diff --git "a/json/Mishnah/Rishonim on Mishnah/Rambam/Seder Moed/Rambam on Mishnah Pesachim/English/merged.json" "b/json/Mishnah/Rishonim on Mishnah/Rambam/Seder Moed/Rambam on Mishnah Pesachim/English/merged.json" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/json/Mishnah/Rishonim on Mishnah/Rambam/Seder Moed/Rambam on Mishnah Pesachim/English/merged.json" @@ -0,0 +1,396 @@ +{ + "title": "Rambam on Mishnah Pesachim", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Rambam_on_Mishnah_Pesachim", + "text": [ + [ + [ + "The searching for the Hametz/leaven should not be other than on the night of the fourteenth [of Nisan] even though Hametz is not forbidden to eat until midday of the fourteenth [of Nisan] as will be explained (in Mishnah 4). And they (i.e., the Rabbis) established/ordained this because the light of the candle at night is pleasant to search and for examination (see Tractate Pesahim 8a), and all people are in their homes at that time (see Tractate Pesahim 4a). And the night is called אור in the manner that several things are called by their opposite (see the Jerusalem Talmud Tractate Peah, Chapter 8, Halakha 5 and the commentary of Maimonides to Tractate Sheviit, Chapter 3, Mishnah 1), and it (i.e., the Mishnah) did this order to speak in a pleasant and exalted language (see Tractate Pesahim 3a), and there should not be the opening of the book (i.e., the tractate) in the name of absence/lack of that which is absence/lacking, meaning to say, the darkness.", + "ומרתף (storeroom/cellar where vessels are stored in rows and layers) – it is the name of a wine storeroom. But this Mishnah has an emendation, and is to be corrected as such: Every place where they don’t bring in Hametz into it (see Tractate Pesahim 8b) does not require examination/checking, but storehouses of wine and oil do not require examination/searching. So, for what reason does the Mishnah state: “Two rows in the storeroom, etc.?” Describe for yourself a house filled with arched, pointed vessels/jugs of wine, lengthwise ten jugs and widthwise ten, and at its height ten – each jug/arched pointed vessel at the side of its neighbor until there would be one-thousand jugs. The School of Shammai states that we examine/check the rows that are opposite the opening to length and its width which are one-hundred jugs, and similarly, the rows that are opposite the ceiling of the house lengthwise and widthwise which are one-hundred jugs, and this is the matter that it (i.e., the Mishnah) states: \"שתי שורות על פני כל המרתף\". But the School of Hillel states: examine only twenty jugs which are two rows one underneath the other opposite the opening of the storeroom/cellar from above that are adjacent to the ceiling, and this is the matter of it (i.e., the Mishnah) saying: \"שתי שורות החיצונות שהן העליונות.\"" + ], + [ + "גררה – JIRAT (i.e., that drags/pulls, takes it – that a person drags a bed, chair or a bench from the cuttings of the carpenter’s – see Tractate Shabbat 22a) [and the word] וחולדה/ALKALAD (a known creeping insect from the family of rodents that is a bit larger than a mouse)." + ], + [ + "בתוך המועד ואחר המועד – meaning to say within the days of the Festival [of Passover] and after the days of he Festival (see Maimonides in the Laws of Hametz and Matzah, Chapter 3, Halakha 5, and not as Rashi explained – at the time of the burning. See also the Tosafot, Tractate Pesahim 10b, s.v., ואם). And the advantage/benefit of the search after the Festival [of Passover] is in order to remove it so that he will not derive benefit from it because the general principle among us is that (see Tractate Pesahim, Chapter 2, Mishnah 2 – Tractate Pesahim 28a) leavened matter over which Passover has passed (which had been in the house during Passover) is prohibited to derive benefit from it. And it states (i.e., in the Mishnah): \"ומה שהוא משייר\", it returns to the beginning of the subject matter and it states that on the eve of the fourteenth day [of Nisan] we search/examine for Hametz, and that which remains we place in privacy until the time for its prohibition arrives, because he placed it in a removed state and he found that it is missing something from what he placed, he needs another search/examination, for we state that it is obvious that a mole dragged it (see The Laws of Hametz and Matzah, Chapter 3, Halakha 2, and Tractate Pesahim 9b). And the reason for the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages is that Rabbi Yehuda states – that if he did not search [for Hametz] at the time of the burning/ridding [of the Hametz] which is the hour of the prohibition of the Hametz, he does not check at all as a decree that perhaps he will eat from it (see Talmud Pesahim 11a). But the Sages did not decree this because they state that he himself will search after it to burn it, he will surely eat from it. And therefore they (i.e., the Sages) say that he should search during the Intermediate Days or after the Festival. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda." + ], + [ + "It stated [in the Torah] (Exodus 12:19): “No leaven shall be found in your homes for seven days”, we learned from here that the obligation to absolutely get rid of/burn the Hametz before the seven days [of Passover (according to the Torah) (see Tractate Pesahim 5a), in order that the seven days, from their beginning until their end one will not find leaven in them (i.e., their homes) and it said (in the Torah – Exodus 12:15): “on the very first day you shall remove leaven from your homes”, here we knew that it is the fourteenth day [of Nisan], and it was appropriate to have the burning/removal of Hametz from the beginning of the fourteenth day [of Nisan], were it not for the fact that it states (Exodus 12:15): “on the very first day,” for [the word] \"אך\" is nothing other than a limitation, as if It is limited and stated this – that it (i.e., the verse from the Torah) states that this is on the first day is not from the beginning of the day but from part of it. And it follows from the hints to this accepted general principle to state that the burning/ridding of Hametz during part of the fourteenth day [of Nisan] is what it (i.e., the Torah), may it be exalted (Exodus 34:25): “You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with anything leavened,” and it comes through the received tradition that this is the partial [part], from the beginning of the seventh hour (like Rava in Tractate Pesahim 5a and see folio 58a). And everyone agrees that from the beginning of the sixth hour it is prohibited from their words (i.e., the Rabbis), distancing [itself] from the prohibition of the Torah. And the dispute of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, that Rabbi Meir says that one can eat at any time where it is permissible for him to feed, and Rabbi Yehuda states that a person should not eat during the fifth hour as a decree because of [the possibility of] a cloudy day (see Tractate Pesahim 12b and so has Maimonides decided in The Laws of Hametz and Matzah, Chapter 1, Halakha 9), where it is possible that an error could occur in the time. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda." + ], + [ + "It will be explained to you that the Thanksgiving sacrifice has forty Hallot/loaves (see Tractate Menahot 77a), and on account of their increase, they are invalidated/unfit by being kept overnight. And they would take two from those loaves and make of them as he (i.e., Rabbi Yehuda) states [in the Mishnah]. But the Halakah is no according to Rabban Gamaliel." + ], + [ + "The primary sources of ritual uncleanness are classified at the beginning of Seder/the Order of Taharot (Chapter 1 of Tractate Kelim) and from there you will know them. For all who touches/comes in contact with one of the primary causes of Levitical uncleanness is called a “first-degree [of ritual uncleanness]”, and a person who touches/comes in contact with a “first-degree [of ritual uncleanness]” is called a “second-degree [of ritual uncleanness],” and a person who touches a “second-degree [of ritual uncleanness]” is called a “third-degree [of ritual uncleanness],” and a person who touches a “third-degree [of ritual uncleanness]” is called a “fourth-degree [of ritual uncleanness].” But sometimes, we call the “first-degree [of ritual uncleanness]” the offspring of uncleanness, because it is of traceable descent to the primary source of Levitical uncleanness, and the “second-degree” is the offspring of the offspring of ritual uncleanness. And in this manner, we double [the usage of] the word “offspring with the “third-degree” and “fourth-degree” [of ritual uncleanness]. And sometimes we call the “first-degree” and “second-degree” and “third-degree” and “fourth-degree” of ritual uncleanness the offspring of uncleanness because all of them are subspecies of the primary source of ritual defilement.", + "And it is stated [in the Mishnah] here \"ולד הטומאה\"/the offspring of uncleanness, meaning to say, the offspring of offspring of uncleanness. And know that meat that touched with the offspring of the offspring of uncleanness is third-degree of ritual uncleanness, but meat that was defiled through a primary source of ritual uncleanness is first-degree [of ritual uncleanness] and when the third-degree [of ritual uncleanness] would touch a first degree, it returns to become second-degree [of ritual uncleanness] as I have explained to you that all who touch first-degree [of ritual uncleanness] become second-degree [of ritual uncleanness]. And this Halakha announces to you that what is third-degree [of ritual uncleanness] it is permissible to make it second-degree [of ritual uncleanness], and this is the subject matter of what it says [in the Mishnah[: \"אע\"פ שמוסיפין לו טומאה על טומאתו\" because it (i.e., the meat) was third-degree [of ritual uncleanness] and it made it second-degree [of ritual uncleanness] (see Tractate Pesahim 14a), and this defilement that was added to is not other than from the Rabbis, but according to the Torah, the general principle with us is that food does not defile foo, for it is stated regarding the defilement of food that it is impure (see Leviticus 11:38 – “but if water is put on the seed and any part of a carcass falls upon it, it shall be impure to you”), and the accepted tradition comes that it is impure and does not make something similar to it [impure] (see Tractate Pesahim 14a), meaning to say that it doesn’t defile another food, but according to the Rabbis, food defiles [other] food and therefore that which is third-degree [of ritual uncleanness] becomes second-degree [of ritual uncleanness], and Rabbi Akiva added upon this and said that something that is third-degree [of ritual uncleanness] it is permitted to make it first-degree as I will explain for something who is defiled through contact with a corpse is within the primary sources of ritual uncleanness, and a person who touches/comes in contact with a corpse becomes a primary source of ritual uncleanness, and a person who comes in contact with/touches a primary source of ritual uncleanness becomes a first-degree of ritual uncleanness, and similarly a second-degree and third-degree and fourth-degree. But if the thing that touched/came in contact with the corpse were vessels, they are not made a primary source of ritual uncleanness, but they are accounted from them first and second-degree [of ritual uncleanness], but rather, their law is made like the law of the corpse itself, and a person who touches those vessels is impure for a seven-day period and it becomes a primary source of ritual impurity and from it we count first-degree and second-degree [of ritual impurity, and we learn from it what god said (Numbers 19:16): “a person who was killed or died naturally,[or human bone, or a grave, shall be impure seven days],” and the received tradition that [a person] who was killed by a sword is like a someone slain (see Tractate Pesahim 14b, 19b 79a, [Tractate] Shabbat 101b, [Tractate] Nazir 53b, [Tractate] Hullin 3a), and similarly the rest of metal vessels and vessels which require only rinsing in order to be restored to Levitical cleanness, their law is like the law of the sword. It is found that the law of vessels is more stringent that that of a human person forever in regard to defilement through a corpse with one degree, for if a person touched a corpse, the person becomes a primary source of ritual impurity without any doubt, and if another person touched him (i.e., the person who had come in contact with a corpse), that other person becomes first-degree [of ritual impurity] like we explained at the beginning of our words. And if vessels touched/came in contact with that same person who was defiled by a corpse that he is a primary source of ritual impurity, they are not made first-degree [of ritual impurity] but rather they are made a primary source of ritual impurity (see Numbers 31:24: “On the seventh day you shall wash your clothes and be pure”) and from them we begin to count first-degree and second-degree. And the general rules of all of this will be explained along with their proofs in depth at the beginning of Tractate Ahilot. And it is stated here [in this Mishnah], נר , meaning to say, a metal candle/light that has the laws of the vessels that we have explained, but not a candle/light of earthenware, because of the general principle with us – that an earthenware vessel cannot become a primary source of ritual impurity ever like it will be explained in the Tractate Kelim. And if a candle/light of metal touched a person defiled by corpse who is a primary source of ritual impurity, that candle cannot become first-degree [of ritual impurity] but rather becomes a primary course of ritual impurity as we have explained.", + "ושמן שנפסל בטבול יום – is third-degree [of ritual impurity] as will be explained in Tractate Tevul Yom (Chapter 2, Mishnah 1), and when it is placed on the candle that was mentioned, it becomes first-degree [of ritual impurity] because the candle is a primary source of ritual impurity as we have explained, and it (i.e., the Mishnah) permitted to make something third-degree [of ritual impurity] first-degree [of ritual impurity]. But Rabbi Akiva required that the candle be a primary source [of ritual impurity] in order that the oil would be first-degree [of ritual impurity] and it would defile things similar to it from the Torah, because he holds that impure liquids defile another food according to the Torah, but if he would think that they are according to the Rabbis like they are according to the Halakha, and it would be enough for him with defilement of the Rabbis, it would be enough that the candle would be of earthenware, because the liquids alone whether they were defiled by a primary source [of ritual impurity] or by first-degree [of ritual impurity] or by second-degree [of ritual impurity], they are made first-degree [of ritual impurity] from the Rabbis, and this will be explained in its place in Seder Taharot. And these two matters are correct because they are testimony that they gave in what they saw. And this matter was brought here because it speaks about two ritually impure Hallot/loaves from the bread of Thanksgiving which are holy and burned." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Meir holds that ritually impure liquids defile liquids like them only according to the Rabbis. But Rabbi Yossi holds that ritually impure liquids defile liquids like them according to the Torah (according to Rabbi Yermiah – see Tractate Pesahim 15b). But the principles of their argument will be explained in Tractate Taharot. But both of them agree that what was said above [in the Mishnah – see also Tractate Eduyot, Chapter 2, Mishnah 1]:\"לא נמנעו מלשרוף את הבשר שנטמא בולד הטומאה שהוא בשר שנטמא\" במשקין טמאין,/in impure liquids (“they never refrained from burning meat which had been made unclean by an offspring of uncleanness which had been made by a primary source of ritual uncleanness”). It is found that this meat, according to Rabbi Meir is an “offspring” according to the Rabbis because he holds like I explained to you that the impurity of liquids defiles others, according to the Rabbis. But according to Rabbi Yossi it is an “offspring” according to the Torah, as we explained his thinking. And since Rabbi Meir thought that Rabbi Hanina permitted burning the offspring of something ritually unclean according to the Rabbis with first-degree [of ritual impurity] according to the Torah , he stated from the words of Rabbi Hanina in their dispute with Rabbi Akiva: “We heard that is permissible to burn ritually pure heave-offering with that which is impure, because the offspring of the Rabbis concerning that which is first-degree [of ritual impurity] according to the Torah, there is no difference between this and what is ritually pure.", + "ר' יוסי אינה היא המדה /Rabbi Yossi said – this is not the right argument/conclusion [to draw by analogy from the opinions of Rabbi Hanina and Rabbi Akiva], for Rabbi Yossi holds as we stated that this meat is ritually impure from the Torah. And therefore he said to him: if we permitted to burn something with a more stringent ritual defilement with something impure of a more lenient ritual defilement, we will permit the burning of something ritually pure with something ritually impure. It is found that the burning of ritually pure heave-offering with the impure, according to Rabbi Meir, according to his reasoning is the argument/conclusion. And further, Rabbi Yossi said to him, that even if Rabbi Yehoshua is the lenient one, he doesn’t permit to burn the ritually pure with the ritually impure, and he didn’t permit anything than to burn something held in suspense with that which is impure. And matters of what we do with the heave-offering held in suspense if they came in contact with it will be explained to you in Tractate Taharot. But Rabbi Yossi states that the fourteenth [of Nisan] that occurs on the Sabbath where we need to burn everything from before the Sabbath, we don’t burn other than that which is ritually impure by itself and that which is ritually pure by itself and that which is held in suspense by itself. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi when he said: We don’t burn the ritually pure with the ritually impure. But the impurity of liquids to defile others is Rabbinic according to Rabbi Meir." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "This Mishnah is according to Rabban Gamaliel (Tractate Pesahim 21a) that his opinion was expressed earlier that he said (Tractate Pesahim, Chapter 1, Mishnah 5) that \"חולין כל ארבע ותרומה כל חמש\" /non-sacred produce [is eaten] all the [first] four hours [of the Eve of Passover] and heave-offering [is eaten] all the [first] five hours [of the Eve of Passover], and here he stated, any time that the Kohen eats heave-offering an Israelite is permitted to feed his animal. And this is correct, meaning to say that it is permitted for him to derive benefit with leaven during the fifth hour [of the day] even though he himself does not eat it as we have explained.", + "And it states [in the Mishnah]: \"לבהמה לחיה ולעופות\", in order to include all kinds of living creatures for all the changes of their natures in eating, because there are from them [things that are] hidden from what remains for him and from them that which he scatters it and things similar to this.", + "And what that it (i.e., the Mishnah) designates: \"ומוכרו לנכרי\", because the School of Shammai states that a person should not sell his Hametz to a non-Jew unless he knows regarding that it will be completed prior to [the start of] Passover, therefore, it announces to you that this matter is superseded.", + "And he wishes to say when it (i.e., the Mishnah) states, \"מותר בהנאה\", that if he burned the Hametz prior to the time of the removal [of the Hametz, it is permitted to him to benefit from its coals and that which is used for kindling/charcoal on Passover (see also the Laws of Hametz and Matzah, Chapter 3, Halakha 11).", + "And it states [in the Mishnah]: \"עבר זמנו אסור בהנאתו\" -even during the sixth hour which is according to the Rabbis for he is indeed prohibited to derive benefit like the other prohibitions of benefit ffromteh Torah, even if he betrothed a woman with leaven in the sixth hour [of the day on the Eve of Passover], we are not concerned about his Kiddushin/betrothal, and even if that leaven also was according to the Rabbis (see The Laws of Matrimony, Chapter 5, Halakha 1), as for example wheat that was mixed or flour that was moist and things similar to it.", + "And it states [in the Mishnah]: \"לא יסיק בו תנור וכירים\" – meaning to say, that if he burned it at its proper time, he should not start a fire in the oven with it at the time of its burning, for he surely benefits from this removal [of the Hametz] and this is prohibited. And there the broken pieces are crumbs, and the explanation of [the word] \"מפרר\" – is breaking them into small pieces/crumbs (see Leviticus 2:6: “Break it into bits [and pour oil upon it; It is a grain offering].”) But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda. But if he had dry leavened bread, it is prohibited to throw it into the rivers until he breaks it into crumbs a great deal and according to the strength of its dryness, he continues to break it into crumbs its parts in order that it should be destroyed quickly (see also The Laws of Leaven and Matzah, Chapter 3, Halakha 11)." + ], + [ + "It comes as your [accepted] tradition that you don’t see [of your own] but you do see [the leaven] of others or of On High (i.e., God – see Tractate Pesahim 29a), and since that the leaven of non-Jews does not transgress on the command of God (Exodus 13:7): “no leavened bread shall be found with you,”/\"ולא יראה לך חמץ\" - behold it is permitted and even for eating. And it states [in the Mishnah] \"בהנאה\" on account of that it is stated in the second clause \"ושל ישראל אסור בהנאה\" . And in the Jerusalem Talmud it is stated that that this which said that it is permitted to derive benefit [from it] which implies that it is prohibited for consumption in the place that they prohibit there the consumption of the bread of non-Jews, and because of this, eating is prohibited not because of it being leaven/Hametz, and it is stated, but in the place where it was the custom/practice to consume the bread of non-Jews, it is permitted for eating, implying from here that the law of bread of non-Jews is dependent upon the custom. But the custom among us in the islands of Spain to eat it (see also the Laws of Forbidden Foods, Chapter 17, Halakha 12). For since the Israelite/Jew transgressed on the command of God that “no leaven bread shall be found with you,” if the leaven was his, we fine him and we prohibit him from deriving benefit, even after the Passover holiday (according to Rabbi Shimon, see Tractate Pesahim 29a)." + ], + [ + "The condition in all of them that he should say to him: “if I have not brought you the money on a certain day, purchase it from now” (see Tractate Pesahim 31b and see also the Laws of Hametz and Matzah, Chapter 4, Halakha 5 – that it should be at the same time that he established for him prior to Passover), but if he didn’t say this to him, surely that Hametz is considered in the domain of its owners and not in the domain of the person their teaching is in his hand.", + "וכל שאין הכלב יכול לתפוש אחריו – that it should be over him a height of three handbreadths and with the condition that he nullify it in his heart. But Rabban Gamaliel does not dispute but rather explains how the law of debris functions." + ], + [ + "It will be explained to you in the Tractate Makkot (folio 13a) that a person who consumes Hametz on Passover is flogged, and with us there is a general principle that a person is not whipped and pays [a fine] (see Tractate Makkot 4a), and therefore \"פטור מן התשלומין ומדמי עצים\" /”he is exempt from the requirement to make restitution and [even] from repaying of its value when it is assessed merely for use as wood [fuel], our matter – and even the repaying of its value when it assessed merely for use as wood [fuel], he doesn’t pay, and we don’t say that we should consider this Hametz/leaven as if it is mere wood, for since it is prohibited to derive benefit, it has no monetary value, neither the value of bread nor the value of wood [fuel]." + ], + [ + "The eating of Matzah on the night of Passover is a positive commandment and it is the word of God (Exodus 12:18 – an error appeared in the footnotes): “[In the first month, from the fourteenth day of the month] at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread [until the twenty-first day of the month at evening],” and it is stated (Deuteronomy 16:3): “You shall not eat anything leavened with it; for seven days thereafter, you shall eat unleavened bread, etc.” All of the seeds that are in are in their dough which leaven, one fulfills through them one’s religious obligation regarding Matzah. And only these five kinds of seeds are what can come to a state of leavening, but besides these such as the rice and the millet and the sorighum vulgare (a kind of known legume in different colors – yellow, white and red) which spoils in their dough if it remains and does not leaven. But if you remember what we explained in the chapter, “Three who Ate Together”/שלשה שאכלו כאחת (chapter 7 of Tractate Berakhot, Mishnah 1) and in the eighteenth chapter of Tractate Shabbat (Mishnah 1), this Halakha will also become clear to you, because the responses in all of them are the same. And what it (i.e., the Mishnah) specified regarding \"בחלה ובתרומה\" because it might come up in our thoughts that we require an equivalent [amount] of Matzah for each person, meaning that it be appropriate for eating for all Jews and their fellows, therefore, it announces that the law is not so. And the reason that on its account a person does not fulfill his religious obligation with loaves of thanksgiving offering and the Nazirite wafers when they made them for himself, meaning to say, to sacrifice them with the sacrifice that he is obligated for, as we were commanded, and even though they are completely Matzah, because it is stated (Exodus 12:17): “You shall observe the [Feast of] Unleavened Bread,” and the guarded Matzah (i.e., Shumrah Matzah) that comes in the received tradition for he sake of Matzah, excluding that which is not guarded for the sake of Matzah but rather for the sake of the sacrifice (see Tractate Pesahim 38b)." + ], + [ + "Just as the eating of Matzah on the night of Passover is a positive commandment, so also is the eating of bitter herbs/Maror a commandment at the time that there is Passover lamb (see Tractate Pesahim 115a) and this is what God said (Numbers 9:11): “They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.” That which God said: \"מרורים\" (see Numbers 9:11 – in the plural) falls on these that he accounted.", + "חזרת (lettuce) – lactuca.", + "עולשין (chicory, endive) - a known green Cich Intydus.", + "ותמכא (name of a bitter herb, chervil) – SERIS.", + "וחרחבנה (hair-like creeper on palm trees)- Eryngium Creticum.", + "ומרור – a species of desert lettuce which is very bitter.", + "And It states (in the Mishnah): בין לחים בין ישבים – meaning to say their stems/stalks, because it already had been announced to you that we fulfill [our religious obligations] with their stalks/stems, but we don’t fulfill our religious obligations with their leaves if they are moist (see Pesahim 39b)." + ], + [ + "מורסן – the refuse of the flour.", + "ושורין (soak - and it is the manner of Maimonides to explain the concept without explaining the law, and a similar thing occurs in Tractate Shabbat, Chapter 1, Mishnah 5) – to soak the bran and to leave it in front of he fowl that they would eat it gradually.", + "וחולטין (and they scald) – this that he knead it in hot water when it is very hot/scalding.. And already, the practice of the world is to forbid this also (see The Laws of Hametz and Matzah, Chapter 5, Halakha 17), but the Talmud permitted it.", + "ושפה – she rubs it.", + "וילעוס (chew) – chew [wheat on Passover and rub it on his wound]." + ], + [ + "There is a dispute between the first Tanna/teacher and Rabbi Meir if he placed it (i.e., flour) into the mustard, but into the Haroset/a pap made of fruits and spices with wine and vinegar – used for sweetening the bitter herb at the Seder, everyone agrees that he should burn it immediately (Tractate Pesahim 40b) because it rapidly leavens, and it will be explained what is this mixture of Haroset in the last chapter (Tractate Pesahim, Chapter 10, Mishnah 3). God said on Passover (Exodus 12:9): “[Do not eat any of it raw,] or cooked in any way with water, [but roasted – hands, legs and entrails – over the fire],” what He exactly warned was on the cooking in the language of the original, the received tradition came o teach that it is prohibited to cook it in fruit juice (like Rabbi-Judah the Prince in Tractate Pesahim 41a) , but it is permitted to pour oil on them and to immerse them after the roasting (see the Laws of the Passover Offering, Chapter 8, Halakha 8, which is not according to Rashi who explained that they pour oil on them at the time of he roasting), and the water of a baker who washes with them his hands the vessels of kneading he should pour them out as it said, and specifically in a declivity in order hat they don’t gather and remain in a low place. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "The matter of \"עוברין\" – we transgress upon them with \"בל יראה ובל ימצא\"/it should not be seen nor found with you (see Exodus 13:6 and 12:9).", + "כותח (a preserve consisting of sour milk, bread-crusts and salt – see Tractate Pesahim 42a) – a kind of relish/ALMARI.", + "ושכר – and every thing that makes one drunk, and there are those who make drinks that cause inebriation from the infusion/steeping of what and barley and things similar to it. And such there was a liqueur of the people of Media, meaning to say, made from the infusion of bread like “ALMAZAR” that we make in Egypt today.", + "וחומץ האדמי – they would put in it berries of barley.", + "וזיתום – we take salt and barley flour and berries of bastard saffron and berries of bastard saffron in equal portions and knead them in water and they would use it for medicinal healing (see Maimonides’ commentary on Tractate Kilayim, Chapter 2, Mishnah 8 and Tractate Uktzin, Chapter 3, Mishnah 5 -ELKARTUM).", + "וזימא של צבעין – an infusion/steeping of coarse bran and bran-flour/four of the second course that we use the colors of the purple dye.", + "ועמילן של טבחים – we take wheat that has not been completely cooked and dry them and grind them and knead them and make of them small loaves and cover with these loaves pots of food at the time when the food is close to being [fully] cooked and they absorb the filth/evil smell and its offensive matter.", + "וקולן של סופרים – starting -dough that they make of it bookbinders’ paste from the dust of the house of the millstone and they glue on to it what they wish to glue.", + "וטפולי נשים – a powder that women use from all things that they clean and wash their faces with and included in this is flour and barley. Rabbi Eliezer says that even though it is dust and there is no Hametz in it, lest she steeps/soaks this dust at the time that she washes with it. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer but rather it is like that which it (i.e., the Mishnah) says: \"זה הכלל כל שהוא מין דגן\", meaning to say anything that is mixes in it one of the five species with water one transgresses with it on Passover, but without water or fruit juice he doesn’t transgress and it is permitted to consume it (and such is the decision of Maimonides in the Laws of Hametz and Matzah, Chapter 5, Halakha 2), because the general principle with us is that fruit juice doesn’t leaven.", + "And it states [in the Mishnah]: \"הרי אלו באזהרה\" – meaning to say that anyone who eats one of these things that has the mixture of grain, according to the general principle with us regarding Hametz of grain is punishable by extirpation and on its combination is guilty of violating a negative commandment (see Tractate Pesahim 43a). When is this said? When there was a mixture of Hametz on an olive’s bulk incidentally for the eating of a piece of bread. But if the measure of grain in it is less than this, the person consuming it is not liable for flogging, but it is prohibited to eat it. And the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer." + ], + [ + "It is stated [in the Mishnah]: \"בטל במיעוטו\". If it (i.e., the Hametz) was in the place that vessel is strong and its [component] parts are attached to each other, but if it was not strong even with less than an olive’s bulk [of dough] one is obligated to remove it (see Tractate Pesahim 45a and The Laws of Hametz and Matzah, Chapter 2, Halakha 15).", + "And it states [in the Mishnah]: \"חוצץ\"/adhesive partition/interposition – it is simple, meaning to say that if he was strict to remove it and he wants through its removal, indeed it serves as adhesive partition [for the defilement] in the place, and if the trough became defiled and the ritual immersion was not effective, and all of this is with a trough of wood which has purity in a Mikveh, but an earthenware vessel, it has no purification in a Mikveh, other than through breaking it, as will be explained in a number of places.", + "ובצק החרש - and this is what he strikes it by hand, it doesn’t create the sound of an echo, and it is as if he is a deaf-mute who doesn’t answer to whomever is calling him, and since we don’t know if it leaved or not, we estimate along with similar things or with the known time that is like the same time in which the dough leavens, and its measurement in order that a person would walk by foot an intermediate walk of one mile (see Tractate Pesahim 46a), and it is is order of two-fifths of an hour from when the hours are even (i.e., at the vernal equinox)." + ], + [ + "I have already informed you that it is prohibited to burn Holy Things on a Yom Tov/Holy Day (see Tractate Shabbat, Chapter 2, Mishnah 1). An when the dough becomes defiled, the law of impure Hallah that was separated from it is burned. Rabbi Eliezer states that that all of the dough should be baked but Hallah should not be separated from it until the baking is completed, and afterwards you should separate a loaf from the loaves and state that it is Hallah, and this is permitted, as we have explained in Tractate Hallah (Chapter 2, Mishnah 4), and we hide the loaf until after Yom Tov and then burn it. Ben Beteira says that the dough should be separated and placed in cold water and it should remain there until it is burned at the conclusion of Yom Tov, because it is prohibited to bake it, because we don’t bake on Yom Tov unless it is fit for eating. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer." + ], + [ + "Rabban Gamaliel holds that three women complete kneading their dough at one time and bake one after the other and even though the dough would remain of the third [woman] until the oven would be warmed three times, and bake it twice and afterwards it is baked that it doesn’t come to a state of leavening in a time like this. But the Sages do not say this, but state that when the first [woman] began to bake, the second should begin to arrange the dough and the third should begin to knead the flour and when the first completes baking, the second should complete the arranging and the third the kneading, and the second should begin to bake and the third to arrange it and the first should begin to knead a second time, and similarly on this path in order that the dough should not stand still at all, and that the hand should not be removed from it.", + "Rabbi Akiva said to Rabban Gamaliel: \"לא כל הנשים ולא כל העצים ולא כל התנורים שוין\" – because there are ovens that heat up in a small amount of time and others are the opposite, and the more that the wood is dry it burns faster, and there are women that are zealous/industrious and there is the opposite (see Tractate Pesahim 48b), therefore he stated that the dough should not stand still according to this measure unless he continued to sprinkled water on it and to roll it in cold water. And know that all the while that the hand is dealing with the dough it does not come to be leavened, even if it remains all day long. And the Halakha is according to the Sages." + ], + [ + "כקרני חגבים (like the proboscides of locusts) – this is that they should see on thin marking lines when it begins to leaven, and if they were like the proboscides of locusts. And the Halakha is according to the Sages." + ], + [ + "The Halakha is according to Rabbi Eleazar b’Rabbi Tzadok." + ], + [ + "All of this is simple and clear." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Meir states that just as the ritual defilement of foods is the equivalent of an egg’s bulk, meaning to say, that it does not defile other than until that would be in it an egg’s bulk, as we will explain in great length at the beginning of Tractate Taharot, so too it does not return other than via an egg’s bulk. But Rabbi Yehuda states that just as one who eats an olive’s bulk from Holy Meat or from Hametz [an olive’s bulk] is flogged, so it returns even on an olive’s bulk. And the Sages made a preference between Holy Meat and between Hametz because it is non-holy produce. And the Halakha is according to the Sages." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Because it (i.e., the Mishnah) states \"נוהגין עליו חומרי מקום שיצא משם\" which implies that if he went from a place where they don’t do a particular thing to a place where they do it, he does not do it. He made a condition and said that this law is not universal/common, but rather, the [general] principle is: :\"אל ישנה אדם מפנה המחלוקת\", and that we made it necessary to obligate him to rest in the place that they do it because it doesn’t appear in this a change that causes a dispute (see Tractate Pesahim 51b –“go out and see how many idle individuals there are in the marketplace) but it would appear as a change if he did it and they do not do it, or that he did something opposite what they do, or that he prohibits them from doing so. But the resting does not appear as a change." + ], + [ + "The principles of this law were already explained in the ninth chapter of Tractate Sheviit. And the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda." + ], + [ + "It is forbidden to sell a large animal to a non-Jew, whether he would worship idolatry or whether he would not worship idolatry. And the reason for this prohibition is lest he rent it (i.e. animal) to him or lend it to him and he would work with it on Shabbat (see Tractate Avodah Zarah 15a), and it is stated in the Torah (Exodus 23:12): “[Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease from labor,] in order that your ox and your ass may rest,” and third, lest he sell it (i.e., the animal) to him on Friday, and it is not pleasing in his eyes and its Israelite owner cries out regarding it in order that it would walk before the purchaser and it (i.e., the animal) would walk in front of him on account of his screaming at her, and she recognizes his words, and it is found that he becomes aggravated over his animal on Shabbat (see The Laws of Shabbat, Chapter 2, Halakha 3 and the explanation of [Maimonides of] Tractate Avodah Zarah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 6 – and the fact that a person who becomes aggravated over his animal is liable for a sin-offering, but we are lenient like Rabbi Yehuda who stated that he is exempt, as we find in Tractate Shabbat 154a). And therefore, it is permissible for a person to give his animal to a middleman/go-between who will sell it to a non-Jew that is not in his presence (note: this condition is not found in Maimonides’ commentary on Tractate Avodah Zarah), because of all of these reasons we renounce it, for the middleman cannot lend or rent it out for it is surely not his, and also, the animal does not recognize his words that she will walk out of his anger as we have explained But Rabbi Yehuda permitted to sell an animal with broken hand or foot because it is not for a burden, but his words are shaky, because it is impossible to tie it up to draw water or to a millstone to move them. But Ben Beteira permitted to sell the known horse to משא הנץ and to things similar to it from the living creatures that hunt because he holds that the living carries itself, whether a person or an animal, wildlife and fowl, and these birds are not a burden on the horse. But the Sages state that a living human being alone is not a burden and on him we say that the living carries himself. But the Halakha is not according to Ben Beteira." + ], + [ + "The reason that they (i.e., the Rabbis of the Mishnah) prohibit the eating of roasted meat on the night of Passover is in order that a the person who sees it would not think that it is the sheep/lamb of Passover and that it is like eating Holy Things outside [the Temple courtyard] (see Tractate Pesahi 54a). And it will be explained in Tractate Kippurim (i.e., Yoma 73b) that on om Kippur it is prohibited to engage in sexual relationships. There are those people who say that the lighting of a candle brings one to look at his wife and that he will come into the state of having sex. But others say that the light will bring a person into the state of embarrassment. But if there won’t be light, it will bring him in to a state of impure fantasies and he will engage in sex [with her] (see also The Laws of Resting on the Tenth [of Tishrei], Chapter 3, Halakha 10)." + ], + [ + "The Halakha is not according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.", + "Because a general principle had already been stated [above, concerning the beginning of this chapter] a place which had the practice and a place which did not have this practice, it announces to us two known places – in one that they had the practice to do it and in another, they didn’t have the practice to do ti." + ], + [ + "It will be explained to you in Tractate Moed [Katan 13a] that the untrained tailor sews. And similarly, a person who leaves from prison cuts his hair and washes his clothing. And therefore, the Sages permitted him to begin the performance of these three forms of work on the fourteenth [of Nisan], and specifically in a place where they had the custom/practice. But Rabbi Meir states that even in a place where they had the practice/custom, he should not begin work at all. But Rabbi Yossi states: אף הרצענין/even the shoe-makers/leather-workers because he states that those who go up to make Pilgrimage [to Jerusalem] on the Festivals prepare their shoes and sandals to go up for the Festival on the Intermediate Days/Hol HaMoed. And the Halakha is according to the Sages (see The Laws of Yom Tov, Chapter 8, Halakha 19)." + ], + [ + "It is stated [in the Mishnah]: \"תרנגולת שברחה מחזירין אותה למקומה\"/a chicken that fled, they return it to its place – this is during Hol HaMoed (see Pesahim 55b) and one does not have to say on the fourteenth [of Nisan] for surely it said “they set another”, all the more so that they return. And the matter of \"מושיבין אחרת תחתיה\" is that if the chicken already sat on the eggs for three days for the eggs began already to be spoiled, if she (i.e., the mother hen) died, they bring another to brood on the eggs." + ], + [ + "All of these six things were not acceptable to the Sages (according to Rabbi Yehuda in Tractate Pesahim 56a), other than on three of them and they are the first ones that the Sages did not protest. But the three that are enumerated at the end, they protest. The first ones that they would graft palm trees all of the fourteenth [of Nisan], and that is that would graft the male on the palms. And this is well-known among those workers of the ground. And this is the matter of when it states [in the Mishnah]: \"מרכיבין דקלים\"/they grafted palms.", + "כורכין את שמע (they recited the confession of faith – Deuteronomy 6:4 – simultaneously - without the proper pauses – or without inserting: “Blessed be the Name of His glorious kingdom – between verses 4 and 5 – see Tractate Pesahim 56a) – that they would not recite: “Blessed be the Name of His glorious kingdom” at the time of the recitation of the Shema.", + "ומתירית גמזיות (branches used for caprification – they considered as permitted the use of branches of – carob or sycamore – trees belonging to the Temple treasury) -that they would permit to eat the growth of that dedicated to the Temple treasury, for only the fruit that is dedicated is prohibited by itself, but that which grows afterwards in the field of Temple property is permitted.", + "ואוכלין מתחת הנשרים – that they would consume fruit that is found fallen underneath the trees on Shabbat and Festivals, even though they are doubtful and it is not known if they fell from Friday and they are permitted, or on Shabbat and they are forbidden like it will be explained in the Tractate Yom Tov (i.e., Betzah 24a – see also the Tosafot there folio 3a, s.v. גזרה ). ", + "And it has already been explained to you in Tractate Peah (Chapter 1, Mishnah 4), that from a condition of things that are liable in Peah (i.e., whatever is edible, privately owned, grown from the ground, harvested as a crop and can be preserved in storage – is subject to designation as Peah. Grain and legumes are included in this general principle) but vegetables are not." + ], + [ + "This Halakha is a Tosefta (Having searched the Bar Ilan Responsa Project, it is not found in the Tosefta, but rather in the Minor Tractates, Avot DeRabbi Natan/Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, Version Aleph, Chapter 2 – besides being mentioned in this Mishnah) but I saw to interpret it also because it has uses/profit.", + "ספר רפואות – There was a book that had in it the order of remedies of what is not according to the law (i.e., talismans) to be treated with it, such as what those practitioners of talismans (i.e., charms and incantations) imagine, that if they make a talisman in a certain fashion, it is beneficial to a certain sick individual and things similar to this from those things that are forbidden, but from his friend he did not attach/fasten it other than through learning in the substance/nature of reality not in order to use something from what is included in it, and this is permitted like it will be explained to you, that things that God warned from doing them, it is permitted to learn/study them and to know them, for God stated you shall not learn to do them (Deuteronomy 18:9: “[When you enter the land that the LORD your God is giving you,] you shall not learn to imitate/לא תלמד לעשות [the abhorrent practices of these nations])” and through out accepted tradition it comes, but you may study to understand and to teach (see Tractate Sanhedrin 68a) and when people became corrupted and became cured through it, he (i.e., Hezekiah) hid it. And it is possible that there was a book that has in it the inoculation/vaccination of drugs that cause damage such as a certain drug that they inoculate him as such and have him drink as such and which causes this or that illness, and its healing is through this and that, that when the physician who sees these illnesses knew that they administer to him to drink a certain drink and give him contradictory/contrary things that it will save him, but when people became corrupted and they will kill with it, he (i.e., Hezekiah) hid it. But I have not prolonged to speak on this matter, but rather because I heard and also it was explained to me that [King] Solomon composed a book of healing (this is brought by Nachmanides in his Introduction to the Commentary on the Torah) – that if a person became ill with whichever illness that he turned to him and he (i.e., the infirm individual) did like he says he is healed, and Hezekiah saw that the people did not trust in God (see Rashi’s commentary to Tractate Sanhedrin 56a, s.v. \"וגנז\") in their illness but rather on this book of remedies, he stood up and hid it. And besides the futility/insignificance of this matter and what it has from the delusions/superstitions, here they attributed to Hezekiah and to his adherents that they agreed on the foolishness of this that one cannot attribute its example other than to the worst of the crowd. And according to their confused and stupid imagination, if a person is hungry and turns to the bread and eats it that it will cure him from that great pain without any doubt, shall we say that he has removed his trust from God, and he would say to them that they are fools, for just as I give thanks to God at the time that I eat that He (i.e., God) furnished/provided me to remove my hunger and to keep me alive and preserve me, so too, we should thank Him that He furnished a medicine that cures my illness, and I would not have to contradict this terrible explanation were it not for its popularity.", + "And it will be explained that it is permitted to intercalate the year every Adar and we make that year with two Adars, and from the general principles that we have, the Adar that is adjacent to Nisan always is lacking (i.e., it has only twenty-nine days – see Tractate Rosh Hashanah 19b) if we rely on the calculation. But if there were two Adars, the first would be thirty days. And Hezekiah came on the thirtieth of Adar and intercalated the year and made the entering month the Second Adar, for if he had not intercalated that year, that thirtieth day of Adar would be the first day of Nisan as we have explained, for surely he intercalated the year on the day that was appropriate to be the beginning of Nisan, and this is prohibited because the general principle among us is that we don’t intercalate the year on the thirtieth of Adar since it is appropriate to establish it as Nisan, and he does not hold by this law meaning to say, that is appropriate to establish it as Nisan (see Tractate Sanhedrin 12b)." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "The general principle with us is that no sacrifice should precede the Daily Burnt-Offering of the Morning, and nothing should follow the offering of the Daily Burnt-Offering of the Afternoon (i.e., the time between the beginning of the decline of the sun and sunset) except for the Passover Offering (see Tractate Pesahim 58b). And the beginning of the time of the Offering of the Daily Burnt-Offering of the Afternoon is from the middle of the seventh hour until the end of the day, and this is the time that the shadows begin to lengthen and its length is visible to everyone. On other days when there are many sacrifices, we postpone it two hours after the beginning of its set time, because it is impossible to sacrifice anything after it as we have explained.", + "וערב פסחים – that it is permitted to sacrifice the Passover Offering after the Daily Burnt-Offering of the Afternoon, it is slaughtered only one hour after the time [of the Daily Burnt-Offering of the Afternoon]. But if the Eve of Passover occurs on a Friday, it is slaughtered at the beginning of time period in order that there would be enough time for its roasting because it is impossible to roast it (i.e., the Passover Sacrifice) on Friday night (See Tractate Pesahim, Chapter 6, Mishnah 1)." + ], + [ + "It will be explained to you at the beginning of [Tractate] Zevakhim (Chapter 1, Mishnah 4) , that the intention [of the priest sacrificing a particular offering) invalidates Holy Things in four acts of Divine Service: in slaughtering, in receiving the blood, and in bringing it to the altar and in sprinkling it upon the altar. But if he lost his intention at the time that he engages in the Divine Service from these four acts of Divine Service, his sacrifice is disqualified as it will be explained there, and specifically the Passover Sacrifices and the Sin-offering, as its distinctions will be explained at the beginning of [Tractate] Zevakhim, and it is stated in the Jerusalem Talmud , from where do we learn that we don’t slaughter the Passover sacrifice other than for its own sake, as it states (Exodus 12:27): “You shall say, ‘It is the Passover sacrifice to the LORD, [because He passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt when He smote the Egyptians, but saved our houses’].” (see Tractate Zevakhim 7b and Laws of Disqualified Holy Things, Chapter 15, Halakha 3 which brings Exodus 12:27 for a change of owners, but the change of its sake/purpose – that it was for another offering - comes from Deuteronomy 16:1: “Observe the month of Abib and offer a Passover sacrifice to the LORD your God,” but it is not clear which Biblical verse serves which purpose)." + ], + [ + "שלא לאוכליו (for those who could not eat of it) – they are the sick and the elderly and the minor who are not able to eat an olive’s bulk of meat (see Tractate Pesahim 41a). And it is explained in that which is written that the Passover Offering is not slaughtered other than for specified people and it is what God said (Exodus 12:4): “you shall contribute for the lamb [according to what each household will eat].” And it is not slaughtered other than for a whomever is able to consume it as it states (Exodus 12:4), “according to what each household will eat.” And it should not be consumed by someone uncircumcised, as it states (Exodus 12:48): “But no uncircumcised person may eat of it.” And a ritually impure person should not eat of it, as it states (Numbers 9:6): “But there were some men who were impure by reason of a corpse and cold not offer the Passover sacrifice on that day.” And the reason for his disqualification is that if they slaughtered it for its named purpose or not in its named purpose (i.e., in error the officiating priest though it was for another offering) and it is valid/fit if he slaughtered it [both] for those who could eat of it or for those who could not eat of it, etc.,, for its named purpose or not for its named purpose, the disqualification is make in the essence of the sacrifice, but for those who could eat of it or not eat of it, the disqualification is external to it, and second, if [one slaughtered it] for those who could eat of it or not eat of it, you would be able to separate those who are unfit from those who are fit. And third, for its named purpose or not for its named purpose applies to all of the Holy Things and this is specific to the Passover Offering (see Tractate Pesahim 62b).", + "ממרס בדמו – shake it and stir it (i.e., the blood) so that it doesn’t congeal." + ], + [ + "God said (Exodus 23:18): “You shall nor offer the blood of My sacrifice with anything leavened; and the fat of My festal offering shall not be left lying until morning,” and it says further on (Exodus 34:25): “You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with anything leavened; and the sacrifice of the Feast of Passover shall not be left lying until morning,” the Sages say that this which [Scripture] said, “My sacrifice” (Exodus 23:18) m it desires to say the Passover sacrifice , for if there was leaven in the domain of the person slaughtering or the person casting the blood, or the person offering incense or one of the people of the group, even though the leaven is outside the [Temple] courtyard, he is flogged but the sacrifice is not invalidated. But Rabbi Yehuda says that My sacrifice that is designated to me, meaning to say, the Daily Burnt-Offering, and therefore, in his opinion, a person who slaughters the Daily Burnt-Offering with leaven, meaning to say, that he offers it with the reality of Hametz with him there violates a negative commandment. And Rabbi Shimon says that what it (i.e., the Torah) may it be it be extolled and elevated, says: “My sacrifice” (Exodus 23:18) and “My sacrifice” (Exodus 34:25) twice, means to say, that at the time that he is liable, if he slaughtered one sacrifice with Hametz, he would be exempt if he slaughtered then the rest of the sacrifices with Hametz, and therefore, Rabbi Shimon says that if a person who slaughters the Passover Offering on the fourteenth [of Nisan] for its sake with Hametz, he is liable for flogging, but the rest of the sacrifices, if he slaughtered them on the fourteenth [of Nisan] with leaven, he exempt, but at the time that he is liable, if he slaughtered the rest of the sacrifices with Hametz, he would be exempt, if he slaughtered the Passover Sacrifice with Hametz.", + "Therefore, it states (in the Mishnah): \"ובמועד לשמו פטור\" - because it is invalidated and it is not a Passover Sacrifice.", + "ושלא לשמו חייב – because it is like the rest of the sacrifices, and it prohibits offering any sacrifice with Hametz and he is made liable for flogging like we explained his approach, and with the condition that it is postponed to the Second Passover where it is possible to sacrifice this lamb as a Passover offering, and therefore, he is liable. And there is no distinction between it saying during the Festival or during the rest of the days of the year. But the reason of Rabbi Shimon that if he slaughtered the rest of the sacrifices with Hametz on the other days of the year, \"בין לשמן בין שלא לשמן חייב חוץ מן החטאת ששחטה שלא לשמה\" - and this is the general rule among us and it is stated at the Beginning of [Tractate] Zevakhim : All the sacrifices that were slaughtered not for their purpose, even though they didn’t count for their owns because of the obligation are fit/appropriate except for the Passover Offering and from the Sin Offering, the Passover Offering at its appropriate time and the Sin-Offering at any time. And the Halakha is according to the Sages (see The Laws of the Passover Sacrifice, Chapter 1, Halakha 5)." + ], + [], + [ + "They were set up in rows for beauty.", + "והבזך (and the dish/censer) – It is pointed/sharpened in this form (a “V”) and the Aramaic translation of \"קערותיו\" (dishes – see Exodus 25:29 and 37:16) is “dishes/censers”)", + "ויקרש – and it would congeal/become frozen. And this Mishnah announces many subjects. And they are:", + "It states \"שחט ישראל\" – that the slaughtering by a non-Kohen is acceptable/fit.", + "And it states: \"וקבל הכהן\" – to announce to you that from reception and onward it is the Mitzvah for the Kohanim.", + "And it states: \"נתנו לחברו וחברו לחברו\" – to announce to you that everything that you can do with one commandment is with a large group is praiseworthy, (Proverbs 14:28): “A numerous people is the glory of a king.”", + "And it states: \"מקבל את המלא ומחזיר את הריקן\" to teach you that zealousness regarding [the performance of] the Commandments that one does not return the bowl out of which the sprinkling is done until he receives the second portion. And it states (Leviticus 4:25): “[and the rest of its blood he shall pour out] at the base of the of the altar of burnt offering,” teaching about the burnt offering that it requires a base, and it is stated sprinkling regarding the burnt offering (Leviticus 1:5: “dashing the blood against all sides of the altar” and sprinkling is stated concerning the Passover offering, for it says regarding the firstling (Numbers 18:17): “You shall dash their blood against the altar,” but it doesn’t state, “its blood,” and it comes as an accepted tradition that this verse speaks regarding the firstling and the Passover offering and the tithing of cattle that all of them require one sprinkling against the base/foundation, and just as the burnt offering requires a base/foundation (see Tractate Pesahim 64b). And when I will explain to you the structure of the Altar in its place in Tractate Middot, it will be explained to you that one side of the altar does not have a base, and there also, the base will also be explained to you." + ], + [ + "This is simple/obvious." + ], + [ + "Because it said [in the Mishnah]: \"כמעשהו בחול כך מעשהו בשבת\" – he explained that this was done against the will of the Sages, but according to the will of the Sages, there needed to be a distinction between his actions on a weekday and his actions on the Sabbath, and it is the washing of the Courtyard which was not washed on the Sabbath (according to the Sages, which is Rabbi Eliezer or Rabbi Natan as is brought in Pesahim 68a. But the Halakha is not according to them. And similarly, Maimonides decided in The Laws of the Passover Sacrifice, Chapter 1, Halakha 16, and they wash the Temple courtyard on Shabbat for there is no prohibition of Sabbath rest in the Temple even regarding something which is not for need of the Temple service). But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda." + ], + [ + "אונקליות – hooks.", + "דקים חלקים – thin, smooth. But Rabbi Eliezer does not permit carrying those staves. But the Sages say that the laws of Sabbath rest do not apply in the Temple. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer." + ], + [ + "אמורין (its fat) – they are called portions that are offered as incense from the sacrifice that is on the altar, and they are from the Passover Sacrifice the fat-tail that is attached with the bone of backbone/spine and the spreading fat that covers the intestines and the two kidneys and their fat and the large lobe of the liver with them.", + "ומגס (tray/plate) – a vessel that they carry on it the fats and the rest of the fats to the altar. The Aramaic translation of (Numbers 7:14): “one ladle” – is one tray.", + "And it is stated [in the Mishnah]: \"חשכה יצאו וצלו את פסחיהם\" – this is only if the fourteenth [of Nisan] occurred on the Sabbath day that it is impossible to take it or to roast it other than on the first night [of Passover], but on the other days if he completed offering it, he goes out to roast it." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "God said regarding the Daily Burnt-Offering Sacrifice (Numbers 28:2): “[Be punctilious in presenting to Me] at stated times [the offerings of food due Me],” and He states with regard to the Passover Offering (Numbers 9:3): “[you shall offeror on the fourteenth day of the month, at twilight,] at its set time;” just as the Daily Burnt-Offering is offered on the Sabbath, that on it Scripture explained (Numbers 28:10): “a burnt offering for every sabbath, in addition to the regular burnt offering and its libation,” so also the Passover Sacrifice is offered on the Sabbath.", + "ומיחוי קרביו (the cleansing of its bowels) – that they remove from them the filth (see Tractate Pesahim 68a).", + "And what it (i.e., the Mishnah) prohibited: \"חתיכת יבלתו\" (the cutting of its – the sacrifice’s- warts) – it is that he should cut it with a utensil if there was on it a wart, but it is permitted to cut it by hand on the Sabbath (see Tractate Pesahim 68b and similarly in The Laws of the Sabbath, Chapter 9, Halakha 8 concerning the cutting of warts of a person) like it was explained at the end of [Tractate] Eruvin (Chapter 10, Mishnah 13). But the carrying of the Passover lamb [on one’s shoulders) on the Sabbath to the Temple is a form of [prohibited] labor because it is a burden in the opinion of the Sages, but in the opinion of Ben Beteira it is not a burden as his approach was explained in the fourth [chapter] of this tractate.", + "והבאתו מחוץ לתחום – this is also prohibited according to the Torah, according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva who holds that is a prohibition of the Sabbath limits according to the Torah (see Tractate Sotah, Chapter 5, Mishnah 3 – that the two thousand cubit prohibition is Biblical), whereas Rabbi Eliezer holds that the prohibition of the Sabbath limits is from the Rabbis, but a living being carries himself, and even an animal according to Ben Beteira, and therefore, these mattes for him [are forbidden] only because of [the prohibition] of Shevut/the Rabbinic degree to enhance the character of the Sabbath as a day of rest." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Yehoshua holds that the joy of the Festival is a Mitzvah/Commandment (see Tractate Pesahim 68b and Tractate Betzah 15b), but there are those who annul the joy of the Festival when it will be for us a thing that is because of rest, as for example, the making of sound with harps and drums and cymbals, all of which are forbidden on a Festival day even though they are a Mitzvah in his opinion, and therefore, it was possible with us that the answer that [the Mishnah] states – \"יום טוב יוכיח\"" + ], + [ + "The Festival Offering of the fourteenth [of Nisan] is optional, not obligatory, and therefore, if the fourteenth [of Nisan] occurs on Shabbat, or that it occurs weekday when the Passover offerings were many, or that the Passover sacrifice came in ritual impurity, like it will be explained in the chapter after this (i.e., Chapter 7), we don’t bring the Festival Offering with the Passover Offering on the fourteenth [of Nisan]." + ], + [ + "It been announced to you in this Halakha that the Festival Offering on the fourteen [of Nisan] even though it is optional and one doesn’t fulfill with it the commandment of the Festival Offering, surely its law is like the law of the Festival Offering, whether regarding the kind of offering or whether the time of its consumption. And the laws of the obligatory Festival Offering will be explained in Tractate Hagigah." + ], + [ + "What Rabbi Yehoshua said: \"אם אמרת בפסח ששנהו לדבר אסור\", meaning to say that if he slaughtered it for the sake of a peace-offering and things like it on the Sabbath day, and it is known that the peace-offerings and the rest of the individual sacrifices – it is prohibited to offer them on the Sabbath day, but if he slaughtered peace-offerings or others of light value on the Sabbath for the sake of the Passover Offering, he changed their purpose to something that is permissible, because it is permissible to offer the Passover Sacrifice on that Shabbat. But what Rabbi Eliezer said: \"אמורי צבור יוכיחו\" – meaning to say, that the Daily Burnt Offerings and the Musaf/Additional Offerings – they are permitted to be offered on the Sabbath for their sake. But a person who slaughters the Passover Offering on the fourteenth [of Nisan] that occurs on Shabbat for the sake of a Daily Burnt Offering or for the sake of a Musaf/Additional Offering, is liable for a sin-offering even though he changed it for something that is permitted, but Rabbi Yehoshua did not dispute on this, as we stated - the Passover Offering that was slaughtered not for its own sake on the Sabbath, one is liable for a sin-offering,, and Rabbi Yehoshua did not dispute on this.", + "And the explanation of \"קצבה\" – is something that has a fixed boundary, because the Daily Burnt Offerings and the Additional/Musaf offerings are community sacrifices, we don't add to them nor do we reduce them, and since their number is known, and not everyone can offer them, the person doing the slaughtering is liable to slaughter them for their own sake/purpose. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehoshua." + ], + [ + "We have already explained in Chapter 5 [Mishnah 3] that the Passover offering that is slaughtered for those who are fit and for those who are disqualified is fit/appropriate, and therefore if it was slaughtered on the Sabbath \"למולים ולערבים\"/for those who are circumcised and for those who are not circumcised , it is exempt. But if he slaughtered on the Sabbath for those who are disqualified, he is required to bring a sin-offering if it was inadvertent, or for [punishment by] stoning if done on purpose. And similarly, if there is found in it a defect because he had to examine it and afterwards he would slaughter it on the Sabbath, and similarly, if there was found in it a visible tear, as for example an incision in the skull or the severing of the legs and things similar to it. But if the tear was hidden and it is not known other than until after the slaughtering, as for example an incision in the heart or the lungs and things similar to it, it is exempt. And the matter of it (i.e., the Mishnah) saying: \"פטור\", In all of these, meaning to say, that he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering (see Maimonides’ commentary on Tractate Shabbat, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1, note 21 and Tractate Eruvin Chapter 9, Mishnah 2, note 6)." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A piece of wood of pomegranate is chosen because there is no water coming out from it when it is heated (see Tractate Pesahim 74a and similarly Maimonides wrote in the Laws of the Passover Sacrifice, Chapter 8, Halakha 10), in order that there would be no cooking done in water. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva." + ], + [ + "It is prohibited to roast on an iron spit because it becomes hot and roasts and the meat, but we require that it is roasted by the heat of the fire without a medium, for surely God said (Exodus 12:9): “[they shall eat it] roasted over the fire, [with unleavened bread and bitter herbs],”and not roasted with by something else (see Tractate Pesahim 74a). And for this Mishnah it was ordained, and it is thus, and not with a grill but if it is a perforated grill, it is fit (see Tractate Pesahim 75a), Rabbi Tzadok said: it happened, etc.” And similarly, if it dripped from its juice on the fine flour, that it (i.e., the Mishnah) said, he should remove that fine flour, because it is forbidden to eat from it other than what remains attached on its body, but what dripped from it, surely it is like soup. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Tzadok." + ], + [ + "It has already been explained to you that it is permitted to lubricate the Passover offering in liquids and in fruit juice (see above, Tractate Pesahim, Chapter 2, Mishnah 8). And all of this Halakha is simple." + ], + [ + "God said (Numbers 9:6): “But there were some men who were impure by reason of a corpse [and could not offer the Passover sacrifice on that day],” and it ruled concerning them that they should postpone [offering the sacrifice] from the First Passover to the Second Passover, and it comes in the received tradition that this matter is not thus, other than because they are few, but if the entire congregation or most of it were ritually impure, they offer the Passover offering and even that they are ritually impure, they stated that individuals postpone to the Second Passover but the [whole] community does not postpone to the Second Passover. And similarly, all of the community sacrifices – are all offered in a state of defilement if the majority are defiled, because they are derived/learned from the Passover offering, for surely, it is stated regarding the Passover offering (Numbers 9:2): “at its set time, and it is stated concerning all the community sacrifices (Numbers 29:39): “All these you shall offer to the LORD at the stated times, for surely [God] made a stated time for all of them. And similarly everything that has a fixed time, it should be brought in a state of ritual defilement if most of the congregation or most of the Kohanim are defiled, as will be explained. And these five things that are enumerated are things that are consumed from the communal sacrifices, but the rest is burned, and similarly, the goats of the Festivals which are sin-offerings, their law is like the law of the goats of Rosh Hodesh, because they are all communal sin-offerings. And it is stated [in the Mishnah]: \"חמשה\" and it doesn’t states: “These things come in a state of ritual impurity,” to exclude the Festival Offering of the fifteenth, as will be explained further on, for even though it is a like a communal offering, since it is not offered on the Shabbat like we have explained, thus it is not offered in a state of ritual impurity." + ], + [ + "You already knew that the Passover Offering doesn’t come other than for eating, and therefore, if the meat was defiled, he doesn’t sprinkle the blood, because our goal is not other than the consuming of its flesh." + ], + [ + "Know this general principle, remember it and learn it, and it is thus, that only a person defiled by a corpse is what is postponed in the community and they should offer it in a state of ritual impurity, but if it was an individual, he should postpone it to the Second Passover [in Iyyar] like it will be explained in Scripture, and even if his seventh day [of defilement] was on the fourteenth [of Nisan], individuals should postpone, and this is the occurrence that they asked Moses our Teacher about. For since their seventh day was the fourteenth [of Nisan] they stated since the Passover offering is not consumed until the evening, and in the evening, we will be ritually pure and fit to consume it, sprinkle the blood upon us today for why should we be prevented, and it is what it (i.e., the Torah) said (Numbers 9:7): “why must we be debarred from presenting [the LORD’s offering],etc.” And even though it is clear because if they were within the days of ritual defilement they wouldn’t say, “why must we be debarred” since the reason is obvious that they are ritually impure, even though there is a hint in Scripture, therefore, and it (i.e., the Torah) states (Numbers 9:6): “and could not offer the Passover sacrifice on that day,” on that day alone is when they are not able. But this law does not apply other than someone who is defiled by a corpse as we have explained, but not defilement by a creeping insect, but rather, they offer for someone defiled through a creeping insect and even if he was an individual, for in the evening, when he will be pure, he can consume the Passover offering in a state of ritual purity. And this general principle will be explained in the Babylonian Talmud in the Second chapter of Tractate Zevakhim 22a." + ], + [ + "ואחר כך נודע שהוא טמא – meaning to say that the blood is defiled, and it will be explained to you at the conclusion of [Tractate] Eduyot (Chapter 8, Mishnah 4), that the blood of Holy Things does not defile, for all of these things that are stated regarding the defilement of blood is the earlier version of the Mishnah (but it seems that Maimonides has, in fact, reversed himself in the Laws of the Passover Sacrifice, Chapter 4, Halakha 2).", + "וטומאת הגוף – this that the Kohen offering the sacrifice has been ritually defiled (but it seems that Maimonides has reversed himself in the Laws of the Passover Sacrifice, Chapter 4, Halakha 2 as he is speaking about the owners of the sacrifice, not the Kohanim).", + "טומאת התהום (ritual impurity imparted by a grave deep in the ground) – this is the defilement by a corpse that was hidden and not known at all as if it is deep in the ground. And therefore, the front plate on the forehead [of the Kohen] procures favor because it is impossible that there would ever be knowledge of it, since there is no one in the world that knows that here is a corpse or a grave in that place that we would hope that he would inform us and know that he was defiled in order that he can be purified (see The Laws of the Nazirite, Chapter 6, Halakha 18), therefore every sacrifice that he offers and he is ritually impure through a grave deep in the ground , becomes fit for the front plate on the forehead [of the Kohen] atones for him. And this that the front plate worn on the forehead atones for defilements of Holy Things is explained in the Torah, God said (Exodus 28:38): “It shall be on Aaron’s forehead, that Aaron may take away any sin arising from the holy things that the Israelites consecrate, from any of their sacred donations, it shall be on his forehead at all times, to win acceptance for them before the LORD.” And it is stated in a Baraita regarding the ritual impurity imparted by a grave deep in the ground, what is the ritual impurity imparted by a grave deep in the ground? All that no one recognized at the end of the world, but if someone at the end of the world recognized it, it is not a ritual impurity imparted by a grave deep in the ground (see Tractate Pesahim 81b). And I have likened it through the ritual impurity imparted by a grave deep in the ground to you because the general principle among us is they didn’t state the ritual impurity imparted by a grave deep in the ground other than through a corpse alone (see Tractates Pesahim 80b, 81b, Nazir 63b, Zevakhim 23a)." + ], + [ + "They obligated them to burn it before the Sanctuary in order to embarrass them, in order that they will be carefully regarding it in the future and they will not bring it into a state of defilement, and they gave them to burn it from the wood of the wood pile on the altar in the Temple in order to not embarrass those who have none. וציקנים – those with troubles in the eye and in the kidneys (see also Tractate Terumot, Chapter 4, Mishnah 3, footnote 4; much of the explanation of this Mishnah is confused)" + ], + [ + "It is stated [in the Mishnah]: \"שיצא\" – meaning to say, that he left from the house (i.e., from Jerusalem) wherein it (i.e., the Passover sacrifice) was consumed.", + "ותעבור צורתו (its status must be changed – as it becomes נותר) – meaning to say that it (i.e., the Passover sacrifice) would remain until it becomes moldy and ruined, because the general principle among us is that all that is made unfit in its body should be burned immediately in blood and the owners should change its status and burn it. But Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka did not arguer other than if its owners became defiled or had died prior to the sprinkling of the blood because it compares it to something that has been made unfit in its body (see Tractate Pesahim 82b). But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka." + ], + [ + "גידים (sinews) – These are the sinews that are forbidden to be consumed, and their burning is a positive commandment for it surely God has said (Exodus 12:10): “if any of it is left until morning, you shall burn it.” And the Festival is a positive commandment and a negative commandment as it says regarding it (Leviticus 23:3): “[On six days work may be done], but on the seventh day there shall be a sabbath of complete rest, [a sacred occasion].” (see also Leviticus 23:24 – “on the first day of the month, you shall observe a complete rest “ – referring to the first day of the seventh month and Leviticus 23:32 concerning Yom Kippur: ‘It shall be a sabbath of complete rest for you,”), and this is a positive commandment, and the general principle among us is that a positive commandment does not override a negative commandment and a positive commandment. And just as God said, (Exodus 12:10): “if any of it is left until morning,” meaning that remains, on the morning of the morrow of the day it should be burned, meaning to say, on the morrow of the Festival day/Yom Tov." + ], + [ + "ראשי כנפים (the tips of the wings/shoulder blades – i.e., the ends of the forelegs) – These are the junctions that surround the joints).", + "והסחוסין (the cartileges forming the ear/gristle) - ELGATCHARF (in Arabic). And the reason he is flogged or not flogged will be explained at the end of [Tractate] Makkot (Chapter 3, Mishnah 1 and 3)." + ], + [ + "The Holiest of Holy Things are not consumed other than in the Temple courtyard alone. And the lesser Holy Things are consumed throughout the city [of Jerusalem] (see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 5, Mishnah 7). But the Passover [Offering] is consumed only in its group [eating the Passover offering together], because God said (Exodus 12:46): “It shall be eaten in one house; you shall not take any of the flesh outside the house.” And these borders that he made part of them like the inside and part of them like the outside include the three places, meaning to say, the Temple courtyard and the city [of Jerusalem] and the group consuming the Passover offering. And God stated (Exodus 22:30): “[You shall be holy people to Me:] you must not eat flesh torn by beasts in the field,” and it comes as a received tradition that the matter of this verse is that all meat that goes outside of its partition for it like a field that became torn (see Tractates Makkot 18a, Zevakhim 82b and Hullin 68a), and it is as if it (i.e., the Torah) had said, that flesh that went out to a torn field. And therefore, if any from the meat of the Holy of Holies went outside of the Temple courtyard or from the meat of the Lesser Holy Things outside of Jerusalem or from the meat of the Passover offering outside the house, that thing which went outside is forbidden and it is forbidden to consume it. But if part of a limb of the Passover offering went outside, it is impossible to sever the boney from the boundary of what goes out, for surely, it is with regard to a negative commandment (Exodus 12:46): “nor shall you break a bone of it.” And therefore, a person who cuts the meat from the boundary that goes out, and pares the remainder from the meat inside and consumes it, and throws away the entire bone and upon it is is from the meat, what is outside of it is considered outside. But regarding the remainder of the Holy Things, if part of a limb went outside , he cuts from the border of the meat that goes outside and the bone.", + "וקופים (with a hatchet) – ALSATOR.", + "ואגף (door-stop) – this is the place of the doors that when they close, the outer portion is separated from the inner portion." + ], + [ + "For it is the manner of the \"כלה\" to become embarrassed (see Tractate Pesahim 86b), and therefore, they permitted her to turn her face away from the members of the group and eat, what they didn’t permit for the person serving." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "רגל ראשון- the first Festival after her marriage.", + "And it states [in the Mishnah]: \"לא יאכל משל שניהם\" – if each of them were stringent towards each other so much so, but if there were between concessions between them, if he wanted he would eat from this one, and if he wanted he would eat from that one (see Tractate Pesahim 88a).", + "And it states [in the Mishnah]: \"לא יאכל משל רבו\" – and similarly not from his own, and it will be explained to you (in Tractate Eduyot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 13 [see also the parallel Mishnah in Tractate Gittin, Chapter 4, Mishnah 5]) that we don’t leave a slave who is half-a slave and half a free-man, and therefore, he cannot eat at all until he is made [completely] a free-man.", + "And that which it (i.e., the Mishnah) said here: \"לא יאכל משל רבו\" – implies that he eats of his own according to the opinion which says that we leave him as a man, half of whom is a slave and half of whom is a free-man, and this law is built entirely according to the general principle that is with us and it was is stated in a Baraitha (Tosefta Pesahim, Chapter 7, Halakha 4): a person slaughters [the Passover offering] on behalf of his minor age sons and daughters and on behalf of his Canaanite slave and [Canaanite] maidservant whether with their knowledge or without their knowledge." + ], + [ + "If his master said to him: \"צא ושחוט עלי את הפסח\" undefined/without qualification even though it was always his practice, [slaughter for me] “a lamb” and he slaughtered for him a kid, or [slaughter for me] “a kid” and he slaughtered a lamb, he should he consume it, and this is what he wanted to announce to you that we don’t worry about his custom. And the general rule among is that he is not counted on for a share in two Passover lambs, and this is what he warned us here and we stated [in the Mishnah]: \"יאכל מן הראשון\"/he should eat from the first – specifically regarding only a king or a queen, but if they said to their servants: “Go out and slaughter for us the Passover offering” and they went out and slaughtered two Passover offerings, and all of this on account of the fickle-mindedness that reigns and their limited submission to the Commandments, but the rest of the people should not eat either from the first [Passover offering] nor from the second. And this law that it states [in the Mishnah]: \"שכח מה שאמר לו רבו\"/he forgot what his master told him – does not exist other than if his master’s shepherd said to him: “take a lamb and a kid a slaughter both of them in order to suit the will of your master,” and here he designated/transferred to you one of them on the condition that there wouldn’t be anything for your master, but if this were not the case he should not fulfill anything from this law, because the general principle among us is what the servant purchased, his master purchased, but here when it (i.e., the Mishnah) said, \"שלי\" it should not be fulfilled other than what we explained. But they will be exempt from making the second Passover offering, if the master forgot what he said to him after the blood has been poured for surely the Passover offering, at the time of the sprinkling of the blood is appropriate for consumption, but if he forgot prior to the sprinkling of the blood, they are liable for a second Passover offering." + ], + [ + "He (i.e., the father) said to them: \"על מי שיעלה מכם [ראשון] לירושלים\" in order to stimulate/goad them [in the observance of] the Commandments and that they will make ever effort to ascend to Jerusalem, but in regard to the Passover [offering], they already were specifically counted on for a share in the Passover lamb with him, and therefore if the older entered, he merited and his brothers merited with him because they are entered for a share in the Passover sacrifice. But Rabbi Shimon thinks that they are counted on for a share in the Passover lamb until it is slaughtered and withdraw your share after it has been slaughtered until the blood has been sprinkled. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon." + ], + [ + "This is obvious." + ], + [ + "This Mishnah requires general principles/rules and I am explaining them to you, and this is that if someone with gonorrhea saw two attacks, he is defiled and counts seven days without an other attack and he becomes ritually pure when he immerses [in a Mikveh] on the seventh day and he may eat Holy Things in the evening. And similarly, if he saw three attacks he is defiled and counts seven days without any attacks and immerses [in a Mikveh] on the seventh day and brings a sacrifice on the eighth day and afterwards may eat Holy Things because he is lacking atonement, but someone who is lacking atonement does not eat Holy things. God said (Leviticus 15:2): “[Speak to the Israelite people and say to them:] When any man has a discharge issuing from his member, he is impure.”/\"[דברו אל-בני ישראל ואמרתם אלהם] איש איש כי יהיה זב מבשרו זובו טמא הוא\" - It (i.e., the Torah) mentions the word \"זיבות\"/a person suffering from gonorrhea- twice and it says that he is impure, and it states further (Leviticus 15:3): “The impurity from his discharge shall mean the following – whether his member runs with the discharge or is stopped up so that there is no discharge, his impurity means this.”/\"וזאת היהי טמאתו בזובו רר בשרו את-זובו או-החתים בשרו מזובו טמאתו הוא\" – it mentions the word \"זיבות\" three times and states his impurity/טומאתו , and the accepted tradition comes and counts two and calls him impure, [and it counts] three times and calls him impure. How can this be that two [mentions of the word זב] makes him impure but three [mentions of the word זב] requires of him a sacrifice (see Tractate Megillah 8a, Tractate Niddah 43b. But the details of the laws of the attack will be explained in their place and we don’t have the need to go into length with this. And similarly, the woman who saw blood not at the time of her menstrual cycle for three consecutive days, she becomes a woman with a flux and counts seven days without an attack and brings a sacrifice on the eighth day like a man with gonorrhea and she eats Holy Things (if she is married to a Kohen or is a divorced/single daughter of a Kohen) in the evening, as it states (Leviticus 15:25): “When a woman had a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her period of menstrual impurity, [she shall be impure, as though at the time of her menstrual impurity, as long as her discharge lasts].” And our received tradition comes [and teaches] that [the word] \"ימים\" means “two” [days] and that [the word] \"רבים\" means “three” days, for if she did not see it (i.e., blood) for one day, she watches until the morrow, if she didn’t see anything at all she immerses [in the Mikveh] on the second day and eats Holy Things at night. But if she also saw [blood] on the second day she keeps watch the third “day,” if she didn’t see anything, she immerses [in the Mikveh] on the third day and eats Holy Things at night, but if she saw [blood] also on the third day, she becomes a complete woman with a flux, and all these three days are called שומרת יום כנגד יום/a woman who observes a day for a day, and after knowing these general principles, this Halakhah will be explained completely. And this law according to the generally principle that I have announced to you is in the previous chapter (Mishnah six) and he for whom it is not appropriate to the Passover offering on the fourteenth [of Nisan] but he will be appropriate in the evening that they slaughter on his behalf, and with the condition that he already immersed [in a Mikveh] and he doesn’t need anything other than sunset and also he had already transmitted his sacrifices to the Bet Din if he was lacking atonement, and then he would slaughter on his behalf and even though that on the same day he is not appropriate, except for/besides someone who has ritual impurity upon contact with a corpse alone, like we have explained to you there." + ], + [ + "אונן – [a person who has lost a kinsman prior to burial] does not eat Holy Things for God said (Deuteronomy 26:14): “I have not eaten of it while in mourning,” and an אונן is called a person whose suffered the death of one of his relatives that he is obligated to mourn over them, on the day of death he is an אונן according to the Torah, and all the time that the corpse is lying on the face of the ground, he is also an אונן, and similarly, on the day of burial he is an אונן , but [only] according to the Rabbis (see also Maimonides’ comments on Tractate Demai, Chapter 1, Mishnah 2). And we are not concerned about the period of grief between the death of a kinsman and his/her burial according to the Rabbis with regard to the subject of the Passover [Sacrifice], and thus they (i.e., the Rabbis – in Tractate Zevakhim 99-101a and also Tractate Maaser Sheni, Chapter 3, Mishnah 6) said that there is no אנינות/intense grief other than on the day of death alone, and this is in regard to consuming the Passover Offering.", + "ומפקח בגל – this is a person who digs in a hill/mound to search underneath for a corpse to remove it, and we don’t slaughter for him [the Passover offering] because his end is unknown, for it is possible that he would find in that heap of stones/ruins a corpse and he would be ritually impure and it is forbidden for him to eat the Passover offering that was slaughtered and they intended for him with it [to consume it]. But it is possible that he would not find a corpse and he could eat from it.", + "And it states [in the Mishnah]: \"וכן מי שהבטיחוהו להוציאו מבית האסורים\" – and this is with two conditions – the first that he would be in a prison of non-Jews, and regarding them Scripture testified (Psalms 144:8): “whose mouths speak lies, [and whose oaths are false],” but from a prison of Israelites, if they promised him, certainly they will take him out, [as it says in] (Zephaniah 3:13): “The remnant of Israel shall do no wrong, and speak no falsehood.” And the second is that the prison will be outside of the wall [of Jerusalem], but if it was within Jerusalem, we carry the Passover [offering] to the prison and he will at of it there. And know that it is permitted for a person who just sustained the loss of a kinsman but has not yet buried him/her to eat the Passover [Offering] at night as will be explained later on (in Mishnah 8 – there is a misprint in the footnote of Mishnah 5 instead of 8), but we stated that one does not ab initio slaughter for him lest he not eat anything from his great pain [and distress on suffering the loss of a kinsman], for we have already relied upon his consuming it, but the meat will remain over and it will need to be burned, therefore it stated [in the Mishnah]: \"ועל כולם אין שוחטין עליהם בפני עצמן\" – meaning to say that they don’t slaughter the Passover [Offering] for a group of those who have just sustained the loss of a kinsman prior to burial or to a group of sick people or sick people or removal of debris from ruins that are upon a person, and afterwards, it explained this reason and stated, that lest one think that this is on account of the fact that they are not worthy to celebrate Passover, [but] they are worthy, but we prohibited this so that they would not bring the Passover [Offering] lest they disqualify it for they don’t consume it and we are required to burn it. And similarly, regarding the removal of ruins/debris lest they will discover the corpse after the slaughtering of the Passover [Offering] and they will defile it [through contact with a corpse] and have to burn it. And Just as we were informed that they are worthy, it states, therefore, if a disqualification occurred in them, meaning to say, if they slaughtered the Passover [Offering] and the blood was sprinkled upon them, even though that ab initio it is not appropriate to slaughter on their behalf, and afterwards a disqualification occurred in these people who had sustained a loss prior to being able to bury their kinsman or the sick people or the elders and they were defiled through [contact with] a corpse which they are not able to eat of it in the night, they are exempt from observing the Second Passover (on 14 Iyar) for they have slaughtered it when they were worthy to observe the Passover [Offering], except for removal of debris/ruins of a heap alone if it the Passover [Sacrifice] is slaughtered for him and he is worthy, as we have explained and afterwards the corpse is found in that heap, he is liable for the Second Passover, because he was ritually impure at the time of the slaughter when he was removing the ruins of a heap. And all of this is with the condition that the heap is round that if a corpse is found underneath it, we know with an absolute certainty that all that was on top of that heap was ritually impure because it was on top of a corpse (see Tractate Pesahim 91a). But if the place that he removes the debris of the heap/mound lengthwise and a corpse is found underneath it, it is exempt from observing the Second Passover, for we state that he was ritually pure at the time of the slaughter and it is possible that there wasn’t on top of the place that was opposite the corpse. But a round heap, which is like it is pointed projection – the ASTUNANA – which is in the form of a triangle." + ], + [ + "This is simple, and its desire (i.e., the Mishnah) is to state that women and slaves or minors and slaves because of licentiousness (i.e., should not sacrifice together), but each gender alone is permitted, when on their own, or slaves on their own. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi." + ], + [ + "What we caused to need to permit him the consumption of the Passover offering ut not the rest of the Holy Things is because the period of mourning between death and burial of a kinsman at night [following burial] is according to the Rabbis (see also Maimonides’ comments on Tractate Demai, Chapter 1, Mishnah 2) but it is explained in the Torah on the day of death alone, and it was it said regarding Aaron on the day of the death of [his sons] Nadav and Avihu (Leviticus 10:19): “Had I eaten purification offering today, would the LORD have approved?,” but because the Passover offering [is punishable] with extirpation, we permitted its being eaten during the period of mourning between death and burial of a kinsman according to the Rabbis, but the eating of Holy Things which is only a positive commandment, it did not permit him. But we obligated the person in the period of mourning between the death and burial of a kinsman ritual immersion in order to demonstrate his removal from that mindset and the removal of his mourning (compare Maimonides in the Laws of Mikveh, Chapter 11, Halakha 12 and the differing view in the Laws of Primary Defilement, Chapter 12, Halakha 14), and he is not liable in this other than if he suffered a loss after Noon on the fourth day of [of Nisan] where he was already responsible for the Passover Sacrifice and it occurred upon him prior to his being in the period of mourning between death and burial of a kinsman. But if he suffered a loss of a kinsman prior to Noon that he became a person in the period between death and burial of a kinsman before the time of the obligation of the [Passover] Sacrifice, it (i.e., the consumption of the Passover Sacrifice) should be postponed until the Second Passover (i.e., a month later in Iyyar), and we don’t offer it on his behalf when he is in the period between the death and burial of a kinsman because it is not appropriate on account of his deep grief.", + "והמלקט לו עצמות – meaning to say, that if another person assembled [the bones] for him , because this is one of the forms of the period between death and burial of a kinsman, and the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel did not disagree other than regarding the convert alone, for we are concerned lest in the next year he will be unclean of soul and he will say like I was purified ij the previous year and I ate my Passover Sacrifice at night, thus now also I will ritually immerse and eat my Passover Sacrifice, but an uncircumcised Israelite immerses (but in the Laws of the Passover Sacrifice, Chapter 6, Halakha 7 – Maimonides states that we slaughter for him after he has circumcised, but it doesn’t mention ritual immersion) and eats his Passover Sacrifice in the evening." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "If he was ritually impure or was far off on the First Passover (i.e., 14 Nisan) and he did not observe the Second Passover (14 Iyyar), he is not liable for extirpation, because he was already exempted from the First Passover, regarding which it (i.e., the Torah) states that he would be extirpated and it was postponed to the Second Passover, where it doesn’t state extirpation. But if he erred unwittingly or was under duress during in the First Passover and didn’t observe the Second [Passover], he is liable to extirpation, because it states in the Torah that whomever was not ritually impure or far off and didn’t make the Passover [Sacrifice] at all is liable for extirpation, and that which it (i.e., the Torah) said (Numbers 9:13): “But if a man who is pure and not on a journey refrains from offering the Passover sacrifice, that person shall be cut off from his kin, etc.” And this is the matter where it (i.e., the Mishnah) states here: \"אלו פטורין מן ההכרת ואלו חייבין\" ." + ], + [ + "מודעית – place between it and Jerusalem is fifteen miles, and it is the intermediate measurement of that which a person can walk by foot from sunrise until eventide (see Tractate Pesahim 93b). But if on the fourteenth [of Nisan] he was outside of Modiin, this is a distant journey. But Rabbi Eliezer says that even if he was within Jerusalem and became ill or his walk (of a Jerusalemite) became disarranged, and he is unable to enter to the Temple courtyard at the time of the offering but will be at the end of the time if he arrives to the threshold of the Courtyard, surely, his case is like the law of he who was on a distant journey. But Rabbi Akiva states since he was inside from Modiin and he is not able to arrive, his case should be like the law of someone unavoidably prevented [from coming]. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva." + ], + [ + "God said regarding the Second Passover (Numbers 9:12): “They shall offer it in strict accord with the law of the Passover sacrifice,” whereas if He (i.e., God) did not add to any word on this, he would be obliged on the Second [Passover] for everything that he is required on the First [Passover]. But since it states after this in the Second Passover (Numbers 9:11): “They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs,” it excluded the removal of leaven. And what it says further (Numbers 9:12): “And they shall not leave any of it over until morning,” excludes [the command]: \"לא יראה ולא ימצא\"/it shall not be seen it nor shall it be found with you” (see Exodus 13:6 and 12:19), and when the it (i.e., the Torah) states (Numbers 9:12): “They shall not break a bone of it,” it excludes (Exodus 23:18, 34:25): “You shall not offer [the blood of my sacrifice] with anything leavened,” because it was not necessary for all of this specification, for when it states (Numbers 9:12): “in strict accord with the law of the Passover sacrifice,” it is enough in place of all of them, and since he doubled them, it is like he is explaining as if he will state that the law of the Passover sacrifice that I am obligated on is not other than this alone, “they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:11), etc. And in this manner, it will be an explanation of what it (i.e., the Torah) said, for one amplification after another amplification is only to restrict." + ], + [ + "You already knew that if most of the community were impure by reason of a corpse (see Numbers 9:6,7 and 10) alone, he should bring the Passover [Offering] in a state of ritual impurity, but not eat it other than other than those who were defiled through corpse contact alone, for the ritual defilement was permitted to them alone as we have explained, but if the rest of the ritually impure people ate of it, they are not liable for extirpation, because it comes in the received tradition (Tractate Pesahim 95b), that which is eaten for ritually pure individuals, it is obligatory upon him because of ritual defilement, but what is not consumed by ritually pure individuals is not liable upon him because of ritual defilement. But Rabbi Eliezer states that (Numbers 5:2): “to remove from camp anyone with an eruption or a discharge and anyone defiled by a corpse,” at the time that those defiled by a corpse are sent out, those with gonorrhea and lepers are sent out, but when those who defiled by a corpse are not sent out, those with gonorrhea and lepers are not sent out, therefore, if those with gonorrhea and leprosy entered into the Sanctuary on Passover that come in ritual impurity, they are exempt. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.", + "The intention when it (i.e., the Mishnah) states: \"נוהג כל שבעה\", is regarding the prohibition of eating Hametz/leaven. But on the Egyptian Passover/Pesah Mitzrayim, it is not forbidden on it the eating of Hametz other than one day alone, as it states (Exodus 13:3-4): “no leavened bread shall be eaten. You go free on this day, [in the month of Abib],” as if it said, you shall not eat Hametz on the day that you leave. And it stated [in the Mishnah] here: \"לילה אחד\" , meaning to say that also the night of that day it was prohibited [to eat] Hametz (see Tractate Pesahim 96b)." + ], + [], + [ + "עד שיסתאב – until a blemish should befall it which disqualifies it from being appropriate for a sacrifice. And the words of Rabbi Akiva are correct and there is no one who disputes him." + ], + [ + "Every place that it states [in the Mishnah]: \"יפלו דמיו לנדבה\" , meaning to say, a free-will donation of a burnt offering, and concerning this that he should give those monies in boxes that are in the Temple and the Bet Din offers burnt-offerings with those monies. And it follows that these distinctions that are between one who brings the free-will donations of a burnt offering or that he places their monetary value in a box, for that which he placed its monetary value in a box of its libations from the community, and the burnt-offering that he would bring its libations from what is his. And the remainder of the distinctions that are between them will be explained in the third chapter [Mishnah 5] of Tractate Temurah." + ], + [ + "The truth substantiated by an illustration in this is for example, that his Passover Offering was combined with two burnt offerings, he leaves the three lambs until they become disqualified, and he sells them one at a time and knows that their worth is greater, as for example that the worth of one is a Denar and the Denar and-a-half and the third is two Denarim, that the total amount of all three is four-and-one-half Denarim, surely he is liable to bring three animals, two of them – each are two Denarimm and one of them is a Denar and a half.", + "And this that [the Mishnah] states: \"ויפסיד המותר מביתו\" and he sacrifices from them two burnt offerings and one of them from two complete Denarim, and from what that you need to know is that the first-born is consumed over two days and one night, but the Passover [Offering] is not consumed other than at night, and it is not eaten other than until midnight, but if the firstling was consumed according to the law of the Passover [Offering], we will bring on account of this that it will be portions of sacrifices left over beyond the legal time and bound to be burnt, that it is not consumed other than until midnight, and this general principle with us is that we don’t bring Holy Things to a disqualified house (see Tractate Pesahim 98b and in many places).", + "And therefore it states [in the Mishnah]: \"אם חבורת כהנים יאכלו\" – meaning to say, that everything should be eaten until midnight like the law of the Passover offering. But the Sages state: \"ירעו עד שיסתאבו\" and he should bring the equivalent of eight of them and state that all where there is for the Passover offering, its holiness should come upon this, and he offers that animal as a peace offering, and he consumes all of these animals that develop a defect in the manner that the firstling is consumed which has a defect. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon." + ], + [ + "All of this is simple and doesn’t require explanation. And it states [in the Mishnah]: \"אמר להם ולא אמרו לו\", meaning to say, that they did not speak through commentary/explanation and it don’t permit him explicitly that he should slaughter for them, and also that he did not permit them explicitly, even though there were actions and hints that show that they rely upon each other (see The Laws of the Passover Offering, Chapter 3, Halakha 6)." + ], + [ + "It is simple that this mixture should not be made other than prior to slaughtering the Passover [Offering]." + ], + [ + "And such a second person says to his fellow. And the entire matter is simple." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "סמוך למנחה – that when there remains in the day [of the eve of Passover] more than two-and-one-half hours, according to the period that is called Minha, that which remains from the day is two-and-one-half hours, and we have been required as such becauי:se the eating of Matzah on the first night is obligatory (see Tractate Pesahim 99b), therefore a person starves himself in order that he can eat with an appetite, and this that prevents him from eating is not the eating of bread, for surely, he doesn’t have any bread then, because it is forbidden with us to eat Matzah on the da of the fourteenth [of Nisan] until he eats it at the time of the Mitzvah, but rather, we have prevented him from eating too much other foods (see The Laws of Hametz and Matzah, Chapter 6, Halakha 12), and we have obligated to eat when he is reclining in the manner that kings and other great figures eat, in order that it will be in the manner of freedom.", + "ותמחוי – this is the relish (see Tractate Peah, Chapter 8, Mishnah 7) that they gather for the poor in each and every house. But its consumption is not permitted other than for the most poor person like we explained at the end of [Tractate] Peah." + ], + [ + "It was already explained to you in Tractate Berakhot (Chapter 8, Mishnah 1), that the School of Shammai recites Kiddush prior to the Blessing of the Wine. But the School of Hillel reverses the matter." + ], + [ + "The Seder which tells/proclaims is such – they bring before him the table and he receives the Kiddush as it states, and afterwards he eats whichever vegetable that is made ready after he dips it in Haroset and recites the blessing “Who creates the fruit of the ground” (note that we today use salt water).", + "And it (i.e., the Mishnah) says: \"מטבל בחזרת\" in order to inform you that he recites the blessing, “Who creates the fruit of the ground” even on the lettuce which is from the bitter herbs, which is in place of the vegetable that he eats it at the beginning. But when he consumes the Matzah/unleavened bread and the lettuce after that, he makes the blessing, “on the eating of Maror/bitter herbs, if he didn’t consume Maror first. But if he didn’t have anything other than bitter herbs initially and at the end recites the blessing over it at the beginning, “who creates the fruit of the ground” and “on the eating of Maror” and consumes it, and he should eat it at the end with out a blessing. And they established that he should eat a vegetable nevertheless and afterwards Maror in order that there would be in this a change in order that the child would ask [about it].", + "ומטבל – like “and he deals with it, meaning to say, engages in the eating of vegetables.", + "ובחרוסת – it is a mixture that has acidity/sourness and it is similar to straw in memory of the mud/clay, and such is how we make it, that we soak/steep figs or dates and cook them and crush/pound them until they become soft and we knead them in vinegar and put them into a SANBAL (spikenard) or cornea (see Tractates Maaser Sheni, Chapter 3, Mishnah 9 and Uktzin, Chapter 2, Mishnah 2) or hyssop without pounding/rubbing. But Rabbi [Elezar the son of Rabbi] Tzadok says that Haroset is a Mitzvah that one is liable to recite the blessing: “Who has sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us on the eating of Haroset.” But it is not Halakha (but see in the Laws of Hametz and Matzah, Chapter 7, Halakhah 13 that Maimonides determined that Haroset is a commandment from the Scribes).", + "", + "", + "", + "Charoset is mixture which has acidity in it and something similar to straw, and this is memory of the mortar. And we make it like this: Soak figs or dates and cook them and pound them until they are wet and knead them with spikenard or hyssop or something similar, without grinding them. And Rabbi Eliezer said that charoset is a mitzvah and in his opinion, one would need to say a blessing \"who has commanded about eating charoset\" and that is not the halakha. " + ], + [ + "מתחיל בגנות – that he tells how we, before Abraham came, deniers [of God] and forming partnerships (this is what Maimonides wrote in the Laws of Leaven and Matzah, [Chapter 7], Halakha 4, and it appears like it is according to Rav, even though in the Seder, the Haggadah follows according to Shmuel), and we chose God as an inheritance, and how what transpired over us in Egypt occurred and afterwards, God liberated us. And it (i.e., the Mishnah) expounded on the entire portion – “Remember and Know”" + ], + [ + "The Halakha is according to Rabban Gamaliel." + ], + [ + "The Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva." + ], + [ + "What we have been compelled that we do not permit him to drink [wine] between the third and fourth [cups], in order that he not become inebriated, because the wine with the food does not cause drunkenness like when he becomes intoxicated without food.", + "וברכת שיר – this is [the prayer]: “The soul of every living being”/נשמת כל חי until its conclusion. And similarly, also יהללוך/let them praise you until its conclusion is called ברכת שיר/the Blessing of Song [of Praise] (see Tractate Pesahim 118a – and in the Laws of Hametz and Matzah, Chapter 8, Halakha 10, the decision is according to Rabbi Yehuda who states: “The soul of every living being”/נשמת כל חי). But if he combined them, this is surely praiseworthy." + ], + [ + "נתנמנו – this is that sleep is coming upon them but not that it is delved deeply, but rather that they hear who is speaking and respond to whom is calling to them.", + "נרדמו – that this is deep sleep.", + "ואפיקומון – these are the fruits that the conclude the meal such as the roasted seeds and the dates and the raisins and the almonds and things similar to it. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi." + ], + [ + "טומאת ידים – its laws will be explained in many places in [Seder] Taharot.", + "והזבח – that is mentioned here is the festival offering [of the visitors to the Temple on the festivals) that is mentioned above in Chapter Six. And the language of the Tosefta (Tractate Pesahim, Chapter 10, Halakha 13): What is the blessing of the Passover offering? Praised is…who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to partake of the Passover offering. And what is the blessing of the peace-offering? Praised is…who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to eat the peace-offering. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva (i.e., that eating one of them does not exempt us from the requirement to eat the other)." + ] + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Translation by Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2023", + "https://www.sefaria.org/texts" + ], + [ + "Sefaria Community Translation", + "https://www.sefaria.org" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "רמב\"ם על משנה פסחים", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Rishonim on Mishnah", + "Rambam", + "Seder Moed" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Mishnah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file