Pesachim 13b (יג:) — the Talmud in English

Abaye said to Rav Yosef:

The matter is not dependent at all on the dispute, for

and

when

it was not stated concerning it

with regard to this Mishna:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They said only

that the Sages prohibited the bailee from touching the produce

when

it is diminishing only

by the standard measure of its diminution

at the usual rate of loss [as specified there: “For wheat and rice—nine half-kav measures per kor”].

But

if it is diminishing

by more than the standard measure of its diminution,

even the Sages concede that he

sells it through the court.

And all the more so here,

with regard to leaven on Passover eve, where it is certainly permitted for him to sell it even according to the Sages,

for it will be entirely lost,

as, if he does not sell it, deriving benefit from it will become prohibited.

We learned in the Mishna:

And Rabbi Yehuda further said: Two

loaves

of the thanksgiving offering that had become invalid were placed on top of the platform.

A tanna taught before Rav Yehuda,

the amora who was accustomed to reciting the Mishnayot before Rav Yehuda, recited it in this wording: “They were placed

on top of the platform.”

That is, they placed them directly on the bench.

He said to him:

Rav Yehuda

said: Does he need to conceal them?

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

Rather,

recite

the wording of the Mishna as

“on the roof of the platform,”

for a roof had been built over the platform as shelter from the rain, and the loaves were placed there, from where they were clearly visible.

Raḥava said that Rabbi Yehuda said:

The Temple Mount—

a double colonnade

[platforms]

it had.

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

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

Rabbi Yehuda says: It was called “istavanit”

that

the double platform. That is,

one colonnade inside another.

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

that had become invalid.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

Why

did they become

invalid?

And we answer:

Rabbi Ḥanina said:

Because, on the day before Passover eve, they brought many thanksgiving offerings to the Temple, for the reason that will be explained shortly.

And since

the loaves of the thanksgiving offering

were numerous

on that day, they did not have enough time to eat them, and they

became invalid through being left overnight

on the morning of Passover eve. For the time allotted for eating the thanksgiving offering and its bread is one day and one night—that is, on the day of its sacrifice and only during the following night.

The reason they brought many thanksgiving offerings on the thirteenth of Nisan is

as it was taught: One may not bring

an offering of

thanksgiving during the Festival of Matzot, because of

the leavened bread

that accompanies it.

They would bring forty loaves with the thanksgiving offering: thirty of them matza and ten leavened.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it: What does the beraita teach us? Is it not

obvious

that it is impossible to bring leaven on Passover?

And we answer:

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Here we are dealing with the fourteenth

of Nisan,

and

it is still possible to eat leaven. Nevertheless, the beraita says that one may not bring a thanksgiving offering on that day, because

this tanna holds:

this

one may not bring consecrated offerings into a situation of disqualification.

One may not bring an offering on a day when it is impossible to eat the offering until the end of the time established for it by the Torah, for this may cause it to become notar. Therefore, one may not bring a thanksgiving offering on the fourteenth of Nisan, since its leavened bread could not be eaten throughout the entire day, but only until six hours.

And

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

everyone—

all pilgrims who were obligated to bring a thanksgiving offering—

brought them on the thirteenth,

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

And since they were numerous,

the thanksgiving loaves, they did not have enough time to eat them, and they

became invalid through being left overnight.

It was only because the loaves had become invalid that they were placed on top of the platform. Had they been fit, they would not have placed them there, since by leaving them there until the time of removal, thereby sending them to burning, one would invalidate them deliberately.

They said in the name of Rabbi Yannai:

The two loaves of the thanksgiving offering

were fit,

for they had not suffered a major invalidation such as being left overnight, which would already make them destined for burning. Rather, something had occurred that prevented them from being eaten and would ultimately cause them to be burned; nevertheless, they placed them on the platform already at that time.

And Rabbi Yannai explains:

But why did he call them

“invalid,”

that is, what happened to them that made it impossible to eat them any longer?

The offering was not slaughtered on their account.

As long as the thanksgiving offering had not been slaughtered and its blood had not been sprinkled on the altar, it was prohibited to eat the loaves that accompanied it. For as soon as the owners consecrated the loaves verbally and said, “These are for my thanksgiving offering,” they acquired sanctity of value and became prohibited to eat. Through slaughtering the offering, they acquired sanctity of the body [so that they could no longer be redeemed and would from then on become invalid through being left overnight]. They nevertheless remained prohibited to eat until after the blood of the offering was sprinkled, like the meat of the thanksgiving offering itself, which becomes permitted to eat only after the blood is sprinkled. Since the loaves are dependent upon the offering, they have the same status as it.

And we challenge this: If so,

let us slaughter

the offering on their account, and the loaves could be eaten. Why should we cause them to be burned?

And we answer: What are we dealing with here?

The offering belonging to them was lost,

so they could not slaughter it.

And we challenge again:

Let us bring

for them

an offering

of thanksgiving

from elsewhere, and slaughter

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

And we answer: What are we dealing with here?

It is

a case in which the owners said at the time of consecration:

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

and in such a case one cannot bring another thanksgiving offering.

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

If one 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, he does not bring another thanksgiving offering

to attach to this bread, for

he does not bring another thanksgiving offering

for that purpose; rather, he redeems the bread [since the offering has not yet been slaughtered and it possesses only sanctity of value], and it thereby becomes ordinary property [and with the redemption money he may purchase 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

because of

the

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

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.

But the

thanksgiving

offering

does not come

because of

the

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

And we still challenge this:

We could

redeem them—

redeem this bread, since, as stated, it possesses only sanctity of value—

and take it

[that is, remove it]

into ordinary property!

Once there is a remedy for the bread, why should we deliberately cause consecrated property to be lost?

And we answer:

Rather, actually, the offering was slaughtered on their account,

and the loaves acquired sanctity of the body, so they could no longer be redeemed. Rather,

the blood was spilled

of the offering, leaving the bread permanently prohibited, since it lacked the sprinkling of blood that would permit it to be eaten.

However, they still did not yet require burning. Rather, they required “the passing of form”—a designation for invalidation through being left overnight, meaning that the offering must be invalidated by leaving it overnight until the form of the meat has passed. As they said: Anything whose invalidation is in its body must be burned immediately, but anything whose invalidation is due to the blood or the owners must undergo the passing of form, and only afterward is it taken to the place of burning.

Rabbi Yannai came to teach that nevertheless it is permitted to treat them casually and place them on top of the platform, since they have no remedy by means of eating.

And

the fact that Rabbi Yannai holds that through slaughtering the offering alone the bread acquires sanctity of the body and can no longer be redeemed—

in accordance with whom

is this?

In accordance with Rabbi.

For Rabbi said: When there are two acts that permit

an offering, such as slaughter and sprinkling, both of which together permit the offering and what is dependent upon it to be eaten, nevertheless

one elevates it without the other.

One of them suffices to elevate it to sanctity of the body, although it does not permit it until the second act is performed.

And we find that Rabbi says this with regard to the two loaves brought with the two lambs of Shavuot, which likewise depend upon the two lambs, as the lambs cause the bread to acquire sanctity of the body:

As it was taught: The lambs of Shavuot sanctify the bread only through slaughter

of the lambs, and not through the waving of the living lambs together with the bread.

How so?

If he slaughtered

the two lambs brought with the bread

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

completely: it acquired sanctity of the body and could no longer be redeemed, and it became permitted to eat.

But if he

slaughtered

the two lambs

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

the bread did not become sanctified

at all; rather, it remained with sanctity of value. Since the slaughter was not performed properly, it does not sanctify the bread.

And if he

slaughtered them for their sake, and sprinkled

their

blood not for their sake,

then the

bread is sanctified and is not sanctified: it acquired sanctity of the body through the slaughter [which was performed for their sake] alone, but it did not become permitted to eat, since the blood was not sprinkled for their sake.

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 never becomes sanctified

with sanctity of the body

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 does not acquire sanctity of the body except through the two factors that permit the sacrifice—the slaughter and the sprinkling. Only according to Rabbi does one permitting factor suffice to sanctify it with sanctity of the body. If so, Rabbi Yannai’s statement concerning the thanksgiving loaves likewise depends on this dispute: whether the slaughter alone sanctifies the thanksgiving loaves with sanctity of the body, or not.

And we reject this:

Even you may say

that Rabbi Yannai maintains in accordance with

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

but in our case he concedes that the thanksgiving loaves acquire sanctity 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, agrees with

Rabbi Shimon,

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

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

However, with regard to making the bread permitted for consumption, this is not effective until the blood is actually sprinkled. Therefore, they placed this bread on the ledge, since it was unfit for consumption and could not be redeemed.

It was taught: They said in the name of Rabbi Elazar:

The two thanksgiving loaves

were fit.

As long as

both of them

are lying there, everyone eats

leaven.

When one of them was removed

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

they set aside

the leaven; that is,

they neither ate it nor burned it,

because it was still permitted for benefit.

When both were removed

at the beginning of the sixth hour,

everyone began burning

their leaven.

It was taught: Abba Shaul says:

There was another sign there, that on Passover eve: