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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 22, 2021 | 讟壮 讘砖讘讟 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.

Pesachim 62

Raba and Rav Chisda disagree on the issue of one who has intent while slaughtering that one will sprinkle the blood for uncircumcised people. Rabbi Ashi explains the source of the dispute between Rabbi and Rabbi Chisda. According to him, Rabbi Chisda uses the argument of 鈥ho鈥檌l – since” and Raba does not. It contradicts their opinions regarding 鈥ho鈥檌l鈥 in the case of one who bakes on Yom Tov for after Yom Tov. How do they resolve the contradiction? The braita on the previous page took it for granted a sacrifice is valid if it was done for some impurity but not all. What type of impurity is this? And why was it so obvious that it is valid? The gemara raises several possibilities and raises questions against each possibility. Rabbi Simalai is said to have asked Rabbi Yochanan to teach him the book of genealogy (Sefer Yuchsin) and Rabbi Yochanan did not want to teach him. He mentions in this context the greatness of Bruria and how even though she was brilliant, it took her three years to learn Sefer Yuchsin. Rabbi Simlai also asked him about the difference between one who says one is sacrificing the Pesach for its own sake and not for its own sake which is invalid and one who says for those who can eat and those who cannot eat, which is valid.

讘讛讗讬 拽专讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讜谞专爪讛 诇讜 诇讻驻专 注诇讬讜 注诇讬讜 讜诇讗 注诇 讞讘讬专讜 专讘讛 住讘专 讞讘讬专讜 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讬讚讬讛 诪讛 讛讜讗 讚讘专 讻驻专讛 讗祝 讞讘讬专讜 讚讘专 讻驻专讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讛讗讬 注专诇 讚诇讗讜 讘专 讻驻专讛 讛讜讗


disagree with regard to this verse, which is stated with regard to a different offering: 鈥淎nd it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him鈥 (Leviticus 1:4). It is inferred: For him and not for his fellow. One cannot achieve atonement through an offering that has been designated for someone else. Rabba and Rav 岣sda disagree with regard to the halakhic conclusions that should be drawn from this law. Rabba holds that the law applies to another who is similar to him: Just as he is eligible for atonement through the sprinkling of the blood of this offering, so the law applies to another who is eligible for atonement. This comes to exclude this uncircumcised person, who is not eligible for atonement. Since an uncircumcised person is not fit for the Paschal lamb, slaughtering it for him does not disqualify the offering.


讜专讘 讞住讚讗 住讘专 讛讗讬 注专诇 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讘专 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗 讘专 讻驻专讛 讛讜讗 [讛讜讗讬诇] 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诪转拽谉 谞驻砖讬讛


And Rav 岣sda holds that with regard to this uncircumcised person as well, since he is obligated to bring the Paschal lamb, he is considered eligible for atonement through the Paschal lamb. Why is an uncircumcised person seen as obligated to bring the Paschal lamb? Since if he wants, he can make himself fit through circumcision, and the obligation will automatically apply to him. There is a way for him to include himself among those who eat the offering; therefore, he cannot categorically be considered someone who is not eligible for atonement. Consequently, slaughtering the Paschal lamb for him disqualifies the offering.


讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讗 讗讬转诪专 讛讗讜驻讛 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讞讜诇 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛


The Gemara challenges this explanation: But does Rav 岣sda accept this argument of since? Does he maintain that one can discuss a situation that does not exist due to the possibility that the present circumstances might change? But it was said that Rabba and Rav 岣sda disagree about this as it pertains to the case of one who bakes on a Festival for use during the week: Rav 岣sda said he is flogged for having violated the Festival by baking in order to eat the food on a weekday; Rabba said he is not flogged.


专讘讛 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬 诪拽诇注讬 诇讬讛 讗讜专讞讬诐 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诇拽讬 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇


The Gemara explains: Rabba said he is not flogged for the following reason: Since if guests arrive, whatever he bakes will be fit for him to use on the Festival itself, and he will not be guilty of any transgression, now too, although guests have not yet arrived, the food is considered fit for him, and he is not flogged. At the time of the baking, the act was not unequivocally prohibited. Rav 岣sda said he is flogged; we do not state the principle of since. At first glance, there is an internal contradiction with regard to the opinions of both Rabba and Rav 岣sda.


讘砖诇诪讗 讚专讘讛 讗讚专讘讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讻讗 诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛 讛转诐 讚诇讗 诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛 讗诇讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讚专讘 讞住讚讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专讬 讻讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讜讗讬诇 诇拽讜诇讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛


The Gemara notes: Granted, the apparent contradiction between the first statement of Rabba and the second statement of Rabba is not difficult. Here, in the case of the Paschal lamb whose blood is sprinkled for an uncircumcised person, an action is lacking, as the person must undergo circumcision in order to become eligible to eat from the Paschal lamb. However, there, in the case of one who bakes on a Festival, no action is lacking on the part of the baker. But the first statement of Rav 岣sda and the second statement of Rav 岣sda are difficult to reconcile. They say, in answer to this contradiction: When Rav 岣sda does not accept the principle of since, it is only to be lenient and exempt a person from lashes; however, to be stringent and disqualify the Paschal lamb, he does accept this line of reasoning.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 拽转谞讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注专诇讛 驻讜住诇转 讜讟讜诪讗讛 驻讜住诇转 诪讛 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 注砖讛 讘讛 诪拽爪转 讟讜诪讗讛 讻讻诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讗祝 注专诇讛 诇讗 注砖讛 诪拽爪转 注专诇讛 讻讻诇 注专诇讛 讛讗讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 讙讘专讬 讜诪讗讬 诇讗 注砖讛 讘讛 诪拽爪转 讟讜诪讗讛 讻讻诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讙讘专讬 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讙讘专讬 讟讛讜专讬谉 诇讗 驻住诇讬 诇讛讜 讟诪讗讬谉 诇讟讛讜专讬谉


Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: The baraita quoted above teaches: Since lack of circumcision disqualifies a Paschal lamb and ritual impurity also disqualifies it, the following comparison applies: Just as in the case of ritual impurity, partial impurity was not made to be like full impurity, so too, in the case of lack of circumcision, partial lack of circumcision was not made to be like full lack of circumcision. The Gemara clarifies: With regard to this ritual impurity, what are the circumstances? If you say that the baraita is referring to the ritual impurity of the people who registered for the offering, then there is a difficulty. For what then is the meaning of the ruling in the baraita that partial impurity was not made to be like full impurity? It means that if there are four or five people who are impure and four or five people who are pure, those who are impure do not disqualify those who are pure.


