Pesachim 64a (סד.) — the Talmud in English

1.

The difficulty from pinching over pinching—

For the tanna in the latter beraita considered the one who pinches the bird liable like one who slaughters it [according to the Gemara’s assumption that the case concerns one who pinches it on the fourteenth of Nisan].

2.

The difficulty from burning over burning—

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

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

But according to your reasoning,

according to your understanding that the second beraita is discussing the fourteenth of Nisan—

you should find a difficulty for yourself

in the second beraita

itself,

as it contains an internal contradiction between its beginning and its end.

As it teaches

at the beginning:

They said this only with regard to the Paschal offering,

but not with regard to other offerings.

And then it teaches

at the end:

Both one who slaughters, and one who sprinkles, and one who pinches, and one who applies the blood.

But pinching and applying the blood are not applicable to the Paschal offering; they apply only to the bird sin-offering. And earlier, at the beginning, it taught that one does not transgress with regard to other offerings.

And now we resolve the matter:

Rather, both this and that,

the two beraitot are in accordance with the opinion of

Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that on the fourteenth one is liable only with regard to the Paschal offering, whereas during the Festival one is liable also with regard to other offerings. Therefore—

The difficulty from pinching over pinching is not difficult:

Here,

the first beraita is discussing

the fourteenth,

and therefore one is not liable for pinching the bird sin-offering.

And here,

the second beraita is discussing

the intermediate days of the Festival,

when the Torah prohibited this with regard to all offerings, and therefore one is liable for pinching the bird sin-offering.

And both this and that,

the two beraitot—

are the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

The difficulty from burning over burning is likewise not difficult,

because

it is a dispute among tannaim.

The tannaim disagreed on this matter according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon:

For there is

a tanna

who compares burning to slaughtering,

holding that whoever transgresses “it shall not remain overnight” transgresses “you shall not slaughter.” Therefore, he holds one liable for burning; he is the tanna of the first beraita.

And there is one who does not make this comparison,

and he is the tanna of the second beraita, who holds that the one who burns is not included by means of the juxtaposition: “Whoever transgresses ‘it shall not remain overnight’ transgresses ‘you shall not slaughter’ on leavened bread.”

Nevertheless, he agrees that one is not liable for leavened bread belonging to someone at the end of the world, since it is reasonable to exclude such a case. 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: Also the daily offering

if one slaughtered it while there was leavened bread, he receives lashes.

And we inquire:

What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion?

And we answer:

He would say to you,

Rabbi Yehuda: It is written, “You shall not slaughter upon leavened bread the blood of

My offerings,” which implies

a sacrifice that is uniquely Mine,

a sacrifice entirely offered to Me,

which is wholly brought upon the altar for the sake of Heaven.

And what is this?—

The daily offering,

whereas the Paschal offering is eaten by its owners.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to 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 other offerings, whether one slaughtered them for their sake or not for their sake, he is exempt. And during the Festival, if one slaughtered it for its sake, he is exempt, and if not for its sake, he is liable. And with regard to all other offerings, whether one slaughtered them for their sake or not for their sake, he is liable.

And we inquire:

What is the reason for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion,

that he distinguishes between the fourteenth and the Festival?

As it is written

in the context of the Paschal offering: “You shall not slaughter upon leavened bread the blood of My offering,” and it is also written: “You shall not slaughter upon leavened bread the blood of My offering.” It follows that

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

Remove the letter yod from one of them

and read it as “offering.”

This implies the Paschal offering alone.

Restore the missing yod to the second verse and read it as

“My offerings,”

which implies all offerings.

If so, there is a difficulty:

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

—for what purpose did the verse distinguish one from the other—

and

why

did it not write “My offerings”

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

Rather, it must necessarily come

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

namely, the Paschal offering, which is on the fourteenth of Nisan, one is liable only for the Paschal offering,

but one is not liable for the other offerings

.

At a time when there is no “offering,”

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

one is liable for the other offerings

.

We learned in the Mishna:

And during the Festival

the Paschal offering that one slaughtered

for its sake is exempt

[because a Paschal offering slaughtered after its proper time is invalid, and this is an unfit slaughter]. If one slaughtered it not for its sake [but for the sake of a peace-offering], he is liable [because the offering is valid and this is a fit slaughter].

It is explained in tractate Zevahim 7b that a Paschal offering slaughtered after its proper time is offered as a peace-offering.

And now we are uncertain about the law of a Paschal offering slaughtered after its proper time: Does one have to explicitly uproot it from its designation as a Paschal offering and slaughter it for the sake of a peace-offering, in which case it assumes the status of a peace-offering, whereas if one slaughtered it without specifying, it remains a Paschal offering slaughtered after its proper time and is invalid? Or perhaps even if one slaughtered the Paschal offering after its proper time without specifying, it automatically becomes a peace-offering and is valid?

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

that the reason

the offering is valid is specifically because

he

slaughtered it explicitly

not for its sake,

but for the sake of a peace-offering.

