Sacred Texts Judaism Talmud Index Previous Next
Babylonian Talmud, Book 3: Tracts Tracts Pesachim, Yomah and Hagiga, tr. by Michael L. Rodkinson, [1918], at sacred-texts.com
REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE ROASTING OF THE PASCHAL LAMB--THE MANNER OF PROCEDURE IF THE PASCHAL LAMB BECOME DEFILED--WHICH PARTS OF THE LAMB ARE EATEN.
MISHNA: How should the paschal lamb be roasted? A spit made of the wood of the pomegranate-tree should be taken, put in at the mouth (of the lamb or kid), and brought out again at the vent thereof. Its legs and entrails should be placed inside, according to R. Jose the Galilean; but R. Aqiba said: This would be a kind of boiling, and for that reason they ought to be suspended on the outside (of the lamb). The paschal sacrifice must not be roasted on an iron roasting spit, nor on a gridiron. Zadok related that Rabbon Gamaliel once said to his bondsman Tabbi: "Go and roast for us the paschal sacrifice on a gridiron."
GEMARA: Why should the spit be made of wood? Let it be an iron spit. Nay; when part of an iron spit is heated the entire spit becomes hot, and in consequence the flesh nearest the spit will be cooked by the heat thereof; but the Scriptures distinctly ordain that the lamb must be roasted over a fire, and not otherwise.
Why not use the wood of a date-tree? On account of the bark, which contains water, and when heated the water thereof will be the means of cooking part of the lamb, and this must not take place. Our Mishna is not in conformity with the opinion of R. Jehudah, who said that, as a wooden spit is not burnt while the lamb is being roasted, so also an iron spit will not become sufficiently heated to cook the flesh adjoining it. He was told, however, that while a wooden spit only becomes heated locally, an iron spit when partially heated becomes so throughout.
"The legs and entrails are placed inside," etc. We have .learned in a Boraitha that R. Ishmael calls a lamb roasted in that wise a sizzling roast and R. Tarphon calls it a whole roast. The rabbis taught: What is called a roasted goat which must
not be eaten nowadays on the first night of Passover (outside of the Temple)? One that has been roasted whole; but if one of the members was detached or boiled and the remaining part roasted, it may be eaten, because then it is not considered a roasted goat. R. Shesheth said: "Even if a member was cooked (boiled) while still attached to the body of the goat and the remainder was roasted, it may also be eaten, and is not called a roasted goat."
Said Rabba: "If the lamb was stuffed with flour it may be eaten, even if it was not salted prior to being roasted." Rejoined Abayi: "Will not the filling absorb the blood in that event?" And Rabba replied: "Yea; but as soon as the roasting commences the blood recedes from the flour and is consumed by the fire."
Rabhin the Elder stuffed a dove with flour for Rabh, and the latter said: "If it is toothsome, give me a piece and I shall eat it."
We know, however, that, when Rabha was served with a stuffed duck at the house of Exilarch, he said: "If I did not see that the filling is as white as white glass I should not eat it." Now if it is a fact, as Rabba maintained, that during the roasting the blood recedes from the filling, why should Rabha have made that assertion--what difference does it make whether the filling was white or not? In this case the filling was made of coarser meal, which after absorbing the blood is not so easily purged thereof; hence it was necessary for Rabha to see whether the filling was white or not.
The Halakha in this case prevails as follows: "Where fine meal is used it makes no difference whether it had remained white or become red. If coarse meal was used it may be eaten only if it remained as white as white glass, while if any other kind of meal was used it may be eaten if it remains white, but not if it become red (or discolored). Even if a lamb (or goat) was roasted upside down (so that the blood could not escape through its mouth), it may also be eaten; but concerning half-roasted meat, the testicles of a ram, and the muscles of the neck of a lamb there is a difference of opinion between R. A'ha and Rabhina. [In all cases of law, where R. A'ha and Rabhina dispute, R. A'ha upholds the more rigorous decrees and Rabhina the more lenient, and the Halakha prevails according to Rabhina; but in the above three instances R. A'ha inclines towards the more lenient ordinance and Rabhina to the more rigorous, and
the Halakha prevails according to R. A'ha.] If half-roasted meat, which was dripping with blood, was subsequently salted it may even be boiled. If it was roasted on a spit it is also fit, but if it was roasted on live coals there is again a difference of opinion between R. A'ha and Rabhina. One maintains that it must not be used, because the blood remains in the meat, while the other holds that the blood escapes, and the meat is therefore fit to eat. The Halakha prevails according to the latter opinion.
The same case applies to the testicles of a ram. If they were cut up and salted, they may be cooked in a pot; and if they were roasted on a spit without being cut up and salted, they are still fit to eat, because the blood has been consumed by the fire; but if they were cooked over live coals, then is again the same difference of opinion between R. A'ha and Rabhina, and the Halakha prevails that they may be eaten.
Said Mar the son of Ameimar to R. Ashi: "My father would drink the juice of such meat." According to another version, R. Ashi himself would do this, and Mar the son of Ameiniar said to him: "My father used to say that vinegar in which meat had been steeped once, must not be used for the same purpose again, because it is diluted." What about diluted vinegar itself, why may that be used? Vinegar, even if it be weak, still retains its original acidity, and stops the flow of blood in the meat, but vinegar which has been diluted by steeping meat therein has lost its acidity and cannot therefore be used.
"The paschal sacrifice must not be roasted, etc., on a gridiron," etc. Does R. Zadok relate this instance (in the Mishna) of Rabbon Gamaliel as a contradiction to the Mishna? The Mishna is not complete, and should read: "If the gridiron, however, is perforated, it may be used for that purpose, as R. Zadok related that Rabbon Gamaliel," etc. (vide Mishna).
The rabbis taught: If the paschal lamb was cut up and placed over coals. Said Rabbi: "I say, that this is equal to roasting it over a fire." Rabha contradicted this saying: How can it be said that Rabbi calls coals "fire"; have we not learned that the passage [Lev. xvi. 12]: "And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire," means, that coals which have already become dim must not be used, because it says "coals of fire," and that a flame of fire should not be used, because of the term "coals of fire"? And R. Shesheth explained: Thus we see that live coals are meant, and that a distinction is made between fire and live coals." How then can Rabbi hold that
even live coals are equal to fire? Said Rabha: Therefore, the statement of the rabbis must be explained thus: It is written "coals," and lest we assume that dim coals be meant, it is written "coals of fire." We might, however, assume that half coals and the other half fire should be brought, and by the time they are brought they will become coals entirely, hence it is said [ibid.] "coals of fire from off the altar," which signifies that when taken from the altar they should be coals already.
