Pesachim 68
בּוֹעֵל נִדָּה כִּטְמֵא מֵת. לְמַאי? אִילֵימָא לְטוּמְאָתָם, הַאי טוּמְאַת שִׁבְעָה כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ, וְהַאי טוּמְאַת שִׁבְעָה כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ.
We learned in the continuation of the previously cited mishna that the law governing one who had relations with a menstruating woman is like the law governing one who is ritually impure due to a corpse. With regard to what did they formulate this comparison? If we say they made the comparison with regard to their impurity, that they are both impure for seven days, impurity for seven days is explicitly written about this one, someone who had relations with a menstruating woman, and impurity for seven days is explicitly written about that one, someone who is impure due to a corpse, and so there would be no need for the mishna to inform us of these laws.
אֶלָּא לָאו, לְמַחֲנוֹתָם. וּמִדְּסֵיפָא לְמַחֲנוֹתָם הָוֵי — רֵישָׁא נָמֵי לְמַחֲנוֹתָם! מִידֵּי אִירְיָא?! הָא כִּדְאִיתָא וְהָא כִּדְאִיתָא.
Rather, is it not that they are compared with regard to their camps, to teach that one who had relations with a menstruating woman is sent out from the same camp as someone ritually impure due to a corpse? And from the fact that the comparison in the latter clause of the mishna relates to their camps, it stands to reason that the comparison in the earlier clause of that same mishna between one who experienced a seminal emission and one who became ritually impure through contact with a creeping animal also relates to their camps, and not as we explained it earlier. The Gemara rejects this argument: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is; each part of the mishna formulates its own comparison.
מֵיתִיבִי: מְצוֹרָע חָמוּר מִזָּב, וְזָב חָמוּר מִטְּמֵא מֵת, יָצָא בַּעַל קֶרִי שֶׁטְּמֵא מֵת חָמוּר מִמֶּנּוּ.
The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught: The legal status of a leper is more severe than a zav and the legal status of a zav is more severe than one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, with regard to which camps they are prohibited to enter; to the exclusion of a person who experienced a seminal emission, for the legal status of one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse is more severe than his status.
מַאי יָצָא? לָאו: יָצָא מִכְּלַל זָב וּבָא לִכְלַל טְמֵא מֵת, דְּהָא טְמֵא מֵת חָמוּר מִמֶּנּוּ — וּמוּתָּר בְּמַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה!
The Gemara wishes to clarify this enigmatic statement: What is the meaning of the words, to the exclusion of a person who experienced a seminal emission? Is the intent not that he is excluded from the category of a zav and enters the category of one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, for the legal status of one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse is more severe than his status, as his impurity lasts for seven days, and nonetheless he is permitted in the Levite camp. We should therefore learn from here that someone who experienced a seminal emission is also permitted in the Levite camp.
לֹא, יָצָא מִמַּחֲנֵה טְמֵא מֵת וְנִכְנַס לְמַחֲנֵה זָב, וְאַף עַל גַּב דִּטְמֵא מֵת חָמוּר מִמֶּנּוּ (דְּמוּתָּר) בְּמַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה — לְמַאי דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ מְדַמֵּינַן לֵיהּ.
The Gemara rejects this proof: No, the intent is that one who experienced a seminal emission is excluded from the camp of one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, and he enters the camp of a zav, meaning that he is excluded from the Levite camp, just like a zav. And although the legal status of one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse is more severe than his status and he is permitted in the Levite camp, and so it would seem that one who experienced a seminal emission should similarly be permitted, nonetheless, we compare him to that to which he is similar. The ritual impurity of one who experienced a seminal emission is fundamentally similar to that of a zav, and different from that of one who is ritually impure due to a corpse.
תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי: ״וְיָצָא אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה״ — זוֹ מַחֲנֵה שְׁכִינָה. ״לֹא יָבֹא אֶל תּוֹךְ הַמַּחֲנֶה״ — זוֹ מַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה. מִכָּאן לְבַעַל קֶרִי שֶׁיֵּצֵא חוּץ לִשְׁתֵּי מַחֲנוֹת.
