Pesachim 59a (נט.) — the Talmud in English

The reason that the daily offering precedes the Paschal offering is that

the matter

[the Paschal offering]

concerning which it is stated

“in the evening”

and “between the evenings”

—“You shall sacrifice the Paschal offering in the evening” [Deuteronomy 16], “And the entire assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it between the evenings” [Exodus 12]—

takes precedence over the matter

[the daily offering]

concerning which it is not stated

“in the evening”

but

“between the evenings”—

“You shall make the second lamb between the evenings” [Numbers 28]—

only.

And we challenge this:

If so, the incense and the lamps should also precede the Paschal offering

for the same reason:

The matter

[the Paschal offering]

concerning which it is stated

“in the evening”

and “between the evenings”

takes precedence over the matter

[the incense and the lamps]

concerning which it is stated only

“between the evenings”

alone

, as it is written [Exodus 27]: “And when Aaron kindles the lamps between the evenings, he shall burn it.” The phrase “between the evenings” applies both to the incense and to the lamps.

Why, then, did the tanna say that the Paschal offering precedes the incense and the lamps?!

And we answer:

The case there is different

[with regard to the incense and the lamps],

as the Merciful One excluded

with regard to the lamps

“it”

—that no other service is to take place after their kindling [as will be explained below]. And the incense was juxtaposed to the lamps; therefore the Paschal offering must be sacrificed before the incense and the lamps.

As it was taught

: It is written with regard to the lamps [Exodus 27]:

“From evening until morning”

—

give it

the amount of oil corresponding to its measure, so that it will burn from evening until morning

[the measure is half a log for each lamp, which suffices for the longest night].

Alternatively: You have no service that is fit

to be begun

from evening until morning except this one

[the kindling of the lamps]

alone.

What is the reason?

The verse states

[Exodus 27]:

“Aaron and his sons shall arrange it from evening until morning”—

it from evening until morning, and no other

[service] is fit to be begun

from evening until morning.

And the incense was juxtaposed to the lamps

[as it is written: “And when Aaron kindles the lamps between the evenings, he shall burn it”]—to teach that just as no service is fit to take place after the kindling of the lamps, so no service is fit to take place after the burning of the incense [apart from the kindling of the lamps]. Therefore, the Paschal offering precedes the incense and the lamps.

And the Gemara cites a beraita that holds as we challenged above—that the Paschal offering should be later than the incense and the lamps:

And it was taught in accordance with our challenge:

As it was taught:

The daily offering precedes the incense; the incense

precedes the lamps

[the reason for this order is explained in Yoma 31a].

And the lamps—

precede the Paschal offering.

The reason that the incense and the lamps precede the Paschal offering is that

the matter

[the Paschal offering]

concerning which it is stated

“in the evening”

and “between the evenings”

takes precedence over the matter

[the incense and the lamps]

concerning which it is stated only

“between the evenings”

alone.

And we challenge this:

But it is written

“it”

, which implies an exclusion. Why does the tanna not exclude from here the possibility of any other service being performed after the lamps, as we answered above?

And we answer: Since “it” is written with regard to the lamps, which are an inner service [in the Sanctuary, where the Menorah is located], it is reasonable to say that it does not exclude all other services.

Rather,

this

“it”—

is needed to exclude

specifically a

service

that is

inside

, analogous to the lamps, and not to exclude the Paschal offering, which is not an inner service and is not analogous to the lamps.

And what is it

[the inner service excluded by “it”]?

The incense

, which is burned on the golden altar, which is also inside, in the Sanctuary.

And the reason that this exclusion is necessary is:

It might enter your mind to say: Since it is written

[Exodus 30]:

“And when Aaron kindles the lamps between the evenings, he shall burn it”

—thus, the kindling of the lamps is written first in the verse—

say that we should kindle the lamps first, and then burn the incense.

Therefore,

the Merciful One excluded

with regard to the lamps

“it”

—that no other inner service is fit to take place after the kindling of the lamps. Therefore, the incense must precede the lamps.

And we challenge this:

Rather, “When Aaron kindles the lamps

“When Aaron lights the lamps

between the evenings—

he shall burn it”

[which implies that the lamps precede the incense]—

why do I need it?

And we answer: In truth, the meaning of the verse is not that the lamps precede the incense; rather, it is the opposite—

this is what the Merciful One is saying: At the time that you kindle the lamps

[when you kindle the lamps]—

the incense shall already have been burned

[the incense shall already be burned].

The Sages taught: You have no matter

[among the services involving burning]

that precedes the morning daily offering except the incense alone.

According to Rashi, who wrote: “You have no matter among the fires.” Tosafot likewise explained, in their commentary beginning “You have no matter,” that the beraita is speaking only about burning; for otherwise it would be difficult, since there are several services performed before the daily offering, such as clearing the inner altar and the Menorah and placing the two logs of wood. Apparently, one may add that Rashi intended what the Sefat Emet pointed out: The incense is in fact offered after the slaughter and the sprinkling of the blood of the daily offering, as Abaye stated in the order of the arrangement in Yoma 33a. Thus, when the tanna said that the incense precedes the daily offering, he meant that it precedes the burning of the limbs of the daily offering. Therefore, Rashi explained, “You have no matter among the fires that precedes the daily offering,” because all the tanna’s statements concern precedence in burning. [But the Sefat Emet wrote that it requires examination why the commentators did not explain that the tanna intended only the precedence of the incense over the limbs.]

Because

it is stated concerning it

“morning by morning.”

And the incense should precede

, since it is

a matter concerning which it is stated

“morning by morning,” as it is written

[Exodus 30]:

“And Aaron shall burn fragrant incense upon it morning by morning,” in contrast to the

daily offering, which is

a matter concerning which it is stated only

“morning”

once.

And you have no matter that is delayed until after the afternoon daily offering except the incense and the lamps

[every day].

And the Paschal offering

[as we said above: the matter that is stated with “in the evening” is later].

And one lacking atonement

[for example, a leper or a zav whose days of purification have already passed and who immersed on the seventh day, but who is still forbidden to eat sacrificial food until he offers, on the eighth day, the offerings prescribed for him].

They permitted one lacking atonement to offer the daily offering only

on the eve of Passover

, when he forgot and did not bring his atonement offering before the afternoon daily offering; if he does not bring it that day, he will be forbidden to eat the Paschal offering that evening.

It is impossible to slaughter the Paschal offering on behalf of one who is not fit to eat it that evening, as we learned below, 61a: If they slaughtered it for impure people, it is invalid.

It follows that he can fulfill the mitzva of offering the Paschal sacrifice only if he brings his atonement offering. Therefore, they permitted him to bring his atonement offering after the daily offering, even though by doing so he violates the positive mitzva of completion. The offering of the Paschal sacrifice is a positive mitzva whose violation entails karet, and the positive mitzva of the Paschal offering, whose violation entails karet, comes and overrides the positive mitzva of completion, whose violation does not entail karet.

Once he brings his atonement offering, he becomes pure by Torah law with regard to eating sacrificial food [for he had already immersed yesterday, on the seventh day, and the sun had set for him; when he subsequently offers his atonement offering on the eighth day, the entire process of his purification is complete]. Nevertheless, he is still forbidden by rabbinic law to eat sacrificial food.

Therefore, his ruling is

that he immerses a second time

[even though he had already immersed yesterday, on the seventh day of his purification] ,

and eats his Paschal offering in the evening.

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, says: Even one lacking atonement during the rest of the year

, who offered a peace offering before the afternoon daily offering but forgot to bring his atonement offering before the daily offering; if he does not bring it after the daily offering, he will be unable to eat the meat of the peace offering.

For eating the meat of sacrifices is a mitzva, as it is written [Exodus 29]: “And they shall eat them through whom atonement is made”—

and this mitzva applies both to the priests, with regard to the portion that reaches them, and to the owners, with regard to their portion.

Therefore, they permitted him to override the positive mitzva of completion and offer his atonement offering after the daily offering, in order to fulfill the mitzva of eating the sacrifice.

