Copyright
Michael Levi Rodkinson.

New edition of the Babylonian Talmud. Original text edited, corrected, formulated, and translated into English (Volume 5) online

. (page 21 of 28)
Online LibraryMichael Levi RodkinsonNew edition of the Babylonian Talmud. Original text edited, corrected, formulated, and translated into English (Volume 5) → online text (page 21 of 28)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


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 ?



* The Hebrew word "' Kee" can be translated in four different ways; namely,
" because," " therefore," " perhaps," and " if."
13



194 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

According to R. Aqiba, it is from Moodayim and beyond, and
from all places around Jerusalem, situated at the same distance.
R. EHezer 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 con-
sidered distant so long as he has not passed beyond the thresh-
old of the court of the Temple."

GEMARA: Said Ula: "From Moodayim * 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.f 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

* The place Moodayim is frequently mentioned in Josephus and the histor}' of the
Maccabees under the name of Modain.

f Parsaoth is plural for Parsah, which is the equivalent of four miles, cajled in
Hebrew " Milin."



TRACT PESACHIM (PASSOVER). 195

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 diflficulty, 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 wih
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 equiva-
lent 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 convey-
ance), 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 neg-
lect 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 ordi-
nary 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 Par-
saoth (24,000 miles), and the depth of the sky is one thousand



196 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

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
I ^ 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 * 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

* 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
,-nonth of lyar, 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 Tcbeth, the Goat ; for Shebat, the Water-bearer ; for Adar,
the Fishes.



TRACT PESACHIM (PASSOVER). 197

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, lyar, 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 he not told to do so, or given the alternative of
incurring the penalty of Kareth ? Have we not learned in a Bo-
raitha, 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 : Con-
cerning 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 offer-
ing, 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 con-
sidered 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; /.^.,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



198 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

of the Temple were undefiled, the paschal sacrifice must never-
theless be brought in a state of defilement (because those stand-
ing 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 unleav-
ened articles may be used in the house. At the eating of the pas-
chal 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 unnec-
essary, as) the words, * shall they prepare //,' 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



TRACT PESACHIM (PASSOVER). 199

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 Pass-
over; 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 command-
ment is virtually contained in the positive commandment, " they
shall eat //," 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 posi-
tive 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 sec-
ond Passover as are covered by the three kinds of command-
ments 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 roast-
ing with fire should be excluded ? Nay; a commandment per-
taining 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 shali not be seen nor found " included ? Nay; a command-
ment pertaining to the sacrifice itself should be given preference.



200 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

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'' HalleV should
be recited, but ?iot 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 Pass-
over, 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 ? Rea-
son 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 unclean-
ness. R. Jehudah, however, maintains, that it supersedes even
uncleanness." What reason has the first Tana for his state-
ment ? 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 clean-
ness, 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 su-
persede the Sabbath. Both the first and second Passover super-
sede 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,



TRACT PESACHIM (PASSOVER). 201

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 Jerusa-
lem ? From the passage [Deutr. xvi. 7]: "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 unleav-
ened 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 consti-
tutes 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 main-
tains that Ro 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 menstrua-^
tion, nor by lying-in women ; if they have eaten thereof, how-
ever, they do not thereby incur the penalty of Kareth (exci-
sion). 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 ordi-
nary 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



202 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

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 sacri-
fice, 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 sanc-
tuary 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 sac-
rifice brought in a state of defilement, what is the law govern-
ing 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
unto 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 spe-
cially ordered to be purchased on the loth (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



TRACT PESACHIM (PASSOVER). 203

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 congrgegation 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 per-
form 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 can-


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 23 24 25 26 27 28

Online LibraryMichael Levi RodkinsonNew edition of the Babylonian Talmud. Original text edited, corrected, formulated, and translated into English (Volume 5) → online text (page 21 of 28)