פסחים סה

פסחים סה

וְעוֹלָה גּוּפַהּ מְנָלַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״אֶל יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה״, אַלְמָא עוֹלָה טְעוּנָה יְסוֹד.

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive with respect to the burnt-offering itself that its blood must be sprinkled on the altar in a place where there is a base? The Gemara answers that the verse said: “And he shall pour all the blood of the bull at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering, which is at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 4:7). Apparently, the blood of a burnt-offering requires sprinkling at the base, as the verse specifically links the base of the altar to the burnt-offering.

יָצְתָה כַּת רִאשׁוֹנָה וְכוּ׳. תָּנָא: הִיא נִקְרֵאת כַּת עַצְלָנִית. וְהָא לָא סַגִּי דְּלָאו הָכִי, מַאי הָוֵי לְהוּ לְמִיעְבַּד?

It was stated in the next clause of the mishna that after the first group exited, the second group and then the third group would enter. It was taught in the Tosefta with regard to the third group: It was called the lazy group because it was the last of the three groups. The Gemara asks: But it would not have been sufficient without this third group, as the Paschal lamb must be offered in three shifts. What, then, should the members of the third group have done?

אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, אִיבְּעִי לְהוּ לְזָרוֹזֵי נַפְשַׁיְיהוּ. כִּדְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְעוֹלָם בְּלֹא בַּסָּם וּבְלֹא בּוּרְסִי. אַשְׁרֵי מִי שֶׁאוּמָּנֻתוֹ בַּסָּם, אוֹי לוֹ מִי שֶׁאוּמָּנֻתוֹ בּוּרְסִי. וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְעוֹלָם בְּלֹא זְכָרִים וּבְלֹא נְקֵבוֹת. אַשְׁרֵי מִי שֶׁבָּנָיו זְכָרִים, אוֹי לוֹ מִי שֶׁבָּנָיו נְקֵבוֹת.

The Gemara answers: Nonetheless, the members of the third group should have hurried themselves so that they would not be in the last group. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The world cannot function without a perfume merchant or without a tanner [bursi], who processes bad-smelling hides. While both of these occupations are necessary, fortunate is he whose profession is that of a perfume merchant, and woe to him whose profession is that of a tanner. Likewise, the world cannot exist without males or without females; yet fortunate is he whose children are males, and woe to him whose children are females.

כְּמַעֲשֵׂהוּ בַּחוֹל וְכוּ׳. שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְצוֹן מַאן? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְצוֹן רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. דְּאִי רַבָּנַן — הָא אָמְרִי שְׁבוּת הוּא, וְאֵין שְׁבוּת בְּמִקְדָּשׁ.

It was further stated in the mishna that in the same manner that the procedure involving the Paschal lamb was performed during the week, so was it performed on Shabbat, and that even on Shabbat the priests would rinse the floor of blood, contrary to the wishes of the Sages. The Gemara asks: Contrary to the wishes of whom? Which Sage did not consent to this practice? Rav Ḥisda said: It was contrary to the wishes of Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that rinsing the floor on Shabbat is prohibited by Torah law. As, if one accepts the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with him, don’t they say that rinsing the floor is prohibited due to a rabbinic decree? And the principle is that rabbinic decrees do not apply in the Temple. Consequently, it should be permitted to wash the floor in the Temple on Shabbat according to the opinion of the Rabbis.

מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: אֶחָד הַחוֹלֵב וְהַמְחַבֵּץ וְהַמְגַבֵּן — כִּגְרוֹגְרוֹת. הַמְכַבֵּד וְהַמְרַבֵּץ וְהָרוֹדֶה חַלּוֹת דְּבַשׁ בְּשׁוֹגֵג בְּשַׁבָּת — חַיָּיב חַטָּאת, הֵזִיד בְּיוֹם טוֹב — לוֹקֶה אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

The Gemara asks: What is the source of this dispute? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in the following baraita: One who milks an animal, or sets milk to curdle (Arukh), or makes cheese is liable if he performed the activity in the measure of a dried fig-bulk; one who sweeps the house, or sprinkles water on the floor, or removes honeycombs, if he did so unwittingly on Shabbat, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, as he has performed a labor prohibited by Torah law on Shabbat. And if he did so intentionally on a Festival, he is flogged with forty lashes; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת.