And by rabbinic law they further required him to

immerse

a second time,

and eat sacrificial food in the evening. 03

Above we learned that it is forbidden to offer sacrifices after the afternoon daily offering, as it is written: “Upon it shall he complete all the fat of the peace offerings,” and we expound: Upon it, complete all the sacrifices.

This is therefore a prohibition derived from a positive commandment, requiring all sacrifices to be offered specifically before the daily offering and not afterward. A prohibition derived from a positive commandment is considered a positive commandment [and is called “the positive mitzva of completion”—a positive commandment derived from the words “Upon it shall he complete”].

On this basis, we examine the words of the beraita:

Granted, according to the first tanna

, who permitted him to bring his atonement offering after the daily offering only for the sake of eating the Paschal offering, his reason is that

the positive mitzva of the Paschal offering will come

, which is more stringent,

as its violation entails karet

[for one who nullifies the positive mitzva of the Paschal offering, as it is written [Numbers 9]: “But the man who is pure and refrains from making the Paschal offering—that soul shall be cut off”],

and override the positive mitzva

which is less stringent,

the positive mitzva of completion, whose violation does not entail karet. For if he does not bring his atonement offering that day, it will be impossible to slaughter the Paschal offering on his behalf, since he will be unable to eat it that evening. And the less stringent positive mitzva is overridden by the more stringent positive mitzva.

For if he does not bring his atonement offering that day, it will be impossible to slaughter the Passover offering on his behalf, because he will be unable to eat it that evening. A less stringent positive commandment is overridden for the sake of a more stringent positive commandment.

But according to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben

Beroka

, who permitted him to offer his atonement offering after the daily offering throughout the year in order to permit him to eat all sacrifices, this is difficult:

What superiority does

[the advantage]

this positive mitzva

[of eating all sacrifices] have

over this positive mitzva

[“upon it shall he complete”]? A positive mitzva overrides another positive mitzva only when the overriding mitzva is more stringent than the mitzva being overridden! 03

The Torah requires several offerings from those lacking atonement: A wealthy leper brings a sin offering, an animal burnt offering, and a lamb as a guilt offering. A poor leper brings a bird sin offering, a bird burnt offering, and a lamb as a guilt offering.

A wealthy woman who has given birth brings an animal burnt offering and a bird sin offering. A poor woman brings a bird sin offering and a bird burnt offering.

A zav brings a bird sin offering and a bird burnt offering, whether poor or wealthy.

In the case of a woman who has given birth and a zav, atonement depends on the sin offering. For it is written concerning the sin offering of a woman who has given birth [Leviticus 12]: “And he shall offer it before the Lord, and make atonement for her.” Once the sin offering has been offered, they are permitted to eat sacrificial food, even though they are still obligated to bring the burnt offering.

[With regard to a leper, it is explained below that he is forbidden to eat sacrificial food until he offers all his sacrifices.]

The bird sin offering differs from all other sacrifices in that nothing from it is burned on the altar, as we learned in Zevahim [chapter 6, mishna 4]: The altar receives only its blood, while all of it goes to the priests.

And on this basis we answer:

Ravina said that Rav Hisda said: Here

, it is speaking

of a bird sin offering

[which a poor leper brings] ,

as we are dealing with one whose blood alone goes to the altar

, and nothing from it is burned on the altar.

One who offers a sacrifice from which nothing is burned after the afternoon daily offering does not violate the positive mitzva of completion, because the positive mitzva of completion prohibits burning a sacrifice after the afternoon daily offering [as it is written: “And he shall burn upon it the fat of the peace offerings”].

Therefore, although the positive mitzva of eating sacrificial food is not superior to the positive mitzva of completion, it is permitted to offer the bird sin offering of one lacking atonement after the afternoon daily offering in order to permit him to eat sacrificial food, since in any event he does not violate the positive mitzva of completion by doing so.

And we offer another answer:

Rav Pappa said: You may even say

that it is speaking

of an animal sin offering

, and there is a way to offer it so that its owners attain atonement and become permitted to eat sacrificial food without violating the positive mitzva of completion.

That is, during the day they slaughter it and sprinkle its blood [and it is explained below that the priests also eat the meat]. This suffices to permit him to eat sacrificial food, because the principal atonement of the sacrifice depends on the sprinkling [and on the priests’ eating]. But the portions burned on the altar are not burned that day; rather, he

places them and leaves them overnight on top of the altar

, and on the following day he burns them after the next morning’s daily offering.

Although sacrificial food is invalidated by remaining overnight, here the portions burned on the altar are not invalidated from being burned on the following day, because remaining overnight does not invalidate what is already on top of the altar.

And we challenge Rav Hisda, who established the case with a bird sin offering:

But

in the case of a leper

there is

also

a guilt offering

, and a guilt offering comes only from an animal, never from a bird, and its portions burned on the altar require burning. When he burns them after the afternoon daily offering, he violates the positive mitzva of completion! We explain the challenge:

Granted, according to Rav Pappa, this is

[resolved], since there is a way to avoid violating the positive mitzva of completion:

he leaves it overnight

—the portions burned on the altar from the guilt offering—on top of the altar, and burns them after the following morning’s daily offering, as stated above concerning the sin offering.

But according to Rav Hisda

, who did not permit leaving it overnight and therefore had to establish the case with a bird sin offering, from which nothing is burned—

what can be said

with regard to the guilt offering, from which portions are burned?

And we answer:

They said

: It is speaking of a case

in which

the

guilt offering has already been offered

before the afternoon daily offering, and only the sin offering remains; and we established this case with a bird sin offering, from which nothing is burned.

There is still a difficulty for Rav Hisda:

But

in the case of a leper

there is

also

a burnt offering

, and even if we establish the case with a poor leper, who brings a bird burnt offering, it requires burning on the altar, and he still violates the positive mitzva of completion!

And should you say

that he is not obligated to offer the burnt offering that day, because

the burnt offering does not prevent

him from eating sacrificial food,

It is impossible to say so. For

And it was taught: Rabbi Ishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, says: Just as

it is obvious

that his sin-offering and guilt-offering prevent him

from eating sacrificial food [with regard to the sin-offering, it is obvious that it prevents him, since concerning the sin-offering of a woman who gave birth it is written: “And he shall offer it before the Lord, and make atonement for her,” and this is learned from there with regard to the sin-offering of all others who lack atonement. And with regard to the guilt-offering of a metzora, it is obvious that it prevents him, since some of its blood must be placed on the thumbs and toes of the metzora, and certainly the reason for this is that this is what atones for him and purifies him]—

so too, his burnt-offering prevents him.

And if you would say

that it is referring

to a

case

in which

already

his burnt-offering was sacrificed

before the daily offering, as we explained above with regard to the guilt-offering, and only the sin-offering remained.

And how [

and how is it possible that]

his burnt-offering was sacrificed first, before his sin-offering?

And it was taught:

It is written [with regard to the ascending and descending offering brought by one who violated an oath or one of the other transgressions listed there, whose law is that a poor person brings a sin-offering and a bird burnt-offering, Leviticus 5]:

“And he shall offer that which is for the sin-offering first.”

What is the purpose of this verse?

If it is to teach that

the sin-offering

precedes the burnt-offering, it has already been stated

“And he shall make the second one a burnt-offering, according to the law.”

And if the burnt-offering is the second one, it follows automatically that the sin-offering is first?

Rather, this establishes a foundational principle [

the Torah established this law as a foundational principle from which to derive other laws]

for all sin-offerings: that they precede all burnt-offerings brought together with them.

And we further explain:

And we know

from tractate Zevahim, page 90, that the foundational principle is needed only to teach

that even a bird sin-offering precedes an animal burnt-offering [

for example, in the case of a wealthy woman who gave birth, who brings an animal burnt-offering and a bird sin-offering; and although an animal is more significant than a bird, nevertheless the bird sin-offering precedes the animal burnt-offering].

Therefore this is difficult: Since it is impossible to sacrifice the burnt-offering before the sin-offering, it is not possible to establish the case as one in which the burnt-offering was sacrificed before the daily offering and the sin-offering after the daily offering!

And we answered:

Rava said: The burnt-offering of a metzora is different [

which does not prevent him if he sacrificed the burnt-offering first]. Because

the Merciful One said [

after it wrote concerning the offering of the sin-offering ]: