פסחים 59 — parallel

59:1

let that in connection with which ba-’ereb [at evening] and ben ha-’arbayim [between the evenings] are said be deferred after that in connection with which ba-’ereb is not said, save ben ha-’arbayim alone. If so, let [the burning of] the incense [and the kindling of] the lights also take precedence over the Passover offering, [for] let that in connection with which ba-’ereb and ben ha-’arbayim are stated be deferred after that in connection with which nought save ben ha-’arbayim alone is said? — There it is different, because Scripture expressed a limitation, ‘it’. For it was taught: [Aaron and his sons shall set it in order, to burn] from evening to morning: furnish it with its [requisite] measure, so that it may burn from evening to morning. Another interpretation: you have no [other] service which is valid from evening to morning save this alone. What is the reason? Scripture saith, ‘Aaron and his sons shall set it in order, to burn from evening to morning’: ‘it’ [shall be] from evening to morning, but no other thing shall be from evening until morning; and [the burning of] the incense is likened to [the kindling of] the lights. Now it was taught in accordance with our difficulty: The [evening] tamid is [sacrificed] before [the burning of] the incense, the incense is [burnt] before [the kindling of] the lamps, and the lamps are [kindled] before [the sacrificing of] the Passover offering: let that in connection with which ba-’ereb and ben ha'arbayim are stated be deferred after that in connection with which nought save ben ha-’arbayim alone is stated. But ‘it’ is written? — That ‘it’ is required to exclude a service of the inner [Temple]; and what is it? [The burning of] the incense. You might think But in connection with the former only ben ha-’arbayim is stated, Num. XXVIII, : and the other lamb shalt thou offer at dusk (ben ha'arbayim). that I would say, since it is written, And when Aaron lighteth the lamps at dusk, he shall burn it, say, let us first light the lamps and then burn the incense; therefore the Merciful One expressed a limitation, ‘it’. Then what is the purpose of, ‘at dusk he shall burn it’? — This is what the Merciful One saith: When thou lightest the lamps, the incense must [already] be burning. Our Rabbis taught: There is nothing which takes precedence over the morning tamid except [the burning of] the [morning] incense alone, in connection with which ‘in the morning, in the morning’ is stated; so let [the burning of the] incense, in connection with which ‘in the morning, in the morning,’ is stated, for it is written, And Aaron shall burn thereon incense of sweet spices, in the morning, in the morning, take precedence over that in connection with which only one ‘morning’ is stated. And there is nothing which may be delayed until after the evening tamid save [the burning of] the incense, [the lighting of] the lamps, [the slaughtering of] the Passover sacrifice, and he who lacks atonement on the eve of Passover, who performs ritual immersion a second time and eats his Passover sacrifice in the evening. R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka said: He who lacks atonement at any other time of the year too, who performs ritual immersion and eats of sacred flesh in the evening. According to the first Tanna, it is well: let the affirmative precept of [eating] the Passover sacrifice, which involves kareth, come and override the affirmative precept of completion. which does not involve kareth. But according to R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka, wherein is this affirmative precept stronger than the other affirmative precept? — Said Rabina in R. Hisda's name: We treat here of a sin-offering of a bird, the blood of which alone belongs to the altar. R. Papa said: You may even say [that we treat of] an animal sin-offering: he takes it up and keeps it overnight on the top of the altar. But there is the guilt-offering? As for R. Papa. it is well: hence we keep it overnight. But according to R. Hisda, what can be said? — I will tell you: It means where he has offered up his guilt-offering. But there is the burnt-offering? And should you answer, The burnt-offering is not indispensable, surely it was taught. R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Berokah said: Just as his sin-offering and his guilt-offering are indispensable for him, so is his burnt-offering indispensable for him. And should you answer, It means where he has offered his burnt-offering; yet can his burnt-offering be offered first before his sin-offering? Surely it was taught: And he shall offer that which is for the sin-offering first: for what purpose is this stated? If to teach that it comes before the burnt-offering, surely it is already said, And he shall prepare the second for a burnt-offering, according to the ordinance? But this furnishes a general rule for all sin-offerings, that they take precedence of all burnt-offerings which accompany them; and we have an established principle that even a bird sin-offering takes precedence of an animal burnt-offering! — Said Raba, The burnt-offering of a leper is different, because the Merciful One saith,