And the Rabbis say with regard to the cases of sweeping, sprinkling water on the floor, and harvesting honeycombs: Both this, performing these actions on Shabbat, and that, doing so on a Festival, are prohibited only due to rabbinic decrees. According to Rabbi Eliezer, rinsing the floor is the same as sweeping the floor. Therefore, it is prohibited on Shabbat even in the Temple, as there is no allowance to perform a labor prohibited by Torah law that is not essential for the proper sacrifice of the offerings.

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים — וְרַבִּי נָתָן הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: שְׁבוּת צְרִיכָה הִתִּירוּ, שְׁבוּת שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה לֹא הִתִּירוּ.

Rav Ashi said: You can even say that the priests rinsed the floor contrary to the wishes of the Rabbis, who hold that the prohibition is due to a rabbinic decree, and that the mishna is according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says that a rabbinic prohibition that it is absolutely necessary to violate for the sacrificial rite, they permitted in the Temple. However, a rabbinic prohibition that it is not absolutely necessary to violate for the sacrificial rite, they did not permit in the Temple. Rinsing the floor is not essential, as the Temple rite can continue even if the floor is not washed. Therefore, this rabbinically prohibited activity was not permitted in the Temple.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר כּוֹס הָיָה מְמַלֵּא וְכוּ׳. תַּנְיָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כּוֹס הָיָה מְמַלֵּא מִדַּם הַתַּעֲרוֹבוֹת, שֶׁאִם יִשָּׁפֵךְ דָּמוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן — נִמְצָא זֶה מַכְשִׁירוֹ.

The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yehuda says that the priest would fill a cup with the blood that was mixed together on the floor and then sprinkle it on the altar. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: He would fill a cup with the mixed blood, so that if all of the blood of one of the sacrifices was spilled, this cup would contain a small amount of that blood, and sprinkling it on the altar would render the sacrifice fit.

אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִתְקַבֵּל בִּכְלִי? מְנָא יָדְעִי?! אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ: שֶׁמָּא לֹא נִתְקַבֵּל בִּכְלִי? אָמַר לָהֶן: אַף אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בְּנִתְקַבֵּל בִּכְלִי.

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: But this blood that poured from the throat of the animal onto the floor had not been received in a vessel and is therefore unfit to be sprinkled on the altar. The Gemara expresses surprise: How do they know with certainty that this blood had not been received in a vessel? Rather, this is what the Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: Perhaps this blood had not been received in a vessel and is therefore unfit to be sprinkled on the altar. Rabbi Yehuda said to them: I, too, spoke only about blood that had been received in a vessel.

מְנָא יָדַע? כֹּהֲנִים זְרִיזִין הֵן. אִי זְרִיזִין — אַמַּאי מִשְׁתְּפִיךְ? אַגַּב זְרִיזוּתַיְיהוּ דְּעָבְדִי, מִשְׁתְּפִיךְ.

The Gemara expresses surprise in the opposite direction: How does Rabbi Yehuda know that the blood collected from the floor had in fact been received in a vessel? The Gemara answers: Priests are vigilant, and so they were certainly careful to receive all the blood in a vessel. The Gemara asks: But if they are so vigilant, why did the blood spill? The Gemara responds: Owing to the speed with which they worked, the blood spilled. Therefore, it is necessary to fill a cup with a mixture of the blood found on the floor and sprinkle it upon the altar.

וַהֲלֹא דַּם הַתַּמְצִית מְעוֹרָב בּוֹ! רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: דַּם הַתַּמְצִית — דָּם מְעַלְּיָא הוּא. דְּתַנְיָא: דַּם הַתַּמְצִית בְּאַזְהָרָה, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּהִיכָּרֵת.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t blood squeezed from an animal after the initial spurt concluded mixed with it? Some of the blood on the floor is blood that continued to drain from the animal after the initial spurts of blood that followed the slaughter, and such blood is unfit for the altar. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says that blood squeezed from an animal after the initial spurt concluded is proper blood in every way. As it was taught in a baraita: One who consumes blood squeezed from an animal after the initial spurt concluded violates a warning, i.e., a Torah prohibition for which flogging is the punishment for its violation. This is not as severe as consuming regular life blood, the blood that spurts out from an animal as it is being slaughtered, for which one is liable to receive karet. Rabbi Yehuda says: One who consumes blood squeezed from an animal after the initial spurt concluded is liable to receive karet, as this blood is treated as proper blood.

וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְעִנְיַן כַּפָּרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְכַפֵּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי הַדָּם הוּא בַּנֶּפֶשׁ יְכַפֵּר״,

The Gemara challenges this answer: Didn’t Rabbi Elazar say that even Rabbi Yehuda concedes with regard to atonement that sprinkling on the altar blood squeezed from the animal after the initial spurt concluded does not make atonement? As it is stated: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of life” (Leviticus 17:11).

דָּם שֶׁהַנֶּפֶשׁ יוֹצְאָה בּוֹ — מְכַפֵּר. דָּם שֶׁאֵין הַנֶּפֶשׁ יוֹצְאָה בּוֹ — אֵינוֹ מְכַפֵּר. אֶלָּא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: אֵין דָּם מְבַטֵּל דָּם.

This verse indicates that blood with which life leaves the animal, meaning blood that spurts immediately upon slaughter, makes atonement when it is sprinkled on the altar; however, blood with which life does not leave the animal, meaning blood that drains out after the initial spurt, does not make atonement. In that case, even Rabbi Yehuda should be concerned that the blood collected in the cup contains blood squeezed from an animal after the initial spurt concluded. Rather, Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his line of reasoning, as he said: Blood does not nullify blood. The small amount of blood in the cup that is fit for sprinkling on the altar is not nullified even if most of the blood in the cup is blood squeezed from an animal after the initial spurt concluded. Therefore, it may still be sprinkled upon the altar and make atonement.

תַּנְיָא, אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לַחֲכָמִים: לְדִבְרֵיכֶם, לָמָּה פּוֹקְקִין אֶת הָעֲזָרָה? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: שֶׁבַח הוּא לִבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן שֶׁיֵּלְכוּ עַד אַרְכּוּבּוֹתֵיהֶם בְּדָם.

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said to the Rabbis: According to your statement that there is no need to fill a cup of blood from the floor, why did they plug the drains of the Temple courtyard on Passover eve and not let the blood flow immediately into the drainage pipes? They said to him: It is praiseworthy of the sons of Aaron, the priests, to walk in blood up to their ankles, thereby demonstrating their love for the Temple rite.

וְהָא קָא חָיֵיץ?! לַח הוּא וְאֵינוֹ חוֹצֵץ. כִּדְתַנְיָא: הַדָּם וְהַדְּיוֹ וְהֶחָלָב וְהַדְּבַשׁ, יְבֵשִׁים — חוֹצְצִין, לַחִין — אֵין חוֹצְצִין.

The Gemara asks: How could they walk in blood up to their ankles? Doesn’t the blood interpose between the feet of the priests and the floor of the Temple and thereby invalidate the rite? The Gemara answers: The blood is moist and therefore it does not interpose. As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to blood, ink, milk, and honey, when they are dry, they interpose with respect to ritual immersion and other matters; when they are moist, they do not interpose.

וְהָא קָמִתַּוְּוסִי מָאנַיְיהוּ, (וּתְנַן) הָיוּ בְּגָדָיו מְטוּשְׁטָשִׁין וְעָבַד — עֲבוֹדָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה! וְכִי תֵּימָא דִּמְדַלּוּ לְהוּ לְמָאנַיְיהוּ, וְהָתַנְיָא: ״מִדּוֹ בַּד״ — מִדּוֹ כְּמִדָּתוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא יְחַסֵּר וְלֹא יוֹתִיר! בְּהוֹלָכַת אֵיבָרִין לַכֶּבֶשׁ — דְּלָאו עֲבוֹדָה הִיא.

The Gemara asks further: But don’t their garments become soiled? And we learned in a mishna: If the priest’s garments were soiled and he performed the Temple rite while wearing them, his rite is invalid, because the priestly garments must be fine and beautiful. And if you say that they raised their garments so that the garments would stay clean, there is a difficulty. Wasn’t it taught in a different baraita that explicates the verse: “And the priest shall put on his linen garment [middo]” (Leviticus 6:3), that the verse uses the word middo to teach that the garments must be according to his measure [kemiddato], fitted to his size, not too short and not too long? If the priest raises his garments, they will no longer be exactly his size. The Gemara answers that the priests would walk in the blood while carrying the sacrificial limbs to the ramp of the altar, which is not actually a rite, but only preparation for a rite.

וְלָא? וְהָא מִדְּבָעֵי כְּהוּנָּה — עֲבוֹדָה הִיא! דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהִקְרִיב הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל הַמִּזְבֵּחָה״, זוֹ הוֹלָכַת אֵבָרִים לַכֶּבֶשׁ! אֶלָּא: בְּהוֹלָכַת עֵצִים לַמַּעֲרָכָה, דְּלָאו עֲבוֹדָה הִיא.

The Gemara asks: And is it not one of the rites? But from the fact that this task requires priesthood, as it can be performed only by a priest, the implication is that it is considered a rite. As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And the priest shall bring it all and burn it upon the altar; it is a burnt-offering, an offering made by fire, of a satisfying aroma to the Lord” (Leviticus 1:13), that this is referring to the carrying of the limbs to the ramp. Rather, we must say that the priests would walk in the blood while carrying wood to the wood pile on the altar, which is not a rite.

בְּהוֹלָכַת אֵבָרִים לַכֶּבֶשׁ וּבְהוֹלָכַת דָּם, מִיהָא הֵיכִי אָזְלִי? דִּמְסַגִּי אַאִיצְטְבֵי.

The Gemara asks: But if the floor of the Temple was full of blood, how did they walk without soiling their garments while carrying the limbs to the ramp and while carrying the blood to the altar? The Gemara answers: They would walk on platforms raised above the floor and thereby avoid soiling their clothes.

כֵּיצַד תּוֹלִין וּמַפְשִׁיטִין וְכוּ׳. קְרָעוֹ, וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת אֵמוּרָיו. נְתָנָם בְּמָגֵיס לְהַקְטִירָם. אַטּוּ הוּא גּוּפֵיהּ הֲוָה מַקְטַר לְהוּ? אֵימָא: לְהַקְטִירָן עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ.

It was taught in the mishna how one would suspend and flay the Paschal lamb, and that after the flaying he would tear it open and remove its sacrificial parts and then place them in a large basin in order to burn them. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that he himself, the priest who placed the sacrificial parts in the basin and no one else, would burn them? The Gemara answers: Correct the wording of the mishna to say: In order to burn them on the altar, meaning that he would place them in a large basin as preparation for their being burned on the altar, but not that he himself would necessarily burn them.

יָצְתָה כַּת רִאשׁוֹנָה וְכוּ׳. תָּנָא: כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד נוֹתֵן פִּסְחוֹ בְּעוֹרוֹ, וּמַפְשִׁיל לַאֲחוֹרָיו. אָמַר רַב עִילִישׁ: טַיָּיעוּת.

It was also stated in the mishna: The first group exited the Temple courtyard with their Paschal lambs. It was taught in a baraita: Each and every one would place his Paschal lamb in its hide and cast it over his shoulder behind him and carry it home that way. Rav Ilish said: They carried it home in the manner of Arab merchants [tayya’ut].

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ תָּמִיד נִשְׁחָט

מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים בַּפֶּסַח דּוֹחִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת: שְׁחִיטָתוֹ, וּזְרִיקַת דָּמוֹ, וּמִיחוּי קְרָבָיו, וְהַקְטָרַת חֲלָבָיו. אֲבָל צְלִיָּיתוֹ וַהֲדָחַת קְרָבָיו — אֵינָן דּוֹחִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. הַרְכָּבָתוֹ, וַהֲבָאָתוֹ מִחוּץ לַתְּחוּם, וַחֲתִיכַת יַבַּלְתּוֹ — אֵין דּוֹחִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: דּוֹחִין.

