MISHNAH: How does one roast the Pesaḥ¹ 12:9 requires: Do not eat from it raw, or cooked in water, but roasted in fire, its head with its hooves and its innards.? A spit of pomegranate wood² he sticks from its mouth to its buttocks and puts the hooves and its innards into it, the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean. Rebbi Aqiba says, this is a kind of cooking³; but one hangs them outside.

footnotes: ¹ Since the verse Ex. ² Hardwood which will not ooze sap into the meat. The sap would cook the meat near the spit; and the meat may not be eaten as Pesaḥ. ³ Since the innards will be heated not by the fire but by hot moist meat.

HALAKHAH: “How does one roast the Pesaḥ” etc. Why of pomegranates? Rebbi Ḥiyyas bar Abba said, all wood oozes fluid, but of pomegranates does not ooze fluid. Where do we hold? If fresh, even pomegranate {[wood} oozes. If dry, all other wood does not ooze. But it is so: All other wood if it is dry outside still is moist inside. Pomegranate {wood} if dry outside is dry inside.

It was stated⁴ in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: He roasts it on a metal spit. They said to him, is it not hot and heats⁵? He said to them, just as the wooden one is not burned, so the metal one does not heat. They said to him, wood is not comparable to metal, for wood, if it is hot somewhere, is not hot everywhere, but metal if hot somewhere is hot everywhere.

footnotes: ⁴ Tosephta 5:8; Babli 74a. ⁵ Then the inner parts of the lamb are cooked by the heat of the spit, not roasted by the fire outside; cf. Halakhah 2.

There are Tannaim who stated, he sticks from its buttocks to its mouth. In the opinion of this baraita teacher he turns it around⁶ the spit has to be turned around, with the pointed end at the bottom..

footnotes: ⁶ The argument implies that the lamb was roasted on a vertical spit, like shawarma. According to the Tanna of the Mishnah, the pointed end of the stick stands out at the top; the lamb, whose meat has not been koshered, hangs down and the blood can flow out through the cut in the neck; koshering is not needed. But in the scenario of the baraita,

What? Does Rebbi Yose the Galilean consider it as thick hips⁷, or does he explain the verse⁸ 12:9. As explained in the next paragraph, he reads “on” to mean in direct bodily contact; and this is guaranteed at all times only if the hooves and innards are tucked inside the body., its head, on its hooves, and on its innards. What is the difference between them? If he roasted it like a profane lamb⁹. If you are saying that Rebbi Yose the Galilean considers it as thick hips, it is disqualified¹⁰ II §229. This author is usually trustworthy in his readings.; if you are saying that he explains the verse, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards, it is qualified¹¹ Clearly, if the innards hang in the fire separate from the body, they will be roasted but the verse is violated.. If he cut some meat from it and roasted it inside, if you are saying that Rebbi Yose the Galilean considers it as thick hips, it is qualified; if you are saying that he explains the verse, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards, it is disqualified¹² but the verse does not permit to roast anything inside the body except innards and hooves.. If he roasted it in the steam of a pot, if you are saying that Rebbi Yose the Galilean considers it as thick hips, it is disqualified¹³).; if you are saying that he explains the verse, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards, it is qualified¹⁴).. But did one not state, roasted in fire, not roasted in a pot. [Explain it,] if it touched the body of the pot. This¹⁵ implies that he explained the verse.

footnotes: ⁷ Is his argument a practical one? Since it is assumed that the inner parts also will be roasted by the fire burning under the lamb, there is no reason that the innards, if put inside, will not be roasted. ⁸ Deut. ⁹ Innards and hooves separate from the body. ¹⁰ One has to read “qualified”. This is the reading of the quote in Or Zaruaˋ ¹¹ Read: disqualified, confirmed by Or zaruaˋ. ¹² In the first case the meat will be roasted, therefore being qualified as Pesaḥ; ¹³ Read: qualified (Or zaruaˋ ¹⁴ Read: disqualified (Or zaruaˋ ¹⁵ Not the preceding inconclusive discussion but the following discussion of the verse.

Everybody agrees that “on it” means “in contact”. Where do they disagree? About “on”. ¹⁶ 11:5, Babli Menaḥot 97a, about the placement of incense on the table with the shew-bread. The verse says (Lev. 24:7): Put pure incense on the array(מַעֲרֶכֶת not מַעֲרָכָה). Abba Shaul says nearby, the rabbis say on top. Abba Shaul says, on the array, near the array. But the rabbis say, on the array, on top of the array. It turns out that Abba Shaul parallels Rebbi Aqiba, and the rabbis Rebbi Yose the Galilean¹⁷. Rebbi says, even if he made them two arrangements of fourteen, one considers the upper one as nonexistent and the lower ones are qualified¹⁸. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi and Abba Shaul use in the method of Rebbi Meïr for the table¹⁹ 11:5 The table in the Tabernacle was 2 cubits long. According to R. Jehudah, the cubit was 5 hand-breadths, according to R. Meïr 6 hand-breadths. Six shew-breads in one row took up 10 handbreadths. This leaves 2 hand-breadths space where according to Abba Shaul the incense was placed, and according to Rebbi another bread could be placed. The argument shows that the text of the Leiden ms. is correct, attributing the statement about the shew-bread to Rebbi, against the reading of K which attributes it to R. Yose the Galilean..

footnotes: ¹⁶ This refers to Mishnah Menaḥot ¹⁷ Since R. Aqiba requires the innards to bu hung outside, i. e. nearby. ¹⁸ There are twelve shew-breads. If one made two too many, 7 to a row instead of 6, the additional two can be disregarded and the incense put on top, since we do not read “on” to imply touching. ¹⁹ Mishnah Menaḥot

Inside-out, the words of Rebbi Tarphon. Rebbi Ismael says, helmeted²⁰. It turns out that Rebbi Tarphon parallels Rebbi Aqiba, and Rebbi Ismael Rebbi Yose the Galilean; as we have stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, ²¹ 2:15. The same text in Beṣah 2:7 (61c line 62); cf. Babli 74a.“what is a helmeted kid-goat? Entirely roasted, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards. If he parboiled part of it, or cooked part of it, this is not a helmeted kid-goat. One serves helmeted kid-goat in the evening of the first day of Tabernacles, and on the last day of Passover²²; one Tosephta ms. and K have “on the first day of Passover”. Both texts are acceptable; the roasted kid-goat is forbidden only during the first night. It is remarkable that Pentecost is not mentioned in this context; this may indicate an early form of the usage of German Jews to eat dairy on the first day of Pentecost.. One serves helmeted calf on the first night of Passover but not helmeted kid-goat²³.”

footnotes: ²⁰ Rashi’s explanation, Babli 74a. ²¹ Tosephta Yom Ṭov ²² This is the Tosephta’s and the corrector’s text in Beṣah ²³ Roast meat is acceptable as long as it is not sheep or goat.

²⁴ text (צ), this paragraph also is in Moˋed qaṭan 3:1 (81d line 27,ק). Babli 53a, Berakhot 19a, Beṣah23a. It was stated: Rebbi Yose said, Theudas of Rome led the people of Rome to eat helmeted kid-goat in the Passover nights, the Sages sent and said to him, if you were not Theudas, would we not put you in the ban? Who was Theudas? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, because he was providing for the rabbis. Are you not causing the public to eat sancta outside the Temple? And anybody causing the public to eat sancta outside the Temple has to be put in the ban.

footnotes: ²⁴ In addition to the Beṣah

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: This²⁵ implies that a person is forbidden to say to another, here you have money and use it to buy meat for Pesaḥ for yourself²⁶. But he may say to him, here you have money and buy me meat to roast.

footnotes: ²⁵ The story of Theudas. ²⁶ Babli 53a.

Rebbi Immi asked, if one cleaned out the tannur and roasted it in it²⁷ is a truncated clay cone with an open top and some vents on the bottom, used to generate more heat by creating a draft and keeping the heat together in its walls. The question is whether by hanging the lamb into a tannur one roasts it in fire, as required by the verse, or one roasts it in the tannur, which would be forbidden just as using a metal spit is forbidden (see also Halakhah 2. Babli 95a.)? Rebbi Jeremiah said, his problem is following Rebbi Yose the Galilean, but it is obvious for him following Rebbi Aqiba²⁸ while for R. Aqiba it should be clear that the roast must be in the open air.. Rebbi Yose said, even following Rebbi Aqiba it is problematic for him. From the coals into the air of the tannur it is roasted in half an hour. From the coals into free air it is roasted in one hour. What is the difference between being roasted half because of the tannur or being roasted entirely because of the tannur? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the tannur does nothing for the coals, it only keeps the heat together²⁹ do not make the roasting a funxtion of the tannur. Tosaphot 95a s.v. וברפו.. If the coals are inside the tannur it is roasted in half an hour; if the coals are in free air it is roasted in one hour.

footnotes: ²⁷ The tannur ²⁸ Since for R. Yose the Galilean the innards are roasted indirectly, inside the lamb, it is possible that he accept the use of a tannur ²⁹ One has to say that since in open air one may increase the heat by using bellows to increase the flames, the bottom vents of the tannur

MISHNAH: One roasts the Pesaḥ neither on a spit³⁰ nor on a grill³¹. Rebbi Ṣadoq said, it happened that Rabban Gamliel said to his slave Tabi, go and roast us the Pesaḥ on a sacrificial hearth³². If it touched the pottery of the tannur, he has to shave off its place³³ not roasted by the air heated by the fire.. If some of its fluid fell on clay and returned, one has to remove this place³⁴. If some of its fluid fell on flour, one has to remove its place³⁵ the fluid in the flour may not be consumed; it has to be removed and burned separately..

footnotes: ³⁰ A metal spit. ³¹ Greek ἐσχάρα, ἡ. ³² He holds that anything heated by fire is as good as fire itself. Since the metal gets all its heat from the fire, it is permitted. This Rabban Gamliel must be Gamliel I, preceding R. Jehudah (Note 4) by three generations, showing that Rebbi Jehudah is a reliable historical source. ³³ Since that place on the surface of the meat was cooked by the wall of the tannur, ³⁴ The the fluid was heated by the clay walls; falling back onto the meat it penetrated into it and therefore surface shaving is insufficient. ³⁵ Since the entire lamb has to be consumed roasted in fire,

HALAKHAH: Fire roasted, not spit roasted, nor pot roasted, nor grill roasted, nor metal roasted, nor roasted in any other way³⁶ 6 (p. 19); cf. Babli 74a, 76a. The corrector’s addition is only found in the Babli..

footnotes: ³⁶ Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo

“A fire burn³⁷ 13:24, in the rules of skin disease., I could think if it stays moist³⁸ 7:8), based on the reading in Sifra מורדת. The reading here, מורדת could be interpreted, parallel to Arabic استمرّ “to stay unchanged”, that the wound does not heal., the verse says, if the burn was healed³⁹ 13:27.. If the burn was healed, I could think until it becomes scar tissue, the verse says, a fire burn. How is that? It was partially healed; and so it says below, it is a burn scar;⁴⁰ 13:28. until it forms a membrane in the thickness of a garlic peel.”⁴¹ 7(3). And here he says so⁴² one excludes everything but strict adherence to the prescribed manner.? Rebbi Eleazar says, there fire roasted, only fire roasted⁴³ 12:8,9. Babli 95a., the verse repeated it to make it indispensable. But here, if the burn was healed, in any way. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, there “law, teaching” makes it indispensable⁴⁴ “law” is written in *Ex.*12:43, “teaching” in 12:49. Any commandment labelled “law” or “teaching” must be kept to the letter; Babli Menaḥot 19a. For skin disease, “teaching” is mentioned the first time for the purification rites (*Lev.*14:43).. But here what do you have?

footnotes: ³⁷ Lev. ³⁸ This is Maimonides’s interpretation (Negaˋim ³⁹ Lev. ⁴⁰ Lev. ⁴¹ Sifra Tazria Pereq ⁴² Why for skin disease does one include anything which minimally corresponds to the description in the verses, but for Pesaḥ ⁴³ Ex. ⁴⁴ For the Pesaḥ

Does Rabban Gamliel not have fire roasted? He does. The Pesaḥ in Egypt was fire roasted; the Pesaḥ for generations is not fire roasted⁴⁵ to be observed in the future, at the end of Ex. 12 and the beginning of Num. 9, roasting in fire is not mentioned.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rabban Gamliel did not consider consequences of fire as fire; the rabbis consider consequences of fire as fire⁴⁶. Rabban Gamliel disagrees with the rabbis and in practice acts on his own opinion⁴⁷ 1:2, Note 111; also Avodah zarah 3:12, Note 252..

footnotes: ⁴⁵ In the rules for the Pesaḥ ⁴⁶ It is obvious that the places of “did not consider” and “consider” have to be switched. Since the problematic text also is in K, it is not a scribal error.The Babli, 95a top, explains the problem away. ⁴⁷ Cf. Berakhot

If it had said “do not eat from it except fire roasted” and had not said “raw”, I would have said that if he singed it and roasted it would be permitted; therefore he needed to say, “raw”. Or if it had said “do not [eat from it] except fire roasted” and had not said “cooked”, I would have said that if he parboiled it and roasted it, it would be permitted; therefore he needed to say, “cooked”. Or if it had said “do not eat from it except fire roasted” and had not said “thoroughly cooked”, I would have said that if he cooked it and roasted it would be permitted. Therefore it was needed to say “raw”, and it was needed to say [“cooked”, and it was needed to say] “thoroughly cooked.”⁴⁸ 6, ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 21; Babli 41a. “Raw” is interpreted as “rare”. C”s addition is confirmed by K.

footnotes: ⁴⁸ Cf. Mekhilta dR. IsmaelBo

If somebody ate the volume of an olive raw when it still was daylight⁴⁹. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable, and there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable⁵⁰. He who says that he is liable, do not eat from it raw⁵³*,* in any case. But he who says that he is not liable, at a time when he is obligated to eat fire-roasted he is under obligation not to eat raw; at a time when he is not obligated to eat fire-roasted he is not obligated not to eat raw.

footnotes: ⁴⁹ On the 14th of Nisan. ⁵⁰ Babli 41b. ⁵³ It may not be eaten but because it is indirectly disqualified one has to wait until it would have to be burned even if qualified; cf. Chapter 6, after Note 151.

If he broke a bone of it when it still was daylight. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable, and there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable⁵¹. He who says that he is liable, do not break a bone in it⁵² 12:46. etc., in any case. But he who says that he is not liable, at a time when he is not obligated to eat fire-roasted there is no do not break a bone in it; at a time when he is obligated to eat fire-roasted there is do not break a bone in it.

footnotes: ⁵¹ Babli 84b. ⁵² Ex.

“If it touched the pottery of the tannur,” it is a disability of its body and it has to be burned immediately. “If of its fluid fell on clay,” it is a disability on the instrument and needs [losing its] shape⁵³. “If of its fluid fell on flour, one has to remove its place.” Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: that is, if it is hot⁵⁴. But if it is cool, it is forbidden⁵⁵. Rebbi Eleazar, the Torah did not say, it should not cook others, but it should not be cooked because of others⁵⁶.

footnotes: ⁵³ It may not be eaten but because it is indirectly disqualified one has to wait until it would have to be burned even if qualified; cf. Chapter 6, after Note 151. ⁵⁴ Babli 75b/76a. ⁵⁵ In contrast to “liable”, “forbidden” means rabbinically forbidden. ⁵⁶ He disagrees and notes that since there is no biblical prohibition if the hot fluid falls into cold edibles; there is no reason for a rabbinic prohibition either.

MISHNAH: If he basted it with heave oil, if there is a group of priests, they shall eat it. If of Israel⁵⁷, if it is raw he shall soak it, if roasted he has to peel off the outside. If he basted it with oil of Second Tithe⁵⁸, he may not charge the members of the group for it since one may not sell Second Tithe in Jerusalem.

footnotes: ⁵⁷ For whom consumption of heave is a deadly sin. ⁵⁸ Which is property of the farmer, to be eaten in purity at the place of the Temple. Second Tithe may be redeemed outside of Jerusalem, with the sanctity of the produce transferred to the money which has to be spent on pure food in Jerusalem. There is neither redemption nor sale of Second Tithe in Jerusalem.

HALAKHAH: He only said “basted”. Therefore, if he immersed it, it is forbidden⁵⁹. A person cooked a chicken using oil to be burned⁶⁰. He came and asked Rebbi Bisna, who told him, go and cook it in water for an extended period.

footnotes: ⁵⁹ Either this means that if the lamb absorbed too much of the oil, no Israel will be allowed to eat from it in any way. Or it may be that טִיבְּלוֹ stands for תִּיבְּלוֹ “spiced it”, when it will be forbidden to everybody since the spices cover the taste of the lamb’s meat. ⁶⁰ “Oil to be burned” is impure heave oil. While it may not be consumed, it may be used by a Cohen as fuel. Use as fuel by an Israel is stealing from the Cohanim. R. Bisna’s order has to be classified as imposing a fíne.

So is the Mishnah: “One does not redeem Second Tithe in Jerusalem.⁶¹”

footnotes: ⁶¹ The text of the Mishnah in the Babli.

MISHNAH: Five kinds⁶² are brought in impurity but are not eaten in impurity: The ˋOmer⁶³ 23:9–14, of which a fistful is burned on the altar and the remainder eaten be the Cohanim. If offered in impurity everything has to be burned., and the Two Breads⁶⁴ 23:17, intended to be eaten entirely by the Cohanim., and the shew-bread⁶⁵ 24:9., and public well-being offerings⁶⁶ 23:19–20., and the goats of New Moons⁶⁷28:15,22,30; 29:5.11,16, 19,22,25,28,31,34, 38.. Pesaḥ which is brought in impurity is eaten since from the start this is what it is for⁶⁸ 12:4), Everybody according to his eating you should slaughter the lamb..

footnotes: ⁶² The only impurity permitted in the Temple is the impurity of the dead, which can be removed only by a lengthy procedure and depends on the availability of the ashes of a red cow. All other impurities prevent a person from entering the sacred precinct. If most or all of the people are impure, the public service is conducted by the Cohanim without interruption. Most of the public sacrifices are elevation sacrifices which are totally burned on the altar; for them the question of consumption does not arise. The only time impure non-Cohanim are admitted to the sacred precinct is the 14th of Nisan, for the Pesaḥ. ⁶³ The offering of barley flour from the new harvest, Lev. ⁶⁴ The two leavened breads of new wheat harvest presented on Pentecost, Lev. ⁶⁵ Lev. ⁶⁶ The two sheep accompanying the two breads, to be eaten by the Cohanim with the breads; Lev. ⁶⁷ The obligatory purification offerings, not only for New Moons but also all holidays, of which only a small part is burned on the altar and most of it eaten by the Cohanim in the Temple precinct; Num. ⁶⁸ Since it is written (Ex.

HALAKHAH: Are not all public sacrifices brought in impurity? He only comes to tell you, even though they are brought in impurity they are not eaten in impurity. Both for him who says that the bread is the main item, as also for him who says that the sheep are the main item, there should be only four⁶⁹4:3. The verse states that the lambs of the well-being sacrifice of Pentecost have to be brought on the bread, which R. Aqiba reads as meaning that the Two Breads are indispensable for bringing the lambs, but not the other way around, and R. Simeon ben Nanas holds the opposite opinion.. The Tanna takes note of them and stated them as five.

footnotes: ⁶⁹ A dispute between R. Aqiba and R. Simeon ben Nanas in Mishnah Menaḥot

There are Tannaim who state that all of them are inferred from the Pesaḥ. There are Tannaim who state that each of them is inferred from its place. He who said that all of them are inferred from the Pesaḥ, since at its fixed time which is said (here) [about Pesaḥ pushes impurity aside, also at its fixed time which is written about all of them] pushes impurity aside⁷⁰23:4): These are the times of the Eternal, holy convocations, which you have to proclaim at their fixed times. Cf. Chapter 6, Halakhah 1.. He who said that each of them is inferred from its place, from where does he have it? It comes as it is stated⁷¹73a, Sifra Emor Pereq 17(13).: “Rebbi says, why does the verse say, Moses told the holidays of the Eternal⁷² 23:44.. Since we learned only about Pesaḥ and the daily sacrifices that they push the Sabbath aside, since it is said about them at its fixed time⁷³ 9:2, 28:2., from where the rest of public offerings? The verse says, these you shall offer to the Eternal at your fixed times⁷⁴ 29:39.. For the Omer and what is brought with it, and for the Two Breads and what is brought with them, we have no information. But since it is said, Moses told the holidays of the Eternal to the Children of Israel⁷¹73a, Sifra Emor Pereq 17(13)., this fixed it as obligation that all of them have to be offered in impurity.” Just as they are brought in impurity, should they not be eaten in impurity? It is a decision of the verse: Any meat that touched anything impure may not be eaten⁷⁵ 7:19.. One would say that the same is valid for the Pesaḥ. This is different since from the start this is what it is for⁶⁸ 12:4), Everybody according to his eating you should slaughter the lamb..

footnotes: ⁷⁰ Since it says (Lev. ⁷¹ Babli 77a, Menaḥot ⁷² Lev. ⁷³ Num. ⁷⁴ Num. ⁷¹ Babli 77a, Menaḥot ⁷⁵ Lev. ⁶⁸ Since it is written (Ex.

MISHNAH: If the meat became impure while the fat is unchanged, he does not pour the blood⁷⁶ is brought only to be eaten, if there is no meat to be eaten, there is no Pesaḥ. If the Pesaḥ was brought but the blood may not be poured, the owner has to bring a second Pesaḥ on the 14th of Iyar.. If the fat became impure while the meat is unchanged, he pours the blood. With sacrifices it is not so, but even if the meat became impure while the fat is unchanged, he pours the blood⁷⁷ burned on the altar only pouring the blood permits the parts to be brought to the altar..

footnotes: ⁷⁶ Since the Pesaḥ ⁷⁷ Since for sancta

HALAKHAH: This does not follow Rebbi Nathan⁸³, for Rebbi Nathan says, one fulfills one’s obligation by pouring without eating. What is the reason? All of Israel shall slaughter it between the evenings⁸⁴ 12:6.. “It”, even if there is only one Pesaḥ, all fulfill their obligation with one pouring. Ii is impossible that there be an olive-sized bit for everyone⁸⁵.

footnotes: ⁸³ Babli 78b. ⁸⁴ Ex. ⁸⁵ If the entire people bring only one lamb, there is not one olive-size bite for every one. But eating less than an olive-size bite is not counted, it is equivalent to nobody eating anything.

The following is obvious: If the meat became impure but the parts are unchanged, one pours the blood for [the parts. If the parts became impure and the meat is unchanged, one pours the blood for] the meat⁸⁶. If the meat became impure and the parts were lost, Rebbi Shammai said, is the (existing) [fistful]⁸⁷ not as if the meat became impure and the parts were lost⁸⁸3:4). The situation can be compared to that of animal sacrifices when only the blood is left. The text of K has to be followed here; the text of S is a scribal error.? You are saying that he takes the fistful; also here he pours. Rebbi [Mana]⁸⁷ said, explain it following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer says, even if there is no remainder there is a fistful⁸⁹.

footnotes: ⁸⁶ Since for all Temple sacrifices which are partially eaten, neither Heaven’s parts can be brought to the altar nor the meat eaten before the blood was poured on the walls of the altar. If one of the two kinds still exists in pure shape, pouring the blood is a positive act and therefore permitted. ⁸⁷ Reading of K. ⁸⁸ A flour offering is eaten by the priests after a fistful has been burned on the altar. If after the fistful was in the hand of the Cohen but before it was brought to the altar the flour became impure, or was burned, or lost, R. Eliezer permits to burn the fistful on the altar but R. Joshua forbids (Mishnah Menaḥot ⁸⁷ Reading of K. ⁸⁹ In practice we follow R. Joshua. Babli 77b.

If it comes in impurity of the officiants⁹⁰? How is that? If defective persons⁹¹ 21:16–24), still is permitted to act as slaughterer in the Temple. Here it is presumed that he is pure. slaughtered and pure⁹² ones poured. Rebbi Hila said, any meat that touched anything impure may not be eaten⁷⁵ 7:19., but here it was not touched by anybody impure. The meat, anybody pure may eat meat⁷⁵ 7:19.; there are pure ones available to eat it⁹³. Rebbi Zeˋira: Since Pesaḥ made in impurity is eaten, [this one is as if brought in impurity]⁹⁴. And where was this⁹⁵ said? Rebbi Samuel said, Rebbi Zeˋira asked: If it comes with impurity of the blood⁹⁶, what is done? Since one does not permit him to pour, is it as if brought in impurity? Or since if he transgressed and poured, it was made acceptable, is it as if not brought in impurity? Let us hear from the following which was said by [Rebbi Elazar in the name of ⁸⁷ Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices⁹⁷ 28:38. Explained in more detail in the Babli 16b, Yoma 7a, Zevaḥim 23a., the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers⁹⁸ 23b.. He separated between what is offered on behalf of an individual and what is offered on behalf of the public. If offered for an individual, if he has another one⁹⁹, one tells him, bring! If not, [one does not permit him to pour the blood;] if he transgressed and poured, it was made acceptable. The sacrificers for an individual, whether he has or does not have, [it was not made acceptable. If offered for the public, if he has another one, one tells him, bring! If not, one permits him to pour the blood a priori. The sacrificers for the public, whether he has or does not have,] it was made acceptable.

footnotes: ⁹⁰ The case mentioned in the Mishnah, that the people were pure but all officiating priests impure. ⁹¹ It could have stated, “a pure non-priest”. The statement seems to imply that a priest with a bodily defect, who is barred from officiating (Lev. ⁹² Obviously one has to read: impure. (K is not legible at this point.) The impure (by the impurity of the dead) priest does not come into direct contact with the sacrificial animal. While the blood collected in the vessel which he holds will be impure, it does not make the carcass impure through the stream of blood falling into his vessel. ⁷⁵ Lev. ⁷⁵ Lev. ⁹³ The people, as stated in the Mishnah. ⁹⁴ Since the people are pure, the argument of R. Hoshaia is superfluous. ⁹⁵ The source of R. Zeˋira’s argument. ⁹⁶ The carcass is pure, the priests are pure, but the blood has become impure. Since only the blood pumped out at the moment of slaughter is acceptable on the altar (Chapter 5, Note 234), it cannot be replaced. ⁸⁷ Reading of K. ⁹⁷ Ex. ⁹⁸ The diadem will not cover deficiencies in either the owners or the officiants of a sacrifice. Babli Zevaḥim ⁹⁹ Another animal to offer.The following text in brackets is a corrector’s addition which by the concurrent testimony of the original scribe and K should be deleted.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is about one “which comes in impurity from the start.”¹⁰⁰ But if it came in purity and then became impure, it cannot be eaten in impurity. “If it was slaughtered in purity but then the public became impure, the blood shall be poured in purity¹⁰¹ but the meat not eaten in impurity.” (Should one not say the same for pouring?¹⁰²) [Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is Rebbi Nathan’s, as Rebbi Nathan said, one has fulfilled his duty by pouring without eating¹⁰³ from having to bring another animal at the Second Pesaḥ.. “If it was slaughtered in purity but then the blood collected became impure¹⁰⁴ of the Tosephta (6:1). One has to read with K and the Tosephta mss. either וצבור or והציבור: “If it was slaughtered in purity but then the public became impure, the blood may be poured in impurity but the meat may not be eaten in impurity.”, the blood may be poured in impurity but the meat may not be eaten in impurity.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of the bad impression, lest they say, we have seen a Pesaḥ brought in purity which was [poured] {eaten}¹⁰⁵ in impurity. Then should not the blood be poured in impurity?] Lest they say, we have seen a Pesaḥ brought in purity for which it was poured in impurity. You have to end up saying that it is Rebbi Nathan’s. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a sick or an old person¹⁰⁶. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a group whose officiant became impure¹⁰⁷, that they are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a group where a wart was found¹⁰⁸, that they are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ Tosephta 6:1. ¹⁰¹ Obviously if everybody is impure, the blood in the vessel carried by the impure Cohen cannot remain pure. One has to read with the Tosephta: impure. ¹⁰² Text written by the scribe and deleted by the corrector; missing in K, which supports the corrector’s text. There seems to be no reason why the blood could be poured in impurity if the blood is only needed to permit the meat to be consumed when the meat is forbidden for consumption. ¹⁰³ Babli 78b. The pouring of the blood frees the group subscribing to this particular Pesaḥ ¹⁰⁴ This sentence does not make any sense, although it is confirmed by the editio princeps ¹⁰⁵ As the following shows, one has to prefer {the text of K} over [the corrector’s text]. ¹⁰⁶ R. Nathan only declares pouring the blood as sufficient if at the start there was a possibility that the meat would be eaten, “since from the start this is what it is for.” If nobody in the group is able to eat a full olive-sized piece, there can be no Pesaḥ. ¹⁰⁷ If the slaughterer makes the sacrifice impure, there can be no pouring of the blood. ¹⁰⁸ If the animal from the start was unfit to be a sacrifice, there can be no sacrifice.

“If the skins of the Pesaḥ sacrifices of five groups were intermingled and a wart was found on one of them, all of them¹⁰⁹ have to be brought to the place of burning, but they¹¹⁰ at all, and obligated to bring a Second Pesaḥ. But since for each person there only is a 20% probability that his Pesaḥ was the invalid one, and a Second Pesaḥ may not be brought by a person not obligated, nobody is provably obligated and therefore nobody is entitled to bring a Second Pesaḥ. are not liable to bring a Second *Pesaḥ.*¹¹¹” They wanted to say that this is Rebbi Nathan’s. Explain it following everybody, {they made it}⁸⁷ like one which has become impure by a doubt of a grave of the abyss¹¹² of a person who assumes that he was pure and between this act and the consumption of the sacrifice he was informed that possibly he was made impure by stepping over a previously unknown grave, he cannot eat, so also here all members of the group whose Pesaḥ possibly was a non-sacrifice cannot eat from it.. Following Rebbi Nathan would he have poured the blood¹¹³?

footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ The sacrifices have to be brought to the spot where disqualified sacrifices were burned outside the sacred precinct. ¹¹⁰ The members of the groups. Since the animal with the wart never was a potential sacrifice, the group bringing this particular animal must be considered as not having offered a Pesaḥ ¹¹¹ Babli 88b. ⁸⁷ Reading of K. ¹¹² Since if the blood was poured for the Pesaḥ ¹¹³ Even following R. Nathan, the situation is possible only if the wart was discovered after the blood was poured; even R. Nathan does not allow pouring the blood of a non-sacrifice. Babli 88b, opinion of Abbai.

¹¹⁴ and the Two Breads are brought in impurity even though they cannot be consumed by the priest and it is questionable whether a fistful of the Omer can be burned or the breads presented before the altar if that action seems purposeless since it does not serve to permit anything to be eaten. Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ismael in the name of Rebbi Joshua: One verse says, but a firstling of cattle, or a firstling of sheep, or a firstling of goats¹¹⁵ 18:17. The verse continues: pour their blood on the altar, and burn their fat, … and their meat shall be yours., etc. And another verse says¹¹⁶ 17:6. the Cohen shall pour the blood on the Eternal’s altar at the door of the Tent of Meeting, and burn the fat for a pleasant smell before the Eternal. Only if there be there either meat be be eaten or parts to be burned¹¹⁷ 18:17 mentions fat and meat but Lev.17:6 only fat, it follows that the sacrifice is acceptable if the blood is poured either to permit the fat to be burned or the meat to be eaten.. There we have stated¹¹⁸3:4. For flour offerings, the fistful to be burned on the altar permits the remainder to be eaten by the Cohanim; the relationship of the fistful taken by the priest for the altar to the remainder to be consumed in the sacred domain is parallel to that of blood to be poured and the parts to be burned or the meat to be eaten.: “If the remainders became impure, the remainders were burned, the remainders were lost. In the rules of Rebbi Eliezer it is qualified, in the rules of Rebbi Joshua it is disqualified. [Not in a vessel of service it is disqualified; Rebbi Ismael¹¹⁹ 2:1, 39c line 32. qualifies. If he burned the fistful in two parts it is qualified.”] In Rebbi Eliezer’s opinion, if there is no blood there is no meat; even though if there is no meat there is blood¹²⁰. If there is no fistful there are no remainders, even though if there are no remainders there is a fistful. In Rebbi Joshua’s opinion, if there is no blood there is no meat; if there is no meat there is no blood¹²¹ to be brought in impurity, since this also would be a meaningless act.. If there is no fistful there are no remainders, if there are no remainders there is no fistful. Rebbi Mana said, explain it¹¹⁴ and the Two Breads are brought in impurity even though they cannot be consumed by the priest and it is questionable whether a fistful of the Omer can be burned or the breads presented before the altar if that action seems purposeless since it does not serve to permit anything to be eaten. following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, even though there are no remainders there is a fistful. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, Rebbi Joshua agrees that if he transgressed and poured the blood that it was made acceptable¹²² and the entire Mishnah may be R. Joshua’s..

footnotes: ¹¹⁴ Discussion of the statement of the Mishnah that both the Omer ¹¹⁵ Num. ¹¹⁶ Lev. ¹¹⁷ Since Num. ¹¹⁸ Mishnah Menaḥot ¹¹⁹ The second part of the Mishnah was added by the corrector; by the testimony of K this should be deleted. “R. Ismael” is a scribal error for “R. Simeon” in the Mishnah and in a quote of the Mishnah in Yoma ¹²⁰ For him, pouring the blood is a sacral act independent of the fact that pouring the blood is needed to enable the parts to be burned and the meat to be eaten. ¹²¹ If nothing is to be enabled, the act of pouring becomes meaningless and therefore has to be avoided. But then R. Joshua cannot permit the Omer ¹¹⁴ Discussion of the statement of the Mishnah that both the Omer ¹²² Since the diadem justifies the act retroactively, the same can be said for the Omer

MISHNAH: If the public or a majority of it were impure or the Cohanim were impure and the public pure, it should be brought in impurity⁷⁸ cannot be slaughtered without Cohanim ready to receive and pour the blood.. If a minority of the public were impure, the pure people make the first and the impure the second⁷⁹ is made on the 14th of Iyar; Num. 9:10–12..

footnotes: ⁷⁸ Since the Pesaḥ ⁷⁹ The Second Pesaḥ

HALAKHAH: Who is the Tanna of “majority”¹²³ is celebrated in impurity if most (50%+1) of the people are impure. The following is an extended version of Halakhah 1:6 in Horaiot, where the problem is what is called “community”.? Rebbi Meïr¹²⁴ 5b., as it was stated: Either half of the tribes or half of each tribe, if only it be a majority¹²⁵(Lev. 4:14), by following an erroneous ruling either of the High Court at the central sanctuary or of a majority of tribal High Courts.. Rebbi Jehudah says, half of each tribe, but only a majority of entire tribes¹²⁶ 5b.. One tribe drags all tribes¹²⁷. Rebbi Meïr says, all tribes are called “the public”¹²⁸ 4:14). The difference of opinions in the Mishnah is traced to different interpretations of this notion. R. Meïr holds that only the entire people of Israel qualify as “public”; RR. Jehudah and Simeon consider each tribe as a separate public. (Babli Horaiot 5b, Pesaḥim 80a, Menaḥot15a).. Rebbi Jehudah says, each single tribe is called “public”. What is between them? Dragging. Rebbi Meïr says, a single tribe does not drag all tribes¹²⁹, but Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. And Rebbi Jehudah follows Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon said, one tribe drags all tribes¹³⁰ the opposite is asserted, that in this particular R. Simeon sides with R. Meïr; this also is required by the later statements in this Halakhah. R. Simeon agrees that each single tribe is called “public”., so Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. Even though Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes, he agrees that only if the ruling came from the ashlar hall¹³¹. Rebbi Yose said, the reason of that Tanna: From this place which the Eternal will choose¹³² 17:10.. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? The entire community of the Children of Israel will be forgiven¹³³ 15:26. R. Jehudah argues that the verse promises forgiveness for all of Israel even if only one tribe followed an erroneous ruling; this proves that “one tribe drags all the other tribes.” R. Simeon disagrees since the last clause in the verse states that the entire people have to be in error; only a majority of the tribes triggers the obligation.. What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? Since the entire people acted in error¹³³ 15:26. R. Jehudah argues that the verse promises forgiveness for all of Israel even if only one tribe followed an erroneous ruling; this proves that “one tribe drags all the other tribes.” R. Simeon disagrees since the last clause in the verse states that the entire people have to be in error; only a majority of the tribes triggers the obligation.. How does Rebbi Simeon uphold Rebbi Jehudah’s reason, the entire community of the Children of Israel will be forgiven? Except women and children¹³⁴. How does Rebbi Jehudah uphold Rebbi Simeon’s reason, since the entire people acted in error? Except if the beginning was criminal and the conclusion in error. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Benjamin bar Levi: The verse supports him who said that each tribe is called “public”, as it is written¹³⁷ 35:11, said to Jacob after the birth of 11 sons. Babli Horaiot 5b.: A people and a public of peoples will come from you, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, just as they differ here, so they differ about impurity, as it was stated: If the public was half pure and half impure; pure [people] celebrate the first [Pesaḥ] and impure the second, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the pure ones celebrate for themselves, and the impure ones celebrate for themselves¹³⁸ equal to the number of impure ones. Tosephta 6:2 in the name of R. Simeon. This latter attribution seems to be correct since in the paragraph after the next the Amoraim explain that R. Jehudah never considers this case but requires that the number of pure people present be diminished.. They told him, there is no split Passover; either all celebrate in purity or all celebrate in impurity. Who is “they told him”? Rebbi Meïr. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as we have stated there¹³⁹2:2. The Mishnah refers to the two public cereal offerings which have to be baked, viz., the weekly show-bread and the two leavened loaves presented at Pentecost. The 12 show-breads were presented in two rows, here called “orders” (Lev. 24:6).: “If one of the loaves or one of the orders became impure, Rebbi Jehudah said, both have to be brought to be burned¹⁴⁰ for a public offering cannot be split¹⁴¹. But the Sages say, the impure in its impurity, and the pure shall be eaten¹⁴².” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: who is “they told him”? The Sages who argue like Rebbi Meïr¹⁴³ R. Jehudah. In any case, the question should not arise since the objecting Sages, while adopting the point of view of one of the protagonists, are not bound to follow him in all details..

footnotes: ¹²³ Discussion of the statement in the Mishnah, that Pesaḥ ¹²⁴ He holds that everywhere 50%+1 represent “all”; Babli Horaiot ¹²⁵ In order to trigger the ceremony required if all the community acts in error ¹²⁶ The language is somewhat self-contradictory. He also requires that a majority of Israel follow the erroneous ruling but in addition he demands that in a majority of tribes a majority follow the ruling. Babli Horaiot ¹²⁷ If one tribe has more members than all the others together, the action of one tribe triggers the obligation of all of them. He does not hold that the law about erroneous rulings of the High Court became moot with the exile of the Ten Tribes. Even later, when the tribe of Jehudah represented the overwhelming majority of Israel, a majority of the people can be considered a majority of all twelve tribes and the majority of Judeans triggers the obligation for all tribes. ¹²⁸ The purification sacrifice for an erroneous ruling by the Court has to be brought by “the public” (Lev. ¹²⁹ Therefore he requires a separate sacrifice for the people of Israel in their entirety. ¹³⁰ In Horaiot, ¹³¹ Even though each tribe has to bring its own sacrifice, the ruling of a tribal High Court cannot trigger an obligation of any other tribe; only the Court sitting at the central sanctuary has this power. ¹³² Deut. ¹³³ Num. ¹³³ Num. ¹³⁴ Not that they will not be forgiven but they are not counted in determining what is a majority. ¹³⁷ Gen. ¹³⁸ Both offer their sacrifices in the Temple, in separate groups. For this to happen, the number of pure people in Jerusalem on the 14th of Nisan must be exactly ¹³⁹ Mishnah Menaḥot ¹⁴⁰ Outside the Temple precinct. ¹⁴¹ Cf. Babli 79a. ¹⁴² By the officiating priests. ¹⁴³ In Horaiot:

In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion¹⁴⁴ and the impure the Second. One has to read “R. Simeon”., how does one act if they are half and half? As majority or as minority? If you are saying as a majority, the pure persons cannot make the First. If you are saying as a minority, the impure persons cannot make the Second¹⁴⁵ for the impure.. Rebbi Yose said, he did not say that a majority of pure persons cannot make the First, a majority of impure persons cannot make the Second. He only said, a majority of impure persons is not pushed to the Second Pesaḥ¹⁴⁶ to be offered in impurity one needs a real majority; a 50–50 split in practice is equal to a majority of the pure..

footnotes: ¹⁴⁴ This name attribution seems to be in error since R. Meïr is quoted in the preceding paragraph that in this case the pure persons celebrate the First Pesaḥ ¹⁴⁵ The formulation is not very clear. If one considers the impure (by the impurity of the dead) as a majority, then the service in the Temple is conducted in impurity, and the pure persons cannot make their sacrifice in purity. If the pure are considered a minority, there is no Second Pesaḥ ¹⁴⁶ The problem only is apparent, not real. For the Pesaḥ

In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, how does one act if they are half and half? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: One defiles one person with a crawling animal¹⁴⁷ which will make him pure for sancta at sundown. This kind of impurity does not prevent a person to be counted in a group eating the Pesaḥ in purity; accepting the person in the count of the impure is questionable; Babli 80a, 80b.. Samuel said, one sends one person on a far-away trip¹⁴⁸. This follows him who said, a single person clinches for impurity¹⁴⁹. But for him who said, a single person does not clinch for impurity, one has to send two persons away. Rav’s opinion parallels Rebbi Eleazar, as Rebbi Eleazar said, if the public was touching carcasses, touching crawling animals, one makes it in impurity if there is not water there to immerse in; but if there is water to immerse in, one does not make it in impurity¹⁵⁰. Rebbi Eleazar said, if it comes while the Temple vessels are impure, comes in impurity; if it comes in impurity of Temple vessels, comes in impurity of hands, comes in impurity of knives¹⁵¹ is brought in impurity if the necessary Temple implements are impure and cannot be purified in time; this could happen only in times of a siege of Jerusalem..

footnotes: ¹⁴⁷ He is impure, but can become free of impurity by immersion in a miqweh, ¹⁴⁸ Babli 80a. He automatically must bring the Second Pesaḥ. ¹⁴⁹ Babli 80a, Tosephta 6:2. ¹⁵⁰ Since these are impurities which are eliminated by immersion in water. ¹⁵¹ This means that Pesaḥ

If the public were one third sufferers from gonorrhea¹⁵² If he has two episodes in at most two consecutive days, he is impure for seven days; after seven days in remission he can be purified by immersion in a miqweh. After three episodes he still needs seven days in remission but then is still prohibited sancta unless on the eighth day he brings a couple of birds as sacrifice to the Temple. A sufferer from gonorrhea who is impure for seven days, on the seventh day is a questionable candidate for Pesaḥ since if he suffers another episode he has to start all over again., one third impure¹⁵³, and one third pure. Rebbi Mana in the name of Ḥizqiah: The sufferers from gonorrhea and the impure form a majority against the pure and one brings in impurity. The sufferers from gonorrhea bring neither the First nor the Second¹⁵⁴ since the latter is instituted for people impure in the impurity of the dead or away on a trip *(Num.*9:9). While healed sufferers from gonorrhea can bring the Second Pesaḥ (Halakhah 9:1), there can be no Second Pesaḥ if the First was celebrated in impurity.. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they made the sufferer from gonorrhea like the apostate for ruling¹⁵⁵. As one says there, the apostate in matters of ruling neither adds nor subtracts, also here he neither adds nor subtracts.

footnotes: ¹⁵² A person who suffers a single episode of gonorrhea is impure for the day and can be purified by immersion in a miqweh. ¹⁵³ Impure in impurity of the dead. ¹⁵⁴ The First he cannot bring being impure. If he should be healed between the 14th of Nisan and the 14th of Iyar, in this case he cannot bring the Second Pesaḥ ¹⁵⁵ If it is a question whether most of the people followed an erroneous ruling of the Supreme Court, apostates are not counted as part of the people. Applied to the case here, sufferers from gonorrhea are counted neither with the impure nor with the pure, in opposition to the rule stated earlier.

If one of the members of a group became impure¹⁵³ but it is not known who it is, they must make the Second. If one of the public became impure but it is not known who it is, Rebbi Zeˋira said, they shall make the Second. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, they shall be treated as a case of doubt¹⁵⁶ since they cannot risk that one of the group eat sanctum while impure, a deadly sin punishable by extirpation.. It is reasonable following Rebbi Hoshaia, not to subject the individual to punishment of extirpation.

footnotes: ¹⁵³ Impure in impurity of the dead. ¹⁵⁶ They cannot bring a Pesaḥ

¹⁵⁷ 1:2, Notes 92–97. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: For ruling¹⁵⁸ they went after the population of the Land of Israel; for impurity they went after a majority of those entering the Temple courtyard. Does one estimate according to all groups or does one estimate only for the first group? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they have to estimate by themselves as long as they are outside¹⁵⁹. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, for appearance¹⁶⁰15:16). they went from Lavo-Hamat to the Brook of Egypt. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: The reason of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, At that time Solomon made the pilgrimage holiday, and all of Israel with him¹⁶¹ 8:65. The verse continues: a big crowd, from Levo-Hamat to the Brook of Egypt (Central Syria to Wadi El-Arish)., etc.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁷ This paragraph also is in Horaiot ¹⁵⁸ To determine whether a majority of the people followed an erroneous ruling of the Supreme Court, the entire adult male population of the Land is counted. ¹⁵⁹ Since the impure are not permitted on the Temple Mount unless a majority of the people are impure, it is obvious that the count of a majority cannot be determined by the people entering the Temple precinct but must be made before people enter the Temple Mount. The Babli 94b has only the statement which is rejected here. ¹⁶⁰ The duty for all your men to be seen before the Eternal three times a year (Deut. ¹⁶¹ 1K.

MISHNAH: If blood was poured of a Pesaḥ when later it became known that it was impure, the diadem makes acceptable⁸⁰ 28:37.. An impurity of the body⁸¹ the diadem does not make acceptable since they said that for the nazir and the offerer of the Pesaḥ the diadem makes impurity of the blood acceptable but not impurity of the body. If the impurity was caused by impurity of the abyss⁸², the diadem makes acceptable.

footnotes: ⁸⁰ The golden diadem worn by the High Priest, whose object is to carry away the iniquities of the sacrifices offered by the Children of Israel; Ex. ⁸¹ The body of the offerer. ⁸² Impurity buried in the ground which previously was totally unknown and is only recently uncovered. Since it is impossible to guard against this kind of impurity there can be no penalty for “tent impurity” of this kind.

HALAKHAH: ¹⁶² and the nazir. The Mishnah if it became impure after it fell into the vessel. But if it became impure when still higher it is as if he received water¹⁶³.

footnotes: ¹⁶² Discussion of the last part of Mishnah 5 (in the independent Mishnah mss. Mishnah 7), that the diadem covers up impurity of the blood for Pesaḥ ¹⁶³ If the Cohen received pure blood in a sacred vessel, the owner’s act in the sacrifice is completed. If then something happens in the custody of the Cohen, the High Priest’s diadem covers the fault; the blood may be poured on the walls of the altar and the meat consumed. But if the blood becomes impure before being received in the vessel, there is no qualified sacrifice; the carcass has to be burned outside the Temple district.

¹⁶⁴ 9:2, Notes 58–94. From where about a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss¹⁶⁵ and the nazir who finished his term, the impurity caused by a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss is disregarded. In view of the central role of purity in everything connected with the Sanctuary, it is obvious that some biblical justification has to be found for the rule. In the case of Passover, the argument notes that Num. 9:9 could have stated that a person on a far trip was required to celebrate the Second Pesaḥ. The addition for you seems to be superfluous. It is interpreted to mean just as the road is open to the wanderer, so the impurity has to be in the open for the impure person. The same argument is in the Babli 81b.? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis: Or on a far trip for you. What is in the open for you, including everything in the open. This excludes the case of a grave in the abyss which is not open. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi [Yannai]⁸⁷: If a person dies suddenly on him¹⁶⁶ 6:9.. Since on him it is in the open, so everything in the open. This eliminates the grave in the abyss which is not in the open¹⁶⁷ 28..

footnotes: ¹⁶⁴ From here on, the text is also found in Nazir ¹⁶⁵ Both for the person going to celebrate the Pesaḥ ⁸⁷ Reading of K. ¹⁶⁶ Num. ¹⁶⁷ The same argument as before; Babli 81b, Sifry Num.

If the public became impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity¹⁶⁸ his standing is inferior to that of the public who celebrate the First Pesaḥ in impurity., you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss¹⁶⁹ 1:2, Note 88). For a private person, a case of doubt in matters of a grave in the abyss in a private domain is treated as if it were occurring in the public domain., for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity¹⁷⁰ in impurity., it only is logical that you should clarify it to its advantage in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public¹⁷¹. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him¹⁷² so if he was told before pouring it is as if he became otherwise impure after pouring, where the sacrificial act was completed and while he cannot eat his part of the Pesaḥ he has discharged all his obligations. before pouring he should be treated as if he became impure after pouring, that he should not be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, you restrict him in public, so that if it became known to him after pouring he should be treated as if he became impure before pouring, that he should not be able to eat the meat¹⁷³ is slaughtered and eaten in impurity. But if it was slaughtered as pure and then it became impure or became known to be impure, it cannot be eaten.. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him before pouring he is treated as impure after pouring, that he should not have to bring a sacrifice of impurity¹⁷⁴ 9:2. Corrector’s addition supported by K., you treat as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after pouring he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure; he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case¹⁷⁵ became aware of the second impurity before he offered his sacrifice of impurity, he has to bring only one sacrifice.. [As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case¹⁷⁶ Halakhah 6:8, Note 198..] If somebody is officiating for the Pesaḥ, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad majus. Since for the owner [of the Pesaḥ] whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged¹⁷⁷ may not subscribe to it, an old or sick priest is able to serve in the Temple as long as his infirmity is not of the kind listed in Lev, 21:18–20., you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. Since for the owner you clarify to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; what can you say for the officiating where you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year¹⁷⁸ not impure by the impurity of the dead, can send his sacrifice other than the Pesaḥ to the Temple by a pure agent, but an impure priest cannot officiate, irrespective of the nature of his impurity.. Since you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? For you¹⁶⁵ and the nazir who finished his term, the impurity caused by a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss is disregarded. In view of the central role of purity in everything connected with the Sanctuary, it is obvious that some biblical justification has to be found for the rule. In the case of Passover, the argument notes that Num. 9:9 could have stated that a person on a far trip was required to celebrate the Second Pesaḥ. The addition for you seems to be superfluous. It is interpreted to mean just as the road is open to the wanderer, so the impurity has to be in the open for the impure person. The same argument is in the Babli 81b., whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought to say, on him¹⁶⁶ 6:9., not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other¹⁷⁹.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁸ Since a single person impure on the 14th of Nisan is required to celebrate the Second Pesaḥ, ¹⁶⁹ The case of a grave in the abyss can arise only in a private domain since in a public domain all doubts are automatically resolved in favor of purity (Sotah ¹⁷⁰ In that they may bring the Pesaḥ ¹⁷¹ This is how one intends to disprove the argument de minore ad majus. ¹⁷² The impurity of a grave in the abyss never forces a person to the Second Pesaḥ; ¹⁷³ If the public are impure, the Pesaḥ ¹⁷⁴ Mishnah Nazir ¹⁷⁵ But if the nazir ¹⁷⁶ Nazir ¹⁷⁷ While a person unable to eat the volume of an olive of the Pesaḥ ¹⁷⁸ An impure person, including a nazir ¹⁶⁵ Both for the person going to celebrate the Pesaḥ ¹⁶⁶ Num. ¹⁷⁹ Babli 80b.

“What is a grave of the abyss? A corpse buried in stubble, straw, dust, or pebbles¹⁸⁰ 2:9; quoted in the Babli, 81b, and Nazir 63b, without further discussion. As explained in the next paragraph, “grave of the abyss” is that of a person killed by an accident not witnessed by anybody. If one finds a corpse buried under a heap of straw, one has to assume that he suffocated when the straw fell on him. A corpse buried in dust or pebbles probably was the victim of an accident.. But if it was buried in water, a dark spot, or rock crevices, it does not create a grave of the abyss¹⁸¹.” The principle: Any place from where it can be removed creates a grave of the abyss; any place from where it cannot be removed does not create a grave of the abyss¹⁸² As explained in the preceding notes, one must read: “Any place from where it cannot be removed creates a grave of the abyss; any place from where it can be removed does not create a grave of the abyss.” A corpse whose existence is unknown cannot be removed.. Can stubbles and straw not be removed? Does the Mishnah not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, straw said to be disregarded is disregarded¹⁸³ 7, Notes 58–62. This refers to the rules of the tent-impurity caused by a corpse. A “tent” is any covered space in which there is at least one hand-breadth of space between the corpse and the roof. If the space is enclosed, the impurity is restricted to the “tent”; anything above the ceiling and below the floor of the “tent” is pure. But if the entire space between floor and ceiling is filled with matter, there is no tent and the impurity extends indefinitely above and below the tent space. This is known as “squeezed impurity” (Mishnah Ahilut 15:1,5,6). It is implied in Tosephta Ahilut15:5 that R. Yose restricts “squeezed impurity” to material permanently deposited; but a storage of straw which is to be removed in the future is not counted as filler.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: It is everybody’s opinion. What Rebbi Yose said, if he mixed it with dust¹⁸⁴. “There is straw which is treated like dust and dust which is treated like straw. Straw not to be removed is like dust; dust to be removed is like straw.¹⁸⁵ 15:5; quoted in Eruvin 79a. “Straw” stands here for “material to be removed,” “dust” for “permanent filling.”” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said: If he covered it with mats it is disregarded. Come and see: If he filled it with mats it is not disregarded¹⁸⁶, if he covered it with mats it is disregarded¹⁸⁷ 100a.. If he filled it with branches of date palms it is problematic¹⁸⁸. Rebbi Zeriqan, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even thin sheets¹⁸⁹ text, reading רַק. Neither the text in Eruvin רוֹק “spittle” nor the one in K and Nazir רֵיק “emptiness” are appropriate..

footnotes: ¹⁸⁰ Tosephta Zavim ¹⁸¹ In this case, the person also probably was the victim of an accident. But since it could have been seen by a passer-by, the competent authorities should have been alerted; this is not an unknown body. ¹⁸² Obviously, the clauses in this sentence are switched (here and in Nazir). ¹⁸³ The remainder of this paragraph also is in Eruvin ¹⁸⁴ Not really “mixed with”, but “treated like,” as formulated in the Tosephta. ¹⁸⁵ Statement of R. Yose in Tosephta Ahilut ¹⁸⁶ Since the filling can easily be removed, the ditch still separates. ¹⁸⁷ If a ditch is filled with any material, even straw, but this is covered with mats to create a floor from one side to the other, the courtyards become one and require one eruv. Šabbat ¹⁸⁸ No ruling is available in this case. ¹⁸⁹ This translation is tentative; it follows the Pesaḥim

“What is a grave of the abyss? Any which nobody remembers.” Should we not be cautious and say, maybe one at the end of the world knows¹⁹⁰ 2:9, Babli 81b.? And is the permanence of the living not like living¹⁹¹? Explain that he was found compressed¹⁹² 3:3, Notes 81,87. If any person left from here, when that person left he was alive and we have to apply the legal principle of permanence of the status quo and consider him permanently alive, disregarding the notion of “unknown grave”..

footnotes: ¹⁹⁰ Tosephta Zavim ¹⁹¹ He might know of the grave even if we do not. ¹⁹² Cf. Giṭtin

It was stated: “Only a corpse creates a grave of the abyss.”¹⁹³ 2:9, Babli 80b. Therefore, not a carcass¹⁹⁴sub./sub An argument de minore ad maius. Since a corpse, which does not cause impurity of couch and seat, creates a grave of the abyss, should a carcasss which causes impurity of couch and seat not create a grave of the abyss? Why was it said that only a corpse creates a grave of the abyss? To exclude couch and seat¹⁹⁵.

footnotes: ¹⁹³ Which clearly shows that he was not buried by humans but was the victim of an accident. Since the accident was not noticed when it occurred, there is nobody “at the end of the world” who would know of it.Tosephta Zavim ¹⁹⁴ Obviously, only a human corpse has a grave that presents problems of impurity. A buried animal carcass does not produce impurity. Carcasses cause impurity only when touched or carried. The meaning of this sentence can be clarified: Only for the impurity of the dead do we find a rule that sometimes allows one to disregard biblical impurity. ¹⁹⁵ This argument does not make any sense. There are several distinct ways to emend the passage to create sense; therefore, no textual emendation is proposed but the meaning can easily be clarified.A person who is the source of his own impurity (a male or female sufferer from genital discharges) causes original impurity to any couch or personal seat he is using (Lev. 15:4–6,21–22,26). But any impurity induced on an inanimate object by a corpse is only derivative. The argument shows that the rules of the impurity of the dead and impurity produced by a living human body are not comparable: Each kind of impurity has its own severities and leniencies not found in the other.Here ends the parallel to Nazir.

There, we have stated¹⁹⁶ 2:1.: “All sacrifices whose blood was collected by a non-Cohen, a deep mourner¹⁹⁷ 21:2–3, who from the moment of the death to the burial is barred from all sacral acts; inferred from Deut. 26:14., one immersed on this day¹⁹⁸ 22:7., missing garments¹⁹⁹28:43., missing atonement²⁰⁰ 14:1–32 for skin disease, 15:14–15 for the sufferer from gonorrhea., with unwashed hands or feet²⁰¹. 30:19–20., uncircumcised²⁰² 22b, there is no pentateuchal verse forbidding service to an uncircumcised priest, but there is one in Ezechiel, 44:9, which forbids entry to the Temple domain to any uncircumcised person, including a hemophiliac who may not be circumcised., impure²⁰³ 22:2–3., sitting²⁰⁴, standing on utensils, on [an animal, on] another person²⁰⁵, disqualified it.” The Southerners say, we hold this for those impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease²⁰⁶ 15:15,18.), but impurity of the dead does not desecrate since it was permitted in case of the impurity of the many for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to the Southerners: Since for the owner, where you clarified to his advantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year²⁰⁷, you clarified to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ²⁰⁸*,* for the officiant, where you clarified to his disadvantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year²⁰⁹, it is only logical that you should clarify to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ. In addition to what Rebbi stated, “the diadem makes impurity of the blood acceptable but not impurity of the body.” If you want to say that this refers to the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, you cannot, since we have stated, “if the impurity was caused by impurity of the abyss⁸², the diadem makes acceptable.²¹⁰” What are the Southerners doing with this? They explain if for the owner²¹¹. But did we not state “a nazir”²¹² is the impurity of the dead, so in Mishnah 5 the reference must be to this kind of impurity.? They explain it for the officiant. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, there is no difference; it is equal for owner or officiant. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is an argument de minore ad maius that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged¹⁷⁷ may not subscribe to it, an old or sick priest is able to serve in the Temple as long as his infirmity is not of the kind listed in Lev, 21:18–20., what can you say about the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, this is an argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are indispensable for him²¹³. 12:48 notes that no one uncircumcised may eat it [the Pesaḥ], in v. 44, a man’s slave, bought with money, if you circumcise him he may eat it, “he” is read to refer to the owner; the owner may not eat Pesaḥ if there are uncircumcised males in his familia. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 15, dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 35, what can you say about the officiating, for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are not indispensable²¹⁴. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid.

footnotes: ¹⁹⁶ Mishnah Zevaḥim ¹⁹⁷ A person obligated to bury a close relative, such as defined in Lev. ¹⁹⁸ Who is no longer impure but barred from sacral acts until sundown; Lev. ¹⁹⁹ A Cohen serving while not wearing all priestly garments commits a deadly sin; Ex. ²⁰⁰ A person healed from skin disease or gonorrhea who needs not only immersion in water and waiting for sundown but is excluded from sacral rites until be bring a purifying sacrifice, Lev. ²⁰¹ Ex ²⁰² As the Babli points out, Zevaḥim ²⁰³ Lev. ²⁰⁴ Since the verses never permit any action in sitting, and the priests are required to be barefoot, no service is possible unless the priest is standing with his feet in direct contact with the floor of the Temple court, the Temple interior, or the altar. ²⁰⁵ Meaning that another priest puts his hands under the feet of the officiating priest. Then he is not in contact with the floor. ²⁰⁶ They read the expression “impurity of the body” used in the Mishnah to describe what the diadem does not make acceptable as impurity caused by the person’s body (i. e., in addition to skin disease and gonorrhea also sexual activity, Lev. ²⁰⁷ They may send their sacrifices through an agent if they are disabled by impurity. ²⁰⁸ He must celebrate the Second Pesaḥ. ²⁰⁹ He may never serve being impure. ⁸² Impurity buried in the ground which previously was totally unknown and is only recently uncovered. Since it is impossible to guard against this kind of impurity there can be no penalty for “tent impurity” of this kind. ²¹⁰ Since impurity of the abyss only is caused by a corpse, it is not caused by the person’s body. If it is stated that the diadem makes acceptable in this case, it follows that the diadem is inactive in all cases of known impurity caused by external influences. ²¹¹ The diadem only covers abyss impurity of the owner, but not proven impurity of the dead; one may still read “impurity of the body” as referring to impurity produced by the body. ²¹² The only impurity forbidden for the nazir ¹⁷⁷ While a person unable to eat the volume of an olive of the Pesaḥ ²¹³ Since Ex ²¹⁴ Cf. Note 202. An uncircumcised Cohen may not serve; nothing is said about his dependents.

Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If an individual could learn from the public for the Pesaḥ, the officiant during the rest of the year might infer from the public for the Pesaḥ²¹⁵ which the public never makes, the original argument of R. Simeon ben Laqish is incorrect.. Rebbi Immi asked: how do you explain this “impure”? Impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease? But did we not state, “missing atonement”? If he desecrates when he had been immersed, not so much more before he was immersed²¹⁶ 2:1 seems redundant.! How do you explain “immersed on this day”? If he immersed himself on that day because of a corpse. Come and see: the one impure from a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a corpse? But he must be immersed on that day because of a crawling animal¹⁴⁷ which will make him pure for sancta at sundown. This kind of impurity does not prevent a person to be counted in a group eating the Pesaḥ in purity; accepting the person in the count of the impure is questionable; Babli 80a, 80b.. Come and see: the immersed on that day because of a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a crawling animal²¹⁷? Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, people having touched sufferers from gonorrhea²¹⁸ 15:4,7.. The rabbis of Caesarea explain everything from a sufferer from gonorrhea¹⁵² If he has two episodes in at most two consecutive days, he is impure for seven days; after seven days in remission he can be purified by immersion in a miqweh. After three episodes he still needs seven days in remission but then is still prohibited sancta unless on the eighth day he brings a couple of birds as sacrifice to the Temple. A sufferer from gonorrhea who is impure for seven days, on the seventh day is a questionable candidate for Pesaḥ since if he suffers another episode he has to start all over again.. “One immersed on this day¹⁹⁸ 22:7.,” if he had one episode. “Impure” (in the impurity of the dead)¹ if he had two episodes. “Missing atonement²⁰⁰ 14:1–32 for skin disease, 15:14–15 for the sufferer from gonorrhea.,” if he had three episodes. Are people having touched a sufferer from gonorrhea like a sufferer from gonorrhea in the opinion of the Southerners? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices⁹⁷ 28:38. Explained in more detail in the Babli 16b, Yoma 7a, Zevaḥim 23a., the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers⁹⁸ 23b.. What is iniquity of the sacrifices? The blood of a sufferer from gonorrhea? No, what was touched by a sufferer from gonorrhea²¹⁹. Similarly, the iniquity of the sacrificers, who touched a sufferer from gonorrhea. This implies that if the public were impure because they had touched sufferers from gonorrhea or women suffering from flux, they cannot make it²²⁰ in impurity is the impurity of the dead. in impurity.

footnotes: ²¹⁵ But since the individual must make a Second Pesaḥ ²¹⁶ The statement of Mishnah Zevaḥim ¹⁴⁷ He is impure, but can become free of impurity by immersion in a miqweh, ²¹⁷ And from impurity of a corpse one has to wait for seven days while of a dead crawling animal one may immerse himself immediately. ²¹⁸ Who are impure until sundown after immediate immersion in water, Lev. ¹⁵² A person who suffers a single episode of gonorrhea is impure for the day and can be purified by immersion in a miqweh. ¹⁹⁸ Who is no longer impure but barred from sacral acts until sundown; Lev. ¹ The text in parentheses has to be deleted even though it is confirmed by K. ²⁰⁰ A person healed from skin disease or gonorrhea who needs not only immersion in water and waiting for sundown but is excluded from sacral rites until be bring a purifying sacrifice, Lev. ⁹⁷ Ex. ⁹⁸ The diadem will not cover deficiencies in either the owners or the officiants of a sacrifice. Babli Zevaḥim ²¹⁹ Since gonorrhea causes impurity only in humans, the impurity cannot be the victim’s. ²²⁰ The only cause for Pesaḥ

MISHNAH: If it became impure whole or most of it, one burns it before the citadel on altar wood. If a minor part became impure or leftovers¹ one burns in the courtyards or on their roofs on their own wood. The misers burn it before the citadel in order to profit from altar wood.

footnotes: ¹ What was not eaten by midnight (Mishnah 10:)

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: To publicize him, to make it known that he spoiled it²²¹. If he said, I am going to burn it before the citadel on my own wood, one does not listen to him; it is not necessary to note that if he says, I will burn it on my roof on my own wood that one does not listen to him²²².

footnotes: ²²¹ Babli 81b. ²²² Here it refers to the Mishnah here; but the statement in Tosephta 3:13 that before the citadel one may not use private wood refers to Mishnah 3:8 (Note 150), and emphasizes that before the citadel one never uses any but altar wood.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Hila: To inform the next in line that he is a miser. You should know that nowhere else is he called miser, but here you are calling him miser²²³. They made it easy for the guest²²⁴.

footnotes: ²²³ This now refers to the end of the Mishnah. In Mishnah 3:8, where people burn disqualified private sacral meat before the citadel on altar wood, they are not called miser. ²²⁴ Babli 82a. Most people in Jerusalem at holiday time are guests, without their own supply of fire wood.

²²⁵ 2b, Zevaḥim 104b. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a tower was standing on the Temple Mount which was called “citadel”. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the entire Temple Mount was called citadel, to do everything and to build the citadel which I prepared²²⁶ 28:19..

footnotes: ²²⁵ Yoma ²²⁶ 1Chr.

MISHNAH: Pesaḥ which left²²⁷ or which became impure has to be burned immediately²²⁸. If the owners became impure or died it shall lose its shape²²⁹ and be brought to the place of burning¹. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, this one also has to be burned immediately since it has no eaters.

footnotes: ²²⁷ The walls of Jerusalem. ²²⁸ On the 14th of Nisan. ²²⁹ Be spoiled and become unusable as sacral meat. ¹ The place where disqualified sacrifices and those to be burned outside the sacred domain have to be disposed of.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated²³⁰: “A disqualification of the body [is piggul and] is immediately burned. [If the owners became impure or died it is] a disqualification of enabler and needs to lose its shape. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “Pesaḥ which left or which became impure is a disqualification of the body and has to be burned immediately. If the owner became impure or died it is a disqualification of the enabler and it shall lose its shape.”

footnotes: ²³⁰ Babli 34b, 73b, 82b; Tosephta 6:6. As K shows, the corrector’s additions are superfluous and should be deleted.

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Rebbi Nehemiah and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa both said the same²³¹, as it was stated²³² 2(8–10).: “it was burned because of deep mourning²³³ 10:16–17. Since tradition fixes the inauguration of Tabernacle and Priesthood on a First of Nisan (Seder Olam Chapter 7, in the author’s edition p. 82; cf. Rashi ad 9:1), there were three goats as purification offering: the one required for every New Moon (Num. 28:15), the people’s initiation sacrifice (Lev. 10:3), and the one offered by the chief of the tribe of Judah (Num. 7:16). Only the first of these was presented pursuant a permanent law; the other two were one time affairs from which no conclusions could be drawn for generally valid principles. R. Nehemiah holds that since a deep mourner on the day of burial is biblically excluded from all sacral rites, the order given in 18:12–15 to Aaron and his sons to eat sancta even though Aaron’s sons Nadav and Avihu had been buried on that day necessarily was restricted to the one time offerings of that day, to the exclusion of offerings presented following a permanent prescription. But the mourning of the priests is a condition of the enablers, not of the victim, and nevertheless Moses agreed that the purification offering correctly had been burned and not eaten.? Was it not burned only because of impurity? But it was not burned because of impurity, since if it had been burned because of mourning, all three of them²³⁴ purification offerings are not mentioned. should have been burned. Another opinion, was not Phineas with them²³⁵ 6:25). As a nephew of Nadav and Avihu he had no biblical obligation to mourn and could legally have eaten all sacrifices. Since there was one eater, R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa would agree that the sacrifice cannot be burned.? Another opinion, would it not have been permitted to be eaten in the evening²³⁶?” In the opinion of Rebbi Nehemiah it should be burned but be counted²³⁷. Rebbi Nehemiah is of the opinion that all three of them were burned. Should not Phineas have eaten? He was not yet appointed {High} Priest²³⁸ Chapter 8), only Aaron and his sons are mentioned, not his grandson Phineas. This is the basis of the opinion that Phineas was not originally included in the priesthood; priesthood was conferred on him only after the incident with Zimry (Num. 25:13); Babli Zevaḥim 101b.. Should not Aaron have eaten in the evening? Rebbi Nehemiah is of the opinion that deeo mourning in the night is from the Torah. Rebbi Jeremiah said, also Rebbi Yose the Galilean is with them²³⁹ (Halakhah 5), he deduces from Lev. 10:18 that any purification sacrifice whose blood was brought into the sanctuary is disqualified and must be burned immediately. This proves that he agrees with R. Nehemiah that the verses have to be interpreted referring to the ordinary Temple service, and that disqualification of the enabler may trigger an obligation of immediate burning.. ²⁴⁰10:18. And we have stated there:²⁴¹ 8:12. “A purification sacrifice whose blood was received in two cups, of which one was brought outside²⁴² 6:19), if any part leaves the sacred domain it becomes disqualified. Since pouring the blood on the walls of the altar enables the meat to be eaten, if blood is brought outside before it was poured the sacrifice is disqualified.; the one inside is qualified. If one of them was brought to the interior²⁴³, Rebbi Yose the Galilean declares qualified but the Sages declare disqualified. [Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, since in a case where intent disqualifies outside²⁴⁴ 2:2. The text in brackets was added by a corrector from a different source; it is neither in the scribe’s text nor in K. the remainder was not made equal to what was brought outside, in a case where intent does not disqualify in the interior²⁴⁵ 3:6. is it not logical that we not make the remainder to what was brought inside? If it was brought into the interior to atone, even if it did not atone it is disqualified, the words of Rebbi Eliezer²⁴⁶. Rebbi Simeon says, only if it atones²⁴⁷. Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was brought into the interior in error, it remains qualified. Of all disqualified blood which one gave on the altar, the diadem only makes the impure acceptable; for the diadem makes the impure acceptable but not what was brought outside.”] Rebbi Eleazar said, you have to know that for Rebbi Yose the Galilean it is disqualification of the enabler since the other part is outside²⁴⁸ and it is qualified. You have to know that for the rabbis it is disqualification of the body since it is within its enclosure²⁴⁹ and it is disqualified. The rabbis explain, since nothing of the blood was brought to the interior, you shall certainly eat it²⁵⁰ 10:18.. Therefore if some of the blood had been brought to the interior, you²⁵¹ [would have done well] in burning it. Rebbi Yose the Galilean explains, since not all of the blood was brought to the interior, [you shall certainly eat it. Therefore if all of the blood had been brought inside,] you would have done well in burning it. What is the rabbis’ reason? Any purification offering of whose blood was brought; even part of the blood²⁵² 6:33. As usual, a prefixed mem is interpreted to mean “some, not all”.. What is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? Behold, its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary¹ 10:18.²⁵³. [This fits with] what was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, the entire matter only speaks of bulls to be burned and goats to be burned²⁵⁴ 4:1–12), of the people *(Lev.*4:13–21), and of the day of Atonement *(Lev.*1627). Babli 83a top, Zevaḥim 82a., to prohibit eating them and to teach that if they are disqualified they are burned inside the citadel²⁵⁵. They asked him, from where that a purification sacrifice becomes disqualified if some of its blood is brought inside? Not from this verse, behold, its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary? There it does not say of whose blood but all of its blood²⁵⁶. An answer to Rebbi Aqiba who was saying, of whose blood, not all of its blood²⁵⁷.

footnotes: ²³¹ That under certain circumstances a disqualified sacrifice must be burned immediately, without waiting that it lose its shape, even if the disqualification is not in the victim’s body. ²³² Sifra Šeminy Pereq ²³³ This is R. Nehemiah’s statement. The discussion refers to Lev. ²³⁴ Since in Moses’s order to eat the sancta ²³⁵ Phineas was born in Egypt (Ex. ²³⁶ Since the talmudic rule is that only the day of burial is biblically forbidden. While his sons would have to observe seven days of mourning, the High Priest is forbidden mourning where it is not prescribed; in the following night he could have joined Phineas. Purification offerings are eaten by the priests during the day of offering and the following night. ²³⁷ There is no doubt that the obligation for which the sacrifice was brought had been fulfilled. ²³⁸ In the initiation rites (Lev. ²³⁹ In the same Chapter of Sifra ²⁴⁰ This paragraph has no direct connection with the preceding; the connection being that R. Yose the Galilean interprets Lev. ²⁴¹ Mishnah Zevaḥim ²⁴² Since purification sacrifice has to be eaten by the priests in the Temple courtyard (Lev. ²⁴³ As noted later, this is required/permitted only in extraordinary cases. The Mishnah here refers to ordinary sacrifices. Since then the blood is not in the courtyard, it is outside its prescribed domain and disqualified. ²⁴⁴ Slaughtering a victim with the intent of pouring the blood outside the sacred precinct disqualifies the sacrifice; Mishnah Zevaḥim ²⁴⁵ The intent to pour the blood in the Temple itself does not disqualify; Mishnah Zevaḥim ²⁴⁶ The fact that the blood was inside when it should not have been makes it “outside its place” and disqualifies. ²⁴⁷ Only if something was done against the rules with the blood; the interior of the Temple still is sacred domain. ²⁴⁸ In the case that one cup was brought to the interior. ²⁴⁹ Since one cup remained outside, it could be poured on the walls of the altar even if the cup inside became unusable. ²⁵⁰ Lev. ²⁵¹ Aaron’s sons, addressed by Moses. ²⁵² Lev. ¹ Lev. ²⁵³ If Lev. 10:18 is read to refer to rules of the purification sacrifices applicable at all times then it seems to contradict Lev. 6:33 since the prefixed mem is missing. ²⁵⁴ The purification offering of the High Priest (Lev. ²⁵⁵ Whereas all the other disqualified sacrifices have to be burned outside like the impure Pesaḥ. ²⁵⁶ Since this is the formulation in the actual case decided by Moses, it is the operative version. ²⁵⁷ Whose opinion is that of the “Sages” opposing R. Yose the Galilean.

MISHNAH: Pesaḥ which left²²⁷ or which became impure has to be burned immediately²²⁸. If the owners became impure or died it shall lose its shape²²⁹ and be brought to the place of burning¹. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, this one also has to be burned immediately since it has no eaters.

footnotes: ²²⁷ The walls of Jerusalem. ²²⁸ On the 14th of Nisan. ²²⁹ Be spoiled and become unusable as sacral meat. ¹ The place where disqualified sacrifices and those to be burned outside the sacred domain have to be disposed of.

