Talmud su Esodo 12:8

“Hillel the elder used to make a sandwich of all three together⁵²Also quoted in the Babli, Pesaḥim 115a, Zebaḥim 79a. It is written about the Passover sacrifice (Ex. 12:8): “They shall eat the meat in that night, roasted on the fire, and maẓẓot, on bitter herbs they shall eat it.” Similarly, it says about the second Passover (Num. 9:11): “They shall eat it on maẓẓot and bitter herbs.” Hillel held that this means one has to eat of meat, maẓẓah, and bitter herbs together in one bite..” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they disagreed with Hillel the elder⁵³The Babli, Pesaḥim 115a, explains R. Joḥanan to say that in Temple times, when all three commandments are biblical, one has the choice to follow Hillel or eat the three ingredients separately. This cannot be the position of the Yerushalmi since then the discussion would not even start.. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan make a sandwich of maẓẓah and bitter herbs⁵⁴In the Babli, Rav Ashi (who lived after the compilation of the Yerushalmi) rules that one eats twice, once each item singly and once as a sandwich. Naturally, there cannot be any meat mentioned here; cf. the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah (Northvale NJ, 1995) pp. 332–338. Since R. Joḥanan here is accused of inconsistency, he cannot have followed the custom established by Rav Ashi.? There in Temple times, here not in Temple times⁵⁵In the absence of a Temple, only maẓẓah is a biblical commandment since it is prescribed separately from any Temple service, Ex. 13:6–7. Bitter herbs are mentioned only as accessory to the sacrifice; therefore, today one eats bitter herbs purely as a remembrance of the Temple as rabbinical ordinance. R. Joḥanan must hold that a rabbinic ordinance cannot interfere with a biblical commandment. Therefore, it is possible to eat maẓẓah and bitter herbs together. But he holds that in Temple times, each of the three ingredients must be recognized by its taste. This position is the opposite of that of the Babli.. Even if you say here and there in Temple times, two kinds are more than the third and cancel it.⁵⁶This explains the rejection of Hillel’s position in Temple times. Since there are three biblical obligations, they cancel one another and none of them is fulfilled. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar⁵⁷Babli Zebaḥim 79a. R. Eleazar supports R. Joḥanan’s position against R. Simeon ben Laqish and his making a sandwich in the manner of Hillel. He must hold that R. Joḥanan reports that most authorities of Hillel’s time disagreed but he himself agrees.: Just as forbidden things do not cancel one another, so commanded things do not cancel one another.

