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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 24, 2020 | 讞壮 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's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Pesachim 3

Today鈥檚 daf is dedicated by Suri Stern in thanks to Hakodosh Baruch Hu. Baruch rofeh cholim! And by Yosi Zimilover in honor of Tali Zimilover “in honor of our first anniversary and Tali’s continued dedication to the daf and Torah learning.” And by Steven Perlin in honor of Elana Perlin “Mazal tov to my wife, Elana Perlin, on her siyum from Masechet Eruvim! I’m so proud of you! Also mazal tov to Judy Levitan – yasher co’ach on your siyum as well!”
The gemara continues to raise questions and ultimately rejects their original understanding of Rav Huna that “light” means day and concludes that bedikat chametz happens on the night of the fourteenth of Nissan. Why did the mishna choose this language and not simply say “the night of the fourteenth?” The gemara explains that they wanted to use a nicer language and goes on to bring two statements – on of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and one a braita of Rabbi Yishmael regarding the importance of speaking in nicer language and not saying inappropriate words. The gemara delves more in depth into this, bringing proofs from the Tanach and also raising questions. Stories are brought to show how important it was to the sages to speak in a “clean” language.

讛诪驻诇转 讗讜专 诇砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 驻讜讟专讬谉 诪拽专讘谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讞讬讬讘讬诐

from a mishna that deals with the offering of a woman who miscarries on or of the eighty-first day after her previous childbirth: The Torah obligates a woman to bring an offering after childbirth, including a miscarriage. However, one offering suffices for any births or miscarriages that occur within eighty days of the original birth, as the halakhic ramifications of that birth last eighty days (see Leviticus 12:1鈥6). The mishna cited addresses the borderline case of a woman who miscarries on the night of the eighty-first day following the birth. Beit Shammai exempt her from bringing another offering, as the offering she brought for the previous childbirth exempts her from bringing another for the miscarriage. And Beit Hillel obligate her to bring a second offering.

讗诪专讜 (诇讛谉) 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讜专 砖诪谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 诪讬讜诐 砖诪谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗诐 砖讬讜讛 诇讜 诇讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 讬砖讜讛 诇讜 诇拽专讘谉 诪讚拽讗诪专 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讜专 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 诪讬讜诐 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讜专 讗讜专转讗 讛讜讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: What is different between or of the eighty-first and the day of the eighty-first? If they are equal with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity, i.e., the blood of this woman is no longer ritually pure and all of the standard strictures of ritual impurity apply to her, will the two time periods not be equal with regard to the offering as well? In terms of the meaning of or, from the fact that Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: What is different between or of the eighty-first and the day of the eighty-first, learn from it that or is night. Indeed, learn from it that or means night.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 谞讗讻诇 讗讜专 诇砖诇讬砖讬 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讝讘讞讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬诐 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜砖诇诪讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬诐 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诇讬诇讛 讗讞专 讛讬讜诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 诇讬诇讛 讗讞专 讛讬讜诐

The Gemara raises an objection with regard to the meaning of the word or from a baraita: One might have thought that a peace-offering, which may be eaten for two days, may also be eaten on or of the third day. And it is a logical derivation that leads to that conclusion. How so? Other offerings, e.g., sin-offerings, are eaten for one day, and peace-offerings are eaten for two days. Just as there, with regard to other offerings, the night follows the previous day, i.e., the offering may be eaten during the day and the subsequent night, so too here, with regard to peace-offerings, say that the night follows the day, and rule that they may be eaten on the night after the second day.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讬讜诐 讝讘讞讻诐 讬讗讻诇 讜诪诪讞专转 讜讛谞讜转专 注讚 讬讜诐 讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讛讜讗 谞讗讻诇 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 诇讗讜专 砖诇讬砖讬

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd when you sacrifice a peace-offering to God, you shall sacrifice it of your own will. It shall be eaten the same day you sacrifice it, and on the next day; and if any remains until the third day, it shall be burnt with fire鈥 (Leviticus 19:5鈥6). This verse means that it may be eaten while it is still day, i.e., during the second day, and it may not be eaten on or of the third day.

讬讻讜诇 讬砖专祝 诪讬讚 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讝讘讞讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚 讜砖诇诪讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 转讬讻祝 诇讗讻讬诇讛 砖专讬驻讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 转讬讻祝 诇讗讻讬诇讛 砖专讬驻讛

The baraita continues: If a peace-offering may not be eaten beyond the second day, one might have thought that it should be burned immediately after the conclusion of the second day, and this too is the conclusion of a logical derivation: Other offerings are eaten for one day and night, and peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night. Just as there, the offerings are burned immediately after their permitted time for eating concludes, on the morning of the second day, so too here, with regard to peace-offerings, one could say that they must be burned immediately after their permitted time for eating concludes, at night after the second day.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛谞讜转专 诪讘砖专 讛讝讘讞 讘讬讜诐 讛砖诇讬砖讬 讘讗砖 讬砖专祝 讘讬讜诐 讗转讛 (砖讜专祝) 讜讗讬 讗转讛 砖讜专驻讜 讘诇讬诇讛 诪讚拽讗诪专 讬讛讗 谞讗讻诇 讗讜专 诇砖诇讬砖讬 讗诇诪讗 讗讜专 讗讜专转讗 讛讜讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd if any remains of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day, it shall be burnt with fire鈥 (Leviticus 7:17), meaning: You must burn it during the day, and you do not burn it at night. With regard to the meaning of or, from the fact that the baraita states: One might have thought that it may be eaten on or of the third day, apparently or is evening. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that or is evening.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讜专 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪转驻诇诇 砖讘注 讜诪转讜讚讛 砖讞专讬转 诪转驻诇诇 砖讘注 讜诪转讜讚讛 讘诪讜住祝 诪转驻诇诇 砖讘注 讜诪转讜讚讛 讘诪谞讞讛 诪转驻诇诇 砖讘注 讜诪转讜讚讛 讘注专讘讬转 诪转驻诇诇 诪注讬谉 砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗讘讜转讬讜 诪转驻诇诇 砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专 砖诇讬诪讜转 诪驻谞讬 砖爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讛讘讚诇讛 讘讞讜谞谉 讛讚注转 讗诇诪讗 讗讜专 讗讜专转讗 讛讜讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Come and hear another proof: On or of Yom Kippur, one recites seven blessings in the Amida prayer and confesses his sins; in the morning prayer, one recites seven blessings and confesses; in the additional prayer, one recites seven blessings and confesses; in the afternoon prayer, one recites seven blessings and confesses; in the evening prayer, one recites an abridged version of the standard Amida prayer of eighteen blessings, as the people are weary from fasting. Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel says in the name of his forefathers: One recites the eighteen complete blessings, due to the fact that he is required to recite havdala in the fourth blessing of the Amida: Who graciously grants knowledge. It cannot be inserted in the abridged version. Apparently, or is evening. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that or means evening.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 讚讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讬诇讬 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗转 讛讞诪抓 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讗诇诪讗 讗讜专 讗讜专转讗 讛讜讗

Come and hear another proof, as it was taught in the school of Shmuel: On the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan, one searches for leavened bread by candlelight. Apparently, or is evening, as this baraita replaces or with the word evening.

讗诇讗 讘讬谉 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讘讬谉 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讜专 讗讜专转讗 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛 讜诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛 讘讗转专讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽专讜 谞讙讛讬 讜讘讗转专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 拽专讜 诇讬诇讬

It is clear from these proofs that the expression or in the mishna means the evening before the day. How, then, could the amora鈥檌m dispute whether it is referring to the morning or evening? Rather, the Gemara rejects its previous assumption with regard to the dispute, as everyone, both Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda, agrees that or is evening, and they do not disagree with regard to the halakha. However, this Master stated the halakha in accordance with the expression accepted in his place, and that Master stated the halakha in accordance with the expression accepted in his place. In Rav Huna鈥檚 place, they call the evening light, and in Rav Yehuda鈥檚 place they call it night, although both terms refer to the same period.

讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬 诇讬诇讬 诇讬砖谞讗 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讚谞拽讟 讜讻讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗诇 讬讜爪讬讗 讗讚诐 讚讘专 诪讙讜谞讛 诪驻讬讜 砖讛专讬 注拽诐 讛讻转讜讘 砖诪讜谞讛 讗讜转讬讜转 讜诇讗 讛讜爪讬讗 讚讘专 诪讙讜谞讛 诪驻讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讛讟讛讜专讛 讜诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讗砖专 讗讬谞谞讛 讟讛专讛

The Gemara asks: And the tanna of our mishna, what is the reason that he didn鈥檛 explicitly teach: The night of the fourteenth, as it was taught in the school of Shmuel? The Gemara answers: He employed a euphemism. Since the tanna of our mishna did not want to mention darkness, he preferred the term or to refer to the night of the fourteenth. And this is in accordance with a statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A person should never express a crude matter, as the formulation of a verse was distorted by the addition of eight letters rather than have it express a crude matter, as it is stated: 鈥淔rom the pure animals and from the animals that are not pure [asher einena tehora]鈥 (Genesis 7:8). To avoid using the Hebrew term for impure [teme鈥檃], which is four letters: Tet, mem, alef, heh, the verse replaced the term with the euphemism meaning 鈥渢hat are not pure,鈥 which is spelled with twelve letters: Alef, shin, reish; alef, yod, nun, nun, heh; tet, heh, reish, heh.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 转砖注 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘讱 讗讬砖 讗砖专 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讟讛讜专 诪拽专讛 诇讬诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 注砖专 讜讬讜 讚讟讛讜专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 砖砖 注砖专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讗诪专 诪拽专讛 讛讜讗 讘诇转讬 讟讛讜专 讛讜讗 讻讬 诇讗 讟讛讜专

Rav Pappa said: A different verse added nine letters, as it is stated: 鈥淚f there be among you any man who is not ritually pure [asher lo yihye tahor] by reason of that which happened to him by night鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:11). To avoid using the three-letter Hebrew word for impure, tameh, spelled tet, mem, alef, the verse employs the twelve-letter phrase 鈥渨ho is not ritually pure,鈥 spelled: Alef, shin, reish; lamed, alef; yod, heh, yod, heh; tet, heh, reish. Ravina said: The verse actually adds ten letters because of the letter vav of the word tahor, as the word is spelled in its plene form. Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: Yet another verse adds sixteen letters, as it is stated: 鈥淔or he said, something has happened to him, he is not ritually pure; surely he is not ritually pure [bilti tahor hu ki lo tahor]鈥 (I Samuel 20:26). To avoid using the three-letter word tameh, the verse employs the nineteen-letter phrase 鈥渉e is not ritually pure; surely he is not ritually pure,鈥 spelled: Beit, lamed, tav, yod; tet, heh, vav, reish; heh, vav, alef; kaf, yod; lamed, alef; tet, heh, vav, reish.

转谞讬讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇注讜诇诐 讬住驻专 讗讚诐 讘诇砖讜谉 谞拽讬讛 砖讛专讬 讘讝讘 拽专讗讜 诪专讻讘 讜讘讗砖讛 拽专讗讜 诪讜砖讘 讜讗讜诪专 讜转讘讞专 诇砖讜谉 注专讜诪讬诐 讜讗讜诪专 讜讚注转 砖驻转讬 讘专讜专 诪诇诇讜

Likewise, a baraita was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: A person should always converse euphemistically, as one finds in the following verses. The first: 鈥淎nd whichever saddle that the zav rides upon shall be ritually impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:9), which discusses the impurity imparted by a zav to an object on which he sits, calls this action riding. And the verse: 鈥淎nd anyone who touches anything on which she sat鈥 (Leviticus 15:22), which discusses the parallel ritual impurity of a woman, a zava, calls the action sitting. Since riding is slightly demeaning for a woman, as it involves an immodest splaying of the legs, the verse avoids the term riding and opts to convey the more modest image of sitting. And it says in another verse: 鈥淎nd you choose the language of the crafty鈥 (Job 15:5), meaning that one should be clever when speaking and avoid inappropriate phrases. And it says in another verse: 鈥淢y words shall utter the uprightness of my heart; and that which my lips know they shall speak sincerely鈥 (Job 33:3).

诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讜讗讜诪专 讜转讘讞专 诇砖讜谉 注专讜诪讬诐 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讚专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讘诪讬诇讬 讚注诇诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讜诪专 讜讚注转 砖驻转讬 讘专讜专 诪诇诇讜

The Gemara asks: What is the need for the proofs from the two additional verses introduced by the phrase: And it says? The baraita already proved its point from the verses with regard to zav and zava. The Gemara answers: The additional verses are necessary, lest you say: This requirement to use clean language applies only in the language written in the Torah, but in rabbinic formulations, no, there is no obligation to use clean language. To counter this argument, the tanna says, come and hear: And it says: 鈥淎nd you choose the language of the crafty,鈥 which indicates that this principle extends beyond the language of the Torah. And lest you say that this requirement applies only to rabbinic language, but when it comes to ordinary speech, no, one need not speak euphemistically, the baraita adds: And it says: 鈥淎nd that which my lips know they shall speak sincerely,鈥 i.e., one must speak euphemistically in every situation.

讜讘讗砖讛 诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛 诪专讻讘 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜转拽诐 专讘拽讛 讜谞注专转讬讛 讜转专讻讘谞讛 注诇 讛讙诪诇讬诐 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讘讬注转讜转讗 讚讙诪诇讬诐 讗讜专讞讗 讛讬讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讬拽讞 诪砖讛 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讬讜 讜讬专讻讬讘诐 注诇 讛讞诪专 讛转诐

With regard to the above baraita taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael, the Gemara asks: And with regard to a woman, is the term riding not written in the Torah? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd Rebecca and her damsels arose and they rode upon camels鈥 (Genesis 24:61)? The Gemara answers: There, due to fear of camels, that is standard conduct. Since a camel鈥檚 back is high off the ground, a woman cannot sit on it sidesaddle; consequently, she may ride on it without being considered immodest. The Gemara cites another relevant verse. But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd Moses took his wife and his children and rode them upon his donkey鈥 (Exodus 4:20)? The Gemara answers: There, despite the fact that his wife was also on the donkey, the verse employs the language of riding

诪砖讜诐 讘谞讬讜 讗讜专讞讗 讛讜讗

due to his children, as it is standard practice for children to ride.

讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讗 专讻讘转 注诇 讛讞诪讜专 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讘讬注转讜转讗 讚诇讬诇讬讗 讗讜专讞讗 讛讜讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讬注转讜转讗 讚诇讬诇讬讗 诇讬讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讬注转讜转讗 讚讚讜讚 讗讬讻讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讬注转讜转讗 讚讚讜讚 谞诪讬 诇讬讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讬注转讜转讗 讚讛专 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara raises another difficulty. But isn鈥檛 it written with regard to Abigail: 鈥淎nd it was so, as she rode on her donkey and came down by the covert of the mountain鈥 (I Samuel 25:20). This verse employs the language of riding in reference to a woman on a donkey. The Gemara answers: There, due to the fear of the night, it is standard practice for a woman to ride and not merely sit on the donkey. And if you wish, say instead: There is no consideration due to the fear of the night that would explain why she was permitted to ride in the regular manner; rather, there is a consideration due to fear of David. And if you wish, say instead: There is no consideration due to fear of David either; however, there is a consideration due to the fear of the incline when riding down the mountain.

讜讘讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讬 诇讗 讻转讬讘 讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诪砖转注讬 讘诇砖讜谉 谞拽讬讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚谞驻讬砖讬谉 诪讬诇讬 诪砖转注讬 讘诇砖讜谉 拽爪专讛 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇注讜诇诐 讬砖谞讛 讗讚诐 诇转诇诪讬讚讜 讚专讱 拽爪专讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 the word impure written in the Torah? Apparently, the Torah does not consistently employ euphemisms, and indeed the word impure appears regularly. Rather, anywhere that two phrases are equal in length, the verse speaks employing a euphemism. Anywhere that the words of the euphemism are more numerous, requiring a lengthier description, the Torah speaks employing concise language, in accordance with that which Rav Huna said that Rav said, and some say it was Rav Huna who said that Rav said in the name of Rabbi Meir: A person should always teach his student in a concise manner.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诪砖转注讬 讘诇砖讜谉 讻讘讜讚 讜讛讗 专讜讻讘转 讜讬讜砖讘转 讚讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜拽讗诪专 专讜讻讘转 专讻讘转 讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: And anywhere that the phrases are equal in length, does the verse always speak employing dignified language? Aren鈥檛 the Hebrew words for rides [rokhevet], spelled: Reish, vav, kaf, beit, tav; and sits [yoshevet], spelled: Yod, vav, shin, beit, tav, of equal length, and yet the verse states: Rides (I Samuel 25:20). The Gemara answers: The Hebrew word for rides is written without a vav in the defective form, rendering it shorter than the term for sits. Brevity takes precedence over dignified language.

讛谞讛讜 转专讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞讚 讗诪专 砖讜讬转讬谞谉 讛讗讬 砖诪注转讗 讻讚讘专 讗讞专 诪住谞拽谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 砖讜讬转讬谞谉 讛讗讬 砖诪注转讗 讻讙讚讬 诪住谞拽谉 讜诇讗 讗讬砖转注讬 专讘 讘讛讚讬 讚讛讗讬讱

The Gemara relates an incident involving the use of appropriate language: There were these two students who were sitting before Rav and were weary from studying a complex issue. One of them said: This halakha we are studying is rendering us as tired as a tired [mesankan] something else, a euphemism for a pig. And the other one said: This halakha is rendering us as tired as a tired kid. Rav would not speak with that student who made reference to a pig, as one who speaks inappropriately is undoubtedly flawed in character.

讛谞讛讜 转专讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 拽诪讬讛 讚讛诇诇 讜讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讜讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讚 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讘讜爪专讬谉 讘讟讛专讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讜住拽讬谉 讘讟讛专讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讘讜爪专讬谉 讘讟讛专讛 讜诪讜住拽讬谉 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讗诪专 诪讜讘讟讞 讗谞讬 讘讝讛 砖诪讜专讛 讛讜专讗讛 讘讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讬诪讬诐 诪讜注讟讬诐 注讚 砖讛讜专讛 讛讜专讗讛 讘讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara additionally relates that there were these two students who were sitting before Hillel, and one of them was Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai. And some say they were sitting before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and one of them was the amora Rabbi Yo岣nan. One of them said: Due to what reason need one be careful to harvest grapes in a state of ritual purity, by insisting on the use of pure vessels, and one need not harvest olives in a state of ritual purity? And the other one said the same point, only he worded it differently: Due to what reason need one harvest grapes in a state of ritual purity, but one may harvest olives in a state of ritual impurity? Their teacher said: I am certain that this first student, who spoke in a clean manner, will issue halakhic rulings in Israel. The Gemara adds: And it was not even a few days later that he issued halakhic rulings in Israel.

讛谞讛讜 转诇转讗 讻讛谞讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讙讬注谞讬 讻驻讜诇 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讛讙讬注谞讬 讻讝讬转 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讛讙讬注谞讬 讻讝谞讘 讛诇讟讗讛 讘讚拽讜 讗讞专讬讜 讜诪爪讗讜 讘讜 砖诪抓 驻住讜诇

The Gemara relates an incident involving the use of appropriate language. There were these three priests in the Temple, each of whom received a portion of the showbread divided among the priests. Since there were many priests, each one received only a small amount. One said to them: I received a bean-sized portion. And one said: I received an olive-bulk. And one said: I received a portion the size of a lizard鈥檚 tail. They investigated the background of the latter priest, who used the imagery of an impure creeping animal, and they found a trace [shemetz] of disqualification in his background. The Gemara assumes that they found a problem in his lineage that disqualified him from the priesthood.

讜讛讗 (转谞讬讗) 讗讬谉 讘讜讚拽讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讝讘讞 讜诇诪注诇讛

The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that one does not investigate a priest鈥檚 lineage beyond the altar? When the court investigated the lineage of a priest, they would investigate his ancestry only until they discovered a priest who sacrificed offerings on the altar. At that point, they would halt the investigation. A priest of questionable lineage would certainly not have been permitted to serve on the altar. However, in this incident the lineage of a priest who had brought offerings was indeed called into question.

诇讗 转讬诪讗 砖诪抓 驻住讜诇 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 砖讞抓 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬讛讜 讚讗专注 谞驻砖讬讛

The Gemara rejects this contention: Do not say that they found a trace [shemetz] of disqualification, referring to his lineage. Rather, say that they found arrogance [sha岣tz] of disqualification, and for that reason he was disqualified from the priesthood. And if you wish, say instead: There it is different, as he cast aspersions upon himself. Although it is generally assumed that any priest who participates in the Temple service is qualified to do so, this priest discredited his own lineage through his conduct.

讛讛讜讗 讗专诪讗讛 讚讛讜讛 住诇讬拽 讜讗讻讬诇 驻住讞讬诐 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗诪专 讻转讬讘 讻诇 讘谉 谞讻专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讘讜 讻诇 注专诇 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讘讜 讜讗谞讗 讛讗 拽讗讻讬诇谞讗 诪砖讜驻专讬 砖讜驻专讬

With regard to the investigation of the priestly lineage, the Gemara relates: A certain gentile would ascend on the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, claiming he was Jewish, and eat Paschal lambs in Jerusalem. He would then return home and boast about how he had tricked the Jews. He said: It is written: 鈥淭his is the statute of the Paschal lamb; no foreigner may eat of it鈥 (Exodus 12:43), and another verse says: 鈥淎ny uncircumcised man shall not eat of it鈥 (Exodus 12:48). And yet, I ate from the finest of the fine portions of the Paschal lamb.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诪讬 拽讗 住驻讜 诇讱 诪讗诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讻讬 住诇拽转 诇讛转诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讛讜 住驻讜 诇讬 诪讗诇讬讛 讻讬 住诇讬拽 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讗诇讬讛 住驻讜 诇讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗诇讬讛 诇讙讘讜讛 住诇拽讗

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said to him, in an attempt to thwart any repetition of this action: Did they feed you from the fat tail of the lamb? Do you really think they gave you the finest portion? The gentile was ignorant of the fact that the fat tail is sacrificed on the altar, not eaten. The gentile said to him: No. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira replied: If so, when you ascend there next time, say to them: Feed me the fat tail. The next year when he ascended, he said to the other members of the group he joined: Feed me from the fat tail. They said to him: The fat tail is offered up to God.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪讗谉 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗诪专讜 诪讗讬 讛讗讬 讚拽诪谉 讘讚拽讜 讘转专讬讛 讜讗砖讻讞讜讛讜 讚讗专诪讗讛 讛讜讗 讜拽讟诇讜讛讜 砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 砖诇诐 诇讱 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讚讗转 讘谞爪讬讘讬谉 讜诪爪讜讚转讱 驻专讜住讛 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐

They said to him: Who said that to you, to ask for that portion? He said to them testily: It was Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. They said: What is this incident that has come before us? Could Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira have told him to eat the fat tail? This matter must be investigated further. They investigated his background and found that he was a gentile, and they killed him. They sent a message to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: Peace unto you, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, as you are in Netzivin and your net is spread in Jerusalem. Despite your distance from Jerusalem, you enabled us to apprehend a person who deceived us.

专讘 讻讛谞讗 讞诇砖 砖讚专讜讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讘讚讜拽 诪讗讬 讚讬谞讬讛 讗转讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 拽专注讬讛 诇诇讘讜砖讬讛 讜讗讛讚专讬讛 诇拽专注讬讛 诇讗讞讜专讬讛 讜讘讻讬 讜讗转讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 诇讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讚讘讛 讛讜讗 讻住讬诇

The Gemara relates another incident in praise of one who is careful to refrain from improper or negative language. Rav Kahana fell ill, and the Sages sent Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi, as their emissary to him. They said to him: Go and assess what is Rav Kahana鈥檚 condition at present. Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi, went and found that Rav Kahana had passed away. He rent his garment and turned his garment around so the tear would be behind him and would not be immediately apparent, and he was crying as he was coming. They said to him: Did Rav Kahana pass away? He said to them: I did not say that, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd he who utters slander is a fool鈥 (Proverbs 10:18). This verse indicates that it is undesirable to be a bearer of bad tidings, and if one must inform others of the unfortunate news, he should do so in an indirect manner.

讬讜讞谞谉 讞拽讜拽讗讛 谞驻拽 诇拽专讬讬转讗 讻讬 讗转讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讞讬讟讬谉 谞注砖讜 讬驻讜转 讗诪专 诇讛诐 砖注讜专讬诐 谞注砖讜 讬驻讜转 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 爪讗 讜讘砖专 诇住讜住讬诐 讜诇讞诪讜专讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讛砖注专讬诐 讜讛转讘谉 诇住讜住讬诐 讜诇专讻砖 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 讗砖转拽讚 谞注砖讜 讞讬讟讬谉 讬驻讜转 讗讬 谞诪讬 注讚砖讬诐 谞注砖讜 讬驻讜转:

The Gemara continues to cite examples of clean language: Yo岣nan from 岣kuk went to the villages. When he came, they said to him: Did the wheat crop develop nicely? Reluctant to say that the wheat crop did not develop nicely, he said to them: The barley crop developed nicely, leaving them to draw their own conclusion. They said to him, mockingly: Go out and inform the horses and donkeys about the barley, as it is written: 鈥淏arley and hay for the horses and swift steeds鈥 (I Kings 5:8). The Gemara asks: What could he have said to better express the bad news euphemistically? The Gemara answers: He could have said: Last year鈥檚 wheat crop developed nicely. Alternatively, he could have said that this year鈥檚 crop of lentils, which is also food for people, has developed nicely.

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's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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

Eruvin 101-105 and Pesachim 2-3 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will be finishing Tractate Eruvin. After an introduction to Tractate Pesachim we will learn the first two...
Pesachim Essentials

Pesachim Essentials- an Introduction by Gitta Neufeld

Click here for the full Introduction to Masechet Pesachim Structure of Pesachim Follows a chronological sequence: Chapter 1 Requirement to...
facebook ads size (2)

The Hidden Meaning of Darkness by Shoshana Baker

The opening of Masechet Pesachim begins with the discussion of when one must search for Chametz by candlelight. The use...
talking talmud_square

Pesachim 3: The Mic Is Live

Pesachim 3: The Gemara finally asks - why didn't the mishnah just say "night"?? Using the positive version of negative...

Pesachim 3

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 3

讛诪驻诇转 讗讜专 诇砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 驻讜讟专讬谉 诪拽专讘谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讞讬讬讘讬诐

from a mishna that deals with the offering of a woman who miscarries on or of the eighty-first day after her previous childbirth: The Torah obligates a woman to bring an offering after childbirth, including a miscarriage. However, one offering suffices for any births or miscarriages that occur within eighty days of the original birth, as the halakhic ramifications of that birth last eighty days (see Leviticus 12:1鈥6). The mishna cited addresses the borderline case of a woman who miscarries on the night of the eighty-first day following the birth. Beit Shammai exempt her from bringing another offering, as the offering she brought for the previous childbirth exempts her from bringing another for the miscarriage. And Beit Hillel obligate her to bring a second offering.

讗诪专讜 (诇讛谉) 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讜专 砖诪谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 诪讬讜诐 砖诪谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗诐 砖讬讜讛 诇讜 诇讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 讬砖讜讛 诇讜 诇拽专讘谉 诪讚拽讗诪专 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讜专 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 诪讬讜诐 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讜专 讗讜专转讗 讛讜讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: What is different between or of the eighty-first and the day of the eighty-first? If they are equal with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity, i.e., the blood of this woman is no longer ritually pure and all of the standard strictures of ritual impurity apply to her, will the two time periods not be equal with regard to the offering as well? In terms of the meaning of or, from the fact that Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: What is different between or of the eighty-first and the day of the eighty-first, learn from it that or is night. Indeed, learn from it that or means night.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 谞讗讻诇 讗讜专 诇砖诇讬砖讬 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讝讘讞讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬诐 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜砖诇诪讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬诐 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诇讬诇讛 讗讞专 讛讬讜诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 诇讬诇讛 讗讞专 讛讬讜诐

The Gemara raises an objection with regard to the meaning of the word or from a baraita: One might have thought that a peace-offering, which may be eaten for two days, may also be eaten on or of the third day. And it is a logical derivation that leads to that conclusion. How so? Other offerings, e.g., sin-offerings, are eaten for one day, and peace-offerings are eaten for two days. Just as there, with regard to other offerings, the night follows the previous day, i.e., the offering may be eaten during the day and the subsequent night, so too here, with regard to peace-offerings, say that the night follows the day, and rule that they may be eaten on the night after the second day.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讬讜诐 讝讘讞讻诐 讬讗讻诇 讜诪诪讞专转 讜讛谞讜转专 注讚 讬讜诐 讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讛讜讗 谞讗讻诇 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 诇讗讜专 砖诇讬砖讬

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd when you sacrifice a peace-offering to God, you shall sacrifice it of your own will. It shall be eaten the same day you sacrifice it, and on the next day; and if any remains until the third day, it shall be burnt with fire鈥 (Leviticus 19:5鈥6). This verse means that it may be eaten while it is still day, i.e., during the second day, and it may not be eaten on or of the third day.

讬讻讜诇 讬砖专祝 诪讬讚 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讝讘讞讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚 讜砖诇诪讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 转讬讻祝 诇讗讻讬诇讛 砖专讬驻讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 转讬讻祝 诇讗讻讬诇讛 砖专讬驻讛

The baraita continues: If a peace-offering may not be eaten beyond the second day, one might have thought that it should be burned immediately after the conclusion of the second day, and this too is the conclusion of a logical derivation: Other offerings are eaten for one day and night, and peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night. Just as there, the offerings are burned immediately after their permitted time for eating concludes, on the morning of the second day, so too here, with regard to peace-offerings, one could say that they must be burned immediately after their permitted time for eating concludes, at night after the second day.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛谞讜转专 诪讘砖专 讛讝讘讞 讘讬讜诐 讛砖诇讬砖讬 讘讗砖 讬砖专祝 讘讬讜诐 讗转讛 (砖讜专祝) 讜讗讬 讗转讛 砖讜专驻讜 讘诇讬诇讛 诪讚拽讗诪专 讬讛讗 谞讗讻诇 讗讜专 诇砖诇讬砖讬 讗诇诪讗 讗讜专 讗讜专转讗 讛讜讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd if any remains of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day, it shall be burnt with fire鈥 (Leviticus 7:17), meaning: You must burn it during the day, and you do not burn it at night. With regard to the meaning of or, from the fact that the baraita states: One might have thought that it may be eaten on or of the third day, apparently or is evening. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that or is evening.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讜专 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪转驻诇诇 砖讘注 讜诪转讜讚讛 砖讞专讬转 诪转驻诇诇 砖讘注 讜诪转讜讚讛 讘诪讜住祝 诪转驻诇诇 砖讘注 讜诪转讜讚讛 讘诪谞讞讛 诪转驻诇诇 砖讘注 讜诪转讜讚讛 讘注专讘讬转 诪转驻诇诇 诪注讬谉 砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗讘讜转讬讜 诪转驻诇诇 砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专 砖诇讬诪讜转 诪驻谞讬 砖爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讛讘讚诇讛 讘讞讜谞谉 讛讚注转 讗诇诪讗 讗讜专 讗讜专转讗 讛讜讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Come and hear another proof: On or of Yom Kippur, one recites seven blessings in the Amida prayer and confesses his sins; in the morning prayer, one recites seven blessings and confesses; in the additional prayer, one recites seven blessings and confesses; in the afternoon prayer, one recites seven blessings and confesses; in the evening prayer, one recites an abridged version of the standard Amida prayer of eighteen blessings, as the people are weary from fasting. Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel says in the name of his forefathers: One recites the eighteen complete blessings, due to the fact that he is required to recite havdala in the fourth blessing of the Amida: Who graciously grants knowledge. It cannot be inserted in the abridged version. Apparently, or is evening. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that or means evening.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 讚讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讬诇讬 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗转 讛讞诪抓 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讗诇诪讗 讗讜专 讗讜专转讗 讛讜讗

Come and hear another proof, as it was taught in the school of Shmuel: On the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan, one searches for leavened bread by candlelight. Apparently, or is evening, as this baraita replaces or with the word evening.

讗诇讗 讘讬谉 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讘讬谉 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讜专 讗讜专转讗 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛 讜诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛 讘讗转专讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽专讜 谞讙讛讬 讜讘讗转专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 拽专讜 诇讬诇讬

It is clear from these proofs that the expression or in the mishna means the evening before the day. How, then, could the amora鈥檌m dispute whether it is referring to the morning or evening? Rather, the Gemara rejects its previous assumption with regard to the dispute, as everyone, both Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda, agrees that or is evening, and they do not disagree with regard to the halakha. However, this Master stated the halakha in accordance with the expression accepted in his place, and that Master stated the halakha in accordance with the expression accepted in his place. In Rav Huna鈥檚 place, they call the evening light, and in Rav Yehuda鈥檚 place they call it night, although both terms refer to the same period.

讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬 诇讬诇讬 诇讬砖谞讗 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讚谞拽讟 讜讻讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗诇 讬讜爪讬讗 讗讚诐 讚讘专 诪讙讜谞讛 诪驻讬讜 砖讛专讬 注拽诐 讛讻转讜讘 砖诪讜谞讛 讗讜转讬讜转 讜诇讗 讛讜爪讬讗 讚讘专 诪讙讜谞讛 诪驻讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讛讟讛讜专讛 讜诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讗砖专 讗讬谞谞讛 讟讛专讛

The Gemara asks: And the tanna of our mishna, what is the reason that he didn鈥檛 explicitly teach: The night of the fourteenth, as it was taught in the school of Shmuel? The Gemara answers: He employed a euphemism. Since the tanna of our mishna did not want to mention darkness, he preferred the term or to refer to the night of the fourteenth. And this is in accordance with a statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A person should never express a crude matter, as the formulation of a verse was distorted by the addition of eight letters rather than have it express a crude matter, as it is stated: 鈥淔rom the pure animals and from the animals that are not pure [asher einena tehora]鈥 (Genesis 7:8). To avoid using the Hebrew term for impure [teme鈥檃], which is four letters: Tet, mem, alef, heh, the verse replaced the term with the euphemism meaning 鈥渢hat are not pure,鈥 which is spelled with twelve letters: Alef, shin, reish; alef, yod, nun, nun, heh; tet, heh, reish, heh.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 转砖注 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘讱 讗讬砖 讗砖专 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讟讛讜专 诪拽专讛 诇讬诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 注砖专 讜讬讜 讚讟讛讜专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 砖砖 注砖专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讗诪专 诪拽专讛 讛讜讗 讘诇转讬 讟讛讜专 讛讜讗 讻讬 诇讗 讟讛讜专

Rav Pappa said: A different verse added nine letters, as it is stated: 鈥淚f there be among you any man who is not ritually pure [asher lo yihye tahor] by reason of that which happened to him by night鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:11). To avoid using the three-letter Hebrew word for impure, tameh, spelled tet, mem, alef, the verse employs the twelve-letter phrase 鈥渨ho is not ritually pure,鈥 spelled: Alef, shin, reish; lamed, alef; yod, heh, yod, heh; tet, heh, reish. Ravina said: The verse actually adds ten letters because of the letter vav of the word tahor, as the word is spelled in its plene form. Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: Yet another verse adds sixteen letters, as it is stated: 鈥淔or he said, something has happened to him, he is not ritually pure; surely he is not ritually pure [bilti tahor hu ki lo tahor]鈥 (I Samuel 20:26). To avoid using the three-letter word tameh, the verse employs the nineteen-letter phrase 鈥渉e is not ritually pure; surely he is not ritually pure,鈥 spelled: Beit, lamed, tav, yod; tet, heh, vav, reish; heh, vav, alef; kaf, yod; lamed, alef; tet, heh, vav, reish.

转谞讬讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇注讜诇诐 讬住驻专 讗讚诐 讘诇砖讜谉 谞拽讬讛 砖讛专讬 讘讝讘 拽专讗讜 诪专讻讘 讜讘讗砖讛 拽专讗讜 诪讜砖讘 讜讗讜诪专 讜转讘讞专 诇砖讜谉 注专讜诪讬诐 讜讗讜诪专 讜讚注转 砖驻转讬 讘专讜专 诪诇诇讜

Likewise, a baraita was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: A person should always converse euphemistically, as one finds in the following verses. The first: 鈥淎nd whichever saddle that the zav rides upon shall be ritually impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:9), which discusses the impurity imparted by a zav to an object on which he sits, calls this action riding. And the verse: 鈥淎nd anyone who touches anything on which she sat鈥 (Leviticus 15:22), which discusses the parallel ritual impurity of a woman, a zava, calls the action sitting. Since riding is slightly demeaning for a woman, as it involves an immodest splaying of the legs, the verse avoids the term riding and opts to convey the more modest image of sitting. And it says in another verse: 鈥淎nd you choose the language of the crafty鈥 (Job 15:5), meaning that one should be clever when speaking and avoid inappropriate phrases. And it says in another verse: 鈥淢y words shall utter the uprightness of my heart; and that which my lips know they shall speak sincerely鈥 (Job 33:3).

诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讜讗讜诪专 讜转讘讞专 诇砖讜谉 注专讜诪讬诐 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讚专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讘诪讬诇讬 讚注诇诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讜诪专 讜讚注转 砖驻转讬 讘专讜专 诪诇诇讜

The Gemara asks: What is the need for the proofs from the two additional verses introduced by the phrase: And it says? The baraita already proved its point from the verses with regard to zav and zava. The Gemara answers: The additional verses are necessary, lest you say: This requirement to use clean language applies only in the language written in the Torah, but in rabbinic formulations, no, there is no obligation to use clean language. To counter this argument, the tanna says, come and hear: And it says: 鈥淎nd you choose the language of the crafty,鈥 which indicates that this principle extends beyond the language of the Torah. And lest you say that this requirement applies only to rabbinic language, but when it comes to ordinary speech, no, one need not speak euphemistically, the baraita adds: And it says: 鈥淎nd that which my lips know they shall speak sincerely,鈥 i.e., one must speak euphemistically in every situation.

讜讘讗砖讛 诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛 诪专讻讘 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜转拽诐 专讘拽讛 讜谞注专转讬讛 讜转专讻讘谞讛 注诇 讛讙诪诇讬诐 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讘讬注转讜转讗 讚讙诪诇讬诐 讗讜专讞讗 讛讬讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讬拽讞 诪砖讛 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讬讜 讜讬专讻讬讘诐 注诇 讛讞诪专 讛转诐

With regard to the above baraita taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael, the Gemara asks: And with regard to a woman, is the term riding not written in the Torah? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd Rebecca and her damsels arose and they rode upon camels鈥 (Genesis 24:61)? The Gemara answers: There, due to fear of camels, that is standard conduct. Since a camel鈥檚 back is high off the ground, a woman cannot sit on it sidesaddle; consequently, she may ride on it without being considered immodest. The Gemara cites another relevant verse. But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd Moses took his wife and his children and rode them upon his donkey鈥 (Exodus 4:20)? The Gemara answers: There, despite the fact that his wife was also on the donkey, the verse employs the language of riding

诪砖讜诐 讘谞讬讜 讗讜专讞讗 讛讜讗

due to his children, as it is standard practice for children to ride.

讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讗 专讻讘转 注诇 讛讞诪讜专 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讘讬注转讜转讗 讚诇讬诇讬讗 讗讜专讞讗 讛讜讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讬注转讜转讗 讚诇讬诇讬讗 诇讬讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讬注转讜转讗 讚讚讜讚 讗讬讻讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讬注转讜转讗 讚讚讜讚 谞诪讬 诇讬讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讬注转讜转讗 讚讛专 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara raises another difficulty. But isn鈥檛 it written with regard to Abigail: 鈥淎nd it was so, as she rode on her donkey and came down by the covert of the mountain鈥 (I Samuel 25:20). This verse employs the language of riding in reference to a woman on a donkey. The Gemara answers: There, due to the fear of the night, it is standard practice for a woman to ride and not merely sit on the donkey. And if you wish, say instead: There is no consideration due to the fear of the night that would explain why she was permitted to ride in the regular manner; rather, there is a consideration due to fear of David. And if you wish, say instead: There is no consideration due to fear of David either; however, there is a consideration due to the fear of the incline when riding down the mountain.

讜讘讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讬 诇讗 讻转讬讘 讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诪砖转注讬 讘诇砖讜谉 谞拽讬讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚谞驻讬砖讬谉 诪讬诇讬 诪砖转注讬 讘诇砖讜谉 拽爪专讛 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇注讜诇诐 讬砖谞讛 讗讚诐 诇转诇诪讬讚讜 讚专讱 拽爪专讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 the word impure written in the Torah? Apparently, the Torah does not consistently employ euphemisms, and indeed the word impure appears regularly. Rather, anywhere that two phrases are equal in length, the verse speaks employing a euphemism. Anywhere that the words of the euphemism are more numerous, requiring a lengthier description, the Torah speaks employing concise language, in accordance with that which Rav Huna said that Rav said, and some say it was Rav Huna who said that Rav said in the name of Rabbi Meir: A person should always teach his student in a concise manner.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诪砖转注讬 讘诇砖讜谉 讻讘讜讚 讜讛讗 专讜讻讘转 讜讬讜砖讘转 讚讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜拽讗诪专 专讜讻讘转 专讻讘转 讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: And anywhere that the phrases are equal in length, does the verse always speak employing dignified language? Aren鈥檛 the Hebrew words for rides [rokhevet], spelled: Reish, vav, kaf, beit, tav; and sits [yoshevet], spelled: Yod, vav, shin, beit, tav, of equal length, and yet the verse states: Rides (I Samuel 25:20). The Gemara answers: The Hebrew word for rides is written without a vav in the defective form, rendering it shorter than the term for sits. Brevity takes precedence over dignified language.

讛谞讛讜 转专讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞讚 讗诪专 砖讜讬转讬谞谉 讛讗讬 砖诪注转讗 讻讚讘专 讗讞专 诪住谞拽谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 砖讜讬转讬谞谉 讛讗讬 砖诪注转讗 讻讙讚讬 诪住谞拽谉 讜诇讗 讗讬砖转注讬 专讘 讘讛讚讬 讚讛讗讬讱

The Gemara relates an incident involving the use of appropriate language: There were these two students who were sitting before Rav and were weary from studying a complex issue. One of them said: This halakha we are studying is rendering us as tired as a tired [mesankan] something else, a euphemism for a pig. And the other one said: This halakha is rendering us as tired as a tired kid. Rav would not speak with that student who made reference to a pig, as one who speaks inappropriately is undoubtedly flawed in character.

讛谞讛讜 转专讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 拽诪讬讛 讚讛诇诇 讜讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讜讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讚 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讘讜爪专讬谉 讘讟讛专讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讜住拽讬谉 讘讟讛专讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讘讜爪专讬谉 讘讟讛专讛 讜诪讜住拽讬谉 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讗诪专 诪讜讘讟讞 讗谞讬 讘讝讛 砖诪讜专讛 讛讜专讗讛 讘讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讬诪讬诐 诪讜注讟讬诐 注讚 砖讛讜专讛 讛讜专讗讛 讘讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara additionally relates that there were these two students who were sitting before Hillel, and one of them was Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai. And some say they were sitting before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and one of them was the amora Rabbi Yo岣nan. One of them said: Due to what reason need one be careful to harvest grapes in a state of ritual purity, by insisting on the use of pure vessels, and one need not harvest olives in a state of ritual purity? And the other one said the same point, only he worded it differently: Due to what reason need one harvest grapes in a state of ritual purity, but one may harvest olives in a state of ritual impurity? Their teacher said: I am certain that this first student, who spoke in a clean manner, will issue halakhic rulings in Israel. The Gemara adds: And it was not even a few days later that he issued halakhic rulings in Israel.

讛谞讛讜 转诇转讗 讻讛谞讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讙讬注谞讬 讻驻讜诇 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讛讙讬注谞讬 讻讝讬转 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讛讙讬注谞讬 讻讝谞讘 讛诇讟讗讛 讘讚拽讜 讗讞专讬讜 讜诪爪讗讜 讘讜 砖诪抓 驻住讜诇

The Gemara relates an incident involving the use of appropriate language. There were these three priests in the Temple, each of whom received a portion of the showbread divided among the priests. Since there were many priests, each one received only a small amount. One said to them: I received a bean-sized portion. And one said: I received an olive-bulk. And one said: I received a portion the size of a lizard鈥檚 tail. They investigated the background of the latter priest, who used the imagery of an impure creeping animal, and they found a trace [shemetz] of disqualification in his background. The Gemara assumes that they found a problem in his lineage that disqualified him from the priesthood.

讜讛讗 (转谞讬讗) 讗讬谉 讘讜讚拽讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讝讘讞 讜诇诪注诇讛

The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that one does not investigate a priest鈥檚 lineage beyond the altar? When the court investigated the lineage of a priest, they would investigate his ancestry only until they discovered a priest who sacrificed offerings on the altar. At that point, they would halt the investigation. A priest of questionable lineage would certainly not have been permitted to serve on the altar. However, in this incident the lineage of a priest who had brought offerings was indeed called into question.

诇讗 转讬诪讗 砖诪抓 驻住讜诇 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 砖讞抓 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬讛讜 讚讗专注 谞驻砖讬讛

The Gemara rejects this contention: Do not say that they found a trace [shemetz] of disqualification, referring to his lineage. Rather, say that they found arrogance [sha岣tz] of disqualification, and for that reason he was disqualified from the priesthood. And if you wish, say instead: There it is different, as he cast aspersions upon himself. Although it is generally assumed that any priest who participates in the Temple service is qualified to do so, this priest discredited his own lineage through his conduct.

讛讛讜讗 讗专诪讗讛 讚讛讜讛 住诇讬拽 讜讗讻讬诇 驻住讞讬诐 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗诪专 讻转讬讘 讻诇 讘谉 谞讻专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讘讜 讻诇 注专诇 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讘讜 讜讗谞讗 讛讗 拽讗讻讬诇谞讗 诪砖讜驻专讬 砖讜驻专讬

With regard to the investigation of the priestly lineage, the Gemara relates: A certain gentile would ascend on the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, claiming he was Jewish, and eat Paschal lambs in Jerusalem. He would then return home and boast about how he had tricked the Jews. He said: It is written: 鈥淭his is the statute of the Paschal lamb; no foreigner may eat of it鈥 (Exodus 12:43), and another verse says: 鈥淎ny uncircumcised man shall not eat of it鈥 (Exodus 12:48). And yet, I ate from the finest of the fine portions of the Paschal lamb.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诪讬 拽讗 住驻讜 诇讱 诪讗诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讻讬 住诇拽转 诇讛转诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讛讜 住驻讜 诇讬 诪讗诇讬讛 讻讬 住诇讬拽 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讗诇讬讛 住驻讜 诇讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗诇讬讛 诇讙讘讜讛 住诇拽讗

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said to him, in an attempt to thwart any repetition of this action: Did they feed you from the fat tail of the lamb? Do you really think they gave you the finest portion? The gentile was ignorant of the fact that the fat tail is sacrificed on the altar, not eaten. The gentile said to him: No. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira replied: If so, when you ascend there next time, say to them: Feed me the fat tail. The next year when he ascended, he said to the other members of the group he joined: Feed me from the fat tail. They said to him: The fat tail is offered up to God.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪讗谉 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗诪专讜 诪讗讬 讛讗讬 讚拽诪谉 讘讚拽讜 讘转专讬讛 讜讗砖讻讞讜讛讜 讚讗专诪讗讛 讛讜讗 讜拽讟诇讜讛讜 砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 砖诇诐 诇讱 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讚讗转 讘谞爪讬讘讬谉 讜诪爪讜讚转讱 驻专讜住讛 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐

They said to him: Who said that to you, to ask for that portion? He said to them testily: It was Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. They said: What is this incident that has come before us? Could Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira have told him to eat the fat tail? This matter must be investigated further. They investigated his background and found that he was a gentile, and they killed him. They sent a message to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: Peace unto you, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, as you are in Netzivin and your net is spread in Jerusalem. Despite your distance from Jerusalem, you enabled us to apprehend a person who deceived us.

专讘 讻讛谞讗 讞诇砖 砖讚专讜讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讘讚讜拽 诪讗讬 讚讬谞讬讛 讗转讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 拽专注讬讛 诇诇讘讜砖讬讛 讜讗讛讚专讬讛 诇拽专注讬讛 诇讗讞讜专讬讛 讜讘讻讬 讜讗转讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 诇讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讚讘讛 讛讜讗 讻住讬诇

The Gemara relates another incident in praise of one who is careful to refrain from improper or negative language. Rav Kahana fell ill, and the Sages sent Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi, as their emissary to him. They said to him: Go and assess what is Rav Kahana鈥檚 condition at present. Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi, went and found that Rav Kahana had passed away. He rent his garment and turned his garment around so the tear would be behind him and would not be immediately apparent, and he was crying as he was coming. They said to him: Did Rav Kahana pass away? He said to them: I did not say that, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd he who utters slander is a fool鈥 (Proverbs 10:18). This verse indicates that it is undesirable to be a bearer of bad tidings, and if one must inform others of the unfortunate news, he should do so in an indirect manner.

讬讜讞谞谉 讞拽讜拽讗讛 谞驻拽 诇拽专讬讬转讗 讻讬 讗转讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讞讬讟讬谉 谞注砖讜 讬驻讜转 讗诪专 诇讛诐 砖注讜专讬诐 谞注砖讜 讬驻讜转 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 爪讗 讜讘砖专 诇住讜住讬诐 讜诇讞诪讜专讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讛砖注专讬诐 讜讛转讘谉 诇住讜住讬诐 讜诇专讻砖 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 讗砖转拽讚 谞注砖讜 讞讬讟讬谉 讬驻讜转 讗讬 谞诪讬 注讚砖讬诐 谞注砖讜 讬驻讜转:

The Gemara continues to cite examples of clean language: Yo岣nan from 岣kuk went to the villages. When he came, they said to him: Did the wheat crop develop nicely? Reluctant to say that the wheat crop did not develop nicely, he said to them: The barley crop developed nicely, leaving them to draw their own conclusion. They said to him, mockingly: Go out and inform the horses and donkeys about the barley, as it is written: 鈥淏arley and hay for the horses and swift steeds鈥 (I Kings 5:8). The Gemara asks: What could he have said to better express the bad news euphemistically? The Gemara answers: He could have said: Last year鈥檚 wheat crop developed nicely. Alternatively, he could have said that this year鈥檚 crop of lentils, which is also food for people, has developed nicely.

Scroll To Top