MISHNA: These are the matters related to the Paschal lamb that override Shabbat, when the eve of Passover occurs on Shabbat: Its slaughter, the sprinkling of its blood, the cleaning of its intestines and the burning of its fats on the altar, all of which are services that must be performed on Passover eve while it is still day. However, its roasting and the washing of its intestines, which need not be done by day, do not override Shabbat; rather, one waits until after Shabbat to perform these tasks. Carrying the Paschal lamb through a public domain does not override Shabbat. The Paschal offering consisted of either a lamb or a goat, sometimes quite young and unable to walk the entire way, so that it had to be carried on a person’s shoulders. Similarly, bringing it from outside the Shabbat limit and cutting off its wart do not override Shabbat, as all these tasks could have been performed before Shabbat. A wart is considered a blemish that disqualifies the animal from being brought as an offering, but once the wart is removed, the animal is fit to be sacrificed on the altar. Rabbi Eliezer says: All of these procedures override Shabbat.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: מָה אִם שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁהִיא מִשּׁוּם מְלָאכָה — דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, אֵלּוּ, שֶׁהֵן מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת — לֹא יִדְחוּ אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: יוֹם טוֹב יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁהִתִּירוּ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם מְלָאכָה, וְאָסוּר בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת.

Rabbi Eliezer said: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference? If slaughter, which is ordinarily forbidden on Shabbat as a biblically prohibited labor, nonetheless overrides Shabbat when performed for the sake of the Paschal lamb, then these activities, namely carrying the animal, bringing it from outside the Shabbat limit, and the like, which are prohibited due to rabbinic decree, should they not override Shabbat? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: The law governing a Festival proves otherwise, for the Torah permitted on it acts that are normally prohibited as labor, such as slaughtering, cooking, and baking, and yet it is forbidden to do on it acts that are prohibited due to rabbinic decree. Thus, we cannot derive policy with regard to rabbinic prohibitions from the rules that govern Torah laws.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: מָה זֶה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ?! מָה רְאָיָה רְשׁוּת לְמִצְוָה? הֵשִׁיב רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וְאָמַר: הַזָּאָה תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁהִיא מִשּׁוּם מִצְוָה, וְהִיא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת, וְאֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. אַף אַתָּה אַל תִּתְמַהּ עַל אֵלּוּ, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן מִשּׁוּם מִצְוָה, וְהֵן מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת, לֹא יִדְחוּ אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: What is this, Yehoshua? How can you suggest such a weak proof? What proof can be deduced from optional activities that would apply to a mitzva? How does the fact that rabbinic decrees remain in effect on a Festival with respect to optional activities prove that one is also forbidden to transgress a rabbinic decree in order to fulfill the mitzva of offering the Paschal lamb? Rabbi Akiva responded and said in defense of Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion: Sprinkling the purifying water of a red heifer upon someone who had contracted ritual impurity through contact with a corpse proves the matter, for it is done for the sake of a mitzva, in order to allow the person to offer the Paschal lamb, and it is prohibited only due to rabbinic decree, and nonetheless it does not override Shabbat, for the purification rite is not performed on the eve of Passover that falls on Shabbat. So, too, you should not be surprised about these activities, namely carrying the animal, bringing it from outside the Shabbat limit, and cutting off its wart, that although they are performed for the sake of a mitzva and they are prohibited only due to rabbinic decree, they do not override Shabbat.

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְעָלֶיהָ אֲנִי דָּן: וּמָה אִם שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁהִיא מִשּׁוּם מְלָאכָה — דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, הַזָּאָה שֶׁהִיא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁדּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת?

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: I do not accept this proof. With regard to this sprinkling itself, I infer that it, too, is permitted for the same reason: If slaughter, which is a biblically prohibited labor, overrides Shabbat, is it not right that sprinkling the purifying water of a red heifer, which is prohibited only due to rabbinic decree, should override Shabbat? You cannot challenge me based on a premise with which I disagree.