Pesachim 3b — the Talmud in English

Because of his sons,

who were males, and

it is the usual manner,

for it is their way to ride; therefore Scripture used the expression of riding.

We raise another objection:

But it is written

concerning Abigail, the wife of Nabal [I Samuel 25:20],

“And

she was

riding upon the donkey

and descending in the concealment of the mountain; and behold, David and his men were descending toward her, and she met them.” Thus, concerning a woman also the expression of riding is stated?

And we answer:

There,

she rode at night. And

because of the fear of the night, it is the usual manner

even for a woman to ride.

And if you wish, say:

indeed,

there was no fear of the night,

and it would have been possible even at night not to ride; but

there was fear of David,

for she was afraid of David, who was on his way to kill the entire household of Nabal, and therefore she sat in the form of riding.

And if you wish, say: There was no fear of David either,

but

there was fear of the mountain.

For she rode down the slope of the mountain, and she was afraid lest she fall from the donkey.

And we object:

And

for

is “impure” not written in the Torah

“impure”?

Yet “impure” is stated in the Torah in many places, and Scripture did not change them to write “not pure.”

And we answer:

Rather, wherever

there are two expressions, the clean expression and the disgraceful one,

are equal to one another,

that is, they are equal in the number of letters,

it speaks,

Scripture speaks

in a clean expression.

But

wherever the words are more numerous,

so that there are more letters in the clean expression than in the disgraceful expression,

it speaks

Scripture speaks

in a concise expression,

even though it is not clean.

Except in those places brought above, where Scripture lengthened its wording in order not to write “impure,” in order to teach us that one must seek a clean expression where it is equal to the expression that is not clean. And in the other places it wrote a disgraceful expression in order to be concise, in order to teach us that a person must teach his student by way of a concise expression.

As Rav Huna said in the name of Rav—and some say, Rav Huna said in the name of Rav in the name of Rabbi Meir: A person should always teach his student by way of a concise expression,

for through this it is easier to remember his learning.

And again we object:

And

for

wherever

the two expressions, the clean and the disgraceful,

are equal to one another,

when they are equal in the number of letters,

it speaks,

Scripture speaks

in an expression of honor?

But

“riding”

and “sitting,” are equal to one another,

for the number of their letters is equal,

and

nevertheless

it says

the verse concerning Abigail

“riding,”

although this is not an expression of honor concerning a woman?

And we answer:

“Riding”

is written

there without a vav. Had it been written “sitting,” one additional letter would have had to be added.

And one should not ask that it should write “you sat” without a vav. For the Torah does not write defective spelling except where it comes for some exposition, and here there is no exposition for “you sat.” But the defective spelling of “riding” comes for this very exposition—to teach that one should grasp a concise expression even though it is disgraceful.

Those two students who were sitting before Rav: One said, “We have made this teaching as firm as,”

I exerted myself over this discussion until I became exhausted,

“a panting other thing,”

like an exhausted pig.

And one said: “We have made this teaching as firm as a panting kid.”

And Rav did not speak with that one.

Rav stopped speaking with the student who said “a panting other thing,” because he had spoken in a disgraceful expression.

Those two students who were sitting before Hillel.

And one of them

was

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai.

And some say,

that the two students were sitting

before Rabbi.

And one of them

was

Rabbi Yohanan.

One said: “Why do they harvest grapes

grapes

in purity

in pure vessels,

but they do not gather olives

olives [gathering is an expression for collecting olives, just as harvesting is for grapes]

in purity?”

And one said: “Why do they harvest grapes in purity, but gather olives in impurity,”

in impure vessels?

He said,

their teacher:

“I am certain about this one

who said, “they do not gather olives in purity,”

that he

will in the future be

one who gives legal decisions in Israel.”

Because he spoke in a clean expression.

And it was not many days before he gave legal decisions in Israel!

Those three priests

who were in the Temple.

One said to them

to his companions:

“There reached me

from the showbread for my portion an amount, a small quantity,

the size of a doubled quantity.”

And one said: “There reached me an olive-bulk”

from the bread.

And one said: “There reached me

a little bread,

like the tail of a lizard.”

They investigated him,

that is, the one who spoke in a disgraceful expression, who said “like the tail of the lizard,”

and found in him a trace of disqualification

of priestly status: it became clear that he was a disqualified priest.

And we are astonished: Why did they investigate his lineage?

But we learned

in tractate Kiddushin [76a], concerning the investigation of lineage for marriage:

“They do not investigate from the altar and above.”

A priest who served in the service of the altar need not have his lineage investigated in the generations above him, to see whether there is family disqualification or priestly disqualification among them, because if he had not been fit and worthy for the priesthood, they would not have allowed him to serve at the altar. For thus we learned in tractate Middot: The Great Court that was in the Chamber of Hewn Stone would investigate all the priests and Levites concerning their lineage before they entered the Temple service.

And here too, since that priest had already served in the priesthood, certainly they had already investigated him. Why did they investigate him again?

And we answer:

Do not say

that they investigated his lineage and found in him

a trace of disqualification; rather, say

that they investigated him and found in him

arrogance of disqualification,

for they saw that he was haughty and disparaged the sacred things of Heaven. Therefore he was not fit to serve. This is similar to what they said: Any priest who does not acknowledge all the priestly services that they were commanded from Heaven does not receive a portion in the division of consecrated things.

And if you wish, say:

In truth, they investigated the validity of his lineage, and although generally “they do not investigate from the altar and above,”

there it is different, for he himself impaired his standing,

he undermined his presumption of fitness by using an expression that was not clean, to the point that they had to investigate him; and then it became clear that initially they had not investigated him properly.

That Aramean

a gentile from Aram,

who would go up

who would go up to the Temple on the eve of Passover

and eat

from the meat of the

Paschal offering in Jerusalem.

When he returned to his city he would boast, and

he said: “It is written

in the Torah [Exodus 12:43]

‘Every son

of a stranger

shall not eat of it,’”

from the offering of the Paschal lamb. And it is further said concerning the Paschal offering [ibid. 48],

“Every uncircumcised male shall not eat of it.”

“But I,”

although I am uncircumcised and a son of a stranger,

“here I am eating from the choicest of the choicest,”

from the choicest portion of the Paschal offering!

Rabbi Judah ben Bateira said to him: “Do they give you”

do they give

you

to eat

from its fat-tail,

which is the fattest meat in it? Surely they gave you only from the lean meat of the Paschal offering!

He said to him,

the gentile: Indeed,

not

did they give me from the fat-tail.

He said to him,

Rabbi Judah ben Bateira:

“When you go up there,

the next time you go up to Jerusalem,

say to them,

say to them:

“Give me,

feed me

from the fat-tail.”

And Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira intended to entrap him in this way. For the tail-fat is offered upon the altar, and it is forbidden to eat.

And when he would ask to eat from it, the matter would become known: that he was not an Israelite.

And Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira did not have the possibility of killing him, and therefore he maneuvered the matter in this way.

When he went up,

when he again went up to Jerusalem,

he said to them

to the Israelites:

From the tail-fat

of the Passover offering,

serve me!

They said to him:

Behold,

the tail-fat is for the Most High

[for the altar]

it ascends.

And they again

said to him: Who told you this

to ask to eat from the tail-fat?

He said to them: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira

is the one who told me that you certainly insist on giving me only from the lean meat. But I, after all, participated in purchasing the offering exactly like you, so why do you deprive me?

They said: What is this that we see?

What is the meaning of this matter before us!? For it is impossible that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira would have told him this.

They investigated after him

[him]

and found that he was an Aramean,

it became clear that he was a gentile,

and they killed him.

They sent to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: Peace

[peace]

to you, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.

For you

who are sitting

in Netzivin

[the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira’s city],

and your trap is spread in Jerusalem!

And this incident was brought here incidentally to the preceding incident, for both caused themselves to be investigated.

Rav Kahana became ill

[he fell ill],

the Sages sent

the Sages sent

to Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi

to him, and

said to him: Go, investigate what his condition is

[what his state is].

He came

Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi,

found him,

he found Rav Kahana,

that his soul had departed

[that he had died].

He tore

Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi,

his garment, and turned his tear backward,

he turned the tear to the back, so that the Sages would not be alarmed when they suddenly saw the tear,

and understand that Rav Kahana had died. And he came crying,

and arrived before the Sages while crying.

They said to him

the Sages:

Did

his soul depart

from Rav Kahana?

He said to them:

You understood this yourselves. But

I did not say it,

I did not explicitly tell you this report, for it is written [Proverbs 10:18]:

“And one who brings out an evil report is a fool.”

Yohanan HaHakukah

[that was his appellation]

went out to the villages,

he went out to tour the villages to inspect the crops.

When he came,

when he returned,

they said to him

they asked him:

Have the wheat become good,

have they ripened properly?

He said to them: The barley has become good!

From his words it was implied that the wheat had not become good, but he did not wish to say this explicitly, so as not to bring an evil statement out of his mouth.

They said to him:

What are you answering us concerning barley, which is not human food?

Go and announce it

concerning this

to the horses and the donkeys,

for that is their food, as

it is written

[I Kings 5:8]:

“The barley and the straw are for the horses and the steeds”!

And the Gemara wonders:

What could he have said?

How could he have said something else without bringing something bad out of his mouth? And we answer: He should have said

“Last year the wheat became good.”

From this they would understand that this year the wheat had not become good.

Alternatively:

he could have said

“The lentils have become good,”

for lentils are human food, and he would not have needed to speak about animal food.