Pesachim 153

Chapter 153

א שעירי ראשי חדשים איצטריכא ליה סלקא דעתך אמינא הא לא כתיב בהו מועד קמ"ל דראש חדש איקרי מועד
1 It is necessary for him [to teach about] the he-goats of New Moons. I might argue, surely 'appointed season' [mo'ed] is not written in connection therewith;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas it is from this word that we deduce anon that festival public sacrifices override the Sabbath and uncleanness.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב כדאביי דאמר אביי תמוז דהאי שתא מלויי מליוה דכתיב (איכה א, טו) קרא עלי מועד לשבור בחורי
2 therefore he informs us that New Moon is designated mo'ed, in accordance with Abaye's [dictum]. For Abaye said, The Tammuz<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fourth month of the year, generally corresponding to June.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג למימרא דכולהו ממועד אתו מנהני מילי דתנו רבנן (ויקרא כג, מד) וידבר משה את מועדי ה' מה תלמוד לומר לפי שלא למדנו אלא לתמיד ופסח שנאמר בהו במועדו במועדו ואפילו בשבת במועדו ואפילו בטומאה
3 of that year<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which the spies reconnoitered the promised Land, with disastrous results, v. Num. XIII.');"><sup>3</sup></span> was indeed made full,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it consisted of 30 days. When it consists of 29 days it is called defective. Now, as they set out on the 29th of Sivan, the third month');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ד שאר קרבנות ציבור מניין שנאמר (במדבר כט, לט) אלה תעשו לה' במועדיכם
4 as it is written, He hath proclaimed an appointed time [mo'ed] against me to crush my young men.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lam. I, 15. Abaye appears to interpret thus: God caused New Moon (i.e., the 'appointed time' - mo'ed) of Tammuz in that year to be proclaimed on such a day that their return and the weeping of the people would coincide with the future anniversary of the destruction of the Temple. Hence, on this interpretation, New Moon too is designated 'mo'ed'.');"><sup>5</sup></span> Shall we say that all of them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., those mentioned in the Mishnah that may be offered in uncleanness.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ה מניין לרבות עומר והקרב עמו שתי הלחם והקרב עמם ת"ל וידבר משה את מועדי ה' אל בני ישראל הכתוב קבעו מועד אחד לכולן
5 are derived from mo'ed ['appointed time']? How do we know it?
ו וכל הני למה לי צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא תמיד הוה אמינא תמיד שכן תדיר וכליל אבל פסח לא קמ"ל
6 For our Rabbis taught: And Moses declared unto the children of Israel the appointed times of the Lord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIII, 44.');"><sup>7</sup></span> For what purpose is this stated?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that ali the Festivals are individually treated in that chapter.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ז ואי כתב רחמנא פסח פסח שהוא ענוש כרת אבל תמיד דאין ענוש כרת אימא לא קמ"ל
7 Because we have learnt only of the daily offering and the Passover-offering [that they override the Sabbath and uncleanness], since 'in its appointed time' is stated in connection with them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXVIII, 2; IX, 2. 'In its appointed time' implies that the sacrifice must be offered in all circumstances, as explained in the text.');"><sup>9</sup></span> 'in its appointed time' [implying] even on the Sabbath, 'in its appointed time' implying even in uncleanness.
ח ואי כתב רחמנא הני תרתי הוה אמינא הני הוא יש בהן צד חמור תמיד תדיר וכליל פסח שהוא ענוש כרת אבל שאר קרבנות ציבור אימא לא כתב רחמנא אלה תעשו לה' במועדיכם
8 Whence do we know it of other public sacrifices? Because it is said, These shall ye offer unto the Lord in your appointed time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXIX, 39. This verse ends the section (chs. XXVIII-XXIX) dealing with the public additional sacrifices on New Moon, the Sabbath and Festivals, and its effect is that the whole section is to be so understood as though 'in its appointed season' were explicitly written in connection with each.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ט ואי כתב רחמנא אלה תעשו לה' במועדיכם הוה אמינא שאר קרבנות ציבור הבאין לכפר אבל עומר ושתי הלחם דאין באין לכפר אלא להתיר בעלמא נינהו לא קמ"ל
9 Whence do we know to include the 'omer - and that which is offered with it, and the two loaves and that which is offered with them? Therefore it is stated, 'And Moses declared unto the children of Israel the appointed times of the Lord': the Writ fixed it as one appointed season for all of them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. previous note; the same applies here, and the 'omer and the two loaves are prescribed in this section (vv. 10f, 17f) .');"><sup>11</sup></span>
י ואי כתב רחמנא עומר ושתי הלחם לחודייהו הוה אמינא אדרבה עומר ושתי הלחם דאלימי דבאין להתיר אבל הנך לא קמ"ל
10 Now, what is the purpose of all these?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture could have written appointed season' in connection with one only, and the rest would follow.');"><sup>12</sup></span> - They are necessary.
יא סברוה דלכולי עלמא טומאה דחויה היא בציבור ובעי' ציץ לרצות
11 For if the Divine Law wrote it of the daily offering [alone], I would say: The daily offering [overrides the Sabbath and uncleanness] because it is constant and entirely burnt, but the Passover is not so;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is not constant by comparison.');"><sup>13</sup></span> hence we are informed [otherwise].
יב דליכא תנא דשמעת ליה דאמר טומאה הותרה בציבור אלא רבי יהודה דתניא ציץ בין שישנו על מצחו ובין שאינו על מצחו מרצה דברי ר"ש ר' יהודה אומר עודיהו על מצחו מרצה אין עודיהו על מצחו אינו מרצה
12 While if the Divine Law wrote it of the Passover-offering, [I would argue that] the Passover-offering [must be offered under all circumstances] because it involves the penalty of kareth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For not bringing it; v. Num. IX, 13.');"><sup>14</sup></span> but [as for] the continual offering, for [neglect of] which there is no penalty of kareth, I would say that it is not [so]; hence we are informed [otherwise].
יג אמר לו ר"ש כהן גדול ביום הכפורים יוכיח שאינו על מצחו ומרצה
13 Again, if the Divine Law wrote it of these two, I would say: These alone [override Sabbath and uncleanness, since they] possess a stringent feature, the continual offering being constant and entirely [burnt], the Passover-offering involving the penalty of kareth; but [as for] other public sacrifices, I would say, It is not so. [Hence] the Divine Law wrote, 'These shall ye offer unto the Lord in your appointed times.'
יד אמר לו הנח ליום הכפורים שטומאה הותרה בציבור מכלל דר"ש סבר טומאה דחויה היא בציבור
14 While if the Divine Law [merely] wrote, 'These shall ye offer unto the Lord in your appointed times,' I would argue: [It refers only to] other public sacrifices, which come to make atonement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The additional sacrifices make atonement for the transgression of affirmative precepts, v. Yoma 36a.');"><sup>15</sup></span> but [the sacrifices accompanying] the 'omer and the two loaves, which do not come to make atonement but are merely in order to permit [the new harvest] are not so; hence we are informed [otherwise].
טו ודכולי עלמא אין הציץ מרצה על אכילות דליכא תנא דשמעת ליה דאמר הציץ מרצה על אכילות אלא ר"א דתניא ר"א אומר הציץ מרצה על אכילות רבי יוסי אומר אין הציץ מרצה על אכילות
15 Again, if the Divine Law wrote [about] the 'omer and the two loaves alone, I would have said: On the contrary, it [applies only to] the 'omer and the two loaves which are more important, because they come to permit; but these others are not so. Hence we are informed [otherwise].
טז נימא מתניתין דלא כרבי יהושע דתניא (דברים יב, כז) ועשית עולותיך הבשר והדם רבי יהושע אומר אם אין דם אין בשר אם אין בשר אין דם
16 Now it was assumed that all hold that uncleanness is overridden in the case of a community, hence the headplate is required for propitiation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., though uncleanness is not a bar when the whole community is unclean, Scripture does not mean that the normal interdict of uncleanness is completely abrogated, so that it is permitted, but merely that the interdict is overridden in favour of the community. Now in Ex. XXVIII, 38 it is stated: And it (the head plate) shall be upon Aaron's forehead, and Aaron shall bear (i.e., atone for) the iniquity committed in the holy things (sc. sacrifices) . . and it shall always be upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord (i.e., that these sacrifices shall be fit) . 'The iniquity' is understood to refer to a case where a sacrifice accidentally became unclean, and the headplate atones for it, so that it remains fit. Since we hold that even in the case of a community uncleanness is merely overridden, but not actually permitted, the head plate is required for propitiation even then.');"><sup>16</sup></span> For there is no [other] Tanna whom you know to maintain [that] uncleanness is permitted in the case of a community<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the propitiation of the headplate is not required at all.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
יז רבי אליעזר אומר דם אף על פי שאין בשר שנאמר (דברים יב, כז) ודם זבחיך ישפך ומה אני מקיים ועשית עולותיך הבשר והדם לומר לך מה דם בזריקה אף בשר בזריקה
17 but R'Judah. For it was taught: The headplate, whether it is on his [the High Priest's] forehead<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the sacrifice accidentally becomes unclean.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
יח הוי אומר לול קטן יש בין כבש למזבח
18 or it is not on his forehead, propitiates; this is the view R'Simeon, R'Judah maintained: If it is still on his forehead, it propitiates; if it is not still on his forehe does not propitiate. Said R'Simeon to him: Let the High Priest on the Day of Atonement prove it, for it is not on his forehead, and [yet] it propitiates!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On that day he put aside all his usual vestments, which included the headplate, and wore simple linen garments (v. Lev. XVI,4) . Yet if the community was unclean he still offered the sacrifices, and the headplate 'made them acceptable'.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
יט ורבי יהושע נמי הכתיב ודם זבחיך ישפך אמר לך הא כתיב גביה והבשר תאכל
19 - Leave the Day of Atonement, replied he, because uncleanness is permitted in the case of a community. Whence it follows that R'Simeon holds: Uncleanness is overridden in the case of a community. Again, [it was assumed that all hold,] the headplate does not propitiate for [the defilement of] eatables,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the flesh or the part of the meal-offering which is eaten is defiled, the sacrifice cannot be proceeded with, the headplate propitiating only if the blood or the handful which is burnt on the altar is defiled.');"><sup>20</sup></span> for there is no Tanna whom you know to maintain [that] the headplate propitiates for [the defilement of] eatables save R'Eleazar. For it was taught, R'Eleazar said: The headplate propitiates for [the defilement of] eatables; R'Jose said: The headplate does not propitiate for the defilement of eatables.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These two assumption are the necessary premises for the question which follows.');"><sup>21</sup></span> [Accordingly,] shall we say that our Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which states that the 'omer, the two loaves, etc., may be offered in uncleanness, although the plate does not propitiate on the eatable parts of these offerings.');"><sup>22</sup></span> does not agree with R'Joshua? For it was taught, And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh, and the blood.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 27.');"><sup>23</sup></span> R'Joshua said: If there is no blood there is no flesh, and if there is no flesh there is no blood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I. e., if either is defiled, the other is unfit for its purpose.');"><sup>24</sup></span> R'Eliezer said: The blood [is fit] even if there is n flesh, because it is said, And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out [against the altar of the Lord th God].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');"><sup>25</sup></span> Then how do I interpret,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'fulfil'.');"><sup>26</sup></span> 'and thou shalt offer thy burnt-offering, the flesh and the blood? ' [It is] teach you: just as the blood requires throwing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., dashing against the altar.');"><sup>27</sup></span> so does the flesh require throwing:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On to the altar.');"><sup>28</sup></span> hence say, there was a small passage-way between the stairway and the altar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently a priest standing at the top of the ascent could not place the flesh on the altar but had to throw it.');"><sup>29</sup></span> Now [according to] R'Joshua too, surely it is written, 'and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out? ' - He can answer you: surely in connection therewith is written, and thou shalt eat the flesh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 27. This proves that the flesh too must be fit for eating.');"><sup>30</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter