פסחים 64 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Now [the rulings on] wringing are contradictory, [and the rulings on] burning [the fat] are contradictory? — Then according to your reasoning, let that [Baraitha] itself present a difficulty to you. For it teaches, ‘They said [this] of nought except the Passover offering alone; and then it teaches, ‘Whether he slaughters or he sprinkles or he wrings [a bird's neck] or he sprinkles [the blood of the bird]? [Say] rather, both are [according to] R. Simeon; [the rulings on] wringing are not contradictory: here it refers to the fourteenth, while there it means during the Intermediate Days, and thus both the one and the other are [according to] R. Simeon. [The rulings on] the burning [of fat] too are not contradictory: it is dependent on Tannaim. For some compare burning to slaughtering, whilst others do not compare [them]. R. JUDAH SAID: THE [EVENING] TAMID TOO etc. What is R. Judah's reason? — He tells you: Scripture saith, [Thou shalt not slaughter the blood of] My sacrifice, [implying] the sacrifice which is particularly assigned to Me; and which is that? the tamid. R. SIMEON SAID: [IF HE SLAUGHTERS] THE PASSOVER SACRIFICE [WITH LEAVEN] ON THE FOURTEENTH etc. What is R. Simeon's reason? — Because ‘My sacrifice,’ ‘My sacrifice,’ is written twice: read it, ‘a sacrifice,’ ‘My sacrifices’. For what law did the Divine Law divide them from one another and not write ‘My sacrifices’ [in one word]? To intimate: when there is ‘a sacrifice’ [viz., the Paschal lamb], you are not liable on account of ‘My sacrifices’; when there is no ‘sacrifice,’ you are liable for ‘My sacrifices’. [BUT IF HE KILLS THE PASSOVER OFFERING WITH LEAVEN] ON THE FESTIVAL, IF FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE, HE IS EXEMPT etc. The reason is that it is for a different purpose, but if it is unspecified, he is exempt. [Yet] why? The Passover offering during the rest of the year is a peace-offering! Can you then infer from this [that] the Passover offering during the rest of the year requires cancellation? — Said R. Hiyya b. Gamada: It was thrown out from the mouth of the company and they said: [The circumstances are] e.g., that its owners were unclean by reason of a dead body and relegated to the second Passover, so that while unspecified it [still] stands [to be sacrificed] as a Passover offering. MISHNAH. THE PASSOVER OFFERING IS SLAUGHTERED IN THREE DIVISIONS, FOR IT IS SAID, AND THE WHOLE ASSEMBLY OF THE CONGREGATION OF ISRAEL SHALL KILL IT: [I.E.,] ‘ASSEMBLY,’ ‘CONGREGATION,’ AND ‘ISRAEL.’ THE FIRST DIVISION ENTERED, THE TEMPLE COURT WAS FILLED, THEY CLOSED THE DOORS OF THE TEMPLE COURT, THEY SOUNDED A TEKI'AH, A TERU'AH, AND A TEKI'AH. THE PRIESTS STOOD IN ROWS, AND IN THEIR HANDS WERE BASINS OF SILVER AND BASINS OF GOLD; A ROW WHICH WAS ENTIRELY OF SILVER WAS OF SILVER, AND A ROW WHICH WAS ENTIRELY OF GOLD WAS OF GOLD: THEY WERE NOT MIXED; AND THE BASINS HAD NO [FLAT] BOTTOMS, LEST THEY PUT THEM DOWN AND THE BLOOD BECOME CONGEALED. THE ISRAELITE KILLED [THE LAMB], AND THE PRIEST CAUGHT [THE BLOOD]; HE HANDED IT TO HIS COLLEAGUE AND HIS COLLEAGUE [PASSED IT ON] TO HIS COLLEAGUE; AND HE RECEIVED THE FULL [BASIN] AND GAVE BACK THE EMPTY ONE. THE PRIEST NEAREST THE ALTAR SPRINKLED IT ONCE OVER AGAINST THE BASE [OR THE ALTAR]. THE FIRST DIVISION [THEN] WENT OUT AND