Talmud do Wyjścia 12:53

HALAKHAH: “At nightfall of the fourteenth,” etc. It is written⁵Ex. 12:17–18.: You shall guard the mazzot, because on this same day I took out your multitudes fromthe Land of Egypt. On the first, on the fourteenth of the month, in the evening, you shall eat mazzot, etc. Where do we hold⁶What means on the first? Does it mean on the first month, or on the first day of the holidays?? If for eating mazzah, is it not already written, seven days you shall eat mazzot⁷Ex. 12:15.? Or if to say that one starts on the Fourteenth, is it not written, until the twenty-first of the month⁵Ex. 12:17–18.? But if it is not needed as a reference to the eating of mazzah, take it as a reference to the elimination of leavened matter⁸As usual, the argument partially refers to parts of the verse which are not quoted in the text. It says in 12:15, seven days you shall eat mazzot, only on the first day you shall eliminate sour dough from your houses. No calendar date has been given. One could read v. 17 to state that mazzot have to be eaten and leavened matter eliminated on the 14^th. This is impossible since the same verse states that the seventh day is the 21^st. Therefore the obligation to eat mazzot starts in the evening preceding the 15^th. Since it is accepted doctrine that the calendar day starts at nightfall of the preceding night, the reference to the 14^th cannot possibly refer to eating, but must give the date of the elimination of leavened matter for which the search in the preceding night is a preparation..

HALAKHAH: “At nightfall of the fourteenth,” etc. It is written⁵Ex. 12:17–18.: You shall guard the mazzot, because on this same day I took out your multitudes fromthe Land of Egypt. On the first, on the fourteenth of the month, in the evening, you shall eat mazzot, etc. Where do we hold⁶What means on the first? Does it mean on the first month, or on the first day of the holidays?? If for eating mazzah, is it not already written, seven days you shall eat mazzot⁷Ex. 12:15.? Or if to say that one starts on the Fourteenth, is it not written, until the twenty-first of the month⁵Ex. 12:17–18.? But if it is not needed as a reference to the eating of mazzah, take it as a reference to the elimination of leavened matter⁸As usual, the argument partially refers to parts of the verse which are not quoted in the text. It says in 12:15, seven days you shall eat mazzot, only on the first day you shall eliminate sour dough from your houses. No calendar date has been given. One could read v. 17 to state that mazzot have to be eaten and leavened matter eliminated on the 14^th. This is impossible since the same verse states that the seventh day is the 21^st. Therefore the obligation to eat mazzot starts in the evening preceding the 15^th. Since it is accepted doctrine that the calendar day starts at nightfall of the preceding night, the reference to the 14^th cannot possibly refer to eating, but must give the date of the elimination of leavened matter for which the search in the preceding night is a preparation..

HALAKHAH: “Any time” etc. Rebbi Immi said, who is the Tanna of “any time when he is permitted to eat he is permitted to feed, when it is forbidden to the eater he is forbidden to feed”? Rebbi Meïr⁶Babli 21a. In Mishnah 1:4 R. Meïr permits to eat up to the time one has to dispose of the leftovers, in contrast to R. Jehudah who forbids to eat starting one hour before the leavened matter will be forbidden. The latter could not have formulated “any time”.. But following Rebbi Jehudah, in the fifth hour even though he is forbidden to eat he is permitted to feed. Rebbi Abba objected: Did we not state⁷Mishnah 3:5, presumed to be R. Meïr’s., “sour dough has to be burned but one who eats it is not liable⁸Ex. 12:19 contains two statements. 1° leavened matter may not be in a Jew’s possession on Passover, and 2°, it is a deadly sin, punishable by extirpation, to eat leavened matter during the holiday. The Tanna of the Mishnah holds that the second statement is not applicable to matters commonly considered to be inedible.,” and did not Rav Ḥuna say in the name of Rebbi, one may feed it to the dogs⁹Mishnah 1 excludes feeding to animals.? Rebbi Yose said, did we state “any leavened matter”, not “time¹⁰Mishnah 2:1 is formulated to apply only to the 14th of Nisan. Mishnah 3:5, referring to Nisan 15–21, does not contradict the earlier Mishnah.”? Who is the Tanna of “time”, Rebbi Meïr.

HALAKHAH: “There are four New Year’s Days,” etc. It is written⁴Ex. 12:2. The verse establishes that months are counted from the month of the spring equinox, post-exilic (Accadic) called Nisan., this month shall be for you the head of the months. For you it is the head of the months but it is head neither for years nor for Sabbatical periods nor for Jubilees⁵It is clear from Lev.25 that Sabbaticals and Jubilees are counted from the end of the agricultural year in the month of the fall equinox. nor for planting⁶To determine the years of `orlah, when no fruit may be taken. nor for vegetables⁷To determine the year for purposes of the tithe since inferred from Deut. 14:22, which requires agricultural tithe being given year by year, that no tithe may be given from produce of one year for produce grown in another.. And I could say, for you it is the head of the months but it is head neither for kings nor for holidays. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is written⁸2Chr.3:2., he started to build in the second month, in the second,⁹The text is ambiguous. The later derivations read it as a repetition: He started to build in the second month, the second month of the fourth year; in the style of Gen. 8:5. If the same number is used to describe the month in the sequence of months and the month in the year, it follows that the year must start with month one. in the fourth year of his reign. It bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan. Or is it only the second in the month? Any place where the second day in the month is intended it is explicit¹⁰This is how the unofficial Targum of 2Chr.3:2 reads it: He started to build on the second day of the second month of the fourth year; a reading also rejected in the Babli 3a since it always is stated as “day nin the month.”. Or is it only the second in the week? We do not find this count in the Torah¹¹Babli 3a.. But is it not written, it was evening and it was morning, the second day¹²Gen. 1:8.? One makes no inferences from the Creation of the World¹³Since they are God’s days, not human days.. Which one is the second of the months and which one is the second of the years¹⁴In 2Chr.3:2.? Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Mana. One said, he started to build in the second month, that is the second of the months; in the second, that is the second in the year. But the other one, even if you switch it does not change anything. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood it from the following: This month is for you, an exclusion. The first it be for you, [an exclusion.] An exclusion after an exclusion is to include¹⁵A general principle in both Talmudim. Peah6:9 Note 154, Yebamot 12:1 Note10, Soṭah 9:2 Note 63, Horaiot1:1 Note 9 q. v., Megillah4:4 75b l.14; Babli Megillah23b, Yoma43a, Bava qamma15b, Bava batra15a, Sanhedrin15a,44b,66a, Makkot9b, Ševuot7b, Menaḥot9b,67a, Ḥulin132a. for kings and holidays. Could one include for years, or for Sabbatical periods, or for Jubilees, or for planting, or for vegetables? Following what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said: It is written, he started to build in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign. It bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph: He started to build in the second month, that is the second of the months; in the second, that is the second in the year. And when he says, in the fourth year of his reign, it bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan. Samuel stated and disagreed¹⁶He holds that the count of years depends on the political circumstances.: In the third month of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt¹⁷Ex. 19:1.. From here that one counts months from the exodus from Egypt. Not only months, from where years? The Eternal spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai in the second year¹⁸Num. 9:1.. Not only at that time, from where later? In the fortieth year of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt¹⁹Num. 33:38. Babli 2b. Not only temporarily, from where for later generations? It was in the 480th year of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt²⁰1K.6:1., etc. After the Temple had been built they started to count from its building: It was at the end of twenty years after Salomon built the two houses²¹1K. 9:1.. They did not merit to count from its building, they started counting from its destruction: In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, on New Year’s Day, on the tenth of the month²²Ez. 40:1. In a Jubilee year, New Year’s day is moved to the Day of Atonement; cf. the author’s edition of Seder Olam(Northvale 1998), pp. 118–119, Note 4., etc. They did not merit to count for themselves, they started counting regnal years, [as it is written,] in year two of Darius²³Ḥaggai1:1.; in year three of Cyrus, king of Persia²⁴Dan. 10:1.. And I am saying, ⁸2Chr.3:2.he started to build in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign. It bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan.

HALAKHAH: “A man may contract a premininary marriage either in person or through an agent,” etc. From where that a person’s agent may act in his stead⁶Since preliminary marriage is an act prescribed by biblical standards, one has to ascertain that agency is admissible in the fulfilment of biblical decrees. {Agency always is direct representation as in Egyptian and Roman law (cf. R. Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, New York 1944, §37). Indirect representation is authorized only if it unquestionably is to the benefit of the person represented; cf. Giṭṭin 1:6, Notel74.}? Rebbi Eleazar said: “The entirety of the assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it in the evening.⁷Ex. 12:6.” But do all of them slaughter⁸Since the Passover sacrifice is not an individual but a family affair, it is obvious that only one person can slaughter for his entire family.? Does not one slaughter for the many? From here [it follows that] a person’s agent may act in his stead⁹Mekhilta Bo,Masekhet Depisḥa Chap. 5 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin, p. 17) as tannaïtic statement; in the Babli attributed to R. Joshua ben Qorḥa. The parallel discussion in the Babli, 41a–42a, is a long-winded, possibly Saboraic, affair.. And that would be the same as: “Everybody should take for himself a sheep for the family, a sheep to a house¹⁰Ex. 12:3. The same argument applies as for the other verse. Then the question arises, at least for the school of R. Aqiba, why the same rule has to be expressed by two separate verses. This contradicts R. Aqiba’s axiom that the Torah text admits of no redundancies..” Did everyone take? Did not one take for the many¹¹In Mekhilta Bo,Masekhet Depisḥa Chap. 3 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin, p. 11) this also is a tannaïtic statement, not the subject of a discussion.? From here [it follows that] a person’s agent may act in his stead. Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for a person may slaughter the Passover sacrifice of another without the latter’s knowledge¹²The people participating in the Passover meal do not have to know who prepared it. Therefore, the slaughterer does not have to be the agent of every participant; the verse Ex. 12:6 does not prove the thesis for which it was quoted.. If you wanted to say that a person may separate the Passover sacrifice for another without the latter’s knowledge, you cannot say so, for Rebbi Ze‘ira said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar that a person may slaughter the Passover sacrifice of another without the latter’s knowledge, but nobody may separate the Passover sacrifice for another without the latter’s knowledge¹³Pesaḥim 8:1 (35d 1. 13), Babli Nedarim 36a. A person who was not inscribed beforehand in the list of participants cannot join the Passover celebration; Mishnah Zebaḥim 5:8. Only Ex. 12:3 is a proof; there is no redundancy..

HALAKHAH: “The uncircumcised and any impure persons,” etc. “Every man²Lev. 22:4. The verse excludes impure persons from sanctified food. The inclusive “every man” implies that every man of the descendents of Aaron is included among the prospective eaters of heave since every man is exluded when impure. Verse 7 notes that after immersion in water he may eat the sanctified food after sundown; this refers to heave which does not require a prior purification sacrifice.”, to include the uncircumcised³Quoted in the Babli (70a, 71a, 74a) and Sifra Emor Pereq 4(18) in the name of R. Aqiba. He takes the emphatic expression “every man” to mean that in addition to the persons excluded in the text there must be some category of excluded persons not mentioned in the text.. Or “every man” to include the mourner⁴The mourner during the period between the death of a relative and his burial, who is excluded from all religious duties except the care for the burial. As R. Hila points out at the end, the exclusion of the mourner is mentioned only in the declaration of tithes (Deut. 26:14), which implies that even the Israel farmer may not eat his sanctified food (the Second Tithe) while in mourning. From there, it is inferred that the Cohen certainly is disabled during his mourning.? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is written, “no outsider shall eat sanctified [food]⁵Lev. 22:10: “No outsider (a non-priestly Jew; cf. Num. 18:4) shall eat sanctified [food], a Cohen’s sojourner (foreign worker) and hireling shall not eat sanctified [food].” The verse clearly disqualifies persons because of their intrinsic status, not because of a temporary disability. Sifra Emor Pereq4(16) also classifies the bastard as an outsider.”. I forbade to you because of outside status, I did not forbid because of prepuce⁶In the Babli 71a, “I did not forbid because of mourning” which is immediately corrected to “say: not lack of circumcision.” One may not correct the Yerushalmi text according to the first version of the Babli (done by most commentators and the editors of the Zhitomir/Wilna text), since not only the principle of lectio difficilior but also the next sentence in the text, and the parallel discussion in the Babli preclude such an approach. It is clear from the start that both the uncircumcised and the mourner are forbidden heave, and the entire discussion is one of hermeneutics. No temporary disabilities have any place in the interpretation of vv. 10–13. The question is only whether the rather arbitrary approach of R. Aqiba has any justification.. The reddish Rebbi Tiufa⁷A Galilean Amora of the fourth generation; his name appears also as Ṭaifa. His sobriquet may mean that he was a redhead. asked before Rebbi Yose: may we not say, I did not forbid because of prepuce and because of mourning? He said to him, since one verse includes and the other excludes⁸It is the general method of R. Aqiba to analyze verses for expressions of inclusion and exclusion. The expression in 22:4: אִישׁ אִישׁ “man, man” (translated as “every man”) implies that some man is included in the set of persons excluded from heave who is not mentioned in the verse. On the other hand, if the verse had simply read אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן צָרוּעַ אוֹ זָב the same meaning as in the actual verse אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן והוּא צָרוּעַ אוֹ זָב could have been expressed in correct grammar with one less word. This is taken as an exclusion, “only if he be a leper or sick with gonorrhea”, which decreases the size of the excluded set. The verse deals only with temporary disabilities. The verse 22:10 dealing with permanent disabilities has no exclusion. It is therefore acceptable to include a permanently disabled person in the excluded set and to exclude from that set an additional temporarily disabled person., I am including the uncircumcised who is missing some procedure performed on his body and excluding the mourner who is not missing some procedure performed on his body. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated⁹Sifra Emor Pereq 4(18). In the Babli (70a) and the Mekhilta deR. Ismael, Bo (ed. Horovitz-Rabin, p. 54), the argument is presented in the name of R. Eliezer, adding to the arguments of B. Z. Wacholder [The date of the Mekhilta de-R. Ishmael, HUCA 39(1968) 117–144] about the dependence of that Mekhilta on the Babli.: It said “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover¹⁰Ex. 12:45. and “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave¹¹Lev. 22:10.. Since “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover implies disabling the uncircumcised, so “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave must imply disabling the uncircumcised¹²An application of the principle of גזרה שוה, R. Ismael’s rule 2: One word found in two different laws which in neither of them are needed for the understanding of the law, are written to permit the transfer of rules from one to the other.. Rebbi Ḥaggai questioned: If “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover is in a group of laws disabling the mourner, also “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave should imply disabling the mourner¹³However, Mishnah Pesaḥim8:8, explained in Pesaḥim [Yerushalmi 8:8 (fol. 36b), Babli 92a] states that the mourner is excluded by biblical decree only from services during daytime. This means that the mourner (as long as he is not impure) is admitted to the Passover meal. R. Haggai attempts to discredit R. Ismael’s approach.. Rebbi Hila answered: They inferred from “under, under” only items mentioned in the paragraph¹⁴While the argument of R. Hila is almost understandable, this sentence is not. Neither in the laws of Passover nor in those of heave is the word תחת used. The Babli, in a somewhat similar discussion (71a, 74a) discusses the seemingly superfluous inclusion of three expressions “ממנו” in the laws of the Passover sacrifice offered in Egypt (Ex. 12:9,10). The argument there is not applicable here. All R. Hila seems to say is that one does not derive laws not touched upon in Ex. 22:43–50 from there.. The sexless and the hermaphrodite came under another category¹⁵The sexless is excluded from sacrifices since he probably is a male with an ingrown penis and therefore uncircumcised. The hermaphrodite is circumcised and accepted. His inclusion here has to be rated an editorial or scribal error since “sexless and hermaphrodite” is a frequently occurring combination. (A priest hermaphrodite is excluded from the sacrifices reserved for men and admitted to those open to women; Tosephta 10:2.). The mourner comes from second tithe⁴The mourner during the period between the death of a relative and his burial, who is excluded from all religious duties except the care for the burial. As R. Hila points out at the end, the exclusion of the mourner is mentioned only in the declaration of tithes (Deut. 26:14), which implies that even the Israel farmer may not eat his sanctified food (the Second Tithe) while in mourning. From there, it is inferred that the Cohen certainly is disabled during his mourning..

HALAKHAH: “A man may contract a premininary marriage either in person or through an agent,” etc. From where that a person’s agent may act in his stead⁶Since preliminary marriage is an act prescribed by biblical standards, one has to ascertain that agency is admissible in the fulfilment of biblical decrees. {Agency always is direct representation as in Egyptian and Roman law (cf. R. Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, New York 1944, §37). Indirect representation is authorized only if it unquestionably is to the benefit of the person represented; cf. Giṭṭin 1:6, Notel74.}? Rebbi Eleazar said: “The entirety of the assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it in the evening.⁷Ex. 12:6.” But do all of them slaughter⁸Since the Passover sacrifice is not an individual but a family affair, it is obvious that only one person can slaughter for his entire family.? Does not one slaughter for the many? From here [it follows that] a person’s agent may act in his stead⁹Mekhilta Bo,Masekhet Depisḥa Chap. 5 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin, p. 17) as tannaïtic statement; in the Babli attributed to R. Joshua ben Qorḥa. The parallel discussion in the Babli, 41a–42a, is a long-winded, possibly Saboraic, affair.. And that would be the same as: “Everybody should take for himself a sheep for the family, a sheep to a house¹⁰Ex. 12:3. The same argument applies as for the other verse. Then the question arises, at least for the school of R. Aqiba, why the same rule has to be expressed by two separate verses. This contradicts R. Aqiba’s axiom that the Torah text admits of no redundancies..” Did everyone take? Did not one take for the many¹¹In Mekhilta Bo,Masekhet Depisḥa Chap. 3 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin, p. 11) this also is a tannaïtic statement, not the subject of a discussion.? From here [it follows that] a person’s agent may act in his stead. Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for a person may slaughter the Passover sacrifice of another without the latter’s knowledge¹²The people participating in the Passover meal do not have to know who prepared it. Therefore, the slaughterer does not have to be the agent of every participant; the verse Ex. 12:6 does not prove the thesis for which it was quoted.. If you wanted to say that a person may separate the Passover sacrifice for another without the latter’s knowledge, you cannot say so, for Rebbi Ze‘ira said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar that a person may slaughter the Passover sacrifice of another without the latter’s knowledge, but nobody may separate the Passover sacrifice for another without the latter’s knowledge¹³Pesaḥim 8:1 (35d 1. 13), Babli Nedarim 36a. A person who was not inscribed beforehand in the list of participants cannot join the Passover celebration; Mishnah Zebaḥim 5:8. Only Ex. 12:3 is a proof; there is no redundancy..

HALAKHAH: “The daily sacrifice is slaughtered,” etc. It is written: The following you shall do on the altar⁵Ex. 29:38. As usual the reference is to the second part of the verse, not quoted in the text: sheep, yearlings, two per day, in perpetuity., etc. I would have said, both of them should be sacrificed in the morning, or both of them in the afternoon. The verse says⁶Ex. 29:39., one sheep you shall do in the morning. I would have said, the morning one should be sacrificed at dawn and the evening one at dusk; the verse says⁶Ex. 29:39., between the evenings. It is said here between the evenings and it is said there⁷Ex. 12:6, about the Pesaḥ sacrifice. between the evenings. Since between the evenings which is said there means after six hours⁸As noted immediately afterwards, this assertion is unproven., also between the evenings which is said here must mean after six hours. What did you see that makes you say, between the evenings means after six hours? [Even though it is no proof there is a hint:]⁹This sentence was not written by the scribe, and also is missing in ג. It was added by the corrector from the parallels, Sifra Emor Pereq 11, Mekhilta deR. Ismael Bo Parasha 5 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 17). woe on us that the day has turned, that evening shadows are turned¹⁰Jer. 6:4.. Since evening which is said there means after six hours¹¹The verse shows that “evening” is the time when shadows point East. The Babli holds (58a) that this starts not at noontime but about half an hour later. But it seems that for Yerushalmi, Sifra and Mekhilta “six hours” means 12 noon.
The argument is only a hint, not a proof, since the thesis that a word can have only one meaning is valid only for the Pentateuch, not for later biblical books., also evening which is said here must mean after six hours. Then should it not be qualified after six hours¹²S. Liebermann thinks that this refers to the Pesaḥ since the Mishnah states that on a 14th of Nisan which is a Friday the daily sacrifice is brought at 12:30 pm. This time must be qualified on all days. But this is a Babli argument, not valid for the Yerushalmi. The question is about the daily sacrifice; why on a 14th of Nisan which is a Friday is the service of the daily evening sacrifice not started at noon?? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, what is between the evenings? Split the evening into two, give it two and a half hours before, two and a half hours afterwards, and one hour for its work¹³Since from noon to sunset there are 6 variable hours, the sacrifice should be brought at 3 pm. Since one does not consider smaller units of time, “3 pm” really means “from 2:30 pm to 3:30 pm”. Babli Zevaḥim 11b.. It turns out that the daily sacrifice is brought at nine hours and a half.

¹⁴There exists a copy of this paragraph in Horaiot 3:2 (ה). It is missing in the Yerushalmi reproduced in the editio princeps of the Babli. A different version is in Midrash Samuel 7(5). Rebbi Eleazar said, if a High Priest sinned, one whips him but does not remove him from his elevated status¹³This is unknown to the Babli.. Rebbi Mana said, it is written⁵Lev. 21:12.: For the crown of his God’s ointment is on him, I am the Eternal; if one could compare it, just as I am in My Sanctity, so Aaron is in his sanctity¹⁵The two other sources read: I in My Greatness, also Aaron in his greatness. R. Abun said (Lev. 21:8), holy he shall be to you, if one could compare it, as I Am in My Holiness, so Aaron is in his holiness.. Rebbi Ḥanina the scribe, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: if a High Priest sinned, one whips him¹⁶In the two other sources: by a court of three judges. The sequel requires this text.. If you would say by 23, his elevation would be his degradation¹⁷Since so many people would sit in judgment over him.. And Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if a patriarch sinned, one whips him by a court of three [judges]. Does one return him? Rebbi Haggai said, by Moses, if one would return him, he would kill them. Rebbi Jehudah the Prince¹⁸R. Jehudah II. heard this and became angry. He sent Goths¹⁹Following the reading of the other two sources. Krauss conjectures that the inserted נ indicates nasal pronunciation, but by the evidence of the other two sources גנתון instead of גותיין seems to be a scribal error. [Instead of Goths they might have been Gaetuli, a people from Northwestern Africa (E. G.).] to catch Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. They beat him. He fled to Magdala, some say to Kefar Ḥiṭṭim²⁰Magdala is on Lake Genezareth, Kefar Hittim in the hills overlooking Tiberias.. The next day, Rebbi Joḥanan went to the assembly hall, when Rebbi Jehudah the Prince also went to the assembly hall. He²¹R. Jehudah the Prince. said to him, why is the master not²²Translated following G. telling us words of instruction? He²³R. Johanan. started clapping with one hand. He²¹R. Jehudah the Prince. asked, does one clap with one? He²³R. Johanan. answered him, no, but without ben Laqish there is nothing²⁴Following the text of the other two sources. The text of the Leiden ms. is unintelligible.. He²¹R. Jehudah the Prince. told him, I shall free him. He²³R. Johanan. said to him, in Magdala. He²¹R. Jehudah the Prince. told him, tomorrow I and you will go out to meet him. Rebbi Joḥanan sent to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, prepare²⁵Translated following G. The text of the other two sources, “get rich”, does not make much sense. for yourself some words of instruction since the Patriarch will go out to meet you. He went out to meet them and said, your example is similar to that of your Creator. For when the Merciful went to liberate Israel [from Egypt]²⁶Added from the other two sources., He sent neither messenger nor angel but He went Himself, as is written: I shall pass through the Land of Egypt²⁷Ex. 12:12., He and all His Court²⁸Translated following Eliahu Fulda and H. L. Fleischer in Levy’s Dictionary. A similar explanation of the verse is found in the Passover Haggadah (Mekhilta dR.Ismael, ed. Horovitz-Rabin, p. 23; cf. H. Guggenheimer, The Scholar’s Haggadah pp. 298–299.)
Here ends the Geniza fragment. The text in Horaiot has additions both at this point and at the end of the paragraph which, while relevant, in the absence of a confirming Genizah text cannot be added here.. He asked him, why did you say these things²⁹About whipping the Patriarch.? He told him, what are you thinking? That for fear of you I would refrain from the teachings of the Merciful? As Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, No my sons, because the reputation is not good³⁰1S. 2:24. The explanation of the verse is missing; it is given in Horaiot. The verse about the misdeeds of Eli’s sons ends, מַעֲבִיריִם עַם יי [the information]spread about by the Eternal’s people, which he interprets as being removed by the Eternal’s people, implying that the High Priest has to be removed if he sins..

Why by candlelight? Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, because a candle permits checking everywhere⁹In holes and crevices which are dark in daytime (Babli 8a). The “candle” mentioned here is a small clay vessel filled with oil.. Why in the night? Rebbi Yose said, because checking with a candle is exact only during night time¹⁰As stated later, candle light is not effective during daytime.. Rebbi Mana did not say so: And guard this day for your generations as an eternal law⁵Ex. 12:17–18., see to it that day and night be guarded¹¹The entire day should be dedicated to the elimination of leavened matter.. Then should one not start on the Thirteenth that day and night be guarded? He also agrees with the statement of Rebbi Yose¹²One cannot say that R. Mana disagrees with R. Yose; he adds to his statement.. Then should one start in the evening of the Thirteenth? If so, he could even check on the beginning of the month¹³Since checking two weeks in advance would be useless, so is checking a full day in advance. Since checking should be done at nighttime, the only remaining date is the evening of the 14^th of Nisan (preceding the day)..

Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi left out the beginning¹⁴The statement of R. Joshua ben Levi actually is an older baraita which makes it explicit that the times of the evening daily sacrifice and the Pesaḥ are identical. and said the end; is that not what was stated: “Ḥanania ben Jehudah¹⁵In Mekhilta deR. Simeon ben Yoḥai (p. 12, ad Ex. 12:6), which according to J. N. Epstein is the Tanna debe Ḥizqiah. Ḥanania ben Ḥakinai). says, I hear between evenings, between [two]¹⁶Added from ג and Mekhilta deR. Simeon ben Yoḥai. evenings, between the evening of the 14th and the evening of the fifteenth¹⁷Reading עַרְבַּיִם as עֲרָבִים. For the rest of the Halakhah ג is not readable.. I could think that day and night are included; the verse says, day¹⁸Ex. 12:6: It should be guarded by you until the fourteenth day of this month.. Since He said day, this excludes the night. If it is day, I could think at two hours into the day; the verse says, in the evening. If in the evening, I could think after it became dark. The verse says, between the evenings. How is this? Split the evening into two, give it two and a half hours before, two and a half hours afterwards, and one hour for its work. It turns out that the daily sacrifice¹⁹And the Pesaḥ. is brought at nine hours and a half.

Are sacrifices forbidden for the uncircumcised? One cannot deduce the answer from Passover since they are not subject to [the prohibition of] breaking a bone¹⁸No bone may be broken of the Passover sacrifice; Ex. 12:46. The bone marrow of other sacrificial animals is not forbidden. Therefore, no argument de minore ad majus is possible from Passover to other sacrifices., neither from heave since that would be inference after inference¹⁹In general, the rules of R. Ismael may be combined with one another; an exeption are the rules of sacrifices and sanctified matter. This is discussed in detail in the Babli, Zebaḥim Chapter 5, which has no parallel in the Yerushalmi. Even though the authorities quoted there are all Babylonian, the reference here shows that the basis of the arguments is a Yerushalmi tradition. It is stated in Babli, Zebaḥim 50a, that rules 2 and 3 in the scheme of R. Ismael cannot be used one after the other. Since the exclusion of the uncircumcised from heave was an application of rule 2 (Note 12), the result cannot be used as premiss for an argument of type 3. An attempt to formulate the rules in an extension of symbolic logic is in H. Guggenheimer, Über ein bemerkenswertes logisches System aus der Antike, Methodos 1951, 150–164.. At the end, you have to say “from it, from it²⁰An application of rule 2 (Note 12)..” Since “from it”²¹Ex. 12:9 (once), 10 (twice). The Babli must reject this argument since it deduces laws of Passover from all three instances of the word. which was said in the laws of Passover implies that the uncircumcised is disqualified, so “from it”²²Lev. 7:14. The verse is quoted in Mishnah Menaḥot 8:2. which was said in the laws of sacrifices must imply that the uncircumcised is disqualified. Are sacrifices forbidden for the mourner?²³There is no inference to be drawn from Lev. 10:6 since, after the death of Nadab and Abihu, Aaron and his sons were commanded not to mourn. “From it, from it.” Since “from it” which was said in the laws of tithe²⁴The Second Tithe, Deut. 26:14. states that the mourner is disqualified, so “from it” which was said in the laws of Passover²⁵This word indicates an oversight by editor or copyist since (1) from the laws of Passover nothing can be inferred for other sacrifices and (2) the mourner (whose relative died outside of Jerusalem so that he could not defile himself) is admitted to the Passover sacrifice. It most probably should read “sacrifices” (Note 22). must imply that the mourner is disqualified.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁹Babli 3b.: But since the he-goat of initiation obstructs, does the he-goat of the Day of Atonement also obstruct²⁰In the ceremonies for the eighth day of initiation, the commandment to Aaron to take a bull and a he-goat (Lev. 9:2) is one unit; there could be no bull without a he-goat. But in Mishnah Menaḥot 4:2 it is stated that for all holiday sacrifices bulls and he-goats are independent of one another. If the rules of the Day of Atonement are derived from the rules of the initiation rites, the Mishnah would have to state an exception for the Day of Atonement.? And he accepted it from him²¹The rules of the Day of Atonement cannot be derived from the rules of the initiation rites.. [On that Rebbi Mana said, I am wondering how could Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish ask before Rebbi Joḥanan and he accepted it from him?] Should he not have objected to him that we do not find that anything obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, nor can anything not obstructing be inferred from anything obstructing? “He breaks the neck”, “to burn in smoke”²²In the rules of the elevation offering of a bird (Lev. 1:15), in the same verse it is required that the Cohen break the neck of the bird and burn it in smoke on the altar.. Since (breaking the neck)²³This must read: “burning in smoke”. is done on top of the altar, so (breaking the neck) [burning in smoke]²⁴The text in parentheses was first written by the scribe, the text in brackets is the correction. The original text in parentheses is the correct one. Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata 7(4). is done on the top of the altar. Breaking the neck obstructs, burning in smoke does not obstruct²⁵If the sacrifice would become impure and disqualified after the breaking of the neck but before the burning, the offerer has fulfilled his vow and it is not necessary to bring a second sacrifice.. “Permanently,” [“permanently].” “Permanently” is mentioned for the pan-baked breads²⁶Therefore one part of R. Mana’s objection has been shown to be invalid.
The daily offering of the High Priest (Lev. 6:12–16), a tenth of an epha of fine flour baked into “breads” (v. 14) without a specified number. “Permanent” is stated in v. 13. and “permanently” is mentioned for the shew-bread²⁷The shew-bread is specified as 12 loaves, Lev. 24:5. The arrangement is called “permanent” in v. 24:8..] The shew-breads are obstructive, the pan-baked breads are not obstructive. Since [“permanently” mentioned for the pan-baked breads refers to twelve,] so “permanently” mentioned [for the shew-bread refers to twelve²⁸It is obvious that here also one has to switch the places of “shew-bread” and “panbaked breads”. The number of breads of the High Priest is fixed as 12 in Mishnah Menaḥot 6:5, but a deviation from this number invalidates only shew-bread, not the High Priest’s offering.. “Taking”, “taking”. “Taking” mentioned in Egypt²⁹Ex. 12:22, the commandment to take “a bundle of hyssop”., “taking” is mentioned for lulav³⁰Lev. 23;40, the commandment to take 4 kinds of plants; it is not mentioned that they must be tied as a bundle.. [Since “taking” mentioned in Egypt implies a bundle³¹In the Babli Sukkah 11b, and Sifra Emor Pereq 16(1), this is rejected as R. Jehudah’s minority opinion., so also “taking” mentioned for lulav implies a bundle³²Both of R. Mana’s objections were disregarded by Tannaim; R. Simeon ben Laqish is justified..] For the lulav it obstructs, in Egypt it did not obstruct. Therefore we found things obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, and things not obstructing can be inferred from anything obstructing³⁴Babli 4a..

Is it free²⁶This refers back to the argument (Notes 9–12) that the uncircumcised is barred from eating heave. It is claimed that the conditions for application of rule 2, גזרה שוה, are not fulfilled.? Has it not been used for a derivation? As it was stated²⁷Babli 70a, Qiddushin 4a, Zebaḥim 62a; Sifra Emor Pereq 4(17).: “Sojourner”, that is the one who is permanently acquired, “hireling” the one temporarily acquired²⁸Lev. 22:10: “A Cohen’s sojourner or hireling shall not eat from sanctified food.” Who are sojourner and hireling? They cannot be Gentiles; these were excluded in the first part of v. 10. They cannot be slaves; these are included (when circumcised) in v. 11. They must be Hebrew “slaves”, i. e., indentured servants. The verse states that the money paid in acquiring a Hebrew slave is paid not to acquire his person but his working and earning power. Therefore, they are not able to partake of sanctified food. The Hebrew slave who is permanently acquired is the one who refuses to leave when his six years of indenture are passed; Ex. 21:5–6, Deut. 15:16–17.
According to tradition, the institution of Hebrew slaves disappeared with the first commonwealth and could never be re-introduced. The argument here is purely one of biblical interpretation, not of actual law.. It should only say “sojourner”; why does the verse mention “hireling”? Should the one who is permanently acquired be forbidden to eat and the one temporarily acquired be permitted? But I would have said that “sojourner” means the one temporarily acquired; the mention of the “hireling” teaches that “sojourner” means the one permanently acquired. Rebbi Mathias²⁹He is mentioned only here. said, since it is written “no uncircumcised person may eat from it,³⁰Ex. 12:48.” it is as if free from one side³¹While the verse in Lev. is used for clarification about the Hebrew slave, Ex. 12:46 cannot speak about him since no circumcised Jew is excluded from the Passover sacrifices. Therefore, the verse is not used for other deductions and the application of rule 2 might be justified.
The Yerushalmi does not clarify the difference between a straight גזרה שוה in which neither part is used for other implications (cf. Note 12), and a conditional one in which only one of the conditions is fulfilled, which may be rejected on logical grounds. This is made explicit in the Babli, 70b..

³⁹This paragraph is from Ḥallah 4:12 and originates there. It refers to Mishnah Ḥallah4:12 which reports that a certain Joseph Hakohen brought his entire family, women and children, to celebrate Second Pesaḥ but the Temple authorities admitted only the adult males. Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary? It was stated⁴⁰Tosephta 8:10.: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining \others, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, and certainly the First. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar⁴¹This should read with the other sources: R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon. says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? Every man a sheep for the family, if they want for the house⁴²Ex. 12:3. Everywhere “house” is read as synonym of “wife”.. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, every man a sheep for the family, a fortiori for the house. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? “Every man”, not a woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, lest it become an obligation⁴³If a renowned authority does something, everybody will rush to emulate him and in the next generation it will already be a common standard and acquire the status of “practice of the forefathers from time immemorial”. Even R. Yose will agree that in such a situation one should not allow a public display of special devotion..

They [all] introduced [the same] thirteen alterations:¹⁶For a comparison of these variants with the Heb. text, cf. on Sof. I, 8. ‘God created in the beginning’; ‘I shall make a man in image and likeness’; ‘And He finished on the sixth [day] and rested on the seventh [day]’; ‘Male and female He created him’; ‘Come let Me go down’; ‘And Sarah laughed among her relatives, saying’; ‘For in their anger they slew oxen and in their self-will they digged up a stall’; ‘And Moses took his wife and his children and set them upon a carrier of men’; ‘Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt was four hundred and thirty years’; ‘I have not taken one desirable thing from them’; ‘And the [beast] with small legs’; ‘Which the Lord thy God hath allotted unto all the peoples to give light under the whole heaven’; ‘And they offer sacrifices to the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven which I commanded should not be served’.

It also happened that King Ptolemy assembled seventy-two elders and placed them in seventy-two [separate] rooms without telling them the reason for which he had assembled them. He then went to each one of them and said to him,¹⁷lit. ‘to them’. ‘Write for me [a translation of] the Torah of Moses your master’. The Omnipresent inspired them¹⁸lit. ‘put counsel in the heart of each one of them’. and the mind of all of them was identical, so that each on his own¹⁹So GRA. wrote the [same translation of the] Torah, introducing [the same] thirteen alterations²⁰Deviations from the traditional text. In the extant Versions of the Septuagint only some of these are found. as follows: ‘God created in the beginning’.²¹Instead of In the beginning God created (Gen. 1, 1) the Heb. of which might be misinterpreted to mean that a power named ‘Bereshith’ (in the beginning) created God. ‘And God said I shall make a man in image and likeness.’²²The Heb. text reads: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness (Gen. 1, 26). The plural us and our might erroneously suggest a plurality of deities. ‘And He finished on the sixth [day] and rested on the seventh [day].’²³For the Heb.: And He finished on the seventh day (Gen. 2, 2) which could be understood to imply that God did some work on the seventh day. ‘Male and female He created him.’²⁴Instead of created them (ibid. V, 2) from which it might be inferred that man and woman were, from the first, two separate beings, contrary to ibid. II, 21. ‘Come let Me go down and there confound their language.’²⁵Instead of let us go down (ibid. XI, 7). ‘And Sarah laughed among her relatives,²⁶i.e. she laughed in the presence of people and therefore incurred censure (ibid. XVIII, 12). The Heb. means ‘within herself’ as Abraham had done when he laughed … in his heart (ibid. XVII, 17) and had not been rebuked. saying.’ ‘For in their anger they slew oxen²⁷So GRA, H and M. V incorrectly ‘a man’. and in their self-will they digged up a stall.’²⁸Changing men (ibid. XLIX, 6) to ‘oxen’ and oxen to ‘stall’ in order to remove the stigma of murder from Jacob’s sons. ‘And Moses took his wife and his children and set them upon a carrier²⁹So M. V and H read ‘carriers of men’. of men.’³⁰i.e. an animal conformable with the dignity of Moses, instead of ass (Ex. 4, 20). ‘Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt and in the land of Canaan and in other lands³¹So M. V omits ‘and in other lands’. [The reading of the Septuagint is ‘in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt’.] was four hundred and thirty years.’³²Instead of the Heb. which omits ‘in the land of Canaan and in other lands’ (Ex. 12, 40), and implies that all the 430 years were spent in Egypt when, in fact, they could not have dwelt there more than 210 years (cf. Rashi to Meg. 9a). ‘And he sent the elect of the children of Israel.’³³So GRA and Meg. 9a but omitted in V. ‘Elect’ is substituted for young men (ibid. XXIV, 5), the former being regarded as more suitable persons for the service. ‘And upon the elect of the children of Israel He laid not His hand.’³⁴Here also ‘elect’ was substituted for the Heb. for nobles (ibid. 11). The alteration was not essential, but ‘elect’ which was mentioned earlier was preferred. It should be noted that in the total of thirteen alterations, this and the preceding are counted as one. ‘I have not taken one desirable thing³⁵A ‘desirable thing’ [which occurs in the Septuagint] for the Heb. ass (Num. 16, 15) to avoid the suggestion that Moses did not take an ass but more precious objects. from them.’ ‘The [beast] with small legs.’³⁶Instead of the Heb. for the hare (Lev. 11, 6) which is arnebeth, so as not to give offence to Ptolemy the name of whose queen was Arnebeth. ‘Which the Lord thy God hath allotted to give light unto all the peoples under the whole heaven.’³⁷The insertion ‘to give light’ (Deut. 4, 19) removes the possible misunderstanding that the heavenly bodies enumerated in the verse were intended by God to be objects of worship. ‘Which I commanded should not be served.’³⁸Deut. 17, 3 reads which I have commanded not. This might be taken to mean that God did not desire their existence and their creation was consequently due to a power beyond His control. It should be noted that the last two alterations are regarded as one in the enumeration because both deal with heavenly bodies as objects of worship.

One verse says²⁵Deut. 16:2., you shall sacrifice a Pesaḥ to the Eternal, your God, small cattle and large cattle. Another verse says²⁶Ex. 12:5.,from sheep and goats you shall take. How is this? Small cattle for Pesaḥ, small and large cattle for the festival sacrifice²⁷Babli 70b, Sifry Deut. 129, not in the name of Hillel..

It is written: “Any slave who is a man bought by money⁵⁷Ex. 12:44: “Any slave who is a man bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then he may eat from [the Passover sacrifice].” In the Babli (Yebamot 48a) the anonymous opinion here is the minority opinion of R. Simeon ben Eleazar. The Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai follows the Yerushalmi; the Mekhilta dR. Ismael follows the Babli (Yebamot 71a) in referring the sentence “then he may eat from [the Passover sacrifice]” to the owner who in that interpretation is barred from the sacrifice as long as not all his slaves are circumcised. (Cf. Note 41, the position of R. Aqiba)..” You circumcise by force a slave who is a man⁵⁸The verse notes only the activity of the owner., you do not circumcise by force a son who is a man⁵⁹A proselyte may only circumcise his minor sons with him.. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, does this imply that you may circumcise a minor by force? Even like one of undescended testicles⁶⁰The word אורכניס. has a number of explanations in the dictionaries which do not fit since they denote persons of high social standing. It is difficult to see how a foundling can be a son of a “ruler” (Mussaphia) or a “chief leader” (Kohut), etc. According to the context, one may translate בן not as “son” but “endowed with a certain quality” and take אורכניס as a composite of Greek ὀρχίς “testicles”, such as ὀρχιπέδη “restraint of testicles, impotence” (E. G.).? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is so. “If he found there a foundling. If he immersed him as a slave, he circumcises him as a slave; [if he immersed him] as a free person, he circumcises him as a free person.⁶¹Mishnah Makhshirin 2:7 explains that in a city where Jews and Gentiles dwell together, a foundling has the status of the majority (according to R. Jehudah the majority of those who abandon their children; in Tosephta Makhshirin 1:8 he declares the foundling to be a Gentile or a slave if only one Gentile or female slave of childbearing age lives there.)” Rebbi Joḥanan asked, as a slave, he circumcises him as a slave; even like one of undescended testicles? Rebbi Abbahu and Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia did not say so, but “any slave who is a man bought by money.” If your slave is a man, you circumcise him by force. If your son is a man, you do not circumcise him by force. This refers to what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yasa: If somebody buys uncircumcised slaves from Gentiles on condition that he will circumcise them, in any case if they are slaves who are men, you circumcise them by force. On condition⁶²A condition negotiated with the slave trader. that he will not circumcise them, he is like a son who is a man, you do not circumcise him by force.

One verse says²⁸Deut. 16:8., you shall eat mazzot for six days; another verse says²⁹Ex. 12:5., seven days you shall eat mazzot. How is this? Six days from the new crop³⁰After the Omer ceremony on the second day of the Holiday of Unleavened Bread, when grain from the new harvest becomes permitted (Lev. 23:14). Sifry Deut. 134 in the name of R. Simeon, 5 generations after Hillel; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo, Parašah 8, anonymous., seven days from the old. He interpreted, and agreed, and immigrated, and received practice³¹He had found the solutions himself; he immigrated into Palestine to have his explanations accepted by Shemaya and Avtalion and to have it harmonized with existing practice..

“Nor with oil to be burned⁷Olive oil given as heave to a Cohen which became impure and therefore cannot be consumed. The Cohen may use it as fuel. But since it is holy, it is subject to the (rabbinic) rule that sancta may not be burned on a day on which defective sacrifices may not be burned, i. e., Sabbath or holiday..” Rav Ḥisda said, this implies that it is forbidden to start a fire on a pyre of sancta so it should continuously burn on the Sabbath⁴⁷Since impure heave, which belongs to the class of disabled sancta, may not be burned on the Sabbath. Babli 23b, Menaḥot 46b.. But have we not stated⁴⁸Mishnah 1:15 (Notes 22,23).: “One starts a fire at the fire place in the heating chamber, but outside the Temple only if the fire has started burning on most of the logs.” Rebbi Yose said, it is written about the Sabbath, do not do any work⁴⁹Ex. 20:10. Here starts a new Genizah leaf, Ginzberg p. 71 (G).; it is done automatically. But here the Torah said that one does not burn sancta on a holiday, not to speak of the Sabbath. What did you see that you said so? ⁵⁰Ex. 12:10. The mention of two “mornings” implies that different times are implied. Babli 24b, 133a, Pesaḥim 83b, Temurah 4b. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 6, end, dR. Simeon benYoḥai Bo p. 14.You shall not leave any leftovers until the morning; what is left over from it until morning you shall burn in fire. After two mornings, one the morning of the 15^th and the other the morning of the 16^th. And it is written, what is left of the well-being sacrifice should be burned on the third day⁵¹Lev. 7:17. The sacrifice may be eaten for two days and the intervening night..

