Pesachim 65b — the Talmud in English

And it follows that only

blood from which the soul departs,

such as “the blood of the flow”

effects atonement.

But

blood from which the soul does not depart,

such as “the blood of collection”

” does not effect atonement. [

And specifically concerning karet for one who eats blood, Rabbi Yehuda includes the blood of collection from “any blood”.]

And since the blood of collection is unfit for sprinkling even according to Rabbi Yehuda, it is now difficult again: behold, the blood of collection is mixed with the blood of the mixtures, and it nullifies the fit blood through nullification in the majority.

And the Gemara returns and answers otherwise.

Rather, Rabbi Yehuda —

follows

his own reasoning [his position].

For he says: Blood does not nullify blood.

Therefore, the fit blood that was poured from the vessel is not nullified. And even if only a small amount of it reached the altar—the sprinkling is a sprinkling of fit blood, and the offering becomes fit.

And the words of Rabbi Yehuda were taught in tractate Zevachim [78a]: The blood of offerings that became mixed with water—if it has the appearance of blood, it is fit.

If it became mixed with the blood of a non-sacred animal or with the blood of a wild animal, we “regard” the unfit blood as though it were water; and if the fit blood is sufficient for the appearance of blood to be visible in the water, it is fit. But if not, it is unfit.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Blood does not nullify blood.

It was taught: Rabbi Yehuda said to the Sages: According to your words,

that you say that they would not sprinkle from the blood of the mixtures that was on the floor of the Temple courtyard—

why did they stop up [seal with a stopper]

затычкой

the

hole of the wall of

the Temple courtyard

on Passover eve?

Rather, from here there is proof for my words: a cup would be filled from the blood of the mixtures, and they stopped up the Temple courtyard so that all the blood poured in the Temple courtyard would not flow out. And when he filled the cup, the blood of all of them was found mixed within it; and if the blood of one offering had been spilled without sprinkling, it follows that he would now sprinkle from it.

They said [they answered]

ответили

to him,

the Sages said to Rabbi Yehuda:

It is praiseworthy for the sons of Aaron that they should walk

on Passover eve

up to their knees in blood [for they are engaged in the service of the Holy One, blessed is He, faithfully, and are not repelled because of the blood. Ḥasdei David on the Tosefta, chapter 4, halakha 10]. Therefore, they stopped up the Temple courtyard on Passover eve.

[то есть преданно исполняют служение Всевышнему и не испытывают отвращения из-за крови. Хасдей Давид к Тосефте, глава 4, галаха 10]. Поэтому они затыкали отверстие двора в канун Песаха.

And we raise a difficulty: How could the priests walk in the Temple courtyard amid the blood?

But it creates a barrier!

For the blood forms a barrier between their feet and the floor. And we learned [Zevachim 15b]: If the priest stands on a vessel or upon his fellow’s foot at the time of the service, his service is unfit. For it is stated concerning the service of the Temple, “to stand to serve” [Deuteronomy 18], and this is not standing.

And we answer: Blood

is moist, and it does not create a barrier.

As it was taught:

One who immerses in a ritual bath, and his body was soiled with one of these things:

the blood, the ink, the milk, and the honey—

if they were

dry,

they

create a barrier.

But if they were

moist, they do not create a barrier.

And from here we learn concerning the blood on the priests’ feet: if it is moist, it does not create a barrier.

And we raise a difficulty:

But their garments become soiled!

For the garments of the priests become soiled from the blood through which they walk up to their knees.

And it was taught:

If

his garments

of the priest

were soiled [dirty],

[испачканы] и он

and he performed the service—

his service is unfit!

And if you should say,

if you say in order to answer

that they lifted their garments,

that they would raise the hems of their garments and tuck them into the belt, so that they would remain above the ground, and therefore their garments would not become soiled,

and

behold, it is impossible to answer so.

For it was taught:

It is stated [Leviticus 6:3], “And the priest shall don

his linen measure.”

And the Sages expounded:

“His measure”

means

according to his measure.

For the tunic must stand upon him according to his measure, level with the ground, and not drag upon it. From here

that he shall not make lacking

from the measure of the tunic

and shall not make additional.

And we learn from here that it is forbidden for the priest to raise the tunic above the ground.

And if there was such a great quantity of blood in the Temple courtyard, the tunic would become soiled, and the service would be unfit!?

And we answer: What the Sages said—that it is praiseworthy for the priests to walk up to their knees in blood—they were speaking

of carrying the limbs to the ramp

in order to burn them on the altar,

for it is not “service.”

For carrying the limbs is not included in the laws of the “service of the offerings,” and therefore it is permitted for the priests to tuck up their garments and raise them from the ground.

But in the other services the priests did not do so. Below it is explained how they acted in the other services.

And we wonder:

Is that so?!

Is carrying the limbs not included in the service of the offerings?

But since priesthood is required,

from the fact that Scripture required that the carrying of the limbs to the ramp be performed specifically by priests, it is proven that

it is a service!

For it was taught:

It is stated [Leviticus 1:13] concerning the service of the burnt offering: “And the innards and the legs he shall wash with water,

and the priest shall bring all of it near

and burn

it upon the altar.”

What is “bringing near”? This is—

this is carrying the limbs to the ramp.

Such as the innards and the legs written at the beginning of the verse, which he carries in order to burn them.

And since carrying the limbs to the ramp is a service, if so, it is forbidden for the priests to tuck up their garments and raise them above the ground!

And we answer:

Rather,

what the Sages said—that the priests walked up to their knees in blood—refers to

carrying wood to the arrangement

to the top of the altar, where they arranged the wood to kindle a fire,

for it is not a service [and it is valid when performed by non-priests].

[и пригодно даже для некоэнов].

And therefore, at that time the priests tucked up their garments and raised them above the ground, and walked in the blood up to their knees.

And we raise a difficulty:

with carrying the limbs to the ramp, and with carrying blood

to the altar, which are the service of the offerings,

in any event [at any rate]—

[тем не менее] —

how did they walk

how could they walk? They could not raise their garments, and if they walked with their garments in the blood, their garments would become soiled and their service would become unfit!

And we answer:

They walked on platforms.

They would walk upon platforms—there were in the Temple courtyard structures resembling platforms, attached to the floor of the Temple courtyard, and they have the status of a floor. And the priests walked upon them without becoming soiled by the blood.

We learned in the Mishna:

How do they hang and flay?

Iron hooks were fixed in the walls, on pillars, and he hangs and flays.

He tore it and removed its fats. He placed them in a basin [a bowl, and it is a service vessel],

[чашу, являвшуюся כלי שרת]

and burned them upon the altar.

Flaying the skin of the Passover offering is valid even when performed by non-priests, since the flaying of offerings of lesser sanctity was not mentioned in the Torah as a positive commandment. And even the flaying and dismemberment of a burnt offering, which is a positive commandment, is valid when performed by a non-priest.

And if so, what we learned in our Mishna, “How do they hang and flay,” refers even to a non-priest who flays, and not specifically to a priest. And likewise, “He tore it and removed its fats” refers also to a non-priest.

And afterward it is written, “He placed them in a basin, and burned them upon the altar.” And apparently it implies that the same non-priest who flayed it also burned them upon the altar.

And we wonder:

Was he himself the one who would burn them?

Was the Israelite himself who flayed it also the one who would burn the fats?! But burning is the service of priests alone!

And we answer:

Say—“

the Israelite placed them in a basin,

for the priest to burn them

the priest

upon the altar.”

That is, in the Mishna we read “for burning them,” with a lamed. It is to be interpreted as meaning that the Israelite places the fats in the basin, and they remain there until the appropriate priest comes to burn them.

We learned in the Mishna:

The first group departed.

A tanna taught:

When they would go from the Temple courtyard to their homes—

each and every one would place his Passover offering in its skin

of his Passover offering,

and sling it behind him.

Rav Ilayish said: The practice of the Arab merchants—

this is the way of Ishmaelite merchants.

We shall return to you, chapter “The Daily Offering Is Slaughtered.”

Mishna:

1.

These are the things

that, when the eve of Passover falls on Shabbat, their performance

in

the offering

of Passover —

override Shabbat: its slaughter and the sprinkling of its blood,

which must be done on the fourteenth day and cannot be done on the conclusion of Shabbat.

and scraping of its entrails [

removing the filth from the entrails. And it will be explained in the Gemara how they did this], which cannot be postponed until the conclusion of Shabbat because of the stench.

and burning its fats

on the altar, even though it is possible to burn them at the conclusion of Shabbat. Since the performance of the mitzva at its proper time is dear, this too overrides Shabbat.

