Pesachim 3b (ג:) — the Talmud in English

Because of his sons,

who were male, and

it is customary,

as it is their way to ride; therefore, the verse used the expression “riding.”

We raise another objection:

But it is written

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

“and

she was

riding on the donkey

and descending in the concealment of the mountain, and David and his men were descending toward her, and she met them.” It follows that the expression “riding” is used regarding a woman as well?

And we answer:

There,

she rode at night. And

because of the fear of the night, it is customary

for a woman to ride as well.

And if you wish, say:

indeed,

there is no fear of the night,

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

there is fear of David,

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

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

but

there is fear of the mountain.

For she was riding down the slope of the mountain, and was afraid that she might fall from the donkey.

And we raise an objection:

And

if

“impure” is not written in the Torah

as well?

Yet “impure” is stated in many places in the Torah, and in those places the verse did not change its wording to say “not pure.”

And we answer:

Rather, wherever

the two expressions—the refined expression and the offensive one—

are equal

in the number of letters,

it speaks,

the verse speaks

in refined language.

But

wherever the words are more numerous,

that is, where the refined expression has more letters than the offensive expression,

it speaks

the verse speaks

in concise language,

even though it is not refined. [

Except in those places cited above, where the verse lengthened its wording in order not to write “impure,” to teach us that one should seek refined language where it is equal in length to the non-refined expression. And in the other places it used offensive language in order to be concise, to teach us that a person should teach his student by way of 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 concise expression,

for this makes it easier for him to remember his learning.

And we object again:

And

if

wherever

the two expressions, the refined and the offensive,

are equal,

when they are equal in the number of letters,

it speaks,

the verse speaks

in respectful language?

But

“riding”

and “sitting” are equal,

for they have the same number of letters,

and

nevertheless

it says

the verse regarding Abigail

“riding,”

although this is not respectful language for a woman?

And we answer:

“Riding”

is written

there without a vav. Had it been written “sitting,” one additional letter would have been required.

And one should not ask why it did not write “sitting” without a vav. The Torah does not write in defective spelling unless it serves some homiletical purpose, and here there is no homiletical purpose for the spelling “sitting.” But the defective spelling of “riding” serves this very homiletical purpose—to teach that one should use concise language even when it is offensive.

There were two students who were sitting before Rav. One said: We have made this teaching

I have labored over this sugya until I became exhausted

like a panting pig,

like a tired pig.

And one said: We have made this teaching like a panting kid.

And Rav did not speak with the other one.

Rav stopped speaking with the student who had said “like a panting pig,” because he had spoken in offensive language.

There were 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

in purity

in pure vessels,

but do not pick

olives [olive-picking is the term for gathering olives, just as harvesting is the term used for grapes]

in purity?

And one said: Why do they harvest grapes in purity, but pick olives in impurity

in impure vessels?

His teacher said

to them:

I am certain of this one

who said, “They do not pick olives in purity,”

that he

will become

a halakhic decisor in Israel.

This is because he spoke in refined language.

And it was not many days before he issued halakhic rulings in Israel!

There were three priests

who were in the Temple.

One said to them

to his companions:

I received

from the showbread for my portion an amount as small

as a bean.

And one said: I received an olive-bulk

from the bread.

And one said: I received

a small amount of bread,

like a lizard’s tail.

They investigated him,

the one who had spoken in offensive language, saying “like a lizard’s tail,”

and found in him a slight taint of disqualification

of priestly status; it became clear that he was a khalal, a priest disqualified because of a flaw in his lineage.

And we wonder: Why did they investigate his lineage?

But we learned

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

One does not investigate beyond the altar.

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

And here too, since this priest had already served in the priesthood, they had certainly already examined him. Why did they examine him again?

And we answer:

Do not say

that they examined his lineage and found in him

a slight taint of disqualification; rather, say

that they examined him and found in him

offensive disqualification,

for they saw that he was arrogant and disparaged sacred offerings. Therefore, he was unfit 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 to perform does not receive a portion in the distribution of sacrificial food.

And if you wish, say:

They did indeed investigate the validity of his lineage, and although ordinarily “one does not investigate beyond the altar,”

here it is different, for he undermined himself;

he undermined his presumption of fitness by using non-refined language, to the point that they had to investigate him, and then it became clear that originally they had not examined him properly.

There was a certain Aramean

a gentile from Aram,

who would ascend

to the Temple on the eve of Passover

and eat

from the meat of the

Paschal offerings in Jerusalem.

When he returned to his city, he would boast, and

he said: It is written

in the Torah [Exodus 12:43]:

“No son

of a foreigner

may eat of it,”

from the Paschal offering. And it is further stated concerning the Paschal offering [ibid. 48]:

“No uncircumcised person may eat of it.”

But I,

although I am both uncircumcised and a foreigner,

I am eating from the choicest of the choice,

from the finest portion of the Paschal offering!

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said to him: Do they feed you

—do they give

you

to eat

from its tail-fat,

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

He said to him,

the gentile: Indeed,

no,

they did not give me from the tail-fat.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira:

When you ascend there,

the next time you go up to Jerusalem,

say to them,

tell them:

Feed me,

give me to eat

from the tail-fat.

And Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira intended to cause him to reveal himself through this. For the tail fat is offered on the altar and is forbidden to eat.

By asking to eat from it, it would become clear that he was not Jewish.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira had no ability to kill him, and therefore he maneuvered matters in this way.

When he went up,

when he again went up to Jerusalem,

he said to them

to the Jews:

From the tail fat

of the Paschal offering,

serve me!

They said to him:

Behold,

the tail fat is for the Most High [

the altar]

to ascend.

They turned back and

said to him: Who told you this

—to ask to eat from the tail fat?

He said to them: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira

was the one who told me that you certainly insist on giving me only the lean meat. But I participated in purchasing the offering exactly as you did; why are you depriving me?

They said: What is this before us?

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

They investigated him [

after him]

and found that he was an Aramean,

that he was a non-Jew,

and they killed him.

They sent to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: Peace

They sent to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: Peace [

peace]

be with you, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.

For you

sit

in Netzivin [

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

and your net is spread throughout Jerusalem!

This incident was brought here incidentally to the preceding incident, as in both cases the individuals themselves caused others to investigate them.

Rav Kahana fell ill [

became ill],

the Sages sent

sent

Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi

to him, and

said to him: Go, investigate what his condition is [

what his condition is].

He came,

Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi,

found him,

found Rav Kahana,

as his soul had departed [

he had died].

He tore

Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi,

his garment, and turned the tear to the back,

turning the tear behind him so that the Sages would not be alarmed when they suddenly saw the tear, and realize that Rav Kahana had died.

And he came crying,

and reached the Sages while crying.

They said to him,

the Sages: Did

his soul depart

from Rav Kahana?

He said to them:

You understood this on your own. But

I did not say,

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

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

Yohanan HaKukeka [

that was his appellation]

went out to the villages,

to tour the villages and inspect the crops.

When he came,

when he returned,

they said to him

they asked him:

Have the wheat turned out well,

have they ripened properly?

He said to them: The barley has turned out well!

From his words it was implied that the wheat had not turned out well, but he did not want to say so explicitly, so as not to utter something bad.

They said to him:

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

Go and announce

this

to the horses and 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”!

The Gemara wonders:

What could he have said?

How could he have said something else without uttering something bad? And we answer: He could have said

“Last year the wheat turned out well.”

From this they would understand that this year the wheat had not turned out well.

Alternatively:

he could have said

“The lentils have turned out well,”

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