:‫ית ִיבי‬ ִ ‫ֵמ‬ ‫ ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא‬. ְ‫ׁ ִשינּ וּי יַ יִ ן – ֵאין צָ ִריךְ ְל ָב ֵרך‬ .‫יֹוחנָן ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא‬ ָ ‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬

and a change of place, i.e., one moves to a different location in the middle of his meal, he need not recite a new blessing. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of a change of place one must recite a new blessing; however, in a case of a change of wine one need not recite another blessing. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan is indeed a conclusive refutation.

‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ ּ ‫יְ ֵתיב ַרב ִא ִידי ַ ּבר ָא ִבין ַק ֵּמ‬ ‫יתיב ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א וְ ָק ָא ַמר‬ ֵ ִ‫ ו‬,‫ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ‫ ָהא דְּ ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬:‫יה דְּ ַרב ה ּונָ א‬ ּ ‫ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬ ‫יך ְל ָב ֵר ְך – ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו‬ ְ ‫ׁ ִשינּ וּי ָמקֹום צָ ִר‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ִמ ָּמקֹום‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ִמ ַ ּביִ ת ְל ַביִ ת‬ .‫ְל ָמקֹום – ל ֹא‬

The Gemara relates: Rav Idi bar Avin sat before Rav Ĥisda, and Rav Ĥisda sat and said in the name of Rav Huna: That which you said, that after a change of place following kiddush one must recite a new blessing, they only taught this halakha with regard to one who moves from house to house; however, with regard to one who moves from place to place within one house, no, he is not obligated to recite a new blessing.

‫ ָה ִכי‬:‫יה ַרב ִא ִידי ַ ּבר ָא ִבין‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ ,‫נִיתא דְּ ֵבי ַרב ִהינָ ק‬ ָ ‫יה ְ ּב ַמ ְת‬ ּ ‫ָּתנֵינָ א ֵל‬ ‫נִיתא דְּ ֵבי ַ ּבר ִהינָ ק‬ ָ ‫ ְ ּב ַמ ְת‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ֵל‬ ‫נִיתא ָקא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֶא ָּלא ַרב הוּנָ א ַמ ְת‬. ְ‫ותיך‬ ִ ָ‫ְּכו‬ ‫נִיתא ָלא‬ ָ ‫ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן? ַרב הוּנָ א ַמ ְת‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫ׁ ְש ִמ ַיע ֵל‬

Rav Idi bar Avin said to him: This is indeed what we learned in the baraita of the school of Rav Hinak, and some say in the baraita of the school of bar Hinak, in accordance with your ruling. The Gemara asks: But if there is a baraita that states the same halakha, does Rav Huna merely come to teach us a baraita? The Gemara answers: Rav Huna taught the halakha quoted in the baraita because he had not heard the baraita.n Rav Huna independently issued the same ruling as that of the baraita.

Perek X Daf 101 Amud b notes

He had not heard the baraita – ‫יה‬ ָ ‫מ ְת‬:ַ The ּ ‫נִיתא ָלא ׁ ְש ִמ ַיע ֵל‬ baraita cited as proof for Rav Huna’s ruling originated in a different school, one that was not well known. Rav Huna’s ignorance of this baraita does not in any way detract from his greatness. Although all the amora’im were experts in the Mishna and in numerous important collections of baraitot, it was impossible to know all statements taught in every school in the name of the tanna’im.

220 

Perek X . 101b . ‫ףד‬

‫אק‬: ‫׳י קרפ‬

‫יה‬ ּ ‫ יְ ֵתיב ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א וְ ָק ָא ַמר ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬:‫וְ ת ּו‬ ְ‫ ָהא דְּ ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ׁ ִשינּ וּי ָמקֹום צָ ִריך‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫דְּ נַ ְפ ׁ ֵש‬ ‫ְל ָב ֵר ְך – ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא ִ ּב ְד ָב ִרים ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬ ,‫קֹומן‬ ָ ‫יהן ִ ּב ְמ‬ ֶ ‫ְטעוּנִין ְ ּב ָר ָכה ְל ַא ֲח ֵר‬

And furthermore, Rav Ĥisda sat and said in his own name, not in the name of his teachers: That which you said, that after a change of place one must recite a new blessing, we only said so with regard to one who eats items of food that do not require a blessing after them in their original place, e.g., water or fruit. In a case of this kind, exiting one’s location indicates that he has concluded his meal, and when he begins to eat again, this is considered a new meal that requires a new blessing.

‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ֲא ָבל דְּ ָב ִרים ַה ְּטעוּנִין ְ ּב ָר ָכה ְל ַא ֲח ֵר‬ ?‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬. ְ‫קֹומן – ֵאין צָ ִריךְ ְל ָב ֵרך‬ ָ ‫ִ ּב ְמ‬ ‫ ֶא ָחד‬:‫ וְ ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת ָא ַמר‬.‫ְל ִק ְיב ָעא ַק ָּמא ֲה ַדר‬ . ְ‫זֶ ה וְ ֶא ָחד זֶ ה צָ ִריךְ ְל ָב ֵרך‬

However, this is the ruling if one is eating items of food that require a blessing of significance, i.e., Grace after Meals and its abridged version, after them, e.g., one of the seven species: As this blessing must be recited in their original place, i.e., where one ate these foods, he has not completed his meal by exiting that location. Therefore, if he changes location and continues to eat, he need not recite a new blessing. What is the reason for this halakha? He returns to the originally established mealn when he continues eating, as he certainly intended to continue that meal. And Rav Sheshet said: Both in this case and that case, whether or not one is eating food that requires a blessing afterward in the place where he ate, if he changes location and continues eating he must recite a new blessing.h

,‫ ְ ּבנֵי ֲחבו ָּרה ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ְמסו ִ ּּבין ִל ׁ ְש ּתֹות‬:‫ֵמ ִית ִיבי‬ ‫יהן ָלצֵ את ִל ְק ַראת ָח ָתן אֹו‬ ֶ ‫וְ ָע ְקר ּו ַרגְ ֵל‬ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֵהן יֹוצְ ִאין – ֵאין ְטעוּנִין‬,‫ִל ְק ַראת ַּכ ָּלה‬ ‫ְ ּב ָר ָכה ְל ַמ ְפ ֵר ַע; ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֵהן חֹוזְ ִרין – ֵאין ְטעוּנִין‬ .‫ְ ּב ָר ָכה ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה‬

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Ĥisda’s opinion from a baraita: With regard to members of a group who were reclining to drink, and they uprooted themselvesh from their place to go and greet a groom or greet a bride, when they exit, these foods do not require a blessing to be recited afterward, and when they return these foods do not require an introductory blessing.

‫ַ ּב ֶּמה דְּ ָב ִרים ֲאמו ִּרים – ׁ ֶש ִה ּנִיח ּו ׁ ָשם זָ ֵקן‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ִה ּנִיח ּו ׁ ָשם ל ֹא זָ ֵקן‬.‫חֹולה‬ ֶ ‫אֹו‬ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֵהן יֹוצְ ִאין – ְטעוּנִין ְ ּב ָר ָכה‬,‫חֹולה‬ ֶ ‫וְ ל ֹא‬ ‫ְל ַמ ְפ ֵר ַע; ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֵהן חֹוזְ ִרין – ְטעוּנִין ְ ּב ָר ָכה‬ .‫ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה‬

The baraita continues: In what case is this statement said? When they left there an elderly or a sick personn who cannot go with them, and he remains in the place of the meal. In this case, the original meal is considered ongoing. However, if they did not leave there an elderly or sick person, when they exit, the foods that they have already eaten require a blessing; when they return, the foods that they will eat require an introductory blessing.

‫״ע ְקר ּו ַרגְ ֵל ֶיהן״ – ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ִב ְד ָב ִרים‬ ָ :‫ִמדְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬ ,‫קֹומן ָע ְס ִקינַן‬ ָ ‫יהן ִ ּב ְמ‬ ֶ ‫ַה ְּטעוּנִין ְ ּב ָר ָכה ְל ַא ֲח ֵר‬ ‫ הוּא‬,‫חֹולה‬ ֶ ‫וְ ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ִה ּנִיח ּו ׁ ָשם זָ ֵקן אֹו‬ ‫דִּ ְכ ׁ ֶש ֵהן יֹוצְ ִאין – ֵאין ְט ע ּונִין ְ ּב ָר ָכה‬ ‫ ו ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֵהן חֹוזְ ִרין – ֵאין ְטעוּנִין ְ ּב ָר ָכה‬,‫ְל ַמ ְפ ֵר ַע‬ .‫ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה‬

The Gemara infers from the baraita: From the fact that it is taught in the baraita: Uprooted themselves,n this proves by inference that we are dealing with items of food that require a blessing after them in their original place. The word uprooted indicates that in the normal course of events, a blessing would have been required for this meal in its place, and for some reason the people left the meal early. And the reason is that they left there an elderly or sick person. That is why when they exit, these foods do not require a blessing to be recited afterward, and when they return, these foods do not require an introductory blessing.

‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֵהן‬,‫חֹולה‬ ֶ ‫ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ִה ּנִיח ּו ׁ ָשם זָ ֵקן אֹו‬ ‫ ו ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֵהן‬,‫יֹוצְ ִאין – ְטעוּנִין ְ ּב ָר ָכה ְל ַמ ְפ ֵר ַע‬ ‫ ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬.‫חֹוזְ ִרין – ְטעוּנִין ְ ּב ָר ָכה ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה‬ !‫ְל ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬

However, if they did not leave there an elderly or sick person, when they exit, the foods they have already eaten require a blessing to be recited afterward, and when they return, these foods require an introductory blessing before resuming eating. This is difficult according to the opinion of Rav Ĥisda, who maintains that even if one did not return to his original location at all but resumed eating elsewhere, he need not recite a new blessing.

notes

He returns to the originally established meal – ‫ל ִק ְיב ָעא ַק ָּמא ֲה ַדר‬:ְ Since this person who ate from the seven species is obligated to recite a blessing in the place in which he ate, he must return there. Therefore, it is as though he never left (Rabbeinu Yehonatan). They left there an elderly or a sick person – ‫ִה ּנִיח ּו‬ ‫חֹולה‬ ֶ ‫שם זָ ֵקן אֹו‬: ָ ׁ Since some members of the group remained in their place, the communal meal was never concluded, and therefore the break in the meal by some of the group’s members is not considered an interruption with regard to the blessing. From the fact that it is taught, uprooted themselves – ‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫מדְּ ָק ָתנֵי ָע ְקר ּו ַרגְ ֵל‬:ִ There are several explanations as to how the expression: Uprooted themselves, proves that they were eating foods that require a blessing afterward in the place of the meal. Some commentaries explain that this expression indicates that they acted improperly by exiting the location of the meal. They should have remained there, since they were obligated to recite a blessing afterward in the place where they ate (Me’iri). Other authorities teach that this expression alludes to their intention to return, in contrast to the word: Left (Rav Yehuda ben Rav Binyamin HaRofeh). Yet other commentaries assert that the proof is not from the expression: Uprooted themselves. Rather, the proof is from the continuation of the statement, that when they exit a blessing afterward is required, which indicates that they ate food over which one must recite a blessing afterward. It is important to note that the requirement to recite the concluding blessing: Who creates the many forms of life, for foods that do not require the blessing abridging the three blessings was enacted only after the time of the tanna’im (Ramban; Ran).

:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק‬Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said:

halakha

A change of place requires a blessing – ‫יך‬ ְ ‫ ׁ ִשינּ וּי ָמקֹום צָ ִר‬one is eating foods that require a blessing afterward in their ‫ל ָב ֵר ְך‬:ְ One who moves from one house to another in the own place. The reason the halakha is in accordance with Rav middle of his meal must recite Grace after Meals before Sheshet’s opinion is that the Gemara raises a difficulty with exiting. In addition, if he wants to resume eating in the the opinion of Rav Ĥisda from a baraita (Vilna Gaon; Shulĥan second location, he must recite a new blessing. The same Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 178:1, and in the comment of the Rema ruling applies to one who exits his house and returns. The on 178:2). halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet (Rif; Rambam) and not that of Rav Ĥisda, despite the fact that Members of a group who uprooted themselves – ‫ְ ּבנֵי ֲחבו ָּרה‬ Tosafot and the Rosh rule in accordance with the opinion of ‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ש ָע ְקר ּו ַרגְ ֵל‬: ֶ ׁ In the case of people who interrupt their meal to Rav Ĥisda. Therefore, it makes no difference whether or not greet a groom or bride, if some members of the group remain



in the original location, the others do not need to recite a concluding blessing before exiting or a new introductory blessing before resuming their meal. However, if the entire group exits, they must recite a concluding blessing before departing and a new introductory blessing before continuing their meal, in accordance with the baraita and the ruling of Rav Sheshet. However, the Rema rules that if they left without a concluding blessing they do not need to recite a new introductory blessing before continuing the meal (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 178:2). ‫אק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 101b 

221

Perek X Daf 102 Amud a notes

The Rabbis and the opinion of Rav Ĥisda – ‫ֲח ָכ ִמים‬ ‫יטת ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ַ ‫וְ ׁ ִש‬: Since the Gemara has demonstrated that the baraita that serves as the basis of the challenge to Rav Ĥisda’s opinion actually represents the minority opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, whereas Rav Ĥisda accepts the majority ruling of the Rabbis, why doesn’t this baraita serve as support for Rav Ĥisda’s opinion? One answer is that the Gemara’s defense of Rav Ĥisda’s opinion is not absolute, as there is an opinion that whenever Rabbi Yehuda introduces his comments with the phrase: In what case is this statement said, he intends to explain the previously stated opinion of the Rabbis rather than to disagree with them. Therefore, the Rabbis actually agree with Rabbi Yehuda, who merely clarified their opinion (Tosefot Rid ). Didn’t we refute Rabbi Yoĥanan’s opinion – ‫ָלאו ִמי‬ ‫ינֵיה‬ ְ The difference between a difficulty and a refuּ ‫אֹות ִב‬: tation is as follows: When the Gemara concludes that there is a difficulty with a particular opinion, this merely indicates that there is a certain difficulty that cannot be resolved at present, but it does not render that opinion untenable. By contrast, a refutation means that the opinion has been entirely disproved. Nevertheless, there are a few rare cases where the Gemara states that a position has been refuted, and it is actually accepted as halakha. In any case, if the Gemara concludes that an opinion has been refuted, it is apparently unnecessary to continue objecting to that opinion.

– ‫ ַמאן ְּתנָ א ֲע ִקירֹות‬Who is the tanna that taught that even in cases of uprooting oneself from a meal that requires a blessing of significance afterward, one nevertheless is required to recite a new blessing before resuming his meal? ,‫ ֲח ֵב ִרים ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ְמסו ִ ּּבין‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ‫נֶסת אֹו ְל ֵבית‬ ֶ ‫יהם ֵל ֵילךְ ְל ֵבית ַה ְּכ‬ ֶ ‫וְ ָע ְקר ּו ַרגְ ֵל‬ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֵהן יֹוצְ ִאין – ֵאין ְטעוּנִין ְ ּב ָר ָכה‬,‫ַה ִּמ ְד ָר ׁש‬ ‫ְל ַמ ְפ ֵר ַע; ו ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֵהן חֹוזְ ִרין – ֵאין ְטעוּנִין ְ ּב ָר ָכה‬ ‫ ַ ּב ֶּמה דְּ ָב ִרים‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה‬ ,‫ֲאמו ִּרים – ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ִה ּנִיח ּו ׁ ָשם ִמ ְקצָ ת ֲח ֵב ִרים‬ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֵהן‬,‫ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ִה ּנִיח ּו ׁ ָשם ִמ ְקצָ ת ֲח ֵב ִרים‬ ‫ ו ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֵהן‬,‫יֹוצְ ִאין – ְטעוּנִין ְ ּב ָר ָכה ְל ַמ ְפ ֵר ַע‬ .‫חֹוזְ ִרין – ְטעוּנִין ְ ּב ָר ָכה ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה‬

It is Rabbi Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to friends who were reclining and eating a meal and uprooted themselves to go to the synagogue or to the study hall, when they exit, these foods do not require a blessing to be recited afterward, and when they return, these foods do not require an introductory blessing before resuming eating. Rabbi Yehuda said: In what case is this statement said? When they left some of the friends there, at the meal. However, if they did not leave some of the friends there, when they exit, these foods require a blessing to be recited afterward, and when they return, these foods require an introductory blessing. According to Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak, the baraita that served as the basis of the Gemara’s objection to the explanation of Rav Ĥisda actually represents the minority opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, whereas Rav Ĥisda holds in accordance with the majority opinion of the Rabbis.n

‫ דְּ ִב ְד ָב ִרים ַה ְּטעוּנִין ְ ּב ָר ָכה‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ַט ְע ָמא‬ ‫ דִּ ְכ ׁ ֶש ֵהן יֹוצְ ִאין – ֵאין‬,‫קֹומן‬ ָ ‫יהן ִ ּב ְמ‬ ֶ ‫ְל ַא ֲח ֵר‬ ‫ ו ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֵהן חֹוזְ ִרין – ֵאין‬,‫ְטעוּנִין ְ ּב ָר ָכה ְל ַמ ְפ ֵר ַע‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל דְּ ָב ִרים ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬.‫ְטעוּנִין ְ ּב ָר ָכה ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה‬ ּ ‫קֹומן – ֲא ִפ‬ ‫יל ּו‬ ָ ‫יהן ִ ּב ְמ‬ ֶ ‫ְטעוּנִין ְ ּב ָר ָכה ְל ַא ֲח ֵר‬ ,‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֵהן יֹוצְ ִאין – ְטעוּנִין ְ ּב ָר ָכה ְל ַמ ְפ ֵר ַע‬,‫ְל ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ .‫ו ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֵהן חֹוזְ ִרין – ְטעוּנִין ְ ּב ָר ָכה ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּילה‬

The Gemara infers from the above baraita: The reason for this halakha is that it is only with regard to items of food that require a blessing after them in their place, that when the people eating them exit, these foods do not require a blessing to be recited afterward, and when they return, these foods do not require an introductory blessing. However, if they ate items of food that do not require a blessing that must be recited specifically in their place, even according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda, when these people exit, these foods require a blessing to be recited afterward, and when they return these foods require an introductory blessing.

‫יֹוחנָן? וְ ָלאו ִמי‬ ָ ‫יהוֵ י ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֱ ‫ימא ֶּת‬ ָ ‫ ֵל‬The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan, who holds that a change ‫נֵימא ֵמ ָהא נַ ִמי‬ ָ ?‫ימנָ א‬ ְ ִ‫ינֵיה ֲח ָדא ז‬ ְ ּ ‫אֹות ִב‬ of location never obligates one to recite a new blessing? The Ge?‫יהוֵ י ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא‬ ֱ ‫ֶּת‬ mara expresses surprise at this proposition: But didn’t we already refute Rabbi Yoĥanan’s opinionn once? Why is it necessary to refute his ruling yet again? The Gemara admits that this is true but adds: Nevertheless, let us say that this baraita is also a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan.

222 

Perek X . 102a . ‫ףד‬

‫בק‬. ‫׳י קרפ‬

‫ הוּא ַהדִּ ין דַּ ֲא ִפילּ ּו דְּ ָב ִרים‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ְלךָ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫קֹומן‬ ָ ‫יהם ִ ּב ְמ‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְטעוּנִין ְ ּב ָר ָכה ְל ַא ֲח ֵר‬ ‫״ע ְקר ּו‬ ָ :‫ וְ ָהא דְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬, ְ‫יכין ְל ָב ֵרך‬ ִ ‫נַ ִמי ֵאין צְ ִר‬ ,‫יעךָ ּכֹחֹו דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ֲ ‫הֹוד‬ ִ ‫יהן״ – ְל‬ ֶ ‫ַרגְ ֵל‬

The Gemara responds that Rabbi Yoĥanan’s ruling cannot be definitively refuted from this baraita, as Rabbi Yoĥanan could have said to you: The same is true that even with regard to items of food that do not require a blessing afterward in their place, the people who ate them are also not required to recite a new blessing. And with regard to that which the baraita teaches: They uprooted themselves, from which it was inferred that the people were eating foods that require a blessing afterward in the place of eating, this phrase serves to convey the far-reaching nature of Rabbi Yehuda’s stringent opinion.

ּ ‫דַּ ֲא ִפ‬ ‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫יל ּו דְּ ָב ִרים ׁ ֶש ְּטעוּנִין ְ ּב ָר ָכה ְל ַא ֲח ֵר‬ ,‫ ַט ְע ָמא – דְּ ִה ּנִיח ּו ִמ ְקצָ ת ֲח ֵב ִרים‬,‫קֹומן‬ ָ ‫ִ ּב ְמ‬ ‫ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ִה ּנִיח ּו ִמ ְקצָ ת ֲח ֵב ִרים – ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֵהן‬ ‫ ו ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֵהן חֹוזְ ִרין‬,‫יֹוצְ ִאין ְטעוּנִין ְ ּב ָר ָכה ְל ַמ ְפ ֵר ַע‬ .‫ְטעוּנִין ְ ּב ָר ָכה ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה‬

The Gemara explains the previous statement: According to Rabbi Yehuda, even if they were eating items of food that require a blessing after them in their place, and they will definitely return to the meal, the reason that these foods do not require a new blessing is that they left some of their friends at the meal. However, if they did not leave some of their friends, when they exit, these foods require a blessing to be recited afterward, and when they return, these foods require an introductory blessing. Nevertheless, it is possible that the Rabbis are lenient and do not obligate them to recite a new blessing, even if they are eating food that does not require a blessing afterward in the place in which they ate.

‫ ֲח ֵב ִרים ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו‬:‫יה דְּ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ּ ‫ ַּתנְיָא ְּכוָ ֵות‬The Gemara points out that it was taught in a baraita in accordance – ‫ ְמסו ִ ּּבין ִל ׁ ְש ּתֹות יַ יִ ן וְ ָע ְקר ּו ַרגְ ֵל ֶיהן וְ ָחזְ ר ּו‬with the opinion of Rav Ĥisda: With regard to friends who were .‫יכין ְל ָב ֵר ְך‬ ִ ‫ ֵאין צְ ִר‬reclining to drink wine together and uprooted themselves from their place and subsequently returned to their original location, they need not recite a new blessing. Wine is considered an important beverage that requires a concluding blessing in the place where it was consumed. This baraita explicitly supports the opinion of Rav Ĥisda, who rules with regard to items of this kind that if one left the place where he was drinking and later returned, no new blessing is necessary. ‫ ְ ּבנֵי ֲחב ּו ָרה ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ְמסו ִ ּּבין‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫יאין לֹו ּכֹוס ׁ ֶשל‬ ִ ‫יהן ַהּיֹום – ְמ ִב‬ ֶ ‫וְ ָק ַד ׁש ֲע ֵל‬ ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫אֹומר ָע ָליו ְקדו ׁ ּ ַּשת ַהּיֹום וְ ׁ ֵשנִי‬ ֵ ְ‫ ו‬,‫יַ יִ ן‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ָע ָליו ִ ּב ְר ַּכת ַה ָּמזֹון‬ . ְ‫הֹולךְ ַעד ׁ ֶש ֶּת ְח ׁ ַשך‬ ֵ ְ‫אֹוכל ו‬ ֵ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ

The Gemara returns to the subject of interrupting one’s meal to recite kiddush. The Sages taught: With regard to members of a group who were reclining and eating a meal, and the day of Shabbat was sanctified, they bring one of the diners a cup of wine and he recites over it the sanctification of the day, i.e., kiddush, and a second cup over which he recites Grace after Meals; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: One may continue eating the rest of his meal, even until dark.n

notes

Until dark – ְ‫עד ׁ ֶש ֶּת ְח ׁ ַשך‬:ַ This phrase is difficult in this context, as Shabbat has already begun. The Rashbam apparently had a textual variant that read: After dark. Some commentaries state that this expression, until dark, is not meant to be taken literally, as Rabbi Yosei allows the meal to continue even after dark (Maharam Ĥalawa). The Rambam asserts that it merely serves to contrast Rabbi Yosei’s opinion with the earlier ruling of Rabbi Yehuda, that one must interrupt his meal to recite kiddush before dark. Rabbi Yosei disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda and rules that one may continue eating even until dark.

Perek X Daf 102 Amud b ‫אשֹון ְמ ָב ֵר ְך ָע ָליו ִ ּב ְר ַּכת‬ ׁ ‫ ּכֹוס ִר‬,ּ‫ָ ּג ְמרו‬ .‫אֹומר ָע ָליו ְקדו ׁ ּ ַּשת ַהּיֹום‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬,‫ַה ָּמזֹון‬ ‫נֵימ ִרינְ ה ּו ְל ַת ְרוַ יְ יה ּו ַא ֲח ָדא‬ ְ ְ‫ַא ַּמאי? ו‬ !‫ָּכ ָסא‬

Rabbi Yosei maintains that once they have finished their meal, they bring out two cups; over the first cup one recites the Grace after Meals,nh and over the second cup he recites the sanctification of the day. The Gemara asks: Why do they need two cups? And let them say both of them, Grace after Meals and kiddush, over one cup.

‫ ֵאין‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א ָא ַמר ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת‬ .‫אֹומ ִרים ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְקדו ׁ ּּשֹות ַעל ּכֹוס ֶא ָחד‬ ְ :‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק‬ ‫עֹושין ִמצְ �ֹות ֲח ִבילֹות‬ ִׂ ‫ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵא ין‬ .‫ֲח ִבילֹות‬

Rav Huna said that Rav Sheshet said: One does not recite two sanctifications, i.e., for two mitzvot such as Grace after Meals and kiddush, over one cup. What is the reason for this halakha? Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said: Because one does not perform mitzvot in bundles.n If someone performs multiple mitzvot all in one go, he gives the impression that they are a burdensome obligation that he wants to complete as fast as possible.

‫ ַה ִּנ ְכנָס ְל ֵביתֹו ְ ּבמֹוצָ ֵאי‬:‫וְ ל ֹא? וְ ָהא ַּתנְיָא‬ ‫ וְ ַעל‬,‫ וְ ַעל ַה ָּמאֹור‬,‫ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ַעל ַהּיַ יִ ן‬ ‫אֹומר ַה ְבדָּ ָלה‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך‬,‫ַה ְ ּב ָ ׂש ִמים‬ ‫ וְ ִאם ֵאין לֹו ֶא ָּלא ּכֹוס‬.‫ַעל ַה ּכֹוס‬ ‫ֶא ָחד – ַמ ּנִיחֹו ְל ַא ַחר ַה ָּמזֹון ו ְּמ ׁ ַש ְל ׁ ְש ָלן‬ .‫ ֵאין לֹו ׁ ָשאנֵי‬.‫ּכו ָּּלן ְל ַא ֲח ָריו‬

And does one not perform multiple mitzvot together? But wasn’t it taughtn in a baraita: One who enters his home at the conclusion of Shabbat recites the blessing over the wine, and then over the light, and then over the spices, and thereafter he recites havdala over the cup of wine. And if he has only one cup of wine, he leaves it for after he eats his food, and uses it for Grace after Meals, and arranges all of the other blessings together thereafter. This baraita indicates that one may use the same cup both for Grace after Meals and havdala. The Gemara answers: We cannot prove anything from here, as a case where one does not have an additional cup is different. One who has two cups of wine is required to recite Grace after Meals over one of the cups and havdala over the other one.

,‫ וְ ָהא יֹום טֹוב ׁ ֶש ָחל ִל ְהיֹות ַא ַחר ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬The Gemara continues its line of questioning: But there is the case of !‫ יקנ״ה‬:‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַרב‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ִאית ֵל‬a Festival that occurs after Shabbat, when presumably one has enough wine. And nevertheless Rav said that the proper order of the blessings is according to the Hebrew acronym yod, kuf, nun, heh:n The blessing over the wine [yayin], kiddush, the blessing over the candle [ner], and havdala. This ruling shows that one recites kiddush and havdala over the same cup of wine. halakha

Upon the first cup one recites the Grace after Meals, etc. – ‫ּכֹוס‬ ‫אשֹון ְמ ָב ֵר ְך ָע ָליו ִ ּב ְר ַּכת ַה ָּמזֹון וכו׳‬ ׁ ‫ר‬:ִ One who concludes a meal as Shabbat begins should recite Grace after Meals over one cup of wine and subsequently recite kiddush over a second cup (Tur, citing the Rif; Rambam). Some commentaries maintain that one should spread a cloth over the food, recite kiddush and the blessing over bread, eat some bread, and only then recite Grace after



Meals. With regard to a different issue, some commentaries assert that one should mention Shabbat in Grace after Meals (Rosh), while others disagree (Rema). In addition, there is a debate as to whether or not one may drink from the cup of wine used for Grace after Meals before kiddush. Due to these uncertainties, it is preferable to recite kiddush first and then Grace after Meals (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 271:6, and in the comment of the Rema).

notes

Over the first cup one recites the Grace after Meals – ‫אשֹון ְמ ָב ֵר ְך ָע ָליו ִ ּב ְר ַּכת ַה ָּמזֹון‬ ׁ ‫כֹוס ִר‬:ּ Some commentaries explain that this is not a continuation of Rabbi Yosei’s opinion. Rather, it is an independent statement: If they finish the meal right before nightfall, they say Grace after Meals followed by kiddush (Rif ). If this statement is indeed part of Rabbi Yosei’s opinion, it should be understood as follows: Since Rabbi Yosei maintains that one need not interrupt one’s meal in the middle to recite kiddush, it is Grace after Meals, the blessing which formally ends the meal, that causes the interruption. Therefore, Grace after Meals is recited before kiddush (Maharam Ĥalawa). One does not perform mitzvot in bundles – ‫עֹושין‬ ׂ ִ ‫ֵאין‬ ‫מצְ �ֹות ֲח ִבילֹות ֲח ִבילֹות‬:ִ Tosafot in tractate Mo’ed Katan explain that one must be focused on each mitzva one performs, without the distraction of other mitzvot. This is similar to the principle that one may not mingle two different joyous occasions together. And does one not, but wasn’t it taught, etc. – ‫וְ ל ֹא‬ ‫וְ ָהא ַּתנְיָא וכו׳‬: Apparently, the Gemara does mean to deny entirely the principle that mitzvot should not be performed in bundles. Rather, the suggestion is that in a situation like this one, the requirement to minimize unnecessary blessings takes precedence over the prohibition against performing mitzvot in bundles (Ĥatam Sofer). Rav said yod, kuf, nun, heh – ‫א ַמר ַרב יקנ״ה‬: ָ Several explanations have been given for why the blessing over spices is not recited in the havdala of a Festival that occurs after Shabbat. See Rashbam and Tosafot. Some commentaries maintain that spices are necessary only for the transition from a day in which the primary categories of labor are completely prohibited, e.g., Shabbat, to a day when these activities are entirely permitted, such as a weekday or the intermediate days of a Festival. Therefore, spices are not included in the havdala ceremony from Shabbat to a Festival (Me’iri). Others explain that spices are not used lest one cut a branch of a bush or a tree for havdala spices (Ran).

‫בק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 102b 

223

notes

Havdala and kiddush are one matter – ‫ַה ְבדָּ ָלה וְ ִקידּ ו ּׁש ֲח ָדא‬ ‫מ ְּיל ָתא ִהיא‬:ִ Why are kiddush and havdala considered a single unit, whereas kiddush and Grace after Meals are not? Some commentaries explain that the relevant factor is that kiddush and havdala come before the meal, whereas Grace after Meals is recited after the meal (Ran; Maggid Mishne; Me’iri). Other authorities explain that havdala resembles kiddush, as both serve to emphasize the sanctity of the day (Rav Yehuda ben Rav Binyamin HaRofeh). Yet others contend that in this case kiddush and havdala go hand in hand: If Shabbat has ended, as signified by havdala, the Festival must have started, which is marked by kiddush. Likewise, if the Festival has started, Shabbat has necessarily ended. By contrast, kiddush and Grace after Meals are not inherently connected in any way (Maharam Ĥalawa). Yod, kuf, nun, heh…yod, nun, heh, kuf – ‫יקנ״ה…ינה״ק‬: Rav and Shmuel agree that the blessing over wine is recited first because it facilitates the recital of both kiddush and havdala (Maharam Ĥalawa). Rav maintains that kiddush should be recited before havdala, to delay the departure of Shabbat for as long as possible (Mikhtam). Shmuel contends that it is impossible to welcome the arrival of the Festival by means of kiddush before Shabbat has been concluded with havdala (Maharam Ĥalawa).

‫ ִמדְּ ל ֹא ָא ַמר זְ ַמן – ִמ ְּכ ָלל‬:‫ ָא ְמ ִרי‬They say in answer to this question: From the fact that Rav did ‫ דְּ ָכל‬,‫יעי ׁ ֶשל ּ ֶפ ַסח ָע ְס ִקינַ ן‬ ִ ‫ דְּ ַב ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬not say that one recites the blessing for time, Who has given us .‫ וְ ֵלית ֵל ּיה‬,‫ ַמאי דַּ ֲהוָ ה ֵל ּיה ָא ֵכיל ֵל ּיה‬life [sheheĥiyanu], sustained us, and brought us to this time, this proves by inference that we are dealing with the seventh day of Passover, which is the only Festival day on which one does not recite the blessing for time. If so, it is possible that whatever wine this person had, he has already consumed over the course of the Festival, and he does not have enough wine left for two separate cups. ,‫יה‬ ׁ ‫ וְ ָהא יֹום טֹוב ִר‬The Gemara asks: But there is the case of the first Festival night ּ ‫ דְּ ִאית ֵל‬,‫אשֹון‬ ‫ וְ ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬,‫ יקזנ״ה‬:‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬that occurs after Shabbat, when one has wine, and nevertheless !‫ יקנה״ז‬Abaye said that the order of the blessings in this instance follows the Hebrew acronym yod, kuf, zayin, nun, heh: The blessing over wine [yayin]; kiddush; the blessing for time [zeman]; the blessing over the candle [ner]; and havdala. And Rava said that the order of the blessings is in accordance with the acronym yod, kuf, nun, heh, zayin: Wine [yayin]; kiddush; candle [ner]; havdala; and the blessing for time [zeman]. Although Abaye and Rava dispute the correct order of the blessings, they agree that one recites multiple blessings over a single cup of wine. ‫ ַה ְבדָּ ָלה וְ ִקידּ ו ּׁש – ֲח ָדא ִמ ְּיל ָתא‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא‬Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanation in favor of n ‫ ִהיא; ִ ּב ְר ַּכת ַה ָּמזֹון וְ ִקידּ ו ּׁש – ְּת ֵרי ִמ ֵּילי‬the following: Havdala and kiddush are one matter, as they .ּ‫ נִינְ הו‬both mark and draw attention to the sanctity of certain days. By contrast, Grace after Meals and kiddush are two entirely different matters. Therefore, one who recites both of them over the same cup of wine is combining two unrelated mitzvot, apparently so that he can be done with them as quickly as possible. Consequently, this practice is prohibited. ‫ יֹום טֹוב ׁ ֶש ָחל ִל ְהיֹות ַא ַחר‬,‫ גּ ו ָּפא‬After raising the issue of the proper order of the blessings for ‫ ּו ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬,‫ יקנ״ה‬:‫ ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ַרב ָא ַמר‬kiddush on a Festival that occurs right after Shabbat, the Ge,‫ ינה״ק‬:‫ ָא ַמר‬mara addresses the matter itself. With regard to a Festival that occurs after Shabbat, Rav said that the proper order of the blessings follows the acronym yod, kuf, nun, heh: Wine [yayin], kiddush, candle [ner], and havdala; and Shmuel said the proper order is yod, nun, heh, kuf:n Wine [yayin], candle [ner], havdala, and kiddush.

Perek X Daf 103 Amud a notes

Levi said the order is kuf, nun, yod, heh – ‫לוִ י ָא ַמר קני״ה‬:ֵ Apparently, the opinion of Levi and others, who say that one should recite kiddush before the blessing over wine, is in accordance with the ruling of Beit Shammai, notwithstanding the fact that this opinion is not accepted as halakha. The Rashbam suggests that Levi adopts this position only with regard to a Festival that occurs after Shabbat, when there is a reason to delay the blessing over wine; at other times he accepts the ruling of Beit Hillel (Tosefot Rid ).

.‫ קני״ה‬:‫ וְ ֵלוִ י ָא ַמר‬,‫ יהנ״ק‬:‫וְ ַר ָ ּבה ָא ַמר‬ ‫יה דְּ ַר ָ ּבנָ א‬ ּ ‫ ָמר ְ ּב ֵר‬,‫ קינ״ה‬:‫וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ָמ ְר ָתא ָא ַמר ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬,‫ נקי״ה‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ .‫ ניה״ק‬:‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי י‬

The opinions with regard to the order of the blessings – ‫ַה ׁ ּ ִשיטֹות‬ ‫ב ֵס ֶדר ַה ַה ְבדָּ ָלה‬:ּ ְ There are several essential points of dispute here concerning the order of preference between the blessings of havdala and kiddush, kiddush and wine, and light and havdala. The different practical opinions represent the various permutations of these issues.

224 

And Rabba said that the correct order is yod, heh, nun, kuf: Wine [yayin], havdala, candle [ner], and kiddush. And Levi said the order is kuf, nun, yod, heh:n Kiddush, candle [ner], wine [yayin], and havdala. And the Rabbis say the order is kuf, yod, nun, heh: kiddush, wine [yayin], candle [ner], and havdala. Mar, son of Rabbana, said the order is nun, kuf, yod, heh: Candle [ner], kiddush, wine [yayin], and havdala. The Sage named Marta said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua that the proper order is nun, heh, yod, kuf: Candle [ner], wine [yayin], havdala, and kiddush.n

Rav

Shmuel

Rabba

Levi

The Rabbis

Mar, son of Rabbana

Rabbi Yehoshua

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ĥananya

wine

wine

wine

kiddush

kiddush

candle

candle

candle

kiddush

candle

havdala

candle

wine

kiddush

wine

havdala

candle

havdala

candle

wine

candle

wine

havdala

wine

havdala

kiddush

kiddush

havdala

havdala

havdala

kiddush

kiddush

Perek X . 103a . ‫ףד‬

‫גק‬. ‫׳י קרפ‬

‫ יְ ַל ְּמ ֵדנּ ּו‬:‫יה ֲאבו ּּה דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ׁ ָש ַלח ֵל‬ :‫יה‬ ַ ‫ַר ֵ ּבינ ּו ֵס ֶדר ַה ְבדָּ לֹות ֵה‬ ּ ‫יאךְ ? ׁ ָש ַלח ֵל‬ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ָּכ ְך ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ַ ּבר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ָא ַמר ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ׁ ֶש ָא ַמר ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ָא ִביו‬ .‫ נהי״ק‬:‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֲחנַ נְיָה‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫י‬

With regard to this issue, the father of Shmuel, Abba ben Abba, sent a letter to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Teach us, our Rabbi. How should one recite the order of havdala when a Festival occurs after Shabbat? Rabbi sent him the following response: This is what Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said, who said it in the name of his father, who himself said it in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ĥananya: The proper order of the blessings is nun, heh, yod, kuf:n Candle [ner], wine [yayin], havdala, and kiddush.

‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ָמ ׁ ָשל דְּ ַר ִ ּבי י‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א‬ ,‫ֲחנַ נְ יָ ה ְל ֶמ ֶל ְך ׁ ֶשּיֹוצֵ א וְ ִא ּ ַפ ְר ּכֹוס נִ ְכנַס‬ ‫ וְ ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך יֹוצְ ִאים‬,‫ְמ ַל ִּווין ֶאת ַה ֶּמ ֶל ְך‬ .‫ִל ְק ַראת ִא ּ ַפ ְר ּכֹוס‬

Rabbi Ĥanina said that the following parable serves to explain the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ĥananya: This is comparable to a king who is exiting a city and a governor is entering. Etiquette dictates that the inhabitants of the city first escort the king out of the city to take leave of him in a dignified fashion, and afterward they go out to greet the governor. Similarly, one should first recite havdala, to take leave of Shabbat, and only then recite kiddush over the Festival, whose sanctity is lesser than that of Shabbat.

‫ וְ ָר ָבא‬,‫ יקזנ״ה‬:‫ ַמאי ָהוֵ י ֲע ָל ּה? ַא ַ ּביֵ י ָא ַמר‬The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this .‫ וְ ִה ְיל ְכ ָתא ְּכ ָר ָבא‬,‫ יקנה״ז‬:‫ ָא ַמר‬matter? What is the proper order of the blessings? The amora’im accept Rav’s opinion that one should recite kiddush before havdala; however, they disagree about the blessing of time, which is generally relevant in such cases and which Rav did not address. Abaye said that the proper order is yod, kuf, zayin, nun, heh: The blessing over wine [yayin], kiddush, the blessing for time [zeman], the blessing over the candle [ner], and havdala. And Rava said the order is yod, kuf, nun, heh, zayin: Wine [yayin], kiddush, candle [ner], havdala, and time [zeman]. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rava.nh .‫ַרב הוּנָ א ַ ּבר יְ הו ָּד ּה ִא ְיק ַלע ְל ֵבי ָר ָבא‬ ‫יך‬ ְ ‫ ָ ּב ֵר‬.‫ַאיְ ית ּו ְל ַק ַּמיְ יה ּו ָמאֹור ו ְּב ָ ׂש ִמים‬ .‫ וַ ֲה ַדר ַא ָּמאֹור‬,‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ָר ָבא ַא ְ ּב ָ ׂש ִמים ְ ּב ֵר‬ ‫ וְ ָהא ֵ ּבין ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ו ֵּבין ֵ ּבית‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ֵל‬ !‫ וַ ֲה ַדר ַא ְ ּב ָ ׂש ִמים‬,‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ִה ֵּילל ָמאֹור ְ ּב ֵר‬

With regard to this issue of havdala, the Gemara relates that Rav Huna bar Yehuda happened to come to the house of Rava. After Shabbat, they brought before them a light and spices. Rava recited the blessing over the spices first and then the blessing over the light. Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to him: But both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, who dispute the order of the blessings at havdala, agree that the blessing over light is first, and only then comes the blessing over the spices.

:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬:‫ ו ַּמאי ִהיא? דִּ ְתנַן‬And what is this; what is the source for the dispute between Beit Sham‫ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּילל‬,‫ נֵ ר ו ָּמזֹון ְ ּב ָ ׂש ִמים וְ ַה ְבדָּ ָלה‬mai and Beit Hillel? As we learned in a mishna: Beit Shammai say that with regard to one who is required to say Grace after Meals and havda.‫ נֵ ר ו ְּב ָ ׂש ִמים ו ָּמזֹון וְ ַה ְבדָּ ָלה‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ la, and he has only one cup of wine, the proper order of the blessings is: The blessing over the candle, and the blessing of Grace After Meals, followed by the blessing over the spices, and finally havdala. And Beit Hillel say: The blessing over the candle comes first, and then the blessing over the spices, and afterward the blessing of Grace After Meals, and last is havdala. Both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that the blessing over the candle is recited before havdala. ‫ זֹו ִד ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫יה וַ ֲא ַמר‬ ּ ‫ָענֵי ָר ָבא ַ ּב ְת ֵר‬ ‫ ל ֹא נֶ ְח ְלק ּו‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ֲא ָבל ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה‬,‫ֵמ ִאיר‬ ‫ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּילל ַעל ַה ָּמזֹון ׁ ֶשהוּא‬ .‫ַ ּב ְּת ִח ָּלה וְ ַעל ַה ְבדָּ ָלה ׁ ֶש ִהיא ַ ּב ּסֹוף‬

Rava answered after him and said: This mishna is the statement of Rabbi Meir. However, Rabbi Yehuda says: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree over Grace After Meals, as everyone concurs that it is recited first, nor did they disagree over havdala, as it is recited last.

‫ַעל ַמ ה ֶּנ ְח ְל ק ּו ? ַעל ַה ָּמאֹור וְ ַעל‬ ‫ ָמאֹור‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬.‫ַה ְ ּב ָ ׂש ִמים‬ :‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּילל‬,‫וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ ְ ּב ָ ׂש ִמים‬ ‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ְ ּב ָ ׂש ִמים וְ ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך ָמאֹור‬ ֵּ ‫ נָ ֲהג ּו ָה ָעם ְּכ ֵבית ִה‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ‫יבא‬ ּ ָ ‫ילל וְ ַא ִּל‬ ָ .‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬

With regard to what did they disagree? They disagreed over the blessings recited in the middle of havdala, i.e., the blessings over light and over the spices.n Beit Shammai say: Light first, and spices thereafter; and Beit Hillel say: Spices first, and light thereafter. And Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The people were accustomedn to conduct themselves in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, according to the interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda. Rava acted as dictated by this custom.nh halakha

The order of kiddush on a Festival that occurs after the conclusion of Shabbat – ‫ס ֶדר ִקידּ ו ּׁש יֹום טֹוב ְ ּבמֹוצָ ֵאי ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬:ֵ The correct order of the blessings when a Festival occurs after Shabbat is: The blessing over wine, kiddush, the candle, havdala, and the blessing for time (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 473:1).



The order of havdala – ‫ס ֶדר ַה ְבדָּ ָלה‬:ֵ The order of the blessings in havdala is in accordance with the acronym yod, beit, nun, heh: The blessings over wine [ yayin], spices [besamim], candle [ner], and havdala (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 296:1).

notes

Nun, heh, yod, kuf – ‫נהי״ק‬: Some commentaries explain that according to these opinions the reason why the blessing over light precedes havdala is that the same candle used for havdala serves for the Festival light as well. In the Jerusalem Talmud, a different answer is stated: When havdala is recited after Shabbat, the blessing over light is usually delayed until after havdala, lest the candle be extinguished between the blessings. On a Festival, however, one will definitely leave it burning, as one needs the light and it is prohibited to extinguish a flame on a Festival. Therefore, the blessing over the candle may be recited before havdala. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rava – ‫וְ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא ְּכ ָר ָבא‬: Tosafot address the reason why the Gemara found it necessary to rule explicitly in accordance with Rava when there is an established principle throughout the Talmud that Rava’s opinion is accepted as halakha in his disputes with Abaye. Some commentaries explain that this particular halakha was decided in accordance with Rava before that guiding principle was established (Tosefot Rid ). Over light and over the spices – ‫ַעל ַה ָּמאֹור וְ ַעל‬ ‫ה ְ ּב ָ ׂש ִמים‬:ַ Some commentaries explain the opinions of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, according to Rabbi Yehuda, as follows: According to Beit Shammai, the blessing over light comes first, both because one benefits from the light as soon as it is lit and because it enables one to see, which is a basic and crucial need. Consequently, it is more significant than the spices, which merely produce a pleasant fragrance. By contrast, Beit Hillel assert that since a fragrance enters the body, it resembles the sense of taste, and therefore its blessing should be juxtaposed to that of wine (Mikhtam). The people were accustomed – ‫נָ ֲהג ּו ָה ָעם‬: The Gemara in Eiruvin explains the difference between the expressions: The halakha is in accordance with, and: The people were accustomed to conduct themselves in accordance with a particular opinion. The second phrase means that although people are not instructed to follow this view, the Sages do not protest when people act in accordance with it. In this particular case, however, this terminology represents a full-fledged halakhic ruling. The reason is that since the amora’im do not dispute this ruling, even the terminology: The people were accustomed, indicates that this is the halakha in practice (Tosafot in tractate Berakhot). Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel – ‫בית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּילל‬:ּ ֵ These tables outline the different versions of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. Rabbi Meir Beit Shammai

Beit Hillel

candle

candle

Grace after Meals

spices

spices

Grace after Meals

havdala

havdala Rabbi Yehuda

Beit Shammai

Beit Hillel

Grace after Meals

Grace after Meals

candle

spices

spices

candle

havdala

havdala ‫גק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 103a 

225

.‫ַרב יַ ֲעקֹב ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא ִא ְיק ַלע ְל ֵבי ָר ָבא‬ ‫ַחזְ יֵ ּה דְּ ָב ֵריךְ ּב ֵֹורא ּ ְפ ִרי ַה ֶ ּג ֶפן ַא ָּכ ָסא‬ ,‫ וַ ֲה ַדר ָ ּב ֵריךְ ַא ָּכ ָסא דְּ ִב ְר ָכ ָתא‬,‫ַק ָּמא‬ ‫ ָל ָּמה ָל ְך ּכו ֵּּלי‬:‫יה‬ ְ ׁ ‫וְ ִא‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫יש ֵּתי‬ !‫ימנָ א‬ ְ ִ‫ַהאי? ָהא ָ ּב ֵריךְ ָלן ָמר ֲח ָדא ז‬ ‫ ִּכי ָהוֵ ינַ ן ֵ ּבי ֵר ׁיש ָ ּגלו ָּתא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ .‫ָה ִכי ָע ְב ִדינַן‬

The Gemara relates another incident with regard to establishing meals and reciting blessings. Rav Ya’akov bar Abba happened to come to Rava’s house for a Shabbat meal. He saw that Rava recited the blessing: Who creates the fruit of the vine, over the first cup of wine he drank at the meal, and then he recited the same blessing upon the cup of wine he used for the blessing of Grace after Meals and drank it. He said to him: Why do you have to say all this, i.e., why is it necessary to recite a second blessing? The Master has recited a blessing for us once already, at the beginning of the meal, and thereby exempted us from a blessing on all the wine drunk during the meal. Rava said to him: When we were in the house of the Exilarch, this was our practice. It was the custom among the Sages to recite two blessings.

‫ ֵּתינַ ח ֵ ּבי ֵר ׁיש ָ ּגלו ָּתא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫יתי ָלן ָס ֵפק‬ ֵ ְ‫דְּ ָה ִכי ָע ֵביד דְּ ָס ֵפק ַמי‬ ‫ ָה ָכא – ָהא ַמ ַּנח ָּכ ָסא‬,‫יתי ָלן‬ ֵ ְ‫ָלא ַמי‬ ‫ ֲאנָ א‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה! ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ּ ֵ‫ַק ָּמן וְ ַד ְע ַּתן ִע ָּילו‬ ‫ דְּ ַרב ְ ּברוּנָ א‬.‫ֲע ַב ִדי ְּכ ַת ְל ִמ ֵידי דְּ ַרב‬ ‫וְ ַרב ֲחנַ נְ ֵאל ַּת ְל ִמ ֵידי דְּ ַרב ָהו ּו יָ ְת ִבי‬ ,‫ִ ּב ְסעוּדָּ ָתא‬

He said to him: It works out well to act this way in the house of the Exilarch, as there is uncertainty as to whether he will bring us another cup of wine to drink, or whether he will not bring us another cup. Since we are dependent upon the host and cannot anticipate in advance whether we will drink more wine, each cup requires its own blessing. Here, however, the cup is resting before us and our attention is on it, i.e., we intend to drink this wine after Grace after Meals. What need is there to recite another blessing? He said to him: I acted in accordance with the opinion of the students of Rav, as Rav Beruna and Rav Ĥananel, the students of Rav, were sitting together at a meal,

‫ ֲא ַמר ּו‬.‫ָק ֵאי ֲע ַליְ יה ּו ַרב יֵ ָיבא ָס ָבא‬ :‫יה‬ ָ ְ‫ ַהב ָלן ו‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ְלסֹוף ֲא ַמר ּו ֵל‬. ְ‫נִיב ֵריך‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫ ָה ִכי ֲא ַמר‬,ּ‫ ֲא ַמר ְלהו‬.‫נִיש ֵּתי‬ ְ ׁ ְ‫ַהב ָלן ו‬ ‫יך‬ ְ ‫נִיב ֵר‬ ָ ְ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ָא ְמ ִרית ּו ַהב ָלן ו‬:‫ַרב‬ ?‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬.‫יש ֵּתי‬ ְ ׁ ‫ית ְּס ָרא ְלכ ּו ְל ִמ‬ ַּ ‫ִא‬ .ּ‫דְּ ַא ְס ִחית ּו דַּ ֲע ַתיְ יכו‬

and Rav Yeiva the Elder stood over themn to serve them. They said to him: Give us a cup of wine and we will recite the blessingsh of Grace after Meals. Ultimately, they changed their mind and said to him: Give us a cup of wine and we will drink it. He said to them that Rav said as follows: Since you have said: Give us a cup and we will recite the blessings of Grace after Meals, it is prohibited for you to drinkn any more. What is the reason for this? The reason is that you have diverted your attention from drinking. Therefore, if you want to drink any more, you must recite the blessing over wine again.

‫ימר ו ָּמר זו ְּט ָרא וְ ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ָהו ּו יָ ְת ִבי‬ ָ ‫ָא ֵמ‬ ‫ וְ ָק ֵאי ֲע ַליְ יה ּו ַרב ַא ָחא ְ ּב ֵר ּיה‬,‫ַ ּב ְּסעוּדָּ ה‬ ‫יך ַעל ָּכל ָּכ ָסא‬ ְ ‫ימר ָ ּב ֵר‬ ָ ‫ ָא ֵמ‬.‫דְּ ָר ָבא‬ ‫ ו ָּמר זו ְּט ָרא ָ ּב ֵריךְ ַא ָּכ ָסא ַק ָּמא‬,‫וְ ָכ ָסא‬ ‫ ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ָ ּב ֵריךְ ַא ָּכ ָסא‬,‫וְ ַא ָּכ ָסא ַ ּב ְת ָרא‬ . ְ‫ַק ָּמא וְ ת ּו ָלא ָ ּב ֵריך‬

The Gemara relates that Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and Rav Ashi were sitting at a meal,n and Rav Aĥa, son of Rava, stood over them to serve them. Ameimar recited a blessing over each and every cup of wine he drank. And Mar Zutra recited a blessing over the first cup he drank during the meal and over the last cup he drank, upon concluding Grace after Meals.h Rav Ashi recited a blessing over the first cup and did not recite any further blessings over the subsequent cups he drank.

Perek X Daf 103 Amud b notes

Stood over them – ‫ק ֵאי ֲע ַליְ יה ּו‬:ָ There are several reported instances in the Talmud of scholars dining together while one of them stood and served the others by bringing out the food and drinks. Occasionally, the waiter was the youngest member of the group or a student, while at other times each scholar would serve his colleagues in turn. It is prohibited for you to drink – ‫יש ֵּתי‬ ְ ׁ ‫א ַּית ְּס ָרא ְלכ ּו ְל ִמ‬:ִ The commentaries dispute the meaning of this phrase. The Rif and others explain that it is prohibited to drink more without repeating the blessing over the wine (Rabbeinu Ĥananel; Rambam). The Rashbam maintains that once one readies himself for Grace after Meals, his meal has been interrupted and it is prohibited to drink again at all before reciting Grace after Meals. Were sitting at a meal – ‫הו ּו יָ ְת ִבי ַ ּב ְּסעוּדָּ ה‬:ָ Apparently this meal took place on Shabbat. Indeed, with regard to a weekday meal, the Gemara in Berakhot states that most people are considered to have changed their minds if they decide to drink a second cup of wine, whereas on Shabbat and Festivals people commonly drink more than one cup of wine (Mitzpe Eitan).

halakha

Give us a cup of wine and we will recite the blessings – ‫ַהב‬ ְ‫נִיב ֵריך‬ ָ ְ‫לן ו‬:ָ As soon as people who are eating a meal together prepare themselves for Grace after Meals by saying: Give us a cup and we will recite the blessings, they may not continue drinking before reciting Grace after Meals, unless they recite a new blessing over the wine. According to the Ateret Zekeinim, who cites the Maharshal, this halakha applies even if they pour the cup of wine for Grace after Meals without explicitly stating the purpose of the wine. With regard to eating, the Rosh states that they are also prohibited from eating without reciting a new blessing, whereas the Ran and Rabbeinu Yona maintain that it is permitted for them to eat. In light of this dispute, some authorities rule that one may eat without reciting a new bless-

226 

Perek X . 103b . ‫ףד‬

‫גק‬: ‫׳י קרפ‬

ing, due to the general leniency with regard to uncertain cases involving blessings (Shulĥan Arukh HaRav). Others maintain that it is prohibited to eat, as many authorities rule in accordance with the opinion of the Rosh. The Shulĥan Arukh also appears to favor this view. Certainly, it is best to avoid this problem by refraining from eating (Mishna Berura; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 179:1). Blessings over wine during a meal – ‫ב ָרכֹות ַעל יַ יִ ן ַ ּב ְּסעוּדָּ ה‬:ּ ְ If one recites a blessing over wine at the beginning of his meal, there is no need to recite a blessing over the rest of the wine he drinks during the meal, unless he did not intend to drink any more (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 174:5).

‫ ֲאנַ ן ְּכ ַמאן‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ְלה ּו ַרב ַא ָחא ַ ּבר ָר ָבא‬Rav Aĥa bar Rava said to them: In accordance with whose opin‫ ָמר‬,‫ נִ ְמ ָל ְך ֲאנָ א‬:‫ימר ֲא ַמר‬ ָ ‫נַע ֵביד? ַא ֵמ‬ ֲ ion should we act in this matter? We have witnessed three different .‫ ֲאנָ א דַּ ֲע ַב ִדי ְּכ ַת ְל ִמ ֵידי דְּ ַרב‬:‫ זו ְּט ָרא ֲא ַמר‬courses of action. Ameimar said: I repeatedly changed my mind. In other words, the reason Ameimar recited a blessing over each cup was not because he maintains that it is always necessary to do so. Rather, he drank each cup with the intention that it should be his last. Consequently, he diverted his attention from drinking each time, and therefore he was required to recite a new blessing before he could drink again. Mar Zutra said: I acted in accordance with the opinion of the students of Rav. They maintain that one who prepares to recite Grace after Meals has completely diverted his attention from drinking, and therefore the blessing on wine that one recites during the meal does not include the wine he drinks after Grace after Meals.

halakha

A torch for havdala – ‫אבו ָּקה ְל ַה ְבדָּ ָלה‬:ֲ It is preferable to recite the blessing of light over the light of a torch (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 298:2). The formula of havdala – ‫נֻסח ַה ַה ְבדָּ ָלה‬: ַּ It is customary to recite three distinctions in havdala, beginning with: Who distinguishes between sacred and profane, in accordance with the practice of Rava (Tur, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 299).

‫ ֵלית ִה ְיל ְכ ָתא ְּכ ַת ְל ִמ ֵידי‬:‫ וְ ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ֲא ַמר‬And Rav Ashi said: The halakha is not in accordance with the ‫ דְּ ָהא יֹום טֹוב ׁ ֶש ָחל ִל ְהיֹות ַא ַחר‬,‫ דְּ ַרב‬opinion of the students of Rav. This can be proven from a ruling of .‫ יקנ״ה‬:‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַרב‬,‫ ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬Rav himself, as with regard to a Festival that occurs after Shabbat, Rav said that the order of blessings is yod, kuf, nun, heh: Wine [ yayin], kiddush, candle [ner], and havdala. This shows that although one recites kiddush between the blessing over wine and havdala, it is unnecessary to recite the blessing over wine again before havdala. The same should hold true in our case: Just as kiddush is not considered an interruption between the blessing over wine and its consumption, Grace after Meals should not be considered an interruption either. ,‫יה ִמ ִּמ ׁ ְש ְּתיָ א‬ ּ ‫ ָה ָתם – ָע ַקר דַּ ְע ֵּת‬,‫ וְ ל ֹא ִהיא‬The Gemara rejects this reasoning: And that is not so. There, when .‫יה ִמ ִּמ ׁ ְש ְּתיָ א‬ ּ ‫ ָה ָכא – ל ֹא ָע ַקר דַּ ְע ֵּת‬one is preparing himself to recite Grace after Meals, he has already uprooted his mindn from drinking. Here, with regard to kiddush and havdala, he has not uprooted his mind from drinking. ‫יה וְ ַא ְד ִליק‬ ּ ‫ִּכי ָמ ָטא ְל ַא ְבדּ ֵֹולי ָקם ׁ ַש ָּמ ֵע‬ ‫ ָל ָּמה ָלךְ ּכו ֵּּלי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ֲאבו ָּקה ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ָרגָ א‬ ‫ ׁ ַש ָּמ ָעא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ַהאי? ָהא ַמנְ ָחא ׁ ְש ָרגָ א! ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ :‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫יה ָקא ָע ֵביד‬ ּ ‫יה דְּ נַ ְפ ׁ ֵש‬ ּ ‫ִמדַּ ֲע ֵת‬ ‫ֵיה דְּ ָמר ָלא ֲהוָ ה‬ ּ ‫יה ִמ ּינ‬ ּ ‫ִאי ָלא ׁ ְש ִמ ַיע ֵל‬ ‫ ֲאבו ָּקה‬:‫יה ָמר‬ ּ ‫ ָלא ָס ַבר ֵל‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ָע ֵביד‬ ?‫ְל ַה ְבדָּ ָלה ִמצְ וָ ה ִמן ַה ּמו ְּב ָחר‬

After discussing the opinion of the students of Rav, the Gemara returns to the story of Rav Ya’akov bar Abba’s visit to Rava. When the time came to recite havdala, Rava’s attendant got up and lit a torch from a candle. Rav Ya’akov bar Abba said to him: Why do you need all this? The candle was present, and you could have recited the blessing over the light of the candle itself. Rava said to him: The attendant did this on his own accord, without consulting me. Rav Ya’akov bar Abba said to him: If he had not heard it from the Master he would not have done it on his own; he must have been following your opinion on this matter. Rava said to him: Does the Master not maintain that using a torch for havdalahn is the optimal manner in which to fulfill the mitzva? It is for this reason that the attendant lit a torch for havdala.

,‫קֹוד ׁש ְלחֹול‬ ֶ ‫״ה ַּמ ְבדִּ יל ֵ ּבין‬ ַ :‫ּ ָפ ַתח וְ ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ֵ ּבין‬,‫ ֵ ּבין יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ָל ַע ִּמים‬,‫ֵ ּבין אֹור ְלח ׁ ֶֹש ְך‬ ‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫יעי ְל ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת יְ ֵמי ַה ַּמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה״‬ ִ ‫יֹום ַה ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ ‫ ָל ָּמה ָלךְ ּכו ֵּּלי ַהאי? וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַרב יְהו ָּדה‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫קֹוד ׁש ְלחֹול״ זֹו‬ ֶ ‫״ה ַּמ ְבדִּ יל ֵ ּבין‬ ַ :‫ָא ַמר ַרב‬ !‫ָשיא‬ ׂ ִ ‫ִהיא ַה ְבדָּ ָלתֹו ׁ ֶשל ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ַה ּנ‬

Rava began his recitation of havdala and said: Who distinguishes between sacred and profane, between light and darkness, between Israel and the nations, between the seventh day and the six days of work.h Rav Ya’akov bar Abba said to him: Why do you need all this? Didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav said with regard to the statement: Who distinguishes between sacred and profane, that this alone is the havdala of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Why is this plain statement not enough for you?

‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ ֲאנָ א ְּכ ָהא ְס ִב ָירא ִלי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ֹוחת‬ ֵ ‫ ַה ּפ‬:‫אֹוש ֲעיָ א‬ ַ ׁ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ‫יֹוסיף ַעל‬ ִ ‫ֹוסיף ל ֹא‬ ִ ‫ וְ ַה ּמ‬,‫ל ֹא יִ ְפחֹות ִמ ׁ ּ ָשל ֹׁש‬ :‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ׁ ֶש ַבע‬

He said to him: I maintain in accordance with this statement that Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya said: One who decreases the number of distinctions in the text of the havdala should not decrease them to less than three, and one who increases the number of distinctions should not increase them to more than seven. Rav Ya’akov bar Abba said to him: notes

There he has uprooted his mind, etc. – ‫יה וכו׳‬ ּ ‫ה ָתם ָע ַקר דַּ ְע ֵּת‬:ָ Rav Ashi’s comparison between Grace after Meals and kiddush is difficult in this context. Grace after Meals represents the conclusion of the meal, which ought to be considered an interruption, whereas kiddush is recited at the beginning of a meal. One possible explanation is that the Grace after Meals is considered an interruption, not because it represents the



conclusion of the meal but because one cannot drink while reciting the blessings, and in this respect it is similar to kiddush. According to this interpretation, the subsequent retort that Grace after Meals and kiddush are actually incomparable is based on the consideration that in theory one should in fact drink the wine during kiddush; however, it is impossible to do so in practice. Furthermore, although havdala and kiddush

are similar practices, as explained earlier, Grace after Meals is a separate matter entirely. A torch for havdala – ‫אבו ָּקה ְל ַה ְבדָּ ָלה‬:ֲ A torch contains many visible points of light, and the blessing over light refers to the lights of fire in the plural. Therefore, it is preferable to recite this blessing over a torch (Mikhtam; Nimmukei Yosef; Ritva; Maharam Ĥalawa). ‫גק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 103b 

227

Perek X Daf 104 Amud a notes

The Master did not say three, nor did he say seven – ‫ָמר ָלא‬ ‫ת ָל ָתא ֲא ַמר וְ ָלא ׁ ֶש ַבע ֲא ַמר‬:ְּ This question is puzzling, as the previously cited ruling that one may not say fewer than three or more than seven distinctions indicates that it is permitted to mention any number between these two (Tosafot). Some commentaries explain the question as follows: If the intent was to recite havdala with the minimum required number of distinctions, three distinctions would have sufficed. If one wanted to add additional distinctions in praise of God, why not mention seven (Maharam Ĥalawa)? An expression similar to the conclusion near its conclusion – ‫ימתֹו‬ ָ ‫ימה ָסמוּךְ ַל ֲח ִת‬ ָ ‫מ ֵעין ֲח ִת‬:ֵ According to some commentaries, Shmuel’s opinion does not contravene the principle that one must mention a phrase reminiscent of the beginning of a blessing right before its conclusion. Rather, Shmuel adds that in addition to mentioning a matter reminiscent of the beginning of the blessing, one must also say an expression that alludes to its conclusion (Me’iri; Maharam Ĥalawa). The son of sacred ones – ‫דֹושים‬ ִ ׁ ‫בנָן ׁ ֶשל ְק‬:ּ ְ Apparently, both Rabbi Menaĥem and his father were careful with regard to this matter, which is why Rabbi Menaĥem’s father was referred to as sacred. background

The scholars of Pumbedita – ‫פו ְּמ ַ ּבדִּ ָית ֵאי‬:ּ The identity of these scholars of Pumbedita is not entirely clear. This phrase is probably referring to the amora’im of Pumbedita, i.e., Rabba and Rabbi Yosef. Alternatively, it is a reference to the sharp-witted scholars, Ifa and Avimi, the sons of Raĥava. Forms on coins – ‫צו ָּר ָתא דְּ זוּזָ א‬: Many Greek and Roman coins were imprinted with pictures of their gods. Consequently, it was prohibited to use them. Furthermore, there was room for being stringent even with regard to coins that depicted emperors and ancient rulers since they often considered themselves to be gods.

‫ ָלא ְּת ָל ָתא ֲא ַמר וְ ָלא ׁ ֶש ַבע‬,‫וְ ָהא ָמר‬ ‫״בין יֹום‬ ּ ֵ ,‫ ִא ְיב ָרא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר! ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫יעי ְל ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת יְ ֵמי ַה ַּמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה״ ֵמ ֵעין‬ ִ ‫ַה ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ ‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר‬,‫ימה ִהיא‬ ָ ‫ֲח ִת‬ ‫ֹאמר‬ ַ ‫יך ׁ ֶשּי‬ ְ ‫ ַה ַּמ ְבדִּ יל צָ ִר‬:‫ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ .‫ימ תֹו‬ ָ ‫ימ ה ָסמ ּו ְך ַל ֲח ִת‬ ָ ‫ֵמ ֵעין ֲח ִת‬ ‫יח ָתן‬ ָ ‫ ֵמ ֵעין ּ ְפ ִת‬:‫ית ֵאי ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָ ִּ‫וּפו ְּמ ַ ּבד‬ .‫ימ ָתן‬ ָ ‫ָסמוּךְ ַל ֲח ִת‬

But the Master did not say three distinctions, nor did he say seven,n as he actually mentioned four distinctions. He said to him: In truth, that is inaccurate, as the distinction between the seventh day and the six days of work is not considered a separate statement of distinction. Rather, this distinction is mentioned because it is similar to the conclusion of the blessing, and Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One who recites havdala must say an expression that is similar to the conclusion near the conclusionn of the blessing, to emphasize the connection between the blessing and its conclusion. And the scholars of Pumbeditab say that one must say a phrase similar to the beginnings of blessings near their conclusions.

‫יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יה ּו יֹום טֹוב‬ ָּ ‫ ַמאי ֵ ּבינַיְ יהוּ? ִא‬With regard to the previously cited dispute, the Gemara asks: ‫ דְּ ָח ְת ִמינַן‬,‫ ׁ ֶש ָחל ִל ְהיֹות ַא ַחר ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬What is the practical difference between them? Since the begin‫קֹוד ׁש״‬ ֶ ‫קֹוד ׁש ְל‬ ֶ ‫״בין‬ ּ ֵ ning and end of a blessing generally address the same topic, what is the difference between these two opinions? The Gemara responds: The practical difference between them is in the case of a Festival that occurs after Shabbat, as one concludes this havdala with the phrase: Who separates between sacred and sacred. ‫יח ָתן ָסמו ְּך‬ ָ ‫ ֵמ ֵעין ּ ְפ ִת‬:‫ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר‬ ‫״בין‬ ּ ֵ ‫ימר‬ ַ ‫ימ ָתן – ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי ְל ֵמ‬ ָ ‫ַל ֲח ִת‬ ‫ְקד ּו ׁ ּ ַשת ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ִל ְקד ּו ׁ ּ ַשת יֹום טֹוב‬ ‫ימ ָתן‬ ָ ‫ ֵמ ֵעין ֲח ִת‬:‫ ו ַּמאן דְּ ָא ַמר‬.‫ִה ְבדַּ ְל ָּת״‬ ‫״בין‬ ּ ֵ ‫ימר‬ ַ ‫ימ ָתן – ָ ּב ֵעי ְל ֵמ‬ ָ ‫ָסמוּךְ ַל ֲח ִת‬ ‫ְקד ּו ׁ ּ ַשת ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ִל ְקד ּו ׁ ּ ַשת יֹום טֹוב‬ .‫ִה ְבדַּ ְל ָּת״‬

The one who said that one must mention an expression similar to the beginnings of blessings near their conclusions would say that one is not required to say: Between the sanctity of Shabbat and the sanctity of the Festival You have distinguished, before concluding the blessing, as the beginning of the blessing refers simply to the sacred and the profane. And according to the one who said that one must say a phrase similar to the conclusions of blessings near their conclusions, one is required to say: Between the sanctity of Shabbat and the sanctity of the Festival You have distinguished.

‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ גּ ו ָּפא‬The Gemara returns to the aforementioned matter itself. Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya said: One who decreases the ,‫ֹוחת ל ֹא יִ ְפחֹות ִמ ׁ ּ ָשל ֹׁש‬ ֵ ‫ ַה ּפ‬:‫אֹוש ֲעיָא‬ ַׁ .‫יֹוסיף ַעל ׁ ֶש ַבע‬ ִ ‫ֹוסיף ל ֹא‬ ִ ‫ וְ ַה ּמ‬number of distinctions mentioned in havdala should not decrease their number to less than three, and one who increases their number should not increase them to more than seven. ‫אֹומר ַה ְבדָּ לֹות ְ ּבמֹוצָ ֵאי‬ ֶ :‫יבי‬ ֵ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫ֵמ‬ ,‫טֹובים‬ ִ ‫ ו ְּבמֹוצָ ֵאי יָ ִמים‬,‫ׁ ַש ָ ּבתֹות‬ ‫ ו ְּבמֹוצָ ֵאי‬,‫ו ְּבמֹוצָ ֵאי יֹום ַה ִּכ ּפו ִּרים‬ ‫ ו ְּבמֹוצָ ֵאי יֹום טֹוב‬,‫ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ְליֹום טֹוב‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ְ ּבמֹוצָ ֵאי‬.‫מֹועד‬ ֵ ‫ְלחוּלּ ֹו ׁ ֶשל‬ ,‫אֹומר ַה ְר ֵ ּבה‬ ֵ ‫ ָה ָרגִ יל‬.‫יֹום טֹוב ְל ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ !‫אֹומר ַא ַחת‬ ֵ ‫וְ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָרגִ יל‬

The Gemara raises an objection from the Tosefta: One says statements of distinctions at the conclusion of Shabbat, and at the conclusion of Festivals, and at the conclusion of Yom Kippur, and at the conclusion of Shabbat that leads into a Festival, and at the conclusion of a Festival that leads into the intermediate days of a Festival. However, one does not mention distinctions at the conclusion of a Festival that leads into Shabbat, as the sanctity of Shabbat is greater than that of a Festival. One who is accustomed to reciting distinctions may recite many distinctions, and one who is not accustomed to doing so recites only one distinction. This ruling implies that there is no absolute requirement to mention more than one distinction.

‫ ְ ּבנָ ן‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ַּת ָּנ ֵאי ִהיא‬ ‫ וְ נָ ֲהג ּו‬,‫אֹומר ַא ַחת‬ ֵ ‫דֹושים‬ ִ ׁ ‫ׁ ֶשל ְק‬ ‫ ַמאן נִיה ּו ְ ּבנָן ׁ ֶשל‬.‫לֹומר ׁ ָשל ֹׁש‬ ַ ‫ָה ָעם‬ .‫ימאי‬ ָ ‫דֹושים? ַר ִ ּבי ְמנַ ֵחם ַ ּבר ִס‬ ִ ׁ ‫ְק‬ ?‫דֹושים‬ ִ ׁ ‫יה ְ ּבנָ ן ׁ ֶשל ְק‬ ּ ‫וְ ַא ַּמאי ָקר ּו ֵל‬ ‫ ׁ ָש ַלח‬.‫יס ַּת ַּכל ְ ּבצו ָּר ָתא דְּ זוּזָ א‬ ְ ‫דְּ ָלא ִא‬ ‫ ֲחנַ נְיָא ָא ִחי‬:‫יה ַרב ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר ִא ִידי‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ .‫יה‬ ֵ ָ‫ וְ ֵלית ִה ְל ְכ ָתא ְּכו‬,‫אֹומר ַא ַחת‬ ֵ ּ ‫ות‬

The Gemara answers: It is a dispute between tanna’im, as Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The son of sacred onesn recites only one distinction, but the people were accustomed to recite three distinctions. The Gemara asks: Who is this person called the son of sacred ones? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Menaĥem bar Simai. And why did they call him the son of sacred ones? Because he would not look at the forms on coins,b which were occasionally idolatrous symbols or some other prohibited image. The Gemara relates that Rav Shmuel bar Idi sent Rabbi Menaĥem bar Simai the following message: My brother Ĥananya says that one should mention only one distinction. However, the Gemara concludes: And the halakha is not in accordance with that opinion.

Macedonian coin imprinted with the image of the Greek god Dionysus

228 

Perek X . 104a . ‫ףד‬

‫דק‬. ‫׳י קרפ‬

‫ ַה ַּמ ְבדִּ יל‬:‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵל וִ י‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ‫ֹאמר ֵמ ֵעין ַה ְבדָּ לֹות ָה ֲאמוּרֹות‬ ַ ‫יך ׁ ֶשּי‬ ְ ‫צָ ִר‬ ?‫יא ְך‬ ַ ‫ ֵס ֶדר ַה ְבדָּ לֹות ֵה‬:‫ית ִיבי‬ ִ ‫ ֵמ‬.‫ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה‬ ‫ ֵ ּבין‬,‫קֹוד ׁש ְלחֹול‬ ֶ ‫״ה ַּמ ְבדִּ יל ֵ ּבין‬ ַ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ו ֵּבין‬,‫ ֵ ּבין יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ָל ַע ִּמים‬,‫חֹוש ְך‬ ֶ ׁ ‫אֹור ְל‬ ‫ ֵ ּבין‬,‫יעי ְל ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת יְ ֵמי ַה ַּמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬ ִ ‫יֹום ַה ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ ‫ ֵ ּבין ַמיִ ם‬,‫ ֵ ּבין ַהּיָ ם ֶל ָח ָר ָבה‬,‫ָט ֵמא ְל ָטהֹור‬ ‫ ֵ ּבין ּכ ֲֹהנִים‬,‫ָה ֶע ְליֹונִים ְל ַמיִ ם ַה ַּת ְח ּתֹונִים‬ .‫ִל ְלוִ ּיִ ם וְ יִ ְ ׂש ְר ֵא ִלים״‬

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who recites havdala must say distinctions similar to the distinctions stated explicitly in the Torah. One should not add other distinctions. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: How should one say the order of the distinctions in havdala? One recites: Who distinguishes between sacred and profane: Between light and darkness; between Israel and the nations; and between the seventh day and the six days of work; between the ritually impure and the ritually pure; between the sea and the dry land; between the upper waters above the firmament and the lower waters below the firmament; and between priests, Levites, and Israelites.n This is an extended version of havdala, which includes references to seven distinctions.

‫ וַ ֲא ֵח ִרים‬.‫אשית״‬ ִ ׁ ‫״ס ֶדר ְ ּב ֵר‬ ֵ ‫חֹותם ְ ּב‬ ֵ ְ‫ו‬ ‫יֹוסי ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫אשית״‬ ִ ׁ ‫אֹומ ִרים ְ ּב״יֹוצֵ ר ְ ּב ֵר‬ ְ .‫״מ ַקדֵּ ׁש יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״‬ ְ ‫חֹותם‬ ֵ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יְ הו ָּדה‬ ‫ ָלא‬,‫״בין ַהּיָ ם ֶל ָח ָר ָבה״‬ ּ ֵ ‫יתא – ָהא‬ ָ ‫וְ ִאם ִא‬ ‫יה ַה ְבדָּ ָלה! ְס ֵמי ִמ ָּכאן ֵ ּבין ַהּיָ ם‬ ּ ‫ְּכ ִת ָיבא ֵ ּב‬ .‫ֶל ָח ָר ָבה‬

The baraita continues: And one concludes the blessing with the order of Creation: Blessed is He Who arranges the order of Creation, or: Who orders Creation. And others say that one concludes with: Who fashions Creation. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says that one concludes with the phrase: Who sanctifies Israel. The Gemara explains its objection: And if what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said is so, the distinction between the sea and the dry land should not be mentioned, as the term distinction is not written with regard to this issue. The Gemara answers: Remove from here the distinction between the sea and the dry land.

‫יעי ְל ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת יְ ֵמי‬ ִ ‫״בין יֹום ַה ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ ּ ֵ ,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬The Gemara asks: If so, the distinction between the seventh day and ‫ ָ ּבצַ ר‬,‫ימה הוּא‬ ָ ‫ ַה ַּמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה״ נַ ִמי ֵמ ֵעין ֲח ִת‬the six days of work should also not be counted in the tally of the !‫יכא ׁ ֶש ַבע‬ ָּ ‫ ֲח ָדא וְ ֵל‬distinctions, as it is mentioned only to repeat something similar to the conclusion. Consequently, this text of havdala lacks one more distinction, and this means that there are not seven distinctions in total. ‫ ּכ ֲֹהנִים ְלוִ ּיִ ם וְ יִ ְ ׂש ְר ֵא ִלים ְּת ֵרי ִמ ֵּילי‬:‫ָא ְמ ִרי‬ :‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫״בין ְלוִ ּיִ ם ְליִ ְ ׂש ְר ֵא ִלים״‬ ּ ֵ .ּ‫נִינְ הו‬ .‫״ב ֵעת ַה ִהיא ִה ְבדִּ יל ה׳ ֶאת ׁ ֵש ֶבט ַה ֵּלוִ י״‬ ָּ ‫״בנֵי ַע ְמ ָרם‬ ּ ְ :‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫״בין ַה ּכ ֲֹהנִים ַל ְּלוִ ּיִ ם״‬ ֵּ ‫ּיִב ֵדל ַא ֲהרֹן ְל ַה ְקדִּ ׁישֹו ק ֶֹד ׁש‬ ּ ָ ַ‫ַא ֲהרֹן ּומ ׁ ֶֹשה ו‬ .‫ָק ָד ׁ ִשים״‬

They say in answer to this question: The distinction between priests, Levites, and Israelites is two matters, i.e., it counts as two separate distinctions. One distinction is between Levites and Israelites, as it is written: “At that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi to bear the Ark of the covenant of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 10:8). A further distinction is that between the priests and the Levites, as it is written: “The sons of Amram: Aaron and Moses; and Aaron was separated, that he should be sanctified as most holy, he and his sons forever” (I Chronicles 23:13).

‫״מ ַקדֵּ ׁש‬ ְ :‫ִמ ֲח ַתם ַמאי ָח ֵתים? ַרב ָא ַמר‬ ‫״ה ַּמ ְבדִּ יל ֵ ּבין‬ ַ :‫ ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר‬,‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״‬ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ית‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ִא‬,‫ ָליֵ יט ֲע ָל ּה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬.‫קֹוד ׁש ְלחֹול״‬ ֶ .‫ ַא ָהא דְּ ַרב‬,‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ַרב‬

The Gemara asks: What formula should be used to conclude the blessing of havdala? Rav said the blessing should conclude with the phrase: Who sanctifies Israel. And Shmuel said the concluding phrase is: Who distinguishes between sacred and profane.h The Gemara adds that Abaye, and some say it was Rav Yosef, cursed it,n i.e., he would become angry at one who concluded the blessing in accordance with that opinion of Rav.

notes

The number of distinctions – ‫מנְיַ ן ַה ְבדָּ לֹות‬:ִ The commentaries question why the Gemara does not include another distinction explicitly mentioned in the Torah: “And the curtain shall divide for you between the holy place and the most holy” (Exodus 26:33). They answer that unlike the others, this distinction does not refer to an act of God, but to the curtain hung in the Temple. In addition, the other distinctions mentioned are timeless, in contrast to the curtain of the Temple (Ben Yehoyada). Another answer is that the statement: Who distinguishes between sacred and sacred, which is recited when a Festival occurs after Shabbat, is actually based on this verse, which distinguishes between different levels of sanctity (Me’iri). Abaye…cursed it – ‫ליֵ יט ֲע ָל ּה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬:ָ This statement is surprising. Even if Abaye disagreed with the opinion of Rav, why did he curse those who acted in accordance with Rav? Some commentaries explain that at that time there were groups of heretics and Christians who had started to observe Sunday as a sacred day. The expression: Who sanctifies Israel, which is reminiscent of the formula used for kiddush, might appear to reinforce these beliefs. Therefore, its recital angered Abaye. By contrast, the formula: Who distinguishes between sacred and profane, emphasizes that Sunday is a regular day (Rabbi Elazar Moshe Horowitz). halakha

The conclusion of havdala – ‫ימת ַה ַה ְבדָּ ָלה‬ ַ ‫ח ִת‬:ֲ The proper formula with which to conclude havdala is: Who distinguishes between sacred and profane (Tur, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 299).

‫ ָּכל‬:‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֲחנַ נְיָא‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ּ ‫ ָּת ָּנא ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬It was taught in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ĥananya: Anyone ‫״מ ַקדֵּ ׁש יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל וְ ַה ַּמ ְבדִּ יל ֵ ּבין‬ ְ ‫חֹותם‬ ֵ ‫ ַה‬who concludes the havdala blessing with the combined formula: Who sanctifies Israel and distinguishes between sacred and profane, God .‫נֹותיו‬ ָ ‫קֹוד ׁש ְלחֹול״ – ַמ ֲא ִר ִיכין לֹו יָ ָמיו ו ׁ ְּש‬ ֶ will lengthen his days and years.

Perek X Daf 104 Amud b .‫יה‬ ֵ ָ‫ וְ ֵלית ִה ְל ְכ ָתא ְּכו‬However, the Gemara states: And the halakha is not in accordance ּ ‫ות‬ with that opinion. Instead, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. ‫יה ַרב‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬,‫עו ָּּלא ִא ְיק ַלע ְלפו ְּמ ַ ּבדִּ ָיתא‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ זִ יל ַא ְמ ֵטי ֵל‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫יְ הו ָּדה ְל ַרב יִ צְ ָחק ְ ּב ֵר‬ ,‫ ָלא ֲאזַ ל‬.‫ וַ ֲחזֵ י ֵה ִיכי ַא ְבדִּ יל‬,‫ַּכ ְל ָּכ ָלה דְּ ֵפ ֵירי‬ :‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל ּיה‬,‫ ִּכי ֲא ָתא ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬.‫ׁ ְש ַדר ֵל ּיה ְל ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ‫״ברוּךְ ַה ַּמ ְבדִּ יל ֵ ּבין‬ ּ ָ :‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵה ִיכי ֲא ַמר? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ .‫ וְ ת ּו ָלא‬,‫קֹוד ׁש ְלחֹול״ ֲא ַמר‬ ֶ



The Gemara relates: Ulla happened to come to Pumbedita. Rav Yehuda said to his son, Rav Yitzĥak: Go and bring him a basket of fruit as a gift, and while you are there, observe how he recites havdala.n Rav Yitzĥak himself did not go. In his place, he sent to him Abaye, who was a young student at the time. When Abaye came back, Rav Yitzĥak said to him: How did Ulla recite the blessing of havdala? Abaye said to him that Ulla said: Blessed is the He Who distinguishes between sacred and profane, but he did not say anything further.

notes

Observe how he recites havdala – ‫יכי ַא ְבדִּ יל‬ ִ ‫חזֵ י ֵה‬:ֲ Some commentaries explain that Rabbi Yehuda sent the basket of fruit because Ulla would have to recite havdala before he could taste them, which would enable Rabbi Yitzĥak to hear his recitation. Everyone agrees that one who recites the formula: Blessed is He Who distinguishes between sacred and profane, is immediately permitted to perform any of the primary categories of labor. However, not all authorities concur that one who recites this formula is permitted to eat. Rabbi Yehuda sent Ulla the basket of fruit to clarify this issue (Maharam Ĥalawa). ‫דק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 104b 

229

notes

The Master’s haughtiness – ‫יה דְּ ָמר‬ ּ ‫ר ְב ְר ָבנו ֵּת‬:ַ This statement and Rabbi Yehuda’s repeated use of the title Master was intended to mock Rav Yitzĥak. Rabbi Yehuda would not have called his son Master in a serious manner. Evidently, he did so to emphasize his son’s haughtiness. That the halakha will not be said in his name – ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫דְּ ָלא ֵּת‬ ‫יה‬ ְ ׁ This statement can be explained in light of ּ ‫יה ִמ ּפו ֵּמ‬ ּ ‫ש ַמ ֲע ֵת‬: the method of learning common in that period. Since the Oral Law was still transmitted by word of mouth, students would receive traditions from Sages who had themselves received them from their own teachers. When a Sage introduced a tradition to the study hall, it would thereafter be stated in his name. By failing to go to Ulla himself, Rav Yitzĥak, son of Rav Yehuda, lost the opportunity to have this halakha reported in study halls in his name. The formula of blessings – ‫נֻסחֹות ַה ְ ּב ָרכֹות‬: ְ The general rule is that short blessings only begin with the phrase: Blessed are You, whereas lengthy blessings both begin and end with this phrase. With regard to a series of consecutive blessings, they only conclude with the formula: Blessed are You. Although there are numerous exceptions to this principle, the fundamental rule is generally followed. See Tosafot, who address these exceptions in great detail. Notwithstanding the above, some blessings have undergone changes in their structure. Certain blessings are now recited consecutively, e.g., the morning blessings, whereas other blessings that were once recited consecutively have since been separated. Other blessings were lengthened to emphasize a particular point. Nevertheless, the original formulation of the blessing is generally maintained.

:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫יה דַּ ֲאבו ּּה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ָתא ְל ַק ֵּמ‬ ‫ ֲאנָ א ָלא‬:‫יה‬ ִ ‫ֵה‬ ּ ‫יכי ֲא ַמר? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ וַ ֲא ַמר‬,‫יה ְל ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ֵ ‫ ֲאנָ א ׁ ְש ַד ִר‬,‫ֲאזַ ִלי‬ ּ ‫ית‬ ‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫קֹוד ׁש ְלחֹול״‬ ֶ ‫״ה ַּמ ְבדִּ יל ֵ ּבין‬ ַ :‫ִלי‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ו ְּס ָררו ֵּת‬,‫יה דְּ ָמר‬ ּ ‫ ַר ְב ְר ָבנו ֵּת‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יה ְל ָמר דְּ ָלא ֵּת‬ ּ ‫דְּ ָמר ָ ּג ְר ָמא ֵל‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ִמ ּפו ֵּמ‬ ּ ‫ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ֵת‬

Rav Yitzĥak came before his father, Rav Yehuda, who said to him: How did Ulla recite havdala? He said to him: I myself did not go. Instead, I sent Abaye, who said to me that Ulla recited: Who distinguishes between sacred and profane. Rav Yehuda grew angry and said to him: The Master’s haughtinessn and the Master’s pride caused the Master to act in a way that ensured that the halakha will not be said in his name.n In other words, had you gone yourself, this halakha would have been attributed to you, but due to your haughtiness and pride, it will be transmitted in the name of Abaye.

‫ֹות ַח‬ ֵ ‫ ָּכל ַה ְ ּב ָרכֹות ּכו ָּּלן ּפ‬:‫יבי‬ ִ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫ֵמ‬ ‫ ח ּוץ‬,‫חֹותם ָ ּב ֶהן ְ ּב ָברו ְּך‬ ֵ ְ‫ְ ּב ָברו ְּך ו‬ ,‫ ו ִּב ְר ַּכת ַה ּ ֵפירֹות‬,‫ִמ ִ ּב ְר ַּכת ִמצְ וֹת‬ ‫ ו ְּב ָר ָכה‬,‫ו ְּב ָר ָכה ַה ְּסמו ָּכה ַל ֲח ֶב ְיר ָּת ּה‬ .‫ַא ֲחרֹונָ ה ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ְק ִרּיַ ת ׁ ְש ַמע‬

The Gemara raises an objection to Ulla’s practice from a baraita: With regard to all blessings, one begins their recitation with: Blessed, and concludes reciting them with: Blessed, except for blessings over mitzvot, blessings over fruit, a blessing that is juxtaposed to another blessing in the order of prayer, e.g., during the Amida prayer, and the final blessing after Shema.

‫(ב ֶהן) ְ ּב ָברוּךְ וְ ֵאין‬ ּ ָ ‫ֹות ַח‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ֵמ ֶהן ּפ‬ ‫חֹותם‬ ֵ ‫ וְ יֵ ׁש ֵמ ֶהן ׁ ֶש‬,‫חֹותם ְ ּב ָברו ְּך‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ַה ּטֹוב‬.‫ֹות ַח ְ ּב ָברו ְּך‬ ֵ ‫ְ ּב ָברו ְּך וְ ֵאין ּפ‬ ‫חֹותם‬ ֵ ‫ֹות ַח ְ ּב ָברוּךְ וְ ֵאינֹו‬ ֵ ‫וְ ַה ֵּמ ִטיב ּפ‬ . ְ‫ְ ּב ָברוּך‬

The baraita elaborates: These blessings are different, as some of them begin with: Blessed, and do not conclude with: Blessed, e.g., blessings over mitzvot and before eating, and some of them conclude with: Blessed, and do not begin with: Blessed, such as a blessing that is juxtaposed to another blessing.nh And the blessing: He Who is good and does good, is exceptional, as it is a blessing that is juxtaposed to another blessing, and yet it begins with: Blessed, and does not conclude with: Blessed.

halakha

The formula of blessings – ‫נֻ ְסחֹות ַה ְ ּב ָרכֹות‬: All blessings have set formulations from the period of the members of the Great Assembly. They all begin and end with the phrase: Blessed are You, with certain exceptions, e.g., blessings recited before the performance of mitzvot, the blessing of the Torah (Kesef Mishne), and the blessings recited before

eating, which begin with the phrase: Blessed are You, but do not conclude with this phrase. Furthermore, blessings that are juxtaposed to another blessing and the final blessing after Shema conclude with but do not begin with the phrase: Blessed are You (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Berakhot 11:1).

Perek X Daf 105 Amud a notes

Shabbat establishes itself – ‫ש ְ ּב ָתא ָק ְב ָעה נַ ְפ ׁ ָש ּה‬: ַ ׁ There are several explanations of this passage. Some commentaries explain that Rav Ĥananya bar Shelemya and the other scholars sent Rav Hamnuna the Elder to check if the sun had set. He explained to them that the determining factor is not sunset but the emergence of stars, and until that time one need not interrupt his meal (Rabbi Zeraĥya HaLevi). Others maintain that they wanted to see if stars had already emerged, and Rav Hamnuna the Elder explained that the sanctity of Shabbat begins at sunset, even if they did not originally intend to recite kiddush at that time (Rif ).

:‫ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ְלעו ָּּלא! ָא ַמר ְלךָ עו ָּּלא‬ .‫ָהא נַ ִמי ְּכ ִב ְר ַּכת ַה ִּמצְ וֹת דָּ ְמיָ א‬ ‫ִ ּב ְר ַּכת ַה ִּמצְ �ֹות ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ ‫הֹוד ָאה‬ ָ – ‫ ָהא נַ ִמי‬,‫הֹוד ָאה ִהיא‬ ָ ְּ‫ד‬ .‫ִהיא‬

This is difficult for the opinion of Ulla, who began but did not conclude the blessing of havdala with: Blessed. The Gemara answers: Ulla could have said to you: This blessing is also considered like a blessing over mitzvot, and therefore it does not require a separate conclusion. The Gemara clarifies this response: What is the reason that blessings over mitzvot do not require a distinctive conclusion? It is because a blessing over a mitzva is a statement of praise, and as it does not include anything unrelated to the praise, e.g., a request or supplication, it is unnecessary to add a separate concluding blessing. This havdala blessing also is comprised only of praise.

‫ַרב ֲחנַ נְיָא ַ ּבר ׁ ֶש ֶל ְמיָ א וְ ַת ְל ִמ ֵידי דְּ ַרב‬ ‫ וְ ָק ֵאי ֲע ַליְ יה ּו‬,‫ָהו ּו יָ ְת ִבי ִ ּב ְסעוּדָּ ָתא‬ ‫ זִ יל ֲחזִ י‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ּו ֵל‬.‫ַרב ַה ְמנוּנָ א ָס ָבא‬ ‫יה‬ ְ ְ‫ ו‬,‫יֹומא נַ ְפ ִסיק‬ ָ ‫ִאי ִמ ְקדִּ ׁיש‬ ּ ‫נִיק ְ ּב ֵע‬ ,ּ‫יכיתו‬ ִ ‫ ָלא צְ ִר‬:ּ‫ ֲא ַמר ְלהו‬.‫ְל ׁ ַש ְ ּב ָתא‬ .‫ׁ ַש ְ ּב ָתא ָק ְב ָעה נַ ְפ ׁ ָש ּה‬

The Gemara relates that Rav Ĥananya bar Shelemya and other students of Rav were sitting at a meal on Shabbat eve shortly before nightfall, and Rav Hamnuna the Elder was standing over them to serve them. They said to him: Go and see if the day of Shabbat has become sanctified through nightfall. If so, we will interrupt our meal by removing the tables and establish its continuation as the meal for Shabbat. Rav Hamnuna the Elder said to them: You do not need to do this, as Shabbat establishes itself.nh Whatever you eat after nightfall is automatically considered a Shabbat meal, even without any specific action that designates it as such.

halakha

Shabbat establishes itself – ‫ש ְ ּב ָתא ָק ְב ָעה נַ ְפ ׁ ָש ּה‬: ַ ׁ With regard to people who started a meal before Shabbat, they need not completely disrupt their meal when Shabbat begins. It is sufficient for them to spread a cloth over the food and to recite kiddush (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 271:4).

230 

Perek X . 105a . ‫ףד‬

‫הק‬. ‫׳י קרפ‬

‫קֹוב ַעת‬ ַ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵשם ׁ ֶש ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב‬Rav Hamnuna the Elder explained his ruling. As Rav said: Just as .‫קֹוב ַעת ְל ִקידּ ו ּׁש‬ ַ ‫ ְל ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר – ָּכךְ ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬Shabbat establishes food consumption as a regular, set meal with regard to tithes,n so Shabbat establishes the requirement to recite kiddush. Generally, one may eat untithed produce in a casual, incidental manner. On Shabbat, however, the strictures of a regular, set meal apply even to casual eating. Consequently, on Shabbat it is entirely prohibited to eat produce from which the appropriate dues and tithes have not yet been separated. Similarly, Shabbat automatically initiates the requirement to recite kiddush, and it is prohibited to eat until one does so. This halakha indicates that whatever one eats at this stage is considered part of his Shabbat meal, even if he does not remove the table and bring it back. – ‫יכי דְּ ָק ְב ָעה ְל ִקידּ ו ּׁש‬ ִ ‫ ִּכי ֵה‬:‫ָסבוּר ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ ,‫ ֲא ַמר ְלה ּו ַרב ַע ְמ ָרם‬.‫ָּכךְ ָק ְב ָעה ְל ַה ְבדָּ ָלה‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא‬,‫קֹוב ַעת‬ ַ ‫ ְל ִקידּ ּו ׁש‬:‫ָה ִכי ֲא ַמר ַרב‬ .‫קֹוב ַעת‬ ַ ‫ְל ַה ְבדָּ ָלה‬

,‫ דְּ ָלא ַמ ְפ ְס ִקינַן‬,‫וְ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי – ְל ִענְיַ ן ִמ ְיפ ַסק‬ ‫ ו ִּמ ְיפ ַסק‬.‫ֲא ָבל ַא ְתחו ֵּלי – ָלא ַמ ְת ִח ִּלינַן‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ילה‬ ָ ‫נַ ִמי ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא ַ ּב ֲא ִכ‬ .‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִתיָ ה – ל ֹא‬

They understood from it that just as the start of Shabbat automatically establishes the requirement to recite kiddush, so its conclusion establishes the requirement to recite havdala. This would mean that one must interrupt his meal to recite havdala, and whatever he eats after that would not be considered part of his Shabbat meal. Rav Amram said to them: This is what Rav said: Shabbat establishes an obligation to recite kiddush, but it does not establish an obligation to recite havdala.h The Gemara comments: And this applies only with regard to the matter of interrupting a meal that one has begun before the conclusion of Shabbat, that one does not have to interrupt to recite havdala. However, one may not begin a meal after nightfall until after reciting havdala. The Gemara adds: And with regard to interrupting also, we only said that one need not interrupt his eating; but with regard to drinking, which is considered less significant, no,n one must interrupt his drinking upon nightfall, even if he began drinking before the conclusion of Shabbat.

‫ ּו ׁ ְש ִתּיָ ה נַ ִמי ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ַח ְמ ָרא‬And with regard to drinking also, we only said it is prohibited to n .‫ ֲא ָבל ַמּיָ א – ֵלית ָלן ָ ּב ּה‬,‫יכ ָרא‬ ְ ‫ וְ ׁ ִש‬drink after nightfall before havdala with regard to wine and beer, which are significant beverages; but with regard to water, we have no problem with it. One may begin drinking water even after Shabbat has concluded and before he has recited havdala. ‫יה‬ ּ ֵ‫ דְּ ַרב הוּנָ א ַחזְ י‬.‫ו ְּפ ִליגָ א דְּ ַרב הוּנָ א‬ .‫קֹודם ַה ְבדָּ ָלה‬ ֶ ‫ְל ַההוּא ַ ּג ְב ָרא דְּ ׁ ָש ָתה ַמּיָא‬ ?‫יס ַּת ּ ֵפי ָמר ֵמ ַא ְס ָּכ ָרה‬ ְ ‫ ָלא ִמ‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ֹועם‬ ֵ ‫ ָּכל ַה ּט‬:‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ ּ ‫דְּ ָתנָ א ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬ .‫יתתֹו ְ ּב ַא ְס ָּכ ָרה‬ ָ ‫קֹודם ׁ ֶשּיַ ְבדִּ יל – ִמ‬ ֵ ‫ְּכלוּם‬ .‫ַר ָ ּבנַן דְּ ֵבי ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ָלא ָק ְפ ִדי ַא ַּמּיָ א‬

The Gemara points out that this last statement disagrees with the opinion of Rav Huna. As Rav Huna saw a certain man drinking water before he recited havdala at the conclusion of Shabbat. He said to him: Is the Master not afraid of the ailment called askara? As it was taught in the name of Rabbi Akiva that whoever tastes anything before he recites havdala, his death will come through askara.n Nevertheless, the Gemara notes that the Sages of the school of Rav Ashi were not particular with regard to water. They refrained only from drinking more significant beverages before havdala.

:‫ֵיה ָר ִבינָ א ֵמ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק‬ ּ ‫ְ ּב ָעא ִמ ּינ‬ ‫ִמי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִקידֵּ ׁש ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ַמה ּו ׁ ֶשּיְ ַקדֵּ ׁש‬ ‫ ִמדְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬:‫יה‬ ֵ ְ‫ו‬ ּ ‫הֹולךְ ָּכל ַהּיֹום ּכוּלּ ֹו? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ ִמי ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִה ְבדִּ יל ְ ּבמֹוצָ ֵאי‬:‫ְ ּבנֵי ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא‬ ,‫הֹולךְ ָּכל ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ּכוּלּ ֹו‬ ֵ ְ‫ׁ ַש ָ ּבת – ַמ ְבדִּ יל ו‬ – ‫ ִמי ׁ ֶשל ֹא ִקידֵּ ׁש ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬:‫ָה ָכא נַ ִמי‬ .‫הֹול ְך ָּכל ַהּיֹום ּכוּלּ ֹו‬ ֵ ְ‫ְמ ַקדֵּ ׁש ו‬

Ravina raised a dilemma before Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak: With regard to one who did not recite kiddush on Shabbat eve,h i.e., on the night of Shabbat, what is the halakha with regard to his ability to recite kiddush at any time over the course of the entire day? May one recite kiddush later, or has he lost his opportunity by failing to recite kiddush at the proper time? Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said to him: From the fact that the sons of Rabbi Ĥiyya say that one who did not recite havdala at the conclusion of Shabbat may recite havdala any time over the course of the entire week, it can be inferred that here too, one who did not recite kiddush on Shabbat eve may recite kiddush at any time over the course of the entire day.

‫ ֵל ֵילי ׁ ַש ָ ּבת וְ ֵל ֵילי יֹום טֹוב – יֵ ׁש‬:‫יה‬ ִ ‫ֵא‬ ּ ‫ית ֵיב‬ ‫ וְ יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן ַהזְ ָּכ ָרה‬,‫ָ ּב ֶהן ְקדו ׁ ּ ָּשה ַעל ַה ּכֹוס‬ ‫ ׁ ַש ָ ּבת וְ יֹום טֹוב – ֵאין‬.‫ְ ּב ִב ְר ַּכת ַה ָּמזֹון‬ ‫ וְ יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן ַהזְ ָּכ ָרה‬,‫ָ ּב ֶהם ְקדו ׁ ּ ָּשה ַעל ַה ּכֹוס‬ .‫ְ ּב ִב ְר ַּכת ַה ָּמזֹון‬

Ravina raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak from the Tosefta: On the nights of Shabbat and the nights of a Festival there is a mitzva of kiddush over a cup. And there is a requirement to mention the sanctity of the day in Grace after Meals, i.e., the paragraph: May it please [retzei], on Shabbat and: May there rise and come [ya’aleh veyavo], on Festivals. On the day of Shabbat and Festivals, there is no mitzva of kiddush over a cup, but there is a requirement to mention the sanctity of the day in Grace after Meals.



notes

Establishing food consumption as a set meal with regard to tithes – ‫יעה ְל ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬ ָ ‫ק ִב‬:ְ There is an obligation to separate teruma and tithes from agricultural products before they are consumed. Prior to separating teruma and tithes, the crops are untithed and may not be eaten. However, the obligation to separate teruma and tithes applies only when all the work to be performed on those crops, including harvesting and ingathering, has been completed. In addition, the obligation applies only to crops that have been brought into a courtyard or a storehouse via a proper entrance. Furthermore, the obligation of tithes includes only food that will be eaten in the house as part of a set meal, whereas casual consumption does not require the separation of teruma and tithes. Notwithstanding the above, any food eaten on Shabbat, even in a casual manner, attains the status of food used for a set meal and must be tithed before it is consumed. The same is true for food set aside for use on Shabbat. With regard to drinking, no – ‫ב ׁ ְש ִתיָה ל ֹא‬:ּ ִ Some commentaries assert that drinking is prohibited even within the context of a meal. Although one is not required to interrupt the significant activity of a meal, one may not sip from his drink (Maor; Me’iri). Drinking wine and beer – ‫ש ִתּיַ ת יַ יִ ן וְ ׁ ֵש ָכר‬: ְ ׁ Several authorities explain that wine and beer may not be consumed before havdala due to the fact that havdala may be recited over these beverages. In other words, the Sages prohibited drinking these beverages prior to using one of them for havdala (Me’iri; Nimmukei Yosef; Rabbeinu Yehonatan). His death will come through askara – ‫מ ָיתתֹו ְ ּב ַא ְס ָּכ ָרה‬:ִ Tosafot explain that this ailment is a punishment for eating in a prohibited manner. Other commentaries note that the curse of askara came into existence when the sun, moon, and stars were created, as indicated elsewhere in the Gemara. At the conclusion of Shabbat, when fire was initially created, there is a greater danger of contracting askara, and therefore one should fast until after he has recited the blessing over fire during havdala (Maharsha). halakha

It does not establish an obligation to recite havdala – ‫קֹוב ַעת‬ ַ ‫ל ֹא ְל ַה ְבדָּ ָלה‬: Once it becomes dark at the conclusion of Shabbat, one may not begin to eat or drink anything other than water before reciting havdala. If one already began a meal during the day, he is not required to interrupt his meal. However, if one was merely drinking, he must stop until after havdala. Based upon the opinion of the Rif, some authorities state that if nightfall has definitely arrived, one must even interrupt a meal to recite havdala. However, the accepted practice is in accordance with the first opinion (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 299:1, and in the comment of the Rema). One who did not recite kiddush on Shabbat eve – ‫ִמי‬ ‫שלּ ֹא ִקידֵּ ׁש ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬: ֶ ׁ One who failed to recite kiddush on Shabbat eve may do so during the day. He recites the entire formula of the kiddush at night, except for the paragraph that starts with: Then the heavens and the earth were completed (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 271:8, and in the comment of the Rema).

‫הק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 105a 

231

notes

The tanna does not teach what if – ‫דְּ ִאי ָלא ָק ָתנֵי‬: Rashi explains that halakhot are formulated based upon common situations, not unusual circumstances. When the mishna establishes general principles or discusses widely relevant halakhot, it does not take rare cases into account.

‫ ִמי ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִקידֵּ ׁש‬:‫וְ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָת ְך‬ ‫הֹולךְ ָּכל ַהּיֹום‬ ֵ ְ‫ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת – ְמ ַקדֵּ ׁש ו‬ ,ּ‫ ׁ ַש ָ ּבת וְ יֹום טֹוב נַ ִמי ַמ ׁ ְש ְּכ ַח ְּת ְלהו‬,‫ּכוּלּ ֹו‬ ‫ דְּ ִאי ל ֹא‬,‫דְּ יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן ְקדו ׁ ּ ָּשה ַעל ַה ּכֹוס‬ ‫אֹור ָתא – ְמ ַקדֵּ ׁש ְל ָמ ָחר! ֲא ַמר‬ ְ ‫ִקידֵּ ׁש ֵמ‬ .‫ ״דְּ ִאי״ ָלא ָק ָתנֵי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬

halakha

The honor of the day and the honor of the night – ‫כבֹוד יֹום ו ְּכבֹוד ַליְ ָלה‬:ְּ The honor of the day of Shabbat is greater than the honor of its night. Therefore, if one does not have enough food for both meals, he should leave the better food for the daytime meal. Nevertheless, obtaining wine for kiddush at night takes precedence over both the wine and the meal of the day (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 271:3).

Ravina explains his objection: And if it could enter your mind to say that one who did not recite kiddush on Shabbat eve may recite kid­ dush any time over the course of the entire day, on Shabbat and a Festival too, it can be found that there is a mitzva of kiddush over a cup, for if one did not recite kiddush at night he may recite kiddush the following day. Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said to him: The tanna does not teach cases of what if.n In other words, the tanna does not take into consideration the uncommon circumstance of one who failed to recite kiddush on the night of Shabbat.

– ‫ ְּכבֹוד יֹום ו ְּכבֹוד ַליְ ָלה‬:‫יה‬ ֵ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫ ֵא‬Ravina raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak ּ ‫יב‬ ‫ וְ ִאם ֵאין לֹו ֶא ָּלא ּכֹוס‬,‫קֹודם‬ ֶ ‫ ְּכבֹוד יֹום‬from another source: If there is a choice between the honor of the day h ‫אֹומר ָע ָליו‬ ֵ – ‫ ֶא ָחד‬of Shabbat and the honor of the night, the honor of the day takes precedence. And if one has only one cup, he should recite over it

Perek X Daf 105 Amud b notes

The honor of the day and sanctification of the day – ‫כבֹוד ַהיֹום וְ ִקידּ ו ּׁש ַהּיֹום‬:ְ The mitzva to honor Shabbat is rabbinic in origin, similar to the mitzva to enjoy Shabbat. These mitzvot are based on the verse: “And call Shabbat a delight, and the holy of the Lord honorable” (Isaiah 58:13). Conversely, the sanctification of Shabbat, kiddush, is a positive mitzva from the Torah, as it is included in the mitzva: “Remember the Shabbat day to sanctify it” (Exodus 20:8). Kiddush is best performed at the start of Shabbat, just as the court would sanctify months and years at their beginning. As a Torah mitzva, it takes precedence over the mitzva to honor Shabbat, which is derived from the Prophets, not the Torah itself. An important individual – ‫יְ ִח ָיד ָאה‬: This term, which appears in both the Mishna and the Gemara, refers to individuals of elevated spiritual status. These people were primarily Sages who did not hold official, communal positions. Nevertheless, they conducted themselves with rare piety and accepted upon themselves various stringencies, e.g., additional fast days.

‫ִקידּ ּו ׁש ַהּיֹום – ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ִּקידּ ּו ׁש ַהּיֹום‬ ‫ וְ ִאם‬.)‫קֹודם ִל ְכבֹוד יֹום (ו ְּכבֹוד ַליְ ָלה‬ ֶ ‫יע ֵביד‬ ֲ ‫ וְ ִל‬,‫יה ַעד ְל ָמ ָחר‬ ְ ׁ ‫ִא ָיתא – ִל‬ ּ ‫יש ְ ּב ֵק‬ ‫ ֲח ִב ָיבה ִמצְ וָ ה‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ַּת ְר ֵּתי! ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ּ ‫ֵ ּב‬ .‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָע ָת ּה‬

the sanctification of the day, i.e., kiddush at night, at the beginning of Shabbat, because the sanctification of the day takes precedence over the honor of the dayn and the honor of the night. And if it is so, that one who fails to recite kiddush at night may do so at any time during the day, let him leave over the cup of wine until the following day and use it for two mitzvot, as he can recite kiddush during the day and simultaneously honor the Shabbat day by drinking wine. Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said to him: A mitzva is beloved in its proper time.

?‫ו ִּמי ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן ֲח ִב ָיבה ִמצְ וָ ה ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָע ָת ּה‬ ‫ ַה ִּנ ְכנָ ס ְל ֵביתֹו ְ ּבמֹוצָ ֵאי‬:‫וְ ָהא ַּתנְ יָ א‬ ,‫ וְ ַעל ַה ָּמאֹור‬,‫ׁ ַש ָ ּבת – ְמ ָב ֵר ְך ַעל ַהּיַ יִ ן‬ ‫אֹומר ַה ְבדָּ ָלה‬ ֵ ְ‫ וְ ַא ַחר ָּכך‬,‫וְ ַעל ַה ְ ּב ָ ׂש ִמים‬ – ‫ וְ ִאם ֵאין לֹו ֶא ָּלא ּכֹוס ֶא ָחד‬.‫ַעל ַה ּכֹוס‬ ‫ ו ְּמ ׁ ַש ְל ׁ ְש ָלן ּכו ָּּלן‬,‫ַמ ּנִיחֹו ַעד ְל ַא ַחר ַה ָּמזֹון‬ ‫ וְ ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן ֲח ִב ָיבה ִמצְ וָ ה‬.‫ְל ַא ֲח ָריו‬ !‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָע ָת ּה‬

Ravina objected to this answer: And do we say that a mitzva is beloved in its proper time? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One who enters his home at the conclusion of Shabbat recites the blessing over the wine, and then over the light, and then over the spices, and recites havdala thereafter over the cup of wine. And if he has only one cuph of wine, he leaves it for after he eats his food, and uses it for Grace after Meals, and arranges all of the other blessings together thereafter. This baraita indicates that we do not say that a mitzva is beloved in its proper time, as one does not have to recite havdala immediately, i.e., before partaking of his meal.

‫ וְ ָלא‬,‫ימ ָאה ֲאנָ א‬ ָ ‫ ֲאנָ א ָלא ַח ִּכ‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ּ ‫ ֶא ָלא‬,‫ וְ ָלא יְ ִח ָיד ָאה ֲאנָ א‬,‫חֹוזָ ָאה ֲאנָ א‬ ‫מֹורין ְ ּב ֵבי‬ ִ ‫ וְ ֵכן‬,‫ְ ּג ַמ ְרנָ א וְ ַסדַּ ְרנָ א ֲאנָ א‬ ‫ּיֹולי‬ ֵ ‫ותי – ׁ ָשאנֵי ָלן ֵ ּבין ַע‬ ִ ָ‫ִמ ְד ְר ׁ ָשא ְּכו‬ ‫יֹומא – ָּכל‬ ָ ‫ּיֹולי‬ ֵ ‫ ַע‬.‫יֹומא‬ ָ ‫יֹומא ְל ַא ּפ ֵֹוקי‬ ָ ‫ ו ְּמ ַח ְ ּב ִבינַן‬,‫יה ֲע ִדיף‬ ּ ‫ַּכ ָּמה דְּ ַמ ְקדְּ ִמינַן ֵל‬ ‫ ִּכי‬,‫יה‬ ָ ‫ ַא ּפ ֵֹוקי‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫יֹומא – ְמ ַא ֲח ִרינַן ֵל‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ .‫יהוֵ י ֲע ַלן ְּכטוּנָ א‬ ֱ ‫יכי דְּ ָלא ֶל‬ ִ ‫ֵה‬

He said to him: I am neither a scholar, nor a speculator, nor an important individual;n rather, I teach and systematically arrange halakhic rulings, and the scholars instruct the students in the study hall in accordance with my opinion. I maintain that there is a difference for us between the arrival of the day of Shabbat and the departure of the day. With regard to the arrival of the day, the sooner we welcome the day by reciting kiddush the better, and we thereby express how beloved it is to us. With regard to the conclusion of the day, we delay it so that Shabbat will not appear to be like a burden to us.

‫נִיתא ַּת ְמנֵי; ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ִ ‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה ִמ ָיהא ַמ ְת‬The Gemara points out that one may learn from this baraita eight ‫ ַה ַּמ ְבדִּ יל ַ ּב ְּת ִפ ָּלה צָ ִריךְ ׁ ֶשּיַ ְבדִּ יל‬:‫ ִמ ָּינ ּה‬halakhot. The Gemara elaborates: Learn from it that one who recites h .‫ ַעל ַה ּכֹוס‬havdala in the evening prayer must also recite havdala over a cup. The baraita states that one who comes home must recite the blessing over wine and havdala, despite the fact that he has presumably already recited havdala in the evening prayer service.

halakha

If he has only one cup – ‫אם ֵאין לֹו ֶא ָּלא ּכֹוס ַא ַחת‬: ִ One who has only one cup of wine at the conclusion of Shabbat should leave it for Grace after Meals. After reciting Grace after Meals, he uses the cup for havdala. If he is always particular to recite Grace after Meals over a cup of wine, he may sip from the cup before havdala (Magen Avraham; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 299:4).

232 

Perek X . 105b . ‫ףד‬

‫הק‬: ‫׳י קרפ‬

Havdala during prayer and over a cup – ‫ַה ְבדָּ ָלה ַ ּב ְּת ִפ ַילה וְ ַעל‬ ‫ה ּכֹוס‬:ַ One who recites havdala during the evening prayers must repeat it over a cup of wine. If one forgot to recite havdala during the evening prayers, he need not repeat the prayer, as he will recite havdala over a cup of wine (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 294:1).

.‫ ְ ּב ָר ָכה ְטע ּונָ ה ּכֹוס‬:‫ ּו ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬And learn from it that one who recites the blessing of Grace after h ‫יך‬ ְ ‫ ּכֹוס ׁ ֶשל ְ ּב ָר ָכה צָ ִר‬:‫ ּו ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬Meals requires a cup of wine. And learn from it that a cup of h .‫ ׁ ִשיעוּר‬blessing requires a minimum measure, for otherwise it would have been possible for one who has only one cup of wine to simply divide it into two, recite havdala immediately, and still have a cup of wine left over for Grace after Meals. .‫ ַה ְמ ָב ֵרךְ צָ ִריךְ ׁ ֶשּיִ ְטעֹום‬:‫ ו ׁ ְּש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬And learn from it that one who recites a blessing must tastehn the ‫ ּו ׁ ְש ַמע‬,‫ ְט ָעמֹו ּ ְפגָ מֹו‬:‫ ּו ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬food over which he recites the blessing. Otherwise, one who has .‫ ָט ַעם ַמ ְבדִּ יל‬:‫ ִמ ָּינ ּה‬only one cup of wine would be able to use it for both havdala and Grace after Meals. And learn from it that once he has tasted the wine in the cup he has disqualified ithn from further use as a cup of blessing. And learn from it that even if one has tasted food after Shabbat, he nevertheless recites havdala.hn

notes

One who recites a blessing must taste – ‫ה ְמ ָב ֵרךְ צָ ִריךְ ׁ ֶשּיִ ְטעֹום‬:ַ If one does not taste wine after reciting its blessing, it appears as though he is disgracing the mitzva by refusing to partake of the wine (Maharam Ĥalawa). Once he has tasted the wine he has disqualified it – ‫ְט ָעמֹו‬ ‫פגָ מֹו‬:ְ ּ After one has taken a sip from a cup of wine, it has been disqualified from further use as a cup of blessing. This halakha applies to the cup of wine for the recitation of Grace after Meals. One who wishes to drink from the cup again must repeat the regular the blessing before eating or drinking. The reason this cup may no longer be used for kiddush or other mitzvot is due to the principle derived from the verse: “Present it now to your

governor” (Malachi 1:8). Just as one would not give this cup to an important officer, it is likewise improper to use it for a mitzva (Maharam Ĥalawa). If one has tasted food he recites havdala – ‫ט ַעם ַמ ְבדִּ יל‬:ָ One can contend that the Gemara should have issued the more novel statement that one may eat after Shabbat before reciting havdala, ab initio. Apparently, the Gemara did not say this, because one can prove from the baraita only that it is permitted to eat before havdala when one requires the cup of wine for Grace after Meals. However, it can certainly be proven from the baraita that after eating one may recite havdala after the fact (Tosefot Rid ).

halakha

The blessing of Grace after Meals requires a cup – ‫ְ ּב ָר ָכה‬ ‫טעוּנָ ה ּכֹוס‬:ְ Some commentaries maintain that one always requires a cup for Grace after Meals, even when he recites the blessing alone (Tosafot). Other authorities state that a cup of wine is required only when three people recite the blessings together in a zimmun (Midrash HaNe’elam on the book of Ruth). Yet other commentaries contend that even when a group of ten recites the blessings together, they do not have to recite them over a cup of wine, although it is preferable to do so (Rif; Rambam). The prevalent custom follows this last opinion, as the ruling of our Gemara is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai (Rashba; Vilna Gaon; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 182:1). A cup of blessing requires a minimum measure – ‫ּכֹוס ׁ ֶשל‬ ‫ב ָר ָכה צָ ִריךְ ׁ ִשיעוּר‬:ּ ְ A cup of blessing must contain at least one quarter-log of wine (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Berakhot 7:14; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 271:11). One who recites a blessing must taste – ‫יך‬ ְ ‫ַה ְמ ָב ֵר ְך צָ ִר‬ ‫שּיִ ְטעֹום‬: ֶ ׁ One who recites a blessing over a cup must drink some of its wine. He should drink a majority of one quarterlog ab initio. However, another person may drink on his behalf. Ideally, everyone who heard the blessing should drink from the cup (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 190:4). Once he has tasted the wine he has disqualified it – ‫ְט ָעמֹו‬ ‫פגָ מֹו‬:ְ ּ One who drinks from a cup has disqualified it for kiddush and havdala. However, this halakha applies only if one drinks directly from the cup; if he pours some of the wine into a different cup and drinks from it, the first cup is not disqualified. If one drinks from a pitcher or a small barrel it too is disqualified, but a large barrel is not disqualified in this manner (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 182:3). If one has tasted food he recites havdala – ‫ט ַעם ַמ ְבדִּ יל‬:ָ One who has eaten after Shabbat before reciting havdala may still recite havdala (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 299:5).

Perek X Daf 106 Amud a ‫אֹומר ׁ ְש ֵתי ְקדו ׁ ּּשֹות ַעל‬ ֵ :‫ ו ׁ ְּש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬And learn from it that if one has only one cup of wine, he may recite ‫ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬:‫ ו ׁ ְּש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬.‫ ּכֹוס ֶא ָחד‬two sanctifications over one cup, as the baraita states that one may .‫יבא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ּ ָ ‫ ִהיא וְ ַא ִּל‬recite two entirely unrelated blessings over a single cup. And learn from it that this baraita is according to the ruling of Beit Shammai, in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that Beit Shammai maintain that one should recite the blessing over fire before the blessing over spices. ‫ ְט ָעמֹו ּ ְפגָ מֹו וְ כֹוס ׁ ֶשל‬:‫ ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ָא ַמר‬Rav Ashi said: On close examination, two of the inferences from ְּ ‫יך ׁ ִשיעוּר – ֲח ָדא ִמ‬ ‫יל ָתא‬ ְ ‫ ְ ּב ָר ָכה צָ ִר‬the baraita, the ruling that once one who has tasted the cup has .‫ ִהיא‬disqualified it and the ruling that a cup of blessing requires a specific minimum measure, are actually one matter and should not be counted separately. ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא ְט ָעמֹו‬:‫ וְ ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬Rav Ashi elaborates: And this is what the baraita is saying: What ְ‫ ּ ְפגָ מֹו – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ כֹוס ׁ ֶשל ְ ּב ָר ָכה צָ ִריך‬is the reason that once one has tasted the cup he has disqualified .‫ ׁ ִשיעוּר‬it from further usage as a cup of blessing? It is because a cup of blessing requires a specific minimum measure. Once one has tasted, there is not enough wine left in the cup. The disqualification is not because of the act of tasting itself. If enough wine remains in the cup after one has taken a sip, it may be used again as a cup of blessing. This ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of certain Sages, who maintain that sipping from the cup itself constitutes an inherent disqualification. 

‫וק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 106a 

233

background

Pitcher – ‫א ַחצְ ָ ּבא‬:ַ This refers to a large pitcher used for a variety of purposes. Occasionally this pitcher served as a bucket for drawing well water, while at other times it was used for storing liquids or for pickling.

‫ַר ִ ּבי יַ ֲעקֹב ַ ּבר ִא ִידי ָק ֵפיד ַא ַחצְ ָ ּבא‬ ‫ישא ָק ֵפיד‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ַרב ִא ִידי ַ ּבר ׁ ֵש‬.‫ימא‬ ָ ִ‫ּ ְפג‬ ‫ ָמר ַ ּבר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ָק ֵפיד‬.‫ימא‬ ָ ִ‫ַא ָּכ ָסא ּ ְפג‬ .‫ימ ָתא‬ ְ ִ‫יתא ּ ְפג‬ ָ ‫ֲא ִפילּ ּו ַא ָח ִב‬

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi was particular with regard to a blemished pitcher,bn i.e., he would not recite kiddush or havdala with a pitcher from which someone had already taken a sip. Rav Idi bar Sheisha was particular with regard to a blemished cup. Mar bar Rav Ashi was particular even with regard to a blemished barrelh and would take wine for kiddush only from a previously unopened barrel.

‫ ״זָ כֹור ֶאת יֹום ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫ ֵאין ִלי‬.‫זֹוכ ֵרה ּו ַעל ַהּיַ יִ ן‬ ְ – ‫ְל ַקדְּ ׁשֹו״‬ ‫ ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה ִמ ּנַיִ ן – ַּת ְלמוּד‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ַ ּבּיֹום‬ ‫ ״זָ כֹור ֶאת יֹום ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬:‫לֹומ ר‬ ַ .‫ְל ַקדְּ ׁשֹו״‬

The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Remember the day of Shabbat to sanctify it” (Exodus 20:7): Remember it over wine,h through the recitation of kiddush. I have only derived that there is a mitzva to recite kiddush during the day, as the verse is referring to the day of Shabbat. From where do I derive that one must also recite kiddush at night? The verse states: “Remember the day of Shabbatn to sanctify it,” which indicates that one should also remember Shabbat as soon as it is sanctified.

ּ ַ ‫ ִע‬,‫ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה ִמ ּנַיִ ן? ַאדְּ ַר ָ ּבה‬ ‫יקר ְקדו ׁ ּ ָּשא‬ – ‫ דְּ ִכי ַקדֵּ ׁיש‬,‫ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה הוּא ָק ֵד ׁיש‬ :ּ‫יֹומא ָ ּב ֵעי ְל ִקידּ ּו ׁ ֵשי! וְ תו‬ ָ ‫ְּת ִח ַּלת‬ ‫ ״זָ כֹור‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה ִמ ּנַיִ ן – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ‫יה ַדר ַא ַּל ָילה וְ ָקא‬ ֲ ‫ֶאת יֹום״ ַּת ָּנא ִמ‬ !‫ימ ָמא‬ ָ ִּ‫יה ְק ָרא ד‬ ֵ ּ ‫נָסיב ֵל‬

The Gemara expresses surprise at this last question: From where is it derived that one must recite kiddush at night? Is this the appropriate question? On the contrary, the essential mitzva of kiddush is to sanctify the day at night, as one must sanctify the beginning of the day, i.e., Friday night; there is no reason to sanctify Shabbat in the middle of the day, i.e., in the morning. And furthermore, the continuation of the baraita states: From where do we derive the obligation of kiddush at night? The verse states: “Remember the day of Shabbat.” The tanna is seeking a source for kiddush at night, and yet he cites a verse that is referring to the day.

‫ ״זָ כֹור ֶאת יֹום ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬:‫ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬ ‫זֹוכ ֵרה ּו ַעל ַה ּיַ יִ ן‬ ְ – ‫ְל ַק דְּ ׁש ֹו״‬ ‫ ַ ּבּיֹום‬,‫ ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָּלא ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה‬.‫נִיסתֹו‬ ָ ‫ִ ּב ְכ‬ ‫ ״זָ כֹור ֶאת יֹום‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ִמ ּנַיִ ן – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ .‫ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת״‬

The Gemara answers that this is what the tanna is saying: “Remember the day of Shabbat to sanctify it” is a mitzva to remember it over wine when it begins. I have only derived the obligation to recite kiddush at night; from where do I derive that one must also recite kiddush during the day? The verse states: “Remember the day of Shabbat.” The emphasis of the word day indicates that one must recite kiddush again during the day.

:‫ַ ּבּיֹום ַמאי ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ? ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬ ‫יק ַלע‬ ְ ‫ ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ִא‬.‫ּב ֵֹורא ּ ְפ ִרי ַהגָ ֶפן‬ ‫ ִל ַיקדֵּ ׁיש ָלן ָמר‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ּו ֵל‬.‫ִל ְמחֹוזָ א‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲהב ּו ֵל‬.‫ִקידּ ו ׁ ָּשא ַר ָ ּבה‬

The Gemara asks: During the day, when one does not recite the same kiddush as at night, what blessing does one recite? Rav Yehuda said: Before the meal, one brings a cup of wine and simply recites the usual blessing over wine: Who creates the fruit of the vine.hn The Gemara relates that Rav Ashi happened to come to the city of Meĥoza. The Sages of Meĥoza said to him on Shabbat day: Will the Master recite for us the great kiddush?n And they immediately brought him a cup of wine.

halakha

Particular even with regard to a…barrel – ‫ָק ֵפיד ֲא ִפ ּיל ּו‬ ‫א ָח ִב ָיתא‬:ַ If one drinks directly from a small barrel or pitcher, its wine may no longer be used for kiddush. This halakha does not apply to a large barrel (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 182:3). Remember it over wine – ‫זֹוכ ֵרה ּו ַעל ַהּיַ יִ ן‬: ְ There is a positive mitzva to sanctify Shabbat verbally. The Sages required that one recite kiddush over wine or bread (Maggid Mishne). This enactment is supported by a biblical verse, as explained in the Gemara (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 29:1, 6). Kiddush on the day of Shabbat – ‫קידּ ו ּׁש ׁ ֶשל יֹום ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬:ִ On Shabbat day, one fulfills the obligation of kiddush by reciting the blessing: Who creates the fruit of the vine, over a cup of wine before the meal (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 289:1).

notes

Was particular with regard to a blemished pitcher – ‫ָק ֵפיד‬ ‫ימא‬ ָ ִ‫א ַחצְ ָ ּבא ּ ְפג‬:ַ Some commentaries explain that this is referring to someone who drank directly from the pitcher or barrel. If one simply poured a cup from the pitcher or barrel, it is not disqualified (Mikhtam). Remember the day [et yom] of Shabbat – ‫זָ כֹור ֶאת יֹום ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬: Apparently, the derivation is based on the untranslated conjunction et, which is generally considered an inclusive term. In this case, it is referring to the recitation of an additional kiddush (Rav Meir Arik).

specifically for Shabbat, not for weekdays, and therefore one will remember that it is in honor of Shabbat (Mikhtam). Alternatively, one is permitted to establish a meal over wine only on Shabbat. Consequently, one who begins with wine will remember that it is Shabbat (Tosefot Rid ).

The great kiddush – ‫קידּ ו ׁ ּ ָּשא ַר ָ ּבה‬:ִ Several explanations have been offered as to why this short kiddush in the day is called the great kiddush. A number of authorities state that as every kiddush contains the blessing: Who creates the fruit of the vine, it is great with regard to its frequency (Rashi; Rashbam). Some Kiddush during the day – ‫קידּ ו ּׁש ׁ ֶשל יֹום‬:ִ Some commentaries commentaries maintain that this title is used out of deference to ask: If kiddush during the day includes only the basic blessing: the honor of Shabbat (Nimmukei Yosef; Rabbeinu Yehonatan). Yet Who creates the fruit of the vine, why is it called a sanctifica- others explain that it is a euphemism, as this kiddush is so short tion [kiddush]? The answer is that this blessing was instituted (Mikhtam, Rav Yehuda ben Rav Binyamin HaRofeh).

234 

Perek X . 106a . ‫ףד‬

‫וק‬. ‫׳י קרפ‬

:‫ ַמאי נִיה ּו ִקידּ ו ׁ ָּשא ַר ָ ּבה? ֲא ַמר‬:‫ָס ַבר‬ ‫ִמ ְּכ ִדי ָּכל ַה ְ ּב ָרכֹות ּכו ָּּלן ּב ֵֹורא ּ ְפ ִרי‬ ‫ ֲא ַמר ּב ֵֹורא ּ ְפ ִרי‬,‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ַה ֶ ּג ֶפן ָא ְמ ִרי ְ ּב ֵר‬ ‫יה ְל ַההוּא ָס ָבא‬ ּ ֵ‫ ַחזְ י‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ַה ֶ ּג ֶפן וְ ַא ֵ ּגיד ֵ ּב‬ ‫״ה ָח ָכם‬ ֶ :‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ָק ֵרי ַא ַּנ ְפ ׁ ֵש‬.‫דְּ גָ ֵחין וְ ׁ ָש ֵתי‬ .‫ֹאשֹו״‬ ׁ ‫ֵעינָיו ְ ּבר‬

Rav Ashi was unsure what they meant by the term great kiddush and wondered if the residents of Meĥoza included other matters in their kiddush. He thought: What is this great kiddush to which they refer? He said to himself: Since with regard to all the blessings that require a cup of wine, one first recites the blessing: Who creates the fruit of the vine, I will start with that blessing. He recited: Who creates the fruit of the vine, and lengthened itn to see if they were expecting an additional blessing. He saw a particular elder bending over his cup and drinking, and he realized that this was the end of the great kiddush. He read the following verse about himself: “The wise man, his eyes are in his head” (Ecclesi­astes 2:14), as he was alert enough to discern the expectations of the local residents.n

‫ ִמי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִה ְבדִּ יל‬:‫ָא ְמ ִרי ְ ּבנֵי ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא‬ ‫הֹולךְ ְ ּב ָכל‬ ֵ ְ‫ְ ּבמֹוצָ ֵאי ׁ ַש ָ ּבת – ַמ ְבדִּ יל ו‬ ‫ וְ ַעד ַּכ ָּמה? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ּכו ּּלֹו‬ .‫יעי ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ִ ‫ ַעד ְר ִב‬:‫זֵ ָירא‬

As stated above, the sons of Rabbi Ĥiyya say: One who did not recite havdala at the conclusion of Shabbat may recite havdala anytime over the course of the entire week. The Gemara asks: And until how many days of that week have passed may one still recite havdala? Rabbi Zeira said: Until the fourth day of the week, Wednesday, after which it is no longer considered the same week as the previous Shabbat.h

‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ ֵ ִּ‫ִּכי ָהא ד‬ ּ ‫יתיב ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא ַק ֵּמ‬ ‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ַרב ַא ִסי ַק ֵּמ‬,‫ַא ִסי‬ ,‫יטין‬ ִּ ‫ ְל ִענְ יַ ן ִ ּג‬:‫יתיב וְ ָק ָא ַמר‬ ֵ ִ‫ ו‬,‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ ְּת ֵרי ו ְּת ָל ָתא ָ ּב ַתר‬,‫ֲח ָדא ְ ּב ׁ ַש ְ ּב ָתא‬ ‫יֹומא‬ ָ ‫ׁ ַש ְ ּב ָתא; ַא ְר ַ ּבע וְ ַח ְמ ׁ ָשא ו ַּמ ֲע ֵלי‬ .‫ַק ֵּמי ׁ ַש ְ ּב ָתא‬

This is like that ruling of halakha stated when Rabbi Zeira sat before Rav Asi, and some say it was Rav Asi who sat before Rabbi Yoĥanan. And he sat and said: With regard to the wording of bills of divorce,h the first day of the week and the second and third days of the week are all called: After Shabbat. If a bill of divorce or a condition upon which the document depends includes the phrase: After Shabbat, it refers to one of the first three days of the week. However, the fourth and fifth days of the week and the eve of the day of Shabbat are called: Before Shabbat. Likewise, with regard to havdala, the first three days of the week are considered the time period after Shabbat, and therefore one may still recite havdala on these days.

‫ ֲא ָבל ל ֹא‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יַ ֲעקֹב ַ ּבר ִא ִידי‬Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said: However, one who recites havdala during nh .‫ ַעל ָהאֹור‬this time period may not recite the blessing over fire. This blessing may be recited only at the conclusion of Shabbat, at the time when fire was originally created. :‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ְ ּברוּנָ א ָא ַמר ַרב‬Rav Beruna said that Rav said:

notes

Lengthened it – ‫יה‬ ַ The ge’onim explain that Rav Ashi ּ ‫א ֵ ּגיד ֵ ּב‬: recited a lengthy version of the blessing. In those days there was an expanded version of kiddush that included the formula: Who creates young and old wine to gladden the heart, as well as other expressions of praise.

referred to the daytime kiddush as the great kiddush because they wanted him to recite the Shabbat night kiddush on their behalf. However, as he was not certain that this was their intention, he paused to see what the people would do upon the conclusion of the first blessing (Mikhtam; see Rav Elazar Moshe Horowitz).

Rav Ashi and the great kiddush – ‫רב ַא ׁ ִשי וְ ִקידּ ו ׁ ּ ָּשא ַר ָ ּבה‬:ַ This story is puzzling. What did Rav Ashi plan to do after reciting the blessing: Who creates the fruit of the vine? According to his opinion, one who repeats the kiddush of Shabbat night by day has recited a blessing in vain. Apparently, Rav Ashi thought that for some reason the townsmen had not recited kiddush at night, and they

Not over fire – ‫ל ֹא ַעל ָהאֹור‬: Some commentaries explain that this person could have recited that blessing at the appropriate time, as the blessing over fire does not have to be recited together with the blessing of havdala over a cup of wine. The same is true of the blessing over spices. Therefore, upon obtaining wine he recites only the blessings relating to the wine (Mikhtam; Maor).

halakha

Until when may one recite havdala – ‫עד ָמ ַתי ַמ ְבדִּ יל‬:ַ One who forgot to recite havdala at the conclusion of Shabbat may do so until the end of Tuesday afternoon (Tosafot; Rosh). Some commentaries rule that one may recite havdala only until the end of Sunday afternoon (Rif; ge’onim). Other authorities assert that the halakha that one who has already eaten may still recite havdala is a unique leniency for the conclusion of Shabbat. However, one who has eaten may no longer recite havdala at a later stage (Tur, citing Ba’al Halakhot Gedolot). The Rema rules in accordance with the first opinion (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 299:6).



With regard to bills of divorce – ‫יטין‬ ִּ ‫ל ִענְיַ ן ִ ּג‬:ְ If one says to his agent: Write a bill of divorce to my wife after Shabbat, he means that it should be written by the end of Tuesday afternoon (Shulĥan Arukh, Even HaEzer 144:6). Havdala later than the conclusion of Shabbat – ‫ַה ְבדָּ ָלה ְל ַא ַחר‬ ‫מֹוצָ ֵאי ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬: One who recites havdala not immediately after the conclusion of Shabbat does not recite the blessings over fire or spices (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 299:6). ‫וק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 106a 

235

Perek X Daf 106 Amud b halakha

One who washes his hands should not recite kiddush – ‫ֹוטל‬ ֵ ּ‫ַהנ‬ ‫יָ ָדיו ל ֹא יְ ַקדֵּ ׁש‬: One who washes his hands before kiddush demonstrates that he prefers bread to wine. Consequently, one who does so should recite kiddush over bread (Rif ). Based on the Rosh and Mordekhai, the Rema rules that it is preferable to wash one’s hands before kiddush and then to recite kiddush over wine. Several later authorities write that one should act in accordance with the first opinion. Nevertheless, the opinion of the Rema is accepted by certain communities (Mishna Berura; Shulĥan Arukh HaRav; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 271:12).

‫ ֲא ַמר ְלה ּו‬.‫ֹוטל יָ ָדיו ל ֹא יְ ַקדֵּ ׁש‬ ֵ ּ‫ַהנ‬ :‫ַרב יִ צְ ָחק ַ ּבר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר ָמ ְר ָתא‬ ‫יה דְּ ַרב ׁ ְש ַכ ְחנִינְ ה ּו‬ ּ ‫ַא ַּכ ִּתי ָלא נָ ח נַ ְפ ׁ ֵש‬ ‫יא ין ֲה וָ ה‬ ִ ‫יה ! זִ ְמ נִ ין ַס ִ ּג‬ ּ ‫ִל ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ָת ֵת‬ ‫ימנִין דַּ ֲח ִב ָיבא‬ ְ ִ‫ ז‬,‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ ְ ‫ָק ֵא‬ ּ ‫ימנָ א ַק ֵּמ‬ !‫יפ ָּתא‬ ְ ‫יפ ָּתא – ְמ ַקדֵּ ׁש ַא ִר‬ ְ ‫יה ִר‬ ּ ‫ֲע ֵל‬ ‫יה ַח ְמ ָרא – ְמ ַקדֵּ ׁש‬ ְ ִ‫ז‬ ּ ‫ימנִין דַּ ֲח ִב ָיבא ֵל‬ .‫ַא ַח ְמ ָרא‬

One who washes his hands should not recite kiddushhn after washing, as this would constitute an interruption between washing and eating, and he will have to wash again. Instead, he should hear kiddush from someone else. Rav Yitzĥak bar Shmuel bar Marta said to them: Not a lot of time has yet passed since Rav died, and we have already forgotten his halakhic rulings. Many times I stood before Rav and saw that sometimes he preferred bread,n and he would recite kiddush over bread. On those occasions Rav would wash his hands, recite kiddush over the bread, and eat it. At other times he preferred wine and would recite kiddush over wine. This shows that kiddush is not considered an interruption between washing one’s hands and eating bread.

‫ ָט ַעם – ֵאינֹו‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ‫ֵיה ַרב ָחנָ א ַ ּבר ִח ָּיננָ א‬ ּ ‫ ְ ּב ָעא ִמ ּינ‬.‫ְמ ַקדֵּ ׁש‬ ‫ ָט ַעם ַמה ּו ׁ ֶשּיַ ְבדִּ יל? ֲא ַמר‬:‫ֵמ ַרב הוּנָ א‬ ‫ וְ ַרב ַא ִסי‬,‫ ָט ַעם ַמ ְבדִּ יל‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ֲאנִי‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ .‫ ָט ַעם ֵאינֹו ַמ ְבדִּ יל‬:‫ָא ַמר‬

Rav Huna said that Rav said: One who has tasted any food on Shabbat night may not recite kiddushn anymore that night, as one must recite kiddush before he eats. Instead, he recites kiddush during the day before the meal. Rav Ĥana bar Ĥinnana raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: If one tasted food at the conclusion of Shabbat before reciting havdala, what is the halakha with regard to whether he may recite havdala? He said to him: I say that one who has tasted food may still recite havdala. And Rav Asi said: One who has tasted food may not recite havdala.

‫יק ַלע ְל ֵבי ַרב‬ ְ ‫ַרב יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא ִא‬ ‫יה‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ִא‬,‫ַא ִסי‬ ּ ‫ ָהב ּו ֵל‬.‫יש ְּת ֵלי ו ְּט ֵעים ִמידֵּ י‬ :ּ‫יתהו‬ ְ ‫יה דְּ ֵב‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמ ָרה ֵל‬.‫ָּכ ָסא וְ ַא ְבדֵּ יל‬ :‫וְ ָהא ָמר ָלא ָע ֵביד ָה ִכי! ֲא ַמר ָל ּה‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ְס ִב ָירא ֵל‬ ּ ‫ ְּכ ַר ֵ ּב‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ׁ ְש ַב ֵק‬

The Gemara relates that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba happened to come to the house of Rav Asi. He forgot and tasted some food after Shabbat before havdala. They gave him a cup and he recited havdala. Later, Rav Asi’s wife said to her husband: But my Master does not act this way. In your opinion, one who eats before havdala does not recite havdala. He said to her: Leave Rav Yirmeya bar Abba. He maintains in accordance with the opinion of his rabbi. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba was a student of Rav, who ruled that even one who has eaten may recite havdala.

‫ ָט ַעם ֵאינֹו‬:‫יֹוסף ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ֵ ‫ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבה ָא ַמר‬.‫ְמ ַקדֵּ ׁש; ָט ַעם ֵאינֹו ַמ ְבדִּ יל‬ ,‫ ָט ַעם ְמ ַקדֵּ ׁש‬:‫ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ .‫וְ ָט ַעם ַמ ְבדִּ יל‬

Rav Yosef said that Shmuel said: One who has tasted food before kiddush may not recite kiddush, and one who has tasted food before havdala may not recite havdala. And Rabba said that Rav Naĥman said that Shmuel said: One who has tasted may nevertheless recite kiddush,h and one who has tasted may likewise recite havdala.hn

One who has tasted may recite kiddush – ‫ט ַעם ְמ ַקדֵּ ׁש‬:ָ One who accidentally ate before kiddush on Shabbat night may nevertheless recite kiddush that night (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 272:7). One who has tasted may recite havdala – ‫ט ַעם ַמ ְבדִּ יל‬:ָ One who ate before reciting havdala after Shabbat may still recite havdala (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 299:5).

notes

One who washes his hands should not recite kiddush – ‫ֹוטל יָ ָדיו ל ֹא יִ ַקדֵּ ׁש‬ ֵ ּ‫הנ‬:ַ The Rashbam maintains that one should not recite kiddush himself. Rather, he should listen to the recital of another. The Ra’avad asserts that he should not recite kiddush over wine but over bread. The commentaries offer various reasons for this ruling: Kiddush is considered an interruption between washing and eating (Rashbam), or it appears as though he washed for fruit or wine, which is unnecessary and a display of conceit (ge’onim; Rav Yehuda ben Rav Binyamin HaRofeh; Tosafot). Some authorities explain that Rav’s ruling is consistent with his opinion that one who has already eaten may not recite kiddush. His ruling in this context is that washing one’s hands indicates that one intends to eat bread rather than recite kiddush. Therefore, it is as though he has already eaten, and he must therefore hear kiddush from someone else.

One who has tasted food may not recite kiddush – ‫ָט ַעם‬ ‫אינֹו ְמ ַקדֵּ ׁש‬:ֵ The Ra’avad asks: Just because someone has committed a transgression by eating before kiddush, should he be told to continue transgressing by not reciting kiddush at all? As the Sages put it: If someone has eaten garlic and his breath smells, should he then eat more garlic? One explanation is that this person should not recite kiddush himself, as it appears as though he is denigrating the mitzva by not fulfilling it at the appropriate time. Rather, someone else should recite kiddush for him (Maharam Ĥalawa, citing Ra’avad).

The dispute between the amora’im with regard to the opinion of Shmuel – ‫מֹור ִאים ְ ּב ׁ ֵשם ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ָ ‫לֹוקת ָה ָא‬ ֶ ‫מ ֲח‬:ַ The dispute between Rabba and Rav Yosef, whose understandings of Shmuel’s view conflict, is one of several instances in which later Sages reported conflicting traditions about Sometimes he preferred bread – ‫יה ִר ְיפ ָּתא‬ ְ ִ‫ז‬: a statement of an earlier Sage. These disputes can be ּ ‫ימנִין דַּ ֲח ִב ָיבא ֲע ֵל‬ Some commentaries explain that when Rav was particularly explained in light of several examples in the Talmud in hungry he considered reciting kiddush over the bread a pref- which a Sage issued a halakhic ruling and later reversed erable way to perform the mitzva, rather than delaying eating his opinion. It is even possible for a Sage to issue a rulto recite kiddush over wine (Rav Yehuda ben Rav Binyamin ing and retract it the very next day. If one student heard HaRofeh). Alternatively, after washing his hands he would the first ruling and was absent when the Sage retracted it, decide whether the wine or bread looked more appealing he might end up disputing his colleagues’ reports of their and he would use that item for kiddush (Me’iri). rabbi’s opinion.

236 

Perek X . 106b . ‫ףד‬

‫וק‬: ‫׳י קרפ‬

Perek X Daf 107 Amud a ,‫ ָט ַעם – ְמ ַקדֵּ ׁש‬:‫ ִה ְיל ְכ ָתא‬,‫ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ‫ ו ִּמי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִקידֵּ ׁש ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב‬.‫וְ ָט ַעם – ַמ ְבדִּ יל‬ ‫ ַעד‬,‫הֹולךְ ָּכל ַהּיֹום ּכוּלּ ֹו‬ ֵ ְ‫ׁ ַש ָ ּבת – ְמ ַקדֵּ ׁש ו‬ ‫ ִמי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִה ְבדִּ יל ְ ּבמֹוצָ ֵאי‬.‫מֹוצָ ֵאי ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ .‫הֹולךְ ָּכל ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ּכוּלּ ֹו‬ ֵ ְ‫ׁ ַש ָ ּבת – ַמ ְבדִּ יל ו‬

Rava said: The halakha is that one who tasted food before kiddush may recite kiddush; and one who tasted food before havdala may recite havdala; and one who did not recite kid­ dush on Shabbat eve, at night, may recite kiddush any time during the entire day until the conclusion of Shabbat. Likewise, one who did not recite havdala at the conclusion of Shabbat may recite havdala any time during the entire week, i.e., during the first three days of the week, the time period called: After Shabbat.

‫ימר ּ ָפ ַתח ָל ּה ְל ָהא ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ָתא דְּ ָר ָבא‬ ָ ‫ַא ֵמ‬ :‫ ִה ְיל ְכ ָתא‬,‫ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬:‫ישנָ א‬ ָ ּ ׁ ‫ְ ּב ַהאי ִל‬ ‫ ִמי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬.‫ ָט ַעם – ַמ ְבדִּ יל‬,‫ָט ַעם – ְמ ַקדֵּ ׁש‬ ‫הֹולךְ ָּכל‬ ֵ ְ‫ִקידֵּ ׁש ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת – ְמ ַקדֵּ ׁש ו‬ ‫ ִמי ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִה ְבדִּ יל ְ ּבמֹוצָ ֵאי‬.‫ַהּיֹום ּכו ּּלֹו‬ .‫הֹולךְ ָּכל ַהּיֹום ּכוּלּ ֹו‬ ֵ ְ‫ׁ ַש ָ ּבת – ַמ ְבדִּ יל ו‬

Ameimar began this teaching of Rava in this emended formulation: Rava said: The halakha is that one who tasted food before kiddush may recite kiddush; and one who tasted food before havdala may recite havdala; and one who did not recite kiddush on Shabbat eve, at night, may recite kiddush any time during the entire day. One who did not recite havdala at the conclusion of Shabbat may recite havdala any time during the entire day of Sunday, but no later.

‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫נֹוקא ּו ָמר ַק ׁ ּ ִש‬ ָ ָ‫יה ָמר י‬ ּ ‫ָא ְמ ִרי ֵל‬ ‫ימנָ א‬ ְ ִ‫ ז‬:‫יה דְּ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ּ ‫ְ ּב ֵר‬ ‫ וְ ָלא‬,‫ימר ְל ַא ְת ִרין‬ ָ ‫יק ַלע ַא ֵמ‬ ְ ‫ֲח ָדא ִא‬ – ‫יכ ָרא‬ ְ ‫יה ׁ ִש‬ ִ ְ‫ ַאּי‬.‫ֲהוָ ה ָלן ַח ְמ ָרא‬ ּ ‫יתינָ א ֵל‬ ‫ ְל ָמ ָחר ָט ַר ְחנָ א‬.‫ ו ָּבת ְטוָ ות‬,‫וְ ָלא ַא ְבדִּ יל‬ ‫ ו ְּט ֵעים‬,‫ וְ ַא ְבדֵּ יל‬,‫יה ַח ְמ ָרא‬ ִ ְ‫וְ ַאּי‬ ּ ‫יתינָ א ֵל‬ ‫ ָלא‬,‫יק ַלע ְל ַא ְת ִרין‬ ְ ‫ ְל ׁ ָשנָ ה ּת ּו ִא‬.‫ִמידֵּ י‬ :‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫יכ ָרא‬ ְ ‫יתינָ א ׁ ִש‬ ִ ְ‫ ַאּי‬,‫ֲהוָ ה ָלן ַח ְמ ָרא‬ ‫ ַא ְבדִּ יל ו ְּט ֵעים‬.‫ִאי ָה ִכי ֲח ַמר ְמ ִדינָ ה הוּא‬ .‫ִמידֵּ י‬

The Gemara relates that the Mar Yanuka, the younger Mar, and Mar Kashisha, the elder Mar, both sons of Rav Ĥisda, said to Rav Ashi: Once Ameimar happened to come to our place and we did not have wine for havdala. We brought him beer and he did not recite havdala, and he passed the night fasting,n as it is prohibited to eat before havdala. The next day we exerted ourselves and brought him wine, and he recited havdala and tasted some food. The next year he again happenedn to come to our place. Once again we did not have wine and we brought him beer.n He said: If so, if it is so difficult to obtain wine in your place, beer is the wine of the province.h He recited havdala over the beer and tasted some food.

‫ ַה ַּמ ְבדִּ יל‬:‫ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה ְּת ָלת; ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ ‫ַ ּב ְּת ִפ ָּלה צָ ִריךְ ׁ ֶש ְּיַבדִּ יל ַעל ַה ּכֹוס; ו ׁ ְּש ַמע‬ ‫קֹודם‬ ֶ ‫ֹאכל‬ ַ ‫ ָאסוּר לֹו ָל ָא ָדם ׁ ֶשּי‬:‫ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ ‫ ִמי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִה ְבדִּ יל‬:‫ׁ ֶשּיַ ְבדִּ יל; ו ׁ ְּש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ ‫הֹול ְך ָּכל‬ ֵ ְ‫ְ ּבמֹוצָ ֵאי ׁ ַש ָ ּבת – ַמ ְבדִּ יל ו‬ .‫ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ּכו ּּלֹו‬

The Gemara notes that one may learn from Ameimar’s conduct three halakhot: Learn from it that one who recites havdala in the prayer service must recite havdala again over a cup, as Ameimar had presumably recited the paragraph of havdala in his Amida prayer. And learn from it that it is prohibited for a person to eat before he recites havdala.n And learn from it that one who did not recite havdala at the conclusion of Shabbat may recite havdala anytime during the entire week, i.e., during the first three days of the week.

‫ ַמה ּו‬:‫ֵיה ַרב הוּנָ א ֵמ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ּ ‫ְ ּב ָעא ִמ ּינ‬ ‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ו ַּמה‬:‫יכ ָרא? ֲא ַמר‬ ְ ‫ֹושי ַא ׁ ּ ִש‬ ֵ ׁ ּ‫ְל ַקד‬ ‫ֵיה‬ ָ ‫ּ ִפ ְיר‬ ּ ‫ דִּ ְב ַעאי ִמ ּינ‬,‫ וְ ַא ְסנֵי‬,‫זֹומא ו ְּת ֵאינֵי‬ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ֵמ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ וְ ַרב ֵמ ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא‬,‫ֵמ ַרב‬ ?‫יב ֲעיָ א‬ ּ ָ ‫יכ ָרא ִמ‬ ְ ‫ ׁ ִש‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫וְ ל ֹא ּ ָפ ׁ ַשט ֵל‬

In the above story, Ameimar refused to recite havdala over beer. The Gemara addresses this issue at greater length. Rav Huna raised a dilemma before Rav Ĥisda: What is the halakha with regard to whether it is permitted to recite kiddush over date beer? He said: Now, if with regard to barley beer, fig beer, and beer produced from berries, I raised a dilemma before Rav as to whether or not they may be used for kiddush, and Rav had previously raised this dilemma before Rabbi Ĥiyya, and Rabbi Ĥiyya had inquired of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he did not resolve it for him, as he could not find a source that clearly permits it, is it necessary to say that date beer,n which is inferior to those other types of beer, may not be used for kiddush?

‫ֹושי הוּא דְּ ָלא ְמ ַקדְּ ׁ ִשינַן‬ ֵ ּ ׁ ּ‫ ַקד‬:‫ָסבוּר ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ ‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫ ֲא ָבל ַא ְבדּ ֵֹולי – ַמ ְבדְּ ִלינַן‬,‫יה‬ ּ ֵ‫ִע ָּילו‬ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵשם‬:‫ ָה ִכי ֲא ַמר ַרב‬,‫ְלה ּו ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ‫ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְמ ַקדְּ ׁ ִשין ָע ָליו – ָּכ ְך ֵאין ַמ ְבדִּ ִילין‬ ‫יפא‬ ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ַּת ֲח ִל‬,‫ית ַמר נַ ִמי‬ ְּ ‫ ִא‬.‫ָע ָליו‬ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵשם ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬:‫ימי ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ִ ‫ַ ּבר ֲא ִב‬ .‫ְמ ַקדְּ ׁ ִשין ָע ָליו – ָּכךְ ֵאין ַמ ְבדִּ ִילין ָע ָליו‬

Those who heard this response understood from it that it is kiddush that one may not recite over it, but one may recite havdala over date beer. Rav Ĥisda said to them that Rav said as follows: Just as one may not recite kiddush over date beer, so one may not recite havdala over it. It was also stated that Rav Taĥalifa bar Avimi said that Shmuel said: Just as one may not recite kiddush over date beer, so one may not recite havdala over it.



notes

He passed the night fasting – ‫בת ְטוָ ות‬: ּ ָ The Gemara in this context uses a biblical expression: “Passed the night fasting” (Daniel 6:19). The next year he again happened – ‫ל ׁ ָשנָ ה ּת ּו ִא ְיק ַלע‬:ְ The conduct of Rav Ĥisda’s sons is puzzling: If they already knew from the previous year that Ameimar would not recite havdala over beer, why did they give him the same beverage the next time round? One possibility is that on the second occasion they brought the beer to recite havdala themselves, as they presumably used beer for havdala on a regular basis (Rashash). Wine and beer – ‫יַ יִ ן וְ ׁ ֵש ָכר‬: The recitation of kiddush and other blessings specifically over wine was not merely the prevailing custom in Eretz Yisrael; rather, this is derived from the Torah itself. Almost every libation on the altar in the Temple was performed with wine, and the Levites sang in the Temple only during wine libations. Other beverages are not eligible for these important ceremonies, regardless of their taste. It can be inferred from the statements of Ameimar and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that in pressing situations other choice beverages may be considered the equivalent of wine in a particular locale. It is prohibited for a person to eat before he recites havdala – ‫קֹודם ׁ ֶש ְּיַבדִּ יל‬ ֶ ‫ֹאכל‬ ַ ‫אסוּר לֹו ָל ָא ָדם ׁ ֶשּי‬:ָ Some commentaries say that this applies only if one has a cup of wine with which to recite havdala and has not yet done so. However, if one does not have any wine, he may rely on the havdala recited during the prayer service and proceed to eat. According to this opinion, Ameimar was extra stringent when he fasted despite not having anything to use for havdala. Barley beer and date beer – ‫יכ ָרא‬ ְ ‫זֹומא וְ ׁ ִש‬ ָ ‫פ ְיר‬:ִ ּ Dates were abundant in Babylonia. Consequently, date beer was a common and inexpensive beverage that was consumed primarily by the poor. Beers produced from other products were held in higher regard. halakha

Wine of the province – ‫ח ַמר ְמ ִדינָ ה‬:ֲ The Sages discussed the appropriate course of action when the requisite wine is unavailable. Is one permitted to use a different beverage, known as the wine of the province, which replaces wine as the main beverage of that place? With regard to havdala, the halakha is that one may recite havdala using the wine of the province. However, one may not recite havdala over bread (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 296:2). Some commentaries say that one may also recite kiddush over the wine of the province (Rosh, based upon the Ri; Ra’avan). Other authorities rule that if there is no wine available, kiddush should be recited over bread (Ba’al Halakhot Gedolot; Rif; Rambam, based upon the Jerusalem Talmud). The Rosh maintains that at night one should recite kiddush over bread, and during the day over the wine of the province. This is the prevailing custom (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 272:9, and in the comment of the Rema). With regard to for Grace after Meals, if wine is unavailable, it is permitted to use the wine of the province. Even if wine is available but expensive, one may use the wine of the province instead of wine (Rema). If one does not have even the wine of the province, he may use any other beverage that is a popular drink in that locale, even if it is entirely dissimilar to wine (Ateret Zekeinim, citing the Maharshal; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 282:2).

‫זק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 107a 

237

background

Thirteen soakings – ‫יסר ְמגָ נֵי‬ ַ ‫ת ֵל‬:ְּ The common method of manufacturing beer, according to the ge’onim, was as follows: Water and bindweed were mixed with crushed dates. After this mixture was left sitting overnight, the water was poured into a second barrel of crushed dates. The same process was performed a third time. At this point, the beer was allowed to ferment. The Gemara here describes the production of fine beer. Water was transferred thirteen times into thirteen different barrels, so that it absorbed much of the taste of the dates. Other authorities assert that the Gemara is referring to the thirteen times the beer was strained to remove impurities. This might very well be another stage in the process described above. notes

Pains and soothes – ‫מיַ ְּס ָרן ו ְּמ ַפּיֵ יס‬:ְ Some commentaries explain that beer impairs one’s intellect. Its sweet taste is enticing, but its effects are negative (Rabbeinu Ĥananel; Arukh). halakha

Drinking from the cup of kiddush – ‫ש ִתּיַ ת ּכֹוס ִקידּ ו ּׁש‬: ְ ׁ One must drink at least a cheekful of wine from the cup used for kiddush. For an average-sized person, a cheekful is the majority of one quarter-log, but the amount is larger for a bigger person. However, one is never required to drink more than one quarter-log (Magen Avraham; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 271:13).

‫יסר‬ ַ ‫יכ ָרא ַ ּבר ְּת ֵל‬ ְ ‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש‬ ּ ‫ֵלוִ י ׁ ְש ַדר ֵל‬ :‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫ ֲהוָ ה ְ ּב ִסים טו ָּבא‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ְט ַע ֵּמ‬.‫ְמגָ נֵי‬ ‫לֹומר ָע ָליו ָּכל‬ ַ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ְּכגֹון זֶ ה ָראוּי ְל ַקדֵּ ׁש ָע ָליו‬ ‫ ְ ּב ֵל ְיליָ א‬.‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ׁ ִשירֹות וְ תו ׁ ְּש ָ ּבחֹות ׁ ֶש ָ ּב‬ .‫ ְמיַ ְּס ָרן ו ְּמ ַפּיֵ יס‬:‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫צַ ֲע ֵר‬

The Gemara relates that Levi sent Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi a beer of thirteen soakings,b i.e., thirteen batches of dates had been soaked in water until it had thoroughly absorbed the taste of the dates. This was considered a high-quality beer. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi tasted it and it was especially pleasant. He said: A beer like this is fit to recite kiddush over and to say upon it all the songs and praises in the world, as it is as good as wine. At night, it disrupted his digestion and caused him pain. He said: It pains on the one hand and soothesn on the other.

‫יש ֵּתי‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ֶאדּ ֹור ָ ּב ַר ִ ּבים דְּ ָלא ִא‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬With regard to the discomfort caused by beer, the Gemara cites ‫זֹוריֹון וְ ל ֹא‬ ְ ‫יש ֵּתי ֵמי‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ִא‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬.‫ ׁ ִש ְיכ ָרא‬related statements of amora’im. Rav Yosef said: I will take a vow .‫יכ ָרא‬ ְ ‫יש ֵּתי ׁ ִש‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ִא‬in public, which cannot be nullified, that I will not drink beer due to its negative effects, despite the fact that beer was a popular beverage in Babylonia. Rava said: I would rather drink water used for soaking flax, and I will not drink beer. ‫יכ ָרא‬ ְ ‫יה ׁ ִש‬ ֱ ‫ ֶּת‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫יהוֵ י ׁ ַש ְקיו ֵּת‬ ‫יה‬ ְ ‫ַמאן דִּ ְמ ַקדֵּ ׁש ַא ׁ ּ ִש‬ ּ ‫ ַא ׁ ְש ַּכ ֵח‬,‫ ַרב‬.‫יכ ָרא‬ :‫יה‬ ְ ‫ַרב הוּנָ א דְּ ַקדֵּ ׁיש ַא ׁ ּ ִש‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫יכ ָרא‬ .‫יכ ָרא‬ ְ ‫יס ִּת ֵירי ִמ ׁ ּ ִש‬ ְ ‫ׁ ָש ֵרי ַא ָ ּבא ְל ִמ ְיקנֵי ִא‬

And Rava said: One who recites kiddush over beer, his regular drink should be beer. In other words, the fitting punishment for one who recites kiddush over beer, the poor man’s drink in Babylonia, is for him to become poor himself and have to drink beer on a regular basis. The Gemara relates that Rav was found by Rav Huna reciting kiddush over beer. He said to him: Abba, Rav’s first name, has started to acquire coins with beer. As Rav recently began selling beer, it has become his favorite beverage, to the extent that he uses it for kiddush.

,‫ ֵאין ְמ ַקדְּ ׁ ִשין ֶא ָּלא ַעל ַהּיַ יִ ן‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫ ַא ּט ּו‬.‫וְ ֵא ין ְמ ָב ְר ִכין ֶא ָּלא ַעל ַה ּיַ יִ ן‬ ‫יכ ָרא וְ ַא ַּמּיָ א ִמי ָלא ְמ ָב ְר ִכין ֲע ַלּיְ ה ּו‬ ְ ‫ַא ׁ ּ ִש‬ ‫ ָה ִכי‬,‫ׁ ֶש ַה ּכֹל נִ ְהיָ ה ִ ּב ְד ָברֹו? ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ‫״ה ֵבא ּכֹוס ׁ ֶשל‬ ָ ‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ֵאין‬:‫ָק ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן ֵאין‬.‫ְ ּב ָר ָכה ְל ָב ֵרךְ ״ ֶא ָּלא ַעל ַהּיַ יִ ן‬ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬.‫ְמ ַקדְּ ׁ ִשין ַעל ַה ׁ ּ ֵש ָכר‬ .‫ ְמ ַקדְּ ׁ ִשין‬:ּ‫ַ ּבר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ָא ְמרו‬

The Sages taught: One may recite kiddush only over wine, and one may recite blessings only over wine. The Gemara expresses surprise: Is that to say that one does not say the blessing: By Whose word all things [shehakol] came to be, over beer and water? Abaye said: This is what the baraita is saying: One only says: Bring a cup of blessing to recite the blessing of Grace after Meals, over wine. The Rabbis taught in a baraita: One may not recite kiddush over beer. In the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, they said that one may recite kiddush over beer.

‫יֹוסי ַ ּבר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ימת יַ יִ ן – ָּכל ׁ ֶשהוּא‬ ַ ‫ִמ ְּט ִע‬ ‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬.‫ ְמל ֹא לוּגְ ָמא‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יְ הו ָּדה‬ :‫ וְ ֵכן ָּתנֵי ַרב ִ ּגידֵּ ל דְּ ִמן נֶ ֶר ׁש‬,‫הוּנָ א ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ‫ וְ ִאם‬,‫ַה ְמ ַקדֵּ ׁש וְ ָט ַעם ְמל ֹא לוּגְ ָמא – יָ צָ א‬ .‫ָלאו – ל ֹא יָ צָ א‬

With regard to the halakha that one who recites kiddush must drink from the cup, the Gemara states that one fulfills the mitzva of kiddush by tasting any amount of wine. Rabbi Yosei, son of Yehuda, says that one must drink at least a cheekful. Rav Huna said that Rav said, and Rav Giddel from the city of Neresh likewise teaches: One who recites kiddush and tastes a cheekful has fulfilled his obligation, and if not, he has not fulfilled his obligation.h

‫ ֲאנָ א ָּתנֵינָ א‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק‬ ‫ וְ ָלא ִ ּגידּ וּל ַ ּבר‬,‫נַשיָ א‬ ְ ׁ ‫ָל ּה ָלא ִ ּגידּ וּל ַ ּבר ְמ‬ ‫ ְל ַמאי נָ ְפ ָקא‬.‫ ֶא ָּלא ִ ּגידּ וּל ְס ָת ָמא‬,‫ַמנְיו ִּמי‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ַאדִּ ֵיד‬ ּ ‫ִמ ָּינ ּה? ְל ִמ ְיר ָמא דִּ ֵיד‬

Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said: I teach this baraita in a precise manner, and I do not mention Giddul bar Menashya, nor Giddul bar Minyumei, but rather the plain name Giddul, without any identifying moniker. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference in Rav Giddel’s name? The Gemara answers: To raise a contradiction between one of his rulings and another one of his rulings. Since it is not clear exactly which Sage issued this ruling, it is impossible to prove that he reversed or contradicted his opinion in a later statement.

‫ ָסמו ְּך‬:ּ‫יב ֲעיָ א ְלהו‬ ּ ַ ‫ ִא‬.‫״סמו ְּך ַל ִּמנְ ָחה״‬ ָ The Gemara returns to the mishna, which stated that it is pro‫ אֹו דִּ ְיל ָמא ָסמו ְּך‬,‫דֹולה ְּתנַ ן‬ ָ ‫ ְל ִמנְ ָחה ְ ּג‬hibited to eat adjacent to minĥa time on Passover eve. A di?‫ ְל ִמנְ ָחה ְק ַט ָּנה ְּתנַן‬lemma was raised before the Sages in the study hall: Did we learn in the mishna that it is prohibited to eat adjacent to the time of the greater minĥa [minĥa gedola], which is half an hour after midday, or perhaps we learned in the mishna that it is prohibited to eat adjacent to the time of the lesser minĥa [minĥa ketana], two and a half hours before sunset? ,‫דֹולה ְּתנַן – ו ִּמ ׁ ּשוּם ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ָ ‫ ָסמוּךְ ְל ִמנְ ָחה ְ ּג‬The Gemara elaborates: Did we learn in the mishna that it is , ְ‫ימ ׁ ַשך‬ ְ ‫ דִּ ְיל ָמא ָא ֵתי ְל ִמ‬prohibited to eat adjacent to the time of the greater minĥa, and this is because of the Paschal lamb, lest one come to be drawn after the meal and spend a long time eating, as was typical for large meals,

238 

Perek X . 107a . ‫ףד‬

‫זק‬. ‫׳י קרפ‬

Perek X Daf 107 Amud b ‫ אֹו‬.‫יע ַבד ּ ִפ ְס ָחא‬ ֶ ‫נֹועי ִמ ְּל ֶמ‬ ֵ ‫ימ‬ ְ ‫וְ ָא ֵתי ְל ִא‬ ‫ ו ִּמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫דִּ ְיל ָמא ָסמוּךְ ְל ִמנְ ָחה ְק ַט ָּנה ְּתנַן‬ ‫יכ ָל ּה ְל ַמ ָ ּצה ֲא ִכ ָילה‬ ְ ‫ַמ ָ ּצה דִּ ְיל ָמא ָא ֵתי ְל ֵמ‬ .‫ַ ּג ָּסה‬

and he will end up refraining from performing the Paschal lamb? Or perhaps we learned this halakha in the mishna as pertaining to the time adjacent to the lesser minĥa, and the reason for the prohibition is due to matza. If one eats shortly before nightfall, perhaps he will come to eat the matza as an act of excessive eating,n when one forces himself to eat despite the fact that he has no desire to do so.

ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬:‫ ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬,‫ָא ַמר ָר ִבינָ א‬ ‫יפס‬ ַ ּ ‫יל ּו ַאגְ ִר‬ – ‫ַה ֶמ ֶלךְ ׁ ֶשהוּא ָרגִ יל ֶל ֱאכֹול ִ ּב ֵת ׁ ַשע ׁ ָשעֹות‬ ‫ ִאי‬.‫ֹאכל ַעד ׁ ֶש ֶּת ְח ׁ ַש ְך‬ ַ ‫אֹותֹו ַהּיֹום ל ֹא י‬ – ‫ֲא ַמ ְר ְּת ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ָסמוּךְ ְל ִמנְ ָחה ְק ַט ָּנה ְּתנַן‬ ‫יה דְּ ַאגְ ִר ּ ַיפס‬ ּ ‫ַהיְ ינ ּו ְרבו ֵּת‬

Ravina said: Come and hear a solution from a baraita: Even King Agrippa,n who regularly eats every day at nine hours, i.e., three hours before sunset, on that day of Passover eve, he may not eat until dark. Ravina infers from this baraita: Granted, if you say that we learned in the mishna that it is prohibited to eat adjacent to the lesser minĥa, this is why his actions are accounted to the greatness of Agrippa, as he refrained from eating despite the fact that the prohibition had not yet gone into effect.

– ‫דֹולה ְּתנַן‬ ָ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ָסמוּךְ ְל ִמנְ ָחה ְ ּג‬However, if you say that we learned in the mishna that one may not ‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה דְּ ַאגְ ִר ּ ַיפס? ָחל ִא ּיסוּר ֲע ֵל‬ ּ ‫ ַמאי ְרבו ֵּת‬eat adjacent to the greater minĥa, what is the greatness of Agrippa? ּ ָ ‫ ֵמ ִע‬The prohibition against eating had already taken effect at the outset, – ‫יק ָרא! ֶא ָּלא ָסמוּךְ ְל ִמנְ ָחה ְק ַט ָּנה ְּתנַן‬ right after midday. Rather, it must be that we learned in the mishna that it is prohibited to eat adjacent to the lesser minĥa, and Agrippa was praised for changing his regular routine, despite the fact that he was not obligated to do so. ‫יפס? ָהא‬ ַ ּ ‫יה דְּ ַאגְ ִר‬ ּ ‫ ַמאי ְרבו ֵּת‬,‫סֹוף סֹוף‬ ‫ ֵּת ׁ ַשע‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יה זְ ַמן ִא ּיסו ָּרא! ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬ ּ ‫ָמ ְטיָא ֵל‬ ,‫ׁ ָשעֹות ְל ַאגְ ִר ּ ַיפס ְּכ ַא ְר ַ ּבע ׁ ָשעֹות דִּ ַידן דָּ ֵמי‬ .‫ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬

‫ ֲא ָבל ַמ ְט ִ ּביל הוּא ְ ּב ִמינֵי‬:)‫(יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ַּתנְיָא‬.‫ ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק ַמ ְט ִ ּביל ְ ּביַ ְר ֵקי‬.‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ַת ְר ִ ּג‬ ‫נֹותנָן‬ ְ ְ‫ ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָּמ ׁש ַמ ְט ִ ּביל ִ ּב ְבנֵי ֵמ ַעיִ ין ו‬:‫נַ ִמי ָה ִכי‬ .‫אֹור ִחים‬ ְ ‫ִל ְפנֵי ָה‬

However, the question still remains: Ultimately, what is the greatness of Agrippa? The time of the prohibition had arrived. Although the ninth hour begins shortly before the prohibition goes into effect, Agrippa’s meal would presumably extend into the time when it is prohibited to eat, and therefore it was indeed prohibited for him to start his meal at the regular time. The Gemara answers: Since Agrippa was accustomed to eating in the afternoon, it might have been thought that he should be permitted to eat at this hour on Passover eve as well. Lest you say that since Agrippa would not eat during the morning like most people, nine hours for Agrippa is considered like four hours for us, the baraita therefore teaches us that we do not distinguish between Agrippa and anyone else in this regard. Rabbi Yosei said: It is prohibited to eat a proper meal from minĥa time onward;h however, one may dip and eat types of refreshments, e.g., fruit or meat that do not constitute a full meal and will not fill one’s stomach. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yitzĥak would dip and eat vegetables.n That opinion, that it is permitted to snack after minĥa time on Passover eve, was also taught in a baraita: During the afternoon of Passover eve, the waiter may dip vegetables in the intestinesn of the animals that had been slaughtered in preparation for the Festival meals and place them before the guests who had registered for the Paschal lamb. This was done to whet their appetites, so they would eat the Paschal lamb and matza that evening with greater relish.

notes

Excessive eating – ‫א ִכ ָילה ַ ּג ָּסה‬: ֲ Excessive eating is consumption when one is already full to the point that he does not want to eat any more, but he forces himself to continue eating. In certain circumstances, the halakha does not consider excessive eating as eating at all. In any case, it is certainly improper to fulfill the mitzva of eating matza in this fashion. At the same time, it is also inappropriate to eat sacrificial foods ravenously. The most fitting manner to consume sacrificial foods, such as the Paschal lamb, is to eat a few other items of food first, so that one will be full only after eating the sacrificial foods (Me’iri). ּ ‫א ִפ‬: Even King Agrippa – ‫יפס ַה ֶמ ֶל ְך‬ ַ ּ ‫יל ּו ַאגְ ִר‬ ֲ The phrase: Even King Agrippa, does not simply mean that King Agrippa acted in the same manner as everyone else. Rather, it indicates that although the king maintained unique habits, due to his honor, wealth, and the like, and there was reason not to apply the general rules to him, he nevertheless acted in accordance with the regular principles of conduct. Would dip vegetables – ‫מ ְט ִ ּביל ְ ּביַ ְר ֵקי‬:ַ Some commentaries explain that he would dip vegetables in vinegar, as vinegar before a meal is not tasty and dulls the teeth, unlike vinegar consumed during or after a meal. Therefore, the Sages permitted one to eat vinegar before a meal (Arukh). Dip in the intestines – ‫מ ְט ִ ּביל ִ ּב ְבנֵי ֵמ ַעיִ ין‬:ַ The Ben Yehoyada explains that this halakha applies specifically to intestines. The ruling is based upon the Gemara in tractate Nedarim, which states that intestines are not considered meat, which indicates that intestines are not a significant food. Consequently, one may eat them in the afternoon of Passover eve. Break up for yourselves a fallow ground – ‫נִיר ּו‬ ‫ל ֶכם נִיר‬:ָ Some commentaries explain that one who eats only fruit is like one who sows without plowing, as this food will not satisfy him (Rav Yehuda ben Rav Binyamin HaRofeh). When one is very hungry, it is preferable for him to eat a small amount first, to whet his appetite, after which he can eat his meal and be satiated (see Rashbam; Nimmukei Yosef; Rabbeinu Yehonatan).

,‫ וְ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ּ ֶש ֵאין ְר ָאיָ ה ַלדָּ ָבר – זֵ ֶכר ַלדָּ ָבר‬The baraita continues: And although there is no absolute proof for ‫ ״נִיר ּו ָל ֶכם נִיר וְ ַאל ִּתזְ ְרע ּו ֶאל‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬this matter, there is an allusion to this matter, as it is stated: “Break n .‫ קֹוצִ ים״‬up for yourselves a fallow ground, and do not sow among thorns” ( Jeremiah 4:3). This verse teaches that one must undertake preparations to achieve positive results. Similarly, one should eat a small amount in the afternoon to enable him to consume more in the evening. ‫יֹומא‬ ָ ‫ָר ָבא ֲהוָ ה ׁ ָש ֵתי ַח ְמ ָרא ּכו ֵּּלי ְמ ַע ֵּלי‬ ‫ דְּ נֵיכוּל‬,‫יה‬ ּ ֵ ‫יה ְל ִל‬ ּ ‫יב‬ ּ ‫ ִּכי ֵה ִיכי דְּ נִיגְ ְר ֵר‬,‫דְּ ִפ ְיס ָחא‬ ‫ ְמנָא ָא ִמינָא‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬.‫אֹור ָתא‬ ְ ‫ַמ ָ ּצה ְט ֵפי ְל‬ :‫ָל ּה דְּ ַח ְמ ָרא ִמיגְ ַרר ָ ּג ֵריר – דִּ ְתנַן‬

The Gemara relates that Rava would drink wine the entire day of Passover eve, so as to whet his appetite to enable him to eat more matza at night. Rava said: From where do I say it, that wine whets the appetite? As we learned in a mishna: halakha

The prohibition against eating adjacent to minĥa time – ‫ִא ּיסוּר‬ ‫א ִכ ָילה ָסמו ְּך ְל ִמנְ ָחה‬: ֲ It is prohibited to eat on Passover eve from the beginning of the tenth hour, so that one will eat matza in the evening with a hearty appetite. The prohibition applies only to bread; it is permitted to eat a small amount of fruits and



vegetables. One who will become full even from a snack should not eat at all (Rema). One should not drink a small amount of wine, as this will reduce his appetite, but he may drink a lot of wine, which will increase his appetite (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 471:1). ‫זק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 107b 

239

Perek X Daf 108 Amud a notes

Rav Sheshet would fast – ‫נִיתא‬ ָ ‫רב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת ֲהוָ ה יָ ֵתיב ְ ּב ַת ֲע‬:ַ In the Jerusalem Talmud, this and related stories are cited as precedents for the practice that firstborns should fast on Passover eve, a practice that is mentioned in several sources, including tractate Soferim. Nevertheless, the Jerusalem Talmud also concludes that Rav Sheshet’s fast was not due to this practice. Rather, he did so because of his delicateness, as stated here. halakha

A delicate person on the eve of Passover – ‫יס ְּתנִיס‬ ְ ‫ִא‬ ‫ב ֶע ֶרב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬:ּ ְ One whose appetite will be ruined if he eats at any point during the day should preferably refrain from eating at all on Passover eve, so that he will be able to eat matza in the evening with a hearty appetite (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 470:3). Matza and bitter herbs while reclining – ‫ַמ ָ ּצה ו ָּמרֹור‬ ‫ב ֲה ָס ָבה‬: ּ ַ Matza must be eaten while reclining, whereas bitter herbs should not be eaten while reclining. One who eats matza without reclining has not fulfilled his obligation. Some authorities rule that since people nowadays never recline while eating, one may rely after the fact upon the lenient opinion that one is no longer required to recline (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 472:7; 475:1, and in the comment of the Rema, based upon Ra’avya). language

Delicate [istenis] – ‫א ְס ְּתנִיס‬: ִ From the Greek ἀσθενής, astenès, meaning weak, sickly, or delicate.

– ‫ ִאם ָרצָ ה ִל ׁ ְש ּתֹות‬,ּ‫ֵ ּבין ַה ּכֹוסֹות ַה ָּללו‬ .‫יעי – ל ֹא יִ ׁ ְש ֶּתה‬ ִ ‫ישי ִל ְר ִב‬ ִ ׁ ‫יִ ׁ ְש ֶּתה; ֵ ּבין ׁ ְש ִל‬ ?‫וְ ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ִמ ְס ַעד ָס ֵעיד – ַא ַּמאי יִ ׁ ְש ֶּתה‬ ‫ָהא ָקא ָא ֵכיל ְל ַמ ָ ּצה ֲא ִכ ָילה ַ ּג ָּסה! ֶא ָּלא‬ .‫ ִמגְ ַרר ָ ּג ֵריר‬:‫ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬

During the Passover seder, between these cups that one is obligated to drink, e.g., between the first two of the four cups of wine, if one wants to drink he may drink. However, between the third and fourth cups, which are consumed after the meal, one may not drink. And if you say that wine satisfies a person, why may one drink extra cups? He will later eat matza when he is already satiated, which will constitute an excessive eating. Rather, learn from this that wine whets the appetite.

‫נִיתא ָּכל ַמ ֲע ֵּלי‬ ָ ‫ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת ֲהוָ ה יָ ֵתיב ְ ּב ַת ֲע‬ :‫נֵימא ָקא ָס ַבר ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת‬ ָ .‫יֹומא דְּ ִפ ְס ָחא‬ ָ ‫ ו ִּמ ׁ ּשוּם ּ ִפ ְס ָחא‬,‫דֹולה ְּתנַן‬ ָ ‫ָסמוּךְ ְל ִמנְ ָחה ְ ּג‬ ‫נֹועי‬ ֵ ‫ימ‬ ְ ‫ימ ׁ ַש ְך וְ ָא ֵתי ְל ִא‬ ְ ‫ דִּ ְיל ָמא ִמ‬,‫הוּא‬ .‫יס ָחא הוּא‬ ְ ‫ִמ ְּל ֶמ ֱע ַבד ּ ִפ‬

The Gemara relates that Rav Sheshet would fastn the entire eve of Passover. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rav Sheshet maintains that this practice was necessary because of two factors? First, when the mishna states that one may not eat adjacent to minĥa time, we learned this ruling with regard to the period of time adjacent to the greater minĥa, and the reason for the prohibition is due to the Paschal lamb, lest one be drawn after one’s meal and come to refrain from performing the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb.

‫אֹוש ֲעיָ א‬ ַ ׁ ‫וְ ָס ַבר ָל ּה ִּכי ָהא דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ַמ ְכ ׁ ִשיר ָהיָ ה ֶ ּבן ְ ּב ֵת ָירא‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ‫ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ָחטֹו ׁ ַש ֲח ִרית ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ָע ָ ׂשר‬ ‫ דְּ כו ֵּּלי‬,‫ ו ִּמ ַ ּצ ְפ ָרא זְ ַמן ּ ִפ ְס ָחא הוּא‬,‫ִל ׁ ְשמֹו‬ .‫יֹומא ֲחזִ י ְל ִפ ְס ָחא‬ ָ

And second, Rav Sheshet maintains in accordance with that statement that Rabbi Oshaya said that Rabbi Elazar said: Ben Beteira would deem valid a Paschal lamb that was slaughtered in the morning on the fourteenth of Nisan for its own purpose, as from the morning it is already the time during which a Paschal lamb may be sacrificed, as the whole day is fit for the Paschal lamb.

‫״בין ָה ַע ְר ָ ּביִ ם״ – ֵ ּבין ֶע ֶרב דְּ ֶא ְתמֹול‬ ּ ֵ ‫ דְּ ָס ַבר‬As ben Beteira maintained that when the Torah says the Paschal .‫ ְל ֶע ֶרב דְּ ָה ִא ָידנָ א‬lamb must be sacrificed “bein ha’arbayim” (Exodus 12:6), which literally means: Between the evenings, but is often rendered: In the afternoon, the term refers to any time between the evening of yesterday and the current evening of the fourteenth. In other words, as Rav Sheshet maintained that the reason one may not eat on Passover eve is to prevent him from being distracted from preparing the Paschal lamb, and he also maintained that the Paschal offering may be sacrificed during the entire day of the fourteenth of Nisan, therefore, he would not eat that entire day. ‫יס ְּתנִיס‬ ְ ‫ ׁ ָשאנֵי ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת דְּ ִא‬,‫ ָלא‬:‫ ָא ְמ ִרי‬They say in response to this suggested interpretation of Rav Shesh‫אֹור ָתא‬ ְ ‫ דְּ ִאי ָט ֵעים ְ ּבצַ ְפ ָרא ִמידֵּ י – ְל‬,‫ ֲהוָ ה‬et’s practice: No, it is by no means clear that this was his reasoning. hl .‫יכ ָלא‬ ְ ‫יה ֵמ‬ ּ ‫ ָלא ֲהוָ ה ְמ ַהנֵי ֵל‬Rav Sheshet was different, as he was delicate [istenis], for if he would taste some food in the morning, the food he ate at night would not be effective for him. He would therefore fast the whole day so that he could eat matza at night with a hearty appetite.

240 

Perek X . 108a . ‫ףד‬

‫חק‬. ‫׳י קרפ‬

ּ ‫״וַ ֲא ִפ‬ ‫ֹאכל ַעד‬ ַ ‫יל ּו ָענִי ׁ ֶש ְ ּביִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ל ֹא י‬ ;‫יבה‬ ּ ָ ‫יך ֲה ִס‬ ְ ‫ ַמ ָ ּצה – צָ ִר‬:‫ית ַמר‬ ְּ ‫ ִא‬.‫ׁ ֶשּיָ ֵסב״‬ ‫ית ַמר‬ ְּ ‫ יַ יִ ן – ִא‬.‫יבה‬ ּ ָ ‫ָמרֹור – ֵאין צָ ִריךְ ֲה ִס‬ ,‫יבה‬ ּ ָ ‫יך ֲה ִס‬ ְ ‫ צָ ִר‬:‫יה דְּ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ ּ ‫ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬ ‫יך‬ ְ ‫ ֵאין צָ ִר‬:‫יה דְּ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ ְּ ‫וְ ִא‬ ּ ‫ית ַמר ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬ .‫יבה‬ ּ ָ ‫ֲה ִס‬

We learned in the mishna that even the poorest of Jews should not eat until he reclines. It was stated that amora’im discussed the requirement to recline. Everyone agrees that matza requires reclining, i.e., one must recline when eating matza, and bitter herbs do not require reclining.h With regard to wine, it was stated in the name of Rav Naĥman that wine requires reclining, and it was also stated in the name of Rav Naĥman that wine does not require reclining.

,‫ ָהא – ְ ּב ַת ְר ֵּתי ָכ ֵסי ַק ָּמ ֵאי‬,‫וְ ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬ ‫ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה‬.‫ָהא – ְ ּב ַת ְר ֵּתי ָכ ֵסי ַ ּב ְת ָר ֵאי‬ .‫יסא‬ ָּ ‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ְל ַהאי ִ ּג‬,‫יסא‬ ָּ ‫ְל ַהאי ִ ּג‬ – ‫ ְּת ֵרי ָכ ֵסי ַק ָּמ ֵאי‬:‫יסא‬ ָּ ‫ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ְל ַהאי ִ ּג‬ ‫ דְּ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא הוּא דְּ ָקא ַמ ְת ְח ָלא‬,‫ָ ּבע ּו ֲה ִס ָ ּיבה‬ ‫ ְּת ֵרי ָכ ֵסי ַ ּב ְת ָר ֵאי ָלא ָ ּבע ּו‬.‫ָל ּה ֵחירוּת‬ .‫יבה – ַמאי דַּ ֲהוָ ה ֲהוָ ה‬ ּ ָ ‫ֲה ִס‬

The Gemara explains: And these two statements do not disagree with each other: This statement is referring to the first two cups, and that statement is referring to the last two cups. However, it was not clear which two cups require reclining according to Rav Naĥman. Some say the explanation in this manner and some say it in that manner. The Gemara elaborates: Some say it in this manner, that the first two cups require reclining, as it is now that freedom begins. Since reclining is a sign of freedom, while discussing the exodus from Egypt it is appropriate to drink while reclining. By contrast, the last two cups do not require reclining, because what was already was. In other words, by this point one has completed the discussion of the Exodus and has reached the latter stages of the seder.

‫ ְּת ֵרי ָכ ֵסי‬,‫ ַאדְּ ַר ָ ּבה‬:‫וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ְל ַהאי ִ ּג ָּיסא‬ ‫יבה – ַה ִהיא ׁ ַש ְע ָּתא‬ ּ ָ ‫ַ ּב ְת ָר ֵאי ָ ּבע ּו ֲה ִס‬ ‫ ְּת ֵרי ָכ ֵסי ַק ָּמ ֵאי ָלא‬,‫דְּ ָקא ָהוְ יָ א ֵחירוּת‬ ‫״ע ָב ִדים ָהיִ ינוּ״‬ ֲ ‫יבה – דְּ ַא ַּכ ִּתי‬ ּ ָ ‫ָ ּבע ּו ֲה ִס‬ ‫ית ַמר‬ ְּ ‫ית ַמר ָה ִכי וְ ִא‬ ְּ ‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא דְּ ִא‬.‫ָק ָא ַמר‬ .‫יבה‬ ּ ָ ‫ָה ִכי – ִא ִידי וְ ִא ִידי ָ ּבע ּו ֲה ִס‬

And some say it in that manner and claim that on the contrary, the last two cups require reclining, as it is at that time that there is freedom. However, the first two cups do not require reclining, as one still says: We were slaves. The Gemara concludes: Now that it was stated so, and it was stated so, i.e., there are two conflicting opinions and it cannot be proven which two cups require reclining, both these sets of cups and those require reclining.hn

‫יבת‬ ּ ַ ‫יבה; ֲה ִס‬ ּ ָ ‫יה ֲה ִס‬ ּ ‫ּ ְפ ַר ְקדָּ ן – ָלא ׁ ְש ֵמ‬ ,‫יבה; וְ ל ֹא עֹוד‬ ּ ָ ‫יָ ִמין – ָלא ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ֲה ִס‬ ‫ושט וְ יָ בֹא‬ ֶ ׁ ֵ‫ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ָּמא יַ ְקדִּ ים ָקנֶ ה ְלו‬ .‫ִל ֵידי ַס ָּכנָ ה‬

The Gemara continues to discuss the halakha of reclining. Lying on one’s backn is not called reclining. Reclining to the right is not called reclining,n as free men do not recline in this manner. People prefer to recline on their left and use their right hand to eat, whereas they find it more difficult to eat the other way. And not only that, but if one reclines to the right, perhaps the windpipe will precede the esophagus.b The food will enter the windpipe, and one will come into danger of choking.h

;‫יבה‬ ּ ָ ‫ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ֵאצֶ ל ַ ּב ְע ָל ּה – ָלא ָ ּב ֲעיָ א ֲה ִס‬ ‫יכה‬ ָ ‫וְ ִאם ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ֲח ׁשו ָּבה ִהיא – צְ ִר‬ .‫יבה‬ ּ ָ ‫ ֵ ּבן ֵאצֶ ל ָא ִביו – ָ ּב ֵעי ֲה ִס‬.‫יבה‬ ּ ָ ‫ֲה ִס‬ ?‫ ַּת ְל ִמיד ֵאצֶ ל ַר ּבֹו ַמאי‬:ּ‫יב ֲעיָ א ְלהו‬ ּ ַ ‫ִא‬

A woman who is with her husband is not required to recline, but if she is an important woman,n she is required to recline.h A son who is with his fatherhn is required to recline. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to a student who is with his teacher?h Perhaps he is not obligated to recline, as he is in awe of his rabbi, and reclining is a sign of complete freedom and independence.

,‫ ִּכי ָהוֵ ינַן ֵ ּבי ָמר‬:‫(א ַמר) ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ָ ,‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ‫זָ גֵ ינַן ַא ִ ּב ְיר ֵּכי דַּ ֲה ָד ֵדי; ִּכי ָא ֵתינַן ְל ֵבי ַרב‬ ָ‫מֹורא ַר ְ ּבך‬ ָ ,ּ‫יכ ּתו‬ ְ ‫ ָלא צְ ִר‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ָלן‬,‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ .‫מֹורא ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם‬ ָ ‫ְּכ‬

Come and hear a proof that Abaye said: When we were in the house of my Master, Rabba, there was not enough room for everyone to recline on Passover, so we reclined on each other’s knees, to fulfill the obligation to recline. When we came to the house of Rav Yosef, he said to us: You need not recline, as the fear of your teacher is like the fear of Heaven. A student is subject to the authority of his teacher and may not display freedom in his presence.

ּ ‫ וַ ֲא ִפ‬,‫יסב‬ ‫יל ּו‬ ֵ ‫ ִעם ַה ּכֹל ָא ָדם ֵמ‬:‫ית ִיבי‬ ִ ‫ ֵמ‬The Gemara raises an objection: A person must recline in the – ‫ ַּת ְל ִמיד ֵאצֶ ל ַר ּבֹו! ִּכי ַּתנְ יָ א ַה ִהיא‬presence of anyone, and even a student who is with his teacher .‫ ְ ּב ׁשו ְּליָ א דְּ נַ ָ ּג ֵרי‬must do so. This baraita directly contradicts the statement of Rav Yosef. The Gemara answers: When that baraita was taught, it was with regard to a craftsman’s apprentice, not a student of Torah in the company of his rabbi. One who is in the presence of a person teaching him a trade is not in awe of his instructor, and he is therefore obligated to recline. ,‫ ׁ ַש ָּמ ׁש ַמאי? ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬:ּ‫יב ֲעיָ א ְלהו‬ ּ ַ ‫ִא‬ ‫ ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָּמ ׁש ׁ ֶש ָא ַכל‬:‫יְהֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬ ֻ ׁ ‫דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ – ‫ ֵמ ֵיסב‬.‫ַּכּזַ יִ ת ַמ ָ ּצה ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא ֵמ ֵיסב – יָ צָ א‬ ‫ ָ ּב ֵעי‬:‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬.‫יסב – ָלא‬ ֵ ‫ ל ֹא ֵמ‬,‫ִאין‬ .‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬.‫יבה‬ ּ ָ ‫ֲה ִס‬

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to a waiter? Is a waiter obligated to recline? The Gemara answers: Come and hear a solution, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A waiter who ate an olive-bulk of matza while reclining has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara infers: If he ate matza while reclining, yes, he has fulfilled his obligation; if he was not reclining, no, he has not fulfilled the obligation. Learn from this that a waiter requires reclining.h The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is the case.

halakha

Reclining while drinking the four cups – ‫ֲה ָס ָבה ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִתּיַ ת‬ ‫א ְר ַ ּבע ּכֹוסֹות‬:ַ One must recline while drinking the four cups of wine. If one drank without reclining, he must drink that cup again. Some authorities state that one is required to drink again only if he drank one of the first two cups without reclining, but not if he neglected to recline while drinking the last two cups (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 473:2, 472:7, and in the comment of the Rema). The manner in which one must recline – ‫דֶּ ֶרךְ ֲה ָס ָבה‬: One cannot fulfill the obligation to recline either by lying on his back or facedown or by reclining to the right. The obligation is fulfilled only by reclining to one’s left. The authorities differ as to which side a left-handed person should recline. The consensus is that for health reasons he should recline to the left like other people, but if he reclined to his right he has fulfilled his obligation (Sefer Mitzvot Gadol; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 472:3). An important woman…is required to recline – ‫ִא ׁ ּ ָשה‬ ‫יכה ֲה ָס ָבה‬ ָ ‫ח ׁשו ָּבה…צְ ִר‬:ֲ An important woman must recline. Today, all women are considered important. However, women do not customarily recline, based upon the opinion of the Ra’avya (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 472:4, and in the comment of the Rema). A son with his father – ‫בן ֵאצֶ ל ָא ִביו‬: ּ ֵ A son must recline in the presence of his father, as it can be assumed that his father forgoes his honor and allows his son to recline. This is the case even if the father is his son’s primary teacher. Some authorities write that the son must request permission to recline (Baĥ; Tosafot; Rosh; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 472:5). A student with his teacher – ‫ת ְל ִמיד ֵאצֶ ל ַר ּבֹו‬:ַּ A student in the presence of his teacher at the Passover seder does not need to recline, even if he is not his primary teacher. The greatest Sages of the generation are considered to be one’s teachers, even if one never actually studied with them. If a teacher grants his student permission to recline, the student is obligated to do so (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 472:5). A waiter must recline – ‫ש ָּמ ׁש צָ ִריךְ ְל ָה ֵסב‬: ַ ׁ A waiter is obligated to recline, despite the fact that he must serve the meal. An apprentice is obligated to recline even in the presence of his instructor, and the same is true of a Hebrew slave in the presence of his master (Peri Ĥadash; Elya Rabba; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 472:6).

background

Windpipe…esophagus – ‫קנֶ ה…וֵ ׁ ֶשט‬:ָ The fear is that food will enter the respiratory system.

notes

These and those require reclining – ‫יבה‬ ּ ָ ‫א ִידי וְ ִא ִידי ָ ּבע ּו ֲה ִס‬: ִ The uncertainty whether the first or the last two cups require reclining applies to a rabbinic law. In cases of this kind, the halakha is generally lenient. Nevertheless, since one can easily recline for all the cups without difficulty, it is preferable to do so and thereby fulfill the requirement according to all opinions (Maharam Ĥalawa).

the right in other contexts as well. For example, when reciting the taĥanun prayer one reclines on his left arm (Rav Hai Gaon).

Reclining to the right is not called reclining – ‫יבת יָ ִמין ָלא‬ ּ ַ ‫ֲה ִס‬ ‫יבה‬ ּ ָ ‫ש ָמ ּה ֲה ִס‬: ְ ׁ The reason for this is that reclining to the right is not a genuine expression of freedom. It is unusual to recline to

A son with his father – ‫בן ֵאצֶ ל ָא ִביו‬:ּ ֵ A father generally forgoes the honor due him from his son. Therefore, a son may recline on Passover even without his father’s explicit permission (Maor).

A woman and an important woman – ‫א ׁ ּ ָשה וְ ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ֲח ׁשו ָּבה‬: ִ Some commentaries explain that women are not entirely free, as they are usually busy with housework. Consequently, they do not engage in overt demonstrations of freedom. Only an important woman, who is not involved with housework, is Lying on one’s back [perakdan] – ‫פ ַר ְקדָּ ן‬:ְ ּ The commentaries obligated to recline (Nimmukei Yosef). Others say that most dispute the meaning of this term. Some commentaries assert women generally don’t recline, and therefore reclining is not that it refers exclusively to one who is lying on his back, while an expression of freedom for them. Only an important woman, others contend that it includes one who is lying face down. who often does recline, must do so on Passover as well (MikhA number of commentaries explain that it is derived from an tam). Several authorities assert that an important woman may amalgamation of two words: Puriyya kedal, which means that recline because she has maids who perform all her housework the bed faces the back of one’s neck (Maharam Ĥalawa). on her behalf (Rav Yehuda ben Rav Binyamin HaRofeh).



Diagram of windpipe and esophagus ‫חק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 108a 

241

halakha

Women are obligated in these four cups – ‫נָשים ַחּיָ יבֹות‬ ִׁ ‫ב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ּכֹוסֹות ַה ָּלל ּו‬:ּ ְ Women are obligated to drink the four cups of wine and are included in all the halakhot of the Passover seder (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 472:14).

‫נָשים‬ ִ ׁ :‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Women are obligated in h ,ּ‫ ַחּיָ יבֹות ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ּכֹוסֹות ַה ָּללו‬these four cups of wine at the Passover seder.

Perek X Daf 108 Amud b halakha

If one drank them undiluted – ‫ש ָת ָאן ַחי‬: ְ ׁ If one drank four cups of undiluted wine, he has fulfilled the mitzva to drink four cups but has not truly expressed his freedom. In other words, he has fulfilled the mitzva but not in the optimal fashion (Maggid Mishne; Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Ĥametz UMatza 7:9). If one drank the four cups all at once – ‫ש ָת ָאן ְ ּב ַבת ַא ַחת‬: ְׁ One who drank the four cups out of order has not fulfilled the obligation. This ruling is in accordance with the explanation of the Gemara accepted by the Rashbam and the Rosh. It does not follow Rashi’s interpretation (Baĥ). If one pours the contents of the four cups into one large cup and drinks it, it is considered as though he consumed just one of the four cups (Beit Yosef; Mishna Berura; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 472:8). Gave…the members of his household to drink – …‫ִה ׁ ְש ָקה‬ ‫ל ְבנֵי ֵביתֹו‬:ִ It is permitted for several people to drink from the same cup, provided that it contains one quarter-log for each individual. However, some authorities rule that one must drink the majority of the cup even if it is very large. The prevalent custom is in accordance with the first opinion (Mishna Berura; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 472:9). background

Cups – ‫כֹוסֹות‬:ּ The Gemara teaches that one must drink the four cups in a way that expresses freedom. One aspect that can enhance the element of freedom while drinking the four cups is using expensive and beautiful goblets.

.‫ ׁ ֶש ַאף ֵהן ָהי ּו ְ ּבאֹותֹו ַה ּנֵס‬As they too were included in that miraclen of the Exodus, they are therefore obligated to participate in the celebration. :‫ָא ַמ ר ַרב יְ ה ּו ָדה ָא ַמ ר ׁ ְשמ ּו ֵא ל‬ ‫יך ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא‬ ְ ‫ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ּכֹוסֹות ַה ָּלל ּו צָ ִר‬ ‫ ׁ ְש ָת ָאן‬.‫ָ ּב ֶהן ְּכ ֵדי ְמזִ יגַ ת ּכֹוס יָ ֶפה‬ ,‫ַחי – יָ צָ א; ׁ ּ ְש ָת ָאן ְ ּב ַבת ַא ַחת – יָ צָ א‬ .‫ִה ׁ ְש ָקה ֵמ ֶהן ְל ָבנָיו וְ ִל ְבנֵי ֵביתֹו – יָ צָ א‬

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: These four cups must contain enough undiluted wine to allow for diluting a significant cup.n In talmudic times, people would not drink pure wine. They would dilute it with water, generally adding three times as much water as wine. If one drank them undiluted, he has fulfilled his obligation. If one drank them all at once, i.e., he poured all four cups of wine into one large cup and drank it, he has fulfilled the obligation. If one gave his sons or the members of his household to drink from them, he has nevertheless fulfilled the obligation.

‫ יְ ֵדי יַ יִ ן‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬.‫״ש ָת ָאן ַחי – יָ צָ א״‬ ְ ּ ׁ The Gemara now addresses each of these rulings of Shmuel in turn. h .‫ יְ ֵדי ֵחירוּת ל ֹא יָ צָ א‬,‫ יָ צָ א‬Shmuel said that if one drank them undiluted he has fulfilled his obligation. Rava said: He has fulfilled the obligation to drink the four cups of wine, but he has not fulfilled the obligation to drink in a way that expresses freedom, which is the preferable way to fulfill the mitzva, as aristocrats do not drink undiluted wine. ‫ יְ ֵדי‬:‫ ַרב ָא ַמר‬,‫״ש ָת ָאן ְ ּב ַבת ַא ַחת״‬ ְׁ ‫ יְ ֵדי ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ּכֹוסֹות – ל ֹא‬,‫יַ יִ ן – יָ צָ א‬ – ‫ ִה ׁ ְש ָקה ֵמ ֶהן ְל ָבנָיו וְ ִל ְבנֵי ֵביתֹו‬.‫יָ צָ א‬ ‫ וְ הוּא‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק‬.‫יָ צָ א‬ .‫דְּ ִא ׁ ְש ֵּתי רו ָ ּּבא דְּ ָכ ָסא‬

If one drank the four cups all at once,h Rav said that he has fulfilled the obligation to drink wine as an expression of rejoicing on the Festival, but he has not fulfilled the obligation to drink four cups, which requires four distinct cups, each drunk separately. Shmuel also stated that if one gave his sons or the members of his household to drinkhn from them, he has nevertheless fulfilled his obligation. Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said: And this is the case only if he himself drank the majority of the cup.

‫יך‬ ְ ‫ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ּכֹוסֹות ַה ָּלל ּו צָ ִר‬:‫ית ִיבי‬ ִ ‫ֵמ‬ ‫ ֶא ָחד ַחי‬,‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא ָ ּב ֶהן ְּכ ֵדי ְר ִב‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫יָשן‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ֶא ָחד ָח ָד ׁש וְ ֶא ָחד‬,‫וְ ֶא ָחד ָמזוּג‬ ‫יך ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא ּבֹו ַט ַעם‬ ְ ‫ צָ ִר‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יְ הו ָּדה‬ ,‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ ְּכ ֵדי ְר ִב‬:‫יהת‬ ַ ‫ ָק ָתנֵי ִמ‬.‫ו ַּמ ְר ֵאה יַ יִ ן‬ !‫וְ ַא ְּת ָא ַמ ְר ְּת ּכֹוס יָ ֶפה‬

The Gemara raises an objection to the above rulings from a baraita: These four cupsb must contain one quarter-log, whether the wine is undiluted or diluted, whether it is new or aged. Rabbi Yehuda says: It must have the taste and appearance of wine. In any event, this baraita is teaching that each cup must contain at least the amount of one quarter-log,n and yet you said that each must contain enough for diluting a significant cup. notes

Gold goblet found in Greece dating back to 1500 BCE

They too were included in that miracle – ‫ַאף ֵהן ָהי ּו ְ ּבאֹותֹו‬ ‫ה ּנֵס‬:ַ Based upon the ge’onim, Rashi and Rashbam explain that notwithstanding the general principle that women are exempt from time-bound positive mitzvot, the Sages obligated women in certain mitzvot. In this case, women are obligated because they played a prominent role in bringing about the miracle. However, Tosafot disagree, and maintain that women are included in the obligation because they were in equal danger as the men. Some commentaries explain that women experienced unusual suffering in Egypt because the Egyptians forced men to perform women’s labors and women to do tasks suited to men. In addition, the Egyptians threw newborn babies into the Nile, which caused exceptional grief to the women (Rav Yehuda ben Rav Binyamin HaRofeh).

The cup used by the leader is a large one that contains one quarter-log of wine for each member of the household. When the Gemara says that one must drink the majority of the cup, it means the majority of the minimum amount of wine that a cup must contain, i.e., one quarter-log. The novel element in this ruling is that it is not necessary for each individual to have his own cup. The second interpretation is that these household members are minors who are not obligated to drink the four cups. In that case, the novel element is that it is unnecessary to drink one’s entire cup; drinking the majority of the wine it contains is sufficient (Maharam Ĥalawa).

In any event this baraita is teaching the amount of one quarter-log – ‫יעית‬ ִ ‫יהת ְּכ ֵדי ְר ִב‬ ַ ‫ק ָתנֵי ִמ‬:ָ The Gemara initially assumes that according to Shmuel, one quarter of one quarter-log A significant cup – ‫כֹוס יָ ֶפה‬:ּ This phrase is referring to the cup is sufficient, even if one drinks undiluted wine, as this amount of wine used for Grace after Meals. It is called a significant cup of wine is suitable to be diluted into a mixture that is a full because it must be rinsed both inside and outside before use quarter-log. Therefore, the Gemara challenges Shmuel’s view in (Tosefot Rid ). light of the baraita, which requires one quarter-log regardless of Gave…the members of his household to drink – ‫ה…ל ְבנֵי‬ ִ ‫ ִה ׁ ְש ָק‬whether the wine is diluted or undiluted. The Gemara’s answer ‫ביתֹו‬:ֵ There are at least two ways to understand this ruling. First, is that Shmuel also meant that one quarter of one quarter-log it is possible that these household members are adults who of wine is sufficient only if it is diluted, so that the cup contains are obligated in mitzvot and must drink the four cups of wine. a full quarter-log of diluted wine (Rashash).

242 

Perek X . 108b . ‫ףד‬

‫חק‬: ‫׳י קרפ‬

‫ ִא ִיד י וְ ִא ִיד י ַח ד ׁ ִשיע ּו ָרא‬:‫ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ‫״כ ֵדי ְמזִ יגַ ת ּכֹוס יָ ֶפה״‬ ְּ ‫ ַמאי‬.‫הוּא‬ ‫ דְּ ָהוֵ י ְלה ּו‬,‫דְּ ָק ָא ַמר – ְל ָכל ַחד וְ ַחד‬ .‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ּכו ְּּלה ּו ְר ִב‬

They say in response that this and that are one and the same measure. The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the expression: Enough for diluting a significant cup, which Shmuel said? He meant that there must be enough undiluted wine for each and every one of the cups, i.e., one quarter-log of diluted wine. This amounts to one quarter-log of undiluted wine for all of them combined. A significant cup contains one quarter-log. This quarterlog is comprised of one quarter undiluted wine and three quarters water. Therefore, each cup must contain at least one quarter of one quarter-log of undiluted wine, so that one consumes a full quarterlog of liquid from each cup.

‫יך ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא ּבֹו‬ ְ ‫ צָ ִר‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַ״ר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬.‫ַט ַעם ו ַּמ ְר ֶאה״‬ ‫״אל ֵּת ֶרא יַ יִ ן‬ ַ :‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ .‫ִּכי יִ ְת ַאדָּ ם״‬

The baraita stated that Rabbi Yehuda says the cup from which one drinks must have the taste and appearance of wine. Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? As it is written: “Look not upon wine when it is red” (Proverbs 23:31).n This verse proves that the appearance of wine and not only its taste is important.

‫ ַה ּכֹל ַחּיָ ִיבין ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ּכֹוסֹות‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ,‫נָשים‬ ִ ׁ ‫נָשים וְ ֶא ָחד‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ֶא ָחד ֲא‬,‫ַה ָּלל ּו‬ ‫ וְ ִכי‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫וְ ֶא ָחד ִּתינֹוקֹות‬ ,‫ֹוע ֶלת יֵ ׁש ְל ִתינֹוקֹות ְ ּביַ יִ ן? ֶא ָּלא‬ ֶ ‫ַמה ּת‬ ‫ְמ ַח ְּל ִקין ָל ֶהן‬

The Sages taught in a baraita: All are obligated in these four cups, including men, women, and children.h Rabbi Yehuda said: What benefit do children receive from wine? They do not enjoy it. Rather, one distributes to them

notes

Wine when it is red – ‫יַ יִ ן ִּכי יִ ְת ַאדָּ ם‬: The fact that the verse issues a warning with regard to red wine is an indication that red wine is especially appealing and important. Therefore, it is fitting to use this wine for the mitzva. halakha

Children on Passover – ‫תינֹוקֹות ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח‬:ִּ A child who is old enough to be educated in the performance of mitzvot should be given wine for the four cups. However, some authorities maintain that this is not necessary (Mishna Berura, citing Rashbatz; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 472:15).

Perek X Daf 109 Amud a ‫ ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬,‫ְק ָליֹות וֶ ֱאגֹוזִ ין ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ‫ ָא ְמר ּו ָע ָליו ַעל ַר ִ ּבי‬.ּ‫ וְ יִ ׁ ְש ֲאלו‬,ּ‫יִ ׁ ְשנו‬ ‫ֲע ִק ָיבא ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ְמ ַח ֵּלק ְק ָליֹות וֶ ֱאגֹוזִ ין‬ ,ּ‫ַל ִּתינֹוקֹות ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ּ ֶפ ַסח ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יִ ׁ ְשנו‬ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫ ַּתנְ יָ א‬.ּ‫וְ יִ ׁש ֲאלו‬ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל‬,‫חֹוט ִפין ַמ ּצֹות ְ ּב ֵל ֵילי ּ ְפ ָס ִחים‬ ְ .ּ‫ִּתינֹוקֹות ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יִ ׁ ְשנו‬

roasted grains and nutsh on Passover eve, so that they will not sleep and also so they will ask the four questions at night. They said about Rabbi Akiva that he would distribute roasted grains and nuts to children on Passover eve, so that they would not sleep and so they would ask. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: One grabs the matzot hn on the nights of Passover. One should eat them very quickly on account of the children, so that, due to the hasty consumption of the meal, they will not sleep and they will inquire into the meaning of this unusual practice.

:‫יבא‬ ָ ‫ ָא ְמר ּו ָע ָליו ַעל ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק‬,‫ַּתנְ יָ א‬ ‫ִמּיָ ָמיו ל ֹא ָא ַמר ִה ִ ּג ַיע ֵעת ַל ֲעמֹוד ְ ּב ֵבית‬ ‫ ח ּוץ ֵמ ַע ְר ֵבי ְפ ָס ִחים וְ ֶע ֶרב‬,‫ַה ִּמ ְד ָר ׁש‬ ‫ ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ּ ֶפ ַסח – ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל‬.‫יֹום ַה ִּכ ּפו ִּרים‬ ‫ וְ ֶע ֶרב יֹום‬.ּ‫ ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יִ ׁ ְשנו‬,‫ִּתינֹוקֹות‬ .‫נֵיהם‬ ֶ ‫ּיַא ִכיל ּו ֶאת ְ ּב‬ ֲ ‫ַה ִּכ ּפו ִּרים – ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶש‬

It was taught in a baraita: They said about Rabbi Akiva that in all his days he never said to his students that the time had come to arise from their learning in the study hall. Instead, he would continue to teach as long as they were willing to listen. This was true except for the eves of Passover and the eve of Yom Kippur, when he would stop teaching. The Gemara explains the reasons for these exceptions: On the eve of Passover, he would stop on account of the children, so that they would go to sleep during the day, so that they would not be tired and sleep at night. And on the eve of Yom Kippur,n he would stop so that his students would remember to feed their children.

halakha

Roasted grains and nuts – ‫ק ָליֹות וֶ ֱאגֹוזִ ין‬:ְ It is a mitzva to distribute roasted grains and nuts to the children so that they will ask questions (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 472:16). One grabs the matzot – ‫חֹוט ִפין ַמצּ ֹות‬: ְ One must be careful to set the table and complete all preparations during the day of Passover eve. This will enable him to begin the seder immediately after dark, so that the children will not fall asleep and will be able to participate (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 472:1). To gladden…the members of his household on a Festival – ‫…בנֵי ֵביתֹו ָ ּב ֶרגֶ ל‬ ּ ְ ‫ל ַ ׂש ֵּמ ַח‬:ְ One is obligated to rejoice on a Festival and to ensure that his wife, children, and all of his dependents are happy as well. On these occasions, one is also obligated to support orphans, proselytes, and widows, in addition to poor people in general (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 529:2).

‫ ַחּיָ יב ָא ָדם ְל ַ ׂש ֵּמ ַח ָ ּבנָיו ו ְּבנֵי‬:‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬The Sages taught: A man is obligated to gladden his children and h .‫ ״וְ ָ ׂש ַמ ְח ָּת ְ ּב ַח ֶ ּגךְ ״‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ ֵ ּביתֹו ָ ּב ֶרגֶ ל‬the members of his household on a Festival, as it is stated: “And .‫ ַ ּב ֶּמה ְמ ַ ׂש ְּמ ָחם? ַ ּבּיַ יִ ן‬you shall rejoice on your Festival, you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow that are within your gates” (Deuteronomy 16:14). With what should one make them rejoice? With wine. notes

One grabs the matzot – ‫חֹוט ִפין ַמצּ ֹות‬: ְ This expression has been interpreted in various ways. Several commentaries explain that the matza is consumed quickly so that the children will be able to ask their questions before they fall asleep. Other commentaries maintain that if the children attempt to eat the matza before the recital of the Haggadah, the matza is grabbed away from them so that they will not doze off after eating their fill. Yet other



authorities state that the seder plate is lifted and the matza removed from the table to surprise the children and arouse their interest and curiosity (see Rashi; Rashbam). Alternatively, the matza is grabbed from the children in a playful manner so that they will not fall asleep (Rabbeinu Yehonatan). Some commentaries assert that adults should playfully grab the matza from each other, which expresses love for the mitzva and also sparks

the interest of the children so they will not fall asleep and will be able to ask the four questions (Rambam; Nimmukei Yosef   ). The eve of Yom Kippur – ‫ע ֶרב יֹום ַה ִּכ ּפו ִּרים‬:ֶ If the adults have to eat quickly, the younger members of their households might not have enough time to eat as much as they need (Rabbeinu Yehonatan). ‫טק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 109a 

243

notes

Men…with wine – ‫ים…בּיַ יִ ן‬ ַּ ‫נָש‬ ִ ׁ ‫א‬:ֲ Rav Ĥayyim David Azulai explains that since men expend considerable effort and sometimes even borrow money to purchase the items required for the Festival, they should drink wine on the Festival to alleviate their stress. Women, who are not subject to these concerns, are happy with new clothes (Ben Yehoyada). In Babylonia with colored clothes, etc. – ‫ְ ּב ָב ֶבל ְ ּב ִבגְ ֵדי‬ ‫צִ ְבעֹונִין וכו׳‬: In other words, in each location one should give the members of his household items they are familiar with and will enjoy (Rav Yehuda ben Rav Binyamin HaRofeh). Eighth – ‫יתא‬ ָ ְ‫ת ְמנַי‬:ַּ Usually this refers to one-half of onequarter. However, in this particular case it is either a measurement called by this name or one that was one-eighth in a system of measurement other than a log. In the water [bamayim], in the water of a ritual bath – ‫ב ַּמיִ ם ְ ּב ֵמי ִמ ְקוֶ ה‬:ּ ַ Since the word is pronounced bamayim rather than bemayim, it is referring to the definite article, i.e., a specific body or type of water. The Sages explained that it is referring to water that has not been drawn, which is collected in one place. This water is fit for a ritual bath (Rashbam). language

Brine [moraysa] – ‫מֹוריְ ָסא‬: ַ From the Latin muria, meaning brine or a salted food. halakha

An interposition with regard to immersion – ‫ֲחצִ יצָ ה‬ ‫ב ְט ִב ָילה‬:ּ ִ If the majority of one’s body is covered by a substance that he does not care to remove, or if a minority of one’s body is covered by a substance he wants to remove, these coverings constitute an interposition and invalidate his immersion in a ritual bath. If it is a substance that one does not care to remove, and it covers only a minority of his body, this does not constitute an interposition. However, ideally one should be careful to remove all obstructions between one’s body and the water. This rule is especially important with regard to the immersion of a woman after menstruation (Rema). This is the prevailing custom in Jewish communities (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 198:1). Preparation for immersion – ‫ה ְכ ׁ ֵשר ְט ִב ָילה‬:ֶ Immersion is valid only in a proper ritual bath, the sea, or a flowing spring (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 201:1).

,‫נָשים ְ ּב ָראוּי ָל ֶהם‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ֲא‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ‫נָשים ְ ּב ָרא ּוי‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ֲא‬.‫נָשים ְ ּב ָרא ּוי ָל ֶהן‬ ִ ׁ ְ‫ו‬ ‫נָשים ְ ּב ַמאי? ָּתנֵי ַרב‬ ִ ׁ ְ‫ ו‬.‫ָל ֶהם – ַ ּבּיַ יִ ן‬ ‫ ְ ּב ָב ֶבל – ְ ּב ִבגְ ֵדי צִ ְבעֹונִין; ְ ּב ֶא ֶרץ‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ .‫גֹוהצִ ין‬ ָ ‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל – ְ ּב ִבגְ ֵדי ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן ְמ‬

Rabbi Yehuda says: One should enable each member of his household to rejoice with an item that pleases them, men with what is fit for them and women with what is fit for them. Rabbi Yehuda elaborates: Men with what is fit for them, i.e., with wine.n And as for the women, with what should one cause them to rejoice? Rav Yosef teaches: One should delight them with new clothes, in Babylonia with colored clothesn and in Eretz Yisrael with the pressed linenb clothes that are manufactured there.

:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ֶ ּבן ְ ּב ֵת ָירא‬,‫ַּתנְ יָ א‬ ‫ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבית ַה ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש ַקּיָ ים – ֵאין ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה‬ ‫ ״וְ זָ ַב ְח ָּת ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ַ ּב ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ .‫וְ ָא ַכ ְל ָּת ׁ ָשם וְ ָ ׂש ַמ ְח ָּת ִל ְפנֵי ה׳ ֱאל ֶֹהיךְ ״‬ ‫וְ ַע ְכ ׁ ָשיו ׁ ֶש ֵאין ֵ ּבית ַה ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש ַקּיָ ים – ֵאין‬ ‫ ״וְ יַ יִ ן יְ ַ ׂש ַּמח‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה ֶא ָּלא ַ ּבּיַ יִ ן‬ .‫נֹוש״‬ ׁ ‫ְל ַבב ֱא‬

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: When the Temple is standing, rejoicing is only through the eating of sacrificial meat, as it is stated: “And you shall sacrifice peace-offerings and you shall eat there and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 27:7). And now that the Temple is not standing and one cannot eat sacrificial meat, he can fulfill the mitzva of rejoicing on a Festival only by drinking wine, as it is stated: “And wine that gladdens the heart of man” (Psalms 104:15).

‫מֹוריְ ָסא דַּ ֲהוָ ה‬ ַ ְּ‫ ַק ְס ָּתא ד‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק‬ ,‫ְ ּבצִ ּיפ ִֹורי ִהיא ֲהוַ ת ְּכ ִמין לוּגָ א דְּ ִמ ְקדָּ ׁ ָשא‬ ‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫יעית ׁ ֶשל ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ִ ‫ו ָּב ּה ְמ ׁ ַש ֲע ִרין ְר ִב‬ ‫יתא דַּ ֲהוָ ה‬ ָ ְ‫יתא ַק ְד ַמי‬ ָ ְ‫ ַּת ְמנַי‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ ,‫ְ ּב ִט ֶ ּב ְריָ א ֲהוַ ת יְ ֵת ָירה ַעל דָּ א ִר ְיב ָעא‬ .‫יעית ׁ ֶשל ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ִ ‫ו ָּב ּה ְמ ׁ ַש ֲע ִרין ְר ִב‬

Rabbi Yitzĥak said: The vessel used for measuring brine [mo­ ray­sa]l that was in Tzipporib was the same volume as the log in the Temple, and with it the Sages would measure the quarterlog of Passover. They would fill this vessel and then divide the liquid it contained into four equal parts. The result was one quarter-log, which is the minimum measure of wine for the four cups on Passover and for certain other halakhot. Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The old eighthn measure that was in use in Tiberias was greater than this eighth measure by one quarter-log, and with it we measure the quarter-log of Passover. When the old measure is filled and poured into the newer version, the amount left in the original vessel is one quarter-log.

‫יעית ׁ ֶשל ּת ָֹורה‬ ִ ‫ ְר ִב‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ‫ ְ ּברוּם ֶאצְ ָ ּב ַעיִ ם‬,‫ֶאצְ ָ ּב ַעיִ ם ַעל ֶאצְ ָ ּב ַעיִ ם‬ :‫ ִּכ ְד ַתנְיָ א‬.‫חֹומ ׁש ֶאצְ ַ ּבע‬ ֶ ְ‫וַ ֲחצִ י ֶאצְ ַ ּבע ו‬ ‫״וְ ָר ַחץ ַ ּב ַּמיִ ם ֶאת ָּכל ְ ּב ָ ׂשרֹו״ – ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ֵיְהא‬ – ‫״ב ַּמיִ ם״‬ ּ ַ .‫דָּ ָבר חֹוצֵ ץ ֵ ּבין ְ ּב ָ ׂשרֹו ַל ַּמיִ ם‬ ‫״את ָּכל ְ ּב ָ ׂשרֹו״ – ַמיִ ם ׁ ֶש ָּכל‬ ֶ .‫ְ ּב ֵמי ִמ ְקוֶ ה‬ ?‫ וְ ַכ ָּמה ֵהן‬.‫עֹולה ָ ּב ֶהן‬ ֶ ‫גּ וּפֹו‬

Rav Ĥisda said: The quarter-log measurement of the Torahb is two fingerbreadths by two fingerbreadths in volume, by the height of two fingerbreadths and one half fingerbreadth and one-fifth of a fingerbreadth. This statement is as it was taught in a baraita concerning a ritual bath, about which the verse states: “And he shall bathe all his flesh in the water” (Leviticus 15:16), from which the Sages expounded: This phrase teaches that there should be nothing interposing between one’s flesh and the water.h The expression “in the water” indicates that the verse is referring to a specific body of water, i.e., in the water of a ritual bath.nh The phrase “all his flesh” teaches that one must immerse in water that his whole body can enter at once. And how much is that?

background

Linen – ‫פ ׁ ְש ָּתן‬:ִ ּ The image depicts a linen cloth found in Qumran cave 1, from the first century CE.

ִ ‫ר ִב‬:ְ Tzippori – ‫צִ ּיפ ִֹורי‬: The image shows a mosaic that depicts the The quarter-log measurement of the Torah – ‫יעית ׁ ֶשל ּת ָֹורה‬ zodiac, found on the floor of the ancient synagogue in Tzippori. Rav Ĥisda’s calculation is based on the dimensions and volume of a ritual bath. A ritual bath must be at least one cubit by one cubit in area, with a height of three cubits, i.e., a volume of three cubic cubits, which equals forty se’a. The Gemara states that one quarter-log is the volume of two fingerbreadths by two fingerbreadths, by a height of two fingerbreadths plus one half-fingerbreadth plus one-fifth of a fingerbreadth. The total volume is two by two by 2.7, which equals 10.8 cubic fingerbreadths. The calculations of the Rashbam and Tosafot are highly complex because they do not use a decimal system.

First-century linen cloth

Floor of Tzippori synagogue

244 

Perek X . 109a . ‫ףד‬

‫טק‬. ‫׳י קרפ‬

Perek X Daf 109 Amud b ‫יער ּו‬ ֲ ‫ וְ ׁ ִש‬.‫ ַא ָּמה ַעל ַא ָּמה ְ ּברוּם ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ַא ּמֹות‬A cubit, by a cubit, by a height of three cubits. And the .‫ ֲח ָכ ִמים ׁ ִשיעוּר ֵמי ִמ ְקוֶ ה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים ְס ָאה‬Sages measured the measure of the water necessary for a ritual bathb at forty se’a.h :‫ ָא ַמר ִלי ָר ִבין ַ ּבר ִח ָּיננָ א‬,‫ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ‫ דְּ ִאי‬.‫ׁשו ְּל ָחן ׁ ֶשל ִמ ְקדָּ ׁש ׁ ֶשל ּ ְפ ָר ִקים ֲהוָ ה‬ ‫דֹוקי ֲהוָ ה ִמ ֲיה ַדק – ַא ְּמ ָתא‬ ֵ ‫ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּתךְ ַה‬ ?‫יה‬ ִ ‫ְ ּב ַא ְּמ ָתא ֵה‬ ּ ‫יכי ַמ ְט ְ ּב ֵל‬

The Gemara cites a discussion related to the topic of measurements. Rav Ashi said: Ravin bar Ĥinnana said to me: The table of the Temple,bn upon which the shewbread was placed, was comprised of assembled parts.n For if it should enter your mind that the table was firmly connected and could not be taken apart, how could the priests immerse a cubit in a cubit? The dimensions of the table were two cubits by one cubit, with a height of one and a half cubits. If the table contracted ritual impurity, it had to be immersed in a ritual bath. If a ritual bath contains an area of one cubit by one cubit, the table can fit inside only if it is dismantled.

‫ַמאי קו ׁ ְּשיָ א? דִּ ְיל ָמא ַ ּבּיָ ם ׁ ּ ֶש ָע ָ ׂשה ׁ ְשלֹמֹה‬ ‫ יָ ם‬:‫יה? דְּ ָתנֵי ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא‬ ּ ‫ֲהוָ ה ַמ ְט ִ ּביל ֵל‬ ‫ׁ ּ ֶש ָע ָ ׂשה ׁ ְשלֹמֹה ַמ ֲחזִ יק ְמ ָאה וַ ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ִשים‬ .‫ִמ ְקוֵ ה ָט ֳה ָרה‬

The Gemara responds: What is the difficulty? Perhaps the priest would immerse it in the sea that King Solomon built,b which was a very wide ritual bath, as it states: “And he made the molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass” (I Kings 7:23). As Rabbi Ĥiyya taught: The sea that Solomon built contained the volume of water of one hundred and fifty ritual purification baths. It was certainly possible to immerse even large vessels in this sea.

‫יכי ְמ ַת ְּקנִי‬ ִ ‫ ֵה‬.‫״וְ ל ֹא יִ ְפ ֲחת ּו לֹו ֵמ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה״‬ :‫ַר ָ ּבנַן ִמ ֵידי דְּ ָא ֵתי ָ ּב ּה ִל ֵידי ַס ָּכנָ ה? וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא‬,‫ וְ ל ֹא יִ ׁ ְש ֶּתה ְּת ֵרי‬,‫ֹאכל ָא ָדם ְּת ֵרי‬ ַ ‫ל ֹא י‬ !‫ וְ ל ֹא יַ ֲע ֶ ׂשה צְ ָר ָכיו ְּת ֵרי‬,‫יְ ַק ֵ ּנ ַח ְּת ֵרי‬

We learned in the mishna that even with regard to the poorest of Jews, the charity distributors should not give him less than four cups of wine. The Gemara asks: How could the Sages establish a matter through which one will come to expose himself to danger? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: A person should not eat pairs, i.e., an even number of food items; and he should not drink pairs of cups; and he should not wipe himself with pairs; and he should not attend to his sexual needs in pairs. The concern was that one who uses pairs exposes himself to sorcery or demons. Why would the Sages require one to drink an even number of cups and thereby place himself in a position of danger?

background

Ritual bath – ‫מ ְקוֶ ה‬:ִ The ritual bath in the image was excavated in Herodion.

Ritual bath Table of the Temple – ‫שו ְּל ָחן ׁ ֶשל ִמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬:ׁ Illustration of the different parts of the table used in the Temple.

Table of the Temple

halakha

The measure of a ritual bath – ‫שיעוּר ִמ ְקוֶ ה‬: ִ ׁ The minimum dimensions of a ritual bath are one cubit by one cubit by three cubits, i.e., a volume of forty se’a. A ritual bath does not actually need to be square or match

these particular dimensions. If it contains a volume of at least forty se’a and one can completely immerse oneself in its water, the ritual bath is fit for use (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 201:1).

Sea that King Solomon built – ‫ּיָ ם ׁ ּ ֶש ָע ָ ׂשה ׁ ְשלֹמֹה‬: The sea, according to the plain sense of the verses, was a huge half-sphere made of copper, with a diameter of ten cubits and a circumference of approximately thirty cubits. It held the water used for washing the priests’ hands and feet. The laver rested on twelve statues resembling cattle, which were arranged three on each side.

notes

The table of the Temple – ‫ש ְל ָחן ׁ ֶשל ִמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬: ֻ ׁ All the sacred vessels were immersed in a ritual bath after each Festival, due to the concern that they had been touched by ritually impure people. Although the priests were generally careful not to touch the table so as not to move it, as the verse states that the sacred table must be “before Me always” (Exodus 25:30), if it became ritually impure it had to be immersed. Some authorities explain that this Gemara is not referring to the table of the shewbread, but to a golden table that stood next to that table, upon which the priests would place the shewbread after it had been removed from the sacred table (Me’iri). The table of the Temple was of parts – ‫ׁ ֻש ְל ָחן ׁ ֶשל ִמ ְקדָּ ׁש ׁ ֶשל‬ ‫פ ָר ִקים ֲהוָ ה‬:ְ ּ It is clear to the Gemara that the ritual bath in the



Temple was only one cubit wide, either because that was the width of the water channel in the Temple or because there was a tradition that there was a ritual bath of this size in the Temple courtyard for the use of the priests. The reason the question was asked specifically with regard to the sacred table is because this table could be moved only during the short interval when there was no shewbread on it. This occurred on Shabbat, when the priests would remove the old shewbread from the table to be replaced with the new shewbread. Therefore, it was impossible to immerse the table in a ritual bath outside the Temple because of the prohibition against carrying from one domain to another on Shabbat. Consequently, the priests had to use the ritual bath in the Temple (see Livyat Ĥen; Or Ĥadash; Mitzpe Eitan).

Depiction of Solomon’s Sea ‫טק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 109b 

245

notes

A night that remains guarded – ‫ליל ַה ְמ ׁשו ָּּמר ו ָּבא‬:ֵ Some commentaries explain that this night remains guarded throughout history, as it is set aside as the time of redemption for the Jewish people. Therefore, there is no concern for danger on this night (see Rashi tractate Rosh HaShana 12b). Alternatively, the verse states with regard to this night: “The night shines like the day” (Psalms 139:12), i.e., demons have no power at that time (Iyyun Ya’akov). Because safety is guaranteed on this night, the custom in many communities was to leave one’s doors unlocked as an expression of trust in God, as the Jews were redeemed due to their faith (ge’onim). In addition, the blessing abridging the seven blessings is not recited on Shabbat after the evening prayers because we are not afraid to walk home alone (Me’iri). Other customs are based on similar considerations. The cup of blessing…does not combine for the bad – ‫ּכֹוס‬ ‫ה…אינֹו ִמצְ ָט ֵרף ְל ָר ָעה‬ ֵ ‫של ְ ּב ָר ָכ‬: ֶ ׁ Some commentaries explain that the cup of blessing used for the Grace after Meals does not combine with the other three cups because the three cups prior to the meal are either not part of the meal or are integral to the meal. However, the fourth cup following the Grace after Meals is no longer part of the meal and is therefore separate from them (Me’iri). Other authorities state that the Sages would drink four cups beside the cup used for Grace after Meals, so there were actually five cups in total (ge’onim; see Rabbeinu Yehonatan).

‫״ליל‬ ֵ :‫ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬Rav Naĥman said that the verse said: “It was a night of watching ‫ ׁ ִשמ ּו ִּרים״ – ֵליל ַה ְמ ׁשו ָּּמר ו ָּבא ִמן‬to the Lord” (Exodus 12:42), which indicates that Passover night that remains guardedn from demons and harmful .‫ ַה ַּמּזִ ִיקין‬is a night spiritsh of all kinds. Therefore, there is no cause for concern about this form of danger on this particular night. ‫ ּכֹוס ׁ ֶשל ְ ּב ָר ָכה ִמצְ ָט ֵרף‬:‫ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ָר ִבינָ א‬.‫ וְ ֵאינֹו ִמצְ ָט ֵרף ְל ָר ָעה‬,‫טֹובה‬ ָ ‫ְל‬ ‫ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ָּכ ֵסי ַּת ִּקינ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן דֶּ ֶר ְך‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ָּכל ַחד וְ ַחד‬,‫ֵחירוּת‬

Rava said a different answer: The cup of blessing for Grace after Meals on Passover night is used in the performance of an additional mitzva and is not simply an expression of freedom. Therefore, it combines with the other cups for the good, i.e., to fulfill the mitzva to drink four cups, and it does not combine for the bad.n With regard to the danger of drinking pairs of cups, it is as though one drinks only three cups. Ravina said: The Sages instituted four separate cups, each of which is consumed in a manner that demonstrates freedom. Therefore, each and every one

halakha

A night that remains guarded from harmful spirits – ‫ֵליל‬ ‫ה ְמ ׁשו ָּּמר ו ָּבא ִמן ַה ַּמּזִ ִיקין‬:ַ When Passover falls on Shabbat, the blessing abridging seven blessings is not recited at the end of the service. This blessing was instituted so that people would remain in the synagogue a little longer to allow everyone to leave at the same time. However, on Passover there is no con-

cern about danger, and therefore the blessing is unnecessary (Itur, citing the Ran; Kol Bo). This is the common practice (Beit Yosef   ). Similarly, when reciting Shema before going to bed, it is customary to recite only the paragraph of Shema itself but not the other sections, which were instituted to provide protection from harmful spirits (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 481:2).

Perek X Daf 110 Amud a notes

He has changed his mind – ‫נִ ְמ ַלךְ הוּא‬: As the Gemara will later explain, the danger of pairs applies only when one performs multiple actions on a single occasion. However, if one completes an activity and repeats it again later, the two actions do not combine (Rashash). Pairs and harmful spirits – ‫זוּגֹות ו ַּּמּזִ ִיקים‬: In talmudic times, most people were influenced by popular superstitions and incantations. Provided that there was no concern for idolatry or prohibited gentile practices, the Sages did not attempt to uproot these customs. This was certainly true of practices that were so ingrained that people found them comforting and would have been distressed had they been prohibited from continuing them. For this reason, the Gemara subsequently says about pairs that one who is concerned about them should be careful not to perform actions in pairs, and one who is not concerned need not be careful (Me’iri). And to sleep is comparable to setting out on the road – ‫וְ ִלישֹן‬ ‫כ ָלצֵ את ַלדֶּ ֶר ְך דָּ ֵמי‬:ְּ Apparently, Rabbeinu Ĥananel had a textual variant, which he understood to mean that if one sleeps or uses the lavatory between cups, they do not combine to form a dangerous pair.

246 

Perek X . 110a . ‫ףד‬

‫יק‬. ‫׳י קרפ‬

.‫ ִמצְ וָ ה ְ ּב ַא ּ ֵפי נַ ְפ ׁ ָש ּה הוּא‬is a distinct mitzva in its own right. In other words, each cup is treated separately and one is not considered to be drinking in pairs. ְ‫״ ַא ַּמאי? נִ ְמ ַלך‬.‫״ל ֹא יַ ֲע ֶ ׂשה צְ ָר ָכיו ְּת ֵרי‬ ‫ ל ֹא‬:‫ ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬,‫הוּא! ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא יַ ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬,‫ֹאכל ְּת ֵרי וְ יִ ׁ ְש ֶּתה ְּת ֵרי‬ ַ ‫י‬ ּ ‫צְ ָר ָכיו ֲא ִפ‬ ‫יל ָמא‬ ְ ִּ‫ ד‬,‫יל ּו ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת‬ .‫ית ַרע‬ ְּ ‫ֲח ֵל ׁיש ו ִּמ‬

The baraita taught that one should not attend to his sexual needs in pairs. The Gemara asks: Why should one be concerned for this; he has changed his mind?n One does not plan in advance to engage in marital relations twice, and therefore the two acts should not combine to form a dangerous pair. Abaye said: This is what the tanna is saying, i.e., the baraita should be understood in the following manner: One should not eat in pairs nor drink in pairs, and if he does so he should not attend to his sexual needs right afterward even once, lest he is weakened by the act and will be harmed for having eaten or drunk in pairs.

‫ֹותה ִּכ ְפ ַליִ ם – דָּ מֹו‬ ֶ ‫ ׁש‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ?‫ימ ַתי‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ֹאשֹו‬ ׁ ‫ְ ּבר‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ָר ָאה ּ ְפנֵי ַה ׁ ּשוּק‬ ‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫ָר ָאה ּ ְפנֵי ַה ׁ ּשוּק – ָה ְר ׁשוּת ְ ּביָ דֹו‬ ‫יה ְל ַרב ֲחנַ נְיָא ַ ּבר‬ ּ ‫ ָחזֵ ינָ א ֵל‬:‫ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ‫ֵ ּב ָיבי דְּ ַא ָּכל ָּכ ָסא ֲהוָ ה נָ ֵפיק וְ ָחזֵ י ַא ּ ֵפי‬ .‫ׁשו ָּקא‬

The Sages taught in another baraita: If one drinks in pairsn his blood is upon his head, i.e., he bears responsibility for his own demise. Rav Yehuda said: When is that the case? When one did not leave the house and view the marketplace between cups. However, if he saw the marketplace after the first cup, he has permission to drink another cup without concern. Likewise, Rav Ashi said: I saw Rav Ĥananya bar Beivai follow this policy: Upon drinking each cup, he would leave the house and view the marketplace.

‫וְ ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא ָלצֵ את ַלדֶּ ֶרךְ ֲא ָבל‬ – ‫ וְ ִלישֹן‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬.‫ְ ּב ֵביתֹו ל ֹא‬ :‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬.‫ְּכ ָלצֵ את ַלדֶּ ֶר ְך דָּ ֵמי‬ ‫וְ ָל צֵ את ְל ֵבית ַה ִּכ ֵּסא – ְּכ ָל צֵ את‬ ‫ ו ְּב ֵביתֹו ל ֹא? וְ ָהא ָר ָבא‬.‫ַלדֶּ ֶר ְך דָּ ֵמי‬ .‫ָמנֵי ְּכ ׁשו ֵּרי‬

And we said that there is concern for the safety of one who drinks in pairs only when he intends to set out on the road after drinking, but if he intends to remain in his home there is no need for concern. Rabbi Zeira said: And one who plans to sleep is comparable to one who is setting out on the road.n He should be concerned that he might be harmed. The Gemara asks: And if one intends to remain in his home, is there no cause for concern? But Rava would count the beams of the house to keep track of the number of cups he had drunk so as to ensure that he would not consume an even number.

‫יה‬ ּ ‫וְ ַא ַ ּביֵ י ִּכי ׁ ָש ֵתי ַחד ָּכ ָסא ַמנְ ֵקיט ֵל‬ ‫ וְ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬,‫יה‬ ֵּ ‫ִא‬ ּ ‫יה ְּת ֵרי ָכ ֵסי ִ ּב ְת ֵרי יְ ֵד‬ ּ ‫ימ‬ ‫ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק ִּכי ֲהוָ ה ׁ ָש ֵתי ְּת ֵרי ָכ ֵסי ַמנְ ֵקיט‬ – ‫ ַחד ָּכ ָסא‬.‫יה ַחד ָּכ ָסא‬ ּ ‫יה ׁ ַש ָּמ ֵע‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫יה! ָא ָדם‬ ּ ‫יה ְּת ֵרי ָכ ֵסי ִ ּב ְת ֵרי יְ ֵד‬ ּ ‫ַמנְ ֵקיט ֵל‬ .‫ָח ׁשוּב ׁ ָשאנֵי‬

And likewise Abaye, when he would drink one cup, his mother would immediately place two cups in his two hands so that he would not inadvertently drink only one more cup and thereby expose himself to the danger of drinking in pairs. And similarly, when Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak would drink two cups, his attendant would immediately place one more cup in his hand, and if he would drink one cup, the attendant would place two cups in his two hands. These reports indicate that one should be concerned for his safety after drinking an even number of cups, even when he remains at home. The Gemara answers: An important person is different. The demons focus their attention on him, and he must therefore be more careful than the average person.

‫ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ּכֹוסֹות ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהם‬:‫ָא ַמר עו ָּּלא‬ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ עו ָּּלא ְל ַט ְע ֵמ‬.‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם זוּגֹות‬ :‫נִיתא ָּתנָ א‬ ָ ‫ ְ ּב ַמ ְת‬,‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה‬,‫עו ָּּלא‬ ְּ ‫ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ּכֹוסֹות ִּת‬ ‫יקנ ּו ֲח ָכ ִמים ְ ּב ֵבית‬ ‫ וְ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּתךְ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ּכֹוסֹות‬.‫ָה ֵא ֶבל‬ ‫ימי ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ִ ְ‫יכי ָקי‬ ִ ‫יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם זוּגֹות – ֵה‬ ְּ ‫וְ ִת ְּקנ ּו ִמ‬ ‫יל ָתא דְּ ָא ֵתי ִל ֵידי ַס ָּכנָ ה? ֲא ָבל‬ .‫ְּת ַמנְיָא – יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם זוּגֹות‬

Ulla said: Ten cups contain no element of the danger associated with pairs. Ulla rules here in accordance with his reasoning stated elsewhere, as Ulla said, and some say it was taught in a baraita: The Sages instituted that one must drink ten cups of wine in the house of a mournern during the meal of comfort. And if it could enter your mind that ten cups do contain the element of danger associated with pairs, how could the Sages arise and institute something that might bring a person to a state of danger? However, eight cups do contain the element of danger associated with pairs.

‫ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א וְ ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַרב הוּנָ א ְד ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ,‫טֹובה – ִמצְ ָט ֵרף‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬,‫״שלֹום״‬ ָ ׁ :ּ‫ַּת ְרוַ יְ יהו‬ ‫יתא יֵ ׁש‬ ָּ ‫ ֲא ָבל ׁ ִש‬.‫ְל ָר ָעה – ל ֹא ִמצְ ָט ֵרף‬ .‫ָ ּב ֶהן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם זוּגֹות‬

Rav Ĥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna both say that eight is also safe from the dangers of pairs, as the number seven, represented by the word shalom, combines with the previous cups for the good but does not combine for the bad. The final verse of the priestly benedictionb reads: “The Lord lift His countenance upon you and give you peace [shalom]” (Numbers 6:26). The word shalom, the seventh Hebrew word in this verse, has a purely positive connotation. Rav Ĥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna therefore maintain that the seventh cup combines with the previous six only for good purposes. After the seventh cup, i.e., from the eighth cup and on, the cups constitute pairs for the good but not for the bad. However, six cups do contain the element of danger associated with pairs.

: ‫יֹוסף ְד ָא ְמ ִרי ַּת ְרוַ יְ יה ּו‬ ֵ ‫ַר ָ ּבה וְ ַרב‬ – ‫ ְל ָר ָעה‬,‫טֹובה – ִמצְ ָט ֵרף‬ ָ ‫יח ֶּנ ָּך״ – ְל‬ ֻ ִ‫״ו‬ ‫ל ֹא ִמצְ ָט ֵרף; ֲא ָבל ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה – יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן‬ .‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם זוּגֹות‬

Rabba and Rav Yosef both say that even drinking six cups is not dangerous. The reason is that the fifth cup, represented by the word viĥuneka in the second verse of the priestly benediction: “The Lord make His face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you [viĥuneka]” (Numbers 6:25), combines with the previous cups for the good but does not combine for the bad. However, four cups do contain the element of danger associated with pairs.

background

Priestly benediction – ‫ב ְר ַּכת ּכ ֲֹהנִים‬:ּ ִ These miniature silver scrolls, one of which contains an abbreviated version of the priestly benediction, were found in Ketef Hinnom, southwest of the Old City of Jerusalem. The scrolls are dated to the sixth century BCE and may have been used as amulets. The Hebrew letters on the right are transcriptions of the ancient Hebrew script engraved on the scrolls.

Scrolls with priestly benediction from the First Temple period The public lecture [pirka] – ‫פ ְר ָקא‬:ִ ּ The term pirka refers to public lectures on practical halakha given by the Sages. These lectures were usually delivered before Festivals and would focus on the halakhot of the upcoming Festival. The discourses were attended by the entire community, not just scholars, and they differed from the regular lectures that the Sages delivered in their schools. It was considered proper etiquette for students not to raise difficulties against the opinion of a Sage who was delivering his discourse to the entire community.

‫ ״וְ יִ ׁ ְש ְמ ֶרךָ ״‬:ּ‫ ַא ַ ּביֵ י וְ ָר ָבא ְד ָא ְמ ִרי ַּת ְרוַ יְ יהו‬Abaye and Rava both say that even the number four is not danger.‫ ְל ָר ָעה ל ֹא ִמצְ ָט ֵרף‬,‫טֹובה ִמצְ ָט ֵרף‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬ous, as veyishmerekha, the third word in the first verse of the priestly benediction, reads: “The Lord bless you and keep you [veyishmerekha]” (Numbers 6:24). It combines for the good but does not combine for the bad. ‫ דְּ ָר ָבא ַא ּ ְפ ִקינְ ה ּו‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫וְ ָאזְ ָדא ָר ָבא ְל ַט ְע ֵמ‬ ‫ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב‬.‫ְל ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ּכֹוסֹות‬ ‫יתּזַ ק ָר ָבא ַ ּבר ִליוַ אי – ל ֹא ָח ׁש ָל ּה‬ ַּ ‫דְּ ִא‬ ‫אֹות ַבן‬ ְ ְּ‫ ַההוּא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ד‬:‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר‬.‫ְל ִמ ְּיל ָתא‬ .‫ְ ּב ִפ ְיר ָקא ֲהוָ ה‬

And Rava follows his standard line of reasoning in this regard, as Rava allowed the Sages to leave after having drunk fourn cups and was not concerned for their safety. Although Rava bar Livai was injured on one such occasion, Rava was not concerned that the matter had been caused by his consumption of an even number of cups, as he said: That injury occurred because Rava bar Livai challenged me during the public lecture.b It is improper for a student to raise difficulties against his rabbi during a public lecture, lest the rabbi be embarrassed by his inability to answer.

notes

Ten cups in the house of a mourner – ‫ֹוסֹות…ב ֵבית‬ ְּ ‫ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ּכ‬ ‫ה ֵא ֶבל‬:ָ The Sages established the practice of drinking in a house of mourning in accordance with the adage: “Give strong drink to him who is ready to perish, and wine to the bitter in soul” (Proverbs 31:6; Rashi).



Rava allowed the Sages to leave after four – ‫ָר ָבא ַא ּ ְפ ִקינְ ה ּו‬ ‫ל ַר ָ ּבנַן ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬:ְ Rava was not concerned about witchcraft, as witches were rare in his locale (Melo Haro’im). Alternatively, he relied on his great merit, as witchcraft does not affect the righteous (Rashash). ‫יק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 110a 

247

background

Yosef the Demon – ‫יֹוסף ׁ ִש ָידא‬: ֵ The identity of Yosef the Demon, who is mentioned several times in the Talmud, is not entirely clear. Rashi cites two possible interpretations: Either he was a human who was expert in the activities of demons, or he was an actual demon who commonly spoke with the Sages and explained to them the practices of demons. There is support in the Talmud for both interpretations.

‫ ַא ׁ ְש ְמ ַדאי‬:‫יֹוסף ׁ ִש ָידא‬ ֵ ‫ ָא ַמר ִלי‬,‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ,‫ַמ ְל ָּכא דְּ ׁ ֵש ֵידי ְממו ֶּּנה הוּא ַא ּכו ְּּלה ּו זוּגֵ י‬ ְּ ‫ו ַּמ ְל ָּכא ל ֹא ִא‬ ‫יכא ְד ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬.‫יק ֵרי ַמּזִ יק‬ ,]‫ ַמ ְל ָּכא ַ[ר ְת ַחנָ א הוּא‬,‫ ַאדְּ ַר ָ ּבה‬:‫יסא‬ ָּ ‫ְל ַהאי ִ ּג‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ַה ֶּמ ֶלךְ ּפ ֵֹורץ ָ ּג ֵדר ַל ֲע ׂשֹות‬,‫ַמאי דְּ ָב ֵעי ָע ֵביד‬ .‫מֹוחין ְ ּביָ דֹו‬ ִ ‫לֹו דֶּ ֶרךְ וְ ֵאין‬

Rav Yosef said: Yosef the Demonb said to me: Ashmedai,l the king of the demons, is appointed over all who perform actions in pairs, and a king is not called a harmful spirit. A king would not cause harm. Consequently, there is no reason to fear the harm of demons for having performed an action in pairs. Some say this statement in this manner: On the contrary, he is an angry king who does what he wants, as the halakha is that a king may breach the fence of an individual in order to form a path for himself,n and none may protest his action. Similarly, the king of demons has full license to harm people who perform actions in pairs.

:‫יֹוסף ׁ ִש ָידא‬ ֵ ‫ ָא ַמר ִלי‬,‫ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ;‫ִ ּב ְת ֵרי – ָק ְט ִלינַ ן; ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה – ָלא ָק ְט ִלינַ ן‬ ‫ ִ ּב ְת ֵרי – ֵ ּבין ְ ּב ׁשֹוגֵ ג ֵ ּבין‬.‫ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה – ַמּזְ ִקינַן‬ – ‫ ְ ּב ׁשֹוגֵ ג‬,‫ ְ ּב ֵמזִ יד – ִאין‬,‫ְ ּב ֵמזִ יד; ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ .‫ָלא‬

Rav Pappa said: Yosef the Demon said to me: If one drinks two cups, we demons kill him; if he drinks four, we do not kill him. But this person who drank four, we harm him. There is another difference between two and four: With regard to one who drinks two, whether he did so unwittingly or intentionally, we harm him. With regard to one who drinks four, if he does so intentionally, yes, he is harmed; if he does so unwittingly, no, he will not be harmed.

ְּ ‫יש ְּת ֵלי וְ ִא‬ ?‫יה‬ ְ ׁ ‫וְ ִאי ִא‬ ּ ‫ ַמאי ַּת ַ ּקנְ ֵּת‬,‫יק ֵרי וּנְ ַפק‬ ‫יה ִ ּב ָיד א‬ ִ ִּ‫יה ד‬ ּ ֵ‫ימ ינ‬ ּ ‫ִל ינְ קֹוט זַ ְק ּ ָפא דִּ ֵיד‬ ,‫ינֵיה‬ ִ ִּ‫יה ִ ּב ָידא ד‬ ֵ ‫יה וְ זַ ְק ּ ָפא דִּ ְ ׂש ָמ‬ ֵ ‫דִּ ְ ׂש ָמ‬ ּ ‫ימ‬ ּ ‫אל‬ ּ ‫אל‬ ‫ וְ ִאי‬.‫ ַא ּתוּן וַ ֲאנָ א – ָהא ְּת ָל ָתא‬:‫נֵימא ָה ִכי‬ ָ ְ‫ו‬ – ‫ ַא ּתוּן וַ ֲאנָ א ָהא ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬:‫יה דַּ ֲא ַמר‬ ּ ‫ׁ ְש ִמ ַיע ֵל‬ ‫ וְ ִאי ׁ ְש ִמ ַיע‬.‫ ַא ּתוּן וַ ֲאנָ א ָהא ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה‬:‫יה‬ ָ ּ ‫נֵימא ֵל‬ ‫נֵימא‬ ָ – ‫יתא‬ ָּ ‫ ַא ּתוּן וַ ֲאנָ א ָהא ׁ ִש‬:‫יה דַּ ֲא ַמר‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫ ֲהוָ ה עו ְּב ָדא ַעד‬.‫ ַא ּתוּן וַ ֲאנָ א ָהא ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ .‫ ו ָּפ ַקע ׁ ִש ָידא‬,‫ֵמ ָאה וְ ַחד‬

The Gemara asks: And if one forgets and it happens that he goes outside after having drunk an even number of cups, what is his solution? The Gemara answers: He should take his right thumb in his left hand, and his left thumb in his right hand,b and say as follows: You, my thumbs, and I are three, which is not a pair. And if he hearsn a voice that says: You and I are four, which makes a pair, he should say to it: You and I are five. And if he hears it say: You and I are six, he should say to it: You and I are seven. The Gemara relates that there was an incident in which someone kept counting after the demon until he reached a hundred and one, and the demon burst in anger.

‫נָשים‬ ִ ׁ ְּ‫יש ִּתינְ ִהי ד‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ָא ְמ ָרה ִלי ִר‬,‫ימר‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ָא ֵמ‬ ‫נָשים‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ַהאי ַמאן דְּ ָפגַ ע ְ ּבה ּו ְ ּב‬:‫ַּכ ׁ ְש ָפנִּיֹות‬ ּ ‫ימי ְ ּב ִד‬ ‫יקו ָּלא‬ ֵ ‫ ֲח ִרי ֲח ִמ‬:‫נֵימא ָה ִכי‬ ָ – ‫ַּכ ׁ ְש ָפנִּיֹות‬ ‫ ָק ַרח‬,‫ַ ּבּזַ ּיָ יא ְלפ ּו ַּמיְ יכ ּו נָ ׁ ֵשי דְּ ַח ְר ׁ ַשּיָ יא‬ ,‫יכי‬ ִ ְ‫ ּ ָפ ַרח ּ ַפ ְר ַחי‬,‫יכי‬ ִ ְ‫ַק ְר ַחי‬

Ameimar said: The chief of witches said to me: One who encounters witches should say this incantation: Hot feces in torn date baskets in your mouth, witches; may your hairs fall out because you use them for witchcraft; your crumbs, which you use for witchcraft, should scatter in the wind;

‫ ּ ַפ ְר ָחא זִ ָיקא ְלמו ִּר ָיקא‬,‫יכי‬ ִ ְ‫יבדּ וּר ַּת ְבלוּנַי‬ ּ ַ ‫ִא‬ ‫ ַא ְד ָחנַ נִי‬.‫נָשים ַּכ ׁ ְש ָפנִּיֹות‬ ִ ׁ ‫ַח ְד ָּתא דְּ נָ ְק ִטית ּו‬ – ‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא דְּ ָא ֵת ִיתי ְלגֹו‬.‫וְ ָחנַ נְ ִכי ָלא ָא ִת ִיתי ְלגֹו‬ .‫ַק ְר ֲחנַ נִי וְ ָחנַ נְ ִכי‬

your spices, which you use for your witchcraft, should scatter; the wind should carry away the fresh saffron that you witches hold to perform your witchcraft. As long as I was shown favor from Heaven and you showed me favor, I did not come here. Now that I have come here, your favor toward me has cooled and you should find favor.n

‫ימי ִמ ְּנ ַה ְרדְּ ָעא‬ ִ ִּ‫ ַרב ד‬.‫ְ ּב ַמ ַע ְר ָבא ָלא ָק ְפ ִדי ַאּזוּגֵ י‬ ‫ ֲהוָ ה עו ְּבדָּ א‬.‫ָק ֵפיד ֲא ִפילּ ּו ַארו ׁ ְּש ָמא דְּ ָח ִב ָיתא‬ – ‫ ָּכל דְּ ָק ֵפיד‬:‫ ְּכ ָל ָלא דְּ ִמ ְּיל ָתא‬.‫יתא‬ ָ ‫ו ָּפ ַקע ָח ִב‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה; ו ְּד ָלא ָק ֵפיד ָלא ָק ְפ ִדי ַ ּב ֲה ֵד‬ ּ ‫ָק ְפ ִדי ַ ּב ֲה ֵד‬ .‫יב ֵעי‬ ּ ָ ‫יח ׁש ִמ‬ ַ ‫ ְל ֵמ‬,ּ‫ו ִּמיהו‬

The Gemara relates that in the West, Eretz Yisrael, they were not particular with regard to pairs. Rav Dimi from Neharde’a was particular about pairs even with regard to the signs on a barrel; he would not write pairs of symbols on a barrel. There was an incident in which there were pairs of symbols on a barrel and the barrel burst. The Gemara concludes: The rule of the matter is that all who are particular about pairs, the demons are particular with him;n and if one is not particular, they are not particular with him. However, one is required to be concerned about the harm that might result from purposely performing actions in pairs.

His right thumb in his left hand, and his left thumb in his right hand – ‫יה וְ זַ ְק ּ ָפא‬ ֵ ‫ינֵיה ִ ּב ָידא דִּ ְ ׂש ָמ‬ ִ ִּ‫יה ד‬ ּ ‫אל‬ ּ ‫ימ‬ ּ ‫זַ ְק ּ ָפא דִּ ֵיד‬ ‫ינֵיה‬ ִ ִּ‫יה ִ ּב ָידא ד‬ ֵ ‫דִּ ְ ׂש ָמ‬: The image illustrates the grasping ּ ‫ימ‬ ּ ‫אל‬ of thumbs as described in the Gemara.

Right thumb in left hand, left thumb in right hand language

Ashmedai – ‫א ׁ ְש ְמ ַדאי‬: ַ Apparently, this name is ultimately derived from the early Iranian language Avestan, Aēšmō daēuuō, which means demon of wrath. notes

A king may breach the fence of an individual in order to form a path for himself – ְ‫מ ֶלךְ ּפ ֵֹורץ ָ ּג ֵדר ַל ֲע ׂשֹות לֹו דֶּ ֶרך‬:ֶ One of the privileges of a king is the right to breach fences of fields in order to form a path for himself. The individual concerned may not protest, as no one has the right to demand that the king construct his path in a particular direction or that it must be of a certain width. In theory, the size of a king’s path is unlimited (Rashi). And if he hears – ‫יה‬ ּ ‫וְ ִאי ׁ ְש ִמ ַיע ֵל‬: Apparently, Rashi and the Rashbam had a variant reading of this text: If one merely hears the voice of another person saying an even number, he should respond by mentioning an odd number.

Perek X Daf 110 Amud b notes

Your favor toward me has cooled and you should find favor – ‫ק ְר ֲחנַ נִי וְ ָחנַ נְ ִכי‬:ַ Incantations that are uttered as a protection from witchcraft do not always make sense. The Arukh records a textual variant that he interprets in the following manner: As long as God had mercy upon me and you, I did not come here. Now that I have come to you, may your hair fall out and may God show me favor. All who are particular about pairs, the demons are particular with him – ‫יה‬ ּ ‫כל דְּ ָק ֵפיד ָק ְפ ִדי ַ ּב ֲה ֵד‬:ָּ In a similar vein, the Sages said that one who believes in superstition is more likely to be impacted by it. This is similar to the verse “For the thing which I feared has come upon me” (Job 3:25). In this case, the more one worries about demons, the easier it is for them to affect him.

248 

Perek X . 110b . ‫ףד‬

‫יק‬: ‫׳י קרפ‬

‫ ׁ ְש ֵּתי ֵביצִ ים ו ׁ ְּש ֵּתי‬:‫ימי ֲא ַמר‬ ִ ִּ‫ִּכי ֲא ָתא ַרב ד‬ ּ ׁ ‫ ׁ ְש ֵּתי ִק‬,‫ֱאגֹוזִ ין‬ ‫ישו ִּאין וְ ָד ָבר ַא ֵחר – ֲה ָל ָכה‬ ‫ ו ִּמ ְס ַּת ּ ְפ ָקא ְלה ּו ְל ַר ָ ּבנַן ַמאי‬.‫ְלמ ׁ ֶֹשה ִמ ִּסינַי‬ ‫ וְ גַ זוּר ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ְ ּבכו ְּּלה ּו זוּגֵ י‬,‫נִיה ּו דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר‬ .‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר‬

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: With regard to two eggs, two nuts, two cucumbers, and another matter, there is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that they are dangerous in pairs. But the Sages are uncertain about what the other matter is, and therefore the Sages decreed that all pairs are prohibited due to that other matter.

‫ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ְּת ַמנְיָא ׁ ִש ָּיתא ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬:‫וְ ָהא דַּ ֲא ַמ ַרן‬ ‫ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם זוּגֵ י – ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא ְל ִענְיָ ן‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ְל ִענְיַ ן ְּכ ׁ ָש ִפים – ֲא ִפילּ ּו טו ָּבא‬,‫ַמּזִ ִיקין‬ .‫ישינַן‬ ִ ׁ ְ‫נַ ִמי ָחי‬

And the Gemara notes that that which we said above, that the numbers ten, eight, six, and four do not cause the danger associated with pairs, we said only with regard to harmful spirits. However, with regard to witchcraft, we are concerned even with regard to one who performed an activity a greater number of times.

.ּ‫יתהו‬ ְ ‫ִּכי ָהא דְּ ַההוּא ַ ּג ְב ָרא דְּ גִ ְר ׁ ָש ּה ִל ְד ֵב‬ ‫יֹומא ֲהוָ ה‬ ָ ‫ ָּכל‬.‫(אזֵ יל) ִא ְּינ ַס ָ ּבה ְל ַחנו ָּאה‬ ָ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲהוָ ה ָקא ָע ְב ָדא ֵל‬,‫ָאזֵ יל ו ׁ ָּש ֵתי ַח ְמ ָרא‬ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ְּכ ׁ ָש ִפים וְ ָלא ָקא ְמ ַה ּנְיָ א ָל ּה ֵ ּב‬ .‫יה ְ ּבזוּגָ א‬ ּ ‫דַּ ֲהוָ ה ִמזְ דַּ ַהר ְ ּבנַ ְפ ׁ ֵש‬

This is like that incident involving a certain man who divorced his wife. She went and married a shopkeeper who sold wine in his store. Every day, the first husband would go and drink wine in that shop. His ex-wife would perform witchcraft upon him, and it would not be effective for her in her attempts to harm him because he was careful with regard to pairs.

‫יֹומא ַחד ִא ׁ ְש ֵּתי טו ָּבא וְ ָלא ֲהוָ ה יָ ַדע ַּכ ָּמה‬ ָ ‫ית ַסר – ֲהוָ ה צָ יֵ יל וְ ִאיזְ דַּ ַהר‬ ְ ‫ ַעד ׁ ִש‬.‫ׁ ָש ֵתי‬ ‫יה; ִמ ָּכאן וְ ֵא ָילךְ ָלא ֲהוָ ה צָ יֵ יל וְ ָלא‬ ּ ‫ְ ּבנַ ְפ ׁ ֵש‬ ‫ ִּכי ֲהוָ ה‬.‫יה ְ ּבזוּגָ א‬ ּ ‫ ַא ּ ִפ ְיק ֵּת‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ִאיזְ דַּ ַהר ְ ּבנַ ְפ ׁ ֵש‬ :‫יה‬ ָ ָ‫יה ַההוּא ַטּי‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫יעא‬ ּ ‫ ַ ּגס ֵ ּב‬,‫ָאזֵ יל‬ ,‫ ָאזֵ יל‬.‫ַ ּג ְב ָרא ְק ִט ָילא הוּא דְּ ָאזֵ יל ָה ָכא‬ .‫ צְ וַ וח דִּ ְיק ָלא ו ָּפ ַקע הוּא‬.‫יה ְל ִד ְיק ָלא‬ ּ ‫ַח ְ ּב ֵק‬

One day he drank a lot, and he did not know how much he drank. Until he drank sixteen cups, he was lucid and was careful with regard to himself, to keep track of how many cups he had drunk. From here onward he was not lucid and was not careful to watch himself, and she caused him to leave after having consumed a pair, i.e., an even number of cups. As he walked, a certain Arab met him and, noticing that he was bewitched, said to him: It is a dead man who walks here. He went and hugged a palm tree for support; the palm tree dried out due to the witchcraft, and he burst.n

‫ ְק ָערֹות וְ ִכ ָּכרֹות ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהם‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ֲעוִ ָירא‬ ‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶש ְ ּג ָמרֹו‬:‫ ְּכ ָל ָלא דְּ ִמ ְּיל ָתא‬.‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם זוּגֹות‬ ‫ ְ ּג ָמרֹו‬.‫ִ ּב ֵידי ָא ָדם – ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם זוּגֹות‬ .‫ישינַן‬ ִ ׁ ְ‫ ְ ּב ִמ ֵּילי ִמינֵי דְּ ֵמ ַיכל – ָחי‬,‫ִ ּב ֵידי ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם‬

Rav Avira said: Plates and loaves do not contain the element of danger associated with pairs. The Gemara elaborates upon this point: The rule of the matter is that anything whose production was completed by people,n whether a vessel or food, they do not contain the element of danger associated with pairs. Conversely, if the object was completed by Heaven, e.g., with regard to types of food, we are concerned.

‫ נִ ְמ ַלךְ – ֵאין‬.‫ֲחנוּת – ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם זוּגֹות‬ ‫אֹור ַח – ֵאין ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ ֵ .‫ָ ּב ֶהן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם זוּגֹות‬ ‫ וְ ִאי‬.‫ ִא ׁ ּ ָשה – ֵאין ָ ּב ּה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם זוּגֹות‬.‫זוּגֹות‬ .‫ישינַן‬ ִ ׁ ְ‫ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ֲח ׁשו ָּבה – ָחי‬

Furthermore, a store does not contain the element of danger associated with pairs. If one eats there, there is no danger, as this is not his regular place. If one changed one’s mind after drinking an odd number of cups and added one more, his drinking does not contain the element of danger associated with pairs, as he did not initially intend to drink an even number. The behavior of a guest who eats or drinks in someone else’s house does not contain the element of danger associated with pairs, as his host determines how much he will eat and drink. The behavior of a woman does not contain the element of danger associated with pairs, as demons are not particular with regard to how much a woman eats or drinks. But if she is an important woman,n we are concerned.

notes

The palm tree dried out and he burst – ‫צְ וַ וח דִּ ְיק ָלא ו ָּפ ַקע הוּא‬: According to this text of this Gemara, as explained by Rashi, the man died and the palm tree he reclined on also dried out. However, according to the Arukh, and apparently the Rashbam as well, the Gemara reads: The palm tree dried out and burst on him. This means that witchcraft was transferred to the palm tree, which dried up and burst, while the man himself was saved. Anything whose production was completed by people – ‫ָּכל‬ ‫ש ְ ּג ָמרֹו ִ ּב ֵידי ָא ָדם‬: ֶ ׁ Since the production of wine is completed by people, why is it dangerous to drink an even number of cups of wine? The answer is that wine is produced from grapes, which are completed by Heaven. In this regard, wine differs from bread, which requires numerous stages of production before it is rendered edible (Tosefot Rid). An important woman – ‫א ׁ ּ ָשה ֲח ׁשו ָּבה‬:ִ The general principle is that demons are more likely to focus their attention on important or spiritually elevated people. Evil spiritual forces attempt to destroy that which is more sacred. Consequently, prominent individuals and Torah scholars are at the greatest risk. An important woman is therefore included in the risk associated with eating or drinking in pairs. language

Isparegus – ‫יס ּ ַפ ְר ּגוּס‬ ְ ‫א‬:ִ From the Greek ἀσφάραγος, asfaragos, a drink prepared from cabbage soaked in wine or some other alcoholic beverage. People drank this mixture for its supposed medicinal qualities.

:‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ָּיננָ א ְ ּב ֵר‬Rav Ĥinnana, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Isparegus,l a wine‫ וְ ֵאין ִמצְ ָט ֵרף‬,‫טֹובה‬ ָ ‫יס ּ ַפ ְרגּ וּס ִמצְ ָט ֵרף ְל‬ ְ ‫ ִא‬based drink with added spices that people would regularly .‫ ְל ָר ָעה‬consume in the morning, combines with the number of cups of wine one has already consumed for the good, to raise the total to an odd number, and does not combine for the bad, to bring the sum to an even number. ,‫ זוּגֵ י ְלחו ְּמ ָרא‬:‫יה דְּ ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ָר ִבינָ א ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬ ‫ ְּת ֵרי‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬.‫ זוּגֵ י ְלקו ָּּלא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ֵל‬ ‫יכ ָרא – ל ֹא ִמצְ ָט ֵרף; ְּת ֵרי‬ ְ ‫דְּ ַח ְמ ָרא וְ ַחד דְּ ׁ ִש‬ .‫יכ ָרא וְ ַחד דְּ ַח ְמ ָרא – ִמצְ ָט ֵרף‬ ְ ‫דְּ ׁ ִש‬



Ravina said in the name of Rava: If one is in doubt as to whether he has drunk in pairs, he should be stringent and drink another cup. And some say that one who is uncertain with regard to pairs should be lenient and not drink an additional cup, lest the additional cup be the even number. Rav Yosef said: Two cups of wine and one cup of beer do not combine; two cups of beer and one cup of wine do combine. ‫יק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 110b 

249

notes

Anything attached to an object, etc. – ‫כל ַה ְמחו ָ ּּבר לֹו וכו׳‬:ָּ An item must exist in a somewhat significant form for it to be susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, fabrics that are comprised of various materials contract ritual impurity at different sizes. The more valuable the material, the smaller its minimum size with regard to the contraction of ritual impurity. If two fabrics are sewn together, and the fabric that contracts ritual impurity at a larger size constitutes the majority of the mixture, it is called lenient in the mishna; the more valuable fabric combines with the fabric of lesser value to render the mixture susceptible to ritual impurity at the larger size. However, if the more valuable, more stringent fabric constitutes the majority of the mixture, the mixture is not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity at the smaller requisite size.

‫ זֶ ה ַה ְּכ ָלל ָּכל ַה ְמחו ָ ּּבר לֹו‬:‫נֵיך‬ ְ ‫ימ‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִס‬And this is your mnemonic by which to remember this rule is a ‫ ִמן ֶה ָחמוּר ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו – ָט ֵמא; ִמן ַה ַ ּקל‬mishna concerning the halakhot of ritual purity. This is the rule: n .‫ ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו – ָטהֹור‬With regard to anything attached to an object, if the smaller piece is more stringent than the larger one, the combined object is ritually impure; if the attached substance is more lenient than it, the combined object is ritually pure. In other words, if a small piece of a type of fabric that contracts ritual impurity when it is relatively small, which is a stringency, is attached to a larger object comprised of a less valuable fabric that contracts ritual impurity only when it is bigger, the two materials combine to form a unified fabric that contracts ritual impurity if together they amount to the larger requisite size. However, if there is more of the stringent material, the two substances do not combine halakhically to form the amount of the smaller requisite size. Similarly, in the case of pairs, the wine is more significant than the beer. Therefore, the wine combines with the beer but not vice versa. ‫ ְּת ֵרי ַק ָּמא‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ‫ַּת ָּכא וְ ַחד ַא ַּת ָּכא – ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפי; ַחד‬ ‫ִמ ַ ּק ֵּמי ַּת ָּכא ו ְּת ֵרי ַא ַּת ָּכא – ל ֹא‬ .‫ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפין‬

Rav Naĥman said that Rav said: If one drinks two cups before the table is brought and the meal begins and one cup over the table they combine, the person is not considered to have drunk a pair of cups. However, if one drinks one cup before the table is brought and two cups over the table they do not combine; the two cups he drank during the meal are considered a pair.

‫ ַא ּט ּו ֲאנַ ן‬:‫ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב ְמ ׁ ַש ְר ׁ ִשּיָ א‬ ‫ְל ַת ּקֹונֵי ַּת ָּכא ָקא ָ ּב ֵעינַ ן? ְל ַת ּקֹונֵי‬ ‫ית ַקן‬ ְ ‫ וְ גַ ְב ָרא ָקא ִמ‬,‫ַ ּג ְב ָרא ָ ּב ֵעינַ ן‬ !‫וְ ָק ֵאי‬

Rav Mesharshiya strongly objects to this ruling: Is that to say that we need to resolve the problem of pairs with regard to the table? Is the presence of the table the decisive factor here? We need to resolve the problem with regard to the person, and with regard to the person it is considered resolved. He began drinking before the table was brought, and he has consumed an odd number of cups.

‫) דְּ כו ֵּּלי‬:‫(א ָּלא ָא ַמר ַרב ְמ ׁ ַש ְר ׁ ִשּיָ א‬ ֶ – ‫ָע ְל ָמא ְּת ֵרי ַא ַּת ָּכא וְ ַחד ְל ָב ַתר ַּת ָּכא‬ ‫ ִּכי ַה ִהיא ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה דְּ ַר ָ ּבה‬.‫ָלא ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפי‬ .‫ַ ּבר נַ ֲח ָמנִי‬

Rather, Rav Mesharshiya said: Everyone agrees that if one drank two cups over the table during the meal and one after the table has been removed, they do not combine. This is like that incident involving Rabba bar Naĥmani, in which someone drank in pairs and was harmed. Rabba instructed them to return the table so that the man could drink an additional cup over the table. This shows that the additional cup counts only if the drinker returns to the table.

‫ ָּכל‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Any type of drink that is ,‫ ַה ָּמזוּג ִמצְ ָט ֵרף‬diluted combines to form an even or odd number,

Perek X Daf 111 Amud a

250 

Perek X . 111a . ‫איק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳י‬

‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬:‫יֹוחנָן ָא ַמר‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫חוּץ ִמן ַה ַּמיִ ם‬ ‫ ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬.‫ַמיִ ם‬ .‫ימי‬ ֵ ‫ ו ְּק ִר ֵירי ְלגֹו ֲח ִמ‬,‫ימי ְלגֹו ְק ִר ֵירי‬ ֵ ‫ֲח ִמ‬ ‫ ו ְּק ִר ֵירי ְלגֹו‬,‫ימי‬ ֵ ‫ימי ְלגֹו ֲח ִמ‬ ֵ ‫ֲא ָבל ֲח ִמ‬ .‫ְק ִר ִירי – ָלא‬

except for water. If one mixes water with other water, it is not considered diluted and does not count toward the number of cups. And Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Even water joins the number of cups. Rav Pappa said: We said this statement only about hot water poured into cold water, and cold water poured into hot water. Rabbi Yoĥanan maintains that these cups are considered diluted. However, everyone agrees that hot water poured into hot water or cold water poured into cold water, no, they are not considered diluted.

‫ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה דְּ ָב ִרים‬:‫ָא ַמר ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬ ‫ ו ִּמ ְת ַחּיֵ יב‬,‫ֹאשֹו‬ ׁ ‫אֹותן דָּ מֹו ְ ּבר‬ ָ ‫עֹושה‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ָה‬ ‫ ַה ִּנ ְפנֶ ה ֵ ּבין דֶּ ֶקל‬:‫ ֵא ּל ּו ֵהן‬.‫ְ ּבנַ ְפ ׁשֹו‬ ,‫עֹובר ֵ ּבין ׁ ְשנֵי ְד ָק ִלים‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ָה‬,‫כֹותל‬ ֶ ‫ְל‬ ‫עֹובר ַעל‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ָה‬,‫ֹותה ַמיִ ם ׁ ְשאו ִּלין‬ ֶ ‫וְ ַה ׁ ּש‬ ‫ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ׁ ְש ָפ ַכ ּתֹו ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו‬,‫ַמיִ ם ׁ ְשפו ִּכין‬ .‫ְ ּב ָפנָיו‬

The Gemara cites more statements concerning superstitions and witchcraft. Reish Lakish said: There are four matters. The one who performs them, his blood is upon his own head, and he is held liable for his own life, due to the evil spirit that rests upon him: One who relieves himself in a spot between a palm tree and a wall, one who passes between two palm trees, one who drinks borrowed water, and one who passes over spilled water, even if his wife poured it out in front of him.

‫כֹותל – ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא‬ ֶ ‫ַה ִּנ ְפנֶ ה ֵ ּבין דֶּ ֶקל ְל‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ָבל ִאית ֵל‬,‫יה ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬ ּ ‫דְּ ֵלית ֵל‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ וְ ִכי ֵלית ֵל‬.‫ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות – ֵלית ָלן ָ ּב ּה‬ ‫יכא דִּ ְיר ָּכא‬ ָּ ‫ ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא דְּ ֵל‬,‫ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬ ‫יכא דִּ ְיר ָּכא ַא ֲח ִרינָ א – ֵלית‬ ָּ ‫ ֲא ָבל ִא‬,‫ַא ֲח ִרינָ א‬ .‫ָלן ָ ּב ּה‬

The Gemara elaborates: With regard to one who relieves himself between a palm tree and a wall, we said that he places himself in danger only when there are not four cubits of space between the two objects. However, if there are four cubits, we have no problem with it. The demons have enough room to pass, and he will not obstruct them. And furthermore, even when there are not four cubits, we said there is a problem only when the demons have no other route besides that one. However, if they have another route, we have no problem with it.

‫עֹובר ֵ ּבין ׁ ְשנֵי ְד ָק ִלים ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא דְּ ָלא‬ ֵ ‫וְ ָה‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ּ ַפ ְס ִקינְ ה ּו ְר ׁשוּת‬,‫ּ ַפ ְס ִקינְ ה ּו ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים‬ ‫ֹותה ַמיִ ם ׁ ְשאו ִּלין‬ ֶ ‫ ַה ׁ ּש‬.‫ָה ַר ִ ּבים – ֵלית ָלן ָ ּב ּה‬ – ‫ ֲא ָבל ָ ּגדֹול‬.‫ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא דְּ ׁ ַשיְ ִילינְ ה ּו ָק ָטן‬ .‫ֵלית ָלן ָ ּב ּה‬

And with regard to one who passes between two palm trees, we said that he is in danger only if a public domain does not cross between them. However if a public domain crosses between them,b we have no problem with it, as demons are not permitted to cause harm in a public place. And with regard to one who drinks borrowed water, we said it is dangerous only if a minor borrowed it. However, if an adult borrowed the water, we have no problem with it.

ּ ‫וַ ֲא ִפ‬ ‫יל ּו ׁ ַשיְ ִילינְ ה ּו ָק ָטן נַ ִמי ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא‬ – ‫יחי‬ ִ ‫ ֲא ָבל ָ ּב ִעיר דִּ ׁ ְש ִכ‬,‫יחי‬ ִ ‫ דְּ ָלא ׁ ְש ִכ‬,‫ַ ּב ּ ָ ׂש ֶדה‬ ּ ‫ וַ ֲא ִפ‬.‫ֵלית ָלן ָ ּב ּה‬ ‫יל ּו ַ ּב ּ ָ ׂש ֶדה נַ ִמי ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן‬ ‫יכ ָרא – ֵלית ָלן‬ ְ ‫ ֲא ָבל ַח ְמ ָרא וְ ׁ ִש‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ַמּיָ א‬ .‫ָ ּב ּה‬

And even if a minor borrowed it, we said this poses a danger only if it occurred in a field, where water is not found. However, in a city, where water can be found, we have no problem with it. And even in a field, we said there is cause for concern only in a case of borrowed water; however, with regard to wine and beer, we have no problem with it.

‫עֹובר ַעל ַמיִ ם ׁ ְשפו ִּכין – ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא‬ ֵ ‫וְ ָה‬ ,‫ וְ ָלא ָּתף ְ ּבה ּו רו ָּקא‬,‫דְּ ָלא ַא ְפ ְס ִקינְ ה ּו ְ ּב ַע ְפ ָרא‬ ‫ֲא ָבל ַא ְפ ְס ִקינְ ה ּו אֹו ָּתף ְ ּבה ּו רו ָּקא – ֵלית‬ ‫ וְ ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא דְּ ָלא ֲע ַבר ֲע ַליְ יה ּו‬.‫ָלן ָ ּב ּה‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ וְ ָלא ֲע ַבר ֲע ַליְ יה ּו ׁ ִש ִּיתין נִיגְ ֵרי‬,‫ימ ׁ ָשא‬ ְ ‫ׁ ִש‬ ‫יתין‬ ִּ ‫ימ ׁ ָשא וַ ֲע ַבר ֲע ַליְ יה ּו ׁ ִש‬ ְ ‫ֲע ַבר ֲע ַליְ יה ּו ׁ ִש‬ ‫ וְ ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא דְּ ָלא‬.‫נִיגְ ֵרי – ֵלית ָלן ָ ּב ּה‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ָר ֵכיב‬,‫ וְ ָלא ָסּיֵ ים ְמ ָסנֵי‬,‫ָר ֵכיב ֲח ָמ ָרא‬ .‫ֲח ָמ ָרא וְ ָסיֵ ים ְמ ָסנֵי – ֵלית ָלן ָ ּב ּה‬

And with regard to one who passes over spilled water, we said he places himself in danger only if no one sprinkled dirt over it and no one spat in it. However, if someone sprinkled dirt over it or spat in it, we have no problem with it. And we said this is a concern only if the sun did not pass over it, i.e., it occurred at night, and sixty steps of people walking in the area have not passed over it. However, if the sun passed over it and sixty steps passed over it, we have no problem with it. And we said this concern only if he was not riding a donkey and not wearing shoes;b however, if he was riding a donkey and wearing shoes, we have no problem with it.

ֵּ ‫וְ ָהנֵי ִמ‬ ,‫יח ׁש ִל ְכ ׁ ָש ִפים‬ ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬ ָ ‫ילי ֵה‬ ָּ ‫יכא דְּ ֵל‬ ‫ ַאף ַעל‬,‫יח ׁש ִל ְכ ׁ ָש ִפים‬ ַ ‫ֲא ָבל ֵה ָיכא דְּ ִא ָּיכא ְל ֵמ‬ ‫ (וְ ַההוּא) ַ ּג ְב ָרא‬.‫ישינַן‬ ִ ׁ ְ‫יכא ָּכל ָהנֵי – ָחי‬ ָּ ‫ַ ּגב דְּ ִא‬ ‫אנֵיה‬ ּ ‫ וְ גָ מוּד ְמ ָס‬,‫דְּ ָר ֵכיב ֲח ָמ ָרא וְ ָסיֵ ים ְמ ָסנֵי‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫וְ צָ ו ּו ַּכ ְר ֵע‬

The Gemara comments: And all this applies only where there is no reason for concern for witchcraft, as no one is interested in harming him. However, where there is reason for concern for witchcraft, even if all of these limiting conditions are in place, we are nevertheless concerned. And this is similar to what happened to a certain man who was riding a donkey and wearing shoes. Nevertheless, he passed over water and his shoes shrank and his feet shriveled up.

.‫ ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ֵאין ְמ ַמ ְ ּצ ִעין וְ ל ֹא ִמ ְת ַמ ְ ּצ ִעין‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫ וְ יֵ ׁש‬.‫ וְ ָה ִא ׁ ּ ָשה‬,‫ וְ ַהדֶּ ֶקל‬,‫ ַה ֶּכ ֶלב‬:‫וְ ֵא ּל ּו ֵהן‬ ‫ ַא ף‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ וְ יֵ ׁש‬.‫ ַא ף ַה ֲחזִ יר‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ .‫ַה ָּנ ָח ׁש‬

The Gemara continues to discuss this issue. The Sages taught: Three objects should not be allowed to pass betweenn two people walking along a road, and people should not walk between two of them: A dog, a palm tree, and a woman. And some say: Also a pig. And some say: Also a snake. All of these were associated with witchcraft.

:‫יה? ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ּ ‫ וְ ִאי ְמ ַמ ְ ּצ ִעין ַמאי ַּת ַ ּקנְ ֵּת‬The Gemara asks: And if they pass between them, what is the .‫׳אל׳‬ ֵ ‫׳אל׳ וְ נַ ְפ ִסיק ְ ּב‬ ֵ ‫ נִ ְפ ַּתח ְ ּב‬remedy to prevent one from harm? Rav Pappa said: He should begin reciting a verse that starts with the word God and conclude with a verse that ends with the word God.n In other words, he should recite the passage: “God Who brought them out of Egypt is for them like the lofty horns of the wild ox. For there is no enchantment with Jacob, nor is there any divination with Israel; now is it said of Jacob and of Israel: What has been performed by God” (Numbers 23:22–23). This verse indicates that spells do not affect the Jewish people.

background

A public domain crosses between them – ‫ּ ַפ ְס ִקינְ ה ּו‬ ‫ר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים‬:ְ

Public domain between palm trees Wearing shoes – ‫סּיֵ ים ְמ ָסנֵי‬:ָ The Aramaic term masana, translated here as shoe, may include various forms of footwear. From the context in the Gemara it is apparent that in this case the term refers to a type of shoe which is relatively closed since the shrinking of the shoe had much effect on the person wearing it.

Modern reproduction of the Roman caliga, a relatively closed form of footwear compared to some ancient sandals

Open-style sandal uncovered at Masada notes

Should not pass between – ‫אין ְמ ַמ ְ ּצ ִעין‬:ֵ The Gemara in tractate Horayot states that this practice causes one to forget his studies. The Zohar claims it subjects one to the evil eye. He should begin…and conclude with God – ‫נִ ְפ ַּתח…וְ נַ ְפ ִסיק ְ ּב ֵאל‬: According to the ge’onim, there is no fixed wording for this incantation. Rather, one may say whatever he wants to remove the spell, provided that he begins and concludes with the word God or with the word no. Rabbeinu Ĥananel cites several examples of verses of this kind. According to Rashi, one should recite these specific verses from the book of Numbers, as they state that witchcraft and magic have no power over the Jewish people (Maharsha).

.‫ נִ ְפ ַּתח ְ ּב׳ל ֹא׳ וְ נַ ְפ ִסיק ְ ּב׳ל ֹא׳‬:‫ ִאי נַ ִמי‬Alternatively, he should open with a verse that begins with the word lo, no, and should conclude with the same verse that ends with lo: “No [lo] man is God that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent. When He has said will He not do it, or when He has spoken will He not [lo] make it good?” (Numbers 23:19). 

‫איק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 111a 

251

notes

One meets a woman when she is ascending from ritual immersion – ‫ית ָתא ְ ּב ִעידָּ נָ א‬ ְּ ‫ּ ָפגַ ע ְ ּב ִא‬ ‫דְּ ָס ְל ָקא ִמ ְּט ִב ָילה‬: Some commentaries state that this applies only if one met her as she emerged from the river before she dressed.

‫ ִאם ְּת ִח ַּלת‬,‫ָהנֵי ֵ ּבי ְּת ֵרי דְּ ָמצְ ָעא ְלה ּו ִא ׁ ּ ָשה נִ דָּ ה‬ – ‫ ִאם סֹוף נִדָּ ָת ּה ִהיא‬.‫הֹורגֶ ת ֶא ָחד ֵמ ֶהן‬ ֶ – ‫נִדָּ ָת ּה ִהיא‬ ‫׳אל׳‬ ֵ ‫יה? נִ ְפ ַּתח ְ ּב‬ ֶ ‫עֹושה ֵ ּב‬ ׂ ָ ‫ְמ ִר ָיבה‬ ּ ‫ ַמאי ַּת ַ ּקנְ ֵּת‬.‫ינֵיהן‬ .‫׳אל׳‬ ֵ ‫וְ נַ ְפ ִסיק ְ ּב‬

Similarly, these two men, between whom a menstruating woman passes, if she is at the beginning of her menstruation she kills one of them, i.e., she causes the death of one of the two men. If she is at the end of her menstruation she does not kill, but she causes a fight between them. What is his remedy? He should open with a verse that begins with the word God and he should conclude with a verse that ends with the word God, as explained above.

‫ ֲח ָדא ְ ּב ַהאי‬,‫נָשי דְּ יָ ְת ָבן ְ ּב ָפ ָר ׁ ַשת דְּ ָר ִכים‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ָהנֵי ְּת ֵרי‬ ‫ ו ְּמ ַכ ְּוונָן ַא ּ ַפיְ יה ּו‬,‫יסא‬ ָּ ‫יסא דִּ ׁ ְש ִב ָילא וַ ֲח ָדא ְ ּב ִא ָידךְ ִ ּג‬ ָ ‫ִ ּג‬ ‫יה? ִאי‬ ּ ‫ ַמאי ַּת ַ ּקנְ ֵּת‬.‫ַל ֲה ָד ֵדי – וַ דַּ אי ִ ּב ְכ ׁ ָש ִפים ֲע ִס ָיקן‬ ‫ִא ָּיכא דִּ ְיר ָּכא ַא ֲח ִרינָ א – ֵליזִ יל ָ ּב ּה; וְ ִאי ֵל ָּיכא דִּ ְיר ָּכא‬ ‫יה – נִינְ ְקט ּו‬ ׁ ‫יכא ִא‬ ָּ ‫ ִאי ִא‬,‫ַא ֲח ִרינָ א‬ ּ ‫ינִיש ַא ֲח ִרינָ א ַ ּב ֲה ֵד‬ ‫ינִיש‬ ׁ ‫יכא ִא‬ ַ ְ‫ִל ַידיְ יה ּו ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ֲה ָד ֵדי ו‬ ָּ ‫נִיח ְּלפוּ; וְ ִאי ֵל‬ ‫ ִא ֶ ּג ֶרת ָאזְ ַלת ַא ִּסיָ א ְ ּבלו ִּסּיָ א‬:‫נֵימא ָה ִכי‬ ָ – ‫ַא ֲח ִרינָ א‬ .‫ִמ ְת ַק ְּט ָלא ְ ּב ֵחיק ָק ָבל‬

The Gemara further states: These two women, who are sitting at a crossroads, one on this side of the road and the other on the other side, and they are facing each other, they are certainly engaging in witchcraft. What is the remedy for one who walks by? If there is another route, he should go by it. And if there is no other route, if there is another person with him, they should hold hands and switch places. And if there is no other person with him, he should say as follows: Iggeret, Azlat, Asiya, Belusiya are killed by arrows. These are names of demons invoked by witches.

‫ַהאי ַמאן דְּ ָפגַ ע ְ ּב ִא ְּית ָתא ְ ּב ִעידָּ נָ א דְּ ָס ְל ָקא ִמ ְּט ִב ַילת‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ְל ִד ֵיד‬ ּ ‫ ִאי ִאיה ּו ָק ֵדים ו ְּמ ׁ ַש ֵּמ ׁש – ַא ֲח ָדא ֵל‬,‫ִמצְ וָ ה‬ ‫יהי ָק ְד ָמה ו ְּמ ׁ ַש ְּמ ׁ ָשה – ַא ֲח ָדא ָל ּה‬ ִ ‫רו ַּח זְ נוּנִים; ִאי ִא‬ ְ‫״ש ֵֹופך‬ ׁ :‫ימא ָה ִכי‬ ָ ‫יה? ֵל‬ ּ ‫ ַמאי ַּת ַ ּקנְ ֵּת‬.‫ְל ִד ָיד ּה רו ַּח זְ נוּנִים‬ .‫ּבוּז ַעל נְ ִד ִיבים וַ ּיַ ְת ֵעם ְ ּבתֹוה ּו ל ֹא ָד ֶרךְ ״‬

The Gemara cites a related statement: One who meets a woman when she is ascending from the ritual immersionn of a mitzva, after her menstruation, if he has intercourse with any woman first, a spirit of immorality overtakes him; if she has intercourse first, a spirit of immorality overtakes her. What is his remedy? He should say this: “He pours contempt upon princes,n and causes them to wander in the waste, where there is no way” (Psalms 107:40).

ּ ַ :‫ ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק‬ ‫״גם ִּכי ֵא ֵל ְך ְ ּבגֵ יא‬ ‫צַ ְל ָמוֶ ת ל ֹא ִא ָירא ָרע ִּכי ַא ָּתה ִע ָּמ ִדי״ – זֶ ה ַהּיָ ׁ ֵשן‬ ‫ ָלא‬,‫ ו ְּבצֵ ל דֶּ ֶקל יְ ִח ִידי‬.‫ ו ְּבצֵ ל ְל ָבנָ ה‬,‫ְ ּבצֵ ל דֶּ ֶקל יְ ִח ִידי‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫יה‬ ּ ֵ‫יה ִע ָּילו‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא דְּ ָלא נָ ֵפיל טו ָּלא דְּ ַח ְב ֵר‬ .‫יה – ֵלית ָלן ָ ּב ּה‬ ּ ֵ‫יה ִע ָּילו‬ ּ ‫נְ ַפל טו ָּלא דְּ ַח ְב ֵר‬

Rav Yitzĥak said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for You are with me” (Psalms 23:4)? This is a person who sleeps in the shadow of a single palm tree, and in the shadow of the moon. Despite his dangerous position, he trusts God and is not afraid. The Gemara qualifies the previous statement: And with regard to one who sleeps in the shadow of a single palm tree, we said he is in danger only if the shadow of another palm tree does not fall upon him. However, if the shadow of another palm tree falls upon him, we have no problem with it.

‫יְח ִידי ֶ ּב ָחצֵ ר וְ ַהּיָ ׁ ֵשן‬ ִ ‫ ַהּיָ ׁ ֵשן ְ ּבצֵ ל דֶּ ֶקל‬:‫ֶא ָּלא ָהא דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ ‫ימא דְּ ָלא‬ ָ ‫יכי דָּ ֵמי? ִאי ֵל‬ ִ ‫ ֵה‬,‫ֹאשֹו‬ ׁ ‫ְ ּבצֵ ל ְל ָבנָ ה דָּ מֹו ְ ּבר‬ ּ ‫יה – ֲא ִפ‬ ָּ ‫יה ִע‬ .‫יל ּו ַ ּב ּ ָ ׂש ֶדה נַ ִמי‬ ּ ֵ‫ילו‬ ּ ‫נְ ַפל טו ָּּלא דְּ ַח ְב ֵר‬ ‫ ֶ ּב ָחצֵ ר – ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ נָ ֵפיל‬:‫ֶא ָּלא ָלאו ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ .‫יה? ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ ּ ֵ‫יה ִע ָּילו‬ ּ ‫טו ָּּלא דְּ ַח ְב ֵר‬

The Gemara asks: But what about that which was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who sleeps in the shadow of a single palm tree in a courtyard and one who sleeps in the shadow of the moon, his blood is upon his own head. What are the circumstances? If we say that the shadow of another palm tree does not fall on him, he would also be harmed if he were in a field. Rather, must one not conclude from this baraita that if one is in a courtyard, even if the shadow of another tree fell on him, it remains dangerous? The Gemara concludes: Indeed learn from it that this is so.

‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ ו ְּבצִ ָּיל ּה ׁ ֶשל ְל ָבנָ ה – ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ַמ ֲע ָר ָב ּה‬The Gemara adds: And with regard to the shadow of the moon, .‫ ִ ּב ְמ ִדינְ ַח ָתא – ֵלית ָלן ָ ּב ּה‬we said it is dangerous to sleep there only at the start of the month when the moon shines in the east, and therefore its shadow is in the west. However, at the end of the month, when the moon shines in the west and its shadow is in the east, we have no problem with it.

notes

He pours contempt upon princes – ‫ֹופ ְך ּבוּז ַעל נְ ִד ִיבים‬ ֵ ‫ש‬:ׁ The Ma- readings cite a different verse: “He pours contempt upon princes, harsha maintains that this is not a random incantation, as this verse and loosens the belt of the strong” (Job 12:21). This verse indicates is referring to pouring, which is reminiscent of immersion. Variant that God can protect the weak from evil.

252 

Perek X . 111a . ‫איק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳י‬

Perek X Daf 111 Amud b – ‫יק ָלא‬ ְ ‫ַהאי ַמאן דִּ ְמ ַפ ּנֵי ַא ִ ּג ְירדָּ א דְּ ִד‬ ‫ וְ ַהאי ַמאן‬.‫יה רו ַּח ּ ַפ ְל ָ ּגא‬ ּ ‫יה ְל ִד ֵיד‬ ּ ‫ַא ֲח ָדא ֵל‬ ּ ‫יה ַא ִג ְירדָּ א דְּ ִד ְיק ָלא – ַא ֲח ָדא‬ ֵ ׁ ‫דְּ ַמצְ ֵלי ֵר‬ ּ ‫יש‬ ,‫ ַהאי ַמאן דְּ ָפ ְס ִעי ַאדִּ ְיק ָלא‬.‫ֵל ּיה רו ַּח צְ ָר ָדא‬ ‫יע ַקר‬ ֲ ‫יע ַקר – ִמ‬ ֲ ‫ִאי ִמ ְיק ַטל – ָק ֵטיל; ִאי ִא‬ ,‫יה‬ ּ ֵ‫יה ִע ָילו‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ָלא ַמ ַּנח ַּכ ְר ֵע‬,‫ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי‬.‫ו ָּמיֵ ית‬ .‫יה – ֵלית ָלן ָ ּב ּה‬ ּ ֵ‫יה ִע ָּילו‬ ּ ‫ֲא ָבל ַמ ַּנח ַּכ ְר ֵע‬

The Gemara continues to discuss harmful spirits. One who relieves himself on the stump of a palm tree will be seized by a spirit of a pain of half  n his head, i.e., a migraine, and one who places his head on the stump of a palm tree will be seized by a spirit of sickness. One who walks over a palm tree, if the tree is cut down, he too will be killed. If that tree is uprooted, he will also be uprooted and will die. The Gemara comments: This statement applies only if he does not place his legs upon it; however, if he places his legs upon it, we have no problem with it.

‫יק ָל א‬ ְ ‫ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָש ה ט ּו ֵּל י ָה וֵ י; ט ּו ָּל א דְּ ִד‬ ,‫ טו ָּּלא דְּ ִפ ְר ָחא‬,‫ טו ָּּלא דְּ ַכנְ דָּ א‬,‫יְ ִח ָידא‬ ‫ ַא ף‬:‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬.‫ט ּו ָּלא דִּ זְ ַר ְד ָּתא‬ ‫ ְּכ ָל ָלא‬.‫ וְ טו ָּּלא דַּ ֲע ַר ְב ָּתא‬,‫טו ָּּלא דְּ ַא ְר ָ ּבא‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ָק ׁ ֵשי טו ֵּּל‬ ּ ‫ ָּכל דְּ נָ ֵפ ׁיש ַענְ ֵפ‬:‫דְּ ִמ ְּיל ָתא‬

The Gemara cites another statement with regard to shadows. There are five types of dangerous shadows: The shadow of a single palm tree, the shadow of a tree called kanda, the shadow of a caperbush, and the shadow of the sorbb tree. Some say: Also the shadow of a ship and the shadow of a willow. The general rule of the matter is: Whatever has many branches, its shadow is dangerous.

‫יה ְל ַבר ִמ ְּכרֹו‬ ּ ‫יה – ָק ׁ ֵשי טו ֵּּל‬ ּ ֵ‫וְ ָכל דְּ ָק ׁ ֵשי ִס ְילו‬ ‫יה – ָלא ָק ׁ ֵשי‬ ּ ֵ‫ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ָק ׁ ֵשי ִס ְילו‬,‫ָמ ׁ ָשא‬ ‫ ּ ִפ ְיר ֵחי‬:‫ דַּ ֲא ָמ ָרה ָל ּה ׁ ִש ָידא ִל ְב ָר ּה‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫טו ֵּּל‬ ‫ דְּ ִאיה ּו הוּא דְּ ָק ֵטיל‬,‫יך ִמ ְּכרֹו ָמ ׁ ָשא‬ ְ ‫נַ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ :‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ וְ ָק ֵטיל ְל ִד ֵיד‬,‫ַל ֲאבו ְּך‬ .‫ָחזֵ ינָ א ְל ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א דְּ ָפ ֵר ׁיש ִמ ּכו ְּּלה ּו טו ֵּּלי‬

And any tree whose wood is hard, its shadow is dangerous, except for the tree called kero masa. Although its wood is hard, its shadow is not dangerous, as the demon said to her son: Leave the kero masa tree alone, as it was that tree that killed your father. And the tree later killed the son too. The kero masa tree is harmful to demons. Rav Ashi said: I saw that Rav Kahana avoided all types of shadows.

;‫ ֵ ּבי ּ ִפ ְר ֵחי – רו ֵּחי; דְּ ֵבי זְ ַר ְד ָּתא – ׁ ִש ָידא‬The Gemara comments: The demons near the caperbush are ?‫ ְל ַמאי נָ ְפ ָקא ִמ ָּינ ּה‬.‫יש ֵפי‬ ְ ׁ ‫ דְּ ֵבי ִאיגְ ֵרי – ִר‬called ruĥei. A demon found near the sorb trees is called shida. .‫יעא‬ ָ ‫ ְל ָק ֵמ‬The demons found in gardens are called rishfei. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference of these definitions? It makes a difference for writing an amulet on behalf of one who has been harmed. It is necessary to know the name of the demon who caused the damage. ‫ ְל ַמאי‬.‫דְּ ֵבי ּ ִפ ְר ֵחי ְ ּב ִרּיָ ה ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָל ּה ֵעינַיִ ם‬ ‫ימנָ א ֲח ָדא ֲהוָ ה‬ ְ ִ‫ ז‬.‫נָ ְפ ָקא ִמ ָּינ ּה? ְלגַ ּזֹוזֵ י ָל ּה‬ .‫ָאזֵ יל צו ְּר ָבא ֵמ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ְל ַא ְפנֹויֵ י ְל ֵבי ּ ִפ ְר ֵחי‬ ָּ ‫ׁ ְש ַמע דְּ ָקא ֲא ָתא ִע‬ ‫ ִּכי‬.‫ וְ גָ זֵ י ָל ּה‬,‫יה‬ ּ ֵ‫ילו‬ ‫יק ָלא‬ ְ ִּ‫יק ָלא; ָצוַ וח ד‬ ְ ‫יה ְל ִד‬ ּ ‫ֲאזַ ָלא – ַח ְ ּב ֵק‬ .‫ו ָּפ ְק ָעה ִהיא‬

The Gemara further comments: The demon found near the caperbush is a creature with no eyes. What is the practical halakhic difference of this observation? It is relevant with regard to fleeingn from it. The Gemara relates: Once a Torah scholar went to relieve himself near a caperbush. He heard the demon coming and fled from it. When this evil spirit went, it grabbed a palm tree and got stuck there. The palm tree dried out and the demon burst.

‫ ָהא זְ ַר ְד ָּתא‬.‫ּ ִפ ְר ָחא דְּ ֵבי זְ ַר ְד ָּתא – ׁ ֵש ֵידי‬ ‫יתין‬ ִּ ‫יכה ְל ָמ ָתא – ָלא ּ ְפ ָח ָתא ִמ ׁ ּ ִש‬ ָ ‫דִּ ְס ִמ‬ ‫יכ ַּתב ָל ּה‬ ְ ‫ ְל ַמאי נָ ְפ ָקא ִמ ָּינ ּה? ְל ִמ‬.‫ׁ ֵש ֵידי‬ .‫יעא‬ ָ ‫ָק ֵמ‬

It was stated above that the demons found near the sorb tree are called sheidei. The Gemara comments: This sorb tree that is close to the city contains no less than sixty demons. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference of this statement? The Gemara answers: It is relevant for writing an amulet for this number.

‫ַההוּא ַ ּבר ַק ׁ ּ ָשא דְּ ָמ ָתא דְּ ָאזֵ יל וְ ָק ֵאי גַ ֵ ּבי‬ ‫יה‬ ְ ‫זְ ַר ְד ָּתא דַּ ֲהוָ ה ְס ִמ‬ ּ ‫ ָעל ּו ֵ ּב‬.‫יך ְל ָמ ָתא‬ ‫ ֲא ָתא ְל ַההוּא‬.‫יס ַּת ַּכן‬ ְ ‫יתין ׁ ֵש ֵידי וְ ִא‬ ִּ ‫ׁ ִש‬ ‫יתין ׁ ֵש ֵידי‬ ִּ ‫ֵמ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן דְּ ָלא יָ ַדע דִּ זְ ַר ְד ָּתא דְּ ׁ ִש‬ ‫ ׁ ְש ַמע‬.‫ ָּכ ַתב ָל ּה ָק ֵמ ַיע ַל ֲח ָדא ׁ ִש ָידא‬,‫ִהיא‬ :‫ וְ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְשר ּו ָה ִכי‬,‫ויה‬ ּ ‫דְּ ָתל ּו ִחינְ ָ ּגא ְ ּבגַ ֵּו‬ ‫ ָ ּב ֵד ְיקנָ א‬,‫יה דְּ ָמר ִּכי צו ְּר ָבא ֵמ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ּ ‫סו ָּד ֵר‬ ‫ ֲא ָתא ַההוּא‬.‫יה ְ ּב ָמר דְּ ָלא יָ ַדע ָ ּברו ְּך‬ ּ ‫ֵ ּב‬ ,‫יתין ׁ ֵש ֵידי ֲהוָ ה‬ ִּ ‫ֵמ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן דְּ יָ ַדע דִּ זְ ַר ְד ָּתא ׁ ִש‬ ‫ ׁ ָש ַמע דְּ ָקא‬.‫יעא דְּ ׁ ִש ִּיתין ׁ ֵש ֵידי‬ ָ ‫ָּכ ַתב ָל ּה ָק ֵמ‬ .‫ ּ ַפנּ ּו ָמנַיְ יכ ּו ֵמ ָה ָכא‬:ּ‫ָא ְמרו‬

The Gemara relates: A certain ruler of a city walked and stood by a sorb tree that was near a city. Sixty sheidei demons came upon him and he was in danger. One of the Sages who did not know that it was a sorb tree of sixty sheidei came and wrote him an amulet for one shida demon. That man heard that there was a celebration inside the tree, and the demons were singing: The scarf of the Master is like that of a Torah scholar,n but we checked the Master and he does not know how to say barukh, the blessing when donning a scarf. The demons were mocking him and saying that he did not know how to write an amulet. Another one of the Sages, who knew that it was a sorb tree of sixty sheidei, came and wrote an amulet against sixty demons. He heard them saying: Clear your items away from here.



notes

A spirit of a half – ‫רו ַּח ּ ַפ ְל ָ ּגא‬: The Arukh explains that this means a headache in half of one’s head, a migraine. He further states that the phrase a spirit of sickness refers to jaundice. To fleeing – ‫לגַ ּזֹוזֵ י‬:ְ According to the Arukh, this means to run at a diagonal and to turn slightly to the side. The scarf of the Master is like that of a Torah scholar – ‫יה דְּ ָמר ִּכי צו ְּר ָבא ֵמ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ּ ‫סו ָּד ֵר‬: In Babylonia, married Sages wore a special scarf around their heads to distinguish them and indicate their status. In certain communities, it is still a custom for Sages to wrap scarves around their hats. background

Sorb – ‫זְ ַר ְד ָּתא‬: Various authorities identify this tree as the Sorbus umbellata. This is a small bush or tree from the Rosaceae family that loses its leaves in the winter. Its height ranges from 1–3.5 m. The tree is not found in Eretz Yisrael, but grows in valley regions in the Near East that receive a great deal of rain. According to Rashi, this is the tree called zeradeta, while other commentaries identify the zeradeta as a species of crab apple.

Branch and fruit of the sorb tree

‫איק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 111b 

253

background

Sea squill – ‫חצְ ָ ּבא‬:ַ The common sea squill, Urginea maritima, is a flowering plant with a large bulb from the Asparagaceae family. The sea squill has very strong roots and is difficult to uproot entirely. For this reason, it was often used to mark fields. In the winter, the bulb grows green leaves, while in the fall it sprouts blossoms that are approximately 1 mm long.

Bulb of sea squill

Blossoming sea squill Blindness to the light of one’s eyes – ‫הֹורא‬ ָ ְ‫א ְר ּבֹונָ א ִלנ‬:ַ This does not mean total blindness but the deterioration of the eyesight. It is possible that when one combs his hair roughly, the action might trigger a reflex that causes a temporary loss of vision. One who drinks wine that is dripping – ּ‫מן דְּ ׁ ָש ֵתי ִטיף ִטיף‬:ַ This statement might refer to wine remaining in the bottom of a barrel, which has a high alcohol content. This alcohol could cause minor poisoning that might damage one’s eyes. In addition, one who always wears shoes even when his feet are wet will likely suffer rheumatic damage, which can also affect the nerves in his eyes.

‫יה ָרא‬ ֲ ‫ ַחד ִמ ַ ּק ֵּמי ִט‬,ּ‫ ְּת ֵרי ִק ְט ֵ ּבי ָהוו‬,‫ֶק ֶטב ְמ ִר ִירי‬ ‫יה ָרא – ֶק ֶטב‬ ֲ ‫ דְּ ִמ ַ ּק ֵּמי ִט‬.‫יה ָרא‬ ֲ ‫וְ ַחד ִמ ָ ּב ַתר ִט‬ ‫ וַ ֲה ַדר‬,‫יחזִ י ֵ ּבי ַּכדָּ א דְּ ַכ ְמ ָּכא‬ ֲ ‫ ו ִּמ‬,‫ְמ ִר ִירי ׁ ְשמֹו‬ ‫״ק ֶטב יָ ׁשוּד‬ ֶ – ‫יה ָרא‬ ֲ ‫ דְּ ָב ַתר ִט‬.‫יה ַ ּב ֲח ׁ ָשא‬ ּ ‫ֵ ּב‬ ‫ וַ ֲה ַדר‬,‫יחזִ י ֵ ּבי ַק ְרנָ א דְּ ִעיּזָ א‬ ֲ ‫ ו ִּמ‬,‫צָ ֳה ַריִ ם״ ׁ ּ ְשמֹו‬ .‫יה ְּכנַ ְפיָ א‬ ּ ‫ֵ ּב‬

The Gemara discusses the ketev meriri, a demon mentioned in the Torah (Deuteronomy 32:24). There are two types of ketev demons, one that comes before noon in the morning and the other one comes in the afternoon. The one that comes before noon is called ketev meriri, and it appears in a jug of kutaĥ, a Babylonian spice, and continuously revolves around inside it. The ketev in the afternoon is called ketev yashud tzaharayim (Psalms 91:6), and it appears inside the horn of a goat and revolves around inside it like a sifter.

‫ וְ ָאזֵ יל ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬,‫ַא ַ ּביֵ י ֲהוָ ה ׁ ָש ֵקיל וְ ָאזֵ יל‬ ‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יה דְּ ַרב י‬ ִ ‫ִמ‬ ּ ‫ינֵיה וְ ַרב ה ּונָ א ְ ּב ֵר‬ ּ ‫ימ‬ ‫יה ְל ַההוּא ֶק ֶטב ְמ ִר ִירי דְּ ָקא‬ ֵ‫י‬ ְ‫ז‬ ‫ח‬ ַ . ‫יה‬ ‫אל‬ ֵ ‫מ‬ ָ ‫ש‬ ׂ ְ ּ ‫ִמ‬ ּ ּ ‫ ֲא ַה ְד ָרא ְל ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬,‫יה‬ ֵ ‫יה דִּ ְ ׂש ָמ‬ ּ ‫אל‬ ּ ‫ָא ֵתי ְל ַא ּ ֵפ‬ ‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יה דְּ ַרב י‬ ֵ ‫ִל ְ ׂש ָמ‬ ּ ‫ ו ְּל ַרב הוּנָ א ְ ּב ֵר‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫אל‬ ‫ ֲאנָ א ַמאי ׁ ְשנָ א‬:‫יה ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ִ ‫ִל‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ינֵיה‬ ּ ‫ימ‬ ‫ימת‬ ַ ְ‫ ַא ְּת ׁ ַש ְע ָּתא ָקי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫דְּ ל ֹא ָח ׁ ַש ׁש ִלי? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ . ְ‫ָלך‬

The Gemara relates: Abaye was coming and walking along the street. And Rav Pappa was walking on his right and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, was on his left. Abaye saw a certain ketev meriri coming on his left side and he switched Rav Pappa to his left and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, to his right. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And I, what is different that you were not concerned about any possible harm to me? Abaye said to him: The time is in your favor.n You are wealthy and fortunate, and therefore I believe that you will most likely not be harmed by the demon.

‫יה – וַ דַּ אי‬ ְ ‫ֵמ ַחד ְ ּב ַת ּמ ּוז ַעד ׁ ִש‬ ּ ‫ית ַסר ֵ ּב‬ ‫יחי ָס ֵפק‬ ִ ‫יחי; ִמ ָּכאן וְ ֵא ָיל ְך – ָס ֵפק ׁ ְש ִכ‬ ִ ‫ׁ ְש ִכ‬ ‫ ו ִּמ ׁ ְש ַּת ְּכ ִחי ְ ּבטו ֵּּלי דְּ ַחצָ ָבא דְּ ָלא‬.‫יחי‬ ִ ‫ָלא ׁ ְש ִכ‬ ‫ ו ְּבטו ֵּּלי דְּ צַ ְפ ָרא ו ַּפנְיָא דְּ ָלא‬,‫ָחצֵ ב ַ ּג ְר ִמ ָידא‬ ּ ָ ‫ וְ ִע‬,‫ָהוֵ י ַ ּג ְר ִמ ָידא‬ .‫יקר ְ ּבטו ֵּּלי דְּ ֵבית ַה ִּכ ֵּסא‬

The Gemara comments: From the first of Tammuz to the sixteenth of that month, these demons are certainly found. From here onward it is uncertain whether they are found or whether they are not found. And they can be found in the shadow of a sea squillb that has not grown a cubit, and in the shadow of objects in the morning and evening when their length is less than a cubit. And they are mostly found in the shadow of a privy.

‫ ָהנֵי ְּת ָלת ִמ ֵּילי יָ ֵהיב ַא ְר ּבונָ א‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ‫ ו ַּמן דְּ ׁ ָש ֵתי‬,‫יה ֵיָב ׁש‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ ַמן דְּ ָס ֵריק ֵר‬:‫הורא‬ ָ ְ‫ִלנ‬ ּ ‫יש‬ ‫נֵיה‬ ְ ְ‫ ּו ַמן דְּ ַסּיֵ ים ְמ ָסנֵי ַאדְּ ַמּי‬,‫ִטיף ִטיף‬ ּ ‫ית‬ .‫ַּכ ְר ָעא‬

Rav Yosef said: These three matters cause blindness to the light of one’s eyes:b One who combs his hair when it is dry, one who drinks wine that is drippingb from the barrel, and one who puts on shoes when his feet are wet after being washed.

‫ ִּכ ְד ָא ְמ ִרי‬,‫יתא – ָק ׁ ֵשי ַל ֲענִּיו ָּתא‬ ָ ‫ְּת ַלאי ְ ּב ֵב‬ ‫ וְ ָלא‬.‫זֹונֵיה‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ֱא‬ ּ ‫ ְּת ָלא ִס ְיל ָתא – ְּת ָלא ְמ‬:‫ינָשי‬ – ‫יש ָרא וְ ַכוְ ֵורי‬ ׂ ְ ‫ ֲא ָבל ִ ּב‬,‫ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא ִר ְיפ ָּתא‬ ‫ ּ ַפארֵּ י ְ ּב ֵב ָיתא ָק ׁ ֵשי‬.‫יה ִהיא‬ ְ ,‫ֵלית ָלן ָ ּב ּה‬ ּ ‫אֹור ֵח‬ .‫יתא – ָק ׁ ֵשי ַל ֲענִּיו ָּתא‬ ָ ‫ ׁנְש ָֹורא ְ ּב ֵב‬.‫ַל ֲענִּיו ָּתא‬ ‫יעית – ׁ ָשר ּו ַמּזִ ִיקין‬ ִ ‫ְ ּב ֵל ֵילי ׁ ַש ָ ּבתֹות ו ְּב ֵל ֵילי ְר ִב‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ֵ‫ִע ָּילו‬

If a food is hanging in one’s house, it causes poverty. This is as people say in a popular proverb: He who hangs the basket hangs his sustenance, i.e., he loses it. And we said this only about hanging bread; however, if one hangs meat and fish, we have no problem with it. The reason is that it is the common practice to hang meat and fish. Bran [parei]l in the house causes poverty. Bread crumbs in the house cause poverty. If these crumbs are spread throughout the house on Shabbat nights, i.e., Friday nights, or on Tuesday nights, when demons are present, harmful spirits rest on them.

‫ ִא ָיס ָרא דַּ ֲענִּיו ָּתא‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ִא ָיס ָרא דִּ ְמזֹונֵי נָ ִקיד ׁ ְש ֵמ‬ ‫ צָ ָעא ַא ּפו ָּמא דְּ ַחצְ ָ ּבא – ָק ׁ ֵשי‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫נָ ָבל ׁ ְש ֵמ‬ ‫ ַמאן דְּ ׁ ָש ֵתי ַמּיָ א ְ ּבצָ ֵעי – ָק ׁ ֵשי‬.‫ַל ֲענִּיו ָּתא‬ – ‫יה‬ ַ ‫ִל ְב‬ ּ ‫רֹוק ִּתי; דְּ ָא ֵכיל ַּת ְח ֵלי וְ ָלא ָמ ׁ ֵשי יְ ֵד‬ .‫יֹומין‬ ִ ‫ִמ ְפ ִחיד ְּת ָל ִתין‬

The administering angel appointed over food is called Nakid, i.e., he is clean [naki] and particular about cleanliness. The administering angel appointed over poverty is called Naval.n The angel appointed over food will not stay in a dirty place, while the angel appointed over poverty will thrive there. A plate placed on a jug causes poverty. One who drinks water from a plate causes eye pain. One who eats cress without washing his hands will be afraid for thirty days.

language

Bran [parei] – ‫פארֵּ י‬:ַ ּ From a Syriac Aramaic word meaning bran.

notes

The time is in your favor – ‫ימת ָל ְך‬ ַ ְ‫ש ְע ָּתא ָקי‬: ַ ׁ At certain times, one succeeds in everything he does, and nothing bad can happen to him during these periods. Rav Pappa was successful both in his personal life and in his business.

254 

Perek X . 111b . ‫איק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳י‬

Naval and Nakid – ‫נָ ָבל וְ נָ ִקיד‬: When one keeps a clean house, the angel of sustenance can dwell there. However, when people treat food disrespectfully and live in filth, the angel of poverty dwells among them (Arukh).

Perek X Daf 112 Amud a ‫יה – ִמ ְפ ִחיד ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ ַ ‫דִּ ְמ‬ ּ ‫סֹוכר וְ ָלא ָמ ׁ ֵשי יָ ֵד‬ ‫יה – ִמ ְפ ִחיד‬ ֵ ּ ‫יה וְ ָלא ָמ ׁ ֵשי יְ ֵד‬ ּ ֵ‫ דְּ ׁ ָש ֵקיל ַמזְ י‬.‫יֹומי‬ ‫יה וְ ָלא ָמ ׁ ֵשי‬ ֵ ‫ְּת ָל ָתא‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ׁ ָש ֵקיל טו ְּפ ֵר‬.‫יֹומי‬ ‫יֹומא וְ ָלא יָ ַדע ַמאי ָקא‬ ָ ‫יה – ִמ ְפ ִחיד ַחד‬ ּ ‫יְ ֵד‬ ‫ יְ ָדא ַאאו ְּסיָ א – דַּ ְר ָ ּגא ְל ַפ ֲח ָדא; יְ ָדא‬.‫ִמ ְפ ִחיד‬ .‫ַא ּפו ָּּתא – דַּ ְר ָ ּגא ְל ׁ ִשינְ ָתא‬

One who lets bloodb and does not wash his handsh will be afraid for seven days. One who cuts his hair and does not wash his hands will be afraid for three days. One who cuts his nails and does not wash his hands will be afraid for one day, and he will not know what is frightening him. Placing one’s hand on his nostrils is a way to become afraid. Placing one’s hand on his forehead is a way to fall asleep.

‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬,‫אֹוכ ִלין ו ַּמ ׁ ְש ִקין ַּת ַחת ַה ִּמ ָּטה‬ ָ :‫ָּתנָ א‬ .‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ְמחו ּ ִּפין ִ ּב ְכ ֵלי ַב ְרזֶ ל – רו ַּח ָר ָעה ׁש ָֹורה ֲע ֵל‬ ‫ ל ֹא יִ ׁ ְש ֶּתה ָא ָדם ַמיִ ם ל ֹא ְ ּב ֵל ֵילי‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ – ‫ וְ ִאם ׁ ָש ָתה‬.‫יעּיֹות וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב ֵל ֵילי ׁ ַש ָ ּבתֹות‬ ִ ‫ְר ִב‬ ‫ ַמאי ַס ָּכנָ ה – רו ַּח‬.‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ַס ָּכנָ ה‬,‫ֹאשֹו‬ ׁ ‫דָּ מֹו ְ ּבר‬ .‫ָר ָעה‬

A Sage taught: If food and drink are under one’s bed,h even if they are covered with iron vessels, an evil spirit rests upon them. The Sages taught: A person should not drink water on Tuesday nights or on Shabbat nights, i.e., Friday nights. And if he drinks water, his blood is upon his own head, due to the danger. The Gemara asks: What is this danger? The Gemara answers: The danger of the evil spirit that rules on these days.

‫(נֵימא) ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬ ָ ?‫יה‬ ּ ‫וְ ִאם צָ ֵחי ַמאי ַּת ַ ּקנְ ֵּת‬ ,‫נִיש ֵּתי‬ ְ ׁ ‫ וַ ֲה ַדר‬,‫קֹולֹות ׁ ֶש ָא ַמר דָּ וִ ד ַעל ַה ַּמיִ ם‬ ‫ ״קֹול ה׳ ַעל ַה ָּמיִ ם ֵאל ַה ָּכבֹוד‬:‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ ‫ קֹול ה׳ ַ ּבכ ַֹח קֹול‬.‫ִה ְר ִעים ה׳ ַעל ַמיִ ם ַר ִ ּבים‬ ‫ קֹול ה׳ ׁש ֵֹובר ֲא ָרזִ ים וַ יְ ׁ ַש ֵ ּבר ה׳ ֶאת‬.‫ה׳ ֶ ּב ָה ָדר‬ ‫ קֹול‬.‫ קֹול ה׳ חֹוצֵ ב ַל ֲהבֹות ֵא ׁש‬.‫ַא ְרזֵ י ַה ְּל ָבנֹון‬ ‫ קֹול ה׳‬.‫ יָ ִחיל ה׳ ִמ ְד ַ ּבר ָק ֵד ׁש‬,‫ה׳ יָ ִחיל ִמ ְד ָ ּבר‬ ‫יכלֹו ּכוּלּ ֹו‬ ָ ‫חֹולל ַאּיָ לֹות וַ ּיֶ ֱח ׂשֹוף יְ ָערֹות ו ְּב ֵה‬ ֵ ְ‫י‬ .‫אֹומר ָּכבֹוד״‬ ֵ

The Gemara asks: And if he is thirsty, what is his remedy? What should he drink? The Gemara answers: He should say the seven voices that David said over the water, and afterward he may drink. As it is stated: “The voice of the Lord is upon the waters; God of glory thunders, even the Lord upon many waters. The voice of the Lord is powerful; the voice of the Lord is full of majesty. The voice of the Lord breaks the cedars; the Lord breaks in pieces the cedars of Lebanon. He makes them also skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young wild ox. The voice of the Lord hews out flames of fire. The voice of the Lord shakes the wilderness; the Lord shakes the wilderness of Kadesh. The voice of the Lord makes the hinds to calve, and strips the forests bare; and in His temple all say: Glory” (Psalms 29:3–9).

‫ לוּל ׁ ָש ָפן ַאנִיגְ רֹון‬:‫(נֵימא) ָה ִכי‬ ָ – ‫וְ ִאי ָלא‬ ‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ ֵ ּבין ְ ּב ִל‬,‫ֹוכ ֵבי יָ ֵת ְיבנָ א‬ ָ ‫ ֵ ּבין ּכ‬,‫נִיר ָד ִפין‬ ְ ‫ַא‬ ‫ינִיש‬ ׁ ‫יכא ִא‬ ָּ ‫ ִאי ִא‬,‫ וְ ִאי ָלא‬.‫ׁ ְש ֵמינֵי ָאזֵ ְילנָ א‬ ‫ ּ ְפ ָלנְיָא ַ ּבר‬:‫יה‬ ָ ‫יה וְ ֵל‬ ְ – ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ימא ֵל‬ ּ ‫נִית ַע ֵר‬ ּ ‫ַ ּב ֲה ֵד‬ – ‫ וְ ִאי ָלא‬.‫נִיש ֵּתי‬ ְ ׁ ‫ וַ ֲה ַדר‬,‫ צָ ֵחינָ א ַמּיָ א‬,‫ּ ְפ ָלנְ ָתא‬ ‫ וְ ִאי‬.‫נִיש ֵּתי‬ ְ ׁ ‫ְמ ַק ְר ֵק ׁש נַ ְכ ְּת ָמא ַא ַחצְ ָ ּבא וַ ֲה ַדר‬ .‫נִיש ֵּתי‬ ְ ׁ ‫נִישדֵּ י ָ ּב ּה ִמ ֵידי וַ ֲה ַדר‬ ְ ׁ – ‫ָלא‬

And if he does not remember that verse, he should say as follows: Lul, Shafan, Anigron, Anirdafin, which are names of demons, I sit between the stars, I walk between thin and fat people, take any of them if you wish but leave me alone. And if he does not recall this incantation, if there is another person with him, he should wake him and say to him: Soand-so, son of so-and-so, I thirst for water; and then he may drink. And if there is no other person with him, he should knock the cover on the cup and then drink. And if he is not able to do this, he should throw some object in it and then drink.

‫ ל ֹא יִ ׁ ְש ֶּתה ָא ָדם ַמיִ ם ל ֹא ִמן‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫ וְ ִאם‬,‫ַה ְּנ ָהרֹות וְ ל ֹא ִמן ָה ֲאגַ ִּמים ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה‬ ‫ ַמאי‬.‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ַה ַּס ָּכנָ ה‬,‫ֹאשֹו‬ ׁ ‫ׁ ָש ָתה – דָּ מֹו ְ ּבר‬ ‫ וְ ִאי צָ ֵחי ַמאי‬.‫ַס ָּכנָ ה? ַס ָּכנַ ת ׁ ַש ְב ִר ֵירי‬ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יה – ֵל‬ ׁ ‫יכא ִא‬ ָּ ‫יה? ִאי ִא‬ ּ ‫ינִיש ַ ּב ֲה ֵד‬ ּ ‫ַּת ַ ּקנְ ֵּת‬ ‫ וְ ִאי‬.‫ צָ ֵחינָ א ַמּיָ א‬,‫ ּ ְפ ָלנְיָ א ַ ּבר ּ ְפ ָלנְ ָתא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫ ָא ְמ ָרה‬,‫ ּ ְפ ָלנְיָא‬:‫יה‬ ָ – ‫ָלא‬ ּ ‫(נֵימא) ִאיה ּו ְלנַ ְפ ׁ ֵש‬ ‫ימי ִאיזְ דַּ ַהר ִמ ׁ ּ ַש ְב ִר ֵירי ׁ ַש ְב ִר ֵירי ְ ּב ִר ֵירי‬ ִּ ‫ִלי ִא‬ .‫ צָ ֵחינָ א ַמּיָ א ְ ּב ָכ ֵסי ִחי ָּו ֵרי‬,‫ִר ֵירי יִ ִרי ִרי‬

The Sages taught: A person should not drink water from rivers or from ponds at night. And if he drank, his blood is upon his own head due to the danger. The Gemara explains: What is this danger? The danger of blindness. The Gemara asks: And if he is thirsty, what is his remedy? If there is another person with him, he should say to him: So-and-so, son of so-and-so, I thirst for water. And if there is no one else with him, he should say to himself: So-and-so, my mother said to me to beware of shavrirei, the demon of blindness. He should continue to say the following incantation, in the first part of which the demon’s name gradually disappears: Shavri­ rei berirein rirei yiri ri; I thirst for water in white earthenware cups. This is an incantation against those demons.

background

Lets blood – ‫סֹוכר‬ ַ ‫מ‬:ְ Bloodletting involves spilling small quantities of blood. It was used both as a cure and as a general preventive therapy that was believed to keep a person healthy. Bloodletting was based on an ancient system of medicine in which blood and other bodily fluids were considered to be humors, the proper balance of which was believed to maintain health. It was the most common medical practice performed by doctors on both humans and animals from antiquity through the late 19th century, a period of almost two millennia. Today it is well established that bloodletting is not effective for most diseases. The only remaining condition for which it is used is Polycythemia vera, a disease in which the body produces too many red blood cells. Among the symptoms of this illness are bleeding gums, excessive bleeding from ordinary cuts and bruises, and a reddish color of the skin.

Ancient Greek urn with image of bloodletting halakha

One who lets blood and does not wash his hands – ‫סֹוכר‬ ַ ‫דִּ ְמ‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫וְ ָלא ָמ ׁ ֵשי יָ ֵד‬: One must wash his hands after letting blood or cutting his hair or nails (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 4:19). Food and drink under one’s bed – ‫אֹוכ ִלין ו ַּמ ׁ ְש ִקין ַּת ַחת ַה ִּמ ָּטה‬: ָ One should not place food or drink beneath his bed, even if they are covered (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 116:5). notes

Shavrirei berirei – ‫ש ְב ִר ֵירי ְ ּב ִר ֵירי‬: ַ ׁ Shavrirei is the demon appointed over blindness. When this incantation is recited and the demon hears the letters of its name disappear, it begins to weaken. Ultimately, the demon is defeated (Rashi).

!‫יטא‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬.‫ ״וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִמן ַה ַּת ְמחוּי וכו׳״‬The Gemara returns to the statement of the mishna that on Passover one must drink no less than four cups of wine: And this halakha applies even if the poor person accepts funds from the charity plate. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case. If there is a mitzva to drink these four cups, they must be provided for him. 

‫ביק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 112a 

255

halakha

Make your Shabbat like an ordinary weekday – ָ‫ֲע ֵ ׂשה ׁ ַש ַ ּב ְּתך‬ ‫חֹול‬: A poor person who has enough food for fourteen meals a week should not take food from charity for the third meal of Shabbat. He should treat Shabbat like a regular weekday rather than rely on other people. However, Rav Yosef Karo ruled in a responsa that if one is already forced to accept charity, he is permitted to take all that he requires for Shabbat as well (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 242:1).

‫ל ֹא נִצְ ְר ָכא ֶא ָּלא ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ ְ‫ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ׁ ַש ַ ּב ְּתךָ חֹול וְ ַאל ִּתצְ ָט ֵרך‬:‫דְּ ָא ַמר‬ ‫נִיסא‬ ָ ‫סֹומי‬ ֵ ‫ַל ְ ּב ִרּיֹות – ָה ָכא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ּ ַפ ְר‬ .)‫(מֹודי‬ ֵ

The Gemara answers: The mishna is necessary only to teach that this halakha applies even according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: Make your Shabbat like an ordinary weekdayh and do not be beholden to other beings. If one is unable to honor Shabbat without financial help from others, it is better for him to save money and eat his Shabbat meals as he would on a weekday rather than rely on other people. Here, in the case of the four cups, Rabbi Akiva concedes that it is appropriate for a poor person to request assistance from the community, due to the obligation to publicize the miracle.

‫ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ָא ַמר‬,ּ‫ָּתנָ א דְּ ֵבי ֵא ִלּיָ הו‬ ‫ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ׁ ַש ַ ּב ְּתךָ חֹול וְ ַאל‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ ‫עֹושה הוּא‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ִּתצְ ָט ֵר ְך ַל ְ ּב ִרּיֹות‬ ?ּ‫ ַמאי נִינְ הו‬.‫דָּ ָבר מו ָּעט ְ ּבתֹוךְ ֵ ּביתֹו‬ ,‫ ְּכ ִד ְתנַן‬.‫ ָּכ ָסא דְּ ַה ְר ְסנָ א‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ‫ ֱהוֵ י ַעז‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ֶ ּבן ֵּת‬ ‫ַּכ ָּנ ֵמר וְ ַקל ַּכ ּנ ׁ ֶֶשר ָרץ ַּכ ְ ּצ ִבי וְ גִ ּבֹור ָּכ ֲא ִרי‬ .‫ַל ֲע ׂשֹות ְרצֹון ָא ִביךָ ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם‬

With regard to this issue, the school of Eliyahu taught that although Rabbi Akiva said: Make your Shabbat like a weekday and do not be beholden to other beings; however, one should nevertheless perform some small alteration in his house to distinguish Shabbat from a weekday. The Gemara asks: What is this alteration? Rav Pappa said: For example, one should serve small, fried fish. As we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Yehuda ben Teima says: Be bold like a leopard, light like an eagle, run like a deer, and be strong like a lion to perform the will of your Father in Heaven. This statement teaches that one should exert every effort to perform a mitzva.

‫ ׁ ִש ְב ָעה דְּ ָב ִרים צִ ָּוה ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ,‫ ְ ּבנִי‬:‫הֹוש ַע ְ ּבנֹו‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יבא ֶאת ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ָ ‫ֲע ִק‬ ;‫גֹוב ָה ּה ׁ ֶשל ִעיר וְ ִת ׁ ְשנֶ ה‬ ְ ‫ַאל ֵּת ׁ ֵשב ְ ּב‬ ‫יה ַּת ְל ִמ ֵידי‬ ָ ‫אש‬ ֶ ׁ ‫וְ ַאל ָּתדוּר ְ ּב ִעיר ׁ ֶש ָר‬ .‫ֲח ָכ ִמים‬

The Gemara cites the full source of Rabbi’s Akiva statement with regard to Shabbat preparations. The Sages taught: Rabbi Akiva commanded Rabbi Yehoshua, his son, about seven matters: My son, do not sit at the high point of a city, where many people pass, and studyn there, as the passersby will interrupt you. And do not live in a city whose leaders are Torah scholars,n as they are too busy studying to govern properly.

‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬,‫יתךָ ּ ִפ ְתאֹום‬ ְ ‫וְ ַאל ִּת ָּכנֵס ְל ֵב‬ ‫נְע ִלים‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַאל ִּת ְמנַע ִמ‬. ָ‫ְל ֵבית ֲח ֵב ְירך‬ ‫ ַ ּב ַקיִ ץ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי‬,‫ ַה ׁ ְש ֵּכם וֶ ֱאכֹול‬.‫יך‬ ְ ‫ֵמ ַרגְ ֶל‬ ‫ וַ ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬.‫חֹורף ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ַה ִ ּצ ָּינה‬ ֶ ‫ַה ַח ָּמה ו ַּב‬ .‫ׁ ַש ַ ּב ְּתךָ חֹול וְ ַאל ִּתצְ ָט ֵר ְך ַל ְ ּב ִרּיֹות‬ ‫וֶ ֱהוֵ י ִמ ׁ ְש ַּתדֵּ ל ִעם ָא ָדם ׁ ֶש ַה ׁ ּ ָש ָעה‬ .‫ְמ ַ ׂש ֶח ֶקת לֹו‬

Rabbi Akiva continued: And do not enter your house suddenly,n without knocking first; all the more so do not enter the house of another, as he might not be ready to receive you. And do not withhold shoes from your feet, as it is disgraceful to go barefoot. Wake up and eat, in the summer due to the heat, as it is best to eat before it grows hot, and in the winter due to the strength you will need to tolerate the cold. And make your Shabbat like a weekday and do not be beholden to other beings. And exert yourself to join together with a person upon whom the hour smiles, i.e., a successful person.

‫ֵיה וְ ָלא‬ ּ ‫ ָלא ְל ִמיזְ ַ ּבן ִמ ּינ‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ֶמ ֱע ַבד ׁשו ָּּתפוּת‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ְלזַ ּבֹונֵי ֵל‬ ‫ וְ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ַ ּב ֲה ֵד‬ ‫״מ ֲע ֵ ׂשה יָ ָדיו‬ ַ :‫ ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק‬ ‫ֹוטל ּ ְפרו ָּטה ֵמ ִאּיֹוב‬ ֵ ּ‫ֵ ּב ַר ְכ ָּת״ – ָּכל ַהנ‬ ‫ֵיה ו ְּלזַ ּבֹונֵי‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְל ִמיזְ ַ ּבן ִמ ּינ‬, ְ‫ִמ ְת ָ ּב ֵרך‬ .‫יה ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר ָד ֵמי‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬

Rav Pappa said in explanation of this last statement: Do not buy from him and do not sell to him. If he is the beneficiary of good fortune, he will profit from any business transaction and you will suffer from it. Rather, form a partnership with him. And now we have heard that Rav Shmuel bar Yitzĥak said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “You have blessed the work of his hands” ( Job 1:10)? This means that anyone who took a peruta from Job would be blessed, even if he received it via a business transaction. This shows that one should engage in business with a person who is blessed, for even if he wishes to buy from him or to sell to him it is well, i.e., he will share in the good fortune of the other.

‫ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה דְּ ָב ִרים צִ ָּוה ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ֶאת‬ ‫יֹוחי ְּכ ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ָחבו ּׁש‬ ַ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן‬ ‫ ַל ְּמ ֵדנִי‬,‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ ָא ַמר לֹו‬.‫ְ ּב ֵבית ָה ֲאסו ִּרין‬ :‫ ָא ַמר לֹו‬.‫ ֵאינִי ְמ ַל ֶּמ ְד ְך‬:‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫ּת ָֹורה‬ ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ִאם ֵאין ַא ָּתה ְמ ַל ְּמ ֵדנִי – ֲאנִי‬ ‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫ּמֹוס ְרךָ ַל ַּמ ְלכוּת‬ ֶ ‫יֹוחי ַא ָ ּבא ו‬ ַ ‫ְל‬ ‫יֹותר ִמ ַּמה ׁ ּ ֶש ָה ֵעגֶ ל רֹוצֶ ה‬ ֵ ,‫ ְ ּבנִי‬:‫לֹו‬ ‫ ו ִּמי‬:‫ ָא ַמר לֹו‬.‫ִלינֹק ּ ָפ ָרה רֹוצָ ה ְל ָהנִיק‬ !‫ְ ּב ַס ָּכנָ ה? וַ ֲהל ֹא ֵעגֶ ל ְ ּב ַס ָּכנָ ה‬

The Gemara continues to cite similar advice dispensed by Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva commanded Rabbi Shimon ben Yoĥai to do five matters when Rabbi Akiva was imprisoned. Beforehand, Rabbi Shimon said to him: Rabbi, teach me Torah. Rabbi Akiva said to him: I will not teach you, as it is dangerous to do so at the present time. Rabbi Shimon said to him in jest: If you will not teach me, I will tell Yoĥai my father, and he will turn you over to the government. In other words, I have no means of persuading you; you are already in prison. Rabbi Akiva said: My son, know that more than the calf wishes to suck, the cow wants to suckle, but I am afraid of the danger. Rabbi Shimon said to him: And who is in danger? Isn’t the calf in danger, as you are in jail and I am the one at risk?

notes

Do not sit at the high point of a city and study – ‫ַאל ֵּת ׁ ֵשב‬ ‫גֹוב ָה ּה ׁ ֶשל ִעיר וְ ִת ׁ ְשנֶ ה‬ ְ ‫ב‬: ּ ְ Some commentaries explain that the Torah should be studied in one’s home or in a study hall. The Torah is dishonored when it is studied in a public place (Seder HaDorot). Whose leaders are Torah scholars – ‫יה ַּת ְל ִמ ֵידי ֲח ָכ ִמים‬ ָ ‫אש‬ ֶ ׁ ‫ש ָר‬: ֶׁ Some commentaries explain that since the job of the city leaders often involves rebuking its citizens, this renders them unpopular. If a city leader is also a Torah scholar, his rebukes might cause the residents to hate all scholars (Ben Yehoyada). Do not enter your house suddenly – ‫אל ִּת ָּכנֵס ְל ֵב ְיתךָ ּ ִפ ְתאֹום‬:ַ People should learn proper etiquette from God, Who stood at the entrance to the Garden of Eden and called to Adam, as the verse says: “And the Lord God called to the man and said to him: Where are you?” (Genesis 3:9).

256 

Perek X . 112a . ‫ביק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳י‬

‫ית ֵלה‬ ָּ ‫יחנֵ ק ִה‬ ָ ‫ ִאם ִ ּב ַק ׁ ְש ָּת ֵל‬:‫ָא ַמר לֹו‬ ‫ְ ּב ִא ָילן ָ ּגדֹול; ו ְּכ ׁ ֶש ַא ָּתה ְמ ַל ֵּמד ֶאת‬ ?‫ ַמאי ִהיא‬.‫ִ ּבנְ ךָ – ַל ְּמ ֵדה ּו ְ ּב ֵס ֶפר מ ּו ָ ּג ּה‬ :‫ימא ַרב ְמ ׁ ָש ְר ׁ ִשּיָ א‬ ָ ‫ית‬ ֵ ‫ָא ַמר ָר ָבא וְ ִא‬ .‫ ׁ ַש ֶ ּב ׁ ְש ָּתא ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ָעל – ָעל‬,‫ְ ּב ַח ְד ָּתא‬

Rabbi Akiva said to him: If so, I will tell you a few matters. First of all, if you wish to strangle yourself,n hang yourself on a tall tree. This proverb means that if one wants others to accept what he has to say, he should attribute his statement to a great man. And when you teach your son, teach him from a corrected text.n The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of that statement? Rava said, and some say Rav Mesharshiya said: Rabbi Akiva was referring to learning a new topic, for once a mistake enters one’s mind, it has entered there and is difficult to put right.

‫ישל ָ ּב ּה‬ ֵ ּ ׁ ‫ל ֹא ְּת ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ַ ּב ְּק ֵד ָירה ׁ ֶש ִ ּב‬ ‫ ַמאי נִיה ּו? ְ ּגר ּו ׁ ָשה ְ ּב ַחּיֵ י‬. ָ‫ֲח ֵב ְירך‬ ‫ָשא‬ ׂ ָ ‫ ָ ּגר ּו ׁש ׁ ֶש ּנ‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ָמר‬.‫ַ ּב ְע ָל ּה‬ ‫ וְ ִאי‬.‫ְ ּגרו ׁ ָּשה – ַא ְר ַ ּבע דֵּ עֹות ַ ּב ִּמ ָּטה‬ ‫ ְל ִפי‬,‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְ ּב ַא ְל ָמנָ ה‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ָ ּב ֵעית ֵא‬

Rabbi Akiva further told Rabbi Shimon ben Yoĥai: Do not cook in a pot in which your colleague cooked his food. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of this statement? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Akiva is referring to marrying a divorced woman in the lifetime of her former husband. As the Master said: If a divorced man marries a divorced woman,n there are four minds in the bed during intimacy. Each person thinks about his current and former spouse, which verges on illegitimacy. And if you wish, say instead that this advice holds true even with regard to marrying a widow, as

notes

If you wish to strangle yourself – ‫יחנֵ ק‬ ָ ‫אם ִ ּב ַק ׁ ְש ָּת ֵל‬: ִ The Arukh explains: If you wish to inquire about a prohibition punishable by death, be sure to ask a great Sage and do what he says. According to this interpretation, the phrase: Strangle yourself, alludes to the severe consequences of the matter at hand. Teach him from a corrected text – ‫ל ְּמ ֵדה ּו ְ ּב ֵס ֶפר מ ּו ָ ּג ּה‬:ַ Some commentaries assert that this is referring to a book that has legible letters. Other commentaries explain that it means a reliable, corrected edition without errors (Arukh). Why does the Gemara ask about the meaning of this phrase, which obviously means that one should teach children from a reliable text? The Gemara’s question is why one should use a corrected text specifically for one’s son rather than for oneself. The answer is that a book of this kind is especially critical for one who is just beginning his studies (Ben Yehoyada). If a divorced man marries a divorced woman – ‫ָשא‬ ׂ ָ ‫ָ ּגרו ּׁש ׁ ֶש ּנ‬ ‫גרו ׁ ָּשה‬:ּ ְ Several commentaries maintain that the mention of a pot in this connection alludes to the statement: A woman establishes a covenant only with the one who fashions her into a vessel (Sanhedrin 22b). This indicates that statement of the Gemara is referring to a woman who was divorced after marriage, not after betrothal (Ben Yehoyada). Why did Rabbi Akiva address this piece of advice to a man who marries a divorced woman, but not to a woman who marries a divorced man? Some authorities explain that this is based on the halakha during the talmudic era that a man may divorce his wife against her will. Therefore, the woman might still harbor feelings for her former husband, whereas a divorced man separated from his wife willingly. Nowadays, when divorce requires the agreement of both parties in normal circumstances, this concern no longer exists (Iyyun Ya’akov).

Perek X Daf 112 Amud b .‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָּכל ֶאצְ ָ ּבעֹות ׁ ָשוֹות‬not all fingers are equal. It is possible that intimate relations with her second husband might not be as pleasing as with the first, leading her to disparage and even hate him. ‫אֹוכל ּ ֵפירֹות וְ ל ֹא‬ ֵ – ‫ ִמצְ וָ ה וְ גוּף ָ ּגדֹול‬Rabbi Akiva continued to offer instruction: It is a mitzva and a ‫נֹושא ִא ׁ ּ ָשה‬ ׂ ֵ – ‫ ִמצְ וָ ה וְ גוּף ָטהֹור‬.‫ ָ ׂש ָכר‬great material benefit to one’s body to eat fruits without n .‫ וְ לֹו ָ ּבנִים‬payment. That is, when one lends money and takes land as collateral, deducting from the loan the value of the fruit he eats, both the borrower and the lender benefit from this practice. One who both performs a mitzva and retains a pure body is one who marries a woman, as his thoughts will remain pure and he will merit to have children.

background

Shekhantziv – ‫ש ַכנְצִ יב‬: ְ ׁ Shekhantziv was a city in Babylonia whose residents, especially the women, were known for their frivolity. Rav Sherira Gaon reports that Rabba bar Avuh and Rav Naĥman briefly lived in Shekhantziv after they fled from Neharde’a when it was destroyed.

‫דֹוש‬ ׁ ‫ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה דְּ ָב ִרים צִ ָּוה ַר ֵ ּבינ ּו ַה ָ ּק‬The Gemara cites more instructions issued by a Sage to his heirs. ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫ ַאל ָּתדוּר ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַכנְצִ יב‬:‫ ֶאת ָ ּבנָיו‬Our holy rabbi, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, commanded his sons b .‫ דְּ ֵליצָ נֵי ָהו ּו ו ָּמ ׁ ְשכ ּו ָלךְ ְ ּב ֵליצָ נו ָּתא‬to do four matters: Do not live in Shekhantziv in Babylonia, because they are mockers. And they will draw you in to their mockery and lead you to abandon your Torah studies. ‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬.‫ וְ ַאל ֵּת ׁ ֵשב ַעל ִמ ַּטת ֲא ַר ִּמית‬Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi further commanded his sons: Do not sit .‫ דְּ ָלא ִּתיגְ נֵי ְ ּבל ֹא ְק ִרּיַ ת ׁ ְש ַמע‬:‫ ְד ָא ְמ ִרי‬on the bed of an Aramean woman. This advice is explained in that you should not go to .‫ּיֹור ָתא‬ ְ ‫ינְסב ִ ּג‬ ַ ‫ דְּ ָלא ִּת‬:‫ וְ ִא ָּיכא ְד ָא ְמ ִרי‬different ways. Some say it means sleep without reciting Shema,n as a Jew who does this acts like a gentile. And some say it means that you should not marry a convert,n i.e., a Jewish woman who was once an Aramean.

Map of Babylon

notes

Eat fruits without payment – ‫אֹוכל ּ ֵפירֹות וְ ל ֹא ָ ׂש ָכר‬: ֵ An alternative version of the Gemara reads: Eat fruits and the payment is his. According to our version of the text, the lender may not keep the profits from the fruit, as this would violate the prohibition against taking interest. Instead, the profit from the collateral returns to the borrower. In any case, the lender profits from this arrangement while the borrower does not lose out (Rav Ya’akov Emden).



You should not go to sleep without reciting Shema – ‫ָלא‬ ‫תיגְ נֵי ְ ּבל ֹא ְק ִרּיַ ת ׁ ְש ַמע‬:ִּ This statement is puzzling, as every Jew is required to recite Shema before sleeping. Why is it necessary to reiterate this obligation? One answer is that a rabbinic scholar need say only the first verse of Shema, whereas Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi instructed his sons to recite the entire Shema (Divrei Shaul).

You should not marry a convert – ‫ּיֹור ָתא‬ ְ ‫ינְסב ִ ּג‬ ַ ‫לא ִּת‬:ָ This is a strange statement, as several renowned figures married converts, e.g., Boaz and Joshua, as stated elsewhere in the Gemara. Furthermore, the Gemara in tractate Horayot (13a) states that everyone runs to marry a convert. Some commentaries explain that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was referring specifically to his own sons, who were prohibited to marry converts, as they were priests (Iyyun Ya’akov). ‫ביק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 112b 

257

‫ ו ִּמ ׁ ּשוּם ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬.‫ ֲא ַר ָּמ ִאית ַמ ָּמ ׁש‬:‫יכא ְד ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫ וְ ִא‬And some say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi meant the actual bed .‫ דְּ ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬of an Aramean woman, and this is due to the concern for a similar outcome to the later incident involving Rav Pappa. The incident in question was as follows: Rav Pappa entered the house of a gentile woman to collect a debt. The woman asked him to sit on her bed until she brought the money. As it turned out, she had placed her dead baby under the bed. Rav Pappa was subsequently accused of killing the baby and was forced to flee the district. ‫ דִּ ְיל ָמא ַמ ׁ ְש ְּכח ּו‬,‫וְ ַאל ַּת ְב ִר ַיח ַעצְ ְמךָ ִמן ַה ֶּמ ֶכס‬ ‫ וְ ַאל ַּת ֲעמֹוד ִ ּב ְפנֵי‬. ְ‫ָלךְ וְ ׁ ָש ְק ִלי ִמ ָּנךְ ָּכל דְּ ִאית ָלך‬ ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ַה ּ ָ ׂש ָטן‬,‫עֹולה ִמן ָה ֲאגַ ם‬ ֶ ‫ַה ׁ ּשֹור ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש‬ ,‫ ְ ּב ׁשֹור ׁ ָשחֹור‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬.‫ְמ ַר ֵ ּקד ֵ ּבין ַק ְרנָיו‬ .‫נִיסן‬ ָ ‫יֹומי‬ ֵ ‫ו ְּב‬

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi continued: And do not avoid paying taxes, lest they find you and confiscate everything you own. And do not stand before an ox when it emerges from the marsh because Satan dances between its horns, i.e., an ox is particularly menacing at that time. Rabbi Shmuel said: This is referring to a black ox,b and specifically during the days of Nisan, when the ox is most dangerous.

‫ ַמ ְר ִח ִיקין ִמ ׁ ּשֹור ָּתם ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ִשים‬:‫אֹוש ֲעיָ א‬ ַ ׁ ‫ ָּתנֵי ַרב‬Rav Oshaya teaches with regard to the same issue: One dis.‫ ִמ ׁ ּשֹור מו ָּעד ִּכ ְמל ֹא ֵעינָיו‬,‫ ַא ָּמה‬tances himself fifty cubits from an innocuous ox [shor tam], an ox with no consistent history of causing damage with the intent to injure. From a forewarned ox [shor muad], an ox whose owner was forewarned because his ox already gored a person three times, one distances himself until it is beyond eyeshot.

background

Black ox – ‫שֹור ׁ ָשחֹור‬:ׁ Apparently, the black ox mentioned here is the water buffalo, Bubalus bubalis. Although similar in appearance to an ox, it differs in strength, size, and color, as well as with respect to the shape of its horns and the amount of time it spends in the water. This beast is found mostly in Asia and is used for farm labor. Although the water buffalos are gentle with those who care for them, they pose a danger to others and many people have been attacked by them. notes

Do not inflict a blemish upon yourself – ‫ַאל ַּת ַע ׂש‬ ָ‫מוּם ְ ּב ַעצְ ְמך‬: Several commentaries note that the word mum, blemish, is an acronym for masa umatan, a business transaction. Do not stand over a purchase – ‫אל ַּת ֲעמֹוד ַעל ַה ִּמ ָ ּקח‬:ַ This practice is prohibited because it might cause other sellers to raise their prices unjustifiably, as they think he is willing to buy at that price. Conversely, when this individual refrains from buying, the merchant might attribute his reticence to the low quality of the product (Ben Yehoyada).

258 

Perek X . 112b . ‫ביק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳י‬

– ‫ ֵר ׁיש ּת ָֹורא ְ ּב ִדיקו ָּלא‬:‫ָּתנָא ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ ּיה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ :‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬.‫ ּו ׁ ְש ֵדי דַּ ְר ָ ּגא ִמ ּתו ָּת ְך‬,‫ַסק ְל ִאיגְ ָרא‬ ;‫תֹורא – ֵהן ֵהן; נִיזְ ָהא דְּ ַא ְריֵ ה – זֶ ה זֶ ה‬ ָ ְּ‫נִיזְ ָהא ד‬ ‫נִיזְ ָהא דְּ גַ ְמ ָלא – דָּ א דָּ א; נִיזְ ָהא דְּ ַא ְר ָ ּבא ֶה ֵילנִי‬ .‫ַהּיָ יא ֶה ָילא וְ ִהילוּק הו ְּליָ א‬

A Sage taught citing the name of Rabbi Meir, in an exaggerated vein: Even if the head of the ox is in its food basket, go up to the roof and kick the ladder out from underneath you to escape from it. Rav said: The cry that one says to lead an ox is hen hen. The cry to lead a lion is zeh zeh. The cry to lead a camel is da da. The cry to laborers using ropes to pull a ship along a river is heleni, hayya, hela, vehilook, hulya.

‫ ו ֵּביצִ ים וְ ִכ ּנִים‬,‫ ַח ִּמין‬,‫ וְ כֹוס‬,‫ דָּ ג‬,‫ עֹור‬:‫ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ‫ עֹור – ַמאן‬.‫ְל ָבנִים – ּכו ָּּלן ָק ׁ ִשין ְל ָד ָבר ַא ֵחר‬ ;‫נִיסן‬ ָ ‫יֹומי‬ ֵ ‫יבו ָּטא ְ ּב‬ ּ ‫דְּ גָ נֵי ַא ְמ ׁ ָש ָכא דְּ צַ ָּלא; דָּ ג – ׁ ִש‬ ‫ימי‬ ֵ ‫ּכֹוס – ׁ ִשּיו ֵּרי ָּכ ָסא דְּ ַה ְר ְסנָ א; ַח ִּמין – ֲח ִמ‬ ָּ ‫ימי ְמ ׁ ַש ְדרֹו ִע‬ ְ‫יה; ֵ ּביצִ ים – ַמאן דְּ ִמ ְד ַרך‬ ֵ ‫דַּ ֲח ִמ‬ ּ ֵ‫ילו‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ַא ְּק ִל ּ ִיפים; ִּכ ּינִים ְל ָבנִים – ַמאן דִּ ְמ ַח ַּוור ְלבו ׁ ֵּש‬ ‫ ַ ּב ְריָ ין‬,‫יֹומי וַ ֲה ַדר ָלבו ּׁש ָל ּה‬ ֵ ‫יה ְּת ַמנְיָא‬ ֵ ‫וְ ָלא‬ ּ ‫נָטיר ֵל‬ .‫ וְ ָק ׁ ִשין ְל ָד ָבר ַא ֵחר‬,‫ֲהנָ ךְ ִּכ ּינִים‬

Abaye said: Hide, fish, and a cup, hot water, and eggs, and white lice all cause the other matter, i.e., leprosy. The Gemara elaborates: Hide is referring to one who sleeps on a tanner’s hide before it has been tanned. Fish is referring to the shibuta fish in the days of Nisan. The cup is referring to one who eats the leftovers of small fried fish. Hot water is referring to very hot water that one pours on himself. Eggs means one who steps on eggshells. White lice is referring to one who washes his garment but does not keep it for eight days before wearing it again, a habit which creates these lice. And all of these practices cause the other matter, leprosy.

‫יה ׁשוּנָ ָרא – ָלא‬ ָ ‫ ֵ ּב‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ּ ‫יתא דְּ ִאית ֵ ּב‬ ?‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬.‫ינִיש ְ ּב ָלא ְמ ָסנֵי‬ ׁ ‫נֵיעוּל ָ ּב ּה ִא‬ ,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ִמ ׁ ּש ּום דְּ ׁשוּנְ ָרא ָק ֵטיל ְל ִחיוְ יָ א וְ ָא ֵכיל ֵל‬ ‫יה ְ ּב ִחיוְ יָ א ַ ּג ְר ֵמי ְק ִטינֵי; וְ ִאי יָ ֵתיב ָל ּה‬ ּ ‫וְ ִאית ֵ ּב‬ ‫ וְ ִא ְס ַּת ַּכן‬,‫יה – ָלא נָ ֵפיק‬ ּ ‫ַ ּג ְר ָמא דְּ ִחיוְ יָ א ַא ַּכ ְר ֵע‬ ‫יה ׁשוּנָ ָרא‬ ָ ‫ ֵ ּב‬:‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫יתא דְּ ֵלית ֵ ּב‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ?‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬.‫ינִיש ְ ּב ַה ָּכ ָרא‬ ׁ ‫יה ִא‬ ּ ‫ָלא נֵיעוּל ֵ ּב‬ .‫ ו ִּמ ְס ַּת ֵּכן‬,‫יה ִחוְ יָ א וְ ָלא יָ ַדע‬ ְ ‫דִּ ְיל ָמא ִמ‬ ּ ‫יכ ִריךְ ֵ ּב‬

Rav Pappa said: With regard to a house in which there is a cat, a person should not enter there barefoot. What is the reason? Because the cat might kill a snake and eat it, and the snake has small bones, and if a small bone gets into one’s foot it cannot be removed, and he will be in danger. Some say that Rav Pappa said: With regard to a house in which there is no cat, a person should not enter there in the dark. What is the reason? Since there is no cat to hunt snakes, perhaps a snake will wrap itself around him without him knowing and he will be in danger.

‫יֹוסי ֶאת‬ ֵ ‫יִש ָמ ֵעאל ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי‬ ְ ׁ ‫ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה דְּ ָב ִרים צִ ָּוה ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ַמאי‬. ָ‫ ַאל ַּת ַע ׂש מוּם ְ ּב ַעצְ ְמך‬:)‫ימן‬ ָ ‫ַר ִ ּבי (מק״ש ִס‬ ‫ דְּ ַחד ָהוֵ י‬,‫ִהיא? ָלא ֶּת ֱיהוֵ י ָלךְ דִּ ינָ א ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ְּת ָל ָתא‬ ‫ וְ ַאל ַּת ֲעמֹוד ַעל ַה ִּמ ָ ּקח‬.‫ַ ּב ַעל דִּ ינָ ךְ ו ְּת ֵרי ָס ֲה ֵדי‬ .‫ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ּ ֶש ֵאין ְלךְ דָּ ִמים‬

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, commanded Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi with regard to three matters. Parenthetically, the Gemara states that mem, kaf, shin is a mnemonic for the three statements, as it stands for mum, blemish, mekaĥ, a purchase, and ishtekha, your wife. The first matter is: Do not inflict a blemish upon yourself.n The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of that statement? The Gemara explains: Do not have a court case against three people, as one will be your opponent and two will act as witnesses and testify against you whatever they wish. And do not stand over and display interest in a purchasen when you do not have enough money even for the price you are offering, as this constitutes fraud.

.‫אשֹונָ ה‬ ׁ ‫ ִא ׁ ְש ְּתךְ ָט ְב ָלה – ַאל ִּתּזָ ֵקק ָל ּה ַליְ ָלה ָה ִר‬The Gemara cites the third instruction that Rabbi Yishmael, ‫הֹואיל וְ הו ֲּחזַ ק ַמ ְעיָ ן‬ ִ ‫יתא‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ ַ ְּ‫ ו ְּבנִ דָּ ה ד‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬son of Rabbi Yosei, commanded Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. .‫ דִּ ְיל ָמא ָמ ׁ ְש ָכה זִ ָיבה‬,‫ ּ ָפתו ַּח‬After your wife has immersed, do not engage in intimacy with her on the first night. Rather, wait an additional night. Rav said: And this is referring to a menstruating woman whose status applies by Torah law. According to Torah law, even if a woman experiences a continuous emission of blood for seven days, if the flow stops on the seventh day, she may immerse that night and engage in relations with her husband without delay. However, Rav maintains that one must act stringently in this case. His reasoning is: Since there is a presumption that the flow of blood is open, perhaps her zava blood will continue afterward, i.e., she will see more blood after engaging in intimacy. :‫יֹוסי ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה ֶאת ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה דְּ ָב ִרים צִ ָּוה ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ וְ ַאל ַּת ֲעמֹוד ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַה ֵּנר‬,‫ַאל ֵּתצֵ א יְ ִח ִידי ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה‬ .‫ ׁ ֶש ָּמא ִּת ּ ָפ ֵחת‬,‫ וְ ַאל ִּת ָּכנֵס ְל ֶמ ְר ָחץ ָח ָד ׁש‬,‫ָערוּם‬ ‫ ַעד ׁ ְשנֵים ָע ָ ׂשר‬:‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ַעד ַּכ ָּמה? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬ :‫ וְ ַאל ַּת ֲעמֹוד ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַה ֵּנר ָערוּם – דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬.‫ח ֶֹד ׁש‬ ‫ וְ ַה ְמ ׁ ַש ֵּמ ׁש‬,‫עֹומד ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַה ֵּנר ָערוּם – ָהוֵ י נִ ְכ ּ ֶפה‬ ֵ ‫ָה‬ .‫ִמ ָּטתֹו ְלאֹור ַה ֵּנר ָהוְ יָ ין לֹו ָ ּבנִים נִ ְכ ּ ִפין‬

The Gemara continues: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, commanded Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi with regard to three matters: Do not go out alone at night; do not stand naked before a candle; and do not enter a new bathhouse,b lest it collapse when they light the fire beneath it. The Gemara asks: Until when is a bathhouse considered new? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Until twelve months have passed. With regard to the statement: And do not stand naked before a candle, the Gemara comments that this is as it was taught in a baraita: One who stands naked before a candle will become epileptic, and one who engages in intimacy by candlelighth will have epileptic children.

‫ ַה ְמ ׁ ַש ֵּמ ׁש ִמ ָּטתֹו ַעל ִמ ָּטה ׁ ֶש ִּתינֹוק יָ ׁ ֵשן‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫ וְ ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא דְּ ָלא‬.‫יה – אֹותֹו ִּתינֹוק נִ ְכ ּ ֶפה‬ ָ ‫ָע ֶל‬ ‫ וְ ָלא‬.‫ ֲא ָבל ָהוֵ י ַ ּבר ׁ ַש ָּתא ֵלית ָלן ָ ּב ּה‬,‫ָהוֵ י ַ ּבר ׁ ַש ָּתא‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ָ ּגנֵי ַל ֲה ֵדי‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא דְּ גָ נֵי ַל ֲה ֵדי ַּכ ְר ֵע‬ ‫ וְ ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא דְּ ָלא ַמ ַּנח‬.‫יה – ֵלית ָלן ָ ּב ּה‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ֵר‬ ּ ‫יש‬ ָּ ‫יה ִע‬ ָּ ‫יה ִע‬ ‫יה – ֵלית ָלן‬ ּ ֵ‫ילו‬ ּ ‫יה ֲא ָבל ַמ ַּנח יְ ֵד‬ ּ ֵ‫ילו‬ ּ ‫יְ ֵד‬ .‫ָ ּב ּה‬

Likewise, the Sages taught: One who engages in intimacy in a bed upon which a baby is sleeping,h that child becomes epileptic. And we said that this will occur only if the child is not yet one year old; however, if he is one year old we have no problem with it, as he is old enough not to be affected. And furthermore, we said this only concerning a baby that is sleeping near the father’s feet; but if the baby is sleeping near his head he is sufficiently far away so that we have no problem with it. And we said this only if he does not place his hand on the baby at the time, but if he places his hands on the baby to serve as a barrier between them, we have no problem with it.

‫ ל ֹא יֵ צֵ א יְ ִח ִידי‬:‫ַאל ֵּתצֵ א יְ ִח ִידי ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה – דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ ,‫יעּיֹות וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב ֵל ֵילי ׁ ַש ָ ּבתֹות‬ ִ ‫ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה ל ֹא ְ ּב ֵל ֵילי ְר ִב‬ ‫ ִהיא ו ׁ ְּשמֹונֶ ה ֶע ְ ׂש ֵרה‬,‫ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ָאגְ ַרת ַ ּבת ַמ ֲח ַלת‬ ‫ וְ ָכל ֶא ָחד וְ ֶא ָחד‬,‫ִר ּבֹוא ׁ ֶשל ַמ ְל ֲא ֵכי ַח ָ ּב ָלה יֹוצְ ִאין‬ .‫יֵ ׁש לֹו ְר ׁשוּת ְל ַח ֵ ּבל ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ מֹו‬

With regard to the instruction: Do not go out alone at night, the Gemara states that this is as it was taught in a baraita: One should not go out alone at night, neither on Tuesday nightsn nor on Shabbat nights, i.e., Friday nights, because the demon Agrat, daughter of Maĥalat,n she and 180,000 angels of destruction go out at these times. And as each and every one of them has permission to destroy by itself, they are all the more dangerous when they go forth together.

halakha

One who engages in intimacy by candlelight – ‫ַּת ׁ ְש ִמ ׁיש ִמ ָּטה ְלאֹור‬ ‫ה ֵּנר‬:ַ It is prohibited to engage in sexual intimacy by the light of a candle, even if one blocks the light with his robe. If the candle is on the other side of a screen, it is permitted to engage in relations, provided one uses his robe to block out the light. In addition, it is prohibited to engage in relations by moonlight. Intimacy is permitted during the day, provided that the room is dark. However,

background

Bathhouse – ‫בית ֶמ ְר ָחץ‬: ּ ֵ The bathhouses in mishnaic and talmudic times were heated by fire lit beneath their floors. The heat was transferred to the entire structure by means of special pipes. Sometimes, the heat and humidity would cause the foundations of the bathhouse to collapse, endangering everyone inside. The key to both images is as follows: 1 Pipes that held and pumped hot water (first image) 2 Boiler 3 Bath

Bathhouse structure

Remains of Roman bath

this conduct is considered inappropriate (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 240:11, Even HaEzer 25:5). One who engages in intimacy with a baby on the bed – ‫ְמ ׁ ַש ֵּמ ׁש‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫יטתֹו ְּכ ׁ ֶש ִּתינֹוק ָע ֶל‬ ָּ ‫מ‬:ִ One should not have relations in a bed upon which a baby is lying, if all the conditions stated by the Gemara are fulfilled (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 240:16).

notes

Tuesday nights – ‫יעּיֹות‬ ִ ‫ל ֵילי ְר ִב‬:ֵ According to some commentaries, this statement does not refer to the fourth night of the week but rather to rainy nights. Since people do not venture outdoors, demons are granted free reign. Nevertheless, most commentaries maintain that it is referring to Tuesday nights. One explanation for this is that on Sunday and Wednesday nights rural folk would travel through the dark to reach the markets or courts by daybreak, as Mondays and Thursdays were market days. They would return



home on the following night. In addition, travelers would return from the city at the conclusion of Shabbat. However, there was no need to travel on Tuesday nights (Tosefot Rid). Agrat, daughter of Maĥalat – ‫אגְ ַרת ַ ּבת ַמ ֲח ַלת‬:ָ Some commentaries note that Agrat means a gathering, while Maĥalat is sickness. In other words, Agrat daughter of Maĥalat refers to a gathering of various evils and illnesses. ‫ביק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 112b 

259

ּ ָ ‫ֵמ ִע‬ ‫ זִ ְמנָ א ֲח ָדא‬.‫יֹומא‬ ָ ‫יחי ּכו ֵּּלי‬ ִ ‫יק ָרא ָהו ּו ׁ ְש ִכ‬ ‫ ִאי ָלאו‬:‫יה‬ ָ ּ‫ּ ָפגְ ָעה ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א ֶ ּבן ד‬ ּ ‫ ָא ְמ ָרה ֵל‬.‫ֹוסא‬ – ‫תֹורתֹו‬ ָ ‫דְּ ַמ ְכ ְרזָ ן ֲע ָלךְ ָ ּב ָר ִק ַיע ִהּזָ ֲהר ּו ַ ּב ֲחנִינָ א ו ְּב‬ ‫ ִאי ֲח ׁ ִש ְיבנָ א ָ ּב ָר ִק ַיע – גּ ֹוזֵ ר‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָל ּה‬. ְ‫ַס ִּכנְ ִּתיך‬ ּ ׁ ִ‫בֹורי ַ ּבּי‬ ‫ ָא ְמ ָרה‬.‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ישוּב ְל‬ ִ ‫ֲאנִי ָע ַליִ ךְ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ַּת ֲע‬ .‫וחא ּפו ְּר ָּתא‬ ָ ְ‫ ׁ ְש ַבק ִלי ַרו‬, ְ‫ ְ ּב ָמטו ָּתא ִמ ָּינך‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ .‫יעּיֹות‬ ִ ‫ׁ ְש ַבק ָל ּה ֵל ֵילי ׁ ַש ָ ּבתֹות וְ ֵל ֵילי ְר ִב‬

The Gemara states: Initially, these demons were present every day. Once Agrat, daughter of Maĥalat, met Rabbi Ĥanina ben Dosa and said to him: Had they not announced about you in the Heavens: Be careful of Ĥanina and his Torah, I would have placed you in danger. He said to her: If I am considered important in Heaven, I decree upon you that you should never travel through inhabited places. She said to him: I beg you, leave me a little space. He left for her Shabbat nights and Tuesday nights.

:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ָא ְמ ָרה ֵל‬.‫יה ְ ּב ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫ ֲח ָדא זִ ְמנָ א ּ ָפגְ ָעה ֵ ּב‬,ּ‫וְ תו‬ ‫ִאי ָלאו דְּ ַמ ְכ ְרזִ י ֲע ָל ְך ָ ּב ָר ִק ַיע ִהּזָ ֲהר ּו ְ ּבנַ ֲח ָמנִי‬ ‫ ִאי ֲח ׁ ִש ְיבנָ א‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָל ּה‬. ְ‫תֹורתֹו – ֲהוָ ה ַס ִּכנְ ִּתיך‬ ָ ‫ו ְּב‬ ּ ׁ ִ‫בֹורי ַ ּבּי‬ ‫ישוּב‬ ִ ‫יכי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ַּת ֲע‬ ִ ְ‫ָ ּב ָר ִק ַיע – ּגֹוזְ ַרנִי ֲע ַלי‬ ‫ ָהנֵי‬:‫ ָהא ָקא ָחזֵ ינַן דְּ ָע ְב ָרה! ָא ְמ ִרי‬.‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ְל‬

And furthermore, once Agrat, daughter of Maĥalat met Abaye and said to him: Had they not announced about you in the Heavens: Be careful of Naĥmani, Abaye, and his Torah, I would have placed you in danger. He said to her: If I am considered important in Heaven, I decree upon you that you should never pass through inhabited places. The Gemara asks: But we see that, notwithstanding these anecdotes, demons do pass through inhabited areas. The Sages say in explanation: These demons

Perek X Daf 113 Amud a language

.ּ‫ וְ ָאת ּו דָּ ְב ִרי ְלהו‬,‫ דְּ ׁ ָש ְמ ִטי סו ָּסיָ א‬,ּ‫ ַ ּגזְ יָ ָיתא נִינְ הו‬are found on the paths [gazyata]l near the city, as horses belonging to the demons flee along those paths, and the demons come to lead them away. Generally, however, demons do not enter inhabited places.

Paths [gazyata] – ‫יתא‬ ָ ָ‫גזְ י‬:ּ ַ According to some linguists, this is from the Arabic ‫جزاز‬, jazaaz, meaning a path or side alleyway. halakha

Skin a carcass in the market – ‫פ ׁשֹוט נְ ֵב ְיל ָּתא ְ ּב ׁשו ָּקא‬:ְ ּ One should avoid accepting charity as much as possible. It is better to live a life of sorrow than to rely on others. Even an important scholar who becomes impoverished should engage in a lowly trade rather than rely on charity, as stated by Rav (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 255:1).

‫ ל ֹא ָּתדוּר ְ ּב ָמ ָתא דְּ ָלא‬:‫יה) ַרב ְל ַרב ַא ִסי‬ ּ ‫(וְ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ וְ ַאל ָּתדוּר‬,‫צָ נִיף ָ ּב ּה סו ְּסיָ א וְ ָלא נָ ַבח ָ ּב ּה ַּכ ְל ָ ּבא‬ ‫נְסיב ַּת ְר ֵּתי; ִאי‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ָלא ִּת‬,‫ְ ּב ִעיר דְּ ֵר ׁיש ָמ ָתא ַא ְסיָ א‬ .‫נְסיב ְּת ָלת‬ ֵ – ‫נְס ְב ְּת ַּת ְר ֵּתי‬ ַ

And Rav said to Rav Asi: Do not live in a city where horses do not neighn and where dogs do not bark, as the these animals provide security and protection. And do not live in a city where the mayor is a doctor,n as he will be too busy working to govern properly. And do not marry two women, as they will likely join forces against you. And if you do marry two, marry a third as well. If two of your wives plot against you, the third will inform you of their plans.

‫יל ָּתא‬ ְ ‫פֹוך ִ ּבנְ ֵב‬ ְ ‫ ֲה‬:‫יה ַרב ְל ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ֵּ ‫ֹוך ְ ּב ִמ‬ ‫ ּ ְפ ׁשֹוט נְ ֵב ְיל ָּתא ְ ּב ׁשו ָּקא‬.‫ילי‬ ְ ‫וְ ָלא ֵּת ּיפ‬ ‫ וְ גַ ְב ָרא‬,‫ימא ָּכ ֲהנָ א ֲאנָ א‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָלא ֵּת‬,‫ו ׁ ְּש ֵקיל ַאגְ ָרא‬ – ‫ ָס ְל ַק ְּת ְל ִאיגְ ָרא‬.‫ וְ ָסנְיָא ִ ּבי ִמ ְּל ָתא‬,‫ַר ָ ּבא ֲאנָ א‬ ‫ ֵמ ָאה ָק ֵרי ְ ּב ָמ ָתא ְ ּבזוּזָ א – ּת ֵֹותי‬. ְ‫ׁ ֵשירו ָּתךְ ַ ּב ֲה ָדך‬ .ּ‫נֶיהוו‬ ֱ ְ‫ְכנָ ֵפיך‬

Rav said to Rav Kahana: It is better for one to turn over a carcassn than to turn over his word, i.e., to break his promise. Rav further said: Skin a carcass in the markethn and take payment, but do not say: I am a priest, or: I am a great man, and this matter disgusts me. It is preferable for one to work, even in menial labor, than to be dependent on others. Rav also advised Rav Kahana: If you ascend to the roof, carry your food with you. One should always carry his sustenance with him, even if he goes only on a short trip. If one hundred pumpkins in the city cost a zuz,n place them carefully under the corners of your clothes. Treat food respectfully even if it is inexpensive.

notes

Where horses do not neigh – ‫דְּ ָלא צָ נִיף ָ ּב ּה סו ְּסיָא‬: Why does the Gemara single out a horse as opposed to other animals? The reason is that thieves will not operate in a place where they hear the neighing of a horse, as they know the owner of that house has the means to chase them down (Ben Yehoyada).

he would be the communal leader, as this appointment would prevent him from studying Torah.