讙讘讬 注专诇讛 谞诪讬 讛讗 诇讗 驻住诇讬 讚转谞谉 诇诪讜诇讬谉 讜诇注专诇讬诐 讻砖专 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讚驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 注专诇讛 讚诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛


This, however, is difficult, as with regard to lack of circumcision as well, those who are uncircumcised do not disqualify the offering, as we learned in a mishna: If one slaughtered the Paschal lamb for both circumcised and uncircumcised people, it is valid. What is different about the halakha with regard to impurity, that there it is obvious to him that those who are ritually impure do not disqualify the members of their group who are pure? And what is different about the halakha with regard to lack of circumcision, that there he is in doubt about the halakha?


讗诇讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 讘砖专 讜诪讗讬 诇讗 注砖讛 讘讛 诪拽爪转 讟讜诪讗讛 讻讻诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讬诇讜 讗讬讟诪讬 讞讚 诪讗讘专讬诐 讛讗讬 讚讗讬讟诪讬 砖专驻讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讗讬讚讱 讗讻诇讬谞谉 诇讬讛


Rather, the baraita must certainly be explained as referring to the impurity of the meat of the offering. And what is the meaning of the ruling in the baraita that partial impurity was not made to be like full impurity? It means that if one of the limbs became impure, that which became impure we burn and the rest we eat.


讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 讘砖专 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 诪讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 讜讗诇 讬讜讻讬讞 讝诪谉 砖谞讜讛讙 讘讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 讜诪讗讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讘砖专 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐


This conclusion is challenged: How did you establish this baraita? It was established as referring to a case of impurity of the meat. If so, say the latter clause of the same baraita as follows: We derive a matter that does not apply to all offerings, the case of uncircumcised men, from a matter that does not apply to all offerings, namely ritual impurity, and the halakha with regard to intent to eat the offering outside the allotted time, which applies to all offerings, should not be used to prove anything about the case at hand. Now, what type of impurity is being discussed here? If we say that it is impurity of the meat, why do you say that it does not apply to all offerings? This halakha certainly applies to all offerings.


讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 讙讘专讬 讜诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 讚讗讬诇讜 讘讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 注专诇 讜讟诪讗 诪砖诇讞讬谉 拽专讘谞讜转讬讛谉 讜讗讬诇讜 讘驻住讞 注专诇 讜讟诪讗 讗讬谉 诪砖诇讞讬谉 驻住讞讬讛谉 专讬砖讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 讘砖专 讜住讬驻讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 讙讘专讬


Rather, it is obvious that the clause under discussion relates to impurity of the people who are to eat from the offering. And what is the meaning of the statement that it does not apply to all offerings? It means that with regard to all offerings, an uncircumcised person and one who is ritually impure cannot eat from the offering, but nonetheless they can send their offerings with others who can sacrifice them on their behalf; however, with regard to the Paschal lamb, an uncircumcised person and one who is impure cannot send their offerings. Consequently, the Gemara arrives at the surprising conclusion that the first clause of the baraita is referring to impurity of the meat, while the latter clause of the baraita relates to impurity of the people.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 砖诐 讟讜诪讗讛 拽讗 驻专讬讱


Ravina said to Mar Zutra: Yes, this explanation can be accepted. The baraita can be understood as arguing from the general category of impurity, which applies in one case and not in another, rather than from a specific type of impurity in both cases.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讘讟讜诪讗转 讘砖专 讜诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 讚讗讬诇讜 讘讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 讘讬谉 砖谞讟诪讗 讞诇讘 讜讘砖专 拽讬讬诐 讘讬谉 砖谞讟诪讗 讘砖专 讜讞诇讘 拽讬讬诐 讝讜专拽 讗转 讛讚诐


And if you wish, say a different answer: The latter clause is also referring to impurity of the meat. And what is the meaning of the statement that it does not apply to all offerings? It means that with regard to all offerings, whether the fats of the offering that are burned on the altar have become impure and the meat of the offering remains, or the meat has become impure and the fats remain, the priest may sprinkle the blood, and the offering is accepted through the burning of the sacrificial parts or through the priests鈥 consumption of the meat.


讜讗讬诇讜 讘驻住讞 谞讟诪讗 讞诇讘 讜讘砖专 拽讬讬诐 讝讜专拽 讗转 讛讚诐 谞讟诪讗 讘砖专 讜讞诇讘 拽讬讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讝讜专拽 讗转 讛讚诐


However, when it comes to the Paschal lamb, if the fats have become impure and the meat remains pure and fit to be eaten, the priest may sprinkle the blood; but if the meat has become impure and the fats remain pure and fit to be burned on the altar, he may not sprinkle the blood, because in the case of the Paschal lamb, the owner鈥檚 obligation to eat the meat is the essence of the offering.


讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 讘砖专 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 诪讚讘专 砖诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讜讗诇 转讜讻讬讞 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讛专讬 讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗


The Gemara asks: How did you establish this baraita? It was established as referring to a case of impurity of the meat. If so, say the next clause of this same baraita as follows: We derive a matter, i.e., the halakha with regard to uncircumcised people, for which no allowance is made from its rule, from a matter, i.e., improper intent with regard to the time, for which no allowance is made from its rule. And the halakha with regard to ritual impurity should not be used to prove anything, as there are circumstances in which an allowance is made from its rule, since it is permitted to offer the Paschal lamb while ritually impure. The Gemara clarifies: What type of impurity is being discussed here? If you say that it is


讘讟讜诪讗转 讘砖专 讛讬讻讗 讛讜转专讛 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 讙讘专讬 讜讛讬讻讗 讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 讘爪讬讘讜专


impurity of the meat, where is it permitted to eat impure sacrificial meat? Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is talking here about impurity of the people. And where is an allowance made from its rule? It is made in the community; when the majority of the community is ritually impure, it is permitted to offer the Paschal lamb and eat it while impure.


