Pesachim 59a — the Talmud in English

And the reason that the regular offering precedes the Passover offering is because

“a matter”

[the Passover offering]

“concerning which it is said”

“in the evening”

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

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

than a matter

[the regular offering]

“concerning which it was not said”

“in the evening”

“but”

“between the evenings”—

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

only.

And we raise an objection:

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

for the same reason:

“A matter”

[the Passover offering]

“concerning which it is said”

“in the evening”

and “between the evenings”

than a matter

[the incense and the lamps]

“concerning which it was said only”

“between the evenings”

“only”—

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

And if so, why did the tanna say that the Passover offering precedes the incense and the lamps?!

And we answered:

It is different there

[with the incense and the lamps],

for the Merciful One excluded

with regard to the lamps

“it”—

so that there will not be another service after their kindling [as it explains below]. And the incense was likened to the lamps; therefore, one must offer the Passover offering before the incense and the lamps.

For it was taught:

[Exodus 27] It is written concerning the lamps

“from evening until morning”—

Give it

oil

according to its measure, so that it will burn from evening until morning

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

Alternatively: You have no service that is fit

to begin

from evening until morning except this one

[the kindling of the lamps]

only.

What is the reason?

The verse says

[Exodus 27]

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

it from evening until morning, but no other thing

[another service] is fit to begin

from evening until morning.

And the incense was likened to the lamps

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

And the Gemara brings a beraita that holds as we objected above—that the Passover offering should be later than the incense and the lamps:

And it was taught in accordance with our objection:

For it was taught:

The regular offering precedes the incense; the incense

precedes the lamps

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

And the lamps—

precede the Passover offering.

And the reason that the incense and lamps precede the Passover offering is because

“a matter”

[the Passover offering]

“concerning which it is said”

“in the evening”

and “between the evenings”

than a matter

[the incense and lamps]

“concerning which it was said only”

“between the evenings”

“only”.

And we raise an objection:

But it is written

“it”

which implies exclusion; and why does the tanna not exclude from here that no other service is fit after the lamps, as we answered above?

And we answered: Since “it” is written concerning the lamps, which are a service inside [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, similar to the lamps, and not to exclude the Passover offering, which is not a service inside and does not resemble the lamps.

, 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 service inside that we exclude from “it”]?—

the incense,

which they burn upon the golden altar, which is also inside, in the Sanctuary.

And the reason that an exclusion is needed for this is:

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

[Exodus 30]

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

for the kindling of the lamps is written first in the verse—

say: Let us kindle the lamps first, and afterward burn the incense.

Therefore,

the Merciful One excluded

with regard to the lamps

“it”—

which means that no other service inside is fit after the kindling of the lamps. Therefore, the incense must be brought before the lamps.

And we raise an objection:

Rather, “When Aaron raises 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 answered: In truth, the meaning of the verse is not that the lamps precede the incense, but the opposite—

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

[at the time 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 of burning]

that precedes the morning regular 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.]

Since

concerning it it is said

“morning by morning.”

And the incense shall be brought first,

which is

a matter concerning which it is said

“morning by morning,” as it is written

[Exodus 30]

“And Aaron shall burn incense of spices upon it morning by morning,” than the

regular offering, which is

a matter concerning which it was said only

“morning”

one.

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

every day].

And the Passover offering

[as we said above: “a matter shall be later”].

And one lacking atonement

[such as a person with leprosy 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].

And they permitted a person lacking atonement to offer the regular offering only

on the eve of Passover,

when he forgot and did not bring his atonement offering before the afternoon regular offering, and if he does not bring it today, he will be forbidden to eat the Passover offering in the evening.

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

And it follows that he cannot fulfill the mitzva of offering the Passover offering unless he brings his atonement offering. Therefore, they permitted him to bring his atonement offering after the regular offering, even though by doing so he violates the positive commandment of completion. For offering the Passover offering is a positive commandment involving karet, and the positive commandment of the Passover offering, which involves karet, comes and overrides the positive commandment of completion, which does not involve karet.

