Pesachim 65a — the Talmud in English

And we raised it with regard to this:

And the burnt-offering itself—

from where do we know it?

From where did they learn that its blood is given only in a place beneath which there is a base?

And we answer:

The verse says

concerning the sin-offering of a leader [Leviticus 4:25]: “And the priest shall take from the blood of the sin-offering with his finger, and place it upon the horns of the altar of the burnt-offering, and its blood he shall pour

upon the base of the altar of the burnt-offering.”

And why did Scripture extend its wording by saying, “upon the base of the altar of the burnt-offering”? It would have been fitting to say, “upon the base of the altar,” and it would have been understood by itself that the reference is to the altar of the burnt-offering, since at the beginning of the verse it says, “and place it upon the horns of the altar of the burnt-offering.”

Rather, necessarily, this is what Scripture said: “Upon the base of the altar”—make the

burnt-offering

understood here.

Apparently,

we learn from here that a burnt-offering requires a base.

And from here they learned by a gzera shava that the Passover-offering also requires a base.

We learned in the Mishna:

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

The tanna

taught in the Tosefta:

It,

the third group,

is called the group of the lazy.

And we raise an objection:

But is it not impossible that this not be so!?

After all, they cannot do without there being a third group, since there is a mitzva in three groups. And if so,

what could they have done,

what were the members of the third group supposed to do, such that because of their refraining they are called the group of the lazy?

And we answer:

Even so,

even though in truth it is impossible without the third group, nevertheless

they should have urged themselves.

For each one of them is commanded to urge himself not to be counted among the members of this group.

As it was taught: Rabbi says: The world cannot exist without perfume sellers,

perfume-makers whose scent is good,

and without tanners,

leather processors whose scent is bad.

Fortunate is one whose occupation is with perfume. Woe to one whose occupation is tanning.

And the world cannot exist without males and without females.

Fortunate is one whose sons are males; woe to one whose sons are females.

And likewise, it is impossible without a first, second, and third group. But fortunate is one who is in the first group, and woe to one who is in the third group.

We learned in the Mishna:

As is its procedure on a weekday,

so is its procedure on Shabbat. Except that the priests wash the courtyard [on Shabbat] not in accordance with the will of the Sages.

And we raised it with regard to this:

Not in accordance with whose will?

Who are the Sages who did not approve that they washed the courtyard on Shabbat?

Rav Hisda said: It is not in accordance with the will of Rabbi Eliezer.

It is

that Rabbi Eliezer holds that one who sweeps the ground on Shabbat is liable for a sin-offering. Therefore, even in the Temple, since the washing has already become a need of the Most High, it is forbidden to wash, since it is an act resembling sweeping the ground.

For if it were the Rabbis,

if you say that the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer concerning sweeping the ground are the Sages in our Mishna,

they say that it is a rabbinic prohibition,

after all, they hold that one who washes the ground is forbidden by rabbinic decree because of “rest.”

And there is no rabbinic prohibition in the Temple,

for they did not decree the prohibitions of “rest” in the Temple.

What is it?—

where is that disagreement in which Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagreed?

As it was taught: One who milks

an animal on Shabbat, who is liable because of “extracting,” for he separates the milk from the animal’s udders, and it is forbidden because it is a derivative of “threshing.” For “threshing” is separating the wheat from the straw [Shabbat 95a].

And one who curdles,

who sets the milk in an animal’s stomach to make it into cheese, and is liable because it is “sorting,” for he separates the cheese from the water in the milk [Shabbat 95a].

And one who makes cheese,

gathers the flakes of milk [cheese crumbs] to make them into a cheese-crust [a solid piece of cheese], according to the Arukh [cited in the Masoret ha-Shas, Shabbat 95a]. And he is liable because of building [Shabbat there].

The measure for liability to a sin-offering for all these

is the size of a dried fig.

One who sweeps

the house,

and one who sprinkles,

pours water upon the dust on the ground of his house so that dust will not rise [Rashi, Shabbat 95a],

and one who removes honeycombs

from the hive—all these are forbidden by Torah law, as follows.

Therefore, if he did them

unwittingly on Shabbat—

he is liable for a sin-offering.

For the law of one who performs a labor on Shabbat intentionally and after warning is that he is stoned. And when unwitting, he is liable for a sin-offering.

If he acted intentionally on a Festival—

he receives forty lashes,

for one who performs labor on a Festival intentionally receives lashes. But when unwitting, he is exempt,

the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

For Rabbi Eliezer holds that one who sweeps the house and one who sprinkles are liable because of building. For by sweeping or sprinkling, he levels hollows in the ground. And one who removes honeycombs is liable because of reaping [for he separates the honey from the place of its formation and growth]. As it is stated [I Samuel 14]: “And he dipped it into the forest of honey.” The verse called the hive “the forest of honey”—and just as one who plucks from a forest is liable, so too one who plucks honey from a hive is liable [Shabbat 95a].

And the Sages say: Both this one,

Shabbat,

and that one,

the Festival—

is not

the sweeping, sprinkling, and removing forbidden by Torah law

but only because of a rabbinic prohibition,

by rabbinic decree.

And the Sages concede concerning one who milks, one who makes cheese, and one who curdles that they are forbidden by Torah law.

Therefore, washing the courtyard on Shabbat, according to Rabbi Eliezer, is forbidden by Torah law because it levels hollows [and even though the floor of the courtyard was marble, there were hollows between one slab and another. Tosafot ].

But according to the Rabbis, washing the ground is forbidden only because of a rabbinic prohibition, like sweeping the house, and they did not decree a rabbinic prohibition in the Temple.

Rav Ashi said: Even you may say

[say] that the priests washed the courtyard

not in accordance with the will of the Sages

who disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer, for they hold that washing is forbidden because of a rabbinic prohibition; nevertheless, they did not permit it on Shabbat.

And our Mishna

is Rabbi Natan’s.

As it was taught: Rabbi Natan says: A rabbinic prohibition that is needed—

for there is a need to transgress it for the sacrificial service—

they permitted.

A rabbinic prohibition that is not needed

for the sacrificial service—

they did not permit.

Therefore, washing the courtyard is forbidden, because it is not for the needs of the sacrificial service.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Judah says: He would fill a cup

with the blood of the mixture and cast one casting upon the altar. And the Sages did not agree with him.

It was taught: Rabbi Judah says: He would fill a cup with the blood of the mixtures

of the Passover-offerings, whose blood was spilled onto the floor, in order

that if the blood of

one

of them

were spilled, and they did not cast it upon the altar,

this cup would be found

which he filled with the blood of the mixtures, and they cast it,

rendering it fit.

For the blood of that offering whose blood was spilled is mixed into the blood of the mixtures, and it was cast upon the altar.

They said to him,

the Sages,

to Rabbi Judah:

Only blood that was received in a vessel and only afterward spilled onto the ground is valid if they gathered it and cast it upon the altar.

But blood that spilled from the animal’s neck onto the ground, without their having received it in a vessel, and afterward they gathered it into a vessel, is invalid.

And

behold, the blood of the mixtures

was it not received in a vessel

before it was spilled, and its casting is invalid?!

And we raise an objection:

From where did they know?

From where did the Sages know that the blood of the mixtures was spilled onto the ground without their having received it in a vessel?

And we answer:

Rather, this is what they said to him

[this is what the Sages said to Rabbi Judah]:

What is your remedy in casting a cup of the blood of the mixtures? You must be concerned

perhaps it was not

the blood

received in a vessel,

but rather it spilled onto the ground from the animal’s neck. And if so, even if he fills a cup from the blood of the mixtures, he has not emerged from the uncertainty, because perhaps the blood is invalid and the offering was not rendered fit, and it turns out that he is casting invalid blood.

He said to them,

Rabbi Judah:

I, too, did not say

that the blood of the mixtures is effective in every circumstance,

but

only

when it was received in a vessel.

And we say that the blood of the offering whose blood was spilled had already been received in a vessel beforehand.

And we raise an objection:

And from where did Rabbi Judah know

that the blood of the offering had been received in a vessel before it was spilled? For it is possible that this offering, which you are coming to render fit through this casting, had its blood spill from the animal’s neck, and its casting is invalid. And Rabbi Judah comes to repair the offering and remove it from the uncertainty. Yet it has still not emerged from the uncertainty.

And we answer:

Priests are diligent!

That is to say, they are careful not to spill the blood before they have received it in a vessel, and therefore there is no concern that the blood spilled from the animal’s neck.