To turn over a carcass – ‫פֹוך ִ ּבנְ ֵב ְיל ָּתא‬ ְ ‫ה‬:ֲ According to some commentaries, the expression: Turn over his word, refers to a chatterer. Someone who talks too much will eventually speak Where the mayor is a doctor – ‫דְּ ֵר ׁיש ָמ ָתא ַא ְסיָ א‬: An alternative inappropriately (Me’iri). Others explain that whereas turning variant reads: Where the mayor of the city is Asi. Some com- over a carcass will render one ritually impure, foul speech will mentaries explain that this means the mayor is as great a Sage defile one’s soul (Iyyun Ya’akov). Alternatively, this proverb is as Rav Asi. This statement is similar to the earlier observation referring to the role of a broker, who must alter his approach that a great Torah scholar should not serve as the leader of a when dealing with the buyer and the seller. With wry cynicism, city (Rashi; Arukh). Others explain that Rav is referring to Rabbi the Gemara states that it would be better for him to deal in Asi himself, i.e., he was telling him not to live in a place where carcasses.

260 

Perek X . 113a . ‫גיק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳י‬

Skin a carcass in the market – ‫פ ׁשֹוט נְ ֵב ְיל ָּתא ְ ּב ׁשו ָּקא‬:ְ ּ Although skinning is performed in the marketplace in public display, and consequently is considered demeaning, a Torah scholar should support himself and not shun manual labor. One hundred pumpkins…cost a zuz – ‫י…בזוּזָ א‬ ּ ְ ‫מ ָאה ָק ֵר‬:ֵ Several commentaries explain that even if one hundred pumpkins cost a single zuz in the city, do not reject the one that you find for free in the field. Instead, you should take it as well (Rabbeinu Ĥananel). Others say that when someone gives you an item in return for your money, take it immediately. A third interpretation is that if one finds a purchase at a cheap price, he should buy it right away and hide it from jealous eyes (Arukh).

‫ ָלא ִּת ׁ ְש ֵּתי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ַרב ְל ִחּיָ יא ְ ּב ֵר‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ וְ ָלא ַּת ֲעקֹר‬,‫ וְ ָלא ִּת ׁ ְשוַ ור נִיגְ ָרא‬,‫ַס ָּמא‬ ‫ וְ ָלא ְּת ַק ֵּנא‬,‫ וְ ָלא ְּת ַק ֵּנא ְ ּב ִחיוְ יָ א‬,‫ַּכ ָּכא‬ .‫ְ ּב ַא ְר ָמ ָאה‬

Rav said to Ĥiyya,n his son: Do not get into the habit of drinking medications,n lest you develop an addiction. And do not leap over a ditch, as you might hurt yourself in the process. And do not pull out a tooth, but try to heal it if possible. And do not provoke a snake in your house to try to kill it or chase it away. And do not provoke a gentile,n as this too is dangerous.

‫ וְ ֵאלּ ּו‬,‫ ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ֵאין ִמ ְת ַק ְּנ ִאין ָ ּב ֶהן‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ‫ ַמאי‬.‫ וְ ַת ְל ִמיד ָק ָטן‬,‫ וְ נָ ָח ׁש ָק ָטן‬,‫ גּ ֹוי ָק ָטן‬:‫ֵהן‬ ‫חֹורי או ְּדנַיְ יה ּו‬ ֵ ‫ַט ְע ָמא – דְּ ַמ ְלכו ַּתיְ יה ּו ֲא‬ .‫ָק ֵאי‬

Similarly, the Sages taught: There are three beings one should not provoke: A small gentile, and a small snake, and a small Torah scholar. What is the reason? Because their authority stands behind their ears. They will eventually grow up, assume power, each in his own way, and avenge those who have harassed them.

‫ ְט ַר ִחי ָ ּב ְך‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ַרב ְל ַאיְ ב ּו ְ ּב ֵר‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ְּ ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ָתא וְ ָל א ִמ ְס ַּתּיַ יע ִמ‬ ,‫יל ָתא‬ ֵּ ‫ָּתא ַאגְ ַמ ָר ְך ִמ‬ ‫ ַאדְּ ָח ָלא‬:‫ילי ְד ָע ְל ָמא‬ ֵּ ‫ ָּכל ִמ‬.‫יך – זְ ִבינָ ְך זַ ֵ ּבין‬ ‫ילי זַ ֵ ּבין‬ ְ ‫ַא ַּכ ְר ִע‬ .‫ דְּ זַ ֵ ּבין וְ ָלא ְּת ָח ֵרט‬,‫ו ְּת ָח ֵרט – ַ ּבר ֵמ ַח ְמ ָרא‬

Rav said to Ayvu, his son: I struggled to teach you halakha but my efforts did not succeed, as you did not become a great scholar. Come and I will teach you about mundane matters: Sell your merchandise while the dust from the road is still on your feet. As soon you return from your travels, sell your wares, lest the prices fall in the meantime. Furthermore, it is possible that anything you sell might later cause you to regret the sale, except for wine, which you can sell without regret. Since wine might go bad and be entirely lost, its sale is always advisable.

notes

Rav’s advice to his son Ĥiyya – ‫עצֹות ַרב ְל ִחּיָ יא ְ ּבנֹו‬:ֲ The commentaries state that this advice applied especially to Rav’s son Ĥiyya, who was a sickly boy. For this reason, his father warned him about taking care of his health (Rav Ya’akov Emden; Mitzpe Eitan). Drinking medications – ‫ת ׁ ְש ֵּתי ַס ָּמא‬:ִּ This warning to avoid addictions also applies to concoctions taken by healthy people to strengthen their constitution (Ben Yehoyada). Do not provoke a snake and…a gentile, etc. – ‫ָלא‬ ‫ת ַק ֵּנא ְ ּב ִחיוְ יָ א וְ ְב ַא ְר ָמ ָאה וכו׳‬:ְּ A gentile child, a snake, and a young Torah scholar all have a vengeful nature (Iyyun Ya’akov). Sudana – ‫סו ָּדנָ א‬: The Arukh explains that this term for a brewer means helper or aide, and it refers to acts of kindness. When you go to war – ‫כ ׁ ֶש ַא ָּתה יֹוצֵ א ַל ִּמ ְל ָח ָמה‬:ְּ This statement applies only to an optional war but not to an obligatory one, in which soldiers must be prepared to give their lives (Rav Ya’akov Emden).

‫ ַק ָ ּבא ֵמ ַא ְר ָעא‬.‫ ּ ְפ ַתח ַ ׂש ַ ּקיִ ְך‬,‫יסיִ ְך‬ ַ ‫ ׁ ְש ֵרי ִּכ‬Rav further advised his son: Open your purse to accept payment, .‫ וְ ָלא ּכ ָֹורא ֵמ ִאיגְ ָרא‬and only then open your sack to deliver the goods, to ensure you will receive payment for your merchandise. It is better to earn a kav from the ground than a kor from the roof. A kor is one hundred and eighty times larger than a kav. This proverb means that it is preferable to earn a small amount from a local, safe transaction than to attempt to earn more through a distant, risky venture. .‫ַּת ְמ ָרא ַ ּב ֲח ל ּו זָ ְך ְל ֵבית ס ּו ָדנָ א ָר ֵה יט‬ .‫ ַעד ְּת ָל ָתא ְס ָאה‬:‫וְ ַעד ַּכ ָּמה? ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ‫ ִאי ָלא דִּ ְר ַמאי ׁ ִש ְכ ָרא ָלא‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ :‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬,‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ַ ‫ִא‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬.‫יע ְּת ִרי‬ ‫ ַמאי‬.‫יע ְּת ִרי‬ ַ ‫ִאי ָלא דִּ ְר ַמאי ׁ ִש ְכ ָרא ָלא ִא‬ ,‫ סֹוד נָ ֶאה‬:‫ס ּו ָדנָ א? ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ .‫וּגְ ִמילוּת ֲח ָס ִדים‬

Rav continued: If there are dates in your storeroom, run to the brewery to sell them. If you wait, there is a good chance the dates will go bad. The Gemara asks: And how many dates should one keep for himself? Rava said: Up to three se’a. Rav Pappa said: If I were not a beer manufacturer I would not have become wealthy. Some say that it was Rav Ĥisda who said: If I were not a beer manufacturer I would not have become wealthy. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the word sudana,n the Aramaic term for a brewer? Rav Ĥisda said: A pleasant secret [sod na’e] and acts of loving kindness, as brewing is a good way to make money and also enables one to perform good deeds.

;‫ ָּכל ַא ַ ּגב – ָ ּג ְביָ א ָ ּב ֵעי‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬The Gemara continues to offer advice about mundane matters. Rav ,‫ ָּכל ַא ׁ ְש ַראי – ָס ֵפק ָא ֵתי ָס ֵפק ָלא ָא ֵתי‬Pappa said: Anything you acquire with a document by means of .ּ‫ ו ְּד ָא ֵתי – ָמעֹות ָרעֹות נִינְ הו‬which ownership is transferred, i.e., a bill of acquisition or obligation, requires collection, despite the fact that you are the legal owner. Any sale on credit is uncertain whether or not it will come to fruition. And even if it does come to fruition, the money is bad. These funds are difficult to collect, and they are generally not paid on time. ‫נְשי‬ ֵ ׁ ‫יֹוחנָן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַא‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה דְּ ָב ִרים ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ַא ָּתה יֹוצֵ א ַל ִּמ ְל ָח ָמה – ַאל‬:‫יְ רו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם‬ ,‫ ֶא ָּלא ֵּתצֵ א ָ ּב ַא ֲחרֹונָ ה‬,‫אשֹונָ ה‬ ׁ ‫ֵּתצֵ א ָ ּב ִר‬ ‫אשֹונָ ה; וַ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ׁ ַש ַ ּב ְּתךָ חֹול‬ ׁ ‫ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶש ִּת ָּכנֵס ָ ּב ִר‬ ‫ וֶ ֱהוֵ י ִמ ׁ ְש ַּתדֵּ ל ִעם ִמי‬,‫וְ ַאל ִּתצְ ָט ֵרךְ ַל ְ ּב ִרּיֹות‬ .‫ׁ ֶש ַה ׁ ּ ָש ָעה ְמ ַ ׂש ֶח ֶקת לֹו‬

Rabbi Yoĥanan said three matters, citing the people of Jerusalem: When you go to warn do not go out first, but go out last. The reason is so that if your side is defeated and you need to flee for your life, you will enter the refuge of the city first. And it is better to make your Shabbat like an ordinary weekday and do not be beholden to other beings. And exert yourself to join together with one upon whom the hour smiles.

‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה דְּ ָב ִרים ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬ – ‫ ַאל ַּת ְר ֶ ּבה ִ ּבגְ נוּת‬:‫נְשי יְ רו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַא‬ ‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה; ִ ּב ְּתךָ ָ ּבגְ ָרה – ׁ ַש ְח ֵרר‬ ‫ וְ ֱהוֵ י זָ ִהיר ְ ּב ִא ׁ ְש ְּתךְ ֵמ ֲח ָתנָ ּה‬,‫ַע ְבדְּ ךָ וְ ֵתן ָל ּה‬ :‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א ָא ַמר‬.‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ָה ִר‬ .‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ָממֹון‬:‫ ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א ָא ַמר‬.‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֶע ְרוָ ה‬ .ּ‫יתנְ הו‬ ְ ‫ָהא וְ ָהא ִא‬

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said three matters, citing the people of Jerusalem: Do not indulge in a shameful act in public, because of the incident that occurred involving David and Bathsheba (see II Samuel 11–12). If your daughter has grown up, it is better to free your Canaanite slave and give him to her than to leave her to find a husband on her own. And be careful with your wife with regard to her first son-in-law, as she is especially fond of him. What is the reason for this warning? Rav Ĥisda said: Due to the possibility of licentiousness. Rav Kahana said: Due to the fact that she might give him all your money and leave you impoverished. The Gemara comments: Since either of these could happen, it is best to be prudent.



‫גיק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 113a 

261

notes

A bachelor in a city – ‫ר ָּווק ִ ּב ְכ ַר ְך‬:ַ Some commentaries explain that these three individuals are listed because they represent the three most basic desires, as stated in tractate Avot 4:28: Jealousy, lust, and honor remove a person from the world. This bachelor overcomes his lust, this poor person rises above his jealousy, and the wealthy individual triumphs over his desire for honor (Iyyun Ya’akov; Anaf Yosef ).

,‫עֹולם ַה ָ ּבא‬ ָ ‫ֹוח ֵלי ָה‬ ֲ ּ‫ ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ִמנ‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ וְ ַה ְמגַ דֵּ ל ָ ּבנָיו‬,‫ ַהדָּ ר ְ ּב ֶא ֶרץ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬:‫ֵא ּל ּו ֵהן‬ ‫ וְ ַה ַּמ ְבדִּ יל ַעל ַהּיַ יִ ן ְ ּבמֹוצָ ֵאי‬,‫ְל ַת ְלמוּד ּת ָֹורה‬ ‫ ַמאי ִהיא? דִּ ְמ ׁ ַשּיֵ יר ִמ ִּקידּ ּו ׁ ּ ָשא‬.‫ׁ ַש ָ ּבתֹות‬ .‫ְל ַא ְבדַּ ְל ָּתא‬

Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Three people are among those who inherit the World-to-Come: One who lives in Eretz Yisrael; one who raises his sons to engage in Torah study; and one who recites havdala over wine at the conclusion of Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is the special importance of that mitzva, to recite havdala over wine? The Gemara answers: This is referring to an individual with only a small amount of wine, who nevertheless leaves some of his kiddush wine for havdala.

‫דֹוש‬ ׁ ‫יהן ַה ָ ּק‬ ֶ ‫ ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ַמ ְכ ִריז ֲע ֵל‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ַעל ַר ָּווק ַהדָּ ר ִ ּב ְכ ַרךְ וְ ֵאינֹו‬:‫ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא ְ ּב ָכל יֹום‬ ‫ וְ ַעל‬,‫יה‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַעל ָענִי ַה ַּמ ֲחזִ יר ֲא ֵב ָידה ִל ְב ָע ֶל‬,‫חֹוטא‬ ֵ ‫ ַרב ָס ְפ ָרא‬.‫ינְעה‬ ָ ִ‫ירֹותיו ְ ּבצ‬ ָ ‫ָע ׁ ִשיר ַה ְמ ַע ּ ֵ ׂשר ּ ֵפ‬ .‫ַר ָּווק ַהדָּ ר ַ ּב ְּכ ַרךְ ֲהוָ ה‬

Rabbi Yoĥanan further said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, proclaims about the goodness of three kinds of people every day, as exceptional and noteworthy individuals: About a bachelor who lives in a cityn and does not sin with women; about a poor person who returns a lost object to its owners despite his poverty; and about a wealthy person who tithes his produce in private, without publicizing his behavior. The Gemara reports: Rav Safra was a bachelor living in a city.

‫ צָ ֲהב ּו ּ ָפנָיו‬,‫יה דְּ ָר ָבא וְ ַרב ָס ְפ ָרא‬ ּ ‫ָּתנֵי ַּת ָּנא ַק ֵּמ‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא‬,‫ ָלאו ְּכגֹון ָמר‬:‫ ָא ַמר לֹו ָר ָבא‬.‫דְּ ַרב ָס ְפ ָרא‬ ‫ דַּ ֲהו ּו או ׁ ְּש ָּכ ֵפי‬.‫אֹוש ֲעיָ א‬ ַ ׁ ‫ְּכגֹון ַרב ֲחנִינָ א וְ ַרב‬ ,‫ וַ ֲהו ּו יָ ְת ִבי ְ ּב ׁשו ָּקא דְּ זֹונֹות‬.‫ְ ּב ַא ְר ָעא דְּ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ ִאינְ ה ּו‬.ּ‫ וְ ָעיְ ִילי ְלהו‬,‫וְ ָע ְב ִדי ְלה ּו ְמ ָסאנֵי ְלזֹונֹות‬ ‫ וְ ִאינְ ה ּו ָלא ַמ ְד ָלן ֵעינַיְ יה ּו‬,‫ִמ ְס ַּת ְּכ ִלי ְ ּבה ּו‬ ‫יהן‬ ֶ ֵ‫ ְ ּב ַחּי‬:‫ּמֹומ ַתיְ יה ּו ָה ִכי‬ ְ ‫ ו‬.ּ‫יס ַּת ּכ ֵֹולי ְ ּבהו‬ ְ ‫ְל ִא‬ .‫ישי דִּ ְב ַא ְר ָעא דְּ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ׁ ִּ‫ַר ָ ּבנַן ַקד‬

When the tanna taught this baraita before Rava and Rav Safra, Rav Safra’s face lit up with joy, as he was listed among those praised by God. Rava said to him: This does not refer to someone like the Master. Rather, the statement applies to people like Rav Ĥanina and Rav Oshaya, who were cobblers in Eretz Yisrael, and they would sit in the marketplace of prostitutes and fashion shoes for prostitutes. And the prostitutes would enter their shops and look at them. However, due to their piety, these Sages did not raise their eyes to look at the women. And those prostitutes were so impressed with this behavior that when they swore, they would say as follows: By the lives of the holy Sages of Eretz Yisrael. It is this type of bachelor who is praised by Heaven.

‫ ִמי ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו‬:‫אֹוה ָבן‬ ֲ ‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא‬ ׁ ‫ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ַה ָ ּק‬ ‫ ו ִּמי ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ַמ ֲע ִמיד‬,‫ֹועס ו ִּמי ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ֵּכר‬ ֵ ‫ּכ‬ :‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא שׂ ֹונְ ָאן‬ ׁ ‫ ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ַה ָ ּק‬.‫ַעל ִמדּ ָֹותיו‬ ‫ּיֹוד ַע ֵעדוּת‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ַה‬,‫ַה ְמ ַד ֵ ּבר ֶא ָחד ַ ּב ּ ֶפה וְ ֶא ָחד ַ ּב ֵּלב‬ ‫רֹואה דְּ ַבר ֶע ְרוָ ה‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ָה‬,‫ַ ּב ֲח ֵבירֹו וְ ֵאינֹו ֵמ ִעיד לֹו‬ .‫ַ ּב ֲח ֵבירֹו ו ֵּמ ִעיד ּבֹו יְ ִח ִידי‬

The Gemara cites a similar statement. The Holy One, Blessed be He, loves three people:n One who does not get angry; one who does not get drunk; and one who is forgiving. The Holy One, Blessed be He, hates three people: One who says one statement with his mouth and means another in his heart, i.e., a hypocrite; one who knows testimony about another person and does not testify on his behalf; and one who observes a licentious matter performed by another person and testifies against him alone.h His testimony is meaningless, as he is the only witness; consequently, he merely gives the individual a bad reputation.

‫יה‬ ּ ‫ִּכי ָהא דְּ טו ְּביָ ה ָח ָטא וַ ֲא ָתא זִ יגוּד ְלחו ֵּד‬ .‫יה ְלזִ יגוּד‬ ּ ‫ נַ גְ ֵד‬.‫יה דְּ ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ּ ‫יה ַק ֵּמ‬ ּ ‫וְ ַא ְס ֵהיד ֵ ּב‬ ‫ טו ְּביָ ה ָח ָטא וְ זִ יגוּד ִמינְ ַ ּגד? ֲא ַמר‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ ״ל ֹא יָ קוּם ֵעד ֶא ָחד ְ ּב ִא ׁיש״‬:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ ִאין‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫יה – ׁ ֵשם ַרע ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא‬ ּ ‫וְ ַא ְּת ְלחו ָּדךְ ַא ְס ֲה ַדת ֵ ּב‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָקא ַמ ּ ְפ ַק ְּת ֵ ּב‬

The Gemara comments: This is like that incident where Tuveya sinned with immorality, and Zigud came alone to testify about him before Rav Pappa. Rav Pappa instructed that Zigud be lashed. Zigud said to him: Tuveya sinned and Zigud is lashed,n an objection that became a popular saying. He said to him: Yes, as it is written: “One witness shall not rise up against a man” (Deuteronomy 19:15), and you testified against him alone. You have merely given him a bad reputation.

‫ מו ָּּתר‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר ַרב יִ צְ ָחק ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ָ‫״כי ִת ְר ֶאה ֲחמֹור ׂשנַ ֲאך‬ ִּ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ִל ְ ׂשנֹאתֹו‬ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ַמאי ׂשֹונֵ א? ִא ֵיל‬.‫רֹובץ ַּת ַחת ַמ ּ ָ ׂשאֹו״‬ ֵ ‫ ׂשֹונֵ א ׁ ֶש ָא ְמר ּו ׂשֹונֵ א‬:‫ׂשֹונֵ א ּגֹוי – וְ ָהא ַּתנְיָא‬ .‫ וְ ל ֹא ׂשֹונֵ א גּ ֹוי‬,‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬

Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzĥak said that Rav said: Although one who sees another committing a sin should not testify against him by himself, he is nonetheless permitted to hate him, as it is stated: “If you see the donkey of he who hates you lying under its load” (Exodus 23:5). The Gemara clarifies this verse: What is the meaning of he who hates you mentioned in the verse? If you say it is referring to a gentile who hates you, but wasn’t it taught in a baraita that the phrase: He who hates, of which the Torah spoke, is a Jew who hates you, not a gentile who hates you?

Perek X Daf 113 Amud b notes

The Holy One, Blessed be He, loves three people – ‫אֹוה ָבן‬ ֲ ‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא‬ ׁ ‫של ׁ ָֹשה ַה ָ ּק‬: ְ ׁ The character traits of those who are beloved by God and those whom He hates all concern the relationship between man and his fellow. This conveys the principle that if the spirits of people are pleased with a person, the spirit of God is also pleased with him; if the spirits of people are not pleased with a person, the spirit of God is likewise displeased with him (Avot 3:10; see Maharsha). Tuveya sinned and Zigud is lashed – ‫טו ְּביָ ה ָח ָטא וְ זִ יגוּד‬ ‫מינְ ַ ּגד‬:ִ This statement became a popular saying with regard to any situation where one person sins and another is punished on his account (Rashi on tractate Makkot). halakha

One who testifies against another alone – ‫ַה ֵּמ ִעיד‬ ‫יְח ִידי‬ ִ ‫ב ֲח ֵבירֹו‬:ּ ַ One witness should testify against another person, only with regard to a monetary claim through which he can render the defendant liable to take an oath, or in a situation where he can prevent his fellow from violating a prohibition. However, if the accused has already sinned, testifying against him will only give him a bad reputation and is therefore prohibited (Shulĥan Arukh, Ĥoshen Mishpat 28:1, and in the comment of the Rema).

262 

Perek X . 113b . ‫גיק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳י‬

?‫נֵיה‬ ָ ‫ֶא ָּלא ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ ּ ‫ ו ִּמי ׁ ָש ְריָ א ְל ִמ ְס‬.‫יטא ׂשֹונֵ א יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ :‫ ״ל ֹא ִת ְ ׂשנָ א ֶאת ָא ִחיךָ ִ ּב ְל ָב ֶבךָ ״! ֶא ָּלא‬:‫וְ ָה ְכ ִתיב‬ ‫יכא ָס ֲה ֵדי דְּ ָע ֵביד ִא ּיסו ָּרא – ּכו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא נַ ִמי‬ ָּ ‫דְּ ִא‬ ‫יה! ַמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ַהאי? ֶא ָּלא ָלאו ִּכי ַהאי‬ ְ ‫ִמ‬ ּ ‫יסנֵי ָסנֵי ֵל‬ .‫יה ִאיה ּו דְּ ַבר ֶע ְרוָ ה‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ָחזְ יָ א ֵ ּב‬,‫ַ ּגוְ ונָ א‬

:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ ִמצְ וָ ה ִל ְ ׂשנֹאתֹו‬:‫ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק ָא ַמר‬ ‫יה דְּ ָר ָבא‬ ׂ ‫״יִ ְר ַאת ה׳‬ ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ָחא ְ ּב ֵר‬.‫(שֹונְ ֵאי) ָרע״‬ ‫יה? ֲא ַמר‬ ְ ‫ ַמה ּו ְל ֵמ‬:‫ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ּ ֵ‫יה ְל ִמ ְ ׂשנִּי‬ ּ ‫יה ְל ַר ֵ ּב‬ ּ ‫ימ ָרא ֵל‬ ;‫יה‬ ָ ‫יה ְּכ ֵבי ְּת ֵרי – ֵל‬ ַ ‫ ִאי יָ ַדע דִּ ְמ ֵה‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ימא ֵל‬ ּ ‫ימן ְל ַר ֵ ּב‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ .‫יה‬ ָ ‫וְ ִאי ָלא – ָלא ֵל‬ ּ ‫ימא ֵל‬

Rather, it is obvious that the verse is referring to a Jew who hates you. But is one permitted to hate a fellow Jew? But isn’t it written: “You shall not hate your brother in your heart” (Leviticus 19:17), which clearly prohibits the hatred of another Jew? Rather, perhaps you will say that the verse is referring to a situation where there are witnesses that he performed a sin. However, in that case, everyone else should also hate him. What is different about this particular person who hates him? Rather, is it not referring to a case like this, when he saw him perform a licentious matter? He is therefore permitted to hate him for his evil behavior, whereas others who are unaware of his actions may not hate him.

halakha

A mitzva to hate him – ‫מצְ וָ ה ִל ְ ׂשנֹאתֹו‬:ִ If one sees another person about to violate a prohibition, and the other disregards his warning and transgresses, it is a mitzva to hate him until he repents. Nevertheless, the witness is obligated to help the transgressor load and unload his animal (Shulĥan Arukh, Ĥoshen Mishpat 272:1). background

Ravens – ‫עֹור ִבים‬: ְ Ravens are social birds that are always found in groups, even when they are not nesting, brooding, or migrating. For this reason, they are compared to sociable people.

Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said: Not only is this permitted, it is even a mitzva to hate him,h as it is stated: “The fear of God is to hate evil” (Proverbs 8:13). Rav Aĥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What is the halakha with regard to whether one who saw someone sin may tell his teacher so that he too will hate him? Rav Ashi said to him: If the student knows that he is trusted by his teacher as two witnesses, and therefore his statement will be accepted, he should tell him, and if he is not trusted by his teacher as two witnesses, he should not tell him.

,‫ ָה ַר ֲח ָמנִין‬:‫יהן ֵאינָ ם ַחּיִ ים‬ ֶ ֵ‫ ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ַחּי‬:‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬The Sages taught: There are three types of people ‫ ּכו ְּּלה ּו‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַרב‬.‫ וַ ֲאנִינֵי ַהדַּ ַעת‬,‫ וְ ָה ַר ְת ָחנִין‬whose lives are not lives, due to their constant suffer.‫יתנְ ה ּו ִ ּבי‬ ְ ‫ ִא‬ing: The compassionate, the hot tempered, and the delicate. Rav Yosef said: All of these attributes are found in me.n :‫ ֵא ּל ּו ֵהן‬,‫ ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ׂשֹונְ ִאין זֶ ה ֶאת זֶ ה‬:‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬Furthermore, the Sages taught: Members of three ‫ ַאף‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ וְ יֵ ׁש‬.‫ וְ ַה ַח ָ ּב ִרין‬,‫גֹולין‬ ִ ְ‫ וְ ַה ַּת ְרנ‬,‫ ַה ְּכ ָל ִבים‬groups hate other members of the same group: Dogs, n .‫ ַאף ַּת ְל ִמ ֵידי ֲח ָכ ִמים ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָב ֶבל‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ַהּזֹונֹות וְ יֵ ׁש‬roosters, and the Persian priests. And some say: Also prostitutes. And some say: Also Torah scholars in Babylonia. ,‫ ַה ֵ ּג ִרים‬:‫ ֵאלּ ּו ֵהן‬,‫אֹוה ִבין זֶ ה ֶאת זֶ ה‬ ֲ ‫ ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬:‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬Likewise, the Sages taught: Members of three groups n b .‫עֹור ִבין‬ ְ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ וַ ֲע ָב ִדים‬love one another: Converts, slaves, and ravens. ,‫ דַּ ל ֵ ּג ֶאה‬:‫ ֵא ּל ּו ֵהן‬,‫סֹוב ְל ָּתן‬ ַ ‫ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ֵאין ַהדַּ ַעת‬ ‫ ו ַּפ ְרנָ ס ִמ ְת ָ ּג ֶאה ַעל‬,‫ וְ זָ ֵקן ְמנָ ֵאף‬,‫וְ ָע ׁ ִשיר ְמ ַכ ֵח ׁש‬ ‫ ַאף ַה ְמגָ ֵר ׁש ֶאת ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ וְ ׁיֵש‬.‫יבוּר ְ ּב ִח ָּנם‬ ּ ‫ַה ִ ּצ‬ .‫אשֹונָ ה ו ׁ ְּשנִּיָה ו ַּמ ֲחזִ ָיר ּה‬ ׁ ‫ּ ַפ ַעם ִר‬

Four types of people cannot be endured by anyone: An arrogant pauper; a wealthy person who denies monetary claims against him; a lecherous old man; and a leader who lords over the community for no cause.n And some say: Also one who divorces his wife once and twice and takes her back a third time. He should decide definitively whether or not he wants her.

‫ יֵ ׁש‬:‫ ִאי נַ ִמי‬.‫ימנָ א דִּ ְכתו ָ ּּב ָתה ְמרו ָ ּּבה‬ ְ ִ‫ וְ ַת ָּנא ַק ָּמא? ז‬The Gemara asks: And why didn’t the first tanna men.‫ וְ ָלא ָמצֵ י ְמגָ ֵר ׁש ָל ּה‬,‫ימ ָּנה‬ ֶ ‫ לֹו ָ ּבנִים ֵה‬tion this case of a man who remarries his wife after two divorces? The Gemara answers: Sometimes the husband’s payment to her in the event of divorce, as stipulated in her marriage contract, is large, and since he is unable to pay he is forced to take her back. Alternatively, he has children with her and cannot divorce her, as he wants someone to care for them.

notes

All of these attributes are found in me – ‫יתנְ ה ּו ִ ּבי‬ ְ ‫כו ְּּלה ּו ִא‬:ּ Some commentaries explain that this was due to Rav Yosef’s blindness. A blind person is unable to determine if a call for help is exaggerated. With regard to anger, Rav Yosef often suspected people of acting against his will. Furthermore, his blindness rendered him especially sensitive to dirt of any kind (Ben Yehoyada).



And the Persian priests [ĥabarin] – ‫וְ ַה ַח ָ ּב ִרין‬: A variant reading The opposite is true of arrogant and brazen people, who come is ĥaverim, i.e., people who band together to lord over others. to mutual revulsion. Alternatively, it refers to business partners who come to hate each other due to their constant interactions (Rashash). A leader who lords over the community for no cause – ‫ּ ַפ ְרנָס‬ ‫יבוּר ְ ּב ִח ָּנם‬ ּ ‫מ ְת ָ ּג ֶאה ַעל ַה ִ ּצ‬:ִּ This is considered baseless arrogance, as Three love each other – ‫אֹוה ִבין זֶ ה ֶאת זֶ ה‬ ֲ ‫של ׁ ָֹשה‬: ְ ׁ These three his power is granted to him by his community, not the reverse types love each other because they are humble and fearful. (Rav Ya’akov Emden). ‫גיק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 113b 

263

background

Phylacteries on his head, and phylacteries on his arm – ִּ ‫ֹאשֹו ו ְּת ִפ‬ ִּ ‫ת ִפ‬:ְּ One of the main differences ‫ילין ִ ּבזְ רֹועֹו‬ ׁ ‫ילין ְ ּבר‬ between head phylacteries and arm phylacteries is the number of compartments used to hold the holy scrolls placed in the phylacteries. Head phylacteries have four separate compartments, while arm phylacteries have one.

Head phylactery at an early stage of production. The four separate com­ partments are clearly visible

The single compartment of an arm phylactery at an early stage of production Astrologers – ‫כ ְלדִּ ּיִ ים‬:ַּ This term literally means Chaldeans. The Chaldeans were a tribe of sorcerers in Babylonia. Most of their magic focused on predicting the future, typically by means of astrology. Consequently, the term Chaldean became synonymous with astrologer.

‫ ֶא ֱהב ּו זֶ ה ֶאת‬:‫נַען ֶאת ָ ּבנָיו‬ ַ ‫ ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה דְּ ָב ִרים צִ ָּוה ְּכ‬The Gemara continues: Canaan commanded his sons with ‫ וְ ִ ׂשנְ א ּו‬,‫ וְ ֶא ֱהב ּו ֶאת ַהּזִ ָּמה‬,‫ וְ ֶא ֱהב ּו ֶאת ַה ָ ּגזֶ ל‬,‫ זֶ ה‬regard to five matters that are apparently normal behavior .‫ וְ ַאל ְּת ַד ְ ּבר ּו ֱא ֶמת‬,‫דֹונֵיכם‬ ֶ ‫ ֶאת ֲא‬for slaves: Love one another, love robbery, love promis­ cuity, hate your masters, and do not speak the truth. ,‫אֹוהב ֶאת ַהּזְ נוּת‬ ֵ :‫ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה דְּ ָב ִרים נֶ ֱא ָמ ִרים ַ ּבסוּס‬ ‫ּמֹואס ֶאת‬ ֵ ‫ ו‬,‫ וְ רוּחֹו ַ ּג ָּסה‬,‫אֹוהב ֶאת ַה ִּמ ְל ָח ָמה‬ ֵ ְ‫ו‬ ‫ וְ יֵ ׁש‬.‫אֹוכל ַה ְר ֵ ּבה וּמֹוצִ יא ִק ְמ ָעה‬ ֵ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ַה ׁ ּ ֵשינָ ה‬ .‫ ַאף ְמ ַב ֵ ּק ׁש ַל ֲהרֹוג ְ ּב ָע ָליו ַ ּב ִּמ ְל ָח ָמה‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ

Six matters are said with regard to a horse: It loves promiscuity, it loves war, its demeanor is arrogant, it despises sleep, it eats much, and it excretes little. And some say: Just as a horse always rushes straight into the heat of a battle, it also attempts to kill its master in war.

‫ יְ הו ִּדי ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬:‫ ֵא ּל ּו ֵהן‬,‫ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ְמנוּדִּ ין ַל ׁ ּ ָש ַמיִ ם‬ ‫ ו ִּמי‬,‫ וְ ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש לֹו ִא ׁ ּ ָשה וְ ֵאין לֹו ָ ּבנִים‬,‫לֹו ִא ׁ ּ ָשה‬ ‫ ו ִּמי‬,‫ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש לֹו ָ ּבנִים וְ ֵאין ְמגַ דְּ ָלן ְל ַת ְלמוּד ּת ָֹורה‬ ‫ֹאשֹו ו ְּת ִפ ִּילין ִ ּבזְ רֹועֹו וְ צִ יצִ ית‬ ׁ ‫ׁ ֶש ֵאין לֹו ְּת ִפ ִּילין ְ ּבר‬ .‫נְע ִלים ֵמ ַרגְ ָליו‬ ָ ‫ֹונֵע ִמ‬ ַ ‫ וְ ַה ּמ‬,‫ְ ּב ִבגְ דּ ֹו ו ְּמזוּזָ ה ְ ּב ִפ ְתחֹו‬ ‫יסב ַ ּב ֲחבו ָּרה ׁ ֶשל‬ ֵ ‫ ַאף ִמי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ֵמ‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫וְ יֵ ׁש‬ .‫ִמצְ וָ ה‬

Seven are ostracized by Heaven, despite the fact that they have not been ostracized in any court: A Jew who does not have a wife; and one who has a wife but has no sons; and one who has sons whom he does not raise to engage in Torah study; and one who does not have phylacteries on his head, and phylacteries on his arm,b and ritual fringes on his garment, and a mezuza in his doorway; and one who withholds shoes from his feet. And some say: Also one who does not sit with a group that is partaking of a feast in celebration of a mitzva.h

‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר‬,‫ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה‬ :‫יֹוסי ִא ׁיש הו ַ ּּצל‬ ֵ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬,‫ָמ ְר ָתא‬ ‫״ת ִמים‬ ָּ :‫ֹוא ִלין ְ ּב ַכ ְלדִּ ּיִ ים – ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ ֲ ‫ִמ ּנַּיִ ין ׁ ֶש ֵאין ׁש‬ .‫ִּת ְהיֶ ה ִעם ה׳ ֱאל ֶֹהיךְ ״‬

Rabba bar bar Ĥana said that Rabbi Shmuel bar Marta said that Rav said, citing Rabbi Yosei of Hutzal: From where is it derived that one may not consult astrologers?bh As it is stated: “You shall be wholehearted with the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 18:13). The Torah demands absolute faith in God and acceptance of His justice, without attempting to predict the future.

‫ּיֹוד ַע ַ ּב ֲח ֵבירֹו ׁ ֶשהוּא גָ דֹול ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬ ֵ ‫ו ִּמ ּנַיִ ין ַה‬ :‫ִ ּב ְד ַבר ֶא ָחד ׁ ֶש ַחּיָ יב ִלנְ הֹוג ּבֹו ָּכבֹוד – ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ ‫יה [ו ַּמ ְל ָּכא ֲע ׁ ִשית‬ ָּ ּ ‫״כל ֳק ֵבל דִּ י רו ַּח יַ ִּת ָירא ֵ ּב‬ ;‫יה ַעל ָּכל ַמ ְלכו ָּתא]״‬ ּ ‫ַל ֲה ָקמו ֵּת‬

And from where is it derived concerning one who knows about another that he is greater than him, even in one matter, that he must treat him with respect? As it is stated: “Because a surpassing spirit was in him, the king thought to set him over the whole realm” (Daniel 6:4). This verse teaches that one who is in any way greater than another person is worthy of his respect.

‫ ַעד‬.‫ּיֹוש ֶבת ַעל דַּ ם ָטהֹור ֲאסו ָּרה ְל ׁ ַש ֵּמש‬ ֶ ׁ ‫ וְ ַה‬And it was also stated by Rabba bar bar Ĥana: With regard .‫ עֹונָ ה‬:‫ ַּכ ָּמה? ָא ַמר ַרב‬to a woman who was observing her days of ritually pure blood, and those days have ended, she is prohibited to engage in intimacy immediately, lest she see ritually impure blood. Any blood emitted by a woman within forty days after giving birth to a male child or eighty days after giving birth to a female child is ritually pure. After this period of time has passed, a woman should not have relations with her husband immediately. The Gemara asks: Until when is she prohibited to her husband? Rav said: She must wait a set interval of time for the ritual impurity of a nidda, i.e., either one day or one night. ,‫יֹוסף ַה ַ ּב ְב ִלי‬ ֵ ‫ הוּא‬,‫יֹוסף ִא ׁיש הו ַ ּּצל‬ ֵ ‫ הוּא‬:‫ָּתנָ א‬ ,‫יסי ֶ ּבן יְ הו ָּדה‬ ִ ‫ הוּא ִא‬,‫יסי ֶ ּבן גּ וּר ַא ְריֵ ה‬ ִ ‫הוּא ִא‬ .‫יסי ֶ ּבן ַמ ֲה ַל ְל ֵאל‬ ִ ‫ הוּא ִא‬,‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫יסי ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ ִ ‫הוּא ִא‬ ‫ הוּא ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫יסי ֶ ּבן ֲע ַק ְביָ ה ׁ ְשמֹו‬ ִ ‫ו ַּמה ׁ ּ ְשמֹו – ִא‬ ‫ הוּא‬,‫ הוּא ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק ֶ ּבן ַח ְק ָלא‬,‫יִ צְ ָחק ֶ ּבן ַט ְב ָלא‬ .‫ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק ֶ ּבן ֶא ְל ָעא‬

With regard to Rabbi Yosei of Hutzal, it was taught: The Yosef of Hutzal mentioned in other places in the Gemara is the same person as Yosef the Babylonian. Yosef is the full name of Yosei. Furthermore, he is also known as Isi ben Gur Arye, he is Isi ben Yehuda, he is Isi ben Gamliel, and he is Isi ben Mahalalel. And what is his real name? His real name is Isi ben Akavya. Similarly, the Sage Rabbi Yitzĥak ben Tavla is also known as Rabbi Yitzĥak ben Ĥakla, who is Rabbi Yitzĥak ben Ela. These are two cases of one Sage with several names. halakha

One who does not sit with a group for a feast of a mitzva – ‫יסב ִ ּב ְסעו ַּדת ִמצְ וָ ה‬ ֵ ‫ש ֵאינֹו ֵמ‬: ֶ ׁ One who does not eat at the feast celebrating a circumcision is ostracized by Heaven, provided there are decent people in attendance (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 265:12, and in the comment of the Rema). Consult astrologers – ‫ֹואל ְל ַכ ְלדִּ ּיִ ים‬ ֵ ‫ל ׁש‬:ְ It is prohibited to consult

264 

Perek X . 113b . ‫גיק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳י‬

astrologers. One who does so violates the Torah prohibition against witchcraft, as it is stated: “You shall be wholehearted with the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 18:13; see Vilna Gaon). Other authorities allow one to consult these people on behalf of a sick person. Based on a statement in the Zohar, the Maharshal and the Beit Yosef both prohibit consultations of this kind, even for a sick person (Shakh; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 179:1).

Perek X Daf 114 Amud a ,‫ הוּא ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק ֶ ּבן ַא ָחא דִּ ׁ ְש ַמ ְע ָּתא‬The Rabbi Yitzhak ben Aĥa mentioned in a ruling of halakha is ,‫ הוּא ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק ֶ ּבן ּ ִפנְ ָחס דְּ ַא ַ ּג ְד ָּתא‬the same as the Rabbi Yitzĥak ben Pineĥas who appears in state.)‫(ש ְמע ּו נָ א ַא ַחיי וְ ֵר ַעיי‬ ִ ׁ : ְ‫ימנֵיך‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִס‬ments of aggada. And your mnemonic to remember the names is the standard phrase: Listen my brothers and friends [shimu aĥai vere’ai]. Shimu sounds like shema’ta, the term for halakha, while aĥai is similar to the patronymic ben Aĥa. ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבא ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה‬ ‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ ה ּו ָדה ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָ ּ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬,‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ‫ וְ ָלא‬,‫ ֱאכֹול ָ ּבצָ ל וְ ׁ ֵשב ַ ּב ֵ ּצל‬:‫ֶא ְיל ַעי‬ ָ‫יהא ִל ְ ּבך‬ ֵ ִ‫ ו‬,‫גֹולין‬ ִ ְ‫ֵּתיכוּל ַא ָּווזִ ין וְ ַת ְרנ‬ ְ‫יכ ָלךְ ו ִּמ ִּמ ׁ ְש ָּתיך‬ ְ ‫ ּ ְפחֹות ִמ ֵּמ‬. ָ‫רֹודף ָע ֶליך‬ ֵ . ְ‫תֹוסיף ַעל דִּ ָיר ָתך‬ ִ ְ‫ו‬

Rabba bar bar Ĥana said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said, citing Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai: Eat an onion [batzal] and sit in the shade [batzel], i.e., eat inexpensive food while sitting in a comfortable place, but do not eat expensive geese and chickens, as your heart will pursue you, i.e., you will develop a taste for luxuries. Devote less to your food and your drink and spend more on your house, as one’s house is a better investment than food.

‫ ַמ ְת ָלא ַמ ְת ִלין‬:‫ִּכי ֲא ָתא עו ָּּלא ֲא ַמר‬ ‫יתא – ָט ׁ ֵשי‬ ָ ‫ דְּ ָא ֵכיל ֲא ִל‬:‫ְ ּב ַמ ַע ְר ָבא‬ ‫יק ֵלי‬ ְ ‫ַ ּב ֲע ִלּיָ ָתא; דְּ ָא ֵכיל ָקקו ֵּלי – ַא ִּק‬ .‫דְּ ָמ ָתא ׁ ָש ֵכיב‬

When Ulla came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that they say the following proverb in the west, Eretz Yisrael: One who eats a fat tail [alita] must hide in the attic [aliyata] from creditors who think he is wealthy. One who eats vegetables [kakulei] can lie down in the city’s garbage [kiklei] without fear of others, as he is not in debt.

‫ ֵ ּבית‬,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫מתני׳ ָמזְ ג ּו לֹו ּכֹוס ִר‬ ,‫ ְמ ָב ֵר ְך ַעל ַהּיֹום‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬ ‫וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ַעל ַהּיַ יִ ן; ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל‬ ‫ וְ ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך‬,‫ ְמ ָב ֵר ְך ַעל ַהּיַ יִ ן‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ .‫ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ַעל ַהּיֹום‬

‫ דְּ ָב ִרים ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבין ֵ ּבית‬:‫גמ׳ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫ ֵ ּבית‬:‫ׁ ַש ַּמאי ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל ַ ּב ְּסע ּודָּ ה‬ ‫ ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ַעל ַהּיֹום וְ ַא ַחר‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬ ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ַהיֹום גּ ֵֹורם‬,‫ָּכךְ ְמ ָב ֵר ְך ַעל ַהּיַ יִ ן‬ ‫ ו ְּכ ָבר ִקידֵּ ׁש ַהּיֹום וַ ֲע ַדיִ ין‬,‫ַלּיַ יִ ן ׁ ֶשּיָ בֹא‬ .‫יַ יִ ן ל ֹא ָ ּבא‬ ‫ ְמ ָב ֵר ְך ַעל ַהּיַ יִ ן‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל‬ ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ַהּיַ יִ ן‬,‫וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ַעל ַהּיֹום‬ :‫ ָד ָבר ַא ֵחר‬.‫גּ ֵֹורם ַל ִּקידּ ּו ׁש ׁ ֶש ֵּת ָא ֵמר‬ ‫ִ ּב ְר ַּכת ַהּיַ יִ ן ְּת ִד ָירה ו ִּב ְר ַּכת ַהּיֹום ֵאינָ ּה‬ ‫ ָּת ִדיר וְ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָּת ִדיר – ָּת ִדיר‬,‫ְּת ִד ָירה‬ .‫ וְ ִה ְיל ְכ ָתא ְּכ ִד ְב ֵרי ֵ ּבית ִה ֵּלל‬.‫קֹודם‬ ֵ

halakha

The blessings over wine and the day – ‫ב ְר ַּכת יַ יִ ן וְ יֹום‬:ּ ִ When reciting kiddush, the blessing over the wine precedes the blessing of the sanctification of the day (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 473:1, 271:10). notes

The wine causes kiddush – ‫הּיַ יִ ן ג ֵֹּורם ַל ִּקידּ ו ּׁש‬:ַ The Rid comments that the Torah obligation to sanctify the day is fulfilled in the evening prayers. According to his opinion, the recitation of kiddush during the meal does not fulfill a Torah obligation. Instead, it is a repetition mandated by rabbinical law, like havdala.

mishna 

The tanna describes the beginning of the Passover seder. The attendants poured the wine of the first cup for the leader of the seder. Beit Shammai say: One recites the blessing over the sanctification of the day, i.e., the kiddush for the Festival: Who blesses Israel and the Festivals, and thereafter he recites the blessing over the wine: Who creates fruit of the vine. And Beit Hillel say: One recites the blessing over the wine and thereafter recites the blessing over the day.h

gemara 

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: These are the matters of dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel with regard to the halakhot of a meal. Beit Shammai say: When reciting kiddush over wine, one recites a blessing over the sanctification of the day and thereafter recites a blessing over the wine, because the day causes the wine to come before the meal. And Beit Shammai offer an additional reason. The day has already been sanctified and the wine has not yet come.

And Beit Hillel say: One recites the blessing over the wine and thereafter recites a blessing over the day, because the wine causes kiddushn to be recited. Since one does not recite kiddush without wine or bread, clearly the wine is the primary feature of the ritual. Alternatively, the blessing over wine is recited frequently and the blessing over the day is not recited frequently, and there is a general principle: When a frequent practice and an infrequent practice coincide, the frequent practice takes precedence over the infrequent practice. The Tosefta concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel.

‫ ָה ָתם ַּת ְר ֵּתי‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ַמאי ָד ָבר ַא ֵחר? וְ ִכי ֵּת‬The Gemara asks: What is alternatively? Why did Beit Hillel cite ,ּ‫ וְ ָה ָכא ֲח ָדא – ָה ָכא נַ ִמי ַּת ְר ֵּתי נִינְ הו‬an additional reason? The Gemara explains: And if you say that .‫קֹודם‬ ֵ ‫ ָּת ִדיר וְ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָּת ִדיר ָּת ִדיר‬there Beit Shammai cite two reasons, and here Beit Hillel offer only one; therefore Beit Hillel said they are two reasons here too: When a frequent practice and an infrequent practice coincide, the frequent practice takes precedence over the infrequent practice. ,‫יטא‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬.‫ וַ ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ִד ְב ֵרי ֵ ּבית ִה ֵּלל‬It was taught in the Tosefta: And the halakha is in accordance with :‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫ דְּ ָהא נָ ֵפיק ַ ּבת קֹול! ִא‬the statement of Beit Hillel. The Gemara comments: It is obvious that this is so, as a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed that .‫קֹודם ַ ּבת קֹול‬ ֶ the halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Why was it necessary for the Tosefta to state that in this particular case the halakha is in accordance with their opinion? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that this Tosefta was taught before the Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed that principle. 

‫דיק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 114a 

265

‫ ְל ַא ַחר ַ ּבת‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִאי ָ ּב ֵעית ֵא‬And if you wish, say instead that this statement was indeed :‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫הֹוש ַע ִהיא‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי י‬,‫ קֹול‬issued after the Divine Voice emerged, and the Tosefta is in Yehoshua, who said .‫יחין ְ ּב ַבת קֹול‬ ִ ‫ ֵאין ַמ ׁ ְש ִ ּג‬accordance with the opinion of Rabbi that one disregards a Divine Voicen when deciding halakha. Just as Rabbi Yehoshua disregarded the Divine Voice in his dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, so too, one disregards the Divine Voice that proclaimed that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Therefore, it was necessary to state that the halakha is in fact in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel here. ‫מתני׳ ֵה ִביא ּו ְל ָפנָיו ְמ ַט ֵ ּבל‬ .‫ַ ּב ֲחזֶ ֶרת ַעד ׁ ֶש ַּמ ִ ּג ַיע ְל ַפ ְר ּ ֶפ ֶרת ַה ּ ַפת‬ ‫רֹוסת‬ ֶ ‫ֵה ִביא ּו ְל ָפנָיו ַמ ָ ּצה וַ ֲחזֶ ֶרת וַ ֲח‬ ‫ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬,‫ו ׁ ְּשנֵי ַת ְב ׁ ִש ִילין‬ )‫(בן‬ ּ ֶ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬.‫רֹוסת ִמצְ וָ ה‬ ֶ ‫ֲח‬ ‫ ו ַּב ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש ָהי ּו‬.‫ ִמצְ וָ ה‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫צָ דֹוק‬ .‫יאין ְל ָפנָיו גּ וּפֹו ׁ ֶשל ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ִ ‫ְמ ִב‬

mishna 

The attendants brought vegetables before the leader of the seder prior to the meal, if there were no other vegetables on the table. He dips the ĥazeret into water or vinegar, to taste some food before he reaches the dessert of the bread,n i.e., the bitter herbs, which were eaten after the matza. They brought before him matza and ĥazeret and ĥaroset,n and at least two cooked dishes in honor of the Festival. The tanna comments that this was the practice, although eating ĥaroset is not a mitzva but merely a custom. Rabbi Eliezer ben Tzadok says: Actually, it is a mitzva to eat ĥaroset. And in the period when the Temple stood and they offered the Paschal lamb, they brought before him the body of the Paschal lamb.h

notes

One disregards a Divine Voice – ‫יחין ְ ּב ַבת קֹול‬ ִ ‫אין ַמ ׁ ְש ִ ּג‬: ֵ Rabbi Yehoshua stated this principle in the context of a disagreement with Rabbi Eliezer in the case of the oven of akhnai (Bava Metzia 59b). In that incident, a Divine Voice proclaimed that the halakha is invariably in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua retorted that one disregards a Divine Voice when deciding the halakha. His declaration was based on the principle that the Torah “is not in the heavens” (Deuteronomy 30:12). Not even a prophet is permitted to alter Torah law. The Sages of the time accepted Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion.

while others assert that it means the matza itself. According to one interpretation, the Mishna uses the term appetizer for the bread because matza is insufficiently substantial to be considered proper bread. Matza would usually be served as a snack after the meal (Ran, citing Ramban). Others contend that this phrase means to crumble or break the bread, as on Passover the blessings are recited over a broken matza (see Rabbi Ovadya Bartenura).

Ĥaroset – ‫רֹוסת‬ ֶ ‫ח‬:ֲ The exact meaning of this term is not entirely clear. Some commentaries state that the ĥaroset The dessert [parperet] of the bread – ‫פ ְר ּ ֶפ ֶרת ַה ּ ַפת‬:ַ ּ There serves as a reminder of the clay used by the Jews to mold are various opinions with regard to the meaning of this bricks in Egypt, and that it is called ĥaroset because it is term, which can mean an appetizer or a dessert. Some similar to the Hebrew word for clay [ĥeres] (Tosefot Yom commentaries state that it refers to the ĥazeret (Rashi), Tov). halakha

The body of the Paschal lamb – ‫גּ וּפֹו ׁ ֶשל ּ ֶפ ַסח‬: During vegetables, matza, ĥaroset, the meat of the Paschal lamb, Temple times, the food of the Passover seder was served and the meat of the Festival peace-offering (Rambam on a very large platter that contained the bitter herbs, Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Ĥametz UMatza 8:1).

266 

Perek X . 114a . ‫דיק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳י‬

Perek X Daf 114 Amud b ‫אֹומ ֶרת‬ ֶ ‫ זֹאת‬:‫גמ׳ ָא ַמר ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬ ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ָלא ְ ּב ִעידַּ ן‬.‫ִמצְ �ֹות צְ ִריכֹות ַּכ ָּוונָ ה‬ – ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ִחּיו ָּבא דְּ ָמרֹור הוּא דְּ ָא ֵכיל ֵל‬ ‫״ב ֵֹורא ּ ְפ ִרי ָה ֲא ָד ָמה״ הוּא דְּ ָא ֵכיל‬ ּ ‫ְ ּב‬ – ‫יכ ַּוון ְל ָמרֹור‬ ַּ ‫ וְ ִד ְיל ָמא ָלא ִא‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫ִה ְל ָּכ ְך ָ ּב ֵעי ְל ִמ ֲה ַדר ְל ַא ְט ּב ֵֹולי ְל ׁ ֵשם‬ ‫ דְּ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּת ְך ִמצְ וָ ה ָלא‬.‫ָמרֹור‬ ?‫יבו ֵּלי‬ ּ ‫ָ ּב ֲעיָ א ַּכ ָּוונָ ה – ָל ָּמה ָלךְ ְּת ֵרי ִט‬ !‫ימנָ א‬ ְ ִ‫יה ֲח ָדא ז‬ ּ ‫וְ ָהא ָט ֵביל ֵל‬

gemara 

Reish Lakish said: That is to say that mitzvot require intent.n One who performs a mitzva must do so with the intent to fulfill his obligation. The proof of this from the mishna is that since one does not eat the lettuce at the time of his obligation to eat bitter herbs, he eats it after reciting only one blessing: Who creates fruit of the ground. And clearly the reason is that perhaps he did not intend to fulfill his obligation to eat bitter herbs, and therefore he needs to dip it again for the purpose of bitter herbs. For if it could enter your mind that mitzvot do not require intent, why do you need two dippings? But he has already dipped the lettuce once.

‫עֹולם ִמצְ �ֹות ֵאין‬ ָ ‫יל ָמא ְל‬ ְ ִּ‫ִמ ַּמאי? ד‬ ‫יבו ֵּלי‬ ּ ‫ ו ְּד ָק ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ְּת ֵרי ִט‬,‫צְ ִריכֹות ַּכ ָּוונָ ה‬ ‫יכ ָירא‬ ֱ ‫יכי דְּ ֶל‬ ִ ‫ָל ָּמה ִלי – ִּכי ֵה‬ ֵּ ‫יהוֵ י ֶה‬ .‫ַל ִּתינֹוקֹות‬

The Gemara rejects this contention: From where do you know that this is the case? Perhaps I can say that actually mitzvot do not require intent. And that which you said, why do I need two dippings,n perhaps the reason is so that there should be a conspicuous distinction for the children, which will cause them to inquire into the difference between this night and all others.

‫יש ְמ ִעינַ ן ׁ ְש ָאר‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ִאם ֵּכן ִל‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫וְ ִכי ֵּת‬ ‫יְ ָרקֹות – ִאי ַא ׁ ְש ַמ ִעינַ ן ׁ ְש ָאר יְ ָרקֹות‬ ‫יכא ׁ ְש ָאר‬ ָ ‫ ֵה‬:‫ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬ ָּ ‫יכא דְּ ִא‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫יבו ֵּלי‬ ּ ‫יְ ָרקֹות הוּא דְּ ָב ֵעינַן ְּת ֵרי ִט‬ ,‫יבו ֵּלי‬ ּ ‫ַחּזֶ ֶרת ְלחו ָּדא – ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי ְּת ֵרי ִט‬ ‫ָק ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן דַּ ֲא ִפ ּיל ּו ַחּזֶ ֶרת ָ ּב ֵעינַן ְּת ֵרי‬ ‫יכ ָירא‬ ֱ ‫יכי דְּ ֶל‬ ִ ‫ ִּכי ֵה‬,‫יבו ֵּלי‬ ּ ‫ִט‬ ֵּ ‫יה ֶה‬ ּ ‫יהוֵ י ֵ ּב‬ .‫ַל ִּתינֹוקֹות‬

And if you say: If so, let the tanna teach us this halakha with regard to other vegetables as well, as there is no obvious reason that lettuce is chosen for this distinction. In response, I would say that had the mishna taught us about other vegetables, I would have said that it is only where there are other vegetables that one requires two dippings, one for the other vegetables and one for the bitter herbs; however, if one has only ĥazeret, he does not require two dippings, as one dipping is sufficient. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that even if one has just ĥazeret he requires two dippings, so that there be a conspicuous distinction for the children.

notes

Mitzvot require intent – ‫מצְ �ֹות צְ ִריכֹות ַּכ ָּוונָ ה‬:ִ The debate as to whether or not mitzvot must be performed with intent appears in several places in the Talmud. Some commentaries maintain that the issue is whether one must be aware that he is fulfilling a mitzva, but it is obvious that he need not focus on the meaning of the mitzva (Maharam Ĥalawa). Others claim that even if one acts unawares, he still fulfills his obligation, provided he does not actively intend not to fulfill the mitzva (Me’iri). Rav Hai Gaon writes that although it can be inferred from the Gemara that mitzvot do not require intent, it is nevertheless appropriate for one to think about the mitzva with proper concentration and thereby enhance the performance of his duty. Several prayers have been composed to assist in proper concentration. Two dippings – ‫שנֵי ִט ּבו ִּלים‬: ְ ׁ Several commentaries explain that the wealthy eat vegetables during their meals to whet their appetites, while the poor eat vegetables before their meals to fill themselves on cheap food. Eating vegetables twice, both before and during the meal, is designed to arouse the curiosity of the children (Tosefot Yom Tov).

‫ ֲא ָכ ָלן דְּ ַמאי יָ צָ א; ֲא ָכ ָלן‬:‫ וְ עֹוד ַּתנְיָא‬And furthermore, it was taught in a baraita: On Passover, if one – ‫ ְ ּבל ֹא ִמ ְת ַּכ ֵּוין – יָ צָ א; ֲא ָכ ָלן ַל ֲחצָ ִאין‬ate vegetables of doubtfully tithed produce, i.e., he bought the ‫ יָ צָ א‬vegetables from an am ha’aretz, he has fulfilled his obligation. If he ate them without the intent of the mitzva, he has fulfilled his obligation. If he ate them in halves, by eating half an olive-bulk of bitter herbs, pausing, and then eating an additional half an olivebulk, he has fulfilled his obligation. ‫ילה‬ ָ ‫ ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יִ ׁ ְש ֶהא ֵ ּבין ֲא ִכ‬And the Gemara adds: With regard to this last case, one who eats .‫יֹותר ִמ ְּכ ֵדי ֲא ִכ ַילת ּ ְפ ָרס‬ ֵ ‫ ַל ֲח ֶב ְיר ָּת ּה‬an olive-bulk in halves, that is the halakha, provided that he does not pause between eating the first half an olive-bulk and the other half an olive-bulk more than the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. If one takes longer than this amount of time, the two parts of bitter herbs cannot combine. This baraita indicates that even if one eats the bitter herbs without intention he has fulfilled his obligation, which presents a difficulty for Reish Lakish. ‫ ַאף‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,‫ ַּת ּנ ֵָאי ִהיא‬The Gemara answers: The issue of whether or not mitzvot require ‫יבל ַ ּב ֲחזֶ ֶרת – ִמצְ וָ ה ְל ָה ִביא‬ ּ ֵ ‫ ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ִּט‬intent is a dispute between tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: .‫רֹוסת ו ׁ ְּשנֵי ַת ְב ׁ ִש ִילין‬ ֶ ‫ ְל ָפנָיו ֲחזֶ ֶרת וַ ֲח‬Rabbi Yosei says: Although one has already dipped the ĥazeret once, it is a mitzva to bring before him ĥazeret and ĥaroset, and two cooked dishes. Apparently, he lacked intention during his first consumption of lettuce, and therefore he must be given additional lettuce with which to fulfill his obligation. ‫ ִמ ַּמאי? דִּ ְיל ָמא ָק ָס ַבר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫וְ ַא ַּכ ִּתי‬ ‫ וְ ַהאי‬,‫ ִמצְ �ֹות ֵאין צְ ִריכֹות ַּכ ָּוונָ ה‬:‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫יהוֵ י‬ ֱ ‫יכי דְּ ֶת‬ ִ ‫יבו ֵּלי – ִּכי ֵה‬ ּ ‫דְּ ָב ֵעינַן ְּת ֵרי ִט‬ ‫יכ ָירא ַל ִּתינֹוקֹות – ִאם ֵּכן ַמאי‬ ֵּ ‫ֶה‬ ?‫ִמצְ וָ ה‬



The Gemara asks: And still this is no conclusive proof, as from where do I know that Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that mitzvot require intent? Perhaps Rabbi Yosei maintains that mitzvot do not require intent, and the reason that we require two dippings is so that there should be a conspicuous distinction for the children. The Gemara rejects this argument: If so, for what reason does Rabbi Yosei use the term mitzva? There is no mitzva from the Torah to provide a distinction to stimulate the curiosity of the young ones. The mitzva is to eat bitter herbs, and evidently this individual must return and eat them again because he lacked intention the first time. ‫דיק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 114b 

267

notes

Beets and rice – ‫ס ְיל ָקא וְ ָארוּזָ א‬:ִ Rav Huna advised eating these two foods rather than meat, to avoid giving the appearance of eating sacrificial meat outside the Temple. Since it came from Rav Huna’s mouth – ‫יה‬ ִ ּ ‫הֹואיל וְ נָ ֵפיק ִמ ּפו ֵּמ‬ ‫דְּ ַרב הוּנָ א‬: This sort of behavior, a student’s attempt to follow his teacher’s instruction to the letter, is found elsewhere in the Gemara. Certain students acted in this manner even if the teacher had exaggerated or was clearly stating examples. A similar expression of loyalty is a student repeating his master’s teaching verbatim. Two cooked foods – ‫שנֵי ַת ְב ׁ ִש ִילין‬: ְ ׁ The commentaries explain that the two cooked foods allude to Moses and Aaron. There is also a custom to add a third dish to symbolize Miriam, the third person who led the Jews out of Egypt. These foods also symbolize the meal the righteous will be served in the future. The standard custom is to fulfill this obligation with a shankbone and a hard-boiled egg. Some commentaries explain the connection between the egg and the redemption by means of the similarity between the Aramaic word for egg, beya, and the Aramaic word for desire, baya, as in the phrase: The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted [ba’a] to redeem us with an outstretched arm. halakha

Two cooked foods – ‫שנֵי ַת ְב ׁ ִש ִילין‬: ְ ׁ It is the common practice to use a hard-boiled egg and a roasted shankbone with meat as the two foods mentioned in the mishna. The custom is to eat the egg during the meal but not the meat (Taz; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 473:4).

:‫ַמאי ׁ ְשנֵי ַת ְב ׁ ִש ִילין? ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬ ‫יה ַדר‬ ֲ ‫ ָר ָבא ֲהוָ ה ִמ‬.‫יל ָקא וְ ָאר ּוזָ א‬ ְ ‫ִס‬ ‫יה‬ ִ ,‫ַא ִּס ְיל ָקא וְ ָארוּזָ א‬ ּ ‫הֹואיל וְ נָ ֵפיק ִמ ּפו ֵּמ‬ .‫דְּ ַרב הוּנָ א‬

The Gemara asks: What are these two cooked foods mentioned in the mishna? Rav Huna said: Beets and rice.n The Gemara relates that Rava would seek beets and rice for his meal on Passover night, since this ruling came from Rav Huna’s mouth.n Although Rava realized that Rav Huna was merely citing examples and did not mean that one must eat those specific foods, he wanted to fulfill the statement of his teacher precisely.

:‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה דְּ ַרב הוּנָ א‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ .‫יֹוחנָ ן ֶ ּבן נו ִּרי‬ ָ ‫ֵלית דְּ ָחיֵ ׁיש ְל ָהא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫אֹורז‬ ֶ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוחנָ ן ֶ ּבן נו ִּרי‬ ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ ,‫ימוּצֹו ָּכ ֵרת‬ ּ ‫ וְ ַחּיָ ִיבין ַעל ִח‬,‫ִמין דָּ גָ ן הוּא‬ .‫חֹובתֹו ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ָ ‫וְ ָא ָדם יֹוצֵ א ּבֹו יְ ֵדי‬

Rav Ashi said: Learn incidentally another halakha from this statement of Rav Huna, that there is no one who is concerned about that statement of Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Nuri. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Nuri says: Rice is a type of grain in all regards; and one is liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state on Passover; and one fulfills his obligation with it on Passover, if it was properly baked into matza. It can be inferred from Rav Huna’s suggestion to use cooked rice, that rice cannot become leavened.

.‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו דָּ ג ו ֵּביצָ ה ׁ ֶש ָע ָליו‬:‫ִחזְ ִקּיָ ה ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ֶא ָחד‬,‫ צָ ִריךְ ׁ ְשנֵי ִמינֵי ָב ָ ׂשר‬:‫יֹוסף ָא ַמר‬ ֵ ‫ַרב‬ ‫ ָר ִבינָ א‬.‫זֵ ֶכר ַל ּ ֶפ ַסח וְ ֶא ָחד זֵ ֶכר ַל ֲחגִ יגָ ה‬ ּ ׁ ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ַ ּג ְר ָמא ו ִּב‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ .‫ישו ָּלא‬

Ĥizkiya said: The two cooked foods can even be fish and the egg that that was fried on it. Rav Yosef said: One requires two types of meat on Passover night, one in remembrance of the Paschal lamb and the other one in remembrance of the Festival peace-offering, which was also eaten on Passover night. Ravina said: For the two cooked foodsnh one may use even the meat on the bone and the gravy in which it was cooked.

– ‫יכא ׁ ְש ָאר יְ ָרקֹות‬ ָ ‫ ֵה‬,‫יטא‬ ָ ‫ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ ָּ ‫יכא דְּ ִא‬ ‫ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ַא ׁ ּ ְש ָאר יְ ָרקֹות ּב ֵֹורא ּ ְפ ִרי ָה ֲא ָד ָמה‬ ‫״על ֲא ִכ ַילת ָמרֹור״‬ ַ ְ‫ וַ ֲה ַדר ְמ ָב ֵרך‬,‫וְ ָא ֵכיל‬ .‫וְ ָא ֵכיל‬

With regard to the halakha of eating vegetables, the Gemara clarifies: It is obvious that where there are other vegetables available besides bitter herbs, at the first dipping one recites over the other vegetables the blessing: Who creates fruit of the ground, and eats, with the intention of including in this blessing the bitter herbs he will eat later. And then, at the second dipping, he recites the blessing: Commanded us over eating bitter herbs, on the lettuce and eats it.

‫ ַמאי? ָא ַמר‬,‫יכא ֶא ָּלא ַח ָּסא‬ ָ ‫ֵה‬ ָּ ‫יכא דְּ ֵל‬ ‫״ב ֵֹורא‬ ּ ‫ ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ֵמ ִע ָ ּיק ָרא ַא ָּמרֹור‬:‫ַרב הוּנָ א‬ ‫ ו ְּל ַב ּסֹוף ְמ ָב ֵר ְך‬,‫ּ ְפ ִרי ָה ֲא ָד ָמה״ וְ ָא ֵכיל‬ .‫יה ַעל ֲא ִכ ַילת ָמרֹור וְ ָא ֵכיל‬ ּ ‫ֲע ֵל‬

However, what is the halakha where there is only lettuce available? When should one recite each blessing? Rav Huna said: One initially recites the blessing: Who creates fruit of the ground, over the bitter herbs, i.e., the lettuce, and eats them. And ultimately, after the matza, one recites the blessing: Commanded us over eating bitter herbs, over the lettuce and eats it.

‫ ְל ַא ַחר ׁ ֶש ִּמ ֵּילא‬:‫ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ‫יה? ֶא ָּלא‬ ֶ ‫ְּכ ֵריסֹו ֵה‬ ּ ‫ימנּ ּו חֹוזֵ ר ו ְּמ ָב ֵרךְ ֲע ֵל‬ ּ ָ ‫ ֵמ ִע‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫יק ָרא ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ֲע ֵל‬ ‫ילת‬ ַ ‫״על ֲא ִכ‬ ַ ְ‫״ב ֵֹורא ּ ְפ ִרי ָה ֲא ָד ָמה״ ו‬ ּ ‫ ו ְּל ַב ּסֹוף ָא ֵכיל ֲא ִכ ַילת‬,‫ָמרֹור״ וְ ָא ֵכיל‬ .‫ַח ָּסא ְ ּבל ֹא ְ ּב ָר ָכה‬

Rav Ĥisda strongly objects to this opinion: Do you think that after one fills his belly with lettuce, he then recites another blessing over it? Rather, Rav Ĥisda said: Initially one recites two blessings over the lettuce: Who creates fruit of the ground, and: Commanded us over eating bitter herbs, and he eats it; and later in the seder he eats lettuce without a blessing.

‫ וְ ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת‬,‫ְ ּבסו ְּריָ א ָע ְב ִדי ְּכ ַרב הוּנָ א‬ .‫הֹוש ַע ָע ֵביד ְּכ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יה דְּ ַרב י‬ ּ ‫ְ ּב ֵר‬ ‫ ַרב ַא ָחא‬.‫יה דְּ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ּ ‫וְ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא ְּכוָ ֵות‬ ,‫יה דְּ ָר ָבא ְמ ַהדַּ ר ַא ׁ ּ ְש ָאר יְ ָרקֹות‬ ּ ‫ְ ּב ֵר‬ .‫יה ִמ ּ ְפלוּגְ ָּתא‬ ּ ‫ְל ַא ּפ ֵֹוקי נַ ְפ ׁ ֵש‬

The Gemara comments: In Syria, they act in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna. And Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Yehoshua, acted in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ĥisda. The Gemara summarizes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ĥisda.h The Gemara relates that Rav Aĥa, son of Rava, would seek other vegetables for Passover to preclude himself from taking sides in the dispute. He first recited only the blessing: Who creates fruit of the ground, and later added the blessing: Commanded us over eating bitter herbs, thereby satisfying all opinions.

Perek X Daf 115 Amud a halakha

The halakha is in accordance with Rav Ĥisda – ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ִה ְל ְכ ָתא ְּכוָ ֵות‬ ‫דְּ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬: If the only vegetables one has at the seder are the bitter herbs, he recites two blessings when he dips the bitter herbs the first time: Who creates fruit of the ground, and: Commanded us over eating bitter herbs. For the second dipping, he dips the bitter herbs in the ĥaroset and eats them without reciting a blessing. Nevertheless, it is proper to use a different kind of vegetable, called karpas, for the first dipping, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Aĥa, son of Rava. Karpas is generally performed with a type of celery; however, some people use a potato or an onion (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 475:2).

268 

Perek X . 115a . ‫וטק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳י‬

‫ ָא ַמר ִלי ַרב ְמ ׁ ָש ְר ׁ ִשּיָ א‬:‫ָא ַמר ָר ִבינָ א‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ָה ִכי ָא ַמר ִה ֵּלל ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬,‫יה דְּ ַרב נָ ָתן‬ ּ ‫ְ ּב ֵר‬ ‫ינִיש ַמ ָ ּצה ו ָּמרֹור‬ ׁ ‫נִיכרֹוךְ ִא‬ ְ ‫ ָלא‬:‫דִּ גְ ָמ ָרא‬ :‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דִּ ְס ִב ָירא ָלן‬,‫ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ֲה ָד ֵדי וְ נֵיכוּל‬ ,‫ ו ָּמרֹור דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬,‫אֹוריְ ָיתא‬ ַ ְּ‫ַמ ָ ּצה ַ ּבּזְ ַמן ַהּזֶ ה ד‬ ‫יה ְל ַמ ָ ּצה‬ ְ ‫וְ ָא ֵתי ָמרֹור דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ּ ‫ומ ַב ֵּטיל ֵל‬ .‫יתא‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ ַ ְּ‫ד‬

Ravina said: Rav Mesharshiya, son of Rav Natan, said to me that Hillel said as follows, citing tradition:n A person should not wrap matza and bitter herbs together and eat them. He ruled in this manner because he maintains that today, after the destruction of the Temple, the obligation to eat matza applies by Torah law, and the obligation to eat bitter herbs without the Paschal lamb applies by rabbinic law. And if one were to wrap them together, the bitter herbs, whose obligation applies by rabbinic law, would come and nullify the matza, whose obligation applies by Torah law.

ּ ‫וַ ֲא ִפ‬ ‫ ִמצְ וֹת ֵא ין‬:‫יל ּו ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמ ר‬ ּ ‫אֹוריְ ָיתא‬ ַ ְּ‫ְמ ַב ּ ְטלֹות זֹו ֶאת זֹו – ָהנֵי ִמ ֵילי ד‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ אֹו דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ִ ּב ְד ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬,‫יתא‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ ַ ‫ִ ּב ְד‬ ‫ומ ַב ֵּטיל‬ ְ ‫אֹוריְ ָיתא ו ְּד ַר ָ ּבנַן – ָא ֵתי דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ַ ְּ‫ד‬ .‫יתא‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ ַ ‫יה ִל ְד‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬

And even according to the one who says that mitzvot do not nullify each other,n that principle applies only to a mixture of one food whose obligation applies by Torah law with another food whose obligation applies by Torah law, or to a mixture of one food whose obligation applies by rabbinic law with another food whose obligation applies by rabbinic law. However, in a case of a mixture of one food whose obligation applies by Torah law with another food whose obligation applies by rabbinic law, the food whose obligation applies by rabbinic law comes and nullifies the food whose obligation applies by Torah law.

‫יה ִמצְ �ֹות ֵאין‬ ּ ‫ַמאן ַּת ָּנא דְּ ׁ ָש ְמ ַע ְּת ֵל‬ :‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫ְמ ַב ְּטלֹות זֹו ֶאת זֹו – ִה ֵּלל ִהיא‬ ‫ָא ְמר ּו ָע ָליו ַעל ִה ֵּלל ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ּכ ְֹור ָכן ְ ּב ַבת‬ ‫״על ַמ ּצֹות‬ ַ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫אֹוכ ָל ן‬ ְ ְ‫ַא ַחת ו‬ .‫ֹאכלוּהוּ״‬ ְ ‫רֹורים י‬ ִ ‫ו ְּמ‬

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna that you heard say that mitzvot do not nullify each other? It is Hillel,p as it was taught in a baraita: They said about Hillel that he would wrap matza and bitter herbs togetherh and eat them, as it is stated: “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:11), which indicates that these two foods should be consumed together.

‫חֹול ִקין ָע ָליו ֲח ֵב ָיריו‬ ְ :‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ יָ כֹול יְ ֵהא ּכ ְֹור ָכן‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬.‫ַעל ִה ֵּלל‬ ‫אֹוכ ָל ן ְּכ ֶד ֶר ְך ׁ ֶש ִה ֵּלל‬ ְ ְ‫ְ ּב ַבת ַא ַח ת ו‬ ‫״על ַמ ּצֹות‬ ַ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫אֹוכ ָלן – ַּת ְלמ ּוד‬ ְ ּ ‫ֹאכלוּהוּ״ – ֲא ִפ‬ ‫יל ּו זֶ ה ִ ּב ְפנֵי‬ ְ ‫רֹורים י‬ ִ ‫ו ְּמ‬ ‫ ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב‬.‫ַעצְ מֹו וְ זֶ ה ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ מֹו‬ ?ּ‫ ַמאי ֲא ִפילּ ו‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬:‫ַא ׁ ִשי‬

Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Hillel’s colleagues disagree with him, as it was taught in another baraita: I might have thought that one should wrap matzot and bitter herbs together and eat them in the manner that Hillel eats them; therefore the verse states: “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs,” meaning that one may eat even this, the matza, by itself,n and that, the bitter herbs, by themselves. Rav Ashi strongly objects to this proof: If so, if the Sages disagree with Hillel and maintain that mitzvot nullify each other, what is the meaning of the word even in this baraita? This wording indicates that Hillel’s opinion is not rejected entirely, but that one fulfills his obligation even if he eats the items without combining them.

‫ ַהאי ַּת ָּנא ָה ִכי‬:‫ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ‫חֹובתֹו‬ ָ ‫ יָ כֹול ל ֹא יָ צָ א ְ ּבה ּו יְ ֵדי‬:‫ָק ָתנֵי‬ ,‫אֹוכ ָלן‬ ְ ְ‫ֶא ָּלא ִאם ֵּכן ּכ ְֹור ָכן ְ ּב ַבת ַא ַחת ו‬ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫אֹוכ ָלן – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ְ ‫ְּכ ֶד ֶר ְך ׁ ֶש ִה ֵּלל‬ ‫ֹאכלוּהוּ״ – ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬ ְ ‫רֹורים י‬ ִ ‫״על ַמ ּצֹות ו ְּמ‬ ַ .‫זֶ ה ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ מֹו וְ זֶ ה ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ מֹו‬

Rather, Rav Ashi said: This is what this tanna is teaching: I might have thought that one fulfills his obligation with them only if he wraps matzot and bitter herbs together and eats them in the manner that Hillel eats them. Therefore, the verse states: “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs,” i.e., one fulfills his obligation even if he eats the matza by itself and the bitter herbs by themselves.

Personalities

Hillel – ‫ה ֵּלל‬:ִ The Hillel mentioned here is not Hillel the Elder, the colleague of Shammai, who was the head of the Sanhedrin. Hillel the Elder lived while the Temple was still standing and would therefore have wrapped his matza and bitter herbs together with a piece of the Paschal lamb. Rather, this is apparently a different Hillel, a late Nasi in Eretz Yisrael and a descendent of Hillel the Elder. This Hillel established the Hebrew calendar that remains in use to this day (Rav Ya’akov Emden). halakha

Wrapping matza and bitter herbs – ‫כ ִר ַיכת ַמ ָ ּצה ו ָּמרֹור‬:ְּ After one has recited the blessing and eaten an olive-bulk of matza, and recited the blessing over bitter herbs and eaten an olive-bulk of bitter herbs, he takes the third matza and prepares a sandwich together with the bitter herbs, which is eaten without a blessing. One reclines and recites the phrase: In remembrance of the Temple, in the manner of Hillel (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 475:1).

notes

Citing tradition – ‫יה דִּ גְ ָמ ָרא‬ ּ ‫מ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬:ִ This phrase indicates that the speaker is citing a tradition transmitted from teacher to student. Mitzvot do not nullify each other – ‫מצְ �ֹות ֵאין ְמ ַב ְּטלֹות זֹו ֶאת זֹו‬:ִ Some commentaries maintain that this is the regular concept of nullification that appears with regard to other halakhot of foods. Since the bitter herbs are a different type of food, they would normally be nullified when combined with the greater amount of matza. However, as the bitter herbs have a detectable, strong taste, they are not nullified. The Ramban contends that in this context the issue is not connected to the regular halakhot of nullification at all. Instead, the Gemara is referring to the rabbinic requirement that all mitzvot must be performed by themselves, i.e., separately from other mitzvot.



As the requirement to eat bitter herbs is rabbinic, the bitter herbs nullify the matza, which is a Torah obligation. Others claim that all mitzvot are considered in the same category of God’s commandments, and therefore they do not nullify one another (Ĥatam Sofer). Even this by itself – ‫א ִפילּ ּו זֶ ה ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ מֹו‬:ֲ The verse cited in proof of the opinion of the Rabbis can be explained in two different ways. Some commentaries explain that the phrase: They shall eat it, serves to emphasize that each item must be eaten separately (Rabbeinu Yehonatan; Rashbam). Other authorities write that the literal meaning of the expression: With matzot, which is: On matzot, indicates that the two foods are not eaten with each other (Rav Shmuel Strashun, citing the Ramban). ‫וטק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 115a 

269

notes

In remembrance of the Temple in the manner of Hillel – ‫זֵ ֶכר‬ ‫ל ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש ְּכ ִה ֵּלל‬:ַ According to the opinion that foods that must be eaten by rabbinic law nullify other foods whose consumption is required by Torah law, it was permitted to wrap matza and the bitter herbs together only during the era of the Temple, when eating bitter herbs was also a Torah obligation. However, after the destruction of the Temple, this is no longer an option. Consequently, matza and bitter herbs are eaten together solely in remembrance of how the mitzva was performed in the time of the Temple (Arukh). halakha

Anything that is dipped in a liquid – ‫יבוּלֹו ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ְש ֶקה‬ ּ ‫כֹל ׁ ֶש ִּט‬:ּ If one eats foods that are usually dipped in one of seven liquids that transfer ritual impurity, i.e., wine, honey, oil, milk, dew, blood, and water, he must first wash his hands if the food is still wet. This washing is performed even if this person does not touch the food where it is wet. No blessing is recited upon this washing. This halakha is not commonly observed, for people rely on the opinion of the early commentaries that it is unnecessary, as Jews are no longer particular with regard to ritual purity and impurity (Magen Avraham; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 158:4). On the seder night, one washes his hands before dipping the karpas, but he does not recite a blessing after this washing. Even one who does not usually wash before eating wet foods should do so on this occasion to arouse the curiosity of the children (Ĥok Ya’akov; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 473:6).

‫ית ַמר ִה ְל ְכ ָתא ל ֹא‬ ְּ ‫ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא דְּ ָלא ִא‬ ‫״על‬ ַ ‫ְּכ ִה ֵּלל וְ ל ֹא ְּכ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן – ְמ ָב ֵר ְך‬ ‫ וַ ֲה ַדר ְמ ָב ֵר ְך‬,‫ֲא ִכ ַילת ַמ ָ ּצה״ וְ ָא ֵכיל‬ ‫ וַ ֲה ַדר‬,‫ילת ָמרֹור״ וְ ָא ֵכיל‬ ַ ‫״על ֲא ִכ‬ ַ ‫ָא ֵכיל ַמ ָ ּצה וְ ַח ָּסא ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ֲה ָד ֵדי ְ ּבל ֹא‬ .‫ זֵ ֶכר ַל ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש ְּכ ִה ֵּלל‬,‫ְ ּב ָר ָכה‬

The Gemara comments: Now that the halakha was stated neither in accordance with the opinion of Hillel nor in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, one recites the blessing: Commanded us over eating matza, and eats matza to fulfill his obligation. And then he recites the blessing: Commanded us over eating bitter herbs, and eats the lettuce as bitter herbs. And then he eats matza and lettuce together without a blessing in remembrance of the Temple, in the manner of Hilleln in the days of the Temple, who ate matza and bitter herbs together with the Paschal lamb.

:‫אֹוש ֲעיָ א‬ ַ ׁ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ‫נְט ַילת‬ ִ ְ‫יבוּלֹו ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ְש ֶקה – צָ ִריך‬ ּ ‫ּכֹל ׁ ֶש ִּט‬ ‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה ַהאי‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬.‫יָ ַדיִ ם‬ ‫ַח ָּסא‬

Rabbi Elazar said that Rav Oshaya said: Anything that is dipped in a liquidh before it is eaten requires the ritual of washing of the hands. The obligation to wash one’s hands was instituted to preserve ritual purity and to prevent people from causing teruma food to contract ritual impurity. Hands are generally considered impure to the second degree of ritual impurity, and they confer impurity upon any liquid with which they come in contact. Liquids that become ritually impure are automatically impure to the first degree and will therefore transfer ritual impurity to any food that is dipped in them. Rav Pappa said: Learn from this halakha, which requires the washing of hands, that for this lettuce on Passover,

‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫רֹוסת‬ ֶ ‫יה ַ ּב ֲח‬ ֵ ‫יך ְל ׁ ַש ּק‬ ְ ‫צָ ִר‬ ּ ‫ֹוע‬ ‫יך‬ ְ ‫ דְּ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּת ְך ל ֹא צָ ִר‬.‫ַק ּ ָפא‬ ?‫יה – נְ ִט ַילת יָ ַדיִ ם ָל ָּמה ִלי‬ ֵ ‫ְל ׁ ַש ּק‬ ּ ‫ֹוע‬ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫עֹולם ֵא‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬,‫ָהא ל ֹא נָ גַ ע! וְ ִד ְיל ָמא‬ – ‫ וְ ַק ּ ָפא‬,‫יה‬ ֵ ‫יך ְל ׁ ַש ּק‬ ְ ‫ ל ֹא צָ ִר‬:‫ָל ְך‬ ּ ‫ֹוע‬ ‫נְט ַילת‬ ִ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ָל ָּמה ִלי‬.‫יחא ָמיֵ ית‬ ָ ‫ֵמ ֵר‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫יָ ַדיִ ם? דִּ ְיל ָמא ְמ ׁ ַש ְּקע ּו ֵל‬

one must submerge it in the ĥaroset, due to the bitterness and poisonn in the lettuce. For if it could enter your mind that one need not thoroughly submerge the lettuce in ĥaroset, why do I need him to wash hands before eating bitter herbs? He did not touch the liquid with his hands, and therefore he did not render it ritually impure. The Gemara rejects this contention: Actually, I will say to you: According to the halakha, one need not submerge the lettuce in ĥaroset and the poison dies. The poison is nullified from the smell of the ĥaroset. The Gemara asks: But in that case, why do I need the washing of hands before dipping? The Gemara answers: Perhaps one will submerge the lettuce, and it is therefore necessary to wash one’s hands to avoid the possible transfer of ritual impurity.

‫ינִיש‬ ׁ ‫נִיש ֵהי ִא‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ָלא‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ‫יה‬ ֶ ‫ָמרֹור ַ ּב ֲח‬ ּ ֵ‫ דִּ ְיל ָמא ַא ַ ּגב ַח ְלי‬,‫רֹוסת‬ , ‫יה‬ ֵ ‫יה ִל ְמ‬ ּ ‫רֹור‬ ּ ‫דְּ ַת ְב ִלין ְמ ַב ֵּטיל ֵל‬ ‫יה‬ ָּ ‫ו ָּב ֵעינַן ַט ַעם ָמרֹור וְ ֵל‬ ּ ‫ ַא ְד ְ ּב ֵר‬.‫יכא‬ :‫ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א ְל ַר ָ ּבנָ א עו ְּק ָבא וְ ָד ַר ׁש‬ ‫נֹוטל‬ ֵ – ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫יבוּל ִר‬ ּ ‫נָ ַטל יָ ָדיו ְ ּב ִט‬ .‫יבוּל ׁ ֵשנִי‬ ּ ‫יָ ָדיו ְ ּב ִט‬

And Rav Pappa said: A person should not leave bitter herbs in the ĥaroseth for a lengthy period of time, lest the sweetness of the spices in the ĥaroset nullify its bitterness. And the bitter herbs require a bitter taste, and they are not bitter when marinated in ĥaroset. The Gemara reports: Rav Ĥisda authorizedn Rabbana Ukva to deliver a lecture, and he taught: If one washed his hands for the first dipping, he should wash his hands again for the second dipping.nh

‫ ָהא‬:‫יה דְּ ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמרו ָּה ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ַק ֵּמ‬ ְ‫ דְּ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּתך‬,‫ית ַמר‬ ְּ ‫ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא ִא‬ ‫נְט ַילת יָ ַדיִ ם‬ ִ ‫ית ַמר – ָל ָּמה ִלי‬ ְּ ‫ָה ָכא ִא‬ ‫יה ֲח ָדא‬ ְ ִ‫ְּת ֵרי ז‬ ּ ‫יה יְ ֵד‬ ּ ‫ימנֵי? ָהא ְמ ׁ ָשא ֵל‬ !‫ימנָ א‬ ְ ִ‫ז‬

The Sages said this halakha before Rav Pappa and added: This halakha was stated generally, i.e., concerning one who dips food twice anytime, not with regard to Passover night. For if it could enter your mind that this was stated here, concerning Passover, why do I need washing of the hands twice? This person has already washed his hands once. As he knows he will dip again, he will be careful to preserve his hands in a state of ritual impurity and consequently there is therefore no need for him to wash his hands a second time. This is not the case with regard to dipping throughout the rest of the year, when one does not know at the start that he will dip again.

Perek X Daf 115 Amud b notes

Due to poison [kappa] – ‫מ ׁ ּשוּם ַק ּ ָפא‬:ִ Tosafot explain that kappa is a type of worm that dies when the bitter herbs are dipped in ĥaroset. Other commentaries state that the kappa is born after the lettuce has been picked, and therefore it may be eaten. Since it is dangerous only when alive, once it dies in the ĥaroset there is no longer any problem (Mikhtam). Authorized – ‫יה‬ ּ ‫א ְד ְ ּב ֵר‬:ַ Rabbana is a title of the family of the Exilarch, similar to Rabban, which was used for the head of the Sanhedrin in Eretz Yisrael. As these men were not necessarily great Torah scholars, they required permission from a Sage to deliver a public lecture (Rav Tzemaĥ Gaon). Others state that the Sage would teach these men his sermon, which they would repeat to the community (Rabbeinu Ĥananel). Washing hands for the second dipping – ‫יבוּל ׁ ֵשנִי‬ ּ ‫נְט ַילת יָ ַדיִ ם ְל ִט‬: ִ The early commentaries are puzzled by this passage, as the second washing is not performed for the dipping but rather for eating matza. One explanation is that eating matza is also referred to as dipping, as during the talmudic period it was customary to dip all foods. Indeed, the Rambam maintains that matza should also be dipped in ĥaroset (Mikhtam). Some commentaries state that one need not wash his hands for matza, which is dry. As his hands have already been washed once, there is no concern that they will impart ritual impurity. However, one must wash his hands for the second dipping, which involves liquid (Rabbeinu Yehonatan; Me’iri). halakha

Dipping the bitter herbs in the ĥaroset – ‫רֹוסת‬ ֶ ‫ט ִב ַילת ָמרֹור ַ ּב ֲח‬:ְ The bitter herbs are dipped in ĥaroset to neutralize the poison they contain. In most places, the custom is to dip only a part of the herb (Peri Ĥadash). In any case, one should not leave the bitter herbs in the ĥaroset long enough to weaken its bitterness (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 475:1). Washing hands for the first and second time – ‫אשֹונָ ה‬ ׁ ‫נְט ַילת יָ ַדיִ ם ִר‬ ִ ‫ו ׁ ְּשנִּיָה‬: The hands are washed without a blessing for the vegetables [karpas]. Later, one washes his hands again and recites a blessing before eating matza (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 475:1).

270 

Perek X . 115b . ‫וטק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳י‬

‫ ָה ָכא‬,‫ ַאדְּ ַר ָ ּבה‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ְלה ּו ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬Rav Pappa said to them: On the contrary, this halakha was ‫ דְּ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּת ְך ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא‬.‫ית ַמר‬ ְּ ‫ ִא‬stated specifically here, with regard to Passover night. For if it ?‫יבו ֵּלי‬ ּ ‫ית ַמר – ָל ָּמה ִלי ְּת ֵרי ִט‬ ְּ ‫ ִא‬could enter your mind that it was stated in general, why do I need two dippings? A person usually dips only once, either at the beginning or in the middle of his meal. ‫ית ַמר – נְ ִט ַילת‬ ְּ ‫ֶא ָּלא ַמאי? ָה ָכא ִא‬ ‫יה‬ ְ ִ‫יָ ַדיִ ם ְּת ֵרי ז‬ ּ ‫ימנֵי ָל ָּמה ִלי? ָהא ְמ ׁ ָשא ֵל‬ ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ָב ֵעי‬:‫ימנָ א! ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ְ ִ‫יה ֲח ָדא ז‬ ּ ‫יְ ֵד‬ ‫ימר ַא ַ ּג ְד ָּתא וְ ַה ֵּל ָילא – דִּ ְיל ָמא‬ ַ ‫ְל ֵמ‬ .‫יה וְ נָ גַ ע‬ ּ ‫יה ְל ַד ֲע ֵת‬ ּ ‫ַא ּסו ֵּחי ַא ְּס ֵח‬

The Gemara asks: Rather, what will you say; this halakha was stated specifically here, with regard to Passover night? If so, why do I need two washings of the hands? He has already washed his hands once. They say in response: Since he needs to recite the Haggadah and hallel in between the two dippings, perhaps he will divert his thoughts and his hands will touch a ritually impure object.