专讬砖讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 讘砖专 住讬驻讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 讙讘专讬 讗讬谉 砖诐 讟讜诪讗讛 拽驻专讬讱


The Gemara expresses surprise again: It turns out then that the first clause of the baraita is referring to impurity of the meat, while the latter clause relates to impurity of the people. The Gemara answers: Yes, and there is no difficulty, as the baraita argues from the general category of impurity without necessarily relating to the same type of impurity.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讜诇讛 讘讟讜诪讗转 讘砖专 讜讛讬讻讗 讛讜转专讛 讘讟讜诪讗转 驻住讞 讚转谞谉 驻住讞 讛讘讗 讘讟讜诪讗讛 谞讗讻诇 讘讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讗 讘讗 诪转讞讬诇转讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讻讬诇讛


And if you wish, say a different answer: The entire baraita is referring to impurity of the meat, and where is it permitted to eat impure sacrificial meat? It is permitted in a case of the impurity of the Paschal lamb, as we learned in a mishna: A Paschal lamb that comes in impurity, e.g., when the majority of the community is ritually impure and the offering may be brought in impurity, may also be eaten in impurity, as from the very outset it came only to be eaten. This is unlike the law with regard to other offerings that are brought in impurity; their blood is sprinkled on the altar, but their meat may not be eaten. Consequently, even the prohibition to consume impure sacrificial meat is permitted under certain circumstances.


诪转讬讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讛驻住讞 砖注讘专讛 砖谞转讜 讜砖讞讟讜 讘讝诪谞讜 诇砖诪讜 讜讻谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讗讞专讬诐 诇砖诐 驻住讞 讘讝诪谞讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪讻砖讬专


Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, raised an objection from a baraita that teaches: The Paschal sacrifice may be a young lamb or goat less than one year old. In the case of a Paschal lamb that has passed its first year, so that it has automatically become a peace-offering, if he slaughtered it at its appointed time on Passover eve for its own purpose as a Paschal lamb, and similarly, if he slaughtered another offering, e.g., a lamb that had been sanctified as a peace-offering, for the purpose of a Paschal lamb at its set time, the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to the status of the offering. Rabbi Eliezer disqualifies the offering; and Rabbi Yehoshua validates it, based on the principle that offerings brought for the purpose of other offerings are valid. The only exception is the Paschal lamb, which when brought for another purpose is invalid. According to Rabbi Yehoshua, in both of these cases the animal is not truly a Paschal lamb; rather, it is a peace-offering brought with the intent that it serve as a Paschal lamb.


讟注诪讗 讘讝诪谞讜 讛讗 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讜 讻砖专 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘讝诪谞讜 驻讜住诇 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讜 谞诪讬 驻讜住诇


The Gemara infers: The reason that the sacrifice is disqualified is that it was brought at its proper time; it is in this case that the tanna鈥檌m disagree. But if it was not brought at its proper time, it is valid according to everyone, as it is like any other peace-offering that was slaughtered for a different purpose. But why is this so? Let us say: Since slaughtering another sacrifice for the purpose of a Paschal lamb disqualifies it at its proper time, this should also disqualify it not at its proper time. Consequently, the ruling quoted above is difficult according to the opinion of Rav 岣sda, who accepts the principle of since for the sake of stringency.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诪专转诐 讝讘讞 驻住讞 讛讜讗 讛讜讗 讘讛讜讬讬转讜 诇讗 讛讜讗 诇砖讜诐 讗讞专讬诐 讜诇讗 讗讞专讬诐 诇砖诪讜


Rav Pappa said: It is different there in the case of another sacrifice slaughtered for the purpose of a Paschal lamb, as the verse said: 鈥淎nd you shall say: It is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord, Who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He smote Egypt, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and prostrated themselves鈥 (Exodus 12:27). The word 鈥渋t鈥 indicates that the Paschal lamb must be brought as it is, according to its details, without any change. It, the Paschal lamb, must not be offered for the purpose of other sacrifices; and other sacrifices must not be offered for its purpose, i.e., as a Paschal lamb. In both of these cases, the offering is disqualified.


讘讝诪谞讜 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇 诇砖讜诐 讗讞专讬诐 讗讞专讬诐 驻住讜诇讬谉 诇砖诪讜 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讜 砖讛讜讗 讻砖专 诇砖讜诐 讗讞专讬诐 讗讞专讬诐 讻砖专讬诐 诇砖诪讜


It may now be inferred: At its proper time, on Passover eve, when the Paschal lamb is disqualified if it is brought for the purpose of other sacrifices, other sacrifices are disqualified according to Rabbi Eliezer if they are brought for its purpose, i.e., as a Paschal lamb. But not at its proper time, when a Paschal lamb offered for the purpose of other sacrifices is valid, other sacrifices offered for its purpose as a Paschal lamb are also valid. Since the verse鈥檚 use of the word 鈥渋t鈥 links the disqualifications of a Paschal lamb offered as a different sacrifice and any other sacrifice offered for the purpose of a Paschal lamb, the principle of since does not apply.


专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讬转谞讬 诇讬 诪专 住驻专 讬讜讞住讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛讬讻谉 讗转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪诇讜讚 讜讛讬讻谉 诪讜转讘讱 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 谞讬讚讜谞讬谉 诇讗 诇诇讜讚讬诐 讜诇讗 诇谞讛专讚注讬诐 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讚讗转 诪诇讜讚 讜诪讜转讘讱 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讻驻讬讬讛 讜讗专爪讬


There is a fundamental problem in the mishna that was clarified during the course of a particular incident: Rabbi Simlai came before Rabbi Yo岣nan. He said to him: Would the Master teach me the Book of Genealogies? The Book of Genealogies was a collection of tannaitic teachings that formed a midrash on the book of Chronicles. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Where are you from? He said to him: From Lod. Rabbi Yo岣nan further asked: And where is your present place of residence? He said to him: In Neharde鈥檃. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: I have a tradition that we teach these subjects neither to Lodites nor to Neharde鈥檃ns, and certainly not to you who comes from Lod and your residence is in Neharde鈥檃, such that you have both shortcomings. Rabbi Simlai pressured Rabbi Yo岣nan until he agreed to teach him.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讬转谞讬讬讛 讘转诇转讗 讬专讞讬 砖拽诇 拽诇讗 驻转拽 讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪讛 讘专讜专讬讛 讚讘讬转讛讜 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘专转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讛 讘谉 转专讚讬讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 转诇转 诪讗讛 砖诪注转转讗 讘讬讜诪讗 诪转诇转 诪讗讛 专讘讜讜转讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诇讗 讬爪转讛 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讛 讘转诇转 砖谞讬谉 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讘转诇转讗 讬专讞讬


Rabbi Simlai said to him: Teach me the Book of Genealogies in three months. Rabbi Yo岣nan took a clod of dirt, threw it at him, and said to him: Berurya, wife of Rabbi Meir and daughter of Rabbi 岣nanya ben Teradyon, was so sharp and had such a good memory that she learned three hundred halakhot in one day from three hundred Sages, and nonetheless she did not fulfill her responsibility to properly learn the Book of Genealogies in three years because it is especially long and difficult. And you say that I should teach it to you in three months? After your inappropriate request, I am not inclined to teach you at all.