“It is written: Any leavened matter you shall not eat¹⁶Ex. 12:20., to include Babylonian kutah, and Median beer, and Edomite vinegar, in the admonition. I might think that these are subject to extirpation, the verse says, for anybody who eats leavened bread will be extirpated¹⁷Ex. 12:15. Babli 33a, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Ba 10 (p. 35), dR. Simeon ben Yohay12:20 (p.24)..“The colleagues asked before Rebbi Jonah: Here it is written any, and there it is written any. Here you are adding but there you are excluding¹⁸Both in v. 15 and in v. 20 is written any. Why in matters of the prohibition one includes admixture of leavening but in matters of extirpation one excludes it?. He told them, there He added eaters but there He added edibles¹⁹In both cases, “any” implies addition and extension. In v. 15, any who eats, includes women who are obligated to eat mazzah even though this is a positive commandment activated at a fixed date from which in general women are exempted (Mishnah Qiddušin 1:7). V. 20 any leavened matter includes admixture of leavening to edibles.. They objected, was it not stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”²⁰Cf. Chapter 2, Note 233.. And for these²¹Median beer. One agrees that Babylonian kutah might not trigger extirpation since the amount of leavened matter is small, but why should beer, which essentially is water and malt, be treated differently from bread which is water and flour?, because they are mostly grain, he should be liable. He told them, there is a difference, for it is written bread, and these are not bread. Rebbi Yose objected, was it not stated that only mazzah is called bread, seven days you shall eat mazzot, the bread of deprivation²²Deut. 16:3. Since mazzah is called bread, it is clear that the positive commandment to eat mazzah can only be fulfilled by eating azyme bread. But leavened matter is always called חָמֵץ, and never is explicitly called “bread”; there seems to be no reason why extirpation should be restricted to those who eat bread.? But here you infer mazzah from leavened bread? In addition, from the following which was stated: “A person may acquit himself of his obligation with a soaked wafer, or a cooked wafer, as long as it did not lose its shape.²³Babli 41a, Berakhot 38b.” It only says, “as long as it did not lose its shape,” therefore not if it lost its shape. But in the matter of leavened bread you are saying, if he mashed leavened bread and slurped it, he is liable²⁴It is true that the positive commandment can be fulfilled only with bread but the prohibition extends to anything produced from leavened flour.. How is this? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Idi: Their²⁵The items enumerated in the Mishnah. leavening is not clear leavening. Should he be flogged? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Concerning flogging, he cannot be flogged, as it was stated: On certain leavened bread he is subject to extirpation, for its admixture he receives forty [lashes]²⁶Since Ex. 12:20 states a general prohibition for food with an admixture of leavened matter, transgression has to be punished by the generic punishment prescribed for all prohibitions for which no particular punishment is specified.
G has an additional sentence: “The word of Rebbi (probably meaning Rabbenu, i. e., Rav) implies that he is not flogged.” On the other hand, a sentence of the ms. text is missing in G because of homoioteleuton.. Rav said, that is sour dough. He could have said, that is Babylonian kutah, and Median beer²⁷Since Rav explains that one is flogged for consuming something containing an admixture of sour dough but not the items enumerated in the Mishnah, one may conclude that only active souring agent exposes one to flogging.. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: Explain it if leavened bread and mazzah were mixed²⁸The preceding argument may be irrelevant since the baraita can be explained as referring directly to bread, eaten alone or with other edibles.. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty for Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: Where do we hold? If most of it was leavened bread, he is subject to extirpation. If most of it is mazzah, he could use it to fulfill his obligation on Passover²⁹Since by biblical standards, anything greater than 50% is counted as whole. Since the mixture still is forbidden, the argument is possible only for R. Yose (cf. Šabbat 13, Note 56), but nobody else.. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Joshua from Ono stated: Explain it if the amount of leavened bread was less than the volume of an olive, following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, the most minute amount for flogging³⁰Babli Makkot 17a, Ševuot 21a, 24b, Menaḥot4a, Meˋilah18a. R. Simeon restricts the possibility of a purification sacrifice to the case that a person ingested at least the volume of an olive of food forbidden under punishment of extirpation (such as forbidden fat or leavened matter on Passover) but admits the possibility of criminal prosecution for the most minute amount..

“It is written: Any leavened matter you shall not eat¹⁶Ex. 12:20., to include Babylonian kutah, and Median beer, and Edomite vinegar, in the admonition. I might think that these are subject to extirpation, the verse says, for anybody who eats leavened bread will be extirpated¹⁷Ex. 12:15. Babli 33a, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Ba 10 (p. 35), dR. Simeon ben Yohay12:20 (p.24)..“The colleagues asked before Rebbi Jonah: Here it is written any, and there it is written any. Here you are adding but there you are excluding¹⁸Both in v. 15 and in v. 20 is written any. Why in matters of the prohibition one includes admixture of leavening but in matters of extirpation one excludes it?. He told them, there He added eaters but there He added edibles¹⁹In both cases, “any” implies addition and extension. In v. 15, any who eats, includes women who are obligated to eat mazzah even though this is a positive commandment activated at a fixed date from which in general women are exempted (Mishnah Qiddušin 1:7). V. 20 any leavened matter includes admixture of leavening to edibles.. They objected, was it not stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”²⁰Cf. Chapter 2, Note 233.. And for these²¹Median beer. One agrees that Babylonian kutah might not trigger extirpation since the amount of leavened matter is small, but why should beer, which essentially is water and malt, be treated differently from bread which is water and flour?, because they are mostly grain, he should be liable. He told them, there is a difference, for it is written bread, and these are not bread. Rebbi Yose objected, was it not stated that only mazzah is called bread, seven days you shall eat mazzot, the bread of deprivation²²Deut. 16:3. Since mazzah is called bread, it is clear that the positive commandment to eat mazzah can only be fulfilled by eating azyme bread. But leavened matter is always called חָמֵץ, and never is explicitly called “bread”; there seems to be no reason why extirpation should be restricted to those who eat bread.? But here you infer mazzah from leavened bread? In addition, from the following which was stated: “A person may acquit himself of his obligation with a soaked wafer, or a cooked wafer, as long as it did not lose its shape.²³Babli 41a, Berakhot 38b.” It only says, “as long as it did not lose its shape,” therefore not if it lost its shape. But in the matter of leavened bread you are saying, if he mashed leavened bread and slurped it, he is liable²⁴It is true that the positive commandment can be fulfilled only with bread but the prohibition extends to anything produced from leavened flour.. How is this? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Idi: Their²⁵The items enumerated in the Mishnah. leavening is not clear leavening. Should he be flogged? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Concerning flogging, he cannot be flogged, as it was stated: On certain leavened bread he is subject to extirpation, for its admixture he receives forty [lashes]²⁶Since Ex. 12:20 states a general prohibition for food with an admixture of leavened matter, transgression has to be punished by the generic punishment prescribed for all prohibitions for which no particular punishment is specified.
G has an additional sentence: “The word of Rebbi (probably meaning Rabbenu, i. e., Rav) implies that he is not flogged.” On the other hand, a sentence of the ms. text is missing in G because of homoioteleuton.. Rav said, that is sour dough. He could have said, that is Babylonian kutah, and Median beer²⁷Since Rav explains that one is flogged for consuming something containing an admixture of sour dough but not the items enumerated in the Mishnah, one may conclude that only active souring agent exposes one to flogging.. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: Explain it if leavened bread and mazzah were mixed²⁸The preceding argument may be irrelevant since the baraita can be explained as referring directly to bread, eaten alone or with other edibles.. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty for Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: Where do we hold? If most of it was leavened bread, he is subject to extirpation. If most of it is mazzah, he could use it to fulfill his obligation on Passover²⁹Since by biblical standards, anything greater than 50% is counted as whole. Since the mixture still is forbidden, the argument is possible only for R. Yose (cf. Šabbat 13, Note 56), but nobody else.. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Joshua from Ono stated: Explain it if the amount of leavened bread was less than the volume of an olive, following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, the most minute amount for flogging³⁰Babli Makkot 17a, Ševuot 21a, 24b, Menaḥot4a, Meˋilah18a. R. Simeon restricts the possibility of a purification sacrifice to the case that a person ingested at least the volume of an olive of food forbidden under punishment of extirpation (such as forbidden fat or leavened matter on Passover) but admits the possibility of criminal prosecution for the most minute amount..

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, leavened matter may only be eliminated by burning.⁶⁶The first and last paragraphs in this section are also quoted in the Babli, 27b–28a; Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yoḥay ad Ex. 12:15, pp. 17–18.. It is an argument de minore ad majus. Since piggul⁶⁷Sacrifices which were offered with the intention that the meat be eaten out of place or time; Lev. 19:7. and leftover⁶⁸Sacrificial meat left over after the time allotted for its consumption, depending on the kind of sacrifice either day and night or two daytimes with the night in between., which are not under an injunction not to be seen and not to be found, only may be disposed of by burning, for leavened matter which is under an injunction not to be seen and not to be found, it is only logical that it only may be disposed by burning. They told Rebbi Jehudah, any argument de minore ad majus which you argue in the beginning as a restriction but it turns out in the end to be a leniency, is no argument de minore ad majus⁶⁹The premise that there be a case of major and minor is disproved. Cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, Ph. Longworth, ed., London 1966, pp. 171–196.. It would imply that if he does not find fire he could sit and not dispose of it. The Torah said⁷⁰Ex. 12:15., eliminate sour dough from your houses.

Everybody is trustworthy about elimination of leavened matter, even women, even slaves. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: There is no “even” women. Women intrinsically are trustworthy; since they are slow they check everything very carefully. Samaritans any time when they prepare their mazzah with Jews⁶⁴If the Samaritan calendar has Passover on the same day as the rabbinic one. are trustworthy about checking for leavened matter; if they do not prepare their mazzah with Jews they are not trustworthy about checking for leavened matter. Rebbi Yose said, this means in the houses, but they are suspect in courtyards since they explain that it should not be found in your houses,⁶⁵Ex. 12:19. does not apply to your courtyards.

Rebbi Jehudah came back and presented another argument: Leavened matter is forbidden as food and leftover⁶⁸Sacrificial meat left over after the time allotted for its consumption, depending on the kind of sacrifice either day and night or two daytimes with the night in between. is forbidden as food. Since the latter is to be burned⁸¹Lev. 19:8., the former is to be burned. They told him, carcass meat disproves since it is forbidden as food and is not to be burned²⁰Deut. 14:21.. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food and for usufruct and leftover is forbidden as food and for usufruct; carcass meat does not disprove since it is not forbidden for usufruct. They told him, the stoned ox³⁴The Babli 24b explains that one might use fat from the stoned ox to cover a wound.
The ox was stoned by order of the court because it killed humans (Ex. 21:28–29). Its meat is forbidden for usufruct as explained in the sequel. Cf. Mekhilta dR.Ismael Mišpaṭim10 (p. 282). disproves which is forbidden as food and for usufruct⁸²Since it says, its meat may not be eaten(Ex. 21:18) in the passive voice, according to everybody this implies prohibition of usufruct. and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation⁸³Ex. 12:19., [and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation]⁸⁴Lev. 19:8.; the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not make liable for extirpation. They told him, the fat⁸⁵Lev. 7:25. of the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time; the fat of the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not depend on time. They told him, a suspended sacrifice⁸⁶The sacrifice by a person who suspects that he inadvertently committed a deadly sin. He may not bring a purification sacrifice since that is possible only if there is proof of inadvertent sin; Lev. 5:17–19. following your opinion⁸⁷In Mishnah Temurah 7:6 it is stated that Sages hold that the body of an animal dedicated as a hung sacrifice which was wrongly slaughtered has to be burned, but R. Jehudah requires that it be buried. does disprove since it is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, [but is not to be burned]. Rebbi Jehudah remained silent⁸⁸And practice does not follow him..

Who disagrees?⁴⁸With the criterion of three stars for the start of night. Rebbi Ḥanina the Colleague of the Rabbis⁴⁹He usually goes by the name of R. Ḥananiah the Colleague of the Rabbis, a Babylonian who was an important teacher of the leaders of the fourth generation of Amoraim but who never headed a talmudic academy. He insists that it is logical to assert that as long as three stars can still be seen at dawn it is night even though it is relatively light and (Mishnah 5) one may well distinguish between dark blue and white, or between dark blue and dark green. Hence, since the theory of the three stars contradicts the Mishnah it must be invalid. asked: Just as you say in the evening that it is night if three stars are visible even though the sun is in the middle of the sky it is night, so you must say the same thing in the morning. Rebbi Abba⁵⁰R. Abba also was a Babylonian, a student of Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah in Babylonia, who went to Israel and became a rich silk merchant and talmudic authority of the third generation of Amoraim, a contemporary of R. Ḥanina the Colleague of the Rabbis. His argument parallels the previous one but, since it is based on Biblical verses, it seems to be an attack on the Mishnah which gives different treatments to dawn and dusk.
The first verse asserts that Lot came to Zoar at sunrise. The second verse asserts that the Cohen who had cleansed himself from impurity is purified at nightfall as explained earlier. The argument seems to center on the ambiguous statement “the sun will come and he will be pure.” Everywhere, the “coming” of the sun is its going, sundown or nightfall. In the first verse, the coming of Lot to Zoar is real coming, parallel to the going out of the sun. Hence, in the first verse coming and going out are the same. It would follow that, in the second verse also, coming must have the same status as going out since it is one of the principles of Rabbinic interpretation that Biblical expressions have the same meaning at every occurrence (a principle known as gĕzērāh šāwāh.) Hence, the different treatment of dawn and dusk in the Mishnah seems to contradict the principles of Rabbinic Bible interpretation. said: It is written (Gen. 19:23): “The sun went out over the earth and Lot came to Zoar.” And it is written (Lev. 22:7): “The sun will come and he shall be pure.” He brackets going out and coming. Since coming means that it is hidden from the creatures so also its coming out when it will be ascertained by the creatures. Rebbi Abba⁵¹It is not known if this Rebbi Abba, solving the puzzle, is the same as the author of the preceding question or another sage of the same name. The editorial principle of the Babli, to quote an authority the first time as פלוני אמר and the following times as אמר פלוני or ואמר פלוני does not apply to the Yerushalmi. said, it is written (Gen. 43:3): “In the morning it was light.” The Torah called the light morning.⁵²The Biblical text tells of Joseph’s brothers leaving Egypt to return to Canaan. Hence, it means the first dawn which was the first possible time for their leaving, and the Biblical verse connects the technical meaning of “morning” with the first light of dawn. Hence, the asymmetry of treating dawn and dusk is Biblical and Rebbi Ḥanina’s and Rebbi Abba’s arguments are unjustified. Rebbi Ismael⁵³He is a Tanna, an older contemporary of Rebbi Akiba and head of his own school. The sentence is a quote from an anonymous statement in Mekhilta dĕRibbi Ishmaël, Bo, 6): “ ‘They shall eat the meat during that night’; from here I understand during the entire night. The verse says ‘do not leave any leftovers until morning; but anything left over until morning you shall burn in fire.’ Why does the verse repeat ‘until morning’? To give a domain to the earliest part of morning. From here they said (Mishnah 3–4): ‘The consumption of the Passover sacrifice and all other sacrifices, the burning of their parts on the altar can be done until the start of dawn and all sacrifices that must be eaten within one day can be eaten until the start of dawn.’ Why did the Sages decree (that all must be done) until midnight? To remove people from transgression and to make a fence around the Torah.”
This is an additional indication that the earliest possible sign of dawn is the Biblical start of a new day. stated: (Ex. 12:10) “In the morning, in the morning,” to give a domain to the very early morning.

It was stated: Before the time of its elimination you eliminate it in any way you wish; at the time of its elimination you eliminate it by burning. This follows Rebbi Jehudah. There are Tannaim who state, before the time of its elimination you eliminate it by burning; at the time of its elimination you eliminate it in any way you wish⁸⁹The Babli disagrees, 12b.. This follows the rabbis. Rebbi says, remove sour dough from your houses, anything which may not be seen nor found⁹⁰Ex. 12:15. Rebbi disagrees with both the preceding baraitot. Since it is spelled out in Chapter 13 that on Passover sour matter may neither be seen nor found, the only acceptable form of removal both before noontime of the 14^th or at noontime is by burning which transforms everything into ashes. If one would bury the leavened matter or crumble it and scatter it in the wind, it still would exist and could be found. 90a The firstling of a donkey which was not redeemed by a lamb given to a Cohen must be killed by breaking its neck (Ex.13:13). An animal which killed a human must be stoned (Ex. 21:28). If both conditions apply there are no rules to decide which precept to apply.. How is this? By burning. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if the firstling of a donkey killed, what is the form of his execution? By breaking the neck or by stoning^90a? Rebbi Benjamin bar Levi asked about leftover flat-bread from a thanksgiving sacrifice, should we say that if they were left before the time ofelimination you may eliminate it in any way you wish; at the time of its elimination you have to eliminate it by burning⁹¹A thanksgiving offering must be accompanied by leavened bread (Chapter 1, Notes 34, 143). The argument is that if the offering was brought on the 14^th of Nisan (cf. Chapter 1, Note 148) and there was no time to eat the bread, it is not biblical leftover; before noontime any elimination is purely rabbinical and can be done in any way. At noontime it no longer can be eaten by biblical standards, it becomes biblical leftover before its time and has to be burned. That latter statement is independent of the disagreements between R. Jehudah, Rebbi, and the Sages.?

“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.

Is bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain a matter of Sabbath rest⁵⁸Since the argument of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua is about rabbinic restrictions because of Sabbath rest, it is implied that the list of items in Mishnah 2 about which R. Eliezer dissents contains only rabbinic prohibitions. But bringing anything from outside the Sabbath domain is a biblical prohibition.? ⁵⁹The next sentences are from Eruvin 3, Notes 127–131. This supports what Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation! He said to him, is there not written⁶⁰Ex. 12:9. This belongs to the discussion there whether all pentateuchal prohibitions are legally prosecutable, or only those formulated as לֹא whereas those introduced by the negation אַל are simply moral obligations. Since the latter then cannot be enforced in court by biblical standards, they are equal in rank to rabbinic prohibitions., do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written⁶¹Ex. 16:28., stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition⁶²This is the end of the parallel in Eruvin3.. Is cutting its wart with an implement a matter of Sabbath rest⁶³This is making a wound, biblically forbidden under the category of slaughtering.? Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina stated only carrying it and bringing it; therefore not cutting its wart⁶⁴In Mishnah 1, he does not read “cutting its wart”.. That is because he thinks it⁶⁵Cutting the wart. Everybody agrees that biting off the wart is unprofessional, therefore does not create liability, and is only rabbinically forbidden. is with an implement. Therefore if he were not of the opinion that it was with an implement, would it be a matter of Sabbath rest? ⁶⁶Quoted from Eruvin 10(7), Note 64. It is stated there that cutting the wart creates liability only if done professionally with a surgeon’s knife. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, where do they disagree? If he removed it with an implement. But if another person removed it it is disgusting⁶⁷Therefore not causing biblical liability. Babli Šabbat 94b., and is not the sacrifice another? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference because there is written “a sacrifice”. Rebbi Mana said, sprinkling⁶⁸Purifying a person impure by the impurity of the dead by sprinkling with water containing of the ashes of the Red Cow. In Second Temple times this was a public act (Mishnah Parah 11:4) not performed on the Sabbath. is a matter of Sabbath rest, and these are because of Sabbath rest. Sprinkling is pushed aside⁶⁹If the 14th of Nisan is a Sabbath and a person’s seventh day of impurity falls on that day, he may not be purified by sprinkling, but this is not biblically forbidden, and he has to celebrate his Pesaḥ on the 14th of Iyar. Cf. Mishnaiot 3,4. but these should not be pushed aside? Only that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices. The word of Rebbi Zeˋira implies that there is no difference between sacrifice and sacrificer: Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated Bar Qappara’s before Rebbi Zeˋira: I wonder how Rebbi Eliezer received Rebbi Joshua’s answer that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices⁷⁰Since R. Joshua’s argument is about the slaughterer, not the animal being slaughtered.? He told him, Bar Qappara was wondering, Rebbi Eliezer was not wondering⁷¹Their discussion makes sense only if there is no difference whether one speaks about sacrifice or sacrificer. This confirms what R. Zeˋira said..

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.

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.

And it came to pass at midnight, that the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt,²Ex. 12, 29. etc.; and it is written, For all the first-born among the children of Israel are Mine, both men and beast; on the day that I smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, I sanctified them for Myself.³Num. 8, 17. R. Joḥanan said: Although He smote them with the plague of death at midnight, the souls writhed within them until morning. A common proverb says, ‘If you give a morsel of bread to a child, inform his mother’.⁴Cf. Beẓah 16a (Sonc. ed., p. 81) where it is quoted, not as a proverb, but as a saying of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. Likewise, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘I will inform My children of the death by choking⁵GRA’s emendation of a verb in the text meaning ‘which silences’. of which their enemies are dying. Let their souls await the morning [before expiring], so that My children shall look upon [the fate of] their enemies’.

MISHNAH: If somebody eats the volume of an olive of maẓẓah from them¹⁰¹The five kinds mentioned in Mishnah 1. on Passover¹⁰²More exactly, the first night of the holiday as spelled out in Ex. 12:18: “In the evening you have to eat maẓẓah.” The remaining days of Passover, leavened bread is forbidden but maẓẓah is not required; one might live without bread., he did his duty, the volume of an olive of leavened [bread], he is subject to being cut off¹⁰³Ex. 12:19. The punishment of “being cut off” is divine punishment, not of the earthly court.. If one of them is mixed with other kinds¹⁰⁴It is sinful to keep on Passover any leavened mixture made from flour of one of the five kinds mixed with other edible material. one transgresses on Passover. He who takes a vow not to use bread or produce¹⁰⁵In the talmudic vocabulary, תבואה only means “grain.” But as shown in Halakhah 3, in biblical language the word means “any agricultural yield.” is forbidden them, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, he who takes a vow not to use flour is only forbidden these¹⁰⁶This is a shortened version of Mishnah Nedarim 7:2: “He who takes a vow not to use flour is forbidden even dry Egyptian bean, the words of R. Meïr; but the Sages say, he is only forbidden the five kinds. R. Meïr says, he who takes a vow not to use grain is forbidden only the five kinds.”. They are subject to ḥallah and tithes¹⁰⁷As a matter of biblical law..

MISHNAH: An impure person who ate holy food¹²Lev. 7:20,21; transgressions punishable by extirpation., or who came into the Temple when impure¹³Num. 19:13.. One who eats fat¹⁴Lev. 7:25., or blood¹⁵Lev. 7:27., or leftover, or piggul¹⁶Lev. 19:8., or impure¹⁷“Leftover” refers to meat from acceptable sacrifices which was not eaten during the statutory time limit. Piggul is a sacrifice which was offered with the idea in mind (of the offerer or the officiating priest) that it should be eaten out of its allotted time (or place); Lev. 7:18,19:8. The root of piggul probably is فجل “to be soft”. [sacrificial meat]. One who sacrifices outside¹⁹Lev. 17:4., or one who eats leavened matter on Passover²⁰Ex. 12:19.. One who eats or does work on the Day of Atonement²¹Lev. 23:29–30., and one who compounds the oil²²Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., or compounds the incense²³For profane purposes, Ex. 30:38. Incense had to be compounded fresh every year., and who rubs with the anointing oil²²Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., and one who eats carcass²⁴Deut. 14:21, a simple prohibition. or torn meat²⁵Ex. 22:30, a simple prohibition., abominations and crawling things²⁶Lev. 11:11,44.. If one ate ṭevel²⁷Fully harvested produce of which the priests’ heave was not taken; Lev. 22:10. or first tithe from which heave was not taken²⁸The obligation is Num. 18:28, the penalty Num. 18:32., or second tithe²⁹Outside the place of the Sanctuary it needs redemption, Deut. 14:24. or dedicated food³⁰Donated to the Temple to be sold for its value, not dedicated to the altar; Lev. 27:11. which was not redeemed. How much does he have to eat from ṭevel to be liable? Rebbi Simeon says, anything; but the Sages say, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Simeon told them, do you not agree that one who eats (carcass meat) [an ant]³¹In editio princeps and ms., נבילה “carcass meat”. In all other sources נמלה “ant”. The latter reading is the only one which makes sense since it both is forbidden (Lev. 11:42) and much less than the size of an olive. is liable? They told him, because it is a creature. He answered them, also a grain of wheat³²Given as heave (biblically restricted to grain, wine, and olive oil). is a creature.

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?

“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?

If he broke a bone of it when it still was daylight. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable, and there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable⁵¹Babli 84b.. He who says that he is liable, do not break a bone in it⁵²Ex. 12:46. etc., in any case. But he who says that he is not liable, at a time when he is not obligated to eat fire-roasted there is no do not break a bone in it; at a time when he is obligated to eat fire-roasted there is do not break a bone in it.

May one light an idle candle⁸⁹A candle lit for no particular purpose.? Ḥizqiah said, it is forbidden. A baraita disagreed with Ḥizqiah: “Do not make fire in all of your dwelling places on Sabbath day⁹⁰Ex. 35:3.. On the Sabbath you may not make fire, but you make fire on a holiday.⁹¹The last baraita in Mekhilta dR. Ismael.” If you would say, we deal with cases connected with food, is there not written, only what can be eaten by any breathing being, that alone may be made by you⁹²Ex. 12:16.. Therefore what we are dealing with an idle candle⁹³The argument goes as follows. From the verse quoted first we infer that making a fire is forbidden only on the Sabbath, therefore not on the holiday. The verse quoted second implies that one has to cook, and therefore make fire, on a holiday. If the permission to make fire were restricted to the preparation of food, the inference from the first verse would not be needed. Therefore the permission to make fire extends to fire not needed for the preparation of food; e. g., for lighting. This still does not cover permission for candles lit for no particular purpose.. Rebbi Avuna said, it was stated there⁹⁴The reference is to Mishnai 1:6, where the House of Hillel argue that carrying from a private into the public domain is permitted for any purpose since it is permitted to transport food. Similarly they must argue that making a fire is permitted for any purpose since it is permitted for making food. This still requires an argument that a candle lit for no particular purpose still increases the enjoyment of the holiday., the House of Shammai forbid but the House of Hillel permit. Rebbi Naḥum the brother of Rebbi Ila asked before Rebbi Joḥanan. He said to him, do neither forbid nor permit⁹⁵One cannot forbid since one follows the teachings of the House of Hillel. One cannot permit since there is no proof that a candle lit for no particular purpose increases the enjoyment of the holiday. (As noted earlier, the permission to make fire does not include permission to generate new fire, Note 85.).

It was stated: One does neither select, nor grind, nor sift. He who selects, or grinds, or sifts, on the Sabbath is stoned. On a holiday he absorbs the 40³²⁶The 39 lashes which are the standard punishment for breaking biblical prohibitions for which no other biblical punishment is specified. The Babli disagrees and declares these activities only rabbinically prohibited on a holiday, cf. Tosaphot 95a, s. v. והרודה.
While preparing food is biblically permitted on a holiday as shown later in the paragraph, there is a dispute between the anonymous majority and R. Jehudah whether this includes preparations which could have been made the day before without impairing the quality of the food, which the majority prohibits and R. Jehudah and Rabban Gamliel permit. It is stated here that for the majority the prohibition is biblical, at least concerning preparations for baking.. But did we not state³²⁷Mishnah Beṣah 1:9. This is the version of the Mishnah always quoted in Halakhot.: “he selects normally, on his chest, or from a pot”? Rebbi Ḥanina from Antonia said, this is Rabban Gamliel’s, for “Rabban Gamliel says, also he puts them in water and scoops off.” And (did we not state) [was it not stated]³²⁸The text in parentheses from the Leiden ms. is inferior to that of the other two sources in brackets., in the household of Rabban Gamliel they were grinding pepper in their mills³¹⁴This and the following paragraphs are from Beṣah 1:10 (י) and refer to Mishnah Beṣah 1:9: “The House of Shammai say, he who selects legumes on a holiday selects the food and eats. But the House of Hillel say, he selects normally, on his chest, or from a basket, or from a pot, but not on a table, nor with a sieve. Rabban Gamliel says, also he puts them in water and scoops off.” The House of Shammai permit only to pick out the edible parts and eat them directly. The House of Hillel hold that separating the beans from the chaff belongs to the activities permitted as preparation of food and in principle permit any kind of selection; they only require that it should not be done in a weekday fashion. They certainly will agree that the restrictions are purely rabbinical.? It is permitted to grind but forbidden to select. Rebbi Yose (in the name of Rebbi Ila) [ben Rebbi Abun]³²⁸The text in parentheses from the Leiden ms. is inferior to that of the other two sources in brackets.: Grinding as a category was not permitted³²⁹Rabban Gamliel will agree that milling flour is biblically forbidden on a holiday; he will hold that grinding pepper in a peppermill is not professionally grinding and not something which may be done the day before without impairing the quality of the spice.. And from where that one may neither select, nor grind, nor sift? Rebbi (Yose) [Aḥa]³²⁸The text in parentheses from the Leiden ms. is inferior to that of the other two sources in brackets. in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: No work shall be done on them up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread³³⁰Ex. 12:16–17. The text omitted by the quote “up to” permits preparation of food on a holiday, as quoted later in the paragraph.. (It was stated.)³³¹This has to be deleted with the other two sources. Rebbi Yose asked, but did one not infer cooking only from there? Rebbi Yose did not say so, but Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Only what can be eaten by every person this alone may be made by you, up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread³³²There is nothing missing between the two quotes, so that the note “up to” seems to be superfluous. The meaning is explained in Tosaphot Beṣah 3a s.v. גזרה (at the end): vv. 16,17 form a unit: what can be eaten by every person this alone may be made by you, and you shall guard the unleavened bread. Any preparation of mazzah which requires guarding against possible leavening is permitted on the holiday, anything preceding this, i. e., mixing flour with water to make dough, is forbidden.. Ḥizqiah stated in disagreement³³³Against the Mishnah where the House of Hillel permit selecting. G ends here.: only, every, person, are diminutions, not to select, nor to grind, nor to sift on a holiday.

He who burns potter’s³⁵⁰Reading קדר “potter” for unexplained קרד. clay, softens glass³⁵¹Following G, reading Greek βῶλος, ἡ, “lump, clod”., melts pitch, melts ³⁵²This word is unexplained. In other contexts, מוסר is “one who delivers; informant”. Cf. Greek μίσυ, -υος and -εως, τό, “copper ore from Cyprus” (E. G.).מוסרין. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: One who melts down lead is liable because of cooking³⁵³Babli 106a, Yebamot 6b.. One who roasts, or who fries, who preserves by cooking, or by smoking, all these because of cooking. If somebody cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias, what³⁵⁴Cooking in hot springs may be forbidden rabbinically; it cannot cause liability. Babli 40b.? Ḥizqiah said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Ḥizqiah; for Ḥizqiah it was a problem: what if the Passover sacrifice was cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias³⁵⁵The question is quite difficult since the Passover must be slaughtered in the Temple and roasted and eaten nearby. The question is really if the Passover was treated by what biblically is not cooking before being roasted, whether this invalidates the sacrifice.? Two Amoraim, one said, it is forbidden; the other said, it is permitted. He who said, it is forbidden, do not eat from it raw, nor cooked in water³⁵⁶Ex. 12:9. The first part of the verse invalidates the sacrifice heated by hot water.. But he who said, it is permitted, but only roasted in fire, its head with its feet and its innards³⁵⁷The second part of the verse validates it if the formal preparation was roasting over an open fire..

MISHNAH: One who eats First Fruits before he recited over them³³First Fruits have to be eaten by the priest (Deut. 12:17) after the Temple ceremony. This point is in dispute between R. Aqiba and others., or most holy sacrifices outside the Temple enclosure³⁴They are restricted to priests (Lev.10:15)., or simple sacrifices or Second Tithe outside of the wall³⁵Lev. 10:14 for priests, Deut. 12:17 for others.. One who breaks a bone of a pure Passover sacrifice is flogged 40 [lashes]³⁶Ex. 12:46.. But one who leaves over of the pure³⁷Example of a prohibition subordinated to a positive commandment; cf. Note 1. or breaks a bone of the impure³⁸It lost its holiness. is not flogged 40 [lashes].

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah says,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Jehudah, corresponding to the three times that in the Torah is written, leavening shall not be seen as yours⁸⁸Twice in Ex. 13:7, once in Deut. 16:4.. But is it not written⁸⁹Ex. 12:15., you shall remove leavening from your houses? That is a positive commandment. But is it not written⁹⁰Ex. 12:19., for seven days leavening shall not be found in your houses? Rebbi Yose said, since they are mutually needed⁹¹As explained in the sequel., they are as one. It should not be seen as yours, I would have said, if somebody⁹²A Gentile’s leavened matter, which is exempt from Jewish law. But if it is a deposit, i. e., that the Jew is responsible for damages, it becomes the Jew’s property for the rules of Passover. deposited with him it should be permitted. The verse says, it shall not be found in your houses. If it shall not be found in your houses, if he gave him a separate place⁹³A Gentile’s leavened matter stored at a separate place for which the Jewish owner of the place accepts no responsibility may stay there over Passover. Babli 6a. it should be forbidden. The verse says, it shall not be seen as yours. How is this? If he deposited with him it is forbidden; if he gave him a separate place it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah if it became impure after rolling. But if it became impure before rolling, he should make them into pieces of single qab⁶⁷After kneading the dough was shaped ready to be baked. This is the end of preparation of dough and, as for all heave, the completion of processing induces the obligation of heave. While the obligation of ḥallah starts only with completion of the dough, the possibility of giving ḥallah legally exists from the moment the preparation of the dough has begun. Later in this paragraph R. Yose ben R. Abun notes that it became customary to give ḥallah from pure dough at the earliest possible moment, to protect it from possible impurity during processing. Mishnah Ḥallah 3:1 states that the obligation of ḥallah exists only for a dough of ⁵/₄ qab of flour. Using impure flour on a holiday one is required to make loaves not larger than 1 qab (of 4 log of 4 quartarii); then the dough is never obligated for ḥallah and the problem of the Mishnah does not even start.. If it was kneaded on the holiday. But if it was kneaded before the holiday, it is as it was stated:⁶⁸Tosephta Yom Ṭov 1:14. The text from here to the end of the paragraph is repeated in Beṣah 1:7 (צ). “if one kneads dough on a holiday, he separates its ḥallah on the holiday. If he kneaded it before the holiday but forgot to take its ḥallah, it is forbidden to move it; it is unnecessary to say, to take ḥallah from it.” If he mixed water and flour? He only mentioned “kneaded”, so not when he mixed⁶⁹Even though Mishnah Ḥallah 3:1 permits separating ḥallah immediately after mixing the flour with water.? Rebbi Samuel, brother of Rebbi Berekhiah, said: explain it if the dough was impure where he takes ḥallah only at the end. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it should have been the rule that for pure dough one should take ḥallah only at the end. They instituted that one should take it at the start, lest the dough become impure⁷⁰Since then only the ḥallah has to be guarded from impurity but not the dough itself.. The Mishnah is about the holiday of Passover; therefore on Pentecost and Tabernacles it is permitted⁷¹The remark applies both to Mishnah Pesaḥim 3:3 and Tosephta Yom Ṭov 1:14.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, even on Pentecost and Tabernacles it is prohibited, because of no work shall be done on them⁷²Ex. 12:16. Since impure ḥallah may not be eaten, it may not be baked on a holiday..

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah says,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Jehudah, corresponding to the three times that in the Torah is written, leavening shall not be seen as yours⁸⁸Twice in Ex. 13:7, once in Deut. 16:4.. But is it not written⁸⁹Ex. 12:15., you shall remove leavening from your houses? That is a positive commandment. But is it not written⁹⁰Ex. 12:19., for seven days leavening shall not be found in your houses? Rebbi Yose said, since they are mutually needed⁹¹As explained in the sequel., they are as one. It should not be seen as yours, I would have said, if somebody⁹²A Gentile’s leavened matter, which is exempt from Jewish law. But if it is a deposit, i. e., that the Jew is responsible for damages, it becomes the Jew’s property for the rules of Passover. deposited with him it should be permitted. The verse says, it shall not be found in your houses. If it shall not be found in your houses, if he gave him a separate place⁹³A Gentile’s leavened matter stored at a separate place for which the Jewish owner of the place accepts no responsibility may stay there over Passover. Babli 6a. it should be forbidden. The verse says, it shall not be seen as yours. How is this? If he deposited with him it is forbidden; if he gave him a separate place it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: From where that he needs to slaughter for those who will eat it? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: For each man according to his eating you shall cut¹⁰⁷Ex. 12:4. This translation reads the hapax תָּכֹ֖סּוּ with Ibn Ezra as derived from a root כסס “to cut into pieces”, as in Accadic. R. Josia reads it as imperative of Syriac נכס “to slaughter”. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo Parašah 3, end. Differetly Babli, 61a, 78b.
K reads: For each man according to his eating, one has to slaughter according to its eaters.. Rebbi Josia said, it is a Syriac expresssion, as if a person say to his neighbor, slaughter for me this lamb.

⁶¹Most of this text belongs to Pesahim 1:4. The scribe of the Leiden ms., after the text translated here in the first 5 paragraphs, wrote: “one continues in Sanhedrin until ˋthe sun never starts setting’.” The corrector who prepared the ms. for the Venice printer added the omitted portion; his text differs from the one given here by both an addition and a lacuna. It is impossible to decide whether the corrector’s Pesahim text is copied from a different ms. or represents the corrector’s emendations of the Sanhedrin text. In neither text is the use of references “here” and “there” (either Pesaḥim or Sanhedrin) completely consistent. Rebbi Meïr says, from noontime on it is from their words; Rebbi Jehudah says, from noontime on it is biblical⁶²The main topic of the following section is the prohibition of leavened matter on Passover. It is agreed by everybody that leavened matter must be disposed of by noontime (the end of the sixth hour) of the 14^th of Nisan. In Mishnah Pesahim 1:4, R. Meïr states that “one eats [leavened bread] during all of the fifth hour (between 10 and 11 am local time) and burns the remainder at the start of the sixth hour (shortly after 11 am). R. Jehudah says, one eats during the entire fourth hour (9 to 10 am local time), one suspends leavened matter during the fifth hour and burns the remainder at the start of the sixth. (“Suspending” means that eating leavened matter is forbidden but usufruct is permitted.)
The anonymous majority in Sanhedrin 5:3 is presumed to represent R. Meïr’s opinion. The question now remains whether the disagreement between R. Meïr and R. Jehudah in Sanhedrin is the same as in Pesahim or not.. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Only on the first day⁶³Ex. 12:15: Seven days you shall eat mazzot; only on the first day you shall eliminate sour dough from your houses … אַךְ might also be translated as “certainly”., that is the fifteenth⁶⁴Ex. 12:14 states: This day shall be a remembrance for you; you shall keep it as a holiday of pilgrimage for the Eternal … Num. 28:15–16 require that the 14^th of Nisan be pesah for the Eternal; starting from the 15^th for seven days it is the holiday of mazzot. Since pesaḥ (i. e., the day of the slaughter of the pesah sacrifice) is connected inextricably with the holiday of mazzot, the reference in v. 14 to the “first day” is intrinsically ambiguous, whether it refer to pesaḥ or to the holiday.. I could think at nightfall; the verse says only, to separate⁶⁵A similar argument is in the Babli, Pesaḥim 4b, Mekhilta dR. Ismael (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 28), Mekhilta dR. Simeon b. Ioḥai (ed. Epstein-Melamed p. 17).. How is this? Give it one hour before sundown⁶⁶I. e., the only biblical requirement is that all leavened matter be completely disposed of before the holiday at sundown.. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Only on the first day⁶³Ex. 12:15: Seven days you shall eat mazzot; only on the first day you shall eliminate sour dough from your houses … אַךְ might also be translated as “certainly”., that is the fourteenth. I could think the entire day; the verse says only, to separate. Half for leavened matter, half for mazzah. Rebbi Meïr’s argument seems inverted. There, he said only to add; here he said only to diminish⁶⁷It seems that this refers to Ex. 12:16: … no work shall be done[on the holidays], only what may be eaten by any soul,it alone may be made by you. Everybody agrees that food may be prepared on a holiday. According to R. Meïr (i. e., the anonymous opinion in Mishnah Megillah 1:8) only food may be prepared, not preparations necessary for the preparation of food. According to R. Jehudah (Megillah 1:8), anything that in the end leads to preparation of food is permitted on a holiday. R. Meïr reads only as a restriction in v. 16 and as an addition in v. 15!. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he diminished, lest it be for⁶⁸Read with the Pesahim text בחמץ instead of מחמץ. The extension of a prohibition parallels the restriction of a permission. leavened matter. Rebbi Meïr said, do not eat leavened matter with it⁶⁹Deut. 16:3, referring to the pesah sacrifice which is slaughtered on the afternoon of the 14^th and eaten in the night of the 15^th., while it is eaten. Rebbi Jehudah said, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is prepared⁷⁰In the afternoon of the 14^th. This supports R. Jehudah’s contention that leavened matter is biblically forbidden in the afternoon of the 14^th; Sifry Deut. 130..

⁶¹Most of this text belongs to Pesahim 1:4. The scribe of the Leiden ms., after the text translated here in the first 5 paragraphs, wrote: “one continues in Sanhedrin until ˋthe sun never starts setting’.” The corrector who prepared the ms. for the Venice printer added the omitted portion; his text differs from the one given here by both an addition and a lacuna. It is impossible to decide whether the corrector’s Pesahim text is copied from a different ms. or represents the corrector’s emendations of the Sanhedrin text. In neither text is the use of references “here” and “there” (either Pesaḥim or Sanhedrin) completely consistent. Rebbi Meïr says, from noontime on it is from their words; Rebbi Jehudah says, from noontime on it is biblical⁶²The main topic of the following section is the prohibition of leavened matter on Passover. It is agreed by everybody that leavened matter must be disposed of by noontime (the end of the sixth hour) of the 14^th of Nisan. In Mishnah Pesahim 1:4, R. Meïr states that “one eats [leavened bread] during all of the fifth hour (between 10 and 11 am local time) and burns the remainder at the start of the sixth hour (shortly after 11 am). R. Jehudah says, one eats during the entire fourth hour (9 to 10 am local time), one suspends leavened matter during the fifth hour and burns the remainder at the start of the sixth. (“Suspending” means that eating leavened matter is forbidden but usufruct is permitted.)
The anonymous majority in Sanhedrin 5:3 is presumed to represent R. Meïr’s opinion. The question now remains whether the disagreement between R. Meïr and R. Jehudah in Sanhedrin is the same as in Pesahim or not.. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Only on the first day⁶³Ex. 12:15: Seven days you shall eat mazzot; only on the first day you shall eliminate sour dough from your houses … אַךְ might also be translated as “certainly”., that is the fifteenth⁶⁴Ex. 12:14 states: This day shall be a remembrance for you; you shall keep it as a holiday of pilgrimage for the Eternal … Num. 28:15–16 require that the 14^th of Nisan be pesah for the Eternal; starting from the 15^th for seven days it is the holiday of mazzot. Since pesaḥ (i. e., the day of the slaughter of the pesah sacrifice) is connected inextricably with the holiday of mazzot, the reference in v. 14 to the “first day” is intrinsically ambiguous, whether it refer to pesaḥ or to the holiday.. I could think at nightfall; the verse says only, to separate⁶⁵A similar argument is in the Babli, Pesaḥim 4b, Mekhilta dR. Ismael (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 28), Mekhilta dR. Simeon b. Ioḥai (ed. Epstein-Melamed p. 17).. How is this? Give it one hour before sundown⁶⁶I. e., the only biblical requirement is that all leavened matter be completely disposed of before the holiday at sundown.. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Only on the first day⁶³Ex. 12:15: Seven days you shall eat mazzot; only on the first day you shall eliminate sour dough from your houses … אַךְ might also be translated as “certainly”., that is the fourteenth. I could think the entire day; the verse says only, to separate. Half for leavened matter, half for mazzah. Rebbi Meïr’s argument seems inverted. There, he said only to add; here he said only to diminish⁶⁷It seems that this refers to Ex. 12:16: … no work shall be done[on the holidays], only what may be eaten by any soul,it alone may be made by you. Everybody agrees that food may be prepared on a holiday. According to R. Meïr (i. e., the anonymous opinion in Mishnah Megillah 1:8) only food may be prepared, not preparations necessary for the preparation of food. According to R. Jehudah (Megillah 1:8), anything that in the end leads to preparation of food is permitted on a holiday. R. Meïr reads only as a restriction in v. 16 and as an addition in v. 15!. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he diminished, lest it be for⁶⁸Read with the Pesahim text בחמץ instead of מחמץ. The extension of a prohibition parallels the restriction of a permission. leavened matter. Rebbi Meïr said, do not eat leavened matter with it⁶⁹Deut. 16:3, referring to the pesah sacrifice which is slaughtered on the afternoon of the 14^th and eaten in the night of the 15^th., while it is eaten. Rebbi Jehudah said, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is prepared⁷⁰In the afternoon of the 14^th. This supports R. Jehudah’s contention that leavened matter is biblically forbidden in the afternoon of the 14^th; Sifry Deut. 130..

