Pesachim 96a (צו.) — the Talmud in English

What is the halakha?

Are they liable for eating sacrificial meat in a state of ritual impurity, or not?

Do we say:

Since the impurity of the meat was permitted

since the Torah permitted eating the meat in a state of impurity, consequently

the impurity of the sacrificial portions was also permitted

and impurity was likewise permitted with regard to the sacrificial portions?

And although they are forbidden to be eaten even by those who are ritually pure, because they are eaten by the Most High—as it is stated: “And no unauthorized person may eat sacred food”—nevertheless, one is not liable to karet for eating them as sacrificial food in a state of impurity.

Or perhaps

perhaps

that which was permitted

what is demonstrated by the verse to have been permitted in a state of impurity—namely, eating the Paschal lamb, which the Torah commanded one to eat—only that

was permitted

was permitted. However,

that which was not permitted

what the Torah does not demonstrate to have been permitted

was not permitted,

it was not permitted.

Rava said

to resolve Rav Yosef’s uncertainty:

Since

after all,

from where was the impurity of the sacrificial portions derived?

From where did we learn that one who eats the sacrificial portions in a state of impurity is liable to karet? It was not explicitly stated in the Torah that one who eats the sacrificial portions in a state of impurity is liable to karet. Rather, we learned the law of impurity with regard to the sacrificial portions

from the impurity of the meat

[from the case of one who eats meat in a state of impurity],

as it is written:

“And the person who eats the meat of the sacrifice of peace offerings

which is for the Lord

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

And they expounded:

“Which

is for the Lord” means:

to include the sacrificial portions,

so that if one ate them in a state of impurity, his status is like that of one who eats the meat in a state of impurity.

And Rava learned from here:

Wherever the impurity of the meat applies

wherever one who eats meat in a state of impurity is liable to karet,

it applies

there is also liability

for the impurity of the sacrificial portions.

But

wherever the impurity of the meat does not apply,

wherever one who eats meat in a state of impurity is not liable to karet, such as in the case of a Paschal offering brought in impurity,

the impurity of the sacrificial portions does not apply.

There is no liability to karet for eating the sacrificial portions in a state of impurity.

Rabbi Zeira raised

the following uncertainty:

Rabbi Zeira:

The sacrificial portions of the Egyptian Paschal offering—where did they burn them?

Where did they burn them? After all, the Tabernacle had not yet been built, and the Torah had not stated that there was a altar at that time!

Abaye said to him

in response:

And who can tell us

who can tell us

that they did not prepare shishkebab

that they did not make them roasted on spits [which are called “shishkebab”] and eat them?

That is to say, in the Egyptian Paschal offering they indeed did not burn the sacrificial portions on an altar. Rather, the sacrificial portions were eaten roasted, like the meat. [Rav Hai Gaon, Rashash].

Furthermore,

there is evidence that the sacrificial portions of the Egyptian Paschal offering were eaten by the owners. For

this

is the reason

Rav Yosef taught

Rav Yosef taught the following beraita:

There were three altars there

in Egypt, for the sprinkling of the blood:

on the lintel and on the two doorposts

upon which they sprinkled the blood of the Paschal offering. And they were equivalent to three altars.

And

from here:

there was no other altar

another altar for sacrificial offerings

there was not.

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

Mishna:

What

is the difference

between the Egyptian Paschal offering

[the first Paschal offering brought by the Israelites in Egypt]

and the Paschal offering for generations

[the Paschal offering brought in all subsequent generations]?

a.

The Egyptian Paschal offering 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 Paschal offering for generations was not acquired on the tenth.

b.

And

the Egyptian Paschal offering

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

Whereas for the Paschal offering for generations, its blood was placed in a basin and placed on the altar [and not on the lintel and doorposts].

c.

And

the Egyptian Paschal offering

was eaten in haste

[in panic and with speed. Rashi on the Torah]. But the Paschal offering for generations need not be eaten in haste.

d. And the Egyptian Paschal offering was eaten

on one night, whereas the Paschal offering for generations applies for the entire seven-day period.

The Gemara explains this statement.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The Egyptian Paschal offering was acquired on the tenth, whereas the Paschal offering for generations was not acquired on the tenth.

And we raised the question:

From where do we know this?