讻讬 砖拽讬诇 讜讗讝讬诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诪讛 讘讬谉 诇砖诪讜 讜砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜 讜砖诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜


When Rabbi Simlai was taking leave to go, he said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: Even so, my teacher, as I have already come, let me ask you a question: What is the difference between one who offers a Paschal lamb both for its own purpose and for a different purpose, in which case the offering is disqualified, and one who offers the sacrifice with the intent that it be both for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, in which case the offering is not disqualified?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讗转 转讗 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诇砖诪讜 讜砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 驻住讜诇讜 讘讙讜驻讜 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜 讜砖诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜 讗讬谉 驻住讜诇讜 讘讙讜驻讜


He said to him: Since I understand from your question that you are a Torah scholar, come and I will tell you the answer: When one sacrifices an offering for its own purpose and for a different purpose, the disqualification is in the offering itself; that is, the disqualifying intention relates to the sacrifice itself. In contrast, when one sacrifices an offering for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, the disqualification is not in the offering itself, as the disqualifying intent relates to the people who are to eat from it.


诇砖诪讜 讜砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讘专专 讗讬住讜专讜 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜 讜砖诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜 讗驻砖专 诇讘专专 讗讬住讜专讜


Furthermore, when one sacrifices an offering for its own purpose and for a different purpose, it is impossible to identify its prohibition; that is, there is no way to differentiate between valid and invalid parts of the offering. In contrast, when one sacrifices an offering for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, it is possible to identify its prohibition. If some of the people may eat it and some may not, it is possible to distribute the offering to each group and thereby determine which part of the offering is invalid.


诇砖诪讜 讜砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 讬砖谞讜 讘讗专讘注 注讘讜讚讜转 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜 讜砖诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜 讗讬谞讜 讘讗专讘注 注讘讜讚讜转 诇砖诪讜 讜砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 讬砖谞讜 讘爪讬讘讜专 讻讘讬讞讬讚 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜 讜砖诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜 讗讬谞讜 讘爪讬讘讜专 讻讘讬讞讬讚


Furthermore, the intent that the offering be for its own purpose and for a different purpose applies and can disqualify the offering in all four rites, namely: Slaughtering, receiving the blood, carrying the blood to the altar, and sprinkling it on the altar; however, the intent that it be for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it does not apply during all four rites, as it has no effect during the time of the sprinkling. Moreover, the intent that the offering be for its own purpose and for a different purpose is a disqualification that applies to communal sacrifices as it does to individual sacrifices; in contrast, the intent that it be for those who can eat it and those who cannot eat it does not apply to the community as it does to an individual.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 驻住讜诇讜 讘讙讜驻讜 讜讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讘专专 讗讬住讜专讜 讞讚讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讚诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专 驻住讜诇讜 讘讙讜驻讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讘专专 讗讬住讜专讜


Rav Ashi said that careful analysis of these answers demonstrates the following: The argument that its disqualification is in the offering itself and the argument that it is impossible to identify its prohibition are one and the same thing; they are not two separate reasons. As, what is the reason that Rabbi Yo岣nan says that when one brings an offering for a different purpose, its disqualification is in the offering itself? It is because it is impossible to identify its prohibition, and therefore the prohibition applies to the offering itself.


讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 专讘 讬讜讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讬讜诐 砖谞讙谞讝 住驻专 讬讜讞住讬谉 转砖砖 讻讞谉 砖诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讻讛讛 诪讗讜专 注讬谞讬讛诐


Having mentioned the Book of Genealogies, the Gemara notes that Rami bar Rav Yuda said that Rav said the following about it: From the day the Book of Genealogies was hidden and no longer available to the Sages, the strength of the Sages has been weakened, and the light of their eyes has been dimmed, as the book contained the reasons for many Torah laws and lists of genealogies that are now lost.


讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘讬谉 讗爪诇 诇讗爪诇 讟注讬谞讜 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讙诪诇讬 讚讚专砖讗


Mar Zutra said: The Book of Genealogies鈥 exposition of Chronicles was so extensive that it was said, in exaggeration, that the verses from the word Azel mentioned in the verse: 鈥淎nd Azel had six sons and these are their names: Azrikam, Bocru, and Ishmael and Sheariah and Obadia and Hanan; all these were the sons of Azel鈥 (I Chronicles 8:38), to the word Azel mentioned in a different verse with the identical wording: 鈥淎nd Azel had six sons and these are their names: Azrikam, Bocru, and Ishmael and Sheariah and Obadia and Hanan; these were the sons of Azel鈥 (I Chronicles 9:44), bore four hundred camels of expositions written about these verses.


转谞讬讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛拽讚讬诐 诪讜诇讬诐 诇注专诇讬诐 讻砖专 注专诇讬诐 诇诪讜诇讬诐 驻住讜诇 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讜诇讬谉 诇注专诇讬诐 讚讻砖专 讚讻讜诇讛 注专诇讛 讘注讬谞谉 讜诇讬讻讗 注专诇讬诐 诇诪讜诇讬谉 谞诪讬 讻讜诇讛 注专诇讛 讘注讬谞谉 讜诇讬讻讗


It was taught in a baraita that A岣rim say: If one sacrifices a Paschal lamb for both circumcised and uncircumcised people and had in mind first the circumcised people and then the uncircumcised people, the offering is valid. But if he had in mind first the uncircumcised people and then the circumcised people, it is disqualified. The Gemara asks: What is different about having in mind first the circumcised people and then the uncircumcised people, such that the offering is valid? One might say that in order to disqualify the sacrifice, we require that all the people he has in mind be uncircumcised, and this is not the case here, as some of them are circumcised. But if this is so, when he has in mind first the uncircumcised people and then the circumcised people, we should also say that in order to disqualify the sacrifice we require that all the people he has in mind be uncircumcised, and this is not the case here. What, then, is the difference between the two cases?