We have stated “the eating of the Passover sacrifice”. Some people do not formulate “the eating of the Passover sacrifice”. Who formulates “the eating of the Passover sacrifice”? The Sages. Who does not formulate “the eating of the Passover sacrifice”? Rebbi Eliezer.¹³⁵For the Sages, the obligation of eating the Passover sacrifices lasts during the entire Seder night; the limitation to the first half of the night is a Rabbinical ordinance. According to Rebbi Eliezer [and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah in the Babli, Berakhot 9a], there is a Biblical prohibition of celebrating the Exodus after midnight. (Cf. the discussion in the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, Northvale NJ 1995, pp. 263–264.)
Rebbi Eliezer’s argument goes as follows: The Bible prescribes that the Passover sacrifice should be eaten “in that night.” It also reports that the death of the Egyptian firstborn was “in the middle of the night”. Since the second occurrence of “night” is qualified by “middle” but the first is left indeterminate, and we subscribe to the opinion that, unless explicitly given otherwise, words in the Pentateuch have an invariable meaning, the first occurrence must also mean “midnight.” The Sages follow Rebbi Aqiba in pointing out that the first Passover had to be eaten “in a hurry”, the hurry of the Exodus that happened only the following day. Hence, the notion of “night” here is opposed to “day” and not restricted to the first half. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? It is written here (Ex. 12:8) “in the night”, and it is written there (Ex. 12:29) “in the night”. Just as there it means midnight, so also here it means midnight. Rebbi Ḥuna¹³⁶This is the form in which the name of the Galilean Amora R. Ḥuna appears most frequently in the Yerushalmi. It is probable that the Babylonian Amora Rav Huna (הוּנא) also originally was called חוּנא “the gracious one”, but in Babylonia every ח was pronounced as ה.
Rebbi Ḥuna points out that, since we are agreed that this Mishnah and the following one deal only with Rabbinical ordinances, the mention of the Passover sacrifice is impossible since, by Rabbinical ordinance, the Passover sacrifice is ritually impure after midnight, for the same reason that voluntary offerings cannot be eaten after midnight as explained in the next Halakhah. Here is another fundamental difference between the Yerushalmi and the Babli. According to the Yerushalmi both in Berakhot and in Pesaḥim (37d), the prohibitions mentioned in the Mishnah are Rabbinical. But the Babli in both cases (Berakhot 9a, Pesaḥim 120b) refers only to the opinions of Rebbis Eliezer and Eleazar ben Azariah that the prohibition is Biblical. says: “The eating of the Passover sacrifice” cannot be here even for the Sages since we have stated (Pesaḥim 10:9) “the Passover sacrifice after midnight makes one’s hands impure.”¹³⁹This is the reading of the שׂרידי ירוּשלמי from the Cairo Genizah. The Leyden manuscript and the printed editions have קדשים קלים “simple sacrifices”. Zachariah Frankel already conjectured that the correct reading must be the one before us, as will be explained now.
There were four kinds of animal sacrifices in the Temple. Of certain sacrifices of atonement, only the blood was sprinkled on the altar; the rest was burnt outside the Temple precinct. The flesh of the עוֹלה, “holocaust” (totally burnt), was all burnt on the altar. The usual sacrifices of atonement had to be eaten by male Cohanim in the Temple precinct, except that blood, fat, and certain organs had to be burnt on the altar. These sacrifices are called “holiest of holies” and had to be consumed during the day of sacrifice or the following night. Family sacrifices, שׁלמים, “peace”, or “payment”, or “wholeness” sacrifices, were eaten by the family of the votary (except for the blood and fat, which was burnt on the altar, and certain parts which were to be eaten by priestly families.) These family sacrifices were called “simple sacrifices”; most of them had to be eaten during two days and the intervening night. The only “simple sacrifices” to be eaten during one day were thanksgiving sacrifices and the sacrifice of the Nazir at the end of his votary period when he cut his hair. Hence, all “holiest of holies” sacrifices are covered by our Mishnah but only a minority of “simple sacrifices”. There might be some justification for the reading “simple sacrifices” referring to the obligation of laity only who never ate “holiest of holies”; but then no special determination would be necessary.

He is guilty only it he ate it rare²¹Superficially grilled. Eating grilled meat rare is not human. In the Babli (70a) this is called “cooked and uncooked”.. If he ate it raw, he is a dog. If he ate it cooked, he is a human. If he ate cartilage²²The word הסוקים is a hapax and probably corrupt. It is translated as if it were written חסוכים., what is the rule? What is the rule about soft sinews? ²³This text to the end of the paragraph is a shortened form of a discussion in Pesahim7:11 (35a l. 62); the final result there and here is that the discussion is irrelevant for the rules regarding the deviant and rebellious son, which implies that for the fourfold portion nothing can be included that is not regularly counted as food.
The paschal lamb may be eaten only by persons who had subscribed to it, i. e., who were part of the group for whom the lamb was slaughtered during the afternoon of the 14^th of Nisan. The lamb should be eaten in small quantities at the end of the meal; the minimum quantity per person is the volume of an average olive (כְּזַיִת). The question now arises whether barely edible parts, such as cartilage and soft sinews, can be used to fulfill the duty of eating from the paschal lamb and the number of subscribers increased accordingly. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed about what is stated there²⁴Mishnah Ḥulin 9:2. Mishnah 9:1 states that in general the hide of an animal is subject to the rules of impurity of food, but not to those of impurity of carcasses. Then Mishnah 2 lists some animals whose hides follow the rules of flesh in all respects (general consensus exists only for humans and domesticated pigs.) R. Johanan holds that for eating pigskin one never can be prosecuted, while R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that eating pigskin, not yet transformed into leather, is as punishable as eating pork.: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but not for flogging. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah, not only for prohibition and regarding impurity²⁵In Pesaḥim it is stated explicitly that the differences among the rabbis are about whipping offenders.. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat²⁶“There” is Ḥulin, “here” is Pesaḥim.. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden²⁷Animal hide will become inedible; soft sinews and cartilage will remain edible after cooking., not so much more? Rebbi Abbahu²⁸In Pesaḥim” R. Abun”. said, the reason of Rebbi Judah bar Pazi is: they shall eat the meat in that night²⁹Ex. 12:8, a verse about the paschal lamb, irrelevant for the rules about the deviant and rebellious son., not sinews.

“A fire burn³⁷Lev. 13:24, in the rules of skin disease., I could think if it stays moist³⁸This is Maimonides’s interpretation (Negaˋim 7:8), based on the reading in Sifra מורדת. The reading here, מורדת could be interpreted, parallel to Arabic استمرّ “to stay unchanged”, that the wound does not heal., the verse says, if the burn was healed³⁹Lev. 13:27.. If the burn was healed, I could think until it becomes scar tissue, the verse says, a fire burn. How is that? It was partially healed; and so it says below, it is a burn scar;⁴⁰Lev. 13:28. until it forms a membrane in the thickness of a garlic peel.”⁴¹Sifra Tazria Pereq 7(3). And here he says so⁴²Why for skin disease does one include anything which minimally corresponds to the description in the verses, but for Pesaḥ one excludes everything but strict adherence to the prescribed manner.? Rebbi Eleazar says, there fire roasted, only fire roasted⁴³Ex. 12:8,9. Babli 95a., the verse repeated it to make it indispensable. But here, if the burn was healed, in any way. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, there “law, teaching” makes it indispensable⁴⁴For the Pesaḥ “law” is written in Ex.12:43, “teaching” in 12:49. Any commandment labelled “law” or “teaching” must be kept to the letter; Babli Menaḥot 19a. For skin disease, “teaching” is mentioned the first time for the purification rites (Lev.14:43).. But here what do you have?

HALAKHAH: ²⁷⁴This paragraph also is in Sanhedrin 8:2, Note 23–29. What is the rule about soft sinews? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted; the argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inverted. As they disagreed about what is stated there²⁷⁵Mishnah Ḥulin 9:2. Mishnah 9:1 states that in general the hide of an animal is subject to the rules of impurity of food, but not to those of impurity of carcasses. Then Mishnah 2 lists some animals whose hides follow the rules of flesh in all respects; general consensus exists only for humans and domesticated pigs. R. Joḥanan holds that for eating pigskin one never can be prosecuted, while R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that eating pigskin, not yet transformed into leather, is as punishable as eating pork.: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh: Human skin, and the hides of domesticated pigs, Rebbi Yose says also of wild pigs. ²⁷⁶The text in brackets, the remainder of the Mishnah, was added by the corrector; it is neither in K nor in Sanhedrin and is not relevant for the discussion here.[The soft skin of camel’s hump, the soft skin of a calf’s head, the skin near the hooves, the skin of genitals, the skin of an embryo, the skin under the fat tail, and the skin of anaqa, koah, leta’ah, and homet lizards.²⁷⁷The lizards in the list of “crawling animals”, Lev. 11:29–30, whose carcasses are severely impure. Rebbi Jehudah says, a lizard is like a mole. In all cases, if one tanned them, or started to use them as working material, they are pure, except for human skin. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri says, the “eight crawling animals” have hides²⁷⁸None of the animals mentioned in Lev.11:29–30 fall under the exceptions of Mishnah 9:2..”] Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but for flogging it is hide. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah, for prohibition, for flogging, for impurity. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden²⁷⁹Animal hide will become inedible; soft sinews and cartilage will remain edible after cooking., not so much more? Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: they shall eat the meat in that night²⁸⁰Ex. 12:8., not sinews.