|
àÅìÌåÌ ãÀáÈøÄéí áÌÇôÌÆñÇç ãÌåÉçÄéï àÆú äÇùÌÑÇáÌÈú,
ùÑÀçÄéèÈúåÉ åÌæÀøÄé÷Çú ãÌÈîåÉ åÌîÄçåÌé ÷ÀøÈáÈéå åÀäÆ÷ÀèÅø çÂìÈáÈéå,
àÂáÈì öÀìÄéÌÈúåÉ åÇäÂãÈçÇú ÷ÀøÈáÈéå àÅéðÈï ãÌåÉçÄéï àÆú äÇùÌÑÇáÌÈú.
äÇøÀëÌÈáÈúåÉ åÇäÂáÈàÈúåÉ îÄçåÌõ ìÇúÌÀçåÌí, åÇçÂúÄéëÇú éÇáÌÇìÀúÌåÉ, àÅéï ãÌåÉçÄéï àÆú äÇùÌÑÇáÌÈú.
øÇáÌÄé àÁìÄéòÆæÆø àåÉîÅø, ãÌåÉçÄéï:
The following matters concerning the paschal lamb override Shabbat: its slaughter, the splashing of its
blood, the removal of its feces and the incineration of its intestinal fat. But roasting it and rinsing
its internal organs do not override Shabbat. Hoisting it, carrying it from outside the precincts
[of the Bet Mikdash] and removing its calluses do not override Shabbat,
but Rabbi Eli'ezer says that they do.
EXPLANATIONS:
1: Chapter 6 continues the review of issues connected with the celebration of Pesaĥ in the Bet Mikdash. I am sure that many of us must be impatient at this concentration on the slaughter of the paschal lamb on Nisan 14th and would prefer the Mishnah to move on to more 'relevant' topics. But we must remember (as we have mentioned on several occasions so far) that while the Bet Mikdash existed the slaughter of the paschal lamb within the Bet Mikdash and roasting it and eating it later that evening at the Seder service were the most fascinating and significant details of the festival's observance for our ancestors. To this day the paschal lamb is symbolically present on our Seder table as a roasted bone (or its equivalent). And we should also bear in mind that the atoning efficacy of the splashing of the blood of the slain paschal lamb on the sides of the altar was the conceptual basis for the core belief of Pauline Christianity.
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
DISCUSSION: Richley Crapo asked this question: What is your estimate of the possible number of sacrifices that were made in preparation for the Seder? I responded in dismay: I had hoped that such a question would not be asked, because I have been pondering it myself for some time and have no answer so far... What parameters could we use to arrive at a suggested number? - the number of people who could be crammed into the physical limits of the priestly courtyard, perhaps? In the meantime I have received several suggestions which I present here for your consideration: Ed Frankel: I doubt that there could be any real parameters. Size is of no consequence, as the sacrifices would have certainly been offered in many shifts. Further, there is no way to know how many families truly ventured to Jerusalem on the Pilgrimages. While we would all love to believe that most families did, the historians seem to indicate otherwise. Frankly, just the idea that the practice established in Torah was continued with enthusiasm seems enough for me. I respond: Many shifts? We ourselves learned in the mishnah that there were only three shifts! Zackary Berger: I think a reasonable way to proceed (in 'order of magnitude' fashion) is to divide the area of the Azarah by the amount of space a person takes up. Daled amot is too much. Maybe a meter squared? In any case, that would be an interesting calculation to perform. I comment: 'Dalet Amot' means 'four cubits' and is the rabbinic calculation of an individual's 'personal space'. Since a cubit is approximately 50 centimetres Zackary is right that 'Daled amot is too much' to allow per person; but then I think that even 'a meter squared' would also be too much. Steven Weintraub really tries to come to grips with the issue. (I intersperse my own clarifications): I don't know why - but this question sprung a morbid fascination in me, so that I been thinking of it on and off since this post. I'll give you the benefit of my thoughts and maybe it'll help. My background is in efficiency in algorithm design, so it might be that its just down my specialty. The way I think about it is there is a line of Cohens going from the slaughter table to The Altar. [Actually, more than one line - SR.] At the front of the line are two Cohens, one to facilitate the slaughter, the other with the basin (who will - when it filled with blood - turn and pass the bowl down the brigade to the altar). For each lamb, the participant will bring his lamb up, the facilitating Cohen will ask 'is the lamb intended for Pesaĥ?' help in the blessings and the slaughter. The blood is then passed down to the altar and while this is happening the first participant removes his lamb to the flaying and the next participant brings up his lamb. [Why is Steven assuming 'one lamb at a time'? My guess is that several - many? - could be accommodated at the same time - SR.] I think the constraining factor is the average time it takes to slay each lamb. In the most assembly line fashion I can't see this happening faster than 15 seconds/lamb average - but someone more familiar with the shochet [slaughter - SR] process needs to step in on this. It might be faster once the line gets moving, but I'm thinking in average. I'm thinking 5 hours - 2 hours for the first two groups, 1 for the last group. If we want to try to achieve the 60,000 number [the typological number was actually 600,000 - SR], this means the first two groups are 24,000 participants and the last group 12,000. The singing of Hallel is not the constraining factor. A good choir can spend minutes per line and still keep the tempo up. And I think a good tempo is needed to keep the process going (I know morbid). But here are some commensurate timings for each line:
If each line consisted of 6 Cohens with one leader. I also imagine there has to be an extra 2 Cohens/per line (at least) to assist in the flaying. And maybe 50 Cohens to help the orchestration. This means in the first group you would have 24,000 participants and 500 Cohens for the slaughter. While the area is small - 24,000 people (even each holding a lamb) can squeeze in a small space - not discounting the miracle of the expanding interior space. I admit this is all morbid, but for some reason it fascinated me. I won't go into the calculation on the litres of blood or the kilos of kidneys. I know I have made some gross (no pun intended) simplifications, but I think this a good start basis for working out the problem.
àÈîÇø øÇáÌÄé àÁìÄéòÆæÆø, åÇäÂìÉà ãÄéï äåÌà,
îÈä àÄí ùÑÀçÄéèÈä ùÑÆäÄéà îÄùÌÑåÌí îÀìÈàëÈä ãÌåÉçÈä àÆú äÇùÌÑÇáÌÈú,
àÅìÌåÌ ùÑÆäÅï îÄùÌÑåÌí ùÑÀáåÌú ìÉà éÄãÀçåÌ àÆú äÇùÌÑÇáÌÈú.
àÈîÇø ìåÉ øÇáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ, éåÉí èåÉá éåÉëÄéçÇ,
ùÑÆäÄúÌÄéøåÌ áåÉ îÄùÌÑåÌí îÀìÈàëÈä, åÀàÈñÀøåÌ áåÉ îÄùÌÑåÌí ùÑÀáåÌú.
àÈîÇø ìåÉ øÇáÌÄé àÁìÄéòÆæÆø, îÇä æÌÆä, éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ,
îÈä øÀàÈéÈä øÀùÑåÌú ìÇîÌÄöÀåÈä.
äÅùÑÄéá øÇáÌÄé òÂ÷ÄéáÈà åÀàÈîÇø,
äÇæÌÈàÈä úåÉëÄéçÇ, ùÑÆäÄéà îÄöÀåÈä åÀäÄéà îÄùÌÑåÌí ùÑÀáåÌú åÀàÅéðÈäÌ ãÌåÉçÈä àÆú äÇùÌÑÇáÌÈú.
àÇó àÇúÌÈä àÇì úÌÄúÀîÇäÌ òÇì àÅìÌåÌ, ùÑÆàÇó òÇì ôÌÄé ùÑÆäÅï îÄöÀåÈä åÀäÅï îÄùÌÑåÌí ùÑÀáåÌú,
ìÉà éÄãÀçåÌ àÆú äÇùÌÑÇáÌÈú.
àÈîÇø ìåÉ øÇáÌÄé àÁìÄéòÆæÆø, åÀòÈìÆéäÈ àÂðÄé ãÈï,
åÌîÈä àÄí ùÑÀçÄéèÈä ùÑÆäÄéà îÄùÌÑåÌí îÀìÈàëÈä, ãÌåÉçÈä àÆú äÇùÌÑÇáÌÈú.
äÇæÌÈàÈä ùÑÆäÄéà îÄùÌÑåÌí ùÑÀáåÌú, àÅéðåÉ ãÄéï ùÑÆãÌåÉçÈä àÆú äÇùÌÑÇáÌÈú.
àÈîÇø ìåÉ øÇáÌÄé òÂ÷ÄéáÈà, àåÉ çÄìÌåÌó,
îÈä àÄí äÇæÌÈàÈä ùÑÆäÄéà îÄùÌÑåÌí ùÑÀáåÌú, àÅéðÈäÌ ãÌåÉçÈä àÆú äÇùÌÑÇáÌÈú.
ùÑÀçÄéèÈä ùÑÆäÄéà îÄùÌÑåÌí îÀìÈàëÈä, àÅéðåÉ ãÄéï ùÑÆìÌÉà úÄãÀçÆä àÆú äÇùÌÑÇáÌÈú.
àÈîÇø ìåÉ øÇáÌÄé àÁìÄéòÆæÆø,
òÂ÷ÄéáÈà, òÈ÷ÇøÀúÌÈ îÇä ùÌÑÆëÌÈúåÌá áÌÇúÌåÉøÈä, áÌÀîåÉòÂãåÉ áÌÅéï áÌÇçÉì áÌÅéï áÌÇùÌÑÇáÌÈú.
àÈîÇø ìåÉ, øÇáÌÄé, äÈáÅà ìÄé îåÉòÅã ìÈàÅìÌåÌ ëÌÇîÌåÉòÅã ìÇùÌÑÀçÄéèÈä.
ëÌÀìÈì àÈîÇø øÇáÌÄé òÂ÷ÄéáÈà,
ëÌÈì îÀìÈàëÈä ùÑÆàÆôÀùÑÈø ìÇòÂùÒåÉúÈäÌ îÅòÆøÆá ùÑÇáÌÈú, àÅéðÈäÌ ãÌåÉçÈä àÆú äÇùÌÑÇáÌÈú.
ùÑÀçÄéèÈä ùÑÆàÄé àÆôÀùÑÈø ìÇòÂùÒåÉúÈäÌ îÅòÆøÆá ùÑÇáÌÈú, ãÌåÉçÈä àÆú äÇùÌÑÇáÌÈú:
Rabbi Eli'ezer said: 'Is it not logical? - Slaughtering is a [Torah-
prohibited] action and yet overrides Shabbat; surely these, which are only rabbinically-prohibited
should override Shabbat!' Rabbi Yehoshu'a retorted: 'A festival can prove [you
wrong]. They permitted [Torah-prohibited] actions on it but
prohibited rabbinically-prohibited [actions].' Rabbi Eli'ezer
responded: 'What is this, Yehoshu'a? How can a concession be compared with a requirement?' Rabbi Akiva
answered: 'Sprinkling can prove it. This is a requirement and also a rabbinically prohibited action and
it does not override Shabbat; so you should not be surprised that these, even though they are a
requirement and rabbinically prohibited actions should [also] not
override Shabbat.' Rabbi Eli'ezer said to him, 'I apply the following logical argument: slaughtering is
a [Torah-prohibited] action which overrides Shabbat; sprinkling is
[only]> a rabbinically-prohibited action. Is it not logical that it
should override Shabbat?' Rabbi Akiva replied to him: 'Or the opposite! Sprinkling is a rabbinically-
prohibited action and does not override Shabbat; is it not logical that slaughtering, which is a Torah-
prohibited action, should override Shabbat?' Rabbi Eli'ezer responded to him: 'Akiva, you have removed a
Torah-specific requirement! It is written "in the afternoon ... at its appointed time" - be it
a weekday or Shabbat!' He replied: 'Rabbi, show me an appointed time for these which is similar to the
appointed time for slaughtering.' Rabbi Akiva states a general rule: any action that can be done before
Shabbat cannot override Shabbat; slaughtering, which cannot be done before Shabbat, does override
Shabbat.
EXPLANATIONS:
1: In order to understand our present mishnah we must remind ourselves of the previous mishnah. In mishnah 1 Rabbi Eli'ezer had expressed a minority opinion that certain actions connected with the offering of the paschal lamb were permitted when Nisan 14th fell on Shabbat even though these actions are prohibited on Shabbat which is not Nisan 14th. (These actions were hoisting it onto one's shoulders to carry it through town and removing calluses from the animal.) Our present mishnah affords us a wonderful opportunity to enter into the grove in Yavneh where the Sanhedrin met under the presidency of Rabban Gamli'el and to overhear, as it were, a discussion between three giants: Rabbi Eli'ezer (who holds the minority opinion in mishnah 1), his friend, colleague and rival Rabbi Yehoshu'a and the even greater pupil of both of them, Rabbi Akiva. (Perhaps we can note that these are three of the five sages mentioned in the Haggadah who discussed the Exodus all night in Bnei-Berak; they were joined on that occasion by rabbis Tarfon and El'azar ben-Azaryah.)
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
DISCUSSION:
Lyle Himmel writes: During the seder, why do we divide Hallel in two? Is it to create the effect that we are reciting it during the meal itself (so that it is 'accompanying' the meal)? I respond: Yes. My second question is one that actually lingers from Chapter 4, where we discussed until when and where it was permitted to do work on Erev Pesaĥ. Though we are not privileged to bring the Pesaĥ sacrifice today, do these work restrictions still apply in our day? i.e. - must one cease from his occupational work on erev Pesaĥ once halakhic noon has arrived? I respond: Wherever possible, yes. From noon onwards on Nisan 14th (when it falls on a day other than Shabbat) we should be occupied only with preparations for the Seder if this is at all possible.
I wrote: And we should also bear in mind that the atoning efficacy of the splashing of the blood of the slain paschal lamb on the sides of the altar was the conceptual basis for the core belief of Pauline Christianity. Naomi Koltun-Fromm writes: Putting aside what Paul does with this - does the Paschal sacrifice atone? Is that its main purpose? Does the blood of any sacrifice atone no matter what the original intent (memorial?) of the sacrifice itself? I respond: The splashing of an animal's blood on the sides of the altar was an act of atonement: the animal's life- blood was offered in place of my own, as it were. The rationale is: I am guilty; my life is forfeit; I place my hands on the animal's head thus transferring my guilt, and the animal's lifeblood is sprinkled on the altar instead of my own. Vicarious atonement (the very essence of Pauline Christianity).
Jeff Silver writes: I must comment on the one reader who implied that bris milah [circumcision] should go the way of the sacrificial cult. To my mind, such a view has no place in Conservative Judaism. It has become popular in some quarters of the reform movement (where it is even called child abuse in the criminal sense of that term), but surely somewhere Conservative Judaism has to draw some lines in the sand. (I admit to being something of an archtraditionalist - I'm no fan of triennial Torah reading cycles, cars on shabbat, and such other 'conservaform' developments, but I can live with their presence in our movement, if not at my shul). But an uncircumcised male, it seems to me, is no Jew even if he adheres strictly to all other mitzvos. I am surprised that you let the insinuation to the contrary pass without comment. I respond: I let it pass because I didn't think it was wise to open up that discussion at that time. I agree with the general thrust of Jeff's message, but must correct the last sentence. A person born a Jew Jew is a Jew by birth, not by circumcision. After all, fully half the Jewish people are not circumcised, but they are no less Jewish! The omission of circumcision in the case of a Jewish male is a very serious omission and if a person was not circumcised in infancy he should see to it that he is circumcised in adulthood (unless there are clear medical contra-indications). But his physical state does not make him any the less a Jew and any the less bound by the mitzvot. (Should he die uncircumcised by deliberate and avoidable choice according to our tradition he is deemed to be punished by excision.)
àÅéîÈúÇé îÅáÄéà çÂâÄéâÈä òÄîÌåÉ,
áÌÄæÀîÇï ùÑÆäåÌà áÈà áÌÇçÉì áÌÀèÈäÃøÈä åÌáÀîËòÈè.
åÌáÄæÀîÇï ùÑÆäåÌà áÈà áÌÇùÌÑÇáÌÈú áÌÄîÀøËáÌÆä åÌáÀèËîÀàÈä, àÅéï îÀáÄéàÄéï òÄîÌåÉ çÂâÄéâÈä: çÂâÄéâÈä äÈéÀúÈä áÈàÈä îÄï äÇöÌÉàï, îÄï äÇáÌÈ÷Èø, îÄï äÇëÌÀáÈùÒÄéí åÌîÄï äÈòÄæÌÄéí, îÄï äÇæÌÀëÈøÄéí åÌîÄï äÇðÌÀ÷ÅáåÉú. åÀðÆàÁëÆìÆú ìÄùÑÀðÅé éÈîÄéí åÀìÇéÀìÈä àÆçÈã:
When is a celebratory [sacrifice] brought with it? When it is brought
on a weekday, in [ritual] purity and not much; but when it is brought
on Shabbat, too much and in [ritual] impurity a celebratory is not
brought with it. The celebratory came from the flock, the herd, sheep, goats, males and females; and it could be eaten for two days and one night.
EXPLANATIONS:
1: The Torah [Deuteronomy 16:2] states:
åÀæÈáÇçÀúÌÈ ôÌÆñÇç ìÇéäåÉä àÁìÉäÆéêÈ öÉàï åÌáÈ÷Èø áÌÇîÌÈ÷åÉí àÂùÑÆø éÄáÀçÇø éÀäÉåä ìÀùÑÇëÌÅï ùÑÀîåÉ ùÑÈí:
You shall slaughter the paschal sacrifice to God from the flock and the herd.
The collection of halakhic midrashim, Sifré, notes that this requirement seems to contradict the
original requirement of the Torah [Exodus 12:5] that the paschal sacrifice was to be only a sheep
or a goat, both of which are 'flock' animals and not 'herd' animals. The Sifré resolves this seeming
contradiction by noting that two kinds of offering were made on Nisan 14th: one was the paschal lamb, from
the flock, and another, from the herd, was also offered and this was called Chagigah, a celebratory
offering. (In all fairness we should also note that 2Chronicles 35:7 also records paschal sacrifices of
both flock animals and herd animals, so the Sifré may not be just mere harmonization.)
2:
DISCUSSION:
The previous mishnah was unusual in that it included details of the discussion that took place among the
sages and not just the bare bones of the decision. Yiftah Shapir writes: This kind of discussion where arguments are being brought in favour or against each opinion is very typical to the Gemara - but very untypical for the Mishnah. Undoubtedly - wherever there is a Maĥloket in the Mishna - the Tannaim had argued a lot and obviously had many arguments - but they are never presented to us. What happened now? why is this mishna different from all the other mishnayot? what is so special about the subject that convinced Rabbi Yehuda Ha-Nassi to include not only the opinions but their argumentations as well? I respond: This mishnah is not unique. The Gemara is not the only source we have for the way the sages argued their cases: the collections of halakhic midrashim (Mekhilta, Sifra and Sifré) have many such examples. I think that the compiler of the Mishnah included this discussion because it was important to him that it be clear that even though Rabbi Eli'ezer had sound halakhic reasoning to support his view, it was the reasoning of Rabbi Yehoshu'a that was accepted halakhah.
Still in connection with the previous mishnah, David Shemano writes: You translate the Mishnah to use the word 'logical'. What is the Hebrew word that you are translating? Is it a word that is found in the Bible? I guess my question is whether the concept of 'logic' was picked up from the Greeks and/or would be used in a technical sense as used by the Greek philosophers, or has a technically different meaning? I respond: The term used is a technical term which is associated with the particular kind of exposition of the biblical text called Kal va-Chomer. The Hebrew term has several variant forms all except one of which implies the use of logical deduction. However, it is certainly not the kind of logical reasoning that the Greeks have left us that is in use here. Let us say that in a certain case the Torah states quite explicitly what the law is, but in another (allied) case is silent as to the law. The sages seek to apply certain modes of deduction to the biblical text to see if the unknown rule is implied even if it is not explicit. (Not all of the expository methods would be recognized by us as demonstrating the application of logic!) In the mode in hand the reasoning is logical, but not conclusively so. In is most basic form it says that if the unknown is obviously egregious compared with the known then it is surely logical that the law would be... In other words, the logic is that the answer that I want to espouse is implied in the original text even if it is not made explicit there.
EXPLANATIONS (continued):
3: Our mishnah teaches when it was acceptable to bring the additional 'celebratory' offering (Chagigah) and when it was not acceptable to do so. It was only brought when Nisan 14th fell on a day other than Shabbat; since this offering was entirely voluntary there was no way in which slaughtering it on Shabbat could be justified.
4:
5:
6:
7:
DISCUSSION: I wrote: Rambam suggests (and 750 years later Rav Kuk enthusiastically agreed) that we should see in the rules and regulations of kashrut the first tentative stages of a process designed to wean Jews away from the consumption of dead animals and back to mankind's pristine vegetarianism (culminating in world-wide vegetarianism in the messianic age). Josh Greenfield writes: I read with interest your comments on Rambam's analysis of the role of the sacrificial system, and the notion that it is merely a stage in our people's development, with the service in the future Temple to take on another form that we cannot envision today. It seems to me, then, that ours is not the first generation to confront the issue of having prayerbooks that express one desire (restoration of sacrifices) and hearts and minds expressing another. I have seen how you deal with this in your excellent siddur Va'ani Tefilati, and I'm thinking in particular of the introduction where you stress the need to mean what you're saying when you pray. I am curious if you can tell me how this has been dealt with by previous generations (i.e., if Rambam was not praying for the restoration of the sacrificial system, what did he say in Musaf?). I respond: I do not know what was Rambam's take on the possible restoration of the sacrificial system. In many controversial matters he was careful to leave himself room for manoeuvre. In the 'Guide for the Perplexed' he certainly states that the sacrificial system was a concession at a certain point in history because our people would not have been psychologically ready for an alternative. However, in his halakhic work 'Mishneh Torah' he is careful to bring all the laws of animal sacrifice in complete detail. As far as his own practice is concerned: we do not know. I do not think that this is even mentioned either in his published material or in his private communications. Possibly (I repeat the word 'possibly') he availed himself of the halakhic loophole that he himself mentions in Mishneh Torah, where he brings the text of the prayers: The people have the custom in all the Musaf (Additional) services, when [the worshipper] says 'as You wrote in Your Torah by Your servant Moses' that he mentions the sacrifices of that day as they are written in the Torah by reciting those verses. But if he did not mention them [specifically], once he says 'as You wrote in Your Torah' he does not have to be more specific.
äÇôÌÆñÇç ùÑÆùÌÑÀçÈèåÉ ùÑÆìÌÉà ìÄùÑÀîåÉ áÇùÌÑÇáÌÈú, çÇéÌÈá òÈìÈéå çÇèÌÈàú.
åÌùÑÀàÈø ëÌÈì äÇæÌÀáÈçÄéí ùÑÆùÌÑÀçÈèÈï ìÀùÑÅí ôÌÆñÇç, àÄí àÅéðÈï øÀàåÌéÄéï, çÇéÌÈá.
åÀàÄí øÀàåÌéÄéï äÅï, øÇáÌÄé àÁìÄéòÆæÆø îÀçÇéÌÅá çÇèÌÈàú, åÀøÇáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ ôÌåÉèÅø.
àÈîÇø øÇáÌÄé àÁìÄéòÆæÆø,
îÈä àÄí äÇôÌÆñÇç ùÑÆäåÌà îËúÌÈø ìÄùÑÀîåÉ, ëÌÀùÑÆùÌÑÄðÌÈä àÆú ùÑÀîåÉ, çÇéÌÈá.
æÀáÈçÄéí ùÑÆäÅï àÂñåÌøÄéï ìÄùÑÀîÈï, ëÌÀùÑÆùÌÑÄðÌÈä àÆú ùÑÀîÈï, àÅéðåÉ ãÄéï ùÑÆéÌÀäÅà çÇéÌÈá.
àÈîÇø ìåÉ øÇáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ, ìÉà,
àÄí àÈîÇøÀúÌÈ áÌÇôÌÆñÇç ùÑÆùÌÑÄðÌÈäåÌ ìÀãÈáÈø àÈñåÌø, úÌÉàîÇø áÌÇæÌÀáÈçÄéí ùÑÆùÌÑÄðÌÈï ìÀãÈáÈø äÇîÌËúÌÈø.
àÈîÇø ìåÉ øÇáÌÄé àÁìÄéòÆæÆø,
àÅîåÌøÅé öÄáÌåÌø éåÉëÄéçåÌ, ùÑÆäÅï îËúÌÈøÄéï ìÄùÑÀîÈï, åÀäÇùÌÑåÉçÅè ìÄùÑÀîÈï, çÇéÌÈá.
àÈîÇø ìåÉ øÇáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ,
ìÉà, àÄí àÈîÇøÀúÌÈ áÌÀàÅîåÌøÅé öÄáÌåÌø ùÑÆéÌÆùÑ ìÈäÆï ÷ÄöÀáÈä,
úÌÉàîÇø áÌÇôÌÆñÇç ùÑÆàÅéï ìåÉ ÷ÄöÀáÈä.
øÇáÌÄé îÅàÄéø àåÉîÅø,
àÇó äÇùÌÑåÉçÅè ìÀùÑÅí àÅîåÌøÅé öÄáÌåÌø, ôÌÈèåÌø:
If one slaughtered a paschal lamb on Shabbat for a different purpose one must bring a sin-offering to
cover it. If one slaughtered any other sacrifice for the purpose of being a paschal lamb - if it is not
suitable one is liable; if it is suitable Rabbi Eli'ezer requires a sin-offering but Rabbi Yehoshu'a does
not. Rabbi Eli'ezer said: When a paschal lamb, which is permitted for its own purpose, is offered for another purpose it makes one liable; [other] sacrifices, which are forbidden for their own purpose, is it not logical that one should be liable if they are offered for another purpose? Rabbi Yehoshu'a said: No. If you say that a paschal lamb when offered for another purpose is prohibited, then should you not say that [another] sacrifice when offered for [this] different purpose is permitted? Rabbi Eli'ezer responded: required public sacrifices will prove [my point]: they are permitted for their own purpose but if someone slaughters them for that purpose he is liable. Rabbi Yehoshu'a said to him: No. If you say that about required public sacrifices, whose number is regulated, then you must say [the same thing] about a paschal lamb, whose number is not regulated. Rabbi Me'ir says that even slaughtering [other sacrifices] for the purpose of a required public sacrifice is excused.
EXPLANATIONS:
1: Our mishnah is concerned with the permissibility or otherwise of offering other sacrifices on Nisan 14th which falls on Shabbat. It states that if on Nisan 14th which falls on Shabbat a person changes his mind at the last moment and slaughters an animal intended for the paschal sacrifice for some other sacrificial purpose instead, he is liable to offer a sin-offering. This is because it is forbidden to offer voluntary (i.e. personal) offerings on Shabbat. On Shabbat in general it is forbidden to slaughter animals (it is even forbidden to trap them!) and an exception is made only in the Bet Mikdash and only for animals sacrificed on that day by the direct requirement of the Torah. When the Bet Mikdash was still in existence an unwitting infringement of Shabbat law required the 'culprit' to expiate the sin by bringing a sin-offering (at some later stage). In our case we can assume that the substitution was made unwittingly in that the person making the substitution either did not know that such a substitution on Shabbat was forbidden or had forgotten that it was Shabbat.
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
ùÑÀçÈèåÉ ùÑÆìÌÉà ìÀàåÉëÀìÈéå åÀùÑÆìÌÉà ìÄîÀðåÌéÈéå, ìÈòÂøÅìÄéï åÀìÇèÌÀîÅàÄéï, çÇéÌÈá.
ìÀàåÉëÀìÈéå åÀùÑÆìÌÉà ìÀàåÉëÀìÈéå, ìÄîÀðåÌéÈéå åÀùÑÆìÌÉà ìÄîÀðåÌéÈéå,
ìÇîÌåÌìÄéï åÀìÈòÂøÅìÄéï, ìÇèÌÀäåÉøÄéí åÀìÇèÌÀîÅàÄéí, ôÌÈèåÌø.
ùÑÀçÈèåÉ åÀðÄîÀöÈà áÇòÇì îåÌí, çÇéÌÈá.
ùÑÀçÈèåÉ åÀðÄîÀöÈà èÀøÅôÈä áÇñÌÅúÆø, ôÌÈèåø.
ùÑÀçÈèåÉ åÀðåÉãÇò ùÑÆîÌÈùÑÀëåÌ äÇáÌÀòÈìÄéí àÆú éÈãÈí,
àåÉ ùÑÆîÌÅúåÌ àåÉ ùÑÆðÌÄèÀîÀàåÌ, ôÌÈèåÌø, îÄôÌÀðÅé ùÑÆùÌÑÈçÇè áÌÄøÀùÑåÌú:
If one slaughtered a paschal lamb for people who will not eat it, are not subscribed to it, are
uncircumcised or ritually impure - one is liable. If one slaughtered for
[a mixed company of both] people who will and will not eat it, are and
are not subscribed to it, are circumcised and are not, are ritually pure and are not - one is excused.
If one slaughtered it and [subsequently] discovered that it was damaged
one is liable; if one slaughtered it and subsequently discovered that it was damaged internally one is
excused. If one slaughtered it and [subsequently] heard that the owners
had reneged, died or become ritually impure - one is excused because the slaughtering was done legally.
EXPLANATIONS:
1: We learned in Pesaĥim 5:3, which reads in part as follows:
A paschal lamb is invalid if it was slaughtered for those who will not eat it, are not subscribed to it,
are uncircumcised or ritually impure. It is valid [if it was slaughtered] for
[a company which consisted of] both those who would and would not eat
it, both those who were and who were not subscribed, both circumcised and uncircumcised persons, and both
ritually pure and impure.
Our present mishnah does not repeat that information, but reviews it in a different light. Our present
mishnah is not concerned with the validity or otherwise of the paschal sacrifice; it is concerned with
the violation or otherwise of the sanctity of Shabbat when the paschal lamb is slaughtered on Shabbat.
We recall that the slaughter of animals on Shabbat is forbidden (it is one of the 39 basic actions whose
prohibitions 'define' Shabbat). The only exception - as is the case with many Shabbat prohibitions, as
we have seen - is the authorized slaughter of animals on Shabbat as part of the ritual of the Bet Mikdash.
The emphasis here must be on the word 'authorized': if an animal were slaughtered for an invalid purpose
the person who did the slaughtering is in violation of Shabbat sanctity. (Assuming that the violation
was unintentional, the 'culprit' is required to bring a sin-offering in exculpation.)
2:
3:
4:
DISCUSSION:
When we studied the first mishnah of Chapter 5 we learned that the daily sacrifice is slaughtered
at eight and one half hours and is offered at nine and one half... Avraham
Arbib asks: Just how in ancient times was it possible to measure 'one twelfth of the time that lapses between sunrise and sunset on any given day'? I respond: We have dealt with this issue before. For example, I once wrote: In earlier times almost everyone could tell the time of day with just a glance at the sky. The horizon from east to west could be divided into twelve imaginary sections and with practice one could tell in which section of the sky the sun was at any given time, with surprising accuracy. The day began at sunrise, which was by definition zero hour. When the sun had traversed one twelfth of the sky in its westward track the end of the first hour had arrived; when the sun had traversed yet one more twelfth of the sky the end of the second hour had arrived - and so forth. When the sun was at its zenith, right overhead, the time was noon, the end of the sixth hour. The hours would continue to be counted thus until the sun sank below the western horizon, which point was the end of the twelfth hour. Even a child could tell the time very broadly: if the sun was east of the zenith it was still morning; if the sun was right overhead it was noon; and if the sun was westering, past the zenith it was afternoon. This concludes, at long last, our study of Chapter 6, which was concerned with the peculiar circumstances attending the slaughter of the paschal lamb when Nisan 14th falls on Shabbat.
|