MISHNA: If any part of the roasted lamb had touched the earthenware oven on which it was roasted, that part must be pared off. If the fat dripping from the lamb had fallen on the oven and then had again fallen on the lamb, the part of the lamb touched must be cut out. If the dripping, however, fell on fine flour, a handful of that flour must be taken (and burned). If the paschal sacrifice had been anointed (basted) with consecrated oil of heave-offering and the company appointed to partake thereof consist of priests, they are allowed to eat it; but if the company consist of Israelites, they must wash it off the lamb if yet raw. Should the lamb have been already roasted, they must pare off the outward skin. If it had been anointed with oil of second tithe, its value must not be charged to the company in money, because it is not lawful to redeem and sell it in Jerusalem. 1
GEMARA: It was taught: All agree, that if warm (meat) fall into warm (milk) both are rendered prohibited (for use). Cold (meat) in cold (milk), all agree, is not rendered prohibited; but if warm (meat) fell into cold (milk) or cold (milk) fell on warm (meat), Rabh said that the thing falling on top supersedes that on the bottom, and hence both may be used or are prohibited as the case may be; but Samuel said, on the contrary, that the thing on the bottom virtually absorbs that on top. An objection was made, based upon the Mishna: "If the fat dripping from the lamb had fallen on the oven, etc., the part of the lamb touched must be cut out." At the first glance, it might be assumed that the oven in question was cold. This would be correct according to Rabh, who holds that the thing falling on top supersedes that originally at the bottom; and thus the oven, becoming in turn hot, causes the fat to boil. When the fat again falls on the lamb, the latter becomes roasted by the heat of the oven; and as the passage states that it should be roasted
by fire only, the part of the lamb touched must therefore be cut out. But according to Samuel, who holds that a thing originally on bottom absorbs that falling on top, when the fat touches the oven, the fat becomes cold; consequently, when it again falls on the lamb, the lamb is not affected. Therefore, why should the part touched be cut out? Nay; the Mishna refers to a hot oven. (The same objection was made also to the latter part of the Mishna, which refers to the fat dripping on the flour, and the answer is similar.)
We have learned in a Boraitha in support of Samuel's contention, viz.: Warm falling on warm renders both prohibited. Cold falling on warm does likewise. Warm (meat) falling into cold (milk), it is only necessary to pare off the outer skin of the meat and it may be used. If cold (meat) had fallen into cold (milk), it need only be rinsed.
We have learned in another Boraitha: (Smoking) hot meat falling into (boiling) hot milk renders both prohibited. Cold (meat) in hot milk does likewise. If hot (meat) fall into cold milk, its outer skin must be pared off. Cold (meat) falling into cold (milk) need only be rinsed.
Rabh said: "(Ritually) slaughtered fat meat, if roasted together with lean meat of carrion, must not be eaten, because one draws the juice of the other." Levi, however, said: "Even slaughtered lean meat roasted together with fat meat of carrion may be eaten, because it only draws the odor of the fat meat, and that does not interfere with it."
Levi acted in accordance with his decision in the house of the Exilarch, where a goat and a sucking pig were roasted together.
An objection was made: We have learned that two paschal offerings must not be roasted together, lest they become mixed. Must we not assume that the reason is, that the taste of one will be affected by the other, and thus contradict Levi's opinion? Nay; the reason is, that there is fear of the offerings themselves becoming mixed so that their respective owners will not be able to distinguish them. This view seems to be the correct one, because it is taught further that even a lamb and a goat must not be roasted together (if they were paschal offerings). and if the reason therefor is that there is fear. lest the offerings become mixed, the teaching is correct and is merely a precaution against roasting two lambs or two goats together. If, however, the reason were to prevent the taste of either being affected by the other, what difference would it make whether
a lamb and a goat, or two of either species, be roasted together?
Shall we say, that this is also a contradiction to Rabh's opinion? Said R. Jeremiah: "The case concerning the two paschal offerings which were roasted together refers to an instance of where they were roasted apparently in separate vessels, i.e., over two fires which were separated by a heap of coals, and we should learn thus: Two paschal offerings must not be roasted together on account of one affecting the taste of the other; nor should they be roasted together even when separated as mentioned, for fear of mixing them so that their owners will not be able to distinguish them, even if the two offerings consisted of a lamb and a goat."
R. Kahana the son of R. Hinana the Elder taught: "If bread was baked and meat was roasted in one oven, the bread must not be eaten with Kutach."
It happened that fish was broiled together with meat, and Rabha of the city of Parziqaia prohibited it to be eaten with Kutach. Mar the son of R. Ashi, however, said: "It should not even be eaten with salt, because it produces a bad odor and is the cause of sores."
MISHNA: Five kinds of sacrifices may be brought, even if those who offer them should be in a state of ritual uncleanness; but they should not be eaten by those who offer them while in that condition. They are: The "Omer" (sheaf-offering), the two loaves (of Pentecost), the showbreads (of the Sabbath), the peace-offerings of the congregation, and the he-goats offered on the Feast of the New Moon; the paschal offerings, however, which were sacrificed by men in a state of ritual uncleanness, might also be eaten by them, though they (the men) still be in that condition, because the main object of the commandment concerning the paschal offering was that it should be eaten.
GEMARA: The Mishna mentions five sacrifices; which does it intend to exclude? It means to exclude the festal offering brought on the festival itself (15th of Nissan); for it might be assumed that this offering being a congregational sacrifice and also being one which was appointed for a certain time, it should also be eaten even by a man in a (ritually) unclean state; hence we are taught that, as the festival may be extended over seven days, and in consequence does not supersede the due observance of the Sabbath, it does not also supersede the law of uncleanness.
Why does the Mishna not enumerate also the he-goat brought as a sin-offering on every festival? It does enumerate it, by including it in the peace-offerings of the congregation. Why, then, is the he-goat offered on the Feast of the New Moon enumerated separately? Let that also be included in the congregational offerings! Special mention must be made of the latter, because it might be assumed that the Feast of the New Moon is not a festival, and as a consequence the offering of that day does not supersede the law of uncleanness. Hence we are taught, that the Feast of the New Moon is also a festival and the he-goat sacrifice does supersede the laws of uncleanness.
Whence do we adduce the several teachings of the Mishna? From the following: The rabbis taught: It is written [Levit. xxiii. 44]: "And Moses declared the feasts of the Lord unto the children of Israel." For what purpose is this written? Because the entire chapter [ibid. xxiii.] deals with the paschal offering and the continual daily offerings, concerning which it states "at their appointed seasons," signifying, that they supersede both the observance of the Sabbath and the laws of uncleanness; but whence do we know that the same rule applies to other congregational sacrifices? To that end, it is written [Numb. xxix. 39]: "These shall ye prepare unto the Lord on your appointed festivals." Whence do we adduce, however, that the Omer (sheaf-offering) and the showbreads, together with their adjuncts, are also included in the rule? The above passage: "Moses declared the feast of the Lord," etc., implies, that Moses appointed a fixed time for all festivals and made them all equal.
From the above adductions the schoolmen reasoned, that all agree upon the fact that the law of uncleanness had only been temporarily set aside for congregational purposes, but not that it had been abrogated entirely, and also that the plate worn by the high-priest (through which he atoned for the sins of the community) 1 was brought in requisition to atone for the transgression of the law regarding uncleanness; for there cannot be found one Tana who holds that the said law was abrogated entirely, with the exception of R. Jehudah. They also assumed, that the plate of the high-priest atoned for the sacrifice of an unclean thing, but not for the transgression committed by eating an unclean thing; for there cannot be found one Tana who
holds that the plate can atone for sins committed through eating, excepting R. Eliezer.