And this implies:

If,

he slaughtered it

without specifying,

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

And now, if we say that a Paschal offering slaughtered after its proper time does not require explicit uprooting and automatically becomes a peace-offering, there is a difficulty:

Why

is one exempt when he slaughtered it without specifying? After all,

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

so this is a fit slaughter. And now we ask:

Can you infer from this

that

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

and therefore it is understandable that one who slaughters the Paschal offering during the Festival without specifying is exempt, because the offering is invalid, as he did not uproot its designation as a Paschal offering?

Or perhaps the Mishna should be explained in another manner.

And we conclude:

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

that is, all the members of the group agreed on this matter: a Paschal offering slaughtered after its proper time does not require uprooting.

And now there is a difficulty: Why is it evident from the Mishna that a Paschal offering slaughtered after its proper time without specification is invalid?

And they said

to resolve this difficulty: The Mishna is referring

to a case where

the

owners

of the Paschal offering

were ritually impure through contact with the dead,

and were unable to offer the Paschal offering at its proper time.

And

they were

deferred to the Second Pesaḥ, for an offering that they designated on the fourteenth for the sake of the Second Pesaḥ is presumed to remain designated for that purpose.

Therefore, only if one slaughtered the offering for the sake of a peace-offering did he uproot it from its status as a Paschal offering; but if he slaughtered it without specifying, it is for the sake of the Second Pesaḥ, and since he slaughtered it after its proper time, it is invalid.

Mishna:

1.

The Paschal offering is slaughtered in three groups.

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

As it is stated

with regard to the Paschal offering [Exodus 12]:

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

And the Sages expounded [from the verse’s extended wording]:

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

there are three groups, one after another.

And this was the order of offering the Paschal offering:

The first group entered

until

the courtyard was filled, and they locked the doors of the courtyard.

They sounded a tekia, a terua, and a tekia

on trumpets [Rambam].

2.

The priests stood in rows,

from the place where the Paschal offering was slaughtered to the altar, in order to pass the blood from one priest to another until the altar [so that the blood could be sprinkled on the altar].

And in their hands,

the priests had

silver basins and golden basins,

large bowls of silver and gold in which to receive the blood.

A row consisting entirely of silver

had

silver

basins only.

And a row consisting entirely of gold

had

gold

basins only.

They were not mixed

with one another. The basins were broad at the top and pointed at the bottom;

the basins had no bases,

broad bottoms, because they were concerned that if they had bases,

perhaps they would set them down

on the ground while receiving the blood from another offering, and because there were many Paschal offerings, they might forget them there

and the blood would congeal,

so that they would be unable to sprinkle the blood on the altar. Therefore, they made them pointed at the bottom, so that it was impossible to stand them on the ground without their falling.

3.

An Israelite slaughtered.

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

and the priest received

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

And the priest who received the blood

gave it to his colleague,

who was standing beside him in the row,

and his colleague

gave it

to his colleague

to bring it to the altar.

And

each of the priests standing in the row

received the

basin

filled

from his colleague’s hand,

and returned

to his colleague the basin

that was empty,

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

The priest nearest the altar sprinkled it with a single sprinkling

on the wall of the altar,

opposite the base,

at an angle beneath which there was a base.

The base was a kind of projection at the bottom of the altar, one cubit high and one cubit wide. The base did not surround the entire altar; rather, it extended along the western and northern sides, projecting one cubit from the north toward the west, and likewise one cubit from the west toward the south.

It follows that all the corners of the altar had a base beneath them except the southeastern corner, and the priest could sprinkle the blood only on one of the three sides that had a base beneath them. [Based on the Mishna, Middot chapter 3, mishna 1; Rambam; and Rashi below, 65a.] The blood flowed from the wall of the altar down to the base.

4.

The first group left

[that is, exited],

and the second group entered. The second left,

and the third entered.

The procedure

of the

first

group was the same as the procedure of

the second and third.

And while the Paschal offering was being slaughtered,

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 yet finished slaughtering,

they repeated

the recitation of 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

.

This is how the Sages established the halakha,

even though they never

experienced a case in which

they recited it a third time,

because the priests were numerous and quick in their work.

Rabbi Yehuda says: In all their days, the third group never reached

the Levites reciting the Hallel

as far as “I love that the Lord hears.”

The people had already finished slaughtering their Paschal offerings

because its members,

the members of the third group,

were few.

5.

Its procedure,

the procedure of the Paschal offering, when it occurs

on a weekday,

is the same as

its procedure on Shabbat.

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

Except

that this practice,

the priests’ washing of the courtyard,

on Shabbat was

not

with the approval

of the Sages

[and their reason is explained in the Gemara].

6.

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

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

and sprinkle it once on the altar,

and his reason is explained in the Gemara,

but the Sages did not concede this to him.

7. And now the Mishna explains the procedure for flaying and burning the Paschal offering:

How do they suspend

the Paschal offering

and flay

its hide?

Hooks,

iron hooks,

were fixed in the walls

of the courtyard,

and in pillars

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

on which they suspended and flayed

.

Anyone who had no place to suspend and flay on the hooks

thin, smooth poles

whose bark they had removed and which they had smoothed

were there,

in the courtyard.

He placed

the pole

on his shoulder and on his colleague’s shoulder, and suspended

the Paschal offering on the pole,

and flayed it.