—

59:2

And the priest shall [have] offer[ed] the burnt offering. [implying], that which he has already offered. R. Shaman b. Abba said to R. Papa: According to you who maintain [that] he takes it up and keeps it overnight on the top of the altar, shall we arise and do a thing to the priests whereby they may come to a stumbling-block, for they will think it is of that day. and thus come to burn it? — he priests are most careful, replied he. R. Ashi said to R. Kahana-others state, R. Huna the son of R. Nathan [said] to R. Papa: But as long as the emurim have not been burnt, the priests may not eat the flesh? For it was taught: You might think that the priests should be permitted [to partake] of the breast and the thigh before the burning of the emurim: therefore it is stated, And the priest shall burn the fat upon the altar, and then follows, but the breast shall be Aaron's and his sons’. And as long as the priests have not eaten [it], the owners obtain no atonement, for it was taught: And they shall eat those things wherewith atonement was made: this teaches that the priests eat [it] and the owners obtain atonement! — Said he to him, Since it is impossible, they [the emurim] are treated as though they were defiled or lost. For it was taught: You might think that if the emurim were defiled or lost, the priests have no right to the breast or the thigh, therefore it is stated, ‘But the breast shall be Aaron's and his sons’, in all cases. R. Kahana opposed [two verses]: It is written, neither shall the fat of My feast remain all night until the morning: [thus] it is only ‘until the morning’ that ‘it shall not remain all night,’ but it may be kept for the whole night; but it is written, and he shall burn thereon the fat of the peace-offerings, [implying,] after it complete all the sacrifices? He raised the difficulty; and he himself answered it: That is where they were left over. R. Safra pointed out a contradiction to Raba: It is written, neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the Passover be left unto the morning: thus it is only ‘unto the morning’ that ‘it shall not be left,’ but it may be kept all night; but it is written, The burnt-offering of the Sabbath [shall be burnt] on its Sabbath, but not the burnt-offering of a weekday on the Sabbath, nor the burnt-offering of a weekday on a Festival? — Said he to him, R. Abba b. Hiyya has already pointed out this contradiction to R. Abbahu, and he answered him, We treat here of the case where the fourteenth falls on the Sabbath, for the fats of the Sabbath may be offered on the Festival. Said he to him, Because the fats of the Sabbath may be offered on the Festival, we are to arise and assume that this verse is written [only] in respect of the fourteenth which falls on the Sabbath? Leave the verse, he answered, for it is compelled to establish its own [particular] case. MISHNAH. IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED THE PASSOVER SACRIFICE FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE, AND HE CAUGHT [THE BLOOD] AND WENT AND SPRINKLED IT FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE; OR FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE AND FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE; OR FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE AND FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE; IT IS DISQUALIFIED. HOW IS ‘FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE AND FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE’ MEANT? IN THE NAME OF THE PASSOVER SACRIFICE [FIRST] AND [THEN] IN THE NAME OF A PEACE-OFFERING. ‘FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE AND FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE’ [MEANS] IN THE NAME OF A PEACE-OFFERING [FIRST] AND [THEN] IN THE NAME OF THE PASSOVER-OFFERING. GEMARA. R. Papa asked: Did we learn [of a dual intention expressed even] in respect to one service, or did we learn [only of a dual intention expressed] at two separate services? Did we learn [of a dual intention expressed even] in respect of one service, this being in accordance with R. Jose, who maintained, A man is responsible for his last words too; for if [it agreed with] R. Meir, surely he said, Seize [i.e., determine the matter by] the first expression; 28

—