Parallel
פסחים 96
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
[Do we say,] since the uncleanness of the flesh was permitted, the uncleanness of the emurim too was permitted; or perhaps, what was permitted was permitted, and what was not permitted was not permitted?Said Raba, Consider: whence is the uncleanness of emurim included? From the uncleanness of the flesh, for it is written, That pertain onto the Lord, which includes emurim: [hence] wherever the uncleanness of the flesh is interdicted, the uncleanness of the emurim is interdicted: while wherever [the interdict of] the uncleanness of the flesh is absent, [the interdict of] the uncleanness of the emurim is absent. R. Zera asked: Where did they burn the emurim of the Passover offering of Egypt? -Said Abaye, And who is to tell us that it was not prepared roast? Moreover, surely R. Joseph learned: Three altars were there [for the sprinkling of the blood] viz., the lintel and the two doorposts. Further, was there nothing else? M I S H N A H. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PASSOVER-OFFERING OF EGYPT AND THE PASSOVER-OFFERING OF [SUBSEQUENT] GENERATIONS? THE PASSOVER-OFFERING IN EGYPT WAS TAKEN ON THE TENTH [OF NISAN], [ITS BLOOD] REQUIRED SPRINKLING WITH A BUNCH OF HYSSOP ON THE LINTEL AND ON THE TWO DOOR-POSTS, AND IT WAS EATEN IN HASTE ON ONE NIGHT; WHEREAS THE PASS OVER- OFFERING OF [SUBSEQUENT] GENERATIONS IS KEPT THE WHOLE SEVEN [DAYS]. G E M A R A. Whence do we know it?-Because it is written, Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying: in the tenth day of this month they shall take [to them every man a lamb]: the taking of this one was on the tenth , whereas the taking of the Passover-offering of [subsequent] generations is not on the tenth. If so, [when it is written,] And ye shall keep it [mishmereth] until the fourteenth day of this month, does that too [intimate], this requires a four days’ examination before slaughtering, but no other requires examination? Surely it was taught, The son of Bag Bag said: How do we know that the tamid requires a four days’ examination before slaughtering? Because it is said, Ye shall observe [tishmeru] to offer unto Me in its due season, while elsewhere it is said, And ye shall keep it [mishmereth] until the fourteenth [etc.]: just as there it requires a four days’ examination before slaughtering, so here too it requires a four days examination before slaughtering? — There it is different, because tishmeru [‘ye shall observe’] is written. And thus [in connection with] the annual Passover-offering it is indeed written, then thou shalt keep this service in this month, [which intimates] that all the services of this month [in subsequent generations] should be like this. Hence that [word] ‘this’ is to exclude the second Passover, which is like itself. But [again] if so, when it is written, and they shall eat the flesh in this night, does that too [teach] that this is eaten at night, but another is not eaten at night? -Scripture saith, then thou shalt keep this service [etc.]. Then what is the purpose of ‘this’?- [It is required] for [the exegesis] of R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah and A. Akiba [respectively]. But if so, when it is written, But no uncircumsized person shall eat thereof, does that too [teach] that he may not eat ‘thereof,’ yet he may eat of the Passover-offering of [subsequent] generations?[No, for] Scripture saith, ‘Then thou shalt keep [this service etc.].’ Then what is the purpose of ‘thereof’?- Thereof he must not eat, but he eats unleavened bread and the bitter herbs. But if so, when it is written, There shall no alien eat thereof, is it the case there too that he must not eat thereof, yet he eats of the Passover-offering of [subsequent] generations? — Scripture saith, ‘Then thou shalt keep [etc.].’ Then what is the purpose of ‘thereof’?- In that case only [‘thereof’] does apostasy disqualify, but apostasy does not disqualify in the case of terumah — Now it is necessary that an uncircumcised person should be stated, and it is necessary that an alien should be stated. For if the Divine Law stated an uncircumcised person, [I would say that he is disqualified] because he is repulsive, but an alien is not repulsive [so] I would say [that he is] not [excluded] from the Passover-offering]; hence [an alien] is necessary. And if we were informed about an alien, [I would argue that he is disqualified] because his heart is not toward Heaven, but [as for] an uncircumcised person, whose heart is toward Heaven, I would say [that he is] not [excluded]. Thus both are necessary. But if so, [when it is written,] A sojourner [toshab] and a hired servant [sakir] shall not eat thereof, does that too [intimate] that he must not eat thereof, but he does eat of the annual Passover? — Scripture saith, ‘Then thou shalt keep [etc.]’. Then what is the purpose of ‘thereof’?Only in this case does apostasy disqualify, but apostasy does not disqualify from terumah. But if so, [when it is written, But every man's servant that is bought for money,] when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof, — does that too [intimate] that he must not eat thereof, but he does eat of the annual Passover? — Scripture saith, ‘then thou shalt keep [etc.]’. Then what is the purpose of ‘thereof’ [bo]? Only in this case [bo] is the circumcision of his males and his slaves indispensable, but the circumcision of his males and his slaves is not indispensable in the case of terumah. But if so, when it is written, Neither shall ye break a bone thereof, does that too [intimate] that he may not break [a bone] thereof, but he may break [a bone] of the annual Passover?-Scripture saith, ‘then thou shalt keep [etc.]’. Then what is the purpose of ‘thereof’? ‘Thereof’ [indicates] of a fit [sacrifice], but not of an unfit [one]. But if so, when it is written, Eat not of it half-roast, [does that too intimate,] of it you may not eat [half-roast], but you may eat half-roast of the annual Passover-offering?-Scripture saith, ‘then thou shalt keep etc.’ Then what is the purpose of ‘of it’?- For the teaching of Rabbah in R. Isaac's name. AND WAS EATEN IN HASTE etc. How do we know it?- Because Scripture saith, and ye shall eat it in haste: ‘it’ was eaten in haste, but no other was eaten in haste. AND THE ANNUAL PASSOVER-OFFERING IS KEPT THE WHOLE SEVEN [DAYS] etc. To what does this refer? If we say, to the Passover-offering, — is there then a Passover-offering all the seven [days]?
—
— Rather [it must refer] to leaven. Hence it follows that at the Passover of Egypt [leaven was forbidden] one night and no more; but surely it was taught, R. Jose the Galilean said: How do we know that at the Passover of Egypt the [prohibition of] leaven was in force one day only? Because it is said, There shall no leavened bread be eaten and in proximity [thereto] is written, This day ye go forth! -Rather this is its meaning: [The Passover-offering is kept] one night, and the same law applies to the annual Passover-offering; while [the prohibition of] leaven [was in force] the whole day, whereas at the Passover-offering of [subsequent] generations [the interdict of leaven] holds good for the entire seven [days]. MISHNAH. R.JOSHUA SAID: I HAVE HEARD [FROM MY TEACHERS] THAT THE SUBSTITUTE OF A PASSOVER-OFFERING IS OFFERED, AND THAT THE SUBSTITUTE OF A PASSOVER-OFFERING IS NOT OFFERED, AND I CANNOT EXPLAIN IT. SAID R. AKIBA, I WILL EXPLAIN IT: THE PASSOVER-OFFERING WHICH WAS FOUND BEFORE THE SLAUGHTERING OF THE PASSOVER-OFFERING MUST BE LEFT TO GRAZE UNTIL IT BECOMES UNFIT, BE SOLD, AND ONE BRINGS A PEACE-OFFERING FOR ITS MONEY; AND THE SAME APPLIES TO ITS SUBSTITUTE. [IF FOUND] AFTER THE SLAUGHTERING OF THE PASSOVER, IT IS OFFERED AS A PEACE-OFFERING, AND ITS SUBSTITUTE LIKEWISE. G E M A R A. BUT LET HIM SAY, The Passover-offering is offered, and the Passover-offering is not offered? -He informs us this, [viz.,] that there is a substitute of a Passover-offering which is not offered [as a peace-offering]. It was stated: Rabbah said: We learned, Before slaughtering and after slaughtering; R. Zera maintained: We learned, Before midday and after midday. But according to R. Zera, surely he teaches, BEFORE THE SLAUGHTERING OF THE PASSOVER-OFFERING?-SAY: BEFORE THE TIME OF THE SLAUGHTERING OF THE PASSOVER-OFFERING, This is dependent on Tannaim: The Passover which is found before slaughtering must graze [etc.]; [if found] after slaughtering, it is offered. R. Eleazar said: [If found] before midday it must graze [etc.]; after midday, it is offered. [IF IT IS FOUND] AFTER THE SLAUGHTERING OF THE PASSOVER, HE BRINGS IT AS A PEACE-OFFERING etc. Raba said:They learned this only if it was found after the slaughtering and he substituted [another] for it after the slaughtering. But if it was found before the slaughtering while he substituted [another] for it after the slaughtering, its substitute derives from the power of rejected sanctity, and it cannot be offered. Abaye raised an objection against him: If [he bring] a lamb [for his offering’ etc.]: for what purpose is ‘if [he bring] a lamb’ stated? To include the substitute of a Passover-offering after Passover, [teaching] that it is offered as a peace-offering. How is it meant? If we say that it was found after the slaughtering and he substituted [another] for it after the slaughtering, then it is obvious: why do I require a verse? Hence it must surely apply where it was found before slaughtering and he substituted [another] for it after slaughtering? — No: in truth it applies where it was found after slaughtering and he substituted [another] for it after slaughtering, while the verse is a mere support. Then for what [purpose] does the verse come? -For what was taught: ‘[If he bring] a lamb [etc.]’: this is to include the Passover-offering, in respect of its fat tail. When it is stated, ‘If [he bring] a lamb,’ this is to include [an animal] more than a year old [dedicated for] a Passover-offering and a peace-offering which comes in virtue of a Passover-offering , in respect of all the regulations of the peace-offering, [viz.,] that they require laying [of the hands], libations, and the waving of the breast and shoulder. Again, when it states, and if [his offering be] a goat, it breaks across the subject [and] teaches of a goat that it does not require [the burning of the] fat tail [on the altar]. Others recite it [Raba's dictum] in reference to the first clause: THE PASSOVER-OFFERING WHICH WAS FOUND BEFORE THE SLAUGHTERING OF THE PASSOVER-OFFERING MUST GRAZE UNTIL IT BECOMES UNFIT, BE SOLD, AND ONE BRINGS A PEACE-OFFERING FOR ITS MONEY, AND THE SAME APPLIES TO ITS SUBSTITUTE. Said Raba, They learned [this] only where It was found before the slaughtering and he substituted [another] for it before the slaughtering. But if it was found before the slaughtering and he substituted [another] for it after the slaughtering, it is offered as a peace-offering. What is the reason? The slaughtering [of the Passover-offering] stamps [with its sanctity] only something that is eligible therefor, [but] it does not stamp [with its sanctity] that which is not eligible therefor. Abaye raised an objection against him: ‘If [he bring] a lamb [etc.]’: what is its purpose? To include the substitute of a Passover-offering after Passover, [teaching] that it is offered as a peace-offering.
—