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.

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 60-66 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

We will learn about the 4 main procedures needed for a sacrifice and what intentions the priest needs to have...
talking talmud_square

Pesachim 62: Even Beruriah Couldn’t Have Learned 300 Halakhot in 3 Months

What can impurity teach about the uncircumcised, who cannot eat from the Korban Pesach? Also, the Book of Yuchasin, lineage,...
intro to korbanot sacrifices

Introduction to Korbanot (Sacrifices)

For printable PDF version The different types: Name Type Who eats the meat? Olah 注讜诇讛 (Burnt offering) Kodshei Kodshim Totally...

Pesachim 62

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 62

讘讛讗讬 拽专讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讜谞专爪讛 诇讜 诇讻驻专 注诇讬讜 注诇讬讜 讜诇讗 注诇 讞讘讬专讜 专讘讛 住讘专 讞讘讬专讜 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讬讚讬讛 诪讛 讛讜讗 讚讘专 讻驻专讛 讗祝 讞讘讬专讜 讚讘专 讻驻专讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讛讗讬 注专诇 讚诇讗讜 讘专 讻驻专讛 讛讜讗


disagree with regard to this verse, which is stated with regard to a different offering: 鈥淎nd it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him鈥 (Leviticus 1:4). It is inferred: For him and not for his fellow. One cannot achieve atonement through an offering that has been designated for someone else. Rabba and Rav 岣sda disagree with regard to the halakhic conclusions that should be drawn from this law. Rabba holds that the law applies to another who is similar to him: Just as he is eligible for atonement through the sprinkling of the blood of this offering, so the law applies to another who is eligible for atonement. This comes to exclude this uncircumcised person, who is not eligible for atonement. Since an uncircumcised person is not fit for the Paschal lamb, slaughtering it for him does not disqualify the offering.


讜专讘 讞住讚讗 住讘专 讛讗讬 注专诇 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讘专 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗 讘专 讻驻专讛 讛讜讗 [讛讜讗讬诇] 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诪转拽谉 谞驻砖讬讛


And Rav 岣sda holds that with regard to this uncircumcised person as well, since he is obligated to bring the Paschal lamb, he is considered eligible for atonement through the Paschal lamb. Why is an uncircumcised person seen as obligated to bring the Paschal lamb? Since if he wants, he can make himself fit through circumcision, and the obligation will automatically apply to him. There is a way for him to include himself among those who eat the offering; therefore, he cannot categorically be considered someone who is not eligible for atonement. Consequently, slaughtering the Paschal lamb for him disqualifies the offering.


讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讗 讗讬转诪专 讛讗讜驻讛 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讞讜诇 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛


The Gemara challenges this explanation: But does Rav 岣sda accept this argument of since? Does he maintain that one can discuss a situation that does not exist due to the possibility that the present circumstances might change? But it was said that Rabba and Rav 岣sda disagree about this as it pertains to the case of one who bakes on a Festival for use during the week: Rav 岣sda said he is flogged for having violated the Festival by baking in order to eat the food on a weekday; Rabba said he is not flogged.


专讘讛 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬 诪拽诇注讬 诇讬讛 讗讜专讞讬诐 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诇拽讬 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇


The Gemara explains: Rabba said he is not flogged for the following reason: Since if guests arrive, whatever he bakes will be fit for him to use on the Festival itself, and he will not be guilty of any transgression, now too, although guests have not yet arrived, the food is considered fit for him, and he is not flogged. At the time of the baking, the act was not unequivocally prohibited. Rav 岣sda said he is flogged; we do not state the principle of since. At first glance, there is an internal contradiction with regard to the opinions of both Rabba and Rav 岣sda.


讘砖诇诪讗 讚专讘讛 讗讚专讘讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讻讗 诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛 讛转诐 讚诇讗 诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛 讗诇讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讚专讘 讞住讚讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专讬 讻讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讜讗讬诇 诇拽讜诇讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛


The Gemara notes: Granted, the apparent contradiction between the first statement of Rabba and the second statement of Rabba is not difficult. Here, in the case of the Paschal lamb whose blood is sprinkled for an uncircumcised person, an action is lacking, as the person must undergo circumcision in order to become eligible to eat from the Paschal lamb. However, there, in the case of one who bakes on a Festival, no action is lacking on the part of the baker. But the first statement of Rav 岣sda and the second statement of Rav 岣sda are difficult to reconcile. They say, in answer to this contradiction: When Rav 岣sda does not accept the principle of since, it is only to be lenient and exempt a person from lashes; however, to be stringent and disqualify the Paschal lamb, he does accept this line of reasoning.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 拽转谞讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注专诇讛 驻讜住诇转 讜讟讜诪讗讛 驻讜住诇转 诪讛 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 注砖讛 讘讛 诪拽爪转 讟讜诪讗讛 讻讻诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讗祝 注专诇讛 诇讗 注砖讛 诪拽爪转 注专诇讛 讻讻诇 注专诇讛 讛讗讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 讙讘专讬 讜诪讗讬 诇讗 注砖讛 讘讛 诪拽爪转 讟讜诪讗讛 讻讻诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讙讘专讬 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讙讘专讬 讟讛讜专讬谉 诇讗 驻住诇讬 诇讛讜 讟诪讗讬谉 诇讟讛讜专讬谉


Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: The baraita quoted above teaches: Since lack of circumcision disqualifies a Paschal lamb and ritual impurity also disqualifies it, the following comparison applies: Just as in the case of ritual impurity, partial impurity was not made to be like full impurity, so too, in the case of lack of circumcision, partial lack of circumcision was not made to be like full lack of circumcision. The Gemara clarifies: With regard to this ritual impurity, what are the circumstances? If you say that the baraita is referring to the ritual impurity of the people who registered for the offering, then there is a difficulty. For what then is the meaning of the ruling in the baraita that partial impurity was not made to be like full impurity? It means that if there are four or five people who are impure and four or five people who are pure, those who are impure do not disqualify those who are pure.


讙讘讬 注专诇讛 谞诪讬 讛讗 诇讗 驻住诇讬 讚转谞谉 诇诪讜诇讬谉 讜诇注专诇讬诐 讻砖专 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讚驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 注专诇讛 讚诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛


This, however, is difficult, as with regard to lack of circumcision as well, those who are uncircumcised do not disqualify the offering, as we learned in a mishna: If one slaughtered the Paschal lamb for both circumcised and uncircumcised people, it is valid. What is different about the halakha with regard to impurity, that there it is obvious to him that those who are ritually impure do not disqualify the members of their group who are pure? And what is different about the halakha with regard to lack of circumcision, that there he is in doubt about the halakha?


讗诇讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 讘砖专 讜诪讗讬 诇讗 注砖讛 讘讛 诪拽爪转 讟讜诪讗讛 讻讻诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讬诇讜 讗讬讟诪讬 讞讚 诪讗讘专讬诐 讛讗讬 讚讗讬讟诪讬 砖专驻讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讗讬讚讱 讗讻诇讬谞谉 诇讬讛


Rather, the baraita must certainly be explained as referring to the impurity of the meat of the offering. And what is the meaning of the ruling in the baraita that partial impurity was not made to be like full impurity? It means that if one of the limbs became impure, that which became impure we burn and the rest we eat.


讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 讘砖专 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 诪讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 讜讗诇 讬讜讻讬讞 讝诪谉 砖谞讜讛讙 讘讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 讜诪讗讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讘砖专 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐


This conclusion is challenged: How did you establish this baraita? It was established as referring to a case of impurity of the meat. If so, say the latter clause of the same baraita as follows: We derive a matter that does not apply to all offerings, the case of uncircumcised men, from a matter that does not apply to all offerings, namely ritual impurity, and the halakha with regard to intent to eat the offering outside the allotted time, which applies to all offerings, should not be used to prove anything about the case at hand. Now, what type of impurity is being discussed here? If we say that it is impurity of the meat, why do you say that it does not apply to all offerings? This halakha certainly applies to all offerings.


讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 讙讘专讬 讜诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 讚讗讬诇讜 讘讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 注专诇 讜讟诪讗 诪砖诇讞讬谉 拽专讘谞讜转讬讛谉 讜讗讬诇讜 讘驻住讞 注专诇 讜讟诪讗 讗讬谉 诪砖诇讞讬谉 驻住讞讬讛谉 专讬砖讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 讘砖专 讜住讬驻讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 讙讘专讬


Rather, it is obvious that the clause under discussion relates to impurity of the people who are to eat from the offering. And what is the meaning of the statement that it does not apply to all offerings? It means that with regard to all offerings, an uncircumcised person and one who is ritually impure cannot eat from the offering, but nonetheless they can send their offerings with others who can sacrifice them on their behalf; however, with regard to the Paschal lamb, an uncircumcised person and one who is impure cannot send their offerings. Consequently, the Gemara arrives at the surprising conclusion that the first clause of the baraita is referring to impurity of the meat, while the latter clause of the baraita relates to impurity of the people.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 砖诐 讟讜诪讗讛 拽讗 驻专讬讱


Ravina said to Mar Zutra: Yes, this explanation can be accepted. The baraita can be understood as arguing from the general category of impurity, which applies in one case and not in another, rather than from a specific type of impurity in both cases.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讘讟讜诪讗转 讘砖专 讜诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 讚讗讬诇讜 讘讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 讘讬谉 砖谞讟诪讗 讞诇讘 讜讘砖专 拽讬讬诐 讘讬谉 砖谞讟诪讗 讘砖专 讜讞诇讘 拽讬讬诐 讝讜专拽 讗转 讛讚诐


And if you wish, say a different answer: The latter clause is also referring to impurity of the meat. And what is the meaning of the statement that it does not apply to all offerings? It means that with regard to all offerings, whether the fats of the offering that are burned on the altar have become impure and the meat of the offering remains, or the meat has become impure and the fats remain, the priest may sprinkle the blood, and the offering is accepted through the burning of the sacrificial parts or through the priests鈥 consumption of the meat.


讜讗讬诇讜 讘驻住讞 谞讟诪讗 讞诇讘 讜讘砖专 拽讬讬诐 讝讜专拽 讗转 讛讚诐 谞讟诪讗 讘砖专 讜讞诇讘 拽讬讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讝讜专拽 讗转 讛讚诐


However, when it comes to the Paschal lamb, if the fats have become impure and the meat remains pure and fit to be eaten, the priest may sprinkle the blood; but if the meat has become impure and the fats remain pure and fit to be burned on the altar, he may not sprinkle the blood, because in the case of the Paschal lamb, the owner鈥檚 obligation to eat the meat is the essence of the offering.


讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 讘砖专 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 诪讚讘专 砖诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讜讗诇 转讜讻讬讞 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讛专讬 讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗


The Gemara asks: How did you establish this baraita? It was established as referring to a case of impurity of the meat. If so, say the next clause of this same baraita as follows: We derive a matter, i.e., the halakha with regard to uncircumcised people, for which no allowance is made from its rule, from a matter, i.e., improper intent with regard to the time, for which no allowance is made from its rule. And the halakha with regard to ritual impurity should not be used to prove anything, as there are circumstances in which an allowance is made from its rule, since it is permitted to offer the Paschal lamb while ritually impure. The Gemara clarifies: What type of impurity is being discussed here? If you say that it is


讘讟讜诪讗转 讘砖专 讛讬讻讗 讛讜转专讛 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 讙讘专讬 讜讛讬讻讗 讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 讘爪讬讘讜专


impurity of the meat, where is it permitted to eat impure sacrificial meat? Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is talking here about impurity of the people. And where is an allowance made from its rule? It is made in the community; when the majority of the community is ritually impure, it is permitted to offer the Paschal lamb and eat it while impure.


