Pesachim 53b — the Talmud in English

Rather, say:

this is what they sent him:

You are close

to

feeding Israel sacrificial meat outside!

For you are feeding them something resembling sacrificial meat outside.

And now the Gemara raises an objection: It is implied from here that specifically a kid

with its limbs arranged, but not

indeed, is forbidden to eat, because it resembles the flesh of the Passover offering and may be confused with it.

But roasted meat

that does not have its limbs arranged, no

does not appear like eating sacrificial meat outside. And this is difficult for Rav, who prohibited saying, “This meat is for Passover,” even concerning a kid whose limbs are not arranged, and held that all meat may be confused with the Passover offering.

They said

in the beit-midrash to resolve it:

With its limbs arranged,

which resembles the Passover offering,

it makes no difference

whether he

said

about it, “Behold, this is for Passover,”

and it makes no difference

whether he

did not say

anything about it; it is forbidden to eat it.

And that which Rav said, that even meat

whose limbs are not arranged

may be confused with the Passover offering, applies specifically if he

specified

and said, “Behold, this is for Passover,”

then

it may be confused with it. And therefore it is forbidden to say this.

But if he

did not specify

anything about it—

it does not

become confused with the Passover offering.

Rav Aḥa teaches this beraita—

according to Rabbi Shimon!

That is, it was not Rabbi Yosei who cited the incident of Theodosius the Roman, but Rabbi Shimon.

Rav Sheshet strongly objected to this: Granted, according to the one who teaches it according to Rabbi Yosei, it is satisfactory.

But according to the one who teaches

this beraita

according to Rabbi Shimon, is it satisfactory?!

But we learned:

A voluntary meal-offering comes only from wheat. And if one said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering from barley,” he must bring it from wheat!

For since he said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering,” he became obligated in a proper meal-offering. And although he continued his statement and said, “from barley,” his principal intention is directed to the beginning of his words, for we hold: “We seize the first expression.”

And Rabbi Shimon exempts

him entirely from bringing a meal-offering, because

he did not make a voluntary offering in the manner of those who make voluntary offerings!

For Rabbi Shimon holds that a person is also seized by the completion of his words, since his intention is also directed to the matter that he concluded by saying, “from barley.” For he thought that it was possible to bring a meal-offering even from barley, and this was his intention. Therefore, there is nothing in his words.

If so, this is difficult: How could Rabbi Shimon say concerning a kid with its limbs arranged that it is “close to eating sacrificial meat outside”?

But even if he had explicitly consecrated the kid with its limbs arranged for the sake of the Passover offering, it would not have become consecrated. For certainly, at the time of its roasting, it is already impossible to consecrate it as an offering. And whenever one did not make a voluntary offering in the manner of those who make voluntary offerings, there is nothing in his words.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And

is it so that

the one who teaches

the incident of Theodosius the Roman

according to Rabbi Yosei

[in the name of Rabbi Yosei],

is it

indeed

satisfactory?

But Rava said: Rabbi Shimon,

who exempted one who said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering from barley”—

stated it according to the method of Rabbi Yosei.

For

Rabbi Yosei

said: A person is also seized by the completion of his words!

And Rabbi Shimon also holds this. Therefore, he held that certainly his intention was to make a voluntary offering from barley.

And as we learned: One who says, “This is the substitute of a burnt-offering, the substitute of a peace-offering”—it is the substitute of a burnt-offering, because we seize the first expression; these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yosei says: If this was his intention from the outset, since it was not possible for him to utter two designations simultaneously, and therefore he uttered them one after the other (Rashi), and when he said “burnt-offering” he had already intended to say “peace-offering” as well, his words stand. And the two consecrations take effect in it simultaneously. Therefore, it shall graze until it develops a blemish, and it shall be sold. And with the value of half of it he shall bring a burnt-offering, and with the value of half of it a peace-offering.

Is it not that, since Rabbi Shimon holds like Rabbi Yosei,

also

Rabbi Yosei holds like Rabbi Shimon,

and holds that whenever one did not make a voluntary offering in the manner of those who make voluntary offerings, there is nothing in his words?!

And if so, it is difficult: How could Rabbi Yosei say concerning a kid with its limbs arranged that it is close to eating sacrificial meat outside? For it is not the manner of those who make voluntary offerings to consecrate it after slaughter.

And we answer:

No,

it is not so.

Rather, indeed

Rabbi Shimon holds like Rabbi Yosei

that “a person is seized by the completion of his words,” but

it is not

necessary to say that

Rabbi Yosei holds like Rabbi Shimon

concerning one who makes a voluntary offering of a barley meal-offering. And Rabbi Yosei always holds that he is obligated in a wheat meal-offering. And although in general he holds that a person is seized by the completion of his words, here we assume that certainly he intended a wheat meal-offering, because a person does not utter his words in vain. And therefore he also prohibited a kid with its limbs arranged on the night of Passover, because it resembles eating sacrificial meat outside.

For if he had explicitly consecrated the kid with its limbs arranged and said, “This is a Passover offering,” we would not say that, since he did not consecrate it while alive in the manner of those who consecrate offerings, there is nothing in his words. Rather, we would interpret his words as having consecrated it for the value of a Passover offering, with the intention of selling it and bringing a Passover offering with its proceeds, because a person does not utter his words in vain.

They raised a dilemma before them:

Why did they refrain from excommunicating him for having instituted for them the practice of eating kids with their limbs arranged?

Was it because

Theodosius the Roman was a great man,

and they did not excommunicate him out of regard for him?

Or

because

he was a man of power

and they feared his strength?

And we resolve it:

Come and hear: Theodosius the Roman further expounded:

This implies that he expounded teachings and that he was a great man; therefore, they did not excommunicate him. And this is what he expounded:

What did Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah see, that they surrendered themselves for the sanctification of the Name,

and did not bow to the statue of Nebuchadnezzar?

But do we not hold concerning all the mitzvot, “Let him transgress and not be killed,” which we expound from, “These are the mitzvot that a person shall perform and live through them”—and live through them, but not die through them?

Rather,

they derived a kal va-chomer from the frogs

in Egypt:

And if frogs, which are not

themselves

commanded concerning the sanctification of the Name,

nevertheless

it is written concerning them, “And they shall come up and enter your house, and your ovens, and your kneading-bowls.”

And

behold,

when are kneading-bowls

[doughs]

found beside an oven?

You must say: When the oven is hot.

It follows that the frogs surrendered their lives and entered the hot oven in order to fulfill the command of the Name.

And if so,

we

[Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah],

who are commanded,

we are

concerning the sanctification of the Name—

all the more so

that we must surrender our lives for this!

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said:

Theodosius the Roman

used to put merchandise into the purses of Torah scholars,

for he gave them merchandise so that they could profit from it.

And from here too we learn that he was a great man.

For Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Whoever puts merchandise into the purse

of

Torah scholars merits and sits in the academy above. As it is stated, “For in the shadow of wisdom—

in the shadow of money!”

Since he benefited Torah scholars with his money, he enters within the domain of wisdom.

Mishna:

In a place where the practice is to light the lamp

on the eve of Yom Kippur so that it will burn

during the nights of Yom Kippur, they light.

And in a place where the practice is not to light

the lamp then,

they do not light.

And

everywhere

they light

the lamp so that it will burn on the night of Yom Kippur

in synagogues and in study halls, and in dark passageways, and for the sick.

Gemara:

The tannay taught: Both

those

who said to light

the lamp on the eve of Yom Kippur,

and both

those

who said not to light it—

both intended one matter!

For the purpose of all of them is to refrain from marital relations, which are forbidden on Yom Kippur.

Those whose practice was to light did so so that the lamp would separate them from marital relations, because a person does not engage in marital relations by lamplight.

And those whose practice was not to light hold that without a lamp he will refrain more effectively, because when the lamp is burning he sees his wife and desires her.

Rav Yehoshua said: Rava expounded

concerning this the verse,

“And all your people are righteous; they shall inherit the land forever,

the branch of My planting, the work of My hands, in which to glory.”

Both

those

who said to light, and both

those

who said not to light, both intended only one matter—

to refrain from something forbidden.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: One does not recite a blessing over fire

the blessing “Who creates the lights of fire”

except at the conclusion of Shabbat, since

then it is the time of

the beginning of its creation

of the fire

that it is.

A certain elder said to him, and some say

that

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said to him

to Rabbi Yehuda:

Straight!

You have spoken well.

And so too

also

Rabbi Yoḥanan said,

that one recites the blessing “Who creates the lights of fire” only at the conclusion of Shabbat.

Ulla was riding

on

a donkey and traveling. And Rabbi Abba was taking and traveling on his right side

of Ulla.

And Rabba bar bar Ḥana

was walking

on his left.

Rabbi Abba said to Ulla:

Is it

certainly

correct what I heard,

that you say in the name of Rabbi

Yoḥanan: One does not recite a blessing over fire except at the conclusion of Shabbat, since

it is the time of

the beginning of its creation?!

Ulla turned around, and he looked at Rabba bar bar Ḥana with a hostile expression

[Ulla turned and looked at Rabba bar bar Ḥana with an angry expression], because he thought that he had said this in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan. And Ulla did not agree that this was Rabbi Yoḥanan’s reason.

Rather, he held that one recites a blessing over it then because it is the time when permission to light a fire has now become newly available, after it had been forbidden to light a fire throughout the entire day of Shabbat, and now one benefits from the possibility of lighting it and using it.

And according to this reason, one also recites a blessing over fire at the conclusion of Yom Kippur.

He said to him,

Rabba bar bar Ḥana:

I, it was not concerning this

matter of the blessing “Who creates the lights of fire”

that I said,

I said something in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

Rather, concerning this

other matter

I said,

I said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and they mistakenly extracted from my words as though I had said in his name a reason for the blessing “Who creates the lights of fire” at the conclusion of Shabbat.

For a tannay taught before Rabbi Yoḥanan: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: When Yom Kippur occurs on Shabbat—

even in a place where they said not to light

the lamp on Yom Kippur when it occurs during the week,

they light

if it occurs on Shabbat

for the honor of Shabbat.

And concerning this I said:

And he answered,

he answered and added,

Rabbi Yoḥanan after him,

to the words of the tannay who recited the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar before him:

And the Sages prohibit

lighting the lamp even for the honor of Shabbat on which Yom Kippur occurs, in a place where the practice was not to light.

Ulla said to him: Let this be so!

That is, in this I agree, for this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said.