Pesachim 3
הַמַּפֶּלֶת אוֹר לִשְׁמוֹנִים וְאֶחָד, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹטְרִין מִקׇּרְבָּן, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְחַיְּיבִים.
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 12:1–6). 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.
אָמְרוּ (לָהֶן) בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי: מַאי שְׁנָא אוֹר שְׁמֹנִים וְאֶחָד מִיּוֹם שְׁמֹנִים וְאֶחָד? אִם שִׁיוָּה לוֹ לְטוּמְאָה — לֹא יִשְׁוֶה לוֹ לְקׇרְבָּן? מִדְּקָאָמַר בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי: מַאי שְׁנָא אוֹר שְׁמוֹנִים וְאֶחָד מִיּוֹם שְׁמוֹנִים וְאֶחָד, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ ״אוֹר״ אוּרְתָּא הוּא! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
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.
מֵיתִיבִי: יָכוֹל יְהֵא נֶאֱכָל אוֹר לַשְּׁלִישִׁי, וְדִין הוּא: זְבָחִים נֶאֱכָלִים לְיוֹם אֶחָד, וּשְׁלָמִים נֶאֱכָלִים לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים. מָה לְהַלָּן — לַיְלָה אַחַר הַיּוֹם, אַף כָּאן — לַיְלָה אַחַר הַיּוֹם!
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.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּיוֹם זִבְחֲכֶם יֵאָכֵל וּמִמׇּחֳרָת וְהַנּוֹתָר עַד יוֹם״ — בְּעוֹד יוֹם הוּא נֶאֱכָל, וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל לְאוֹר שְׁלִישִׁי.
Therefore, the verse states: “And 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” (Leviticus 19:5–6). 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.
יָכוֹל יִשָּׂרֵף מִיָּד, וְדִין הוּא: זְבָחִים נֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד, וּשְׁלָמִים נֶאֱכָלִין לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד, מָה לְהַלָּן — תֵּיכֶף לַאֲכִילָה שְׂרֵיפָה, אַף כָּאן — תֵּיכֶף לַאֲכִילָה שְׂרֵיפָה.
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.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהַנּוֹתָר מִבְּשַׂר הַזֶּבַח בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי בָּאֵשׁ יִשָּׂרֵף״ — בַּיּוֹם אַתָּה (שׂוֹרֵף), וְאִי אַתָּה שׂוֹרְפוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה. מִדְּקָאָמַר ״יְהֵא נֶאֱכָל אוֹר לַשְּׁלִישִׁי״ — אַלְמָא ״אוֹר״ אוּרְתָּא הוּא! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Therefore, the verse states: “And if any remains of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day, it shall be burnt with fire” (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.
תָּא שְׁמַע: אוֹר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, מִתְפַּלֵּל שֶׁבַע וּמִתְוַדֶּה. שַׁחֲרִית, מִתְפַּלֵּל שֶׁבַע וּמִתְוַדֶּה. בְּמוּסָף, מִתְפַּלֵּל שֶׁבַע וּמִתְוַדֶּה. בְּמִנְחָה, מִתְפַּלֵּל שֶׁבַע וּמִתְוַדֶּה. בְּעַרְבִית, מִתְפַּלֵּל מֵעֵין שְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם אֲבוֹתָיו: מִתְפַּלֵּל שְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר שְׁלֵימוֹת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לוֹמַר הַבְדָּלָה בְּחוֹנֵן הַדָּעַת. אַלְמָא ״אוֹר״ אוּרְתָּא הוּא! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
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 Ḥanina 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.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי דְּבֵי שְׁמוּאֵל: לֵילֵי אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר בּוֹדְקִין אֶת הֶחָמֵץ לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. אַלְמָא ״אוֹר״ אוּרְתָּא הוּא.
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.
אֶלָּא: בֵּין רַב הוּנָא וּבֵין רַב יְהוּדָה דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא ״אוֹר״ אוּרְתָּא הוּא, וְלָא פְּלִיגִי, מָר כִּי אַתְרֵיהּ וּמָר כִּי אַתְרֵיהּ. בְּאַתְרֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא קָרוּ ״נַגְהֵי״, וּבְאַתְרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה קָרוּ ״לֵילֵי״.
It is clear from these proofs that the expression or in the mishna means the evening before the day. How, then, could the amora’im 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’s place, they call the evening light, and in Rav Yehuda’s place they call it night, although both terms refer to the same period.
וְתַנָּא דִּידַן מַאי טַעְמָא לָא קָתָנֵי ״לֵילֵי״? לִישָּׁנָא מְעַלְּיָא הוּא דְּנָקֵט. וְכִדְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: לְעוֹלָם אַל יוֹצִיא אָדָם דָּבָר מְגוּנֶּה מִפִּיו, שֶׁהֲרֵי עִקֵּם הַכָּתוּב שְׁמוֹנֶה אוֹתִיּוֹת, וְלֹא הוֹצִיא דָּבָר מְגוּנֶּה מִפִּיו. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מִן הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהוֹרָה וּמִן הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר אֵינֶנָּה טְהֹרָה״.
The Gemara asks: And the tanna of our mishna, what is the reason that he didn’t 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: “From the pure animals and from the animals that are not pure [asher einena tehora]” (Genesis 7:8). To avoid using the Hebrew term for impure [teme’a], which is four letters: Tet, mem, alef, heh, the verse replaced the term with the euphemism meaning “that are not pure,” which is spelled with twelve letters: Alef, shin, reish; alef, yod, nun, nun, heh; tet, heh, reish, heh.
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: תֵּשַׁע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי יִהְיֶה בְךָ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִהְיֶה טָהוֹר מִקְּרֵה לָיְלָה״. רָבִינָא אָמַר: עֶשֶׂר, וָיו דְּ״טָהוֹר״. רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר: שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי אָמַר מִקְרֶה הוּא בִּלְתִּי טָהוֹר הוּא כִּי לֹא טָהוֹר״.
Rav Pappa said: A different verse added nine letters, as it is stated: “If 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” (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 “who is not ritually pure,” 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 Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Yet another verse adds sixteen letters, as it is stated: “For he said, something has happened to him, he is not ritually pure; surely he is not ritually pure [bilti tahor hu ki lo tahor]” (I Samuel 20:26). To avoid using the three-letter word tameh, the verse employs the nineteen-letter phrase “he is not ritually pure; surely he is not ritually pure,” spelled: Beit, lamed, tav, yod; tet, heh, vav, reish; heh, vav, alef; kaf, yod; lamed, alef; tet, heh, vav, reish.
תַּנְיָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: לְעוֹלָם יְסַפֵּר אָדָם בְּלָשׁוֹן נְקִיָּה, שֶׁהֲרֵי בַּזָּב קְרָאוֹ ״מֶרְכָּב״, וּבָאִשָּׁה קְרָאוֹ ״מוֹשָׁב״. וְאוֹמֵר: ״וְתִבְחַר לְשׁוֹן עֲרוּמִים״. וְאוֹמֵר: ״וְדַעַת שְׂפָתַי בָּרוּר מִלֵּלוּ״.
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: “And whichever saddle that the zav rides upon shall be ritually impure” (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: “And anyone who touches anything on which she sat” (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: “And you choose the language of the crafty” (Job 15:5), meaning that one should be clever when speaking and avoid inappropriate phrases. And it says in another verse: “My words shall utter the uprightness of my heart; and that which my lips know they shall speak sincerely” (Job 33:3).
מַאי ״וְאוֹמֵר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא, אֲבָל בִּדְרַבָּנַן לָא — תָּא שְׁמַע: וְאוֹמֵר ״וְתִבְחַר לְשׁוֹן עֲרוּמִים״. וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּדְרַבָּנַן, אֲבָל בְּמִילֵּי דְעָלְמָא לָא — וְאוֹמֵר ״וְדַעַת שְׂפָתַי בָּרוּר מִלֵּלוּ״.
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: “And you choose the language of the crafty,” 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: “And that which my lips know they shall speak sincerely,” i.e., one must speak euphemistically in every situation.
וּבְאִשָּׁה לָא כְּתִיב בָּהּ ״מֶרְכָּב״?! וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַתָּקׇם רִבְקָה וְנַעֲרֹתֶיהָ וַתִּרְכַּבְנָה עַל הַגְּמַלִּים״! הָתָם, מִשּׁוּם בִּיעֲתוּתָא דִגְמַלִּים — אוֹרְחָא הִיא. וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֶת בָּנָיו וַיַּרְכִּיבֵם עַל הַחֲמֹר״! הָתָם,
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’t it written: “And Rebecca and her damsels arose and they rode upon camels” (Genesis 24:61)? The Gemara answers: There, due to fear of camels, that is standard conduct. Since a camel’s 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’t it written: “And Moses took his wife and his children and rode them upon his donkey” (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
מִשּׁוּם בָּנָיו — אוֹרְחָא הוּא.
due to his children, as it is standard practice for children to ride.
וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְהִיא רֹכֶבֶת עַל הַחֲמוֹר״! הָתָם, מִשּׁוּם בִּיעֲתוּתָא דְלֵילְיָא — אוֹרְחָא הוּא. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִשּׁוּם בִּיעֲתוּתָא דְלֵילְיָא — לֵיכָּא, מִשּׁוּם בִּיעֲתוּתָא דְּדָוִד — אִיכָּא. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בִּיעֲתוּתָא דְּדָוִד — נָמֵי לֵיכָּא, מִשּׁוּם בִּיעֲתוּתָא דְהַר — אִיכָּא.
The Gemara raises another difficulty. But isn’t it written with regard to Abigail: “And it was so, as she rode on her donkey and came down by the covert of the mountain” (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.
וּבְאוֹרָיְיתָא מִי לָא כְּתִיב ״טָמֵא״? אֶלָּא: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּכִי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ — מִשְׁתַּעֵי בְּלָשׁוֹן נְקִיָּה, כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּנְפִישִׁין מִילֵּי — מִשְׁתַּעֵי בְּלָשׁוֹן קְצָרָה. כִּדְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: לְעוֹלָם יִשְׁנֶה אָדָם לְתַלְמִידוֹ דֶּרֶךְ קְצָרָה.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t 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.
וְכׇל הֵיכָא דְּכִי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ מִשְׁתַּעֵי בִּלְשׁוֹן כָּבוֹד? וְהָא ״רוֹכֶבֶת״ וְ״יוֹשֶׁבֶת״ דְּכִי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ, וְקָאָמַר ״רוֹכֶבֶת״! ״רֹכֶבֶת״ כְּתִיב.
The Gemara asks: And anywhere that the phrases are equal in length, does the verse always speak employing dignified language? Aren’t 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.
הָנְהוּ תְּרֵי תַלְמִידֵי דַּהֲווֹ יָתְבִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב. חַד אָמַר: שַׁוִּיתִינַּן הַאי שְׁמַעְתָּא כְּדָבָר אַחֵר מְסַנְּקָן, וְחַד אָמַר: שַׁוִּיתִינַּן הַאי שְׁמַעְתָּא כִּגְדִי מְסַנְּקָן, וְלָא אִישְׁתַּעִי רַב בַּהֲדֵי דְּהַאיְךְ.
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.
הָנְהוּ תְּרֵי תַלְמִידֵי דַּהֲווֹ יָתְבִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּהִלֵּל, וְחַד מִינַּיְיהוּ רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ, קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי, וְחַד מִינַּיְיהוּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. חַד אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי מָה בּוֹצְרִין בְּטָהֳרָה וְאֵין מוֹסְקִין בְּטָהֳרָה? וְחַד אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי מָה בּוֹצְרִין בְּטָהֳרָה וּמוֹסְקִין בְּטוּמְאָה? אָמַר: מוּבְטָח אֲנִי בָּזֶה שֶׁמּוֹרֶה הוֹרָאָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. וְלֹא הָיָה יָמִים מוּעָטִים עַד שֶׁהוֹרָה הוֹרָאָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.
The Gemara additionally relates that there were these two students who were sitting before Hillel, and one of them was Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. And some say they were sitting before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and one of them was the amora Rabbi Yoḥanan. 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.
הָנְהוּ תְּלָתָא כָהֲנֵי. חַד אֲמַר לְהוּ: הִגִּיעַנִי כְּפוֹל, וְחַד אָמַר: הִגִּיעַנִי כְּזַיִת, וְחַד אָמַר: הִגִּיעַנִי כִּזְנַב הַלְּטָאָה. בָּדְקוּ אַחֲרָיו, וּמָצְאוּ בּוֹ שֶׁמֶץ פְּסוּל.
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’s 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.
וְהָא (תַּנְיָא): אֵין בּוֹדְקִין מִן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּלְמַעְלָה!
The Gemara asks: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that one does not investigate a priest’s 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.
לָא תֵּימָא ״שֶׁמֶץ פְּסוּל״, אֶלָּא אֵימָא ״שַׁחַץ פְּסוּל״. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאִיהוּ דְּאַרַּע נַפְשֵׁיהּ.
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 [shaḥatz] 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.
הָהוּא אַרְמָאָה דַּהֲוָה סָלֵיק וְאָכֵיל פְּסָחִים בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם. אֲמַר: כְּתִיב ״כׇּל בֶּן נֵכָר לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ״, ״כׇּל עָרֵל לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ״, וַאֲנָא הָא קָאָכֵילְנָא מִשׁוּפְרֵי שׁוּפְרֵי.
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: “This is the statute of the Paschal lamb; no foreigner may eat of it” (Exodus 12:43), and another verse says: “Any uncircumcised man shall not eat of it” (Exodus 12:48). And yet, I ate from the finest of the fine portions of the Paschal lamb.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא: מִי קָא סָפוּ לָךְ מֵאַלְיָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא. כִּי סָלְקַתְּ לְהָתָם אֵימָא לְהוּ: סְפוֹ לִי מֵאַלְיָה. כִּי סְלֵיק, אֲמַר לְהוּ: מֵאַלְיָה סְפוֹ לִי! אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אַלְיָה לְגָבוֹהַּ סָלְקָא.
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.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: מַאן אֲמַר לָךְ הָכִי? אֲמַר לְהוּ: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא. אֲמַרוּ: מַאי הַאי דְּקַמַּן? בְּדַקוּ בָּתְרֵיהּ, וְאַשְׁכְּחוּהוּ דְּאַרְמָאָה הוּא וְקַטְלוּהוּ. שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא: שְׁלָם לָךְ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא! דְּאַתְּ בִּנְצִיבִין וּמְצוּדָתְךָ פְּרוּסָה בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם.
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.
רַב כָּהֲנָא חֲלַשׁ. שַׁדְּרוּהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: זִיל בְּדוֹק מַאי דִּינֵיהּ. אֲתָא, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ דְּנָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ. קַרְעֵיהּ לִלְבוּשֵׁיהּ, וְאַהְדְּרֵיהּ לְקִרְעֵיהּ לַאֲחוֹרֵיהּ, וּבָכֵי וְאָתֵי. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: אֲנָא לָא קָאָמֵינָא. ״וּמוֹצִיא דִבָּה הוּא כְסִיל״.
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’s 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: “And he who utters slander is a fool” (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.
יוֹחָנָן חָקוֹקָאָה נְפַק לְקִרְיָיתָא. כִּי אֲתָא, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: חִיטִּין נַעֲשׂוּ יָפוֹת? אָמַר לָהֶם: שְׂעוֹרִים נַעֲשׂוּ יָפוֹת. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: צֵא וּבַשֵּׂר לַסּוּסִים וְלַחֲמוֹרִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״הַשְּׂעֹרִים וְהַתֶּבֶן לַסּוּסִים וְלָרָכֶשׁ״. מַאי הֲוֵי לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר? אֶשְׁתָּקַד נַעֲשׂוּ חִיטִּין יָפוֹת. אִי נָמֵי: עֲדָשִׁים נַעֲשׂוּ יָפוֹת.
The Gemara continues to cite examples of clean language: Yoḥanan from Ḥakuk 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: “Barley and hay for the horses and swift steeds” (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’s wheat crop developed nicely. Alternatively, he could have said that this year’s crop of lentils, which is also food for people, has developed nicely.