专讬砖讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 讘砖专 住讬驻讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 讙讘专讬 讗讬谉 砖诐 讟讜诪讗讛 拽驻专讬讱


The Gemara expresses surprise again: It turns out then that the first clause of the baraita is referring to impurity of the meat, while the latter clause relates to impurity of the people. The Gemara answers: Yes, and there is no difficulty, as the baraita argues from the general category of impurity without necessarily relating to the same type of impurity.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讜诇讛 讘讟讜诪讗转 讘砖专 讜讛讬讻讗 讛讜转专讛 讘讟讜诪讗转 驻住讞 讚转谞谉 驻住讞 讛讘讗 讘讟讜诪讗讛 谞讗讻诇 讘讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讗 讘讗 诪转讞讬诇转讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讻讬诇讛


And if you wish, say a different answer: The entire baraita is referring to impurity of the meat, and where is it permitted to eat impure sacrificial meat? It is permitted in a case of the impurity of the Paschal lamb, as we learned in a mishna: A Paschal lamb that comes in impurity, e.g., when the majority of the community is ritually impure and the offering may be brought in impurity, may also be eaten in impurity, as from the very outset it came only to be eaten. This is unlike the law with regard to other offerings that are brought in impurity; their blood is sprinkled on the altar, but their meat may not be eaten. Consequently, even the prohibition to consume impure sacrificial meat is permitted under certain circumstances.


诪转讬讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讛驻住讞 砖注讘专讛 砖谞转讜 讜砖讞讟讜 讘讝诪谞讜 诇砖诪讜 讜讻谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讗讞专讬诐 诇砖诐 驻住讞 讘讝诪谞讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪讻砖讬专


Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, raised an objection from a baraita that teaches: The Paschal sacrifice may be a young lamb or goat less than one year old. In the case of a Paschal lamb that has passed its first year, so that it has automatically become a peace-offering, if he slaughtered it at its appointed time on Passover eve for its own purpose as a Paschal lamb, and similarly, if he slaughtered another offering, e.g., a lamb that had been sanctified as a peace-offering, for the purpose of a Paschal lamb at its set time, the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to the status of the offering. Rabbi Eliezer disqualifies the offering; and Rabbi Yehoshua validates it, based on the principle that offerings brought for the purpose of other offerings are valid. The only exception is the Paschal lamb, which when brought for another purpose is invalid. According to Rabbi Yehoshua, in both of these cases the animal is not truly a Paschal lamb; rather, it is a peace-offering brought with the intent that it serve as a Paschal lamb.


讟注诪讗 讘讝诪谞讜 讛讗 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讜 讻砖专 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘讝诪谞讜 驻讜住诇 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讜 谞诪讬 驻讜住诇


The Gemara infers: The reason that the sacrifice is disqualified is that it was brought at its proper time; it is in this case that the tanna鈥檌m disagree. But if it was not brought at its proper time, it is valid according to everyone, as it is like any other peace-offering that was slaughtered for a different purpose. But why is this so? Let us say: Since slaughtering another sacrifice for the purpose of a Paschal lamb disqualifies it at its proper time, this should also disqualify it not at its proper time. Consequently, the ruling quoted above is difficult according to the opinion of Rav 岣sda, who accepts the principle of since for the sake of stringency.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诪专转诐 讝讘讞 驻住讞 讛讜讗 讛讜讗 讘讛讜讬讬转讜 诇讗 讛讜讗 诇砖讜诐 讗讞专讬诐 讜诇讗 讗讞专讬诐 诇砖诪讜


Rav Pappa said: It is different there in the case of another sacrifice slaughtered for the purpose of a Paschal lamb, as the verse said: 鈥淎nd you shall say: It is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord, Who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He smote Egypt, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and prostrated themselves鈥 (Exodus 12:27). The word 鈥渋t鈥 indicates that the Paschal lamb must be brought as it is, according to its details, without any change. It, the Paschal lamb, must not be offered for the purpose of other sacrifices; and other sacrifices must not be offered for its purpose, i.e., as a Paschal lamb. In both of these cases, the offering is disqualified.


讘讝诪谞讜 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇 诇砖讜诐 讗讞专讬诐 讗讞专讬诐 驻住讜诇讬谉 诇砖诪讜 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讜 砖讛讜讗 讻砖专 诇砖讜诐 讗讞专讬诐 讗讞专讬诐 讻砖专讬诐 诇砖诪讜


It may now be inferred: At its proper time, on Passover eve, when the Paschal lamb is disqualified if it is brought for the purpose of other sacrifices, other sacrifices are disqualified according to Rabbi Eliezer if they are brought for its purpose, i.e., as a Paschal lamb. But not at its proper time, when a Paschal lamb offered for the purpose of other sacrifices is valid, other sacrifices offered for its purpose as a Paschal lamb are also valid. Since the verse鈥檚 use of the word 鈥渋t鈥 links the disqualifications of a Paschal lamb offered as a different sacrifice and any other sacrifice offered for the purpose of a Paschal lamb, the principle of since does not apply.


专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讬转谞讬 诇讬 诪专 住驻专 讬讜讞住讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛讬讻谉 讗转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪诇讜讚 讜讛讬讻谉 诪讜转讘讱 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 谞讬讚讜谞讬谉 诇讗 诇诇讜讚讬诐 讜诇讗 诇谞讛专讚注讬诐 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讚讗转 诪诇讜讚 讜诪讜转讘讱 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讻驻讬讬讛 讜讗专爪讬


There is a fundamental problem in the mishna that was clarified during the course of a particular incident: Rabbi Simlai came before Rabbi Yo岣nan. He said to him: Would the Master teach me the Book of Genealogies? The Book of Genealogies was a collection of tannaitic teachings that formed a midrash on the book of Chronicles. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Where are you from? He said to him: From Lod. Rabbi Yo岣nan further asked: And where is your present place of residence? He said to him: In Neharde鈥檃. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: I have a tradition that we teach these subjects neither to Lodites nor to Neharde鈥檃ns, and certainly not to you who comes from Lod and your residence is in Neharde鈥檃, such that you have both shortcomings. Rabbi Simlai pressured Rabbi Yo岣nan until he agreed to teach him.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讬转谞讬讬讛 讘转诇转讗 讬专讞讬 砖拽诇 拽诇讗 驻转拽 讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪讛 讘专讜专讬讛 讚讘讬转讛讜 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘专转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讛 讘谉 转专讚讬讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 转诇转 诪讗讛 砖诪注转转讗 讘讬讜诪讗 诪转诇转 诪讗讛 专讘讜讜转讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诇讗 讬爪转讛 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讛 讘转诇转 砖谞讬谉 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讘转诇转讗 讬专讞讬


Rabbi Simlai said to him: Teach me the Book of Genealogies in three months. Rabbi Yo岣nan took a clod of dirt, threw it at him, and said to him: Berurya, wife of Rabbi Meir and daughter of Rabbi 岣nanya ben Teradyon, was so sharp and had such a good memory that she learned three hundred halakhot in one day from three hundred Sages, and nonetheless she did not fulfill her responsibility to properly learn the Book of Genealogies in three years because it is especially long and difficult. And you say that I should teach it to you in three months? After your inappropriate request, I am not inclined to teach you at all.


讻讬 砖拽讬诇 讜讗讝讬诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诪讛 讘讬谉 诇砖诪讜 讜砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜 讜砖诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜


When Rabbi Simlai was taking leave to go, he said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: Even so, my teacher, as I have already come, let me ask you a question: What is the difference between one who offers a Paschal lamb both for its own purpose and for a different purpose, in which case the offering is disqualified, and one who offers the sacrifice with the intent that it be both for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, in which case the offering is not disqualified?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讗转 转讗 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诇砖诪讜 讜砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 驻住讜诇讜 讘讙讜驻讜 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜 讜砖诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜 讗讬谉 驻住讜诇讜 讘讙讜驻讜


He said to him: Since I understand from your question that you are a Torah scholar, come and I will tell you the answer: When one sacrifices an offering for its own purpose and for a different purpose, the disqualification is in the offering itself; that is, the disqualifying intention relates to the sacrifice itself. In contrast, when one sacrifices an offering for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, the disqualification is not in the offering itself, as the disqualifying intent relates to the people who are to eat from it.


诇砖诪讜 讜砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讘专专 讗讬住讜专讜 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜 讜砖诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜 讗驻砖专 诇讘专专 讗讬住讜专讜


Furthermore, when one sacrifices an offering for its own purpose and for a different purpose, it is impossible to identify its prohibition; that is, there is no way to differentiate between valid and invalid parts of the offering. In contrast, when one sacrifices an offering for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, it is possible to identify its prohibition. If some of the people may eat it and some may not, it is possible to distribute the offering to each group and thereby determine which part of the offering is invalid.


诇砖诪讜 讜砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 讬砖谞讜 讘讗专讘注 注讘讜讚讜转 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜 讜砖诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜 讗讬谞讜 讘讗专讘注 注讘讜讚讜转 诇砖诪讜 讜砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 讬砖谞讜 讘爪讬讘讜专 讻讘讬讞讬讚 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜 讜砖诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜 讗讬谞讜 讘爪讬讘讜专 讻讘讬讞讬讚


Furthermore, the intent that the offering be for its own purpose and for a different purpose applies and can disqualify the offering in all four rites, namely: Slaughtering, receiving the blood, carrying the blood to the altar, and sprinkling it on the altar; however, the intent that it be for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it does not apply during all four rites, as it has no effect during the time of the sprinkling. Moreover, the intent that the offering be for its own purpose and for a different purpose is a disqualification that applies to communal sacrifices as it does to individual sacrifices; in contrast, the intent that it be for those who can eat it and those who cannot eat it does not apply to the community as it does to an individual.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 驻住讜诇讜 讘讙讜驻讜 讜讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讘专专 讗讬住讜专讜 讞讚讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讚诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专 驻住讜诇讜 讘讙讜驻讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讘专专 讗讬住讜专讜


Rav Ashi said that careful analysis of these answers demonstrates the following: The argument that its disqualification is in the offering itself and the argument that it is impossible to identify its prohibition are one and the same thing; they are not two separate reasons. As, what is the reason that Rabbi Yo岣nan says that when one brings an offering for a different purpose, its disqualification is in the offering itself? It is because it is impossible to identify its prohibition, and therefore the prohibition applies to the offering itself.


讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 专讘 讬讜讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讬讜诐 砖谞讙谞讝 住驻专 讬讜讞住讬谉 转砖砖 讻讞谉 砖诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讻讛讛 诪讗讜专 注讬谞讬讛诐


Having mentioned the Book of Genealogies, the Gemara notes that Rami bar Rav Yuda said that Rav said the following about it: From the day the Book of Genealogies was hidden and no longer available to the Sages, the strength of the Sages has been weakened, and the light of their eyes has been dimmed, as the book contained the reasons for many Torah laws and lists of genealogies that are now lost.


讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘讬谉 讗爪诇 诇讗爪诇 讟注讬谞讜 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讙诪诇讬 讚讚专砖讗


Mar Zutra said: The Book of Genealogies鈥 exposition of Chronicles was so extensive that it was said, in exaggeration, that the verses from the word Azel mentioned in the verse: 鈥淎nd Azel had six sons and these are their names: Azrikam, Bocru, and Ishmael and Sheariah and Obadia and Hanan; all these were the sons of Azel鈥 (I Chronicles 8:38), to the word Azel mentioned in a different verse with the identical wording: 鈥淎nd Azel had six sons and these are their names: Azrikam, Bocru, and Ishmael and Sheariah and Obadia and Hanan; these were the sons of Azel鈥 (I Chronicles 9:44), bore four hundred camels of expositions written about these verses.


转谞讬讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛拽讚讬诐 诪讜诇讬诐 诇注专诇讬诐 讻砖专 注专诇讬诐 诇诪讜诇讬诐 驻住讜诇 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讜诇讬谉 诇注专诇讬诐 讚讻砖专 讚讻讜诇讛 注专诇讛 讘注讬谞谉 讜诇讬讻讗 注专诇讬诐 诇诪讜诇讬谉 谞诪讬 讻讜诇讛 注专诇讛 讘注讬谞谉 讜诇讬讻讗


It was taught in a baraita that A岣rim say: If one sacrifices a Paschal lamb for both circumcised and uncircumcised people and had in mind first the circumcised people and then the uncircumcised people, the offering is valid. But if he had in mind first the uncircumcised people and then the circumcised people, it is disqualified. The Gemara asks: What is different about having in mind first the circumcised people and then the uncircumcised people, such that the offering is valid? One might say that in order to disqualify the sacrifice, we require that all the people he has in mind be uncircumcised, and this is not the case here, as some of them are circumcised. But if this is so, when he has in mind first the uncircumcised people and then the circumcised people, we should also say that in order to disqualify the sacrifice we require that all the people he has in mind be uncircumcised, and this is not the case here. What, then, is the difference between the two cases?


Scroll To Top