THE SECOND ENTERED; THE SECOND WENT OUT AND THE THIRD ENTERED. AS THE MANNER OF THE FIRST [GROUP], SO WAS THE MANNER OF THE SECOND AND THE THIRD. THEY RECITED THE HALLEL; IF THEY FINISHED IT THEY REPEATED, AND IF THEY REPEATED [AND WERE NOT FINISHED YET], THEY RECITED IT A THIRD TIME, THOUGH THEY NEVER DID RECITE IT A THIRD TIME. R. JUDAH SAID: THE THIRD DIVISION NEVER REACHED ‘I LOVE THAT THE LORD SHOULD HEAR’ [ETC.], BECAUSE THE PEOPLE FOR IT WERE FEW. AS WAS DONE ON WEEK-DAYS SO WAS DONE ON THE SABBATH, SAVE THAT THE PRIESTS SWILLED THE TEMPLE COURT, [BUT] WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE SAGES. R. JUDAH SAID: HE [A PRIEST] USED TO FILL A GOBLET WITH THE MIXED BLOOD [AND] HE SPRINKLED IT ONCE ON THE ALTAR; BUT THE SAGES DID NOT AGREE WITH HIM. HOW DID THEY HANG UP [THE SACRIFICES] AND FLAY [THEM]? THERE WERE IRON HOOKS FIXED IN THE WALLS AND IN THE PILLARS, ON WHICH THEY SUSPENDED [THE SACRIFICES] AND FLAYED [THEM]. IF ANY ONE HAD NO PLACE TO SUSPEND AND FLAY, THERE WERE THERE THIN SMOOTH STAVES WHICH HE PLACED ON HIS SHOULDER AND ON HIS NEIGHBOUR'S SHOULDER, AND SO SUSPENDED [THE ANIMAL] AND FLAYED [IT]. R. ELIEZER SAID: WHEN THE FOURTEENTH^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ

^ᵃnote:The last two refer to birds, hence not to the Passover offering, v. p. 321, n. 7.
^ᵇnote:In the first Baraitha.
^ᶜnote:As is distinctly stated. Then he is exempt, culpability being incurred on that day only for the Paschal lamb.
^ᵈnote:In the second Baraitha.
^ᵉnote:Actually only slaughtering which includes sprinkling is mentioned in Ex. XXXIV, 25. (Thou shalt not slaughter the blood of etc.’), but some maintain that burning is the same.
^ᶠnote:Ex. XXIII, 18; XXXIV, 25.
^ᵍnote:In Ex. XXIII, 18 and XXXIV, 25.
^ʰnote:I.e., by transferring the yod (h) from one hjcz to the other, we have jcz, hhjcz, a ‘sacrifice’ referring to the Paschal lamb, and hhjcz, ‘My sacrifices’, plural, referring to all others.
^ⁱnote:I.e., he explicitly states thus.
^ʲnote:I.e., at any time other than the eve of Passover.
^ᵏnote:Automatically. Why then is an explicit declaration required.
^ˡnote:Viz., that we do nevertheless require this explicit statement.
^ᵐnote:Lit., uprooting’, ‘eradicating’. I.e., it does not become a peace-offering automatically, but its character as a Passover offering must be explicitly cancelled.
^ⁿnote:I.e., all the scholars unanimously declared.
^ᵒnote:V. Num. IX, 10ff.
^ᵖnote:In the following month; therefore it is not a peace-offering automatically. But in other cases it is, and an explicit declaration is then unnecessary.
^ᵠnote:Irrespective of the number sacrificing.
^ʳnote:Ex. XII, 6.
^ˢnote:Each denotes a separate division.
^ᵗnote:Teki'ah is a long, straight blast on the shofar (ram's horn); teru'ah is a series of three short consecutive blasts.
^ᵘnote:To receive the blood.
^ᵛnote:After the blood had been sprinkled. Thus it was worked on the ‘endless-chain’ system.
^ʷnote:I.e., on the side which has a projecting base, viz., the north and west sides of the altar, v. Mid. III, 1.
^ˣnote:Lit., ‘praise’, a liturgical passage at present consisting of Ps. CXIII-CXVIII. This was recited by each group.
^ʸnote:Before they finished sacrificing.
^ᶻnote:Lit., ‘from the days of the third party they did not reach’.
^ᵃᵃnote:Ps. CXVI, 1 seq.
^ᵃᵇnote:The blood of many sacrifices which ran together.

²FELL ON THE SABBATH, HE PLACED HIS HAND ON HIS NEIGHBOUR'S SHOULDER AND HIS NEIGHBOUR'S HAND ON HIS SHOULDER, AND HE [THUS] SUSPENDED [THE SACRIFICE] AND FLAYED [IT]. THEN HE TORE IT AND TOOK OUT ITS EMURIM, PLACED THEM IN A TRAY AND BURNT THEM ON THE ALTAR. THE FIRST DIVISION WENT OUT AND SAT DOWN ON THE TEMPLE MOUNT, THE SECOND [SAT] IN THE HEL, WHILE THE THIRD REMAINED IN ITS PLACE. WHEN IT GREW DARK THEY WENT OUT AND ROASTED THEIR PASCHAL LAMBS. GEMARA. R. Isaac said: The Passover offering was not slaughtered except in three divisions each consisting of thirty men. What is the reason? ‘Assembly’ ‘congregation,’ and ‘Israel’ [are prescribed, and] we are doubtful whether [that means] at the same time or consecutively. Therefore we require three divisions each consisting of thirty men, so that if [it means] at the same time, they are there; and if consecutively, they are there. Hence fifty [in all] too are sufficient, thirty entering and preparing [their sacrifices], then ten enter and ten leave, [and another] ten enter and [another] ten leave. THE FIRST DIVISION ENTERED etc. It was stated, Abaye said: We learned, ‘They [the doors] locked themselves’; Raba said, We learned: THEY LOCKED. Wherein do they differ? — They differ in respect of relying on a miracle. ‘Abaye said, We learned, They locked themselves’; as many as entered, entered, and we rely on a miracle. Raba said, We learned, THEY LOCKED, and we do not rely on a miracle. And as to what we learned, R. Judah said: Heaven forfend that Akabia b. Mehalallel was banned! for the wisdom and fear of sin to Akabia b. Mehalallel, — Abaye explains Temple Court was never closed upon any man in Israel equal in it according to his view, [while] Raba explains it according to his view. Abaye explains it according to his view: there was none in the Temple Court when it closed itself upon every man in Israel like Akabia b. Mehalallel in wisdom and fear of sin. Raba explains it according to his view: There was none in the Temple Court when they closed it on all Israel like Akabia b. Mehalallel in wisdom and the fear of sin. Our Rabbis taught: No man was ever crushed in the Temple Court except on one Passover in the days of Hillel, when an old man was crushed, and they called it ‘The Passover of the crushed’. Our Rabbis taught: King Agrippa once wished to cast his eyes on the hosts of Israel. Said he to the High Priest, Cast your eyes upon the Passover sacrifices. He [thereupon] took a kidney from each, and six-hundred-thousand pairs of kidneys were found there, twice as many as those who departed from Egypt, excluding those who were unclean and those who were on a distant journey; and there was not a single Paschal lamb for which more than ten people had not registered; and they called it, ‘The Passover of the dense throngs.’ ‘He took a kidney’! but it required burning [on the altar]? He burned them subsequently. But it is written, And [Aaron's sons] shall burn it etc., [which intimates] that he must not mix the fat [portions] of one [sacrifice] with [that of] another? — He subsequently burned them each separately. But it was taught: And [the priest] shall burn then,: [this teaches] that all of it must be [burnt] simultaneously. But it was a mere seizure, i.e., he took it from them until they gave him something else. THE PRIESTS STOOD IN ROWS etc. What is the reason? Shall we say, lest they take [a basin] of gold and return [a basin] of silver; then here too, perhaps they might take [a basin] of two hundred [measures] capacity and return one of one hundred? Rather, [the reason is] that it is more becoming thus. AND THE BASINS DID NOT HAVE [FLAT] BOTTOMS etc. Our Rabbis taught: None of the basins in the Temple had [flat] bottoms, except the basins of the frankincense for the shewbread, lest they put them down and they break up the bread. AN ISRAELITE KILLED AND THE PRIEST CAUGHT [THE BLOOD] etc. Is then an Israelite indispensable? — He [the Tanna] informs us that very fact, viz., that the shechitah is valid [when done] by a lay Israelite. AND THE PRIEST CAUGHT [THE BLOOD] informs us this: from the receiving of the blood and onwards it is a priestly duty. HE HANDED IT TO HIS COLLEAGUE. You can infer from this that carrying without moving the feet is carrying! [No:] perhaps he moved slightly [too]. Then [in that case] what does he inform us? — He informs us this: In the multitude of people is the king's glory. HE RECEIVED THE FULL [BASIN] AND GAVE BACK THE EMPTY ONE etc. But not the reverse. This supports R. Simeon b. Lakish. For R. Simeon b. Lakish said: You must not postpone the precepts. THE PRIEST NEAREST THE ALTAR etc. Which Tanna [holds] that the Passover offering requires sprinkling? Said R. Hisda, it is R. Jose the Galilean. For it was taught, R. Jose the Galilean said: Thou shalt sprinkle their blood against the altar, and thou shalt burn their fat: ‘its blood’ is not said, but ‘their blood’; ‘its fat’ is not said, but ‘their fat’. This teaches concerning the firstling, the tithe [of animals] and the Passover offering, that they require the presenting of blood and emurim at the altar. How do we know that they require [sprinkling against] the base? — Said R. Eleazar: The meaning of ‘sprinkling’ is deduced from, a burnt-offering. Here it is written, thou shalt sprinkle their blood against the altar, while there it is written, And Aaron's sons, the priests, shall sprinkle its blood against the altar round about: just as the burnt-offering requires [sprinkling against] the base, so does the Passover offering too require [sprinkling against] the base.^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ

^ᵃᶜnote:But the staves might not be used on that day.
^ᵃᵈnote:If the fourteenth fell on the Sabbath, as they could not carry their sacrifices home and had to wait for the evening.
^ᵃᵉnote:A place within the fortification of the Temple (Jast.); v. Mid. I, 5.
^ᵃᶠnote:And each expression denotes a minimum of ten.
^ᵃᵍnote:Or, were locked-miraculously, without human agency.
^ᵃʰnote:That the doors should shut themselves when sufficient had entered.
^ᵃⁱnote:V. ‘Ed. V, 6 for the whole discussion. ‘Was never closed’ — on the eve of Passover, at the sacrificing of the Paschal lambs.
^ᵃʲnote:In spite of the enormous crowds that thronged it.
^ᵃᵏnote:I.e., to take a census of the Jewish people. This was an unpopular proceeding, as it was regarded as of unfortunate omen; cf. I Chron. XXI. In addition, a census was looked upon with suspicion as being the possible precursor of fresh levies and taxation, and the decision of Quirinius, the governor of Syria, to take a census in Judea (c. 6-7 C.E.) nearly precipitated a revolt; v. Graetz. History of the Jews (Eng. translation) II, ch. V. pp. 129 seq. According to Graetz (op. cit. p. 252) the present census was undertaken by Agrippa II in the year 66 C.E. as a hint to the Roman powers not to underrate the strength of the Jewish people, and therefore avoid driving them too far by the cruelty and greed of the Procurator, at that time Gessius Florus. Graetz assumes that an extra large number flocked to Jerusalem on that occasion, and it is then that the old man was suffocated. This however does not agree with the statement that the man was crushed in the days of Hillel, which is a far earlier date, Hillel having flourished or commenced his Patriarchate one hundred years before the destruction of the Temple, i.e., 30 B.C.E.
^ᵃˡnote:After the event.
^ᵃᵐnote:Lev. III, 5.
^ᵃⁿnote:Lev. III, 16.
^ᵃᵒnote:All the parts of the sacrifice which are burnt on the altar (called emurim) must be burnt at the same time. Here, however, the kidneys would be burnt separately.
^ᵃᵖnote:The unpopularity of the census (v. p. 326, n. 2) may have necessitated this procedure.
^ᵃᵠnote:Which is ‘descending in sanctity’, and this must be avoided.
^ᵃʳnote:I.e., even with the present arrangements.
^ᵃˢnote:The general beauty and dignity of the proceedings are thereby enhanced.
^ᵃᵗnote:These vessels were kept near the shewbread, and if they were not provided with a base to stand on they might fall against the rows of shewbread and break up their formation.
^ᵃᵘnote:Lit., ‘is it not enough that it should not be an Israelite?’ — Surely a priest too could kill it!
^ᵃᵛnote:Carrying the blood to be sprinkled was one of the four services (v. supra 59b Mishnah), and there is a controversy in Zeb. 14b whether the priest actually had to walk a little for this or not. From the present passage we see that this was unnecessary.
^ᵃʷnote:Prov. XIV, 28.
^ᵃˣnote:It had to be done in this order.
^ᵃʸnote:Lit., ‘one must not pass by precepts’, but must perform them immediately they come to hand. Thus when the full basin is held out, the next priest must accept it immediately, before returning the empty one, as the reception of the full basin on its way to the sprinkling is a religious service.
^ᵃᶻnote:From the distance, and not just pouring out; v. infra 121a.
^ᵇᵃnote:Num. XVIII, 17.
^ᵇᵇnote:Though the passage treats of one sacrifice only, viz., the firstling. The plural possessive suffix indicates that other sacrifices too are included in this law.
^ᵇᶜnote:These are the only sacrifices in connection with which it is not mentioned elsewhere, hence the plural is applied to them. Furthermore, Scripture states ‘thou shalt sprinkle’ (tizrok), not ‘thou shalt pour out’ (tishpok).
^ᵇᵈnote:Lit., ‘"sprinkling", "sprinkling" is deduced from a burnt-offering’.
^ᵇᵉnote:Lev. I, 11.