We explained the challenge of the Sages and Rabbi Judah’s answer according to Rashi’s first explanation, that the Gemara is speaking here about the same offering whose blood was spilled, and we are coming to render it fit through the blood of the mixtures. The Sages challenged: from where do we know that this blood was received in a vessel? Rashi wrote that this explanation is the principal one.

But Rashi brings another explanation: that the challenge and resolution of the Gemara speak about the blood of the mixtures, and this is the Gemara’s explanation:

Rather, this is what they said to him,

the Sages to Rabbi Judah: the blood of the mixtures on the floor of the courtyard—

perhaps

all of it

was not received in a vessel?

He said to them: I, too, did not say

to fill

except in

a place where they know that it was

received in a vessel.

And below the Gemara challenges: was invalid blood, such as blood of the residue, not also mixed into this?

And also the continuation of the Gemara’s words, according to this explanation, speaks about all the blood of the mixtures on the floor, and not only about the blood of the offering whose blood was spilled.

And we raise an objection:

If

priests

are diligent,

and are careful that some of the blood should not spill before it is received into a vessel—

why does it spill?

Why did Rabbi Judah fear that blood from one of the offerings spilled after it had been received in a vessel? After all, the priests should also be careful about this?!

And we answer:

Because of their diligence they do

it: because they hurry and hasten for the mitzva, and run with the vessel in their hand to the altar,

it spills

[the blood] after it is already inside the vessel.

There are five kinds of blood.

Some of it is blood with which the life departs [through taking the blood the animal dies]. And some of it is blood with which the life does not depart.

Concerning the prohibition against eating blood it is stated [in Leviticus 17:10–11]: “

And any man of the House of Israel and of the stranger who dwells among them who eats any blood, I shall set My face against the soul that eats the blood, and I shall cut it off from among its people. For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to atone for your souls, for it is the blood that atones through the soul.”

And Rashi explained: “For the soul of the flesh”—of every creature—“is in the blood”; it depends upon it. Therefore I gave it upon the altar to atone for the soul of a human being. Let a soul come and atone for the soul.

And since the Torah said concerning one who eats blood, who is liable to karet, “For the soul of the flesh is in the blood,” the Sages learned that there is liability to karet only for blood with which the life departs.

And from the end of the verse, “for it is the blood that atones through the soul,” they learned that the blood of offerings, which come to atone for a person, is cast only when it is blood with which the life departs.

And now we raise an objection against Rabbi Judah:

But the blood of the residue,

with which the life does not depart, was spilled onto the ground from many Passover-offerings. And the blood of the residue was

mixed into it,

into the valid blood spilled from one offering [according to the concern]. And it is nullified by the majority; therefore, what benefit is there in casting the blood of the mixtures?

And we answer:

Rabbi Judah follows his own reasoning,

according to his position,

for he says: “The blood of the residue”—

is fully valid blood.

It is complete blood, and all the laws stated concerning the life-blood were stated also concerning the blood of the residue. And it is valid to cast it upon the altar.

As it was taught

in the Tosefta:

The blood of the residue—

one who eats it is not liable to karet.

For concerning karet it is stated, “For the soul of the flesh—is in the blood.” The blood of the residue is excluded, for it is not the life-blood.

But he transgresses

a warning

a negative prohibition, since the prohibition of a negative commandment concerning eating blood is stated five times in the Torah. And they expounded from here to include five kinds of blood, for which one transgresses a negative commandment. One of them is “the blood of the residue” [Keritot 21b].

Rabbi Judah says:

The blood of the residue is

subject to karet.

And even though it is written concerning karet, “For the soul of the flesh is in the blood,” Rabbi Judah includes the blood of the residue also in the liability to karet. For it is stated at the beginning of the verse, “any blood”—“any” includes the blood of the residue [Keritot 4b].

And since Rabbi Judah equates the blood of the residue with the life-blood concerning karet for one who eats blood, we learn from his words that also concerning the casting of offering blood they should be equated with one another. For in that same verse karet was stated concerning unconsecrated animals, and atonement [casting] concerning consecrated offerings.

And we raise an objection:

But Rabbi Elazar said:

Even though Rabbi Judah equated the life-blood and the blood of the residue in making one liable to karet for them, nevertheless

Rabbi Judah concedes concerning atonement

through the casting of the blood,

that

the blood of the residue

does not atone.

As it is stated: “For it is the blood that atones through the soul.”