Pesachim 64b (סד:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Eliezer says: On the fourteenth

when it occurs on Shabbat

and he cannot prepare the poles, —

he places his hand on his fellow’s shoulder, and his fellow places his hand on his shoulder, and he suspends it

the lamb by the tendons of its knees, on his forearm.

And he flays it.

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

a bowl, and burned them

on the altar.

On the fourteenth of Nisan when it occurs on Shabbat, once the first group had finished slaughtering and offering,

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

But they could not take their Paschal offerings out and eat them in Jerusalem, because carrying was prohibited in Jerusalem, since no eruv of courtyards had been made in Jerusalem.

And the

second

group went out and sat

in the rampart,

the open area enclosed by a railing around the wall of the Women’s Court, at the beginning of the ascent to the Temple Mount.

And

the

third

group, once they had finished offering,

stood in its place

in the courtyard.

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

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

Gemara:

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The Paschal offering may not be slaughtered

initially. Rambam

except in three groups of thirty people each

in each group.

What is the reason?

What is the reason?

“Assembly,” “congregation,” and “Israel,”

which the Mishna expounded as referring to three groups,

we are uncertain

we are uncertain

whether

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

at one time,

with “assembly” implying ten, “congregation” implying ten, and “Israel” implying ten. Thus, there would be thirty people together.

Or

the intent of the verse is that they should slaughter it with “assembly,” “congregation,” and “Israel” one after

the other,

meaning three groups, each consisting of ten people.

To resolve the uncertainty, they required three groups one after the other.

For

whichever way one looks at it:

If at one time

is required,

there is

thirty people in each group.

And if one after the other

is required,

there is

three groups.

And since the reason that three groups of thirty are required is only due to the uncertainty—

therefore, fifty are also sufficient.

It is sufficient for there to be fifty people, and in this way they emerge from the uncertainty.

This is how they proceed:

For

at first

thirty enter

thirty people enter,

and perform

they perform their Paschal offerings. This is the first group of thirty people.

Afterward,

ten

enter

new

people.

And ten go out,

ten leave

of the

thirty who had already performed their Paschal offerings. Thus, there are thirty people in the courtyard simultaneously—and if thirty at one time is required, here there are thirty. In addition, there are ten new people—and if the verse requires three groups one after the other, ten in each group is sufficient. Thus, there is here a group of ten new people.

The ten new people performed their Paschal offerings, and then

ten

entered

new

people,

and ten went out

leaving

of the

thirty who had already performed their Paschal offerings. Thus, there are thirty people here simultaneously, and there are also ten new people. They slaughter their Paschal offerings.

We learned in the Mishna:

The first group entered

the courtyard became full, and they locked the doors of the courtyard.

It was stated: Abaye said: “The doors were locked

of the courtyard”—

we learned

that they were locked by themselves, through a miracle.

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

we learned—that they lock them by hand.

And we raised a question about it:

What is the difference between them?

In what do they disagree?

And we answer:

The difference between them is whether one may rely on a miracle

whether one may rely on a miracle:

Abaye said: “The doors were locked”—we learned; as long as they enter

enter the courtyard,

they would admit them

they would allow them to enter as long as the doors of the courtyard had not locked themselves. They were not concerned that everyone might enter and there would not be three groups one after the other.

And we rely on a miracle,

relying on a miracle that the doors of the courtyard would close before everyone entered.

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

they are concerned that the miracle might not occur and everyone might enter.

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

He [Akavya ben Mehalalel] would say:

The waters [of the sota] are not given to a female convert or to an emancipated slave woman.

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

He said to them: They gave her a drink by analogy [those who gave her the drink were similar to her, for Shemaya and Avtalyon were the sons of converts, and therefore they gave her the drink].

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

Rabbi Yehuda said:

Heaven forbid

that Akavya ben Mehalalel was excommunicated.

For

therefore,

there is no one in the courtyard

when it

is locked, among all the Jewish people

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

in Torah knowledge and fear of sin than Akavya ben Mehalalel.

This beraita, which states that “the courtyard is not locked”—

Abaye explains

explains it

according to his own view

according to his approach.

And Rava explains

explains it

according to his own view

according to his approach:

Abaye explains according to his own view: There is no one in the courtyard when it is locked

by itself

among all Israel

who is a person greater

in Torah knowledge and fear of sin than Akavya ben Mehalalel.

Rava explains according to his own view: There is no one in the courtyard when they lock it

by hand

among all Israel

who is a person greater

in Torah knowledge and fear of sin than Akavya ben Mehalalel.

The Sages taught: No person was ever crushed in the courtyard

because of the crowding

except on one Passover, which occurred in the days of Hillel, when one old man was crushed.

And they called it “the crushed Passover,”

because an old man had been crushed in it.

The Sages taught: Once, King Agrippa wished to ascertain the size of the population of Israel

to know how numerous they were.

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

count how many Paschal offerings there are, and from this it will be possible to estimate the number of the people of Israel.

He took

the High Priest

a kidney

from each one.

And there were found there six hundred thousand pairs

of kidneys, which is

twice the number of those who left Egypt.

And all this was

apart from those who were impure and those who were on a distant journey,

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

And there was no Paschal offering that did not have more than ten people registered for it,

so it was evident that a great multitude was there.

And they called it “the thickly populated Passover,”

from the term “thickness,” because the people were numerous.

A beraita taught:

He took

the High Priest

a kidney.

And we challenge this:

But it requires burning,

for the kidney must be burned!

And we answer:

He later

afterward

burned them

the kidneys.

And we challenge this:

But it is written

concerning the burning of the offering [Leviticus 3]

“And he shall burn it,”

in the singular. The Sages derived that each offering must be burned separately, and

that the fats of one offering may not be mixed with those of another!

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

And we answer:

He later,

after taking all the kidneys,

burned them one by one.

He burned each one separately.

And we challenge this:

But it was taught

that the verse says concerning the burning of the offering [Leviticus 3]:

“And he shall burn them,”

in the plural. The Sages interpreted this as referring to burning all the sacrificial portions of one offering; from here

that he should

burn

all of it together.

If so, this is difficult: How did the High Priest gather all the kidneys and count them, and afterward burn each kidney separately, apart from the burning of the other sacrificial portions?

And we answer:

Rather,

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

for the purpose of holding them, that is all.

For he would take from them

he would take the kidney from those bringing the offerings and show it to an attendant,

until they gave him

until the attendant gave him

something else

something else to count in its place, such as a stone or a bean. He gathered the stones and counted them.

We learned in the Mishna:

The priests stood in rows

rows in which one row consisted entirely of silver, and another row consisted entirely of gold.

And we raised a question about it:

What is the reason

why did each row consist entirely of silver vessels, rather than mixing silver vessels and gold vessels in the same row?

If you say

that the reason was that they were concerned

perhaps he would take the golden one

perhaps a priest would take from his fellow a golden basin full of blood

and insert the silver one.

He would return to his fellow an empty silver basin. Thus, his fellow would receive a silver basin in place of a gold one, whereas sacred objects are elevated in sanctity and not lowered. Therefore, a silver row consisted entirely of silver and a gold row entirely of gold.

This cannot be the explanation:

For even according to the rule that a row consisted entirely of silver

here too

there is reason for concern

perhaps he would take one worth two hundred

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

and insert one worth one hundred,

returning to his fellow a basin worth one hundred. This too would constitute a lowering in sanctity.

And we answer:

Rather,

there is no prohibition against lowering in sanctity when one receives a golden basin and gives a silver basin. Nevertheless, they did not mix the basins within the same row, because

this is more proper.

It is more aesthetically fitting.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the basins did not have rims.

The Sages taught: None of the basins in the Temple had rims, except for the frankincense basins of the showbread.

Two basins of frankincense were placed beside the showbread on the Table.

If the basins were not made with rims [a broad base], there would be concern

lest they place them

on the Table and they lean on the bread, since they cannot stand independently,

and the bread would split.

The bread would be cut, for the showbread had two side walls, like a box open on two sides. If the basins leaned on the bread, there was concern that its walls would break.

We learned in the Mishna:

An Israelite slaughtered, and a priest received the blood.

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

sufficient

is it not valid for the slaughter to be performed by one who

is not an Israelite

but is a priest?

And we answer: In fact, slaughter by a priest is also valid. Why, then, did we learn “an Israelite slaughtered”?

This itself teaches us

this itself comes to teach us

that slaughter by a non-priest is valid.

If an Israelite wishes to slaughter, he may slaughter.

And regarding what we learned,

“and the priest received the blood,”

this teaches us: From receiving

the blood

onward, it is a priestly mitzva.

All the sacrificial rites performed after slaughter, beginning with receiving the blood, are mitzvot to be performed specifically by priests.

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

It is stated concerning the burnt offering [Leviticus 1]: “And he shall slaughter the young bull before the Lord. And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall offer the blood.” With regard to slaughter, the verse does not mention a priest, whereas with regard to bringing the blood it mentions a priest. The Gemara in tractate Hagiga interpreted “and they shall offer” as referring to receiving the blood, which is necessary for carrying it; this teaches that receiving the blood requires a priest.

We learned in the Mishna:

He gives it to his fellow.

Four rites are stated with regard to the blood: slaughter, receiving, carrying, and sprinkling.