‫ ָ ּב ַלע ַמ ָ ּצה – יָ צָ א; ָ ּב ַלע‬:‫ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ – ‫ ָ ּב ַלע ַמ ָ ּצה ו ָּמרֹור‬.‫ָמרֹור – ל ֹא יָ צָ א‬ ‫ ְּכ ָר ָכן‬.‫ יְ ֵדי ָמרֹור ל ֹא יָ צָ א‬,‫יְ ֵדי ַמ ָ ּצה יָ צָ א‬ ‫ְ ּב ִסיב ו ְּב ָל ָען – ַאף יְ ֵדי ַמ ָ ּצה נַ ִמי ל ֹא‬ .‫יָ צָ א‬

Rava said: If one swallowed matzan without chewing it, he has fulfilled the obligation to eat matza, as he has consumed it. However, if one swallowed bitter herbs without chewing them, he has not fulfilled his obligation, as he did not taste their bitterness. Furthermore, if one swallowed matza and bitter herbsh together, he has fulfilled the obligation of eating matza, but he has not fulfilled the obligation of eating bitter herbs. If one wrapped matza and bitter herbs in a palm net,b the thin interlacing of vines that sprouts around a palm tree, and swallowed them, he has not fulfilled his obligation even of eating matza. When matza and bitter herbs are consumed in this fashion, the matza does not touch one’s mouth. This is not considered eating.

‫ ַמ ָ ּצה ִל ְפנֵי‬:‫ימי ַ ּבר ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ִ ‫ָא ַמר ַרב ׁ ִש‬ ‫ ָמרֹור ִל ְפנֵי ָּכל ֶא ָחד‬,‫ָּכל ֶא ָחד וְ ֶא ָחד‬ .‫רֹוסת ִל ְפנֵי ָּכל ֶא ָחד וְ ֶא ָחד‬ ֶ ‫ וַ ֲח‬,‫וְ ֶא ָחד‬ ‫עֹוק ִרין ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ֻש ְל ָחן ֶא ָּלא ִל ְפנֵי ִמי‬ ְ ‫וְ ֵאין‬ .‫אֹומר ַה ָ ּג ָדה‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ֶש‬

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: Matza must be placed before each and every participant at the seder. Each participant in a seder would recline on a couch at his own personal table. Likewise, bitter herbs must be placed before each and every participant, and ĥaroset must be placed before each and every participant.h And during the seder, before the meal, one may remove the tablenbh only from before the one reciting the Haggadah. The other tables, which correspond to the seder plates used nowadays, are left in their place.

notes

Swallowed matza – ‫ב ַלע ַמ ָ ּצה‬: ּ ָ The difference between matza and bitter herbs in this regard is a function of the different definitions of eating in each case. When consuming matza, it is enough if it passes through one’s mouth and is swallowed, as the Torah does not command us to taste the matza, but merely to eat it. By contrast, the bitter herbs must be tasted, so that one will recall the bitterness of enslavement. See, however, the Me’iri, who maintains that it is a mitzva by rabbinic law to taste the matza as well. Removal of the table – ‫ע ִק ַירת ׁשו ְּל ָחן‬:ֲ In certain places where it was impossible to lift the entire table, the custom was to lift only the seder plate onto one’s shoulders in memory of the exodus from Egypt (Me’iri). background

Net – ‫סיב‬:ִ The trunk of a palm tree is surrounded by a small net of fibers. During the talmudic era, these fibers were woven into baskets or used for wrapping various objects.

‫ ּכו ְּּלה ּו נַ ִמי ִל ְפנֵי ִמי‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַרב הוּנָ א‬Rav Huna says: All of the aforementioned foods, i.e., matza, bitter .‫ וְ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא ְּכ ַרב הוּנָ א‬.‫אֹומר ַה ָ ּג ָדה‬ ֵ ‫ ׁ ֶש‬herbs, and ĥaroset, must also be placed only before the one who recites the Haggadah. When the time comes to eat these items, all the other participants receive a portion from him. The Gemara comments: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna. ‫עֹוק ִרין ֶאת ַה ׁ ּשו ְּל ָחן? ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ְ ‫ָל ָּמה‬ ‫ ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיַ ִּכיר ּו ִּתינֹוקֹות‬:‫דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי יַ ַּנאי‬ ,‫יה דְּ ַר ָ ּבה‬ ּ ‫ ַא ַ ּביֵ י ֲהוָ ה יָ ֵתיב ַק ֵּמ‬.ּ‫וְ יִ ׁ ְש ֲאלו‬ ‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲחזָ א דְּ ָקא ַמ ְד ֵלי ַּת ָּכא ִמ ַ ּק ֵּמ‬ ‫ ֲאת ּו ָקא‬,‫ ֲע ַדיִ ין ָלא ָקא ָא ְכ ִלינַן‬:ּ‫ְלהו‬ ּ ַ ‫ְמ ַע ְּק ִרי ַּת ָּכא ִמ‬ :‫יה ַר ָ ּבה‬ ּ ‫יק ַּמן? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ .‫ֹומר ַמה ּנ ׁ ְִש ַּת ָּנה‬ ַ ּ‫ּ ְפ ַט ְר ַּתן ִמל‬

The Gemara asks: Why does one remove the table? The school of Rabbi Yannai say: So that the children will notice that something is unusual and they will ask: Why is this night different from all other nights? The Gemara relates: Abaye was sitting before Rabba when he was still a child. He saw that they were removing the table from before him, and he said to those removing it: We have not yet eaten, and you are taking the table away from us? Rabba said to him: You have exempted us from reciting the questions of: Why is this night different [ma nishtana],h as you have already asked what is special about the seder night.

Trunk of a palm tree and the net growing around it Remove the table – ‫עֹוק ִרין ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ֻש ְל ָחן‬: ְ In ancient Rome, people dined at individual tables, which were removed as the food was consumed. On Passover night the tables were removed earlier, before the food was eaten, to spur children’s curiosity. As dining tables became larger this custom was preserved in the raising of the seder plate.

halakha

Swallowed matza and bitter herbs – ‫ב ַלע ַמ ָ ּצה ו ָּמרֹור‬:ּ ָ One who swallows matza without chewing it fulfills the obligation to eat matza. However, if he swallows the bitter herbs without chewing them, he does not fulfill the mitzva of the bitter herbs, as one must taste their bitterness. If he swallows matza and bitter herbs together, he fulfills his obligation to eat matza but not the obligation to eat bitter herbs. If he wraps matza and bitter herbs in something else and swallows them, he does not fulfill even the obligation to eat matza, as this is not the normal manner of eating (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 475:3). The arrangement of the seder plate – ‫סדּ וּר ְק ָע ָרה ׁ ֶשל ֵס ֶדר‬:ִ The seder plate is brought before the leader of the seder. There is no need to place a similar plate before all of those attending the seder (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 473:4). Remove the table – ‫עֹוק ִרים ֶאת ַה ׁ ּשו ְּל ָחן‬: ְ After the recitation



of the passage beginning: This poor bread [ha laĥma anya], which opens the maggid section of the Haggadah, the matzot is removed from the table or placed at its edge, as though the meal has been completed (Rashbam). Today the practice is not to remove the matzot, as the children already know that they are not there to be eaten at this time (Magen Avraham). Nevertheless, it is a custom to cover the matzot (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 473:6). Why is it different [ma nishtana] – ‫מה ּנ ׁ ְִש ַּת ָּנה‬:ַ After pouring the second cup of wine, the four questions are recited. Even if one conducts the seder alone, he must ask and answer the questions. If one’s wife or son asks the questions, there is no need to recite them again, and one begins the passage: We were slaves [avadim hayyinu] (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 473:7, and in the comment of the Rema).

Triclinium with table

‫וטק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 115b 

271

notes

Bread of affliction – ‫ל ֶחם עֹונִי‬:ֶ There are two contrasting reasons for the mitzva of matza. On the one hand, matza is the bread of affliction, as slaves do not have enough time to bake their bread properly. On the other hand, matza is reminiscent of the miraculous exodus from Egypt (Ĥatam Sofer). Manner…to eat a piece – ‫דַּ ְר ּכֹו ִ ּב ְפרו ָּסה‬: Some commentaries explain that a poor person who is forced to beg for food is generally given pieces of bread (Rav Yehuda ben Rav Binyamin HaRofeh). Other authorities explain that a servant who eats at his master’s table receives only morsels of food (Ĥatam Sofer).

– ‫״ל ֶחם עֹונִי״ ְּכ ִתיב‬ ֶ :‫ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫ ַּתנְיָא נַ ִמי‬.‫ֶל ֶחם ׁ ֶשעֹונִין ָע ָליו דְּ ָב ִרים‬ ‫״ל ֶחם עֹונִי״ – ֶל ֶחם ׁ ֶשעֹונִין ָע ָליו‬ ֶ :‫ָה ִכי‬ ‫״ל ֶחם‬ ֶ :‫ דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר‬.‫דְּ ָב ִרים ַה ְר ֵ ּבה‬ ‫ ֶמה ָענִי ׁ ֶשדַּ ְר ּכֹו‬,‫״ענִי״ ְּכ ִתיב‬ ָ – ‫עֹונִי״‬ – ‫ִ ּב ְפרו ָּסה‬

Shmuel said that the phrase: “The bread of affliction [leĥem oni]” (Deuteronomy 16:3)n means bread over which one answers [onim] matters, i.e., one recites the Haggadah over matza. That was also taught in a baraita: Leĥem oni is bread over which one answers many matters. Alternatively, in the verse, “leĥem oni” is actually written without a vav, which means a poor person. Just as it is the manner of a poor person to eat a piecen of bread, for lack of a whole loaf,

‫ ַמה‬:‫ דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר‬.‫ַאף ָּכאן ִ ּב ְפרו ָּסה‬ ‫דַּ ְר ּכֹו ׁ ֶשל ָענִי – הוּא ַמ ִּסיק וְ ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו‬ ‫אֹופה; ַאף ָּכאן נַ ִמי – הוּא ַמ ִּסיק‬ ָ .‫אֹופה‬ ָ ‫וְ ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו‬

so too, here he should use a pieceh of matza. Alternatively: Just as the manner of a poor person is that he heats the oven and his wife bakes quickly, before the small amount of wood they have is used up, so too here; when baking matza, he heats the oven and his wife bakesh quickly so the dough doesn’t rise. This is why matza is called the poor man’s bread.

.‫רֹוסת ִמצְ וָ ה״‬ ֶ ‫״אף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ֲח‬ ַ ‫יתי‬ ִ ְ‫וְ ִאי ל ֹא ִמצְ וָ ה – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַמאי ַמי‬ .‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַק ּ ָפא‬:‫ָל ּה? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי‬ ;‫ ַק ּ ָפא דְּ ַח ָּסא – ֲח ָמא‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ִסי‬ – ‫ ַ[ק ּ ָפא דְּ ַכ ְר ֵתי‬,‫ַק ּ ָפא דַּ ֲח ָמא – ַּכ ְר ֵתי‬ .‫ימי‬ ֵ ‫ ַק ּ ָפא דְּ כו ְּּלה ּו – ֲח ִמ‬,]‫ימי‬ ֵ ‫ֲח ִמ‬ ,‫ ַק ּ ָפא ַק ּ ָפא‬:‫נֵימא ָה ִכי‬ ָ ‫ַאדְּ ָה ִכי וְ ָה ִכי‬ ‫ וְ ִל ְת ַמ ּנֵי‬,‫יך‬ ְ ‫דָּ ֵכ ְירנָ א ָל ְך ו ְּל ׁ ַשב ְ ּבנָ ֵת‬ . ְ‫ַּכ ָּל ָתך‬

The mishna states that they bring the ĥaroset to the leader of the seder, although eating ĥaroset is not a mitzva. The Gemara asks: And if it is not a mitzva, for what reason does one bring it to the seder? Rabbi Ami said: It is brought due to the poison in the bitter herbs, which is neutralized by the ĥaroset. In this regard, Rav Asi said: The remedy for one who ate the poison in lettuce is to eat a radish. The remedy for the poison in a radish is leeks. The remedy for the poison in leeksb is hot water. A remedy for the poison in all vegetables is hot water. The Gemara comments: In the meantime, while one is waiting for someone to bring him the remedy, let him say the following incantation: Poison,n poison, I remember you, and your seven daughters, and your eight daughters-in-law.

‫אֹומר ִמצְ וָ ה‬ ֵ ‫ַ״ר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי צָ דֹוק‬ ‫ זֵ ֶכר‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַמאי ִמצְ וָ ה? ַר ִ ּבי ֵלוִ י‬.‫וכו׳״‬ .‫ זֵ ֶכר ַל ִּטיט‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ַל ַּת ּפו ַּח‬ ,‫יה‬ ְ ‫ ִה ְל ָּכ ְך צָ ִר‬:‫ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ֵ‫יך ְל ַקהֹוי‬ ‫ ְל ַקהֹויֵ יה – זֵ ֶכר‬.‫יה‬ ֵ ‫יך ְל ַס ּמ‬ ְ ‫וְ צָ ִר‬ ּ ‫ֹוכ‬ ‫יה – זֵ ֶכר‬ ֵ ‫יך ְל ַס ּמ‬ ְ ‫ וְ צָ ִר‬,‫ַל ַּת ּפו ַּח‬ ּ ‫ֹוכ‬ .‫ַל ִּטיט‬

The mishna states: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says that eating ĥaroseth is a mitzva. The Gemara asks: What is the nature of this mitzva? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Levi says: It is in remembrance of the apple, as apple is one of the ingredients in ĥaroset. The verse states: “Who is this who comes up from the wilderness, reclining upon her beloved? Under the apple tree I awakened you” (Song of Songs 8:5), which is an allusion to the Jewish people leaving Egypt. And Rabbi Yoĥanan says: The ĥaroset is in remembrance of the mortar used by the Jews for their slave labor in Egypt. Abaye said: Therefore, to fulfill both opinions, one must prepare it tart and one must prepare it thick. One must prepare it tart in remembrance of the apple, and one must prepare it thick in remembrance of the mortar.

Perek X Daf 116 Amud a background

Leeks – ‫כ ְר ֵתי‬:ַּ The leek, Allium porrum, is an edible vegetable that is botanically similar to garlic and onions. Its leaves are flat and grow in a cluster. Nowadays, the leaves are generally eaten cooked and are used to flavor soup or meat, but they are still eaten raw in Asia. According to some opinions, the ĥatzir desired by those who left Egypt (see Numbers 11:5) is a leek commonly grown in ancient Egypt.

Leek notes

Poison – ‫ק ּ ָפא‬:ַ Some commentaries maintain that in this context the word poison is referring to the evil spirit that rested on one’s hands after eating these herbs, unless they were first dipped in ĥaroset (Nimmukei Yosef ).

halakha

So too here a piece – ‫אף ָּכאן ִ ּב ְפרו ָּסה‬:ַ The accepted custom is to use three matzot for the seder. The middle matza is broken into two during the seder, with the larger piece set aside for the afikoman. When the time to eat the matza arrives, one takes a piece from the top, whole matza, together with a piece from the middle, broken matza, which symbolized affliction, for the blessing over bread. This practice is in accordance with the opinions of Rashi and the Rashbam (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 473:6, 475:1). He heats the oven and his wife bakes – ‫אֹופה‬ ָ ‫מ ִּסיק וְ ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו‬:ַ It can be inferred from here that it is preferable for each

272 

Perek X . 116a . ‫זטק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳י‬

household to bake the matza for the mitzva (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 460:2). Ĥaroset – ‫רֹוסת‬ ֶ ‫ח‬:ֲ It is a mitzva to eat ĥaroset in commemoration of the apples and the mortar. The custom is to prepare it thick like clay and to add spicy herbs. The Sephardic custom is to prepare ĥaroset from the fruits used to describe the Jewish people in the Prophets and in Song of Songs, e.g., figs, apples, and dates. Another custom is to add spices such as cinnamon and ginger in memory of the hay, or vinegar or red wine in memory of the blood (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 473:5, and in the comment of the Rema).

‫ ַּת ְב ִלין – זֵ ֶכר‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֵ ָ‫ַּתנְיָא ְּכו‬ ּ ‫ות‬ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫רֹוסת – זֵ ֶכר ַל ִּטיט‬ ֶ ‫ ֲח‬,‫ַל ֶּת ֶבן‬ ‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ָּכ ְך ָהי ּו‬:‫ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי צָ דֹוק‬ ‫ ּבֹוא ּו ו ְּטל ּו ָל ֶכם‬:‫ַּת ָ ּג ֵרי ֲח ָרךְ ׁ ֶש ִ ּבירו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם‬ .‫ַּת ְב ִלין ְל ִמצְ וָ ה‬

It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan: The spices used in the ĥaroset are in remembrance of the hay that our forefathers used for building in Egypt, and the ĥaroset itself is in remembrance of the mortar. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said: When selling ĥaroset, the small shopkeepersn in Jerusalem would say as follows: Come and take spices for yourselves for the mitzva.

halakha

The obligation to ask questions – ‫חּיוּב ַה ׁ ּ ְש ֵאלֹות‬:ִ One must ask the four questions at the seder. If a child is present who knows how to ask them, he should do so. If not, the wife asks the four questions. If one is alone, he asks himself. Even Torah scholars must ask each other the four questions (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 473:7).

mishna 

The attendants poured the second cup ‫ וְ ָכאן ַה ֵ ּבן‬,‫מתני׳ ָמזְ ג ּו לֹו ּכֹוס ׁ ֵשנִי‬ for the leader of the seder, and here ‫ וְ ִאם ֵאין דַּ ַעת ַ ּב ֵ ּבן – ָא ִביו‬.‫ֹואל ָא ִביו‬ ֵ ‫ׁש‬ the son asksn his father the questions about the differences :‫ ְמ ַל ְּמדֹו‬between Passover night and a regular night. And if the son does not have the intelligence to ask questions on his own, his father teaches him the questions. ,‫ַמה ּנ ׁ ְִש ַּת ָּנה ַה ַּליְ ָלה ַהּזֶ ה ִמ ָּכל ַה ֵּלילֹות‬ ;‫אֹוכ ִלין ָח ֵמץ ו ַּמ ָ ּצה‬ ְ ‫ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָכל ַה ֵּלילֹות ָאנ ּו‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָכל ַה ֵּלילֹות‬.‫ַה ַּליְ ָלה ַהּזֶ ה ּכו ּּלֹו ַמ ָ ּצה‬ ‫אֹוכ ִלין ׁ ְש ָאר יְ ָרקֹות; ַה ַּליְ ָלה ַהּזֶ ה‬ ְ ‫ָאנ ּו‬ ‫אֹוכ ִלין ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ ְ ‫ ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָכל ַה ֵּלילֹות ָאנ ּו‬.‫ָמרֹור‬ ‫צָ ִלי ׁ ָשלוּק ו ְּמבו ׁ ּ ָּשל; ַה ַּליְ ָלה ַהּזֶ ה ּכוּלּ ֹו‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָכל ַה ֵּלילֹות ָאנ ּו ַמ ְט ִ ּב ִילין ּ ַפ ַעם‬.‫צָ ִלי‬ ?‫ַא ַחת; ַה ַּליְ ָלה ַהּזֶ ה ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְפ ָע ִמים‬

The mishna lists the questions: Why is this night different from all other nights? As on all other nights we eat leavened bread and matza as preferred; on this night all our bread is matza. As on all other nights we eat other vegetables; on this night we eat bitter herbs. The mishna continues its list of the questions. When the Temple was standing one would ask: As on all other nights we eat either roasted, stewed, or cooked meat, but on this night all the meat is the roastedn meat of the Paschal lamb. The final question was asked even after the destruction of the Temple: As on all other nights we dip the vegetables in a liquid during the meal only once; however, on this night we dip twice.

‫ ַמ ְת ִחיל‬.‫ ָא ִביו ְמ ַל ְּמדֹו‬,‫ו ְּל ִפי דַּ ְע ּתֹו ׁ ֶשל ֶ ּבן‬ ‫״א ַר ִּמי‬ ֲ ‫דֹור ׁש ֵמ‬ ֵ ְ‫ ו‬.‫ִ ּבגְ נוּת ו ְּמ ַסּיֵ ים ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָבח‬ ‫אֹובד ָא ִבי״ ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ גְ מֹור ָּכל ַה ּ ָפ ָר ׁ ָשה‬ ֵ .‫ּכו ָּּל ּה‬

And according to the intelligence and the ability of the son,n his father teaches him all or part of these questions. When teaching his son about the Exodus, he begins with the Jewish people’s disgrace and concludes with their glory.n And he expounds from the passage: “An Aramean tried to destroy my father” (Deuteronomy 26:5), the declaration one recites when presenting his first fruits at the Temple, until he concludes explaining the entire section.

gemara 

;‫ֹואלֹו‬ ֲ ‫ ָח ָכם ְ ּבנֹו – ׁש‬:‫גמ׳ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ .‫ֹוא ְל ּתֹו‬ ַ ‫וְ ִאם ֵאינֹו ָח ָכם – ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו ׁש‬ ‫ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬.‫ֹואל ְל ַעצְ מֹו‬ ֵ ‫וְ ִאם ָלאו – הוּא ׁש‬ ‫ּיֹוד ִעין ְ ּב ִה ְלכֹות‬ ְ ‫ׁ ְשנֵי ַּת ְל ִמ ֵידי ֲח ָכ ִמים ׁ ֶש‬ .‫ֹוא ִלין זֶ ה ָלזֶ ה‬ ֲ ‫ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח – ׁש‬

The Sages taught: If his son is wise and knows how to inquire, his son asks him. And if he is not wise, his wife asks him. And if even his wife is not capable of asking or if he has no wife, he asks himself. And even if two Torah scholars who know the halakhot of Passover are sitting together and there is no one else present to pose the questions, they ask each other.h

?‫״מה ּנ ׁ ְִש ַּת ָּנה ַה ַּליְ ָלה ַהּזֶ ה ִמ ָּכל ַה ֵּלילֹות‬ ַ ,‫ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָכל ַה ֵּלילֹות ָאנ ּו ַמ ְט ִ ּב ִילין ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת‬ ‫״ ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה‬.‫ַה ַּליְ ָלה ַהּזֶ ה ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְפ ָע ִמים‬ ‫יֹומא ָלא ַסגְ יָ א דְּ ָלא‬ ָ ‫ ַא ּט ּו ָּכל‬:‫ָר ָבא‬ ‫ימנָ א? ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר‬ ְ ִ‫ַמ ְט ְ ּב ָלא ֲח ָדא ז‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָכל ַה ֵּלילֹות ֵאין‬:‫ ָה ִכי ָק ָתנֵי‬,‫ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ָאנ ּו ַחּיָ ִיבין ְל ַט ֵ ּבל ֲא ִפ‬ ,‫יל ּו ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת‬ .‫ַה ַּליְ ָלה ַהּזֶ ה ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְפ ָע ִמים‬

The mishna states that one of the questions is: Why is this night different from all other nights? As on all other nights we dip once; however, on this night we dip twice. Rava strongly objects to this statement of the mishna: Is that to say that on every other day there is no alternative but to dip once? Is there an obligation to dip at all on other days, as indicated by the wording of the mishna? Rather, Rava said that this is what the mishna is teaching: As on all other nights we are not obligated to dip even once; however, on this night we are obligated to dip twice. notes

Small shopkeepers [tagarei ĥarakh] – ‫ת ָ ּג ֵרי ֲח ָר ְך‬:ַּ Due to the large number of people in the streets of Jerusalem, store owners were unable to display their goods outside their stores. Therefore, they had to announce their wares to potential customers (Mikhtam; Me’iri, citing the ge’onim). Some versions of the Gemara read tagarei hadak, merchants who sell finely ground spices (Me’iri). And here the son asks – ‫ֹואל‬ ֵ ‫וְ ָכאן ַה ֵ ּבן ׁש‬: When the second cup of wine is brought to the table, the young son will think that they are about to recite Grace After Meals. He therefore asks: Why are we reciting Grace after Meals before we have even eaten? (Nimmukei Yosef   ). Alternatively, the child might wonder why a second cup of wine is poured before the meal, or he



may be confused when he sees everyone dipping vegetables instead of the usual practice of breaking bread immediately after reciting kiddush (Tosefot Rid ).

In other words, the father adapts his teaching of the redemption to the child’s level of intelligence (See Beirakh Moshe and Hagahot Maharsham).

This night all is roasted – ‫ה ַּליְ ָלה ַהּזֶ ה ּכו ּּלֹו צָ ִלי‬:ַ This question is problematic, as one is allowed to eat cooked meat at the seder meal. However, it was previously stated that only two cooked dishes are brought to the head of the household before the meal, and therefore the child asks why he sees only roasted meat at this stage of the proceedings. The child will not ask about the four cups at this point because they are not all present in front of him (Rashash).

He begins with disgrace and concludes with glory – ‫ַמ ְת ִחיל‬ ‫בגְ נוּת ו ְּמ ַסּיֵ ים ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָבח‬: ּ ִ Several commentaries explain that the purpose of this narration is to present God’s great love in raising us from a state of severe degradation. After mentioning the wonders of the Creator, it naturally follows that we offer Him praise (Rid). Other authorities claim that the reason for this order is to capture the child’s attention (Maharsha). A third approach is that a person is truly happy only when he remembers what he once lacked and the sorrow that preceded his joy (Zahav Seiva).

According to the intelligence of the son – ‫ל ִפי דַּ ְע ּתֹו ׁ ֶשל ֶ ּבן‬:ְ

‫זטק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 116a 

273

notes

What is with disgrace – ‫מאי ִ ּבגְ נוּת‬:ַ According to Shmuel’s opinion, this disgrace is the slavery in Egypt. Highlighting the slavery also highlights God’s love and salvation. Rav identifies the disgrace as practice of idolatry by the ancestors of the Jews. This must be mentioned, because the fact that God took the Jewish people out of Egypt despite their idolatrous origins serves to praise Him the more (Gevurot Hashem). You have exempted us from reciting – ‫ֹומר‬ ַ ‫פ ַט ְר ַּתן ִמ ּל‬:ְ ּ Children are encouraged to ask questions so that one can relate the story of the Exodus to them in the best possible manner. When Rabbi Naĥman’s slave told him what a slave would do if he were set free, Rabbi Naĥman explained to the other participants in the seder that the entire Jewish people was in the same position. For this reason, there was no longer any need to ask: Why is this night different from all other nights (HaBoneh). halakha

He began to recite we were slaves – ‫ּ ָפ ַתח וְ ָא ַמר ֲע ָב ִדים‬ ‫היִ ינ ּו‬:ָ Once the leader of the seder has been asked: Why is this night different, etc., he need not go back and ask the questions himself. Rather, he continues from the section beginning with: We were slaves (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 473:7, and in the comment of the Rema).

?‫ ִחּיו ָּבא ְל ַד ְרדְּ ֵקי‬:‫ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב ָס ְפ ָרא‬ ‫ ֵאין ָאנ ּו‬:‫ ָה ִכי ָק ָתנֵי‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַרב ָס ְפ ָרא‬ ‫ַמ ְט ִ ּב ִילין ֲא ִפילּ ּו ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת ַה ַּליְ ָלה ַהּזֶ ה‬ .‫ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְפ ָע ִמים‬

Rav Safra strongly objects to this explanation: Is it obligatory for the children? As previously mentioned, the reason one dips twice is to encourage the children to ask questions. How can this be called an obligation? Rather, Rav Safra said that this is what the mishna is teaching: We do not normally dip even once; however, on this night we dip twice. This wording is preferable, as it indicates the performance of an optional act.

‫ ַמאי‬.”‫״מ ְת ִחיל ִ ּבגְ נוּת ו ְּמ ַסּיֵ ים ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָבח‬ ַ ‫בֹודת‬ ַ ‫עֹוב ֵדי ֲע‬ ְ ‫ ִמ ְּת ִח ָּלה‬:‫ִ ּבגְ נוּת? ַרב ָא ַמר‬ :‫ [ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל] ָא ַמר‬.ּ‫בֹותינו‬ ֵ ‫ִ ּג ּלו ִּלים ָהי ּו ֲא‬ .ּ‫ֲע ָב ִדים ָהיִ ינו‬

It was taught in the mishna that the father begins his answer with disgrace and concludes with glory. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term: With disgrace?n Rav said that one should begin by saying: At first our forefathers were idol worshippers, before concluding with words of glory. And Shmuel said: The disgrace with which one should begin his answer is: We were slaves.

‫ ַע ְבדָּ א‬:‫יה‬ ּ ֵּ‫יה ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ְל ָדר ּו ַע ְבד‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ְל ֵחירוּת וְ יָ ֵהיב ֵל‬ ּ ‫יה ָמ ֵר‬ ּ ‫דְּ ַמ ּ ֵפיק ֵל‬ ?‫יה‬ ַ ‫ ַמאי ָ ּב ֵעי ְל ֵמ‬,‫ַּכ ְס ּ ָפא וְ ַד ֲה ָבא‬ ּ ‫ימר ֵל‬ ‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫ֹוחי‬ ֵ ‫ ָ ּב ֵעי ְלאֹודֹויֵ י ו ְּל ׁ ַש ּב‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ ּ ָפ ַתח‬.‫״מה ּנ ׁ ְִש ַּת ָּנה״‬ ַ ‫ֹומר‬ ַ ּ‫ ּ ְפ ַט ְר ַּתן ִמל‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ .ּ‫ ֲע ָב ִדים ָהיִ ינו‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר‬

Rav Naĥman said to his servant, Daru: With regard to a slave who is freed by his master, who gives him gold and silver, what should the slave say to him? Daru said to him: He must thank and praise his master. He said to him: If so, you have exempted us from recitingn the questions of: Why is this night different, as you have stated the essence of the seder night. Rav Naĥman immediately began to recite: We were slaves.h

‫ ּכֹל‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יאל ָהיָ ה‬ ֵ ‫מתני׳ ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ ‫ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ָא ַמר‬

mishna 

Rabban Gamliel would say: Anyone who did not say

Perek X Daf 116 Amud b notes

These three matters – ‫של ׁ ָֹשה דְּ ָב ִרים ֵאלּ ּו‬: ְ ׁ If one does not mention the Paschal lamb, the matza, or the bitter herbs, or if one neglects to explain the reason for them (Tosefot Yom Tov) and recite the appropriate verse for each one (Nimmukei Yosef), he has not fulfilled his obligation. Has not fulfilled his obligation – ‫חֹובתֹו‬ ָ ‫ל ֹא יָ צָ א יְ ֵדי‬: The Tosefot Yom Tov explains that this does not mean that he has not fulfilled his obligation at all. Rather, he has not fulfilled it in the best possible manner. Matza because they were redeemed – ‫ַמ ָ ּצה ַעל ׁשוּם‬ ‫ש ִּנגְ ֲאל ּו‬: ֶ ׁ The commentaries ask: How could this be the reason for eating matza, as God commanded the people to eat matza even before the nation left Egypt? One answer is that the prohibition against eating leavened bread initially applied only to the first day of the Passover in Egypt, but during the rest of the Festival that year the Jews were permitted to eat leavened bread. However, as their bread had no time to rise when they left Egypt, matza is consumed during the entire holiday in subsequent years in commemoration of that event (Maharam Ĥalawa).

‫ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה דְּ ָב ִרים ֵאלּ ּו ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח ל ֹא יָ צָ א יְ ֵדי‬ .‫ ו ָּמרֹור‬,‫ ַמ ָ ּצה‬,‫ ּ ֶפ ַסח‬:‫ וְ ֵא ּל ּו ֵהן‬.‫חֹובתֹו‬ ָ ‫ּ ֶפ ַסח – ַעל ׁשוּם ׁ ֶש ּ ָפ ַסח ַה ָּמקֹום ַעל ָ ּב ֵּתי‬ ‫ ״וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶּתם‬:‫[ש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ ֶ ׁ ,‫בֹותינ ּו ְ ּב ִמצְ ַריִ ם‬ ֵ ‫ֲא‬ .]‫זֶ ַבח ּ ֶפ ַסח הוּא ַלה׳ ֲא ׁ ֶשר ּ ָפ ַסח וגו׳״‬

these three mattersnh on Passover has not fulfilled his obli­ga­ tion:n The Paschal lamb, matza, and bitter herbs. When one mentions these matters, he must elaborate and explain them: The Paschal lamb is brought because the Omnipresent passed over [pasaĥ] the houses of our forefathers in Egypt, as it is stated: “That you shall say: It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s Paschal offering for He passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses” (Exodus 12:27).

‫בֹותינ ּו‬ ֵ ‫ַמ ָ ּצה – ַעל ׁש ּום ׁ ֶש ִּנגְ ֲאל ּו ֲא‬ ‫ ״וַ ּיֹאפ ּו ֶאת ַה ָ ּבצֵ ק‬:‫[ש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ ֶ ׁ ,‫ִמ ִּמצְ ַריִ ם‬ ‫ ָמרֹור – ַעל‬.]‫ֲא ׁ ֶשר הֹוצִ יא ּו ִמ ִּמצְ ַריִ ם וגו׳״‬ ‫בֹותינ ּו‬ ֵ ‫ׁשוּם ׁ ֶש ֵּמ ְרר ּו ַה ִמצְ ִריִ ים ֶאת ַחּיֵ י ֲא‬ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ [״וַ יְ ָמ ְרר ּו ֶאת ַחּי‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ְ ּב ִמצְ ַריִ ם‬ .]‫וגו׳״‬

Rabban Gamliel continues to explain: The reason for matza is because our forefathers were redeemedn from Egypt, as it is stated: “And they baked the dough that they took out of Egypt as cakes of matzot, for it was not leavened, as they were thrust out of Egypt and could not tarry, neither had they prepared for themselves any victual” (Exodus 12:39). The reason for bitter herbs is because the Egyptians embittered our forefathers’ lives in Egypt, as it is stated: “And they embittered their lives with hard service, in mortar and in brick; in all manner of service in the field, all the service that they made them serve was with rigor” (Exodus 1:14).

‫ְ ּב ָכל דֹור וָ דֹור ַחּיָ יב ָא ָדם ִל ְראֹות ֶאת‬ :‫ ׁ ֶש ּנ ֱֶא ַמר‬,‫ַעצְ מֹו ְּכ ִאילּ ּו הוּא יָ צָ א ִמ ִּמצְ ַריִ ם‬ ‫״וְ ִה ַ ּג ְד ָּת ְל ִבנְ ךָ ַ ּבּיֹום ַההוּא ֵלאמֹר ַ ּב ֲעבוּר‬ .‫אתי ִמ ִּמצְ ָריִ ם״‬ ִ ֵ‫זֶ ה ָע ָ ׂשה ה׳ ִלי ְ ּבצ‬

The tanna of the mishna further states: In each and every generation a person must view himself  h as though he personally left Egypt, as it is stated: “And you shall tell your son on that day, saying: It is because of this which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt” (Exodus 13:8). In every generation, each person must say: “This which the Lord did for me,” and not: This which the Lord did for my forefathers. halakha

Anyone who does not say these three matters – ‫ּכֹל ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא‬ ‫א ַמר ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה דְּ ָב ִרים ֵא ּל ּו‬: ָ One who does not mention the three matters of the Paschal lamb, matza, and bitter herbs on Passover has not fulfilled his obligation of reciting the Haggadah. The text of the Haggadah cites this Gemara verbatim (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Ĥametz UMatza 7:5).

274 

Perek X . 116b . ‫זטק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳י‬

A person must view himself, etc. – ‫ַחּיָ יב ָא ָדם ִל ְראֹות ֶאת ַעצְ מֹו‬ ‫וכו׳‬: In every generation, one must view himself as though he personally just left Egypt, as it is written: “And you shall remember that you were a slave” (Deuteronomy 5:15; see Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Ĥametz UMatza 7:6).

‫יכ ְך ֲאנַ ְחנ ּו ַחּיָ ִיבים ְלהֹודֹות ְל ַה ֵּלל ְל ׁ ַש ֵ ּב ַח‬ ָ ‫ְל ִפ‬ ‫רֹומם ְל ַהדֵּ ר ְל ָב ֵר ְך ְל ַע ֵּלה ו ְּל ַק ֵּלס ְל ִמי‬ ֵ ‫ְל ָפ ֵאר ְל‬ :ּ‫בֹותינ ּו וְ ָלנ ּו ֶאת ָּכל ַה ּנ ִִּסים ָה ֵא ּלו‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ּ ֶש ָע ָ ׂשה ַל ֲא‬ ‫יאנ ּו ֵמ ַע ְבדּ וּת ְל ֵחרוּת ִמּיָגֹון ְל ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה ו ֵּמ ֵא ֶבל‬ ָ ִ‫הֹוצ‬ ‫ ּו ִמ ׁ ּ ִש ְע ּבוּד‬,‫ְליֹום טֹוב ּו ֵמ ֲא ֵפ ָלה ְלאֹור ָ ּגדֹול‬ .‫ֹאמר ְל ָפנָיו ַה ְללוּיָ ּה‬ ַ ‫ וְ נ‬,‫ִלגְ או ָּּלה‬

The mishna continues with the text of the Haggadah. Therefore we are obligated to thank, praise, glorify, extol, exalt, honor, bless, revere, and laud [lekales]l the One who performed for our forefathers and for us all these miracles: He took us out from slavery to freedom, from sorrow to joy, from mourning to a Festival, from darkness to a great light, and from enslavement to redemption. And we will say before Him: Halleluya. At this point one recites the hallel that is said on all joyous days.n

‫ ַעד‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫אֹומר? ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬ ֵ ‫יכן הוּא‬ ָ ‫ַעד ֵה‬ ‫ ַעד‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל‬.‫״אם ַה ָ ּבנִים ְ ׂש ֵמ ָחה״‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫חֹותם ִ ּבגְ או ָּּלה‬ ֵ ְ‫ ו‬.‫״ח ָּל ִמ ׁיש ְל ַמ ְעיְ נֹו ָמיִ ם״‬ ַ ‫בֹותינ ּו‬ ֵ ‫ ֲא ׁ ֶשר ְ ּג ָא ָלנ ּו וְ גָ ַאל ֶאת ֲא‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַט ְרפֹון‬ .‫חֹותם‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ָהיָ ה‬,‫ִמ ִּמצְ ַריִ ם‬

Since one does not complete hallel at this point in the seder, the mishna asks: Until where does one reciten hallel? Beit Shammai say: Until “Who makes the barren woman dwell in her house as a joyful mother of children, halleluya” (Psalms 113:9). And Beit Hillel say: Until “Who turned the rock into a pool of water, the flint into a fountain of waters” (Psalms 114:8).h And one concludes this section of hallel with a blessing that refers to redemption. Rabbi Tarfon says that although one should recite: Who redeemed us and redeemed our forefathers from Egypt, one who did so would not conclude with the formula: Blessed are You, Lord.

‫בֹותינ ּו‬ ֵ ‫ ֵּכן ה׳ ֱאל ֵֹהינ ּו וֵ אל ֵֹהי ֲא‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ ‫מֹוע ִדים וְ ִל ְרגָ ִלים ֲא ֵח ִרים ַה ָ ּב ִאים‬ ֲ ‫יענ ּו ְל‬ ֵ ‫יַ ִ ּג‬ ‫ ְ ׂש ֵמ ִחים ְ ּב ִבנְיַ ן ִע ָירךְ וְ ָ ׂש ִ ׂשים‬,‫אתנ ּו ְל ׁ ָשלֹום‬ ֵ ‫ִל ְק ָר‬ )‫ֹאכל ׁ ָשם ִ(מן ַה ּ ְפ ָס ִחים ו ִּמן ַהּזְ ָב ִחים‬ ַ ‫בֹוד ָתךְ וְ נ‬ ָ ‫ַ ּב ֲע‬ .‫״ברוּךְ ַא ָּתה ה׳ ָ ּג ַאל יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״‬ ּ ָ ‫ ַעד‬,‫כו׳‬

Rabbi Akiva says that one recites a different version of this blessing: So too, the Lord our God and the God of our forefathers will bring us to future holidays and Festivals in peace, happy over the building of Your city and joyous in Your service. And there we will eat from the Paschal lamb and other offerings, etc., until: Blessed are You, Lord, Who redeemed Israel.

gemara 

Rava said: When mentioning the exo‫אֹותנ ּו הֹוצִ יא‬ ָ ְ‫ֹאמר ״ו‬ ַ ‫יך ׁ ֶשּי‬ ְ ‫ צָ ִר‬:‫גמ׳ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ dus from Egypt one must say: And He ‫ ו ָּמרֹור‬,‫ ַמ ָ ּצה צָ ִריךְ ְל ַהגְ ִ ּב ַּיה‬:‫ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬.‫ִמ ׁ ּ ָשם״‬ took us out from there.n Furthermore, Rava said: When one ‫ וְ ל ֹא עֹוד‬.‫ ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ֵאין צָ ִריךְ ְל ַהגְ ִ ּב ַּיה‬,‫ צָ ִריךְ ְל ַהגְ ִ ּב ַּיה‬mentions matza in the list of the three matters one must recall .‫אֹוכל ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַ ּבחוּץ‬ ֵ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְר ֶאה ְּכ‬during the seder, he must lift it for display before the assembled company. Likewise, when discussing bitter herbs, one must raise them. However, nowadays one need not raise the meat. And not only that, but it is prohibited to do so, for if one lifts the meat it appears as though he is eating sacrificial meat outside the Temple. An observer might think he is presenting it as the meat of a Paschal lamb, and it is prohibited by Torah law to slaughter a sheep as a Paschal lamb outside the Temple.h ‫ֹומר‬ ַ ‫ סו ָּמא ּ ָפטוּר ִמ ּל‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ָחא ַ ּבר יַ ֲעקֹב‬ :‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָתם‬,‫״ב ֲעבוּר זֶ ה״‬ ּ ַ :‫ ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָכא‬.‫ַה ָ ּג ָדה‬ – ‫ ַאף ָּכאן‬,‫ ַמה ְל ַה ָּלן – ּ ְפ ָרט ְלסו ָּמא‬.‫״בנֵ נ ּו זֶ ה״‬ ְּ .‫ּ ְפ ָרט ְלסו ִּמין‬

Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov said: A blind person is exempt from reciting the Haggadah. The proof is that it is written here, with regard to the Paschal lamb: “And you shall tell your son on that day saying, it is because of this which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt” (Exodus 13:8), and it was written there, with regard to the stubborn and rebellious son, that his parents say: “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he does not listen to our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard” (Deuteronomy 21:20). The Gemara explains the verbal analogy of the word “this”: Just as there, in the case of the rebellious son, the Sages expound that the verse excludes a blind person, as a blind parent cannot say: This son of ours, for he cannot point to him; so too here, in the case of the recitation of the Passover Haggadah, the word “this” excludes blind people.

‫ ׁ ְש ַא ְל ִּתינְ ה ּו ְל ַר ָ ּבנַן דְּ ֵבי ַרב‬:‫ימר‬ ָ ‫ִאינִי? וְ ָה ָא ַמר ָמ ֵר‬ ‫ ַרב‬:ּ‫יֹוסף? ָא ְמרו‬ ֵ ‫ ַמאן דַּ ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּג ְד ָּתא ֵ ּבי ַרב‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ :ּ‫ ַמאן דַּ ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּג ְד ָּתא ֵ ּבי ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת? ָא ְמרו‬.‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ .‫ ַמ ָ ּצה ַ ּבּזְ ַמן ַהּזֶ ה דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬:‫ ָק ָס ְב ִרי ַר ָ ּבנַן‬.‫ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת‬

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Mareimar say: I asked the Sages from the school of Rav Yosef, who was blind: Who recited the Haggadah in the house of Rav Yosef? They said to him: Rav Yosef himself recited it. Mareimar subsequently asked: Who recited the Haggadah in the house of Rav She­ shet, who was also blind? They said to him: Rav Sheshet himself recited it. This indicates that a blind person is obligated to recite the Haggadah. The Gemara answers: These Sages, Rav Yosef and Rav Sheshet, maintain that nowadays the halakhot of eating matza and the recitation of the Haggadah that accompanies it apply by rabbinic law. For this reason, blind people can recite the Haggadah for others.



language

To laud [lekales] – ‫ל ַק ֵּלס‬:ְ From the Greek κάλος, kalos, meaning good or beautiful. Accordingly, the Hebrew lekales means to praise or extol. notes

Hallel during the seder – ‫ה ַה ֵּלל ַ ּב ֵּס ֶדר‬:ַ The early commentaries offer several explanations as to why no blessing is recited before hallel in the Haggadah. Some state that it is because this hallel is divided into two sections. Other authorities suggest that these passages are not recited as hallel but rather as a song (Rav Hai Gaon). A third opinion is that one does not recite a blessing at the seder because a blessing has been recited over hallel in the synagogue (Masekhet Soferim). Until where does one recite – ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יכן הוּא‬ ָ ‫עד ֵה‬:ַ Everyone agrees that this hallel is split into two and that most of it is recited after the meal, to keep the first part of the seder shorter so that the children will remain awake. The issue is whether it is sufficient to read the first passage, as maintained by Beit Shammai, or whether it is also necessary to mention the Exodus, which appears only in the second passage (Tosefot Yom Tov). In the Jerusalem Talmud, it is stated that according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, the mention of the Exodus is delayed until after midnight, the time of the start of the redemption. Conversely, Beit Hillel maintain that since the Exodus began in the morning, there is no reason to delay its mention. And He took us out from there – ‫אֹותנ ּו הֹוצִ יא ִמ ׁ ּ ָשם‬ ָ ְ‫ו‬: The miracle of the Exodus affected later generations of Jews as well, for had their ancestors not left Egypt, they would still be enslaved there. Additionally, the halakha is that one recites a blessing only for a miracle that happened to his father or grandfather, but not to earlier ancestors. Therefore, it is necessary to emphasize that the Exodus also has relevance for our own generation, by means of a special blessing (Maharam Ĥalawa). halakha

The formula of the Haggadah – ‫נֻסח ַה ַה ָ ּג ָדה‬: ַּ The Haggadah must include the passage starting with: Therefore we are obligated, until: The flint into a fountain of waters (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Ĥametz UMatza 8:5). Raising the matza and the bitter herbs – ‫ַהגְ ָ ּב ַהת ַמ ָ ּצה‬ ‫ו ָּמרֹור‬: While reciting the paragraph that begins with: This matza, one lifts the matza and shows it to those present in honor of the mitzva. Likewise, one lifts the bitter herbs for the same reason. The piece of meat on the seder plate is not raised, to avoid the impression that one is serving sacrificial meat offered outside the Temple (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 473:6).

‫זטק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 116b 

275

‫ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ַרב ַא ָחא ַ ּבר יַ ֲעקֹב ָס ַבר ַמ ָ ּצה‬ ‫אֹוריְ ָיתא? וְ ָהא ַרב ַא ָחא‬ ַ ְּ‫ִ ּבזְ ַמן ַהּזֶ ה ד‬ ‫ ַמ ָ ּצה ַ ּבּזְ ַמן ַהּזֶ ה‬:‫ַ ּבר יַ ֲעקֹב הוּא דְּ ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ּכֹל דְּ ַת ּקוּן ַר ָ ּבנַן – ְּכ ֵעין‬:‫דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן! ָק ָס ַבר‬ ּ ‫יתא ִּת‬ .‫יקוּן‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ ַ ְּ‫ד‬

The Gemara asks: Does this prove by inference that Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov maintains that eating matza nowadays applies by Torah law? But isn’t Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov the one who said that eating matza nowadays applies by rabbinic law? Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov apparently contradicts himself. The Gemara answers: Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov maintains that everything the Sages instituted through their decrees, they instituted similar to the model established by Torah law. In other words, although the obligations to eat matza and recite the Haggadah are rabbinic, the stringencies and restrictions that apply to Torah mitzvot apply here as well. Therefore, a blind person is exempt from reciting the Haggadah.

‫ ָהא וַ דַּ אי‬,‫יֹוסף נַ ִמי‬ ֵ ‫ ְל ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת ו ְּל ַרב‬The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rav Sheshet and ‫יתא‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ ַ ְּ‫ ּכֹל ְד ַת ּק ּון ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ְּכ ֵעין ד‬Rav Yosef too, certainly everything the Sages instituted through ּ ‫ ִּת‬their decrees, they instituted similar to the model established by !‫יקוּן‬ Torah law. Why, then, did these blind Sages recite the Haggadah themselves? ‫ ִמדַּ ֲהוָ ה‬,‫ָה ִכי ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא! ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ָה ָתם‬ ‫״בנֵ נ ּו הוּא״ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬ ּ ְ ‫יכ ַּתב‬ ְ ‫יה ְל ִמ‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫״בנֵ נ ּו זֶ ה״ – ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה ּ ְפ ָרט ְלסו ִּמין‬ ְּ ‫א ָבל ָה ָכא – ִאי ָלאו‬.‫א‬ ֲ ‫הוּא דַּ ֲא ָת‬ :‫״ב ֲעב ּור זֶ ה״ ַמאי ִל ְכ ּתֹוב? ֶא ָּלא‬ ַּ .‫ַ ּב ֲעבוּר ַמ ָ ּצה ו ָּמרֹור הוּא דַּ ֲא ָתא‬

The Gemara rejects this difficulty: How can these cases, the verses dealing with rebellious son and the Passover Haggadah, be compared? Granted, there, in the case of the rebellious son, as the verse could have written: He is our son, and instead it is written: “This son of ours,” I can learn from it that the parents must point to a finger to their son, which comes to exclude blind parents. However, here, if the verse did not use the phrase “because of this,” what could it have written in reference to matzot and bitter herbs? Rather, this verse comes because of the matza and bitter herbs. Consequently, there is no need to actually to point with one’s finger in this instance, and therefore the blind are also obligated to recite the Haggadah.

,‫יכךְ ֲאנַ ְחנ ּו ַחּיָ ִיבים״‬ ָ ‫“ל ִפ‬ ְ The mishna states: Therefore we are obligated to thank.

Perek X Daf 117 Amud a notes

Halleluya, kesya, and Yedidya – ‫ה ְללוּיָ ּה ֵּכ ִסיָ ּה וִ ִיד ְידיָ ה‬:ַ In the vocalized text of the Bible, the term halleluya is written as a single word, with one exception. Yedidya is also written as one word, whereas kesya is written as two words, although some authorities say that this too is a single word. The word merĥavya is subject to debate.

:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ .‫ַה ְללוּיָ ּה ְּו ֵכ ִסיָ ּה וִ ִיד ְידיָ ה – ַא ַחת ֵהן‬ .‫ ֵּכסיָ ּה ו ֶּמ ְר ַח ְביָ ה ַא ַחת ֵהן‬:‫ַרב ָא ַמר‬ .‫ ֶמ ְר ַח ְביָ ה ִ ּב ְל ַבד‬:‫ַר ָ ּבה ָא ַמר‬

The mishna states that we will say before Him: Halleluya. The Gemara discusses the meaning of this term. Rav Ĥisda said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The word halleluya and the word kesya (Exodus 17:16) and the name Yedidya (II Samuel 12:25) are each regarded as a single word, not an amalgamation of two smaller words, i.e., Hallelu-ya. Rav said that kesya and merĥavya (Psalms 118:5) are single words. Rabba said: Only merĥavya is a single word; the others are two words.n

‫ ֶמ ְר ַחב יָ ּה ְל ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬:ּ‫יב ֲעיָ א ְלהו‬ ּ ַ ‫ ִא‬A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the opinion .ּ‫ ַמאי? ֵּתיקו‬of Rav Ĥisda, what is the status of merĥavya? Is it counted as two words or one? This dilemma was raised because Rav Ĥisda himself did not mention this term. No answer was found for this dilemma, and therefore the Gemara states: Let it stand unresolved.

276 

Perek X . 117a . ‫זיק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳י‬

?‫ יְ ִד ְידיָ ה ְל ַרב ַמאי‬:‫יב ֲעיָ א ְלה ּו‬ ּ ַ ‫ִא‬ ‫ יְ ִד ְידיָ ה נֶ ְח ָלק‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב‬,‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ‫ ״יָ ּה״‬,‫ ״יְ ִדיד״ – חֹול‬: ְ‫יכך‬ ָ ‫ ְל ִפ‬,‫ִל ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬ .‫קֹוד ׁש‬ ֶ

Another dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the opinion of Rav, what is the status of the name Yedidya? The Gemara answers: Come and hear, as Rav said explicitly: Yedidya is divided into two separate names. Therefore, yedid is a mundane word, whereas ya is a sacred name, which must be treated respectfully like the other sacred names of God.

‫ּיָה ְל ַרב ַמאי? ָּתא‬ ּ ַ ‫ִא‬ ּ ‫ ַה ְללו‬:ּ‫יב ֲעיָא ְלהו‬ ֵּ ‫ ָחזֵ ינָ א ִּת‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב‬,‫ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ‫ילי דְּ ֵבי‬ ‫״ה ְּללוּ״ ְ ּב ַחד‬ ַ ‫ֲח ִב ָיבא דִּ ְכ ִתיב ְ ּבה ּו‬ .‫יסא‬ ָּ ‫יסא וְ ״יָ ּה״ ְ ּב ַחד ִ ּג‬ ָּ ‫ִ ּג‬

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the opinion of Rav, what is the status of halleluya? Is it one word or two? The Gemara answers: Come and hear, as Rav said: I saw a book of Psalms in the study hall of my uncle, Rabbi Ĥiyya, in which the word hallelu is written on one side, at the end of a line, and ya was written on one side, at the beginning of the next line. This shows that the word halleluya can indeed be split in two.

‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ו ְּפ ִליגָ א דְּ ַר ִ ּבי י‬The Gemara comments: This opinion disputes that of Rabbi ‫ ַמאי ַה ְללוּיָ ּה – ַה ְללוּה ּו‬:‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ י‬Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is .‫ ְ ּב ִהלּ ו ִּלים ַה ְר ֵ ּבה‬the meaning of the word halleluya? It means praise Him [hallelu­ hu] with many praises [hillulim]. According to this opinion, the ya at the end of the word is a superlative, not a divine name. ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ַאדִּ ֵיד‬ ּ ‫ו ְּפ ִליגָ א דִּ ֵיד‬ ‫ ַ ּב ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ַמ ֲא ָמרֹות ׁ ֶשל‬:‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫י‬ ,‫ ְ ּבנִ ּגוּן‬,‫נִיצו ַּח‬ ּ ‫ ְ ּב‬:‫ׁ ֶש ַבח נֶ ֱא ַמר ֵס ֶפר ְּת ִה ִּלים‬ ,‫ ְ ּב ַא ׁ ְש ֵרי‬,‫ ְ ּב ׁ ִשיר‬,‫ ְ ּב ִמזְ מֹור‬,‫ְ ּב ַמ ְ ׂש ִּכיל‬ .‫ ְ ּב ַה ְללוּיָ ּה‬,‫הֹוד ָאה‬ ָ ‫ ְ ּב‬,‫ ִ ּב ְת ִפ ָּלה‬,‫ִ ּב ְת ִה ָּלה‬ ‫ ׁ ֶש ּכ ֵֹולל ׁ ֵשם וָ ׁ ֶש ָבח‬,‫ָ ּגדֹול ִמ ּכו ָּּלן ַה ְללוּיָ ּה‬ .‫ְ ּב ַבת ַא ַחת‬

The Gemara adds: This statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi disagrees with another ruling that he himself  n issued, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The book of Psalms is said by means of ten expressions of praise: By nitzuaĥ, niggun, maskil, mizmor, shir, ashrei, tehilla, tefilla, hoda’a, and halleluya. He continues: The greatest of them all is halleluya, as it includes God’s name and praise at one time. This statement indicates that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi considers halleluya to be a combination of two words, one of which is the name of God.

‫ ׁ ִשיר‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה – מ ׁ ֶֹשה וְ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ֲא ָמרוּה ּו‬ ‫ וְ ַה ֵּלל זֶ ה ִמי‬.‫ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש ָעל ּו ִמן ַהּיָ ם‬ ‫ינֵיהן ִּת ְּקנ ּו ָל ֶהן‬ ֶ ‫יאים ׁ ֶש ֵ ּב‬ ִ ‫ֲא ָמרֹו? נְ ִב‬ ‫אֹומ ִרין אֹותֹו ַעל ָּכל‬ ְ ‫ ׁ ֶשּיְ ה ּו‬,‫ְליִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ּ ֶפ ֶרק ו ֶּפ ֶרק וְ ַעל ָּכל ָצ ָרה וְ ָצ ָרה ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ָּתבֹא‬ ‫אֹומ ִרים אֹותֹו ַעל‬ ְ ‫ וְ ִל ְכ ׁ ֶש ִּנגְ ָא ִלין‬,‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ֲע ֵל‬ .‫ְ ּגאו ָּּל ָתן‬

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The song in the Torah, i.e., the Song at the Sea (Exodus 15:1–19), Moses and the Jewish people recited it when they ascended from the sea. The Gemara asks: And who said this hallel mentioned in the mishna, Psalms 113–118? The Gemara answers: The Prophets among them established this hallel for the Jewish people, that they should recite it on every appropriate occasion; and for every trouble, may it not come upon them, they recite the supplications included in hallel. When they are redeemed, they recite it over their redemption, as hallel includes expressions of gratitude for the redemption.

‫ ָּכל‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ָה יָ ה ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִא יר‬:‫ַּתנְ יָ א‬ ‫ּתו ׁ ְּש ָ ּבחֹות ָה ֲאמוּרֹות ְ ּב ֵס ֶפר ְּת ִה ִּלים ֻּכ ָּלן‬ ‫״כל ּו ְת ִפלּ ֹות דָּ וִ ד ֶ ּבן‬ ָּ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫דָּ וִ ד ֲא ָמ ָרן‬ .‫״כל ֵאלּ וּ״‬ ָּ ‫״כלוּ״ ֶא ָּלא‬ ָּ ‫ ַאל ִּת ְיק ֵרי‬.‫יִ ׁ ָשי״‬

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: All the praises stated in the book of Psalms were recited by David, as it is stated: “The prayers of David, son of Yishai, are ended [kalu]” (Psalms 72:20). Do not read kalu; rather, read kol elu,n all of these, which indicates that the entire book of Psalms consists of the prayers of King David.

,‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ַה ֵּלל זֶ ה ִמי ֲא ָמרֹו? ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ מ ׁ ֶֹשה וְ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵא ל‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ְ ּבנִ י‬ ‫ וַ ֲחלו ִּקין‬,‫ֲא ָמרוּה ּו ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש ָעל ּו ִמן ַהּיָ ם‬ ‫ וְ נִ ְר ִאין‬,‫לֹומר ׁ ָשדָּ וִ ד ֲא ָמרֹו‬ ַ ‫ָע ָליו ֲח ֵב ָיריו‬ ‫ ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ׁ ָש ֲחט ּו‬.‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫דְּ ָב ָריו ִמדִּ ְב ֵר‬ ‫יהן וְ ל ֹא ָא ְמר ּו‬ ֶ ‫נָטל ּו לו ָּל ֵב‬ ְ ְ‫יהן ו‬ ֶ ‫ֶאת ּ ִפ ְס ֵח‬ ?‫ׁ ִש ָירה‬

The Gemara clarifies: According to those who dispute Rabbi Meir’s claim that the entire book of Psalms was composed by King David, who recited this hallel? Rabbi Yosei says: My son Elazar says that Moses and the Jewish people recited it when they ascended from the sea. And his colleagues dispute him, saying that it was recited by King David. And the statement of my son, Elazar, appears more accurate than their statement. The reason is as follows: Is it possible that the Jewish people slaughtered their Paschal lambs and took and waved their lulavim all those generations without reciting a song? Rather, the Jews must have recited a song each year. Since it is the custom to sing hallel nowadays, it is evidently an ancient institution.

notes

Disagrees with himself – ‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ַאדִּ ֵיד‬ ּ ‫ו ְּפ ִליגָ א דִּ ֵיד‬: Several commentaries explain that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi the term halleluya can be written in two different ways, which bear separate meanings. When it is written as one word, it means great praise. However, when halleluya is written as two words, it signifies both a Divine name and praise (Rabbi Elazar Moshe Horowitz). Kalu, kol elu – ‫ ָּכל ֵא ּל ּו‬,ּ‫כלו‬:ָּ According to various traditions, the kamatz vowel, which appears under the letter kaf in the word kalu, is a small kamatz, which indeed makes the word sound similar to kol elu. Stood in tears [bekhi] – ‫עֹומד ְ ּב ֶב ִכי‬: ֵ Some commentaries associate this bekhi with thick smoke or haze, as in the verse: “And they roll upward [veyitavku] in thick clouds of smoke” (Isaiah 9:17). In other words, the smoke from the idolatrous offerings rose as the services proceeded (Rabbi Elazar Moshe Horowitz). All the songs…that David recited – ‫ירֹות…ש ָא ַמר דָּ וִ ד‬ ֶׁ ‫כל ׁ ִש‬:ָּ Some commentaries explain that this is referring only to those Psalms that are not clearly the prayers of an individual or a community (Maharsha). However, everyone agrees that some of the Psalms are David’s personal prayers, while others are stated on behalf of the entire Jewish people.

,‫עֹומד ְ ּב ֶב ִכי‬ ֵ ‫יכה‬ ָ ‫ ּ ִפ ְסלֹו ׁ ֶשל ִמ‬:‫ ָ ּד ָבר ַא ֵחר‬Alternatively, is it possible that Micah’s idol stood in tears,n and !‫אֹומ ִרים ֶאת ַה ַה ֵּלל‬ ְ ‫ וְ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬the Jewish people were reciting hallel before it? The reference is to the idol of Micah, which was still standing in the days of David (see Judges 17). The Gemara states that the idol was crying, as a euphemism for its laughter, to avoid shaming the Jewish people (ge’onim). The point is that the Jews would not have chanted: “They who make them shall be like them” (Psalms 115:8) at a time that they were worshipping idols. Rather, hallel must be older than that, and it dates back to the Song at the Sea. ‫ ָּכל ׁ ִשירֹות וְ תו ׁ ְּש ָ ּבחֹות ׁ ֶש ָא ַמר‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫דָּ וִ ד ְ ּב ֵס ֶפר ְּת ִה ִּלים – ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ַעצְ מֹו ֲא ָמ ָרן; ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ‫ יֵ ׁש‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫יבוּר ֲא ָמ ָרן; וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬ ּ ִ‫ְּכנֶ גֶ ד צ‬ .‫ וְ יֵ ׁש ֵמ ֶהן ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ַעצְ מֹו‬,‫יבוּר‬ ּ ִ‫ֵמ ֶהן ְּכנֶ גֶ ד צ‬ ;‫ָה ֲאמוּרֹות ִ ּב ְל ׁשֹון יָ ִחיד – ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ַעצְ מֹו‬ .‫יבוּר‬ ּ ִ‫ָה ֲאמוּרֹות ִ ּב ְל ׁשֹון ַר ִ ּבים – ְּכנֶ גֶ ד צ‬



The Sages taught in a baraita that with regard to all the songs and praise that David recitedn in the book of Psalms, Rabbi Eliezer says: David said them about himself. They were the praises of an individual that were later transmitted to the community. Rabbi Yehoshua says: He originally said them about the community. He composed all of the psalms for the people, including those he wrote about himself. And the Rabbis say: There are among these psalms some that are about the community, and there are among these psalms some that are about himself. The Rabbis clarify their opinion: The psalms that are stated in the singular form are about himself, and those stated in the plural form are about the community. ‫זיק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 117a 

277

notes

Nitzuaĥ…in the future – ‫…ל ָע ִתיד ָלבֹוא‬ ֶ ‫נִצּ ו ַּח‬: The word nitzuaĥ is derived from netzaĥ, eternity (Maharsha). halakha

The Divine Presence does not rest – ‫אין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ִכינָ ה ׁש ָֹורה‬:ֵ None of the prophets could prophesy at will. Rather, they would meditate in solitude, focus their thoughts, and fill their hearts with joy. By the same token, the prophetic spirit does not rest upon one who is sad or lazy but only upon one filled with joy. Therefore, the novice prophets would play the drums, lyres, flutes, and harps while the prophets sought to prophesy (Rambam Sefer HaMadda, Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah 7:4).

‫נִיצו ַּח וְ נִיגּ וּן – ֶל ָע ִתיד ָלבֹא; ַמ ְ ׂש ִּכיל – ַעל יְ ֵדי‬ ּ ‫ּתו ְּר ְ ּג ָמן; ְל ָדוִ ד ִמזְ מֹור – ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ְר ָתה ָע ָליו‬ – ‫ ִמזְ מֹור ְל ָדוִ ד‬.‫ׁ ְש ִכינָ ה וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ ָא ַמר ׁ ִש ָירה‬ ‫ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ָא ַמר ׁ ִש ָירה וְ ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך ׁ ָש ְר ָתה ָע ָליו‬ .‫ׁ ְש ִכינָ ה‬

The Gemara continues to discuss the book of Psalms. If a psalm begins with the terms nitzuaĥ or niggun, this indicates that its praise will be fulfilled in the future.n Psalms that begin with the word maskil were delivered by means of a disseminator, a spokesman in a public address. The lecturer would speak softly, followed by a repetition of his discourse in the disseminator’s louder voice, so that everyone could hear. If a psalm begins: Of David a psalm, this teaches that the Divine Presence rested upon him first and afterward he recited the song. However, if a psalm opens with: A psalm of David, this teaches that he first recited the song, and afterward the Divine Presence rested upon him.

‫ֹוך‬ ְ ‫ְל ַל ֶּמ ְדךָ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ִכינָ ה ׁש ָֹורה ל ֹא ִמ ּת‬ ,‫ וְ ל ֹא ִמ ּתֹוךְ ְ ׂשחֹוק‬,‫ וְ ל ֹא ִמ ּתֹוךְ ַעצְ בוּת‬,‫ַעצְ לוּת‬ ‫ֹוך דְּ ָב ִרים‬ ְ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ִמ ּת‬,‫ֹאש‬ ׁ ‫ֹוך ַקלוּת ר‬ ְ ‫וְ ל ֹא ִמ ּת‬ ,‫ ֶא ָּלא ִמ ּתֹוךְ דְּ ַבר ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה ׁ ֶשל ִמצְ וָ ה‬,‫ְ ּב ֵט ִלים‬ ‫ ״וְ ַע ָּתה ְקח ּו ִלי ְמנַ ֵ ּגן וְ ָהיָ ה ְּכנַ ֵ ּגן ַה ְמנַ ֵ ּגן‬:‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ .‫וַ ְּת ִהי ָע ָליו יַ ד ה׳״‬

The Gemara adds: Incidentally, this serves to teach you that the Divine Presence rests upon an individual neither from an atmosphere of sadness, nor from an atmosphere of laziness, nor from an atmosphere of laughter, nor from an atmosphere of frivolity, nor from an atmosphere of idle conversation, nor from an atmosphere of idle chatter,h but rather from an atmosphere imbued with the joy of a mitzva. As it is stated with regard to Elisha, after he became angry at the king of Israel, his prophetic spirit left him until he requested: “But now bring me a minstrel; and it came to pass when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him” (II Kings 3:15).

.‫ וְ ֵכן ִל ְד ַבר ֲה ָל ָכה‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַרב‬Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: And, so too, one should be joyful .‫ וְ ֵכן ַל ֲחלֹום טֹוב‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬before stating a matter of halakha. Rav Naĥman said: And, so too, one should be joyful before going to sleep, to ensure he will have a good dream. ‫ ָּכל ַּת ְל ִמיד‬:‫ִאינִי? וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַרב ִ ּגידֵּ ל ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ‫נֹוטפֹות‬ ְ ‫תֹותיו‬ ָ ‫ּיֹושב ִל ְפנֵי ַר ּבֹו וְ ֵאין ִ ׂש ְפ‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ָח ָכם ַה‬ ‫ֹוש ּנִים‬ ַ ׁ ‫תֹותיו ׁש‬ ָ ‫״ש ְפ‬ ׂ ִ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫מֹר – ִת ָּכוֶ ינָ ה‬ – ‫ֹוש ּנִים״‬ ַ ׁ ‫״ש‬ ׁ ‫ ַאל ִּת ְק ֵרי‬.‫עֹובר״‬ ֵ ‫נֹוטפֹות מֹור‬ ְ ‫עֹובר״ ֶא ָּלא‬ ֵ ‫״ש ׁ ּשֹונִים״; ַאל ִּת ְק ֵרי ״מֹור‬ ֶ ׁ ‫ֶא ָּלא‬ !‫״מר ע ֵֹבר״‬ ַ

The Gemara asks: Is that so, that one should introduce matters of halakha joyfully? Didn’t Rav Giddel say that Rav said: Any Torah scholar who sits before his teacher and his lips are not dripping with bitterness due to fear of his teacher, those lips shall be burned, as it is stated: “His lips are as lilies [shoshanim] dripping with flowing myrrh [notefot mor over]” (Song of Songs 5:13). He interpreted homiletically: Do not read it as shoshanim, lilies; rather, read it as sheshonim, who are studying. Likewise, do not read it as mor over, flowing myrrh; rather, read it as mar over, flowing bitterness. In other words, lips that are studying Torah must be full of bitterness.

.‫ ָהא – ְ ּב ַת ְל ִמ ָידא‬,‫ ָהא – ְ ּב ַר ָ ּבה‬,‫ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬The Gemara explains: This is not difficult; there is no contradiction here, as this statement, which teaches that one should introduce matters of halakha joyfully, is referring to a rabbi, and that statement, which teaches that one must be filled with bitterness, is referring to a student, who must listen to his teacher with trepidation.

278 

Perek X . 117a . ‫זיק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳י‬

:‫ וְ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָא‬,‫ ָהא וְ ָהא ְ ּב ַר ָ ּבה‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫וְ ִאי ָ ּב ֵעית ֵא‬ .‫ וְ ָהא – ְל ָב ַתר דְּ ָפ ַתח‬,‫ָהא – ִמ ַ ּק ֵּמי דְּ ָפ ַתח‬ ‫ִּכי ָהא דְּ ַר ָ ּבה ִמ ַ ּק ֵּמי דְּ ָפ ַתח ְלה ּו ְל ַר ָ ּבנַן ֲא ַמר‬ ‫ ו ְּל ַב ּסֹוף יְ ֵתיב‬.‫ ו ָּב ְדח ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬,‫ִמ ְּיל ָתא דִּ ְב ִדיחו ָּתא‬ .‫ ו ְּפ ַתח ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ָתא‬,‫ימ ָתא‬ ָ ‫ְ ּב ֵא‬

And if you wish, say instead that this and that are referring to a rabbi, and it is not difficult. This statement, where it is taught that one must be joyful, is before one begins teaching; that statement, where it is taught that he must be filled with bitterness and trepidation, is after he already began teaching halakha. The Gemara adds: That explanation is like that practice of Rabba’s. Before he began teaching halakha to the Sages, he would say some humorous comment, and the Sages would be cheered. Ultimately, he sat in trepidation and began teaching the halakha.

‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ַה ֵּלל זֶ ה ִמי ֲא ָמרֹו? ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ ‫מ ׁ ֶֹשה וְ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ֲא ָמרוּה ּו ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש ָע ְמד ּו‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ,‫ ״ל ֹא ָלנ ּו ה׳ ל ֹא ָלנוּ״‬:ּ‫ ֵהם ָא ְמרו‬.‫ַעל ַהּיָ ם‬ ‫״ל ַמ ֲענִי‬ ְ :‫ְמ ׁ ִש ָיבה רו ַּח ַה ּק ֶֹוד ׁש וְ ָא ְמ ָרה ָל ֶהן‬ ‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ י‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ְל ַמ ֲענִי ֶא ֱע ֶ ׂשה״‬ ‫יהן ַמ ְל ֵכי‬ ֶ ‫וְ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ֲא ָמרוּה ּו ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש ָע ְמד ּו ֲע ֵל‬ .‫ ו ְּמ ׁ ִש ָיבה וכו׳‬,‫ ״ל ֹא ָלנוּ״‬:ּ‫ ֵהם ָא ְמרו‬.‫נַען‬ ַ ‫ְכ‬

The Sages taught: This hallel, who initially recited it? Rabbi Eliezer says: Moses and the Jewish people recited it when they stood by the sea. They said: “Not to us, God, not to us, but to Your name give glory” (Psalms 115:1). The Divine Spirit responded and said to them: “For My own sake, for My own sake, will I do it” (Isaiah 48:11). Rabbi Yehuda says: Joshua and the Jewish people recited it when they defeated the kings of Canaan who stood against them (see Joshua 12:7–24). They said: Not to us, and the Divine Spirit responded: For My own sake.

‫בֹורה ו ָּב ָרק‬ ָ ְּ‫ ד‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ַה ּמ ָֹוד ִעי‬ .‫יס ָרא‬ ְ ‫יהם ִס‬ ֶ ‫ֲא ָמרוּה ּו ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש ָע ַמד ֲע ֵל‬ ‫ ״ל ֹא ָלנוּ״ וְ רו ַּח ַה ּק ֶֹוד ׁש ְמ ׁ ִש ָיבה‬:ּ‫ֵהם ָא ְמרו‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫״ל ַמ ֲענִי ְל ַמ ֲענִי ֶא ֱע ֶ ׂשה״‬ ְ ‫אֹומ ֶרת ָל ֶהם‬ ֶ ְ‫ו‬ ‫ייעתֹו‬ ָ ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיָ ה וְ ִס‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן ֲעזַ ְריָ ה‬ ‫ ֵהם‬.‫יהם ַסנְ ֵח ִריב‬ ֶ ‫ ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש ָע ַמד ֲע ֵל‬,ּ‫ֲא ָמרוּהו‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬.‫ ״ל ֹא ָלנוּ״ ו ְּמ ׁ ִש ָיבה וכו׳‬:ּ‫ָא ְמרו‬ ‫יש ֵאל וַ ֲעזַ ְריָה ֲא ָמרוּה ּו ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ֲחנַ נְיָה ִמ‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ :ּ‫ ֵהם ָא ְמרו‬.‫נֶצר ָה ָר ׁ ָשע‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ֶש ָע ַמד ֲע ֵל‬ ּ ַ ‫יהם נְ בו ַּכ ְד‬ ‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫״ל ֹא ָלנוּ״ ו ְּמ ׁ ִש ָיבה וכו׳‬ ‫ ָמ ְרדְּ ַכי וְ ֶא ְס ֵּתר ֲא ָמרוּה ּו ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש ָע ַמד‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ״ל ֹא ָלנוּ״‬:ּ‫ ֵהם ָא ְמרו‬.‫יהם ָה ָמן ָה ָר ׁ ָשע‬ ֶ ‫ֲע ֵל‬ .‫ו ְּמ ׁ ִש ָיבה וכו׳‬

Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i says: Deborah and Barak recited it when Sisera stood against them (see Judges 4–5). They said: Not to us, and the Divine Spirit responded and said to them: For My own sake, for My own sake, will I do it. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: Hezekiah and his company recited it when Sennacherib stood against them (see II Kings 18–19).b They said: Not to us and the Divine Spirit responded: For My own sake. Rabbi Akiva says: Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah recited it when the wicked Nebuchadnezzar stood against them (see Daniel 3). They said: Not to us, and the Divine Spirit responded: For My own sake. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: Mordecai and Esther recited it when the wicked Haman stood against them. They said: Not to us, and the Divine Spirit responded: For My own sake (see the book of Esther).

ְּ ‫ינֵיהן ִּת‬ ‫יקנ ּו‬ ֶ ‫יאים ׁ ֶש ֵ ּב‬ ִ ‫ נְ ִב‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬ ‫אֹומ ִרים אֹותֹו ַעל ָּכל‬ ְ ‫ָל ֶהם ְליִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ׁ ֶשּיְ ה ּו‬ ‫ וְ ַעל ָּכל ָצ ָרה וְ ָצ ָרה ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ָּתבֹא‬,‫ּ ֶפ ֶרק ו ֶּפ ֶרק‬ ‫אֹומ ִרים אֹותֹו‬ ְ ‫ וְ ִל ְכ ׁ ֶש ִּנגְ ָא ִלין‬,‫ֲע ֵל ֶיהם ְליִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ .‫ַעל גְ או ָּּל ָתן‬

And the Rabbis say that hallel was not established for any specific event, but the Prophets among them instituted that the Jewish people should recite it on every appropriate occasion, and for every trouble, may it not come upon the Jewish people. When they are redeemed, they recite it over their redemption.

‫ ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר‬.‫ּיָה סֹוף ּ ִפ ְיר ָקא‬ ּ ‫ ַה ְללו‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬.‫ ַה ְללוּיָ ּה ֵר ׁיש ּ ִפ ְיר ָקא‬:‫ַרב הוּנָ א ָא ַמר‬ ,‫ ָחזֵ ינָ א ְלה ּו ְל ִת ֵּילי דְּ ֵבי ַרב ָחנִין ַ ּבר ַרב‬:‫ִח ְסדָּ א‬ :‫ ַא ְל ָמא‬.‫ּיָה ְ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע ּ ִפ ְיר ָקא‬ ּ ‫דִּ ְכ ִתיב ְ ּבה ּו ַה ְללו‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫ִמ ַּס ּ ְפ ָקא ֵל‬

The Gemara continues to discuss the term halleluya. Rav Ĥisda said: The halleluya stated in the final verse in several Psalms signifies the end of a chapter. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Halleluya marks the start of a new chapter, the beginning of the next psalm. Rav Ĥisda said: I saw a book of Psalms in the study hall of Rav Ĥanin bar Rav, in which it is written halleluya in the middle of the chapter, i.e., between the chapters, neither at the start of one psalm nor at the end of the next. Apparently, Rav Ĥanin bar Rav was uncertain where the word belonged.

‫״ת ִה ַּלת‬ ְּ ‫מֹודים ִ ּב‬ ִ ‫ ַה ּכֹל‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ָחנִין ַ ּבר ָר ָבא‬ ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ה׳ יְ ַד ֶ ּבר ּ ִפי וִ ָיב ֵרךְ ָּכל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ׁ ֵשם ָק ְד ׁשֹו ְל‬ .‫יה ֵר ׁיש ּ ִפ ְיר ָקא‬ ַ ‫וָ ֶעד״‬ ּ ‫ּיָה דְּ ַב ְת ֵר‬ ּ ‫ּיָה) ַה ְללו‬ ּ ‫(ה ְללו‬ ‫ָ״ר ׁ ָשע יִ ְר ֶאה וְ ָכ ַעס ׁ ִש ּנָיו יַ ֲחרֹק וְ נָ ָמס ַּת ֲאוַ ת‬ ‫יה ֵר ׁיש‬ ֵ ‫ְר ׁ ָש ִעים ּת‬ ּ ‫ ַה ְלל ּויָ ּה דְּ ַב ְת ֵר‬,‫ֹאבד״‬ ‫עֹומ ִדים ְ ּב ֵבית ה׳״ ַה ְלל ּויָ ּה‬ ְ ‫״ש‬ ֶ ׁ ְ‫ ו‬.‫ּ ִפ ְיר ָקא‬ .‫יה ֵר ׁיש ּ ִפ ְיר ָקא‬ ּ ‫דְּ ַב ְת ֵר‬

Rav Ĥanin bar Rava said: Everyone concedes with regard to the verse: “My mouth shall speak the praise of the Lord; and let all flesh bless His holy name forever and ever” (Psalms 145:21), that the halleluya that follows, the opening word of the subsequent psalm, marks the start of the next chapter,n not the conclusion of the previous one. Likewise, with regard to the verse: “The wicked shall see and be vexed; he shall gnash with his teeth, and melt away; the desire of the wicked shall perish” (Psalms 112:10), the halleluya that follows it, is the start of the next chapter. And similarly, with regard to: “You who stand in the house of the Lord”n (Psalms 135:2) the halleluya that follows it, in verse 3, signifies the start of the next chapter.

‫״מ ַּנ ַחל ַ ּבדֶּ ֶר ְך‬ ִ :ּ‫יפין ַאף ֶאת ֵא ּלו‬ ִ ‫מֹוס‬ ִ ‫ָק ָר ֵאי‬ ‫יה‬ ׁ ‫יִ ׁ ְש ֶּתה ַעל ֵּכן יָ ִרים ר‬ ּ ‫ֹאש״ ַה ְללוּיָ ּה דְּ ַב ְת ֵר‬ ‫אשית ָח ְכ ָמה יִ ְר ַאת ה׳ ֵ ׂש ֶכל‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ֵ״ר‬.‫ֵר ׁיש ּ ִפ ְיר ָקא‬ ‫יה ֵר ׁיש‬ ֶ ‫עֹוש‬ ׂ ֵ ‫טֹוב ְל ָכל‬ ּ ‫יהם״ ַה ְללוּיָ ּה דְּ ַב ְת ֵר‬ .‫ּ ִפ ְיר ָקא‬

Those Sages who were expert in the verses of the Bible add these too: “He will drink of the brook in the way; therefore will he lift up the head” (Psalms 110:7); the halleluya that follows it, the first word of the subsequent psalm, is the start of the next chapter. With regard to the verse: “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have all they who practice them; His praise endures for ever” (Psalms 111:10), the halleluya that follows it, marks the start of the next chapter.

‫אֹומר? ֵ ּבית‬ ֵ ‫יכן הוּא‬ ָ ‫ ַעד ֵה‬:‫נֵימא ְּכ ַת ָּנ ֵאי‬ ָ ,‫״אם ַה ָ ּבנִים ְ ׂש ֵמ ָחה״‬ ֵ ‫ ַעד‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬ ‫״ח ָּל ִמ ׁיש ְל ַמ ְעיְ נֹו‬ ַ ‫ ַעד‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל‬ ?‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יכן הוּא‬ ָ ‫ ַעד ֵה‬:‫ וְ ַתנְ יָ א ִא ָיד ְך‬.‫ָמיִ ם״‬ ‫״בצֵ את יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ּ ְ ‫ ַעד‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬ ‫ ַעד ״ל ֹא ָלנ ּו‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל‬,‫ִמ ִּמצְ ָריִ ם״‬ .‫ה׳ ל ֹא ָלנוּ״‬

The Gemara suggests: Let us say it is parallel to a dispute between the tanna’im, as we learned in the mishna: Until where does one recite hallel? Beit Shammai say: Until “A joyful mother of children, halleluya” (Psalms 113:9). And Beit Hillel say: Until “The flint into a fountain of waters” (Psalms 114:8). And it was taught in another source, a baraita: Until where does one recite hallel? Beit Shammai say: Until “When Israel came forth out of Egypt” (Psalms 114:1), the beginning of the first passage after “A joyful mother of children, halleluya.” And Beit Hillel say: Until “Not to us, God, not to us” (Psalms 115:1), which follows “the flint into a fountain of waters.”



background

When Sennacherib stood against them – ‫ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש ָע ַמד‬ ‫יהם ַסנְ ֵח ִריב‬ ֶ ‫ע ֵל‬:ֲ The image depicts the remains of the wall built by Hezekiah as part of the fortification of Jerusalem against Sennacherib.

Broad wall notes

The halleluya that follows it marks the start of the next chapter – ‫יה ֵר ׁיש ּ ִפ ְיר ָקא‬ ּ ‫ּיָה דְּ ַב ְת ֵר‬ ּ ‫ה ְללו‬:ַ This rule is correct for all the examples quoted from Psalms. One reason for this is that it is unfitting for verses that describe tragedy and destruction to end with the term halleluya (Maharsha). You who stand in the house of the Lord – ‫עֹומ ִדים‬ ְ ‫ׁ ֶש‬ ‫ב ֵבית ה׳‬:ּ ְ Tosafot are puzzled by the reference to a halleluya that follows this phrase, as the word halleluya does not appear immediately afterward, but in the subsequent verse. Some commentaries read: The halleluya that follows it is the start of the next verse, rather than the next chapter (Rav Ya’akov Emden). Other commentaries explain that the first two verses of Psalm 135 actually belong to the previous psalm, and that this psalm begins with verse 3 (Melo HaRo’im; Rav Shmuel Strashun).

‫זיק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 117a 

279

Perek X Daf 117 Amud b notes

Let him say halleluya of a joyful mother of children – ‫ּיָה ׁ ֶשל ֵאם ַה ָ ּבנִים ְ ׂש ֵמ ָחה‬ ָ ְ‫ו‬: Several resolutions have ּ ‫נֵימא ַה ְללו‬ been suggested for these two questions. Some commentaries explain that had the tanna stated that this part of hallel is recited up to the halleluya of “A joyful mother of children,” one might mistakenly think he meant up to but not including the word halleluya, from which it could be inferred that halleluya signifies the beginning of a paragraph. The second question can be answered in a similar fashion (Rabbi David Pardo). Shabbat and the exodus from Egypt – ‫יאת‬ ַ ִ‫ׁ ַש ָ ּבת וִ יצ‬ ‫מצְ ַריִ ם‬:ִ Several commentaries explain that Moses established a day of rest for the Jewish people in Egypt, which is why slavery is mentioned in connection to Shabbat (Deuteronomy 5:15), in remembrance of the oppression of that time. In addition, the Exodus is mentioned in the kiddush of Shabbat because Shabbat is listed in the Torah as one of the Festivals (Rav Shmuel Strashun). The Me’iri explains that Shabbat and Egypt both reflect the power of God and His providence over the world. halakha

The versions of the prayers – ‫נֻסחֹות ַה ְּת ִפ ָּלה‬: ְ The prayer book follows the rulings of the Gemara here. In Shema and hallel, the prayer concludes: Who redeemed Israel. The blessing in the weekday Amida prayer concludes: Who redeems Israel. For kiddush, the formula is: Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us, whereas in the Festival Amida the phrase is: You sanctified us with Your mitzvot.

‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר‬:‫ַמאי ָלאו ְ ּב ָהא ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬ ‫ּיָה‬ ֵ ‫ַעד‬ ּ ‫״אם ַה ָ ּבנִים ְ ׂש ֵמ ָחה״ ָס ַבר ַה ְללו‬ ‫״עד ְ ּבצֵ את‬ ַ ‫ ו ַּמאן דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ֵר ׁיש ּ ִפ ְיר ָקא‬ !‫ּיָה סֹוף ּ ִפ ְיר ָקא‬ ְׂ ּ ‫יִש ָר ֵאל״ – ָס ַבר ַה ְללו‬

What, is it not the case that the mishna and the baraita disagree concerning the following matter: According to the one who says that one must recite until “A joyful mother of children,” he maintains that the subsequent halleluya is the start of a chapter. And the one who said that one must recite until “When Israel came forth” maintains that halleluya is the end of the previous chapter. The mishna and the baraita disagree only with regard to when the word halleluya should be recited, at this point in the seder or when hallel is resumed after the meal.

‫ דְּ כו ֵּּלי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א ְמ ָת ֵרץ ְל ַט ֲע ֵמ‬ .‫ָע ְל ָמא ָס ְב ִרי ַה ְללוּיָ ּה סֹוף ּ ִפ ְיר ָקא‬ – ‫״בצֵ את יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״‬ ּ ְ ‫ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ַעד‬ ‫״אם ַה ָ ּבנִים‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר; ו ַּמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ַעד‬ .‫ְ ׂש ֵמ ָחה״ – ַעד וְ ַעד ִ ּב ְכ ָלל‬

The Gemara rejects this contention: This is no proof, as Rav Ĥisda explains the difference between the mishna and the baraita in accordance with his reasoning, that everyone maintains that halle­ luya marks the end of a chapter. However, the one who said that one must recite until “When Israel came forth” spoke well, as he cites the beginning of the next verse. And the one who said that one must recite until “A joyful mother of children” means until and including, i.e., one finishes the entire verse including the word halleluya.

‫ימא דְּ ָלא‬ ָ ‫נֵימא ַעד ַה ְללוּיָ ּה! וְ ִכי ֵּת‬ ָ ְ‫ ו‬The Gemara asks: If so, let the tanna say: Until halleluya. And if you ‫ ַה ְללוּיָ ּה‬:‫נֵימא‬ ָ ְ‫ יָ ְד ִעינַן ֵהי ַה ְללוּיָ ּה – ו‬say that we would not know which halleluya he meant, let the tanna n .‫״אם ַה ָ ּבנִים ְ ׂש ֵמ ָחה״! ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ ֵ ‫ ׁ ֶשל‬say: The halleluya of “A joyful mother of children.” The Gemara comments: This is indeed difficult for the opinion of Rav Ĥisda. :‫יה‬ ּ ‫ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַרב הוּנָ א ְמ ָת ֵרץ ְל ַט ֲע ֵמ‬ .‫דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ַה ְללוּיָ ּה ֵר ׁיש ּ ִפ ְיר ָקא‬ ‫״א ם ַה ָ ּב נִ ים‬ ֵ ‫ַמ אן דְּ ָא ַמ ר ַעד‬ ‫ ו ַּמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ַעד‬.‫ְ ׂש ֵמ ָחה״ – ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר‬ ‫ ַעד וְ ל ֹא ַעד‬:‫״בצֵ את יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״ – ָס ַבר‬ ְּ .‫ִ ּב ְכ ָלל‬

Likewise, Rabba bar Rav Huna explains the difference between the mishna and the baraita in accordance with his reasoning, that everyone agrees that halleluya signifies the start of a chapter. The one who said that one must recite until “A joyful mother of children” spoke well, and the one who said that one must recite until “When Israel came forth” maintains that the term means until and not including, as one does not conclude with the word halleluya after “A joyful mother of children.”

‫ימא דְּ ָלא‬ ָ ‫נֵימא ַעד ַה ְללוּיָ ּה! וְ ִכי ֵּת‬ ָ ְ‫ ו‬The Gemara asks a similar question with regard to the opinion of ‫ ַעד‬:‫נֵימא‬ ָ ְ‫ יָ ְד ִעינַ ן ֵהי ַה ְלל ּויָ ּה – ו‬Rabba bar Rav Huna: If so, let the tanna say: Until halleluya. And if .‫ ַה ְללוּיָ ּה ׁ ֶש ְ ּבצֵ את יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״! ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬you say that we would not know which halleluya he meant, let the tanna say: The halleluya of “When Israel came forth.” The Gemara comments: This is indeed difficult for Rabba bar Rav Huna’s opinion.

280 

Perek X . 117b . ‫זיק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳י‬

:‫ ָא ַמ ר ָר ָבא‬.‫חֹותם ִ ּב גְ א ּו ָּל ה״‬ ֵ ְ‫״ו‬ ;‫יאת ׁ ְש ַמע וְ ַה ֵּלל – ״ ָ ּג ַאל יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״‬ ַ ‫ְק ִר‬ ‫ ַמאי‬.‫ֹואל יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״‬ ֵ ּ‫לֹותא – ״ג‬ ָ ְ‫דִּ צ‬ .ּ‫ַט ְע ָמא – דְּ ַר ֲח ֵמי נִינְ הו‬

And the mishna stated that one concludes this section of hallel with a blessing that refers to redemption. With regard to the dispute over how to conclude the blessing, Rava said: For the recitation of Shema and hallel on Passover, the wording of the final blessing is: Who redeemed Israel, in the past tense, whereas the seventh blessing of the weekday Amida prayer concludes with: Who redeems Israel, in the present tense. What is the reason for this difference? Prayer is a supplication for mercy and therefore one mentions and requests the anticipated redemption in his prayers.h

‫״א ׁ ֶשר‬ ֲ – ‫ דְּ ִקידּ ו ׁ ָּשא‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬ – ‫לֹותא‬ ָ ְ‫ דִּ צ‬,‫ִקדְּ ׁ ָשנ ּו ְ ּב ִמצְ ו ָֹתיו וְ צִ ָּונוּ״‬ – ‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬.‫�ֹותיךָ ״‬ ֶ ְ‫״קדְּ ׁ ֵשנ ּו ְ ּב ִמצ‬ ַ .ּ‫דְּ ַר ֲח ֵמי נִינְ הו‬

Likewise, Rabbi Zeira said: The formula of kiddush is: Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us, in the past tense. In contrast, the formula in the Amida prayer is: Sanctify us with Your mitzvot, in the future tense. What is the reason for this difference? Prayer is a supplication for mercy, and one submits a request for the future.

‫יך‬ ְ ‫ וְ צָ ִר‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ָחא ַ ּבר יַ ֲעקֹב‬ .‫יאת ִמצְ ַריִ ם ְ ּב ִקידּ ו ּׁש ַהּיֹום‬ ַ ִ‫ׁ ֶשּיַ זְ ִּכיר יְ צ‬ ,‫״ל ַמ ַען ִּתזְ ּכֹור ֶאת יֹום״‬ ְ :‫ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָכא‬ ‫ ״זָ כֹור ֶאת יֹום ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬:‫ו ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָתם‬ .‫ְל ַקדְּ ׁשֹו״‬

Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov said: And one must mention the exodus from Egypt in the daytime kiddush of Shabbat, despite the fact that Shabbat is not directly connected to the Exodus. The proof is that here, with regard to Passover, it is written: “That you may remember the day when you came out of the land of Egypt all the days of your life” (Deuteronomy 16:3); and it is written there, with regard to Shabbat: “Remember the Shabbat day to sanctify it” (Exodus 20:7). By means of a verbal analogy of the word “day,” these verses teach that one must also recall the Exodus on Shabbat.n

‫״מצְ ִמ ַיח ֶק ֶרן‬ ַ ‫לֹותא‬ ָ ְ‫ דִּ צ‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ׁ ֵש ָילא‬The Gemara discusses the formulas of other prayers. Rabba .‫״מגֵ ן דָּ וִ ד״‬ ָ ‫ יְ ׁשו ָּעה״; דְּ ַא ְפ ַט ְר ָּתא‬bar Sheila said: The prayer that describes the future resto­ ration of the kingship of Israel concludes with: He Who causes the horn of salvation to flourish, while the blessing recited after the haftara, the portion read from the Prophets, concludes with: Shield of David.n ‫דֹולים״ – ָּתנֵי ַרב‬ ִ ‫יתי ְּלךָ ׁ ֵשם ָ ּגדֹול ְּכ ׁ ֵשם ַה ְ ּג‬ ִ ‫ ״וְ ָע ִ ׂש‬Incidentally, the Gemara cites the promise God issued to David through Nathan the Prophet: “And I will make you a .‫״מגֵ ן דָּ וִ ד״‬ ָ ‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ זֶ ה ּו ׁ ֶש‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ great name, like the names of the great ones in the earth” (II Samuel 7:9). Rav Yosef teaches: This is the meaning of the phrase “like the names of the great ones,” that Jews will say: Shield of David, just as they say: Shield of Avraham. – ‫ ״וְ ֶא ֶע ְ ׂשךָ ְלגֹוי ָ ּגדֹול״‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬ ‫אֹומ ִרים ֱאל ֵֹהי ַא ְב ָר ָהם; ״וַ ֲא ָב ֶר ְכךָ ״ – זֶ ה ּו‬ ְ ‫זֶ ה ּו ׁ ֶש‬ ‫אֹומ ִרים ֱאל ֵֹהי יִ צְ ָחק; ״וַ ֲאגַ דְּ ָלה ׁ ְש ֶמךָ ״ – זֶ ה ּו‬ ְ ‫ׁ ֶש‬ .‫אֹומ ִרים ֱאל ֵֹהי יַ ֲעקֹב‬ ְ ‫ׁ ֶש‬

notes

The prayer He Who causes the horn of salvation to flourish; after the haftara, Shield of David – ‫לֹותא‬ ָ ְ‫דִּ צ‬ ‫מצְ ִמ ַיח ֶק ֶרן ׁיְשו ָּעה; דְּ ַא ְפ ַט ְר ָּתא ָמגֵ ן דָּ וִ ד‬:ַ Some commentaries explain that no requests are submitted invoking King David’s merit. Rather, the blessing in the Amida is an anticipation of salvation. The haftara blessing is not a prayer but rather the fulfillment of God’s promise to David: “I will you a great name” (II Samuel 7:9; Maharsha). Background

Elders of Pumbedita – ‫ס ֵבי דְּ פו ְּמ ְ ּב ִד ָיתא‬:ָ

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said with regard to God’s blessing of Avraham: “And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing,” (Genesis 12:2). “And I will make of you a great nation”; this is fulfilled in the opening of the first blessing of the Amida, as Jews say: God of Abraham. “And I will bless you”; this is fulfilled when they say: God of Isaac, as it is a blessing for a father when the name of his son is eternalized. “And I will make your name great”; this is fulfilled when they say: God of Jacob.

