Pesachim 3a — the Talmud in English

And we learned in tractate Keritot [7b]:

“If she miscarries on the night of the eighty-first,”

on the night of the eighty-first after her previous birth of a female, so that on the following day she would have been required to bring an offering for her birth

—Beit Shammai exempt her from a second offering

and one offering suffices for her for both births. For although the days of purity of the first birth had already been completed at the conclusion of the eightieth day, nevertheless, since she is still not fit to bring the offering until the following morning—for offerings are not slaughtered at night—it is considered as though the time of the obligation of the offering for the first birth had not yet arrived.

And Beit Hillel obligate

two offerings, because the night of the eighty-first is already after the completion of the days of purity, and she has already become essentially obligated in an offering for the first birth.

Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: What is different

about one who miscarries

on the night of the eighty-first,

whom you exempt from a second offering,

from

one who miscarries on

the day of the eighty-first,

whom even you admit is obligated in an additional offering? And why should we distinguish between them, since with regard to every matter connected with time, the day and the night preceding it are equal

? And they further said to them: With regard to the impurity of the blood that she sees from this point onward, the night of the eighty-first is equal to the day of the eighty-first. Both are not included within her days of purity. For throughout her days of purity, if she sees blood during them, she is pure. But if she sees blood from the night of the eighty-first onward, she is impure, like any menstruant. And

if it equaled

[was equal]

it

the night to the day

with

regard to

impurity,

why

should it not equal it with regard to

the matter of

an offering,

and just as if she miscarries tomorrow she becomes obligated in a separate offering for it, so too if she miscarried at night ? And Mar Zutra concludes his question:

From the fact that Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai

“What is different about the night of the eighty-first from the day of the eighty-first,” it follows

that “night”

means evening.

And this is difficult for Rav Huna?

And we conclude:

It follows! And further

Furthermore,

meyiṯivi

against Rav Huna from that which was taught:

It could have been that

the flesh of the peace-offerings

would be eaten on the night of

the

third

day after its slaughter, and only on the following morning would it become forbidden to eat, when it becomes notar and must be burned? For

it is a logical inference,

we have to learn through a comparison:

Sacrificial animals

of the thanksgiving-offering and the Passover-offering

are eaten for one day, whereas peace-offerings are eaten for two days.

Just as there

with the thanksgiving-offering and the Passover-offering, they are eaten also on the

night

of

after the first day,

as with the thanksgiving-offering it is written: “He shall not leave any of it until morning ,” and it follows that at night it is still permitted to eat it. And similarly concerning the Passover-offering it is said: “You shall not leave any of it until morning

,”

so too here,

with peace-offerings, it is said that they are eaten also on the

night

of after the

second day.

The verse states concerning peace-offerings [Leviticus 19:6

]:

“On

the day of your sacrifice it shall be eaten, and on the morrow. And what remains until the day

of the third day shall be burned in fire,” and we expound: only on the morrow,

while it is still day, is it eaten, and it is not eaten on the night of

the

third day.

day.

Could what remains be burned

from it

immediately

on the night of the third day, since you say that its eating time has already passed then?

And it is a logical inference

that it should be burned then, for

sacrificial animals

of the thanksgiving-offering and the Passover-offering

are eaten for one day and one night, whereas peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night

[the night between the two days].

Just as there,

with the thanksgiving-offering and the Passover-offering,

immediately after

the end of the time of

eating,

that is, immediately in the morning of the second day, it is the time of

burning,

as it is said concerning the Passover-offering: “And what remains of it until morning you shall burn in fire,”

so too here,

with peace-offerings, it is said

immediately

at the completion of the second day, which is

the

end of the time of

eating,

there shall be

burning?

The verse states concerning peace-offerings [there, 7:17

]:

“And what remains of the flesh of the sacrifice, on the third day shall be burned in fire.”

And here it does not say “until the third day,” but “on the third day,” to say that with regard to the time of burning, only

during the day may you burn it, but you may not burn it at night

because sacrificial flesh is not burned at night.

And we conclude the difficulty:

From the fact that it says “

could

it be eaten on the night of the third,” it follows that

“night”

means evening,

for there it certainly means the night of the third and not the day of the third, since obviously it is forbidden to eat it. And this is difficult for Rav Huna?

And we conclude:

It follows!

Ta shma

a proof for Rav Yehuda: It was taught:

The night

[of the night]

of Yom Kippur, he recites

the silent prayer of

seven

blessings,

and confesses,

saying the confession of Yom Kippur at the end of the prayer. And in the

morning service

of Yom Kippur he

recites

the prayer of

seven and confesses.

And likewise

in Musaf he recites seven and confesses.

And likewise

in Minhah he recites seven and confesses.

And

in the evening service

of the conclusion of Yom Kippur he

recites

the weekday prayer,

a form of the Eighteen. That is, three first blessings and three last blessings, and in the middle he says the prayer of “Havinen,” which contains a form of the thirteen middle blessings. This is a short prayer that they instituted for travelers who cannot prolong their prayer. And even at the conclusion of Yom Kippur they permitted one to leave with it, because of the exertion of the fast.

That is, he recites the three first blessings and the three final blessings, and in the middle he recites the prayer “Havinenu,” which contains an abbreviated form of the thirteen middle blessings. This is a brief prayer instituted for travelers who are unable to prolong their prayer. At the conclusion of Yom Kippur too, they permitted its recitation because of the difficulty caused by the fast.

Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel says in the name of his fathers:

He should not recite “Havinen,” but

he recites

the weekday prayer of

eighteen

blessings

complete.

Because he must say havdala

of “You have granted us knowledge

”

in the blessing

“Who graciously grants knowledge.” And in “Havinen” there is no blessing of “Who graciously grants knowledge” in which they could include havdala.

The “Havinenu” prayer does not contain the blessing “Who grants knowledge,” in which the Havdala could be included.

Thus, the night of Yom Kippur is called “night

”;

it follows,

that “night” means evening

according to Rav Yehuda.

And we conclude:

It follows!

Ta shma

another proof for Rav Yehuda:

For the school of Shmuel taught: On the night of the fourteenth, one searches for leaven by candlelight! It follows

that

“night”

in the phrase “the night of the fourteenth” stated in the Mishna

means evening,

for at night one searches for the leaven and not during the day.

And on the basis of all these proofs, we conclude:

Rather, both Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda

do not disagree.

Everyone

agrees that

“night”

means evening. And both said one and the same thing,

They both expressed the same idea,

and they do not disagree.

Rather,

one master

calls the night

according to his place,

as was customary in his locality.

And one master

calls the night

according to his place.

In the place of Rav Huna they called

the night

“Nehagei,”

from a term meaning light.

And in the place of Rav Yehuda they called

the night

“li-li.”

And we examine it:

And the tanna of our Mishna, for what reason

did he state in the Mishna “night of the fourteenth,” and

did not teach

“nights

of the fourteenth,” as the school of Shmuel taught? And we answer: The tanna of the Mishna

used an elegant expression. “Night” is a refined expression, and it is a mitzva to speak in refined language,

and this is also the way of refined people.

And this is like Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

For Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: A person should never utter an indecent expression from his mouth.

For it bent around

[it prolonged]

the verse by eight letters, rather than uttering an indecent expression from his mouth.

As it is stated [Genesis 7:8]

Genesis 7:8:

“Of the pure animal and of the animal that is not pure,”

and it did not say “the impure animal,” as throughout the Torah. Rather, Scripture altered [its wording] in one place and added another eight letters [for the number of letters in “the impure” is five, whereas the number of letters in “that is not pure” is thirteen], in order to teach you to seek refined language.

[Indeed, “night” is not an indecent expression, and Rabbi Joshua ben Levi’s words do not refer to the Mishna. Rather, from him we learn that it is the way of the Sages to seek pure and clean language.]

Rav Pappa said:

even

nine

letters do we find that Scripture added in order not to utter an indecent expression.

As it is stated [Deuteronomy 23:11]

Deuteronomy 23:11:

“If there will be among you a man who will not be pure, because of a nocturnal occurrence,”

and it did not write “impure,” whose number of letters is three, but wrote “who will not be pure,” whose number of letters is twelve [at least, even if it is read “pure” in defective spelling]. Thus, it added nine letters.

Ravina said: ten

letters did the verse bend around here, for we must also count the

vav of “pure,”

since in fact it is written in full spelling.

Rav Aha bar Jacob said: sixteen

letters do we find that Scripture added in order not to utter an indecent expression.

As it is stated [I Samuel 20:26]

I Samuel 20:26:

“For he said: It is an occurrence; he is not pure; indeed, he is not pure,”

and it did not say “It is an impure occurrence.” Here there is an addition of sixteen letters in order not to write “impure.”

It was taught in the school of Rabbi Ishmael: A person should always speak in refined language.

For regarding a

man

with a flux, it called

Scripture

“riding-place,”

as it is stated [Leviticus 15:9], “And every riding-place upon which the man with the flux rides shall become impure.”

And regarding a woman

with menstruation or a woman with a flux,

it called

Scripture

“seat,”

that is, the law of a riding-place is not mentioned regarding a woman, but only the law of a seat, as it is stated [there, verse 23], “or upon the vessel upon which she sits.” Although there is no difference between a man and a woman, and a woman too, when she is impure, renders her riding-place impure as well. Rather, it is because it is not proper to mention riding and spreading the legs regarding a woman. Therefore, the law of a riding-place was not stated regarding her.

And

further

it says,

Scripture [Job 15:5]

“And you choose the language of the cunning.”

For Scripture commands one concerning this: to choose the language of the Sages, which is refined language.

And

further it

says [there, 33:3]

meaning clear and refined speech.

“And the knowledge of my lips

they speak clearly,”

a clear and pure language.

And we inquire about it:

Why

was it necessary to add yet another

“and it says” in the two verses from Job? Have we not already learned this from the earlier verses concerning one with a flux

?

And we answer: It was necessary to bring additional verses because,

you might say

that from the verses of the Torah we can still say:

this applies only in matters of Torah,

for only the Torah was careful with its language, since it came from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed is He.

But in matters of the Sages, no,

the Sages need not be careful with their language in the Mishna and the beraita.

Therefore

come and hear: “And it says,”

“And you choose the language of the cunning,”

we learn that the cunning [the Sages] are choosers of refined language.

And still,

you might say, this applies only in matters of the Sages,

for only the Sages in the Mishna and the beraita must be careful with refined language,

but in ordinary matters, no.

There is no need to be careful about this.

Therefore, come and hear:

“And it says”

“And the knowledge of my lips they speak clearly,”

for one must always be careful to use clear and pure language.

And we challenge the proof that the beraita brought from the fact that “riding-place” was not stated regarding a woman:

And

for

regarding a woman it is not written

the expression

“riding-place”?

But is it not written [Genesis 24:61]

to ride

“And Rebecca and her maidservants arose, and they rode upon the camels”?!

And we answer:

There, because of the fear of the camels,

from fear of the height of the camels,

it is customary

for a woman

to do so

to ride upon the camel, for because she fears lest she fall from the camel, she sits upon it in the form of riding, so that she can hold onto it with her hands and legs.

We challenge further:

But is it not written [Exodus 4:20]

“And Moses took his wife and his sons and had them ride upon the donkey,”

so that even regarding a donkey, upon which it is possible for a woman to sit, Scripture used the language of riding?

And we answer:

There,