What is the source for this matter?

And we answered:

As it is written

[in Exodus 12], concerning the Egyptian Paschal offering:

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

for themselves, each man, a lamb for the fathers’ houses, a lamb for each household.”

And they expounded from the word “this”: specifically,

this

[the Egyptian Paschal offering]

was acquired on the tenth, but the Paschal offering for generations was not acquired on the tenth.

And we raise an objection:

But if that is so,

if we said that the word “this” is expounded to teach that specifically the Egyptian Paschal offering was acquired on the tenth, and not the Paschal offering for generations, one may raise the following difficulty:

It is stated concerning the Egyptian Paschal offering:

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

and the Sages learned from here that a Paschal offering requires inspection for four days [between the “tenth of the month” and the “fourteenth day”], checking it to determine whether it has a blemish. But the difficulty is:

Is it likewise

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

this

[the Egyptian Paschal offering]

requires inspection for four days before slaughter, but another

[the Paschal offering for generations]

does not require inspection?!

But it was taught

and it 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 observe it to offer it to Me at its appointed time.” And elsewhere

in the context of the Egyptian Paschal offering,

it

[the verse]

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

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

Just as there,

the wording of safeguarding stated with regard to the Egyptian Paschal offering,

requires inspection for four days before slaughter, so too here

with regard to the daily offering,

it requires inspection for four days before slaughter.

And from Ben Bag Bag’s statement we learn that although the word “this” is written in the context of the inspection of the Egyptian Paschal offering, nevertheless, it does not exclude all other offerings, since the daily offering is derived from it as requiring inspection for four days. Likewise, one may say that the Paschal offering for generations was not excluded by the word “this”!

And we answer:

That case is different,

the word “this” stated there [in the context of inspection for four days] does not exclude the daily offering and the Paschal offering for generations, because

it is written, “You shall observe it,”

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

And the Paschal offering for generations as well

also requires inspection, since

the verse writes

[in Exodus 13], concerning the Paschal offering,

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

And they expounded:

All the services of the month

of Nisan, whether for the offering brought in Egypt or for the offering brought in all subsequent generations, shall be

the same as this one.

And from here they learned that the Paschal offering for generations also requires inspection for four days, since the verse equated the Egyptian Paschal offering with the Paschal offering for generations.

And although the word “this” is stated in the context of the inspection for four days, a different exposition is learned from it, as the Gemara proceeds to explain:

Rather, that “this”

which is stated in the context of the inspection of the Egyptian Paschal offering,

comes to exclude the Second Paschal offering, which is like it.

It comes to exclude the Second Paschal offering, which resembles the Egyptian Paschal offering: The Egyptian Paschal offering lasted only one day, and likewise the Second Paschal offering lasts only one day.

The Gemara’s intention is to answer that there is a teaching equating the Egyptian Paschal offering and the Paschal offering for generations, as it is stated: “And you shall perform this service in this month.” From here they learned that all the services of the month shall be the same as this one. The exception is a matter concerning which the Torah explicitly excluded the Paschal offering for generations. Therefore, “it shall be acquired on the tenth,” in which “this” is stated, excludes that requirement from the Paschal offering for generations. But there is no exclusion with regard to inspection for four days, since the “this” stated there comes to exclude the Second Paschal offering. [Therefore, from “And you shall perform this service in this month,” we learn that the Paschal offering for generations also requires inspection].

And if you were to say: With regard to “it shall be acquired on the tenth” as well, one could say that “this” comes to exclude the Second Paschal offering [which need not be set aside on the tenth of the month of Iyar], and not to exclude the Paschal offering for generations.

One may answer that the primary intent of the verse, when it commanded that the Paschal offering be taken on the tenth of the month, was that it be inspected for a blemish for four days [as stated later in the verse: “And it shall be for you for safekeeping until the fourteenth day”]. And once the Torah excluded the Second Paschal offering from inspection for four days, we know automatically that it need not be set aside on the tenth. [Tosafot. And this is also Rashi’s intent].

Therefore, they expounded that the “this” stated in the context of its being acquired on the tenth comes to exclude the Paschal offering for generations, teaching that although it requires inspection for four days, nevertheless, one is not required to set it aside on the tenth. 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 difficulty:

But if that is so,

now that we have said that the “this” stated in the context of its being acquired on the tenth excludes the Paschal offering for generations, one may raise the following objection:

As it is written

[in Exodus 12], concerning the Egyptian Paschal offering:

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

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

But the difficulty is:

Is it likewise

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

that this

the Egyptian Paschal offering

is eaten at night, but another

Paschal offering for generations

is not eaten at night?!

After all, according to everyone, the Paschal offering for generations is eaten only at night! [Below, 120b; Berakhot 9a].

And we answer:

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 although “on this night” is stated, a different matter is learned from it, as the Gemara proceeds 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] regarding what is expounded from this verse.

[Rabbi Eliezer ben Azarya’s opinion is that a gzera shava is learned: 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 there, the Holy One, blessed be He, passed through Egypt at midnight, so too the eating of the Paschal offering extends until midnight.

Rabbi Akiva, however, maintains that by Torah law it is permitted to eat the Paschal offering throughout the entire night. Why, then, is “this” stated? So that you should not say that they eat the Paschal offering for two nights and one day. Therefore, “this” is stated to teach that it is eaten only on one night].

And we raise another difficulty:

But if that is so,

now that we have said that the “this” stated in the context of its being acquired on the tenth excludes the Paschal offering for generations, one may raise the following objection:

As it is written

[there], concerning the Egyptian Paschal offering:

“And every uncircumcised male

[an Israelite whose brothers died because of circumcision]

shall not eat of it.”

Should

it likewise

also in this matter be said

that of it

[the Egyptian Paschal offering]

he may not eat, but he may eat the Paschal offering for generations?!

After all, just as the word “this” indicates exclusion, so too “of it” indicates exclusion. Yet it is explicitly stated in several places in the Mishna that an uncircumcised person is disqualified from eating the Paschal offering for generations. And we answer:

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,

why do I need “of it”?

Why is “of it” necessary?

To teach you that

“of it,”

with regard to the Paschal offering, an uncircumcised person

may not eat, but he may eat matza and maror.

And we raise another difficulty:

But if that is so,

now that we have said

for generations

that the “this” stated in the context of its being acquired on the tenth excludes the Paschal offering for generations, and the word “of it” likewise indicates exclusion, one may raise the following difficulty: It is stated [in Exodus 12], concerning the Egyptian Paschal offering:

“No alienated person may eat of it.”

And the Sages explained: “Alienated person” means one whose deeds have become estranged from his Father in Heaven [Yevamot 71a], i.e., one who converted to another religion. The difficulty is: Should

it likewise

also in this matter be expounded [from the word “of it”]

that he may not eat of it, but he may eat the Paschal offering for generations?!

And we answer:

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”?

Why is “of it” necessary?

To teach you that

of it

with regard to the Paschal offering,

apostasy disqualifies, but apostasy does not disqualify one from teruma.

And it was necessary to write “uncircumcised person”

that he is disqualified from eating the Paschal offering,

and it was necessary to write “alienated person”

that he is disqualified from eating the Paschal offering. One cannot derive one from the other.

For had the Merciful One written only “uncircumcised person,”

I would say that an uncircumcised person is disqualified

because he is repulsive, but an alienated person,

who has no physical circumcision,

is not repulsive

and is fit to eat the Paschal offering.

Therefore,

it is necessary

to write “alienated person.”

And had it taught us only “alienated person,”

I would say that an alienated person is disqualified

because his heart is not directed toward Heaven. But an uncircumcised person, whose heart is directed toward Heaven—perhaps he is not

disqualified from eating the Paschal offering.

Therefore,

it is necessary

to write “uncircumcised person.”

From this point onward, the material enclosed in parentheses was printed in the editions before us. Rashi deleted it .

This will be explained in accordance with the words of Tosafot in Yevamot 71a, s.v. “of it.”

[According to the version in the books, in the Gemara above, “uncircumcised person” and “alienated person” are written together:

But if it is written, “And every uncircumcised male shall not eat of it,”

and likewise

“No alienated person may eat of it”—is it likewise that he may not eat of it, but

he may eat

the Paschal offering for generations?!

And we answer:

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 may not eat, but he may eat matza and maror .

