Pesachim 64b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Eliezer says: the fourteenth ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

when it falls on Shabbat

and he cannot arrange the poles, —

he places his hand on his fellow’s shoulder, and his fellow’s hand on his shoulder, and hangs

the lamb by the sinews of its knees, on his arm.

And he skins it.

They tore it open and removed its sacrificial fats, placed them in a magis

a bowl, and burned them

upon the altar.

The fourteenth of Nisan that falls on Shabbat: when the first group finished slaughtering and offering,

the first group went out and sat in the Temple Mount.

But they could not take out their Paschal offerings and eat them in Jerusalem, because it is forbidden to carry in Jerusalem, since they did not make eruv tavshilin in Jerusalem.

And the

second

went out and sat

in the hel,

which is the open space surrounded by a latticework fence around the wall of the Women’s Courtyard, at the beginning of the ascent of the Temple Mount.

And

the

third

when they finished offering,

stood in its place

in the Courtyard.

When it became dark they went out and roasted their Paschal offerings,

but on Shabbat it is forbidden to roast, for roasting the Paschal offering does not override Shabbat [Rav of Bartenura].

Gemara:

Rabbi Yitzhak said: the Paschal offering is not slaughtered

initially. Rambam

except in three groups of thirty people each

in each and every group.

What is the reason?

[What is the reason?]

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

which they expounded in the Mishna as being three groups,

we are uncertain

we are in doubt

whether

the intention of the verse is that they should slaughter it—“congregation,” “assembly,” and “Israel”—all

at one time,

for “congregation” signifies ten, “assembly” ten, and “Israel” ten. Thus, thirty people together.

Whether

[or] the intention of the verse is that they should slaughter it—“congregation,” “assembly,” and “Israel”—

one after another,

that is, three groups, with ten people in each group.

And in order to emerge from the uncertainty, they required three groups one after another.

For

whichever way one looks:

If at one time

is required,

there is

thirty in each group.

And if one after another

is required,

there are

three groups.

And since the reason that three groups of thirty are required is solely because of the uncertainty—

therefore fifty are also sufficient.

It is sufficient that there be fifty men, and through this they emerge from the category of uncertainty.

And this is what they do:

for

at first

thirty enter

thirty men enter,

and they perform

their Paschal offerings. Thus, the first group of thirty people.

Afterward

enter

ten

new

men.

And ten go out

go out

ten

from among the thirty who had already performed their Paschal offerings. It follows that there are thirty men in the Courtyard at once—and if thirty at one time is required, here there are thirty. And there are also ten new men—and if the verse required three groups one after another, ten in each of them, here there is a group of ten new men.

The ten new men performed their Paschal offerings, and then

enter

enter

ten

new men,

and ten go out

go out

ten

from among the thirty who had already performed their Paschal offerings. Thus, there are thirty men here at once. And there are also ten new men here. And they slaughter their Paschal offerings.

We learned in the Mishna:

the first group entered,

the Courtyard became full; they locked the doors of the Courtyard.

It was stated: Abaye said: “They were locked”

the doors of the Courtyard

we learned.

They were locked by themselves, through a miracle.

Rava said: “They lock the doors of the Courtyard”

we learned. They lock them by hand.

And we raised a difficulty:

What is the difference between them?

[In what do they disagree?]

And we answer:

There is a difference between them regarding relying on a miracle

[relying on a miracle]:

Abaye said: “They were locked” we learned; as long as they enter

who enter the Courtyard,

they brought in

they would bring them in as long as the doors of the Courtyard had not locked themselves. And they were not concerned lest everyone enter and there not be three groups one after another.

And we rely on a miracle,

relying on there being a miracle and the doors of the Courtyard closing before everyone enters.

Rava said: “They lock” we learned, and we do not rely on a miracle

they are concerned lest the miracle not occur and everyone enter.

In tractate Eduyot [chapter 5, mishna 6] we learned concerning the four matters testified by Akavya ben Mahalalel:

He [Akavya ben Mahalalel] used to say:

They do not give the woman suspected of adultery to drink [the water of the sota], neither the convert nor the freed slavewoman.

