Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 4, 2020 | 讬状讞 讘讻住诇讜 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

This month of learning is dedicated by Pam and Yoav Schwartz to honor the 5th yahrtzeit of their nephew Ezra Schwartz. Ezra's life was full of love, curiosity, laughter, and friendship. May this learning replace some of the light that was lost from this world.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Pesachim 13 – Thanksgiving on Pesach?

Today’s daf is sponsored by Peri Rosenfeld in honor of the Yahrzeit of her mother, Tovah Bodek Rosenfeld. “Her devotion to Judaism and life-long learning has been a continued source of inspiration”. And by Onnie and Andy Schiffmiller in honor of Andy鈥檚 mother having made Aliyah yesterday 讜砖讘讜 讘谞讬诐 诇讙讘讜诇诐. Mazal Tov.
Rav held like Rabbi Yehuda regarding the time for forbidding eating chametz on Erev Pesach. The gemara questions – why didn’t he hold like Rabbi Meir, as there is an unattributed mishna which holds like him, or Rabban Gamliel as he holds the compromise approach? Could it be Rav held like Rabbi Yehuda really because he held like a different tanna who also happened to hold like Rabbi Yehuda? The gemara rejects that suggestion. The gemara brings a source to show that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also held like Rabbi Yehuda (to strengthen Rav’s psak). The gemara explains where the disqualified bread from the Thanksgiving offering was placed in order to let the people know when were the times that chametz was forbidden or needed to be burned. In what way had they become disqualified? Two suggestions are brought. Others say that they weren’t disqualified breads at all and others say that two cows would be set up to plow on the Mount of Olives instead of breads.

讘转讜讱 讛谞抓 讛讞诪讛 讘讙讬诇讜讬讬讗 讛讜讛 拽讗讬 讜讝讛专讜专讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讞讝讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

that the incident occurred during sunrise is because he was standing out in the open and they were mere rays of light that he saw which he mistook for sunrise. In actuality, he too is testifying to an incident that occurred before sunrise, and the testimony of the two witnesses is therefore compatible testimony. Rav Shimi bar Ashi therefore teaches us that there is no concern that it transpired in that manner.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜谞讬诪讗 诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚住转诐 诇谉 转谞讗 讻讜讜转讬讛

Rav Na岣an said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: And let the Master say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that one may eat during the entire fifth hour, as the tanna taught an unattributed mishna in accordance with his opinion, indicating that this is the halakha.

讚转谞谉 讻诇 砖注讛 砖诪讜转专 诇讗讻讜诇 诪讗讻讬诇

As we learned in a mishna: For the entire time that one is permitted to eat leaven himself, he feeds it to his animal. It can be inferred from this mishna that there is no intermediate period when it is prohibited for a person to eat leaven but he may feed it to his animal. This unattributed mishna must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Yehuda maintains that during the fifth hour it is prohibited to eat leaven but one may feed it to an animal.

讛讛讬讗 诇讗讜 住转诪讗 讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽砖讬讗 诪讜转专

The Gemara rejects this contention: That mishna is not classified as unattributed, as it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, due to the fact that had the mishna been in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the term: Permitted, is difficult. Instead, the mishna should have been formulated: When one eats he may feed.

讜谞讬诪讗 诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讻专讬注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讗讜 诪讻专讬注 讛讜讗 讟注诐 讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗诪专

Rava raised an additional difficulty to Rav Na岣an: And let the Master say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, as he is the decisor in this dispute, and there is a general principle that the halakha is always in accordance with the decisor who states an opinion that compromises between two opinions cited previously. He said to him: Rabban Gamliel is not a decisor; he is stating a reason of his own. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir disagree with regard to consumption of any type of leaven; they do not distinguish between teruma and non-sacred food. Since Rabban Gamliel distinguishes between the time one must desist from eating teruma and the latest time that one may eat non-sacred food, his is evidently an unrelated opinion that is in no way a compromise between the other two rulings.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 诪讘注专讬谉 讗转 讛讻诇 诪诇驻谞讬 讛砖讘转 讜砖讜专驻讬谉 转专讜诪讜转 讟诪讗讜转 转诇讜讬讜转 讜讟讛讜专讜转 讜诪砖讬讬专讬谉 诪谉 讛讟讛讜专讜转 诪讝讜谉 砖转讬 住注讜讚讜转 讻讚讬 诇讗讻讜诇 注讚 讗专讘注 砖注讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬砖 讘专转讜转讗 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注

And if you wish, say instead: When Rav said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, he ruled in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to the fourteenth of Nisan that occurs on Shabbat, one does not remove leaven on Passover eve in the usual manner. Rather, one removes everything leavened before Shabbat, and one burns ritually impure teruma: Teruma in abeyance, whose purity is uncertain, and even any pure teruma that he does not require for his Shabbat meals. And one leaves from the pure leaven food for two meals, the meal at night and the one in the morning, in order to eat and finish until four hours of Shabbat morning. This is the statement of Rabbi Elazar ben Yehuda of Bartota, who said it in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讟讛讜专讜转 诇讗 讬砖专驻讜 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗讜 诇讛谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讻讘专 讘拽砖讜 讜诇讗 诪爪讗讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖诪讗 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪讛 诇谞讜

The Sages said to him: One should not burn pure teruma, as perhaps those who can eat it will be found on Shabbat, and he will have retroactively violated a Torah prohibition by burning pure teruma unnecessarily. Instead, one places the teruma aside, and if no one is found to eat it, he feeds it to the dogs or renders it null and void in his heart. He said to them: They already sought people to eat the teruma and they did not find any other priests in the city to eat it. They said to him: Perhaps those priests who could eat the teruma on that Shabbat slept outside the wall of the city and will enter the city on Shabbat morning, at which point they could eat the teruma.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讚讘专讬讻诐 讗祝 转诇讜讬讜转 诇讗 讬砖专驻讜 砖诪讗 讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讜讬讟讛专诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讻讘专 诪讜讘讟讞 诇讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 砖讗讬谉 讗诇讬讛讜 讘讗 诇讗 讘注专讘讬 砖讘转讜转 讜诇讗 讘注专讘讬 讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讟讜专讞

He said to the Sages: According to your statement, that you take into account this unlikely scenario, one should not even burn teruma in abeyance, as perhaps Elijah the Prophet will come on Shabbat and establish prophetically that the teruma is not ritually impure, and render it ritually pure. They said to him: That possibility is no source of concern, as the Jewish people have already been assured that Elijah will come neither on a Friday nor on the eve of a Festival, due to the exertion involved preparing for the upcoming holy day. Consequently, Elijah will certainly come neither on Friday, nor on Shabbat itself, which is Passover eve.

讗诪专讜 诇讗 讝讝讜 诪砖诐 注讚 砖拽讘注讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬砖 讘专转讜转讗 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注

They said: They did not move from there until the Sages voted and they established the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Yehuda of Bartota, who said it in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇讗 诇讘注专

Apropos the previous statement that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, what, is it not that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion even with regard to eating? Rav鈥檚 ruling indicates that one may eat leaven until the end of the fourth hour, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava: No, the aforementioned ruling applies only to the obligation to remove leaven, i.e., the Sages agreed that it is permitted to remove pure teruma on Friday only if there is no one available to eat it.

讜讗祝 专讘讬 住讘专 诇讛讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬谉 讘专 专讘 讗讚讗 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖讛驻拽讬讚 讚讬住拽讬讗 诪诇讗讛 讞诪抓 讗爪诇 讬讜讞谞谉 讞拽讜拽讗讛 讜谞拽讘讜讛 注讻讘专讬诐 讜讛讬讛 讞诪抓 诪讘爪讘抓 讜讬讜爪讗 讜讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 砖注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讛诪转谉 砖谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讛诪转谉 砖诇讬砖讬转 讗诪专 诇讜 讛诪转谉 专讘讬注讬转 讗诪专 诇讜 讛诪转谉 讞诪讬砖讬转 讗诪专 诇讜 爪讗 讜诪讜讻专讛 讘砖讜拽

The Gemara notes: And even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with this statement of Rav Na岣an, and rules that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As Ravin bar Rav Adda said: There was an incident that occurred involving a certain person who deposited a saddlebag [disakkayya] filled with leavened bread with Yo岣nan 岣kuka鈥檃, and mice bore a hole in the bag, and leavened bread was spilling out of the sack. And he came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi on Passover eve to ask what he should do. In the first hour of the day Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Wait, as the owner of the bag might yet return to take it from you and eat the leaven. In the second hour he said to him: Wait. In the third hour he said to him: Wait. In the fourth hour he said to him: Wait. In the fifth hour, concluding that the person was not coming, he said to him: Go and sell it in the market.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讙讜讬诐 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 诇讬砖专讗诇 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 诇讬砖专讗诇 谞讬砖拽诇讬讛 诇谞驻砖讬讛

What, did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi not mean that Yo岣nan 岣kuka鈥檃 should sell this leaven to gentiles, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that it is prohibited for a Jew to eat leaven during the fifth hour? Rav Yosef said: No, it could be that he meant to sell it to a Jew, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir that one may eat leaven during the fifth hour. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was simply advising him to sell the leaven quickly before the sixth hour begins, at which point it would be prohibited for Jews to eat it. Abaye said to him: If it is permitted for a Jew to eat leaven, let him take it for himself and pay the owner back later. Why trouble him to sell it to someone else?

诪砖讜诐 讞砖讚讗 讚转谞讬讗 讙讘讗讬 爪讚拽讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 注谞讬讬诐 诇讞诇拽 驻讜专讟讬谉 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讬谉 驻讜专讟讬谉 诇注爪诪谉

The Gemara responds: Eating it himself is not an option due to the potential of suspicion. As it was taught in a baraita with regard to a similar situation: Collectors of charity who have no poor people to whom they can distribute the money, change the money with other people and do not change it themselves, i.e., with their own coins.

讙讘讗讬 转诪讞讜讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 注谞讬讬诐 诇讞诇拽 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇注爪诪谉 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讬讬转诐 谞拽讬讬诐 诪讛壮 讜诪讬砖专讗诇

Likewise, collectors of food for the charity plate, who would collect food in large vessels for the poor to eat, who do not have poor people to whom to distribute the food, sell the food to others and do not sell it to themselves, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall be clear before God and before Israel鈥 (Numbers 32:22). It is not sufficient that a person is without sin in the eyes of God. He must also appear upright in the eyes of other people so that they will not suspect him of wrongdoing.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘驻讬专讜砖 讗诪专转 诇谉 爪讗 讜诪讜讻专谉 诇讙讜讬诐 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rav Yosef: You told us explicitly that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi meant: Go and sell it to gentiles, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Yosef took ill late in life and forgot his studies, and therefore his student would remind him that he also agreed with that version of the incident.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讚专讘讬 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚转谞谉 讛诪驻拽讬讚 驻讬专讜转 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讛谉 讗讘讜讚讬谉 诇讗 讬讙注 讘讛谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪讜讻专谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪驻谞讬 讛砖讘转 讗讘讬讚讛

Rav Yosef said: In accordance with whose opinion, i.e., the opinion of which tanna, is that halakha which was taught by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that one should sell leaven deposited with him in order to prevent the depositor from losing his possession? Rav Yosef explains: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who deposits produce with another, even if the produce will be ruined by insects or mold, he should not touch them. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He should sell them in court, due to the obligation to restore lost property. Just as one is required to return a lost item, he is likewise required to prevent loss of another鈥檚 property for which he assumed responsibility.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗讜 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗

Abaye said to him: Wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that mishna that Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The Rabbis taught that one may not touch them only if

讘讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 讗讘诇 讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 诪讜讻专谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讛讻讗 讚讛讗 驻住讬讚讬 诇讙诪专讬:

their decrease in value is at the standard rate of stored produce, due to rot and rodents. However, if their decrease in value is beyond the standard rate, everyone agrees that one sells them in court; and all the more so in the case here, with regard to leavened bread, as the bread will be entirely lost. Once the leaven is prohibited, it remains prohibited even after Passover. Consequently, everyone agrees that one is obligated to sell the leaven.

讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖转讬 讞诇讜转 讻讜壮: 转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 注诇 讙讘 讛讗讬爪讟讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 诇讛爪谞讬注谉 讛讜讗 爪专讬讱 转谞讬 注诇 讙讙 讛讗讬爪讟讘讗

We learned in the mishna: And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: Two disqualified loaves of a thanks-offering are placed on the pillars surrounding the Temple as an indicator. The tanna who recited mishnayot in the study hall taught a baraita before Rav Yehuda: The loaves were placed on [al gav] the bench in the Temple. He said to him: And does he need to conceal them? No one would see them if they were placed there. Rather, teach the baraita: On the roof of [al gag] the colonnade, where everyone could see them.

讗诪专 专讞讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛专 讛讘讬转 住讟讬讜 讻驻讜诇 讛讬讛 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛专 讛讘讬转 住讟讬讜 讻驻讜诇 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬住讟讜讜谞讬转 讛讬转讛 谞拽专讗转 住讟讬讜 诇驻谞讬诐 诪住讟讬讜:

Ra岣va said that Rabbi Yehuda said: The Temple Mount was a double colonnade, i.e., surrounded by two rows of columns. That was also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says it was called an istevanit and it was a colonnade within a colonnade.

驻住讜诇讜转 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪讗讬 驻住讜诇讜转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪转讜讱 砖讛讬讜 诪专讜讘讜转 谞驻住诇讜转 讘诇讬谞讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 转讜讚讛 讘讞讙 讛诪爪讜转 诪驻谞讬 讞诪抓 砖讘讛

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says these two loaves placed outside were disqualified. The Gemara asks: Why were they disqualified? What caused their disqualification? Rabbi 岣nina said: Since the thanks-offerings brought that day are numerous, and the priests are unable to eat their portions from the loaves of all the offerings, the remaining loaves are disqualified by virtue of their being left overnight. The Gemara explains that so many loaves were brought that day, as it was taught in a baraita: One may not bring a thanks-offering on the festival of Passover due to the leavened bread included with it, as ten of the forty loaves brought with a thanks-offering are loaves of leavened bread.

驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讛讻讗 讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 注住拽讬谞谉 讜拽住讘专 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐 诇讘讬转 讛驻住讜诇

The Gemara raises a difficulty: It is obvious that one may not bring this offering on Passover, as it contains leaven. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Here this baraita is not referring to the prohibition against bringing the offering on Passover itself. Rather, we are dealing with the issue of sacrificing a thanks-offering on the fourteenth of Nisan, and this tanna maintains: One may not bring consecrated offerings to a situation where the time that they may be eaten is restricted, thereby increasing the likelihood of disqualification. Although it is permitted to eat leavened bread until the sixth hour of the fourteenth of Nisan, one may not bring a thanks-offering on Passover eve. The reason is that a thanks-offering may be eaten for one full day and the following night, and if it is brought on the eve of Passover, the time available before disqualification is reduced.

讜讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘砖诇砖讛 注砖专 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛讜 讜诪转讜讱 砖讛谉 诪专讜讘讜转 谞驻住诇讜转 讘诇讬谞讛

And therefore, everyone who ascended on the pilgrimage to Jerusalem and were obligated to bring thanks-offerings brought them on the thirteenth of Nisan. And since these thanks-offerings are numerous, they are disqualified by virtue of their being left overnight, as priests are unable to eat their portions from the loaves of all the offerings brought that day.

诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专讜 讻砖讬专讜转 讛讬讜 讜讗诇讗 讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛讜 驻住讜诇讜转 砖诇讗 谞砖讞讟 注诇讬讛谉 讛讝讘讞 讜谞砖讞讜讟 砖讗讘讚 讛讝讘讞

They said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The loaves placed as an indicator were not disqualified by being left overnight. Rather, why did the tanna call them disqualified? It was due to the fact that no animal offering was slaughtered together with them to consecrate them, but they were consecrated as thanks-offering loaves independently. They could not be eaten until the offering with which they were brought was slaughtered. The Gemara asks: And let us slaughter the thanks-offering to render the loaves permitted. The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a case where the animal for the offering was lost.

讜谞讬讬转讬 讝讘讞 讗讞专 讜谞砖讞讜讟 讚讗诪专 讝讜 转讜讚讛 讜讝讜 诇讞诪讛 讜讻讚专讘讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讗讘讚 讛诇讞诐 诪讘讬讗 诇讞诐 讗讞专 讗讘讚讛 转讜讚讛 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 转讜讚讛 讗讞专转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讞诐 讙诇诇 转讜讚讛 讜讗讬谉 转讜讚讛 讙诇诇 诇讞诐

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: And let us bring another animal to replace the first one for sacrifice and let them slaughter it. The Gemara answers: This is a case where the one who consecrated the thanks-offering said: This is a thanks-offering and these are its loaves. He consecrated the animal and the loaves together, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, as Rabba said: If the loaf of a thanks-offering is lost, its owner brings another loaf to complete the offering. However, if the thanks-offering was lost and the loaves remain, one may not bring another thanks-offering. What is the reason for this? The loaves are brought due to the thanks-offering but the thanks-offering is not brought on account of the loaves. The animal sacrificed is the primary component of the offering while the loaves are subordinate to it.

讜谞讬驻专拽讬谞讛讜 讜谞驻拽讬谞讛讜 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 砖谞砖讞讟 注诇讬讛谉 讛讝讘讞 讜谞砖驻讱 讛讚诐

The Gemara asks: And let us redeem the loaves from their consecrated status and render them non-sacred, and there will be no need to burn the loaves. Rather, the Gemara explains that actually the case is one where the animal offering was indeed slaughtered over the loaves to permit them, but the animal鈥檚 blood spilled before it could be sprinkled on the altar. Once the animal has been slaughtered, the loaves are fully consecrated and cannot be redeemed, but in this case, neither can they be eaten, as the blood was not sprinkled on the altar.

讜讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 讛诪转讬专讬谉 诪注诇讬谉 讝讛 讘诇讗 讝讛 讚转谞讬讗 讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 讗讬谉 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讗转 讛诇讞诐 讗诇讗 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讻讬爪讚 砖讞讟谉 诇砖诪谉 讜讝专拽 讚诪谉 诇砖诪谉 拽讬讚砖 讛诇讞诐

And in accordance with whose opinion is this statement that the slaughter of the animal consecrates the loaves and from that point they can no longer be redeemed? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Each of two factors that are indispensable in permitting the sacrifice of an offering, elevates the subordinate components of the offering to consecrated status, without the other. In this case, the loaves are consecrated when the animal to be sacrificed is slaughtered, even if the blood was not sprinkled, as it was taught in a baraita: The lambs sacrificed on the festival of Assembly, i.e., Shavuot, consecrate the loaves that accompany them only by means of their slaughter. How so? If one slaughtered the lambs for their own sake, i.e., as lambs for Shavuot, in the appropriate manner, and the priest sprinkled their blood for their own sake, the loaves are consecrated.

砖讞讟谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讜讝专拽 讚诪谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 诇讗 拽讬讚砖 讛诇讞诐 砖讞讟谉 诇砖诪谉 讜讝专拽 讚诪谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 诇讞诐 拽讚讜砖 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 讚讘专讬 专讘讬

However, if one slaughtered them not for their own sake, and the priest sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the loaves are not consecrated, as the factors indispensable in rendering the offering permitted were not properly performed. If one slaughtered them for their own sake, and he sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the fact that the lambs were properly slaughtered renders the loaves partially consecrated. Therefore, the loaves are consecrated to the extent that they cannot be redeemed, but they are not consecrated to the extent that they may be eaten. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 讛诇讞诐 注讚 砖讬砖讞讜讟 诇砖诪谉 讜讬讝专讜拽 讚诪谉 诇砖诪谉

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Actually, the loaves are consecrated only when one slaughters the offerings for their own sake and sprinkles their blood for their own sake, i.e., only if both factors indispensable in rendering the offering permitted were properly performed. The previous answer in the Gemara is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞转拽讘诇 讛讚诐 讘讻讜住 讜谞砖驻讱

The Gemara adds: Even if you say that the previous answer is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, it is understood, as with what case are we dealing here? It is in a unique case where after the slaughter, the blood was received in the cup and it only then spilled before it was sprinkled.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讬讛 讻讗讘讜讛 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛注讜诪讚 诇讝专讜拽 讻讝专讜拽 讚诪讬

And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of his father, Rabbi Shimon, who stated a principle: The legal status of any blood that is about to be sprinkled and prepared for sprinkling is like that of blood that had already been sprinkled. Therefore, the loaves are consecrated when the blood is received in the vessel and thereby prepared to be sprinkled. They may not be eaten until the blood is actually sprinkled.

转谞讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专讜 讻砖讬专讜转 讛讬讜 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讜谞讞讜转 讻诇 讛注诐 讗讜讻诇讬谉 谞讬讟诇讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 转讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诇讗 砖讜专驻讬谉 谞讬讟诇讜 砖转讬讛谉 讛转讞讬诇讜 讻讜诇谉 砖讜专驻讬谉

It was taught in the Tosefta that they said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: These loaves were entirely fit. As long as the loaves were placed there, the entire nation continued to eat leaven. When one of the loaves was taken away, the people knew that the time had come to place the leaven in abeyance, meaning that they neither eat nor burn their leaven. When both of the loaves were taken away, they all began burning their leaven.

转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专

It was taught in a baraita that Abba Shaul says:

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

This month of learning is dedicated by Pam and Yoav Schwartz to honor the 5th yahrtzeit of their nephew Ezra Schwartz. Ezra's life was full of love, curiosity, laughter, and friendship. May this learning replace some of the light that was lost from this world.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Pesachim 11-17 Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we are going to learn the laws of eating leavened bread on the 14th of Nisan, Erev Pesach....
Tuma and Tahara - and intoduction

Tuma & Tahara: an Introduction

General Introduction to Tuma/Tahara Tuma/Tahara is a chok 鈥 not related to hygiene or ability to use the object/person. Usually...
Putting Ethics on the List by ellie gellman

Putting Ethics on the List -by Ellie Bach Gellman

On Daf 13a the Gemara concludes a discussion of what to do with hametz that is still in your possession...
talking talmud_square

Pesachim 13: Why Eliyahu Won’t Show Up on Shabbat

Trying to make sense of the halakhah, and how it lines up with the disputants' positions. Which brings us to...

Pesachim 13 – Thanksgiving on Pesach?

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 13 – Thanksgiving on Pesach?

讘转讜讱 讛谞抓 讛讞诪讛 讘讙讬诇讜讬讬讗 讛讜讛 拽讗讬 讜讝讛专讜专讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讞讝讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

that the incident occurred during sunrise is because he was standing out in the open and they were mere rays of light that he saw which he mistook for sunrise. In actuality, he too is testifying to an incident that occurred before sunrise, and the testimony of the two witnesses is therefore compatible testimony. Rav Shimi bar Ashi therefore teaches us that there is no concern that it transpired in that manner.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜谞讬诪讗 诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚住转诐 诇谉 转谞讗 讻讜讜转讬讛

Rav Na岣an said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: And let the Master say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that one may eat during the entire fifth hour, as the tanna taught an unattributed mishna in accordance with his opinion, indicating that this is the halakha.

讚转谞谉 讻诇 砖注讛 砖诪讜转专 诇讗讻讜诇 诪讗讻讬诇

As we learned in a mishna: For the entire time that one is permitted to eat leaven himself, he feeds it to his animal. It can be inferred from this mishna that there is no intermediate period when it is prohibited for a person to eat leaven but he may feed it to his animal. This unattributed mishna must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Yehuda maintains that during the fifth hour it is prohibited to eat leaven but one may feed it to an animal.

讛讛讬讗 诇讗讜 住转诪讗 讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽砖讬讗 诪讜转专

The Gemara rejects this contention: That mishna is not classified as unattributed, as it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, due to the fact that had the mishna been in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the term: Permitted, is difficult. Instead, the mishna should have been formulated: When one eats he may feed.

讜谞讬诪讗 诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讻专讬注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讗讜 诪讻专讬注 讛讜讗 讟注诐 讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗诪专

Rava raised an additional difficulty to Rav Na岣an: And let the Master say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, as he is the decisor in this dispute, and there is a general principle that the halakha is always in accordance with the decisor who states an opinion that compromises between two opinions cited previously. He said to him: Rabban Gamliel is not a decisor; he is stating a reason of his own. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir disagree with regard to consumption of any type of leaven; they do not distinguish between teruma and non-sacred food. Since Rabban Gamliel distinguishes between the time one must desist from eating teruma and the latest time that one may eat non-sacred food, his is evidently an unrelated opinion that is in no way a compromise between the other two rulings.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 诪讘注专讬谉 讗转 讛讻诇 诪诇驻谞讬 讛砖讘转 讜砖讜专驻讬谉 转专讜诪讜转 讟诪讗讜转 转诇讜讬讜转 讜讟讛讜专讜转 讜诪砖讬讬专讬谉 诪谉 讛讟讛讜专讜转 诪讝讜谉 砖转讬 住注讜讚讜转 讻讚讬 诇讗讻讜诇 注讚 讗专讘注 砖注讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬砖 讘专转讜转讗 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注

And if you wish, say instead: When Rav said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, he ruled in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to the fourteenth of Nisan that occurs on Shabbat, one does not remove leaven on Passover eve in the usual manner. Rather, one removes everything leavened before Shabbat, and one burns ritually impure teruma: Teruma in abeyance, whose purity is uncertain, and even any pure teruma that he does not require for his Shabbat meals. And one leaves from the pure leaven food for two meals, the meal at night and the one in the morning, in order to eat and finish until four hours of Shabbat morning. This is the statement of Rabbi Elazar ben Yehuda of Bartota, who said it in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讟讛讜专讜转 诇讗 讬砖专驻讜 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗讜 诇讛谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讻讘专 讘拽砖讜 讜诇讗 诪爪讗讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖诪讗 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪讛 诇谞讜

The Sages said to him: One should not burn pure teruma, as perhaps those who can eat it will be found on Shabbat, and he will have retroactively violated a Torah prohibition by burning pure teruma unnecessarily. Instead, one places the teruma aside, and if no one is found to eat it, he feeds it to the dogs or renders it null and void in his heart. He said to them: They already sought people to eat the teruma and they did not find any other priests in the city to eat it. They said to him: Perhaps those priests who could eat the teruma on that Shabbat slept outside the wall of the city and will enter the city on Shabbat morning, at which point they could eat the teruma.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讚讘专讬讻诐 讗祝 转诇讜讬讜转 诇讗 讬砖专驻讜 砖诪讗 讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讜讬讟讛专诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讻讘专 诪讜讘讟讞 诇讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 砖讗讬谉 讗诇讬讛讜 讘讗 诇讗 讘注专讘讬 砖讘转讜转 讜诇讗 讘注专讘讬 讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讟讜专讞

He said to the Sages: According to your statement, that you take into account this unlikely scenario, one should not even burn teruma in abeyance, as perhaps Elijah the Prophet will come on Shabbat and establish prophetically that the teruma is not ritually impure, and render it ritually pure. They said to him: That possibility is no source of concern, as the Jewish people have already been assured that Elijah will come neither on a Friday nor on the eve of a Festival, due to the exertion involved preparing for the upcoming holy day. Consequently, Elijah will certainly come neither on Friday, nor on Shabbat itself, which is Passover eve.

讗诪专讜 诇讗 讝讝讜 诪砖诐 注讚 砖拽讘注讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬砖 讘专转讜转讗 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注

They said: They did not move from there until the Sages voted and they established the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Yehuda of Bartota, who said it in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇讗 诇讘注专

Apropos the previous statement that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, what, is it not that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion even with regard to eating? Rav鈥檚 ruling indicates that one may eat leaven until the end of the fourth hour, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava: No, the aforementioned ruling applies only to the obligation to remove leaven, i.e., the Sages agreed that it is permitted to remove pure teruma on Friday only if there is no one available to eat it.

讜讗祝 专讘讬 住讘专 诇讛讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬谉 讘专 专讘 讗讚讗 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖讛驻拽讬讚 讚讬住拽讬讗 诪诇讗讛 讞诪抓 讗爪诇 讬讜讞谞谉 讞拽讜拽讗讛 讜谞拽讘讜讛 注讻讘专讬诐 讜讛讬讛 讞诪抓 诪讘爪讘抓 讜讬讜爪讗 讜讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 砖注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讛诪转谉 砖谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讛诪转谉 砖诇讬砖讬转 讗诪专 诇讜 讛诪转谉 专讘讬注讬转 讗诪专 诇讜 讛诪转谉 讞诪讬砖讬转 讗诪专 诇讜 爪讗 讜诪讜讻专讛 讘砖讜拽

The Gemara notes: And even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with this statement of Rav Na岣an, and rules that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As Ravin bar Rav Adda said: There was an incident that occurred involving a certain person who deposited a saddlebag [disakkayya] filled with leavened bread with Yo岣nan 岣kuka鈥檃, and mice bore a hole in the bag, and leavened bread was spilling out of the sack. And he came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi on Passover eve to ask what he should do. In the first hour of the day Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Wait, as the owner of the bag might yet return to take it from you and eat the leaven. In the second hour he said to him: Wait. In the third hour he said to him: Wait. In the fourth hour he said to him: Wait. In the fifth hour, concluding that the person was not coming, he said to him: Go and sell it in the market.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讙讜讬诐 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 诇讬砖专讗诇 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 诇讬砖专讗诇 谞讬砖拽诇讬讛 诇谞驻砖讬讛

What, did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi not mean that Yo岣nan 岣kuka鈥檃 should sell this leaven to gentiles, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that it is prohibited for a Jew to eat leaven during the fifth hour? Rav Yosef said: No, it could be that he meant to sell it to a Jew, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir that one may eat leaven during the fifth hour. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was simply advising him to sell the leaven quickly before the sixth hour begins, at which point it would be prohibited for Jews to eat it. Abaye said to him: If it is permitted for a Jew to eat leaven, let him take it for himself and pay the owner back later. Why trouble him to sell it to someone else?

诪砖讜诐 讞砖讚讗 讚转谞讬讗 讙讘讗讬 爪讚拽讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 注谞讬讬诐 诇讞诇拽 驻讜专讟讬谉 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讬谉 驻讜专讟讬谉 诇注爪诪谉

The Gemara responds: Eating it himself is not an option due to the potential of suspicion. As it was taught in a baraita with regard to a similar situation: Collectors of charity who have no poor people to whom they can distribute the money, change the money with other people and do not change it themselves, i.e., with their own coins.

讙讘讗讬 转诪讞讜讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 注谞讬讬诐 诇讞诇拽 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇注爪诪谉 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讬讬转诐 谞拽讬讬诐 诪讛壮 讜诪讬砖专讗诇

Likewise, collectors of food for the charity plate, who would collect food in large vessels for the poor to eat, who do not have poor people to whom to distribute the food, sell the food to others and do not sell it to themselves, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall be clear before God and before Israel鈥 (Numbers 32:22). It is not sufficient that a person is without sin in the eyes of God. He must also appear upright in the eyes of other people so that they will not suspect him of wrongdoing.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘驻讬专讜砖 讗诪专转 诇谉 爪讗 讜诪讜讻专谉 诇讙讜讬诐 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rav Yosef: You told us explicitly that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi meant: Go and sell it to gentiles, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Yosef took ill late in life and forgot his studies, and therefore his student would remind him that he also agreed with that version of the incident.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讚专讘讬 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚转谞谉 讛诪驻拽讬讚 驻讬专讜转 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讛谉 讗讘讜讚讬谉 诇讗 讬讙注 讘讛谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪讜讻专谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪驻谞讬 讛砖讘转 讗讘讬讚讛

Rav Yosef said: In accordance with whose opinion, i.e., the opinion of which tanna, is that halakha which was taught by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that one should sell leaven deposited with him in order to prevent the depositor from losing his possession? Rav Yosef explains: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who deposits produce with another, even if the produce will be ruined by insects or mold, he should not touch them. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He should sell them in court, due to the obligation to restore lost property. Just as one is required to return a lost item, he is likewise required to prevent loss of another鈥檚 property for which he assumed responsibility.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗讜 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗

Abaye said to him: Wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that mishna that Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The Rabbis taught that one may not touch them only if

讘讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 讗讘诇 讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 诪讜讻专谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讛讻讗 讚讛讗 驻住讬讚讬 诇讙诪专讬:

their decrease in value is at the standard rate of stored produce, due to rot and rodents. However, if their decrease in value is beyond the standard rate, everyone agrees that one sells them in court; and all the more so in the case here, with regard to leavened bread, as the bread will be entirely lost. Once the leaven is prohibited, it remains prohibited even after Passover. Consequently, everyone agrees that one is obligated to sell the leaven.

讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖转讬 讞诇讜转 讻讜壮: 转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 注诇 讙讘 讛讗讬爪讟讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 诇讛爪谞讬注谉 讛讜讗 爪专讬讱 转谞讬 注诇 讙讙 讛讗讬爪讟讘讗

We learned in the mishna: And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: Two disqualified loaves of a thanks-offering are placed on the pillars surrounding the Temple as an indicator. The tanna who recited mishnayot in the study hall taught a baraita before Rav Yehuda: The loaves were placed on [al gav] the bench in the Temple. He said to him: And does he need to conceal them? No one would see them if they were placed there. Rather, teach the baraita: On the roof of [al gag] the colonnade, where everyone could see them.

讗诪专 专讞讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛专 讛讘讬转 住讟讬讜 讻驻讜诇 讛讬讛 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛专 讛讘讬转 住讟讬讜 讻驻讜诇 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬住讟讜讜谞讬转 讛讬转讛 谞拽专讗转 住讟讬讜 诇驻谞讬诐 诪住讟讬讜:

Ra岣va said that Rabbi Yehuda said: The Temple Mount was a double colonnade, i.e., surrounded by two rows of columns. That was also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says it was called an istevanit and it was a colonnade within a colonnade.

驻住讜诇讜转 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪讗讬 驻住讜诇讜转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪转讜讱 砖讛讬讜 诪专讜讘讜转 谞驻住诇讜转 讘诇讬谞讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 转讜讚讛 讘讞讙 讛诪爪讜转 诪驻谞讬 讞诪抓 砖讘讛

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says these two loaves placed outside were disqualified. The Gemara asks: Why were they disqualified? What caused their disqualification? Rabbi 岣nina said: Since the thanks-offerings brought that day are numerous, and the priests are unable to eat their portions from the loaves of all the offerings, the remaining loaves are disqualified by virtue of their being left overnight. The Gemara explains that so many loaves were brought that day, as it was taught in a baraita: One may not bring a thanks-offering on the festival of Passover due to the leavened bread included with it, as ten of the forty loaves brought with a thanks-offering are loaves of leavened bread.

驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讛讻讗 讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 注住拽讬谞谉 讜拽住讘专 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐 诇讘讬转 讛驻住讜诇

The Gemara raises a difficulty: It is obvious that one may not bring this offering on Passover, as it contains leaven. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Here this baraita is not referring to the prohibition against bringing the offering on Passover itself. Rather, we are dealing with the issue of sacrificing a thanks-offering on the fourteenth of Nisan, and this tanna maintains: One may not bring consecrated offerings to a situation where the time that they may be eaten is restricted, thereby increasing the likelihood of disqualification. Although it is permitted to eat leavened bread until the sixth hour of the fourteenth of Nisan, one may not bring a thanks-offering on Passover eve. The reason is that a thanks-offering may be eaten for one full day and the following night, and if it is brought on the eve of Passover, the time available before disqualification is reduced.

讜讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘砖诇砖讛 注砖专 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛讜 讜诪转讜讱 砖讛谉 诪专讜讘讜转 谞驻住诇讜转 讘诇讬谞讛

And therefore, everyone who ascended on the pilgrimage to Jerusalem and were obligated to bring thanks-offerings brought them on the thirteenth of Nisan. And since these thanks-offerings are numerous, they are disqualified by virtue of their being left overnight, as priests are unable to eat their portions from the loaves of all the offerings brought that day.

诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专讜 讻砖讬专讜转 讛讬讜 讜讗诇讗 讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛讜 驻住讜诇讜转 砖诇讗 谞砖讞讟 注诇讬讛谉 讛讝讘讞 讜谞砖讞讜讟 砖讗讘讚 讛讝讘讞

They said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The loaves placed as an indicator were not disqualified by being left overnight. Rather, why did the tanna call them disqualified? It was due to the fact that no animal offering was slaughtered together with them to consecrate them, but they were consecrated as thanks-offering loaves independently. They could not be eaten until the offering with which they were brought was slaughtered. The Gemara asks: And let us slaughter the thanks-offering to render the loaves permitted. The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a case where the animal for the offering was lost.

讜谞讬讬转讬 讝讘讞 讗讞专 讜谞砖讞讜讟 讚讗诪专 讝讜 转讜讚讛 讜讝讜 诇讞诪讛 讜讻讚专讘讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讗讘讚 讛诇讞诐 诪讘讬讗 诇讞诐 讗讞专 讗讘讚讛 转讜讚讛 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 转讜讚讛 讗讞专转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讞诐 讙诇诇 转讜讚讛 讜讗讬谉 转讜讚讛 讙诇诇 诇讞诐

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: And let us bring another animal to replace the first one for sacrifice and let them slaughter it. The Gemara answers: This is a case where the one who consecrated the thanks-offering said: This is a thanks-offering and these are its loaves. He consecrated the animal and the loaves together, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, as Rabba said: If the loaf of a thanks-offering is lost, its owner brings another loaf to complete the offering. However, if the thanks-offering was lost and the loaves remain, one may not bring another thanks-offering. What is the reason for this? The loaves are brought due to the thanks-offering but the thanks-offering is not brought on account of the loaves. The animal sacrificed is the primary component of the offering while the loaves are subordinate to it.

讜谞讬驻专拽讬谞讛讜 讜谞驻拽讬谞讛讜 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 砖谞砖讞讟 注诇讬讛谉 讛讝讘讞 讜谞砖驻讱 讛讚诐

The Gemara asks: And let us redeem the loaves from their consecrated status and render them non-sacred, and there will be no need to burn the loaves. Rather, the Gemara explains that actually the case is one where the animal offering was indeed slaughtered over the loaves to permit them, but the animal鈥檚 blood spilled before it could be sprinkled on the altar. Once the animal has been slaughtered, the loaves are fully consecrated and cannot be redeemed, but in this case, neither can they be eaten, as the blood was not sprinkled on the altar.

讜讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 讛诪转讬专讬谉 诪注诇讬谉 讝讛 讘诇讗 讝讛 讚转谞讬讗 讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 讗讬谉 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讗转 讛诇讞诐 讗诇讗 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讻讬爪讚 砖讞讟谉 诇砖诪谉 讜讝专拽 讚诪谉 诇砖诪谉 拽讬讚砖 讛诇讞诐

And in accordance with whose opinion is this statement that the slaughter of the animal consecrates the loaves and from that point they can no longer be redeemed? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Each of two factors that are indispensable in permitting the sacrifice of an offering, elevates the subordinate components of the offering to consecrated status, without the other. In this case, the loaves are consecrated when the animal to be sacrificed is slaughtered, even if the blood was not sprinkled, as it was taught in a baraita: The lambs sacrificed on the festival of Assembly, i.e., Shavuot, consecrate the loaves that accompany them only by means of their slaughter. How so? If one slaughtered the lambs for their own sake, i.e., as lambs for Shavuot, in the appropriate manner, and the priest sprinkled their blood for their own sake, the loaves are consecrated.

砖讞讟谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讜讝专拽 讚诪谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 诇讗 拽讬讚砖 讛诇讞诐 砖讞讟谉 诇砖诪谉 讜讝专拽 讚诪谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 诇讞诐 拽讚讜砖 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 讚讘专讬 专讘讬

However, if one slaughtered them not for their own sake, and the priest sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the loaves are not consecrated, as the factors indispensable in rendering the offering permitted were not properly performed. If one slaughtered them for their own sake, and he sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the fact that the lambs were properly slaughtered renders the loaves partially consecrated. Therefore, the loaves are consecrated to the extent that they cannot be redeemed, but they are not consecrated to the extent that they may be eaten. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 讛诇讞诐 注讚 砖讬砖讞讜讟 诇砖诪谉 讜讬讝专讜拽 讚诪谉 诇砖诪谉

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Actually, the loaves are consecrated only when one slaughters the offerings for their own sake and sprinkles their blood for their own sake, i.e., only if both factors indispensable in rendering the offering permitted were properly performed. The previous answer in the Gemara is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞转拽讘诇 讛讚诐 讘讻讜住 讜谞砖驻讱

The Gemara adds: Even if you say that the previous answer is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, it is understood, as with what case are we dealing here? It is in a unique case where after the slaughter, the blood was received in the cup and it only then spilled before it was sprinkled.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讬讛 讻讗讘讜讛 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛注讜诪讚 诇讝专讜拽 讻讝专讜拽 讚诪讬

And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of his father, Rabbi Shimon, who stated a principle: The legal status of any blood that is about to be sprinkled and prepared for sprinkling is like that of blood that had already been sprinkled. Therefore, the loaves are consecrated when the blood is received in the vessel and thereby prepared to be sprinkled. They may not be eaten until the blood is actually sprinkled.

转谞讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专讜 讻砖讬专讜转 讛讬讜 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讜谞讞讜转 讻诇 讛注诐 讗讜讻诇讬谉 谞讬讟诇讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 转讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诇讗 砖讜专驻讬谉 谞讬讟诇讜 砖转讬讛谉 讛转讞讬诇讜 讻讜诇谉 砖讜专驻讬谉

It was taught in the Tosefta that they said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: These loaves were entirely fit. As long as the loaves were placed there, the entire nation continued to eat leaven. When one of the loaves was taken away, the people knew that the time had come to place the leaven in abeyance, meaning that they neither eat nor burn their leaven. When both of the loaves were taken away, they all began burning their leaven.

转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专

It was taught in a baraita that Abba Shaul says:

Scroll To Top