Pesachim

Raba says thus: R. Judah rules that the unintentional is the same as the intentional only in the direction of stringency, but he did not rule that the intentional is the same as the unintentional where it is in the direction of leniency. Abaye said: Whence do I know it? Because it was taught: It was related of R. Johanan b. Zakkai that he was sitting in the shadow of the Temple and teaching all day.1 Now here it was impossible [not to lecture], and he intended [to benefit from the shade], and it is permitted?2 But Raba said: The Temple was different, because it was made for its inside.3 Raba said: Whence do I know it? Because we learned: There were passage ways opening in the upper chamber to4 the Holy of Holies, through which the artisans were lowered in boxes,5 so that they might not feast their eyes on the Holy of Holies. Now here it was impossible [to avoid going there], and he [the workman] intended [to gaze at the Holy of Holies], and it was forbidden. But is that logical? Surely R. Simeon b. Pazzi said in R. Joshua b. Levi's name on Bar Kappara's authority: Sound, sight, and smell do not involve trespass?6 Rather, they set up a higher standard for the Holy of Holies.7 Others state, Raba said: Whence do I know it? Because it was taught, R. Simeon b. Pazzi said in R. Joshua b. Levi's name on Bar Kappara's authority: Sound, sight, and smell do not involve trespass. [Thus] they merely do not involve trespass, but there is an interdict. Is that not for those who stand inside [the Temple],8 so that it is impossible [to avoid it], while there is, an intention [to enjoy], and it is forbidden? — No: it refers to those standing outside. 9 [It was stated in] the text, ‘R. Simeon b. Pazzi said in R. Joshua b. Levi's name on Bar Kappara's authority: Sound, sight, and smell do not involve trespass.’ But, does not smell involve trespass? Surely it was taught: He who compounds incense in order to learn [the art thereof] or to give it over to the community10 is exempt; [if] in order to smell it,11 he is liable; while he who smells it12 is exempt, but that he commits trespass!13 Rather, said R. Papa: Sound and sight do not involve trespass, because they are intangible; and smell, after its smoke column has ascended,14 does not involve trespass, since its religious service has been performed. 15 Shall we say that wherever the religious service has been performed no trespass is involved? But what of the separation of the ashes,16 though its religious service has been performed, yet it involves trespass, for it is written; and he shall put them [the ashes] beside the altar,17 [which means] that he [the priest] must not scatter nor use [them]?18 — Because [the references to] the separation of the ashes and the priestly garments are two verses written with the same purpose,19 and the teaching of two such verses does not illumine [other cases].20 ‘The separation of the ashes’: that which we have stated. ‘The priestly garments,’ as it is written, and he shall leave them there:21 this teaches that they must be hidden.22 That is well on the view of the Rabbis who say, This teaches that they must be hidden. But according to R. Dosa who disagrees with them and maintains: But they are fit for an ordinary priest, while what does ‘and he shall leave them there’ mean? that he [the High Priest] must not use them on another Day of Atonement, what can be said? — Because the separation of ashes and the beheaded heifer23 are two verses with the same teaching, and such two verses do not illumine [other cases]. That is well according to him who maintains, They do not illumine [other cases]; but on the view that they do illumine,24 what can be said? — Two limitations are written: it is written, ‘and he shall put them [the ashes]’; and it is written, [over the heifer] whose neck was broken [etc.].25 Come and hear: If he took it [the heifer] into the team26 and it [accidentally] did some threshing, it is fit;27 [but if it was] in order that it should suck and thresh, it is unfit. Now here it is impossible [to do otherwise],28 and he intends [to benefit], and he [the Tanna] teaches that it is unfit! — There it is different, because Scripture saith, ‘which hath not been wrought with,’ [implying] in all cases. If so, even in the first clause too [the same applies]? and b. As his own school-house was too small for the large number who wished to hear him, he taught in the open, choosing this site on account of the shade afforded by the high walls of the Temple. involved when he benefits by sound, sight or smell, e.g., when he hears the music in the Temple, sees the beauty of the Temple, or smells the frankincense. Consequently, even if workmen did look upon the Holy of Holies it would not really matter. stranger, he shall be cut off from his people (kareth). In the first case he is exempt from kareth, in the second he is liable, while in the third he is exempt from kareth but liable to a trespass-offering. This contradicts R. Simeon b. Pazzi. its sacred service. But before the smoke has ascended trespass is involved, because the smell, being directly caused by the spices with which the incense is compounded, is regarded as tangible. altar, where the earth absorbed it. it’ refers to the censerful. general analogy. But when it is taught in two cases it cannot be extended; for if it were intended to illumine others too, it would be written in one instance only, and the second, together with all others, would follow from it. entered the Holy of Holies. indicates that it must remain there and all benefit thereof is forbidden, though its religious purpose had already been fulfilled. to exclude all other cases from the operation of this law, which forbids benefit even after the religious requirements have been carried out. been wrought with and which hath not drawn in