According to this version, both with regard to an uncircumcised person and with regard to an alienated person, they expound: He may not eat of it, but he may eat matza and maror.

And here the Gemara says:

And it was necessary to write “uncircumcised person,” and it was necessary to write “alienated person,”

as above.

And we raise an objection:

But if that is so,

it is stated concerning the Egyptian Paschal offering:

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

and the Sages expounded: “Resident alien” means a resident convert; “hired laborer” means one who worships idolatry. Should

it likewise be that he may not eat of it, but he may eat the Paschal offering for generations?!

And we answer:

The verse says: “And you shall perform”

all the services of this month shall be the same as this one.

Rather, why do I need “of it”

at all?

To teach you that

“of it,”

with regard to the Paschal offering,

apostasy disqualifies, but apostasy does not disqualify one from teruma.

This concludes the version found in the books, which Rashi deleted .

And we raise another difficulty:

But if that is so,

now that the “this” in the context of its being acquired on the tenth excludes the Paschal offering for generations, one may raise the following difficulty:

It is stated [in Exodus 12], concerning the Egyptian Paschal offering: “And every male slave acquired for money,

and you shall circumcise him; then he may eat of it,”

and they expounded in the Mekhilta: Who may eat of it? His master. This teaches that the circumcision of his slaves prevents him from eating the Paschal offering. The master may not eat the Paschal offering until he circumcises his slaves. Similarly, a father who has a son who is due to be circumcised may not eat the Paschal offering until he circumcises his son.

The difficulty is: Should

it likewise

also in this matter be expounded

that he may not eat of it, but he may eat the Paschal offering for generations?!

And we answer:

The verse says: “And you shall perform

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

Rather, why do I need “of it”?

To teach you that

of it

with regard to the Paschal offering,

the circumcision of his males

his male children

and his slaves

who have not been circumcised

prevents him

[he cannot eat the Paschal offering until they are circumcised].

But the circumcision of his males and his slaves does not prevent him from teruma.

And we raise another objection:

But if that is so,

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

As it is written: “And they shall not break a bone in it,” [

This verse is stated with regard to the second Pesach. And one must read:

“And you shall not break a bone in it,”

which is stated with regard to the Egyptian Pesach in Exodus 12, as the Rashash notes.] And is

so too

that in this matter we should derive

“in it” [

with regard to the Egyptian Pesach]

that one may not break a bone, but one may break a bone with the Pesach of later generations?!

And we answer:

The verse states: “And you shall perform

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

But why do I need the phrase “in it”?

To teach you: “And they shall not break a bone

in it”—

with regard to a valid offering, but not with regard to an invalid one.

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

And we raise another objection:

But if that is so,

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

As it is written [

in Exodus 12] concerning the Egyptian Pesach:

“You shall not eat any of it raw,”

that is, not fully roasted [Rashi on the Torah].

And should we derive from the word “of it” an exclusion, specifically

“of it” [

from the Egyptian Pesach]

you may not eat

it raw,

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

And we answer:

The verse states: “And you shall perform

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

But

“of it”

why do I need it?

To teach you

in accordance with what Rabbi Isaac said

in Yevamot 74a.

“Of it” is stated with regard to the Pesach offering, and “of it” is stated with regard to maaser sheni. Just as there, an uncircumcised man is forbidden to partake of the Pesach, so too here, an uncircumcised man is forbidden with regard to maaser sheni.

We learned in the Mishna:

And it is eaten in haste [

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

And we inquire:

From where do we know

that the Pesach of later generations is not eaten in haste?

And we answer:

As the verse states [

in Exodus 12] concerning the Egyptian Pesach:

“And you shall eat it in haste,”

and the Sages expounded:

“It”

refers to the Egyptian Pesach:

it is eaten in haste. But no other

Pesach, that of later generations,

is eaten in haste.

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

whereas the Pesach of later generations is observed for all seven days.

And we inquire: What we learned, that the Pesach of later generations is observed for all seven days,

what does it refer to

—what is being discussed: eating the Pesach, or the prohibition of leaven?

If we say

that it is discussing

the Pesach,

that is, eating the Pesach, one may raise an objection:

The Pesach

every

seven—can that be?

Does one eat the Pesach for seven days? It is eaten only on the first night!