‫ ״וֶ ְהיֵ ה‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫חֹות ִמין ְ ּבכו ָּּלן – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ְ ‫ יָ כֹול יְ ה ּו‬One might have thought that Jews should conclude the first .‫חֹות ִמין ְ ּבכו ָּּלן‬ ְ ‫ וְ ֵאין‬,‫חֹות ִמין‬ ְ ָ‫ ְ ּב ָר ָכה״ – ְ ּבך‬blessing of the Amida prayer with the names of all the fore­ fathers; therefore the verse states: “And you will be a blessing,” i.e., with you, Avraham, they will conclude the blessing, and they will not conclude with a mention of all of the forefathers. This is why the first blessing of the Amida prayer ends: Shield of Avraham. ‫יתא‬ ָ ‫ ַא ׁ ְש ַּכ ְח ִּתינָ א ְל ָס ֵבי דְּ פ ּו ְמ ְ ּב ִד‬:‫ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ‫לֹותא ֵ ּבין‬ ָ ְ‫ ֵ ּבין ִ ּבצ‬,‫ ְ ּב ׁ ַש ְ ּב ָתא‬:‫דְּ יָ ְת ִבי וְ ָק ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ,‫יֹומא ָט ָבא‬ ָ ‫״מ ַקדֵּ ׁש ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת״; ְ ּב‬ ְ – ‫ְ ּב ִקידּ ּו ׁ ָשא‬ ‫״מ ַקדֵּ ׁש יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ְ – ‫לֹותא ו ֵּבין ְ ּב ִקידּ ו ׁ ָּשא‬ ָ ְ‫ֵ ּבין ִ ּבצ‬ ‫לֹותא‬ ָ ְ‫ דִּ צ‬,‫ ַאדְּ ַר ָ ּבה‬:‫ וְ ָא ִמינָ א ְלה ּו ֲאנָ א‬.‫וְ ַהּזְ ַמ ּנִים״‬ ;‫יִש ָר ֵאל״‬ ׂ ְ ‫״מ ַקדֵּ ׁש‬ ְ – ‫יֹומא ָט ָבא‬ ָ ‫ֵ ּבין ְ ּב ׁ ַש ְ ּב ָתא ֵ ּבין ְ ּב‬ ‫יֹומא‬ ָ ‫״מ ַקדֵּ ׁש ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת״; ְ ּב‬ ְ – ‫ְ ּב ִקידּ ו ׁ ָּשא דְּ ׁ ַש ְ ּב ָּתא‬ .‫״מ ַקדֵּ ׁש יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל וְ ַהּזְ ַמ ּנִים״‬ ְ – ‫ָט ָבא‬

Rava said: I found the Elders of Pumbeditab sitting and saying: On Shabbat, both in prayer and in kiddush, one recites: Who sanctifies Shabbat. On a Festival,h both in prayer and in kiddush one recites: Who sanctifies Israel and the seasons. And I said to them: On the contrary, in prayer, both on Shabbat and on a Festival, one should recite: Who sanctifies Israel. However, in the kiddush of Shabbat one should recite: Who sanctifies Shabbat, whereas in the kiddush of a Festival one should recite: Who sanctifies Israel and the seasons.

‫ ַט ֲע ָמא‬.ּ‫וַ ֲאנָ א ָא ִמינָ א ַט ֲע ָמא דִּ ִידי וְ ַט ְע ָמא דִּ ְידכו‬ ‫לֹותא‬ ָ ְ‫ ֵ ּבין ִ ּבצ‬,‫ימא‬ ָ ְ‫יעא וְ ַקּי‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ַש ָ ּבת דִּ ְק ִב‬:ּ‫דִּ ְידכו‬ ,‫יֹומא ָט ָבא‬ ָ ;‫״מ ַקדֵּ ׁש ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת״‬ ְ – ‫ו ֵּבין ְ ּב ִקידּ ו ׁ ָּשא‬ ‫יה דְּ ָק ְמ ַע ְ ּב ִרי יַ ְר ֵחי וְ ָק ְב ִעי‬ ּ ‫דְּ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל הוּא דְּ ָק ְב ִעי ֵל‬ .‫״מ ַקדֵּ ׁש יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל וְ ַהּזְ ַמ ּנִים״‬ ְ – ‫ְל ׁ ָשנֵי‬

Rava further said to the Elders of Pumbedita: And I can say my reason and your reason. Your reason is that since Shabbat is established and permanent, i.e., it always occurs on the seventh day of the week, both in prayers and in kiddush one should recite: Who sanctifies Shabbat. It is not necessary for Israel to sanctify Shabbat, as it is permanently sanctified by God. Conversely, with regard to a Festival, as it is Israel who establishes it, as the Sages add extra days to certain months and establish years by intercalating them, one recites: Who sanctifies Israel and the seasons. This is Rava’s explanation of the reason for the ruling of the Elders of Pumbedita.

Map of Pumbedita halakha

Kiddush and prayer on Shabbat and a Festival – ‫ִקידּ ו ּׁש‬ ‫ו ְּת ִפ ָּלה ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ו ְּב ַחג‬: The prayers and kiddush on Shabbat conclude with: Who sanctifies Shabbat (Tur, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 268), whereas the concluding blessing for the prayers and kiddush on Festivals is: Who sanctifies Israel and the seasons. This is the formula used by the Elders of Pumbedita, which was ultimately accepted by Rava (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 487:1).

‫״מ ַקדֵּ ׁש‬ ְ – ‫יתא‬ ָ ‫לֹותא דִּ ְב ַר ִ ּבים ִא‬ ָ ְ‫ צ‬:‫ ַט ֲע ָמא דִּ ִידי‬Rava continues: My reason is that in the case of prayer, which is in public, one recites: Who sanctifies Israel, in honor of ‫ ְ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – ְמ ַקדֵּ ׁש‬,‫יָחיד ִא ָיתא‬ ִ ‫יִש ָר ֵאל״; ִקידּ ו ּׁש דִּ ְב‬ ְׂ the community. Conversely, for kiddush, which is recited by .‫״מ ַקדֵּ ׁש יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל וְ ַהּזְ ַמ ּנִים״‬ ְ – ‫ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת; ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬ an individual alone on Shabbat, one says: Who sanctifies Shabbat, as Israel does not sanctify Shabbat. On a Festival one recites: Who sanctifies Israel and the seasons. In this case, Israel is mentioned, as its Sages sanctify the Festivals. ‫ וְ ִקידּ ו ׁ ָּשא‬,‫יה‬ ֵ ‫לֹותא ְ ּביָ ִחיד ִמי ֵל‬ ָ ְ‫ צ‬,‫ וְ ל ֹא ִהיא‬The Gemara rejects Rava’s reason: And that is not so. Is there ּ ‫ית‬ ּ ָ ‫ זִ יל ָ ּב ַתר ִע‬:‫יה? וְ ָר ָבא ָס ַבר‬ .‫יקר‬ ֵ ‫ ָ ּב ַר ִ ּבים ִמי ֵל‬not also the prayer recited by a person who is alone; and is ּ ‫ית‬ there not also kiddush in public? The above distinction is rendered meaningless in practice. But Rava maintains: Follow the main practice of each mitzva. Prayer is primarily a communal activity, whereas kiddush is fundamentally the obligation of each individual. 

‫זיק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 117b 

281

halakha

The fourth cup, he completes hallel over it – ‫ֹומר‬ ֵ ּ‫יעי ג‬ ִ ‫ְר ִב‬ ‫ע ָליו ֶאת ַה ַה ֵּלל‬:ָ An alternative version of this passage, cited by the Rif, reads: He recites the great hallel over the fifth. According to this variant reading, one must apparently drink a fifth cup of wine. The Ran rules likewise. However, many authorities claim that the fifth cup is not mandatory (Rambam). Some authorities state that one should drink a fifth cup only if he has a strong desire to do so (Rema, based on Mordekhai; see Shulĥan Arukh HaRav; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 481:1). notes

Between the third cup and the fourth cup one should not drink – ‫יִש ֶּתה‬ ְ ׁ ‫יעי ל ֹא‬ ִ ‫ישי ָל ְר ִב‬ ִ ׁ ‫בין ׁ ְש ִל‬:ּ ֵ It is explained in the Jerusalem Talmud that the reason for this prohibition is to prevent intoxication. Although the wine drunk before or during a meal does not cause inebriation, once one has finished eating he runs a greater risk of becoming drunk. Others explain that the prohibition against additional cups is part of the general prohibition against eating after the afikoman, with the exception of the wine prescribed by the Sages (ge’onim; Seder Rav Amram). Some authorities state that if one continues to drink after the meal, when it is no longer a mitzva, it will not be evident that he drank the four cups in celebration of the redemption (Ra’avad).

‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫יה דְּ ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫עו ָּּלא ַ ּבר ַרב נָ ֵחית ַק ֵּמ‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ְּכ ָס ֵבי דְּ פו ְּמ ְ ּב ִד‬ ּ ‫ וְ ָלא ֲא ַמר ֵל‬,‫יתא‬ ‫ ַרב‬.‫יה ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ ֲה ַדר ֵ ּב‬:‫ ַא ְל ָמא‬.‫וְ ָלא ִמ ֵידי‬ ‫יה דְּ ַרב נָ ָתן‬ ּ ‫נָ ָתן ֲאבו ּּה דְּ ַרב הוּנָ א ְ ּב ֵר‬ ‫ ֲא ַמר ְּכ ָס ֵבי‬.‫יה דְּ ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ּ ‫נָ ֵחית ַק ֵּמ‬ .‫יה ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ָ ‫דְּ פו ְּמ ְ ּב ִד‬ ּ ‫ וְ ׁ ַש ְ ּב ֵח‬,‫יתא‬

The Gemara reports: Ulla bar Rav descended to lead the prayer service before Rava. He said the formula in accordance with the opinion of the Elders of Pumbedita, and Rava did not say anything to him. Apparently, Rava retracted his opinion and accepted the formula of the Elders of Pumbedita. Likewise, the Gemara relates: Rav Natan, father of Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, descended to lead the prayer service before Rav Pappa and recited the liturgy in accordance with the opinion of the Elders of Pumbedita, and Rav Pappa praised him for his correct recitation.

‫יק ַלע ְלס ּו ָרא‬ ְ ‫ ֲאנָ א ִא‬:‫ֲא ַמר ָר ִבינָ א‬ ‫יה ׁ ְשלו ָּחא‬ ַ ‫יה דְּ ָמ ֵר‬ ּ ‫ וְ נָ ֵחית ַק ֵּמ‬,‫ימר‬ ּ ‫ַק ֵּמ‬ ,‫יתא‬ ָ ‫ וַ ֲא ַמר ְּכ ָס ֵבי דְּ פו ְּמ ְ ּב ִד‬.‫יבו ָּרא‬ ּ ִ‫דְּ צ‬ ‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫יה ּכו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא‬ ּ ‫וַ ֲהו ּו ְמ ׁ ַש ְּת ִקי ֵל‬ ‫יל ְכ ָתא ְּכ ָס ֵבי‬ ְ ‫ ׁ ַש ְב ק ּוה ּו ! ִה‬: ‫ְל ה ּו‬ .‫יה‬ ָ ‫דְּ פו ְּמ ְ ּב ִד‬ ּ ‫ וְ ָלא ֲהו ּו ְמ ׁ ַש ְּתק ּו ֵל‬.‫יתא‬

Ravina said: I happened to come to Sura before Mareimar, and the prayer leader descended before him and recited the liturgy in accordance with the opinion of the Elders of Pumbedita, and everyone tried to silence him, as they had never heard that version of the prayer before. Mareimar said to them: Leave him, as the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Elders of Pumbedita. And the people in attendance listened to him and no longer tried to silence the prayer leader, but allowed him to complete the prayer.

ְ‫ישי – ְמ ָב ֵרך‬ ִ ׁ ‫מתני׳ ָמזְ ג ּו לֹו ּכֹוס ׁ ְש ִל‬ ,‫ֹומר ָע ָליו ֶאת ַה ֵּלל‬ ֵ ‫יעי – ּג‬ ִ ‫ ְר ִב‬.‫ַעל ְמזֹונֹו‬ ‫ ֵ ּבין ַה ּכֹוסֹות‬.‫אֹומר ָע ָליו ִ ּב ְר ַּכת ַה ׁ ּ ִשיר‬ ֵ ְ‫ו‬ ‫ ִאם רֹוצֶ ה ִל ׁ ְש ּתֹות – יִ ׁ ְש ֶּתה; ֵ ּבין‬,ּ‫ַה ָּללו‬ .‫יעי ל ֹא יִ ׁ ְש ֶּתה‬ ִ ‫ישי ָל ְר ִב‬ ִ ׁ ‫ׁ ְש ִל‬

mishna 

They poured for the leader of the seder the third cup of wine, and he recites the blessing over his food, Grace After Meals. Next, they pour him the fourth cup. He completes hallel over it,h as he already recited the first part of hallel before the meal. And he also recites the blessing of the song at the end of hallel over the fourth cup. During the period between these cups, i.e., the first three cups established by the Sages, if one wishes to drink more he may drink; however, between the third cup and the fourth cup one should not drink.n

gemara 

Ran Ĥanan said to Rava: Since the mishna ‫ ׁ ְש ַמע‬:‫יה ַרב ָחנָן ְל ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫גמ׳ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ states that Grace After Meals must be re‫ ִ ּב ְר ַּכת ַה ָּמזֹון ְטעוּנָ ה ּכֹוס! ֲא ַמר‬:‫ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ cited over the third cup, learn from it that Grace After Meals reְּ ‫ ַא ְר ַ ּבע ָּכ ֵסי ִּת‬:‫יה‬ ‫יקנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ֶד ֶר ְך‬ ּ ‫ ֵל‬quires a cup of wine. Rava said to him: This is no proof, for al.‫יה ִמצְ וָ ה‬ ֲ ‫ ָּכל ַחד וְ ַחד‬,‫ ֵחירוּת‬though the Sages instituted the drinking of four cups in the ּ ‫נַע ֵביד ֵ ּב‬ manner of freedom, once the four cups are in place, with each and every one of them we will perform a mitzva, despite the fact that they were not originally instituted for this purpose. After the Sages instituted these four cups, they attached a special mitzva to each one. However, this does not prove that there is an obligation to recite Grace After Meals over a cup of wine during the rest of the year. ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ְ‫ֹומר ָע ָליו ֶאת ַה ַה ֵּלל ו‬ ֵ ּ‫יעי ג‬ ִ ‫ ְ״ר ִב‬We learned in the mishna that they pour the leader of the seder the .‫ ָע ָליו ִ ּב ְר ַּכת ַה ׁ ּ ִשיר״‬fourth cup and he completes hallel over it, and he recites the blessing of the song at the end of hallel over that cup.

Perek X Daf 118 Amud a halakha

What is the blessing of the song – ‫מאי ִ ּב ְר ַּכת ַה ׁ ּ ִשיר‬:ַ In the blessing of the song, one recites the blessing: All Your works shall praise You and: The breath of all living [nishmat], in accordance with the opinion of both Rav Yehuda and Rabbi Yoĥanan. In addition, one recites the great hallel, Psalm 136, as stated in the baraita, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 480).

282 

Perek X . 118a . ‫חיק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳י‬

:‫ַמאי ִ ּב ְר ַּכת ַה ׁ ּ ִשיר? ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר‬ :‫יֹוחנָן ָא ַמר‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫״יְ ַה ְללוּךָ ה׳ ֱאל ֵֹהינוּ״‬ ‫ֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעי ּג‬ ִ ‫ ְר ִב‬:‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬.‫״נִש ַמת ָּכל ַחי״‬ ְׁ ּ ּ ּ ,‫אֹומר ַה ֵלל ַה ָגדֹול‬ ֵ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ָע ָליו ֶאת ַה ַה ֵלל‬ ‫ ״ה׳‬: ‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ וְ יֵ ׁש‬,‫דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ַט ְרפֹון‬ .‫רֹועי ל ֹא ֶא ְח ָסר״‬ ִ

The Gemara asks: What is the blessing of the songh mentioned in the mishna? Rav Yehuda said: It is the blessing that begins with: They shall praise You, Lord, our God. And Rabbi Yoĥanan said that one also recites: The breath of all living, a prayer that follows the verses of praise [pesukei dezimra]. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the fourth cup, one completes hallel over it and recites the great hallel; this is the statement of Rabbi Tarfon. And some say that one recites: “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want” (Psalms 23:1), in appreciation of the food he ate at the meal.

:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יכן ַה ֵּלל ַה ָ ּגדֹול? ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ָ ‫ֵמ ֵה‬ ‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ֵמ״הֹודוּ״ ַעד ״נַ ֲהרֹות ָ ּב ֶבל״‬ ‫״שיר ַה ַּמ ֲעלֹות״ ַעד ״נַ ֲהרֹות‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ִמ‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫״כי‬ ִּ ‫ ִמ‬:‫ ַרב ַא ָחא ַ ּבר יַ ֲעקֹב ָא ַמר‬.‫ָ ּב ֶבל״‬ .‫יַ ֲעקֹב ָ ּב ַחר לֹו יָ ּה״ ַעד ״נַ ֲהרֹות ָ ּב ֶבל״‬

The Gemara asks: From where does the great hallel begin and where does it end? Rabbi Yehuda says: From “Give thanks” (Psalms 136:1) until “The rivers of Babylon” (Psalms 137:1). And Rabbi Yoĥanan says: From “A song of ascents” (Psalms 134:1) until “The rivers of Babylon.” Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov said: From “For the Lord has chosen Jacob for Himself ” (Psalms 135:4) until “The rivers of Babylon.”

‫וְ ָל ָּמה נִ ְק ָרא ׁ ְשמֹו ַה ֵּלל ַה ָ ּגדֹול? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫יֹושב‬ ֵ ׁ ‫דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא‬ ׁ ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ַה ָ ּק‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ ו ְּמ ַח ֵּלק ְמזֹונֹות ְל ָכל‬,‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ְ ּברו ּּמֹו ׁ ֶשל‬ .‫ְ ּב ִרּיָ ה‬

The Gemara asks: And why is this section called the great hallel? Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Because this passage states that the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits in the heights of the universe and dispenses food to every creature. The whole world praises God for His kindness through the great hallel, which includes the verse: “Who gives food to all flesh” (Psalms 136:25).

‫ ָהנֵי ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים‬:‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ‫וְ ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה הֹוד ּו ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ִמי? ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים‬ ‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא‬ ׁ ‫וְ ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה דּ ֹורֹות ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ָרא ַה ָ ּק‬ ‫אֹותם‬ ָ ‫ וְ זָ ן‬,‫ וְ ל ֹא נָ ַתן ָל ֶהם ּת ָֹורה‬,‫עֹולמֹו‬ ָ ‫ְ ּב‬ .‫ְ ּב ַח ְסדּ ֹו‬

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: These twenty-six mentions of the word hodu, give praise, in this hallel (Psalms 136), to what do they correspond? He explains: They correspond to the twenty-six generations that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, and to whom He did not give the Torah. There were ten generations from Adam to Noah, another ten from Noah to Abraham, and six generations from Abraham to Moses and the revelation at Sinai, i.e., Isaac, Jacob, Levi, Kehat, Amram, and Moses. And why did these generations survive, despite the fact that they did not learn Torah or perform mitzvot? They survived only because God sustained them through His mercy, even though they were undeserving.

‫ ״הֹוד ּו‬:‫ ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ‫חֹובתֹו‬ ָ ‫ַלה׳ ִּכי טֹוב״ – הֹוד ּו ַלה׳ ׁ ֶשגּ ֶֹובה‬ ‫ וְ ֶאת‬,‫ ָע ׁ ִשיר – ְ ּב ׁשֹורֹו‬:‫טֹובתֹו‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶשל ָא ָדם ְ ּב‬ – ‫ ַא ְל ָמנָ ה‬,‫ יָ תֹום – ְ ּב ֵביצָ תֹו‬,‫ָענִי – ְ ּב ֵ ׂשיֹו‬ .‫גֹול ָּת ּה‬ ְ ְ‫ְ ּב ַת ְרנ‬

Rav Ĥisda said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Give thanks to the Lord for He is good” (Psalms 136:1)? It means give thanks to the Lord who exacts one’s debt, the punishment for a person’s sins and wickedness, in accordance with the goodness of each individual. God punishes each person based on his means. He punishes a wealthy person by taking his ox, and He punishes a poor person by means of his sheep. He punishes the orphan by taking away his egg, and He punishes the widow by means of her chicken. God punishes each person based on his ability to endure deprivation, and He does not punish people with more than they can handle.

notes

Providing a person’s food is twice as difficult as the suffering endured by a woman in childbirth – ‫זֹונֹותיו ׁ ֶשל ָא ָדם‬ ָ ‫ָק ׁ ִשין ְמ‬ ‫ּיֹול ָדה‬ ֵ ‫כ ְפ ַליִ ים ַּכ‬:ִּ Various explanations have been given for this statement. One interpretation is that although childbirth is painful, it also brings the joy of a new baby. By contrast, working for a living is never ending and causes anguish with no compensating happiness. Alternatively, earning a living is not, in fact, doubly as painful as childbirth. Rather, this statement means that twice as many people suffer, as both husband and wife work, whereas only the wife has to endure the pain of childbirth (Ben Yehoyada).

‫זֹונֹותיו ׁ ֶשל ָא ָדם‬ ָ ‫ ָק ׁ ִשין ְמ‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬With regard to the praise due to God for sustaining the world, :‫יֹול ָדה ְּכ ִתיב‬ ֵ ‫ דְּ ִאילּ ּו ְ ּב‬.‫ּיֹול ָדה‬ ֵ ‫ ִּכ ְפ ַליִ ים ַּכ‬the Gemara cites a statement that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The task difficult as the suffering .‫״ב ִע ָ ּצבֹון״‬ ּ ְ :‫ ו ִּב ְמזֹונֹות ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫״ב ֶעצֶ ב״‬ ּ ְ of providing a person’s food is twice as endured by a woman in childbirth.n While, with regard to a woman in childbirth, it is written: “In pain [be’etzev] you shall bring forth children” (Genesis 3:16), with regard to food, it is written: “In toil [be’itzavon] you shall eat of it, all the days of your life” (Genesis 3:17). Itzavon is a superlative form of etzev, which indicates that it is more difficult to support oneself than to give birth. ‫זֹונֹותיו ׁ ֶשל‬ ָ ‫ ָק ׁ ִשין ְמ‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ דְּ ִאילּ ּו ַ ּב ְ ּגאו ָּּלה‬.‫יֹותר ִמן ַה ְ ּגאו ָּּלה‬ ֵ ‫ָא ָדם‬ – ‫אֹותי ִמ ָּכל ָרע״‬ ִ ‫ֹואל‬ ֵ ‫״ה ַּמ ְל ָאךְ ַה ּג‬ ַ :‫ְּכ ִתיב‬ ּ ‫ וְ ִא‬,‫ַמ ְל ָא ְך ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא‬ :‫יל ּו ִ ּב ְמזֹונֹות ְּכ ִתיב‬ .‫רֹועה א ִֹתי״‬ ֶ ‫״ה ֱאל ִֹהים ָה‬ ָ

And Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The task of providing a person’s food is more difficult than the redemption. While, with regard to the redemption, it is written: “The angel who has redeemed me from all evil” (Genesis 48:16), indicating that a mere angel is sufficient to protect a person from all evil; whereas, with regard to sustenance, it is written: “The God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day” (Genesis 48:15). This verse implies that only God can help one who is struggling to earn a living.

‫ ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש ָא ַמר‬:‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ‫ ״וְ קֹוץ וְ ַד ְרדַּ ר‬:‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא ָל ָא ָדם‬ ׁ ‫ַה ָ ּק‬ ‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫ זָ ְלג ּו ֵעינָיו דְּ ָמעֹות‬,‫ַּתצְ ִמ ַיח ָל ְך״‬ ‫ֹאכל‬ ַ ‫מֹורי נ‬ ִ ‫ ֲאנִי וַ ֲח‬,‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ ִר ּבֹונֹו ׁ ֶשל‬:‫ְל ָפנָיו‬ ‫״בזֵ ַעת‬ ּ ְ :‫ְ ּב ֵאבוּס ֶא ָחד? ֵּכיוָ ן ׁ ֶש ָא ַמר לֹו‬ .‫ֹאכל ֶל ֶחם״ – נִ ְת ָק ְר ָרה דַּ ְע ּתֹו‬ ַ ‫ַא ּ ֶפךְ ּת‬

The Gemara cites a similar statement. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: When the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Adam: “Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to you, and you shall eat the herb of the field” (Genesis 3:18), his eyes streamed with tears. Adam said before Him: Master of the Universe, will my donkey and I eat from one trough? After God said to him: “In the sweat of your face shall you eat bread” (Genesis 3:19), his mind was settled, assured that if he toils he will be able to eat bread, unlike the donkey.

‫ ַא ׁ ְש ֵרינ ּו ִאם‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: We would have been fortunate ‫ וַ ֲע ַדיִ ין ָלא ּ ָפ ְל ִטינַ ן‬,‫אשֹונָ ה‬ ׁ ‫ ָע ַמ ְדנ ּו ָ ּב ִר‬had we remained under the first decree and were still able to .‫יס ֵבי דְּ ַד ְב ָרא‬ ְ ‫ דְּ ָקא ָא ְכ ִלינַן ִע‬,‫ ִמ ָּינ ּה‬eat the herbs of the field. And we still have not entirely escaped from this decree, as we sometimes eat the grass of the field, in the form of vegetables and leaves. 

‫חיק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 118a 

283

notes

Providing a person’s food is as difficult as the splitting of the Red Sea – ‫יעת יַ ם סוּף‬ ַ ‫זֹונֹותיו ׁ ֶשל ָא ָדם ִּכ ְק ִר‬ ָ ‫ק ׁ ִשין ְמ‬:ָ Many commentaries are puzzled by this comparison, as the relevant verses are not adjacent to one another. Some answer that the statement: Who gives food to all flesh, which depicts God’s beneficence, is not listed among the first praises in the psalm, all of which are natural events. Instead, it appears together with the miraculous acts of God, which refer to the miracles of the Exodus, the greatest of which was the splitting of the sea. Others state that God sustains all people including the wicked, just as the nation of Israel was rescued at the sea despite the inclusion of some undeserving and idolatrous individuals (Ĥokhmat Mano’aĥ; Ben Yehoyada). halakha

Anyone who disparages the Festivals – ‫ֹועדֹות‬ ֲ ‫כל ַה ְמ ַבּזֶ ה ֶאת ַה ּמ‬:ָּ Whoever disparages the Festivals is compared to one who has fallen prey to idolatry (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Yom Tov 6:16).

284 

Perek X . 118a . ‫חיק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳י‬

‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ּ ‫ָא ַמר ַרב ׁ ֵשיזְ ִבי ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬ ‫זֹונֹותיו ׁ ֶשל ָא ָדם‬ ָ ‫ ָק ׁ ִשין ְמ‬:‫ֶ ּבן ֲעזַ ְריָ ה‬ ‫״נֹותן ֶל ֶחם‬ ֵ :‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫יעת יַ ם סוּף‬ ַ ‫ִּכ ְק ִר‬ ‫״לגֹוזֵ ר יַ ם סוּף‬ ְ :‫יה‬ ּ ‫ְל ָכל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר״ ו ְּס ִמיךְ ֵל‬ .‫ִלגְ זָ ִרים״‬

Rav Sheizvi said, citing Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: The task of providing a person’s food is as difficult as the splitting of the Red Sea,n as it is written: “He gives food to all flesh, for His mercy endures forever” (Psalms 136:25), and juxtaposed to it is the verse: “To Him who divided the Red Sea in sunder, for His mercy endures forever” (Psalms 136:13). The reiteration of the last part of the verse indicates that the two praises are to a certain extent equivalent.

‫ ָק ׁ ִשין‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן ֲעזַ ְריָ ה‬ ‫יתה‬ ָ ‫נְ ָק ָביו ׁ ֶשל ָא ָדם ְּכיֹום ַה ִּמ‬ ‫״מ ַהר‬ ִ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫יעת יַ ם סוּף‬ ַ ‫וְ ִכ ְק ִר‬ ‫ ״רֹוגַ ע‬:‫יה‬ ֶ ּ ‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב ַ ּב ְת ֵר‬,‫צֹועה ְל ִה ּ ָפ ֵת ַח״‬ .‫ַהּיָ ם וַ ּיֶ ֱהמ ּו ַ ּג ָּליו״‬

Likewise, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: A person’s orifices, when he cannot properly relieve himself, are as difficult for him as the day of death and the splitting of the Red Sea, as it is stated: “He who is bent down shall speedily be loosed; and he shall not go down dying into the pit, neither shall his bread fail” (Isaiah 51:14). The phrase “dying into the pit” indicates that the opening of the orifices is similar to a rescue from death. And afterward it is written: “Who stirs up the sea, that its waves roar” (Isaiah 51:15), which compares the previous matter to the splitting of the sea.

‫וְ ָא ַמר ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן‬ – ‫ֹועדֹות‬ ֲ ‫ ָּכל ַה ְמ ַבּזֶ ה ֶאת ַה ּמ‬:‫ֲעזַ ְריָ ה‬ ּ ‫ְּכ ִא‬ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫בֹודה זָ ָרה‬ ָ ‫עֹובד ֲע‬ ֵ ‫יל ּו‬ ‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫״אל ֵֹהי ַמ ֵּס ָכה ל ֹא ַת ֲע ֶ ׂשה ָּלךְ ״‬ ֱ .‫״את ַחג ַה ַּמ ּצֹות ִּת ׁ ְשמֹור״‬ ֶ :‫יה‬ ּ ‫ַ ּב ְת ֵר‬

After citing a statement of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya that was transmitted by amora’im, the Gemara quotes additional expositions attributed to him. And Rav Sheshet said, citing Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: Anyone who disparages the Festivals,h it is considered as though he engages in idol worship. This, too, is derived from the juxtaposition of verses, as it is stated: “You shall make yourself no molten gods” (Exodus 34:17), and afterward it is written: “The Festival of matzot you shall keep” (Exodus 34:18), from which it can be inferred that anyone who does not observe the Festivals properly is likened to one who fashions idols.

‫וְ ָא ַמר ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ,‫ ָּכל ַה ְמ ַס ּ ֵפר ָל ׁשֹון ָה ָרע‬:‫ֶ ּבן ֲעזַ ְריָ ה‬ ‫ וְ ָכל ַה ֵּמ ִעיד‬,‫וְ ָכל ַה ְמ ַק ֵ ּבל ָל ׁשֹון ָה ָרע‬ ‫ֵעדוּת ׁ ֶש ֶקר ַ ּב ֲח ֵבירֹו – ָראוּי ְל ַה ׁ ְש ִליכֹו‬ ‫ ַל ֶּכ ֶלב ַּת ׁ ְש ִליכוּן‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ַל ְּכ ָל ִבים‬ ‫ ״ל ֹא ִת ּ ָ ׂשא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫אֹותֹו״ ו ְּכ ִתיב ַ ּב ְת ֵר‬ .‫ ״ל ֹא ַת ּ ִ ׂשיא״‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ׁ ֵש ַמע ׁ ָשוְ א״ ו ְּק ֵרי ֵ ּב‬

And Rav Sheshet further said, citing Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: Anyone who speaks slander, and anyone who accepts and believes the slander he hears, and anyone who testifies falsely about another, it is fitting to throw him to the dogs, as it is stated: “And you shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field, you shall cast it to the dogs” (Exodus 22:30), and afterward it is written: “You shall not utter [tisa] a false report; put not your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness” (Exodus 23:1). Uttering rumors is here equated to delivering false testimony. Furthermore, read into the verse as though it stated: Do not cause a false report to be accepted [tasi], i.e., do not lead others to accept your false reports.

‫ ֲאנַן‬,‫יכא ַה ֵּלל ַה ָ ּגדֹול‬ ָּ ‫וְ ִכי ֵמ ַא ַחר דְּ ִא‬ ‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן ַהאי? ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ ‫יאת‬ ַ ִ‫ יְ צ‬:ּ‫ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ּבֹו ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה דְּ ָב ִרים ַה ָּללו‬ ,‫ ו ַּמ ַּתן ּת ָֹורה‬,‫יעת יַ ם סוּף‬ ַ ‫ ְק ִר‬,‫ִמצְ ַריִ ם‬ .‫ וְ ֶח ְבלֹו ׁ ֶשל ָמ ׁ ִש ַיח‬,‫ו ְּת ִחּיַ ית ַה ֵּמ ִתים‬

The Gemara asks: And since there is the great hallel, which contains the special praise of “Who gives food to all flesh” (Psalms 136:25), as explained above, what is the reason that one also recites this hallel of Psalms 113–118, the section recited on every joyous occasion? The Gemara answers: The reason is because the regular hallel contains these five matters: The remembrance of the exodus from Egypt, the splitting of the Red Sea, the giving of the Torah, the resurrection of the dead, and the pangs of the Messiah. Since it mentions these key concepts, this hallel is also considered important.

‫״בצֵ את‬ ּ ְ :‫יאת ִמצְ ַריִ ם – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ַ ִ‫יְ צ‬ ‫יע ת יַ ם‬ ַ ‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵא ל ִמ ִּמצְ ָריִ ם״; ּו ְק ִר‬ ;‫״הּיָ ם ָר ָאה וַ ּיָ נֹוס״‬ ַ :‫סוּף – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ‫״ה ָה ִרים ָר ְקד ּו‬ ֶ :‫ַמ ַּתן ּת ָֹורה – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ :‫ְכ ֵא ִילים״; ְּת ִחּיַ ית ַה ֵּמ ִתים – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ‫״א ְת ַה ֵּלךְ ִל ְפנֵי ה׳״‬ ֶ

The Gemara elaborates: The exodus from Egypt, as it is written: “When Israel came forth out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of strange language” (Psalms 114:1). And the splitting of the Red Sea, as it is written: “The sea saw it and fled; the Jordan turned backward” (Psalms 114:3). The giving of the Torah, as it is written: “The mountains skipped like rams” (Psalms 114:4), which is similar to the description of the giving of the Torah found elsewhere in the books of the Prophets. The resurrection of the dead, as it is written: “I will walk before the Lord in the lands of the living” (Psalms 116:9), which follows the verse: “For you have delivered my soul from death.” After mentioning death, the psalm describes the resurrection in the lands of the living.

‫ ל ֹא ָלנ ּו ה׳‬:‫ֶח ְבלֹו ׁ ֶשל ָמ ׁ ִש ַיח – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ‫ ״ל ֹא ָלנ ּו ה׳ ל ֹא‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ל ֹא ָלנוּ״‬ ,‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬.‫ָלנוּ״ – זֹו ׁ ִש ְע ּבוּד ַמ ְל ֻכּיֹות‬ ‫ ״ל ֹא ָלנ ּו ה׳ ל ֹא ָלנוּ״ – זֹו‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ .‫ִמ ְל ֶח ֶמת גּ ֹוג ו ָּמגֹוג‬

The pangs of the Messiah, as it is written: “Not to us, God, not to us, but to Your name give glory” (Psalms 115:1). And Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The verse “Not to us, God, not to us” and the entire psalm, including the verse “Why should the nations say, where now is their God?” (Psalms 115:2), is referring to the era of the enslavement of the kingdoms and the redemption of the Jewish people from their dominion. Some say that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The verse “Not to us, God, not to us” is referring to the war of Gog and Magog, the catastrophes and wars that will befall the Jewish people in the end of days from which they will be delivered.

‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ּבֹו‬:‫ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק ָא ַמר‬ ּ ‫ִמ‬ ,‫יה ָּנם‬ ִ ‫יקים ִמ ֵ ּג‬ ִ ִּ‫יל ּוט נְ ָפ ׁשֹות ׁ ֶשל צַ ד‬ ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיָ ה‬.‫״א ָּנה ה׳ ַמ ְּל ָטה נַ ְפ ׁ ִשי״‬ ָ :‫ׁ ֶשנֶ ֱא ַמר‬ ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ּבֹו יְ ִר ָיד ָתן ׁ ֶשל צַ דִּ ִיקים‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ .ּ‫יתן ִמ ֶּמנּ ו‬ ָ ָ‫ְל ִכ ְב ׁ ַשן ָה ֵא ׁש וַ ֲע ִלּי‬

Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said: Another reason why one recites hallel of Psalms 113–118 is because it contains a reference to the deliverance of the souls of the righteous from Gehenna, as it is stated: “I beseech you, Lord, deliver my soul” (Psalms 116:4). Ĥizkiya said: Another reason is because it contains the story of the descent of the righteous Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah into the fiery furnace and their miraculous ascent from it.

– ‫ ״ל ֹא ָלנ ּו ה׳ ל ֹא ָלנוּ״‬:‫יְ ִר ָיד ָתן – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ‫״כי ְל ׁ ִש ְמךָ ֵּתן ָּכבֹוד״ – ָא ַמר‬ ִּ ;‫ָא ַמר ֲחנַ נְיָה‬ ‫״על ַח ְסדֶּ ךָ וְ ַעל ֲא ִמ ֶּתךְ ״ – ָא ַמר‬ ַ ;‫יש ֵאל‬ ָ ׁ ‫ִמ‬ ‫ֹאמר ּו ַהגּ ֹויִ ם״ – ָא ְמר ּו‬ ְ ‫״ל ָּמה י‬ ָ ;‫ֲעזַ ְריָ ה‬ .‫ּכו ָּּלן‬

Ĥizkiya clarifies his previous statement: Their descent is mentioned in this hallel, as it is written: “Not to us, God, not to us,” a verse that Hananiah recited. Mishael recited: “But to Your name give glory.” Azariah recited: “For Your mercy and for Your truth’s sake.” They all recited together: “Why should the nations say: Where now is their God?”

‫״ה ְלל ּו‬ ַ :‫יתן ִמ ִּכ ְב ׁ ַשן ָה ֵא ׁש – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ָ ָ‫ֲע ִלּי‬ ‫״ש ְ ּבחוּה ּו‬ ַ ׁ ;‫ֶאת ה׳ ָּכל גּ ֹויִ ם״ ָא ַמר ֲחנַ נְיָה‬ ‫״כי גָ ַבר‬ ָ ׁ ‫ָּכל ָהאו ִּּמים״ – ָא ַמר ִמ‬ ִּ ;‫יש ֵאל‬ ‫ָע ֵלינ ּו ַח ְסדּ ֹו״ – ָא ַמר ֲעזַ ְריָ ה; ״וֶ ֱא ֶמת ה׳‬ .‫עֹולם ַה ְללוּיָ ּה״ – ָא ְמר ּו ּכו ָּּלן‬ ָ ‫ְל‬

This hallel also alludes to the ascent of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah from the fiery furnace, as it is written: “Praise the Lord, all you nations, laud Him all you peoples. For His mercy is great toward us, and the truth of the Lord endures forever, halleluya” (Psalms 117). Hananiah recited: “Praise the Lord, all you nations,” for the overt miracle performed for them before the nations. Mishael recited: “Laud Him all you peoples.” Azariah recited: “For His mercy is great toward us.” They all recited together: “And the truth of the Lord endures forever, halleluya.”

‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫עֹולם״ – ַ ּג ְב ִר‬ ָ ‫ ״וֶ ֱא ֶמת ה׳ ְל‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫וְ ׁיֵש‬ ‫ ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש ִה ּ ִפיל נִ ְמרֹוד ָה ָר ׁ ָשע ֶאת‬.‫ֲא ָמרֹו‬ ‫תֹוך ִּכ ְב ׁ ַשן ָה ֵא ׁש ָא ַמר‬ ְ ‫ַא ְב ָר ָהם ָא ִבינ ּו ְל‬ ‫ ִר ּבֹונֹו‬:‫דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא‬ ׁ ‫יאל ִל ְפנֵי ַה ָ ּק‬ ֵ ‫ַ ּג ְב ִר‬ ‫ וְ ַא ִ ּציל ֶאת ַה ַ ּצדִּ יק‬,‫ ֵא ֵרד וַ ֲאצַ ּנֵן‬:‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶשל‬ :‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא‬ ׁ ‫ ָא ַמר לֹו ַה ָ ּק‬.‫ִמ ִּכ ְב ׁ ַשן ָה ֵא ׁש‬ ‫נָאה‬ ֶ ,‫עֹולמֹו‬ ָ ‫יָחיד ְ ּב‬ ִ ‫עֹול ִמי וְ הוּא‬ ָ ‫יָחיד ְ ּב‬ ִ ‫ֲאנִי‬ ‫דֹוש‬ ׁ ‫ ו ְּל ִפי ׁ ֶש ַה ָ ּק‬.‫ַלּיָ ִחיד ְל ַה ִ ּציל ֶאת ַהּיָ ִחיד‬ .‫ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא ֵאינֹו ְמ ַק ּ ֵפ ַח ְ ׂש ַכר ָּכל ְ ּב ִריָ ה‬ .‫ ִּתזְ ֶּכה וְ ַת ִ ּציל ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ִמ ְ ּבנֵי ָ ּבנָיו‬:‫ָא ַמר‬

And some say that the angel Gabriel recited: “And the truth of the Lord endures forever.” This Gemara elaborates: When the evil Nimrod threw our father, Abraham, into the fiery furnace, Gabriel said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, I will descend and cool the furnace, and I will thereby save the righteous Abraham from the fiery furnace. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: I am unique in my world and Abraham is still unique in his world. It is fitting for the unique to save the unique. Therefore, God Himself went down and saved him. And as the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not withhold reward from any creature who sought to perform a good deed, He said to Gabriel: You will merit the rescue of three of his descendants under similar circumstances.

‫ ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש ִה ּ ִפיל‬:‫דָּ ַר ׁש ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ַה ׁ ּ ִשלֹונִי‬ ‫יש ֵאל וַ ֲעזַ ְריָ ה‬ ָ ׁ ‫נֶצר ָה ָר ׁ ָשע ֲחנַ נְיָה ִמ‬ ּ ַ ‫נְ בו ַּכ ְד‬ ‫ ָע ַמד יו ְּר ַק ּמֹו ַ ׂשר ַה ָ ּב ָרד‬,‫ְלתֹוךְ ִּכ ְב ׁ ַשן ָה ֵא ׁש‬ ‫ ִר ּבֹונֹו‬:‫ ָא ַמר ְל ָפנָיו‬,‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא‬ ׁ ‫ִל ְפנֵי ַה ָ ּק‬ ‫ וְ ַא ִ ּציל‬,‫ ֵא ֵרד וַ ֲאצַ ּנֵן ֶאת ַה ִּכ ְב ׁ ָשן‬,‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶשל‬ ‫ ָא ַמר לֹו‬.‫יקים ַה ָּלל ּו ִמ ִּכ ְב ׁ ַשן ָה ֵא ׁש‬ ִ ִּ‫ַל ַ ּצד‬ ‫דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך‬ ׁ ‫ ֵאין ְ ּגבו ָּרתֹו ׁ ֶשל ַה ָ ּק‬:‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ַ ּג ְב ִר‬ ‫יֹוד ִעין‬ ְ ‫ וְ ַה ּכֹל‬,‫ ׁ ֶש ַא ָּתה ַ ׂשר ָ ּב ָרד‬, ְ‫הוּא ְ ּב ָכך‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ֲאנִי ַ ׂשר‬.‫ׁ ֶש ַה ַּמיִ ם ְמ ַכ ִ ּבין ֶאת ָה ֵא ׁש‬ ‫ ֵא ֵרד וַ ֲא ָק ֵרר ִמ ִ ּב ְפנִים‬,‫ׁ ֶשל ֵא ׁש‬

Rabbi Shimon HaShiloni taught: When the evil Nebuchadnezzarb threw Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah into the fiery furnace, Yurkamo,l the ministering angel of hail, stood before the Holy One, Blessed be He, and said before Him: Master of the Universe, I will go down and cool the fiery furnace, and I will save these righteous ones from the fiery furnace. Gabriel said to him: The strength of the Holy One, Blessed be He, will not be evident in this manner, as you are the minister of hail, and everyone knows that water extinguishes fire. Your action would not be regarded as a great miracle. Rather, I, the ministering angel of fire, will descend, and I will cool the furnace from within,



background

Nebuchadnezzar – ‫נֶצר‬ ּ ַ ‫נְ בו ַּכ ְד‬: Among the works built by Nebuchadnezzar was the Ishtar Gate in the city of Babylon. The image depicts the reconstruction of the Ishtar Gate.

Ishtar Gate language

Yurkamo – ‫יו ְּר ַק ּמֹו‬: According to Rav Binyamin Musafya, this name is derived from the Greek ἱεροκόμος, hiero­komos, meaning one who takes charge of a temple. Others interpret the word homiletically, based on its similarity to the Hebrew phrase yorek mayim, water shooter. Yet others point out that by changing around the letters, the word can read yukarmi, i.e., he who is appointed over the cold (Ketem Paz).

‫חיק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 118a 

285

Perek X Daf 118 Amud b notes

Just as we are ascending – ‫עֹולין‬ ִ ‫כ ׁ ֵשם ׁ ֶש ָאנ ּו‬:ְּ It is unclear why the Jewish people believed that a miracle would be performed for the Egyptians as well. One explanation is that the Jewish nation did not actually cross the Red Sea but merely entered a narrow strip of water and returned to the same side as before. Therefore, they thought that the Egyptians had not drowned but had also stayed near the shore (Tosafot on tractate Arakhin). Ancient [kedumim] river – ‫נַ ַחל ְקדו ִּמים‬: One interpretation is that the term kedumim can be split into two words, kedum yam, ancient sea, indicating that the river was appointed a guarantor for the sea long ago (Rav Shmuel Strashun). background

Chosen chariots – ‫ר ֶכב ָ ּבחוּר‬:ֶ The wall painting depicts Ramses II in a chariot battling Nubians, found in the temple of Beit el-Wali.

Pharaoh on chariot

‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫ וְ ֶא ֱע ֶ ׂשה נֵס ְ ּבתֹוךְ נֵס‬,‫ וְ ַא ְקדִּ ַיח ִמ ַ ּבחוּץ‬and I will burn it from the outside, to consume those who ‫אֹות ּה ׁ ָש ָעה‬ ָ ‫ ְ ּב‬.‫ ֵרד‬:‫דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא‬ ׁ ‫ לֹו ַה ָ ּק‬threw the three righteous men into the furnace; and I will .‫עֹולם״‬ ָ ‫ ״וֶ ֱא ֶמת ה׳ ְל‬:‫יאל וְ ָא ַמר‬ ֵ ‫ ּ ָפ ַתח ַ ּג ְב ִר‬thereby perform a miracle within a miracle. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: Descend. At that time Gabriel began praising God and recited: “And the truth of the Lord endures forever” (Psalms 117:2), as God fulfilled His promise to him from more than a thousand years earlier. ‫עֹולם״ דָּ גִ ים‬ ָ ‫ ״וֶ ֱא ֶמת ה׳ ְל‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן‬ :‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬.‫ ִּכ ְד ַרב הוּנָ א‬.ּ‫ׁ ֶש ַ ּבּיָ ם ֲא ָמרוּהו‬ .ּ‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ׁ ֶש ְ ּבאֹותֹו ַהדּ ֹור ִמ ְּק ַטנֵי ֲא ָמנָ ה ָהיו‬ ‫ ״וַ ּיַ ְמר ּו‬:‫ ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫וְ ִכ ְד ָד ַר ׁש ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ָמ ִרי‬ ‫ַעל יָ ם ְ ּביַ ם סוּף״ – ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ִה ְמר ּו יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ‫עֹולין ִמ ַ ּצד‬ ִ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵשם ׁ ֶש ָאנ ּו‬:ּ‫אֹות ּה ׁ ָש ָעה וְ ָא ְמרו‬ ָ ‫ְ ּב‬ .‫עֹולים ִמ ַ ּצד ַא ֵחר‬ ִ ‫ֶא ָחד – ָּכךְ ִמצְ ִרּיִ ים‬

Rabbi Natan says: “And the truth of the Lord endures forever” was actually recited by the fish in the sea, in accordance with a statement of Rav Huna. As Rav Huna said: The Jewish people of that generation, during the Exodus, were of little faith. And this statement is as Rabba bar Mari taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “But they were rebellious at the sea, even at the Red Sea” (Psalms 106:7)? This teaches that the Jews rebelled against Moses at that time, and said: Perhaps, just as we are ascendingn from one side, so too the Egyptians are ascending from the other side, and we will not be saved.

:‫דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא ְל ַ ׂשר ׁ ֶשל יָ ם‬ ׁ ‫ָא ַמר לֹו ַה ָ ּק‬ ‫ ִר ּבֹונֹו ׁ ֶשל‬:‫ ָא ַמר ְל ָפנָיו‬.‫יַב ׁ ָשה‬ ּ ָ ‫אֹותן ַל‬ ָ ‫ּ ְפלֹוט‬ ,‫נֹותן לֹו ַר ּבֹו ַמ ָּתנָ ה‬ ֵ ‫ ְּכלוּם יֵ ׁש ֶע ֶבד ׁ ֶש‬,‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ ֶא ֵּתן ְלךָ ֶא ָחד‬:‫נֹוטל ִמ ֶּמנּ וּ? ָא ַמר לֹו‬ ֵ ְ‫וְ חֹוזֵ ר ו‬ .‫ו ֶּמ ֱחצָ ה ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ֶהן‬

The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the ministering angel of the sea: Spew out the dead Egyptians onto dry land. The sea said before Him: Master of the Universe, is there a servant whose master gives him a gift and then takes it from him? Since the dead Egyptians were given to me for my fish to eat, how can God retract His gift? He said to him: I will give you one and a half times their number. Although I am taking them back now, later I will give you one and a half times as many people.

‫ יֵ ׁש ֶע ֶבד ׁ ֶש ּת ֵֹוב ַע‬,‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ ִר ּבֹונֹו ׁ ֶשל‬:‫ָא ַמר לֹו‬ .‫ נַ ַחל ִק ׁישֹון יְ ֵהא ִלי ָע ֵרב‬:‫ֶאת ַר ּבֹו? ָא ַמר לֹו‬ ‫ ו ָּבא ּו יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל וְ ָרא ּו‬,‫יַב ׁ ָשה‬ ּ ָ ‫אֹותן ַל‬ ָ ‫ִמּיָ ד ּ ָפ ַלט‬ ‫ ״וַ ּיַ ְרא יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ֶאת ִמצְ ַריִ ם‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫אֹותן‬ ָ .‫ֵמת ַעל ְ ׂש ַפת ַהּיָ ם״‬

He said to him: Master of the Universe, can a servant issue a claim against his master for a gift promised to him? Who will be my guarantor? He said to him: The Kishon River will be a guarantor for Me. Immediately, the sea spewed them out onto the land, and the Jewish people came and saw that they were dead. As it is stated: “And Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the seashore” (Exodus 14:30).

Kishon River – ‫נַ ַחל ִק ׁישֹון‬: The Kishon River in Israel flows from the city of Jenin and into the Mediterranean Sea in the vicinity of modern-day Haifa.

‫״א ָחד ו ֶּמ ֱחצָ ה ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ֶהן״? דְּ ִאילּ ּו ְ ּב ַפ ְרעֹה‬ ֶ ‫ ַמאי‬The Gemara asks: What is this one and a half times their ּ ‫ וְ ִא‬,‫״ש ׁש ֵמאֹות ֶר ֶכב ָ ּבח ּור״‬ ‫יל ּו‬ ֵ ׁ :‫ ְּכ ִתיב‬number? How was God’s promise fulfilled? The Gemara .‫״ת ׁ ַשע ֵמאֹות ֶר ֶכב ַ ּב ְרזֶ ל״‬ ְּ :‫יס ָרא ְּכ ִתיב‬ ְ ‫ ְ ּב ִס‬answers: While, with regard to Pharaoh, itbis written: “Six hundred chosen chariots” (Exodus 14:7), whereas, with regard to Sisera, it is written: “Nine hundred iron chariots” ( Judges 4:13).

Kishon River with Haifa in the background

‫[א ָתא ֲע ַליְ יה ּו ְ ּב ִד ְק ֵרי‬ ֲ ‫יס ָרא‬ ְ ‫ִּכי ֲא ָתא ִס‬ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא ֲע ֵל‬ ׁ ‫ הֹוצִ יא ַה ָ ּק‬.‫דְּ ַפ ְרזְ ָלא‬ ּ ‫ֹוכ ִבים ִמ ְּמ ִס‬ ‫״מן ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם‬ ִ ]:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ֹותם‬ ָ ‫יל‬ ָ ‫ּכ‬ ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דִּ נְ ִחית ּו ּכ ְֹוכ ֵבי ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם‬.‫ְנִל ָחמ ּו ַה ּכ ָֹוכ ִבים״‬ ‫ נְ ִחית ּו‬.‫ֲע ַליְ יה ּו ַא ְקדִּ יר ּו ָהנֵי דִּ ְק ֵרי דְּ ַפ ְרזְ ָלא‬ .‫יס ֵחי נַ ְפ ׁ ַשיְ יה ּו ְ ּבנַ ַחל ִק ׁישֹון‬ ְ ‫ ְל ִמ‬,‫רֹורי‬ ֵ ‫ְל ַא ְק‬

The Gemara relates: When Sisera came to fight Israel, he came upon them with iron spears, whereupon the Holy One, Blessed be He, removed the stars from their orbits to fight against Sisera’s army, as it is written: “They fought from heaven, the stars in their courses fought against Sisera” ( Judges 5:20). Since the stars fell on them, these iron spears heated up and they went to cool them and wash themselves in the Kishon River.b

:‫דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא ְלנַ ַחל ִק ׁישֹון‬ ׁ ‫ָא ַמר לֹו ַה ָ ּק‬ ‫ ִמּיָ ד ְ ּג ָר ָפם נַ ַחל ִק ׁישֹון‬. ָ‫ֵלךְ וְ ַה ׁ ְש ֵלם ֵע ְרבֹונְ ך‬ ‫ ״נַ ַחל ִק ׁישֹון ְ ּג ָר ָפם‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫יכן ַלּיָ ם‬ ָ ‫וְ ִה ׁ ְש ִל‬ ‫ ַמאי ״נַ ַחל ְקדו ִּמים״? נַ ַחל‬.‫נַ ַחל ְקדו ִּמים״‬ ‫אֹות ּה ׁ ָש ָעה ּ ָפ ְתח ּו‬ ָ ‫ ְ ּב‬.‫נַע ָ ׂשה ָע ֵרב ִמ ֶ ּק ֶדם‬ ֲ ‫ׁ ֶש‬ .‫עֹולם״‬ ָ ‫ ״וֶ ֱא ֶמת ה׳ ְל‬:ּ‫דָּ גִ ים ׁ ֶשל יָ ם וְ ָא ְמרו‬

At this point, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Kishon River: Go and pay your guarantee that you issued to the ministering angel of the sea. Immediately, the Kishon River swept them away and cast them into the sea, as it is stated: “The Kishon River swept them away, that ancient river” ( Judges 5:21). What is the meaning of the expression: “ancient river”?n The Gemara explains: This is referring to the river that was appointed a guarantor from ancient times. At that time, the fish of the sea began praising God and recited: “And the truth of the Lord endures forever,” in reference to God’s fulfillment of the promise He issued centuries earlier.

Kishon River pouring into the Mediterranean Sea

286 

Perek X . 118b . ‫חיק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳י‬

:‫ ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬ ‫יבי ֲע ֶק ֶרת ַה ַ ּביִ ת״? ָא ְמ ָרה ְּכנֶ ֶסת‬ ִ ‫״מֹוש‬ ִׁ ‫ ִר ּבֹונֹו ׁ ֶשל‬:‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא‬ ׁ ‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ִל ְפנֵי ַה ָ ּק‬ ּ ָ ‫ ָ ׂשמוּנִי ָ ּבנֶיךָ ְּכחו ְּלדָּ ה זֹו ַהדָּ ָרה ְ ּב ִע‬,‫עֹולם‬ ‫יק ֵרי‬ ָ .‫ָב ִּתים‬

The Gemara cites more midrashim on the verses of hallel. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Who makes the barren woman dwell in her house as a joyful mother of children, halleluya” (Psalms 113:9)? The Congregation of Israel, i.e., the leaders of the Jewish people, said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, due to their sins, Your children treat me like this rat that dwells in the vaults of houses, barely able to find a place in the house.

‫״א ַה ְב ִּתי ִּכי יִ ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ָ :‫ ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫דָּ ַר ׁש ָר ָבא‬ ,‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ ִר ּבֹונֹו ׁ ֶשל‬:‫נֶסת יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ֶ ‫ה׳״? ָא ְמ ָרה ְּכ‬ ‫ימת ֲאנִי ֲאהו ָּבה ְל ָפנֶיךְ – ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ִּת ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ַ ‫ֵא‬ ‫ ָא ְמ ָרה‬,‫הֹוש ַיע״‬ ִ ׁ ְ‫לֹותי וְ ִלי י‬ ִ ַּ‫ ״ד‬.‫קֹול ַּת ֲחנוּנַי‬ ‫ ִר ּבֹונֹו‬:‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא‬ ׁ ‫יִש ָר ֵאל ִל ְפנֵי ַה ָ ּק‬ ׂ ְ ‫נֶסת‬ ֶ ‫ְּכ‬ ְ‫ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶשדַּ ָּלה ֲאנִי ְ ּב ִמצְ �ֹות – ְלך‬,‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶשל‬ .‫הֹוש ַיע‬ ִ ׁ ‫ וְ ִלי נָ ֶאה ְל‬,‫ֲאנִי‬

Rava taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “I love that the Lord should hearn my voice and my supplications” (Psalms 116:1)? The Congregation of Israel said: Master of the Universe, when am I beloved by You, and I know that I am loved? When You hear the voice of my supplications. “I was brought low, and He saved me” (Psalms 116:6). The Congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, although I am lowly in mitzvot, as I do not always fulfill them properly, I am Yours, and therefore it is fitting that I should be saved.

‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ָח ָלה ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬Rav Kahana said: When Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, fell ill, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sent a message to him: Tell us ‫ ֱאמֹור ָלנ ּו ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ו ׁ ְּשל ׁ ָֹשה‬:‫יֹוסי ׁ ָש ַלח לֹו ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֵ . ָ‫ דְּ ָב ִרים ׁ ֶש ָא ַמ ְר ָּת ָלנ ּו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ָא ִביך‬two or three matters that you said to us, citing your father. ‫״ה ְלל ּו‬ ַ ‫ ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬:‫ ָּכךְ ָא ַמר ַא ָ ּבא‬,‫ׁ ָש ַלח לֹו‬ ‫עֹולם ַמאי‬ ָ ‫ א ּו ּמֹות ָה‬,‫ֶאת ה׳ ָּכל גּ ֹויִ ם״‬ ‫״ה ְלל ּו ֶאת ה׳ ָּכל‬ ַ :‫ֲע ִב ְיד ַּתיְ יהוּ? ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬ ,ּ‫גֹּויִ ם״ – ַא ְ ּגבוּרֹות וְ נִ ְפ ָלאֹות דְּ ָע ֵביד ַ ּב ֲה ַדיְ יהו‬ .‫ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ָאנ ּו דְּ ״גָ ַבר ָע ֵלינ ּו ַח ְסדּ ֹו״‬

He sent back to him: My father said as follows: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Praise the Lord, all you nations, laud Him all you peoples. For His mercy is great toward us, and the truth of the Lord endures forever, halleluya” (Psalms 117)? What are the nations of the world doing by praising God for His great mercies toward Israel? Rabbi Yosei explained: Rather, this is what the verse is saying: “Praise the Lord, all you nations” for the mighty acts and the wonders that God performed before their eyes. All the more so we, the recipients of these acts, should praise and thank Him, as His mercy is great toward us.

.‫ ֲע ִת ָידה ִמצְ ַריִ ם ׁ ֶש ָּת ִביא דּ ֹורֹון ַל ָּמ ׁ ִש ַיח‬:‫וְ עֹוד‬ ‫דֹוש‬ ׁ ‫ ָא ַמר לֹו ַה ָ ּק‬.‫ְּכ ָסבוּר ֵאינֹו ְמ ַק ֵ ּבל ֵמ ֶהם‬ ‫ ַא ְכ ַסנְיָא ָעשׂ ּו‬.‫ ַק ֵ ּבל ֵמ ֶהם‬:‫ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא ַל ָּמ ׁ ִש ַיח‬ ‫ ״יֶ ֱא ָתי ּו ַח ׁ ְש ַמ ּנִים ִמ ּנִי‬:‫ ִמּיָ ד‬.‫ְל ָבנַיי ְ ּב ִמצְ ַריִ ם‬ .‫ִמצְ ָריִ ם״‬

And furthermore, Rabbi Yishmael sent another of his father’s teachings to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: In the future, Egypt will bring a gift to the Messiah when all of the nations gather before him, as the verse says: “Out of Your temple at Jerusalem, where kings shall bring presents to you” (Psalms 68:30). The Messiah will think it appropriate not to accept gifts from them, as the Egyptians abused Israel. The Holy One, Blessed be He, will say to the Messiah: Accept their gifts from them, as they granted lodging to My children in Egypt. They lived there for many years before being enslaved. Immediately, “Nobles shall come out of Egypt” (Psalms 68:32).

‫ ו ָּמה ַה ָּלל ּו‬:‫חֹומר ְ ּב ַעצְ ָמ ּה‬ ֶ ָ‫נָש ָאה ּכו ּׁש ַקל ו‬ ְׂ ‫נִש ַּת ְע ַ ּב ְד ִּתי‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ֲאנִי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬, ְ‫ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ְִש ַּת ְע ְ ּבד ּו ָ ּב ֶהן ָּכך‬ ‫דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך‬ ׁ ‫ָ ּב ֶהן ל ֹא ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן?! ָא ַמר לֹו ַה ָ ּק‬ ‫״כ ּו ׁש ָּת ִריץ יָ ָדיו‬ ּ :‫ ִמּיָ ד‬.‫ ַק ֵ ּבל ֵמ ֶהם‬:‫הוּא‬ .‫ֵלאל ִֹהים״‬

Upon seeing that Egypt’s gift has been accepted, Kush will want to bring a gift too. Kush will draw an a fortiori inference with regard to itself: Just as the gifts of these Egyptians were accepted despite the fact that they enslaved the Jewish people, all the more so is it not clear that a gift from me, who did not enslave them, should be accepted? The Holy One, Blessed be He, will say to the Messiah: Accept it from them. Immediately, “Kush shall hasten to stretch out her hands to God” (Psalms 68:32).

notes

I love that the Lord should hear – ‫א ַה ְב ִּתי ִּכי יִ ׁ ְש ַמע‬: ָ The difficulty with this verse is that to love is generally a transitive verb, whereas here it does not appear to refer to a person or an object. Therefore, the phrase is understood as a reference to God’s love for Israel (Maharsha; Rav Yoshiya Pinto). Some



commentaries state that this verse appears disrespectful, as King David seems to be saying that he loves God only when He listens to his pleas. For this reason, the Gemara seeks an alternative to the straightforward meaning of the verse (Iyyun Ya’akov). ‫חיק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 118b 

287

notes

Written with a single quill – ‫נִ ְכ ָּת ִבין ְ ּבקו ְּלמֹוס ֶא ָחד‬: Some commentaries explain that Rome writes only negative comments about Israel (Arukh; Rashi; Rashbam). Incidentally, the ge’onim use the phrase: Written with a single quill, in reference to any unequivocal matter. Other authorities teach that every nation has two angels, one of which records the nation’s merits, while the other inscribes its sins. Rome is the exception to this rule. Since it commits exclusively negative acts, it has only a single stenographer (ge’onim). The intimacies [kereivot] that they desired – ‫ְק ֵריבֹות ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו‬ ‫ח ֵפצִ ים‬:ֲ The Maharsha’s version of the text reads: Battles [keravot], instead of closeness. This is referring to the wars of Israel’s rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar during the period of the First Temple. These wars were fought against the advice of Jeremiah the Prophet. Likewise, toward the end of the Second Temple period, the Sages warned against taking up arms against Rome. Their pleas were ignored, and the destruction of the Temple followed soon after. background

The great city of Rome – ‫רֹומי‬ ִ ‫כ ַרךְ ָ ּגדֹול ׁ ֶשל‬:ְּ The statement of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, was issued when Rome was at the pinnacle of its glory and power. The city itself was extremely large, with an overflowing population. Since Italy could not provide enough food for all of the residents of Rome, they imported grain, mainly from Egypt. Abundant storehouses were filled to serve the city’s needs.

‫חֹומר‬ ֶ ָ‫[רֹומי] ָה ְר ׁ ָש ָעה ַקל ו‬ ִ ‫נָש ָאה ַמ ְלכוּת‬ ְׂ ‫ ָאנ ּו‬,‫יהן – ָּכ ְך‬ ֶ ‫ ו ָּמה ַה ָּלל ּו ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַא ֵח‬:‫ְ ּב ַעצְ ָמ ּה‬ ‫דֹוש‬ ׁ ‫יהן – ל ֹא ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן?! ָא ַמר לֹו ַה ָ ּק‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ֶש ָאנ ּו ַא ֵח‬ ּ ְ :‫יאל‬ ‫״ג ַער ַחּיַ ת ָקנֶ ה״ – ְ ּגעֹור‬ ֵ ‫ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא ְלגַ ְב ִר‬ .‫ַחּיָ ה ו ְּקנֵ ה ְלךָ ֵע ָדה‬

After that, the wicked kingdom of Rome will draw an a fortiori inference with regard to itself: Just as the gifts of these, who are not their brothers, were accepted in this manner, we, the descendants of Edom, who are their brothers, all the more so is it not clear that our gifts will be accepted? The Holy One, Blessed be He, will say to Gabriel: “Rebuke the wild beast of the reeds [kaneh], the multitude of [adat] the bulls” (Psalms 68:31). Rebuke the beast and acquire [keneh] the congregation [eda] of Israel. The nation of Rome, which enslaved Israel in its current exile, is less worthy than the other two nations.

,‫ ְ ּגעֹור ַחּיַ ת ָקנֶ ה ׁ ֶשדָּ ָרה ֵ ּבין ַה ִּק ּנִים‬:‫ ָד ָבר ַא ֵחר‬Alternatively, the verse “Rebuke the wild beast of the .‫ ״יְ ַכ ְר ְס ֶמ ָּנה ֲחזִ יר ִמּיָ ַער וְ זִ יז ָ ׂש ַדי יִ ְר ֶע ָּנה״‬:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬reeds,” means rebuke the beast that dwells between the reeds, as it is written: “The pig out of the wood ravages it, and that which moves in the field feeds on it” (Psalms 80:14). This verse is referring to Edom, whose behavior is compared elsewhere to that of a pig. ‫ ְ ּגעֹור‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ .‫יה נִ ְכ ָּת ִבין ְ ּבקו ְּלמֹוס ֶא ָחד‬ ָ ‫ְ ּב ַחּיָ ה ׁ ֶש ָּכל ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂש‬ ּ ‫״ע ַדת ַא ִ ּב ִירים ְ ּב ֶעגְ ֵלי ַע ִּמים״ – ׁ ֶש ׁ ָש ֲחט ּו ַא ִ ּב ִירים‬ ֲ .‫ַּכ ֲעגָ ִלים ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָל ֶהם ְ ּב ָע ִלים‬

Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said that the verse means: Rebuke the beast, all of whose actions are written with a single quill.n Kaneh can mean a reed, or a quill. In other words, rebuke a nation that speaks of others in only one manner, for the worse. The verse continues: “The multitude of the bulls, with the calves of the peoples, everyone submitting himself with pieces of silver. He has scattered the peoples who delight in war” (Psalms 68:31). “The multitude of the bulls [abirim], with the calves of the peoples”; this is referring to Rome, who slaughtered mighty people [abirim] like ownerless calves.

,‫ֹוש ִטין יָ ד ְל ַק ֵ ּבל ָממֹון‬ ְ ׁ ‫״מ ְת ַר ּ ֵפס ְ ּב ַר ֵ ּצי ָכ ֶסף״ ׁ ֶש ּפ‬ ִ ‫״פיּזַ ר ַע ִּמים ְק ָרבֹות‬ ִ ּ .‫עֹושין ְרצֹון ְ ּב ָע ִלים‬ ׂ ִ ‫וְ ֵאין‬ ‫ ִמי ָ ּג ַרם ָל ֶהם ְליִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ׁ ֶשּיִ ְת ּ ַפּזְ ר ּו ְל ֵבין‬,‫יֶ ְח ּ ָפצוּן״‬ .‫עֹולם? ְק ֵריבֹות ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ֲח ֵפצִ ין ָ ּב ֶהן‬ ָ ‫או ּּמֹות ָה‬

“Everyone submitting himself with pieces of silver,” means that the officials of Rome open their hands to receive money as bribes or taxes, but actually they do not perform the will of their masters, as they cannot be trusted even in this regard. “He has scattered the peoples who delight in war”; what caused the Jewish people to be scattered among the nations of the world? The intimacies that they desiredn with them. Their exile among the nations was caused by their attraction to the customs and behavior of gentiles.

‫ ׁ ְשל ֹׁש ֵמאֹות וְ ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים וַ ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה‬:‫וְ עֹוד ׁ ָש ַלח לֹו‬ ‫ וְ ָכל ֶא ָחד וְ ֶא ָחד‬.‫רֹומי‬ ִ ‫ׁ ְשוָ ִוקים ִ ּב ְכ ַרךְ ָ ּגדֹול ׁ ֶשל‬ ,‫ָהי ּו ּבֹו ׁ ְשל ֹׁש ֵמאֹות וְ ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים וַ ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ִ ּב ָירנִּיֹות‬ ‫וְ ָכל ִ ּב ָירנִית ו ִּב ָירנִית ָהי ּו ּבֹו ׁ ְשל ֹׁש ֵמאֹות וְ ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים‬ ‫ וְ ָכל ַמ ֲע ָלה ו ַּמ ֲע ָלה ָהי ּו ּבֹו ְּכ ֵדי‬,‫וַ ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ַמ ֲעלֹות‬ .‫עֹולם ּכוּלּ ֹו‬ ָ ‫ָלזוּן ֶאת ָּכל ָה‬

And Rabbi Yishmael further sent to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: There were 365 markets in the great city of Rome,b and each and every one of them contained 365 towers, and each and every tower contained 365 floors, and each and every floor contained enough food to sustain the entire world.

‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ְ(ל ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי (יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל) ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ָהנֵי ְל ַמן? ָּל ְך ו ְּל ַח ְב ָר ְך‬:)‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ַ ּבר‬ ‫קֹוד ׁש‬ ֶ ‫״ס ְח ָר ּה וְ ֶא ְתנַ ָּנ ּה‬ ַ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ו ְּל ַח ְברו ָּת ְך‬ ‫ּיֹוש ִבים ִל ְפנֵי ה׳‬ ְ ׁ ‫ַלה׳ ל ֹא יֵ ָאצֵ ר וְ ל ֹא יֵ ָח ֵסן ִּכי ַל‬ .‫יִ ְהיֶ ה וגו׳״‬

Rabbi Yishmael also said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and some say that he said it to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei: For whom did they store all this food? He replied: For you and your colleagues and the colleagues of your colleagues, i.e., for the Jewish people and their Sages, as it is stated: “Her grain and her hire shall be consecrated to the Lord; it shall not be treasured nor laid up; for her gain shall be for those who dwell before the Lord, to eat their fill, and for stately clothing” (Isaiah 23:18).

Ruins of Trajan’s Market in Rome, thought to be the world’s most ancient shopping center

‫ ״ל ֹא יֵ ָאצֵ ר״ – זֶ ה‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ ַמאי ״ל ֹא יֵ ָאצֵ ר״? ָּתנֵי ַרב‬The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: “It ‫״כי‬ ִּ ‫ ַמאי‬.‫ ֵ ּבית אֹוצָ ר; ״וְ ל ֹא יֵ ָח ֵסן״ – זֶ ה ֵ ּבית ְ ּגנִיזָ ה‬shall not be treasured”? Rav Yosef teaches: “It shall not :‫ּיֹוש ִבים ִל ְפנֵי ה׳״? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ַל‬be treasured,” this is referring to items brought into a storehouse; “nor laid up,” this means a treasury, where valuable items were stored behind guarded walls. What is the meaning of the phrase: “Who dwell before the Lord?” Rabbi Elazar said:

288 

Perek X . 118b . ‫חיק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳י‬

Perek X Daf 119 Amud a ‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬.‫ זֶ ה ַה ַּמ ִּכיר ְמקֹום ֲח ֵבירֹו ַ ּבּיְ ׁ ִש ָיבה‬This is one who recognizes his colleague’s place in the yeshiva, ‫ זֶ ה ַה ְמ ַק ֵ ּבל ּ ְפנֵי‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬,‫ ְד ָא ְמ ִרי‬as he is there often enough to know where everyone sits. Some This is one .‫יש ָיבה‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ֲח ֵבירֹו ִ ּב‬say that Rabbi Elazar said a different explanation: who greets his colleague in the yeshiva,n as he is always there to meet him. ‫״ל ְמ ַכ ֶּסה ַע ִּתיק״ – זֶ ה ַה ְמ ַכ ֶּסה דְּ ָב ִרים‬ ִ ‫ַמאי‬ ‫ ו ַּמאי נִינְ ה ּו – ִס ְת ֵרי‬.‫יֹומין‬ ִ ‫יסה ַע ִּתיק‬ ָּ ‫ׁ ֶש ִּכ‬ ‫ זֶ ה ַה ְמגַ ֶּלה דְּ ָב ִרים‬:‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫ וְ ִא‬.‫תֹורה‬ ָ ‫ ַמאי נִינְ הוּ? ַט ֲע ֵמי‬.‫יֹומין‬ ִ ‫יסה ַע ִּתיק‬ ָּ ‫ׁ ֶש ִּכ‬ .‫תֹורה‬ ָ

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the continuation of this verse: “For stately clothing [limekhaseh atik]” This is one who conceals [mekhaseh] matters that the Ancient of Days [atik yomin], i.e., God, concealed. And what are these? These are the secrets of the Torah, the esoteric Act of Creation and the Act of the Divine Chariot, which should remain hidden. And some say: This verse is referring to one who reveals matters that the Ancient of Days concealed. And what are these? These are the reasons for different mitzvot in the Torah, which should be kept secret.

‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי‬The Gemara cites another statement attributed to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei. Rav Kahana said, citing Rabbi Yish?‫נַצ ַח ִמזְ מֹור ְל ָדוִ ד״‬ ַ :‫ ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬:‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ּ ֵ ‫״ל ְמ‬ .‫ זַ ְּמר ּו ְל ִמי ׁ ֶשנּ ֹוצְ ִחין אֹותֹו וְ ָ ׂש ֵמ ַח‬mael, son of Rabbi Yosei: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Lamenatzeaĥ a psalm of David” (e.g., Psalms 13:1)? It means: Sing to the One who rejoices when conquered [shenotzĥin oto]. ‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא‬ ׁ ‫ּבֹא ו ְּר ֵאה ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ְּכ ִמדַּ ת ַה ָ ּק‬ – ‫נַצ ִחין אֹותֹו‬ ְּ ‫ ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וָ ָדם ְמ‬.‫ִמדַּ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וָ ָדם‬ ‫דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא נֹוצְ ִחין‬ ׁ ‫ ֲא ָבל ַה ָ ּק‬.‫וְ ָעצֵ ב‬ ‫ֹאמר ְל ַה ׁ ְש ִמ ָידם‬ ֶ ‫ ״וַ ּי‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫אֹותֹו וְ ָ ׂש ֵמ ַח‬ .‫לו ֵּלי מ ׁ ֶֹשה ְב ִחירֹו ָע ַמד ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ֶרץ ְל ָפנָיו״‬

Come and see how the characteristics of the Holy One, Blessed be He, are unlike the characteristics of flesh and blood: When a flesh and blood person is conquered, he is sad; however, when the Holy One, Blessed be He, is conquered, He rejoices, as it is stated: “Therefore He said that He would destroy them, had not Moses His chosen stood before Him in the breach, to turn back His wrath lest He should destroy them” (Psalms 106:23). In this verse Moses is called “His chosen,” although he defeated God, as it were, by preventing Him from destroying the Jewish people.

‫ָא ַמר ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫יֹוסי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֵ ‫ ״וִ ֵידי ָא ָדם‬:‫ ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫יאה‬ ָ ‫נְש‬ ׂ ִ ‫יְ הו ָּדה‬ ‫ זֶ ה יָ דֹו‬,‫יהם״ – ״יָ דֹו״ ְּכ ִתיב‬ ֶ ‫ִמ ַּת ַחת ַּכנְ ֵפ‬ ‫דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא ׁ ֶש ּ ְפרו ָּסה ַּת ַחת‬ ׁ ‫ׁ ֶשל ַה ָ ּק‬ ‫ַּכנְ ֵפי ַה ַחּיֹות ְּכ ֵדי ְל ַק ֵ ּבל ַ ּב ֲע ֵלי ְת ׁשו ָּבה ִמּיַ ד‬ .‫ִמדַּ ת ַהדִּ ין‬

Furthermore, Rav Kahana said, citing Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, who said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, citing Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: What is the meaning of that which is written in the description of the sacred ĥayyot, the angels that carried the Divine chariot: “And they had the hands of a man under their wings” (Ezekiel 1:8)? Although the word is read hands in the plural, actually “his hand” is written in the singular. This is the hand of the Holy One, Blessed be He, that is spread under the wings of the ĥayyot to accept penitents from the claims of the attribute of justice. God accepts sincere penitents, despite the fact that in accordance with the strict attribute of justice they should not be given the opportunity to repent.

‫ ָּכל ֶּכ ֶסף‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫יֹוסף ִל ְּקטֹו וֶ ֱה ִביאֹו‬ ֵ ‫עֹול ם‬ ָ ‫וְ זָ ָהב ׁ ֶש ָ ּב‬ ‫יֹוסף ֶאת ָּכל‬ ֵ ‫ ״וַ יְ ַל ֵ ּקט‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ְל ִמצְ ַריִ ם‬ ‫ ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ֶא ֶרץ‬.‫ַה ֶּכ ֶסף ַה ִּנ ְמצָ א״‬ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָאר ֲא ָרצֹות‬,‫נַען‬ ַ ‫ִמצְ ַריִ ם וְ ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ֶא ֶרץ ְּכ‬ ‫ ״וְ ָכל ָה ָא ֶרץ ָ ּבא ּו‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ִמ ּנַיִ ן – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ .‫ִמצְ ָריְ ָמה״‬

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Joseph collected all the silver and gold in the world and brought it to Egypt, as it is stated: “And Joseph collected all the money found in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 47:14). I have derived only that he collected the money that was in the land of Egypt and that was in the Land of Canaan. From where do I derive that he also collected all the money that was in other lands? The verse states “And all the land came to Egypt to buy food from Joseph, because the famine was sore in all the earth” (Genesis 41:57).

,‫ו ְּכ ׁ ֶש ָעל ּו יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ִמ ִּמצְ ַריִ ם ֶה ֱעלוּה ּו ִע ָּמ ֶהן‬ ‫ ַרב ַא ִסי‬.‫נַצל ּו ֶאת ִמצְ ַריִ ם״‬ ּ ְ ְ‫ ״וַ י‬:‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ .‫ ֲע ָ ׂשאו ָּה ִּכ ְמצו ָּדה זֹו ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ּה דָּ גָ ן‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ ‫ ִּכ ְמצו ָּלה ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ּה‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ָא ַמר‬ .‫דָּ גִ ים‬

And when the Jewish people ascended from Egypt they took this treasure with them, as it is stated: “They despoiled [vaye­ natzlu] Egypt” (Exodus 12:36). The Sages explain this term. Rav Asi said: They made Egypt like this trap [metzuda] for birds, where grain is usually placed as bait, in which there is no grain. Rabbi Shimon said: They made Egypt like the depths [kimetzula] of the sea in which there are no fish.n



notes

One who greets his colleague in the yeshiva – ‫ַה ְמ ַק ֵ ּבל ּ ְפנֵי‬ ‫יש ָיבה‬ ִ ׁ ‫ח ֵבירֹו ִ ּב‬:ֲ Some commentaries explain that one should come to the yeshiva as early as possible, in accordance with the statement: In all my days no one came to the study hall before me (Sukka 28a). As the first to arrive, a person will be able to greet his colleagues upon their entry, whereas they will not be in a position to welcome him into the yeshiva (Maharsha). Like the depths in which there are no fish – ‫ִּכ ְמצו ָּלה ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬ ‫ב ּה דָּ גִ ים‬:ּ ָ Rashi explains that fish stay near the shore where food is more readily available. Other commentaries point out that the metaphor Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish chose sheds fresh light on the verse, as one who removes fish from the sea takes fish that were there before he arrived on the scene. Similarly, when Israel left Egypt, they took all of the gold and silver that was there previously (Rabbi Elazar Moshe Horowitz). ‫טיק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 119a 

289

NOTES

Hadrimmon – ‫ימֹון‬ ּ ‫ה ְד ִר‬:ַ The name Hadrimmon ben Tabrimmon does not appear in the Bible, but we do find the names: “Ben Hadad ben Tabrimmon” (I Kings 15:18) and “Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon” (Zachariah 12:11), which, according to the Aramaic Targum, is referring to the same ben Hadad mentioned in the book of Kings. White mules – ‫פ ָרדֹות ְל ָבנֹות‬:ְ ּ Some commentaries explain that the Gemara mentions white mules because they are violent and kick dangerously. The Gemara’s intention is that even Korah’s servants and his animals were evil (Rabbi Shem Tov ben Shafut). Others maintain that Korah used white mules so that people would be too frightened of them to attempt to take the keys (Maharsha). Dalet, yod, alef, shin, alef, dalet, yod, shin, khaf, shin, dalet, khaf, mem, alef, vav, dalet, khaf – ‫דיא״ש אדי״ש כשד״ך מאוד״ך‬: This is a mnemonic device for the names of the speakers in the next section. They are: David, Yishai, the brothers [aĥim], Samuel, the brothers, David, Yishai, Samuel, everyone [kulam], Samuel, David, everyone. The last term signifies that their recitation starts from [me] the word odekha, meaning: I will give thanks to You (HaKotev). The brothers of David recited…David recited – ‫יו…א ַמר דָּ וִ ד‬ ָ ‫א ְמר ּו ֶא ָח‬:ָ The basis for the exposition is the constant switching back and forth from singular to plural in these verses. “I will give thanks to You” was recited by David in praise of God for choosing him as king. “The stone which the builders rejected,” was stated by David’s father, as David was initially overlooked by Samuel. The brothers spoke in the plural: “It is marvelous in our eyes.” “This is the day” was recited by Samuel the Prophet, who explained that David was God’s choice. “We beseech You, Lord,” was said by the brothers, when they prayed for David. “Make us prosper,” is a prayer on behalf of the entire nation, recited by David himself. Yishai, his father, blessed him, and Samuel also blessed him as a Prophet “out of the house of God.”

‫ישק ֶמ ֶלךְ ִמצְ ַריִ ם‬ ַ ׁ ‫ ָ ּבא ׁ ִש‬.‫וְ ָהיָ ה מו ָּּנח ַעד ְר ַח ְב ָעם‬ ‫ישית‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ״וַ יְ ִהי ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה ַה ֲח ִמ‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ּנְטלֹו ֵמ ְר ַח ְב ָעם‬ ָ ‫ו‬ ‫[על‬ ַ ‫ישק ֶמ ֶל ְך ִמצְ ַריִ ם‬ ַ ׁ ‫ַל ֶּמ ֶל ְך ְר ַח ְב ָעם ָע ָלה ׁ ִש‬ ‫יְ רו ׁ ָּש ָליִ ם] וַ ּיִ ַ ּקח ֶאת אֹוצְ רֹות ֵ ּבית ה׳ וְ ֶאת אֹוצְ רֹות‬ .‫ישק‬ ַ ׁ ‫ּנְטלֹו ִמ ׁ ּ ִש‬ ָ ‫ֵ ּבית ַה ֶּמ ֶלךְ ״ ָ ּבא זֶ ַרח ֶמ ֶלךְ ּכו ּׁש ו‬

And this treasure remained in Eretz Yisrael until the time of Rehoboam, at which point Shishak, king of Egypt, came and took it from Rehoboam, as it is stated: “And it came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem. And he took the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king’s house; and he took away all” (I Kings 14:25–26). Zerah, king of Kush, who ruled over Egypt, later came and took it from Shishak.

‫ וְ ׁ ִש ְ ּיגרֹו‬,‫ָ ּבא ָא ָסא וּנְ ָטלוּה ּו ִמּזֶ ַרח ֶמ ֶל ְך ּכ ּו ׁש‬ ‫ ָ ּבא ּו ְ ּבנֵי ַע ּמֹון וּנְ ָטלוּם‬.‫ימֹון‬ ּ ‫ימֹון ֶ ּבן ַט ְב ִר‬ ּ ‫ְל ַה ְד ִר‬ ‫ּנְטלֹו ִמ ְ ּבנֵי‬ ָ ‫הֹוש ָפט ו‬ ָ ׁ ְ‫ ָ ּבא י‬.‫ימֹון‬ ּ ‫ימֹון ֶ ּבן ַט ְב ִר‬ ּ ‫ֵמ ַה ְד ִר‬ .‫ וְ ָהיָ ה מו ָּּנח ַעד ָא ָחז‬,‫ַע ּמֹון‬

Asa came and took it from Zerah, king of Kush, when he defeated him in battle (II Chronicles 14) and sent it to Hadrimmonn ben Tabrimmon, king of Aram (see I Kings 15). The children of Ammon came and took it from Hadrimmon ben Tabrimmon, as learned by tradition. Jehosaphat came and took it from the children of Ammon (see II Chronicles 20), and it remained in Eretz Yisrael until the reign of Ahaz.

‫ ָ ּבא ִחזְ ִקּיָ ה וּנְ ָטלֹו‬.‫ָ ּבא ַסנְ ֵח ִריב וּנְ ָטלֹו ֵמ ָא ָחז‬ ‫ ָ ּבא ּו ַּכ ְ ׂשדִּ ּיִ ים‬.‫ וְ ָהיָ ה מו ָּּנח ַעד צִ ְד ִקּיָ ה‬,‫ִמ ַּסנְ ֵח ִריב‬ ‫ ָ ּבא ּו ּ ַפ ְר ִסּיִ ים ּו נְ ָט ל ּוה ּו‬.‫ּו נְ ָט ל ּוה ּו ִמ ִ ּצ ְד ִקּיָ ה‬ ‫ ָ ּבא ּו‬.‫ ָ ּבא ּו יְ וָ ונִים וּנְ ָטלוּה ּו ִמ ּ ַפ ְר ִסּיִ ים‬.‫ִמ ַּכ ְ ׂשדִּ ּיִ ים‬ .‫רֹומי‬ ִ ‫ וַ ֲע ַדיִ ין מו ָּּנח ְ ּב‬,‫ּנְטלוּה ּו ִמּיַ ד יְ וָ ונִים‬ ָ ‫רֹומּיִ ים ו‬ ִ

Sennacherib came and took it from Ahaz. Hezekiah came and took it from Sennacherib, and it remained in Jerusalem until the reign of Zedekiah. The Chaldeans came and took it from Zedekiah. The Persians came and took it from the Chaldeans. The Greeks came and took it from the Persians. The Romans came and took it from the Greeks, and this treasure of silver and gold still remains in Rome.

‫ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ַמ ְטמֹונִּיֹות‬:‫(בר) ֲחנִינָ א‬ ּ ַ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ָח ָמא‬ ‫ וְ ַא ַחת‬,‫ ַא ַחת נִ ְת ַ ּג ָּלה ְלק ַֹרח‬.‫יֹוסף ְ ּב ִמצְ ַריִ ם‬ ֵ ‫ִה ְט ִמין‬ ‫ וְ ַא ַחת ְ ּגנוּזָ ה‬,‫נִ ְת ַ ּג ָּלה ְל ַאנְ טֹונִינֹוס ֶ ּבן ַא ְסוֵ ירוּס‬ .‫ַל ַ ּצדִּ ִיקים ֶל ָע ִתיד ָלבֹא‬

With regard to this matter, Rabbi Ĥama bar Ĥanina said: Joseph hid three treasures in Egypt. One of them was revealed to Korah, one was revealed to Antoninos ben Asveiros, king of Rome, and one is hidden for the righteous in the future.

‫״עושר ׁ ָשמוּר ִל ְב ָע ָליו ְל ָר ָעתֹו״ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ ֶׁ ‫) ״וְ ֵאת‬:‫(ש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ ֶ ׁ ,‫ זֹו ָע ׁ ְשרֹו ׁ ֶשל ק ַֹרח‬:‫ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬ :‫יהם״ – ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ֶ ‫ָּכל ַהיְ קוּם ֲא ׁ ֶשר ְ ּב ַרגְ ֵל‬ ‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫זֶ ה ָממֹונֹו ׁ ֶשל ָא ָדם ׁ ֶש ַּמ ֲע ִמידֹו ַעל ַרגְ ָליו‬ ‫ ַמ ּ ׂשאֹוי ׁ ְשל ֹׁש ֵמאֹות ּ ְפ ָרדֹות ְל ָבנֹות ָהי ּו‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי ֵלוִ י‬ ‫ וְ כו ְּּלה ּו ַא ְק ִל ֵידי‬,‫ַמ ְפ ְּתחֹות ֵ ּבית ְ ּגנָ זָ יו ׁ ֶשל ק ַֹרח‬ .‫ו ְּק ִל ּ ֵיפי דְּ גִ ְלדָּ א‬

With regard to Korah’s wealth, the Gemara cites the verse: “Riches kept by his owner to his hurt” (Ecclesiastes 5:12). Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: This is the wealth of Korah, which caused him to grow arrogant and lead to his destruction. As it is stated: “And what He did to Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, son of Reuben; how the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up, and their households, and their tents, and all the sustenance that was at their feet” (Deuteronomy 11:6). Rabbi Elazar said: This is referring to a person’s money that stands him upon his own two feet. Rabbi Levi said: The keys to Korah’s treasuries were a load of three hundred strong white mules,n and they were all keys [aklidei]lb and locks made of leather.

‫) ָא ַמר‬.‫ימן‬ ָ ‫(דיא״ש אדי״ש כשד״ך מאוד״ך ִס‬ ‫״אֹודךָ ִּכי‬ ְ :‫ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר נַ ְח ָמנִי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יֹונָ ָתן‬ ‫״א ֶבן ָמ ֲאס ּו ַה ּבֹונִים ָהיְ ָתה‬ ֶ ;‫נִיתנִי״ – ָא ַמר דָּ וִ ד‬ ָ ‫ֲע‬ – ‫״מ ֵאת ה׳ ָהיְ ָתה זֹאת״‬ ֵ ;‫ֹאש ּ ִפ ָּנה״ – ָא ַמר יִ ׁ ַשי‬ ׁ ‫ְלר‬ ‫ָא ְמר ּו ֶא ָחיו; ״זֶ ה ַהּיֹום ָע ָ ׂשה ה׳״ – ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬

Dalet, yod, alef, shin, alef, dalet, yod, shin, khaf, shin, dalet, khaf, mem, alef, vav, dalet, khaf n is a mnemonic device for the following passage. Returning to the issue of hallel, the Gemara states that these psalms include choruses in which each section is sung by a different person. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naĥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said that David recited: “I will give thanks to You, for You have answered me” (Psalms 118:21), with regard to the success of his reign. Yishai recited: “The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief keystone” (Psalms 118:22). The brothers of David recited: “This is the Lord’s doing; it is marvelous in our eyes” (Psalms 118:23). Samuel the Prophet recited: “This is the day which the Lord has made; we will rejoice and be glad in it” (Psalms 118:24).

