Copyright
Michael Levi Rodkinson.

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

. (page 22 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 22 of 28)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


not 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 uncircum-
cised 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 partic-
ular Passover was he not allowed to eat it but later he 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 uncir-



204 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

cumcised and that of the stranger, require illustration in the
Scriptures; for if the case of the uncircumcised only were men-
tioned, 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. ii]: " 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. Jehoshuasaid: " 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 ofTering
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



TRACT PESACHIM (PASSOVER). 205

become Iost)° if it was found after tlie 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 substi-
tute 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 ex-
changed after the slaughter, not being suitable for a paschal sac-
rifice, 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 sacri-
fice 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 ?



2o6 TFIE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

Therefore we must assume, that it was found before the substi-
tute 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,* 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 pro-
ceeds 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 i6th day of Nissan." On the 1 6th day
and not on the 15th ? Why so ? Because vow and voluntary
offerings must not be sacrificed on a festival. Such is the opin-
ion 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

* 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.



TRACT PESACHIM (PASSOVER). 207

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 sac-
rifice 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 pas-
chal offering may be eaten by an assembly of priests if it had
become mixed with first-born (of animals), the following com-
plication might arise: A paschal offering must be eaten only on
one night and the remainder burned in the morning; the sacri-
fices 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



2o8 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

also slaughtered one — if the man had slaughtered his sacrifice
first, he shall eat of it and the others shall join with him in eat-
ing; 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 consid-
ered 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 com-
pany 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



TRACT PESACHIM (PASSOVER). 209

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 con-
nected 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."



CHAPTER X.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE MEAL ON THE EVE OF PASSOVER
AND THE FOUR CUPS OF WINE TO BE DRUNK WITH THE MEAL.

MISHNA: On the eve of any Passover it is not lawful for
a person to eat anything from the time of Min'hah (afternoon
prayer) until after dusk. Even the meanest in Israel shall not
eat until they have arranged themselves in proper order at ease
round the able; nor shall a person have less than four cups of
wine, even if they must be given him from the funds devoted to
the charitable support of the very poor.

GEMARA: Does the law (in the first clause of the Mishna)
apply only to the eve of Passover ? is it not unlawful to eat
aught on the eve of the Sabbath or any other festiv^al from the
time of Min'hah until after dark, as we have learned in the fol-
lowing Boraitha: A person must not eat aught on the eve of
Sabbath or of a festival from the time of Min'hah on, in order
that the entry of the Sabbath or the festival may find him in
condition to relish a meal ? Such is the decree of R. Jehudah ;
R. Jose, however, said: "One may eat continually until it
becomes dark."

Said R. Hunar " Our Mishna is even in accordance with the
opinion of R„ Jose, who says that one may only eat continually
on the eve of Sabbath or of any other festival until dark, but on
the eve of Passover, when, as soon as the night of the Passover
commences, unleavened bread must be eaten, he also admits
that nothing should be eaten from the time of Min'hah until
dark."

We have learned in a Boraitha: If a meal was in progress on
the eve of Sabbath, and before it was finished the Sabbath was
ushered in, the table must be cleared off and then reset, the
Sabbath benediction made, and then the meal may be contin
ued, in order to demonstrate that the Sabbath had set in. Such
is the decree of R. Jehudah; but R. Jose states that this is not
necessary.

" It once happened that R. Simeon ben Gamaliel, R. Jehudah,



TRACT PESACHIM (PASSOVER). 211

and R. Jose were sitting on the eve of Sabbath and partaking
of a meal in the city of Achu, and when the Sabbath was
about to set in, R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said to R. Jose the
Great: " Wouldst thou desire that we clear off the table, and
act in conformity with the opinion of our colleague, R. Jehu-
dah ?" Replied R. Jose : " Ordinarily thou wouldst favor my
decrees in preference to those of R. Jehudah, and now thou
favorest, in his presence, his decree in preference to mine. ' Will
he even do violence to the queen before me in the house?'"
[Esther vii. 8]. Rejoined R. Simeon ben Gamaliel : '* True!
Let us rather not interrupt the meal, for if the disciples should
observe this, they might establish the ordinance for future gen-
erations." It was said that they did not leave their places until
it was decided that the Halakha should prevail according to R.
Jose's opinion.

R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: " The Halakha
does not prevail either according to R. Jehudah or R. Jose; for
if a meal was in progress on the eve of Sabbath, when Sabbath
set in they should change the table-cloth as a sign and then
recite the Kiddush (Sabbath benediction)." But this is not so!
For did not R. Ta'hlipha bar Ab. Dimi say in the name of
Samuel, that in the same manner as a meal must be interrupted
on account of the Kiddush, so must it also be interrupted on
account of the Habdalah (the benediction recited at the close of
the Sabbath). Must we not assume that by interruption is meant
clearing away of the table entirely? Nay; by interruption is
meant, that the table-cloth should be changed.

It once happened that Rabba bar R. Huna came to the house
of the Exilarch, and a small table was set before him; so he
covered the table with a cloth and recited the Kiddush. We
also learned in a Boraitha: " A table must not be brought for
each guest separately unless the Kiddush had already been
recited (by the head of the household) ; but if a table had been
set before him before the Kiddush had been recited, then the
guest should cover the table set before him with a cloth and
himself pronounce that benediction."

" Those that heard the Kiddush pronounced in the syna-
gogue," said Rabh, " need not recite it at their homes, but
should merely pronounce the customary benediction over wine " ;
but Samuel said: " They have not acquitted themselves of the
duty of reciting the Kiddush."

According to Rabh, then, why should a man recite the Kid-



212 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD,

dush at home ? In order to give the household an opportunity
to hear it, and according to Samuel, for what purpose should the
Kiddush be recited in the synagogue ? In order to afford the
guests who eat, drink, and sleep in the synagogues an opportu-
nity to hear it. Samuel thus holds to his theory, that the duty
of hearing the Kiddush recited can be acquitted only in the
place where the person takes his meals. We might suppose,
therefore, that Samuel's opinion refers only to different houses;
i.e., if a person hears the Kiddush recited in one house he should
not eat in another, but that it makes no difference as to rooms
in one house, whereupon R. Anan bar Ta'hlipha said to the
schoolmen: " I was several times in the presence of Samuel
when he was in the attic of his house, and I observed that he
did not recite the Kiddush until he went below."

R. Huna also opines, that the Kiddush must be recited only
in the place where the meal is taken ; for it once happened that
after R. Huna had recited the Kiddush, the light went out in
the room, and he ordered that the vessels containing the food
should be taken into the wedding-room of his son Rabba, where
the lights were still burning, and after again reciting the Kid-
dush he sat down to his meal.

Rabba also holds that the Kiddush must be recited only in
the place where the meal is taken; for Abayi said: " When I
was at Master's house, while he recited the Kiddush (prayer) he
would say to the guests: ' Partake of something before ye go to
your houses, for should ye come home and find the lights gone
out ye will not be able to recite the Kiddush in your homes,
and thus ye will not acquit yourselves of the duty unless ye eat
something where the Kiddush was recited.' "

R. Johanan, however, said: " One who heard the Kiddush
in the synagogue has not only discharged the duty of the Kid-
dush but need not even pronounce a benediction over the wine
which he might drink at home,"

R. Johanan holds to his own theory; for R. Hanan bar
Abayi said in the name of R. Padath, quoting R. Johanan:
" Whether the wine was changed or whether the places were
changed, it is not necessary that another benediction be
made."

An objection was made: " We have learned in a Boraitha,
that if the places were changed another benediction is necessary;
but if the wine was changed it is not!" The objection is not
answered.



TRACT PESACHIM (PASSOVER). 213

R. Idi bar Abin sat in the presence of R. Hisda, and the
latter said in the name of R. Huna: " The teaching, that when
places are changed another benediction must be made, refers to
a case of where one went from one house to another; but if he
only went from one room to another in the same house, another
benediction is not necessary." Said R. Idi to him: " We have
learned in a Boraitha, from the disciples of R. Hinaq, a teach-
ing identical with thine." [Would then R. Huna say in his own
name that which is taught in a Boraitha ? R. Huna had not
heard of that Boraitha.]

R. Hisda sat, and said upon his own authority: " The teach-
ing, that if places were changed another benediction must be
made, refers to such objects as require a benediction only before
consumption ; but if the objects were such as require also a
benediction after consumption, even if one went from one
house to another, he need not make another benediction,
because it is considered as a continuous meal." R. Shesheth,
however, said : " In either case another benediction is necessary.

We have learned in a Boraitha in support of R. Hisda: " If
a company was sitting and drinking wine, then left their places
and returned, they need not make another benediction."

The rabbis taught: " If a company were sitting at a meal,
and during the course of the meal Sabbath had set in, a cup of
wine is brought to one of the company, who recites the Kid-
dush, and another one pronounces the final benediction at the
close of the meal over that cup, thus interrupting the meal.
Such is the decree of R. Jehudah. R. Jose, however, said :
They may continue to eat until they finish, or until it becomes
dark, and then the first cup of wine brought is used for the bene-
diction at the conclusion of the meal. The next cup is then
used for the recital of the Kiddush."

Why are two cups of wine required ? Cannot the two bene-
dictions be pronounced over the one cup ? Said R. Huna in
the name of R. Shesheth: "Two benedictions must not be
made over one cup." Why so ? Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak:
" Religious duties are not to be bunched." Must this indeed
not be done ? Have we not learned in a Boraitha, that when one
enters his house at the close of Sabbath, he pronounces a bene-
diction over wine, light, spices, and then the benediction of the
Habdalah over one cup, and if he has not another cup of wine
in his house he may leave that cup until after he has had his
evening meal, and then recite the benediction after the meal



214 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

over the same cup of wine ? Where a man has not another cup
of wine, it is different.

If a festival follow a Sabbath, a man has doubtless more
wine in his house, and still Rabh says, that one must, over one
cup of wine, pronounce the benediction over wine, recite the
Kiddush, pronounce the benediction over light, and the Hab-
dalah ? Because Rabh mentions all these benedictions but omits
that of the season (which must be said at the commencement of
each festival), it must be presumed that he refers to the seventh


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 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 22 of 28)