They said to him [the Sages]: There was an incident involving Karkemit [the name of a woman, and she was] a slavewoman who was in Jerusalem, and Shemaya and Avtalion gave her to drink.

He said to them: They gave her a similar one to drink [people resembling her were the ones who gave her to drink; Shemaya and Avtalion were the sons of converts, and therefore they gave her to drink].

And they excommunicated him [Akavya ben Mahalalel because he insulted the honor of the Sages ].

Rabbi Yehuda said: Heaven forbid

to say

that Akavya ben Mahalalel was excommunicated.

For

after all,

there is not in the Courtyard

when it is

locked, for every person of Israel

who was there on the eves of Passover, a person who was greater

in wisdom and fear of sin than Akavya ben Mahalalel.

And this beraita, in which it is stated that “the Courtyard is not locked”—

Abaye explains

explains it

according to his position

[according to his view].

And Rava explains

explains

according to his position

[according to his view]:

Abaye explains according to his position: there is not in the Courtyard, at the time it was locked

by itself,

for every person in Israel

a person who is greater

in wisdom and fear of sin than Akavya ben Mahalalel.

Rava explains according to his position: there is not in the Courtyard, at the time they lock it,

by hand,

for all Israel

a person who is greater

in wisdom and fear of sin than Akavya ben Mahalalel.

The Sages taught: A person was never crushed in the Courtyard

from the crowding

except for one Paschal offering, which was in the days of Hillel, in which one old man was crushed.

And they would call it “the crushed Paschal offering,”

because of the old man who was crushed in it.

The Sages taught: Once King Agrippa wished to take note of the population of Israel

to know how many they were.

He said to the High Priest: Keep your eyes on the Paschal offerings

count how many Paschal offerings there are, and according to this it is possible to estimate the number of Israelites.

He took

the High Priest

a kidney

[a kidney]

from each one. And sixty myriad pairs were found there

kidneys, which is

double the number of those who went out from Egypt.

And all this was

apart from one who was impure and one who was on a distant road,

for they did not bring a Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan.

And there was not a single Paschal offering upon which more than ten people had not been registered,

so it was found that there were many people there.

And they would call it “the thick Paschal offering,”

from the language of thickness, because the people were numerous.

They taught in a beraita:

he took

the High Priest

a kidney.

And we raise an objection:

But it requires burning!

After all, the kidney must be burned!

And we answer:

he subsequently

afterward

burned them

[burned the kidneys].

And we raise an objection:

But it is written

after all, it is stated concerning the burning of the offering [Leviticus 3]

“and he shall burn it”

in the singular. And the Sages learned that he should burn each offering separately, and

that he should not mix the fats of one with those of another!

If so, how did he mix all the kidneys and burn them all together at the end?

And we answer:

he subsequently,

after he took all the kidneys,

burned them one by one.

He burned each one separately.

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught

it is stated in the verse concerning the burning of the offering [Leviticus 3]:

“and he shall burn them”

in the plural, and the Sages explained that it speaks of burning all the sacrificial fats of one offering; from here

that he should

burn

all of it together.

If so, it is difficult: how did the High Priest collect all the kidneys and count them, and afterward burn each kidney separately, apart from the burning of the other sacrificial fats?

And we answer:

rather,

he did not count the kidneys themselves. Rather, he only took them for

mere grasping.

For he took from them

he took the kidney from the offerers and showed it to the attendant,

until they gave him

until the attendant gave him

something else

another object to count in its place, such as a stone or a bean. And he collected the stones and counted them.

We learned in the Mishna:

The priests stand in rows

rows, one row entirely of silver, silver, and one row entirely of gold, gold.

And we raised a difficulty:

What is the reason

what is the reason that the entire row was with silver bowls and they did not mix silver bowls and gold bowls in the same row?

If you say

if you say to explain that they were concerned

lest they take the gold ones

lest the priest take from his fellow a gold bowl full of blood

and bring in the silver one.

And he would return to his fellow an empty silver bowl. It would then be found that his fellow received a silver bowl instead of gold, and one ascends in holiness and does not descend. Therefore, a silver row was entirely silver, and a gold row entirely gold.

It is impossible to explain this so:

For even according to the rule that a row is entirely silver, silver—

here too

there is also concern

lest they take one worth two hundred

the priest would receive from his fellow a bowl worth two hundred zuz,

and bring in one worth one hundred,

and return to his fellow a bowl worth one hundred. This too is a descent in holiness.

And we answer:

rather,

there is no prohibition of descending in holiness if one receives a gold bowl and gives a silver bowl. Nevertheless, they did not mix the bowls in the same row, because

this way is preferable.

It is more fitting this way.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the bowls did not have rims.

The Sages taught: All the bowls in the Temple did not have rims, except for the bowls of frankincense of the showbread.

For they would place two bowls of frankincense beside the showbread on the table.

And if they did not make rims for the bowls [a broad bottom], there would be concern

lest they place them

on the table and they lean on the bread, for they cannot stand by themselves,

and the bread would split.

The bread would be cut, for the showbread had two walls on its sides, like a box open on its two sides. And if the bowls leaned on the bread, there was concern that they would break its walls.

We learned in the Mishna:

An Israelite slaughtered, and the priest received.

And we raised a difficulty: Why did we learn “an Israelite slaughtered”? Is it not

sufficient

[not effective] for slaughter to be performed by one who

is not an Israelite

but a priest?

And we answer: In truth, the slaughter of a priest is also valid. And why did we learn “an Israelite slaughtered”?

That itself teaches us

[this itself comes to teach us]

that slaughter by a non-priest is valid.

And if an Israelite wishes to slaughter, he slaughters.

And regarding what we learned,

“and the priest received,”

this teaches us: from receiving

of the blood

onward is a priestly mitzva.

For all the services performed with an offering after slaughter, from receiving onward, must be performed specifically by priests.

And from where did they learn that slaughter is valid when performed by a non-priest, and that from receiving onward it is a priestly mitzva?

For it is stated concerning the burnt offering [Leviticus 1]: “And he shall slaughter the son of the cattle before the Lord. And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall offer the blood.” Regarding slaughter, the verse did not mention a priest; regarding offering the blood, it mentions a priest. And they explained in tractate Hagiga: “And they shall offer”—this is receiving the blood, which is necessary for carrying; it teaches regarding receiving that it requires a priest.

We learned in the Mishna:

He gives it to his fellow.

Four services were stated regarding the blood: slaughter, receiving, carrying, and sprinkling.

“Carrying” means carrying the blood from the place of slaughter to the altar. And they disagreed in tractate Zevahim [14b, Tosafot] regarding the law of “carrying not on foot”—for example, when he extended the blood in his hand and brought it to the altar, and did not walk with his feet at all. Some say that he fulfilled the mitzva of “carrying,” and some say that he did not fulfill it.

Our Mishna makes clear that the priests standing in a row would pass the blood from hand to hand, and if so,

you may learn from it that carrying not on foot is

[is]

carrying.

For if you say that the priests in the row moved somewhat with their feet and drew nearer to the altar, then why did the tanna elaborate on the order of carrying the blood? It must be that they did not move with their feet, and the tanna comes to teach you that carrying not on foot is called carrying!

And we reject this: it is always possible to say that carrying not on foot is not carrying, and the priest in the row—

perhaps

[perhaps] he

moved a little,

moving slightly with his feet and drawing nearer to his fellow.

But rather,

according to this it is difficult:

what does it teach us,

why did the tanna elaborate on the order of carrying the blood?

This teaches us

[this comes to teach us]

“With the multitude of the people is the glory of the King,”

and therefore many priests stood in a row, so that all of them would be occupied with the service.

We learned in the Mishna:

He receives the full one and returns the empty one.

And we infer:

but not the reverse

he is not permitted to reverse the order and return the empty one before taking the full one from his fellow.

It supports him

this is support

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish.

For Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: One does not pass over mitzvot!

