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 SECOND PASSOVER--THE PASSOVER AT THE EXODUS FROM EGYPT--CONCERNING CASES WHERE THE PASCHAL SACRIFICE HAD BECOME MIXED.
MISHNA: Persons who, in consequence of being (ritually) unclean or on a distant journey, did not observe the first Passover, must observe the second. Also such as have, either through error or compulsion, been prevented from observing the first, must observe the second Passover. Why, then, the verse [Numb. ix. 10]: "If any man whatever be unclean by reason of a dead body, or be on a distant journey"? In order to teach us, that in case of the neglect of the observance of the second Passover by them, they do not incur the penalty of Kareth (excision), but others do incur it.
GEMARA: It was taught: If a man was on a distant journey and the paschal sacrifice was slaughtered and the blood sprinkled for him also, R. Na'hman said that the offering is accepted for him, and he need not observe the second Passover; because the Merciful One had pity on him: but if he offered up a second Passover-sacrifice nevertheless, an additional blessing is bestowed upon him. R. Shesheth, however, said: "The offering is not accepted for him, even from the fact that the keeping of a second Passover has been provided for by the Law, as if he were unclean; hence the offering brought for the man is not even considered as brought at its proper time, and hence is of no account."
Said R. Na'hman: "I adduce my teaching from the Mishna itself; for it states, 'that persons who, in consequence of being unclean or on a distant journey, did not observe the first Passover,' implying thereby, that had they chosen to do so they could have observed the first Passover." Said R. Shesheth: "Then how can we account for the latter clause of the Mishna, which states, that such as have, either through error or compulsion, been prevented from observing the first; shall we assume that they could in this case also, had they chosen to do so, observe the first Passover, were they not prevented by compulsion? Therefore we
must say, that the latter case includes even one who intentionally neglected the observance of the first Passover, and he should observe the second. Thus also the first case, by stating, 'did not observe the first Passover,' includes mourners (who mourn for a dead relative that was not yet interred)."
The rabbis taught: "The following persons are obliged to observe a second Passover: Men and women afflicted with a running issue, men and women afflicted with sores, women suffering from their menstruation and such as had sexual intercourse with them during that time, women lying in, those that neglected the observance of the first Passover either through error or compulsion, those that neglected it intentionally, those that were unclean, and those who were on a distant journey. If all these are included, why does the verse mention only those that were unclean and on a distant journey? In order to exclude these from the penalty of Kareth."
This teaching of the rabbis coincides with the opinion of R. Na'hman to the effect that if a paschal sacrifice had been slaughtered for one who was on a distant journey it is favorably accepted.
Is a woman, then, obliged to bring a second Passover-offering? Have we not learned in a Boraitha: We might assume that the duty of offering the second Passover-sacrifice was only incumbent upon those who were unclean (through contact with a dead body) and upon those who were on a distant journey; whence do we know that men having a running issue, men afflicted with sores, and one who had sexual intercourse with a woman suffering from her menstruation are also included? To that end it is written [Numbers ix. 10]: "any man whatever." Thus we see that "man" is mentioned, but not woman? This presents no difficulty. According to R. Jose women are also bound to bring the second Passover-sacrifice, while according to R. Jehudah and R. Simeon women need not.
The rabbis taught: "Kareth is the penalty for the non-observance of the first Passover as well as of the second." Such is the dictum of Rabbi. R. Nathan, however, said that punishment is incurred only for the non-observance of the first, but not of the second Passover. R. Hananiah bar Aqabia said: "Even for the non-observance of the first Passover the penalty is not incurred unless the second Passover is also not observed."
The opinions of all three are in accordance with their individual theories, as we have learned in the following Boraitha:
[paragraph continues] If a proselyte had become converted (to the Judaic faith) in the interim between the two Passovers, or if a minor had attained his majority during that time, Rabbi holds that they should observe the second Passover. R. Nathan, however, says that only one who was obliged to observe the first Passover should observe the second; but not one who was not in duty bound to observe the first. Wherein do these two sages differ? Rabbi holds that the two Passovers are separate festivals, while R. Nathan maintains that the second is only supplementary to the first but not a substitute therefor; i.e., the observance of the second Passover does not absolve a man from the punishment incurred for the neglect of the first; but R. Hananiah bar Aqabia states that the second Passover is merely a substitute for the first, and its observance exempts a man from the penalty incurred through non-observance of the first. All three sages adduced their teachings from the one passage, viz. [Numb. ix. 13]: "But the man that is clean, and is not on a journey." Rabbi holds that the following words, "and forbeareth to prepare the Passover-lamb, even that same shall be cut off from his people," refer to the first Passover, and the sentence," because the offering of the Lord hath he not brought at its appointed season, his sin shall that man bear," refers to the observance of the second Passover, and instead of "because" (Hebrew Kee 1) it should read "or." R. Nathan, however, holds to the literal text of the verse, and says that it should read, "because the offering," etc. R. Hananiah bar Aqabia says that instead of "because" it should read "if," and then the sentence will read, "if he hath not brought," etc.
Thus the conclusion is as follows: If a man had intentionally neglected the first and second Passover, all agree, that he incurs the penalty of Kareth. If he had inadvertently neglected both, all agree, that he is not culpable. If he had neglected the first intentionally and the second unintentionally, he is, according to Rabbi and R. Nathan, culpable, and according to R. Hananiah absolved. If he had neglected the first unintentionally and the second intentionally, he is, according to Rabbi, culpable, but according to R. Nathan and R. Hananiah bar Aqabia he is absolved.
MISHNA: What must be considered a "distant" journey?
[paragraph continues] According to R. Aqiba, it is from Moodayim and beyond, and from all places around Jerusalem, situated at the same distance R. Eliezer said: "Any distance beyond the outside of the threshold of the Temple-court should be considered as coming in under that term." Said R. Jose to him: "It was to confirm this (Rabbi's statement) that it is (even to this day) directed that a dot must be placed over the Heh in the word Rahuqa'h (meaning 'distant'), to indicate that it is not necessary that a person should actually be on a distant road, but that he is considered distant so long as he has not passed beyond the threshold of the court of the Temple."
GEMARA: Said Ula: "From Moodayim 1 to Jerusalem is a distance of fifteen miles," and he is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar bar Hana, who said in the name of R. Johanan: "What is the distance that a man can traverse in one day? Ten Parsaoth. 2 From the time the morning star appears until sunrise five miles, from sunset until the stars appear five miles, and from sunrise until noon fifteen miles, and from noon until sunset fifteen miles."
Ula's reason for calling fifteen miles a distant journey is because he holds, that if a man were in Moodayim after sunrise he could not reach the court of the Temple in time to witness the slaughtering of the paschal offering.
The Master said: "From the time the morning star appears until sunrise a man can traverse five miles." Whence does he adduce this? From the passage [Gen. xix. 15]: "And as the morning dawn arose, the angels urged Lot," etc. and further, it is written [ibid. 23]: "The sun rose over the earth, when Lot entered into Zoar"; and R. Hanina said: "I saw the distance between Sodom and Zoar, and found it to be five miles."
Thus it is said that Ula calls a journey distant if the court of the Temple cannot be reached in time for the slaughtering on the same day, and R. Jehudah says that the journey is distant if the court of the Temple cannot be reached in time for the eating of the paschal lamb on the same day. Said Rabba to Ula: "According to both thine and R. Jehudah's opinion there is a question. According to thy own opinion, for one who had become unclean through a reptile the paschal offering may be
slaughtered and the blood sprinkled notwithstanding the fact that he will not become clean until evening and hence cannot enter the Temple, and still thou sayest that if a man cannot reach the court of the Temple in time for the slaughtering, the paschal sacrifice should not be slaughtered for him. Now, according to R. Jehudah, who states that if a man can reach the court of the Temple in time for eating, the paschal sacrifice may be slaughtered for him, why does he hold that the paschal offering must not be slaughtered for one who became unclean through a reptile? A man in such a condition becomes clean and may enter the Temple after sunset, and at that time the pashal lamb is eaten."
Replied Ula: "There is no difficulty, neither according to my opinion nor according to R. Jehudah's, According to my opinion there is no difficulty, for the law concerning a man on a distant journey applies only to a (ritually) clean man but not to one that is unclean; and according to R. Jehudah's opinion there is also no difficulty, for one that had become unclean through contact with a dead reptile was excluded by the Law itself, as it is written [Numbers ix. 10]: 'If any man whatever should become unclean by reason of a dead body,' etc., and we will know that a man in such a condition, even if his seventh day of uncleanness fall on the eve of Passover, must postpone his Passover-sacrifice until the second sacrifice; and is this not equivalent to a man who had become unclean through a reptile on the eve of Passover?"
The rabbis taught: If a man was situated on the further side of Moodayim, and while he could not reach the court of the Temple on foot could reach it by means of a mule (or conveyance), we might assume that if he did not come to Jerusalem to offer his sacrifice he is guilty; hence the passage says that only such as are not on a distant journey are culpable if they neglect the Passover, but the man under discussion was on a distant journey. How is it, however, if the man was this side of Moodayim, towards Jerusalem, and could reach it under ordinary circumstances, but was prevented by the obstruction caused by camels and conveyances? We might assume that such a man does not incur punishment; hence it is written, "But the man that is not on a distant journey," and such a man cannot truly be considered on a distant journey.
Rabha said: "The entire world measures six thousand Parsaoth (24,000 miles), and the depth of the sky is one thousand
[paragraph continues] Parsaoth." One of these assertions is based upon tradition and the other is a reasonable conclusion, and Rabha is in accord with Rabba bar bar Hana, who said in the name of R. Johanan that the average man can walk ten Parsaoth in one day; hence if the sun traverses 6,000 Parsaoth in one day and a man can traverse 1 1/4 Parsaoth between dawn and sunrise, which is a sixth of the distance he can traverse from sunrise to sunset, the sun takes one-sixth of the time to pierce the sky that it takes to traverse during the day, which is 1,000 Parsaoth, hence the sky must be 1,000 Parsaoth deep.
An objection was made: The disciples of Elijah taught: R. Nathan said: "The whole earth stands under one star, and proof is, that wherever a man is situated he sees the same star; and there being so many stars, the sky must necessarily be more than 1,000 Parsaoth deep." This objection was not answered.
The rabbis taught: "The sages of the Israelites assert, that the ring (wheel) in which the different constellations 1 are situated is fixed, and every month one of the constellations appears and then recedes, making room for another, while the Gentile sages declare that the wheel is constantly turning and every month brings forth a different constellation, which is, however, fixed in its place in the wheel." Said Rabbi (in order to contradict the Gentile sages): "We have never found the Bull in the south nor the Scorpion in the north, and were it as the Gentile sages declare, the position of the constellations would constantly change.
The sages of the Israelites said: "During the day the sun moves underneath the sky and at night recedes beyond the sky," while the Gentile sages say: "During the day the sun moves underneath the sky and at night it recedes beneath the earth."
Said Rabbi: "The assertion of the Gentile sages seems to be the more reasonable, for during the day the springs are all cold and at night they are all warm."
We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Nathan said: "In the summer time the sun moves in the zenith of the sky, hence all
the earth is warm and the springs are cool; but in the winter the sun moves in the base of the skies, hence all the earth is cold and the springs are warm."
The rabbis taught: The sun moves in four different paths. During the months of Nissan, Iyar, and Sivan it moves over the top of the mountains, in order to melt the snow. During Tamuz, Ab, and Elul it moves in the cultivated portions of the earth, in order to ripen the fruit. In Tishri, Mar-Cheshvan, and Kislev it moves over the seas, in order to dry up the lakes; and in Tebeth, Shebat, and Adar it moves in the desert, in order not to parch the seed sown.
"R. Eliezer said, 'Any distance,'" etc. Even if the man can enter, is be not told to do so, or given the alternative of incurring the penalty of Kareth? Have we not learned in a Boraitha, that an uncircumcised Israelite, if he does not partake of the paschal sacrifice, incurs the penalty of excision; for he is told to be circumcised, and then partake of the sacrifice? Such is the dictum of R. Eliezer. Rejoined Abayi: "A ritually clean man is exempt by law if he is on a distant journey, and outside of the Temple is considered a distant journey; but in the case of an unclean person this privilege is not granted; and he is equal to an unclean person." Rabha, however, said: Concerning this there is a diversity of opinion among different Tanaim, as we have learned in a Boraitha: R. Eliezer said: The Scriptures mention a distant journey in the case of the paschal sacrifice and in the case of second tithes, and as in the latter instance if a man is outside of the Holy Land he is considered as being on a distant journey, so in the former case if a man is outside of the place where he is allowed to eat the paschal offering, i.e., beyond the walls of Jerusalem, he is considered as being on a distant journey. R. Jose the son of R. Jehudah, however, said in the name of R. Eliezer, that a man is not considered as being on a distant journey if he is outside of the place where he is allowed to eat the paschal sacrifice, but only if he is outside of the place where he should prepare it, and that is beyond the walls of the Temple.
According to whose opinion is the statement of R. Itz'hak the son of R. Joseph to the effect that the paschal sacrifice must be brought in accordance with the condition of the majority of the people inside of the Temple; i.e., if the majority of the men on the inside of the Temple-court were in a state of defilement although the majority of the entire community standing outside
of the Temple were undefiled, the paschal sacrifice must nevertheless be brought in a state of defilement (because those standing on the outside are considered as being on a distant journey)? This is in accordance with the opinion of R. Jose bar Jehudah, quoting R. Eliezer.
"R. Jose said: 'It was to confirm this,'" etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jose the Galilean said: The term "distant journey," as mentioned in the Scriptures, would lead us to presume that at least a three or four days' journey is meant; but as it is written further [Numb. ix. 13], "if he was not on a distant journey," we may conclude that as soon as a man is outside of the threshold of the court he is considered as being on a distant journey.
MISHNA: What is the difference between the first and second Passover? They differ, that during the (seven days of the) first Passover no leaven of any kind may be seen or even found in the house, while in the second both leavened and unleavened articles may be used in the house. At the eating of the paschal offering on the first Passover, the "Hallel" prayer must be recited but not at the eating on the second Passover. During the time, however, that the offering is sacrificed, either on the first or on the second Passover, the "Hallel" must be recited; the sacrifices on both Passovers must be roasted and eaten with unleavened cakes and bitter herbs, and the sacrifice of both supersedes the due observance of the Sabbath.
GEMARA: The rabbis taught: It is written [Numb. ix. 12]: "According to the whole ordinance of the Passover-lamb shall they prepare it." Thus this passage refers to the Passover-lamb itself; but whence do we know that its accessories are to be observed in the same manner? To that end it is written [ibid. 11]: "With unleavened bread and bitter herbs shall they eat it." Shall we assume, that all other ordinances that are not directly accessory to the sacrifice should also be observed? For that purpose it is also written [ibid. 12]: "No bone shall they break on it"; and as this behest concerns only the sacrifice when it has been slaughtered, so should all other commands be observed only in so far as they concern the paschal lamb itself.
Issi ben Jehudah said: "(All these explanations are unnecessary, as) the words, 'shall they prepare it,' signify that the behest concerns only that which belongs to the preparation of the sacrifice" (when it was slaughtered).
The rabbis taught: From the passage, "According to the
whole ordinance of the Passover-lamb shall they prepare it," we might infer that the laws ordaining against leaven being seen or found in the house should also be effective on the second Passover; to that end the single ordinance providing for its being eaten with unleavened cakes and bitter herbs is quoted, thus demonstrating that it is only in this respect that the second Passover should be observed in conformity with the first. Thus we see that so far the "whole ordinance" of the Passover-lamb was made up of the positive commandment, but whence do we derive a negative commandment on the "whole ordinance"? For that purpose it is written [Numb. ix. 12]: "They shall leave none of it until morning." Still, this negative commandment is virtually contained in the positive commandment, "they shall eat it," or "they shall burn what is left over." Whence do we derive, however, an independent negative commandment? The behest, "No bone shall they break on it," furnishes that negative commandment. From the particularization of this whole ordinance of the Passover we find that concerning the Passover-lamb both the first and second have in common a positive commandment, a negative dependent on or contained in the positive, and an independent negative, and thus the rule may be derived that only such behests are to be carried out on the second Passover as are covered by the three kinds of commandments on both Passovers.
What other positive commandment may be added which is analogous to the one ordaining that the paschal lamb should be eaten with unleavened cakes and bitter herbs? The one ordering that it should be roasted with fire. Which commandments, however, are excluded by the particularization? The removal of the leaven. Perhaps the contrary should be done, i.e., the removal of leaven should be added to the positive and the roasting with fire should be excluded? Nay; a commandment pertaining to the sacrifice itself should be given preference. What other negative commandment contained in a positive should be added to the one, "They shall leave none of it until morning"? The negative commandment, "They shall not carry aught of the meat outside." Which negative commandment, dependent on a positive, is excluded? The one ordaining, "It shall not be seen nor found." Perhaps the contrary should be done? i.e., "they shall leave none of it" should be excluded, and "it shall not be seen nor found" included? Nay; a commandment pertaining to the sacrifice itself should be given preference.
[paragraph continues] Which independent negative commandment should be added to the one, "No bone shall they break on it"? The negative commandment, "Ye shall not eat of it raw." And which should be excluded? The one stating, "Ye shall not offer up with leaven the blood of my sacrifice" [Exod. xxxiv. 35]. Perhaps the contrary should be done? Nay; a commandment bearing upon the sacrifice itself is given preference.
"At the eating of the first paschal offering, 'Hallel' should be recited, but not at the eating of the second," etc. Whence do we adduce this? Said R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon ben Jehu Zadok: From the passage [Isaiah xxx. 29]: "Then shall ye have a song, as in the night when a festival is ushered in." Hence on the night which ushers in a festival "Hallel should be recited," but on the night of the second Passover, when no festival follows, the recital of "Hallel" is not necessary.
"During the time the offering is sacrificed on both Passovers 'Hallel' should be recited." Why should this be done? Reason teaches us that; for will then the Israelites sacrifice the paschal lamb, hold the palm-branches in their hand, and not recite the "Hallel"?
"The sacrifice of both supersedes the Sabbath." Whence we, see that they supersede the Sabbath, but not uncleanness. We must say, therefore, that the Mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of R. Jehudah of the following Boraitha: "The second Passover supersedes the Sabbath, but not uncleanness. R. Jehudah, however, maintains, that it supersedes even uncleanness." What reason has the first Tana for his statement? He maintains, that if uncleanness was the cause of the postponement of the first Passover, should uncleanness on the second Passover be entirely disregarded? What is R. Jehudah's reason for his (own) opinion? He claims, that while the law requires a man to bring the paschal offering in a state of cleanness, still, if the man did not succeed to be undefiled, he may, bring it in a state of defilement.
The rabbis taught: "Both the first and second Passover supersede the Sabbath. Both the first and second Passover supersede uncleanness. Both the first and second Passover require that the man who offers up the paschal lamb should remain in Jerusalem over night."
Thus we see, that concerning uncleanness the teaching of the rabbis coincides with the opinion of R. Jehudah. Shall we say,
that concerning the obligation of remaining over night the teaching of the rabbis also coincides with the opinion of R. Jehudah? Have we not learned in the following Boraitha: "R. Jehudah said: 'Whence do we know that the man bringing the second Passover is not required to remain over night in Jerusalem? From the passage [Deutr. xvi. 71: "And thou shalt turn in the morning and go unto thy tents," while in the next verse it is written [ibid. 8]: "Six days shalt thou eat unleavened bread." Thus where unleavened bread is eaten for six days it is required that a man should remain over night, but where such is not the case it is not necessary.'" This constitutes a diversity of opinion between two Tanaim. One says that R. Jehudah requires the man to stay over night in Jerusalem when bringing the second paschal offering, while the other maintains that R. Jehudah does not.
MISHNA: When the paschal sacrifice was brought in a state of defilement, it must not be eaten by men or women having a running issue, by women in their ordinary period of menstruation, nor by lying-in women; if they have eaten thereof, however, they do not thereby incur the penalty of Kareth (excision). R. Eliezer considers these as also not subject to such punishment, if they have entered the sanctuary while in that condition.
GEMARA: The rabbis taught. Shall we assume, that if men or women having a running issue, or women in their ordinary menstrual period, or lying-in women partake of a paschal sacrifice brought in a state of defilement, they thereby incur the penalty of Kareth? To that end it is written [Levit. vii. 19]: "And as for the flesh, every one that is clean may eat thereof," and further, it is written [ibid. 20]: "But the person that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offering, that pertaineth to the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, even that person shall be cut off from his people"; whence we infer, that if an unclean person eat of flesh which may be eaten only by clean persons, he incurs the penalty of Kareth, but if he ate flesh which was not fit for a clean person, i.e., unclean flesh, he is not guilty. R. Eliezer said: "We might assume, that if persons having a running issue had intruded into the sanctuary while the sacrifice was being offered in a state of defilement, they thereby incur the penalty of Kareth; to that end it is written [Numb. v. 2]: 'Command the children of Israel, that they send out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath a running
issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead,' whence we may infer, that only at the time when those defiled by the dead are sent out the lepers and those afflicted with a running issue should be sent out; but when those defiled by the dead are not sent out, as is the case during the offering of the paschal sacrifice, the lepers and those having a running issue are also allowed to remain."
R. Joseph propounded a question: "If those that have become defiled by means of a dead body had intruded into the sanctuary when the paschal sacrifice was brought in a state of defilement, shall we say that, as the court of the Temple was allowed them for the purpose of bringing the sacrifice, the sanctuary itself is also allowed them; or is only that which was explicitly allowed them rendered lawful for them to enter, but that which was not, must not be entered?"
Said Rabha: "The verse following the one quoted [Numb. v. 2] states again [ibid. 3]: 'To without the camp shall ye send them,' which means also outside of the court also; hence those who have been excluded from the court are guilty if they enter the Temple itself, but those who cannot be excluded from the court cannot be guilty if they enter the Temple itself."
R. Joseph propounded another question: "If those who have become defiled by means of a dead body have eaten of the pieces which are to be offered up on the altar, of a paschal sacrifice brought in a state of defilement, what is the law governing their case? Shall we say, that as the flesh was rendered lawful to be eaten, the pieces also became lawful, or was only that which was expressly allowed lawful, but that which was not expressly allowed, was not?"
Answered Rabha: "Let us see! Whence do we know that one can become guilty of eating unclean pieces in general? From the passage [Levit. vii. 20]: 'But the person that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offering, that pertaineth into the Lord,' which means the pieces to be offered up on the altar. Now, then, if the uncleanness of the flesh itself is no longer considered, why should that of the pieces remain?"
MISHNA. What is the difference between the Passover as celebrated (by the Israelites while) in Egypt, and that observed by later generations? The Egyptian Passover-sacrifice was specially ordered to be purchased on the 10th (of Nissan), and it was required that its blood should be sprinkled with a bunch of hyssop on the lintel and on the two sideposts of the door; also
that it should be eaten with unleavened bread on the first night of Passover in a hasty manner; while in later generations the law of the Passover applies for the entire seven days of the festival.
GEMARA: Whence do we know all this? From what is written [Exod. xii. 3]: "Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, On the tenth day of this month they shall take to themselves," etc., whence we infer that only on the tenth of this month, but not of the other months, in later generations shall this be done, and the same rule applies to all other laws concerning the Passover.
It is written, however [Exod. xiii. 5]: "That thou shalt perform this service in this month!" We adduce therefrom that in later generations each recurring month should be in all respects alike?
What significance has the passage [ibid. xii. 6]: "And ye shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month"? This verse implies that the second Passover (which is similar to the Egyptian in being kept only one day) does not require four days of preliminary investigation the same as the other sacrifices.
We find another passage, however, stating [ibid. xii. 8]: "And they shall eat the flesh in that night," and we surely cannot say that only in that night should flesh be eaten but not in the recurring nights of other generations! This passage is required for the comparison by analogy brought by R. Elazar ben Azariah and R. Aqiba in Tract Berachoth (Benedictions).
If the main argument is centred upon the term "in this," why should not the same argument be applied to the passage [ibid. xii. 48]: "No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof"? He may not eat thereof, but why not of others? This cannot be; for the Passover laws must be observed, as we have learned, in every recurring month alike. By "thereof" in the quoted passage is merely meant the paschal lamb, but even an uncircumcised person may partake of unleavened bread and bitter herbs.
We find it written again, however [ibid. 43]: "No stranger shall eat thereof." We could not say, that only on that particular Passover was he not allowed to eat it but later be was, on account of the teaching previously mentioned. The term "thereof" signifies in this case that an apostate is prevented from eating the Passover-sacrifice only through his apostasy, but a priest who had become an apostate is not prevented thereby from eating the heave-offering. Both cases, that of the uncircumcised
and that of the stranger, require illustration in the Scriptures; for if the case of the uncircumcised only were mentioned, we might have assumed, that it would merely have been a disgraceful act for an Israelite who was uncircumcised to eat of the paschal lamb but that a stranger was allowed to partake thereof. If the stranger only were mentioned, we might say, that a stranger who would not eat the Passover-sacrifice as a religious duty, not having been commanded to do so, should be prohibited, but an uncircumcised Israelite whose duty it is to eat thereof should be permitted to do so. For that reason both cases are mentioned.
"In a hasty manner," etc. Whence do we know this? From the passage [ Exod. xii. 11]: "Ye shall eat it in haste," and "it" signifies the paschal sacrifice, but not anything else.
"In later generations the law of Passover applies to the entire seven days," etc. What is meant by the law applies to the entire seven days? Surely not the paschal sacrifice! It must be then the law concerning leaven, and shall we infer therefrom, that at the Egyptian Passover it was only prohibited to eat leaven on that one night but during the day it was permitted? Have we not learned in a Boraitha: R. Jose the Galilean said: Whence do we know that on the Egyptian Passover they were not allowed to eat leaven but on one day? Because it is written [Exod. xiii. 3 and 4]: "No leavened bread shall be eaten. This. day go ye out in the month of Abib," which conjoined would read: "No leavened bread shall be eaten this day." Thus the Mishna means to say, that the paschal lamb was offered up on the first night only of the Egyptian Passover and should only be brought on the first night of the Passover of later generations, but leaven which was not eaten but on the first day of the Egyptian Passover should not be eaten for the seven days of the Passover of later generations.
MISHNA: R. Jehoshua said: "I once heard (of my teachers), that an animal which was substituted for another animal intended for the paschal sacrifice may be offered up; and I have also heard, that it must not be offered; and I am unable to explain this." Said R. Aqiba: "I will explain it; if a paschal offering had been lost and subsequently found, before the animal intended to replace it had been slaughtered, it must be left to, graze until it contracts a legal blemish, when it must be sold and peace-offerings purchased with the proceeds of the sale; so also must it be done with the animal substituted for it (and which had
become lost): if it was found after the other animal had already been slaughtered, it may be sacrificed as a peace-offering, and this applies also to any animal substituted for it."
GEMARA: Why does R. Jehoshua say, "I have heard that an animal which was substituted," etc.? Why does he not apply his statement to the paschal sacrifice direct, and say, that it may be offered up and it may not? He intends to impart to us the information, that it may even happen with a substitute for a paschal sacrifice that it may not be offered up.
The entire case presents a diversity of opinion among Tanaim, as we have learned. If a paschal sacrifice had been lost, and found before the animal intended to replace it had been slaughtered, it must be left to graze; but if the substitute had already been slaughtered, the original may be offered up as a peace-offering. R. Eliezer, however, said (that it does not depend upon the slaughter itself but upon the time of the slaughtering): If the paschal sacrifice was lost, and was found in the forenoon, it must be allowed to graze, but if found in the afternoon, even before the paschal sacrifice was slaughtered, it may then and there be offered up as a peace-offering.
"So also must it be done with the animal substituted for," etc. Said Rabha: When is this case? If the original was found before the sacrifice had been slaughtered and had been exchanged for another animal at the same time; but if it was found before and was exchanged after that, the substitute may be offered up as a peace-offering. Why is this so? Because the slaughtering sanctifies the animal which is substituted at the time when it may still be killed; but an animal which is exchanged after the slaughter, not being suitable for a paschal sacrifice, cannot be slaughtered.
Abayi objected: We have learned in a Boraitha, that the reason it is written, "if he offer a sheep or a goat," is to give us the additional information that, if a substitute of a paschal sacrifice had been found after the Passover, it may forthwith be offered up as a peace-offering. Shall we assume, that the same is the case if it was found before the Passover? To that end it says "he," which refers to the sacrifice alone, but not to the substitute. What is meant by "if the substitute was found before the Passover"? Shall we assume, that the paschal sacrifice itself was found before the substitute was slaughtered and it was exchanged for another before the substitute was slaughtered? This is self-evident. Then for what purpose is the verse needed?
[paragraph continues] Therefore we must assume, that it was found before the substitute was slaughtered and exchanged afterwards, and still it may not be offered up as a peace-offering! The objection to Rabha is not replied to.
MISHNA: If a person had set apart or selected as a paschal offering a she-goat or a ewe-lamb, or a male two years old, they must be left to graze until they contract a legal blemish; they must then be sold, 1 and the proceeds turned over to the fund of voluntary burnt-offerings. If a person who had selected his paschal offering die (in the interim before it is sacrificed), his son cannot bring it as a paschal offering, but must bring it as a peace-offering.
GEMARA: R. Huna the son of R. Jehoshua said: From this Mishna we can infer three things: Firstly, that although a (living) thing is not suitable for consecration, the moment it is set apart for a consecrated purpose it is rejected for any other use; secondly, that it is not absolutely necessary that a thing must be suitable for a consecrated purpose in order eventually to become rejected, but that it may become rejected even if it was at no time suitable for consecration; thirdly, that even the proceeds of the sale of a thing not suitable for a paschal offering is also rejected as a paschal sacrifice (because the Mishna itself states, that the proceeds derived from the sale of the animal which was left to graze until it contracted a blemish must be used for a peace-offering and not for a paschal sacrifice).
"If a person had set apart," etc. The rabbis taught: "If a person had set apart a paschal offering and had died, his son may, provided he was one of the number appointed to eat it, bring it in his stead; but if he was not among the number appointed, he must not offer it as a paschal sacrifice but as a peace-offering on the 16th day of Nissan." On the 16th day and not on the 15th? Why so? Because vow and voluntary offerings must not be sacrificed on a festival. Such is the opinion of the Tana of the preceding teaching.
Now let us see! When did the father die? If he died on the forenoon of the day preceding the Passover, how can the son offer it in his stead? Is he not a mourner whose dead is not yet interred? Then he must have died on the afternoon of that day, If that was the case, then, as soon as the noon had
passed, the sacrifice was made a paschal offering in itself; how then may the son, if he was not among the number appointed to eat it, bring it as a peace-offering? Said Rabhina: "The sacrifice was set apart and the father died on the afternoon of that day. If the son was among the number appointed to eat it, the duty to sacrifice the offering superseded that of mourning for the deceased, hence he may offer it up as a paschal sacrifice. If he was not among the number, however, he may sacrifice it as a peace-offering, because at noon of that day the sacrifice was not yet a paschal offering."
MISHNA: If a paschal sacrifice had become mixed with other animals intended as sacrifices, they must all be left to graze until they contract a legal blemish; they are then to be sold, and the owner must bring, with the price obtained for the finest animal among them, another sacrifice of each kind of offering (with which it was mixed), and the eventual loss must be defrayed from the private means of the owner. A paschal offering which had become mixed with first-born (of animals) may, according to R. Simeon, be eaten by an assembly of priests.
GEMARA: According to R. Simeon, who holds that a paschal offering may be eaten by an assembly of priests if it had become mixed with first-born (of animals), the following complication might arise: A paschal offering must be eaten only on one night and the remainder burned in the morning; the sacrifices of the first-born may, however, be eaten on two nights and one day; now, if the priests should mistake first-born sacrifices for paschal offerings, they will eat of them only one night and burn the remainder in the morning, thus wantonly spoiling a consecrated thing to commence with.
R. Simeon holds in accordance with his individual theory (in Tract Zebahim), that this may be done. And according to the sages, what should be done with a paschal offering that became mixed with first-born (of animals)? Said Rabba: They must all be left to graze until they contract a legal blemish, then the owner of the paschal offering must bring a fat cow and should say: "Wherever the paschal sacrifice may be, let it be exchanged for this, and then sacrifice it as a peace-offering." The priests may then eat all the first-born animals which have a blemish as usual.
MISHNA: If a company have lost their paschal sacrifice and say to some person: "Go, seek and slaughter it for us," and he went, found, and slaughtered it, while the company had
also slaughtered one--if the man had slaughtered his sacrifice first, he shall eat of it and the others shall join with him in eating; but if they had slaughtered their sacrifice first, they shall eat of theirs and he of his; if it is uncertain which had been slaughtered first or if both had been slaughtered at the same time, then shall he eat of his paschal offering, of which the others are not permitted to partake, and theirs must be burned: they are not obliged, however, to observe a second Passover.
If he had said to them: "Should I stay away long, go ye and slaughter a paschal sacrifice for me," and he went, found, and slaughtered the lost paschal sacrifice while the others had also slaughtered one--if theirs had been slaughtered first, they shall eat it and he may eat it with them; but if his had been slaughtered first, he shall eat of his and they shall eat of theirs; if it be uncertain which had been slaughtered first or if both had been slaughtered at the same time, then they may eat theirs, and he is not permitted to eat with them; and his sacrifice must be burned, but he is not obliged to observe a second Passover.
If the man said to them: "Slaughter a paschal offering for me," and they had said to him: "Seek and slaughter for us our lost sacrifice," they should all eat of that which had been slaughtered first; if it is uncertain which had been slaughtered first, then both must be burned; but if there was no express agreement between all the parties, they are not to be considered as at all connected with each other (and each should eat the sacrifice separately).
When the paschal sacrifices of two companies had become mixed, each company should take one of the animals and a member of each company should go to the other, and each company should address the member of the other thus: "If this paschal offering be ours, we withdraw from thy company, and be thou numbered with us; but if it belong to thy company, we withdraw from ours and will be numbered with thee." Thus shall five companies of five members each, or ten companies of ten members each, act; namely, one member of each company shall join with him one of another company, and shall thus address him.
When a paschal offering of two individuals has become mixed, each shall take one of the animals to himself and invite a person from the street (a stranger) to eat it with him; then they should go to each other and thus address each other's guest: "If this sacrifice is mine, withdraw from this and be
numbered with me; but if it is thine, then I withdraw from mine and will be numbered with thee."
GEMARA: The rabbis taught: If there was an express mutual agreement between the company and the man, they should all eat of that which was slaughtered first; but if neither said anything to the other, they are not considered as at all connected with each other. Whence the sages adduced that silence is beneficial to the wise, and so much the more to the foolish, as it is written [Proverbs xvii. 28]: "Even a fool, when he keepeth silence, is counted wise."
193:1 The Hebrew word "Kee" can be translated in four different ways; namely, "because," "therefore," "perhaps," and "if."
194:1 The place Moodayim is frequently mentioned in Josephus and the history of the Maccabees under the name of Modain.
194:2 Parsaoth is plural for Parsah, which is the equivalent of four miles, called in Hebrew "Milin."
196:1 According to the sages there were twelve different constellations, one of which appeared every month, and they were: for the month of Nissan, the Ram; for the month of Iyar, the Bull; for Sivan, the Twins; for Tamuz, the Crab; for Ab, the Lion; for Elul, the Virgin; for Tishri, the Scales; for Cheshvan, the Scorpion; for Kislev, the Archer; for Tebeth, the Goat; for Shebat, the Water-bearer; for Adar, the Fishes.
206:1 According to the Mishna which is contained in the original Talmud, the proceeds should be devoted to peace-offerings, and the commentary Tosphat Yom Tab said such should be the right interpretation.