HALAKHAH: A bone with no meat on it, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one is forbidden to break it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one is permitted to break it²⁵⁸ 12:46), it is generally accepted that bone material is inert like wood; cf. Orlah 1:4, Note 163. Therefore the prohibition can only refer to a bone with some meat on it or to the marrow inside the bone. The question may be asked only for a bone whose marrow does not add up to the volume of an olive, since otherwise the marrow, being edible, becomes leftover and has to be burned with the leftover meat.. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Did we not state, “the bones, the sinews, and leftovers are to be burned on the Sixteenth¹”? Could he not chop? Because of the marrow in a marrow-bone²⁵⁹. Could one not strip off all meat from the bone and profit from the bone? They wanted to say that one may not strip off from the disqualified. Rebbi Eleazar said, and even if you say that one may strip, he explains it following Rebbi Jacob, since Rebbi Jacob said, the prohibition of breaking a bone applies if at the start it was qualified and then became impure²⁶⁰15 (pp. 53–54).. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: why did they say, “the bones, the sinews, and leftovers are to be burned on the Sixteenth”? Because he who burns causes breaking²⁶¹. Samuel said, one may subscribe to the brain in the head but one may not subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone²⁶². One may subscribe to the brain in the head because one can take it out through the ear. But one may not subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone since one could only extricate it by breaking. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one may subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one may not subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone, but if he subscribed, he subscribed²⁶³ may be eaten only by the subscribers to it, if somebody subscribed to the marrow he may open the bone by holding it into the fire; even though this is frowned upon it is not forbidden.. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, could he not burn and subscribe? Because of the loss of sancta²⁶⁴*.* In Samuel’s opinion, could he not burn and subscribe? Samuel thinks like Rebbi Jacob, as Rebbi Jacob said, the prohibition of breaking a bone applies if at the start it was qualified and then became impure.

footnotes: ²⁵⁸ While it is a biblical commandment not to break a bone of the Pesaḥ (Ex. ¹ Text of the Mishnah in the independent Mishnah mss. and the Babli. ²⁵⁹ One treats all bones as marrow bones to avoid problems in borderline cases. A different approach in Babli 84b referring to Mishnah 8. ²⁶⁰ Babli 84b. The prohibition of breaking a bone applies even to the leftovers with or without marrow; cf. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo ²⁶¹ It is forbidden when roasting the lamb on the 14th to cut the meat from the bones and expose the bones to direct fire to cause them to break and give access to the bone marrow. ²⁶² Babli 84b ²⁶³ He disagrees with the previous statement that burning is like breaking. Since the Pesaḥ ²⁶⁴ Since some of the edible marrow also will be burned and become inedible.

²⁶⁵ 2, Notes 50–51; it starts with a question the reason of which is found only there. Here it is used to explain why the Mishnah requires the leftovers to be burned on the Sixteenth when from the verse one would have expected that it would be the 15. What did you see that you said so? You shall not leave any leftovers until the morning; what is left over from it until morning you shall burn in fire²⁶⁶ 12:9.. After two mornings, one the morning of the (14) and the other the morning of the (15)²⁶⁷15 and 16.. And it is written²⁶⁸7:17., what is left of the well-being sacrifice should be burned on the third day.

footnotes: ²⁶⁵ This paragraph is copied from Šabbat ²⁶⁶ Ex. ²⁶⁷ The correct version is in K and Šabbat, ²⁶⁸ Lev.

May one start fire on a pyre of leavened matter²⁶⁹? For him who infers from leftovers it is prohibited; for him who does not infer from leftovers it is permitted²⁷⁰ may not be burned on a holiday.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, they came to it ²⁷¹ 2, Notes 58–59. following the argument of Rebbi Ismael. (etc.) [Just as Rebbi Ismael said, a baby whose time has passed can be circumcised either during the day or during the night, so when its time has passed the sanctum may be burned either during the day or during the night.]

footnotes: ²⁶⁹ May one dispose of one’s leavened matter by making a pyre on the 14th and have it burn into the 15th which is a holiday. ²⁷⁰ This is the disagreement between R. Jehudah and the rabbis explained in Halakhah 2:1, Notes 66 ff. As stated in the Mishnah, leftover sacra ²⁷¹ This is from Šabbat

MISHNAH: Anything eaten of a large bull shall be eaten of the soft lamb²⁷² 12:46), any part of the animal which cannot be eaten of an adult bull even after extended cooking is considered bone also of a lamb whose sinews are still soft. Since these may not be broken they cannot be eaten. The borderline cases are cartilage and shoulder tendons which become edible in adult cattle by extended cooking. These are considered meat and the number of subscribers to one Pesaḥ may be increased accordingly., including the ends of the shoulder bone and cartilage. He who breaks a bone of a pure Pesaḥ is whipped forty [lashes]; but he who leaves over of a pure²⁷³(Ex. 12:10), leaving leftovers is a transgression by inaction which cannot be prosecuted. or who breaks of an impure is not whipped forty [lashes].

footnotes: ²⁷² Since it is forbidden to break a bone of the Pesaḥ (Ex. ²⁷³ Even though it is prohibited to have edible leftovers of the Pesaḥ

HALAKHAH: ²⁷⁴ 8:2, Note 23–29. What is the rule about soft sinews? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted; the argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inverted. As they disagreed about what is stated there²⁷⁵ 9:2. Mishnah 9:1 states that in general the hide of an animal is subject to the rules of impurity of food, but not to those of impurity of carcasses. Then Mishnah 2 lists some animals whose hides follow the rules of flesh in all respects; general consensus exists only for humans and domesticated pigs. R. Joḥanan holds that for eating pigskin one never can be prosecuted, while R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that eating pigskin, not yet transformed into leather, is as punishable as eating pork.: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh: Human skin, and the hides of domesticated pigs, Rebbi Yose says also of wild pigs. ²⁷⁶ and is not relevant for the discussion here.[The soft skin of camel’s hump, the soft skin of a calf’s head, the skin near the hooves, the skin of genitals, the skin of an embryo, the skin under the fat tail, and the skin of anaqa, koah, leta’ah, and homet lizards.²⁷⁷ 11:29–30, whose carcasses are severely impure. Rebbi Jehudah says, a lizard is like a mole. In all cases, if one tanned them, or started to use them as working material, they are pure, except for human skin. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri says, the “eight crawling animals” have hides²⁷⁸11:29–30 fall under the exceptions of Mishnah 9:2..”] Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but for flogging it is hide. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah, for prohibition, for flogging, for impurity. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden²⁷⁹, not so much more? Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: they shall eat the meat in that night²⁸⁰ 12:8., not sinews.

footnotes: ²⁷⁴ This paragraph also is in Sanhedrin ²⁷⁵ Mishnah Ḥulin ²⁷⁶ The text in brackets, the remainder of the Mishnah, was added by the corrector; it is neither in K nor in Sanhedrin ²⁷⁷ The lizards in the list of “crawling animals”, Lev. ²⁷⁸ None of the animals mentioned in Lev. ²⁷⁹ Animal hide will become inedible; soft sinews and cartilage will remain edible after cooking. ²⁸⁰ Ex.

The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Issy²⁸¹, one switches and one follows as it was stated²⁸². The one who switches does not have these problems²⁸³.And how much does he have to break²⁸⁴? Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: until the hand be grated²⁸⁵. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Abba both in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. One said, until the hand be grated; but the other said, even a finger nail²⁸⁶. He who said the hand, so much more the finger nail. He who said the finger nail, but not the hand.Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, one never is liable unless one break a bone on which there is meat in the size of an olive, at one place of meat²⁸⁷. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Samuel bar Abba asked, then he never should be liable unless he take a stone and smash it into little pieces²⁸⁸. A bone, to make him liable for each single bone²⁸⁹ 12:46 implies that breaking multiple bones is counted as multiple offenses.. This is, with one warning²⁹⁰ on Chapter Five). Unless the warning was extended to cover both breaking multiple bones and multiple breaking of one bone, only one prosecution is possible.. But with two warnings, then he will be twice liable even for a single bone which he broke repeatedly. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one is permitted to break a bone without meat. He said this only that he cannot be whipped, but as a prohibition, it is prohibited²⁹¹ always is sinful, even if not prosecutable..

footnotes: ²⁸¹ Since Issy also is a nickname for Josef, probably one should read “Yasa”. K reads “Yasi” R. Ḥiyya here is R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. ²⁸² The disagreement of R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish. ²⁸³ If the names are switched in the statement, the arguments of each one of the parties are consistent. ²⁸⁴ How much of the bone has to be broken to constitute a prosecutable offense. In the following, “liable” means liable to possible criminal prosecution and punishment by whipping. ²⁸⁵ If passing with the back of the hand over the bone, the skin is grated. ²⁸⁶ One notices a dent in the surface of the bone if moving a finger nail along its surface. ²⁸⁷ Babli 84b. ²⁸⁸ Since if one starts to break a bone with meat on it, the meat will be loosened in the process and then there no longer will be an olive sized piece firmly attached to the bone unless the breaking is done with one stroke or by smashing with a stone. ²⁸⁹ The singular used in Ex. ²⁹⁰ Since there can be no criminal prosecution unless the perpetrator was duly warned that his intended behavior was criminal, no prosecution can exceed the scope of the warning (cf. Introduction to Tractate Sanhedrin, ²⁹¹ Breaking any bone of the Pesaḥ

“But he who leaves over of a pure {Pesaḥ} or who breaks of an impure is not whipped forty {ashes}.” Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Mishnah if it came in impurity from the start. But if it came in purity²⁹² and became impure it is as if coming in purity and one is whipped for its breaking²⁹³.

footnotes: ²⁹² If the blood was poured in purity. ²⁹³ This is in line with his earlier statement, Note 260. In the Babli 84a–b this is a matter of disagreement of Tannaim.

Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Did we not state, “the bones, the sinews, and leftovers are to be burned on the Sixteenth”? Could he not chop? Because of the marrow²⁵⁹. Could one not strip off all meat from the bone and cut? Not to break under the flesh²⁹⁹.

footnotes: ²⁵⁹ One treats all bones as marrow bones to avoid problems in borderline cases. A different approach in Babli 84b referring to Mishnah 8. ²⁹⁹ Except for the last sentence this is copied from earlier, Halakhah 9. Here it is R. Joḥanan ’s objection to R. Simeon ben Laqish who declares breaking a bone without flesh not prosecutable. Then why does the Mishnah require that one take out the entire bone after stripping off the meat; could one not strip off the meat and then break the bone, without cutting the sinews at the next joint? The answer is that in theory one could do this but in practice one could never be sure whether all meat was safely stripped off; for R. Simeon ben Laqish Mishnah 9 is rabbinical prescription. (Babli 85a, opinion of Abbai.)

MISHNAH: A limb which partially was taken out²⁹⁴12:46). one cuts until he reaches the bone, and pares until he reaches the joint, where he cuts²⁹⁵; but for sacrifices²⁹⁶ he cuts with a dagger since there breaking bones is not forbidden.. From the wing and inside it is like inside; from the wing and outside it is like outside²⁹⁷. Windows and the thickness of the wall are like inside²⁹⁸.

footnotes: ²⁹⁴ If part of a limb was taken out of Jerusalem and therefore became impure, or in the night of the 15th of Nisan was taken out of the house where it was eaten and therefore became forbidden as food (Ex. ²⁹⁵ At the joint he cuts the sinews, not the bone, to remove the bone. The meat pared from the bone remains edible. ²⁹⁶ All other sacrifices. ²⁹⁷ The wing is the place of the hinges and the door bay. ²⁹⁸ Windows are slits in the wall without glass. Since there was nothing to close off parts of the wall from the interior, the entire thickness of the wall is counted as interior.

HALAKHAH: ³⁰⁰ Rebbi Simon, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaya: Piggul³⁰¹ and leftovers add together to make hands impure³⁰² in the amount that exposes to punishment, the volume of an olive. Do they disqualify heave? It is a argument de minore ad majus. If they make hands impure to disqualify heave, they themselves not so much more? This which left²⁹⁴12:46). what are you doing with it? Does it make hands impure or does it not make hands impure? If you are saying that this which left makes hands impure, would piggul and leftovers not disqualify heave³⁰³ and leftovers must disqualify heave. Cf. Meˋilah17b.? If you are saying that piggul and leftovers do not disqualify heave, about that which left they did not decide anything³⁰⁴ and leftovers, use of sancta which were taken out of their required places are not infractions punishable by extirpation.. For if it were not so, the outer part would make the inner part impure³⁰⁵ impure and disqualified.. Rebbi Abbin said, who holds that something can become impure by [touching]³⁰⁶ itself? Rebbi Meïr³⁰⁷ 6(10), quoted Babli Niddah 44b). Rebbi Meïr excludes from this rule the case that an object be partially impure and partially pure; then the inner contact of both parts makes everything impure. Therefore the preceding argument is valid only for R. Meïr, who is not followed in practice.. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, everything becomes pure by its greater part? When he cut off the greater part, is it not separated³⁰⁸ since the bone cannot be cut, the impurity is not transmitted since the touch is interior, and the entire bone is removed. But for other sancta, the moment the bone is cut, the touch is external and transmits impurity, which disqualifies the entire sacrifice. How can the Mishnah permit cutting the bone in this case?? Then it would be touching and be disqualified. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, if he cuts off minimal pieces and throws away³⁰⁹ 85a, s.v.ולרבינא..

footnotes: ³⁰⁰ This paragraph is copied in the last Halakhah of Chapter 10 (10). ³⁰¹ Cf. Chapter 5, Note 67. ³⁰² The impurity of hands as separate from impurity of the body is not pentateuchal. By tradition, it is an institution of First Temple times. ²⁹⁴ If part of a limb was taken out of Jerusalem and therefore became impure, or in the night of the 15th of Nisan was taken out of the house where it was eaten and therefore became forbidden as food (Ex. ³⁰³ Since they make hands impure and the touch of impure hands disqualifies heave, it is obvious that the touch of piggul ³⁰⁴ In contrast to piggul ³⁰⁵ The outer part of the bone, which became impure, touching the inner part would make the inner part and with it the entire Pesaḥ ³⁰⁶ Added from 10, needed for clarity. ³⁰⁷ The previous argument has to be qualified. Everybody agrees that touching at interior parts (מַגַּע בֵּית הַסְּתָרִים “touch of secret places”) does not transmit impurity (Sifra Mesoraˋ Pereq ³⁰⁸ If the pure part is larger than the impure, the object is pure. There is no problem for the Pesaḥ ³⁰⁹ The bone cannot be cut but must be shaved off in pieces smaller than the size of an olive which then are discarded immediately. Quoted in Tosaphot

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: They did not sanctify under the wing in Jerusalem³¹⁰ only within the closed doors.. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav Samuel bar Rav Isaac: That the sufferers from skin disease³¹¹ 5:2 says, they shall exile from the camp any sufferer from skin disease, any sufferer from gonorrhea, and any one defiled by a corpse, the rabbinic interpretation is that the sufferers from skin disease have to be exiled from any walled city, the sufferer from gonorrhea only from the Temple Mount, and the person impure by the impurity of corpses only from the Temple district proper. Babli 67a, Sifry Num. 1. might find shelter in summer from the sun and in the rainy season from rain. Did they similarly not sanctify under the wing of the Temple Mount, that sufferers from gonorrhea and flux³¹¹ 5:2 says, they shall exile from the camp any sufferer from skin disease, any sufferer from gonorrhea, and any one defiled by a corpse, the rabbinic interpretation is that the sufferers from skin disease have to be exiled from any walled city, the sufferer from gonorrhea only from the Temple Mount, and the person impure by the impurity of corpses only from the Temple district proper. Babli 67a, Sifry Num. 1. might find shelter in summer from the sun and in the rainy season from rain? The sufferer from skin disease has no place to find shelter; the sufferer from gonorrhea finds shelter in all of Jerusalem. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Since we see that the rabbis take off their sandals under the wing of the Temple Mount³¹² 9:8., this implies that they did not sanctify under the wing of the Temple Mount. Rav asked the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: What is the status of roofs in Jerusalem? He told him, since one uses as proverb: the Pesaḥ in an olive-sized bit and Hallel breaks the roof,³¹³ that each only got one olive-sized piece, and the noise of the Hallel which they were singing while eating on the roof damaged the roof. This proves that the Pesaḥ was eaten on the roof, and therefore the roofs of the houses of Jerusalem were sanctified. this implies that the roofs of Jerusalem are sanctified. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Miasha, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: The roofs of Jerusalem are profane. But did we not state, “From the wing and inside it is like inside; from the wing and outside it is like outside³¹⁴”? Explain it that the Mishnah speaks about a roof surrounded by buildings forming a courtyard³¹⁵. But did we not state, “windows and the thickness of the wall are like inside³¹⁶”? Explain it again that the Mishnah speaks about a roof surrounded by buildings forming a courtyard. This parallels what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: glacis and wall mourned³¹⁷ 2:8. Babli 86a., the wall and the ante-wall. If they sanctified the thickness of the wall, not so much more the window? Rebbi Aḥa said, it is necessary for the window on top of the wing. Even though you are saying that they did not sanctify under the wing of Jerusalem, they sanctified the window over the wing.

footnotes: ³¹⁰ The gates of the walls of Jerusalem were sanctified, to be used as place for the consumption of sancia, ³¹¹ While the verse Num. ³¹¹ While the verse Num. ³¹² Since it is forbidden to walk with shoes on the Temple Mount proper; Mishnah Berakhot ³¹³ So many people have subscribed to one Pesaḥ ³¹⁴ Since the roofs are of houses inside the walls, the blanket statement that all inside is sanctified also includes the roofs. ³¹⁵ Roofs on street level of houses dug out from the earth, not built on it. ³¹⁶ The “thickness of the wall” cannot refer to the material since this is inaccessible; it cannot refer to the windows which are mentioned separately. Therefore it must refer to the roofs. ³¹⁷ Thr.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: the tunnels under the Temple were profane, the Temple roofs were sanctified³¹⁸. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A Mishnah³¹⁹ 1:1. says so, “there was a fireplace there, and an honorable bathroom. [What was its honor? If one found it locked, one knew that it was occupied, unlocked one knew that it was unoccupied.”] Rebbi Yose said, is excrement impure? Is it not simply cleanliness? But the following is it, “he³²⁰ leaves and goes in the walkway under the Temple, and lights were burning on both sides, until he comes to the place of immersion.” If it were sanctified he would have to go by the shortest way³²¹ or (Mekhilta dR. Ismael) eating different Pesaḥim. Both cases are possible for the Yerushalmi. They may use the same room only if they are sitting back to back..

footnotes: ³¹⁸ Babli 86a. ³¹⁹ Mishnah Tamid ³²⁰ A priest watching in the Temple who becomes impure has to leave immediately by the shortest way. ³²¹ Either (Babli) two different groups have subscribed to different parts of one and the same Pesaḥ

MISHNAH: Two groups which were eating in the same room, these are turning their faces in one direction while eating, and those are turning their faces in one direction while eating³²¹ or (Mekhilta dR. Ismael) eating different Pesaḥim. Both cases are possible for the Yerushalmi. They may use the same room only if they are sitting back to back., and the samovar³²² is in the middle. When the waiter stands to mix, he closes his mouth and turns his head³²³ he did not subscribe. unless he is near his own group and eats. But the newly-wed³²⁴ may turn aside her face and eat.

footnotes: ³²¹ Either (Babli) two different groups have subscribed to different parts of one and the same Pesaḥ ³²² Producing hot water to mix the wine for the required Four Cups in the standard ratio of one part wine to two parts water. ³²³ So people will not suspect him to eat with a group to whose part of the Pesaḥ ³²⁴ Who is not yet used to be in company; she may turn her face away from the company and will not be suspected of not eating with her own group.

HALAKHAH: “It is written, do not remove any meat from the house to the outside³²⁵ 12:46.. I have not only outside the house, from where outside the group? The verse says, *do not remove to the outside.”*³²⁶ 15 (p. 55), dR. Simeon bar Yoḥai p. 36, Tanḥuma Bo 10, also cf. the Targumim. Rebbi Yudan said, from here that he makes himself liable if he (said I am) [removed] away from the group³²⁷ the scribe’s text must be the correct one. If a person (after the pouring of the blood) declares himself not to be part of his group, he commits a sin.. Rebbi Mana said, the verse should have said, do not remove to the outside, and we would have said, if he makes himself liable outside the group, not so much more outside the house³²⁸ disagrees; the meat becomes disqualified and impure only by being removed to the outside.?

footnotes: ³²⁵ Ex. ³²⁶ Babli 86a, Tosephta 6:11, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bol ³²⁷ The text in parentheses is the scribe’s, the one in brackets the corrector’s. Since in the corrector’s text R. Yudan adds nothing to the baraita, ³²⁸ The mention of the house seems to be superfluous. Mekhilta dR. Ismael

Rebbi Immi asked, if he removed from group to group (the volume of two olives)³²⁹ he is twice liable, because of do not remove from the house and do not remove to the outside. If they subscribed to a Pesaḥ, and an individual removed the volume of an olive, he is liable. Two or three persons are not liable since the members of the group may be drawn after them; but they infringe on a positive commandment³³⁰; and following Rebbi Simeon they do not infringe. As it was stated, over the houses in which they are eating it there³³¹ 12:7., this teaches that the Pesaḥ may be eaten in two places³³². I could think that its eaters also could eat it in two places, the verse says, in one house it shall be eaten. How is that? A Pesaḥ may be eaten in two places, but its eaters may not eat it in two places. [Rebbi Simeon says, also its eaters could eat it in two places.] How does Rebbi Simeon uphold in one house it shall be eaten? Lest part of one group eat inside and another part outside. An individual who removed the volume of an olive, since the members of the group may be drawn after him, becomes absolved from the positive commandment. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked, why following Rebbi Simeon? Even following the rabbis, since the members of the group may be drawn after him, they are absolved from the prohibition; neither should they be under the positive commandment³³³.

footnotes: ³²⁹ It seems that instead of כִּשְׁנִי זֵיתִים one should read בִּשְׁנֵי בָתִּים “in two houses”. Since “house” usually means a one-room dwelling, “house” also may mean “room” in a big house. ³³⁰ Beginning of v. 12:46: In one house it shall be eaten. ³³¹ Ex. ³³² In the same room, as described in the Mishnah. Babli 86a/b. ³³³ Since the question is not answered it seems to be accepted. The positive commandment referred to is not in Maimonides’s list of commandments.

The waiter who ate the volume of an olive when he was near the oven,³³⁴ is roasted. if he is intelligent he fills his belly from it. If they want to honor him, they come and eat with him near the oven; otherwise they give him his part and he eats at his place. There³³⁵, they are saying, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, since they did not hear what Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Issy²⁸¹, Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Everybody agrees that at the start they may split, at the end they may not split³³⁶. Where do they disagree? When they were sitting and a beam cracked over them. Rebbi Simeon says, part of them remove themselves and eat at another place, but the rabbis say, no part of them may remove themselves and eat at another place³³⁸ before they start eating and there can be no removal..

footnotes: ³³⁴ In which the one Pesaḥ ³³⁵ In the same house. ²⁸¹ Since Issy also is a nickname for Josef, probably one should read “Yasa”. K reads “Yasi” R. Ḥiyya here is R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. ³³⁶ Once they start eating. ³³⁸ Since the rabbis agree that a group may split into two before they start eating, there is no fixed place of the Pesaḥ

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked: Then³³⁸ before they start eating and there can be no removal. one who removes should not be liable up to the moment when he eats. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : One who removes is not liable up to the moment when he eats. Rebbi Zeˋira said, but it was stated there, an individual who removed the volume of an olive from a group is liable but he did not disqualify himself as a member339 of the group. This implies, even if he did not eat. If you would say, he ate, why did he not disqualify himself as a member of the group? Rebbi Yose said, when he removed it he disqualified it. Even if he ate, he ate something disqualified. Where was this said? There is breaking after breaking but not removing after removing³⁴⁰ but it is not sinful to further remove a removed part.. Either this means that when he removes it, he disqualifies it, or it means that he is not liable up to the moment when he eats³⁴¹ is not sanctioned, or “removing” means “removing and eating” and the first removal did not count..

footnotes: ³³⁸ Since the rabbis agree that a group may split into two before they start eating, there is no fixed place of the Pesaḥ ³⁴⁰ (Cf. Note 290). It is sinful to break a broken bone of a Pesaḥ, ³⁴¹ Either there can be no removal after removal because the first removal disqualifies the meat, and moving disqualified Pesaḥ

The following is obvious: If one group started eating when the other became impure, the pure group acquired the part of the impure³⁴². Not only this but even if one group started eating and they became impure, the pure group acquired the part of the impure. But if both had started eating when one of them became impure, the pure group did not acquire the part of the impure³⁴³.

footnotes: ³⁴² Since both groups subscribe to the same animal and one group becomes unable to use it. ³⁴³ Since each group already took possession of its part.

An individual can move his part in the entire room, but a group cannot move their part in the entire room³⁴⁴ may change his place while eating while members of a group have to remain sitting where they started eating.. But did we not state “two groups”³⁴⁵ at two distinct tables. But one single group cannot be separated.? He only said two; therefore not one. But did we not state, “the samovar in the middle”³⁴⁶? The place of the waiter proves where his group is. But did we not state, “the newly-wed may turn aside her face and eat”³⁴⁷? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, because of shyness

footnotes: ³⁴⁴ A single person eating a Pesaḥ ³⁴⁵ They are eating from the same Pesaḥ ³⁴⁶ It serves both groups at the same time; the hot water has to be transported through the entire room. But the waiter shows by his behavior as described in the Mishnah to which group he belongs. ³⁴⁷ Does she not show by turning away from the group that she does not want to belong?