Pesachim 13b — the Talmud in English

Abaye said to him

to Rav Yosef: The matter does not depend at all on the dispute, for

and

when

it was not stated concerning it

concerning this Mishna:

Rabba bar bar Hanna said that Rabbi Yohanan said: They taught

that the Sages said that the bailee should not touch the produce,

only

when it is diminished only

by the measure of its diminution

by the ordinary amount by which it is destined to diminish [as stipulated there: “For wheat and rice—nine half-kav measures per kor”].

But

if it is diminished

more than the measure of its diminution,

even the Sages agree that he

sells it in court.

And all the more so here,

with hametz on the eve of Passover, for it is certainly permitted for him to sell it even according to the Sages,

for it is entirely lost,

since if he does not sell it, it will become forbidden to derive benefit from it.

We learned in the Mishna:

And Rabbi Judah further said, two

loaves

of a thanksgiving-offering that had become unfit were placed on the roofed platform.

A tanna taught before Rav Judah,

the amora who was accustomed to reciting the Mishnayot before Rav Judah taught in this wording: “Placed

on top of the platform.”

That is, they placed them directly on the bench.

He said to him,

Rav Judah:

Does he need to conceal them?

But they were placed there so that all the people would see them, and from on top of the platform they would not be visible.

Rather,

teach

in the wording of the Mishna

“on the roof of the platform,”

for a roof was built above the platform as shelter from the rain, and there they placed the loaves, and from there they were clearly visible.

Rehava said that Rabbi Judah said:

The Temple Mount—

a colonnade

[a platform]

was double.

Two rows of platforms surrounded the Temple Mount all around, one inside the other.

It was also taught likewise: The Temple Mount was a double colonnade.

Rabbi Judah says: “It was called

an istavnit”

that double platform. That is,

a colonnade within a colonnade.

We learned in the Mishna: Two loaves of a thanksgiving-offering

that had become unfit.

And we raised an objection concerning it:

Why

did they become

unfit?

And we answered:

Rabbi Hanina said:

Because on the day before the eve of Passover, they would bring many thanksgiving-offerings to the Temple, for the reason that will be explained shortly. And

since there were

thanksgiving-offering loaves

many

on that day, they did not manage to eat them in time, and they would

become unfit through remaining overnight

on the morning of the eve of Passover. For the time for eating a thanksgiving-offering and its bread is one day and one night, that is, only on the day of the offering and the night following it.

And the reason that they brought many thanksgiving-offerings on the thirteenth of Nisan is as

it was taught: One does not bring

an offering of

a thanksgiving-offering during the Festival of Matzot, because of

the loaves of

leaven that are in it.

For they would bring forty loaves with the thanksgiving-offering: thirty of them unleavened, and ten leavened.

And we raised an objection concerning it: What does the beraita teach us? Is it not

obvious

that it is impossible to bring leaven on Passover?

And we answered:

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Here, it is the fourteenth

of Nisan

that we are discussing,

when it is still possible to eat hametz. And nevertheless the beraita says that one does not bring a thanksgiving-offering on it, because

he holds

this tanna:

One does not bring sacred offerings into a place of disqualification.

One does not bring an offering on such a day, on which it is impossible to eat the offering until the end of the time that the Torah established for it. For through this it may come to the status of notar. Therefore, one does not bring a thanksgiving-offering on the fourteenth of Nisan, for it will not be possible to eat the leavened bread in it throughout the entire day, but only until six hours.

And

since it is impossible to bring the thanksgiving-offering on the fourteenth,

everyone,

that is, all the pilgrims who were obligated to bring a thanksgiving-offering,

brought them on the thirteenth,

for they would not be able to bring it on the following day, and certainly not on Passover itself.

And since they were many

thanksgiving-offering loaves, they did not manage to eat them, and they would

become unfit through remaining overnight.

And it was only because the loaves became unfit that they placed them on top of the platform. But if they had been fit, they would not have placed them there, for by leaving them there until the time of removal, he disqualifies them by his own hands, and they go out to be burned.

In the name of Rabbi Yannai they said:

The two thanksgiving-offering loaves

were fit,

for they did not even have a major disqualification such as the disqualification of remaining overnight, whereby they would already stand destined for burning. Rather, something occurred to them that prevented their being eaten and would ultimately cause them to be burned; nevertheless, they already placed them on top of the platform.

And Rabbi Yannai explains:

Then why did he call them

“unfit,”

that is, what happened to them, so that they could no longer be eaten?

The offering was not slaughtered on their account,

and as long as the thanksgiving-offering had not been slaughtered and its blood had not been sprinkled on the altar, it is forbidden to eat the loaves that come with it. For immediately when the owners sanctify the loaves verbally and say, “These are for my thanksgiving-offering,” monetary sanctity takes hold of them, and they become forbidden to eat. Through slaughtering the offering they become sanctified with bodily sanctity [with regard to the fact that they may no longer be redeemed, and from then on they become disqualified through remaining overnight]. And they still remain forbidden to eat until after the sprinkling of the offering’s blood, like the flesh of the thanksgiving-offering itself, which becomes permitted for eating only after the sprinkling of the blood. Since the loaves depend upon it, they are like it.

And we were astonished: If so,

let us slaughter

the offering on their account, and the loaves will be eaten; why should we cause them to be burned?

And we answered: What are we dealing with here?

The offering was lost

that belonged to them.

And we objected again:

Let us bring

upon them

an offering

of thanksgiving

anoth­er, and slaughter

it, so that it will permit these loaves to be eaten?

And we answered: What are we dealing with here?

Where he said

the owner, at the time of sanctification,

“This is the thanksgiving-offering and this is its bread,”

and in such a case he cannot bring another thanksgiving-offering.

And this is in accordance with Rabba, for Rabba said:

If he said, “This is the thanksgiving-offering and this is its bread,” then if

the bread was lost, he brings other bread

in its place and attaches it to this thanksgiving-offering. But if

the thanksgiving-offering was lost,

the

he does not bring another thanksgiving-offering

to attach it to this bread; rather, he redeems the bread [for the offering has not yet been slaughtered, and it possesses only monetary sanctity], and it leaves to ordinary status [and with the redemption money he purchases another thanksgiving-offering, or bread for another thanksgiving-offering].

And Rabba explains:

What is the reason

for the distinction between the bread being lost and the thanksgiving-offering being lost?

Because the

bread

comes

on account of

the

thanksgiving-offering

and is attached to it. And since the owners said, “This is the thanksgiving-offering and this is its bread,” the bread was designated for this thanksgiving-offering, and it is unfit for another thanksgiving-offering. Therefore, it is impossible to bring another thanksgiving-offering and attach it to this bread.

And

the

thanksgiving-offering

does not come

on account of

the

bread,

for the thanksgiving-offering is primary. Therefore, the thanksgiving-offering was not designated specifically for this bread, and if the bread was lost, he can bring other bread in its place and attach it to this thanksgiving-offering.

And we still object:

Let us redeem them,

let us redeem this bread, for, as stated, it possesses only monetary sanctity.

And let us take them out

[let us take it out]

to ordinary status!

And since there is a remedy for the bread, why should we destroy sacred property with our own hands?

And we answered:

Rather, in truth, the offering was slaughtered on their account,

and the loaves became sanctified with bodily sanctity, and they can no longer be redeemed. Rather,

the blood was spilled

of the offering, and the bread remained forever in its prohibited state, for it lacks the sprinkling of blood that would permit it to be eaten.

Yet they are still not subject to burning; rather, they require “the passing of form” [a designation for disqualification through remaining overnight, meaning that the offering must be disqualified by allowing it to remain overnight, so that the form of the flesh passes from it]. As they said: Anything whose disqualification is in its body is burned immediately, but anything whose disqualification is in the blood or in the owners has its form allowed to pass, and afterward it goes out to the place of burning.

And Rabbi Yannai came to teach us that even so, it is permitted to treat them lightly and place them on top of the platform, since they have no remedy through eating.

And

the view of Rabbi Yannai, that through slaughtering the offering alone the bread becomes sanctified with bodily sanctity so that it can no longer be redeemed, is

according to whom

?

According to Rabbi.

For Rabbi said: Two factors that permit,

such as slaughtering and sprinkling, both of which together permit the offering and that which depends upon it to be eaten, nevertheless

raise one without the other.

One of them is sufficient to raise it to bodily sanctity, even though it does not permit it until the other one comes.

And we find that Rabbi says this concerning the two loaves that come with the two lambs of Shavuot, for they too depend upon the two lambs, and through the lambs the bread becomes sanctified with bodily sanctity:

For it was taught: The lambs of Shavuot do not sanctify the bread except through slaughtering

the lambs alone, and not through the waving while the lambs are alive, together with the bread.

How so?

If he slaughtered

the two lambs that come with the bread

for their sake, and sprinkled their blood for their sake, the bread became sanctified

completely: bodily sanctity descended upon it and it can no longer be redeemed, and it becomes permitted for eating.

But if

he slaughtered

the two lambs

not for their sake, and sprinkled their blood not for their sake,

the bread was not sanctified

at all; rather, it remained with monetary sanctity. Since the slaughtering was not performed properly, it does not sanctify the bread.

And if

he slaughtered them for their sake, and sprinkled

the

blood not for their sake,

then the

bread is sanctified and is not sanctified:

it became sanctified with bodily sanctity through the slaughtering [which was for their sake] alone, but it does not become permitted for eating, since the sprinkling of the blood was not for their sake;

these are the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: The bread is never sanctified

with bodily sanctity

until he slaughters

the lambs

for their sake, and sprinkles

their

blood for their sake!

For according to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, the bread is not sanctified with the sanctity of the body except through the two permitters of the sacrifice: the slaughtering and the sprinkling. And only according to Rabbi is one permitter sufficient to sanctify it with the sanctity of the body. If so, even the statement of Rabbi Yannai concerning the breads of the thanksgiving offering depends upon this dispute: whether the slaughtering alone sanctifies the breads of the thanksgiving offering with the sanctity of the body, or not.

And we reject this:

Even you can say

that Rabbi Yannai holds like

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon,

in our matter he concedes that the thanksgiving-offering loaves become sanctified even without the sprinkling. For

here, with what are we dealing? With a case where the blood was received

of the thanksgiving offering

in a cup, and

only afterward

was spilled.

And Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon held like

Rabbi Shimon,

his father, who said: Anything that is destined to be sprinkled is considered as though it had been sprinkled!

And here too, since the blood was destined to be sprinkled, even though in the end it was not sprinkled, the sanctity of the body had already taken effect upon the bread, as though the blood had actually been sprinkled upon it.

But concerning the bread being permitted for eating, this is not effective until the blood is actually sprinkled. Therefore they placed this bread on top of the platform, since it was not fit for eating, and it also could not be redeemed.

It was taught: In the name of Rabbi Elazar they said:

the two loaves of the thanksgiving offering

were valid.

As long as

both of them

are lying there, all the people eat

leaven.

When one of them was removed

at the beginning of the fifth hour, this was a sign that from then on they

suspend

the leaven, meaning that they

neither eat nor burn

it, because it was still permitted for benefit.

When both of them were removed

at the beginning of the sixth hour,

they all began burning

their leaven.

It was taught: Abba Shaul says:

There was another sign there, for on the eve of Passover: