Pesachim 96a — the Talmud in English

What is it?

Are they liable because of eating sacrificial meat in impurity, or not?

Do we say:

Since impurity of the meat is permitted

because the Torah permitted eating the meat in impurity, consequently

impurity of the sacrificial portions is also permitted

impurity was also permitted with regard to the sacrificial portions.

And even though they are forbidden for eating even to those who are pure, because they are eaten by those on high [as it is stated: [in Leviticus 22] “And no unauthorized person shall eat sacred things”], nevertheless one is not liable to karet for eating them in impurity.

Or perhaps

perhaps

that which was permitted

what is demonstrated from the verse to have been permitted in impurity, namely, eating the meat of the Paschal offering, which the Torah commanded to eat, only that

was permitted

was permitted. But

that which was not permitted

what is not demonstrated from the Torah to have been permitted

was not permitted,

was not permitted!

Rava said

to resolve the doubt of Rav Yosef:

Since

indeed

from where was impurity of the sacrificial portions derived

from where did we learn that one who eats the sacrificial portions in impurity is liable to karet? After all, it is not explicitly stated in the Torah that one who eats the sacrificial portions in impurity is liable to karet! Rather, we learned impurity with regard to the sacrificial portions

from impurity of the meat

[from one who eats meat in impurity]

as it is written:

[Leviticus 7] “And the person who eats the meat of the sacrifice of peace offerings

which is the Lord’s

while his impurity is upon him, that person shall be cut off from his people.”

And they expounded:

“Which

is the Lord’s” —

to include the sacrificial portions,

for if he ate them in impurity, his law is like that of one who eats the meat in impurity.

And Rava learned from here:

Wherever impurity of the meat exists

wherever there is karet for one who eats meat in impurity —

it exists

there is also karet

for impurity of the sacrificial portions.

But

wherever impurity of the meat does not exist,

wherever there is no karet for one who eats meat in impurity, such as in a Paschal offering that comes in impurity —

impurity of the sacrificial portions does not exist.

There is no liability of karet for one who eats the sacrificial portions in impurity.

Rabbi Zeira raised a question

he was uncertain

Rabbi Zeira:

The sacrificial portions of the Egyptian Passover — where did they burn them,

where did they burn them? The Tabernacle had not yet been built, and it was not stated in the Torah that there was an altar then!

Abaye said to him

in answer:

And who can tell us

and who can tell us

that they did not make shishkui

that they did not make them roasted on spits [called “shishkui”] and eat them.

That is to say, in the Egyptian Passover they indeed did not burn the sacrificial portions upon the altar. Rather, the sacrificial portions were eaten roasted, like the meat. [Rabbenu Hananel, Rashash].

And furthermore

there is evidence to say so, that the sacrificial portions of the Egyptian Passover were eaten by the owners. For

this

for indeed

Rav Yosef taught

Rav Yosef taught a beraita:

There were three altars there

in Egypt, for sprinkling the blood:

upon the lintel and upon the two doorposts

upon which they sprinkled the blood of the Passover. And they are like three altars.

And

from here:

there was no other one at all

another altar for sacrificing —

there was not.

It follows that the sacrificial portions of the Egyptian Passover were not burned upon an altar. Rather, they were eaten by the owners.

Mishna:

What

is the difference

between the Egyptian Passover

[the first Passover that the Israelites offered in Egypt]

and the Passover of the generations

[the Passover performed throughout all the generations]?

1.

The Egyptian Passover was acquired on the tenth.

One had to take [set aside] a lamb on the tenth of Nisan for the sake of the Paschal offering. But the Passover of the generations was not acquired on the tenth.

2.

And

the Egyptian Passover

required sprinkling with a bundle of hyssop, and upon the lintel and upon the two doorposts.

Whereas for the Passover of the generations, they put its blood in a basin and put it upon the altar [and not upon the lintel and the doorposts].

3.

And

the Egyptian Passover

was eaten in haste

[in panic and speed. Rashi on the Torah]. But the Passover of the generations need not be eaten in haste.

4. And the Egyptian Passover was eaten

on one night, whereas the Passover of the generations is in force for all seven.

The Gemara explains this sentence.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The Egyptian Passover was acquired on the tenth, whereas the Passover of the generations was not acquired on the tenth.

And we raise an objection concerning it:

From where do we know

this matter?

And we answer:

As it is written

[in Exodus 12] concerning the Egyptian Passover:

“Speak to the entire congregation of Israel, saying: On the tenth of this month, they shall take

for themselves, each man, a lamb for a father’s house, a lamb for a household.”

And they expounded from the word “this”: specifically

this

[the Egyptian Passover]

was acquired from the tenth, whereas the Passover of the generations was not acquired from the tenth.

And we raise an objection:

But from now

since we have said that we expound from the word “this” to say that specifically the Egyptian Passover was acquired on the tenth, and not the Passover of the generations, if so, one may raise an objection:

It is stated concerning the Egyptian Passover

“And it shall be for you for safekeeping until the fourteenth day of this month,”

and the Sages learned from here that the Passover offering requires inspection for four days [between “the tenth of the month” and “the fourteenth day”], checking whether it has a blemish. And it is difficult: does

so too

also in this matter we expound [from the word “this”]:

this

[the Egyptian Passover]

requires inspection for four days before slaughter, whereas another

[the Passover of the generations]

does not require inspection?!

But it was taught

and the following was taught in a beraita:

Ben Bag Bag says: From where is it derived that the daily offering requires inspection for four days before slaughter?

As it is stated

[in Numbers 28] concerning the daily offering:

“You shall safeguard it to offer it to Me at its appointed time.” And below

concerning the Egyptian Passover

it

[the verse]

says: “And it shall be for you for safekeeping.”

And the Sages expounded the wording of safeguarding by means of a gzera shava:

Just as there

the wording of safeguarding that was stated concerning the Egyptian Passover

requires inspection for four days before slaughter, so too here

with regard to the daily offering

requires inspection for four days before slaughter.

And from the words of Ben Bag Bag we learn that even though “this” is written concerning the inspection of the Egyptian Passover, nevertheless the other offerings are not excluded by this, for we learn from it that the daily offering requires inspection for four days; and likewise one may say that the Passover of the generations was not excluded by the word “this”!

And we resolve:

It is different there

“this” that was stated there [concerning the inspection for four days], from which the daily offering and the Passover of the generations are not excluded, because

it is written “You shall safeguard”

and they learned by a gzera shava that the daily offering also requires inspection.

And the Passover of the generations too

the Passover of the generations also requires inspection, for

the verse writes

[in Exodus 13] concerning the Paschal offering,

“And you shall perform this service in this month.”

And they expounded:

that all the services of the month

Nisan, whether in the Passover performed in Egypt or in the Passover performed in the other generations, shall be

the same as this one.

And from here they learned that the Passover of the generations also requires inspection for four days. For the verse equated the Egyptian Passover with the Passover of the generations.

And even though “this” was stated concerning the inspection for four days, from here they learn another exposition, as the Gemara continues to explain:

Rather, that “this”

which was stated concerning the inspection of the Egyptian Passover

comes to exclude the Second Passover that is like it.

It comes to exclude the Second Passover, which resembles the Egyptian Passover, for the Egyptian Passover was only one day, and likewise the Second Passover is only one day.

The Gemara’s intention is to resolve that there is a teaching equating the Egyptian Passover and the Passover of the generations, as it is stated: “And you shall perform this service in this month.” And they learned from here that all the services of the month shall be the same as this one. The exception is a case in which the Torah explicitly excluded the Passover of the generations. Therefore, “its acquisition on the tenth,” in which “this” is stated, excludes it, teaching that it does not apply to the Passover of the generations; but there is no exclusion with regard to inspection for four days. For “this” that was stated there comes to exclude the Second Passover. [And therefore they learn from “And you shall perform this service in this month” that the Passover of the generations also requires inspection].

And if you say: also concerning “its acquisition on the tenth” it should be said that “this” comes to exclude the Second Passover [which need not be set aside on the tenth of the month of Iyar], and not to exclude the Passover of the generations?

It may be said that the principal intention of the verse in this matter, when it commanded that they take the Passover on the tenth of the month, was so that they would inspect it for a blemish for four days [as it is stated later in the verse, “And it shall be for you for safekeeping until the fourteenth day”]. And since the Torah excluded the Second Passover from inspection for four days, consequently we know that it need not be set aside on the tenth. [Tosafot. And this is also Rashi’s intention].

Therefore they expounded that “this” stated concerning its acquisition on the tenth comes to exclude the Passover of the generations, teaching you that even though it requires inspection for four days, nevertheless one is not obligated to set it aside on the tenth, and one may inspect two or three lambs on the tenth, and at the time of slaughter take one of them [Rashi].

And we raise another objection:

But from now

since we have said that “this,” stated concerning its acquisition on the tenth, excludes the Passover of the generations, one may raise an objection:

As it is written

[in Exodus 12] concerning the Egyptian Passover:

“And they shall eat the meat on this night.”

From here it follows that the meat of the Passover is eaten at night.

And it is difficult: does

so too

also in this matter we expound [from the word “this”]

that this

the Egyptian Passover

is eaten at night, whereas another

the Passover of the generations

is eaten at night?!

But according to everyone, the Passover of the generations is eaten only at night! [below 120b; Berakhot 9a].

And we resolve:

The verse says: “And you shall perform this service

in this month,” and they learned from here that all the services of this month shall be the same as this one. And even though “on this night” was stated, they learned another matter from here, as it continues to explain:

Rather, why do I need “this”?

For the teaching of Rabbi Eliezer ben Azarya and Rabbi Akiva

who disagreed in tractate Berakhot [9a] about what they expound from this verse.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Azarya’s opinion is that they learn a gzera shava, as it is stated, “And they shall eat the meat on this night,” and it is stated, “And I shall pass through the land of Egypt on this night.” Just as below the Holy One, blessed is He, passed through Egypt until midnight, so too the eating of the Passover is until midnight.

Whereas Rabbi Akiva holds that by Torah law it is permitted to eat the Passover all night. And why is “this” stated? So that you should not say that they eat the Passover for two nights and one day; therefore “this” was stated, to teach you that it is eaten only on one night.

And we raise another objection:

But from now

since we have said that “this,” stated concerning its acquisition on the tenth, excludes the Passover of the generations, one may raise an objection:

As it is written

[there] concerning the Egyptian Passover:

“And every uncircumcised man

[an Israelite whose brothers died because of circumcision]

shall not eat of it.”

Is

so too

also in this matter it should be said

that of it

[of the Egyptian Passover]

he does not eat, but he eats at the Passover of the generations?!

For just as the word “this” signifies exclusion, so too “of it” signifies exclusion! But it is explained in several places in the Mishna that an uncircumcised person is disqualified from eating the Passover of the generations! And we resolve:

The verse says: “And you shall perform

this service in this month.” It teaches that all the services of this month shall be the same as this one.

Rather,

“of it”

why do I need it?

To teach you:

“of it”

with regard to the Passover, an uncircumcised person

does not eat, but he eats matza and bitter herbs.

And we raise another objection:

But from now

since we have said

the generations, that “this,” stated concerning its acquisition on the tenth, excludes the Passover of the generations, and the word “of it” also signifies exclusion, if so, one may raise an objection: It is stated [in Exodus 12] concerning the Egyptian Passover:

that the word “this,” stated concerning acquiring it on the tenth, excludes the Passover offering for all generations, and the word “of it” likewise implies exclusion, then the following difficulty arises. It is stated concerning the Egyptian Passover offering:

“No foreign son shall eat of it.”

And the Sages explained: “foreign son” means one whose deeds have become estranged from his Father in Heaven [Yevamot 71a], meaning that he changed his religion. And it is difficult: is

so too

also in this matter we expound [from the word “of it”]

that of it he does not eat, but he does eat the Passover of the generations?!

And we resolve:

The verse says: “And you shall perform

this service in this month.” All the services of this month shall be the same as this one.

Rather,

“of it”

why do I need it?

To teach you:

of it

with regard to the Passover,

apostasy disqualifies, but apostasy does not disqualify with regard to teruma.

And it was necessary to write “uncircumcised”

that he is disqualified from eating the Passover,

and it was necessary to write “foreign son”

that he is disqualified from eating the Passover. And it is impossible to learn one from the other.

For if the Merciful One had written “uncircumcised”

alone, I would have said that an uncircumcised person is disqualified

because he is repulsive, but a foreign son

who has no bodily foreskin

is not repulsive

and is fit to eat the Passover.

Therefore

it is necessary

to write “foreign son.”

And if it had informed us of “foreign son”

alone, I would have said that a foreign son is disqualified

because his heart is not directed toward Heaven. But an uncircumcised person, whose heart is directed toward Heaven, I might say not

disqualified from eating the Passover.

Therefore

it is necessary

to write “uncircumcised.”

From here onward, that which is enclosed in parentheses was printed in the books before us. Rashi deleted it .

And it will be explained according to the words of Tosafot in Yevamot 71a, s.v. “of it.”

According to the version of the books in the Gemara above, “uncircumcised” and “foreign son” are written together:

But from now, since it is written, “And every uncircumcised man shall not eat of it,”

and likewise

“No foreign son shall eat of it.” Is it also so, that of it he does not eat, but

he eats

the Passover of the generations?!

And we resolve:

The verse says: “And you shall perform

this service in this month.” All the services of this month shall be the same as this one.

Rather, why do I need “of it”?

Of it he does not eat, but he eats matza and bitter herbs .

According to this version, both with regard to an uncircumcised person and with regard to a foreign son, they expound: of it he does not eat, but he eats matza and bitter herbs.

And here the Gemara says

and it was necessary to write “uncircumcised,” and it was necessary to write “foreign son”

as above.

And we raise an objection:

But from now

it is stated concerning the Egyptian Passover:

“A resident and a hired laborer shall not eat of it,”

and the Sages expounded: “resident” — that is a resident alien; “hired laborer” — that is one who worships idolatry. And is

it also so, that of it he does not eat, but he eats the Passover of the generations?!

And we resolve:

The verse says: “And you shall perform”

so that all the services of this month shall be the same as this one,

but why do I need

“of it”?

To teach you:

“of it”

with regard to the Passover,

apostasy disqualifies, but apostasy does not disqualify with regard to teruma.

Thus far is the version of the books that Rashi deleted .

And we raise another objection:

But from now

since “this,” concerning its acquisition on the tenth, excludes the Passover of the generations, one may raise an objection:

It is stated [in Exodus 12] concerning the Egyptian Passover: “And every slave, a man purchased for money

and you have circumcised him; then he shall eat of it,”

and they expounded in the Mekhilta: Who shall eat of it? His master. It teaches that the circumcision of his slaves prevents him from eating the Passover. For the master does not eat the Passover until he circumcises his slaves. And likewise a father who has a son who is awaiting circumcision does not eat the Passover until he circumcises his son.

And it is difficult: does

so too

also in this matter they expound

that of it he does not eat, but he eats the Passover of the generations?!

And we resolve:

The verse says: “And you shall perform

this service in this month,” so that all the services of this month shall be the same as this one.

Rather, why do I need “of it”?

To teach you:

of it

with regard to the Passover,

the circumcision of his males

his male children

and his slaves

who have not been circumcised

prevents

[him, so that he cannot eat the Passover until they are circumcised].

But the circumcision of his males and his slaves does not prevent with regard to teruma.

And we raise another objection:

But if so

now that we have said that “this” stated concerning its acquisition on the tenth excludes the Pesach of generations, one may raise an objection:

For it is written: “And a bone shall not be broken in it” [

This verse is stated concerning the Second Pesach. And one must read

“And you shall not break a bone in it”

which is stated concerning the Pesach of Egypt in Exodus 12, Rashash]. And

so too

shall we expound in this matter

“in it” [

concerning the Pesach of Egypt]

he does not break, but he does break concerning the Pesach of generations?!

And we answer:

The verse says: “And you shall perform

this service in this month,” that all the services of this month shall be like this one.

But “in it”—why do I need it?

To teach you: “And a bone shall not be broken

in it”—

in a valid one, but not in an invalid one.

It is permitted to break a bone of an invalid Pesach.

And we raise another objection:

But if so

that they said that “this,” stated concerning its acquisition on the tenth, excludes the Pesach of generations, one may raise an objection:

For it is written [

in Exodus 12] concerning the Pesach of Egypt:

“You shall not eat from it raw”

which is not roasted completely [Rashi on the Torah].

And should we expound from the word “from it” to exclude, specifically

from it [

from the Pesach of Egypt]

you may not eat

it raw,

but you may eat it raw concerning the Pesach of generations?!

And we answer:

The verse says: “And you shall perform

this service in this month,” that all the services of this month shall be like this one.

But

“from it”

why do I need it?

To teach you

according to what Rabbah said, Rabbi Isaac said

in Yevamot 74.

“From it” is stated concerning Pesach, and “from it” is stated concerning the second tithe. Just as there, an uncircumcised man is forbidden concerning Pesach, so too here, an uncircumcised man is forbidden concerning the second tithe.

We learned in the Mishna:

And it was eaten in haste [

but the Pesach of generations is not eaten in haste].

And we inquire concerning it:

From where do we know

that the Pesach of generations is not eaten in haste?

And we answer:

For the verse says [

in Exodus 12] concerning the Pesach of Egypt:

“And you shall eat it in haste”

and the Sages expounded:

“it”

the Pesach of Egypt

is eaten in haste. And another

the Pesach of generations

is not eaten in haste.

We learned in the Mishna: And it was eaten in haste for one night,

and the Pesach of generations is observed for all seven.

And we inquire concerning it: That which we learned, that the Pesach of generations is observed for all seven,

upon what does it stand

what is it referring to: to the eating of the Pesach, or to the prohibition of leaven?

If we say

if we say that it is referring

to the Pesach

to the eating of the Pesach, one may raise an objection:

Pesach

all

seven—is there such a thing?

And is the Pesach eaten for seven days?! Surely it is eaten only on the first night!