And after he brings his atonement offering, he becomes pure for eating sacrificial food by Torah law [for he already immersed yesterday on the seventh day and the sun had set for him, and when he subsequently offers his atonement offering on the eighth day, his entire order of purification is completed], but he is still forbidden by rabbinic law to eat sacrificial food.

And therefore his law is

that he immerses a second time

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

and eats his Passover offering in the evening.

Rabbi Ishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, says: Also a person lacking atonement during the rest of the days of the year

who offered a peace-offering before the afternoon regular offering, and he forgot to bring his atonement offering before the regular offering, and if he does not bring it after the regular offering, he will not be able to eat the flesh of the peace-offering.

For eating the flesh of offerings is a mitzva, as it is written [Exodus 29]: “And they shall eat them, through which atonement was made for them.” —

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 defer the positive commandment of completion and offer his atonement offering after the regular offering, in order to fulfill the mitzva of eating the offering.

And by rabbinic law they obligated him further to

immerse

again,

and eat sacrificial food in the evening. 03

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

And this is a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment, to offer all the offerings specifically before the regular offering and not after it. And a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment is considered a positive commandment [and is called “the positive commandment of completion”—for it is a positive commandment learned from what is written, “Upon it shall he complete”].

And on this basis we inquire concerning the words of the beraita:

Granted, according to the first tanna

who permitted bringing his atonement offering after the regular offering only for the sake of eating the Passover offering, his reason is because

the positive commandment of the Passover offering will come,

which is more stringent,

for it involves karet

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

and will override the positive commandment

which is lenient,

of completion, which does not involve karet.

For if he does not bring his atonement offering today, it will be impossible to slaughter the Passover offering for him, because he will not be able to eat it in the evening. And the lenient positive commandment is overridden before the stringent positive commandment.

But according to Rabbi Ishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben

Beroka,

who permitted offering his atonement offering after the regular offering throughout the entire year in order to permit him to eat all offerings, the difficulty is—

What is the superiority

[what is the advantage]

of this positive commandment

[of eating all offerings]

over this positive commandment

[“Upon it shall he complete”]? For a positive commandment does not override another positive commandment unless the overriding positive commandment is more stringent than the positive commandment being overridden! 03

The Torah required several offerings for those lacking atonement: a wealthy person with leprosy brings a sin-offering, an animal burnt-offering, and a lamb for a guilt-offering. A poor person with leprosy brings a bird sin-offering, a bird burnt-offering, and a lamb for a guilt-offering.

A wealthy woman who gave 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 gave birth and a zav, atonement depends upon the sin-offering. As it is written concerning the sin-offering of a woman who gave birth [Leviticus 12]: “And he shall offer it before the Lord and make atonement for her.” And from the time that they offer the sin-offering, they are permitted to eat sacrificial food, even though they are still obligated to bring the burnt-offering.

[But concerning a person with leprosy it is explained shortly that he is forbidden to eat sacrificial food until he offers all his offerings.]

The bird sin-offering differs from all the offerings, for nothing from it is burned upon the altar, and as we learned in Zevahim [chapter 6, Mishna 4]: The altar receives only its blood, and all of it goes to the priests.

And on this basis we answered:

Ravina said in the name of Rav Hisda: Here,

it is speaking

of a bird sin-offering

[which a poor person with leprosy brings ],

we are dealing with one whose blood alone belongs to the altar

and nothing from it is burned upon the altar.

And one who offers an offering that has no burning after the afternoon regular offering does not violate the positive commandment of completion, for the positive commandment of completion is the prohibition against burning an offering after the afternoon regular offering [as it is written, “And he shall burn upon it the fats of the peace-offerings”].

Therefore, even though the positive commandment of eating sacrificial food is not superior to the positive commandment of completion, it is permitted to offer the bird sin-offering of one lacking atonement after the afternoon regular offering in order to permit him to eat sacrificial food, because in any event he does not thereby violate the positive commandment of completion.

And we answered further:

Rav Pappa said: You may even say

that it speaks

of an animal sin-offering,

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

And this is that during the day they slaughter and sprinkle the blood only [and below it is explained that the priests also eat the flesh]. And this is sufficient to permit him to eat sacrificial food, because the principal atonement of the offering depends upon the sprinkling [and upon the eating by the priests]. But the sacrificial portions he does not burn today; rather,

he places them and leaves them overnight on the top of the altar,

and tomorrow he burns them after the next day’s morning regular offering.

And even though sacrificial food becomes invalid through remaining overnight, here the sacrificial portions do not become invalid from being burned on the following day, because remaining overnight does not invalidate that which was already upon the top of the altar.

And we raise an objection against Rav Hisda, who established the case with a bird sin-offering:

But

in the case of a person with leprosy

there is

also

a guilt-offering,

and a guilt-offering does not come from a bird but only from an animal, and its sacrificial portions require burning; and when he burns them after the afternoon regular offering, he violates the positive commandment of completion! And we explain the objection:

Granted, according to Rav Pappa, this is

—there is a solution by which he will not violate the positive commandment of completion—

that he leaves it overnight

the sacrificial portions of the guilt-offering on the top of the altar, and burns them after tomorrow’s morning regular offering, as was said above concerning the sin-offering,

but according to Rav Hisda,

who did not permit leaving it overnight, and consequently had to establish the case with a bird sin-offering, in which there is no burning—

what can be said

concerning a guilt-offering, in which there is burning?!

And we answered:

They say:

It is speaking in a case

that

has already

had his guilt-offering offered

before the afternoon regular offering, and only the sin-offering remained; and in this we established the case with a bird sin-offering, in which there is no burning.

And it still presents a difficulty against Rav Hisda:

But

in the case of a person with leprosy

there is

also

a burnt-offering,

and even if we establish the case with a poor person who brings a bird burnt-offering, it requires burning upon the altar, and he still violates the positive commandment of completion!

And if you would say

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

burnt-offering does not prevent

him from eating sacrificial food,

It is impossible to say so. For

and it was taught: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, says: Just as

it is obvious

that his sin-offering and his guilt-offering hold him back

from eating sacred offerings [in the case of a sin-offering, it is obvious that it holds him back, because concerning the sin-offering of a woman after childbirth it is written, “And he shall offer it before the Lord, and make atonement for her,” and from there this is learned for the sin-offering of the other persons lacking atonement. And in the case of the guilt-offering of a metzora, it is obvious that it holds him back, for he must put some of its blood on the thumbs and toes of the metzora, and certainly the reason for this is that this is what atones for him in order to purify him]—

so his burnt-offering holds him back.

And if you say

that it is speaking

in

a case

that

already

his burnt-offering was offered before the daily offering, as we answered above concerning a guilt-offering, and only the sin-offering remained.

before the daily offering, as we answered earlier with regard to the guilt offering, and only the sin offering remained,

And who [

and how is it possible that]

his burnt-offering was offered before his sin-offering first?

But was it not taught:

It is written [concerning the graduated offering brought by one who transgressed an oath and the other transgressions enumerated 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 stating this?

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 second, it follows that the sin-offering is first?

Rather, this establishes a principle [

this law the Torah established as a principle and foundation from which to learn]

for all sin-offerings, that they precede all the burnt-offerings that come with them.

And we explain further:

and it is established for us

in tractate Zevahim, page 90, that we need this principle only in order to teach

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

for example, in the case of a wealthy woman after childbirth, who brings an animal burnt-offering and a bird sin-offering; and even though an animal is more important than a bird, nevertheless the bird sin-offering precedes the animal burnt-offering].

And therefore it is difficult: since it is impossible to offer the burnt-offering before the sin-offering, it is not possible to establish the case as one in which the burnt-offering was offered 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 hold him back if he offered the burnt-offering first]. Because

the Merciful One said [

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