Shall we assume, therefore, that our Mishna is not in accordance with R. Jehoshua, as we have learned in a Boraitha: It is written [Deut. xii. 27]: "And thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood," etc. Said R. Jehoshua: "If there is no flesh there is no blood, and if there is no blood there is no flesh"(meaning, if one or the other had become unclean or was lost, the remaining thing is useless). Thus, if it be true that the plate of the high-priest does not atone for sins committed through eating, will it not be evident that even the paschal sacrifice must not be brought in a state of uncleanness, because it must not be eaten? The Mishna may be even in accordance with R. Jehoshua, who maintains further on that, though there be only sacrificial fat of the size of an olive left on the altar, the blood of that sacrifice may be sprinkled, and also that the plate of the high-priest atones for the offerings, parts of which are brought on the altar and which were offered in an unclean state. This would only apply, however, to those offerings of which certain parts were brought on the altar; how will it be in the case of the Omer and the showbreads, no parts of which are ever brought on the altar? Therefore we must assume the following: The Mishna is in accordance with R. Jehoshua, but his prohibitory decision applies only to the performance of acts to commence with. If, however, the deed was accomplished, R. Jehoshua also admits that the act is valid. Whence do we adduce that R. Jehoshua holds to the distinction between the performance of an act to commence with and one already accomplished? From the following Boraitha: "If flesh had become unclean or it became unfit for use by virtue of its having come in contact with a man who had bathed, but upon whom the sun had not yet set, or it had become unfit for use by protruding from its proper receptacle, R. Eliezer holds that the blood thereof may be sprinkled, but R. Jehoshua maintains that it must not. The latter admits, however, that if the sprinkling had already been accomplished it is atoned for."
Our Mishna, however, deals with the performance of acts to commence with, because it distinctly states: "Five kinds of sacrifices may be brought"? Therefore we must render another explanation; namely, R. Jehoshua applies his decision only to the cases of individuals, but where congregational purposes are concerned, he interposes no impediment.
Shall we assume that the Mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of R. Jose of the following Boraitha? "R. Eliezer maintains that the plate of the high-priest atones also for sins committed through eating, but R. Jose holds that it does not." If R. Jose does not admit of this supposition, at a casual glance we might think that he is in accord with R. Jehoshua, who declares, that both the flesh and blood are required, and if R. Jose positively asserts that the sins committed through eating are not atoned for, we must presume that the Mishna is not in conformity with his opinion! Nay; in this respect R. Jose agrees with R. Eliezer, that blood may be sprinkled even if the flesh be not there.
R. Mari opposed this: If we admit that R. Jose agrees with R. Eliezer, it would be perfectly proper in the case of the sacrifices, for the blood thereof is offered up on the altar in the case of the Omer because a handful is taken therefrom in the case of the showbreads because the incense brought with it is offered up; but what about the two loaves (of Pentecost), of which nothing at all is taken off? If you say that the two loaves themselves are not meant, but the sacrifices brought with them, then there will be only four kinds, and the Mishna states that there are five? Hence the most reasonable supposition is, that the Mishna is not in accordance with R. Jose.
MISHNA: If the flesh of the paschal sacrifice has become (ritually) defiled and the fat thereof remains undefiled, its blood must not be sprinkled on the altar; but if the fat has become defiled and the flesh remains undefiled, the blood may be sprinkled; but such is not the case with respect to other consecrated sacrifices (under similar circumstances); for even if the flesh of such has become defiled but the fat has remained undefiled, their blood may be sprinkled.
GEMARA: R. Giddel said in the name of Rabh: What is the case if the blood has been sprinkled? In that event the duty has nevertheless been fulfilled. Is it not obligatory, however, to eat the paschal sacrifice, and in this case it must not be eaten? Rabh holds with R. Nathan, who states that the fact of its not having been eaten proves no impediment to the lawful accomplishment of the duty to sacrifice the paschal offering, as we have learned in a Boraitha, viz.: If one company had been appointed to eat the paschal sacrifice and subsequently another company had been added thereto, if there was sufficient for the first company, so that each member thereof ate as his share the
size of an olive, this company has fulfilled the duty and need not celebrate a second Passover. If there was not sufficient remaining, so that the members of the second company could each eat a piece the size of an olive, they must celebrate a second Passover. R. Nathan, however, said: "Even the second company need not make a second Passover, because the blood of the sacrifice had already been sprinkled." Perhaps the reason for R. Nathan's dictum is, that had the first company withdrawn there would have been sufficient for the second each to eat a piece the size of an olive; hence the supposition that such was the case renders the sacrifice valid for both, but not because the fact of its not being eaten proves no impediment? If the former reason were the acceptable one, the Boraitha should have stated the supposition, but the fact that it says, "because the blood of the sacrifice had already been sprinkled," is conclusive proof that the sprinkling of the blood is the main object of the commandment.
What impels Rabh to construct the Mishna according to R. Nathan, and expound it in the sense that the blood must not be sprinkled to commence with, but that, if this was done, the act does not invalidate the sacrifice? Let him explain it according to the sages, who hold that the blood must not be sprinkled, and that if this was done it invalidates the sacrifice!
Rabh could not understand the Mishna, and he argued: Why should the Mishna state that the blood must not be sprinkled? because while this should not be done to commence with, if it was done it is a valid act; for otherwise the Mishna could have plainly said, "the sacrifice is not valid."
According to which Tana is the following teaching of the rabbis: "If a man who was appointed to eat of the paschal offering was ill at the time the sacrifice was about to be slaughtered and had recovered when the blood was about to be sprinkled, or was well when it was about to be slaughtered and became ill when the blood was about to be sprinkled, the sacrifice must not be slaughtered nor the blood sprinkled unless that man was well from the time of slaughter until the sprinkling of the blood"? Shall we say, that this is in accordance with the sages and not with R. Nathan? Nay; it may be even in accordance with R. Nathan; for while maintaining that not eating the sacrifice proves no impediment, he nevertheless admits that at the time when the sacrifice is slaughtered and the blood sprinkled the man must be in a condition to partake thereof.
According to which Tana is the following teaching of the rabbis: "If at the time the sacrifice was slaughtered the participants thereof were still undefiled and subsequently became defiled, the blood may be sprinkled as if for undefiled participants but the sacrifice must not be eaten." Said R. Elazar: "This teaching is in accordance with the disputants and appears to be according to R. Nathan." R. Johanan, however, said: The teaching may be in accord with the sages, but in that event it treats of the whole community and not of an individual, and we have learned that a community may sacrifice the paschal offering even if all the members thereof were defiled. Then why is the sacrifice not allowed to be eaten? As a precautionary measure, lest at the next Passover they become unclean after the sprinkling and nevertheless claim that they are allowed to partake of the sacrifice because they were also unclean on the last Passover, forgetting, however, that they were already defiled before the sprinkling but did not become so afterwards.
If you wish, I can tell you that Rabh holds with R. Jehoshua, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: R. Jehoshua said: "All the sacrifices mentioned in the Scriptures, whether the flesh had become defiled and the fat remained clean, or the reverse was the case, the blood thereof must nevertheless be sprinkled. But of Nazarite offerings or the paschal sacrifice, if the fat became defiled and the flesh remained clean, the blood may be sprinkled; but if the reverse was the case, the blood may not be sprinkled. If this was done, however, the duty is accomplished. If the owners of the sacrifice, however, have become polluted through a corpse, even if the blood had already been sprinkled, the sacrifice is not valid."
"Such is not the case with respect to other consecrated sacrifices," etc. This clause of the Mishna will be in accordance with the opinion of R. Jehoshua, as taught in the following Boraitha: R. Jehoshua said: Of all sacrifices mentioned in the Scriptures, if a piece the size of an olive had remained, the blood may be sprinkled; but if a piece the size of half an olive had been left over, the blood may not be sprinkled, except in the case of a burnt- (whole) offering, where, should even a piece the size of half an olive be left over, the blood may also be sprinkled, because the whole sacrifice is offered up on the altar. In the case of a meat-offering which was still intact, if it had become defiled the blood must not be sprinkled. What has a meat-offering to do with the sprinkling of the blood? Said R.
[paragraph continues] Papa: By this is meant the meat-offering brought with every sacrifice, and lest we assume that even if but a piece thereof the size of an olive remain, the blood of the sacrifice may be sprinkled, we are taught that even if it had remained intact it does not legalize the sprinkling of the blood.
MISHNA: If the whole or the greater part of the congregation had become defiled, or the priests were in a state of defilement but the congregation was undefiled, the sacrifice may be brought in this state of defilement; but if the minority only of the congregation had become defiled, the majority that are clean shall sacrifice the paschal offering at its proper time and the unclean (minority) shall sacrifice a second paschal offering, on the 14th of the following month.
GEMARA: The rabbis taught: If the congregation was defiled but the priests and the utensils necessary for the service were clean, or the reverse was the case; or, moreover, if the congregation and the priests were clean and the utensils alone were unclean, the sacrifice must nevertheless be brought in that state of defilement. Why so? Because a congregational sacrifice must not be divided; i.e., even if there were some men among the congregation who happened to be undefiled, they must also participate in the sacrifice.
It was taught: If the congregation was equally divided--one half being unclean and the other half clean--Rabh said that a half is equal to a majority, and one half should bring the sacrifice in its state of defilement, while the other half should bring it in its proper condition. R. Kahana, however, said that a half does not constitute a majority, and hence the half which is clean should bring the sacrifice at the customary time, while the other half should bring it at the second Passover (one month later). According to another version, R. Kahana is supposed to have said: "The half does not constitute a majority, therefore the undefiled half should bring the sacrifice at its usual time; but the unclean half should not bring it at all; because, in the first! place they were defiled, and on the second occasion they, not being a majority, cannot observe a second Passover."
We have learned one Boraitha in support of Rabh's opinion: "If the congregation was equally divided, one half being unclean, and the other clean, each half should bring a separate paschal offering." We have also learned a Boraitha supporting the first. version of R. Kahana's dictum, as follows: "If a congregation was equally divided between unclean and clean members, the
latter should bring their sacrifice at its usual time and the former at the second Passover"; and also a Boraitha supporting the second version of R. Kahana's opinion: "If a congregation was equally divided between clean and unclean members, the former bring their sacrifice at the usual time and the latter need not bring it at all."
The text of the Boraitha states: "If the congregation was equally divided, one half being clean and the other unclean, each half should bring a separate paschal offering," and continues: "if there was one majority in the unclean half, the sacrifice must be brought in the state of pollution, because a congregational sacrifice cannot be divided." R. Elazar ben Mathia, however, says, that a single person cannot determine the uncleanness of an entire community, because it is written [Deut. xvi. 5]: "Thou mayest not slay the Passover within any of thy gates" (which signifies, that a single person cannot influence a congregation). R. Simeon, however, said: "Even if one tribe was unclean and the remaining eleven tribes (of Israel) were clean, the one unclean tribe must bring a separate sacrifice." The reason why R. Simeon maintains this, is because he considers each tribe a separate congregation; but R. Jehudah said: "Even if only one tribe was unclean, all the remaining tribes must bring their sacrifices in a state of defilement." Why so? Because he also holds that each tribe constitutes a congregation, and so the entire community is thus equally divided between unclean and clean; and as a communal sacrifice must not be divided, they must all join in bringing it in a state of defilement.
It was taught: "If the congregation was equally divided, one half being clean and the other unclean, Rabh says that one member of the clean half should be defiled by contact with a dead reptile, and thus the entire congregation can bring the sacrifice in a state of defilement." Why should this be done? Did not Rabh state previously that they should each bring separate sacrifices? In this case there was already a majority of one in the unclean half. If that is so, then there was already a majority; why make another man unclean? Rabh holds with R. Elazar ben Mathia, that one person cannot determine the uncleanness of a congregation. If Rabh holds with R. Elazar, then the same question arises, why should not each half bring a separate sacrifice? Rabh means to say as follows: If there is a Tana who holds with the first Tana of the Boraitha, to the effect that each half must bring a separate sacrifice, and at the same
time holds with R. Jehudah, namely, that a communal sacrifice must not be divided and in consequence is in doubt how to proceed, he should make another man unclean and thus constitute an unquestionable majority.
Ula, however, said: "A member of the clean half should first be sent on a long journey, and then be defiled by contact with a dead reptile," because he holds that a man who had become unclean through a reptile may nevertheless have the sacrifice brought for him; but if he was away on a journey and there becomes unclean, the sacrifice cannot be brought for him. 1 Why not defile the man by means of a corpse? If this is done, he will be robbed of his right to bring even his festival offering. And, on the other hand, is he not deprived of his right to bring the paschal offering? Yea; but he has the privilege of bringing the Passover sacrifice on the second Passover. Then, if defiled by a corpse, he will be enabled to bring his festal offering on the seventh day of Passover, which will be the eighth since his becoming defiled! Ula holds that the extension of the festal offering throughout the seven days applies only to one who was capable of bringing it on the first day, but not if he was legally incapacitated to do so on the first day.
Said R. Na'hman: "Go to Ula and say to him: Is it reasonable that a man should be asked to strike his tent and leave everything behind him in disorder in order to undertake a long journey on the eve of Passover? Therefore, I say that Rabh's proposition to defile him with a dead reptile is sufficient."
MISHNA: If, after the blood of the paschal sacrifice had been sprinkled on the altar, it became known that it (the blood or the flesh thereof) was unclean, the plate of gold (of the high-priest) atones for the sin; but if the body (of the owner) of the sacrifice had been defiled, the plate of the high-priest does not atone for the sin; for it is a rule that the plate atones for (the sin of sacrificing) the paschal offering and that of the Nazarite, if the blood of these had become defiled; but not if the body (of the owner) of such sacrifice had become unclean. It does, on the other hand, atone for the defilement caused by an abyss or by the ground. 2
GEMARA: From the Mishna we learn, that the plate atones for the sin if it had become known that the blood or
flesh was unclean, after the sprinkling; hence we must assume that if this was known before the sprinkling and the blood had been sprinkled nevertheless, the plate does not atone for the sin, and would this not be contradictory to the following Boraitha: "For what things does the plate atone? For blood, flesh, and fat which was rendered unclean either intentionally or inadvertently, whether this was brought about by accident or voluntarily, whether the sacrifice be that of an individual or of a congregation
Said Rabhina: "If the sacrifice was rendered unclean either intentionally or inadvertently, the plate atones for the sin (of sacrificing in such a state); but as for sprinkling, it atones only for unintentional sprinkling (i.e., if the man had forgotten that the sacrifice was unclean) but not for intentional sprinkling." R. Shila, however, said: "(On the contrary!) As for sprinkling, whether done intentionally or unintentionally, the plate atones for the sin; but if the sacrifice became unclean, if it was rendered so inadvertently the plate atones for the sin, but if rendered so intentionally it does not, and thus should the Boraitha also be explained; but as regards the statement in the Mishna that, if the fact of the sacrifice being unclean had become known, after the sprinkling of the blood, the plate atones for it, thus showing that if the sprinkling was done knowingly the plate does not atone for it, it is not correct, for the plate atones for the sprinkling even if done knowingly, and the reason the statement is made is because in the latter clause of the Mishna it must be taught that even if the blood had been sprinkled without the knowledge of the fact that the owners of the sacrifice were unclean, still the plate does not atone for the sin; therefore an analogous teaching is made also in the first clause."
"It does on the other hand atone for the defilement caused by an abyss," etc. Rama bar Hama propounded a question: "Does the plate atone also for a priest who had contracted (doubtful) uncleanness through an abyss, or does this only apply to the owner of the sacrifice? Shall we assume, that the tradition to the effect that the plate atones for such doubtful uncleanness applies only to the owners of the sacrifice, or that it applies to the sacrifice itself and hence also to either owner or priest?
Said Rabha: "Come and hear! R. Hyya taught: 'The law regarding doubtful uncleanness caused by an abyss treats only of uncleanness by means of a corpse.' What does he mean to exclude by using the word "only"? Doubtless a reptile. Now
let us see who can be affected by contact with a reptile: If we should say the owner of the sacrifice, which owner does he refer; to? Shall we assume that the owner was a Nazarite? then uncleanness through contact with a reptile does not change the, legal status of a Nazarite, as it is written [Numb. vi. 9]: "And if some one die very suddenly" (but not a reptile). Then we must assume that the owner of a paschal offering is referred to. This would be correct, according to the Tana who maintains that for an owner defiled through a reptile a paschal offering may neither be slaughtered nor the blood thereof sprinkled; but according to the other Tana, who holds that such a condition of' the owner does not interfere with the slaughtering of the paschal offering or the sprinkling of its blood, what would R. Hyya come to teach us?--If the slaughtering and sprinkling are permitted for an owner unquestionably defiled through contact with a reptile, it is certainly permitted for one whose defilement through an abyss was not of a doubtful nature. Hence we must assume that even a priest is referred to, and thus the plate of the high-priest atones also for a priest who was supposed to have become unclean, by passing over an abyss probably harboring a corpse.
R. Joseph propounded a question: "If there was doubt concerning the undefiled state of a priest who had passed over an abyss probably harboring a corpse, and was engaged in bringing the continual daily offering, does the plate atone for him also, or not? If you should even say that he was atoned for, when bringing other sacrifices, f.i., as just mentioned in the case of a priest who sacrificed the paschal offering the question concerning one engaged on the continual daily offering still remains; for while we have a tradition to the effect that the plate of the high-priest atones for a priest in the mentioned condition who had sacrificed a paschal offering, we have none affecting the case of a priest bringing the continual daily offering while in a state of doubtful. defilement; or, on the other hand, from the fact that we have no tradition to that effect, should we draw the inference from the instance of the paschal offering?
Said Rabba: "(This is not only an inference); it is an a fortiori conclusion! If in the case of other sacrifices, as the Nazarite offerings, the paschal offerings, etc., where positive uncleanness; would interfere with the validity of the sacrifice, a doubtful case was not held to prove an impediment, then certainly in the case of the continual daily offering, which must be brought even if all concerned are in a positive state of defilement,
it should so much the more be valid in a case of doubtful defilement." Is it possible, then, to draw an a fortiori conclusion from a tradition? Did we not learn in a Boraitha: "Said to him R. Eliezer: Aqiba! That a bone of a corpse of the size of a barley-corn, when brought in contact with a man, defiles him, is a tradition, and thou wouldst draw therefrom the a fortiori conclusion that a quarter of a lug of blood would so much the more be a means of defilement. An a fortiori conclusion must not be derived from a tradition!"
"Therefore," said Rabh, "the case of the continual daily offering is not derived from the paschal offering by means of an a fortiori conclusion, but by means of a comparison by analogy, namely: As concerning both sacrifices it is written, 'at their appointed seasons,' the same rules apply to both."
Where do we find it written in general concerning the doubtful state of defilement caused by passing over an abyss probably harboring a corpse? It has already been stated that this is merely a tradition, and is not particularly specified at any place.
It was taught: Mar bar R. Ashi said: Do not learn in the Mishna, "only if it became known after the sprinkling that the blood was defiled the plate of the high-priest atones for the sin committed, if previously known, however, it does not"; but even if it was also known previously, the plate atones for it."
MISHNA: If the whole or the greater part of the paschal offering had become defiled, it should be burned before the sanctuary with wood used for the altar; if the lesser part thereof had become unclean, or if some part thereof had remained over until the next morning (on the 15th), the owners may burn it in their own courts, or on their roofs, with their own wood. Avaricious persons, however, would burn it before the sanctuary, in order to get the benefit of the wood used for the altar.
GEMARA: Why was the burning done in so public a manner? Said R. Jose bar R. Hanina: In order to put to shame the owners of the sacrifice for their negligence in permitting the paschal offering to become defiled.
"If the lesser part thereof," etc. Is this not contradictory to what we have learned in a previous Mishna, namely: "If a person on leaving Jerusalem remembers having consecrated flesh with him (even if it be only the size of an olive) he must return and burn it before the sanctuary with wood of the altar"? Said R. Hama bar Uqba: "This presents no difficulty: The Mishna mentioned treats of a visitor to Jerusalem, who had no
wood of his own, while our Mishna treats of a permanent resident of Jerusalem."
The rabbis taught: "If the people came to burn (the unclean offering or the remainder) before the sanctuary with their own wood or desired to burn it in their own homes with wood of the altar, they must be prevented from accomplishing such an act." It is perfectly proper to prevent their burning it in their own homes with wood of the altar, lest some of the wood be left over and they use it for profane purposes; but why should they not be permitted to burn it before the sanctuary with their own wood? Said R. Joseph: "In order not to disgrace those who have no wood of their own," and Rabha said: "In order not to cast suspicion upon them; for if they have some of their own wood left over and carry it back with them they might be suspected of appropriating the wood of the altar." Wherein do these two sages differ? In a case where the wood brought was not like that used for the altar; for instance, the bark of date-trees or small sticks. (According to R. Joseph, not even such wood may be brought, while according to Rabha this would be permissible.)
MISHNA: If a slaughtered Passover-sacrifice had been carried beyond the walls of Jerusalem or had become defiled, it must be immediately burned (on the eve of Passover). If the owners thereof had become defiled or had died, it must be left until its condition is changed (i.e., it must be left over until the next morning), and should be burned on the 16th of Nissan 1). R. Johanan ben Broka said: (In the latter event) it should also be immediately burned, because there are none to eat it.
GEMARA: If the Passover-sacrifice had become defiled it is perfectly proper to burn it, because it is expressly written [Levit. vii. 19]: "And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten, with fire shall it be burnt"; but whence do we know that if it had been carried beyond the walls of Jerusalem it must also be burned? Because it is written [ibid. x. 18]: "Behold, its blood was not brought within the holy place"; and thence we infer that, as it was not brought within the holy place, it must be burnt. Still, concerning a defiled paschal offering, it would be right to burn it, because the passage states that ordinary holy sacrifices which had become unclean must be burnt, but concerning the offering carried beyond the walls of Jerusalem
the passage quoted [ibid. x. 18] refers only to most holy sacrifices, and whence do we know that it applies also to ordinary holy offerings? Aside from this, we have learned in a Boraitha: "If the blood of the sacrifice had become spilled, or the flesh had remained within, but the blood had escaped beyond the walls of Jerusalem, the sacrifice must be burnt." Whence do we learn this? The law concerning everything which becomes subject to burning with fire, whether it be ordinarily holy or most holy, is derived from a tradition, and as for the passage mentioning the sin-offering of Aaron, it is merely quoted because such happened to be the case. Now then, if the entire law ordaining that, whether the sacrifices be ordinarily holy or most holy, they must in the event of their becoming unclean be burnt with fire, is derived merely from a tradition, for what purpose is it written [Levit. vi. 23]: "It shall be burnt with fire"? That passage is necessary, in order to impart to us the information that it must be burnt in the holy place; for from the tradition alone we might presume that this could be done elsewhere, and hence the necessity for the passage. In that event, to what end is it written [ibid. vii. 19]: "And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten, with fire shall it be burnt"? That passage is needed for its own particular purpose; for we might presume that the tradition making it obligatory to burn the invalid sacrifices applies only to those in respect to which, were they ordinary (non-consecrated) articles, the exigency could not possibly arise. For instance, if the blood had remained over night, or the blood had been spilled, or had escaped beyond the walls (of Jerusalem), or if the sacrifice had been slaughtered at night (which is not permissible); but if the sacrifice had become unclean, which state can also prevail in the case of ordinary articles, it might be assumed that it is not necessary to burn it, but that it may even be buried; therefore we find it written as above [Levit. vii. 19].
"If the owners thereof had become defiled or had died," etc. Said R. Joseph: Wherein do they (the sages and R. Johanan ben Broka) differ? Only if the owners had become defiled prior to the sprinkling of the blood; because, as the flesh was not yet (legally) suitable for the duty of eating thereof at the time, the uncleanness is considered to be in the sacrifice itself; but if the owners had become defiled after the sprinkling, in which event the flesh was already suitable for eating, all agree that the invalidity was not occasioned by the sacrifice itself but by some outside
means, and for that reason it should be left until its condition is changed (i.e., it should be left over night). R. Johanan, however, said, that even after the sprinkling the same is the case, and this he states in accordance with his individual theory; for both R. Johanan ben Broka and R. Nehemiah said one and the same thing (namely, that when the owners became defiled, the sacrifice should be immediately burned). Rabba added to this, that R. Jose the Galilean made the same statement. 1
MISHNA: The bones, sinews, and other remaining parts must be burned on the 16th; and should that day fall on a Sabbath, they must be burned on the 17th, because the burning of these does not supersede the laws of the Sabbath or those of the festival.
GEMARA: R. Mari bar Abbahu in the name of R. Itz'hak said: The bones, still retaining marrow, of consecrated sacrifices, if left over as remainder, defile the hands touching them. Why so? Because they are a basis to a prohibited article (i.e., the marrow which was left over and should be burned).
An objection was raised: (We have learned:) The bones left over from consecrated sacrifices are not subject to being burned, excepting only the bones of the paschal offering; (because they must not be broken but left in their original condition and) it might happen that some of the flesh should cling to them. Now, let us see what kind of bones are meant! Shall we assume such as have not retained the marrow? Who would hold that such should be burned? Hence such as still retain the marrow must be meant. In that event, if the bones are considered a basis to a prohibited article, i.e., they serve the marrow as receptacles, why should they not be burnt?
Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: "Bones which had been found broken and the marrow extracted are referred to; thus the bones of other sacrifices, which may be broken, may have been broken and the marrow extracted from them before they had had an opportunity of becoming a remainder of a sacrifice; hence they need not be burnt. The bones of a paschal offering, however, which must remain whole, could have been broken and had the marrow extracted from them only after becoming a remainder, and for that reason they must be burnt."
R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: "All sinews are considered of flesh except the sinews of the neck (i.e., if one ate
only the nerves of the flesh of the paschal offering, it is the same as if he had eaten the flesh itself)."
An objection was made based upon our Mishna, which teaches "that bones, nerves, and other remaining parts must be burned on the 16th." Now, let us see what sinews are referred to? If the sinews of the body in general are meant, why not eat them; and if it is claimed that they were left over, why mention them separately-are they not the same as the other remaining parts? Therefore we must say, that the sinews of the neck are meant. If that be the case and, according to Rabh, they are not considered as flesh, why should they be burned? Said R. Hisda: "By the sinews which must be burned, is meant the sinew of the thigh (which is not eaten), and, according to R. Jehudah's opinion that only the sinew of one of the thighs is prohibited to be eaten, the sinew of the other is a legal remainder and should be burned." R. Ashi said: "The Boraitha means to state, that not the sinew proper, but only the fat thereof on account of which the sinew is burned with it, is referred to, as we have learned in another Boraitha, that the fat of the sinew of the thigh may be eaten but it is not customary to do so (as will be explained in Tract Cholin)," and Rabhina said: "The sinew which must be burned is the one on the outside, which, while it is permitted to eat it, is not generally eaten by Israelites (as will also be explained in Tract Cholin)."
"If that day (the 16th) should fall on a Sabbath," etc. Why should this be so? Why should not the positive commandment (to burn the remainder) supersede the negative commandment (not to violate the Sabbath)? Said Hezkiyah, and so also the disciples of Hezkiyah: It is written [Exod. xii. x]: "And ye shall not let anything of it remain until morning; and that which remaineth of it until morning ye shall burn with fire." Why is "until morning" mentioned a second time? In order to afford a man a second morning on which to burn the remainder (i.e., if the 16th fell on a Sabbath, to give the man until the 17th).
Abayi, however, said: (It may be inferred from another passage.) It is written [Num. xxviii. 10]: "This is the burnt-offering of the Sabbath on every 'Sabbath,'" i.e., that only an offering of Sabbath may be burned on Sabbath, but not an offering of a week-day should be burnt on a Sabbath or on a festival day.
Rabha said: (It may be inferred from the following passage)
[paragraph continues] [Exod. xii. 16]: "Save what is eaten by every man, that only may be prepared by you"; that only, and not a circumcision, which is not in proper time, and which is learned from an a fortiori conclusion.
R. Ashi said: "The rest concerning a festival which is mentioned [Lev. xxiii. 24] makes it a positive commandment, which states that no labor shall be done on a festival, so a festival has two commandments, a positive and a negative one; and to burn the remainder is only one commandment, which does not supersede the above two commandments."
MISHNA: Every part usually eaten of a full-grown ox may be eaten of the paschal kid or lamb, such as the cartilage and tendons over the joints.
GEMARA: Rabba found a contradiction in this Mishna, namely: "It is stated that every part usually eaten of a full-grown ox may be eaten of the paschal kid or lamb, and then exemplifies the statement by mentioning the cartilage and tendons over the joints, and is it not a fact that these latter parts of an ox are not eaten?" Said Rabha: "The Mishna means to imply that all parts of an ox eaten boiled may be eaten of the paschal kid or lamb roasted, and what are those parts referred to? the cartilage and tendons over the joints." We have also learned the same teaching as Rabha's in a Boraitha, with the addition, "that the small sinews of the body are also included."
It was taught: "Sinews, which are at first soft and later on become hard," said R. Johanan, "may be selected by one of the men appointed to eat of the paschal sacrifice for his share, because at the time of selection they were soft and eatable"; but Resh Lakish said, "that they must not be selected, because they eventually become hard and are thus at no time edible."
Resh Lakish made an objection to the statement of R. Johanan, based upon our Mishna, which states that the cartilage and tendons only may be eaten: "Hence the small sinews are not to be included." R. Johanan replied: Learn, that the parts mentioned and also the small sinews may 'be eaten; from the fact that they are eaten in a boiled state of the ox, the same cause applies also to the kid or lamb.
R. Jeremiah said to R. Abin: "When thou wilt come to R. Abbahu, propound the following contradictory question to him: Can, then, R. Johanan assert, that the small sinews may be selected as a share of the paschal sacrifice? Did not Resh Lakish ask R. Johanan whether the skin of a young calf's head
is subject to defilement, and the latter answered that (on account of such a skin eventually becoming hard) it is not subject to defilement (as is the case with hide); (hence should we not assume that R. Johanan did so because he took into consideration its final condition--then why should he not also consider the future condition of the sinews, which eventually become hard and inedible)?" (R. Abbahu replied): "The man who evolved this contradictory question did not watch the meal he had ground (i.e., he did not consider the correctness of his deductions); for we have learned that at the same time when Resh Lakish showed R. Johanan a Mishna which refuted the answer rendered, R. Johanan replied: 'Anger me not! The Mishna thou citest I attribute to an individual opinion, that I myself do not uphold' (whence we see that he retracted his assertion to the effect that the future condition need not be considered)."
MISHNA: Whosoever breaks any bones of the clean paschal lamb incurs the penalty of forty stripes; but the person who should leave a part of the paschal lamb over night, or who breaks a bone of an unclean paschal sacrifice, does not incur that penalty.
GEMARA: It is perfectly proper that a man who leaves part of the paschal lamb over night should not incur the penalty of stripes, because the negative commandment [Exod. xii. 10]: "Ye shall not let anything of it remain until morning," does not involve the execution of an act, and the violation of a negative commandment of such a character does not carry with it the penalty of stripes; but whence do we adduce that a person who breaks a bone of an unclean paschal sacrifice should not incur that penalty? Because it is written [ibid. xii. 46]:"No bone shall ye break in it," and the term "in it" signifies, that only in a clean paschal sacrifice it is not allowed, but not in an unclean.
The rabbis taught: It is written: "No bone shall ye break in it," and this signifies that this must be done in a valid sacrifice but not in an invalid. Rabbi, however, said: "I do not derive this rule from this passage alone, but from the fact that in the same verse [Exod. xii. 46] we find: 'In one house shall it be eaten, etc., and no bone shall ye break in it,' and hence we must say, that only if a bone was broken in a lamb which may be eaten is the penalty of stripes incurred, but not in a lamb which must not be eaten." Wherein do these two statements differ? Said Abayi: "The difference arises in a case where a bone was
broken in the lamb on the day preceding Passover. According to the one statement, which makes a man punishable with stripes if he break a bone in a valid paschal sacrifice, as the paschal lamb is already valid, the man incurs that penalty; but according to the other statement, the fact that the lamb could not at that time be eaten absolves the culprit from the penalty."
An objection was made: Rabbi said, that if a man select only the brains of the paschal sacrifice as his share he may be included in the number appointed to eat it; but he must not be included if he selects as his share the marrow of the thigh-bone. Why should a man be allowed to select as his share the brains of the lamb? Because, in order to extract them it is not necessary to break one of the bones (as they may be extracted through the nostrils). On the other hand, the marrow of the thigh-bone should not be selected because it would necessitate the breaking of that bone. If, however, it is allowed to break the bone during the day, why may not the bone be broken at that time, and thus the marrow, being accessible, be allowed to serve as the share of one of the number appointed to eat the paschal lamb? If the breaking of the bone be the only impediment, then Abayi may reply, there is no need of doing this during the day; for even in the evening the bone may be placed over live coals and burned until the marrow is easily extractable, and thus render it capable of serving as the share of one of the number; for we have learned in a Boraitha, that the burning of the bones or cutting of the sinews cannot be considered a violation of the law against breaking the bones.
Hence we must say, that the reason the bones must not be burned, according to Abayi, is for fear lest they split while burning, which will be considered as breaking the bones, and, according to Rabha, for fear lest the marrow, which is a consecrated thing, be burnt (and the law is that consecrated things must not be burned to commence with); therefore it may be claimed that this should not be done during the day, as a precaution against a person doing it at night.
R. Papa, however, said: Breaking the bone during the day is, according to the opinion of all, prohibited, even though the sacrifice may not yet be eaten at that time, because at night it will be suitable for that purpose and is therefore considered suitable even during the day. They differ, however, concerning a part of a member which had protruded beyond the wall and which must not on that account be eaten. According to the one who
maintains that a person who is guilty of breaking a bone in a valid sacrifice incurs the penalty of stripes, if a man had broken a bone in that member which is valid, he incurs the penalty of stripes; but according to the one who maintains that breaking a bone of such a sacrifice as may be eaten only involves punishment with stripes, he does not incur the penalty, because the member must not be eaten, as we have learned in a Boraitha; R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan ben Broka said: "A man who had broken a bone in a member of the sacrifice which had protruded beyond the wall does not incur the penalty of stripes." R. Shesheth the son of R. Idi, however, said, that concerning such a member all agree that one who breaks a bone thereof does not incur the penalty, because it is invalid and must not be eaten. They differ, however, concerning one who had broken a bone in a paschal lamb that was yet raw. The one who claims that it is valid, maintains that the man incurs the penalty, but the other says that he does not, because the lamb cannot yet be eaten.
R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak said: "This is not the point of variance, because all agree, that one who breaks a bone in a paschal lamb which was still raw incurs the penalty, as the lamb may be roasted and then be eaten. They do differ, however, concerning a man who breaks the tail of the lamb, which must not be eaten, but offered up on the altar. Those who hold that the sacrifice is a valid one hold him to the penalty, while the others claim that, as the tail must not be eaten, the man is exempt."
R. Ashi, however, said: "Not even on this point can they differ; for all agree, that as the tail must not be eaten, the breaking thereof does not carry with it the penalty of stripes. Wherein they do differ is concerning a member of a paschal lamb that does not contain flesh to the size of an olive. According to one, the member being valid, breaking thereof incurs the penalty, while according to the other, the fact that there is not sufficient flesh thereon to be eaten exempts a man who broke it."
Rabhina, however, said: "Neither on this point do they differ, because as there is not sufficient flesh on that member to be eaten, all agree, that breaking it does not involve the penalty; but they do differ concerning a member which a person had broken in a place where there was not sufficient flesh to be eaten, while the same member contained in another place sufficient flesh. Accordingly, some hold that as a member which was valid
was broken, the penalty was incurred, while others maintain that, as the part which could not be eaten was broken, the penalty is not incurred thereby."
We have learned in a Boraitha a support to four of the preceding sages: Rabbi said: "It is written [Exod. xii. 46]: 'In one house shall it be eaten, etc., and no bone shall ye break in it,' which signifies that one is culpable only if he break the bone in a valid sacrifice, but not in one that was invalid. If at one time the paschal sacrifice was valid, and subsequently became invalid while being eaten, the law against breaking its bones does not apply. If the bone broken had the prescribed quantity of flesh thereon, the law against breaking its bones does apply thereto; but if it had not, the law does not apply. Such parts as are to be brought on the altar are not affected by the law. During the time when the paschal lamb is eaten, the law mentioned applies; but at any other time, when it is not eaten, the law does riot apply."
R. Ami said: "One who carries out flesh of the paschal sacrifice from one company to another does not become culpable until he deposits it in a certain place, because it is written [Exod. xii. 46]: 'Thou shalt not carry forth aught of the flesh abroad out of the house,' and the same rule applies to this as to carrying on the Sabbath, namely: There must be a removal from a certain fixed place and a deposit in another fixed place."
R. Abba bar Mamal made an objection: "We have learned elsewhere, that if four persons carried it on rods and the first pair stepped outside of the wall of the Temple while the other pair remained on the inside, the clothes of the first pair become unclean but not those of the second pair. There was, however, no deposit of the sacrifice in a certain place; why should they become unclean?" The questioner himself answered this by saying: "This was a case where the sacrifice was not carried, but dragged on the ground (hence there was a deposit in a certain place)."
MISHNA: If part of a member (of the paschal sacrifice) protrude beyond (the Temple), it must be cut until the knife reaches the bone, then the flesh should be removed on the inside (of the Temple) until the joint is reached, when it may be cut off (and the bone must be cast away). With regard to other sacrifices (the bones of which it is permitted to break), the protruding part must be cut off with a slaughtering knife; if it extend from the door-wing (or lobby), it must be considered as
inward; if it protrude farther than this, it is to be considered as outward (and should be cut off). The apertures in a wall and the thickness of a wall may be considered as the inside.
GEMARA: Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: "The same rule applies to an assembly for prayer" (if nine men were on the inside and one on the outside, the assembly is not complete), and he differs with R. Jehoshua ben Levi, who declares, that even an iron wall does not intervene between Israelites and their Heavenly Father.
There is a difficulty in the Mishna itself; in one clause it states, that if the part of the member extend from the door-wing it is considered on the inside, hence the door-wing is itself considered on the outside; while in the next clause we find, if it extend farther than this it is on the outside, hence the door-wing itself is considered on the inside?
This presents no difficulty; the former clause refers to the door of the Temple, while the latter clause refers to the door of the walls surrounding Jerusalem, as R. Samuel bar R. Itz'hak said: "Why were not the gates of Jerusalem sanctified (as if they were inside of Jerusalem)? because those afflicted with sores seek shelter beneath them from the sun and rain," and further, he said: "Why was not the gate of Nikmor sanctified? Because those afflicted with sores who brought their sacrifices would thrust their forefingers through the holes in the gate in order to have them smeared with the blood of their sacrifices."
"The apertures in a wall and the thickness of a wall," etc. Rabh said: "The roof and the attics of the Temple were not sanctified." This is not so! Did not Rabh say in the name of R. Hyya, that the companies partaking of the paschal sacrifices were so great that when they would shout the Hallel-prayer the roof would nearly burst through the sound of their voices? Hence must it not be assumed, that the paschal sacrifices were eaten also on the roof? Nay, they ate the sacrifices below, but went up on the roof to recite that prayer.
Come and hear! Abba Saul said: The attic of the holy of holies was even more holy than the holy of holies itself, for while the latter was entered once every year, the former was entered only once in seven years; according to others twice in seven years, and according to others only once in fifty years, and then only to see whether any repairs were necessary (whence we see, that the attic was also sanctified?). Said R. Joseph: How can a comparison drawn between the Temple and the
city of Jerusalem? Concerning the Temple it is written [I Chronicles xxviii. 11]: "Then gave David to Solomon his son, the pattern of the porch, and of its apartments, and of its treasuries, and of its upper chambers, and of its inner chambers, and of the place of the cover of the ark"; and further, it is written [ibid. 19]: "All this, said David, was put in writing from the hand of the Lord, who gave me instruction respecting all the works of the pattern."
MISHNA: When two companies eat their paschal sacrifice in the same house (room), each turning their faces in a different direction while eating thereof, and the warming pot or kettle (containing the water to be mixed with the wine) is in the centre between the two companies, the waiter or servant must close his mouth (i.e., not eat), (in order not to be suspected of eating with both companies), while he waits on the other company to pour out wine for them; then he must turn his face towards the company he eats with, and he must not eat till he rejoins his own company. It is, however, permitted to a bride to avert her face from the company while eating the paschal sacrifice.
GEMARA: This Mishna is in accordance with the opinion of R. Jehudah, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: It is written [Exod. xii. 7]: "In the houses, wherein they shall eat it," whence we may infer, that two companies are allowed to eat in one house. Should we assume that one may also eat it in two places of one house, therefore it is also written [ibid. 46]: "In one house shall it be eaten," which signifies that it may be eaten only in one place. Thence the sages declared, that if the servant who roasted the lamb (or the kid) had forgotten, and eaten a piece the size of an olive while he was engaged in roasting it, he should, if he knows his advantage, eat his fill right then and there, for he will not be allowed to eat any more thereof elsewhere; and if his company wish to show him favor, they can come and sit by him, and thus enable him to eat his fill if he had not already done so. Such is the dictum of R. Jehudah.
R. Simeon, however, said, that the passage "In the houses wherein they shall eat it," signifies, that a man may eat his paschal sacrifice in two different places; but lest a man should also assume that he may eat with two companies, the other passage, "In one house shall it be eaten," is added.
If one company was sitting and suddenly a partition was created between them (by the falling of a curtain), those who say that it is permitted to eat the paschal sacrifice in two companies
allow them to eat, but those who say that it is not allowed to eat in two companies do not permit them to do so. If the contrary was the case, i.e., if a partition which had been between them was suddenly removed, those who say that the paschal sacrifice must not be eaten in two places do not allow them to eat it, while those who say it may be eaten in two places permit them to eat it.
R. Kahana was sitting and proclaiming this as a positive rule. Said R. Ashi to him: "This is not a positive rule. The question arises whether the partition which was formed or which was removed produced two companies and two places or not, and this question is undecided."
"It is, however, permitted to a bride to avert her face," etc. Why so? Said R. Hyya bar Abba in the name of R. Johanan: Because she is bashful."
R. Huna the son of R. Nathan happened to be a guest of R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak. The latter asked him his name, and he replied: "Rabh Huna." Said R. Na'hman to him: "Let Master sit on a bed," and he did so. A goblet of wine was handed him, and he at once accepted it and drained it in two draughts; but did not avert his face. He was finally asked why, when his name was inquired for, he called himself "Rabh Huna," and he answered: "Such has been my name since my youth." "Why, then, didst thou immediately take thy scat on the bed when requested to do so?" was the question put to him, and he replied: "Because such is the rule, that whatever the master of the house requests his guest to do, the guest should comply." "Why didst thou at once accept the goblet of wine?" he was asked again, and the answer was: "Because when a man superior to thyself offers thee anything, thou shouldst at once accept it, while only one that is inferior to thee should be allowed to insist upon thy acceptance." "Why didst thou drain it in two draughts?" "Because a Boraitha teaches: 'One who drains his cup at one draught is a glutton. One who drains it in two draughts shows the proper respect, while one who drains it in three is a conceited man.'" "Why didst thou not at least avert thy face?" "Because it was expressly taught, that only a bride averts her face."
R. Ishmael bar R. Jose happened to be a guest of R. Simeon ben R. Jose ben Lakunia, and was given a goblet of wine, which he at once accepted and drained at a draught. The people present said to him: "Does not the Master hold, that one who
drains his cup at one draught is a glutton?" and he answered: "This was certainly not said of a goblet so small as this, especially if containing wine so sweet and intended for a stomach of the capacity of mine."
R. Huna said: "A company which was appointed to eat the paschal sacrifice--if three had arrived and the rest were still absent--may commence to eat it. If the entire company had been there and gone away without eating the sacrifice, but one had remained, that one may eat it himself." Said Rabha: "This only applies if the three who entered had sent the servant to look for the others and they could not be found." Rabhina said: The three who did eat the paschal sacrifice should also be made to pay for it themselves, and the one man who had remained should also pay for more than his share. The Halakha, however, does not prevail according to Rabhina. 1
146:1 Where alone the paschal sacrifice may be brought and eaten.
149:1 Vide Levit. xxviii. 38.
156:1 Vide Numbers ix. 10.
156:2 By this term is meant defilement caused by passing over an abyss or ground where it is supposed that a corpse was situated, without being aware of the fact.
160:1 Because it is not allowed to burn a consecrated thing on the festival day proper, and the 16th is already one of the intermediate days of Passover.
162:1 Rabba supports his dictum on the strength of a Boraitha, which will be brought forward in Zeba'him.
172:1 All this is in accordance with the explanation of Rabbenu Hananel and not of Rashi, as it is the more reasonable.