Pesachim 26

Chapter 26

א בכדי חסרונן אבל יותר מכדי חסרונן מוכרן בבית דין וכל שכן הכא דהא פסידי לגמרי:
1 when there is the normal rate of decrease; but when [the loss] exceeds the normal rate of decrease, [all agree that] he must sell it by a court order. How much more so here that it is entirely lost.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If unsold before it becomes interdicted.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב ועוד אמר ר' יהודה שתי חלות כו': תני תנא קמיה דרב יהודה על גב האיצטבא א"ל וכי להצניען הוא צריך תני על גג האיצטבא
2 R'JUDAH SAID FURTHER: TWO [UNFIT] LOAVES, etc. A Tanna recited before Rab Judah: on the top [gab] of the [Temple] iztaba.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word may denote a bench or a portico. The reading 'on the top' (gab) implies the former rendering. Hence the question that follows, v. Rashi.');"><sup>2</sup></span> Said he to him: Does he then need to hide them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely they are intended to be exposed for public gaze.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ג אמר רחבא אמר ר' יהודה הר הבית סטיו כפול היה תניא נמי הכי הר הבית סטיו כפול היה רבי יהודה אומר איסטוונית היתה נקראת סטיו לפנים מסטיו:
3 Learn: on the roof of the [temple] iztaba [portico]. Rehaba said in R'Judah's name:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Bez., Sonc. ed. p. 54, n. 9.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ד פסולות וכו': אמאי פסולות אמר רבי חנינא מתוך שהיו מרובות נפסלות בלינה דתניא אין מביאין תודה בחג המצות מפני חמץ שבה
4 The Temple Mount consisted of a double colonnade.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [GR. **. For a description of the Temple porticoes v. Josephus, Wars v, 5.3 v. also Derenbonrg, Essai p. 51. kupf uhyx');"><sup>5</sup></span> It was taught likewise: The Temple Mount consisted of a double colonnade.
ה פשיט' אמר רב אדא בר אהבה הכא בי"ד עסקינן וקסבר אין מביאין קדשים לבית הפסול
5 R'Judah said: It was called istewawnith,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a double colonnade'. [ == GR. ** of Josephus, Wars V. 5.2. v. Hollis, F. J. Herod's Temple p. 15.]');"><sup>6</sup></span> [being] a colonnade within a colonnade.
ו וכולי עלמא בשלשה עשר מייתי להו ומתוך שהן מרובות נפסלות בלינה
6 UNFIT etc. , why UNFIT? - Said R'Hanin: Since they were many they became unfit through being kept overnight. For it was taught: A thanksoffering may not be brought during the Feast of Unleavened Bread on account of the leaven therein.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Forty loaves accompanied the offering, ten of which were leaven.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ז משום ר' ינאי אמרו כשירות היו ואלא אמאי קרי להו פסולות שלא נשחט עליהן הזבח ונשחוט שאבד הזבח
7 But that is obvious? - Said R'Adda B'Ahabah: We treat here of the fourteenth. and he [the Tanna] holds: Sacred food may not be brought to unfitness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A thanksoffering may be eaten on the day that it is brought and the following night. But if it is brought on the fourteenth of Nisan the loaves of leaven may be eaten only until noon, and this Tanna holds that a sacrifice may not be brought at a time when the normal period for its consumption is lessened, so that it is likely to become unfit.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ח ונייתי זבח אחר ונשחוט דאמר זו תודה וזו לחמה וכדרבה דאמר רבה אבד הלחם מביא לחם אחר אבדה תודה אין מביא תודה אחרת מ"ט לחם גלל תודה ואין תודה גלל לחם
8 Hence everybody brought it on the thirteenth, and since they were numerous they became unfit through being kept overnight. In R'Jannai's name it was said: They were fit, yet why are they called unfit?
ט וניפרקינהו ונפקינהו לחולין אלא לעולם שנשחט עליהן הזבח ונשפך הדם
9 Because the sacrifice had not been slaughtered for them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., we need not assume that the reference is to loaves which were in fact unfit through having been kept overnight, but even if the sacrifice had not been slaughtered they are also so designated, because the loaves may not be eaten until the thanksoffering is killed on their behalf.');"><sup>9</sup></span> Then let us slaughter [it]? - The sacrifice was lost.
י וכמאן כרבי דאמר רבי שני דברים המתירין מעלין זה בלא זה דתניא כבשי עצרת אין מקדשין את הלחם אלא בשחיטה כיצד שחטן לשמן וזרק דמן לשמן קידש הלחם
10 Then let us bring another sacrifice and slaughter [it]? - It is a case where he [the owner] had declared: 'This [animal] is a thanksoffering and these are its loaves,' this being in accordance with Rabbah. For Rabbah said: If the loaves are lost, other loaves may be brought.
יא שחטן שלא לשמן וזרק דמן שלא לשמן לא קידש הלחם שחטן לשמן וזרק דמן שלא לשמן לחם קדוש ואינו קדוש דברי רבי
11 If the thanksoffering is lost, another thanksoffering may not be brought - What is the reason? The loaves are subsidiary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. , 'on account of'.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יב ר' אלעזר בר"ש אומר לעולם אינו קדוש הלחם עד שישחוט לשמן ויזרוק דמן לשמן
12 to the thanksoffering, but the thanksoffering is not subsidiary to the loaves. Then let us redeem and free them as hullin?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the loaves in that case can be redeemed.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יג אפי' תימא ר' אלעזר ברבי שמעון הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שנתקבל הדם בכוס ונשפך
13 - But in truth it is a case where the sacrifice was slaughtered for them, but the blood was poured out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The loaves cannot be redeemed then.');"><sup>12</sup></span> And with whom [does this agree]?
יד ור"א בר"ש סבר ליה כאבוה דאמר כל העומד לזרוק כזרוק דמי
14 With Rabbi, who said: The two things which permit, promote [to sanctity] without each other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The slaughtering and the sprinkling of the blood are both required before the loaves may be eaten; on the other hand, one alone suffices to promote them to that degree of sanctity ('intrinsic sanctity, as opposed to 'monetary' sanctity) ; from which they cannot be redeemed.');"><sup>13</sup></span> For it was taught: The lambs of Pentecost<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the solemn assembly' - the term without further qualification always refers to Pentecost.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
טו תנא משום רבי אלעזר אמרו כשירות היו כל זמן שמונחות כל העם אוכלין ניטלה אחת מהן תולין לא אוכלין ולא שורפין ניטלו שתיהן התחילו כולן שורפין
15 sanctify the loaves only by shechitah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. It is stated in Lev. XXIII, 19f: And ye shall offer . . two he-lambs . . and the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits');"><sup>15</sup></span> How so?
טז תניא אבא שאול אומר
16 If he kills them for their own purpose<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for their name - I.e., as the Pentecost sacrifices.');"><sup>16</sup></span> and sprinkles their blood for their own purpose, he [thereby] sanctifies the loaves. If he kill them for a purpose that is not theirs and sprinkles their blood for a purpose that is not theirs, he does not sanctify [thereby] the loaves - If he kills them for their own purpose but sprinkles their blood for a purpose that is not theirs, the bread is sanctified and not sanctified;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The loaves are sanctified in that they become unfit if taken without the sacred precincts and that they cannot be redeemed, for they are now intrinsically holy. Yet they are unsancitified in the sense that they may not be eaten.');"><sup>17</sup></span> this is Rabbi's ruling. R'Eleazar B'R'Simeon said: The bread always remains unsanctified until he kills [the lambs] for their own purpose and sprinkles their blood for their own purpose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus the statement that our Mishnah refers to a case where the offering had been slaughtered but its blood was not sprinkled and thereby the loaves were sanctified, would appear to agree with Rabbi only.');"><sup>18</sup></span> - [No,] you may even say [that it agrees with] R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon; but the case we discuss here is where the blood was caught in a goblet and then spilled, while R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon holds as his father, who maintained: That which stands to be sprinkled is as though it were sprinkled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the sense that the animal is unfit as a sacred offering which has become unfit. Yet it may not be eaten unless the blood is sprinkled.');"><sup>19</sup></span> A Tanna taught: In R'Eleazar's name it was said: They [the loaves] were fit. As long as they [both] lay [there], all the people ate [leaven]; when one was removed, they kept [the leaven] in suspense, neither eating nor burning [it]; when both were removed, all commenced burning [their leaven]. It was taught, Abba Saul said:
Previous ChapterNext Chapter