diff --git "a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Pesachim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json" "b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Pesachim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Pesachim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json" @@ -0,0 +1,586 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Pesachim", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה פסחים", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Moed" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "Tractate Pesahim can basically be broken down into three sections. The first four chapters deal with laws concerning the removal of leaven (chametz). However, there are many digressions in these chapters, and the fourth chapter really goes on to discuss many different subjects. The next five chapters deal with the passover sacrifice. The final chapter contains instructions for the seder (although this word is not used until the post-Talmudic period.) Due to the continued importance of the seder to Jews of all generations, I will give a separate introduction when we begin to learn the tenth chapter of our tractate. ", + "The Passover holiday was obviously a central pilgrimage festival when the Temple still stood, although in reality more Jews may have come to Jerusalem during Sukkot than during Passover. What is unique though about Pesach is the combination of a home and Temple holiday. While the paschal lamb was slaughtered in the Temple, it was not consumed by the priests but rather by groups of Jews called “havurot”—fellowship groups. This lamb, shared by all, was a symbol of redemption from Egypt, of God’s protection in the past and a continued sign of God’s providence. Throughout history, the lamb and the entire story of the Exodus continued to capture the imagination of Jews and many other groups (Christians, Americans etc.) in their attempt to connect history to the future. Furthermore, the story of the Exodus has been the model for people hoping for their freedom for three thousand years. It was the model for those who founded the United States of America, and 100 years later by black slaves fighting for their freedom. It is a timeless message, one whose impact has not been dulled and never will as long as there are enslaved and oppressed people anywhere in the world. \n" + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nAs do several tractates, Pesahim begins chronologically with the events that lead up to the beginning of Pesah namely checking the house to make sure there is no chametz on the night before Pesah. As many of you know, this is still a custom today. Even though most Jews have thoroughly checked their homes for chametz and removed (or put it away to be sold no one sold their chametz in mishnaic and talmudic times) they still ritually check the home with a candle, or perhaps a flashlight, and remove any chametz found on the search.", + "On the evening of the fourteenth [of Nissan] they search they house for chametz by the light of a lamp. The house is to be thoroughly searched for chametz the evening before the fourteenth of Nissan, the day on which the chametz must be destroyed. In rabbinic times, a lamp was considered the most effective means by which to search the corners of the house, the nooks and crannies, the cracks and crevices to discover hidden chametz. Their houses were obviously less lit than ours and they had fewer windows. Candlelight would, at least according to the Mishnan, have been most effective. Furthermore, at night most people are home from work and can participate in searching for the chametz. Finally, we would do well to remember that people kept far less food in their homes and generally had far simpler material lives than we do now. It may just be that they didn’t even need to begin cleaning at all until the evening before Pesah. Ahh, the good old days!", + "Every place into which chametz is not brought does not require searching, There is no need to check places into which chametz is never or almost never brought.", + "So why did they rule: two rows of the wine cellar [must be searched]? [This is actually] a place into which chametz might be taken. The mishnah raises a difficulty with the previous statement. There is an older mishnah according to which two rows of the wine cellar must be searched. We would think that the wine cellar is a place into which chametz is not brought and therefore there is no need for it to be searched. The mishnah answers that this older mishnah refers to a cellar into which chametz actually is brought.", + "Bet Shammai say: two rows over the front of the whole cellar; But Bet Hillel say: the two outer rows, which are the uppermost. In the final section of the mishnah, Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel debate how much of the wine cellar must be searched. There are two interpretations to this debate in the Talmud. According to the first interpretation, Bet Shammai says that they search the entire first row, from ceiling to floor and the row behind it. Both these rows are checked from wall to wall. According to the second interpretation, the two rows are perpendicular to each other the top row and the row next to the entrance. The sages also debate the interpretation of Bet Hillel. Some explain that according to Bet Hillel they check the top two rows, whereas others hold that they check the top row and the one behind it." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues yesterday’s mishnah in which we learned that they need not check places into which chametz is not brought.", + "They need not fear that a weasel may have dragged [chametz] from one room to another or from one place to another, for if so, [they must also fear] from courtyard to courtyard and from town to town, and there would be no end to the matter. There are two basic explanations to this mishnah. Some explain that once a room has been searched for chametz, they need not recheck the room lest a weasel dragged chametz into it after it had been searched. [In my house, my 1 ½ year old son is our little weasel, dragging chametz all over the place. Since I know he does this and I see him do it, I do check.] The Rambam explains that they need not check a room into which chametz is not brought, lest a weasel brought chametz into there. If we were to have such fears, they would never end and there would be no meaning to the statement in yesterday’s mishnah that we need not check a place into which chametz is not brought. Alternatively, even once a room had been checked, it would have to be constantly rechecked lest a weasel had dragged chametz into there." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to prescribe when the house must be searched for chametz.", + "Rabbi Judah says: they search on the evening of the fourteenth and in the morning of the fourteenth, and at the time of destroying. According to the simple interpretation of Rabbi Judah’s opinion, he seems to require that the house be searched three times, once in the evening (as we learned in mishnah one), once in the morning and once at “the time of destroying”. The “time of destroying” is the fifth hour of the 14th of Nissan (in the evening Pesah will begin), at which time all chametz must be destroyed. However, in the Talmud there is an explanation that according to Rabbi Judah one need check only once either in the evening, in the morning or at the time of destroying. If one has not searched by this time, Rabbi Judah says another search should not be done later, lest he comes to find the chametz and eat it. In other words, it is safer not to know about the chametz at all then to find it.", + "But the sages say: if he did not search in the evening of the fourteenth he must search on the fourteenth; if he did not search in [the morning of] the fourteenth, he must search during the festival; if he did not search during the festival, he must search after the festival. The sages hold that it is preferable to search in the evening as we learned in the first mishnah above. However, if he did not search in the evening then he may search later, even during the festival itself. Ultimately, if he has not searched the house during Pesah itself, he must search afterwards since it is forbidden for a Jew to derive any benefit from any chametz that a Jew owned during Pesah. He must search lest there is some chametz that was in his possession during Pesah in order to prevent him from using this chametz after Pesah.", + "And what he leaves over he must put away in a hidden place, so that he should not need searching after it. If he finds chametz during his search, he should put it away discreetly until he burns it the following morning. Were he to leave it out and then later notice that some of it was missing, he would have to perform another search." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAfter having discussed the search for chametz, the Mishnah begins to discuss burning the chametz, the most common and preferred way of destroying it.\nAll of the sages agree that from the seventh hour and onwards (daylight was divided into twelve hours, so the seventh hour is roughly speaking 1 PM, but would change depending on latitude and time of year) it is forbidden to eat or possess chametz. This is derived from Exodus 12:15 which says that one must destroy the chametz “on the first day” the first day is interpreted to be the 14th of Nissan, the day on which the Pesah lamb is sacrificed. Chametz is forbidden from the beginning of the seventh hour of that day because it is at this time that the Pesah sacrifice may be brought, and Exodus 34:25 (“You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with anything leavened”) is interpreted as prohibiting the offering of the Pesah sacrifice while one is in possession of chametz.\nIn our mishnah Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Meir dispute how much earlier than the seventh hour one must cease from eating chametz. They both agree, however, that the chametz is burned at the beginning of the sixth hour.", + "Rabbi Meir says: one may eat [chametz] the whole of the five [hours] and must burn [it] at the beginning of the sixth. According to Rabbi Meir, through the fifth hour one may continue to eat chametz. So if daylight began at we call 6 AM and the daylight hours were equal to the hours of darkness, then one could eat chametz until 11 AM. At the beginning of the sixth hour they must begin to burn the chametz, since from the seventh hour and onwards it is prohibited from the Torah to eat it. Rabbi Meir gives a one hour cushion in order to prevent people from erring and accidentally eating chametz after the Torah has already prohibited it. The cushion is necessary because it is difficult to determine precisely when the sun has completed its rising and has begun to set.", + "Rabbi Judah says: one may eat the whole of the four [hours], suspend it the whole of the fifth, and must burn it at the beginning of the sixth. Rabbi Judah provides an even larger cushion between the time when it is prohibited to eat chametz and the time when this prohibition becomes toraitic. Although the prohibition is only toraitic from the seventh hour and onwards, he says that after four hours it is forbidden to eat chametz. Rabbi Judah agrees with Rabbi Meir that the chametz need not be burned until the sixth hour. During the fifth hour it is “suspended” meaning it is neither eaten nor burned. One may still derive benefit from the chametz at this time; for instance one may feed it to animals. According to the Talmud the extra hour of cushion was because it was difficult to determine the precise time on a cloudy day (and in Israel there are still clouds during Pesah)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to deal with the time when chametz is burned.", + "Rabbi Judah further said: two unfit loaves of thanksgiving used to lie on the roof of the [Temple] portico: as long as they lay [there] all the people would eat [chametz]. When one was removed, they would keep it in suspense, neither eating nor burning [it]. When both were removed, all the people began to burn [their chametz]. Rabbi Judah relates that in the Temple they made a sign which would let the people know until what time they could eat the chametz. They would put their two loaves of bread which were used in the thanksgiving offering (see Leviticus 7:13). They would use only loaves which were unfit for use (for instance, the time in which they could be eaten had passed), because they wouldn’t take fit loaves and leave them there to intentionally render them inedible. The rest is simple: the loaves were left there until the beginning of the fourth hour, the time until which Rabbi Judah holds one can eat chametz. When one was removed at the beginning of the fifth hour, they would cease eating their chametz, but not yet burn it. When the second was removed, they would begin to burn their chametz at the beginning of the sixth hour.", + "Rabban Gamaliel says: non-sacred chametz may be eaten the whole of the four [hours] and terumah the whole of the five [hours] and they burn [them] at the beginning of the sixth [hour]. Rabban Gamaliel presents an opinion which lies somewhere between that of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah from the previous mishnah. Rabban Gamaliel agrees with Rabbi Judah that non-sacred chametz, i.e. chametz which was not terumah, can only be eaten through the fourth hour. However, he holds that terumah may be eaten through the end of the fifth hour. This is to try to prevent as much as possible the need to burn terumah, which according to halakhah should not be burnt unnecessarily. Rabban Gamaliel agrees that they burn all of the chametz in the sixth hour." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with burning impure sacrificial meat of a low degree of impurity with impure sacrificial meat of a higher degree of impurity, a potential problem since it causes the less impure meat to become more impure. The mishnah is brought here because of the mishnah which follows it, which deals with burning unclean chametz with clean chametz.", + "Rabbi Hanina the vice-chief of the priests said: during all of the days of the priests they never refrained from burning [sacrificial] meat which had been defiled by an offspring of uncleanness with meat which had been defiled by a father of uncleanness, even though they add uncleanness to its uncleanness. Rabbi Hanina, a rabbi who served in the Temple, testifies that the priests did not refrain from burning meat which had become unclean with other meat that had become unclean, even if the levels of uncleanness were different. When what is called a “father of uncleanness” (av hatuma) comes into contact with something that is receptive to impurity it renders it impure in the first degree; something impure in the first degree renders that which it comes into contact with impure in the second degree, and so on (up to four degrees). Everything besides the “father of uncleanness” is called an “offspring of uncleanness”. Meat which has come into contact with an “offspring” is at most impure in the second degree, since the “offspring can be no higher than a first degree. This meat is nevertheless rendered ineffective as a sacrifice. Rabbi Hanina teaches that they would burn this type of meat with meat that had come into contact with a “father of impurity”, even though this meat was of first degree uncleanness and hence it would add to the uncleanness of the other meat by making it of second degree uncleanness. Since both pieces of meat were impure in any case, they did not refrain from burning them together.", + "Rabbi Akiva added and said: during [all] the days of the priests they did not refrain from lighting oil which had been rendered unclean by a tevul yom in a lamp which had been made unclean by one who had contracted corpse impurity, even though they add uncleanness to its uncleanness. Rabbi Akiva adds that the same halakhah is also true with regard to oil. A “tevul yom” is someone who was impure, immersed in a mikveh but because the sun has not set, thereby ending the day, he is still impure. Until the sun sets he is considered to be of second degree impurity. If he comes into contact with oil that is terumah he renders it of third degree impurity. Rabbi Akiva teaches that this oil may be put into a lamp that is of first degree impurity, because it (the lamp) had been in contact with someone who had contracted corpse impurity (the corpse is the “granddaddy of all uncleanness, and one who comes into contact with a corpse is a “father of uncleanness). The lamp renders the oil of second degree impurity, bumping it up one level." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn today’s mishnah Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose argue over whether we may draw an analogy between the cases in the previous mishnah (burning together meats and oils of differing degrees of impurity) and the case of burning together clean and unclean terumah chametz on the eve of Pesah.", + "Rabbi Meir said: from their words we learn that we may burn clean terumah together with unclean terumah on Pesah. Rabbi Meir draws an analogy between the cases presented in yesterday’s mishnah and the case of burning impure terumah chametz with pure terumah chametz before Pesah. The analogy is that in both cases it is permitted to increase levels of impurity in the process of burning something in order to get rid of it.", + "Rabbi Yose said: that is not a [proper] analogy. Rabbi Yose says that this is poor analogy. In the cases in yesterday’s mishnah the meat or oil was already impure and the only issue was increasing its level of impurity. In the case of pure and impure terumah chametz we are talking about something pure. Therefore, they must burn both separately.", + "And Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua agree that each is burnt separately. Concerning what do they disagree? In respect of doubtful [terumah] and unclean [terumah]: Rabbi Eliezer says: each is burnt separately But Rabbi Joshua rules: both together. Rabbi Yose continues to point out that both Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Eliezer agree that impure and pure terumah are not burnt together. And if the two of them agree, then Rabbi Meir’s conclusion must be wrong. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua disagreed only concerning the burning of doubtfully impure terumah with pure terumah. Rabbi Eliezer is strict and rules that both must still be burnt separately, whereas Rabbi Joshua rules that since one is only doubtfully impure it may be burned with terumah that is certainly impure." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe second chapter continues chronologically where the first chapter left off with rules concerning the removal of chametz.", + "Any hour in which one is permitted to eat [chametz], one may feed it to cattle, beasts and birds, and one may sell it to a gentile, and benefit from it is permitted. When its time has passed benefit from it is forbidden, and he may not [even] fire an oven or a stove with it. As long as one may eat chametz on the day before Pesah, one may still derive benefit from it (see 1:4). This mishnah is opposed to Rabbi Judah’s opinion above in 1:4, where he states that during the fifth hour it is forbidden to eat chametz, but it is still permitted to derive benefit from it. The mishnah lists two of the most common ways to derive benefit from a food item without eating it giving it to animals and selling it to non-Jews. Once the time has passed, he may derive no benefit from the chametz. Even while he is burning it in order to destroy it, he may not put it in an oven or stove to use it as fuel. In other words, he must burn it in such a way that he derives no benefit.", + "Rabbi Judah says: there is no removal of chametz except by burning; But the sages say: he may also crumble it and throw it to the wind or cast it into the sea. In this section the rabbis dispute how chametz is to be removed in order to fulfill the commandment found in Exodus 12:15, “you shall remove leaven from your house.” According to Rabbi Judah the chametz must be burned. This is how he interprets the word “remove” in the verse. The sages are more flexible and accept other means by which to remove/destroy the chametz casting it into the sea or by crumbling it up and throwing it into the wind. The important thing is that he not be able to recover the chametz and eat it, or even possess it." + ], + [ + "Introduction This mishnah and tomorrow’s mishnah complete the chronologically ordered discussion about removing chametz. (In chapter three the mishnah will discuss what exactly chametz is, and which chametz must be removed.) While we were previously discussing the day before Pesah, these mishnayot skip ahead until after Pesah and rule what is to be done with chametz that was not destroyed before Pesah.", + "Chametz which belongs to a gentile over which Pesach has passed is permitted for benefit; A Jew may eat chametz that a gentile owned on Pesah since there is no prohibition for a gentile to own chametz on Pesah. The phrase “over which Pesah has passed” means that the chametz existed during Pesah.", + "But that of an Israelite is forbidden for benefit, as it is said, “No leavened bread shall be found with you.” However, a Jew may not eat or derive any benefit from chametz that any Jew (himself or other) owned over Pesah. Practically this is a very significant issue in the modern world. If a store owned by a Jew does not either get rid of or sell its chametz before Pesah a Jew may not eat that chametz even after Pesah. In Israel restaurants and food stores hang up signs which guarantee that they have sold their chametz before Pesah. The midrash at the end of this mishnah presents the prohibition for possessing chametz. According to the Talmud, since the Jew did not get rid of his chametz before Pesah, he is punished and it becomes forbidden for him or any other Jew to derive benefit from it every again." + ], + [ + "Introduction The first section of this mishnah discusses chametz which was used to secure a loan. The second half deals with chametz upon which a large pile of stones has fallen.", + "If a gentile lent [money] to an Israelite on his chametz, after Pesah it is permitted for use. A gentile lent money to a Jew and the Jew used his chametz as a collateral to secure the loan. According to the Talmud, the Jew said to the non-Jew, “If I don’t come [to claim my chametz] before Pesach it is sold to you.” In such a case, the chametz belongs fully to the non-Jew when Pesach arrives and therefore a Jew may benefit from it after Pesach has passed.", + "But if an Israelite lent [money] to a gentile on his chametz, after Pesah it is prohibited for use. This is the opposite case a Jew lent money to a gentile before Pesach and the gentile used his chametz as collateral for the loan. He said to the Jew, “If I don’t come [to claim my chametz] before Pesach it is sold to you.” When Pesach comes this chametz fully belongs to the Jew. Therefore, a Jew may not derive any benefit from it after Pesach.", + "If ruins fell on chametz it is as if it is has been removed. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: provided that a dog cannot search it out. Chametz which is totally inaccessible because a large pile of stones have fallen on it, need not be removed from a person’s property before Pesach. This is because the owner of the property does not consider this to be his chametz anymore, and indeed it is highly unlikely that he will ever again have access to it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel clarifies that in order for chametz upon which ruins have fallen to be considered destroyed, it has to be buried deep enough that a dog wouldn’t search after it. According to the Talmud, this is three handbreadths deep." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a non-priest who eats on Pesah terumah which is also chametz. The case is either one in which before Pesah he separated terumah from his chametz or that he separated terumah from his matzah on Pesah and it became chametz.", + "One who unwittingly eats terumah chametz on Pesah must repay [to a priest] the principal plus a fifth. If he eats this terumah chametz unwittingly, he is liable for what one is normally liable to pay when a non-priest eats terumah. He must repay the value of the terumah and an added fifth to a priest (see Leviticus 22:14). Even though it was forbidden for him to derive benefit from the chametz on Pesah and therefore it is as if the chametz is not worth anything, still he makes restitution based on the size of the terumah that he ate and not its monetary value. The chametz may not have any value but it has size.", + "Intentionally, he is exempt from payment and from [liability for] its value as fuel. Normally speaking, when not Pesah, one who intentionally eats terumah is liable to repay the value of the terumah which he ate. He is treated like a robber, who pays the value of that which he robbed. Since the chametz terumah is worthless on Pesah a Jew cannot derive any benefit from it he is not liable for anything. The mishnah goes on to say he is not even liable for the value of the terumah chametz had it been used as fuel, since on Pesah not only is eating the chametz prohibited, but deriving any benefit from it is as well." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah lists those types of grains with which one can make the obligatory matzah on Pesah. There is a duel function to this list anything which can be used to make matzah can also become chametz. Hence, this mishnah also indirectly teaches us which types of grain must be removed before Pesah.", + "These are the things with which they fulfill their obligation on Pesah: with wheat, with barley, with spelt, with rye, and with oats. This is the list of grains from which one may make the obligatory matzah. Note that rice is not on the list. According to the mishnah, matzah may not be made out of rice nor does rice become chametz.", + "And they fulfill [the obligation] with demai, with first tithe whose terumah has been separated, and with second tithe or sanctified property which have been redeemed; We have encountered this list on several occasions already (Shabbat 18:1; Eruvin 3:2; Sanhedrin 8:2; Makkot 3:2). It is basically a list of foods which can be eaten, at least according to toraitic law. The opposite is in section four those foods are prohibited and hence one cannot use them to fulfill the obligation to eat matzah.", + "And priests [can fulfill their obligation] with hallah and terumah. Hallah (which a person must separate when he makes dough) and terumah are given to the priest, who may use them to make his matzah. A non-priest cannot eat them and hence cannot use them for matzah.", + "But not with untithed produce, nor with first tithe whose terumah has not been separated, nor with second tithe or sanctified property which have not been redeemed. The opposite list of that in section two.", + "Loaves of the thanksgiving offering and the wafers of a nazirite: If he made them for himself, they cannot fulfill [their obligation] with them; If he made them to sell in the market, they can fulfill [their obligation] with them. These loaves and wafers are not chametz and hence might potentially be usable for matzah. The mishnah rules that if he made them for his own personal use then they are already sanctified and one cannot use them for matzah. In other words, although they physically fulfill the requirements of matzah, since they were sanctified for another use they cannot count also as matzah on Pesah. However, if he is a merchant and made them to sell to those who need to bring sacrifices, then they have not yet become sanctified and they may be used as obligatory matzah on Pesah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nSince we learned in yesterday’s mishnah what grains one can use for matzah, today we learn what vegetables one can use for bitter herbs (marror).\nAs an aside, I will add a rare practical halakhic issue. Horseradish is not one of the vegetables on this list. Horseradish is not native to the land of Israel. It was introduced as “bitter herbs” in Europe where the herbs listed in the Mishnah did not grow, or were exceedingly difficult to cultivate. The most commonly used and acceptable “bitter herb” today is Romaine lettuce. Most people (I shall not name names, but some of them share my last name) complain to me that lettuce isn’t bitter so how can we use it for “bitter herbs”. They are correct through thousands of years of cultivation we have managed to take the bitter taste out of most lettuces. A potential solution which many people do is to mix some horseradish with their lettuce. In any case, I urge you to use lettuce on Pesah and not exclusively horseradish.\nFinally, I am not a botanist. I don’t pretend to know exactly what most of these vegetables look or taste like. I have relied on Yehudah Felix’s article in the Encyclopedia Judaica and on Albeck’s commentary for my translation and interpretation.", + "And these are the herbs with which one discharges his obligation on Pesah: with lettuce [hazaret]; with chicory [olshin]; with wild chicory [tamkah]; with picridium [harhavina], and with sonchus [maror]. Concerning all of these, Yehudah Felix (Encyclopedia Judaica, entry Bitter Herbs) writes: “The rabbis included under merorim plants whose common features are: “bitterness, possessing sap, with a grayish appearance” (Pes. 39a), meaning wild or cultivated vegetables, with leaves of a silvery-grayish-green color, that have a milk-like sap and leaves with a bitter taste.” In his commentary on Exodus 12:8, “They shall eat it roasted over the fire, with unleavened bread and bitter herbs”, Nahum Sarna (JPS Commentary: Exodus, 55) writes, “Hebrew merorim (sing. maror) is a generic term and probably referred originally to the kind of pungent condiment with which pastoral nomads habitually season their meals of roasted flesh.”", + "They fulfill their obligation whether they are moist or dry, but not preserved [in vinegar], nor stewed nor boiled. The vegetables may be dry, but moist would be better. The Talmud says that only the stalks may be dry the leaves must be fresh. However, they cannot be cooked or preserved, which is usually considered to be akin to cooking.", + "And they combine to the size of an olive. On Pesah one must eat an olive’s worth of maror. The mishnah teaches that one can combine them to equal an olive’s worth, eating half an olive’s worth of one kind and half an olive’s worth of another.", + "And they fulfill their obligation with their stalk[s]. The leaves and stalks count toward fulfilling one’s obligation.", + "And with demai, and with first tithe from which terumah has been separated, and second tithe and sacred property which have been redeemed. This is the same list as found in section two of yesterday’s mishnah. Notice that the mishnah does not even have to list those things with which one cannot fulfill one’s obligation, because they are the same as section four in yesterday’s mishnah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah returns to discussing the prohibition of chametz on Pesah.", + "All three sections of this mishnah teach that one must avoid letting grains come into contact with water on Pesah because this allows them to turn into chametz. We should note that today religious Jews do not keep grain in their possession on Pesah, nor do they bake matzot during Pesah. In the time of the Talmud Jews did not get rid of dry grains, grains which had not yet become chametz and when they needed to, they did bake matzah on Pesah. This mishnah deals with what one may do and not do with grain on Pesah.", + "One may not soak bran for fowls, but one may scald it. Soaking bran will lead it to become chametz. However, putting it in boiling water will not cause it to become chametz because the hot water arrests the leavening process.", + "A woman may not soak bran to take with her to the bathhouse, but she may rub dry [bran] on her skin . Soaked bran was used by women to cleanse their skin in the bathhouse. She may not soak the bran before she goes to the bathhouse because that will cause it to become chametz. However, she may rub dry bran directly on her skin even though her skin is moist.", + "And a man may not chew wheat and place it on his wound, because it turns into chametz. Chewed wheat was used as a salve for wounds. When he chews it he gets the wheat wet, thereby making it likely to become chametz. Hence, this is forbidden. On a small note concerning gender, it is interesting that men are wounded and women go to the bathhouse." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains three more prohibited mixtures, two of which deal with chametz.", + "One may not put flour into haroset or into mustard; “Haroset” is a mixture of fruit and wine or wine vinegar and it was customary to put flour in it as well. However, on Pesah it is forbidden to put flour in it because the wine or wine vinegar will cause it to become chametz. Mustard is also made with vinegar and therefore it is also forbidden to put flour into it.", + "And if he did put [it], it must be eaten immediately; But Rabbi Meir forbids [it]. If he nevertheless did put flour into either mustard or haroset, he must eat it immediately so that it doesn’t become chametz. Rabbi Meir, however, holds that it becomes chametz immediately and therefore one cannot eat it.", + "One may not boil the Pesah sacrifice, neither in liquids nor in fruit juice but one may baste and dip it in them. Exodus 12:9 forbids eating the Pesach sacrifice if it has been boiled. Our mishnah adds that this prohibition holds true for all liquids, water and fruit juices the sacrifice may not be boiled in any liquid. However, it is not prohibited to baste the sacrifice with liquids such as wine or oil while it is roasting and one can dip the meat in liquids after the roasting is complete. Perhaps the reason that this section is here is that above we dealt with Exodus 12:8 and here we deal with Exodus 12:9. Alternatively, since the previous sections and the following one deal with juices, this halakhah is brought here.", + "The water used by a baker must be poured out, because it causes leavening. While baking matzah, the baker will dip his fingers in water to keep them moist. The water bowl into which he dips his fingers must be dumped out so that the flour in it doesn’t turn into chametz. It should be dumped out somewhere where it will not gather in one place so that it doesn’t turn into chametz on the ground." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah provides two lists: one of food items which have small amounts of chametz mixed into them, and the other a list of non-food items which are made from dough. It is forbidden to eat or to possess any of the things on this list. However, one who does so is not subject to the full punishment of “karet” (extirpation), the punishment given for eating plain, non-mixed and edible chametz on Pesah (see Exodus 12:15). The reason that the punishment is less is that these are either not fully chametz but rather mixtures, or if they are fully chametz they are not generally edible or considered to be food.", + "These must be removed on Pesah:
Babylonian kutah, Medean beer, Idumean vinegar, Egyptian zitom, Babylonian kutah is a mixture of curds, crumbs and salt. Medean beer (the word in Hebrew for beer just means a strong drink) has barley in it, as does Idumean vinegar and Egyptian zitom (another strong drink). All of these things are foods which must be removed from one’s possession before Pesach because they contain in them grains which have turned into chametz. It is curious to me that the mishnah lists only foreign products. Indeed, these are four of the empires that ruled over Israel: Babylonia, Medea (Persia), Edom (Rome) and Egypt. However, Greece usually appears in this list and Egypt does not.", + "The dyer’s pulp, cook’s dough, and the scribes’ paste. Dyer’s broth has bran in it, probably as a thickener. Cook’s dough is dough that is used to soak up the extra, dirty liquid from cooking pots. Scribe’s paste was used to glue parts of parchments together. None of these three things is intended to be used as food and indeed they all probably taste terrible. Nevertheless, since they all do have chametz in them they must be removed before Pesach.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: women’s ornaments too. Rabbi Eliezer adds women’s ornaments, which are made with mixtures of chametz. The Talmud understands this as referring to various salves and not to jewelry.", + "This is the general rule: whatever is of a species of grain must be removed on Pesah. These are subject to a warning but they do not involve karet. The mishnah now provides two general rules, rules which I explained in my introduction. The first is that anything that has in it grain, even if that grain is only in a mixture with other non-grain items, must be removed from one’s possession on Pesah. The second one is that one is not liable for karet for eating or possessing things that are not fully chametz i.e. foods which are not in a mixture with other things. However, they are still prohibited." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMost of this mishnah deals with dough which is found in the crevices of a kneading trough and whether or not one must remove this dough on Pesach. The final clause of the mishnah deals with dough that may or not have already begun to become chametz.", + "[With regard to] the dough in the cracks of the kneading trough: if there is as much as an olive in one place, he must remove [it]; but if not, it is nullified through the smallness of its quantity. With regard to removing the dough from the cracks of the kneading trough, it all depends on whether or not there is an olive’s worth of dough in one place. If there is, then he must remove it; but if not the dough is considered as if it doesn’t exist and he need not bother removing it.", + "And it is likewise in the matter of uncleanness: if he objects to it, it makes a break; but if he desires its preservation, it is like the kneading-trough. There is a similar rule with regard to uncleanness, but the rule is actually different. With regard to uncleanness the issue is whether or not the dough is an essential and desired part of the kneading trough. If the dough is an essential part of the trough, then if a sheretz (an impure creeping thing) touches the dough the entire trough is impure, even if though the sheretz didn’t touch the trough itself. If the dough is not an essential part of the trough, then only the dough is impure and the rest of the trough remains pure. The mishnah says that the dough’s being an essential part of the trough hinges on the desire of its owner. If the owner wishes the dough to remain there because it is helping to fill a gap in the trough (functioning like plaster), then it is part of the trough and does not stop the uncleanness from spreading. If the owner wants it to be removed, it does break the uncleanness; only the dough is impure and not the trough.", + "[With regard to] “deaf” dough, if there is [a dough] similar to it which has become chametz, it is forbidden. Dough is here compared to a deaf person. When one talks to a deaf person (they didn’t have sign language back then) the deaf person doesn’t get up to respond. So too, this “deaf” dough does not seem to be “getting up” meaning it doesn’t seem to be rising. The mishnah says that if other dough that was kneaded with it is rising, then the deaf dough must also be chametz and it needs to be removed. If not, then the deaf dough is not chametz and need not be removed before Pesah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses a halakhic quandary. In order to understand it we need to first mention some background halakhot.\n1) When one prepares dough there is a mitzvah to separate some dough. This separated dough is called hallah (Numbers 15:20). If the dough is ritually clean it is given to a Kohen; if it is ritually unclean it cannot be eaten and must be burned.\n2) On Pesah all dough needs to be baked immediately lest it become chametz.\n3) On festivals one is allowed to cook food, but one is not allowed to cook food which cannot be eaten.\n4) One is not allowed to burn sacred things in order to remove them on a festival. This includes challah, which is considered sacred.\nThe problem then is what to do with baking unclean hallah on one of the festival days of Pesah. If she bakes it then she may be transgressing the laws of the festival which allows one to cook only food which can be eaten. The unclean hallah cannot be eaten so it can’t be baked. She can’t burn it either. If she just leaves it, it will ferment and become chametz.\nIn our mishnah the rabbis debate what to do with this dough.", + "How do they separate hallah on the festival [from dough which is] in [a state of] uncleanness?
Rabbi Eliezer says: she should not call it [hallah] until it is baked. Rabbi Eliezer tries to find a means to avoid the problem. Usually, one separates and designates dough as hallah while it is still dough, before it is baked. In this case, to avoid the problem, what the woman baking the dough should do is not designate which piece will be hallah until after it has been baked. In this way, while the loaves are being baked, we could point to each loaf and say, “this one will not be hallah.” After it has already been cooked we need not be concerned about it becoming chametz. In the evening, she may burn the unclean hallah.", + "Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: she should put [the dough] into cold water. Rabbi Judah ben Batera comes up with a different solution. Separate the hallah when it is still dough, but instead of baking it put it in cold water. The cold water will arrest the fermentation process.", + "Rabbi Joshua said: this is not the chametz concerning which we are warned with, “It shall not be seen”, and “It shall not be found”. Rather she separates it and leaves it until the evening, and if it ferments it ferments. Rabbi Joshua rejects both of the previous solutions and rather says that she should separate the dough and if it becomes chametz then it becomes chametz. There is no need to be concerned that this is a transgression. The Torah’s prohibitions “It (chametz) shall not be seen” (Exodus 13:7) and “It shall not be found” (Exodus 12:19) do not apply to this chametz because it doesn’t belong to its owners anymore. From the minute she separates it to make it challah it already belongs to the kohen." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with how people should bake matzot on Pesah to avoid them becoming chametz. The mishnah reflects a reality in which several women shared one oven for baking bread/matzah.\nWe should note that today no one bakes matzah on Pesah. All matzah is baked before Pesah in order to avoid the risk of the dough becoming chametz.", + "Rabban Gamaliel says: three women may knead at the same time and bake in one oven, one after the other. Rabban Gamaliel says that three women may knead dough simultaneously and then use the same oven, even though the dough of one woman will have to wait while the dough of the other two women is baking. Rabban Gamaliel does not think that the dough will turn into chametz in this short amount of time.", + "But the sages say: three women may be engaged with the dough at the same time: one kneads, one shapes and one bakes. The sages disagree and think that if one batch of dough has to wait while the other two bake, it is likely that it will turn into chametz. What the women should do is set up an assembly line, one woman will knead, one woman will shape the dough and one woman will bake. If they time it correctly then no one will have to wait to bake their bread.", + "Rabbi Akiba says: not all women and not all kinds of wood and not all ovens are alike. Rabbi Akiva says it is impossible to a hard and fast rule since some women prepare bread faster than others, some wood makes ovens hotter than others and some ovens cook faster than others.", + "This is the general principle: if it [the dough] rises, she should slap it with [hands dipped in] cold water. Some commentators explain that this section is a continuation of Rabbi Akiva’s statement but I believe that it is an independent statement. All of the rabbis agree that if the woman begins to see signs of the dough turning into chametz what she should do is slap it with cold water to arrest the fermentation process." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with how one can tell when a piece of dough has started to become chametz.", + "Si’ur must be burnt, while he who eats it is exempt; sidduk must be burnt, while he who eats it is liable to kareth. The halakhah in this section seems to be an old halakhah, one which Rabbi Judah and the other sages debate in the remainder of this mishnah. The halakhah is that “si’ur” dough must be burnt, meaning it must be removed before Pesah, but that one who eats it is not liable for karet as he would be were he to have eaten chametz. “Si’ur” comes from the word for hair (se’ar) and we will see in the remainder of the mishnah that both Rabbi Judah and the sages explain it so that it has some connection with hair. “Sidduk” means “cracked” and it is already chametz and therefore one who eats it is liable for karet.", + "What is si'ur? [When there are lines on the surface] like locusts’ horns. Sidduk is when the cracks have intermingled with each other, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Judah and the sages now debate the definition of si’ur and sidduk. According to Rabbi Judah si’ur dough already shows some signs of cracking on the surface and the lines look like locusts’ horns. These horns are similar enough to hair that the dough is called si’ur. The lines on sidduk dough are more numerous and have already begun to intermingle with each other. One who eats dough with this many cracks is liable for karet for having eaten chametz.", + "But the sages say: regarding the one and the other, he who eats it is liable for karet. And what is si'ur? When its surface is blanched, like [the face of] a man whose hair is standing [on end]. The sages say that what Rabbi Judah called si’ur is actually sidduk and therefore one who eats it is liable for karet. They redefine si’ur as dough that has begun to turn white, like the face of a person who is frightened. Note again the connection with hair to the sages this dough is called si’ur because when a person is frightened not only does his face turn white but his hair stands on end." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nChametz is usually removed the day before Pesah, on the fourteenth of the month of Nisan. This potentially becomes a problem when the day before Pesah is Shabbat because chametz is usually removed by being burnt and one cannot burn chametz on Shabbat. In our mishnah the sages debate how to handle this problem.", + "If the fourteenth [of Nisan] falls on Shabbat, they remove everything before Shabbat, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Meir says that all of the chametz is to be burned before Shabbat. Most commentators add, based on a talmudic source, that he may leave enough chametz to eat two meals, one on Friday night and one on Shabbat morning. This is because halakhah forbids the eating of matzah on the day before Pesah. However, the custom not to eat matzah on the day before Pesah may not yet have developed in the time of the Mishnah. It is likely that Rabbi Meir assumes that one will eat matzah for Friday night dinner and for the first meal on Shabbat itself. In any case, today when this occurs, many people destroy all of their chametz on Friday, but some people leave enough bread to eat for Friday night dinner and a very early Shabbat morning lunch. This meal must be eaten before the fourth hour of the day, by which time all chametz must be removed.", + "The sages say: at its [usual] time. The sages say that all of the chametz is removed at its usual time, meaning on Shabbat itself. The sages assume that they will remove the chametz by eating it or by giving it to his animals. If it can’t be eaten, then it may crumbled up and thrown into the wind (see above 2:1).", + "Rabbi Eleazar bar Zadok says: terumah before Shabbat, and non-sacred [chametz] at its [usual] time. The problem with waiting until Shabbat to remove the terumah is that far fewer people can eat terumah only kohanim and their families may eat it. Therefore, he should burn the terumah the day before Pesah. However, regular chametz may be eaten by anyone, and therefore they can wait to remove it until Shabbat itself. On this point he agrees with the sages." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses a person who starts on a journey and once he has already left he remembers that he forgot to remove his chametz. The question is whether or not he must return home to remove the chametz or whether he may continue on his way.", + "He who is on his way to slaughter his Pesah sacrifice or to circumcise his son or to dine at a betrothal feast at the house of his father-in-law, and remembers that he has chametz at home: if he is able to go back, remove [it], and [then] return to his religious duty, he must go back and remove [it]; but if not, he annuls it in his heart. In the first section, the person is on his way to perform a commandment when he remembers that he forgot to remove his chametz. The first two commandments are extremely significant and time-bound. The commandment to participate in the Pesah sacrifice and the commandment to circumcise are the only two positive commandments which carry with them the punishment of karet for lack of fulfillment. Furthermore, the Pesah must be sacrificed on the fourteenth of Nisan and if the eighth day of a boy’s life falls out on the fourteenth of Nisan then it must take place then. It is not surprising that the halakhah allows him to continue on his way to perform these weighty commandments. What is perhaps more surprising is that participating in a betrothal feast is placed in the same category. This perhaps can be read as a rabbinic statement concerning the importance of marriage. In any case, if a person sets off to engage in one of these activities and realizes that he has not burned his chametz, if he can still return home, burn the chametz and get to where he needs to be on time, then he must do so. However, if there is not sufficient time for this, then he need not return. Rather, in his heart he annuls the chametz, that it should be to him as is the dust of the earth.", + "[If he is on his way] to save from an invasion or from a river or from brigands or from a fire or from a collapse [of a building], he annuls it in his heart. In this section he is on his way to save someone’s life. In such a case, even if he could return to remove his chametz and still make it to where he needs to go on time, he need not do so. Since these are matters of life or death, he shouldn’t hesitate or take a risk by returning to remove his chametz. Life takes precedent over all commandments. Therefore, all he should do is annul the chametz in his heart.", + "[But if] to rest for pleasure, he must return immediately. If he sets out just for pleasure, for instance on a vacation, without there being any commandment that he is going to perform, then he must return and remove his chametz even if this will cause him to not be able to get to where he needs to go. In such a case, the mishnah does not allow him to annul the chametz in his heart." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah.", + "Similarly, he who went out of Jerusalem and remembered that he had holy meat with him: If he has passed Scopus, he burns it where he is; but if not, he returns and burns it in front of the Temple with the wood of the [altar] pile. Certain sacrifices, such as a thanksgiving offering, may be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem but may not be brought outside. If they are brought outside of Jerusalem they must be burnt. The person in this mishnah is leaving Jerusalem when he discovers that he has with him “holy meat” some sacrificial meat that he didn’t eat. According to the Mishnah, if he has passed Mt. Scopus, a mountain from which the Temple Mount can be seen (this is where Hebrew University is today), then he need not go back to the Temple and burn the meat there. However, if he still has not yet reached that point, he must return to the Temple and burn the sacrifice with the wood of the altar pile.", + "And for what [quantity] must they return? Rabbi Meir says: for both when there is as much as an egg; Rabbi Judah says: for both, when there is as much as an olive; But the sages say: holy meat, when there is as much as an olive and chametz, when there is as much as an egg. The mishnah now asks about the two cases we have discussed in today’s and yesterday’s mishnah: sacrifices and chametz for the sake of what quantity must one return to burn/remove them? According to Rabbi Meir, the amount is the same for both a measure the size of an egg. The Talmud says that Rabbi Meir learns this from the laws of uncleanness just as food that is less than the size of an egg cannot become unclean, so too he need return only for this measure of sacrifice or chametz. Rabbi Judah disagrees (these guys do seem to always disagree) and holds that in both cases he need return for an amount the size of an olive, a smaller amount than an egg. The Talmud explains that Rabbi Judah learns this from the amount that is prohibited an amount the size of an olive is prohibited and therefore this is the minimum amount for which one must return. Finally, the sages differentiate between the two for sacred meat he must return for the smaller amount of an olive but for chametz he need only return for an egg’s amount." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThrough the middle of mishnah five this chapter deals with customs which differ from place to place. The basic attitude of the Mishnah is that local customs are acceptable, so long as they are not opposed to halakhah. However, complications will arise when people from a place with one custom come to a place with a different custom. This is the specific problem with which our mishnah deals.", + "In a place where it is the custom to do work on the eve of Pesah until midday one may do work; where it is the custom not to do work, one may not do work. Of all the different customs which the first five mishnayot of our chapter will discuss, this is the only one that is connected to Pesah. It is because this collection begins with a custom related to Pesah that the mishnah is found here in Pesahim. In some places it was customary not to work on the morning before Pesah. This was to make sure that people didn’t forget to burn their chametz on time. People who live in a place with such a custom should not work at all on this day. However, people who live in a place where the custom is to do work on the morning before Pesah may indeed work. In any case, even in a place where they are accustomed to work on the eve of Pesah, they only work until midday. Since the Pesah sacrifice could be offered any time after midday, the sages treated this part of the day as if it were a holiday unto itself and they forbade a person to work. Even after the Pesah sacrifice could no longer be offered this prohibition remained in its place. We should note that on the eve of Shabbat and other holidays the sages ruled that it was forbidden to do work from minchah time (the late afternoon) and onward. On Pesah they were stricter and forbade work from midday.", + "He who goes from a place where they work to a place where they do not work, or from a place where they do not work to a place where they do work, they place upon him the restrictions of the place from where he departed and the restrictions of the place to where he has gone. As is clear when you read this section carefully, whether he comes from a place that doesn’t do work or goes to a place that doesn’t do work, he won’t be allowed to do work on the eve of Pesah. No matter where he is or where he is from, he is always subject to the stricter rule.", + "And a man must not act differently [from local custom] on account of the quarrels [which would ensue]. If by not observing the local custom he will cause quarrels then he should not act differently. The simplest meaning of this line is that even if he is going from a place that does not do work to a place that does do work, he should do work if by refraining from work he would cause people to quarrel. In other words, the mishnah wants to make sure that when a person is visiting another place, his customs don’t make other people feel that he is trying to act “holier than thou”. If this will give that impression, then he should observe the local custom." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIt is permissible to eat produce which was reaped during the sabbatical year so long as that type of produce is still growing in the fields. Once it no longer grows in the fields it is forbidden to eat it. Our mishnah deals with a person who goes from a place where a certain produce grows in the field to a place where that produce does not grow in the field, or vice versa.", + "Similarly, he who transports sabbatical year produce from a place where it has ceased [to exist in the field] to a place where it has not ceased or from a place where it has not ceased to a place where it has ceased, he is bound to remove it. Again, the mishnah rules that one who travels from one place to another follows the stricter rule. If for instance he is traveling from Hebron where bananas are still in the field, to Bet El, where they are no longer in the field, he must remove the bananas he brings with him. Similarly, if he travels from Bet El which has no bananas in the field (yes, they have no bananas) to Hebron, where the bananas are still thriving, he must still get rid of his bananas because in his home town he can’t have them.", + "Rabbi Judah says: he can say to them “You can go out too and bring [produce] for yourself.” Rabbi Judah says that if he goes from a place that has a certain bananas in the field to a place that doesn’t he can still eat the bananas because he can say to the people of the other place, you can go back to my place where you can eat them as well as I can. According to Rabbi Judah this is not an issue of following the local custom, as was the issue in yesterday’s mishnah. Rather he understands that the prohibition is to eat produce from a field when that produce no longer grows in that area. Therefore, in our example above, it is only forbidden to eat Bet El bananas because Bet El has no bananas in the field. To eat Hebron bananas is okay, even in Bet El. [Note, I have explained this section according to Albeck’s commentary. The Talmud contains different interpretations.]" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses the prohibition of a Jew from selling animals to non-Jews, lest the non-Jews use them for work on the Sabbath. [This same mishnah appeared in Avodah Zarah 1:6. ]", + "In a place where it is the custom to sell small domesticated animals to non-Jews, such sale is permitted; but where the custom is not to sell, such sale is not permitted. The Torah teaches on several occasions that an animal must rest on the Sabbath (see for instance Exodus 20:9). Our mishnah prohibits a Jew from selling an animal to a non-Jew, lest the non-Jew use the animal for work on the Sabbath. Small animals, such as sheep and goats, are not used for work. Therefore in a place where it is customary to sell them to non-Jews it is permitted to do so. In other places it was customary not to sell even small animals to non-Jews, lest the Jew become confused and sell them large animals, which is prohibited in all places.", + "In no place however is it permitted to sell large animals, calves or foals, whether whole or maimed. It is forbidden in all places to sell large animals, such as oxen and horses, to non-Jews since they will be used to perform work on the Sabbath. Even though once the non-Jew buys the animal it is no longer a “Jewish” animal and hence the Shabbat prohibitions apply to it, the mishnah still prohibits the sale because sometimes a Jew might give the animal for a trial period and then the non-Jew might return it. In such a situation, the animal still belongs to the Jew and should not work on Shabbat. The prohibition of selling animals includes calves and foals, even though they do not usually perform work.", + "Rabbi Judah permits in the case of a maimed one. Rabbi Judah allows one to sell injured animals to non-Jews since they are clearly being purchased for their meat and not in order to do work.", + "And Ben Bateira permits in the case of a horse. Ben Bateira allows the sale of a horse since horses are used for riding, which is not considered by the Rabbis to be work. Pulling plows, a work performed by oxen is considered work." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first section of this mishnah deals with eating roasted meat on the eve of the first night of Pesah. The second section deals with lighting a lamp on the eve of Yom Kippur.", + "In a place where it is the custom to eat roasted [meat] on the night of Pesah, they may eat [it]; where it is the custom not to eat [it], they may not eat [it]. The Pesach sacrifice must be eaten roasted (Exodus 12:8). After the Temple was destroyed, the some of the sages wanted to emphasize to people that it was forbidden to offer a Pesach sacrifice without a Temple. Hence, they forbade people from eating a roasted lamb on this night. When we learn tractate Betzah, we will see that some sages allowed the eating of a roasted lamb. In any case, according to all of the sages, eating roasted meat was not strictly prohibited and was tied to local custom. Those who lived in a place where they ate eat roasted meat (other than lamb) could do so, but those who lived in a place without such a custom were prohibited because it was thought that this might lead people to think that they were eating the Pesach sacrifice.", + "In a place where it is the practice to light a lamp [at home] on the night of Yom Kippur, they may light; where it is the practice not to light, they may not light. On the eve of Shabbat and festivals it is obligatory to light a Shabbat candle. This is part of the mitzvah to enjoy Shabbat it is more pleasurable to sit in the light than to sit in dark. However, on Yom Kippur, when we are not commanded to enjoy ourselves, lighting a candle was not obligatory but rather tied to local custom. Some lit candles as they did on other holidays, while others did not. It is explained that those who did not thought that the light might lead couples to have sexual relations, which are prohibited on Yom Kippur.", + "And they light [lamps] in synagogues, study-houses, and dark alleys, and for the sake of invalids. In public places, such as synagogues and study-houses and in places that need light, such as dark alleys, they lit lamps on Yom Kippur. Those who prohibited it only prohibited within the home. Finally, if there was a sick person who needed light for whatever reason, they of course lit one for him." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis is the last mishnah to note different customs in different places. It returns to the original topic of the chapter doing work on semi-holidays. The first section of the mishnah deals with the ninth of Av, a day of mourning commemorating the destruction of both Temples, while the second section returns to discuss the day before Pesah, the very topic that was discussed above in mishnah one. The fact that the mishnah returns to the same subject with which it began is a sign of its careful editing.", + "In a place where it is the custom to do work on the ninth of Av, one may do it; where it is the custom not to do work, one may not do it. And in all places students of sages desist [from work on that day]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: a man should always make himself a student of sages. The ninth of Av is not a festival such that it is strictly forbidden to do work on that day. Rather just as it is not appropriate for a mourner to work, so too in some places it was felt that it was not appropriate to work on this day. However, others allowed work on the ninth of Av. According to this position the mourning for the Temple is not the same as normal mourning since the tragedy has long passed. Even in places where work is allowed, students of sages (alternatively we might understand “talmidei hachamim” as referring to sages themselves) should not work. Their extra devotion to the Torah demands of them an extra observance of this day as well. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that everyone should strive to act like students of the sages and not work on the ninth of Av. Such behavior is not considered to be overly arrogant.", + "But the sages say: In Judea they used to do work on the eve of Pesah until midday, while in Galilee they did not work at all. The sages here disagree with the mishnah in the beginning of the chapter. According to the sages, working on the eve of Pesach is not dependent on local custom, as was described above. Rather, in Judea they allowed people to work until midday, whereas in the Galilee they forbid work the whole day. Some explain that in this mishnah the sages explain the first mishnah above. When the mishnah said that there were places with different customs it meant, according to the sages, that these customs differed between Judea and Galilee.", + "[With regard to] the night: Beth Shammai forbid [work], but Bet Hillel permit it until sunrise. In this section Beth Shammai and Bet Hillel debate what the custom was in Galilee, where they did not work on the eve of Pesah. According to Bet Shammai, this prohibition included working on the night before Pesah (the night before the seder), whereas Bet Hillel held that the prohibition of work did not begin until sunrise on the fourteenth." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAccording to some commentators, this mishnah teaches that even in places where they did do work on the fourteenth of Nisan, the eve of Pesah, not all types of work were permitted. According to this understanding, the mishnah restricts that which we previously thought was permitted. Others understand this mishnah to refer to places in which work is generally not done. Our mishnah would then teach that in such places while most work is not done, some work may indeed be done. This mishnah then would be allowing that which we thought was prohibited.", + "Rabbi Meir says: any work which he began before the fourteenth, he may finish it on the fourteenth; but he may not begin [new work] on the fourteenth, even if he can finish it [on the same day]. According to Rabbi Meir one may complete already-begun work on the fourteenth of Nisan, the eve of Pesah, but one may not start new work. Starting new work is prohibited even if he will be able to finish it before the day is over, or more specifically before midday, at which point all work is prohibited.", + "The sages say: three craftsmen may work on the eve of Pesah until midday, and these are they: tailors, hairdressers, and laundrymen. Rabbi Yose bar Judah says: shoemakers too. The sages say that only three types of craftsmen can do work. All other types of craftsmen may not work, even if they can complete their work before midday. All three of these types of work are considered to be essential for the full appreciation of the holiday. Furthermore, these types of work are sometimes allowed even during the intermediate days of the holidays, if they could not have been done before the holiday (we will learn more about this when we learn Moed Katan). Therefore it is allowed on the day before Pesah as well. Rabbi Yose bar Judah adds that shoemakers are allowed to work on the fourteenth because the sages allowed pilgrims to Jerusalem to have their shoes fixed, if they had worn out on their travels to Jerusalem. In any case, even these types of craftsmen can only work until midday." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to deal with work that is permitted on the fourteenth of Nisan.", + "They may set up chicken-houses for fowls on the fourteenth; and if a fowl ran away, one may return her to her place; and if she died, one may set another in her place. According to Rashi this clause means that it is permitted to put eggs under hens so that the eggs will stay warm and eventually hatch. Others explain that this clause refers to fixing nests for newly-born domesticated fowl. In any case, from the context of the rest of the mishnah, it is clear that there is some immediate need being referred to. Albeck explains that the mishnah repeats “on the fourteenth” in order to emphasize that it is permitted to do this all day, and not just until midday, because this is not actually work. If a chicken ran away from sitting on her eggs, one may return her to her spot because the eggs need to be kept warm. This too is not actually work but is rather merely laborious. Similarly, if a chicken who was sitting on her eggs died, a new one may be put in her place.", + "They may sweep away [the manure] from under an animal’s feet on the fourteenth, but on the festival one may only move it to the side. It is allowed on the fourteenth (all day) to clean up the manure that has accumulated under an animal and to bring the manure out to the garbage pile. However, on the intermediate days of the festival, when work is more prohibited, it is only permissible to move it to the sides. To completely remove it is forbidden. Note that the mishnah compares here the laws concerning the fourteenth with those concerning the intermediate days of the festival. This comparison is emphasized because they are both “grayish” areas of halakhah some things are permitted and some are not, and sometimes the same work may under certain circumstances be permitted and under other circumstances be forbidden.", + "They may take vessels to and bring them back from a craftsman’s house, even if they are not required for the festival. One can bring things to a craftsman’s house to be fixed or worked on and one can pick up things from his house that have already been completed. This is permissible even if these things are not necessary for the holiday. In contrast, on the intermediate days of the festival it is forbidden to bring things to a craftsman house even if they are needed for the festival and it is forbidden to pick things up unless they are necessary for the holiday. We can see that the laws concerning the fourteenth are more lenient." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah relates to six practices observed by the inhabitants of Jericho three against which the sages protested and three against which they did not. The reason that the mishnah is here in this chapter is that the first thing that these people did is connected to the issue of work on the eve of Pesah, the main topic of our chapter.\nWe should note that we hear in this mishnah of groups of Jews who did not necessarily listen to the rabbis (this shouldn’t really be surprising). The rabbis protest against some of their practices, and live with other ones. We have no idea whether the rabbis’ protests caused the people of Jericho to change their behavior. We should always remember that when we read Mishnah we are learning how the rabbis envisioned the Jewish world to be we are not learning what it was really like.", + "Six things the inhabitants of Jericho did: against three they [the sages] protested, and against three [they] did not protest.
And these are those against which they did not protest: They grafted palm trees all day [on the eve of Pesah]; They ‘wrapped up’ the Shema; And they harvested and stacked [their produce] before [the bringing of] the ‘omer. And [for these] they did not protest. In this section the mishnah lists practices that the sages did not protest. 1) Jericho is a region in which many date-trees grow. In the spring they would graft these trees in order to improve them. Even though they did this work all day, the sages did not protest because there is a lot of pressure to get this work done in the correct season. 2) There are two interpretations for what it means to “wrap the Shema”. According to one interpretation it means that they would not pause between words, and according to another interpretation they would not say “barukh shem kevod malkhuto leolam vaed” a line normally recited after the first line of the Shema. Although one should not do either of these practices, the sages still did not feel the need to protest against them. 3) According to the sages, the omer (first grains) are brought on the second day of Pesah. Until this time it is forbidden to harvest the wheat (see Leviticus 23:10). Nevertheless, the people of Jericho would harvest the wheat and stack it, before the omer was brought. The Talmud explains that it is indeed permissible to harvest the type of wheat which grows in the Jericho region, so the sages did not protest the harvesting itself. However, stacking the harvested wheat is prohibited and it is against the stacking that they did protest.", + "And these are those against which they did protest: They permitted [for use] the small branches [of sycamore trees] belonging to sacred property, And they ate the fallen fruit from beneath [trees] on Shabbat, and they gave pe’ah from vegetables; And [for these] they did protest. In this section we learn of three practices against which the sages did protest. 1) The people of Jericho would use the small branches of sycamore trees which had been dedicated to the Temple. They reasoned that when these trees were dedicated by their forefathers it was only their trunks which were dedicated because people don’t usually use the branches. This is how Rashi explains the mishnah. The Rambam explains that they would use that which grew from the tree, reasoning that when the tree was dedicated to the Temple, only the parts that existed at the time of the dedication were sanctified. In any case, the sages felt that once the tree was sanctified none of its parts could be used. 2) Fruit that falls off a tree on Shabbat is muktzeh (forbidden to touch) since it could not be eaten when Shabbat began (reaping is prohibited). The people of Jericho would eat the fruit which they found under the tree even though they didn’t know whether the fruit fell on Shabbat, in which case it is forbidden, or before Shabbat, in which case it is permitted. 3) One is not obligated to leave the corners (pe’ah) of vegetable fields for poor people. The problem with leaving them is that pe’ah is exempt from tithes. When the poor people would eat these vegetables, they would eat them untithed which is prohibited. Against all three of these practices the sages protested." + ], + [ + "Six things King Hezekiah did, concerning three they [the sages] agreed with him, and concerning three they did not agree with him: He dragged his father's bones [corpse] on a rope bier, and they agreed with him; He crushed the bronze serpent, and they agreed with him; He hid the book of remedies, and they agreed with him.
And concerning three they did not agree with him: He cut down the doors of the Temple and sent them to the king of Assyria, and they did not agree with him; He closed up the waters of the Upper Gihon, and they did not agree with him; He intercalated [the month of] Nisan in Nisan, and they did not agree with him.
This mishnah was not originally part of the Mishnah but rather a tannaitic source from the Talmud that was added later into the Mishnah. It is missing from many mishnaic manuscripts. Nevertheless, since it appears in printed editions of the Mishnah, we will treat it as a mishnah.
The “mishnah” is in the same format as yesterday’s mishnah (six things, three of which the sages liked and three that they did not). It relates to King Hezekiah who ruled in Judea in the late 8th century. He is often idealized in the aggadah as a righteous king.
Section one:
1) Hezekiah’s father, Ahaz, was an evil king. Hezekiah did not provide a proper burial for his father (see II Chronicles 29:27) but rather dragged his corpse around on a bier made of ropes. The belief in this mishnah is that this ill treatment would cause posthumous suffering to Ahaz and that this suffering would bring him atonement.
2) Hezekiah crushed the bronze serpent which Moses had made (see Numbers 21:6-9) because Israel was worshipping this serpent (II Kings 18:4).
3) Rashi explains that the reason that Hezekiah hid the “book of remedies” and that the sages agreed with him is that people believed that the remedies were healing and not God. The Rambam vehemently disagrees with this understanding, which he finds to be completely irrational. Would one tell a hungry man not to eat but to rely on God? The Rambam (who was himself a doctor) therefore explains that this book of remedies was really a book of astrology, one which led people away from both rational medicine and from God.
Section two:
1) In order to appease the king of Syria, Hezekiah cut the gold off of the doors of the Temple (II Kings 18:16). The sages did not agree with this action he should have had faith and relied on God to protect.
2) Hezekiah closed up the waters of the Upper Gihon spring so that the Assyrians would not have water (II Chronicles 32:30). The sages did not agree for two reasons: 1) he should have had faith in God; 2) he caused suffering to his own people.
3) About once every three years the Hebrew lunar calendar needs to have an extra month added in order so that it keeps pace with the solar calendar. The way that this is done is by adding an extra month of Adar, the twelfth month of the year (according to the way months are counted in the Bible). Once Nissan has begun (the first month of the year) it is supposed to be impossible to add an extra month. Hezekiah tried to intercalate the year in Nisan, and thereby push off the observance of Pesah for another month (II Chronicles 30:2-3)." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe following four chapters of mishnah deal with the Pesah sacrifice and discuss how it was offered in Jerusalem. Our mishnah deals with the afternoon tamid (daily) offering. Every day there were two tamid offerings, one in the morning and one in the afternoon (Numbers 28:3-4; Exodus 29:39). Usually the afternoon tamid was the last offering of the day. The one exception was the Pesah sacrifice which was offered after the tamid. Our mishnah comes to teach that normally the tamid was sacrificed later in the afternoon, but on the eve of Pesah they would sacrifice the tamid earlier in order to leave more time to sacrifice the Pesah.", + "The [afternoon] tamid is slaughtered at eight and a half hours and is offered at nine and a half hours. On normal days the afternoon tamid is slaughtered at eight and a half hours (remember the day is divided into twelve equal hours). It is offered at nine and a half hours. This leaves another two and a half hours to perform other tasks, such as various grain and incense offerings and lighting the menorah, the last thing done in the Temple before nightfall.", + "On the eve of Pesah it is slaughtered at seven and a half hours and offered at eight and a half hours, whether it is a weekday or Shabbat. On the eve of Pesah they moved the tamid sacrifice up one hour to give more time afterwards to sacrifice the pesah. This was true whether the eve of Pesah fell on Shabbat or on a weekday.", + "If the eve of Pesah fell on the eve of Shabbat it is slaughtered at six and a half hours and offered at seven and a half hours, and the pesah offering after it. The only exception to this was when the eve of Pesah fell on the eve of Shabbat. In this case they had to finish roasting the pesah lamb before Shabbat began since cooking is prohibited on Shabbat. Therefore, they offered the tamid sacrifice as early as possible at six and a half hours which is when the sun begins to set. The afternoon tamid cannot be offered earlier because at an earlier time it is not afternoon. They would then immediately begin to slaughter and prepare the pesah lamb." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThere are four parts of the offering of an animal which need to be performed before an animal sacrifice can be eaten or burned on the altar: slaughtering, catching the blood in a vessel, bring the blood to the altar and the sprinkling of the blood on the altar. All four of these actions must be done with the proper intent in mind. That is to say the person performing these four actions must be at all times intend to offer the animal as the specific sacrifice which he is intending to perform. Our mishnah teaches that a pesah for which one of these actions is done with the wrong intent is not a valid pesah offering.", + "A pesah sacrifice which a person slaughtered another purpose, or caught [the blood] or brought it or sprinkled its [blood] for another purpose; As stated above in the introduction, if any of the four activities are done with the intent of the animal serving another purpose besides a pesah, then the animal cannot be used as a pesah sacrifice.", + "Or for its own purpose and for another purpose; or for another purpose and for its own purpose, it is disqualified. The mishnah now emphasizes that even if one began one of the activities, for instance slaughtering, with one intention in mind and completed the activity with another intention, the sacrifice is disqualified. The entire activity from beginning to end must be performed with the correct intention in mind. The mishnah will now illustrate these possibilities.", + "How is it “for its own purpose” and [then] “for another purpose”? For the purpose of being a pesah sacrifice [first] and [then] for the purpose of being a well-being offering. In the previous section we learned that even if one of the actions was first performed “for its own purpose” meaning for it to be a pesah and then “for another purpose”, that it is disqualified. The mishnah now illustrates such an example. He began to slaughter the animal (or any of the other three actions) with the intent of it being a pesah and then while still performing the act he intended it to be a well-being offering. Even though he began the act with the correct intent, it is still disqualified.", + "[How is it] “for another purpose” and [then] “for its own purpose”? For the purpose of being a well-being offering [first] and [then] for the purpose of being a pesah sacrifice. In this case he began to perform one of the actions with the incorrect intent, for instance for the animal to be a well-being offering, and then he completed the action with the correct intent, for the animal to be pesah. Even though he completed the action with the correct intent, the sacrifice is still disqualified because he began even one of the actions with the incorrect intent." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to discuss ways in which improper intent can disqualify the pesah sacrifice. The second half of the mishnah discusses a pesah which was offered at the wrong time of day.", + "If he slaughtered it for those who cannot eat it or for those who are not registered for it, for uncircumcised persons or for unclean persons, it is unfit. This section lists people who cannot for various reasons eat the pesah sacrifice. If he slaughters the lamb with the intent of it being eaten only by people from these categories then the sacrifice is unfit. There are four categories of people listed here. 1) “Those who cannot eat it” refers to sick or old people who will not be able to eat even a minimum amount of the sacrificial meat. 2) Before the sacrifice is slaughtered a group of people must register themselves for eating the sacrifice meaning they intend to be the group that eats the sacrifice. Unregistered people may not eat from the pesah. If he sacrifices it for people who are not registered for that specific pesah, it is unfit. 3) The pesah may not be eaten by uncircumcised males (Exodus 12:48). 4) In order to eat the pesah a person must be ritually clean.", + "[If he slaughtered it] for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, for those who are registered for it and for those who are not registered for it, for circumcised and for uncircumcised persons, for unclean and for clean persons, it is fit. This section teaches that if he slaughtered the pesah with a group of people in mind, some of whom could eat it and some of whom could not, the pesah is still valid. As long as at least one of the people for whom he sacrificed it can eat it, it is valid.", + "If he slaughtered it before midday, it is disqualified, because it is said, “[and all of the assembled congregation of Israelites shall slaughter it] at twilight” (Exodus 12:6). According to the rabbis “twilight” is when the sun has already reached its peak and has begun to descend to the west. This is from six and a half hours and onwards. If the pesah was slaughtered before this time it is invalid.", + "If he slaughtered it before the [evening] tamid, it is fit, providing that a person stirs its blood until [that of] the tamid is sprinkled. [Nevertheless] if it was sprinkled [before the tamid], it is fit. The pesah should a priori be slaughtered after the evening tamid (daily offering). We learned this above in mishnah one. However, ex post facto, even if it was slaughtered before the tamid, it is still valid, provided that a person stirs the blood of the pesah so that it can be sprinkled on the altar after the blood of the tamid is sprinkled. However, even this requirement is only “a priori” if the blood of the pesah is sprinkled before that of the tamid it is still valid." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nExodus 34:25 states, “You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with anything leavened.” The sages interpret this verse to mean that the pesah cannot be sacrificed by a person who still has chametz in his possession. Our mishnah discusses various aspects of this prohibition.", + "One who slaughters the pesah with chametz [in his possession] violates a negative commandment. The negative commandment which he violates is the one in Exodus 34:25, quoted above in the introduction.", + "Rabbi Judah says: also the [evening] tamid. Rabbi Judah extends this prohibition to include the evening tamid offered on the fourteenth of Nisan. According to a midrash, Rabbi Judah derives this from the word “My sacrifice” in Exodus 34:25. A tamid might be referred to by God as “My sacrifice” because it is not eaten but rather wholly burnt on the altar. Alternatively (get the pun!) he may read the word “My sacrifice” as being a plural word meaning “sacrifices”, in which case the verse reads “You shall not offer the blood of sacrifices with anything leavened.” In any case, Rabbi Judah holds that one who sacrifices the evening tamid on the fourteenth of Nisan while in possession of chametz has violated a negative commandment.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: [If he slaughters] the pesah [with chametz] on the fourteenth for its own purpose, he is liable; [if] for a different purpose, he is exempt. But [for] all other sacrifices, whether slaughtered for their own purpose or for a different purpose, he is exempt. [If he slaughters the pesah with chametz] on the festival for its own purpose, he is exempt; if for a different purpose, he is liable; But [for] all other sacrifices [slaughtered on the festival with chametz], whether for their own purpose or for another purpose, he is liable, except [in the case or] a sin-offering which he slaughtered for a different purpose. Rabbi Shimon makes several refinements as to when a person is liable for transgressing Exodus 34:25. The first section deals with sacrifices made on the fourteenth of Nisan. If he slaughters the pesah with the intent of it being a pesah he is liable (all of the below cases refer to someone in possession of chametz when making the sacrifice). However, if he slaughters the pesah with the intent of it being a different sacrifice the pesah itself is not valid. Since it is not a valid pesah, he has not transgressed Exodus 34:25 which refers only to slaughtering a valid pesah while in possession of chametz. If he slaughters a different sacrifice on the fourteenth of Nisan while owning chametz he is not liable, whether or not the sacrifice was offered with the proper intent. Rabbi Shimon holds that the verse applies only to a valid pesah and not to other sacrifices. The third section refers to one who slaughters an animal as a pesah sacrifice during the festival. The sacrifice is invalid since he can’t offer a pesah after the fourteenth of Nisan. Therefore, he has not transgressed the verse. On the other hand, if he sacrificed it with another intent, then the sacrifice is considered to be a valid well-being offering. In such a case, he is liable for making a sacrifice during Pesah while owning chametz. Rabbi Shimon derives this from Exodus 23:18, “You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with anything leavened”, a verse nearly identical to Exodus 34:25. From this verse he derives a prohibition of offering any valid sacrifice on Pesah while in possession of chametz. Finally, if he offers any other sacrifice during Pesah while in possession of chametz, he has transgressed, as we explained above. This is true whether or not the sacrifice was done with the proper intent. The only exception is a sin-offering which is disqualified if offered with the improper intent during Pesah. Since it is a disqualified offering, he has not transgressed by slaughtering it while in possession of chametz." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah now begins to describe how the pesah was slaughtered in the Temple.\nWe should note that scholars frequently attempt to estimate how many people actually came to the Temple on Pesah and how many sacrifices were offered there. Clearly, the numbers were impressive but even rough estimates of numbers are impossible. Rabbinic literature, composed at least one hundred years after the destruction, is not considered by most scholars to be a particularly reliable source of history for the Second Temple period. Nevertheless, from this mishnah we can at least detect that Pesah was the busiest time of the year at the Temple, or at least the time of the year when the most sacrifices were offered. Similar descriptions can be found in Philo and Josephus both of whom lived and wrote while the Temple still stood.", + "The pesah is slaughtered in three divisions, as it is said, “And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it” (Exodus 12:6): “assembly,” “congregation,” and “Israel.” Because of the large number of lambs that needed to be slaughtered on the eve of Pesah, the people of Israel were divided into three divisions each taking a turn to slaughter the Pesah. The mishnah derives this midrashically from three terms used in the biblical verse: “assembly”, “congregation” and “Israel.” The Talmud explains that a division could not be less than thirty people. Assumedly, they were much larger than that.", + "The first division entered, the Temple court was filled, and they closed the doors of the Temple court. Once the first group had entered they would lock the doors so that people from the second group would not push to get in.", + "They sounded a teki'ah, a teru'ah, and a teki'ah. These are the same notes which we still make on Rosh Hashanah. The tekiah is the single long note and the teruah is the staccato note. What we call “shevarim” (three notes) is a variant version of the “teruah”.", + "The priests stood in rows, and in their hands were basins of silver and basins of gold, a row which was entirely of silver was of silver, and a row which was entirely of gold was of gold, they were not mixed. And the basins did not have flat bottoms, lest they put them down and the blood becomes congealed. The basins were there to receive the blood after the animal was slaughtered. The separation of gold from silver vessels was done for aesthetic purposes. Since the blood needed to be sprinkled onto the altar, it was crucial that it not become congealed in the basins. Therefore they did not have flat bottoms." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah continues to describe the slaughtering process.", + "The Israelite killed [the lamb]; If an Israelite wishes to slaughter his own pesah he may do so. Most other sacrifices are slaughtered only by priests. However, in Ezra 6:20 and II Chronicles 30:17, 35:6,11, the Levites are those who slaughter the pesah.", + "And the priest caught [the blood]. Only the priest is allowed to catch the blood in the basin, not the Israelite.", + "He would hand it to his colleague and his colleague [would hand it] to his colleague. And he would receive the full [basin] and give back the empty one. The priest nearest the altar would sprinkle it once over against the base [or the altar]. To expedite the process the priests would pass the blood down the rows which we encountered in yesterday’s mishnah. The priest at the end of row would sprinkle the blood over the base of the altar and then pass the empty basins back so that more blood could be received in them. We should note that the mishnah is precise in the order of activities. The priest should first take the full basin and then give back the empty one. This is because the full basin is one with which a commandment will be performed and one should not pass over the opportunity, even for a moment, to perform a commandment." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to describe the sacrifice of the Pesah, focusing especially on the singing of Hallel by the Levites.", + "The first division [then] went out and the second entered; the second went out and the third entered. As did the first, so did the second and the third. As mentioned in mishnah five, those who came to the Temple to offer the sacrifice divided into three groups. Each group would go through the same process described in the above two mishnayot.", + "They recited the Hallel. While the sacrifice was being offered the Levites recited the Hallel. We should note that this is one of the elements of the sacrificial ceremony which was eventually adopted into the seder ritual. Indeed, all early descriptions of the sacrifice and/or seder ritual include the recitation of Psalms, i.e. the Hallel. This includes descriptions in the Bible itself, in Josephus, Philo, the Christian Gospels and of course, in rabbinic literature.", + "If they finished it, they repeated, and if they repeated [and were not finished yet], they recited it a third time, though they never did recite it a third time. Rabbi Judah says: the third division never reached, “I love Lord for he hears” (Psalms 116), because the people for it were few. Sometimes the Levites would finish the Hallel before all of the lambs had been slaughtered and their blood sprinkled on the altar. If this happened the Levites would repeat the Hallel a second and even a third time. However, according to the tradition in this mishnah, they never had to repeat it a third time. Rabbi Judah relates that when it came to the third division, the Levites never even got as far as Psalm 116 in reciting the Hallel. Hallel begins at Psalms 113, so if they never even got to Psalm 116 the first time through this is indeed strong evidence that the third division was rather small. Assumedly most people wanted to be in the first two divisions so they could get their lambs slaughtered and start digging in. Even in ancient times people were anxious to begin their Pesah meal some things never change." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first section of the mishnah teaches that the sacrificial ritual was performed on Shabbat the same way that it was performed during the week. The second section discusses a practice done in order to ensure that blood from each of the lambs had been poured out onto the altar.", + "As it was done on weekdays so it was done on Shabbat, except that the priests would mop up the Temple court, against the will of the sages. The ritual was performed on Shabbat in the exact same manner that it was performed during the week. However, the sages would have liked to have seen one difference in how the ritual was performed on Shabbat. As they did during the week, so too on Shabbat the priests would mop up the floor of the Temple courtyard, which had surely become quite dirty with the blood from the many sacrifices. They did this against the will of the sages who thought that mopping up the floor is prohibited on Shabbat. As an aside, we can detect here a note of dissonance between the sages and the priests who ran the Temple. Clearly, these priests did not feel themselves subject to the sages’ authority.", + "Rabbi Judah says: he [a priest] would fill a goblet with the mixed blood [and] he sprinkled it once on the altar, but the sages did not agree with him. Rabbi Judah relates that a priest would fill a goblet with the mixed blood that he found on the floor and then pour the contents of the goblet onto the altar. The reason he would do this is lest the blood of one of the sacrifices had not been sprinkled on the altar. Not having its blood spilled on the altar would render the sacrifice invalid. It was assumed that some of the blood of all of the animals would be in this mixture and therefore pouring it out was sort of an insurance policy. The sages did not agree with Rabbi Judah that this was done in the Temple." + ], + [ + "How did they hang up [the sacrifices] and flay [them]?
There were iron hooks fixed in the walls and in the pillars, on which they hung up [the sacrifices] and flayed [them].
If any one had no place to suspend and flay [their sacrifice], there were there thin smooth staves which he placed on his shoulder and on his fellow’s shoulder, and so hung up [the animal] and flayed [it].
Rabbi Eliezer says: when the fourteenth fell on Shabbat, he placed his hand on his fellow’s shoulder and his fellow’s hand on his shoulder, and he hung up [the sacrifice] and flayed [it].
After the blood of the sacrifice had been thrown onto the altar the next step was to flay the animal so that some of its inner fats could be taken out and offered on the altar. Our mishnah describes how the animal was flayed.
The animal was hung up by its hind legs and its skin was flayed and removed. The hanging was done on fixed hooks in the walls or in pillars which were in the slaughtering area in the Temple courtyard. From section two we can see that there were not always enough hooks to hang up all of the sacrifices. In such a case two people would hold up poles on their shoulders and suspend the animal from them. Rabbi Eliezer holds that on Shabbat these poles could not be carried and therefore instead of using poles they would simply hang up the animal on two people’s shoulders. The rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer. According to their opinion the prohibition of using these poles on Shabbat is only one of “shevut” rabbinically mandated rest on Shabbat. In the Temple, since these prohibitions are not “deoraita” of toraitic origin they are waived. Since the sages hold that the flaying is done in the same way on Shabbat and during the week, this was not listed as a difference in yesterday’s mishnah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah completes the description of the sacrificial aspects of the pesah sacrifice. In chapter seven we will describe how it is roasted so that it could be eaten.", + "Then he tore it and took out its inner fats, placed them in a tray and burnt them on the altar. After the animal was flayed he would tear a hole in it and take out the fats that need to be sacrificed on the altar. We should note that non-priests could do the flaying and the tearing but that only the priest could offer the fats on the altar.", + "The first division went out and sat down on the Temple mount, the second [sat] in the hel, while the third remained in its place. When it grew dark they went out and roasted their pesah lambs. At this point, the sacrificial elements have been completed and the animal is ready to be roasted. On a weekday, the people would now take the sacrifice back to their homes or to wherever in Jerusalem they were planning to eat the pesah meal. However, if the eve of Pesah fell on Shabbat they could not carry the pesah out of the Temple confines. So therefore each division would remain in a certain place. The first division would go out of the Temple and sit on the Temple mount, the second division would sit in the hel, a place right outside the courtyard and the third division remained in the courtyard. When Shabbat was over they would go home and roast their lambs." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah and the following one discuss which activities in connection with the pesah sacrifice may be performed on Shabbat.\nWe should note that this was a “hot” issue in the Second Temple period. Different sects of Jews argued over the potential conflicts between strict Shabbat observance and the necessary sacrifices which occur on festivals. Indeed, the calendar of the Dead Sea sect (and perhaps of others as well) had all of the holidays falling on Wednesdays (their calendar was 364 days, 52 weeks), the day furthest away from Shabbat. Part of the reason for this was to avoid what they perceived to be the desecration of Shabbat.", + "These things in [connection with] the pesah override Shabbat: its slaughtering and the sprinkling of its blood and the cleansing of its innards and the burning of its fat. The pesah has to be slaughtered on the fourteenth of Nisan. Therefore, its slaughtering will have to be done on Shabbat, if the fourteenth of Nisan falls on Shabbat. Other mandatory sacrifices such as the tamid are also slaughtered on Shabbat. Similarly, the sprinkling of its blood must be done immediately after it has been slaughtered and hence it too can be done on Shabbat. If the sacrifice is left as it is until evening, without its innards being removed, it will start to rot and hence its innards may also be removed. Finally, the burning of its fat on the altar also can be done on Shabbat. Although this could wait until later in the day, since they allowed the animal to be slaughtered they also allowed its fat to be burned. It also seems to me that activities that were “sacrificial” in nature were allowed, whereas, as we shall see below, preparing the animal to be eaten was not allowed.", + "But its roasting and the washing of its innards do not override Shabbat. Roasting the sacrifice is prohibited on Shabbat, since it can be done either before or after Shabbat. If the fourteenth fell on Nisan this would have to be after Shabbat was over. If the fourteenth fell on Friday, then the roasting would have to be completed before Shabbat began. Washing its innards with water can wait until Shabbat is over and there is no fear that the carcass will begin to rot. Hence this activity can also not be performed on Shabbat.", + "Carrying it and bringing it from outside the Shabbat border and cutting off its wart do not override Shabbat. Putting the animal on his shoulders to carry him through the public domain is forbidden. Similarly bringing the animal outside of the Shabbat border (2000 cubits around the city) is forbidden on Shabbat. Finally, a lamb that has a wart cannot be offered as a pesah. In order to make it possible to use it as an offering the wart has to be cut off. This too cannot be done on Shabbat. All three of these activities could have been done before Shabbat began and hence they do not override the Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and holds that just as the actual performance of the mitzvah overrides Shabbat, so too the preparing of the accessories which help to perform a mitzvah overrides Shabbat. We have encountered this debate before in Shabbat 19:1 concerning making and carrying a knife with which to circumcise. In tomorrow’s mishnah Rabbi Eliezer and the sages will debate this issue. Stay tuned!" + ], + [ + "Introduction This mishnah contains an extended debate between Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Akiva concerning what overrides the Shabbat. In order to understand the mishnah we should briefly remind ourselves of the laws of Shabbat. There are two categories of prohibited labor mentioned here and critical for understanding this mishnah’s arguments: 1) a forbidden labor; 2) mandated rest, which is called shevut. The former prohibitions are considered to be directly from the Torah (de’oraita) and are more serious than the latter which are only of rabbinic origin (derabbanan). The three activities focused upon in this mishnah are: 1) Slaughtering the pesah. Slaughtering an animal on Shabbat is a forbidden labor. 2) Carrying the pesah on one’s shoulders through the public domain or bringing it outside the Shabbat border. These are considered to be prohibitions of shevut because “a living thing carries itself”, that is it is not considered to be a biblical violation of carrying on Shabbat to carry a living thing. Also, the prohibition of leaving the Shabbat border is considered by most sages to be only of rabbinic origin. 3) Sprinkling red heifer water on a person who has come into contact with the dead. This is not done on Shabbat even though it is only a shevut prohibition. Finally, it is not often that we get a chance to see in the Mishnah how the sages actually argued. While we certainly do not have here a “recording” of their exchanges, even the literary record affords a fascinating glimpse into their intellectual world.", + "Rabbi Eliezer said: is it not logical: if slaughtering, which is [usually forbidden] as a labor, overrides Shabbat, shouldn’t these, which are [only forbidden] as mandated rest, override Shabbat? Rabbi Eliezer’s first argument is straightforward. The sages admitted in mishnah one that slaughtering the pesah is permitted on Shabbat. Slaughtering an animal on Shabbat is a violation of one of the forbidden labors of Shabbat. If a forbidden labor is permitted, shouldn’t carrying the animal, which is only an issue of shevut, also be permitted.", + "Rabbi Joshua said to him: let the festival prove this, for they permitted labor [on the festival] and forbade [activities forbidden because of] shevut. Rabbi Joshua responds that Rabbi Eliezer’s argument is not decisive because of the issue of work on the festival. Generally on a festival it is permitted to slaughter an animal and cook it because one is allowed to prepare food on Shabbat. These activities were permitted even though they are forbidden labors. Nevertheless, when it came to issues of shevut, for instance carrying something from outside the Shabbat border, the sages did not permit these types of activities on a festival. Therefore, it makes sense in the case of the pesah for the sages to be strict with regard to shevut infractions and lenient with regard to forbidden labors.", + "Rabbi Eliezer said to him: what is this, Joshua? What proof is a voluntary act in respect of a commandment! Rabbi Eliezer responds that Rabbi Joshua’s analogy is not good. Preparing food on a festival is a voluntary act and hence the rabbis could be strict and forbid shevut violations. However, eating the pesah is a commandment and hence the law should be lenient and allow shevut violations.", + "Rabbi Akiva answered and said: let sprinkling [purificatory waters] prove it, which is [performed] because it is a commandment and is [forbidden only] as a shevut, yet it does not override Shabbat; so you too, do not wonder at these, that though they are [required] on account of a commandment and are [forbidden only] as shevut, yet they do not override Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva, ever the creative sage, steps in after Rabbi Joshua’s argument fails and employs a new analogy. Purificatory waters are sprinkled on a person who has contracted corpse impurity on the third and seventh days of the purification process. However, if the seventh day is Shabbat, the fourteenth of Nisan, they are not sprinkled even though this is necessary to allow the person to be pure and eat his pesah in the evening. The prohibition of sprinkling the water is only one of shevut, and it is a mitzvah and nevertheless it remains prohibited on Shabbat. So too, the carrying of the pesah on the shoulders and outside of the border remain prohibited even though they are for a mitzvah and only prohibited due to shevut.", + "Rabbi Eliezer said to him: but in respect of that I am arguing: if slaughtering, which is a labor, overrides Shabbat, is it not logical that sprinkling, which is [only] a shevut, should override Shabbat! Rabbi Eliezer basically answers that he disagrees concerning that halakhah as well. Just as carrying the animal is shevut and therefore overrides Shabbat, so too sprinkling which is shevut also should override Shabbat.", + "Rabbi Akiva said to him: or the opposite: if sprinkling, which is [forbidden] as a shevut, does not override Shabbat, then slaughtering, which is [normally forbidden] on account of labor, is it not logical that it should not override Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva responds that now that Rabbi Eliezer is trying to overturn traditions (that we don’t sprinkle the purificatory water on Shabbat), he too can overturn a tradition. If we don’t sprinkle the water, even though it is only shevut, then all the more so we shouldn’t slaughter the animal which is a forbidden labor. Rabbi Akiva does not really wish to rule that we shouldn’t slaughter the pesah on Shabbat. What he means to do is reject Rabbi Eliezer’s argument.", + "Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva! You are uprooting what is written in the Torah, “at twilight, offer it at its set time” (Numbers 9:3), both on week-days and on Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer responds that the Torah explicitly mandates that the pesah be slaughtered on the fourteenth even if this is on Shabbat. Hence, the argument that Rabbi Akiva was trying to make in section six would directly contradict the Torah.", + "He said to him: master, give me an appointed time for these as there is an appointed season for slaughtering! Rabbi Akiva returns to the original argument. The Torah specifically mandates an appointed time for the slaughtering of the pesah. Hence slaughtering overrides Shabbat. The other labors which are not specified by the Torah do not override the Shabbat. This is basically the end of the argument. In the end only activities that seem to be specifically mandated by the Torah are allowed on Shabbat.", + "Rabbi Akiva stated a general rule: work which could be done on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat; slaughtering, which could not be done on the eve of Shabbat, does override Shabbat. The mishnah ends with the same general principle that Rabbi Akiva iterated in Shabbat 19:1 any labor which can be performed before Shabbat must be performed then and does not override Shabbat, but any labor which cannot be performed until Shabbat itself does override Shabbat. Slaughtering the pesah cannot be done before Shabbat, hence it overrides the Shabbat. Carrying the pesah could have been done earlier, hence it does not override the Shabbat. The fact that the mishnah ends with Rabbi Akiva’s opinion is a clear expression of the Mishnah’s general connection to Rabbi Akiva and his school." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nExodus 12 clearly mandates that a lamb be brought for the pesah sacrifice. Deuteronomy 16:2 states, “You shall slaughter the pesah sacrifice for the Lord your God, from the flock and the herd.” The herd refers to cattle (cows) and the flock refers to sheep. The problem is that this verse which allows the pesah to be brought from cattle contradicts Exodus 12 which mandates a lamb. II Chronicles 35 also mentions that cattle were brought along with the lambs. However, in II Chronicles it becomes somewhat clearer that the cattle were not the pesah sacrifice but an accompanying sacrifice. The rabbis call this sacrifice the “hagigah”, a word which comes from “hag” the word for festival in Hebrew, as in “hag sameah” happy holiday. They would eat the hagigah before they ate the pesah so that the pesah could be eaten on a full stomach. Since lambs which could be used for the pesah were not easy to come by, they ate the additional sacrifice before the pesah and then everyone would eat a small amount of pesah to fulfill the commandment.\nOur mishnah teaches that this sacrifice was not really a separate mitzvah in and of itself, but merely an accompaniment to the pesah. Hence it was not always brought.", + "When does he bring a hagigah with it [the pesah sacrifice]? When it comes during the week, in purity, and in small [amounts]. But when it comes on Shabbat, in large [amounts], and in impurity, one does not bring the hagigah with it. The hagigah is not brought in the following three situations: 1) Shabbat. While slaughtering the pesah does override the Shabbat, slaughtering the hagigah does not. Hence, if the eve of Pesah falls on Shabbat the hagigah is not brought. 2) In impurity: Usually, those who eat the pesah sacrifice must be ritually pure. However, if most of the congregation of Israel is in a state of impurity, these laws are waived and they may conduct the sacrifice and eat it while impure (we will learn this in 7:6). Our mishnah teaches that in such a case while they can bring the pesah they do not bring the hagigah. 3) In large amounts: If there is enough pesah meat to feed everyone then the hagigah is not brought. It is only brought if there is a necessity for some extra meat." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to teach the laws regarding the hagigah: what animals can be used for the hagigah and for how long it may be eaten.", + "The hagigah was brought of flocks, herds, lambs or goats, of the males or the females. And it is eaten two days and one night. Any animal, be it a sheep, goat, cow or bull will do for the hagigah. It can also be either male or female. This is contrasted with the pesah which must be a male flock animal (sheep or goat).", + "The hagigah may be eaten on the day it is sacrificed, the night afterwards and the whole following day. This is the same rule as for all sacrifices of well-being (shelamim). In contrast, the pesah sacrifice can only be eaten that very night, and it must be completed before midnight." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe topic of this mishnah is one who slaughters an animal that is supposed to be a sacrifice on Shabbat, the eve of Pesah, but sacrifices it for the wrong purpose. Again we will see an extended argument between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua, two of the same sages who disputed above in mishnah two.", + "If the pesah was slaughtered for a different purpose on Shabbat, he [the slaughterer] is liable to a sin-offering on its account. If a person takes an animal set aside to be a pesah and slaughters it on Shabbat, the eve of Pesah, with the intent of the animal being another type of sacrifice, the sacrifice is invalid and he is liable for transgressing Shabbat. Since he slaughtered an animal without performing a mitzvah, he is not exempt for having slaughtered.", + "All other sacrifices which he slaughtered as a pesah: if they are not fit [to be a pesah] he is liable; if they are fit [to be a pesah]: Rabbi Eliezer makes him liable to a sin-offering, But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. In this case he takes an animal set aside to be another sacrifice and slaughters it for it to be a pesah. If the animal cannot be a pesah, for instance it is a cow, he is liable for the same reason that he was above he has slaughtered an animal without performing a mitzvah. The more debatable issue is if he slaughtered an animal set aside for another sacrifice and that animal can be a pesah, such as a one year old male sheep. In such a case he has performed a valid sacrifice, which is a mitzvah, but he has not fulfilled his pesah obligation and he must bring another pesah sacrifice. According to Rabbi Eliezer he is liable even though he has performed a mitzvah. Rabbi Joshua exempts him because he has performed a mitzvah. The remainder of the mishnah is an extended argument between these two rabbis, an argument very similar to that which we saw in mishnah two.", + "Rabbi Eliezer said to him: if for the pesah, which it is permitted [to slaughter] for its own purpose, yet when he changes its purpose he is liable; then [other] sacrifices, which are forbidden [to slaughter even] for their own purpose, if he changes their purpose is it not logical that he should be liable. Rabbi Eliezer starts out again in a very straightforward manner. Everyone agrees that he is liable if he slaughters a pesah with the wrong intention. If he is liable in this case in which it was permitted to slaughter the pesah, he should also be liable for slaughtering a different sacrifice, which he shouldn’t have been doing in the first place. To put it another way, Rabbi Eliezer is pointing out a problem in Rabbi Joshua’s ruling if he had slaughtered the other sacrifice with the intention of it being that which it should have been, he would have been liable. Why should he be exempt just because he sacrificed it with the intent of it being a pesah?", + "Rabbi Joshua said to him: not so. If you say [with regard to] the pesah, [he is liable] because he changed it to something that is forbidden; will you say [the same] of [other] sacrifices, where he changed them for something that is permitted? Rabbi Joshua says that rather than decide based on what the animal was supposed to be (permitted pesah or forbidden other sacrifice) we should focus on what intent he had when he sacrificed it. When it came to the pesah which he sacrificed with something else in mind he is liable because he changed it to something which is forbidden on Shabbat. His intent was to offer a forbidden sacrifice. In contrast, when it came to the other sacrifice he is exempt since he changed it to something which is permitted. Here, his intent was to offer a permitted sacrifice.", + "Rabbi Eliezer said to him: let the community sacrifices prove it, which are permitted for their own sake, yet he who slaughters [other sacrifices] in their name is liable. Rabbi Eliezer now brings into the debate another type of sacrifice which may be offered on Shabbat public sacrifices such as the tamid or the mussaf. These are permitted if sacrificed with the proper intent, but one who slaughters an animal set aside to be a different animal with the intent of it being a tamid or musaf is liable. This is true even though it is permitted to sacrifice a tamid or musaf. So too, one who slaughters a different animal with the intent of it being a pesah should be liable. In both cases one is slaughtering a different sacrifice with the intent of it being a sacrifice which is permitted on Shabbat, and therefore in both cases the person should be liable.", + "Rabbi Joshua said him: not so. If you say [with regard to] the public sacrifices, [that is] because they have a limit; will you say [the same] of the pesah, which has no limit? Rabbi Joshua points out that this analogy is faulty. There is a limit to the amount of public, mandated sacrifices that can be brought. One can only bring one tamid in the morning and one in the afternoon. The Torah prescribes exactly what must be brought for the musaf. After these have been slaughtered it is forbidden to slaughter any more on Shabbat. Therefore, one who slaughters on Shabbat another sacrifice with the intent of it being a tamid or musaf has performed a forbidden labor. There is no limit to the number of pesah sacrifices that Israel may offer and hence one he offers an additional pesah has not performed a forbidden labor. This is the end of the argument between Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Eliezer. Again, Rabbi Eliezer seems to lose. Clearly the editor of the Mishnah’s sympathies do not lie with him.", + "Rabbi Meir says: he too who slaughters [other sacrifices] in the name of public sacrifice is not liable. Rabbi Meir actually goes a step further than Rabbi Joshua. According to Rabbi Meir one who slaughters another sacrifice with the intent of it being a public sacrifice is also exempt, just like one who slaughters another sacrifice with the intent of it being a pesah. This is a step further because unlike the pesah, these sacrifices cannot be used. He is exempt because his intent was to slaughter the animal for a permitted sacrifice." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of this chapter continues to deal with cases in which a person is liable for slaughtering a pesah on Shabbat.", + "If he slaughtered it for those who are not its eaters, or for those who were not registered for it, for uncircumcised or for unclean [persons], he is liable. In all of these cases he slaughtered the pesah for people who could not eat it (these categories were explained above in 5:3). Since the pesah is disqualified he is liable for having slaughtered on Shabbat.", + "[If he slaughtered it] for its eaters and for those who are not its eaters, for those who are registered for it and for those who are not registered for it, for circumcised and for uncircumcised, for unclean and for clean [persons], he is exempt. In these cases he slaughters the animal for a group of people, some of whom can eat it and some of whom can’t. The pesah is valid (see above 5:3) and therefore he is exempt for having slaughtered on Shabbat.", + "If he slaughtered it, and it was found to possess a blemish, he is liable. Certain blemishes on the animal rend the animal unfit as a sacrifice. If he slaughters such a blemished animal on Shabbat he is liable. He should have checked the animal before he slaughtered it to make sure it was unblemished.", + "If he slaughtered it and it was found to be an internal terefah, he is exempt. A terefah is an animal that has an injury that will cause it to die. A terefah cannot be a valid sacrifice. However, in this case he is exempt because the injury was internal and he had no way of knowing about it until he slaughtered the animal.", + "If he slaughtered it, and [then] it became known that its owners had withdrawn their hands from it, or that they had died, or that they had become unclean, he is not culpable, because he slaughtered it with permission. In these cases he thought he was slaughtering it for a group of people who could eat it, but before he slaughtered it they changed their status such that they could not eat it. Either they “withdrew their hands from it”, meaning they registered for a different pesah, or they died, or they became unclean. In all three cases the pesah is invalid but he is nevertheless not liable because when he slaughtered it he thought he was doing so in a permitted situation." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nExodus 12:9 states that the pesah must be roasted and that it may not be cooked with water. Today’s mishnah and the following one deal with how the pesah is roasted such that there is no water or even hint thereof used in the process.", + "How is the pesah roasted?
They bring a spit of pomegranate wood and thrust it into its mouth [right down] as far as its buttocks, and place its legs and its entrails inside it, the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. The pesah is roasted in an oven while on a spit. The spit is made of pomegranate wood, the driest of woods, so that there is as little moisture used in the process as possible. Exodus 12:9 also states that the pesah should be cooked “roasted, head, legs and entrails.” The Hebrew in this verse is oddly phrased and could be translated as “its head, on its legs and entrails.” Rabbi Yose the Galilean interprets this to mean that the legs and entrails, once cut off or removed, should be stuffed into the pesah itself and then roasted inside of it.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: this is like boiling, rather they are hung outside it. Rabbi Akiva disagrees and holds that this would be like boiling the entrails and legs inside the pesah, and any cooking with moisture is forbidden. Rather the entrails and legs are hung on the spit outside the pesah and they are roasted separately. The verse merely means to emphasize that the whole thing must be roasted." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to discuss ways in which they avoided all possibility that the pesah would be cooked with water.", + "One may not roast the pesah either on a [metal] spit or on a grill. Rabbi Zadok said: it once happened that Rabban Gamaliel said to his servant Tabi, “Go out and roast us the pesah on the grill.” According to the first opinion in the mishnah, the pesah cannot be cooked using any metal. The problem with metal is that it will heat up and it will cook the pesah and not the fire. The rabbis were adamant that the pesah be cooked only by the fire itself and not by things which had been themselves heated by fire. Rabban Gamaliel disagrees and holds that heat which is derived from the fire has the same status as the fire itself. Therefore, he could tell his slave to go out and roast the pesah on a grill. As an aside, we should note that Rabban Gamaliel in this mishnah probably is the Rabban Gamaliel who lived after the destruction of the Temple. Nevertheless, he continues to eat a “pesah”. This is not the only evidence for such a practice after the destruction of the Temple. Nevertheless, as time passed, this practice became less and less accepted.", + "If it [the pesah] touched the clay of the oven, he should pare its place. If the pesah touched the oven, then they should pare off the place on the pesah which the oven touched. This piece of its meat was cooked by the heat of the oven’s clay and not directly by the fire and hence it shouldn’t be eaten.", + "If some of its juice dripped on to the clay [of the oven] and dripped back on to it, he must remove its place. If some of the juices from the pesah fell onto the oven and were there cooked by the clay of the oven and then fell back onto the pesah, then it is not enough just to pare off some of the pesah. Rather they must cut off the part onto which the juices fell and were absorbed and not eat that part. The Talmud says that they should cut off an inch deep of meat.", + "If some of its juice fell on the flour, he must take a handful away from its place. If some of the juices of the pesah fell onto some flour which was boiling, then the juices are being cooked by the flour and therefore cannot be eaten. What he must do is take a handful away from the flour and burn it in the same way that all disqualified sacrifices are burned." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe two sections of this mishnah deal with a person who basted their pesah with oils that are restricted by who can eat them or where they can be eaten. The mishnah deals with the consequences of such an action.", + "If he basted it [the pesah] with oil of terumah: If they who registered for it are a company of priests, they may eat [it]. But if Israelites, if it is [still] raw, they may wash it off; if it is roasted, he must pare the outer part. Terumah oil can only be eaten by priests. If the pesah which has been basted with terumah oil is intended for a company of priests, then they may still eat it. However, a company of Israelites cannot eat the oil. If the pesah is still raw they may wash it off, dry it (so that it won’t be cooked with water) and then roast it. Washing it off is a valid way of removing the oil. If they basted it with the terumah oil and then roasted it, the oil has sunk into the pesah. What they must do is pare off the outer layer of the pesah’s meat. This meat cannot be eaten by the Israelites because it has terumah oil cooked into it.", + "If he anointed it with oil of second tithe, he must not charge its value for the members of the company, because second tithe must not be redeemed in Jerusalem. Second tithe is usually redeemed for money, the money is brought to Jerusalem and it is used there to buy food. However, second tithe that has arrived in Jerusalem without being redeemed may not be redeemed there. Therefore, if a person has basted his company’s pesah offering with second tithe he may not charge the other members of the company for the value of the oil since this would be a form of redeeming the second tithe in Jerusalem, the only place where the pesah can be eaten." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAccording to Numbers 9, if a person is impure when the pesah sacrifice is offered on the fourteenth of Nisan, he receives a second chance on the fourteenth of Iyyar, the following month. The rabbis understood this to mean that individuals could not offer and eat the pesah sacrifice while impure but that if most of the congregation of Israel was impure, or if the priests or their vessels were impure on the fourteenth of Nisan, they would in any case bring the pesah sacrifice and eat it as well. The same is true for all sacrifices whose time is fixed they are offered even if the people are impure.\nOur mishnah deals with five other sacrifices that are eaten by priests and that are offered even in “uncleanness” because their time is fixed. The difference between these five and the pesah is that the pesah is not only offered when the priests or the people are unclean, it is eaten as well.", + "Five things [sacrifices] may come in uncleanness, but may not be eaten in uncleanness:
the omer, The omer, an offering of barley, is offered on the day after the first day of Pesah (Leviticus 23:10).", + "the two loaves, These are brought on Shavuot (see Leviticus 23:17).", + "the showbread, Twelve new loaves are placed on the table in the Temple every Shabbat (Leviticus 24:5).", + "the sacrifices of the public peace-offerings, This refers to the two sheep which are brought on Shavuot with the two loaves (Leviticus 23:19).", + "and the goats of new months. See Numbers 25:15. The same is true for all of the goats which are brought on various holidays and are referred to in Numbers 25. All of these sacrifices are brought even in uncleanness but are not eaten in uncleanness because the main purpose of bringing them is not to eat them but to sacrifice them.", + "The pesah which comes in uncleanness is [also] eaten in uncleanness, for from the very beginning it came for no other purpose but to be eaten. In contrast, the pesah is eaten as well because the main purpose of bringing the pesah is that it should be eaten. This is derived from Exodus 12:4 which emphasizes that the groups formed to eat the pesah are composed of the number of people who can eat one lamb. The main point is the eating and not just the sacrificing." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with cases where the congregation of Israel is pure but part of the pesah sacrifice has become unclean.", + "If the flesh was defiled while the fat remained [clean], he may not sprinkle the blood but if the fat was defiled while the flesh has remained [clean], he must sprinkle the blood. If the flesh was defiled but the fat which is supposed to be burned on the altar remains clean he cannot sprinkle the blood on the altar. Since the pesah’s main purpose is to be eaten, if the flesh cannot be eaten the sacrifice is not valid and the blood cannot be sprinkled. In the opposite case, if the fat has been defiled and the flesh remains pure, the fat cannot be burned on the altar but the blood can still be sprinkled. Since the main purpose of the pesah is to be eaten, as long as the flesh can be eaten the blood can be sprinkled.", + "But in the case of [other] dedicated sacrifices it is not so, rather even if the flesh was defiled while the fat has remained clean, he must sprinkle the blood. Other sacrifices are different. Since their main purpose is to be sacrificed and not necessarily to be eaten, their blood may be sprinkled in either case. If the flesh becomes impure the blood is sprinkled in order to allow the fat to be burned on the altar. If the fat becomes impure, the blood is sprinkled in order to allow the flesh to be eaten." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah provides the basic laws concerning when the pesah sacrifice is offered in “uncleanness.” We should note that the form of impurity/uncleanness to which this topic refers to is one who has come into contact with a dead body.", + "If the community or the majority thereof was unclean, or if the priests were unclean and the community clean, they make [the pesah sacrifice] in uncleanness. The pesah sacrifice is offered in uncleanness only if either a majority of the community of Israel was unclean or if the priests were unclean. In one of these two situations, they offer the sacrifice on the fourteenth of Nisan, its usual date.", + "If a minority of the community were unclean: those who are clean observe the first [Pesah], while those who are unclean observe the second. If, however, only a minority of the community were unclean, then the laws of Numbers 9 apply. Those who are clean offer the pesah on the fourteenth of Nisan while those who are unclean are given a second chance, on the fourteenth of Iyyar." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with a case where the blood of the pesah sacrifice was sprinkled on the altar and then it became known that either the pesah had been unclean or that its owners were unclean.", + "A pesah whose blood has been sprinkled and then it became known that it was unclean, the frontlet propitiates. The frontlet was one of the pieces of clothing worn by the high priest. In reference to this frontlet Exodus 28:38 states, “It shall be on Aaron’s forehead, that Aaron may take away any sin arising from the holy things that the Israelites consecrate.” According to the sages, this means that if the blood of a sacrifice, in our case the pesah sacrifice, was sprinkled against the altar and afterwards it became known that it was unclean, the frontlet propitiates (makes up) for the sin and the pesah’s owners do not need to bring another pesah sacrifice. However, this pesah cannot be eaten only in the cases in yesterday’s mishnah can an impure pesah be eaten.", + "If the body of [the owner] became unclean, the frontlet does not propitiate, because they [the sages] said: [in the case of] a nazirite, and he who sacrifices the pesah-offering, the frontlet propitiates for the uncleanness of the blood, but the frontlet does not propitiate for the uncleanness of the body [of the owner]. However, if the owners themselves were impure the frontlet does not propitiate for the blood having been sprinkled on the altar. In this case the owners would be liable to bring another pesah on what is called “Pesah Sheni” the Second Passover on the fourteenth of the next month. The mishnah explains that for two types of sacrifices the frontlet does not propitiate in cases where the owner was unclean the pesah and the nazirite offering. The nazirite situation refers to a situation in which a nazirite completed the period of his naziriteship and brought the requisite sacrifices. It then turns out that the nazirite was unclean, and it is forbidden for a nazirite to defile himself. He therefore must bring a different sacrifice for having become impure during his naziriteship and then begin a new term. For all other sacrifices besides these two, the frontlet propitiates whether the sacrifice is unclean or the sacrifice’s owner is unclean.", + "If he was defiled with the uncleanness of the deep, the frontlet propitiates. “Uncleanness of the deep” refers to someone who becomes defiled through contact with a dead body that no one knew was there. It could be understood as “previously unknown uncleanness” the impurity is hidden as if it was “in the deep.” This type of impurity is an exception to the above case if someone who brought a pesah or his nazirite offerings finds out that he had been defiled by “uncleanness of the deep” the frontlet does propitiate and the sacrifices do count." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nA pesah that has become unclean cannot be eaten, at least not when the pesah is done in purity (see above 7:6). Our mishnah teaches where an unclean pesah is burned.", + "If all or most of [the pesah] became unclean they burn it in front of the Birah with the wood of the pile. If most or all of the pesah becomes impure it is burned in front of the “Birah.” In the Talmud there is a debate over what the “Birah” is. According to one opinion, it refers to a tower on the Temple mount. According to another opinion the entire Temple is called the “Birah.” All sacrifices that have become impure can be burned in any place in which they may be eaten. In our case, this would mean that the pesah could be burned anywhere in Jerusalem, since it may be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem. The Talmud explains that forcing its owners to burn it in a very public place is a penalty placed upon them for letting there pesah become impure. The wood they use is wood from the Temple’s wood pile, wood normally used to burn the sacrifices on the altar.", + "If a lesser part of it became unclean, and also “remainder”, they [the people] burn it in their courtyards or on their roofs with their own wood. Misers burn it in front of the Birah, in order to benefit from the wood of the pile. If only a minority portion of the pesah became unclean then its owners can burn it in his own courtyard in Jerusalem. The same is true for “remainder” the part of the sacrifice which hasn’t been eaten within the proscribed time. For the pesah this means that anything left by the next morning (see Exodus 12:10). “Remainder” of all sacrifices must be burned. In these two cases they should use their own wood to burn the unclean or leftover portion. They may not use Temple wood within their own courtyard lest they use the wood for other purposes. The mishnah relates that misers, those who are stingy and want to save their own wood for other purposes, would burn even a partially unclean pesah or remainder at the Birah with wood from the pile. While this is technically allowed, it is frowned upon by the rabbis, and those who do so are awarded by our mishnah with the epitaph “misers.”" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to deal with a pesah sacrifice, one that has already been slaughtered, that must be burned because it has been disqualified.", + "A pesah which went out [beyond the walls of Jerusalem] or was defiled must be burned immediately. The pesah, once slaughtered, cannot be brought outside of the walls of Jerusalem. If it does it is disqualified. A pesah that has been disqualified, either by becoming defiled or by being brought beyond the walls of Jerusalem must be burned immediately, on the fourteenth of Nisan.", + "If its owners were defiled or they died, its form must change and [then] it is burned on the sixteenth [of Nisan]. Rabbi Yohanan ben Berokah says: this too must be burned immediately, because there are none to eat it. In this case the pesah itself did not become disqualified but rather those who were supposed to eat it were either disqualified or died. The pesah itself now has no one that can eat it. According to the first opinion, it is not burned immediately but rather they wait until the following night, when its form has already begun to change. “Form changing” does not refer to the pesah’s physical form but to its halakhic form it is now “remainder” and must be burned. Note that it could not be burned on the fifteenth because the fifteenth is a festival day and sanctified meat which has been disqualified is not burned on a festival. Rabbi Yohanan ben Berokah says that this pesah, which has no one to eat it (poor little lamby) is treated the same as if the pesah itself had become disqualified. It is burned immediately on the fourteenth and they do not wait until it becomes “remainder.”" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches when the uneaten parts of the pesah are to be burned.", + "The bones, and the sinews, and the “remainder” [of the pesah] are burned on the sixteenth. Exodus 12:10 states, “Do not leave any of it [the pesah] until morning, and anything which remains in the morning must be burned in fire.” This is the law of “remainder” referred to in our mishnah and in the mishnayot above. However, this refers to the edible meat it is unclear why one has to burn the bones and sinews which are not edible. One opinion explains that the marrow of the bones is edible, so therefore the bones must be burned as well. The sinews to which the mishnah refers are sinews which are edible. Another explanation is that the bones and sinews are not edible but they are burned in any case in order to prevent people from thinking that they can eat their pesah the next day. In other words, the halakhah tells people to burn everything that is left so that they will be careful and not eat the remaining meat.", + "If the sixteenth falls on Shabbat, they are burned on the seventeenth, because they do not override either Shabbat or the festival. Burning the “remainder” does not override the Shabbat or festival prohibition against burning. Burning the “remainder” is a positive commandment and not burning on Shabbat or the festival is considered to be both a positive and a negative commandment. Generally, a positive commandment does not override one which has both a positive and negative aspect. Therefore, the pesah is normally burned on the sixteenth, the day after the first day of the festival, but if the sixteenth falls on Shabbat it is burned on the seventeenth." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first section of this mishnah deals with what parts of the pesah sacrifice are eaten.\nThe second section deals with several potential violations involved in eating the pesah.", + "Everything which can be eaten of a full-grown ox may be eaten of a tender goat, as well as the tops of the forelegs and the cartilages. As we have mentioned on several occasions, people needed to register to eat the pesah sacrifice before it was sacrificed. There had to be enough meat for each person to eat at least an olive amount’s worth of the pesah. Therefore they had to estimate how much of the animal could be eaten. The mishnah states that any part of a fully grown ox that can be eaten can also be eaten from a tender goat, the animal used as the pesah sacrifice. Additionally, the tops of the forelegs and the cartilages of the tender goat may be eaten as well. However, besides these two things any part of the tender goat that is not eaten in a fully grown ox does not count when they figure out how much meat there will be to go around from the pesah. Furthermore, it is permitted to leave inedible parts uneaten and one does not violate the prohibition of leaving any of it until morning.", + "He who breaks a bone of a clean pesah receives forty [lashes] but he who leaves over [flesh] of a clean [pesah] or breaks [a bone] of an unclean [one] does not receive the forty [lashes.] Exodus 12:46 prohibits breaking the bone of a pesah sacrifice. One who breaks the bone of a pure pesah sacrifice has violated a negative commandment. The mishnah expresses this violation by saying that he gets forty lashes, the amount of lashes prescribed for the violation of any negative commandment. The Torah also prohibits leaving any of the pesah over until the following morning. However, one is not lashed for violating this prohibition because the verse gives a remedy for the violation. Exodus 12:10 states, “Do not leave any of it over until morning, and what remains in the morning shall be burned in fire.” The fact that a remedy exists for the violation means that one is not punished by lashes for the violation itself. An alternative reason that punishments are not meted out for leaving over the pesah is that it is a passive violation and only active violations are punished. Breaking a bone of an unclean pesah is not punished by lashes since the pesah is in any case disqualified." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAbove in mishnah nine we learned that if the pesah is taken out of the city of Jerusalem it is thereby disqualified. Similarly, once the meat of a pesah has been brought into the house in which it is supposed to be eaten, it may not be taken out. Our mishnah teaches what happens if part of the pesah is taken out of the city after it has already been slaughtered.", + "If part of a limb went outside, he cuts [the flesh] as far as the bone and pares it until he reaches the joint and cuts it away. If part of the a limb goes out, he cuts away to the bone but does not cut the bone itself because it is forbidden to break the bone of a pesah. He then pares away the meat that did not go out of either Jerusalem or the home and then they may eat that meat. After the meat has been scraped off he cuts off the limb at the joint and then burns the rest of the limb because part of it has gone beyond its border.", + "But in the case of [other] sanctified meat he cuts it off with a large knife, because they are not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone. With other sacrifices that have gone beyond their permitted borders, either Jerusalem or the Temple, he need not be so cautious since there is no prohibition of breaking a bone. Instead he may simply cut off the part that went beyond the border and the remainder may still be eaten.", + "From the door-stop and within it is as the inside; From the door-stop and without is as outside. The windows and the thickness of the wall are as the inside. This section discusses when something is considered to have actually left the city. The door-stop refers to the molding of the door frame against which a door stops. If it is inside the door-stop it is still considered to be inside the house or the city. If it is within the windows or within the thickness of the wall (for instance the thick walls of Jerusalem, or of the Temple) it is considered to be inside." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAs we have stated before, people would divide into “companies” in order to eat the pesah, and each company would eat one pesah. It is forbidden for a person to eat the pesah with two different companies and it is also forbidden for one company to eat in two places. Our mishnah deals with how two companies can share one house.\nI should note that I have explained the mishnah according to the Rambam’s explanation, one which is adopted by Albeck. Others explain it differently.", + "Two companies which are eating in one room, these turn their faces in one direction and eat and they turn their faces in another direction and eat, and the boiler is in the middle. In order for it not to seem that the two companies are mixed and are sharing two different pesah sacrifices, each company faces in a different direction. The mishnah allows one boiler to be placed in the middle, even though this would contribute to the impression that the two are sharing their pesahim. The boiler is a pot of hot water with which to mix the wine.", + "When the servant rises to mix [the wine], he must shut his mouth and turn his face away [from the other company] until he reaches his own company and [there] he eats. Although the servant, a Jew, can serve both groups, he may be registered with only one of them. So that it is clear that he is not eating from the other group, when he mixes wine for a group other than his own he must close his mouth and not swallow. He must also turn his mouth towards his own group so that they don’t think that he is eating with the other group.", + "But a bride may turn her face away and eat. A bride, who may be embarrassed to eat in front of others, is allowed to turn her face away from her own group. This will not seem like she is eating with two groups." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nIt would have been customary for the head of a household to slaughter a pesah on behalf of the members of his household, on the assumption that they would eat it. Our mishnah deals with certain persons about whom it is unclear to which household they belong. The problem will arise if two households slaughter a pesah on behalf of one person from which one can they eat?", + "A wife, when she is in her husband’s home, and her husband slaughtered on her behalf and her father slaughtered on her behalf, she must eat of her husband's. A wife who is spending pesah in her husband’s home is assumed to be part of her husband’s household. Therefore, if both her husband and her father slaughtered a pesah on her behalf, she must eat of her husband’s.", + "If she went to spend the first festival in her father's home, and her father slaughtered on her behalf and her husband slaughtered on her behalf, she may eat wherever she pleases. If she went to spend the festival in her father’s house, and again both her father and husband slaughtered a pesah on her behalf, she may eat from whichever she chooses. Since she was with her father she may even eat of his. Nevertheless, since she is already married she may alternatively eat of her husband’s pesah. Of course, she cannot eat of both.", + "An orphan on whose behalf his guardians slaughtered may eat wherever he pleases. If an orphan has two or more guardians, each of whom slaughtered a pesah on his behalf, he may eat from whichever he pleases. He does not belong exclusively to any one of them.", + "A slave of two partners may not eat of either. A master cannot slaughter a pesah for his slave if that slave is partially owned by another master. The only way to arrange this situation is for the two slave owners to jointly make one pesah.", + "He who is half slave and half free may not eat of his master's. A half-slave, one who was owned jointly and then freed by one of the partners but not the other may not eat of his master’s pesah. The assumption is that when the master slaughtered the pesah, he did not do so on behalf of his slave whom he owned only partially. The master would have assumed that the slave would make his own pesah. Therefore, this is what the half-slave must do." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nA pesah can be either a kid (a goat) or a lamb (a sheep) (see Exodus 12:5). This mishnah deals with a slave who slaughters a pesah on behalf of his master, who may or not have cared whether the pesah was a kid or a lamb. The mishnah resolves how to deal with potential confusions.", + "One who says to his slave, “Go out and slaughter the pesah on my behalf”, if he slaughtered a kid, he may eat it; if he slaughtered a lamb, he may eat it; if he slaughtered a kid and a lamb, he eats the first. In this case his master did not tell him what type of animal, a kid (a goat) or a lamb (sheep), to slaughter for his pesah. Therefore, the slave may slaughter either of them, even though he knows that his master generally prefers one type or the other, or perhaps generally makes his pesah from a certain type and not the other. If the slave slaughters both a kid and a lamb the first counts as the master’s pesah, whichever that one may be, and the second does not.", + "If he forgot what his master told him, how should he act? He should slaughter a lamb and a kid and declare, “If my master told me [to slaughter] a kid, the kid is his and the lamb is mine; and if my master told me [to slaughter] a lamb, the lamb is his and the kid is mine.” In this case the master did tell him which animal to slaughter but the slave forgot. The solution is for the slave to make stipulations when he slaughters both animals. He slaughters them both and makes a stipulation that if the lamb is what his master wanted, then the lamb is the master’s pesah and the goat is his and vice versa.", + "If his master [also] forgot what he told him, both animals go to the place of burning, but they [the master and the slave] are exempt from sacrificing the second pesah. In this case when the slave returns to the master it turns out that even the master has forgotten what he told his slave to do. The stipulation will not avail because the master doesn’t know which is his and which the slave’s is. Therefore, neither animal can be eaten; both must be burned. However, the mishnah states that neither the slave nor the master has to offer a second pesah a month later because when the blood was sprinkled upon the altar, the master still knew which one was his (assuming that this is true). He only forgot later when the slave returned with the two slaughtered animals." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to deal with slaughtering the pesah on behalf of members of one’s family.", + "If a man says to his children, “Behold, I am going to slaughter the pesah on behalf of whichever of you goes up first to Jerusalem,” as soon as the first has put his head and the greater part of his body [into Jerusalem] he has acquired his portion, and he acquires it on behalf of his brothers with him. A father says to his children that he is going to slaughter a pesah on behalf of the first one that gets to Jerusalem. The idea is not that only one of them will get to eat the pesah and that the others will have to slaughter their own pesah but that the first to get to Jerusalem will merit having the pesah be “his pesah” and his siblings will join him. The mishnah rules that the first person to get his head and majority of his body is the “owner of the pesah” and that he acquires it on behalf of the others.", + "One may always register for it as long as there is as much as an olive’s worth for each one [registered]. Each person is obligated to eat an olive’s worth of the pesah sacrifice in order to fulfill his obligation. Hence, the mishnah rules that as many people as wish to may register for any given pesah so long as there is an olive’s worth of meat for each one.", + "They may register and withdraw their hands from it until it has been slaughtered; Rabbi Shimon says: until the blood is sprinkled. New people may register and those who have already registered may deregister (“withdraw their hands”) until the pesah has been slaughtered. Rabbi Shimon says that they may continue to do so until the blood of the pesah has been sprinkled on the altar. According to a source in the Talmud Rabbi Shimon allows people only to deregister after the pesah has been slaughtered and before the blood has been sprinkled. He agrees that one must register before it is slaughtered." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches what happens if a person registers others to share with him in his portion of the pesah.", + "If one registers others with him [to share] in his portion, the members of the company are permitted to give him his [portion], and he eats his and they eat theirs. The person in this mishnah registers others to eat his portion of the pesah but he doesn’t tell the other members of the company. When they find out they don’t want to share their pesah with this person. What they may do is tell their friend that he can share his portion with those who registered with him and that they are not going to share their portion. He and those who registered with him eat his portion and the other people eat theirs. In essence, he has made his own new eating company." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn order to understand this mishnah we will first need to explain some of the terms and halakhot it mentions. These are some technical laws concerning purity/impurity.\nThe mishnah deals with a “zav” and a “zavah” a man or woman who have had abnormal genital discharge (i.e. not semen or menstrual blood). A man who experiences one such occurrence is impure until the evening, the same as a man who has a seminal discharge. If he experiences two such discharges, either on the same day or on consecutive days he is now a zav (see Leviticus 15:1-12). He is impure for seven days. If he experiences three discharges he must also bring a sacrifice at the end of the period of his impurity, on the eighth day. In both latter cases he cannot eat sacred food until he is pure and if necessary has brought the requisite sacrifices.\nThe main difference between a zav and a zavah is that a zavah must experience her discharges on different days two discharges on one day count as one and not as two. Furthermore, the discharge must not come when she normally has her menstrual period. Since this is not supposed to be her menstrual period, even blood counts as “abnormal discharge.” Calculating when this period falls is complicated and I shall not enter into it here. If during this period she sees discharge/blood for one day she needs not to have a discharge the following day, and then she can go to the mikveh (ritual bath). This woman is called “observing a day for a day.” If she has two consecutive days of discharge, on the third day she can go to the mikveh, provided that she has no discharge on that day. However, if she has three consecutive days of discharge she becomes a “complete zavah”. She must now wait seven days in which she does not have a discharge, on the seventh day she can go to the mikveh and on the eighth day she brings a sacrifice. As is the case with the zav, she cannot eat sacred food until she has brought these sacrifices.\nOur mishnah teaches that one should slaughter the pesah on behalf of a person who can eat sacred food in the evening of the fifteenth of Nisan, the time when the pesah is eaten, even though on the fourteenth he/she is still unable to do so. The only exception to this rule is someone who is impure through contact with a corpse even if he becomes pure at night if he is impure during the day of the fourteenth they do not slaughter the pesah on his behalf.", + "If a zav saw two instances [of discharge], they slaughter [the pesah] on his behalf on his seventh [day]. This zav has seen only two episodes of discharge and hence he is not a “complete zav” who would have to bring a sacrifice at the end of seven days. At the end of seven days he need only go to the mikveh. If his seventh day falls on the fourteenth of Nisan they slaughter the pesah on his behalf because he can eat it that night.", + "If he saw three [instances of discharge], they slaughter on his behalf on his eighth [day]. If he saw three instances of discharge he goes to the mikveh on the seventh day and must bring sacrifices on the eighth day. He cannot eat sacred food until after he has brought his sacrifices. Therefore if the eighth day falls on the fourteenth they may slaughter the pesah on his behalf. If, however, the seventh day were to fall on the fourteenth they would not be able to slaughter the pesah for him because he could not eat it at night, before he brings the sacrifices the next day.", + "If a woman observes a “day for a day”, they slaughter on her behalf on her second day. This woman has experienced one episode of discharge/blood during a non-menstrual time of the month. She may go to the mikveh the following night. Therefore, if the second day falls on the fourteenth of Nisan, they slaughter the pesah on her behalf.", + "If she saw [a discharge] on two days, they slaughter on her behalf on the third [day]. This woman has experienced discharges for two consecutive days. On the third day she may go to the mikveh, provided she doesn’t have a discharge on that day. Since that evening she may eat sacred food they slaughter the pesah on her behalf.", + "And as for a zavah, they slaughter on her behalf on the eighth [day]. This woman has experienced three consecutive days of discharge and is therefore a “complete zavah.” She must wait seven clean days (days in which she doesn’t experience discharge) and then she may go to the mikveh at night and must bring sacrifices the following day, the eighth day. If the fourteenth falls on this, the eighth day, they may slaughter the pesah on her behalf because she will be able to eat the pesah that evening." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses slaughtering the pesah on behalf of various categories of people who may not be able to eat it.", + "[As to] an onen, and one who is removing a heap [of stones], and likewise one whom they promised to take out of prison, and a sick or an old person who can eat as much as an olive, they slaughter on their behalf. This is a list of people who may be able to eat the pesah offering in the evening even though they are currently (i.e. on the 14th of Pesah) in a state in which they cannot eat it. A person whose close relative (one of the seven for whom he must mourn: mother, father, brother, sister, daughter, son or spouse) has died is an onen on the day of the death. He is forbidden to eat sacred food. However, the following evening he is no longer an onen and he may eat his pesah. They sacrifice the pesah on his behalf even though there is a chance that while burying his dead he may contract corpse impurity and not be able to eat the pesah. “One who is removing a heap of stones” refers to a person clearing out a heap of stones which may have fallen upon and killed a person. If it turns out that there is a dead body under the heap then he will be impure and will not be able to eat his pesah that evening. Nevertheless, until a dead body is found the remover is assumed to be pure and they do slaughter the pesah on his behalf. One who is stuck in prison on the fourteenth of Nisan may not be able to eat his pesah. Evidently the pesah is not part of the prison meal plan. If they promised to let him out they do slaughter the pesah on his behalf even though it is not certain that he will actually be let out in time. An old or sick person may not be able to eat an olive’s worth of the pesah, even though it seems like they will be able to. In any case, since it seems likely that these people will be able to eat the pesah, they do slaughter it on their behalf. Note that if we know that the old or sick person will not be able to eat even an olive’s worth of the pesah they do not slaughter on his behalf.", + "[Yet in the case of] all these, they may not slaughter for them alone, lest they bring the pesah to disqualification. They should not slaughter the pesah on behalf of a group which is entirely made up of the above categories of people. The problem is that if an entire group cannot eat the pesah then the pesah itself becomes disqualified. It is best to avoid this situation and therefore the entire group should not consist of people who are in a “risky” category.", + "Therefore if a disqualification occurs to them, they are exempt from keeping the second pesah, except for one who was removing the heap, because he was unclean from the beginning. If they slaughter the pesah on behalf of one of the people in this category and then it they become impure or become otherwise unable to eat the pesah (stuck in jail or sick), they do not need to observe the second pesah. This is because at the moment that the blood of the first pesah was sprinkled on the altar they looked like they were going to be able to eat the pesah at night. The only exception is the one who was uncovering the heap of stones because he was impure at the outset, when the blood was sprinkled. If it turns out that there was a body under the heap, then he was already impure when they slaughtered the pesah on his behalf and sprinkled its blood. To put it another way, concerning this person what is unclear is not whether he will become impure, as it is with the onen, but rather whether he has already been made impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to deal with how the company of those who would together eat the pesah was formed.", + "They may not slaughter the pesah for a single person, the words of Rabbi Judah. But Rabbi Yose permits it. The problem with slaughtering the pesah for a single person is that it is highly unlikely that he will be able to eat the whole thing. In all likelihood, a large portion of it will become “remainder” and it is prohibited to let any of the pesah remain uneaten until the morning. Therefore, Rabbi Judah forbids slaughtering the pesah for a single person. Rabbi Yose permits it, assuming that the person will be able to eat the entire pesah (a Homer Simpsonesque pesah feast).", + "And even a company of a hundred who cannot eat as much as an olive, one may not slaughter [a pesah] for them. While Rabbi Yose allows one to slaughter a pesah for a single person who can eat the whole thing he does not allow slaughtering for a large group that can certainly together eat the whole thing unless each person can eat as much as an olive’s worth.", + "And one may not form a company of women and slaves and minors. There are two different explanations for this section. According to one explanation, it is forbidden to have a company that is all women, all slaves or all minors. According to another explanation, it is forbidden to have a company mixed with slaves and women for fear of licentiousness. This is a common theme with regard to slaves they are considered to be sexually licentious." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses whether various categories of people may eat their pesah in the evening.", + "An onen immerses [in a mikveh] and eats his pesah in the evening, but not [other] sacred food. To remind ourselves that which we learned above in mishnah six, a person is an onen on the day upon which one of his seven close relative dies. According to Torah law, a person is an onen only during the day. An onen may not eat sacred food. The rabbis added that on the following evening he remains an onen, but at this point he is only an “onen derabbanan”, an onen of rabbinic status. Since his status is not so severe, he may eat the pesah in the evening. The rabbis did not disallow this because this is his only opportunity to eat the pesah. However, he may still not eat other sacred food until the following day.", + "One who hears about his dead [for the first time], and one who gathers the bones [of his dead relative] immerses and eats sacred food. If one hears that one of his relatives died after some time has passed, meaning not on the day upon which they died, that day he has the status of an onen derabbanan. At night he is not an onen at all and he may therefore eat any sacred food. It was customary in the mishnaic period to bury people and then about a year later when the flesh was gone to collect their bones and put them into an ossuary. On the day upon which a person collects his mother or father’s bones he is an onen derabbanan. He too may eat sacred food, including the pesah, in the evening.", + "A convert who converts on the eve of Pesah: Bet Shammai say: he immerses and eats his pesah in the evening. Bet Hillel say: anyone who separates from the foreskin is like one who separates from the grave. This is somewhat of a difficult section to understand because it is unclear what the immersion in this mishnah is for. It does not seem to be the immersion customary upon conversion. Rather it seems to be some type of immersion to rid the non-Jew of an impurity which he carries over with him through his conversion. According to Bet Shammai this is a mild form of impurity and therefore, once he immerses himself, he may eat the pesah that evening. Bet Hillel says that the impurity is like that of corpse impurity, which is seven days. Hence he may not eat the pesah that evening, just as one who has come into contact with a corpse may not eat the pesah in the evening. The Talmud explains that the debate is about the concern that the non-Jew may have contracted corpse impurity right before he converts. A non-Jew is not subject to corpse impurity and hence when he converts he is pure and could technically eat the pesah. However, if he is allowed to eat the pesah this year then the following year he may think that he is also allowed to eat the pesah, even if he contracts corpse impurity. Therefore Bet Hillel forbids him from eating the pesah this year as well. Bet Shammai does not share in this concern and hence allows him to eat the pesah that night." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first four mishnayot of our chapter deal with what is called “Pesah Sheni”, the second pesah. The laws of Pesah Sheni are taught in Numbers 9:9-13. Pesah Sheni is observed on the fourteenth of Iyyar, one month after the first Pesah.", + "He who was unclean or on a far-off journey and did not keep the first [Pesah] must keep the second. The Torah specifies that a person who was unclean during the first Pesah, or one who was far from Jerusalem on a long journey and therefore could not offer the first Pesah must observe Pesah Sheni. There is no new information in this section in the Mishnah it is taught in order to serve as an introduction to the following clauses.", + "If he unwittingly erred or was prevented and did not keep the first, he must keep the second. This section teaches that not only one who was unclean or far away is allowed to keep Pesah Sheni, but also one who couldn’t offer the pesah on its original date for another reason. This would include an error in remembering the date of Pesah or any other thing which prevented him, as long as it was not intentional.", + "If so, why does it say “an unclean person” and “one who was one a long journey” specified? That these are not liable to karet, whereas these are liable to karet. This question is midrashic in nature it asks a question about a verse in the Torah. If everyone who through no fault of his own cannot observe the first Pesah is allowed to observe Pesah Sheni, then why does the Torah specify these two categories of people? The answer is that someone who was unclean or on a far-off journey for the first Pesah and then did not keep Pesah Sheni is exempt from the punishment of karet, the usual punishment for one who didn’t observe Pesah. This is true even if they intentionally did not keep Pesah Sheni. This is because they were exempt from the first Pesah and the Torah does not mention the punishment of karet with regard to one who does not keep Pesah Sheni. In contrast, a person who didn’t keep the first Pesah because of error or because something prevented him and then he intentionally didn’t observe Pesah Sheni is liable for karet. These people were obligated for the first Pesah and even though something prevented them from doing so, the obligation still stood. The Torah specifies concerning this person, “But if a man who is clean and not on a journey refrains from offering the passover sacrifice, that person shall be cut off from his kin (karet)” (Numbers 9:13). The rabbis say that this verse refers to one who unintentionally missed the first opportunity but intentionally skipped the second." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn yesterday’s mishnah we learned that one who was far away from the Temple when the first Pesah occurred gets a second chance and may observe Pesah Sheni. Our mishnah defines what “far off” means.", + "What is “a far-off journey”?
From Modi’im and beyond, and the same distance on all sides [of Jerusalem], the words of Rabbi Akiva. According to Rabbi Akiva “far-off” means the distance from Modi’im to Jerusalem, about 30 km (I should know, I live in Modiin and travel to Jerusalem every day. With traffic this takes between 45 minutes and an hour, but they didn’t have cars. Then again, they didn’t have traffic either. Modi’im is also where the Maccabees lived). According to the Talmud it would take about half a spring day’s walk to get from Modi’im to Jerusalem. The reason for half a day’s walk is that if he wanted to slaughter the pesah on time he had to get there while they were still doing so.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: from the threshold of the Temple court and beyond. Rabbi Yose said to him: for that reason the heh has a dot on it in order to say, not because it is really far-off, but [even when one is] from the threshold of the Temple court and beyond. Rabbi Eliezer holds that “far-off” means anyone who was not actually in the Temple at that time. This is somewhat perplexing why should “far-off” mean one step away? Rabbi Yose doesn’t answer this question but says that the dot on top of the heh in the word “far-off” (Numbers 9:10) hints that “far-off” is not to be taken literally. If you look at a Torah or a Humash you will see that that dot is still there today." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah lists some differences and similarities between the first Pesah and the second.", + "What is the difference between the first Pesah and the second?
The first is subject to the prohibition of [chametz] shall not be seen and [chametz] shall not be found, while at the second matzah and chametz are in the house with him. The chametz prohibitions are stated only in Exodus 12-13 (Pesah Rishon the first Pesah) and are not mentioned in Numbers 9 (Pesah Sheni). Therefore, the rabbis teach that these prohibitions apply only to the first Pesah and not to the second.", + "The first requires [the reciting of] Hallel when it is eaten, while the second does not require Hallel when it is eaten. The Hallel, the recitation of a group of Psalms, is one of the oldest elements of the Pesah celebration. As we shall see in chapter ten, it continued to be observed in the post-destruction seder and is a central part of the Passover Haggadah to this day. According to the Talmud, the Hallel is hinted at in Isaiah 30:29, “For you, there shall be singing as on a night when a festival is hallowed.” Our mishnah teaches that the Hallel was recited both while the pesah was being sacrificed and while it was being eaten. The difference between Pesah Rishon and Pesah Sheni is that on the first the Hallel is recited both while the Pesah is eaten and when it is sacrificed whereas on Pesah Sheni it is only recited when the pesah is sacrificed.", + "But both require [the reciting of] Hallel when they are sacrificed, and they are eaten roasted with matzah and bitter herbs, and they override Shabbat. Besides the fact that the Hallel is recited on both of the Pesah’s at the time of the sacrifice, there are two other similarities between the two. On both occasions the pesah is eaten with matzah and bitter herbs (see Numbers 9:11-12) and on both occasions if the fourteenth of Nisan falls on Shabbat the pesah is still sacrificed (see above 6:2)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nWe have already learned above in 7:4 that if most of the community of Israel is impure they observe the first Pesah in impurity. Pesah Sheni is only observed by individuals who could not observe Pesah Rishon due to impurity or distance from the Temple. Our mishnah teaches that only impure Israelites who have become impure through contact with a corpse observe Pesah Rishon while impure; those with impurities that come from their own body do not observe the first Pesah while impure.", + "The pesah which comes in impurity: zavin and zavot, menstruant women and women after childbirth do not from eat it, yet if they did eat they are exempt from karet. Zavin and zavot are men and women who have had some sort of abnormal genital discharge (see 8:5). The impurity of the menstruant is mentioned in Leviticus 15:19 ff. and that of the woman after childbirth is Leviticus 12:1 ff. People with these types of impurity are not supposed to eat the pesah on Pesah Rishon, even if the community is impure and is eating the Pesah “in impurity”. However, if they do eat the pesah they are not liable for karet as would be the case had they eaten the pesah when the community was pure (see Leviticus 7:20). They are exempt because other people who are eating it are impure.", + "Rabbi Eliezer exempts [them] even [of the karet normally incurred] for entering the sanctuary. Rabbi Eliezer goes even further. Normally an impure person who intentionally enters the Temple is liable for karet. This is derived from Numbers 5:2 which specifically mentions both the zav and the one defiled by a corpse. From this juxtaposition Rabbi Eliezer learns that the zav and others in a similar category (i.e. the source of impurity is their own body) are liable for entering the Temple only when one defiled by a corpse is liable for entering the Temple. When the pesah is offered by an impure community a person defiled by a corpse is obviously allowed into the Temple. Hence, when this occurs the zav is exempt from entering the Temple as well, even though he doesn’t eat the pesah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThere are certain requirements for offering the pesah sacrifice which were only mandated during the first pesah, that which was observed on the night on which the Israelites left Egypt. These requirements were not observed in subsequent years. Our mishnah lists some of the differences between this first pesah and that offered and obligatory for the generations that followed.", + "What is the difference between the pesah [which was offered] in Egypt and the pesah of [subsequent] generations?
The pesah in Egypt was taken on the tenth [of Nisan], The first lamb or kid which was to be used for the first pesah was separated out of the flock by the Israelites on the tenth of Nisan (Exodus 12:3). This early separation was only required for that year.", + "And it required sprinkling with a bunch of hyssop on the lintel and on the two door-posts, The Israelites were required to apply the blood of the pesah on the lintel and two door-posts, using a bunch of hyssop (zatar in Arabic still commonly used in the Middle East) as a sort of paintbrush (v. 22). In subsequent years this was not done.", + "And it was eaten in haste on one night, whereas the pesah of [subsequent] generations is kept the whole seven [days]. The original pesah was to be eaten in haste (v. 11). It was only eaten on one night. This last statement is somewhat puzzling because in subsequent years the same was true the pesah was eaten for only one night. The Talmud therefore adds here that in Egypt the prohibition of chametz was only for one night. In subsequent years the prohibition of chametz was observed for a full seven days (v. 8)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nLeviticus 27:10 states, “If one substitutes one animal for another, the thing vowed and its substitute shall both be holy.” This teaches that if one has an animal already dedicated to the Temple to be offered as a sacrifice and he says concerning another animal, “Let this one be its substitute”, the first animal remains sacred and its substitute becomes sacred as well (there is a whole mishnaic tractate about substitutes). Our mishnah deals with someone who tries to offer a substitute for a pesah. In order to understand the mishnah we also need to know that animals dedicated to be pesahim which are not offered as such are offered later as offerings of wellbeing.", + "Rabbi Joshua said: I have heard that the substitute of a pesah is sacrificed, and that the substitute of a pesah is not sacrificed, and I cannot explain. Rabbi Joshua says that he has heard a puzzling tradition which he does not understand. He has heard that sometimes the substitute of a pesah is sacrificed as a thanksgiving offering and sometimes it is not, but he doesn’t know how to explain this tradition. As an aside, we should note that this statement provides us with an interesting glimpse into how the rabbinic tradition was transmitted and developed. Rabbi Joshua has heard a statement, has memorized it, but didn’t receive along with the statement any interpretation and hence doesn’t know what it means. The statement was brief and probably easy to memorize but was difficult to understand.", + "Rabbi Akiva said: I will explain: The pesah which was found before the slaughtering of the pesah must be left to graze until it becomes unfit, and then it may be sold, and one brings a peace-offering with the money; and the same applies to its substitute. [If found] after the slaughtering of the pesah, it is offered as a wellbeing offering, and the same applies to it substitute. Rabbi Akiva uses his reason to figure out this conundrum. If it happens that a lamb/kid set aside to be a pesah is lost and another is set aside to be offered in its place (this is not the substitute, but a replacement), and the original one is found before the replacement is sacrificed then the replacement is not offered. Rather it is left to graze until it can no longer be offered as a pesah (until it becomes flawed), then it is sold and then the proceeds from the sale are used to buy another animal to serve as a wellbeing offering. It itself cannot be sacrificed because it existed when the pesah was offered but it itself was rejected as a pesah and not sacrificed. If a person makes a substitute for this second pesah then the substitute is also not offered. The substitute has the same rules as that for which it was substituted. This is the substitute which is not sacrificed. If it happens that the lost pesah is not found until after the new one has been sacrificed, the original pesah is offered as a sacrifice of wellbeing. So too, if one makes a substitute for this original pesah, it too is offered as a sacrifice of wellbeing. This is the substitute which is sacrificed." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with cases where an animal set aside to be a pesah offering cannot be offered as such.", + "If a man sets aside a female for his pesah or a two-year old male, it should be left to graze until it becomes unfit, then it should be sold, and its money is spent on a voluntary sacrifice. The pesah offering must be brought from a one year old male goat or sheep (Exodus 12:5). A female animal or a two-year old male animal is unfit for a pesah. If a person set aside such an animal to be his pesah, then the animal is sacred despite the fact that it cannot be a pesah. The animal should be left to graze until it becomes unfit, meaning it becomes blemished in such a way that it could not be offered as a pesah. Then it is sold and the proceeds are used to purchase voluntary sacrifices. There is a variant reading of this mishnah according to which the proceeds of the sale are used to buy offerings of well-being, the offering that is usually brought in place of an unfit pesah.", + "If a man separates his pesah and dies, his son after him should not bring it as a pesah but rather as a wellbeing offering. The father who set aside his pesah dies before he can offer it and there are no others registered to eat this pesah. (Had others been registered there would have been no problem.) The pesah now has no owners and therefore cannot be offered as a pesah. The mishnah teaches that even the son who inherits from his father cannot offer it as a pesah. In other words the son does not inherit his father’s registration for that sacrifice. Therefore it is sacrificed as a sacrifice of wellbeing." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with an animal set aside to be a pesah that gets mixed up with other animals set aside to be other sacrifices. We should note that this is a common theme that the Mishnah just loves to discuss different animals or items of different statuses getting mixed up with each other.", + "If a pesah became mixed up with other sacrifices, they all graze until they become unfit [through a blemish], then they are sold, and then he must bring [a replacement] for the price of the best of this type, and bring for the price of the best of this type and he loses the remainder from his own pocket. In this case the pesah gets mixed up with other animals that are set aside for other sacrifices. The rules and restrictions concerning each of these sacrifices may be different: their blood is sprinkled differently on the altar and their meat is eaten for a different period of time. Since we don’t know which animal was set aside for which sacrifice, none of them may be sacrificed. All of the animals must be sold and then the proceeds used to purchase new sacrifices. However, the way in which the new sacrifices are bought is somewhat complicated. Every new purchase must be made at the value of the most expensive of the mixed-up animals, lest that sacrifice was from that expensive animal. For instance, three lambs were set aside for three different sacrifices and then were mixed up. When he sells them, one lamb sells for two zuzim (had gadya, had gadya, dizban Abba b’tre zuze) and the other two lambs sell for one zuz each (if you know Aramaic this would be dizban Abba b’zuza hada). When he buys replacement sacrifices he must buy three lambs worth two zuz each, because he doesn’t know which sacrifice was from the more expensive lamb. This loss of money (two zuzim) is made up from his own pocket.", + "If it became mixed up with first-borns: Rabbi Shimon says: if [the pesah belonged to] a company of priests, they eat [all of the animals that night]. In this case the pesah becomes mixed up with firstborn animals. Generally, the firstborn of a sheep or goat (or other kosher animal) must be given to the priest. The animal is slaughtered and its blood is sprinkled on the altar and then it may be eaten by priests. The sprinkling of the blood for the firstborn is performed in the same was as that of the pesah. Therefore, the mishnah rules that if the company of people registered to eat the pesah are priests, they may eat these animals on Pesah as if they were valid pesahim. In other words, they can treat all of the animals as if they were all pesahim. However, they can only eat them that night, because a pesah cannot be left over till morning." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a company of people who had set aside a lamb/kid for their pesah and then the animal wandered off and got lost. One person searched for the animal and found it and slaughtered while at the same time the company slaughtered another animal as their pesah, assuming that the person looking for it would not return in time. The main question is which animal can be eaten and by whom.", + "A company lost their pesah and they said to one [who was registered with them], “Go and seek it, and slaughter it on our behalf”; and he went, found, and slaughtered it, and they [also] took an animal and slaughtered [it]: If his was slaughtered first, he eats of his and they eat with him. And if theirs was first slaughtered, they eat of theirs, while he eats of his. And if it is unknown which of them was first slaughtered, or if they slaughtered both of them at the same time, he eats of his, but they may not eat with him; while theirs goes forth to the place of burning, and they are exempt from keeping the second Pesah. In this case the company sent one of its people to go and slaughter a new pesah on their behalf, after their original one was lost. However, instead of just relying on him to slaughter the original animal on their behalf, they also find their own new pesah and slaughter it as well. If his was slaughtered both he and they may eat of the pesah which he slaughtered. He may eat of it because he slaughtered it for himself and they may eat of it because they instructed him to do so. Their pesah is invalid since no one can eat it and it must be burned. If their pesah was slaughtered first they may eat of their pesah because we consider them as having withdrawn from being registered for the original pesah. He may eat of his own pesah, even though theirs was slaughtered first because he never told them to slaughter a new pesah on his behalf. If it is unclear whose pesah was slaughtered first or perhaps they both slaughtered at the same time he may eat his own pesah, because he never told them to slaughter one on his behalf. In other words, from his perspective, their pesah is irrelevant. However, they may not eat either pesah. They can’t eat his because theirs might have been the first offered in which case they weren’t registered for his. They can’t eat theirs because his might have been the first offered in which case theirs is invalid. Since no one can eat their pesah it must be burned. Despite the fact that they do not eat a pesah, they still are not liable for observing Pesah Sheni because there was a pesah slaughtered on their behalf and its blood was sprinkled on the altar.", + "He said to them, “If I delay, go forth and slaughter on my behalf,’, [and] then he went and found it and slaughtered [it], while they took [another] and slaughtered [it]: If theirs was slaughtered first, they eat of theirs while he eats with them; And if his was slaughtered first, he eats of his and they eat of theirs. And if it is unknown which of them was slaughtered first, or if they slaughtered both of them at the same time, they eat of theirs, but he may not eat with them, while his goes forth to the place of burning, and he is exempt from keeping the second Pesah. In this case, the group does not appoint the individual person to be their agent but rather he tells them that he is going to go look for the lost lamb but that if he is late in returning they should offer one on his behalf. They are now his agent but he has not been appointed to be their agent. Again, he finds the original pesah and they slaughter a new one. The mishnah again runs through all of the variations. This case is the mirror image of the previous section. If theirs was slaughtered first, they and he may eat of it. They slaughtered it for themselves and they also acted as his agent. In such a case, his must be burned. If his was slaughtered first he may eat of it because he slaughtered it for himself. They may not eat of it because they did not appoint him to be their agent. Rather, they eat their own pesah even though it was slaughtered second. If it is unclear which was slaughtered first or both were slaughtered at the same time they may eat theirs because to them his pesah is irrelevant they did not appoint him to act as their agent. He, however, may not eat his because he appointed them to act as his agent and theirs might have been slaughtered first. He also may not eat theirs lest his came first. His pesah must therefore be burned but he need not observe pesah sheni, as we explained above.", + "He said to them, and they said to him: they all eat of the first [to be slaughtered], and if it is unknown which of them was slaughtered first, both go forth to the place of burning. In this case, he appointed them to act on his behalf and they appointed him to act on his behalf. In such a case, both he and they always eat from the first one slaughtered. If it is unclear which was slaughtered first or if both were slaughtered at the same time, then neither he nor they may eat of either pesah. Both pesahim are burned and no one must observe pesah sheni.", + "If he did not say to them and they did not say to him, they are not responsible for each other. If neither of them appointed the other to act as an agent, then they are all on their own. He eats his own and they eat their own no matter the order in which the animals were slaughtered." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with remedying a situation in which the pesah offerings of different companies got mixed up with each other.", + "Two companies whose pesah sacrifices became mixed up: these take possession of one [animal] and these take possession of one. One member of these joins those, and one member of those joins these, and thus they declare: if this pesah is ours, your hands are withdrawn from your own and you are registered for ours; while if this pesah is yours, our hands are withdrawn from ours and we are registered for yours. The pesahim of each of two companies have become mixed up. Since a company must be registered for a pesah before they can slaughter it and eat it, they may not simple slaughter whichever one they want. The mishnah therefore works out a remedy for such a situation. One person from each company switches companies. Then all of the members of each company declare to the new person a declaration which I shall now explain. If the pesah which they took into their hands was theirs, then they tell him that he is switching his registration from his original one to theirs. Similarly, if the pesah which they possess was originally his, then they declare that they are withdrawing from their original pesah and registering for his. What they cannot do is simply register without having one person switch companies because it is forbidden to leave any pesah without anyone registered for it for even a moment. Also, they couldn’t register for a new pesah without first withdrawing from being registered for the old one because a person cannot be registered for two pesahim at the same time. All of this is not a problem if one person switches companies, because it then turns out that at no point is either pesah left without any owners.", + "Similarly, if there are five companies consisting of five members each or of ten each, they draw one from each company and say thusly. The mishnah now elaborates now that the same above method of resolving the problem also works if there are five companies each with five members of ten companies each with ten members and all of the pesahim got mixed up. In each case, one person from each company has to go to each of the other companies. Each newly formed company would have one member from each of the old companies, and each person in each company would have to make the declaration." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is similar to that which we learned yesterday except instead of the pesah sacrifices of companies being mixed up the pesah sacrifices of two individuals are mixed up.", + "If the pesah sacrifices belonging to two [individuals] became mixed up, each takes possession of one [animal]; This one registers someone from the marketplace with him and that one registers someone from the marketplace with him. This one goes over to that one and that one goes over to this one, and thus they declare: “If this pesah is mine, your hands are withdrawn from yours and you are registered for mine; while if this pesah is yours, my hands are withdrawn from mine and I am registered for yours.” The key to understanding this mishnah is that each person needs to register another person with him (one from the marketplace) for his pesah otherwise when he switches to the other person’s group a pesah will be left temporarily without any owners, and this is prohibited. I shall explain the scenario using proper names. Let’s say Reuven and Shimon have their pesah sacrifices mixed up. If Reuven were to even temporarily withdraw from his and register for Shimon’s his would be left without any owner. Therefore, Reuven signs up Moshe and Shimon signs up Aharon, and now there are two companies as opposed to two individuals. One person will now always “stay behind”. Reuven and Shimon each take an animal, and Moshe leaves Reuven’s group and goes to Shimon’s and Aharon leaves Shimon’s group and goes to Reuven’s. Reuven then makes the declaration to Aharon and Shimon makes the declaration to Moshe. In this way both groups have a pesah and neither pesah was ever left without an owner." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe tenth chapter of Pesahim is perhaps the best known chapter in the entire Mishnah, for it describes the Pesah seder, one of the rituals most-observed by Jews in the modern world. The laws and practices of this chapter form the basis of the seder and Haggadah to this day. Some of its texts will be familiar to us from their inclusion in the Haggadah. It has also been studied exhaustively by scholars, partly because of its importance to the Christian tradition according to three of the four Gospels, Jesus’s last supper took place on the eve of Pesah, the same time when we celebrate our seder. (Note that I did not say that Jesus’s last meal was a seder. I do not believe that this is an accurate statement.)\nI will make some introductory remarks due to the importance of this chapter. First of all, most scholars today do not think that a seder meal on Pesah existed during the Second Temple period, while the pesah was still offered. While the Temple stood, the meal consisted of the eating of the pesah, matzah and maror, and they were probably accompanied by some singing and perhaps drinking of wine, but there was no formal ritually ordered meal that accompanied them. The rabbis after the destruction of the Temple initially struggled to find a replacement for their cataclysmic loss. One replacement for the loss of the Temple and the pesah sacrifice was the institution of a formal meal on Pesah, one certainly modeled after the Greco-Roman symposium, the formal “high-class” meal with which the rabbis were familiar. The most notable aspects of the seder, the reclining, the wine, the hand-washing, the dipping of food, the types of food served and even the discussion surrounding the Exodus from Egypt all have parallels in Greco-Roman descriptions of the formal meal called the symposium. That rabbis borrowed Greek and Roman customs should be no more surprising to us than the fact that when Jews get dressed up to go to synagogue today they dress in the same clothes as do the other members of society. Therefore, rather than characterize the rabbis as borrowing Greek and Roman customs, a more accurate statement would be to say that when the rabbis looked to shape their own religious experience by establishing a formal Pesah meal, they did so in the way with which they were familiar.\nThe seder continued to develop throughout the centuries and therefore what we read in the Mishnah is an early form of the seder and not all that close to that which we know and observe today. The first Haggadot, written texts, were not composed until the 8th or 9th centuries, the same time when the first siddurim were composed.\nWith regard to the Mishnah itself, there are many later interpolations that have found there way into our text. These interpolations, almost all of which are liturgical, come from the Haggadah. As the Haggadah developed, people added to the Mishnah texts that they knew from their Haggadah or changed the Mishnah to match their practices. I shall note many examples as we proceed. However, the basic text upon which I will base my commentary is the version found in the common printed editions such as Kehati, Albeck, etc.", + "On the eve of Pesah close to minhah one may not eat until nightfall. On the eve of Pesah one should not eat from minhah time and afterward so that when it comes time for the meal one is hungry and one will eat the matzah with a good appetite. This is at the ninth hour, roughly speaking around 3 PM.", + "Even the poorest person in Israel must not eat [on the night of Pesah] until he reclines. In the ancient world formal meals were eaten while reclining on couches which lied close to the ground. One leaned to the left and a small table was placed in front of the diners. Usually there were about three diners per couch. Typically, only the wealthier classes ate in this manner whereas the poorer folk ate while sitting. On Pesah, according to the Mishnah, even poor people are to eat while reclining.", + "And they should give him not less than four cups [of wine], and even from the charity plate. The seder meal is structured around the drinking of four cups as we shall see in the coming mishnayot. Our mishnah states that when charity distributors are handing out wine to poor people so that they shall have wine to drink they should not give them less than four cups of wine. Others explain that the mishnah is addressing all Israelites when observing the seder they should not have less than four cups of wine, even if they have to take from the charity plate." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains a debate between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel over the order of the blessings recited over the first cup of wine. Today we call these two blessings together “Kiddush”, which comes from the word “sanctify.”", + "They mixed him the first cup: Bet Shammai says: first he blesses over the day and then over the wine. Bet Hillel says: first he blesses over the wine and then over the day. As we shall see throughout this chapter, important events at the seder are marked by the “mixing” of a cup of wine. In the ancient world wine was drunk diluted with water so as to prevent a person from becoming intoxicated. To drink undiluted wine was considered coarse behavior. Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel debate the order of the blessings. Bet Shammai says that we first recite the blessing over the day. This blessing is “Who sanctifies Israel and the festivals.” Afterwards we recite the blessing over the wine, “Who creates the fruit of the vine.” The reasoning for this is that according to Bet Shammai the day causes the wine to be drunk. Bet Hillel says that the wine is blessed first. There are two reasons for this. First of all, the presence of the wine allows us to recite the blessing over the day. Secondly, the blessing over the wine is a commonly recited blessing whereas the blessing over the day is rare. The rule is that common things are recited before uncommon things. The order which we follow today is, as is almost always the case, according to Bet Hillel." + ], + [ + "Introduction In this mishnah they begin to bring in front of him the food. We should note that the foods are brought in front of him before the discussion and recitations which we shall encounter in the following mishnayot. It is not entirely clear from the Mishnah itself whether they ate before the recitation of the “haggadah”, the ritual retelling of the story of the Exodus, or whether they first told the story and then ate, as we do today.", + "They bring [it] in front of him. He dips lettuce before until he reaches the appetizer that precedes the bread. As did the previous mishnah, this mishnah continues to describe foods brought in front of him by a servant. Although many Jews probably could not afford servants, the mishnah relates to each Jew on the seder evening as if he is a member of the upper class. The mishnah does not say what “it” is that they bring in front of him. Some commentators add that it is vegetables and lettuce, while others say that it is a table. Whatever it is, it is clear that appetizers are served before the meal. Today we call this appetizer “karpas”, a Persian, Aramaic and Arabic word for celery. In mishnaic times they probably used lettuce as the appetizer. Other sources mention other appetizers as well. The mishnah may allude to this when it says “until he reaches the appetizer that precedes the bread.” The mishnah may be stating that he continues to eat appetizers until the final appetizer is brought. We should note how different this is from today’s custom, according to which a very small amount of a vegetable is eaten and then people can go hungry until the main meal is brought (and if they are at my seder they can shoot me mean looks as I go on and on).", + "They bring before him matzah, lettuce, and haroset (and two dishes) though the haroset is not mandatory. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Zadok says: it is mandatory. After the appetizers are completed, the servants bring in front of him the main festival foods, the matzah, lettuce and haroset. The matzah is explicitly commanded by the Torah. The lettuce is the bitter herbs (see abover 2:6) also mandated by the Torah. Haroset does not appear in the Torah. Haroset, a mixture of wine and fruit or wine-vinegar and fruit, was a common food in the Greco-Roman world. It was probably added to the Pesah meal after the destruction in an attempt to provide more foods for the seder. In the Talmud it is explained as having different symbolic meanings, most familiarly that it represents the mortar used to make the bricks in Egypt. Others say that it should have a sharp flavor to remind us of the slavery in Egypt. Still others say that the apples used in making it are to remind us of the “apple” in Egypt, a symbol of the fertility of the Israelite women. According to the first opinion, haroset is brought to the table but it is not mandatory. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says that it is mandatory.", + "And in the Temple they bring the body of the pesah before him. The mishnah notes that in Temple days at this point they would bring the pesah in front of the seder participant. Note that the main part of the mishnah describes the seder as it existed after the Temple was destroyed. Only at the end does the mishnah note when the pesah was eaten during Temple times." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains the heart of the commandment to tell the story of the Exodus, including the so-called “four questions” or “Mah Nishtanah” and the midrash. These are all still part of the seder ritual to this day.\nIn this mishnah I have deviated from my normal practice of using the version contained in printed versions of the text because it is so radically different from the original version. The “four questions” developed over time and later copyists revised the original “questions” of the mishnah with those familiar to them. If you wish to see the “four questions” as they are recited today, you can check any standard Haggadah and they can easily be found on line. Cited and explained below is the “Mah Nishtanah” as found in early mishnaic manuscripts.", + "They mixed him a second cup, and here the son questions his father. The significance of the moment is marked by the pouring of the second cup. The occasion is the beginning of the telling of the story of the Exodus, which begins with a question. The reason that the story begins with a question is probably in allusion to a few verses in the Torah in which a son asks his father the meaning of the rituals observed (see Exodus 12:26, 13:14, and Deuteronomy 6:20-21).", + "If the son lacks the intelligence to ask, his father instructs him: On all other nights we dip once, on this night we dip twice? On all other nights we eat hametz or matzah, on this night only matzah. On all other nights we eat roasted, stewed or boiled meat, on this night only roasted. The son is supposed to freely form his own question. The mishnah does not provide him with a list of questions which he must ask. I repeat, the “Mah Nishtanah” which we will examine below is not a list of questions which a child must ask but originally was a list of prompts, statements which the father would make to spur a kid who has not asked a question into doing so. I am not telling you this to ruin your Pesah celebration. (Please believe me.) You should continue with the lovely practice of the youngest child reciting the Mah Nishtanah, just as we do in our house. Just know that things used to be done slightly differently. Also, it might be a good idea to get the children genuinely thinking about the content of what we are saying and not just focused on singing the song.", + "He begins with shame and concludes with praise; and expounds from “A wandering Aramean was my father” (Deuteronomy 6:20-25) until he completes the whole section. We now get to the list of statements (after my previous comment I won’t call them questions). You should immediately note that there are only three, and only one of them is the same as the one we still recite today (#2). I shall explain each statement briefly. They are recited in the order in which they are done during the seder. 1) Dipping was a normal part of every meal. However, it was normally done at one part of the meal and therefore, the second dipping which was done with the haroset and bitter herbs was unusual. 2) This question has remained to this day and should not need any explanation. 3) As we learned in the above chapters, the pesah could only be eaten roasted. Therefore, the statement notes that on other nights the meat could be cooked in any way while tonight it can only be roasted. The most interesting thing about this section is that it seems that people were still eating a pesah-like lamb after the destruction of the Temple. Indeed, there is evidence that some Jews continued to eat roasted meat after the destruction, and this mishnah fits with those practices.", + "The main part of the seder is telling the story of the Exodus. The mishnah notes two elements to this. The first is telling the story by beginning with “disgrace and concluding with praise.” In the Talmud they debate whether the disgrace is the physical slavery in Egypt or the spiritual degradation of our idol-worshipping forefathers. The praise is the praise to God for taking us out of Egypt. The second element is an extended midrash (expounding) on Deuteronomy 6:20-25. It is not entirely clear why these verses and not others were chosen but in my opinion the likeliest answer is that they are brief yet comprehensive. The midrashist connects these few verses with the original story in Exodus and adds his own commentary as well. In my translation I have left the words “Arami oved avi” untranslated because they can be translated either as “My forefather was a wandering Aramean”, in which case the phrase refers to Jacob or “An Aramean tried to kill my forefather” in which it is Lavan to whom the verse refers. Our Haggadot understand it the second way." + ], + [ + "Rabban Gamaliel used to say: whoever does not make mention of these three things on Pesah does not fulfill his duty. And these are they: the pesah, matzah, and bitter herbs. The pesah because the Omnipresent passed over the houses of our fathers in Egypt. The matzah because our fathers were redeemed from Egypt. The bitter herb because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our fathers in Egypt. In every generation a man is obligated to regard himself as though he personally had gone forth from Egypt, because it is said, “And you shall tell your son on that day, saying: ‘It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt” (Exodus 13:8). Therefore it is our duty to thank, praise, laud, glorify, raise up, beautify, bless, extol, and adore Him who made all these miracles for our fathers and ourselves; He brought us forth from slavery into freedom, from sorrow into joy, from mourning into festivity, from darkness into great light, and from servitude into redemption. Let us say before him, Hallelujah!
This mishnah has become a liturgical text, that is a text that is recited on a ritual occasion, namely the seder. It has been a part of the Haggadah since the Haggadah was composed. As is common, as the liturgy expanded the text of the mishnah grew as well. Below, the pieces that are in small font are later additions to the mishnah, additions which appear in our Haggadot but were not originally part of the Mishnah itself. There are other additions in the Haggadah which do not appear even in later versions of the mishnah.
Now to the content. In this mishnah Rabban Gamaliel demands that we explain the three main food items at the table, pesah, matzah and marror, while these items lay in front of us. Because he mentions the pesah, some scholars posited that this Rabban Gamaliel lived while the Temple still stood and the pesah was sacrificed. I believe it is more likely that the mishnah is representing a post-Temple reality and that this is the same Rabban Gamaliel whom we already encountered who believes that the pesah can still be eaten even without a Temple. The ritual here replaces, at least as best as is possible, the loss of the Temple. When sacrifices can no longer be offered, words, study and prayer take their place.
An interesting side note to be made is the comparison of Rabban Gamaliel with Jesus’s words at the Last Supper, assumed by three of the four Gospels to have taken place on the eve of Pesah. Jesus gives symbolic meaning to the wine (his blood) and to the matzah (his body). There is some correlation between that which Rabban Gamaliel demands and that which Jesus does according to the Gospels. Scholars have attempted to discover which ritual was earlier did the early Christians modify an ancient Jewish custom? Or did rabbinic Jews engage in polemics against Christians, saying this is the symbolic meaning and not what you say it is? I don’t believe we can know the answer to this question, and it may not be a good question. What the two faiths have in common is that both impart symbolic meaning to the seder meal in a world in which the central structure, the Temple, has been destroyed.
The mishnah itself is straightforward and probably familiar to most of us; hence I have refrained from making any direct comments." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is concerned with the recitation of the Hallel at the seder. The Hallel is a group of Psalms from Psalm 113 through Psalm 118. Today it is recited on the three festivals (Pesah, Sukkot and Shavuot), on Hannukah and on Rosh Hodesh (the new month).\nAll of the sages agree that at the seder the Hallel is split into two parts. The first part is recited before the meal and the rest is recited afterwards. The disagreement is over how much is recited before the meal.\nThe second section of the mishnah contains the formula of the blessing recited after this first part of the Hallel is recited.", + "How far does one recite it? Bet Shammai say: Until “As a joyous mother of children” (Psalm 113). But Bet Hillel say: Until “The flinty rock into a fountain of waters” (Psalm 114). Bet Shammai says that before the meal is eaten, at a relatively early hour in the evening, they should not recite Psalm 114 which starts, “When Israel went forth from Egypt” because the children of Israel had not left Egypt at that early time in the evening. In contrast, Bet Hillel says that the children of Israel did not leave until the next daybreak does this mean that we shouldn’t say Psalm 114 until daybreak? That would be absurd. Rather, since they began to tell the story of the Exodus before the actual Exodus happened, they may recite Psalm 114 before the meal.", + "And he concludes with [a formula of] redemption. Rabbi Tarfon says: “Who redeemed us and redeemed our fathers from Egypt”, but he did not conclude [with a blessing]. Rabbi Akiva says: “So may the Lord our God and the God of our fathers bring us to other appointed times and festivals which come towards us for peace, rejoicing in the rebuilding of Your city and glad in Your service, and there we will eat of the sacrifices and the pesahim” etc. until “Blessed are You who has redeemed Israel.” Bet Hillel holds that one should conclude the blessing with a formula mentioning redemption. It seems that Bet Shammai would hold that redemption is not mentioned at this point in the evening because the children of Israel have still not been redeemed from Egypt. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva disagree over how the blessing is formulated. For Rabbi Tarfon it is a simple blessing, one which mentions the past redemption but does not have a formal conclusion. The whole blessing reads “Blessed are You, Lord our God, Master of the Universe Who redeemed us and redeemed our fathers from Egypt and brought us to this night.” Note that “and brought us to this night” is not found in the printed edition of the Mishnah but is found in early manuscripts. According to Rabbi Tarfon only the past redemption is mentioned. Rabbi Akiva, on the other hand, sees the Pesah redemption as the paradigm for the future redemption, one which will bring Israel back to her land and the Temple to restoration. Hence the blessing includes a mention of hope for the future. We should note that the version of the blessing which I have translated above is the one found in the printed edition of the Mishnah. The end reads “Who has redeemed Israel”, which refers to the past. The version found in early manuscripts is “Who redeems Israel”, referring to the future. Today we recite Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon’s version in a combination and we conclude with “Who has redeemed Israel.”" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses the third and fourth cups of wine and the conclusion of the meal.", + "They poured him a third cup, blesses over his meal. The Grace after the Meal, or Birkat Hamazon, is recited over a third cup of wine. We should note that according to the Mishnah and Talmud Birkat Hamazon is normally recited over a cup of wine, meaning that one holds a cup of wine while reciting the Birkat Hamazon, then recites a blessing over drinking wine (borei peri hagefen) and then drinks the cup at the end. Some people still have this custom today, at least on Shabbat and festivals.", + "A fourth [cup], he concludes the Hallel, and recites over it the blessing of song. The fourth cup is recited over the recitation of the Hallel. In the Talmud there is a debate over what the “blessing of the song” is. Some say it is “Nishmat Kol Hai”, a prayer recited during the morning prayers of Shabbat and festivals. Others say it is “Yehallukhah Adonai Elohenu”, which is a prayer recited at the end of Hallel on other occasions. Today we recite both.", + "Between these cups if he wants he may drink; between the third and the fourth he may not drink. Between the second and third cups it is permitted to drink more wine. This is the time when the meal is consumed and it was allowed to drink extra cups during the meal itself. However, it is forbidden to drink between the third and fourth cups lest he gets drunk and is not able to complete the seder. The rabbis thought that drinking alcohol while eating would not cause one to get drunk." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah brings the description of the seder to its conclusion.", + "One may not conclude the pesah meal with an afikoman. Saul Lieberman, the great Talmudic scholar of the past century, explained that “afikoman” refers to a Greco-Roman custom to engage in revelry at the conclusion of the symposium, the formal meal. People would go from house to house, drinking and carousing. The rabbis prohibited this custom, preferring instead that a Jew should discuss the laws of Pesah and the story of the Exodus until the morning prayers. As an aside, the fact that the rabbis had to assert the differences between the seder and the symposium strengthens the theory that the two were essentially not all that different, and that in essence the seder was a “Jewish symposium” as some scholars have called it. The Talmud explains the word “afikoman” in two ways. First, of all it may mean that one should not go from one house to the other. Secondly, it may mean that one should not eat anything after eating the pesah. Lieberman explains both as referring to the Greek custom of revelry. The foods which the Talmud proscribes were meant to whet one’s appetite so that one would wish to drink more.", + "If some of them fell asleep, they may eat [the pesah when they wake up]. If all of them fell asleep they may not eat. Rabbi Jose says: if they napped, they may eat, but if they fell asleep, they may not eat. This section deals with the laws concerning the pesah sacrifice. If some of the members of the “havurah”, the eating company, fell asleep during the meal, when they wake up they may continue to eat the pesah because other people stayed awake the whole time. However, if everyone fell asleep then they have all turned their attention away from the pesah and they may not go back to eating it. This is akin to eating the pesah in two different places, which is forbidden. [This sort of reminds me of our seder!] Rabbi Yose says that even if everyone fell asleep they may eat it, as long as they only napped. If they fell into a deep sleep, they may not eat it when they wake up." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of Pesahim deals with the status of the pesah after it has been left pass the time in which it may be eaten. It also deals with the blessings recited over the pesah and the hagigah, the sacrifice that accompanies the pesah.", + "The pesah defiles one’s hands after midnight. The pesah sacrifice can be eaten only until midnight (Exodus 12:8). This verse does not actually specify midnight, but this is how it is interpreted by some sages. Since it cannot be eaten after midnight, it becomes “remnant” if it is left over (see Leviticus 7:17-18). The issue of defiling hands is explained below.", + "Piggul and remnant defile one’s hands. If any one of the four essential procedures (slaughtering, receiving the blood in a vessel, bringing the blood to the altar and sprinkling the blood on the altar) for a sacrifice is done with the intent of eating the sacrifice or burning up its non-eaten parts on the altar after the time in which this must be done the sacrifice is considered “piggul” and it must be burnt (not on the altar). “Remnant” refers to any sacrifice that is left over past the time in which it may be eaten. The sages decreed that piggul defiles the hands so as to discourage priests who wanted make people’s sacrifices into piggul. They decreed that remnant defiles the hands so that priests wouldn’t be lax in eating and then disposing of the sacrifices.", + "If he recited the blessing for the pesah, he thereby exempts the sacrifice [the hagigah]; [but] if he recited the blessing for the sacrifice [the hagigah], he does not exempt the pesah, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: this does not exempt that nor does that exempt this. According to Rabbi Ishmael, the pesah is the more essential of the sacrifices. The hagigah (for an explanation of this sacrifice see above 6:3) accompanies the pesah, but it itself is secondary. Therefore, if one recites the blessing over the pesah (the essential), he is exempt from reciting the blessing over the hagigah, which is only an accompanying sacrifice. But if one recites the blessing over the hagigah he is still obligated to bless over the pesah. Rabbi Akiva, on the other hand, sees both sacrifices as being different, neither “accompanying” the other. Therefore, reciting a blessing over one does not exempt the other. Congratulations! We have finished Pesahim. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Pesah is certainly one of the most important and closely observed holidays in the Jewish calendar. The seder is perhaps the single Jewish ritual that has been observed for the longest period of time and has captured the hearts of Jews for thousands of years. Even the most casually observant Jew knows that on Pesah one does not eat bread. I hope that learning this tractate has helped us get back to the sources of some of these laws, and that when we observe our own Pesah holidays and our own seder we keep them in mind and share them with others. Congratulations on learning another tractate of Mishnah. May you have the strength and time to keep on learning more! Tomorrow we begin Shekalim." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה פסחים", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Pesachim", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Pesachim", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file