‫״א ָּנא ה׳‬ ָ ;‫יעה ָּנא״ ָא ְמר ּו ֶא ָחיו‬ ָ ‫הֹוש‬ ִ ׁ ‫״א ָּנא ה׳‬ ָ ‫״ברו ְּך ַה ָ ּבא ְ ּב ׁ ֵשם‬ ּ ָ ;‫יחה נָ א״ – ָא ַמר דָּ וִ ד‬ ָ ‫ַהצְ ִל‬ ‫״ב ַר ְכנו ֶּכם ִמ ֵ ּבית ה׳״ – ָא ַמר‬ ּ ֵ ;‫ה׳״ – ָא ַמר יִ ׁ ַשי‬ ‫״א ְסר ּו‬ ִ .‫״אל ה׳ וַ יָ ֶאר ָלנוּ״ – ָא ְמר ּו ּכו ָּּלן‬ ֵ ;‫ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫״א ִלי ַא ָּתה‬ ֵ ;‫בֹותים״ – ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ִ ‫ַח ג ַ ּב ֲע‬ ‫רֹומ ֶמ ָּך״ – ָא ְמר ּו‬ ְ ‫״אל ַֹהי ֲא‬ ֱ ;‫אֹוד ָּך״ – ָא ַמר דָּ וִ ד‬ ֶ ְ‫ו‬ .‫ּכו ָּּלן‬

The brothers of David recited: “We beseech You, Lord, save now” (Psalms 118:25). David recited: “We beseech You, Lord, make us prosper now” (Psalms 118:25). Yishai recited: “Blessed be he who comes in the name of the Lord” (Psalms 118:26). Samuel recited: “We bless you out of the house of the Lord” (Psalms 118:26). They all recited: “The Lord is God, and has given us light” (Psalms 118:27). Samuel recited: “Order the Festival procession with boughs, even to the horns of the altar” (Psalms 118:27). David recited:n “You are my God, and I will give thanks to You” (Psalms 118:28). They all recited: “You are my God, I will exalt You” (Psalms 118:28).

LANGUAGE

Keys [aklidei] – ‫א ְק ִל ֵידי‬:ַ From the Greek κλεῖδα, kleida, meaning keys. BACKGROUND

Keys – ‫א ְק ִל ֵידי‬:ַ

Key from the mishnaic period

290 

Perek X . 119a . ‫טיק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳י‬

‫ ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ָּנ ֲהג ּו‬:‫ ְּתנַן ָה ָתם‬We learned in a mishna there, in Sukka: In a place where they were accustomed

Perek X Daf 119 Amud b ְ‫ִל ְכ ּפֹול – יִ ְכ ּפֹול; ִל ְפ ׁשֹוט – יִ ְפ ׁשֹוט; ְל ָב ֵרך‬ .‫ ַה ּכֹל ְּכ ִמנְ ַהג ַה ְּמ ִדינָ ה‬,‫ַא ֲח ָריו – ָיְב ֵר ְך‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ְל ַא ֲח ָריו‬:‫ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬. ְ‫[מצְ וָ ה] ְל ָב ֵרך‬ ִ – ‫ְל ָפנָיו‬ ‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ ָּכל ַה ִּמצְ �ֹות ְמ ָב ֵר ְך ֲע ֵל‬:‫ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ .‫יתן‬ ָ ָ‫עֹובר ַל ֲע ִ ׂשּי‬ ֵ

to doubleh certain verses in hallel, one doubles them and reads them twice. In a place where the custom is to recite them simply, i.e., only once, one recites them simply. In a place where it is customary to recite a blessing after hallel, one should recite a blessing. Everything is in accordance with the regional custom. Abaye said: They taught that it depends on the local custom only with regard to the blessing after hallel; however, in all places it is a mitzva to recite a blessing before hallel. As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to all the mitzvot, one recites a blessing over them prior to their performance.

‫ישנָ א‬ ָ ּ ׁ ‫״עֹובר״ ִל‬ ֵ ‫ַמאי ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע דְּ ַהאי‬ ‫ֹומי הוּא? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר‬ ִ ּ‫דְּ ַא ְקד‬ ‫ימ ַעץ דֶּ ֶר ְך‬ ַ ‫ ״וַ ּיָ ָרץ ֲא ִח‬:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫יִ צְ ָחק‬ ,‫ ַא ַ ּביֵ י ָא ַמר‬.‫ַה ִּכ ָּכר וַ ּיַ ֲעבֹור ֶאת ַה ּכו ׁ ִּשי״‬ ‫יכא‬ ֶ ‫ ״וְ הוּא ָע ַבר ִל ְפ‬:‫ֵמ ָה ָכא‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬.‫נֵיהם״‬ ‫נֵיהם‬ ֶ ‫ ״וַ ּיַ ֲעבֹור ַמ ְל ָּכם ִל ְפ‬:‫ ֵמ ָה ָכא‬,‫דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ .‫ֹאשם״‬ ָ ׁ ‫וַ ה׳ ְ ּבר‬

The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that the word over is a formulation that means before an action is performed? Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said that this is as it is written: “And Ahimaaz ran by way of the square and he passed [vaya’avor] the Kushite” (II Samuel 18:23), i.e., Ahimaaz overtook the Kushite. Abaye said that it is derived from here: “And he passed [avar] before them” (Genesis 33:3). Some say that the proof is from here: “And their king shall pass on [vaya’avor] before them, and God at their head” (Micah 2:13).

‫ ַר ִ ּבי ּכ ֵֹופל ָ ּב ּה דְּ ָב ִרים; ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬:‫ַּתנְיָא‬ ?‫מֹוסיף‬ ִ ‫ ַמאי‬.‫מֹוסיף ָ ּב ּה דְּ ָב ִרים‬ ִ ‫ֶ ּבן ּ ְפ ָר ָטא‬ ‫״אֹודךָ ״‬ ְ ‫מֹוסיף ִל ְכ ּפֹול ֵמ‬ ִ :‫ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ .‫ְל ַמ ָּטה‬

It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi doubles certain matters in hallel. Rabbi Elazar ben Perata added matters to hallel. The Gemara asks: What did he add? Certainly this cannot mean that Rabbi Elazar ben Perata added statements of his own to hallel. Abaye said: He added repetitions, i.e., he repeated other verses, from “I will give thanks to You”n and onward. From that point on, he repeated each verse.

‫יה‬ ְ ִ‫ ז‬,‫דָּ ַר ׁש ַרב ֲעוִ ָירא‬ ּ ‫יה ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬ ּ ‫ימנִין ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ּ ‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ ‫מ‬ ֵ ‫ש‬ ְ ׁ ‫מ‬ ִ ‫יה‬ ‫ל‬ ֵ ‫ר‬ ‫מ‬ ַ ‫א‬ ֲ ‫ימנִין‬ ְ ִ‫ וְ ז‬,‫דְּ ַרב ַא ִמי‬ ּ ּ ‫ ״וַ ּיִ גְ דַּ ל ַהּיֶ ֶלד וַ ּיִ ָ ּג ַמל״‬:‫ ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ַא ִסי‬ ‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא ַל ֲעשׂ ֹות ְסעוּדָּ ה‬ ׁ ‫ָע ִתיד ַה ָ ּק‬ ‫ַל ַ ּצדִּ ִיקים ְ ּביֹום ׁ ֶשּיִ גְ מֹל ַח ְסדּ ֹו ְלזַ ְרעֹו ׁ ֶשל‬ ‫נֹותנִין לֹו‬ ְ ‫אֹוכ ִלין וְ ׁש ִֹותין‬ ְ ‫ ְל ַא ַחר ׁ ֶש‬.‫יִ צְ ָחק‬ , ְ‫ְל ַא ְב ָר ָהם ָא ִבינ ּו ּכֹוס ׁ ֶשל ְ ּב ָר ָכה ְל ָב ֵרך‬

In connection to its discussion of hallel, the Gemara cites a statement that Rav Avira taught. Sometimes he said this exposition citing Rav Ami, and sometimes he said it citing Rav Asi: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And the child grew and was weaned [vayiggamal],n and Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned” (Genesis 21:8)? In the future, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will prepare a feast for the righteous on the day that He extends [sheyigmol] His mercy to the descendants of Isaac. After they eat and drink, the celebrants will give Abraham our father a cup of blessing to recite the blessing, as he is the first of our forefathers.

‫ ׁ ֶשּיָ צָ א ִמ ֶּמ ּנִי‬,‫ ֵאינִי ְמ ָב ֵר ְך‬:‫אֹומר ָל ֶהן‬ ֵ ְ‫ו‬ ! ְ‫ טֹול ו ָּב ֵרך‬:‫אֹומר לֹו ְליִ צְ ָחק‬ ֵ .‫יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬ ‫ ׁ ֶשּיָ צָ א ִמ ֶּמ ּנִי‬,‫ ֵאינִי ְמ ָב ֵר ְך‬:‫אֹומר ָל ֶהן‬ ֵ ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ !‫ טֹול ו ָּב ֵר ְך‬:‫אֹומר לֹו ְליַ ֲעקֹב‬ ֵ .‫ֵע ָ ׂשו‬ ‫אתי ׁ ְש ֵּתי ֲא ָחיֹות‬ ִ ‫ָש‬ ׂ ָ ‫ ׁ ֶש ּנ‬, ְ‫ ֵאינִי ְמ ָב ֵרך‬:‫ָל ֶהם‬ .‫אֹוס ָרן ָע ַלי‬ ְ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֲע ִת ָידה ּת ָֹורה ְל‬,‫יהן‬ ֶ ֵ‫ְ ּב ַחּי‬

And Abraham will say to them: I will not recite the blessing, as I am blemished, for the wicked Ishmael came from me. Abraham will say to Isaac: Take the cup and recite the blessing. Isaac will say to them: I will not recite the blessing, as the wicked Esau came from me. Isaac will say to Jacob: Take the cup and recite the blessing. Jacob will say to them: I will not recite the blessing, as I married two sisters, Rachel and Leah, in their lifetimes, and in the future the Torah forbade them to me. Although at the time it was not prohibited to wed two sisters, this practice would eventually be considered a serious transgression.

:‫אֹומר ָל ֶהם‬ ֵ . ְ‫ טֹול ו ָּב ֵרך‬:‫אֹומר לֹו ְלמ ׁ ֶֹשה‬ ֵ ‫יכנֵס ְל ֶא ֶרץ‬ ִ ‫ ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא זָ ִכ‬,‫ֵאינִי ְמ ָב ֵר ְך‬ ָּ ‫יתי ִל‬ ‫אֹומר לֹו‬ ֵ .‫מֹותי‬ ִ ‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ל ֹא ְ ּב ַחּיַ י וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב‬ ‫ ֵאינִי‬:‫אֹומר ָל ֶהן‬ ֵ !‫ טֹול ו ָּב ֵר ְך‬:‫יהֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ‫ִל‬ ‫״יְהֹוש ַע‬ ֻׁ :‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא זָ ִכ ִיתי ְל ֵבן‬, ְ‫ְמ ָב ֵרך‬ .‫הֹוש ַע ְ ּבנֹו‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ י‬,‫ִ ּבן נוּן״ – נוּן ְ ּבנֹו‬

Jacob will say to Moses: Take the cup and recite the blessing. Moses will say to them: I will not recite the blessing, as I did not merit to enter Eretz Yisrael, neither in my life nor in my death. Moses will say to Joshua: Take the cup and recite the blessing. Joshua will say to them: I will not recite the blessing, as I did not merit to have a son. The proof for this is that it is written: “Joshua the son of Nun” (Numbers 14:6), and in the genealogical list of Ephraim it states: “Nun his son, Joshua his son” (I Chronicles 7:27). Since the verse does not mention any children of Joshua, evidently he had no sons.



halakha

In a place where they were accustomed to double – ‫מקֹום ׁ ֶש ָּנ ֲהג ּו ִל ְכ ּפֹול‬:ָ Each community should observe its local customs with regard to the repetition of verses in hallel and with regard to which verses the prayer leader recites out loud, followed by the congregation. In general, the practice is to repeat the verses from “I will give thanks to you” until the conclusion of hallel. The prayer leader recites “So let Israel now say,” and the congregation answers, “Give thanks to the Lord,” and likewise with the phrase: “So let the house of Aaron now say.” In certain communities, the custom is for the congregation to recite these verses quietly, even though the prayer leader recites them on their behalf (Magen Avraham; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 422:3). notes

He added repetitions from “I will give thanks to You” – ‫״אֹודךָ ״‬ ְ ‫מֹוסיף ִל ְכ ּפֹול ֵמ‬: ִ Tosefot Rid cites Rashi’s interpretation that one should repeat the last four verses of Psalm 118 to continue the format of the previous verses, which contain repetitions and parallel structures. And the child grew and was weaned – ‫וַ ּיִגְ דַּ ל ַהּיֶ ֶלד וַ ָ ּּיִג ַמל‬: The double mention of Isaac’s weaning is apparently superfluous: “And the child grew and was weaned and Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned” (Genesis 21:8). Therefore, the Gemara explains that the repetition is referring to the future (Maharsha; Rav Yoshiya Pinto). One interpretation is that the phrase: “Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned,” is referring to the feast Abraham will prepare for David, about whom the verse uses the verb make: “And I will make you a great name, like the names of the great ones in the earth” (II Samuel 7:9; see Rabbi Elazar Moshe Horowitz).

‫טיק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 119b 

291

notes

It is fitting for me to recite the blessing – ‫לי נָ ֶאה ְל ָב ֵר ְך‬:ִ This passage underscores the greatness of King David, the ancestor of the Messiah. All of the personalities in this story were found wanting except for David, as he was forgiven for the incident involving Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah (Rabbi Shem Tov ben Shafut). Some commentaries note that Grace after Meals mentions circumcision, Torah, Eretz Yisrael, and the kingship of David. Only King David can mention all of these concepts (Maharsha). Furthermore, as a king, David is not permitted to refuse the honor that was offered him. Indeed, it is appropriate for a king to bless the King of Kings (Yefe Toar). One does not conclude after the Paschal lamb with an afikoman – ‫יקֹומן‬ ָ ‫אין ַמ ְפ ִט ִירין ַא ַחר ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ֲא ִפ‬:ֵ When the Temple was standing, the reason for this prohibition was to avoid leaving any meat from the Paschal lamb. Other commentaries suggest that if one eats dessert, he thereby demonstrates that the Paschal lamb was not filling (Me’iri). Nowadays, it is prohibited eat after the so-called matza of the afikoman, to illustrate that one drank the four cups of wine specifically in fulfillment of the mitzva (Rav Ya’akov Emden). Alternatively, if one eats after the matza of the afikoman, he might neglect to finish the seder. Conclude [maftirin] – ‫מ ְפ ִט ִירין‬:ַ There are several different explanations of this term. Some commentaries state that it means to open or begin. If so, the phrase indicates that one should not begin eating anything after finishing the Paschal lamb (Rabbi Ovadya Bartenura). Others explain that the word means to conclude (see Rashi and Rashbam). Afikoman – ‫יקֹומן‬ ָ ‫א ִפ‬: ֲ The amora’im explain this word is explained in various ways. According to Rav, it is an amalgamation of the Aramaic phrase afiku mani, take out the vessels. According to Shmuel, it is derived from a different Aramaic phrase, afiku mini, take out different kinds (Mikhtam; Rav Yehuda ben Rav Binyamin HaRofeh; Rabbeinu Yehonatan). One opinion, cited in the Jerusalem Talmud, is that the term means: Kinds of song. In accordance with that interpretation, Rav Natan recommends avoiding all mundane talk after the seder. language

Afikoman – ‫יקֹומן‬ ָ ‫א ִפ‬: ֲ Some say that this is from the Greek ἐπίκωμον, epikomon, meaning food that is part of a festive meal. This statement is in keeping with Rav’s explanation and the opinion in the Jerusalem Talmud that the word means songs. Others state that even in Greek, the word has a broader meaning, as it refers to food eaten or activities performed after a meal. Mushrooms [urdila’ei] – ‫או ְּר ִד ָיל ֵאי‬: Apparently from the Arabic

‫ﻋﺮﺪ‬, ‘arad, meaning mushrooms.

‫אֹומר‬ ֵ !‫ טֹול ו ָּב ֵר ְך‬:‫אֹומר לֹו ְל ָדוִ ד‬ ֵ ,‫ וְ ִלי נָ ֶאה ְל ָב ֵר ְך‬,‫ ֲאנִי ֲא ָב ֵר ְך‬:‫ָל ֶהן‬ ‫״כֹוס יְ ׁשוּעֹות ֶא ּ ָ ׂשא ו ְּב ׁ ֵשם‬ ּ :‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ .‫ה׳ ֶא ְק ָרא״‬

mishna  ‫ גמ׳‬gemara 

‫מתני׳‬

One does not conclude after the Paschal lamb with an afikoman.nl

‫ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬:‫יקֹומן? ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ָ ‫ַמאי ֲא ִפ‬ .‫יַ ַע ְקר ּו ֵמ ֲחבו ָּרה ַל ֲחבו ָּרה‬

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of afikoman? Rav said: It means that a member of a group that ate the Paschal lamb together should not leave that group to join another group. One who joined one group for the Paschal lamb may not leave and take food with him. According to this interpretation, afikoman is derived from the phrase afiku mani, take out the vessels. The reason for this prohibition is that people might remove the Paschal lamb to another location after they had begun to eat it elsewhere. This is prohibited, as the Paschal lamb must be eaten in a single location by one group.

‫יל ֵאי ִלי‬ ָ ‫ ְּכגֹון א ּו ְר ִד‬:‫ּו ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר‬ ‫ וְ ַרב ֲחנִינָ א ַ ּבר ׁ ֵש ָילא‬.‫וְ גֹוזַ ַלּיָ יא ְל ַא ָ ּבא‬ ‫) ְּכגֹון ְּת ָמ ִרים ְק ָליֹות‬:‫(א ַמר‬ ָ ‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ֵאין‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ ַּתנְיָא ְּכוָ ֵות‬.‫וֶ ֱאגֹוזִ ים‬ ‫ ְּכגֹון ְּת ָמ ִרים‬,‫ַמ ְפ ִט ִירין ַא ַחר ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ .‫ְק ָליֹות וֶ ֱאגֹוזִ ים‬

And Shmuel said: It means that one may not eat dessert after the meal, like mushrooms [urdila’ei]lb for me, and chicks for Abba, Rav. It was customary for them to eat delicacies after the meal. And Rav Ĥanina bar Sheila and Rabbi Yoĥanan say: Afikoman refers to foods such as dates, roasted grains, and nuts, which are eaten during the meal. It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan: One does not conclude by eating after the Paschal lamb foods such as dates, roasted grains, and nuts.

‫ ֵאין‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ :‫ ְּתנַ ן‬.‫יקֹומן‬ ָ ‫ַמ ְפ ִט ִירין ַא ַחר ַמ ָ ּצה ֲא ִפ‬ .‫יקֹומן‬ ָ ‫ֵאין ַמ ְפ ִט ִירין ַא ַחר ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ֲא ִפ‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ְל ַא ַחר‬,‫ַא ַחר ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח – הוּא דְּ ָלא‬ !‫ַמ ָ ּצה – ַמ ְפ ִט ִירין‬

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said an additional halakha: Nowadays, when we have no Paschal lamb, one does not conclude after matza with an afikoman.h The Gemara asks: We learned in the mishna that one does not concluden after the Paschal lamb with an afikoman.n The Gemara infers from the mishna: It is after the Paschal lamb that one may not conclude with an afikoman; however, after matza one may conclude with an afikoman. This statement of the mishna apparently contradicts Shmuel’s ruling.

‫יב ֲעיָ א ַא ַחר‬ ּ ָ ‫יב ֲעיָ א ָק ָא ַמר; ָלא ִמ‬ ּ ָ ‫ָלא ִמ‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,ּ‫ַמ ָ ּצה – דְּ ָלא נָ ֵפ ׁיש ַט ְע ַמיְ יהו‬ ‫ וְ ָלא ָמצֵ י‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ְל ַא ַחר ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח דְּ נָ ֵפ ׁיש ַט ְע ֵמ‬ .‫ ָק ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫יה – ֵלית ָלן ָ ּב ּה‬ ּ ‫ֲעבו ֵּר‬

The Gemara rejects this contention: That is an incorrect inference, as the mishna is stated in the style of: Needless to say. The mishna should be understood as follows: Needless to say that one may not conclude with an afikoman after eating matza, as the taste of matza is slight. If one eats anything else afterward, the taste of the matza will dissipate. However, after the Paschal lamb, which has a strong taste that is not easily removed, one might think that we have no problem with it. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that it is prohibited to conclude with an afikoman after the Paschal lamb as well.

‫ ַה ּסו ְּפ ָ ּגנִין וְ ַהדּ ו ְּב ׁ ָשנִין‬:‫יה‬ ָ ּ ‫נֵימא ְמ ַסּיַ יע ֵל‬ ‫יטין – ָא ָדם ְמ ַמ ֵּלא ְּכ ֵריסֹו‬ ִ ‫יס ְק ִר‬ ְ ‫וְ ָה ֶא‬ ‫ֹאכל ַּכּזַ יִ ת ַמ ָ ּצה‬ ַ ‫ ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶשּי‬,‫ֵמ ֶהן‬ ,‫ ָ ּב ַא ֲחרֹונָ ה – ִאין‬.‫ָ ּב ַא ֲחרֹונָ ה‬

The Gemara proposes: Let us say that the Tosefta supports Shmu­el’s ruling: With regard to unleavened sponge cakes, cakes fried in oil and honey, and honey cakes, a person may fill his stomach with them on Passover night, provided that he eats an olive-bulk of matza after all that food. The Gemara infers from here that if he eats the matza after those cakes, yes, this is acceptable, as the matza is eaten last.

‫ֵאין ַמ ְפ ִט ִירין ַא ַחר ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח‬

.‫יקֹומן‬ ָ ‫ֲא ִפ‬

background

Mushrooms – ‫או ְּר ִד ָיל ֵאי‬: Truffles, from the Tuberaceae family, are a unique type of mushroom that grow entirely underground. The fruit itself is shaped as a round bulb. Truffles can be black, brown or off-white. The diameter of a truffle is normally 3.5 cm, but it can grow up to 10 cm, with larger truffles weighing as much as 1 kg. These mushrooms can be located by examining the shape of the ground above them or by using animals trained to find them. Most young truffles are edible and are considered a delicacy.

Joshua will say to David: Take the cup and recite the blessing. David will say to them: I will recite the blessing, and it is fitting for me to recite the blessing,n as it is stated: “I will lift up the cup of salvation, and I will call upon the name of the Lord” (Psalms 116:13).

halakha

One does not conclude after matza with an afikoman – ‫יקֹומן‬ ָ ‫אין ַמ ְפ ִט ִירין ַא ַחר ַמ ָ ּצה ֲא ִפ‬:ֵ After eating the final olive-bulk portion of matza, called the afikoman, no more food should be eaten. The halakha is in accordance with the opinions of Shmuel and Rabbi Yoĥanan. Some authorities state that if one ate food after the afikoman, he should consume an additional olive-bulk portion of matza (Eliya Rabba). Others disagree, maintaining that there is no need to eat more

292 

Perek X . 119b . ‫טיק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬

‫׳י‬

(Be’er Heitev). In addition, it is prohibited to drink after the matza of the afikoman (Magen Avraham). However, most authorities concur that only drinking alcoholic beverages is prohibited, while other drinks are permitted (Be’er Heitev). Later authorities write that one should drink nothing apart from water, unless it is absolutely necessary (Shulĥan Arukh HaRav; Mishna Berura; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 478:1).

Perek X Daf 120 Amud a ‫ ָלא‬:‫יב ֲעיָ א ָק ָא ַמר‬ ּ ָ ‫ ָלא ִמ‬.‫אשֹונָ ה – ָלא‬ ׁ ‫ָ ּב ִר‬ ,‫יאבֹון‬ ָ ‫אשֹונָ ה – דְּ ָק ָא ֵכיל ְל ֵת‬ ׁ ‫יב ֲעיָ א ָ ּב ִר‬ ּ ָ ‫ִמ‬ ‫יכל ֲא ִכ ָילה‬ ַ ‫ דִּ ְיל ָמא ָא ֵתי ְל ֵמ‬,‫ֲא ָבל ָ ּב ַא ֲחרֹונָ ה‬ .‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫ימא ָלא‬ ָ ‫גַ ָּסה – ֵא‬

‫יֹוסף ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ֵ ‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬:‫ָמר זו ְּט ָרא ַמ ְתנֵי ָה ִכי‬ ‫ ַמ ְפ ִט ִירין ַא ַחר ַה ַּמ ָ ּצה‬:‫יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ‫ ֵאין ַמ ְפ ִט ִירין‬:‫יה‬ ָ .‫יקֹומן‬ ָ ‫ֲא ִפ‬ ּ ‫נֵימא ְמ ַסּיַ יע ֵל‬ ,‫ ַא ַחר ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח – דְּ ָלא‬.‫יקֹומן‬ ָ ‫ַא ַחר ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ֲא ִפ‬ !‫ֲא ָבל ַא ַחר ַמ ָ ּצה – ַמ ְפ ִט ִירין‬

However, if one eats matza before these other foods, no, one may not start eating other foods after matza. The mishna apparently supports Rav Yehuda’s opinion. The Gemara rejects this proof: The Tosefta is stated in the style of: Needless to say. Needless to say, one fulfills his obligation if he eats matza before other foods, as he eats it with an appetite. However, if one eats matza after eating other foods, perhaps he will come to eat it in the manner of excessive eating, as he is compelled to eat when he is not hungry. Consequently, you might say that one does not fulfill his obligation if he eats matza after all those other foods. Therefore, the Tosefta teaches us that one may eat matza even after consuming those foods. This is how Mar Zutra taught this discussion: Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One may conclude after the matza with an afikoman. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports his opinion: One does not conclude after the Paschal lamb with an afikoman. The Gemara infers: It is after the Paschal lamb that one may not conclude with an afikoman; however, after matza one may conclude with an afikoman.

halakha

Matza nowadays – ‫מ ָ ּצה ַ ּבּזְ ַמן ַהּזֶ ה‬:ַ Nowadays, the mitzva to eat matza is a Torah obligation, as the mitzva applies at all times and is not dependent on the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rava and the baraita cited in support (Maggid Mishne; Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Ĥametz UMatza 6:1). Bitter herbs nowadays – ‫מרֹור ַ ּבּזְ ַמן ַהּזֶ ה‬:ָ The mitzva to eat bitter herbs is contingent upon the Paschal lamb, as bitter herbs accompany the offering. Therefore, by Torah law this obligation applies only when the Temple is standing. The Sages, however, ruled that bitter herbs must be eaten nowadays as well (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Ĥametz UMatza 7:12).

– ‫יב ֲעיָ א ַא ַחר ַמ ָ ּצה‬ ּ ָ ‫ ָלא ִמ‬.‫יב ֲעיָ א ָק ָא ַמר‬ ּ ָ ‫ ָלא ִמ‬The Gemara rejects this contention: The mishna is stated in the style ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ָבל ְל ַא ַחר ּ ֶפ ַסח ֵא‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ָלא נָ ֵפ ׁיש ַט ְע ֵמ‬of: Needless to say. Needless to say, one may not conclude with .‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫ ָלא‬an afikoman after eating matza, as the taste of matza is slight; however, after the Paschal lamb, one might say that this prohibition does not apply. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that it is prohibited to conclude with an afikoman after the Paschal lamb as well. ‫יטין‬ ִ ‫יס ְק ִר‬ ְ ‫ ַה ּסו ְּפ ָ ּגנִין וְ ַהדּ ו ְּב ׁ ָשנִין וְ ָה ֶא‬:‫ית ִיבי‬ ִ ‫ֵמ‬ ‫ֹאכל‬ ַ ‫ ו ִּב ְל ָבד ׁ ֶשּי‬,‫ָא ָדם ְמ ַמ ֵּלא ְּכ ֵריסֹו ֵמ ֶהן‬ – ‫ ָ ּב ַא ֲחרֹונָ ה‬.‫(א ִכ ַילת) ַּכּזַ יִ ת ַמ ָ ּצה ָ ּב ַא ֲחרֹונָ ה‬ ֲ !‫אשֹונָ ה – ָלא‬ ׁ ‫ ָ ּב ִר‬,‫ִאין‬

The Gemara raises an objection: With regard to unleavened sponge cakes, cakes fried in oil and honey, and honey cakes, a person may fill his stomach with them on Passover night, provided that he eats an olive-bulk of matza after consuming them. The Gemara infers from here that if he eats matza after those cakes, yes, this is permitted; however, if one eats matza before these other foods, no, this is not an acceptable practice.

– ‫אשֹונָ ה‬ ׁ ‫יב ֲעיָא ָ ּב ִר‬ ּ ָ ‫יב ֲעיָא ָק ָא ַמר; ָלא ִמ‬ ּ ָ ‫ָלא ִמ‬ ‫ ֲא ָבל ָ ּב ַא ֲחרֹונָ ה דְּ ָא ֵתי‬,‫יאבֹון‬ ָ ‫דְּ ָק ָא ֵכיל ְל ֵת‬ ‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬,‫ימא ָלא‬ ָ ‫יכ ָל ּה ֲא ִכ ָילה ַ ּג ָּסה ֵא‬ ְ ‫ְל ֵמ‬ .‫ָלן‬

The Gemara answers: As explained above, the Tosefta is stated in the style of: Needless to say. Needless to say, one fulfills his obligation if he eats matza before other foods, as he eats it with an appetite. However, if he eats matza after eating other foods, when he might come to eat it in the manner of an excessive eating, you might say that one does not fulfill his obligation if he eats matza after all those other foods. Therefore, the Tosefta teaches us that one may eat matza even after consuming those foods.

‫יתא ו ָּמרֹור‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ ַ ְּ‫ ַמ ָ ּצה ַ ּבּזְ ַמן ַהּזֶ ה ד‬:‫ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ‫״על ַמ ּצֹות‬ ַ :‫ ו ַּמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ָמרֹור – דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬.‫דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ,‫יכא ּ ֶפ ַסח – יֵ ׁש ָמרֹור‬ ִ ‫ו ְּמ‬ ָּ ‫רֹורים״ ִ ּבזְ ַמן דְּ ִא‬ .‫יכא ָמרֹור‬ ָּ ‫יכא ּ ֶפ ַסח – ֵל‬ ָּ ‫ו ִּבזְ ַמן דְּ ֵל‬

Rava said: The mitzva of matza nowadays,h even after the destruction of the Temple, applies by Torah law; but the mitzva to eat bitter herbsh applies by rabbinic law. The Gemara asks: And in what way is the mitzva of bitter herbs different from matza? As it is written, with regard to the Paschal lamb: “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:11), from which it is derived: When there is an obligation to eat the Paschal lamb, there is likewise a mitzva to eat bitter herbs; and when there is no obligation to eat the Paschal lamb, there is also no mitzva to eat bitter herbs.

!‫רֹורים״‬ ִ ‫״על ַמ ּצֹות ו ְּמ‬ ַ :‫ַמ ָ ּצה נַ ִמי ָהא ְּכ ִתיב‬ ‫ֹאכל ּו‬ ְ ‫״ב ֶע ֶרב ּת‬ ּ ָ :‫יה ְק ָרא‬ ֲ ‫ַמ ָ ּצה ִמ‬ ּ ‫יה ַדר ֲה ַדר ֵ ּב‬ ‫ ֶא ָחד זֶ ה‬:‫ וְ ַרב ַא ָחא ַ ּבר יַ ֲעקֹב ָא ַמר‬.‫ַמ ּצֹות״‬ .‫וְ ֶא ָחד זֶ ה דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬

The Gemara asks: But if so, the same reasoning should apply to matza as well, as it is written: “With matzot and bitter herbs.” The mitzva of matza should also depend on the obligation of the Paschal lamb. The Gemara rejects this contention: The verse repeats the obligation to eat matza, as it states: “In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening, you shall eat matzot” (Exodus 12:18). This verse establishes a separate obligation to eat matza, unrelated to the Paschal lamb. And Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov said: Nowadays, both this, the mitzva to eat matza, and that, the mitzva to eat bitter herbs, apply by rabbinic law, as the Torah obligation to eat these foods is in effect only when the Paschal lamb is sacrificed.



‫כק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 120a 

293

notes

It was written with regard to this and it was written with regard to that and both are necessary – ‫ְּכ ִתיב ְ ּב ַהאי‬ ‫יכי‬ ִ ‫ו ְּכ ִתיב ְ ּב ַהאי וּצְ ִר‬: In other words, it is impossible to learn the different cases from each other, and therefore both verses are necessary. The verse that teaches that an uncircumcised person and an alien are obligated to eat matza is necessary, as this halakha cannot be derived from the cases of an impure and a distant person because they may eat the second Pesaĥ, an option that is unavailable to an uncircumcised man and an alien. At the same time, one could argue that the halakha of an uncircumcised person and an alien, as undesirables, should be more stringent than that of an impure or distant person. Consequently, it is necessary for another verse to teach us that an impure and a distant person must eat matza, despite the fact that they are unable to partake of the Paschal lamb. Was explicitly singled out to teach – ‫יָ צָ א ִמן ַה ְּכ ָלל ְל ַל ֵּמד‬: This is one of the thirteen principles used to expound the Torah: When various details are included in a generalization and a verse excludes one item from the generalization, that item is not regarded as an exception to the rule, but as the model for all of the other items in the category. The first night is optional – ‫אשֹון ְר ׁשוּת‬ ׁ ‫ליְ ָלה ִר‬:ַ Why doesn’t the Gemara state the opposite claim, that the fact that there is a Torah obligation to eat matza on the first night of Passover indicates that the first night was singled out from the other nights, and therefore a similar halakha should apply to all nights of the Festival? The answer is that this type of exegesis is used only for a halakha that is stated clearly in the Torah. In this instance, however, the halakha that it is merely optional to eat matza on all of the nights of Passover is not stated explicitly but is derived from the verses, as explained in the Gemara. Therefore, in this case, one cannot apply the principle that something that was included in a generalization was explicitly singled out to teach (Tosefot Rid ). halakha

Eating matza on the last six days – ‫מ ָ ּצה ְ ּב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת ַהּיָ ִמים‬:ַ Eating matza is obligatory only on the first night of Passover. From that point onward, it is optional to consume matza during the remainder of the Festival. Although one is obligated to eat a meal of matza each day in honor of the Festival, one may use rich, enhanced matza for this purpose after the first night (Be’er Heitev, citing the Ran). Some authorities say that it is a mitzva to eat matza throughout the festival of Passover (Mishna Berura, citing the Vilna Gaon; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 475:7).

!‫ֹאכל ּו ַמ ּצֹות״‬ ְ ‫״ב ֶע ֶרב ּת‬ ּ ָ :‫ֶא ָּלא ָה ְכ ִתיב‬ ְ‫יה ְל ָט ֵמא וְ ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ְ ּב ֶד ֶרך‬ ּ ָ ‫ַה ִהיא ִמ‬ ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן‬:‫ דְּ ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָת ְך ָא ִמינָ א‬.‫חֹוקה‬ ָ ‫ְר‬ ‫דְּ ֶפ ַסח ָלא ָא ְכ ִלי – ַמ ָ ּצה ו ָּמרֹור נַ ִמי ָלא‬ .‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫נֵיכוּל‬

The Gemara challenges: But isn’t it written: “In the evening, you shall eat matzot”? The Gemara answers: Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov needs that verse for the following halakha: When the Temple was standing, one who was ritually impure or one who was on a distant road was nonetheless obligated to eat matza. As it could enter your mind to say that since these two categories of people do not eat the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ, they also do not eat matza and bitter herbs. According to Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov, this verse teaches us that even one who was ritually impure and one who was on a distant road are obligated to eat matza and bitter herbs, as these mitzvot do not depend on one’s eligibility to sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaĥ.

‫ ָט ֵמא וְ ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ְ ּב ֶד ֶר ְְך‬: ָ‫וְ ָר ָבא ָא ַמר ְלך‬ ‫ דְּ ל ֹא ָ ּג ְר ֵעי ֵמ ָע ֵרל‬,‫חֹוקה ל ֹא צָ ִריךְ ְק ָרא‬ ָ ‫ְר‬ ‫ֹאכל‬ ַ ‫״כל ָע ֵרל ל ֹא י‬ ָּ :‫ דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬.‫ו ֶּבן נֵ ָכר‬ ‫אֹוכל ְ ּב ַמ ָ ּצה‬ ֵ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ ‫ּבֹו״ – ּבֹו ֵאינֹו‬ .‫ו ָּמרֹור‬

The Gemara asks: And Rava, who maintains that it is a mitzva from the Torah to eat matza nowadays, how could he respond to that interpretation of the verse? Rava could have said to you: I do not require a special verse to teach that a ritually impure person and a person who was on a distant road are obligated to eat matza. These people are obligated because they are no worse than an uncircumcised man or an alien, i.e., one who does not observe the mitzvot, who are obligated to eat matza despite the fact that they do not sacrifice the Paschal lamb. As it was taught in a baraita: “But no uncircumcised man shall eat from it” (Exodus 12:48). “From it” indicates that he may not eat from the Paschal lamb; however, he does eat matza and bitter herbs. The same is true for anyone else who is prevented from eating the Paschal lamb.

,‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב ְ ּב ַהאי‬,‫ ְּכ ִתיב ְ ּב ַהאי‬:‫ וְ ִא ָיד ְך‬The Gemara asks: And the other, Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov, how does he .‫יכי‬ ִ ‫ וּצְ ִר‬respond to this argument? The Gemara answers: According to Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov, the halakha that one must eat matza and bitter herbs despite being unable to partake of the Paschal lamb was written with regard to this person, an uncircumcised man, and it was written also with regard to that one, a ritually impure person, and both verses are necessary.n We cannot learn the halakha of a ritually impure person from that of an uncircumcised man, or vice versa, as is explained in several places. ‫״ש ׁ ֶשת יָ ִמים‬ ֵ ׁ :‫יה דְּ ָר ָבא‬ ֵ ָ‫ַּתנְ יָ א ְּכו‬ ּ ‫ות‬ ‫יעי ֲע ֶצ ֶרת‬ ִ ‫ֹאכל ַמ ּצֹות ו ַּבּיֹום ַה ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬ ַ ‫ּת‬ ‫יעי ְר ׁשוּת – ַאף‬ ִ ‫ ַמה ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬,‫ַלה׳ ֱאל ֶֹהיךָ ״‬ .‫ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת יָ ִמים ְר ׁשוּת‬

The Gemara comments: It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: “Six days you shall eat matzot, and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 16:8). Just as eating matza on the seventh day is merely optional, i.e., there is no obligation to eat matza on the last day of Passover, but only to avoid eating leavened bread, as the verse states: “Six days you shall eat matzot,” so too, eating matza during the first six days is optional.

‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ָהוֵ י דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ִ ּב ְכ ָלל‬ ‫ ל ֹא ְל ַל ֵּמד ַעל‬,‫וְ יָ צָ א ִמן ַה ְּכ ָלל ְל ַל ֵּמד‬ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַל ֵּמד ַעל ַה ְּכ ָלל ּכוּלּ ֹו‬,‫ַעצְ מֹו יָ צָ א‬ .‫יָ צָ א‬

What is the reason that it is optional to eat matza on the first six days of Passover as well as the seventh? The seventh day of Passover is something that was included in a generalization but was explicitly singled out to teach.n According to the rules of exegesis, it was intended to teach not just about itself but about the entire generalization. In other words, the seventh day of Passover was initially included in the verse: “You shall eat matzot for seven days” (Exodus 12:15), but was excluded from this generalization by the verse: “Six days you shall eat matzot.” In accordance with the above principle, the halakha of the seventh day applies to all the other days of Passover as well. That means there is no obligation to eat matza for all seven days of the Festival, but only on the first day.h

‫אשֹון ְר ׁשוּת – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ׁ ‫ יָ כֹול ַאף ַליְ ָלה ָה ִר‬The baraita continues: I might have thought that even the mitzva to eat matza on the first night of Passover is included by the above .‫ֹאכלוּהוּ״‬ ְ ‫רֹורים י‬ ִ ‫״על ַמ ּצֹות ו ְּמ‬ ַ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ principle, and it too is merely optional;n therefore, the verse states: “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:11). ;‫ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָּלא ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבית ַה ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש ַקּיָ ים‬ ?‫ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ֵאין ֵ ּבית ַה ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש ַקּיָ ים – ִמ ּנַיִ ן‬ – ‫ֹאכל ּו ַמ ּצֹות״‬ ְ ‫״ב ֶע ֶרב ּת‬ ּ ָ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ַּת ְלמוּד‬ .‫חֹובה‬ ָ ‫ַה ָּכתוּב ְק ָבעֹו‬

294 

Perek X . 120a . ‫ףד‬

‫כק‬. ‫׳י קרפ‬

I have derived nothing other than that one is obligated to eat ma­tza when the Temple is standing. From where is it derived that one is obligated to eat matza on the first night of Passover even when the Temple is not standing? The verse states: “In the evening you shall eat matzot.” The verse here establishes the mitzva of matza as obligatory, in accordance with the opinion of Rava.

– ‫ֹאכלוּ; ּכו ָּּלן‬ ְ ‫מתני׳ יָ ׁ ְשנ ּו ִמ ְקצָ ָתן – י‬ .ּ‫ֹאכלו‬ ְ ‫ל ֹא י‬

mishna 

If some of the participants at the seder fell asleep,h thereby interrupting their meal, they may eat from the Paschal lamb when they awake. If the entire company fell asleep, they may not eat any more. If they all fall asleep, this is considered a complete interruption, and if they were to resume their meal it would be akin to eating the offering in two different places.

halakha

Slept during the Passover seder – ‫יָשנ ּו ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ֵס ֶדר ּ ֶפ ַסח‬: ְ ׁ If all of the people present at a seder fell asleep, they may not eat any more food upon awaking. However, if only some of those present fell asleep, they may continue eating. The Rambam asserts that this halakha applies not only to the Paschal lamb but to matza as well (Maggid Mishne). This halakha is in effect only if they had begun to eat the afikoman. However, if one slept before that point, it is not considered an interruption in his meal (Rema, citing the Tur and Rabbeinu Yeruĥam; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 478:2).

Perek X Daf 120 Amud b ;ּ‫ֹאכלו‬ ְ ‫ נִ ְתנַ ְמנְ מ ּו – י‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח ַא ַחר ֲחצֹות‬.ּ‫ֹאכלו‬ ְ ‫נִ ְרדְּ מ ּו – ל ֹא י‬ ‫ֹותר‬ ָ ּ‫ ַה ּ ִפגּ וּל וְ ַהנ‬.‫ְמ ַט ֵּמא ֶאת ַהּיָ ַדיִ ם‬ .‫ְמ ַט ְּמ ִאין ֶאת ַהּיָ ַדיִ ם‬

,ּ‫ֹאכלו‬ ְ ‫אֹומר נִ ְתנַ ְמנְ מ ּו י‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫גמ׳ ַ״ר ִ ּבי‬ ?‫ ֵה ִיכי דָּ ֵמי נִ ְתנַ ְמנֵ ם‬.‫ֹאכלוּ״‬ ְ ‫נִ ְרדְּ מ ּו ל ֹא י‬ ‫ ִּתיר וְ ָלא‬,‫ נִים וְ ָלא נִים‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ‫ וְ ָלא יָ ַדע‬,‫יה וְ ָענֵי‬ ּ ‫ ְּכגֹון דְּ ָק ֵרי ֵל‬,‫ִּתיר‬ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ וְ ִכי ַמ ְד ְּכר ּו ֵל‬,‫ַל ֲא ַהד ּו ֵרי ְס ָב ָרא‬ .‫ַמ ְד ַּכר‬ ‫ ֲחזָ א‬,‫יה דְּ ַר ָ ּבה‬ ּ ‫ַא ַ ּביֵ י ֲהוָ ה יָ ֵתיב ַק ֵּמ‬ ‫ ֵמינָ ם ָקא נָ ִאים‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫דְּ ָקא נִ ְמנֵ ם‬ .‫ינֹומי ָקא ְמנַ ְמנֵ ם‬ ֵ ‫ ֵמ‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָמר? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫ נִ ְרדְּ מ ּו – ל ֹא‬,ּ‫ֹאכלו‬ ְ ‫ נִ ְתנַ ְמנְ מ ּו – י‬:‫ו ְּתנַן‬ .ּ‫ֹאכלו‬ ְ ‫י‬

Rabbi Yosei says: If they dozed they may eatn from the Paschal lamb when they awake, but if they fell fast asleep they may not eat from it. The Sages further said: The Paschal lamb after midnight renders one’s hands ritually impure, as it becomes notar, an offering that remained after the time when they may be eaten has expired; and the Sages ruled that both piggul, offerings that were invalidated due to inappropriate intent while being sacrificed, and notarh render one’s hands ritually impure.

halakha

Piggul and notar – ‫ה ּ ִפ ּגוּל וְ ַהנּ ָֹותר‬:ַ Touching piggul and notar renders one’s hands ritually impure by rabbinic decree (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 8:3). Dozed – ‫נִ ְתנַ ְמנְ מ ּו‬: If an entire group of people at a Passover seder dozed off, they may continue eating when they awaken. This ruling is in accordance with the Rambam’s explanation that Rabbi Yosei disagrees with the first statement of the mishna, as opposed to the interpretation of the Rashbam (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 478:2).

gemara 

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: If they dozedh they may eat from the Paschal lamb, but if they fell asleep they may not eatn from it. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of dozing? Rav Ashi said: One is asleep but not asleep, awake but not awake, when, if they call him, he will answer, but he is unable to provide a reasonable answer. And when they later inform him of what happened, he remembers it.

The Gemara cites a related episode: Abaye was sitting before Rabba, and he saw that Rabba was dozing off after he had begun to eat the final obligatory piece of matza. He said to him: Is the Master sleeping? Rabba said to him: I am dozing, and we learned in the mishna: If they dozed, they may eat from the Paschal lamb, but if they fell fast asleep they may not eat from it.n

‫״ה ּ ֶפ ַסח ַא ַחר ֲחצֹות ְמ ַט ֵּמא ֶאת ַהּיָ ַדיִ ם‬ ַ We learned in the mishna that the Paschal lamb after mid.‫נֹותר‬ ָ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֵמ ֲחצֹות ֲהוָ ה ֵל‬:‫ ַא ְל ָמא‬.‫ וכו׳״‬night renders one’s hands ritually impure. The Gemara in?‫ ַמאן ַּת ָּנא‬fers: Apparently, from midnight and onward the Paschal lamb is classified as notar. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who maintains this opinion?

notes

If they dozed they may eat – ‫ֹאכל ּו‬ ְ ‫נִ ְתנַ ְמנְ מ ּו י‬: The commentaries disagree as to whether Rabbi Yosei is referring to the first clause of the mishna or the last clause. If he is referring to the first clause, which states that if part of the group slept, they may eat, Rabbi Yosei is saying that they may continue eating only if part of the group dozes (Rashbam). According to this opinion, Rabbi Yosei’s ruling is more stringent than that of the first tanna. If Rabbi Yosei is referring to the last clause of the mishna, he is stating that even if everyone dozes, they may still eat, as the prohibition against continuing to eat the offering applies only if the entire group falls asleep (Me’iri; Maharam Ĥalawa). If they fell asleep they may not eat – ‫ֹאכל ּו‬ ְ ‫נִ ְרדְּ מ ּו ל ֹא י‬: In addition to the resemblance between falling asleep and



switching from one group of the Paschal lamb to another, or from one place to another (see Rashi; Rashbam), another reason for this prohibition is stated in the Jerusalem Talmud: The Paschal lamb is invalidated if one takes his mind off of it (Ra’avad). Rabba’s dozing – ‫נִ ְמנוּמֹו ׁ ֶשל ַר ָ ּבה‬: Some commentaries explain that Rabba and Abaye were eating together on seder night, and Rabba dozed off during the seder (Rashbam). Others reject this explanation and assert that it was an ordinary night, and the story is cited only because it involves dozing during a meal (Me’iri; Maharam Ĥalawa). The fact that Rava could cite the relevant section of the mishna proves that he was not fully asleep (Ben Yehoyada). ‫כק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 120b 

295

notes

Who…it is Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah – ‫אן…ר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ ַ ‫ַמ‬ ‫בן ֲעזַ ְריָ ה‬:ּ ֶ As stated in the Jerusalem Talmud, it is possible to explain the mishna according to Rabbi Akiva’s opinion as well, as Rabbi Akiva concedes that there is a rabbinic prohibition against eating the Paschal lamb after midnight (Mordekhai).

‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן ֲעזַ ְריָ ה‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ‫ ״וְ ָא ְכל ּו ֶאת ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬.‫הוּא‬ ‫ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה ַהּזֶ ה״ – ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן ֲעזַ ְריָ ה‬ ,‫״ב ַּליְ ָלה ַהּזֶ ה״‬ ּ ַ :‫ נֶ ֱא ַמר ָּכאן‬,‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ״וְ ָע ַב ְר ִּתי ְב ֶא ֶרץ ִמצְ ַריִ ם‬:‫וְ נֶ ֱא ַמר ְל ַה ָּלן‬ .‫ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה ַהּזֶ ה״‬

Rav Yosef said: It is Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya,n as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to the verse “And they shall eat of the meat on that night” (Exodus 12:8), Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: Here it is stated “on that night,” from which it cannot be determined when the night ends. And below it is stated: “And I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night and I will strike every firstborn in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 12:12). The Torah states with regard to the death of the firstborns: “Thus said the Lord: At about midnight, I will go out into the midst of Egypt and every firstborn in Egypt shall die” (Exodus 11:4–5).

‫ ַמה ְּל ַה ָּלן ַעד ֲחצֹות – ַאף ָּכאן ַעד‬The baraita continues: Just as in the verse below, the striking of the .‫ ֲחצֹות‬firstborns took place until midnight, as stated explicitly in the verse, so too, in the verse here, the mitzva to eat the Paschal lamb continues until midnight but not beyond. Evidently, the Paschal lamb may not be eaten after midnight. :‫ וַ ֲהל ֹא נֶ ֱא ַמר‬:‫ ָא ַמר לֹו ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: But wasn’t it already stated: “Thus you shall eat it, with your loins girded, your shoes on .‫״ח ּ ָפזֹון״ – ַעד ׁ ְש ַעת ִח ּ ָפזֹון‬ ִ your feet, your staffs in your hands, and you will eat it in haste, for it is the Paschal offering for the Lord” (Exodus 12:11)? This verse indicates that the Paschal lamb may be eaten until the time of haste, i.e., until dawn, as the Jewish people left Egypt the next day. ?‫״ב ַּליְ ָלה״‬ ּ ַ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ִאם ֵּכן ַמה ַּת ְלמוּד‬ – ‫יָ כֹול יְ ֵהא נֶ ֱא ָכל ְּכ ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַ ּבּיֹום‬ ‫״ב ַּליְ ָלה״ – ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה הוּא‬ ּ ַ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ַּת ְלמוּד‬ .‫ וְ ֵאינֹו נֶ ֱא ָכל ַ ּבּיֹום‬,‫נֶ ֱא ָכל‬

Rabbi Akiva continues: If that is so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “On that night,” with regard to eating the Paschal lamb? The Gemara explains that this phrase is necessary, as I might have thought that the Paschal lamb is eaten during the day, like all other offerings, which must be slaughtered and eaten during the day. Therefore, the verse states: “On that night,” to underscore that this particular offering is eaten at night, and it is not eaten during the day.

‫״הּזֶ ה״ ַמאי ָע ֵביד‬ ַ ‫ ַהאי‬,‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ ‫עֹוטי ַליְ ָלה ַא ֵחר‬ ֵ ‫יה ְל ַמ‬ ּ ָ ‫יה? ִמ‬ ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ :‫ ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָתךְ ָא ִמינָ א‬.‫הוּא דַּ ֲא ָתא‬ ‫ ו ׁ ְּש ָל ִמים‬,‫הֹואיל ו ֶּפ ַסח ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַק ִּלים‬ ִ ‫ ַמה ׁ ּ ְש ָל ִמים נֶ ֱא ָכ ִלים‬,‫ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַק ִּלים‬ .‫ִל ׁ ְשנֵי יָ ִמים וְ ַליְ ָלה ֶא ָחד – ַאף ּ ֶפ ַסח‬

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Akiva, what does he do with the word “that”? As he doesn’t use it for a verbal analogy, what does Rabbi Akiva learn from this word? The Gemara answers: He needs it to exclude another night. It could enter your mind to say that since the Paschal lamb falls into the category of offerings of lesser sanctity, and peace-offerings are also offerings of lesser sanctity, just as peace-offerings may be eaten for two days and one night, i.e., the day they are sacrificed through the following day, as stated in the Torah, so too, the same halakha should apply to the Paschal lamb.

The Gemara explains the previous statement. How could the Paschal ‫יהא‬ ֵ ִ‫ ו‬,‫אֹוקים ֵלילֹות ִ ּב ְמקֹום יָ ִמים‬ ִ ‫ נֶ ֱא ָכל ִל ׁ ְשנֵי ֵלילֹות וְ יֹום ֶא ָחד – ָּכ ַתב‬lamb be eaten for two days and one night if one starts eating it at night? .‫״הּזֶ ה״‬ ַ ‫ ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬The Gemara explains: One may say: I will substitute the nights that the Paschal lamb may be eaten instead of the days that a peaceoffering is eaten. And accordingly, the Paschal lamb may be eaten for two nights and one day. Therefore, the Torah wrote the word “that,” to teach that the Paschal lamb may be eaten only on that one night. ‫ ִמ״ל ֹא‬: ָ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן ֲעזַ ְריָה ָא ַמר ְלך‬And Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, from where might he derive the halakha that the Paschal lamb may not be eaten for two nights? Rabbi .‫תֹותיר ּו ַעד ּב ֶֹקר״ נָ ְפ ָקא ָהא‬ ִ Elazar ben Azarya could have said to you: This halakha is derived from the verse: “You shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that of it which remains until the morning you shall burn with fire” (Exodus 12:10). If it is prohibited to leave any part of the Paschal lamb until the morning, it is certainly prohibited to leave any of it until the following night. Therefore, it is unnecessary to cite an additional source to teach that the Paschal lamb may be eaten only on the first night. ‫ ִאי ל ֹא ָּכ ַתב‬: ָ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ָא ַמר ְלך‬ ‫ ַמאי‬:‫״הּזֶ ה״ – ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬ ַ ‫ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ָא ַמר‬.‫״ב ֶֹקר״ – ּב ֶֹקר ׁ ֵשנִי‬ ּ ‫״ב ֶֹקר״ – ּב ֶֹקר‬ ּ ‫יכא דְּ ָכ ַתב‬ ָ ‫ ָּכל ֵה‬: ָ‫ְלך‬ .‫אשֹון הוּא‬ ׁ ‫ִר‬

296 

Perek X . 120b . ‫ףד‬

‫כק‬: ‫׳י קרפ‬

And Rabbi Akiva could have said to you, in response to this argument: If the Torah hadn’t written “on that night,” I would have said: What is indicated by the word “morning” in that verse? It means the second morning after the Festival, the day of the sixteenth of Nisan. Therefore, it was necessary for the Torah to write that one may eat the Paschal lamb only on that night and no other. And Rabbi Elazar could have said to you in response: Anywhere that the Torah writes “morning,” it is referring to the first, i.e., the next morning. If that were not the case, no biblical text could have any definitive meaning.

‫ ָא ַכל ַמ ָ ּצה ַ ּבּזְ ַמן ַהּזֶ ה‬:‫ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ‫ ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן ֲעזַ ְריָ ה‬,‫ַא ַחר ֲחצֹות‬ ‫ דְּ ֵכיוָ ן‬,‫יטא‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬.‫חֹובתֹו‬ ָ ‫ל ֹא יָ צָ א יְ ֵדי‬ !‫ית ַק ׁש ְל ֶפ ַסח – ְּכ ֶפ ַסח דָּ ֵמי‬ ְ ‫דְּ ִא‬

Rava said: Nowadays, if one ate matza after midnight,h according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, he has not fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: It is obvious that this is the case, for since the verse juxtaposes matza to the Paschal lamb, it is considered like the Paschal lamb, and therefore matza may also be eaten only until midnight.

‫יה ְק ָרא‬ ָ ‫ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬ ּ ‫ ָהא ַא ּ ְפ ֵק‬:‫ימא‬ ּ ֵ ‫ֵמ ֶה‬ ‫ דְּ ִכי‬,‫ישא – ָק ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָל ן‬ ָ ׁ ‫יק‬ ‫יתא‬ ָ ְ‫יה ְק ָרא – ְל ִמ ְּיל ָתא ַק ַּמי‬ ּ ‫ַא ְהדְּ ֵר‬ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫ַא ְהדְּ ֵר‬

The Gemara answers: Rava’s statement is necessary, lest you say that the verse has removed the halakha of matza from this juxtaposition, as Rava maintains that eating matza is a distinct mitzva that applies even nowadays. One might therefore have thought that the halakhot of eating matza differ entirely from those of the Paschal lamb. Rava therefore teaches us that when the verse repeats the mitzva to eat matza on the first night, it restores this mitzva to its original status, which means that one may eat matza only at a time when he may also eat the Paschal lamb.

‫״ה ּ ִפי ּגוּל וְ ַהנּ ָֹותר ְמ ַט ֵּמא ֶאת ַהּיָ ַדיִ ם‬ ַ ‫ ַחד‬,‫ ַרב הוּנָ א וְ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬.‫וכו׳״‬ ‫ וְ ַחד‬,‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֲח ׁ ֵש ֵדי ְכהו ָּּנה‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ :‫ ַחד ָא ַמר‬.‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֲעצֵ ֵלי ְכהו ָּּנה‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ .‫ ַּכ ֵ ּביצָ ה‬:‫ וְ ַחד ָא ַמר‬,‫ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬

The mishna taught that piggul and notar render one’s hands ritually impure. This issue is subject to a dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Ĥisda. One of them said: The reason for this enactment is due to suspected priests, i.e., priests who were suspected of invalidating offerings; and the other one said the reason is due to lazy priests. Rav Huna and Rav Ĥisda also disagree about another matter: One of them said that the ritual impurity of notar and piggul applies even to an olive-bulk of the meat; and one of them said it applies only to an egg-bulk.h

halakha

Matza after midnight – ‫ה…א ַחר ֲחצֹות‬ ַ ‫מ ָ ּצ‬:ַ One should be careful not to eat the final olive-bulk portion of matza, i.e., the afikoman, after midnight, as the ruling of the halakha is in accordance with the stringent opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya (Rosh). Furthermore, the bitter herbs should also be eaten and hallel recited before midnight (Rema based on the Ran; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 477:1). The measure of piggul for ritual impurity – ‫שיעוּר טו ְּמ ַאת ּ ִפי ּגוּל‬: ִ ׁ An offering disqualified by improper intention [piggul] and leftover sacrificial meat [notar] both contract ritual impurity if they contain at least an egg-bulk of meat. Since their ritual impurity is rabbinic, the halakha is lenient in this regard and they do not contract ritual impurity when they are merely the size of an olive-bulk (Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 8:3).

Perek X Daf 121 Amud a .‫ֹותר‬ ָ ּ‫ וְ ַחד ָּתנֵי ַאנ‬,‫ ַחד ָּתנֵי ַא ּ ִפיגּ וּל‬The Gemara explains that there is no dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Ĥisda concerning the reason for the prohibition. One of these two Sages teaches his explanation with regard to the case of piggul, mentioned in the mishna; and the other one teaches it with regard to notar.

notes

Due to suspected priests – ‫מ ׁ ּשוּם ֲח ׁ ֵש ֵדי ְכהו ָּּנה‬:ִ Some commentaries explain that if people see priests touching an offering disqualified by piggul, they will suspect the priests of planning to eat it afterward. Therefore, the Sages decreed that all offerings disqualified by piggul are ritually impure, so the priests will not even touch them (Arukh).

‫ ַמאן דְּ ָתנֵי ַא ּ ִפי ּגוּל – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֲח ׁ ֵש ֵדי‬The Gemara elaborates: The one who teaches it with regard to n ‫ֹותר – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ ָ ּ‫ ְכהו ָּּנה; ַמאן דְּ ָתנֵי ַאנ‬piggul maintains that the reason is due to suspected priests. .‫ ֲעצֵ ֵלי ְכהו ָּּנה‬As a result of enmity between priests, one priest might cause the offerings of another to become piggul. To dissuade priests from doing so, the Sages instituted that one who touches piggul is rendered ritually impure, which ensures that the offending priest also suffers from his actions. He who teaches this explanation with regard to notar claims that the reason is due to lazy priests, to prevent sloth among the priests. The Sages decreed that notar causes ritual impurity, to ensure that the priests ate the sacrificial meat within the allotted time. .‫ ַּכ ֵ ּביצָ ה‬:‫ וְ ַחד ָא ַמר‬:‫ ַחד ָא ַמר ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬It was stated above that Rav Huna and Rav Ĥisda disagree with ‫ ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ַּכּזַ יִ ת – ְּכ ִא ּיסוּרוּ; ו ַּמאן‬regard to the size of the meat that confers ritual impurity. One .‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַּכ ֵ ּביצָ ה – ְּכטו ְּמ ָאתֹו‬of them said that an olive-bulk of meat contracts ritual impurity, and one of them said that only an egg-bulk contracts ritual impurity. The Gemara explains the reasoning behind this debate. The one who said that an olive-bulk contracts ritual impurity maintains that the ritual impurity of notar and piggul is similar to its prohibition. Since notar and piggul are prohibited when they are an olive-bulk, the same applies to their ritual impurity. And the one who said that sacrificial meat becomes ritually impure when it is an egg-bulk maintains that it is similar to its ritual impurity. In other words, just as the minimum size of ritual impurity for other types of meat is an egg-bulk, the same applies to piggul and notar. 

‫אכק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 121a 

297

halakha

The blessing recited over the Paschal lamb and the Festival offering – ‫ב ְר ַּכת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח וְ ַהּזֶ ַבח‬:ּ ִ The blessing recited over the Paschal lamb does not exempt one from reciting a blessing over the Festival peace-offering, nor does the blessing recited over the Festival offering exempt one from reciting a blessing over the Paschal lamb. This ruling is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, whose opinion is generally accepted as halakha (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Ĥametz UMatza 8:7).

‫מתני׳ ֵ ּב ֵירךְ ִ ּב ְר ַּכת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח – ּ ָפ ַטר ֶאת‬ ‫ׁ ֶשל זֶ ַבח; ֵ ּב ֵירךְ ֶאת ׁ ֶשל זֶ ַבח – ל ֹא ּ ָפ ַטר‬ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬,‫ֶאת ׁ ֶשל ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹא זֹו‬,‫ֹוט ֶרת זֹו‬ ֶ ‫ ל ֹא זֹו ּפ‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ .‫ֹוט ֶרת זֹו‬ ֶ ‫ּפ‬

mishna 

If one recited the blessing over the Paschal lamb, which is: Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to eat the Paschal lamb, he has also exempted himself from reciting a blessing over the Festival offering.hn The blessing for the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth of Nisan is: Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to eat the offering. However, if he recited the blessing over the Festival offering, he has not exempted himself from reciting a blessing over the Paschal lamb. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: This blessing does not exempt one from reciting a blessing over this one, and that blessing does not exempt that one, as there is a separate blessing for each offering.n

gemara 

The Gemara explains the opinions of ‫ ְל ִד ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫גמ׳ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ִּת ְמצָ א‬ the tanna’im in the mishna. When you ‫ וְ ל ֹא‬,‫יכה‬ ָ ‫יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל – זְ ִר ָיקה ִ ּב ְכ ַלל ׁ ְש ִפ‬ analyze the matter you will find that according to the opinion .‫יכה ִ ּב ְכ ַלל זְ ִר ָיקה‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ְש ִפ‬of Rabbi Yishmael, sprinkling of the blood on the altar is included in the more general category of pouring.n In other words, the blessing over the Paschal lamb, whose blood is poured, includes the Festival peace-offering, whose blood is sprinkled, as sprinkling is included within the general category of pouring. But conversely, pouring is not included in sprinkling. Consequently, when one recites the blessing over the Festival peace-offering, he has not exempted himself from reciting a blessing over the Paschal lamb. ‫יכה ִ ּב ְכ ָלל‬ ָ ‫ ל ֹא ׁ ְש ִפ‬:‫ ְל ִד ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬By contrast, according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, these .‫יכה‬ ָ ‫ זְ ִר ָיקה וְ ל ֹא זְ ִר ָיקה ִ ּב ְכ ַלל ׁ ְש ִפ‬are two separate mitzvot: Pouring is not included in sprinkling, and sprinkling is not included in pouring. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva maintains that each offering requires its own blessing.n

notes

The blessing over the Paschal lamb and the Festival offering – ‫ב ְר ַּכת ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח וְ ַהּזֶ ַבח‬: ּ ִ Several commentaries state that the Gemara is not in fact discussing the blessings recited before eating sacrificial meat. Rather, it is referring to the blessings recited when these offerings are actually sacrificed. This interpretation fits better with the continuation of the Gemara, which discusses the relationship between sprinkling and pouring sacrificial blood (Rabbi Betzalel HaKohen).

sprinkling might be included in pouring is that pouring sacrificial blood on the wall of the altar is the simplest and, therefore, the most common way that blood is sprinkled. All other types of sprinkling are more complex actions, and therefore they can be viewed as included in the general category of pouring. This is similar to the halakha that one who recites a general blessing over food, such as: By His word all things came to be, has fulfilled his obligation to recite a blessing over a more specific food, e.g., Who creates Paschal lamb and Festival offering – ‫פ ַסח וְ ַזֶבח‬:ֶ ּ Most com- fruit of the ground. mentaries maintain that the other offering mentioned here is the Festival peace-offering that was sacrificed on the fourteenth of Nisan. This offering was consumed together with The dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva – ֶ ‫מ ֲח‬:ַ According to the Jerusalem the Paschal lamb. Although the Festival peace-offering is ‫לֹוקת ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ eaten before the Paschal lamb, it is still possible that one Talmud, the dispute is whether the blessing for the Paschal might forget to recite its blessing at the proper time or err lamb is included in the blessing over the Festival peaceand recite the blessing for the Paschal lamb over the Festival offering, because the Paschal lamb belongs to the larger peace-offering (Or Zarua). Others state that this passage is category of offerings, or whether the decisive factor is that referring to offerings in general, e.g., one who sacrificed a the Passover offering is the primary offering and the Festival peace-offering is secondary to it. The halakha is that a blessvow or a free-will offering on Passover eve. ing over a primary food exempts one from reciting a blessing Pouring and sprinkling – ‫יכה וּזְ ִר ָיקה‬ ָ ‫ש ִפ‬: ְ ׁ The reason why over the secondary item (Me’iri).

298 

Perek X . 121a . ‫אכק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬

‫׳י‬

Perek X Daf 121 Amud b .‫יק ַלע ְל ִפ ְדיֹון ַה ֵ ּבן‬ ְ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ִ ׂש ְמ ַלאי ִא‬ – ‫ ַעל ּ ִפ ְדיֹון ַה ֵ ּבן‬,‫יטא‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬:‫ֵיה‬ ּ ‫ְ ּבע ּו ִמ ּינ‬ ‫״א ׁ ֶשר ִקדְּ ׁ ָשנ ּו ְ ּב ִמצְ ָ�ֹותיו וְ צִ ָּונ ּו ַעל ּ ִפ ְדיֹון‬ ֲ ‫״בר ּו ְך‬ ּ ָ .‫ַה ֵ ּבן״ – ֲא ִבי ַה ֵ ּבן ְמ ָב ֵר ְך‬ – ‫יענ ּו ַלּזְ ַמן ַהּזֶ ה״‬ ָ ‫ימנ ּו וְ ִה ִ ּג‬ ָ ְ‫ׁ ֶש ֶה ֱחיָ ינ ּו וְ ִקּי‬ ?‫ּכ ֵֹהן ְמ ָב ֵרךְ אֹו ֲא ִבי ַה ֵ ּבן ְמ ָב ֵר ְך‬

,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ּכ ֵֹהן ְמ ָב ֵר ְך – דְּ ָק ָמ ֵטי ֲהנָ ָאה ִל ֵיד‬ ‫אֹו ֲא ִבי ַה ֵ ּבן ְמ ָב ֵר ְך – דְּ ָקא ָע ֵביד‬ ‫ ֲא ָתא ׁ ְש ִאיל‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ִמצְ וָ ה? ָלא ֲהוָ ה ִ ּב ֵיד‬ ‫ ֲא ִבי ַה ֵ ּבן‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ָא ְמר ּו ֵל‬.‫יה ִמ ְד ָר ׁ ָשא‬ ּ ‫ֵ ּב‬ ‫ ֲא ִבי ַה ֵ ּבן‬:‫ וְ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬.‫ְמ ָב ֵר ְך ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם‬ .‫ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם‬

‫הדרן עלך ערבי פסחים‬ ‫וסליקא לך מסכת פסחים‬



The Gemara discusses another case concerning the order of the blessings: Rabbi Simlai attended a redemption of the firstborn son.n The celebrants raised a dilemma before him with regard to the blessings. First they noted that it is obvious that the blessing over the redemption of a first born son, which is: Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us over the redemption of the firstborn son, is certainly recited by the father of the son, as he is the one obligated to redeem his son. However, with regard to the second blessing: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who has given us life [sheheĥeyanu],n sustained us, and brought us to this time, does the priest recite this blessing, or does the fathern of the son recite it? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma. It can be suggested that the priest recites the blessing, as he benefits from the five sela he receives when the boy is redeemed. The blessing of sheheĥiyanu is generally recited by the one who receives the benefit. Or, perhaps the father of the son recites sheheĥeyanu, as he is the one who performs the mitzva. Rabbi Simlai did not have an answer readily available, and he went to ask this question in the study hall. The scholars said to him that the father of the son recites the two blessings: Over the redemption of the son and sheheĥeyanu. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that the father of the son recites two blessings.h

notes

Redemption of the firstborn son – ‫פ ְדיֹון ַה ֵ ּבן‬:ִ ּ The mitzva to redeem a firstborn son is mentioned in several places in the Torah (Exodus 13:2; Numbers 3:11–13, 3:44–51). In short, a woman’s firstborn son belongs to the priest. The boy’s father redeems the baby for a fixed sum of five sela. One whose father is a Levi or priest and one whose mother is the daughter of a Levi or priest is not subject to this mitzva. Who recites the blessing: Who has given us life – ‫ִמי ְמ ָב ֵר ְך‬ ‫ש ֶה ֱחיָ ינ ּו‬: ֶ ׁ Some commentaries state that both the father, who performs the mitzva, and the priest, who receives the benefit, may recite the blessing. The dispute in this context is which of them has the greater obligation. The individual whose obligation is greater should recite the blessing, while the other person fulfills his obligation by answering: Amen (Rav Shmuel Strashun). The father and the priest – ‫אב וְ כ ֵֹהן‬: ָ Some commentaries explain the two sides of the issue as follows: It can be claimed that the father should not recite the blessing, as he loses money through the mitzva. Therefore, the priest, who benefits from the mitzva, should recite sheheĥeyanu. Conversely, one could say that the father’s joy over the fact that his son is thirty days old is sufficient cause for him to recite the blessing (Nimmukei Yosef ). halakha

The blessings over the redemption of the son – ‫ִ ּב ְרכֹות ּ ִפ ְדיֹון‬ ‫ה ֵ ּבן‬:ַ The father of the child recites two blessings at the redemption of his firstborn: Who commanded us over the redemption of the son, and: Who has given us life [sheheĥeyanu] (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 305:10).

‫אכק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Perek X . 121b 

299

Summary of Perek X Despite its changing face in each generation and in disparate communities, the order of Passover night has nevertheless retained its basic structure. This structure is grounded in the words of the Torah and the early customs developed in the times of the Prophets. Its full expression, which is barely different from its current form, was delineated by the Gemara in this chapter. Even after the destruction of the Temple, when the Paschal lamb ceased to provide the central focus of the evening, the essential structure of the night remains the same. This includes the various requirements of washing one’s hands and the consumption of matza, bitter herbs, karpas, and ĥaroset. All this is in the context of a family meal, including the children, as the narrative of the Exodus is recounted. The ageless four questions and the customary answers in their traditional style form a single unit that focuses on the redemptive night in Egypt and the yearning for the future redemption. The various rabbinic enactments, customs, insights, and biblical exegeses have become a fixed part of the night’s order. Even the various tactics designed to spark the children’s interest are still employed, together with the leaning and the other expression of royal freedom, including the four cups of wine that express the hope and joy of redemption.

301

181…Mil – ‫ִמיל‬ 254…One who drinks wine that is dripping – ‫ַּמן דְּ ׁ ָש ֵתי ִטיף ִטיף‬

‫א‬ 121…Doorway – ‫ֲאגַ ף‬

255…Lets blood – ‫סֹוכר‬ ַ ‫ְמ‬

292…Mushrooms – ‫או ְּר ִד ָיל ֵאי‬

68…The second tithe – ‫ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ׁ ֵשנִי‬

234…Pitcher – ‫ַא ַחצְ ָ ּבא‬

245…Ritual bath – ‫ִמ ְקוֶ ה‬

59…Grill – ‫ַא ְס ְּכ ָלא‬ 290…Keys – ‫ַא ְק ִל ֵידי‬

158…A corpse that had no one to bury it – ‫ֵמת ִמצְ וָ ה‬

254…Blindness to the light of one’s eyes – ‫הֹורא‬ ָ ְ‫ַא ְר ּבֹונָ א ִלנ‬

‫נ‬ 285…Nebuchadnezzar – ‫נֶצר‬ ּ ַ ‫נְ בו ַּכ ְד‬

Index of Background

‫ב‬

286…Kishon River – ‫נַ ַחל ִק ׁישֹון‬

184…School of Eliyahu – ‫ֵ ּבי ֵא ִלּיָה ּו‬

Dotted over the letter heh – ‫נָ קוּד ַעל ה׳‬ 180…in the word distant [reĥoka]

247…Priestly benediction – ‫ִ ּב ְר ַּכת ּכ ֲֹהנִים‬

259…Bathhouse – ‫ֵ ּבית ֶמ ְר ָחץ‬ 21…Bashan and Gilad – ‫ָ ּב ׁ ָשן וְ גִ ְל ָעד‬

‫ס‬ 281…Elders of Pumbedita – ‫ָס ֵבי דְּ פו ְּמ ְ ּב ִד ָיתא‬ 11…Place his hand on its head – ‫יה‬ ָ ‫סֹומךְ יָ דֹו ָע ֶל‬ ֵ 182…The thickness of the firmament – ‫יעא‬ ָ ‫סו ְּמ ָכא דִּ ְר ִק‬ 271…Net – ‫ִסיב‬ 251…Wearing shoes – ‫ָסּיֵ ים ְמ ָסנֵי‬

‫ע‬ 184…Ursa Major and Scorpio – ‫ֲעגָ ָלה וְ ַע ְק ָרב‬

When Sennacherib – ‫יהם ַסנְ ֵח ִריב‬ ֶ ‫ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש ָע ַמד ֲע ֵל‬ 279…stood against them

‫ג‬ 111…The sciatic nerve – ‫ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה‬ 185…The celestial sphere and constellations – ‫ַ ּג ְל ַ ּגל ו ַּמּזָ לֹות‬ 64…Burning plaster – ‫רֹות ַח‬ ֵ ‫ִג ּ ְּפ ִסיס‬

‫ה‬ 8…Sprinkling – ‫ַהּזָ ָאה‬

73…Omer – ‫עֹומר‬ ֶ

193…Sanctuary – ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫ֵה‬

271…Remove the table – ‫עֹוק ִרין ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ֻש ְל ָחן‬ ְ A she-goat does not require – ‫ֵעז ֵאינָ ּה ְטעוּנָ ה ַא ְליָ ה‬ 200…the fat tail to be burned on the altar

215…Reclining – ‫ֲה ָס ָבה‬

134…Eilam – ‫ֵע ָילם‬

‫יה‬ ֵ ‫ינֵיה ִ ּב ָידא דִּ ְ ׂש ָמ‬ ִ ִּ‫יה ד‬ ּ ‫אל‬ ּ ‫ימ‬ ּ ‫זַ ְק ּ ָפא דִּ ֵיד‬ His right thumb in his left – ‫ינֵיה‬ ִ ִּ‫יה ִ ּב ָידא ד‬ ֵ ‫וְ זַ ְק ּ ָפא דִּ ְ ׂש ָמ‬ ּ ‫ימ‬ ּ ‫אל‬ 248…hand, and his left thumb in his right hand

‫פ‬ 228…The scholars of Pumbedita – ‫ּפו ְּמ ַ ּבדִּ ָית ֵאי‬ A public domain – ‫ּ ַפ ְס ִקינְ ה ּו ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים‬ 251…crosses between them 247…The public lecture [pirka] – ‫ּ ִפ ְר ָקא‬ 244…Linen – ‫ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן‬

‫צ‬ 228…Forms on coins – ‫צו ָּר ָתא דְּ זוּזָ א‬ 244…Tzippori – ‫צִ ּיפ ִֹורי‬ 7…Roasting – ‫צְ ִלּיָ תֹו‬

‫ק‬ 33…Cleaver – ‫קֹופיץ‬ ִ 241…Windpipe…esophagus – ‫ָקנֶ ה…וֵ ׁ ֶשט‬

‫ר‬ 113…The ends of the ribs – ‫אשי ְּכנָ ַפיִ ם‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ָר‬ The quarter-log measurement – ‫יעית ׁ ֶשל ּת ָֹורה‬ ִ ‫ְר ִב‬ 244…of the Torah 61…The Exilarch – ‫ֵר ׁיש ָ ּגלו ָּתא‬ 286…Chosen chariots – ‫ֶר ֶכב ָ ּבחוּר‬

‫ש‬

263…Ravens – ‫עֹור ִבין‬ ְ

‫ז‬ 253…Sorb – ‫זְ ַר ְד ָּתא‬ 7…Sprinkling of its blood – ‫זְ ִר ַיקת דָּ מֹו‬

‫ח‬ The sun during the day and the – ‫ַח ָּמה ַ ּבּיֹום ו ַּב ַּליְ ָלה‬ 186…night 184…The sun over the settlement – ‫ַח ָּמה ַ ּבּיִ ׁ ּשוּב‬ 63…The mishna is incomplete – ‫יח ְּס ָרא‬ ַ ‫ַח ּס ֵֹורי ִמ‬ 254…Sea squill – ‫ַחצְ ָ ּבא‬

‫י‬ 248…Yosef the Demon – ‫יֹוסף ׁ ִש ָידא‬ ֵ 245…Sea that King Solomon built – ‫ּיָ ם ׁ ּ ֶש ָע ָ ׂשה ׁ ְשלֹמֹה‬

‫כ‬ 242…Cups – ‫ּכֹוסֹות‬ 183…Cush and Egypt – ‫ּכו ּׁש ו ִּמצְ ַריִ ם‬ 264…Astrologers – ‫ַּכ ְלדִּ ּיִ ים‬ The distance to the city of Modi’im – ‫יעים ְל ָכל רו ַּח‬ ִ ‫מֹוד‬ ִ ‫ְּכ ִמדַּ ת‬ 180…in every direction 288…The great city of Rome – ‫רֹומי‬ ִ ‫ְּכ ַר ְך ָ ּגדֹול ׁ ֶשל‬ 272…Leeks – ‫ַּכ ְר ֵתי‬

245…Table of the Temple – ‫ׁשו ְּל ָחן ׁ ֶשל ִמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬ 258…Black ox – ‫ׁשֹור ׁ ָשחֹור‬ 7…Its slaughter – ‫יטתֹו‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְש ִח‬ 139…Shishak – ‫ישק‬ ַ ׁ ‫ׁ ִש‬ 257…Shekhantziv – ‫ׁ ְש ַכנְצִ יב‬ 73…The two loaves – ‫ׁ ְש ֵּתי ַה ֶּל ֶחם‬

‫ת‬ 238…Thirteen soakings – ‫יסר ְמגָ נֵי‬ ַ ‫ְּת ֵל‬ Phylacteries on his head – ‫ֹאשֹו ו ְּת ִפ ִּילין ִ ּבזְ רֹועֹו‬ ׁ ‫ְּת ִפ ִּילין ְ ּבר‬ 264…and phylacteries on his arm 68…Teruma – ‫ְּתרו ָּמה‬

‫ל‬ There is a small gap – ‫זְב ַח‬ ּ ֵ ‫לוּל ָק ָטן יֵ ׁש ֵ ּבין ֶּכ ֶב ׁש ַל ִּמ‬ 76…between the ramp and the altar 47…Lulav – ‫ּלו ָּלב‬ 73…The shewbread – ‫ֶל ֶחם ַה ּ ָפנִים‬ 144…The lizard that quivered – ‫יח ׁ ָשה‬ ֲ ‫ְל ָט ָאה ׁ ְש ִר‬ 166…Gathering bones – ‫ִליקוּט ֲעצָ מֹות‬

‫מ‬ The threshold [iskupa] – ‫יסקו ּ ַּפת ָה ֲעזָ ָרה‬ ְ ‫ֵמ ִא‬ 180…of the Temple courtyard

 

303

Index of Language

‫י‬

‫א‬ 285…Yurkamo – ‫יו ְּר ַק ּמֹו‬

42…Multitude [okhlosa] – ‫לֹוסא‬ ָ ‫אֹוכ‬ ְ

198…Becomes unfit [ yista’ev] – ‫יִ ְס ָּת ֵאב‬

62…Raw meat [umtza] – ‫או ְּמצָ א‬ 292…Mushrooms [urdila’ei ] – ‫או ְּר ִד ָיל ֵאי‬

‫כ‬

168…Scalpel [izmel] – ‫ִאיזְ ֵמל‬

70…Kamka – ‫ַּכ ְמ ָּכא‬

249…Isparegus – ‫יס ּ ַפ ְר ּגוּס‬ ְ ‫ִא‬

‫ל‬ 275…To laud [lekales] – ‫ְל ַק ֵּלס‬

‫מ‬ 244…Brine [moraysa] – ‫מֹוריְ ָסא‬ ַ

59…Grill [askela] – ‫ַא ְס ְּכ ָלא‬ 240…Delicate [istenis] – ‫ִא ְס ְּתנִיס‬ 133…Guardians [apotropsin] – ‫רֹופ ִסין‬ ְ ּ ‫ֹוט‬ ְ ‫ַא ּפ‬ 292…Afikoman – ‫יקֹומן‬ ָ ‫ֲא ִפ‬

181…Mil – ‫ִמיל‬

290…Keys [aklidei] – ‫ַא ְק ִל ֵידי‬

10…Rebuking them [mekanteran] – ‫נְט ָרן‬ ְ ‫ְמ ַק‬

‫ס‬ 151…A shared meal of friends [sibolet] – ‫יב ֶֹולת‬ ּ ‫ִס‬ 61…Fine flour [semida] – ‫ְס ִמ ָידא‬

‫פ‬ 254…Bran [parei] – ‫ּ ַפארֵּ י‬ 181…Parasangs [parsaot] – ‫ּ ַפ ְר ָסאֹות‬

248…Ashmedai – ‫ַא ׁ ְש ְמ ַדאי‬

‫ב‬ 47…Shy [bazeiz] – ‫ָ ּבזֵ יז‬

‫ג‬ 260…Paths [gazyata] – ‫ַ ּגזְ יָ ָיתא‬ 138…Gappa of the Romans – ‫רֹומ ֵאי‬ ָ ְּ‫ַ ּג ּ ָפא ד‬ 64…Plaster [gipsis] – ‫ִג ּ ְּפ ִסיס‬

142…Pot [patya] – ‫ּ ַפ ְתיָ א‬

‫ד‬

‫ק‬ 33…Cleaver [kofitz] – ‫קֹופיץ‬ ִ

‫ט‬

‫ש‬

Index of Personalities

59…Spit [shappud] – ‫ׁ ַש ּפוּד‬

140…Basket [tirina] – ‫ִט ִירינָ א‬

151…Rav Pappa – ‫ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬

9…The sons of Beteira – ‫ְ ּבנֵי ְב ֵת ָירה‬

‫ר‬

‫ב‬

26…Rabbi Eliezer – ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ Rabbi Yishmael – ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי‬ 127…son of Rabbi Yosei 26…Rabbi Akiva – ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ 36…Ravin – ‫ָר ִבין‬ 152…Ravina – ‫ָר ִבינָ א‬

‫ש‬ 35…Shemaya and Avtalyon – ‫ׁ ְש ַמ ְעיָ ה וְ ַא ְב ַט ְליֹון‬

Image Credits

304

127…Waiter [dayyala] – ‫דַּ ּיָ ָילא‬

‫ה‬ 269…Hillel – ‫ִה ֵּלל‬ 9…Hillel – ‫ִה ֵּלל‬

‫מ‬ The king and queen – ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ֶמ ֶל ְך ו ַּמ ְל ָּכה וְ ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ 144…and Rabban Gamliel

‫ע‬ 140…Ulla – ‫עו ָּּלא‬

All images are copyright © Koren Publishers Jerusalem Ltd., except: p70 3 images © courtesy of the Temple Institute; p80 © courtesy of the Temple Institute; p9 both images © Tzilamti; p11 © courtesy of the Temple Institute; p15 left image © Ariely; p15 right image © Israel Krul; p33 © Wolfgang Sauber; p35 © Carlos Hagadol; p47 © CNG ; p59 © Linda Spashett (Storye book); p76 © HaRav Menachem Makover, courtesy of Harenu Bevinyano; p111 © Dr. Yisrael Meir Levinger; p113 © Dr. Yisrael Meir Levinger; p134 2nd image © Pentocelo; p138 left image © Marsyas; p138 right image © PHGCOM ; p139 left image © Golf Bravo; p139 middle image © Olaf Tausch; p139 right image © Ohr p; p144 © John J. Mosesso, NBII ; p151 © Ariel Palmon; p163 1st image © Gugganij; p163 2nd image © Gugganij; p166 © Clara Amit, Yoram Lehman, Yael Yolovitch, Miki Koren, and Mariana Salzberger, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority; p168 © Dr. Robert Lehrer, http://circcentral.tripod.com/knives.html; p180 right image © HaRav Menachem Makover, courtesy of Harenu Bevinyano; p181 © Ingsoc; p193 © HaRav Menachem Makover, courtesy of Harenu Bevinyano; p228 © Marie-Lan Nguyen, bequest of Edward T. Newell; p241 © Patrick J. Lynch, medical illustrator; p242 © Jastrow; p244 left image © Rumun99; p244 right image © Brian Negin; p245 1st image © Deror Avi; p245 2nd and 3rd images © courtesy of the Temple Institute; p247 © Tamar Hayardeni; p251 2nd image © Matthias Kabel; p251 3rd image © Clara Amit, Yoram Lehman, Yael Yolovitch, Miki Koren, and Mariana Salzberger, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority; p254 1st image © James Steakley; p254 2nd image © Júlio Reis; p255 © Marie-Lan Nguyen (2011), Peytel donation, 1914; p259 2nd image © Iago Pillado; p264 both images © Eliahu Misgav; p271 © Mattes; p285 © Deutsche Fotothek; p286 1st image © Roderick Dailey; p 286 2nd image © Hanay; p286 3rd image © Zvi Roger; p288 © Zello; p290 © Clara Amit, Yoram Lehman, Yael Yolovitch, Miki Koren, and Mariana Salzberger, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority

The following ‫ קדיש‬requires the presence of a ‫מנין‬.

‫יִ ְְְת ַ ּגדַּ ל וְְ יִ ְְְת ַקדַּ ׁש ׁ ְְש ֵמ ּה ַר ָ ּבא‬ ‫ְְ ּב ָע ְְל ָמא דְְּ הוּא ָע ִתיד ְְל ִא ְְְת ַחדָּ ָתא‬ ‫ ו ְְְּל ַא ָּס ָקא יָ ְְתהֹון ְְל ַחּיֵ י ָע ְְל ָמא‬,‫ו ְְְּל ַא ְְְחיָ ָאה ֵמ ַתּיָ א‬ ‫יכ ֵל ּה ְְ ּבגַ ַּו ּה‬ ְְ ‫ ו ְְְּל ׁ ַש ְְְכ ָל ָלא ֵה‬,‫ו ְְְּל ִמ ְְְבנֵ א ַק ְְְר ָּתא ִדירו ׁ ְְּש ֵלם‬ ‫ו ְְְּל ֶמ ְְְע ַקר ּ ָָפ ְְְל ָחנָ א נֻ ְְְכ ָר ָאה ֵמ ַא ְְְר ָעא‬ ‫וְְ ַל ֲא ָת ָבא ּ ָָפ ְְְל ָחנָ א ִד ׁ ְְְש ַמּיָ א ְְל ַא ְְְת ֵר ּה‬ ‫יך ֻק ְְְד ׁ ָשא ְְ ּב ִריךְְְ הוּא ְְ ּב ַמ ְְְלכו ֵּת ּה וִ ָיק ֵר ּה‬ ְְְ ‫וְְ יַ ְְְמ ִל‬ )‫יח ּה‬ ֵ ‫וְְ יַ צְְְ ַמח ּפו ְְְּר ָקנֵ ּה וִ ָיק ֵרב ְְמ ׁ ִש‬

:‫( נוסח ספרד‬

‫יֹומיכֹון ו ְְְּב ַחּיֵ י דְְּ ָָכל ֵ ּבית יִ ְְְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫ְְ ּב ַחּיֵ יכֹון ו ְְְּב‬ .‫ וְְ ִא ְְְמר ּו ָא ֵמן‬,‫ַ ּב ֲעגָ ָלא ו ִּבזְְְ ַמן ָק ִריב‬ .‫יְְ ֵהא ׁ ְְש ֵמ ּה ַר ָ ּבא ְְמ ָב ַרךְְְ ְְל ָע ַלם ו ְְְּל ָע ְְל ֵמי ָע ְְל ַמּיָ א‬ ‫נַשא‬ ֵ ּׂ ‫רֹומם וְְ יִ ְְְת‬ ַ ‫יִ ְְְת ָ ּב ַרךְְְ וְְ יִ ׁ ְְְש ַּת ַ ּבח וְְ יִ ְְְת ּ ָפ ַאר וְְ יִ ְְְת‬ ‫וְְ יִ ְְְת ַהדָּ ר וְְ יִ ְְְת ַע ֶּלה וְְ יִ ְְְת ַה ָּלל‬ ‫ׁ ְְש ֵמ ּה דְְּ ֻק ְְְד ׁ ָשא ְְ ּב ִריךְְְ הוּא‬ ‫ְְל ֵע ָּֽלא ִמן ָָּכל ִ ּב ְְְר ָכ ָתא‬ /‫ ְְל ֵע ָּֽלא ְְל ֵע ָּֽלא ִמ ָָּכל ִ ּב ְְְר ָכ ָתא‬:‫ בעשרת ימי תשובה‬/  ‫ דַּ ֲא ִמ ָירן ְְ ּב ָע ְְל ָמא‬,‫ ֻּת ׁ ְְְש ְְ ּב ָח ָתא וְְ נֶ ֱח ָמ ָתא‬,‫וְְ ׁ ִש ָיר ָתא‬ )‫ ָא ֵמן‬:‫ ( קהל‬.‫וְְ ִא ְְְמר ּו ָא ֵמן‬ ‫ַעל יִ ְְְ ׂש ָר ֵאל וְְ ַעל ַר ָ ּבנָן‬ ‫וְְ ַעל ַּת ְְְל ִמ ֵידיהֹון וְְ ַעל ָָּכל ַּת ְְְל ִמ ֵידי ַת ְְְל ִמ ֵידיהֹון‬ ‫אֹוריְְְ ָתא‬ ַ ‫וְְ ַעל ָָּכל ָמאן דְְּ ָע ְְס ִקין ְְ ּב‬ ָ ׁ ִּ‫ ַקד‬:‫דִּ י ְְ ּב ַא ְְְת ָרא ( בארץ ישראל‬ ‫ וְְ ִדי ְְ ּב ָָכל ֲא ַתר וַ ֲא ַתר‬,‫ישא) ָה ֵדין‬ ‫יְְ ֵהא ְְלהֹון ו ְְְּלכֹון ׁ ְְש ָל ָמא ַר ָ ּבא‬ ‫יחי‬ ֵ ִ‫ ו ְְְּמזֹונֵי ְְרו‬,‫יכי‬ ֵ ‫ וְְ ַחּיֵ י ֲא ִר‬,‫ וְְ ַר ֲח ֵמי‬,‫ִח ָּנא וְְ ִח ְְְסדָּ א‬ ‫ו ֻּפ ְְְר ָקנָ א ִמן ֳֳק ָדם ֲאבוּהֹון דִּ י ִב ׁ ְְְש ַמּיָ א‬ .‫וְְ ִא ְְְמר ּו ָא ֵמן‬ ‫יְְ ֵהא ׁ ְְש ָל ָמא ַר ָ ּבא ִמן ׁ ְְש ַמּיָ א‬ ‫(טֹובים) ָע ֵלֽינ ּו וְְ ַעל ָָּכל יִ ְְְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ִ ‫וְְ ַחּיִ ים‬ .‫וְְ ִא ְְְמר ּו ָא ֵמן‬ Bow, take three steps back, as if taking leave of the Divine Presence, then bow, first left, then right, then center, while saying:

‫רֹומיו‬ ָ ‫ ִ ּב ְְְמ‬/‫ ַה ׁ ּ ָשלֹום‬:‫ בעשרת ימי תשובה‬/‫ע ֶ ֹׂשה ׁ ָשלֹום‬ ‫ ָע ֵלֽינ ּו וְְ ַעל ָָּכל יִ ְְְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬,‫הוּא יַ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְְב ַר ֲח ָמיו ׁ ָשלֹום‬ .‫וְְ ִא ְְְמר ּו ָא ֵמן‬

The following Kaddish requires the presence of a minyan.

Magnified and sanctified may His great name be, in the world that will in future be renewed, reviving the dead and raising them up to eternal life. He will rebuild the city of Jerusalem and in it re-establish His Temple. He will remove alien worship from the earth and restore to its place the worship of Heaven. Then the Holy One, blessed be He, will reign in His sovereignty and splendor. May it be in your lifetime and in your days, (Nusaĥ Sepharad: make His salvation flourish, and hasten His messiah,)

and in the lifetime of all the House of Israel, swiftly and soon – and say: Amen. May His great name be blessed for ever and all time. Blessed and praised, glorified and exalted, raised and honored, uplifted and lauded be the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, beyond any blessing, song, praise and consolation uttered in the world – and say: Amen. To Israel, to the teachers, their disciples and their disciples’ disciples, and to all who engage in the study of Torah, in this (in Israel add: holy) place or elsewhere, may there come to them and you great peace, grace, kindness and compassion, long life, ample sustenance and deliverance, from their Father in Heaven – and say: Amen. May there be great peace from heaven, and (good) life for us and all Israel – and say: Amen. Bow, take three steps back, as if taking leave of the Divine Presence, then bow, first left, then right, then center, while saying:

May He who makes peace in His high places, in His compassion make peace for us and all Israel – and say: Amen.