פסחים 65 — Soncino English Talmud

¹And how do we know it of the burnt-offering itself? — Scripture saith, at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering: this proves that the burnt-offering requires [sprinkling at] the base. THE FIRST DIVISION WENT OUT etc. A Tanna taught: It [the third division] was called the slothful division. But It was impossible otherwise? What should they have done! — Even so, they should have hurried themselves, as it was taught: Rabbi said: The world cannot exist without a perfume maker and without a tanner: happy is he whose craft is [that of] a perfume maker, [and] woe to him whose craft is [that of] a tanner. Nor can the world exist without males and females: happy is he whose children are males, [and] woe to him whose children are females. AS HE DID ON WEEK-DAYS etc. Without whose consent? — Said R. Hisda, Without the consent of R. Eliezer; for if [the ruling of] the Rabbis [is regarded], surely they maintain that it is a shebuth, and a shebuth is not [interdicted] in the Temple. What is this [allusion]? — For it was taught: Whether he milks, sets milk [for curdling], or makes cheese, [the standard for culpability is] as much as a dried fig. He who sweeps [the floor], lays [the dust by sprinkling water], and removes loaves of honey, [if he does this] unwittingly on the Sabbath, he is liable to a sin-offering; if he does it deliberately on a Festival, he is flagellated with forty [lashes]: this is R. Eliezer's view. But the Sages maintain: In both cases it is [forbidden] only as a shebuth. R. Ashi said: You may even say, [it means] without the consent of the Sages, this agreeing with R. Nathan. For it was taught, R. Nathan said: A shebuth that is necessary they permitted [in the Temple]; [but] a shebuth which is not necessary they did not permit. R. JUDAH SAID: HE USED TO FILL A GOBLET etc. It was taught, R. Judah said: He used to fill goblet with the mingled blood, so that should the blood of one of them be spilled, it is found that this renders it fit. Said they to R. Judah, But surely it [this mingled blood] had not been received in a basin? How do they know? Rather, they said thus to him: Perhaps it was not caught in a vessel? I too, he answered them, spoke only of that which was received in a vessel. How does he know? The priests are careful. If they are careful, why was it spilled? — Because of the speed with which they work, it is spilled. But the draining blood is mixed with it? — R. Judah is consistent with his view, for he maintained, The draining blood is [considered] proper blood. For it was taught: The draining blood is subject to a ‘warning’; R. Judah said: It is subject to kareth. But surely R. Eleazar said, R. Judah agrees in respect to atonement, that it does not make atonement, because it is said, for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of life:18^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ

^ᵃnote:Lev. IV, 7.
^ᵇnote:For in fact the altar was not used for the burnt-offering exclusively, the very sentence quoted treating of a sin-offering. Hence the verse must mean, at the base of the altar, as is done with the burnt-offering.
^ᶜnote:For remaining to the last.
^ᵈnote:This was not said in a spirit of contempt for the female sex, but in the realization of the anxieties caused by daughters; v. Sanh. 100b, (Sonc. ed.) p. p. 681).
^ᵉnote:I.e., on whose view is this wrong?
^ᶠnote:V. Glos.
^ᵍnote:Rashi, Jast.: beats milk into a pulp.
^ʰnote:Which is only a Rabbinical prohibition, and involves neither a sin-offering nor flagellation, v. Shab. 95a.
^ⁱnote:Lit., ‘the blood of those which were mixed’.
^ʲnote:This is an interjection: how do the Rabbis, who raise this objection, know that it was not caught in a vessel?
^ᵏnote:But poured straight from the animal's throat on to the ground. Rashi: in that case sprinkling is of no avail. Tosaf.: sprinkling, if already performed, is efficacious, but such blood must not be taken up to the altar in the first place.
^ˡnote:That it was caught in a vessel? For R. Judah prescribed this merely because the blood might have been spilled; then how can it be remedied with blood about which there is a doubt?
^ᵐnote:Zariz denotes both careful and speedy; they hurried to catch the blood, present it at the altar, and sprinkle it.
^ⁿnote:Tamzith denotes the last blood which slowly drains off the animal, contrad. to the lifeblood, which gushes forth in a stream.
^ᵒnote:Whereas the ‘life-blood’ is required for sprinkling.
^ᵖnote:This is a technical designation for a negative injunction whose violation is punished by lashes. But it involves no kareth, as does the consuming of the life-blood (v. Lev. XVII, 10f).
^ᵠnote:Just like life-blood. Hence it is also the same in respect to sprinkling.
^ʳnote:Ibid.

²blood wherewith life departs, makes atonement; and blood wherewith life does not depart, does not make atonement? — Rather [reply], R. Judah is consistent with his view, for he maintained: Blood cannot nullify [other] blood. It was taught, R. Judah said to the Sages: On your view, why did they stop up [the holes in] the Temple Court? Said they to him: It is praiseworthy for the sons of Aaron [the priests] to walk in blood up to their ankles. But it interposed? — It is moist [liquid] and does not interpose. As it was taught: Blood, ink, honey and milk, if dry, interpose; if moist, they do not interpose. But their garments become [blood-] stained, whereas It was taught: If his garments were soiled and he performed the service, his service is unfit? And should you answer that they raised their garments. surely it was taught: [And the priest shall put out] his linen measure: [that means] that it must not be [too] short nor too long? — [They could raise them] at the carrying of the limbs to the [Altar] ascent, which was not a service. Was it not? But since it required the priesthood, it was a service! For it was taught, And the priest shall offer the whole, [and burn it] on the altar: this refers to the carrying of the limbs to the [altar] ascent. — Rather [they could raise them] at the carrying of the wood to the [altar] pile, which was not a service. Nevertheless, how could they walk when carrying the limbs to the [altar] ascent and when carrying the blood? They walked on balconies. HOW DID THEY HANG UP [THE SACRIFICES] AND FLAY [THEM] etc. THEN HE TORE IT OPEN AND TOOK OUT ITS EMURIM, PLACED THEM ON A TRAY AND BURNT THEM [ON THE ALTAR]. Did he then burn them himself? Say, To burn them on the altar. THE FIRST DIVISION WENT OUT etc. A Tanna taught: Each one placed his paschal lamb in its hide and slung it behind him. Said R. ‘Ilish: In Arab-like fashion. CHAPTERVI MISHNAH. THESE THINGS IN [CONNECTION WITH] THE PASSOVER OFFERING OVERRIDE THE SABBATH: ITS SHECHITAH AND THE SPRINKLING OF ITS BLOOD AND THE CLEANSING OF ITS BOWELS AND THE BURNING OF ITS FAT. BUT ITS ROASTING AND THE WASHING OF ITS BOWELS DO NOT OVERRIDE THE SABBATH. ITS CARRYING AND BRINGING IT FROM WITHOUT THE TEHUM AND THE CUTTING OFF OF ITS WART DO NOT OVERRIDE THE SABBATH. R. ELIEZER SAID: THEY DO OVERRIDE [THE SABBATH]. SAID R. ELIEZER, DOES IT NOT FOLLOW A FORTIORI: IF SHECHITAH, WHICH IS [USUALLY FORBIDDEN] AS A LABOUR, OVERRIDES THE SABBATH, SHALL NOT THESE, WHICH ARE [ONLY FORBIDDEN] AS A SHEBUTH, OVERRIDE THE SABBATH? R. JOSHUA ANSWERED HIM, LET FESTIVAL[S] REBUT IT, WHEREIN THEY PERMITTED LABOUR AND FORBADE A SHEBUTH. SAID R. ELIEZER TO HIM, WHAT IS THIS, JOSHUA, WHAT PROOF IS A VOLUNTARY ACT IN RESPECT OF A PRECEPT! R. AKIBA ANSWERED AND SAID, LET HAZA'AH PROVE IT, WHICH IS [PERFORMED] BECAUSE IT IS A PRECEPT AND IS [NORMALLY FORBIDDEN ONLY] AS A SHEBUTH, YET IT DOES NOT OVERRIDE THE SABBATH; SO YOU TOO, DO NOT WONDER AT THESE, THAT THOUGH THEY ARE [REQUIRED] ON ACCOUNT OF THE PRECEPT AND ARE [ONLY FORBIDDEN] AS A SHEBUTH, YET THEY DO NOT OVERRIDE THE SABBATH. SAID R. ELIEZER TO HIM, BUT IN RESPECT OF THAT [ITSELF] I ARGUE: IF SHECHITAH, WHICH IS A LABOUR, OVERRIDES THE SABBATH, IS IT NOT LOGICAL THAT HAZA'AH, WHICH IS [ONLY] A SHEBUTH, OVERRIDES THE SABBATH!^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ

^ˢnote:To the question, ‘But the draining blood is mixed with it’.
^ᵗnote:Therefore there must be a little of proper (i.e., life-) blood, if spilled in this goblet of mixed blood, and that is sufficient for atonement.
^ᵘnote:On the eve of Passover they stopped up the holes through which the blood of the sacrifices passed out to the stream of Kidron.
^ᵛnote:Between the pavement and their feet, whereas they had to stand actually on the pavement itself, Zeb. 15b.
^ʷnote:When a person takes a ritual bath (tebillah), nothing must interpose between the water and his skin; if something does interpose, it invalidates the bath.
^ˣnote:I.e., they made them short, so that they did not reach down to the blood.
^ʸnote:E.V. Garment. Lev. VI, 3.
^ᶻnote:But reach exactly to the ground.
^ᵃᵃnote:Lev. I, 13.
^ᵃᵇnote:Projecting boards alongside the walls.
^ᵃᶜnote:This was not necessarily done by the same priest.
^ᵃᵈnote:In the fashion of Arab merchants, Rashi. Jast.: in the manner of travellers.
^ᵃᵉnote:Lit., ‘riding’ — i.e., carrying it upon one's shoulder.
^ᵃᶠnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃᵍnote:‘Labour’ (vftkn) denotes work regarded as Biblically forbidden, whereas a shebuth is only a Rabbinical interdict.
^ᵃʰnote:Lit., ‘prove’.
^ᵃⁱnote:Lit., ‘they permitted (that which is forbidden on the Sabbath) on account of labour’ etc. Slaughtering and cooking, for example, are permitted on Festivals, whereas bringing food from without the tehum which is only a Rabbinical prohibition, is forbidden.
^ᵃʲnote:Haza'ah connotes the sprinkling of the waters of purification (v. Lev. XIV, 7, 16; Num. XIX, 19) upon an unclean person; zerikah, the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifice upon the altar.
^ᵃᵏnote:If the seventh day of the unclean person (v. Num. ibid.) falls on the Sabbath, which happens to be the eve of