But its roasting and the washing of its entrails —

do not override Shabbat,

because it is possible to do them at the conclusion of Shabbat, on the night of the festival of Passover.

2.

carrying it

of the Passover offering on the shoulder and carrying it to the Temple courtyard through the public domain, although there is no prohibition from the Torah in this, since “a living being [is considered as one who] carries itself,” and the entire prohibition is only rabbinic, nevertheless carrying it does not override Shabbat, since it is possible to do it yesterday.

And

likewise

bringing it from outside the boundary.

Although bringing from outside the boundary is only a rabbinic prohibition.

And

likewise

cutting off its wart,

whose prohibition is because of the labor of shearing, and even if he cuts it in an unusual manner, with his teeth or fingernails, nevertheless, although it is prohibited only rabbinically —

all these —

do not override Shabbat,

since it is possible to do them on a weekday, yesterday.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

also the “requirements of a mitzva” of the Passover offering, such as carrying it and bringing it outside the boundary, and likewise cutting off its wart in an unusual manner —

override

Shabbat, even though it is possible to do them on the eve of Shabbat.

But Rabbi Eliezer concedes that the things that can be done at the conclusion of Shabbat are postponed until after Shabbat.

Rabbi Eliezer said: Is it not a

kal va-chomer

that the performance of these acts, which involve only a rabbinic prohibition of shevut, should override Shabbat, even if there is the possibility of doing them before Shabbat!

these actions, which involve only a rabbinic prohibition of a prohibited Shabbat activity, should push aside Shabbat even when it is possible to perform them before Shabbat?

For

if slaughter, which is

severe, for it is prohibited on Shabbat

because of

a primary category of

labor —

overrides Shabbat

for the purpose of offering the Passover offering.

These acts

which are

light, since they are prohibited only

because of

“shevut”

rabbinically — and

will they not override Shabbat!?

Rabbi Joshua said to him: A festival will prove it —

on which they permitted

slaughter and cooking for the needs of the festival, although the prohibition of these labors is

because of

primary categories of

labor, and

nevertheless the Sages decreed and said that

it is prohibited in it because of

“shevut”

to bring food for the needs of the festival from outside the boundary, since it is possible to do it yesterday.

Rabbi Eliezer said to him

to Rabbi Joshua:

What is this, Joshua!?

What proof

are you bringing from bringing an item

of optional status

from outside the boundary, which the Sages prohibited,

to

bringing the Passover offering from outside the boundary, which is

a mitzva,

and the Sages will not uphold their words so as to prevent the fulfillment of a mitzva!

Rabbi Akiva answered and said: Sprinkling

of the water of the ashes of the red heifer upon one impure through contact with the dead, on Shabbat that is the eve of Passover, in order to purify him on the seventh day and prepare him to eat the Passover offering that evening,

will prove it:

for it is because of a mitzva,

since if he is not sprinkled, he will not perform the Passover offering.

And

I also heard that

it

is prohibited on Shabbat

because of shevut

rabbinically, since it appears as though thereby one is repairing the person being purified.

And nevertheless the Sages upheld their words even in a place of a mitzva,

and

they said that the sprinkling of one impure through contact with the dead whose seventh day falls on the eve of Passover —

does not override Shabbat.

And if so,

you too should not wonder about these.

For even though they are because of a mitzva, and they

are prohibited only

because of shevut —

and nevertheless

they will not override Shabbat. [

It is explained in the Gemara that Rabbi Akiva heard the prohibition of sprinkling on Shabbat from Rabbi Eliezer, his teacher, but Rabbi Eliezer forgot it, and Rabbi Akiva attempted to remind him respectfully, without telling him that he had heard it from his mouth].

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: And concerning it,

concerning sprinkling on Shabbat, which you heard is prohibited even in order to purify one impure through contact with the dead so as to feed him the Passover offering —

I reason

a kal va-chomer to permit it!

And if slaughter, which is

prohibited on Shabbat

because of

a primary category of

labor —

overrides Shabbat.

Sprinkling, which

is only

because of

the prohibition of

shevut

rabbinically —

is it not a matter of logic that it should override Shabbat!