When a mitzva comes to a person’s hand, he should not pass it by without fulfilling it.

Therefore, in our Mishna, when a full bowl was presented to the priest, he is required to engage immediately in this mitzva and take the bowl. He may not pass over this mitzva and engage in giving the empty bowl.

We learned in the Mishna:

The priest nearest the altar

sprinkles it with one sprinkling opposite the base.

In the service of the offerings, they placed the blood on the altar in three forms:

A. “Sprinkling”—that he throws all the blood from the vessel in his hand from a distance toward the altar.

B. “Pouring”—that he brings the vessel close to the wall of the altar and pours all the blood gently.

C. “Placement with the finger”—that he places his finger into the blood in the vessel, and afterward places the blood with his finger on the altar, and does not throw all the blood.

“Placement with the finger” was only with a sin offering. And with the other offerings they placed all the blood on the altar—there are offerings in which it was placed by “sprinkling,” and others by “pouring.”

From the wording of our Mishna, “The priest nearest the altar sprinkles it with one sprinkling opposite the base,” it is clear that the placing of the blood of the Paschal offering was by “sprinkling.”

And we raised a difficulty:

Who is the tanna?

Who is the tanna who taught in our Mishna

that the Paschal offering is by sprinkling?

For they taught in a beraita in Zevachim [37a]: Rabbi Ishmael says: “From where do we derive [that the blood of] the tithe and the Paschal offering [is placed upon the altar]? The verse states: ‘And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured.’ [With regard to the other offerings, the throwing of blood upon the altar is stated explicitly, apart from the animal tithe and the Paschal offering, concerning which the placing of blood is not stated. Therefore, they expounded this verse with regard to the tithe and the Paschal offering.] We have learned that the blood of the Paschal offering is placed by ‘pouring,’ in accordance with the wording of the verse, ‘And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured,’ and not by ‘throwing”!

Rav Hisda said:

our Mishna

is that of Rabbi Yose the Galilean.

For it was taught: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says

it is stated [Numbers 18:17]: “Only the firstborn of an ox or the firstborn of a sheep or the firstborn of a goat you shall not redeem; they are holy

you shall throw their blood upon the altar, and you shall burn their fat.”

And it is difficult: why

was “its blood” not stated, but rather “their blood,”

for here only the firstborn is being discussed, and it would have been fitting to write: “You shall throw its blood [the blood of the firstborn]”?

Rather, it follows that other offerings besides the firstborn are being discussed here.

And likewise it is difficult: why

was “its fat” not stated, but rather “their fat,”

for it would have been fitting to write: “And you shall burn its fat [the fat of the firstborn]”?

Rather, it follows that other offerings, and not only the firstborn, are being discussed here.

It taught concerning the firstborn

about which the verse is speaking

and

concerning

the tithe

of animals

and the Paschal offering,

concerning which the Torah did not explicitly mention the placing of blood and the burning of the fat,

that they require the placing of blood

[throwing]

and the sacrificial portions

[the burning of the fat]

with regard to the altar.

Therefore, the verse stated “their blood” and “their fat” in the plural.

Thus, Rabbi Yose the Galilean learned the placing of blood for the Paschal offering from the firstborn, concerning which the expression “throwing” is stated [“you shall throw their blood”]. We have learned that the Paschal offering is by throwing and not by pouring.

And we raised it:

From where do we know that they require a base?

From where did the tanay in our Mishna learn that the blood of the Paschal offering must be thrown specifically opposite the base? [That is, at the three corners of the altar apart from the southeastern corner, as we explained in the Mishna.]

Rabbi Elazar said: It is derived

They learned this through a gzera shava

“throwing,” “throwing,” from the olah.

It is written here

[it is stated here]

“You shall throw their blood upon the altar”

in the expression “throwing.”

And it is written there

it is stated concerning the olah [Leviticus 1]

“And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall throw its blood upon the altar, around.”

in the expression “throwing.”

And they learned from here:

Just as an olah requires a base

as explained below,

so too the Paschal offering

[in which the expression “throwing” is likewise stated, as above]

also requires a base.