“Carrying” means carrying the blood from the place of slaughter to the altar. In tractate Zevahim [14b, Tosafot], they disagree about the status of “carrying without walking”—for example, when one extends the blood in his hand and brings it to the altar without walking at all. Some say that he has fulfilled the rite of carrying, while others say that he has not fulfilled it.

It is explained in our Mishna that the priests standing in a row passed the blood from hand to hand. If so,

you can infer from it that carrying without walking is

the act of

carrying.

For if you say that the priests in the row moved somewhat on foot and approached the altar, why did the tanna elaborate on the order in which the blood was carried? It must be that they did not move on foot, and the tanna came to teach you that carrying without walking is called carrying!

And we reject this: It is always possible to say that carrying without walking is not considered carrying, and that the priest in the row

perhaps

he

moved a little,

moving slightly on foot and approaching his fellow.

But rather,

according to this, it is difficult:

what does this teach us,

why did the tanna elaborate on the order in which the blood was carried?

This teaches us

this comes to teach us

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

and therefore many priests stood in a row, so that they would all 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 may not reverse the order and return the empty one before taking the full one from his fellow.

This supports

this provides support

for Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish.

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

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

Therefore, in our Mishna, when a full basin was presented to the priest, he was obligated to attend to this mitzva immediately and take the basin. He was forbidden to pass over this mitzva and occupy himself with giving the empty basin.

We learned in the Mishna:

The priest nearest the altar

sprinkles it once toward the base.

In the Temple service, the blood was placed on the altar in three ways:

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

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

c. “Placement with the finger”—he places his finger into the blood in the vessel and then places the blood on the altar with his finger, rather than throwing all the blood.

“Placement with the finger” was performed only with a sin offering. With the other offerings, all the blood was placed on the altar: with some offerings it was done by “sprinkling,” and with others by “pouring.”

From the wording of our Mishna, “The priest nearest the altar sprinkles it once toward the base,” it is evident that the blood of the Paschal offering was placed by “sprinkling.”

And we raised a question about it:

Who is the tanna?

Who is the tanna who taught in our Mishna

that the Paschal offering is placed by sprinkling?

For they taught in a beraita in tractate Zevahim [37a]: Rabbi Yishmael says: “From where do we know that the blood of the animal tithe and the Paschal offering is placed on the altar? The verse states: ‘And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out.’” [With regard to the other offerings, the placing of blood on the altar is explicitly stated, except for the animal tithe and the Paschal offering, concerning which the placing of blood is not mentioned. Therefore, this verse is expounded with regard to the animal tithe and the Paschal offering.] We learn that the blood of the Paschal offering is placed by “pouring,” as the verse says, “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out,” and not by “sprinkling”!

Rav Ḥisda said:

our Mishna

is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says

it is stated [Numbers 18:17]: “However, 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 sprinkle their blood on the altar, and you shall burn their fat.”

And it is difficult: Why

does the verse not say “its blood,” but rather “their blood,”

when it is speaking here only of the firstborn, and it would have been appropriate to write, “You shall sprinkle its blood [the blood of the firstborn]”!

Rather, it follows that the verse is speaking here of additional offerings besides the firstborn.

And likewise it is difficult: Why

does the verse not say “its fat,” but rather “their fat,”

when it would have been appropriate to write, “And you shall burn its fat [the fat of the firstborn]”!

Rather, it follows that the verse is speaking here of additional offerings, and not only of the firstborn.

It teaches concerning the firstborn

to which the verse refers,

and

concerning

the animal tithe

and

the Paschal offering,

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

that they require the placing of blood [

sprinkling]

and the sacrificial fats [

burning of the fat]

on the altar.

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

Thus, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili derived the placing of blood for the Paschal offering from the firstborn, concerning which the term “sprinkling” is stated [“You shall sprinkle their blood”]. We learn that the blood of the Paschal offering is placed by sprinkling and not by pouring.

We raised the following question:

From where do we know that they require the base?

From where did the tanna in our Mishna derive that the blood of the Paschal offering must be sprinkled specifically opposite the base? [That is, at the three corners of the altar other than the southeastern corner, as we explained in the Mishna.]

Rabbi Elazar said: It is derived

through a gezerah shavah,

“sprinkling” and “sprinkling” from the burnt offering.

It is written here [

it is stated here]

“You shall sprinkle their blood on the altar”

using the term “sprinkling.”

And it is written there

it is stated with regard to the burnt offering [Leviticus 1]:

“And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall sprinkle its blood on the altar all around”

using the term “sprinkling.”

And they learned from here:

Just as a burnt offering requires the base

as explained below,

so too the Paschal offering [

in which the term “sprinkling” is likewise stated, as above]

also requires the base.