A tanna taught a baraita before Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi: “If there be among you a man that is impure by reason of a nocturnal occurrence, he shall go outside the camp, he shall not come within the camp” (Deuteronomy 23:11). This verse may be expounded as follows: “He shall go outside the camp,” this is the camp of the Divine Presence. “He shall not come within the camp,” this is the Levite camp. From here we derive that a person who experienced a seminal emission must go out from two camps.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַכַּתִּי לָא עַיֵּילְתֵּיהּ, אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ. לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: אַכַּתִּי לָא אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ, עַיֵּילְתֵּיהּ. אֶלָּא אֵימָא: ״מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה״ — זוֹ מַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה. ״לָא יָבֹא אֶל תּוֹךְ הַמַּחֲנֶה״ — זוֹ מַחֲנֵה שְׁכִינָה.
Rav Yitzḥak said to the tanna: Something is amiss in the wording of this baraita: You have not yet brought him in and you already send him out? In other words, in order to say that the words “he shall not come within the camp” teach that a person who experienced a seminal emission must leave the Levite camp, you must first prove that he was there to begin with. Another version, which differs from the previous one only in formulation but not in substance: You have not yet sent him out and you already bring him in? In other words, how can you say that the words “he shall not come within the camp” refer to the Levite camp if we have not yet learned that he must leave that camp in the first place? Rather, emend the baraita and say that it reads as follows: “Outside the camp,” this is the Levite camp. “He shall not come within the camp,” this is the camp of the Divine Presence.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא: אֵימָא אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי לְמַחֲנֵה שְׁכִינָה, וְלַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו בַּעֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה! אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא: ״וְיָצָא אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה וְלֹא יָבֹא אֶל תּוֹךְ״, ״הַמַּחֲנֶה״ לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לִיתֵּן לוֹ מַחֲנֶה אַחֶרֶת.
Ravina strongly objects to this exposition of the verse: Say that both this and that refer to the camp of the Divine Presence, that he must leave the camp of the Divine Presence and may not enter it; and the repetition comes to teach that he violates a positive command to leave the camp and a negative command barring entry into the camp. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse say only: “He shall go outside the camp, he shall not come within,” or “within it.” Why do I need the repetition of the word “the camp”? Conclude from this that it is to give him a different camp; it refers not to the same camp that he left but rather to a different one.
וּמִיחוּי קְרָבָיו וְכוּ׳. מַאי מִיחוּי קְרָבָיו? רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: שֶׁמְּנַקְּבָן בְּסַכִּין. (רַב) חִיָּיא בַּר רַב אָמַר: שִׁירְקָא דִמְעִיָּיא דְּנָפְקָא אַגַּב דּוּחְקָא דְסַכִּינָא.
We learned in the mishna that cleaning the intestines of the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is meant by cleaning the intestines? Rav Huna said: It means that he punctures them with a knife allowing the excrement to exit. Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav said: It refers to the removal of the secretions of the intestine, which come out through the pressure of the knife and would ruin the entire sacrifice and cause it to become putrid were they allowed to remain in the intestines.
אָמַר רַבִּי (אֱלִיעֶזֶר): מַאי טַעְמָא דְּחִיָּיא בַּר רַב? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְחׇרְבוֹת מֵחִים גָּרִים יֹאכֵלוּ״, מַאי מַשְׁמַע? כְּדִמְתַרְגֵּם רַב יוֹסֵף ״וְנִכְסֵיהֹן דְּרַשִּׁיעַיָּא צַדִּיקַיָּא יַחְסְנוּן״.
Rabbi Eliezer said: What is Ḥiyya bar Rav’s reason for explaining the term in this manner? As it is written: “Then shall the lambs feed as in their pasture, and the ruins of the fat ones [meḥim] shall wanderers eat” (Isaiah 5:17). From where may it be inferred that this verse is in any way connected to our discussion? As Rav Yosef translates this verse: “And the righteous shall inherit the possessions of the wicked.” This indicates that the word meḥim, understood by Rav Yosef as referring to the wicked, is a term of degradation. This led Ḥiyya bar Rav to interpret the mishna’s clause with regard to cleaning [miḥui] the intestines as referring to removing the repulsive matter inside.
״וְרָעוּ כְבָשִׂים כְּדׇבְרָם״, אָמַר מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר יִרְמְיָה אָמַר רַב: כַּמְדוּבָּר בָּם. מַאי כַּמְדוּבָּר בָּם? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: ״וְחׇרְבוֹת מֵחִים גָּרִים יֹאכֵלוּ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: בִּשְׁלָמָא אִי כְּתִיב ״חׇרְבוֹת״ — כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב ״וְחׇרְבוֹת״, מִילְּתָא אַחֲרִיתִי קָאָמַר.
Having explained the latter part of the verse in Isaiah, the Gemara turns to the beginning of that same verse. “Then shall the lambs feed as in their pasture [kedavram].” Menashya bar Yirmeya said that Rav said: As was said about them [kamedubar bam], i.e., as the prophet promised. To what prophecy does the verse refer with the expression “as was said about them”? Abaye said: It is referring to the continuation of the verse: “And the ruins of the fat ones shall wanderers eat.” Rava said to him that this cannot be: Granted, were it written only “the ruins of the fat ones,” it would be possible to explain as you said. Now that it is written “and the ruins,” with the addition of the word “and,” this indicates that it states something else, and the verse contains two separate prophecies.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כִּדְרַב חֲנַנְאֵל אָמַר רַב. דְּאָמַר רַב חֲנַנְאֵל אָמַר רַב: עֲתִידִין צַדִּיקִים שֶׁיְּחַיּוּ אֶת הַמֵּתִים. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וְרָעוּ כְבָשִׂים כְּדׇבְרָם״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״יִרְעוּ בָשָׁן וְגִלְעָד כִּימֵי עוֹלָם״.
Rather, Rava said: This verse should be understood in accordance with what Rav Ḥananel said that Rav said. For Rav Ḥananel said that Rav said: In the future, the righteous will resurrect the dead. It is written here: “Then shall the lambs feed [vera’u] as in their pasture,” the lambs serving as an allusion to the righteous, and it is written there: “Tend your people with your staff, the flock of your heritage, who dwell alone in the wood, in the midst of Carmel; let them feed [yiru] in Bashan and Gilad as in the days of old” (Micah 7:14).
בָּשָׁן — זֶה אֱלִישָׁע הַבָּא מִן הַבָּשָׁן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְיַעְנַי וְשָׁפָט בַּבָּשָׁן״, וּכְתִיב: ״פֹּה אֱלִישָׁע בֶּן שָׁפָט אֲשֶׁר יָצַק מַיִם עַל יְדֵי אֵלִיָּהוּ״. גִּלְעָד — זֶה אֵלִיָּהוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלִיָּהוּ הַתִּשְׁבִּי מִתּוֹשָׁבֵי גִלְעָד וְגוֹ׳״.
“Bashan” is an allusion to the prophet Elisha, who came from the Bashan. How do we know that Elisha came from Bashan? As it is stated: “Joel the chief, and Shafam the next, and Yanai and Shafat in the Bashan” (I Chronicles 5:12), and it is written: “Here is Elisha ben Shafat who poured water on the hands of Elijah” (II Kings 3:11). “Gilad” is an allusion to Elijah, as it is stated: “And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants of Gilad, said” (I Kings 17:1). Based on the similarity of the verses and the verbal analogy between the two instances of the word “feed,” we learn that in the future the righteous will be like Elijah and Elisha, who resurrected the dead.
אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: עֲתִידִים צַדִּיקִים שֶׁיְּחַיּוּ מֵתִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עוֹד יֵשְׁבוּ זְקֵנִים וּזְקֵנוֹת בִּרְחֹבוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָים וְאִישׁ מִשְׁעַנְתּוֹ בְּיָדוֹ מֵרֹב יָמִים״, וּכְתִיב: ״וְשַׂמְתָּ מִשְׁעַנְתִּי עַל פְּנֵי הַנָּעַר״.
This idea is derived from a different source as well. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: In the future the righteous will resurrect the dead, as it is stated: “Old men and old women shall yet again dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, and every man with his staff in his hand for very age” (Zechariah 8:4). And the staff will then be used as it was used by Gehazi when Elisha sent him to bring the son of the Shunamite woman back to life, as it is written: “And you shall lay my staff on the face of the child” (II Kings 4:29).
עוּלָּא רָמֵי, כְּתִיב: ״בִּלַּע הַמָּוֶת לָנֶצַח״, וּכְתִיב: ״כִּי הַנַּעַר בֶּן מֵאָה שָׁנָה יָמוּת״! לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, כָּאן בַּגּוֹיִם. וְגוֹיִם מַאי בָּעוּ הָתָם? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְעָמְדוּ זָרִים וְרָעוּ צֹאנְכֶם וּבְנֵי נֵכָר אִכָּרֵיכֶם וְכֹרְמֵיכֶם״.
As we have been discussing the world of the future and the resurrection of the dead, the Gemara cites additional statements on these topics. Ulla raised a contradiction between two verses: In one verse it is written: “He will destroy death forever, and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces, and the insult of His people shall He take away from off all the earth; for the Lord has spoken” (Isaiah 25:8). And in another verse it is written: “There shall be no more there an infant who lives a few days, nor an old man who has not filled his days; for the youngest shall die a hundred years old” (Isaiah 65:20), implying that people will live long lives, but death will not be totally eradicated. Ulla answers: This is not difficult: Here, in the first verse, it is referring to Jews, who will not die at all, while there, in the second verse, it is referring to gentiles, who will live exceedingly long lives but eventually die. The Gemara asks: What are gentiles doing there in the future world? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vineyard workers” (Isaiah 61:5).
רַב חִסְדָּא רָמֵי, כְּתִיב: ״וְחָפְרָה הַלְּבָנָה וּבוֹשָׁה הַחַמָּה״, וּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיָה אוֹר הַלְּבָנָה כְּאוֹר הַחַמָּה וְאוֹר הַחַמָּה יִהְיֶה שִׁבְעָתַיִם כְּאוֹר שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים״! לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, כָּאן לִימוֹת הַמָּשִׁיחַ.
Rav Ḥisda raised a contradiction between two verses: In one verse it is written: “Then the moon shall be confounded and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of Hosts shall reign in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and before His elders will be His glory” (Isaiah 24:23), which indicates that in the future there will be no light at all from the sun or the moon. And elsewhere it is written: “Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, on the day that the Lord binds up the breach of His people and heals the stroke of their wound blow” (Isaiah 30:26), which indicates that the light of the sun and moon will be even brighter than before. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: Here, where it says that the sun and the moon will be ashamed before the glow of the Divine Presence, it is referring to the World–to–Come, which is an entirely different world; while there, where it says that their light will increase, it is referring to the days of the Messiah.
וְלִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר: אֵין בֵּין הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה לִימוֹת הַמָּשִׁיחַ אֶלָּא שִׁיעְבּוּד מַלְכִיּוֹת בִּלְבַד, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — בְּמַחֲנֵה שְׁכִינָה, כָּאן — בְּמַחֲנֵה צַדִּיקִים.
The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Shmuel, who said that there is no difference between this world and the days of the Messiah except for subjugation to foreign kingdoms, but in all other ways, including the illumination of the celestial bodies, the world order will remain unchanged, what is there to say to reconcile these verses? The Gemara answers: This and that refer to the World–to–Come, and it is not difficult: Here, where it says that the sun and the moon will be totally ashamed, it refers to the camp of the Divine Presence; while there, where it says that the light of the sun and moon will be greatly magnified, it refers to the camp of the righteous.
רָבָא רָמֵי, כְּתִיב: ״אֲנִי אָמִית וַאֲחַיֶּה״, וּכְתִיב: ״מָחַצְתִּי וַאֲנִי אֶרְפָּא״. הַשְׁתָּא אַחוֹיֵי מַחֲיֵי, מְרַפֵּא לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן! אֶלָּא, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: מָה שֶׁאֲנִי מֵמִית — אֲנִי מְחַיֶּה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁמָּחַצְתִּי — וַאֲנִי אֶרְפָּא.
Rava raised a contradiction between two parts of a verse. It is written: “I put to death and I make live” (Deuteronomy 32:39) and in that same verse it is written: “I wound and I heal.” Now once it says that He gives life to the dead, all the more so is it not clear that He can heal those who are still alive? What then does the second clause add to the first? Rather, the second clause clarifies the first one: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Those same people whom I put to death I will bring to life, just as those people whom I wounded I will heal. In other words, the verse means to say that just as God will heal the same people He wounded, so will He revive those He put to death; and not, as the verse might otherwise have been understood, that He puts some people to death and gives life to others.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֲנִי אָמִית וַאֲחַיֶּה״ יָכוֹל מִיתָה בְּאֶחָד וְחַיִּים בְּאֶחָד, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהָעוֹלָם נוֹהֵג, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מָחַצְתִּי וַאֲנִי אֶרְפָּא״, מָה מַכָּה וּרְפוּאָה בְּאֶחָד, אַף מִיתָה וְחַיִּים בְּאֶחָד. מִכָּאן תְּשׁוּבָה לָאוֹמְרִים אֵין תְּחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה. דָּבָר אַחֵר: בַּתְּחִלָּה מַה שֶּׁאֲנִי מֵמִית אֲנִי מְחַיֶּה, וַהֲדַר מַה שֶּׁמָּחַצְתִּי וַאֲנִי אֶרְפָּא.
Similarly, the Sages taught in a baraita: “I put to death and I make live”; one might have thought that this refers to death for one person and life, i.e., birth, for another person, in the customary manner of the world. Therefore, the verse states: “I wound and I heal”; just as the wounding and the healing mentioned here clearly refer to the same person, so too death and life refer to the same person. From this verse, there is a refutation to those who say that there is no Torah source for the resurrection of the dead, for it is explicitly mentioned in this verse. Alternatively, the verse can be explained as follows: At first, those whom I put to death I will bring to life, but they will be revived with the same injuries that they had when they died; and subsequently, those whom I wounded I will heal, meaning that their injuries will be healed after they are resurrected.
וְהֶקְטֵר חֲלָבָיו וְכוּ׳. תַּנְיָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה חֲבִיבָה מִצְוָה בִּשְׁעָתָהּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים וְאֵבָרִים וּפְדָרִים כְּשֵׁרִים כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה, וְאֵין מַמְתִּינִים לָהֶם עַד שֶׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ.
We learned in the mishna that when the eve of Passover occurs on Shabbat, burning the fats of the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat. The Gemara notes that it was taught in the Tosefta: Rabbi Shimon said: Come and see how dear is a mitzva performed in its proper time. For burning the fats and limbs and inner fats is valid all night and it would have been possible to wait until the conclusion of Shabbat and burn them at night, but nonetheless we do not wait with them until nightfall; rather, we burn them immediately, even on Shabbat.
הַרְכָּבָתוֹ וַהֲבָאָתוֹ וְכוּ׳. וּרְמִינְהוּ: חוֹתְכִין יַבֶּלֶת בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, אֲבָל לֹא בַּמְּדִינָה. וְאִם בִּכְלִי — כָּאן וְכָאן אָסוּר.
The mishna also taught that carrying the Paschal lamb through a public domain, bringing it from outside the Shabbat limit and cutting off its wart do not override Shabbat. The Gemara raises a contradiction from another mishna in tractate Eiruvin, which teaches: One may cut off a wart by hand on Shabbat in the Temple but not in the rest of the country outside the Temple. And if the wart is to be removed with an instrument, it is forbidden both here, in the Temple, and there, outside the Temple. From here we see that in the Temple cutting off a wart, at least by hand, is permitted.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא, חַד אָמַר: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בַּיָּד; הָא בְּלַחָה, הָא בִּיבֵשָׁה. וְחַד אָמַר: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּלַחָה, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בַּיָּד, הָא בִּכְלִי.
Two amora’im, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina, disagreed about how to resolve this contradiction. One of them said: Both this mishna in Pesaḥim and that mishna in Eiruvin speak of cutting off the wart by hand. This mishna that forbids cutting it off refers to a moist wart, which is considered like the flesh of the animal. It is therefore prohibited by rabbinic decree to cut off the wart; and since it could have been removed before Shabbat, the decree applies even in the Temple, where rabbinic decrees are generally not applicable. That mishna that permits cutting it off refers to a dry wart, which breaks apart by itself, and so there is no prohibition even by rabbinic decree to cut it off. And the other one said: Both this mishna and that mishna speak of cutting off a moist wart, and it is not difficult. This mishna that says it is permitted talks about removing the wart by hand, which is prohibited only by a rabbinic decree that was not applied to the Temple; whereas that mishna that says it is prohibited talks about removing the wart with an instrument, which is prohibited by Torah law and forbidden everywhere.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר: הָא בַּיָּד, הָא בִּכְלִי — מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בַּיָּד, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּלַחָה הָא בִּיבֵשָׁה? אָמַר לָךְ: יְבֵשָׁה — מִפְרָךְ פְּרִיכָא.
The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that this mishna speaks about cutting off the wart by hand and that mishna speaks about cutting it off with an instrument, what is the reason that he did not state like the other amora that this and that talk about cutting off the wart by hand, and it is not difficult; this mishna speaks of a moist wart, while that mishna speaks of a dry wart? The Gemara answers that he could have said to you: A dry wart breaks apart by itself, and so there would be no need to teach us that it may be removed. Both mishnayot must therefore refer to a moist wart, and the difference between them is whether the wart is being removed by hand or with an instrument.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בַּיָּד, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּלַחָה, הָא בִּיבֵשָׁה — מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּלַחָה, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בַּיָּד, הָא בִּכְלִי? אָמַר לָךְ: כְּלִי — הָא קָתָנֵי הָתָם: אִם בִּכְלִי, כָּאן וְכָאן אָסוּר.
The Gemara reverses the question: And according to the one who says that both this mishna and that mishna talk about removing the wart by hand, and it is not difficult; this speaks of a moist wart while that speaks of a dry wart. What is the reason that he did not state like the other amora that this and that are discussing a moist wart and it is not difficult; this mishna in Eiruvin speaks about cutting off the wart by hand and that mishna in Pesaḥim speaks about cutting it off with an instrument? The Gemara answers that he could have said to you: The case of cutting off the wart with an instrument is taught there in Eiruvin in that very same mishna: If the wart is to be removed with an instrument, it is forbidden both here, in the Temple, and there, outside the Temple. Therefore, there would be no reason to repeat the same halakha here in this mishna, as it is stated explicitly in the other mishna.
וְאִידַּךְ? הָא דְּקָתָנֵי כְּלִי הָכָא, פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן.
The Gemara asks: And the other amora, how does he account for the repetition according to his explanation? The mishna here teaches the law with regard to an instrument because it comes to teach us the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua; for according to our mishna, Rabbi Eliezer permits cutting off a moist wart even with an instrument in order to render the animal fit to be brought as a Paschal offering.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וּמָה אִם שְׁחִיטָה וְכוּ׳. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּאָמַר שִׂמְחַת יוֹם טוֹב נָמֵי מִצְוָה הִיא.
We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer said that if slaughter, which is ordinarily forbidden on Shabbat as a biblically prohibited labor, nevertheless overrides Shabbat when performed for the sake of the Paschal lamb, then activities that are prohibited by rabbinic decree should certainly override Shabbat when performed for that purpose. Rabbi Yehoshua disagreed, arguing that the law governing a Festival proves otherwise. Rabbi Eliezer countered that the law governing an optional activity, such as preparing food on a Festival, cannot be brought as proof with regard to the mitzva of offering the Paschal lamb. The Gemara notes that Rabbi Yehoshua follows his regular line of reasoning, for he said that rejoicing on a Festival is also a mitzva, and therefore whatever one does in order to enhance one’s enjoyment of the Festival is considered an act performed for the sake of a mitzva, just like the offering of a sacrifice.
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵין לוֹ לְאָדָם בְּיוֹם טוֹב אֶלָּא, אוֹ אוֹכֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה, אוֹ יוֹשֵׁב וְשׁוֹנֶה. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: חַלְּקֵהוּ, חֶצְיוֹ לַאֲכִילָה וּשְׁתִיָּה, וְחֶצְיוֹ לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ.
For it was taught in a baraita that these two tanna’im disagreed about this matter: Rabbi Eliezer says: A person has nothing but to choose on a Festival; he either eats and drinks or sits and learns the entire day, but there is no specific mitzva to eat on the Festival. Rabbi Yehoshua, on the other hand, says: Divide the day, half of it for eating and drinking and half of it for the study hall, for he holds that eating and drinking are obligatory on the Festival.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ, כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״עֲצֶרֶת לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״עֲצֶרֶת תִּהְיֶה לָכֶם״. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: אוֹ כּוּלּוֹ לַה׳, אוֹ כּוּלּוֹ לָכֶם. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר: חַלְּקֵהוּ, חֶצְיוֹ לַה׳ וְחֶצְיוֹ לָכֶם.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And both of them derived their opinions from one verse, i.e., the two of them addressed the same textual difficulty, resolving it in different ways. For one verse says: “It shall be an assembly for the Lord your God; you shall do no labor” (Deuteronomy 16:8), which indicates that the day is set aside for Divine service, and another verse says: “It shall be an assembly for you; you shall do no servile labor” (Numbers 29:35), which indicates a celebratory assembly for the Jewish people. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the two verses should be understood as offering a choice: The day is to be either entirely for God or entirely for you. And Rabbi Yehoshua holds that it is possible to fulfill both verses: Split the day into two, half of it for God and half of it for you.
(עב״ם סִימָן) אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בַּעֲצֶרֶת דְּבָעֵינַן נָמֵי לָכֶם. מַאי טַעְמָא? יוֹם שֶׁנִּיתְּנָה בּוֹ תּוֹרָה הוּא. אָמַר רַבָּה: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּשַׁבָּת דְּבָעֵינַן נָמֵי לָכֶם. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״וְקָרָאתָ לַשַּׁבָּת עוֹנֶג״. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּפוּרִים דְּבָעֵינַן נָמֵי לָכֶם. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״יְמֵי מִשְׁתֶּה וְשִׂמְחָה״ כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ.
Ayin, beit, mem is a mnemonic consisting of the first letter of Atzeret, the middle letter of Shabbat and the final letter of Purim. Rabbi Elazar said: All agree with regard to Atzeret, the holiday of Shavuot, that we require that it be also “for you,” meaning that it is a mitzva to eat, drink, and rejoice on that day. What is the reason? It is the day on which the Torah was given, and one must celebrate the fact that the Torah was given to the Jewish people. Rabba said: All agree with regard to Shabbat that we require that it be also “for you.” What is the reason? Because the verse states: “If you proclaim Shabbat a delight, the sacred day of God honored” (Isaiah 58:13). Rav Yosef said: All agree with regard to Purim that we require that it be also “for you.” What is the reason? Because it is written: “To observe them as days of feasting and gladness” (Esther 9:22).
מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא כּוּלַּהּ שַׁתָּא הֲוָה יָתֵיב בְּתַעֲנִיתָא, לְבַר מֵעֲצַרְתָּא, וּפוּרְיָא, וּמַעֲלֵי יוֹמָא דְכִיפּוּרֵי. עֲצֶרֶת — יוֹם שֶׁנִּיתְּנָה בּוֹ תּוֹרָה. פּוּרְיָא — ״יְמֵי מִשְׁתֶּה וְשִׂמְחָה״ כְּתִיב. מַעֲלֵי יוֹמָא דְכִיפּוּרֵי — דְּתָנֵי חִיָּיא בַּר רַב מִדִּפְתִּי: ״וְעִנִּיתֶם אֶת נַפְשׁוֹתֵיכֶם בְּתִשְׁעָה לַחֹדֶשׁ״, וְכִי בְּתִשְׁעָה (הֵם) מִתְעַנִּין? וַהֲלֹא בַּעֲשִׂירִי מִתְעַנִּין! אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לְךָ: כׇּל הָאוֹכֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה בְּתִשְׁעָה בּוֹ — מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ מִתְעַנֶּה תְּשִׁיעִי וַעֲשִׂירִי.
The Gemara relates: Mar, son of Ravina, would spend the entire year fasting during the day and eating only sparsely at night, except for Shavuot, Purim, and the eve of Yom Kippur. He made these exceptions for the following reasons: Shavuot because it is the day on which the Torah was given and there is a mitzva to demonstrate one’s joy on that day; Purim because “days of feasting and gladness” is written about it; the eve of Yom Kippur, as Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught: “And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth day of the month in the evening, from evening to evening you shall keep your Sabbath” (Leviticus 23:32). But does one fast on the ninth of Tishrei? Doesn’t one fast on the tenth of Tishrei? Rather, this comes to tell you: One who eats and drinks on the ninth, the verse ascribes him credit as if he fasted on both the ninth and the tenth of Tishrei.
רַב יוֹסֵף בְּיוֹמָא דַעֲצַרְתָּא אָמַר: עָבְדִי לִי עִגְלָא תִּלְתָּא. אָמַר, אִי לָא הַאי יוֹמָא דְּקָא גָרֵים — כַּמָּה יוֹסֵף אִיכָּא בְּשׁוּקָא.
The Gemara relates that Rav Yosef, on the day of Shavuot, would say: Prepare me a choice third-born calf. He said: If not for this day on which the Torah was given that caused the Jewish people to have the Torah, how many Yosefs would there be in the market? It is only due to the importance of Torah study that I have become a leader of the Jewish people, and I therefore have a special obligation to rejoice on this day.
רַב שֵׁשֶׁת כׇּל תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין מְהַדַּר לֵיהּ תַּלְמוּדֵיהּ, וְתָלֵי וְקָאֵי בְּעִיבְרָא דְּדַשָּׁא, וַאֲמַר: חֲדַאי נַפְשַׁאי, חֲדַאי נַפְשַׁאי, לָךְ קְרַאי לָךְ תְּנַאי. אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אִילְמָלֵא תּוֹרָה לֹא נִתְקַיְּימוּ שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִם לֹא בְרִיתִי יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה חֻקּוֹת שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ לֹא שָׂמְתִּי״! מֵעִיקָּרָא כִּי עָבֵיד אִינִישׁ — אַדַּעְתָּא דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ קָא עָבֵיד.
A somewhat similar story is told about Rav Sheshet, that every thirty days he would review his studies that he had learned over the previous month, and he would stand and lean against the bolt of the door and say: Rejoice my soul, rejoice my soul, for you I have read Scripture, for you I have studied Mishna. The Gemara asks: Is that so, that Torah study is beneficial only for the soul of the person who has studied? But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say: If not for the Torah and its study, heaven and earth would not be sustained, as it is stated: “If not for My covenant by day and by night, I would not have set up the laws of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25). It is the Torah, the eternal covenant that is studied day and night, that justifies the continued existence of the world. The Gemara answers: This is indeed correct, but at the outset when a person does this mitzva, he does it for himself, and only afterward does he have in mind the benefit that will be brought to the entire world.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: וּלְמַאי דְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר נָמֵי יוֹם טוֹב רְשׁוּת, אִית לֵיהּ פִּירְכָא: וּמָה יוֹם טוֹב שֶׁהִתִּיר בּוֹ מְלָאכָה שֶׁל רְשׁוּת, לֹא הִתִּיר שְׁבוּת שֶׁעִמָּהּ. שַׁבָּת שֶׁלֹּא הִתִּיר בָּהּ אֶלָּא מְלָאכָה שֶׁל מִצְוָה — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא תַּתִּיר שְׁבוּת שֶׁעִמָּהּ!
Rav Ashi said: And even according to what Rabbi Eliezer said, that rejoicing on a Festival is optional, there is a refutation: If on a Festival, when a biblically prohibited labor, such as slaughtering, baking, or cooking, is permitted even when it is performed for an optional activity, nonetheless a rabbinic decree that is with it is not permitted, and we do not say that since they permitted an optional activity they permitted everything associated with it; how much more so on Shabbat, when a biblically prohibited labor is only permitted when it is performed for a mitzva, isn’t it right not to permit a rabbinic decree that is with it? Activities that are forbidden due to a rabbinic decree should thus be prohibited on Shabbat even for the purpose of a mitzva, against the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.
