Pesachim 65

Chapter 65

א הזיד במעילה במיתה רבי היא דתניא הזיד במעילה רבי אומר במיתה וחכמים אומרים באזהרה
1 If he deliberately transgressed in respect of a trespass-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he deliberately transgressed where an unwitting transgression involves a trespass-offering.');"><sup>1</sup></span> [he is punished] by death? It is Rabbi.
ב מאי טעמא דרבי אמר רבי אבהו גמר חטא חטא מתרומה מה תרומה במיתה אף מעילה במיתה
2 For it was taught: If he deliberately transgressed in respect of a trespass-offering, - Rabbi said: [He is punished] by death; while the Sages maintain: By a warning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., flagellation. This is a technical term to denote that he has infringed an ordinary negative injunction, for which he is flagellated.');"><sup>2</sup></span> What is Rabbi's reason? - Said R'Abbahu: He derives identity of law from the fact that 'sin' is written here and in the case of terumah:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Trespass: If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance in the holy things of the Lord (Lev. V, 15) ; Terumah: Lest they bear sin for it, and die therefor (Ibid. XXII, 9) .');"><sup>3</sup></span> just as terumah involves death, so trespass involves death.
ג ומינה מה תרומה בכזית אף מעילה בכזית
3 And from that [it also follows]: just as terumah [involves punishment] for as much as an olive, so trespass [involves punishment] for as much as an olive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the 'axe': according to this R. Hiyya b. Abin is obviously wrong.');"><sup>4</sup></span> Now R'Papa demurred:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In objection to 'those who swung the axe'.');"><sup>5</sup></span> How do you know that Rabbi holds as the Rabbis;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That as much as an olive is the minimum to involve payment or punishment in the case of terumah.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ד ומתקיף לה רב פפא ממאי דרבי כרבנן סבירא ליה דילמא כאבא שאול סבירא ליה דאמר יש בה שוה פרוטה אע"ג דלית בה כזית
4 perhaps he agrees with Abba Saul, who said: If it possesses the worth of a perutah, even if it does not contain as much as an olive?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the same applies to trespass too, and thus R. Hiyya b. Abin's answer is correct.');"><sup>7</sup></span> But surely it was R'Papa who said [that] Abba Saul requires both? Hence this proves that he retracted.
ה והא רב פפא הוא דאמר דאבא שאול תרתי בעי אלא ש"מ הדר ביה
5 Mar the son of Rabina said, This is what he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Tanna of the cited teaching.');"><sup>8</sup></span> means: No: if you say thus of other precepts - where the unintentional is not treated as intentional, for if he intended cutting what was detached but cut what is attached, he is not culpable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to the Sabbath, when one must not cut or pluck produce growing in the soil ('attached') . In the present case he is not liable to a sin-offering, which is only due when a man sins in ignorance, i.e., where he intended to do what he did, but did not know that it was forbidden.');"><sup>9</sup></span> will you say [the same] in the case of trespass, where if he intended to warn himself with wool shearings of hullin but warmed himself with the wool shearings of a burnt-offering he is liable to a trespass-offering?
ו מר בריה דרבנא אמר הכי קאמר לא אם אמרת בשאר מצות שלא עשה בהן שאין מתכוין כמתכוין שאם נתכוין לחתוך את התלוש וחתך את המחובר שפטור תאמר במעילה שאם נתכוין להתחמם בגיזי חולין ונתחמם בגיזי עולה שמעל
6 R'Nahman B'Isaac said: He means this: If you say thus in the case of other precepts, that is because he who is not engaged therein is not declared culpable like he who is engaged therein, for if he intended picking up that which was detached but he plucked<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'cut'.');"><sup>10</sup></span> that which is attached [instead], he is not culpable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here he was not engaged in plucking or cutting at all.');"><sup>11</sup></span> will you say [the same] of trespass, where if he stretched out his hand to take a vessel and [incidentally] anointed his hand with holy oil,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There too he was not engaged in anointing at all.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ז רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר הכי קאמר לא אם אמרת בשאר מצות שכן לא מתחייב בהן שאין מתעסק כמתעסק שאם נתכוין להגביה את התלוש וחתך את המחובר שפטור תאמר במעילה שאם הושיט ידו לכלי ליטול חפץ וסך ידו בשמן של קודש שמעל
7 he is liable for trespass? The Master said: 'When is this said? When he separates terumah and it became leaven.
ח אמר מר בד"א במפריש תרומה והחמיצה אבל הפריש חמץ תרומה דברי הכל אינה קדושה
8 But if he separates terumah of leaven on Passover, all agree that it is not holy.' Whence do we know this? - Said R'Nahman B'Isaac, Scripture saith, [The firstfruits of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thy oil.] shalt thou give to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVII, 4.');"><sup>13</sup></span> but not for its light.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the priest must be able to consume it himself and not have to burn it for its heat or light. Hence if it is separated in a state in which it cannot be eaten, as here, it does not become terumah.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ט מנא הני מילי אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר קרא (דברים יח, ד) תתן לו ולא לאורו
9 R'Huna son of R'Joshua objected: One must not separate terumah from unclean [produce] for clean; yet if he separates [thus] unwittingly, his terumah is valid. Yet why? Let us say, 'for him but not for his light'? - There is no difficulty: There it enjoyed a time of fitness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before it became unclean it was fit to be separated as terumah.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
י מתיב רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אין תורמין מן הטמאה לטהורה ואם תרם בשוגג תרומתו תרומה ואמאי לימא לו ולא לאורו לא קשיא התם היתה לו שעת הכושר הכא לא היתה לו שעת הכושר
10 whereas here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the leaven terumah.');"><sup>16</sup></span> it did not enjoy a time of fitness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was not fit to be terumah before Passover as it goes on explaining.');"><sup>17</sup></span> And how is it conceivable that it had no time of fitness? E.g.
יא ודלא היתה לו שעת הכושר היכי דמי כגון דאחמיץ במחובר אבל אחמיץ בתלוש הכי נמי דקדשה א"ל אין (דניאל ד, יד) בגזירת עירין פתגמא ובמאמר קדישין שאילתא וכן מורין בבי מדרשא כוותי
11 if it became leaven whilst attached [to the soil].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whilst before it is harvested it cannot be declared terumah.');"><sup>18</sup></span> But if it became leaven when detached,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., before Passover, so that it was fit to be terumah before the Festival.');"><sup>19</sup></span> would it indeed be holy?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If separated as terumah during Passover.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
יב כי אתא רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע
12 - Yes, he replied: 'the sentence is by the decree of the watchers, and the matter by the word of the holy ones';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dan. IV, 14; i.e., this is the view of great teachers. ihrun');"><sup>21</sup></span> and thus do they rule<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' implies to give a practical, as opposed to a mere theoretical, ruling.');"><sup>22</sup></span> in the academy in accordance with my view. When R'Huna the son of R'Joshua came,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. omit, 'came' v. Rashi.]');"><sup>23</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter