Pesachim 51

ורבא אמר לך עד כאן לא קאמר ר' יהודה שאין מתכוין כמתכוין אלא לחומרא אבל מתכוין כשאין מתכוין לקולא לא

Raba says thus: R'Judah rules that the unintentional is the same as the intentional only in the direction of stringency, but he did not rule that the intentional is the same as the unintentional where it is in the directi of leniency. Abaye said: Whence do I know it?

אמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דתניא אמרו עליו על רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שהיה יושב בצילו של היכל ודורש כל היום כולו והא הכא דלא אפשר ומיכוין ושרי

Because it was taught: It was related of R'Johanan B'Zakkai that he was sitting in the shadow of the Temple and teaching all day.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He was lecturing on the laws of Festivals to the masses, this being within thirty days before a Festival; v. supra ');">¹</span> Now here it was impossible [not to lecture], and he intended [to benefit from the shade], and it is permitted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though one must not derive any benefit from the Temple.');">²</span>

ורבא אמר שאני היכל דלתוכו עשוי

But Raba said: The Temple was different, because it was made for its inside.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was normally used inside; hence the shade was not forbidden at all.');">³</span> Raba said: Whence do I know it?

אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה (דתניא) לולין היו פתוחין בעליית בית קדשי הקדשים שבהן משלשלין את האומנים בתיבות כדי שלא יזונו עיניהם מבית קדשי הקדשים והא הכא דלא אפשר וקא מיכוין ואסור

Because we learned: There were passage ways opening in the upper chamber to<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the loft of'; v. Mid. IV, 5.');">⁴</span> the Holy of Holies, through which the artisans were lowered in boxes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., closed lifts. When they had to pass there for making repairs.');">⁵</span>

ותסברא והאמר ר' שמעון בן פזי א"ר יהושע בן לוי משום בר קפרא קול ומראה וריח אין בהן משום מעילה אלא מעלה עשו בבית קדשי הקדשים

so that they might not feast their eyes on the Holy of Holies. Now here it was impossible [to avoid going there], and he [the workman] intended [to gaze at the Holy of Holies], and it was forbidden.

איכא דאמרי אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דתניא אמר ר' שמעון בן פזי אמר ר' יהושע בן לוי משום בר קפרא קול ומראה וריח אין בהן משום מעילה מעילה הוא דליכא הא איסורא איכא

But is that logical? Surely R'Simeon B'Pazzi said in R'Joshua B'Levi's name on Bar Kappara's authority: Sound, sight, and smell do not involve trespass?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He who benefits from sacred things (hekdesh) commits trespass and is liable to a sacrifice. But no trespass is involved when he benefits by sound, sight or smell, e.g., when he hears the music in the Temple, sees the beauty of the Temple, or smells the frankincense. Consequently, even if workmen did look upon the Holy of Holies it would not really matter.');">⁶</span>

מאי לאו לאותן העומדין בפנים דלא אפשר וקא מיכוין ואסור לא לאותן העומדין בחוץ

Rather, they set up a higher standard for the Holy of Holies.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Forbidding even that which the law permitted.');">⁷</span> Others state, Raba said: Whence do I know it?

גופא א"ר שמעון בן פזי אמר ריב"ל משום בר קפרא קול ומראה וריח אין בהן משום מעילה וריח אין בו משום מעילה והא תניא המפטם את הקטורת להתלמד בה או למוסרה לציבור פטור להריח בה חייב והמריח בה פטור אלא שמעל

Because it was taught, R'Simeon B'Pazzi said in R'Joshua B'Levi's name on Bar Kappara's authority: Sound, sight, and smell do not involve trespass. [Thus] they merely do not involve trespass, but there is an interdict.

אלא אמר רב פפא קול ומראה אין בהן משום מעילה לפי שאין בהן ממש וריח לאחר שתעלה תמרותו אין בו משום מעילה הואיל ונעשית מצותו

Is that not for those who stand inside [the Temple],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., those engaged on some Temple service.');">⁸</span> so that it is impossible [to avoid it], while there is, an intention [to enjoy], and it is forbidden? - No: it r to those standing outside.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who can avoid enjoying these things.');">⁹</span>

למימרא דכל היכא דנעשית מצותו אין בו משום מעילה והרי תרומת הדשן דנעשית מצותה ויש בה משום מעילה דכתיב (ויקרא ו, ג) ושמו אצל המזבח שלא יפזר ושמו שלא יהנה

[It was stated in] the text, R'Simeon B'Pazzi said in R'Joshua B'Levi's name on Bar Kappara's authority Sound, sight, and smell do not involve trespass.' But, does not smell involve trespass?

משום דהוו תרומת הדשן ובגדי כהונה שני כתובין הבאין כאחד וכל שני כתובין הבאין כאחד אין מלמדין

Surely it was taught: He who compounds incense in order to learn [the art thereof] or to give it over to the community<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For use in the Temple.');">¹⁰</span> is exempt; [if] in order to smell it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he intends keeping it for smelling.');">¹¹</span>

תרומת הדשן הא דאמרן בגדי כהונה דכתיב (ויקרא טז, כג) והניחם שם מלמד שטעונין גניזה

he is liable; while he who smells it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the incense belonging to the community and in use in the Temple.');">¹²</span> is exempt, but that he commits trespass!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is to Ex. XXX, 33: Whosoever compoundeth any like it, or whosoever putteth any of it upon a stranger, he shall be cut off from his people (kareth) . In the first case he is exempt from kareth, in the second he is liable, while in the third he is exempt from kareth but liable to a trespass-offering. This contradicts R. Simeon b. Pazzi.');">¹³</span>

הניחא לרבנן דאמרי מלמד שטעונין גניזה אלא לר' דוסא דפליג עלייהו דאמר אבל ראויין הן לכהן הדיוט ומאי והניחם שם שלא ישתמש בהם ביום כפורים אחר מאי איכא למימר

Rather, said R'Papa: Sound and sight do not involve trespass, because they are intangible; and smell, after its smoke column has ascended,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The incense was thrown upon burning coals, which caused a cloud or a column of smoke to ascend. This constituted its sacred service.');">¹⁴</span> does not involve trespass, since its religious service has been performed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The incense then does not count as the sacred things of the Lord, and it is to this case that R. Simeon b. Pazzi refers. But before the smoke has ascended trespass is involved, because the smell, being directly caused by the spices with which the incense is compounded, is regarded as tangible.');">¹⁵</span>

משום דהוו תרומת הדשן ועגלה ערופה שני כתובין הבאין כאחד וכל שני כתובין הבאין כאחד אין מלמדין

Shall we say that wherever the religious service has been performed no trespass is involved? But what of the separation of the ashes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A censerful (Yoma 24a) of the ashes of the daily burnt-offering was taken every day and placed at the side of the altar, where the earth absorbed it.');">¹⁶</span>

הניחא למ"ד אין מלמדין אלא למאן דאמר מלמדין מאי איכא למימר תרי מיעוטי כתיבי כתיב ושמו וכתיב (דברים כא, ו) הערופה

though its religious service has been performed, yet it involves trespass, for it is written; and he shall put them [the ashes] beside the altar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 3.');">¹⁷</span> [which means] that he [the priest] must not scatter nor use [them]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashal reads: (teaching) that others must not commit trespass therein, but all of it must be beside the altar. - 'All of it' refers to the censerful.');">¹⁸</span>

ת"ש הכניסה לרבקה ודשה כשירה בשביל שתינק ותדוש פסולה

- Because [the references to] the separation of the ashes and the priestly garments are two verses written with the same purpose,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'which come as one .');">¹⁹</span> and the teaching of two such verses does not illumine [other cases].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a general principle of exegesis. When a law is taught in one case it may be extended to other cases too by general analogy. But when it is taught in two cases it cannot be extended; for if it were intended to illumine others too, it would be written in one instance only, and the second, together with all others, would follow from it.');">²⁰</span>

והא הכא דלא אפשר וקא מיכוין וקתני פסולה שאני התם דכתיב אשר לא עובד בה מכל מקום

'The separation of the ashes': that which we have stated.' The priestly garments,' as it is written, and he shall leave them there:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 23. This refers to the additional garments worn by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement when he entered the Holy of Holies.');">²¹</span>

אי הכי אפילו רישא נמי

this teaches that they must be hidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And all use is forbidden. Here too they had fulfilled their religious purpose.');">²²</span> That is well on the view of the Rabbis who say, This teaches that they must be hidden. But according to R'Dosa who disagrees with them and maintains: But they are fit for an ordinary priest, while what does 'and he shall leave them there' mean? that he [the High Priest] must not use them on another Day of Atonement, what can be said? - Because the separation of ashes and the beheaded heifer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXI, 1-9. There too it is written, 'and shall break the heifer's neck there in the valley (v. 4) . 'There' indicates that it must remain there and all benefit thereof is forbidden, though its religious purpose had already been fulfilled.');">²³</span> are two verses with the same teaching, and such two verses do not illumine [other cases]. That is well according to him who maintains, They do not illumine [other cases]; but on the view that they do illumine,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah holds his view: v. Sanh. 67b.');">²⁴</span> what can be said? - Two limitations are written: it is written, 'and he shall put them [the ashes]'; and it is written, [over the heifer] whose neck was broken [etc.].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the one who is neckbroken'. Ibid. 6. 'The' too is a limitation and the combined effect of the two limitations is to exclude all other cases from the operation of this law, which forbids benefit even after the religious requirements have been carried out.');">²⁵</span> Come and hear: If he took it [the heifer] into the team<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of three or four cows used for threshing; his purpose was that it should suck.');">²⁶</span> and it [accidentally] did some threshing, it is fit;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To make atonement for a murder by an unknown person; v. Deut. ibid. The heifer was to be one 'which hath not been wrought with and which hath not drawn in');">²⁷</span> [but if it was] in order that it should suck and thresh, it is unfit. Now here it is impossible [to do otherwise],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It must be taken into the team to suck.');">²⁸</span> and he intends [to benefit], and he [the Tanna] teaches that it is unfit! - There it is different because Scripture saith, 'which hath not been wrought with,' [implying] in all cases. If so, even in the first clause too [the same applies]?