Pesachim 64a — the Talmud in English

A.

The difficulty of pinah with pinah —

For the tanna in the latter beraita considered the one who performs pinah [according to the Gemara’s assumption that it concerns one who performs pinah on the fourteenth] liable like one who slaughters.

B.

The difficulty of burning with burning —

In the first beraita we learned that one who burns the sacrificial portions transgresses a negative commandment, whereas in the second beraita we learned that he does not transgress.

And now we are astonished at the questioner, who set the two beraitot against one another:

But according to your reasoning,

according to your reasoning, that you understand that the second beraita is speaking of the fourteenth of Nisan —

the very same difficulty should arise for you

[with regard to the second beraita]

itself,

for within it there is a contradiction between its beginning and its end.

For it teaches

at the beginning:

They said this only with regard to the Paschal offering,

but not with regard to the other offerings.

And then it teaches

at the end:

One who slaughters, and one who sprinkles, and one who performs pinah, and one who casts.

But one who performs pinah and one who casts are not applicable to the Paschal offering, but only to the bird sin-offering. And earlier, at the beginning, it taught that one does not transgress with regard to the other offerings.

And now we resolve it:

Rather, both this and that,

the two beraitot are according to the view of

Rabbi Shimon,

who on the fourteenth renders one liable only for the Paschal offering, while during the festival he renders one liable also for the other offerings. And therefore —

Pinah with pinah is not difficult:

Here,

the first beraita is speaking

of the fourteenth,

and therefore he is not liable for pinah of the bird sin-offering.

And here,

the second beraita is speaking

of the intermediate days of the festival,

when the Torah prohibited it with regard to all the offerings; therefore he is liable for pinah of the bird sin-offering.

And both this and that,

the two beraitot,

are Rabbi Shimon’s.

Burning with burning is also not difficult,

because

it is a dispute among tannaim.

For tannaim disagreed about this according to Rabbi Shimon:

For there is

a tanna

who compares burning to slaughtering,

for anyone who transgresses “it shall not remain overnight” transgresses “you shall not slaughter.” Therefore he renders the one who burns liable, and he is the tanna of the first beraita.

And there is one who does not compare them,

and he is the tanna of the second beraita, who holds that we do not include the one who burns by means of the comparison that anyone who transgresses “it shall not remain overnight” transgresses “you shall not slaughter on leaven.”

And in any event he agrees that one is not liable for the leaven belonging to someone at the end of the world, for it is reasonable to exclude it. And with regard to this he agrees that “you shall not slaughter” is compared to “it shall not remain overnight”: specifically, one to whom “it shall not remain overnight” applies is subject to “you shall not slaughter.” Tosafot .

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the daily offering,

if one slaughtered it with leaven, he receives lashes.

And we inquire:

What is Rabbi Yehuda’s reason?

And we answer:

He would say to you,

Rabbi Yehuda: It is written, “You shall not slaughter over leaven the blood of

My sacrifice,” which implies

a sacrifice special to Me,

the sacrifice that is special to Me,

all of which ascends upon the altar, for the sake of Heaven.

And what is it? —

The daily offering,

for the Paschal offering is eaten by its owners.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: The Paschal offering on the fourteenth,

if one slaughtered it for its sake, he is liable, and if not for its sake, he is exempt; and with regard to all the other sacrifices, whether for their sake or not for their sake, he is exempt. And during the festival, if for its sake, he is exempt; if not for its sake, he is liable. And with regard to all the other sacrifices, whether for their sake or not for their sake, he is liable.

And we inquire:

What is Rabbi Shimon’s reason

for distinguishing between the fourteenth and the festival?

For it is written

[Exodus 23], “You shall not slaughter over leaven the blood of My sacrifice,” and it is also written [Exodus 34], “You shall not slaughter over leaven the blood of My sacrifice.” It follows that

“My sacrifice” and “My sacrifice” are written twice.

Remove the letter yod from one of them

and read in it, “sacrifice.”

And it implies only the Paschal offering.

Give the missing yod to the second verse and read in it

“My sacrifice,”

which implies all the sacrifices.

If so, there is a difficulty:

For what purpose did the Merciful One divide them from one another

[for what purpose did Scripture distinguish one from the other],

and

why

did He not write “My sacrifice”

in one verse, so that it would imply all the offerings, both the Paschal offering and the other sacrifices?

Rather, it must necessarily have come

to say: At a time when there is a “sacrifice”,

the Paschal offering, namely on the fourteenth of Nisan, then one is liable for the Paschal offering alone,

but one is not liable for the other sacrifices

[the other sacrifices].

At a time when there is no “sacrifice”,

the Paschal offering, namely during the festival, when the Paschal offering is not sacrificed —

he is liable for the other sacrifices

[all the other sacrifices].

We learned in the Mishna:

And during the festival

[the Paschal offering that one slaughtered]

if for its sake, he is exempt

[because a Paschal offering not in its proper time is invalid, and this is an unfit slaughtering]. If not for its sake [but for the sake of a peace-offering], he is liable [because the offering is fit, and this is a fit slaughtering].

In tractate Zevahim 7b it is explained that a Paschal offering not in its proper time is offered as a peace-offering.

And now it is uncertain to us concerning the law of a Paschal offering not in its proper time: Does one need to explicitly remove it from the status of a Paschal offering and slaughter it for the sake of a peace-offering, and then it receives the status of a peace-offering, but if he slaughtered it without specification, it is a Paschal offering that he slaughtered not in its proper time and it is invalid; or perhaps even if he slaughtered the Paschal offering not in its proper time without specification, it itself becomes a peace-offering, and it is fit?

And we infer from the Mishna: Since we learned that with regard to a Paschal offering that one slaughtered during the festival not for its sake he is liable because the offering is fit, it implies

that the reason

that the offering is fit is specifically because

he

slaughtered it explicitly

not for its sake,

but for the sake of a peace-offering.

And it implies from this:

But

if he slaughtered

without specification,

he is exempt, because its status is that of a Paschal offering slaughtered not in its proper time, and it is invalid [and an unfit slaughtering is not called slaughtering].

And now, if we say that a Paschal offering not in its proper time does not require explicit removal, and it itself becomes a peace-offering, then there is a difficulty:

Why

is he exempt when he slaughtered without specification? After all,

a Paschal offering during the rest of the year is a peace-offering,

and this is a fit slaughtering? And now we ask: Does

you may infer from this

that

a Paschal offering during the rest of the year requires removal,

and therefore it is understandable that one who slaughters the Paschal offering during the festival without specification is exempt, because the offering is invalid, since the status of a Paschal offering was not removed from it?

Or perhaps the Mishna should be interpreted in another manner.

And we conclude:

Rabbi Hiyya bar Gamda said: It was cast forth from the mouth of the group —

that is, all the members of the group agreed to this matter: that a Paschal offering not in its proper time does not require removal.

And now there is a difficulty: Why is it explained in the Mishna that a Paschal offering not in its proper time slaughtered without specification is invalid?

And they said

to resolve this difficulty: The Mishna is

in a case

where

the owners

of the Paschal offering

were defiled through contact with the dead,

and they could not offer the Paschal offering in its proper time.

And

they are

deferred to the second Paschal offering, for an offering that they designated on the fourteenth for the sake of the second Paschal offering is, without specification, presumed to stand for that purpose.

Therefore, only if he slaughtered the offering for the sake of a peace-offering did he remove it from the status of a Paschal offering; but without specification it is for the sake of the second Paschal offering, and since he slaughtered it not in its proper time, it is invalid.

Mishna:

A.

The Paschal offering is slaughtered in three groups.

It is a mitzva for the public who come to slaughter the Paschal offering to divide into three groups, and they slaughter their Paschal offerings one after the other, even if they are few and can all enter the Temple courtyard at once.

As it is stated

concerning the Paschal offering [in Exodus 12]:

“And they shall slaughter it, the entire congregation of the assembly of Israel.”

And the Sages expounded [from the length of the wording of the verse]:

“Congregation,” “assembly,” and “Israel”

— these are three groups, one after the other.

And this was the order of offering the Paschal offering:

The first group entered

until

the courtyard was filled; they locked the doors of the courtyard.

They sounded, blew, and sounded

with trumpets [Maimonides].

B.

The priests stood in rows,

from the place of slaughtering the Paschal offering to the altar, in order to pass the blood from priest to priest until the altar [in order to cast the blood upon the altar].

And in their hands

the priests had

silver bowls and golden bowls,

large cups of silver and gold, to receive the blood in them.

A row consisting entirely of silver

had bowls of

silver

alone.

And a row consisting entirely of gold

had bowls of

gold

alone.

They were not mixed

with one another. And the bowls were broad above and pointed below;

the bowls did not have bases,

a broad bottom, because they were concerned that if they had bases

perhaps they would place them

on the ground until they received the blood from another offering, and because the Paschal offerings were numerous they might forget them there

and the blood would congeal,

and they would not be able to cast the blood upon the altar. Therefore they made them pointed below, so that it was impossible to stand them on the ground without their falling.

C.

An Israelite slaughtered.

If an Israelite wished to slaughter the Paschal offering, he was permitted, for slaughtering is valid when performed by non-priests,

and the priest received

the blood in a bowl from the lamb’s neck. For from “receiving” onward, its mitzva is performed by priests.

And the priest who received the blood

gave it to his fellow

who stood beside him in the row,

and his fellow

gave it

to his fellow

to bring it to the altar.

And

each of the priests standing in the row

received the

bowl

that was full

from his fellow,

and returned

to his fellow the bowl

that was empty,

which had returned to him from the priest who cast the blood.

The priest who was nearest the altar cast it with one casting

upon the wall of the altar,

opposite the base,

at an angle beneath which there was a base.

And the base was like a projection at the bottom of the altar, one cubit high and one cubit wide. The base did not surround the entire altar, but only the western side and the northern side; it extended one cubit from the north toward the west, and likewise extended one cubit from the west toward the south.

It follows that beneath all the corners of the altar there was a base, except for the southeastern corner, and the priest could cast the blood only upon one of the three sides beneath which there was a base. [According to the Mishna in Middot, chapter 3, Mishna 1, and Maimonides, and Rashi below 65a.] And the blood flowed from the wall of the altar to the base.

D.

It went out

[it left]

the first group, and the second group entered. The second went out,

and the third entered.

As was the act of

the

first

group, so was the act of

the second and the third.

And while they were slaughtering the Paschal offering,

the Levites

recited the Hallel.

If they finished

the Levites finished reciting the Hallel, while the people slaughtering their Paschal offerings were numerous and had not finished slaughtering,

they repeated

the Levites recited the Hallel a second time.

And if they repeated

it and the people were still slaughtering their Paschal offerings,

they recited it a third time,

they recited the Hallel a third time.

Thus the Sages established the halakha,

even though it never happened that

they

recited it a third time in their days,

because the priests were numerous and quick in their work.

Rabbi Yehuda says: In all their days, the third group did not reach

the Levites reciting the Hallel

to “I love, for the Lord hears.”

The people had already finished slaughtering their Paschal offerings

because with it

the third group

was small.

E.

As with it,

the Paschal offering, when it occurs

on a weekday,

so

is its procedure on Shabbat.

For the priests would wash the courtyard on Shabbat as they washed it on a weekday. For a water channel passed through the courtyard. The priests would block the opening of its outlet, and it would rise over its banks and flood the courtyard, which was paved with marble.

Except

that this act,

that the priests washed the courtyard,

on Shabbat was

not

with the consent of

the Sages

[and their reason is explained in the Gemara].

F.

Rabbi Yehuda says: He would fill a cup with the blood mixture

of the Paschal offerings whose blood had spilled onto the floor of the courtyard,

and cast one casting upon the altar,

and its reason is explained in the Gemara,

but the Sages did not agree with him.

G. And now the Mishna explains the order of flaying and burning the Paschal offering:

How do they hang

the Paschal offering

and strip

its hide?

Hooks,

hooks

of iron were fixed in the walls

of the courtyard,

and on pillars

—these were eight very low pillars, called “dwarfs.” They stood in the slaughterhouse north of the altar, and above each pillar stood a square cedar beam. In that beam three rows of hooks were fixed,

on which they hung and stripped.

Anyone who had no place to hang and strip

on the hooks,

thin and smooth sticks

whose bark they had peeled and which they had smoothed

were there

in the courtyard.

He placed

the stick

on his shoulder and on his fellow’s shoulder, and hung

the Paschal offering on the stick,

and stripped it.