פסחים 53:2 — Soncino English Talmud

It is near to making Israel eat sacred flesh without [the Temple]. [Thus,] only a ‘helmeted’ goat, but not if it is not ‘helmeted’? — I will tell you: if it is ‘helmeted’, there is no difference whether he stated or he did not state; [but] if it is not ‘helmeted’, if he specified, it is [forbidden]; if he did not specify, it is not [forbidden]. R. Aha learned this Baraitha as [the statement of] R. Simeon. To this R. Shesheth demurred: It is well according to him who learns it as [the statement of] R. Jose; then it is correct. But according to him who learns it as [the statement of] R. Simeon, is it correct?, Surely we learned, R. Simeon declares him exempt, because he did not make the offering in the way which people make [this] offering! Said Rabina to R. Ashi: And is it correct [even] according to him who learns it as [the statement of] R. Jose? Surely Raba said: R. Simeon stated this according to the view of R. Jose, who maintained: A man is held responsible for his last words too. Surely then, since R. Simeon agrees with R. Jose, R. Jose also agrees with R. Simeon? — No: R. Simeon agrees with R. Jose, but R. Jose does not agree with R. Simeon. The scholars asked: Was Thaddeus, the man of Rome, a great man or a powerful man? — Come and hear: This too did Thaddeus of Rome teach: What [reason] did Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah see that they delivered themselves, for the sanctification of the [Divine] Name, to the fiery furnace? They argued a minori to themselves: if frogs, which are not commanded concerning the sanctification of the [Divine] Name, yet it is written of them, and they shall come up and go into thy house . . . and into thine ovens, and into thy kneading troughs: when are the kneading troughs to be found near the oven? When the oven is hot. We, who are commanded concerning the sanctification of the Name, how much the more so. R. Jose b. Abin said: He cast merchandise into the Passover-sacrifice at the time of roasting, this is not the way in which people consecrate animals: therefore his words are invalid. pockets of scholars. For R. Johanan said: Whoever casts merchandise into the pockets of scholars will be privileged to sit in the Heavenly Academy, for it is said, for wisdom is a defence even as money is a defence. MISHNAH. WHERE IT IS THE PRACTICE TO LIGHT A LAMP [AT HOME] ON THE NIGHT OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT, ONE MUST LIGHT [ONE]; WHERE IT IS THE PRACTICE NOT TO LIGHT [A LAMP], ONE MUST NOT LIGHT [ONE]. AND WE LIGHT [LAMPS] IN SYNAGOGUES, SCHOOL-HOUSES, AND DARK ALLEYS, AND FOR THE SAKE OF INVALIDS. GEMARA. It was taught: Whether they maintained that we should light [lamps] or they maintained that we should not light [them], both intended [it] for the same purpose. R. Joshua said, Raba lectured: Thy people also shall all be righteous, they shall inherit the land for ever: etc. whether they maintained that we should light [lamps] or they maintained that we should not light [them], both intended nought but the same purpose. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: We do not recite a blessing over light except at the termination of the Sabbath, since it was then created for the first time. Said a certain old man to him-others state, Rabbah b. Bar Hanah — ‘Well spoken! and thus [too] did R. Johanan say. ‘Ulla was going along, riding an ass, while R. Abba proceeded at his right and Rabbah b. Bar Hanah at his left. Said R. Abba to ‘Ulla: Do you indeed say in R. Johanan's name: We do not recite a blessing over light except at the termination of the Sabbath, since it was then created for the first time? ‘Ulla turned round and looked at Rabbah b. Bar Hanah with displeasure. Said he to him, I said it not in reference to that but in reference to this. For a tanna recited before R. Johanan, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: When the Day of Atonement falls on the Sabbath, even where they maintain that we must not light [a lamp], we do light [it] in honour of the Sabbath; which R. Johanan followed with the remark, But the Sages forbid it. Said he to him, Let it be this. R. Jose applied to this the verse, Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water’;^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ

^ᵃnote:I.e., it is similar to sacrifices,
^ᵇnote:Should be forbidden.
^ᶜnote:That it was for Passover.
^ᵈnote:Not R. Jose.
^ᵉnote:V. Men. 103a. If a man declares, ‘I vow a meal-offering of barley’, the first Tanna rules that he must bring a meal-offering of wheat. For a man's liabilities are determined by his first words only, where these contradict his last words. Thus, when he declared, ‘I vow a meal-offering’, this is a binding vow; when he adds ‘of barley’, this is impossible, since only wheat is permitted; therefore his first words are binding. But R. Simeon maintains that he must be judged by his last words too: hence he really meant a meal-offering of barley, thinking that this is permitted; consequently his entire statement is invalid, and he is exempt. Now, in this case, how could it be regarded as near to sacred flesh? He did not consecrate the animal whilst alive, and even if he designated it a
^ᶠnote:Lit., ‘seized’.
^ᵍnote:That a vow made in an unusual manner is not binding. Hence the same difficulty arises according to R. Jose.
^ʰnote:He maintains that even when a vow is not made in a usual manner it must be taken into account, because no man speaks without a purpose. Hence though R. Simeon bases his ruling on R. Jose's view, R. Jose himself does indeed hold that a man is held responsible for his last words too, but only when both his first words and his last can take effect (v. Tem. 25b); but where his last words would completely nullify his statement, as here, they are disregarded; hence the vower is liable to a wheat meal-offering (Maharsha). So here too, if he declared at the roasting, ‘This be for a Passover sacrifice’, though such a vow is unusual, I would say that he means that a sacrifice shall be bought with its monetary value. Thus it is ‘near to sacred flesh’ on R. Jose's view. But according to R. Simeon this is a real difficulty, which remains unanswered.
^ⁱnote:Lit., ‘a man of fists’. — On what grounds did they refrain from imposing the ban?
^ʲnote:This is one of the great principles of Judaism: a man must by his actions sanctify the Divine Name, i.e., prove his deep conviction of the truth of Judaism even to the extent of suffering for it, and thereby shed lustre and glory upon it.
^ᵏnote:Ex. VII, 28.
^ˡnote:And yet at God's command they entered them.
^ᵐnote:This quotation shows that he was a great scholar.
^ⁿnote:I.e., he gave them opportunities for trading.
^ᵒnote:Eccl. VII, 12. R. Johanan translates: he will enter within the precincts (lit., ‘shadow’) of wisdom, who brings a scholar within the protection of his wealth.
^ᵖnote:I.e., before it commences, so that it should burn through the night.
^ᵠnote:viz., to curb their desire for sexual indulgence. The former argued that this would be the better effected by the presence of a lamp, because darkness is generally required; while the latter held that a lamp would strengthen his desire, as he could see his wife by the light.
^ʳnote:Isa. LX, 21.
^ˢnote:Lit., ‘that was the beginning of its creation’ on the evening of the first day.
^ᵗnote:For misrepresenting R. Johanan's view.
^ᵘnote:[MS. M.: I did not say this but that.]
^ᵛnote:Lit., ‘and R. Johanan answered after him’.
^ʷnote:I admit this to be right.