“The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Since at a time when I forbid to the private person I am permitting it for Heaven, when it is permitted for the private person is it not logical that it be permitted for Heaven? The House of Shammai said to them, vows and voluntary gifts are proof, since they are permitted to the private person but forbidden to Heaven. The House of Hillel said to them, no. If you are speaking about vows and voluntary gifts which have no fixed time, what does this imply for the festival offering which has a fixed time? The House of Shammai answered them, the festival offering has no fixed time since if he did not offer it on the first day, he may offer it on the second day, if he did not offer it on the second day, he may offer it on the third day. The House of Hillel told them, the festival offering has a fixed time, for if he did not offer it on the holiday of pilgrimage he may not offer it after the holiday. The House of Shammai said to them, is it not already said: only what can be eaten by any person this alone may be made for you¹³⁸Ex. 12:16.? The House of Hillel answered them, is that a proof? For you it may not be made, [but] it is made for Heaven. Abba Shaul says it was based on another reason: Since when your stove is closed down, your Master’s stove is open, when your stove is open it only is logical that your Master’s stove should be open. Another explanation: It is not in order that your table should be full but the table of your (Master) [Creator] be empty.”

The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted⁹⁴It is not spelled out what other opinion of R. Jehudah is in conflict with his statement in the Mishnah. It seems that while he is stringent in the requirement of triple checking before the holiday he is lenient in not requiring anything afterwards if checking was not done by the time of elimination.. As we have stated, “Rebbi Jehudah says, one checks at nightfall of the Fourteenth, and on the mourning of the Fourteenth, and at the time of elimination⁵Ex. 12:17–18.. But the Sages say, if he did not check at nightfall of the Fourteenth, he has to check on the Fourteenth.” Does he have to check three times? Since at a time before its term of elimination you are saying that he has to check three times, at the moment of the term of elimination not so much more? ⁹⁵The text in parentheses was deleted by the corrector and therefore is not found in the printed texts. It is a necessary component of the argument.(No, it need not be so. If he did not check on the Fourteenth, he has to check on the holiday. Does he have to check three times? Since at a time before its term of elimination you are saying that he has to check three times, at the moment of the term of elimination not so much more?) No, it need not be so. If he did not check on the holiday, he has to check after the holiday⁹⁶The answer to the question was that certainly R. Jehudah would agree with the Sages that checking during or after the holidays is required if it was not done beforehand (a position rejected by the Babli 10b–11a.) The only question is whether in these cases also R. Jehudah requires triple checking. Since he does not spell out his position, an attempt to determine this by inferences is unsuccessful. Since practice does not follow R. Jehudah, a final answer is not given..

Rebbi Jehudah has both a positive and a negative commandment concerning its eating⁷¹“It” here refers to mazzah., a positive and a negative commandment concerning its⁷²“It” here refers to leavened matter. removal. A positive commandment concerning its eating, seven days you shall eat unleavened bread for it⁶⁹Deut. 16:3, referring to the pesah sacrifice which is slaughtered on the afternoon of the 14^th and eaten in the night of the 15^th., not leavened. Any prohibition which is implied by a positive commandment has the status of positive commandment⁷³It is not an indictable offense; cf. Bikkurim 1:5, Note 103. If a positive commandment is in conflict with a negative one (a prohibition), the positive is stronger. But an obligation which is both positive and negative is stronger than anything else.. A negative commandment concerning its eating, do not eat leavened⁷⁴Deut. 16:3; the word עָלָיו is missing here, supplied in Pesahim.. A positive commandment concerning its removal, seven days … you shall remove sour dough from your houses⁶³Ex. 12:15: Seven days you shall eat mazzot; only on the first day you shall eliminate sour dough from your houses … אַךְ might also be translated as “certainly”.. A negative commandment concerning its removal, for seven days sour dough shall not be found in your houses⁷⁵Ex. 12:19..

Rebbi Jehudah has both a positive and a negative commandment concerning its eating⁷¹“It” here refers to mazzah., a positive and a negative commandment concerning its⁷²“It” here refers to leavened matter. removal. A positive commandment concerning its eating, seven days you shall eat unleavened bread for it⁶⁹Deut. 16:3, referring to the pesah sacrifice which is slaughtered on the afternoon of the 14^th and eaten in the night of the 15^th., not leavened. Any prohibition which is implied by a positive commandment has the status of positive commandment⁷³It is not an indictable offense; cf. Bikkurim 1:5, Note 103. If a positive commandment is in conflict with a negative one (a prohibition), the positive is stronger. But an obligation which is both positive and negative is stronger than anything else.. A negative commandment concerning its eating, do not eat leavened⁷⁴Deut. 16:3; the word עָלָיו is missing here, supplied in Pesahim.. A positive commandment concerning its removal, seven days … you shall remove sour dough from your houses⁶³Ex. 12:15: Seven days you shall eat mazzot; only on the first day you shall eliminate sour dough from your houses … אַךְ might also be translated as “certainly”.. A negative commandment concerning its removal, for seven days sour dough shall not be found in your houses⁷⁵Ex. 12:19..

From where that one subscribes? The verse says, by the number of souls⁷⁹Ex. 12:4. By biblical decree a person not counted as participant is barred from eating the Pesaḥ. Babli 89a.. From where that one appoints⁸⁰Appoints people as eaters.? It is said here a lamb, and it is said in Egypt a lamb. Since the lamb quoted in Egypt is live, not slaughtered, so the lamb quoted here is live, not slaughtered⁸¹“Lamb” is mentioned in v. 12:4 which, since its topic is not otherwise dealt with in the Pentateuch, refers to Pesaḥ at all times. “Lamb” also is mentioned in v. 12:3 which uniquely refers to the Pesaḥ in Egypt since only there was the lamb selected on the 10th of Nisan. Since the lamb was slaughtered only in the evening of the 14th; on both occasions the reference is to a living lamb. This implies that the count must be made while the lamb is alive, the position of the anonymous majority.. What is Rebbi Simeon’s reason? If he dies between slaughtering and pouring, would it not count for the owner as merit? What is the difference between the owner dying or the owner withdrawing from it⁸³A person subscribed to a Pesaḥ as an individual but now appears with several people which he has invited without paying for them. They may give him the portion of an individual and tell him to divide it among his guests while everybody else get the full volume for which he has paid..

A philosopher asked Bar Qappara; Ablat asked Levi the eunuch¹²³If this is not an intended slander then probably the word is a scribal error for Parisa; cf. Giṭṭin 6:7 Note 115.: Is it¹²⁴Water heated on the holiday. permitted for drinking but forbidden for taking a bath? He told him, if you saw an eunuch embracing your wife, would you not feel badly about it? He said, yes. He asked him, can he squeeze her¹²⁵S. Liebermann thinks that this expression is not obscene but a shortening of מְנַכֶּה “deducts (from her value)”. in any way? He said, that she should not get loose morals. He told him, here also that they should not get loose morals¹²⁶This would imply that the rule is purely rabbinical.. After he left, his students told him, this one you pushed away with a stick; what do you answer us? He said to (him) [them]¹²⁷The word in brackets is from the text in Beṣah.: Is there not already written¹²⁸Ex. 12:16. only what is being eaten by everybody, this alone may be made by you.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Meïr says, one eats all during the fifth [hour],” etc. ¹⁰⁹The text is copied from Sanhedrin 5:3 where in general it is agreed that in a criminal case where it is necessary to determine the time of an alleged crime a difference of two hours in the testimony of different witnesses invalidates the testimonies; R. Jehudah applies this also to noontime but the anonymous Tanna (supposed to be R. Meïr) disagrees and allows discrepancies up to two hours in this case.
The scribe of the Leiden ms., after the text translated here in the first 5 sentences, wrote: “one repeats from Sanhedrin until the sun never starts setting’.” The corrector who prepared the ms. for the Venice printer added the omitted portion; his text differs from Sanhedrin by both an addition and a lacuna. It is impossible to decide whether the corrector’s text be copied from a different ms. or represents the corrector’s emendations of the Sanhedrin text. In neither text is the use of references “here” and “there” (either Pesaḥim or Sanhedrin) completely consistent. Rebbi Meïr says, from noontime on it¹¹⁰The prohibition of leavened matter on Passover Eve. is from their words; Rebbi Jehudah says, from noontime on it is biblical. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Only on the first day¹¹¹Ex. 12:15: Seven days you shall eat maẓzot; only on the first day you shall eliminate sour dough from your houses … אַךְ might also be translated as “certainly”., that is the fifteenth¹¹²Ex. 12:14 states: This day shall be a remembrance for you; you shall keep it as a holiday of pilgrimage for the Eternal … Num. 28:15–16 require that the 14^th of Nisan be pesaḥ for the Eternal; starting from the 15^th for seven days it is the holiday of mazzot. Since pesaḥ (i. e., the day of the slaughter of the pesaḥ sacrifice) is connected inextricably with the holiday of mazzot, the reference in v. 14 to the “first day” is intrinsically ambiguous, whether it refer to pesaḥ or to the holiday.. I could think at nightfall; the verse says only,¹¹³A similar argument is in the Babli, 4b, Mekhilta dR. Ismael (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 28), Mekhilta dR. Simeon b. Iohai (ed. Epstein-Melamed p. 17).. How is this? Give it one hour before sundown¹¹⁴I. e., the only biblical requirement is that all leavened matter be completely disposed of before the holiday at sundown.. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fourteenth. I could think the entire day; the verse says only. How is that? Split the day, half for leavened matter, half for mazzah. Rebbi Meïr’s argument seems inverted. There, he said only to add; here he said only to diminish¹¹⁵It seems that this refers to Ex. 12:16: …no work shall be done [on the holidays], only what may be eaten by any soul, it alone may be made by you. Everybody agrees that food may be prepared on a holiday. According to R. Meïr (i. e., the anonymous opinion in Mishnah Megillah 1:8) only food may be prepared, not preparations necessary for the preparation of food. According to R. Jehudah (Megillah 1:8), anything that in the end leads to preparation of food is permitted on a holiday. R. Meïr reads only as a restriction in v. 16 and as an addition in v. 15!. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he diminished, he excludes leavened matter. Rebbi Meïr says, do not eat leavened matter with it¹¹⁶Deut. 16:3, referring to the pesaḥ sacrifice which is slaughtered on the afternoon of the 14^th and eaten in the night of the 15^th., while it is eaten. Rebbi Jehudah says, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is prepared¹¹⁷In the afternoon of the 14^th. This supports R. Jehudah’s contention that leavened matter is biblically forbidden in the afternoon of the 14^th; Sifry Deut. 130..

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Meïr says, one eats all during the fifth [hour],” etc. ¹⁰⁹The text is copied from Sanhedrin 5:3 where in general it is agreed that in a criminal case where it is necessary to determine the time of an alleged crime a difference of two hours in the testimony of different witnesses invalidates the testimonies; R. Jehudah applies this also to noontime but the anonymous Tanna (supposed to be R. Meïr) disagrees and allows discrepancies up to two hours in this case.
The scribe of the Leiden ms., after the text translated here in the first 5 sentences, wrote: “one repeats from Sanhedrin until the sun never starts setting’.” The corrector who prepared the ms. for the Venice printer added the omitted portion; his text differs from Sanhedrin by both an addition and a lacuna. It is impossible to decide whether the corrector’s text be copied from a different ms. or represents the corrector’s emendations of the Sanhedrin text. In neither text is the use of references “here” and “there” (either Pesaḥim or Sanhedrin) completely consistent. Rebbi Meïr says, from noontime on it¹¹⁰The prohibition of leavened matter on Passover Eve. is from their words; Rebbi Jehudah says, from noontime on it is biblical. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Only on the first day¹¹¹Ex. 12:15: Seven days you shall eat maẓzot; only on the first day you shall eliminate sour dough from your houses … אַךְ might also be translated as “certainly”., that is the fifteenth¹¹²Ex. 12:14 states: This day shall be a remembrance for you; you shall keep it as a holiday of pilgrimage for the Eternal … Num. 28:15–16 require that the 14^th of Nisan be pesaḥ for the Eternal; starting from the 15^th for seven days it is the holiday of mazzot. Since pesaḥ (i. e., the day of the slaughter of the pesaḥ sacrifice) is connected inextricably with the holiday of mazzot, the reference in v. 14 to the “first day” is intrinsically ambiguous, whether it refer to pesaḥ or to the holiday.. I could think at nightfall; the verse says only,¹¹³A similar argument is in the Babli, 4b, Mekhilta dR. Ismael (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 28), Mekhilta dR. Simeon b. Iohai (ed. Epstein-Melamed p. 17).. How is this? Give it one hour before sundown¹¹⁴I. e., the only biblical requirement is that all leavened matter be completely disposed of before the holiday at sundown.. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fourteenth. I could think the entire day; the verse says only. How is that? Split the day, half for leavened matter, half for mazzah. Rebbi Meïr’s argument seems inverted. There, he said only to add; here he said only to diminish¹¹⁵It seems that this refers to Ex. 12:16: …no work shall be done [on the holidays], only what may be eaten by any soul, it alone may be made by you. Everybody agrees that food may be prepared on a holiday. According to R. Meïr (i. e., the anonymous opinion in Mishnah Megillah 1:8) only food may be prepared, not preparations necessary for the preparation of food. According to R. Jehudah (Megillah 1:8), anything that in the end leads to preparation of food is permitted on a holiday. R. Meïr reads only as a restriction in v. 16 and as an addition in v. 15!. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he diminished, he excludes leavened matter. Rebbi Meïr says, do not eat leavened matter with it¹¹⁶Deut. 16:3, referring to the pesaḥ sacrifice which is slaughtered on the afternoon of the 14^th and eaten in the night of the 15^th., while it is eaten. Rebbi Jehudah says, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is prepared¹¹⁷In the afternoon of the 14^th. This supports R. Jehudah’s contention that leavened matter is biblically forbidden in the afternoon of the 14^th; Sifry Deut. 130..

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated⁶⁹The Babylonian parallel, used in the common Haggadah, is in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Bo, Pisqa 18. There the answers to the wise and stupid children are switched. “The Torah spoke about Four Children, a wise child, a wicked child, a stupid child, and a child who does not know how to ask. What does the wise child say? What are the testimonials, the ordinances, and the laws, that the Eternal, our God, commanded us⁷⁰Deut. 6:20. The text of R. Ḥiyya and the Mekhilta is that underlying the LXX; the masoretic text has the child asking, what are the testimonials, … commanded you. This is a natural formulation for a child born later, asking a member of the generation which first received the Torah. The formulation of the Yerushalmi/Mekhilta was common in all Haggadot until corrected by pedantic editors who copied the masoretic text, disregarding talmudic tradition in Biblical quotes.
Following Nahmanides, the “testimonials” are obligations in remembrance of His miracles, the “ordinances” are those commandments for which no reason is hinted at in the Torah, and the “laws” are the legal instructions to the court.? Also you shall tell him, with a strong hand did the Eternal lead us out of Egypt, the house of slaves⁷¹Ex. 13:14, the biblical answer to the question of the stupid child. The answer addresses the reason why one is obligated to follow the rules of Jewish worship, which is much more expensive than gentile rites.. What does the wicked son say? What does this service mean to you⁷²Ex. 12:26.? What is this exertion which you impose on us every (moment) [year]? Since he excluded himself from the community, also you shall tell him, because of this did the Eternal do for me when I left Egypt⁷³Ex. 13:8.. For me, He did it, for that man He did not do it. If that man had been in Egypt, he would not have been worthy ever to be redeemed. What does the stupid child say? What is this⁷⁴Ex. 13:14. The question is not about Passover but about the obligation of sacrificing the firstlings of the flock. In order that the child should understand the answer given to the wise child, he first has to learn by rote all the rules, up to the last Mishnah dealing with the rules of the Passover celebration.? Tell him the rules of Passover, that one may not follow the Pesaḥἐπὶ κῶμον⁷⁵A (frequently drunken) revelry, characteristic of Greek celebrations and most objectionable to Jews.. What means ἐπὶ κῶμον? That one not leave one company and join another company. With the child who does not know how to ask⁷⁶The child who does not know how to ask is alluded to in Ex. 13:8, you must tell your child on that day as follows: …, without a question preceding., you have to begin and initiate with him.” Rebbi Yose said, that is what the Mishnah says, “if the son does not know how to ask, his father instructs him.”

Rebbi Jehudah has [both a positive and a negative commandment concerning its eating¹¹⁸“It” here refers to maẓzah., a positive and a negative commandment concerning its¹¹⁹“It” here refers to leavened matter. removal. A positive commandment concerning its eating, seven days you shall eat unleavened bread with it, but not leavened. Any prohibition which is implied by a positive commandment has the status of positive commandment¹²⁰It is not an indictable offense; cf. Bikkurim 1:5, Note 103. If a positive commandment is in conflict with a negative one (a prohibition), the positive is stronger. But an obligation which is both positive and negative is stronger than anything else.. A negative commandment concerning its eating, do not eat leavened for it. A positive commandment concerning its removal, you shall remove sour dough¹¹¹Ex. 12:15: Seven days you shall eat maẓzot; only on the first day you shall eliminate sour dough from your houses … אַךְ might also be translated as “certainly”.. A negative commandment concerning its removal, for seven days sour dough shall not be found in your houses¹²¹Ex. 12:19..

⁶¹Tosephta Ḥagigah 2:10; Babli Ḥagigah20b.“The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Since at a time when I forbid to the private person⁶²Greek ʼιδιώτης. I am permitting it for Heaven, when it is permitted for the private person is it not logical that it be permitted for Heaven? The House of Shammai said to them, vows and voluntary gifts are proof, since they are permitted to the private person but forbidden to Heaven. The House of Hillel said to them, no. If you are speaking about vows and voluntary gifts which have no fixed time, what does this imply for the festival offering which has a fixed time? The House of Shammai answered them, the festival offering has no fixed time since if he did not offer it on the first day, he may offer it on the second day, if he did not offer it on the second day, he may offer it on the third day. The House of Hillel told them, the festival offering has a fixed time, for if he did not offer it on the holiday of pilgrimage he may not offer it after the holiday. The House of Shammai said to them, is it not already said: only what can be eaten by any person this alone may be made for you⁶³Ex. 12:16.? The House of Hillel answered them, is that a proof? For you it may not be made, [but] it is made for Heaven. Abba Shaul says it was based on another reason: Since when your stove is closed down, your Master’s stove is open, when your stove is open it only is logical that your Master’s stove should be open. Another explanation: It is not in order that your table should be full but the table of your Creator be empty.⁶⁴While there are two disputes between the Houses of Hillel and Shammai, about leaning on animals and about bringing elevation offerings on a holiday proper, it is clear that once it is decided that elevation offerings can be brought with the required leaning-on, well-being offerings also may be brought with all required ceremonies. Therefore the argument reduces to one about the possibility of offering private elevation offerings on a full holiday. The first argument of the House of Hillel is that on the Sabbath, when all cooking or other use of fire is forbidden to humans, the Temple altar is in full action, burning two daily and two musaf offerings. Therefore on a holiday when cooking is permitted, it must be possible for private persons to offer sacrifices to be burned on the altar. The argument is refuted by the House of Shammai since it is agreed that sacrifices not brought as festival offerings but in fulfillment of a vow (either as “vow”, i. e., a promise of an animal, or as “voluntary offering”, a promise of this animal) cannot be brought on the full holiday but only on the intermediate days (or for Pentecost, the week following.) The House of Hillel then point out that vows may be brought any time during the year, it only is a convenience to bring them when one has to visit the Temple anyhow; but festival offerings which are tied to the festival must be brought on the festival. The House of Shammai answer that the festival offerings may be brought on the intermediate days (Mishnah Ḥagigah 1:6), when all work is permitted; but the House of Hillel retort that still after the end of the holiday period there is no possibility of making up for a missed holiday sacrifice. The inconclusive discussion is cut short by Abba Shaul and the “other explanation”, that the position of the House of Shammai leads to the Temple being empty of people on full holidays, crowded on the intermediate days, whereas Pentateuch, Prophets, and Psalms all indicate that the essence of a holiday of pilgrimage is that the Temple precinct be filled to capacity, and that therefore practice must follow the House of Hillel, as explained in the last paragraph of the Halakhah.”

Rebbi Jehudah has [both a positive and a negative commandment concerning its eating¹¹⁸“It” here refers to maẓzah., a positive and a negative commandment concerning its¹¹⁹“It” here refers to leavened matter. removal. A positive commandment concerning its eating, seven days you shall eat unleavened bread with it, but not leavened. Any prohibition which is implied by a positive commandment has the status of positive commandment¹²⁰It is not an indictable offense; cf. Bikkurim 1:5, Note 103. If a positive commandment is in conflict with a negative one (a prohibition), the positive is stronger. But an obligation which is both positive and negative is stronger than anything else.. A negative commandment concerning its eating, do not eat leavened for it. A positive commandment concerning its removal, you shall remove sour dough¹¹¹Ex. 12:15: Seven days you shall eat maẓzot; only on the first day you shall eliminate sour dough from your houses … אַךְ might also be translated as “certainly”.. A negative commandment concerning its removal, for seven days sour dough shall not be found in your houses¹²¹Ex. 12:19..

Rav Huna said, if somebody dedicated his Pesaḥ and said, on condition that nobody else subscribe with me, nobody else can subscribe with him. If he dedicated it without specification, any who join are its subscribers⁸⁷From the start the Pesaḥ is dedicated for anybody who will come to join.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Does the Mishnah say so? “If thehouse be less⁸⁸Ex. 12:4., this teaches that they may continuously diminish, on condition that there always be one of the first group and one of the second group, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, either from the first or from the second, if only the Pesaḥ not be left alone.⁸⁹Babli 99a, Tosephta 7:7, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 3, dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 9. It is presumed that practice follows R. Yose (the Tanna, ben Ḥalafta.)” If you are saying that any who join are its subscribers, then the members of the first group are the members of the second group⁹⁰According to Rav Ḥuna, every subscriber is counted as original subscriber; there can be no first and second group.. What is the difference between them? If he dedicated his Pesaḥ, withdrew from it but another person subscribed to it. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is qualified, in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira disqualified⁹¹For Rav Ḥuna, the second person is an original subscriber. For R. Zeˋira the Pesaḥ was left without subscriber for a moment; this disqualifies.. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is dedication by an individual and subject to the laws of substitution; in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira it is dedication by partners and dedication of partners is not subject to the laws of substitution⁹²If the first subscriber left; his replacement now is the original dedicator and all the rules of Tractate Temurah (Lev.27:10) do apply. But for R. Zeˋira, supposing that the second subscriber came before the first one left and the Pesaḥ still is qualified, it now is dedication by partners and any attempt at substitution is invalid and therefore inconsequential.. If a hundred people subscribed to it simultaneously, Rav Ḥuna said, if there is the volume [of an olive for each of them], it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. Rebbi Zeˋira said, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified⁹³Since for Rav Ḥuna all subscribers are original dedicators, simultaneous subscription is possible. The subscriptions either are all valid or all invalid. For R. Zeˋira only sequential subscriptions are possible; as long as there is the volume of an olive available for a new subscriber he is accepted, otherwise he is rejected, but the rejection has no influence on the status of subscribers accepted earlier.. And it was stated thus: “If they subscribed and added subscribers, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified.⁹⁴Babli 78b.”

⁸⁶This and the next paragraph also appear in Pesaḥim5:1, Notes 80–97, where also the readings of B are noted (ג is unreadable or lacunary for the present paragraph.) Only the most necessary notes are given here, the remainder should be consulted there. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says⁸⁷Lev. 3:6., and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering from small cattle? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. Everywhere you are saying that מִן (is to include) [is to exclude], but here you are saying that (מִן is to exclude) [is to include]⁸⁸The text is difficult since it is standard rabbinic interpretation to consider prefix mem or מִן as privative, excluding certain categories (cf. Šabbat7 Note 26, Ševuot1:2 Note 75, Bava Meṣia`4:8 Note 122, Nazir5:4 Note 105). Also in the next sentence, R. Mana gives the interpretation that here מִן is privative. On the other hand, the testimony of the scribe’s two texts, the Genizah fragment available for Pesaḥim, and the Munich ms. of Šeqalim do not permit emendation. It seems that here “every where” is derogatory, meaning Babylonian. The sequence of arguments leads to a contradiction. Abba bar Abba treats מִן as inclusive, R. Abun bar Cahana as exclusive. R. Mana explains that מִן always is partitive; automatic switch to well-being offerings is possible only for sacrifices that totally correspond to the declaration צאן, i. e., both sheep and goats, male and female.. Rebbi Mana said, (it excludes it,) [here also מִן is to exclude: It excludes in that it may not be brought two years old; it excludes that it cannot be brought female; and for a reparation offering also it excludes]⁸⁹Corrector’s addition from B. since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written,⁹⁰Lev. 1:10. and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that they are saying, Pesaḥ is changed into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi Illa said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering⁸⁷Lev. 3:6.; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts⁹¹If the animal dedicated as Pesaḥ is used against the rules for something other than a well-being offering, do the rules of the other kind apply or is it disqualified and no rules of intent apply?? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul⁹²If the animal still is a sacrifice, now under the rules of elevation sacrifices, the intention to perform any required action out of its prescribed time-frame is piggul, a deadly sin causing extirpation.. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified⁹³If the animal is disqualified and not under the rule of any kind of sacrifice, the illegitimate intent is inconsequential..

There, we have stated¹²¹Mishnah Miqwaot 2:2. The Mishnah states that if a person was impure by biblical standards he can be purified only by immersion in a miqweh which is unquestionably valid. But if his impurity is rabbinic, immersion in a miqweh will purify him unless the miqweh is unquestionably invalid. R. Yose disagrees and holds that the principle of permanence of the status quo ante also applies to rabbinic impurity and the miqweh must be unquestionably valid.: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof¹²²If there are a group of items, the status of one is certain but that of the others is uncertain, one may assume that the other items share the status of the certain one unless proven otherwise (cf. Demay 2:1 2^nd of paragraph; Terumot 4:8 Note 83.) The Mishnah quotes the case that there be two miqwaot, one of them known to be invalid, while the other might be valid. If the person does not know in which of the two he immersed, R. Yose holds that it must have been the invalid one.. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]¹²³The text in parentheses is from L, that in brackets from G. The preceding argument is rejected, R. Yose applies the principle of permanence of the status quo ante even if nothing is certain and there is only one item.. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas¹⁷In other sources the name is אבטולמוס (Ptolemaios). testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified¹⁸Since the eruv is a rabbinic institution to allow carrying in or walking to places biblically permitted, in cases of doubt one has to permit..” And here you are saying so? There in his own name, but here in the name of five Elders. They wanted to say that he who says there “pure” says here “permitted”; he who says there “impure” says here “prohibited”. But even he who says there “impure” agrees here that it is permitted¹²⁴The two cases cannot be compared. The rules of impurity are biblical even if they are extended to cover cases of only rabbinic impurity. The rules of eruv are all rabbinic.. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency¹²⁵He holds the opposite view. The Mishnah Miqwaot clearly distinguishes between biblical and rabbinic impurity and decrees leniency only for rabbinic cases; for him the rules of eruv teḥumim are all biblical; only eruv ḥaṣerot is rabbinical.. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction¹²⁶A generally recognized principle, cf. Ketubot 1:1 Note 21. But is eruv a word of the Torah? Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah¹²⁷Babli 17b. This proves at least that leaving one’s Sabbath domain is a biblical violation.. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation¹²⁸A Sabbath violation of one of the 39 forbidden categories of work is punishable by stoning if there are witnesses or divine extirpation otherwise. We do not find flogging as punishment for any Sabbath violation.? He said to him, is there not written¹²⁹Ex. 12:9., do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written¹³⁰Ex. 16:29. Even though this is the sequence of the sentences also in G, it is clear that the order has to be inverted. R. Jonathan first quoted Ex. 16:29 as proof that leaving one’s domain on the Sabbath is a biblical violation. Since no punishment is stated, the standard sanction of flogging applies. To this R. Ḥiyya replies that the standard sanction applies only to prohibitions introduced by לֹא, not to admonitions formulated with אַל. R. Jonathan retorts that this explanation is impossible since eating the Passover sacrifice raw is a punishable transgression forbidden by אַל., stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition¹³¹It is unresolved whether leaving one’s domain on the Sabbath is a transgression punishable in court. But the institution of eruv certainly is a rabbinic interpretation of the rules.. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person¹³²In the interpretation of biblical prohibitions, matters of doubt are treated differently when a person is involved who can be interrogated about the situation. Then the rules of resolution of doubts can be invoked only after the facts have been investigated. But if the person involved is deaf mute and unable to communicate by sign language the rules are applied immediately.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned¹³³The preceding makes sense if the eruv still exists. But if it was burned (as mentioned in the Mishnah) it should be impossible to invoke a principle of permanence of the status quo ante.? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi¹³⁴This is the text of L which probably is correct. In G: Rav. Hoshaia said: You must conclude that the boundaries of Sabbath domains are not clear in the words of the Torah. Rebbi Mana asked, it is accepted that 2’000 cubits is not clear¹³⁵The 2’000 cubits counted from the city walls are in imitation of the suburban space allotted to the levitic cities (Num. 35:5) where the Sabbath is not mentioned. The measure therefore has only rabbinic status. Babli 36a, Beṣah 36b. The Sadducee Damascus Document (CD A x) accepts a limit of 1’000 cubits (Num. 35:4) for humans and 2’000 cubits for animals (CD A xi) as biblical.. Are 4’000 cubits not clear? Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: The only clear case among all of them is the domain of twelve mil of the camp of Israel¹³⁶This is the general tradition that the diameter of the encampment of the Israelites as described in Num. 2 was 3 parsah (12 mil or 90 itinerant stadia): Ševiˋit 6:1 (Note 28), copied in Gittin 1:2 (Note 94), Babli Berakhot 54b, Eruvin 53b, Yoma 75b..

²⁰⁹This paragraph does not belong here; it is copied from Sabbat 3 immediately following the text of the preceding paragraph (Note 71). Kilaim 1:9 (Note 167); Babli Sabbat 123a, Eruvin 77a. It was stated: “An unripe fig which he hid in straw or a flat pita which he hid in coals may be taken on the Sabbath if they were partially uncovered, otherwise they may not be taken.”

²⁰⁹This paragraph does not belong here; it is copied from Sabbat 3 immediately following the text of the preceding paragraph (Note 71). Kilaim 1:9 (Note 167); Babli Sabbat 123a, Eruvin 77a. It was stated: “An unripe fig which he hid in straw or a flat pita which he hid in coals may be taken on the Sabbath if they were partially uncovered, otherwise they may not be taken.”

From where that the Cohanim may fulfill their obligation with ḥallah or heave, and Israel with Second Tithe on Passover? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot²¹⁰Ex. 12:18,20. Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yohay 12:20 (p. 24)., this adds.

From where that the Cohanim may fulfill their obligation with ḥallah or heave, and Israel with Second Tithe on Passover? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot²¹⁰Ex. 12:18,20. Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yohay 12:20 (p. 24)., this adds.

Could I think that they may fulfill their obligation with First Fruits? The verse says, inallyour dwelling places you shall eat mazzot²¹¹Ex. 12:20., mazzah which may be eaten at any dwelling place; this excludes First Fruits which are not eaten at any dwelling place²¹²First Fruits are sancta presented to the priest in the Temple and consumed in Jerusalem only (Mishnah Bikkurim 2:2). Babli 39a, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Ba 10, dR. Simeon ben Yohay 12:20 (p. 24).. They objected, but Second Tithe may not be eaten at any dwelling place²¹³It may be eaten only in Jerusalem, Mishnah Bikkurim 2:2, Deut. 14:23.! It may be redeemed and be eaten at any dwelling place²¹⁴Deut. 14:24. Redemption of pure Second Tithe is possible only outside of Jerusalem.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: What was bought with tithe money and became impure, following Rebbi Jehudah, ²¹⁵The text in brackets is an addition from the corrector who was misled by the expression “asked” because the statement of R. Abun bar Ḥiyya is a straight declarative sentence: “What was bought with tithe money which became impure, following Rebbi Jehudah since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it.” The question here and in the next sentence is whether there is any objection to the inference drawn. Since the scribe’s text is confirmed by G, the addition should be deleted.[what is its status? As it was stated: “If what was bought with tithe money became impure, it should be redeemed. Rebbi Jehudah says, it should be buried¹¹⁵S. Liebermann points out that this cannot mean that the key was handed over after a contract for lease or sale was signed, since for a lease the matter was settled in the preceding paragraph and for a sale it is stated that transfer of the key is transfer of the property (Bava batra 3:1, Note 12). Nevertheless Sefer Haˋittur (vol. 2, p. 121a, Note 17) reads the question as complement of the preceding statement.. They said to Rebbi Jehudah, if original Second Tithe which became impure is redeemed, what was bought with tithe money and became impure certainly should be redeemed. He said to them, no! If you referred to original Second Tithe, which can be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place, can you say the same about what was bought with tithe money which cannot be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place?²¹⁶Mishnah Maˋaser šeni 3:11 (p. 111).”] since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: Ḥallah from dough made from Second Tithe in Jerusalem, since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it²¹⁷Since ḥallah is heave and if impure must be burned, even for the majority which disagrees with R. Jehudah it cannot be used for the Passover obligation. Since no objection is raised, this is accepted doctrine in the Yerushalmi, rejected in the Babli 38a..

I could think that they may fulfill their obligation with flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir²¹⁸The question is raised about mazzot which were baked to be used with a thanksgiving offering (Lev. 7:12) or with the offerings required at the end of a vow of nazir(Num. 6:15) but were not used for that purpose, as implied by the text of the Mishnah. Babli 38a as Amoraic statement..The verse says, seven days you shall eat mazzot²¹⁹Ex. 12:15.; mazzah which may be eaten all seven days. But flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir may not be eaten all seven days²²⁰Both kinds of bread may be eaten only on the day of the sacrifice and the following night; if it was intended not to be eaten for a longer period it may not be used even if it was not used for the original purpose.. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: since flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”²²¹The argument really goes the other way. Since the statement at the start of the paragraph (which also in the Yerushalmi seems to be Amoraic as shown by the expression שׁוֹנֶה instead of תַּנֵּי) uses a verse different from the one quoted in the preceding Tannaitic source, it follows that the verse quoted earlier is not applicable. The bread accompanying the animal sacrifices must be consumed at the place prescribed for consumption of the meat.. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: this implies that wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. One understands about flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering. But it is not so for wafers of a nazir²²²While during the existence of the Sanctuary at Shilo or after the building of the Temple all sacrifices had to be offered at the place of the Sanctuary, before the building of the Sanctuary at Shiloh and after its destruction voluntary offerings could be given at private altars (“minor elevated places”) whereas obligatory offerings were restricted to altars erected at the place of the Tabernacle or the Ark of Covenant (“principal elevated places”, Gilgal, Nob, and Gibeon); Mishnah Megillah 1:13. Therefore there were times when thanksgiving offerings could be presented anywhere in the Land, but while making a vow of nazir was voluntary, once it was made the sacrifices of nezirut became mandatory.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no nazir here; nezirut is an obligation. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, explain it if his purification offering was presented in Shiloh but his elevation and well-being offerings in Nob or Gibeon²²³Not that they were sacrificed at Nob or Gibeon, but they were sacrificed at the time when Nob or Gibeon were principal elevated places, i. e., the sanctuary at Shiloh was presumed destroyed immediately after the purification sacrifice was offered. Since elevation and well-being offerings are by their nature voluntary (even though in this case they are obligatory), they can be offered at a local sanctuary and the accompanying bread eaten anywhere in the Land.. Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi [Azariah]²²⁴It seems that this was his name; the spelling עֶזְרָה in the Leiden text is irregular since Ezra should be spelled with א. asked before Rebbi Mana: Did not the teacher say in the name of Rebbi Yose: Holiday well-being offerings brought at an elevated place are qualified but they are not counted against an obligation of the owner²²⁵Well-being sacrifices mostly are voluntary; they can be offered at a local shrine according to all the rules spelled out in Lev. 3. But the holiday offering is obligatory; at a local shrine they cannot satisfy an obligation. Therefore the accompanying bread cannot be eaten at all places.? But it must be for Rebbi Jehudah, as Rebbi Jehudah said, purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a principal elevated place, but no purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a minor elevated place²²⁶But all other obligatory sacrifices can be brought locally, including two of the three sacrifices of the nazir.. It only follows Rebbi Simeon, since “Rebbi Simeon said, when one of the bloods was sprinkled, the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself for the dead.²²⁷Mishnah Nazir 6:11 (Note 224). Therefore only the first sacrifice of the nazir is obligatory, the others together with the bread may be offered locally.”

“But the Sages say, small animals are taken possession of by drawing near.” What is the reason of the rabbis? “Draw near and take for yourselves small animals for your families⁴⁴³Ex. 12:21..” As Rav Jehudah sent to ask⁴⁴⁴As the later text shows, probably one should read here: “To ask R. Eleazar.” According to the Babli, Baba qama 11b, the messenger was Ulla.: By what means is possession of large animals established? He answered, by handing over; and asked, is that not the Mishnah? There are Tannaïm who switch the attributions⁴⁴⁵Obviously, Rav Jehudah was supposed to have studied the Mishnah. But he was not sure about the references to large and small domesticated animals and asked for the correct text from the Babylonian R. Eleazar in Galilee where the latter had access to the traditions of the school of Rebbi.. Rav Jehudah asked Rebbi Eleazar: If a firstborn became “torn” within thirty days⁴⁴⁶A firstborn son has to be redeemed (Ex. 13:13,34:20); this is specified in Num. 3:40,47 to apply to firstborn sons above the age of one month and the redemption money, 5 biblical šeqalim (Note 122), has to be given to a priest. A human who develops a defect which makes his long-term survival impossible is called “torn”, a term used in parallel with the talmudic interpretation of “torn” animals forbidden as food (Ex. 22:30).? He answered, he is as if dead⁴⁴⁷This parallels the rabbinic theory that a person who kills a “torn” human cannot be convicted of first-degree murder (Babli Sanhedrin 78a). In the Babli, Menaḥot 37a/b, the rule is derived from Num. 18:15 (cf. also Sifry Num. #118.) and free from the five tetradrachmas of a son. ⁴⁴⁸Niddah 3:4, Notes 103–104; the parallel in the Babli is Baba qama 11a. Rav Jehudah sent and asked Rebbi Eleazar: A placenta which was delivered partially today and partially tomorrow? He answered, for pure blood she counts from the first day, for impure blood from the second day. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is, if no child was produced with it. But if there was a child, both for pure and impure blood she counts only from the moment of birth of the child.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The olive-sized piece of mazzah with which a person fulfills his obligation on Passover must be without fluid²²⁸The dough must be made with water to the exclusion of any other fluid. Cf. Babli 36a.. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this was said for a meritorious deed²²⁹In this opinion the mazzah which either was made from dough containing other fluids or where fluid was rubbed into it after baking is undesirable but not forbidden.. Rebbi Abba said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, this was said as a necessary condition. The word of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya implies that this was said as a necessary condition. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected, did we not state: “flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering”? Are there flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering without fluids²³⁰Lev. 7:12 prescribes “flat cakes mixed with oil”. If the Mishnah permits such cakes when commercially made, it must permit all mazzah kneaded with a mixture of oil and water.? Rebbi Yose said, there it is a quartarius; one quartarius splits into many kinds²³¹Mishnah Menaḥot9:3 specifies that half a log (2 quartarii, slightly more than 1/4 liter) was used to bake the bread required for a thanksgiving offering, 10 flat cakes, 10 wafers, and flour mixed with oil. The amount used for a single flat cake was negligible. Babli 38b.. But what implies this? “One might think and a person could satisfy his obligation with pancake, the verse says, guard the mazzot²³²Ex. 12:17; a similar baraita is quoted in Midrash Haggadol Ba 12:17; where it is spelled out that a pancake made from flour fried in oil is unacceptable since it never can become leavened., a mazzah which needs guarding, excluding this one which does not need guarding.” Because it does not need guarding; therefore if it would need guarding one would satisfy his obligation with it. And so we stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”²³³Tosephta 2:21.. They thought to say, spiced by fluids. We may say, spiced by sesame, spiced by nuts. But the following says it: One might think that a person only could satisfy his obligation on Passover with (roasted) [whole grain]²³⁴The scribe wrote “roasted bread”, i. e., baked on the open fire (parallel to the roasting prescribed for the Passover sacrifice.). The corrector changed this to “bread from the second milling”, i. e., from non-white flour. This correction is induced from the Babli 36b and should be disregarded. bread? From where even with Solomon’s mazzah²³⁵Which certainly was made from pure white flour. Sifry Deut. 130.? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot, it included. If it is so, why does it say bread of affliction²³⁶Deut. 16:3.? To exclude sursīn²³⁷This word is unexplained. סוּרְסִי is the name of the Syriac language. We do not know what “Syriac cakes” are. Sifry only mentions חָלוּט “pancake fried in oil” and cake. The rule is mentioned in the Tosephta 2:20, Babli 119b; the Babli version also in Mekhilta dR. Ismael Ba 10 (end)., and pancake, and cake.

MISHNAH: On the second, remember⁹²The Mishnah follows the Palestinian rule that one never reads from more than one Torah scroll in the morning service of Sabbaths and holidays. The rule is that one interrupts the regular sequence of Torah readings (in the 3½ year cycle) and reads the paragraph about Šeqalim (Ex. 30:11–16) on or just preceding the start of Adar (in an intercalary year, Adar II), then about Amaleq (Deut. 25:17–19) on the Sabbath preceding Purim, about purification through the ashes of the Red Cow (Num. 19:1–22) on the Sabbath after Purim and about the coming Passover (Ex. 12:1–20) on the Sabbath preceding or on the New Moon of Nisan. Since 7 readers have to be called and each of them has to read at least three verses, in most cases this means that the paragraph has to be read several times.. On the third, red cow. On the fourth, this month is for you⁹²The Mishnah follows the Palestinian rule that one never reads from more than one Torah scroll in the morning service of Sabbaths and holidays. The rule is that one interrupts the regular sequence of Torah readings (in the 3½ year cycle) and reads the paragraph about Šeqalim (Ex. 30:11–16) on or just preceding the start of Adar (in an intercalary year, Adar II), then about Amaleq (Deut. 25:17–19) on the Sabbath preceding Purim, about purification through the ashes of the Red Cow (Num. 19:1–22) on the Sabbath after Purim and about the coming Passover (Ex. 12:1–20) on the Sabbath preceding or on the New Moon of Nisan. Since 7 readers have to be called and each of them has to read at least three verses, in most cases this means that the paragraph has to be read several times.. On the fifth one returns to the regular sequence. One interrupts¹⁰⁶The regular sequence of readings is interrupted for any special occasions (when in the Babylonian rite usually a second Torah scroll is used). for everything, for New Months, for Ḥanukkah, and for Purim, on fast days, and for bystanders¹⁰⁷To support the local priests who went serving in the Temple; Ta`aniot 4:1 Note 4, 4:2, Note 77. and on the Day of Atonement.

MISHNAH: What is the difference between Passover in Egypt and the Passover of generations⁶¹Passover for future generations.? The Pesaḥ in Egypt was bought on the Tenth⁶²Ex. 12:3., and needed sprinkling with a bunch of hyssop on the lintel and two door-posts⁶³Ex. 12:22., and was eaten in a hurry⁶⁴Ex. 12:11., during one night⁶⁵The following day was a common workday on which they left Egypt.. But Passover of generations is all of seven [days].

MISHNAH: What is the difference between Passover in Egypt and the Passover of generations⁶¹Passover for future generations.? The Pesaḥ in Egypt was bought on the Tenth⁶²Ex. 12:3., and needed sprinkling with a bunch of hyssop on the lintel and two door-posts⁶³Ex. 12:22., and was eaten in a hurry⁶⁴Ex. 12:11., during one night⁶⁵The following day was a common workday on which they left Egypt.. But Passover of generations is all of seven [days].

MISHNAH: What is the difference between Passover in Egypt and the Passover of generations⁶¹Passover for future generations.? The Pesaḥ in Egypt was bought on the Tenth⁶²Ex. 12:3., and needed sprinkling with a bunch of hyssop on the lintel and two door-posts⁶³Ex. 12:22., and was eaten in a hurry⁶⁴Ex. 12:11., during one night⁶⁵The following day was a common workday on which they left Egypt.. But Passover of generations is all of seven [days].

MISHNAH: The Pesaḥ was being slaughtered in three groups, as it is said¹⁸⁴Ex. 12:6., and they shall slaughter it, the entire assembly of the community of Israel, assembly, community, and Israel. When the first group entered, the courtyard was filled, they locked the doors of the courtyard. They¹⁸⁵The priests whose duty it was to blow horns for the daily sacrifice. “Straight” means an extended single tone. blew the trumpets, straight, modulated, and straight. The priests were standing in rows¹⁸⁶The people went in with their lamb and stood in front of the priests, one priest per lamb. and in their hands were silver and golden cups; one row only silver, one row only gold, they were not mixed. The cups had no flat bottoms lest they would be put down and the blood jellying¹⁸⁷That it could no longer be sprinkled on the wall of the altar..

HALAKHAH: Some Tannaim state, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were disqualifying for it⁶⁶As they are disqualifying for sacrifices; Lev. 22:22–24. Mekhilta dR. Isamel Bo 4.. Some Tannaim state, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were not disqualifying for it⁶⁷Tosephta 8:11.. He who said, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were disqualifying for it, is understandable, since it is written, a perfect lamb⁶⁸Ex. 12:5.. He who said, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were not disqualifying for it, how does he confirm a perfect lamb? ⁶⁹The next sentences are from Soṭah 9:5, Notes 109–112. Even for offerings of the descendants of Noah it is impossible! Did not Rebbi Yasa say that Rebbi Eleazar made it clear to the colleagues, from all living, from all flesh⁷⁰Gen. 6:19. From all living creatures, each one with its entire flesh, i. e., a whole body. Babli Avodah zarah 5b.
Since Noah sacrificed some of the pure animals after the Flood, they must have conformed to the rules of sacrificial animals. But the Pesaḥ in Egypt was not an altar sacrifice., that they were complete in their limbs. There, some of them were for the altar, here nothing is for the altar. ⁷¹This sentence belongs to Soṭah, it has no place here.(Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, since you say, purgation is written there as for sacrifices, but here the altar has no part) But is was stated thus: Our forefathers in Egypt had three altars, the lintel and two door-posts. Some Tannaim state, four: the door-step, and the lintel, and two door-posts. Some Tannaim state, סַף is a vessel. Some Tannaim state, סַף is the door-step. He who said, סַף is a vessel, the cups, and the pruning knives, and the vessels for pouring⁷²1K. 6:50. The words are badly misspelled. The word is סף I.. He who said, סַף is the door-step, when they used My door-step and their door-step⁷³Ez. 43:8, סף II.. He who said, סַף is a vessel, is understandable⁷⁴Ex. 12:22.; from the blood in the סַף. He who said, סַף is the door-step, how does he confirm that סַף may mean a vessel? He brings a cup as סַף, puts it down on the door-step, dunks and sprinkles.

HALAKHAH: ¹⁸⁸A sermon, introducing the recitation of the “Egyptian Hallel”, Ps. 113–118, in the Passover night celebration. Cf. the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah p. 319; Midrash Tehillim 113(2), Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo Parashah 14. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa. Power was given to Moses’s voice and his voice went through the entire land of Egypt, a distance of 40 days of travel¹⁸⁹Or 400 Egyptian parasangs.. What did he say? From place X to place Y one group, from place Z to place U one group. You should not be astonished. If about dust, which does not usually move, it is said¹⁹⁰Ex. 9:9., it will bedust in the entire land of Egypt, voice which usually is moving, not so much more? Rebbi Levi said, just as power was given to Moses’s voice, so power was given to Pharao’s voice, [and his voice went through the entire land of Egypt, a distance of forty days of travel.]¹⁹¹Addition by the corrector, confirmed by K and Medieval sources. What did he say? Get up, leave from the midst of my people¹⁹²Ex. 12:31. The argument is based on the part of the verse not quoted here, but quoted in K: both you and the Children of Israel and go to serve the Eternal.. In the past you were servants of Pharao, from now on you are servants of the Eternal. At that moment, they were saying¹⁹³Ps. 113:1., Hallelujah, give praise, servants of the Eternal, but not servants of Pharao.

HALAKHAH: It is written²⁰⁵Ex. 24:16.: The glory of the Eternal dwelt on Mount Sinai; the cloud covered it for six days; He called to Moses on the Seventh Day. Moses ascended²⁰⁶Ex. 24:13.. The Seventh after the Ten Commandments, the start of the Forty. Moses said to them, I shall be occupied on the Mountain for 40 days²⁰⁷This is the argument which shows that the tablets were broken on the 17th of Tammus (Babli 28b). In rabbinic tradition, Pentecost (Siwan 6) is the anniversary of the epiphany of Mount Sinai. If one assumes that at the Exodus this month had 30 days and counts 40 days from the following day one has 13 days in Siwan and 17 in Tammuz for a sum of 40. Therefore the date of 17 Tammuz presupposes not only the rabbinic date for the giving of the Ten Commandments but also that Moses did not eat during the six days of waiting for permission to ascend the Mountain.
The remainder of the paragraph consists of sermon concepts; presupposing like many sermons that the persons acting in biblical history had foreknowledge of what was going to happen, such as Moses knowing that he would spend 40 days on the Mountain. Similarly, the crass anthropomorphism of the sermon about the tablets would be inadmissible in a discussion with possible consequences for rules of behavior.. When the fortieth day came and he did not come, immediately the people saw that Moses tarried in descending from the Mountain²⁰⁸Ex. 32:1.. When noontime came and he did not come, immediately the people congregated on Aaron and said to him, rise and make us gods which shall go before us, etc. The Eternal said to Moses, descend, for your people corrupted²⁰⁹Ex. 32:7., etc. And Joshua heard the sound of the people in its dealings; he said to Moses, there is sound of war in the camp²¹⁰Ex. 32:17.. Moses said, a man who in the future will rule over 600’000 does not know to distinguish between sound and sound? He said, there is no sound of shouts of strength nor sound of sounds of weakness, a sound of shouts I am hearing²¹¹Ex. 32:18.. Rebbi Yasa said, a sound of acclaim of foreign worship I am hearing. Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Yasa: There is no generation in which there is not an ounce²¹²Latin uncia. of the sin of the Calf²¹³Any trouble for the Jewish people contains some punishment for the sin of the Golden Calf. Babli Sanhedrin 102a.. It was when he approached the camp that he saw the Calf and fifes²¹⁴Ex. 32:19.. Rebbi Ḥilkiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: From here²¹⁵Even though Moses correctly analyzed the sound, he did not act until he had visual confirmation that his analysis was correct. that a person should not argue from guesses. Moses made an argument de minore ad majus. Since for the pesaḥ sacrifice, which is an isolated obligation, it is said no uncircumcised may eat from it²¹⁶Ex. 12:48. Babli Šabbat 87a., the Torah in which all commandments are contained not so much more? Moses got angry and he threw the tablets from his hand and broke them below the Mountain²¹⁴Ex. 32:19.. Rebbi Ismael stated, the Holy One, praise to Him, told him to break them, [as it is said,] I shall write on the tablets the words which were on the first tablets luckily you broke²¹⁷Deut. 10:2, taking אשר not as relative pronoun but as derived from the root אשר “riches, happiness”.. He said to him, you did well that you broke. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: The tablets were six hand-breadths long and three wide. Moses held two hand-breadth, the Holy One, praise to Him two hand-breadth, and two hand-breadths of space were between them. When Israel sinned in that way, the Holy One wanted to seize them from Moses’s hand, but Moses’s hand had the better of it and seized them from Him. That is what the verse praises him at the end and says, and all the strong hand²¹⁸Deut. 34:12., ²¹⁹Here starts an Ashkenazic text edited by J. Sussman (A), differing from the Leiden ms. mostly in the names of the tradents. The readings of the Leiden ms. are more reliable; they are confirmed by excerpts from this Chapter published by L. Ginzberg. peace shall be on the hand which had the better on mine. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Abbai: the tablets wanted to fly off but Moses held them, [as is written,] I grabbed the two tablets²²⁰Deut. 9:17.. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Nehemiah, the writing itself flew off²²¹Babli Pesaḥim 87b, last line.. Rebbi Ezra in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi Simon: The tablets were a load of forty seah but the writing was carrying them. When the writing flew off they were too heavy for Moses’s hands, they fell, and broke²²¹Babli Pesaḥim 87b, last line..

HALAKHAH: Some Tannaim state, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were disqualifying for it⁶⁶As they are disqualifying for sacrifices; Lev. 22:22–24. Mekhilta dR. Isamel Bo 4.. Some Tannaim state, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were not disqualifying for it⁶⁷Tosephta 8:11.. He who said, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were disqualifying for it, is understandable, since it is written, a perfect lamb⁶⁸Ex. 12:5.. He who said, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were not disqualifying for it, how does he confirm a perfect lamb? ⁶⁹The next sentences are from Soṭah 9:5, Notes 109–112. Even for offerings of the descendants of Noah it is impossible! Did not Rebbi Yasa say that Rebbi Eleazar made it clear to the colleagues, from all living, from all flesh⁷⁰Gen. 6:19. From all living creatures, each one with its entire flesh, i. e., a whole body. Babli Avodah zarah 5b.
Since Noah sacrificed some of the pure animals after the Flood, they must have conformed to the rules of sacrificial animals. But the Pesaḥ in Egypt was not an altar sacrifice., that they were complete in their limbs. There, some of them were for the altar, here nothing is for the altar. ⁷¹This sentence belongs to Soṭah, it has no place here.(Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, since you say, purgation is written there as for sacrifices, but here the altar has no part) But is was stated thus: Our forefathers in Egypt had three altars, the lintel and two door-posts. Some Tannaim state, four: the door-step, and the lintel, and two door-posts. Some Tannaim state, סַף is a vessel. Some Tannaim state, סַף is the door-step. He who said, סַף is a vessel, the cups, and the pruning knives, and the vessels for pouring⁷²1K. 6:50. The words are badly misspelled. The word is סף I.. He who said, סַף is the door-step, when they used My door-step and their door-step⁷³Ez. 43:8, סף II.. He who said, סַף is a vessel, is understandable⁷⁴Ex. 12:22.; from the blood in the סַף. He who said, סַף is the door-step, how does he confirm that סַף may mean a vessel? He brings a cup as סַף, puts it down on the door-step, dunks and sprinkles.

HALAKHAH: This does not follow Rebbi Nathan⁸³Babli 78b., for Rebbi Nathan says, one fulfills one’s obligation by pouring without eating. What is the reason? All of Israel shall slaughter it between the evenings⁸⁴Ex. 12:6.. “It”, even if there is only one Pesaḥ, all fulfill their obligation with one pouring. Ii is impossible that there be an olive-sized bit for everyone⁸⁵If the entire people bring only one lamb, there is not one olive-size bite for every one. But eating less than an olive-size bite is not counted, it is equivalent to nobody eating anything..

⁸⁶Tosephta 10:9.“The House of Shammai said to them, did Israel leave Egypt that he should mention the Exodus from Egypt⁸⁷The first verse of Ps. 114 mentions the Exodus; the entire Psalm is more about the crossing of the Red Sea.? The House of Hillel answered them, even if he would wait until the cock crows⁸⁸Since the House of Shammai also agree that after the meal one finishes the Hallel(Mishnah 8), even if this is said close to dawn it would be much too early., they did not reach half the redemption,” since they left only at noontime, as it is said⁸⁹Ex. 12:41; the remainder of the verse is misquoted., in the middle of this day did the Eternal lead out the Children of Israel, etc. But since one started fulfilling the obligation, on tells him to clean it up. Rebbi Abunah bar Sehora objected, did he not already mention it for the cup⁹⁰Since the House of Shammai agree that in the Qiddush spoken over the first cup one mentions the Exodus, the objection of the House of Shammai seems without base.?

³³¹It is difficult to understand why this digression about a crypto-Jewish Roman emperor was inserted here. It is futile to try to determine to whom one refers; cf. Kilaim9:4, Note 79. It was implied already in Halakhah 1 that Gentiles may have part in the World to Come.
A parallel, in slightly different order, is in Megillah 1:13. For the first sentence, cf. Lev. rabba 3(20), Midrash Ps. 22(29). Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: When in the Future World the proselytes come, Antoninus comes at the head of all of them. How do you understand this? Since they saw him walking with a slight shoe on the Day of Atonement³³²The wearing of leather shoes is forbidden on the Day of Atonement (except where it is necessary, as when walking on muddy streets.) That Antoninus did not wear leather shoes on the Day of Atonement is no proof that he became a proselyte since many “God-fearing people”, Gentiles known as “Friends of the Synagogue”, do the same., what do you infer since even God-fearing people go outside thus. There is information that Antoninus did not become a proselyte, and there is information that Antoninus did become a proselyte. Antoninus came to Rebbi and asked him, can you see me eating from the Leviathan³³³The just feasting on Leviathan meat in the World to Come are also mentioned in Lev. rabba 22(7), Babli Bava batra74b–75a. in the World to Come? He said, yes. He told him, from the Passover lamb you would not let me eat, but from Leviathan you make me eat in the World to Come? He answered, what can we do for you since about the Passover lamb it is written that no uncircumcised man may eat from it³³⁴Ex. 12:48.. This implies that Antoninus did not become a proselyte. When he heard this, he went and became a proselyte. He came to Rebbi and said to him, look at my circumcision. He answered him, at mine I never looked³³⁵It is indecent to look at sexual organs. References to this insert are Megillah 1:13 (72b l.57, 3:3 74a l.39); Avodah zarah 3:1 (42c l.5); Babli Šabbat 118b, Pesahim 104a; the text here is copied by Tosaphot Ketubot30a s.v. הכל., and at yours I should look? This implies that Antoninus became a proselyte. Why is he called our holy teacher? Because he never in his life looked at his circumcision. And why is his name Naḥum the holiest of holies³³⁶An otherwise unknown personality.? Because he never in his life looked at the figure on a coin. Antoninus came to Rebbi; he said to him, pray for me. He said to him, may He save you from the cold, as it is written³³⁷Ps. 147:17., who can withstand His cold? He said, is that not a superfluous prayer? You cover yourself with an outer garment and the cold will go away. He said to him, may He save you from the hot wind that comes into the world. He said, that is a prayer; may your prayer be heard, as it is written³³⁸Ps. 19:7., nothing is hidden from His heat.

⁹⁰This paragraph also is in Šabbat 3, Notes 121–128. Hot water heated on a holiday and similarly hot water heated on Friday for the Sabbath, Rav and Samuel, one said, one uses it to wash his face, hands, and feet, while the other said, one uses it to wash his body limb by limb. We did not know who said what but since Samuel stated, one uses it to wash his face, hands, and feet, it follows that it was [Rav] who said, one uses it to wash his entire body limb by limb. A philosopher asked Bar Qappara; Ablat asked Levi the eunuch: Is it permitted for drinking but forbidden for taking a bath? He told him, if you saw an eunuch embracing your wife, would you not feel badly about it? He said, yes. He asked him, can he squeeze her⁹¹Translation of the text in Šabbat. Text here: “him”. in any way? He said, that she should not get loose morals. He told him, here also that they should not get loose morals. After he left, his students told him, this one you pushed away with a stick; what do you answer us? He said to them: Is there not already written⁶³Ex. 12:16. only what is being eaten by everybody, this alone may be made by you.

Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary¹⁹⁴That they refused to let Joseph the Cohen bring the Second Pesaḥ for his entire family. The same discussion in Pesaḥim 8:1 (fol. 35d), Qiddušin 1:8 (fol. 61c); cf. Babli Pesaḥim 93a, Mekhilta R. Ismael Ba 3, Mekhilta R. Simeon bar Ioḥai p. 10.? It was stated¹⁹⁵Tosephta Pesaḥim 8:10. There, the opinion of R. Meïr is attributed to R. Jehudah.: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining others¹⁹⁶Joining a group of men who are biblically obligated; cf. Note 177., the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, even on the Sabbath¹⁹⁷If the 14th of Iyar is a Sabbath, the sacrifice has precedence over the Sabbath., and certainly the First. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Ex. 12:3) “Every man a sheep for the family,” if they want “a sheep for the house¹⁹⁸Everywhere in rabbinic Hebrew, “house” of a family is the wife..” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, “Every man a sheep for the family,” a fortiori “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar? “Every man”, not woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor¹⁹⁹In the Tosephta (Note 195) the reason they turned back Joseph the Cohen was not that he brought his wife and children but his minor grandson. In that version, there is no place for disagreement or special situation.. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation²⁰⁰If a renowned authority does something, everybody will rush to emulate him and in the next generation it will already be a common standard and acquire the status of “practice of the forefathers from time immemorial”. Even R. Yose will agree that in such a situation one should not allow a public display of special devotion. The Babli Pesaḥim 93a quotes a Tosephta which includes women impure because of childbirth in the list of persons obligated to observe the Second Pesaḥ.. Did we not hold²⁰¹Mishnah Menaḥot 10:6, Babli Menaḥot 69a, speaking of First Fruits. There seems to be no reason why the people from Hyena Mountain should not be permitted to bring their first fruits early. The answer is, they would have been permitted had some of them come as individuals. But that the people from an entire region should come publicly to do what is only tolerated is unacceptable.: “Before the Two Breads one should not bring but if somebody brought it is acceptable?” It is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation. Did we not state²⁰²Mishnah Temurah 3:5. Why should Ben-Atitas not be permitted to bring his firstlings?: “If they were without blemish they should be sacrificed”? It is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: It is said fifteenth regarding Passover and it is said fifteenth regarding Tabernacles¹⁴³It is mentioned several times in the Pentateuch that the first day of the festival of unleavened bread, rabbinically called Peṣah, and the festival of booths both start on the 15th of their respective months. Since the particular source is not identified, the argument is informal and not binding as “equal cut”.. Since for the fifteenth which was said regarding Passover the last day is a make-up for the first¹⁴⁴Since the Seventh Day of Passover has the same public sacrifices as the first., also for the fifteenth which was said regarding Tabernacles the last day is a make-up for the first. Jehudah bar Safra in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: You shall bring a holiday sacrifice for the Eternal seven days¹⁴⁵Lev. 23:41.. Are they seven? Are they not eight¹⁴⁶While it is noted in Lev. 23:36 that the seven days of Tabernacles are immediately followed by a separate holiday on the eighth day, in Num. 29:35 the holiday appears as the Eighth Day of Tabernacles. This Eighth Day therefore has a double role, as last day of Tabernacles and as separate festival.? But remove Sabbath from them, there remain seven. Rebbi Yose said, do we infer from here that the holiday sacrifice does not push the Sabbath aside? Was it not from another place¹⁴⁷Since the holiday offerings are private sacrifices they automatically are excluded on the Sabbath.? Rebbi Joḥanan the brother of Rav Safra objected, was it not stated, the same holds for Passover? Then remove Sabbath from them, there remain six¹⁴⁸The argument of R. Hoshaia cannot be correct.. Think of it, if the first and the last holiday fall on the Sabbath, then remove two days from them and there remain six! There came Rebbi Ḥanania¹⁴⁹He shows that the previous discussion was based on a faulty version of R. Hoshaia’s argument., Jehudah bar Safra in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: You shall bring a holiday sacrifice for the Eternal seven days. Are they seven? Are they not eight? But remove Sabbath from them, since we already infer that the holiday sacrifice does not push the Sabbath aside; why does the verse say, bring on it a holiday sacrifice¹⁵⁰This is a misquote of Ex. 12:14 for the last word in Lev. 23:41, תָּחֹ֥גּוּ אֹתֽוֹ; bring it as holiday sacrifice. Since the sacrifice is mentioned in the singular it is shown that there is a single required sacrifice for the eight-day festival of which up to seven are days of sacrifice. Sifra Emor Pereq 17.? But it teaches that the last day of the festival is make-up for the first.

It is written: or cooking cooked in water²⁷⁶Ex. 12:9.. I not only have water, from where other fluids? The verse says, cooking cooked, in any way. So far following Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael²⁷⁷Who considers the combination of infinitive and perfect a form of common speech, not a duplication.? An argument de minore ad majus. Since for water which does not mask its taste you are saying it is forbidden, other fluids which mask its taste not so much more²⁷⁸Babli 41a; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Ba, Parašah 6, pp. 20=-21/?

⁶²⁴This paragraph is not only in Pesaḥim (ם) but also in Ḥallah 4:12, Notes 194–202 (ח) and refers to Mishnah Ḥallah 4:12 which states that a certain Joseph Hakohen was refused permission to celebrate the Second Passover with his wife and children. Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary? It was stated: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining others, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, and certainly the First. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Ex. 12:3) “Every man a sheep for the family,” if they want “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, “Every man a sheep for the family,” a fortiori “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? “Every man”, not woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, lest it become an obligation.

It is difficult for the House of Hillel, could he not have the right to separate heave? Think of it, if he made a stipulation²⁰²Demai 7:5: “R. Isaac ben Eleazar said, a person can say on Friday, this shall be heave tomorrow, but nobody can say on the Sabbath, this shall be heave tomorrow.” Therefore it is possible to actually separate heave on the Sabbath or a holiday if the modality of separation was stipulated the day before.! One because of the other²⁰³Since in general heave may not be delivered to the Cohen on the holiday, one makes no exemption for the rare case in which delivery would be possible.. And why was ḥallah stated? Because of ḥallah which was separated on the holiday. As it was stated:²⁰⁴Tosephta 1:14. The text from here to the end of the Halakhah also is in Pesaḥim3:3, Notes 68–72. “if one kneads dough on a holiday, he separates its ḥallah on the holiday. If he kneaded it before the holiday but forgot to take its ḥallah, it is forbidden to move it; it is unnecessary to say, to take ḥallah from it.” If he mixed water and flour? He only mentioned “kneaded”, so not when he mixed²⁰⁵Even though Mishnah Ḥallah 3:1 permits separating ḥallah immediately after mixing the flour with water.? Rebbi Samuel, brother of Rebbi Berekhiah, said: explain it if the dough was impure where he takes ḥallah only at the end. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it should have been the rule that for pure dough one should take ḥallah only at the end. They instituted that one should take it at the start, lest the dough become impure²⁰⁶Since then only the ḥallah has to be guarded from impurity but not the dough itself.. The Mishnah is about the holiday of Passover; therefore on Pentecost and Tabernacles it is permitted²⁰⁷The remark applies both to Tosephta Yom Ṭov 1:14 and Mishnah Pesaḥim 3:3.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, even on Pentecost and Tabernacles it is prohibited, because of no work shall be done on them²⁰⁸Ex. 12:16. Since impure ḥallah may not be eaten, it may not be baked on a holiday..

¹²⁹Parallel sources are Gen. rabba 6(1), Pesiqta dRav Cahana Haḥodesh, Pesiqta rabbati 15 (Haḥodesh). Rebbi Shila from Kefar Tamarta in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He made the moon for festive times, the sun knows its destination¹³⁰Ps. 104.19.. Because the sun knows its destination, He made the moon for festive times¹³¹Since the motion of the sun through the seasons is almost not perceptible, holidays are defined by phases of the moon.. Rebbi Berekhiah said, it is written¹³²Num. 33:3. The argument is about the statement in the verse, on the 15th day of the month.: They travelled from Rameses in the first month,etc. When {the sun} sets on the nights of the holiday there were fourteen settings preceding it¹³³This implies that the time of sunset on the first of Nisan must already be part of the new month.. This means that one counts for the moon from the setting of the sun. Rebbi Simon said, they shall be¹³⁴Gen. 1:14. At the creation it is stated that sun and moon together determine the holidays., by both of them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was evening, it was morning, one day¹³⁵Gen. 1:5. Without the preceding evening the day is not complete and is not counted.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the month¹³⁶Ex. 12:2. Since “month” is written defective, it may be read “new”., until it be totally from the new one. You are finding to say, what Rebbi Joḥanan said requires the statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, and what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said requires the statement of Rebbi Joḥanan. If Rebbi Joḥanan had stated his but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish had not made his statement, we would have said that he only said that all might be from the new one¹³⁷The verse in Gen. does not indicate any relationship with the declaration of the new moon; therefore the verse in Ex. is needed.. Therefore it is necessary that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish made his statement. Or if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish had stated his but Rebbi Joḥanan had not made his statement, we would have said that he stated day, therefore not night¹³⁸The verse in Ex. does not indicate how a day is defined. Without the verse in Gen. we could split a day between two months. Babli 20b.. Therefore what Rebbi Joḥanan said is necessary and what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said is necessary.

Thirteen things they changed for King Ptolemy. They wrote for him, “God created the beginning³⁷⁶Gen. 1:1; change not found in LXX..” “I shall make man in stature and form³⁷⁷Gen. 1:26; change not found in LXX..” “Male and his openings He created them³⁷⁸Gen. 1:27; change not found in LXX..” “He finished on the Sixth and rested on the Seventh³⁷⁹Gen. 2:2; change found in LXX.” “Now I shall descend³⁸⁰Gen. 11:7; change found in LXX..” “Sarah laughed in her surroundings, saying.³⁸¹Gen. 18:12; LXX: “in herself”.” “For in their rage they slew a bull and in their will uprooted a trough³⁸²Gen. 49:6; change not found in LXX..” “Moses took his wife and his sons and let them ride on people-carriers³⁸³Ex. 4:20. LXX: “beast of burden”..” “The dwelling of the Children of Israel, which they dwelled in Egypt and other lands, was 430 years.³⁸⁴Ex. 12:40. LXX: “In the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan.”” And the hare³⁸⁵Lev. 11:6 (in LXX 11:5). LXX: “rough-foot”, a designation of the hare., “and the young of foot.” King Ptolemy’s mother was called “hare³⁸⁶The dynasty of the Ptolemies was called the Lagides, after an ancestor Lagos “hare”.”. “Not one precious thing I took from them³⁸⁷Num. 16:15; change found in LXX.” “Which the Eternal, your God, distributed them to give light to all peoples under all the heavens.³⁸⁸Deut. 4:19; change not found in LXX.” “Which I did not command peoples to worship them.³⁸⁹Deut. 17:3; change not found in LXX.
The comparisons with the LXX text was done on the basis of Rahlfs’s edition; the history of the text between the time of the Jewish translation in Alexandria and its adaptation by Christian editors in the Roman Empire is unknown. The same list is in the Babli 9a.”

²⁶⁵This paragraph is copied from Šabbat 2, Notes 50–51; it starts with a question the reason of which is found only there. Here it is used to explain why the Mishnah requires the leftovers to be burned on the Sixteenth when from the verse one would have expected that it would be the 15^th. What did you see that you said so? You shall not leave any leftovers until the morning; what is left over from it until morning you shall burn in fire²⁶⁶Ex. 12:9.. After two mornings, one the morning of the (14^th) and the other the morning of the (15^th)²⁶⁷The correct version is in K and Šabbat,15^th and 16^th.. And it is written²⁶⁸Lev.7:17., what is left of the well-being sacrifice should be burned on the third day.

It was stated: One does neither select, nor grind, nor sift²⁴⁰Translation of the corrector’s text and the text in Šabbat. The scribe’s text “one is not pedantic” would leave open the possibility that coarse selection and grinding was not prosecutable.. He who selects, or grinds, or sifts, on the Sabbath is stoned. On a holiday he absorbs the 40²⁴¹The 39 lashes which are the standard punishment for breaking biblical prohibitions for which no other biblical punishment is specified. The Babli disagrees and declares these activities only rabbinically prohibited on a holiday, cf. Tosaphot Šabbat 95a, s. v. והרודה.
While preparing food is biblically permitted on a holiday as shown later in the paragraph, there is a dispute between the anonymous majority and R. Jehudah whether this includes preparations which could have been made the day before without impairing the quality of the food, which the majority prohibits and R. Jehudah and Rabban Gamliel permit. It is stated here that for the majority the prohibition is biblical, at least concerning preparations for baking.. But did we not state: “he picks out normally into his chest or a basket”? Rebbi Ḥanina from Antonia said, this is Rabban Gamliel’s, for “Rabban Gamliel says, also he drenches and scoops off.” And was it not stated, in the household of Rabban Gamliel they were grinding pepper in their mills²⁴²Rabban Gamliel will agree that milling flour is biblically forbidden on a holiday; he will hold that grinding pepper in a peppermill is not professionally grinding and not something which may be done the day before without impairing the quality of the spice.? It is permitted to grind but forbidden to select. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: Normal grinding was not permitted. And from where that one may neither select, nor grind, nor sift? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: No work shall be done on them up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread²⁴⁴Ex. 12:16–17. The text omitted by the quote “up to” permits preparation of food on a holiday, as quoted later in the paragraph.. Rebbi Yose asked, but did one not infer cooking only from there? Rebbi Yose did not say so, but Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Only what can be eaten by every person this alone may be made by you, up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread²⁴⁵There is nothing missing between the two quotes, so that the note “up to” seems to be superfluous. The meaning is explained in Tosaphot Beṣah 3a s.v. גזרה (at the end): vv. 16,17 form a unit: what can be eaten by every person this alone may be made by you, and you shall guard the unleavened bread. Any preparation of mazzah which requires guarding against possible leavening is permitted on the holiday, anything preceding this, i. e., mixing flour with water to make dough, is forbidden.. Ḥizqiah stated in disagreement²⁴⁶Against the Mishnah where the House of Hillel permit selecting.: only, every, person, are diminutions, not to select, nor to grind, nor to sift on a holiday.

HALAKHAH: [“The only difference between a public altar and a private altar, etc.”] Rebbi Joḥanan spent three years that he did not visit the house of assembly because of pain. At the end Rebbi Eleazar saw in his dream: Tomorrow Sinai will come down and bring a new insight. He came and said before them, from where is this truth verified that divine service is by firstborns?⁴⁷⁰Mishnah Zevaḥim14:4: Before the Tabernacle was erected private altars were permitted and the service was in the hands of the firstborn. From this verse⁴⁷¹Num. 3:13. The reference is to the later part of the verse, I sanctified for Me every firstborn in Israel., for Mine is every firstborn; on the day when I smote every firstborn in the Land of Egypt, etc. And it is written⁴⁷²Ex. 12:12. The firstborn were sanctified to God because the gods of Egypt were destroyed., and on all gods of Egypt I shall pass judgment, etc. Before that what were they doing? Rebecca took the desirable garments of her older son Esaw, which were with her in the house⁴⁷³Gen. 27:15.. What are “the desirable”? That he was acting as High Priest. Rebbi Levi said, the Eternal broke the staff of the evildoers⁴⁷⁴Is. 14:5., these are the firstborn who were the first to sacrifice to the Calf⁴⁷⁵Num. rabba 4(5)..

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.

It was stated²⁶⁰Tosephta 1:23, a different text Babli 14b. In the Tosephta, (and the quote in Or Zarua II 341) instead of נדיות one reads לודיות “from Lydda”. This also would make עססיות (Tosephta spelling) a toponymic. But since the Genizah text confirms the scribe’s, it is impossible here to emend the text, in particular because the Tosephta is not certain as a Palestinian text. Here it is tentatively interpreted as from Arabic נד֗י “to be moist, covered with dew”.: “One sends wheat because when crushed it is food, beans because when wet they are food, barley because it is animal feed.” Did we not state so in the name of Rebbi Simeon? For all breathing²⁶¹Ex. 12:16. The verse permits preparing food “for all breathing things” on the holiday. Mekhilta Bo Pisḥa 9., also breathing animals are included. The argument of Rebbi Simeon parallels that of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said²⁶²Babli 21b., for all breathing, also breathing animals are included, so Rebbi Simeon said, for all breathing, also breathing animals are included.

It was stated²⁶⁰Tosephta 1:23, a different text Babli 14b. In the Tosephta, (and the quote in Or Zarua II 341) instead of נדיות one reads לודיות “from Lydda”. This also would make עססיות (Tosephta spelling) a toponymic. But since the Genizah text confirms the scribe’s, it is impossible here to emend the text, in particular because the Tosephta is not certain as a Palestinian text. Here it is tentatively interpreted as from Arabic נד֗י “to be moist, covered with dew”.: “One sends wheat because when crushed it is food, beans because when wet they are food, barley because it is animal feed.” Did we not state so in the name of Rebbi Simeon? For all breathing²⁶¹Ex. 12:16. The verse permits preparing food “for all breathing things” on the holiday. Mekhilta Bo Pisḥa 9., also breathing animals are included. The argument of Rebbi Simeon parallels that of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said²⁶²Babli 21b., for all breathing, also breathing animals are included, so Rebbi Simeon said, for all breathing, also breathing animals are included.

The Passover sacrifice you return whole, you do not return it carved⁴²⁰Only the whole animal is a group affair; once individual portions are cut they must follow the rules of common food.. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Because of its invalidity⁴²¹This is a new subject. While in general a dish cooked as Ben Derosai’s food can be returned and reheated, for the Passover this is forbidden; if the Passover sacrifice is roasted on Friday afternoon it must be well done overall.. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. You cannot eat it for it is written⁴²²Ex. 12:9., do not eat from it raw. You cannot roast it for he should not be roasting it on the Sabbath. If you are telling him that he may do it, he will not roast it completely when it still is daylight. Since you tell him that it is prohibited, he will roast it completely when it is still daylight⁴²³The previous permission (Note 413) to return the Passover sacrifice is given only for the uncut body; once a piece has been cut to check whether it was well done it cannot be returned. This forces one to finish the roasting process before cutting anything.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose⁴²⁴The Tanna, son of R. Yose ben Ḥalafta. His question was answered in the negative by the late Amoraim just quoted. asked, if he roasted it whole and carved it up, may he go back and heat it?

Antoninus⁴⁸⁹A crypto-Jewish Roman Emperor, probably of the Severan dynasty. It is futile to try to determine to whom one refers; cf. Kilaim9:4, Note 79. It was implied already in Halakhah 1 that Gentiles may have part in the World to Come. asked Rebbi, may I build an altar? He said to him, build it and hide its stones. May one make incense for him? He said to him, make it without one of its ingredients. Was it not stated, you may not make for yourselves⁴⁹⁰Ex. 30:37.? You may not make for yourselves [but] others may make for you⁴⁹¹Gentiles may make the incense for non-sacral use.. Rebbi Ḥanania said, this was for Rebbi Romanos⁴⁹²Rebbi’s agent for matters to be done outside the seat of the Patriarchate. whom Rebbi sent to make it for him. ⁴⁹³A parallel, in slightly different order, is in Sanhedrin 10:6 (Notes 331–338). There, in Halakhah 3:12, and in Midrashic sources, the Emperor is called Antolinus. There are indications implying that (Antolinus) [Antoninus] converted; there are indications implying that (Antolinus) [Antoninus] did not convert. One saw him walking with a slight shoe on the Day of Atonement³³²The scroll may not be used for public readings.. What do you infer since even God-fearing people go outside thus? (Antolinus) [Antoninus] said to Rebbi, can I eat from the Leviathan⁴⁹⁵The just feasting on Leviathan meat in the World to Come are also mentioned in Lev. rabba 22(7), Babli Bava batra74b–75a. in the World to Come? He said to him, yes. He told him, from the Passover lamb you would not let me eat, but from Leviathan you make me eat? He answered, what can we do for you since about the Passover lamb it is written that no uncircumcised man may eat from it⁴⁹⁶Ex. 12:48.. When he heard this, he went and circumcized. He came to Rebbi and said to him, look at my circumcision. He answered him, at mine I never looked⁴⁹⁷It is indecent to look at sexual organs. Other references to this insert are Megillah3:3 (74a l.39); Avodah zarah 3:1 (42c l.5); Babli Šabbat 118b, Pesaḥim 104a., and at yours I should look? Why is he called our holy teacher? Because he never in his life looked at his circumcision. And why is his name Naḥum the holiest of holies⁴⁹⁸An otherwise unknown personality.? Because he never in his life looked at the figure on a coin. This implies that (Antolinus) [Antoninus] converted. The statement of the rabbis implies that (Antolinus) [Antoninus] did (not) convert, as ³³¹“Open at the start” means that the writing of the first paragraph starts only in the middle of the line. This is normal for paragraphs following a closed paragraph. Open at the bottom means that the remainder of the last line of the paragraph remains empty; this is the definition of an open paragraph. Open on both sides implies open at the start. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said: When in the Future World the proselytes come, (Antolinus) [Antoninus] comes at the head of all of them.

⁵⁸⁵This text is from Pesaḥim 2:4 (Notes 210–227) except for an unwarranted addition by the corrector in the Pesaḥim text. From where that the Cohanim may fulfill their obligation with ḥallah or heave, and Israel with Second Tithe on Passover? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot⁵⁸⁶Ex. 12:18,20. Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yohay 12:20 (p. 24).; this adds. Could I think that they may fulfill their obligation with First Fruits? The verse says, inallyour dwelling places you shall eat mazzot⁵⁸⁷Ex. 12:20., mazzah which may be eaten at any dwelling place; this excludes First Fruits which are not eaten at any dwelling place. They objected, but may Second Tithe be eaten at any dwelling place? It may be redeemed and be eaten at any dwelling place. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: What was bought with tithe money and became impure, following Rebbi Jehudah, since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: Ḥallah from dough made from Second Tithe in Jerusalem, since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it.

⁵⁸⁵This text is from Pesaḥim 2:4 (Notes 210–227) except for an unwarranted addition by the corrector in the Pesaḥim text. From where that the Cohanim may fulfill their obligation with ḥallah or heave, and Israel with Second Tithe on Passover? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot⁵⁸⁶Ex. 12:18,20. Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yohay 12:20 (p. 24).; this adds. Could I think that they may fulfill their obligation with First Fruits? The verse says, inallyour dwelling places you shall eat mazzot⁵⁸⁷Ex. 12:20., mazzah which may be eaten at any dwelling place; this excludes First Fruits which are not eaten at any dwelling place. They objected, but may Second Tithe be eaten at any dwelling place? It may be redeemed and be eaten at any dwelling place. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: What was bought with tithe money and became impure, following Rebbi Jehudah, since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: Ḥallah from dough made from Second Tithe in Jerusalem, since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it.

I could think that they may fulfill their obligation with flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir. The verse says, seven days you shall eat mazzot⁵⁸⁸Ex. 12:15.; mazzah which may be eaten all seven days. This excludes thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir which may not be eaten all seven days. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: since flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and (goats) [wafers]⁵⁸⁹The scribe’s text clearly is in error. of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: this implies that wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. One understands about flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering. But it is not so for wafers of a nazir. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no nazir here; nezirut is an obligation⁵²⁷May be brought on a private altar. Babli Temurah 14b.. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, explain it if his purification offering was presented in Shiloh but his elevation and well-being offerings in Nob or Gibeon. Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi Ezrah asked before Rebbi Mana: Did not the teacher say in the name of Rebbi Yose: Holiday well-being offerings brought at an elevated place are qualified but they are not counted against an obligation of the owner? But it must be for Rebbi Jehudah, as Rebbi Jehudah said, purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a principal elevated place, but no purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a private altar. It only follows Rebbi Simeon, since “Rebbi Simeon said, when one of the bloods was sprinkled, the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself for the dead.⁵⁹⁰Mishnah Nazir 6:11. Therefore only the first sacrifice of the nazir is obligatory, the others together with the bread may be offered locally.”

Why did we not state carcasses with them¹⁶⁶Carcass meat as meat forbids only if it can be tasted, i. e., if it is more than 1/60 in a mixture. Therefore the question must be about entire carcasses which usually are sold by the piece; nothing usually sold by the piece can become insignificant (`Orlah 3:6, Terumot 10:6; Babli Beṣah 3b).? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it did state only things forbidden for usufruct. Carcass meat is permitted for usufruct¹⁶⁷Deut. 14:21.. They objected, is there not leavened matter on Passover¹⁶⁸Here again one only considers loaves of bread which exclusively are sold by the piece and therefore cannot become insignificant.? Leavened matter makes liable to extirpation¹⁶⁹Ex. 12:15 (but only for eating, not for possession., but for these¹⁷⁰The prohibited items enumerated in the Mishnah. there is no extirpation.

HALAKHAH: “It is written, do not remove any meat from the house to the outside³²⁵Ex. 12:46.. I have not only outside the house, from where outside the group? The verse says, do not remove to the outside.”³²⁶Babli 86a, Tosephta 6:11, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bol 15 (p. 55), dR. Simeon bar Yoḥai p. 36, Tanḥuma Bo 10, also cf. the Targumim. Rebbi Yudan said, from here that he makes himself liable if he (said I am) [removed] away from the group³²⁷The text in parentheses is the scribe’s, the one in brackets the corrector’s. Since in the corrector’s text R. Yudan adds nothing to the baraita, the scribe’s text must be the correct one. If a person (after the pouring of the blood) declares himself not to be part of his group, he commits a sin.. Rebbi Mana said, the verse should have said, do not remove to the outside, and we would have said, if he makes himself liable outside the group, not so much more outside the house³²⁸The mention of the house seems to be superfluous. Mekhilta dR. Ismael disagrees; the meat becomes disqualified and impure only by being removed to the outside.?

Rebbi Immi asked, if he removed from group to group (the volume of two olives)³²⁹It seems that instead of כִּשְׁנִי זֵיתִים one should read בִּשְׁנֵי בָתִּים “in two houses”. Since “house” usually means a one-room dwelling, “house” also may mean “room” in a big house. he is twice liable, because of do not remove from the house and do not remove to the outside. If they subscribed to a Pesaḥ, and an individual removed the volume of an olive, he is liable. Two or three persons are not liable since the members of the group may be drawn after them; but they infringe on a positive commandment³³⁰Beginning of v. 12:46: In one house it shall be eaten.; and following Rebbi Simeon they do not infringe. As it was stated, over the houses in which they are eating it there³³¹Ex. 12:7., this teaches that the Pesaḥ may be eaten in two places³³²In the same room, as described in the Mishnah. Babli 86a/b.. I could think that its eaters also could eat it in two places, the verse says, in one house it shall be eaten. How is that? A Pesaḥ may be eaten in two places, but its eaters may not eat it in two places. [Rebbi Simeon says, also its eaters could eat it in two places.] How does Rebbi Simeon uphold in one house it shall be eaten? Lest part of one group eat inside and another part outside. An individual who removed the volume of an olive, since the members of the group may be drawn after him, becomes absolved from the positive commandment. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked, why following Rebbi Simeon? Even following the rabbis, since the members of the group may be drawn after him, they are absolved from the prohibition; neither should they be under the positive commandment³³³Since the question is not answered it seems to be accepted. The positive commandment referred to is not in Maimonides’s list of commandments..

For this reason⁸That most of the month contained festival days. no supplications⁹This refers in particular to the prayer, ‘And He, being merciful’, etc. (P.B., pp. 57-65). are offered on any of the days of Nisan and there is no fasting until Nisan has passed. The only exception is [the fast of] the firstborn who fast on the eve of Passover.¹⁰In thanksgiving for the deliverance of the Israelite firstborn on Passover eve when Egypt’s firstborn perished (Ex. 12, 29). The very pious also fast on that day on account of the unleavened bread, in order that they shall begin to eat it¹¹On the evening preceding the fifteenth of Nisan. Lit. ‘that they shall enter it’. with relish.¹²In honour and appreciation of the commandment. Scholars fast on Mondays and Thursdays [throughout the year] on account of the desecration of the name of God¹³By the heathens who destroyed Jerusalem. and for the honour of the Temple which was burnt.

The money taken from Egypt was returned to its proper place, as it says (Exodus 12:36), “They stripped the Egyptians.” And it also says (Genesis 47:14), “Joseph gathered in all the money.” [And it also says (I Kings 14:25–26), “In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, King Shishak of Egypt marched against Jerusalem and carried off the treasures of the House of the Eternal.”] The heavenly writing was also returned to its place, as it says (Proverbs 23:5), “It flies from your eyes and is there no more, [it grows wings and flies like an eagle, heavenward].”