Pesachim VII

1:
When we started our study of this tractate I noted that its essential arrangement is chronological,
following the developments associated with the eating of the paschal lamb at the seder service. The
first three chapters were concerned with the search for and elimination of all leaven, which had to be
done before the paschal lambs were slaughtered in the Bet Mikdash during the afternoon of Nisan 14th
(chapters 5 and 6). (Chapter 4 had been concerned with the halakhic norms concerning Nisan 14th.)
Chapter 7 now brings us to the moment when each group begins to prepare its lamb for the seder.

2:
The Torah [Exodus 12:3-9] requires the lamb to be prepared for consumption at the seder in a very
specific way:

In particular we note that the lamb was to be well roasted and not boiled, and that even those inner
(intestinal) parts which had been removed at the time of slaughter were to be included in the roasting
process.

2:
The lamb was to be skewered on a pole made of the wood of the pomegranate tree. It is the prohibition of
boiling that prompts this requirement. The Torah requires the lamb to be 'roasted with fire' and 'in no
way boiled'. The wood of most trees has moisture inside, however dry it may be on the outside. The
concern was that when the heat of the fire releases that moisture, which would then come into contact
with the meat of the lamb, parts of the lamb would be thus 'boiled in water' and not 'roasted by fire'.
The wood of the pomegranate tree is very dry, which would lessen or obviate that danger.

3:
This pole was thrust right through the animal so that it could thus be suspended above the fire to roast.
Rabbi Yosé ha-Gelili understands the biblical requirement 'roasted by fire with its head, its legs
and its inner parts' to indicate that these items were to be stuffed inside the cavity created by the
removal of the entrails. Rabbi Akiva disagrees, since then these items would be cooked by the heat of
the animal itself and not by direct contact with the fire. He, thus, requires these items to be s
uspended together with the animal's carcass. Halakhah follows the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

Two short items. Firstly, as regards my response to the question of Avraham Arbiv concerning the telling
of the time in the ancient world. Arieh Abramowitz adds:

Of course, a sundial would make it even easier – including the ability to discern half and quarter hours
or even minutes.

---

The whole of Chapter 5 had been dedicated to the convoluted intricacies of the slaughter of the paschal
lamb on Shabbat. Michael Mantel writes:

My remembrance is that Pesaĥ cannot be on Shabbat. If that is wrong, stop reading. If the Pascal
sacrifice can be done on Shabbat, why did the rabbis prohibit its replacement, the seder, from occurring
on Shabbat?

I respond:

Even though Mike's memory is playing him false this time I bring his question because it elicits further
information.

The first day of Pesaĥ can certainly fall on Shabbat: just look at the very first pages of your Haggadah
to verify that during Kiddush provision is made for additions to be made when the Seder is celebrated on
Friday night. (As the calendar is at present regulated, the first day of Passover never falls on a
Monday, a Wednesday or a Friday, which means that the Seder is never celebrated on Sunday, Tuesday or
Thursday evenings.)

Also, strictly speaking the Seder does not replace the paschal sacrifice. The Haggadah, as we shall see
when we reach chapter 10, was designed to accompany the eating of the paschal lamb together with matzah
and maror. It is the shankbone on the seder dish which today 'replaces' or commemorates the paschal
lamb.

1:
Our mishnah may be divided into three parts, technically termed Reisha, Emtza'ita and Seifa. The Reisha
states that the paschal lamb may not be roasted on a metal spit or skewer. This is a continuation of
what was begun in the previous mishnah: the lamb must be roasted by the direct heat of fire; if the meat
is in contact with the metal spit it will be the heat of the spit which cooks the meat and not the heat
of the fire. The Emtza'ita records a differing opinion in this matter. The Seifa is concerned with what
to do if parts of the animal's meat come into contact, even indirectly, with a barrier between it and the
flames.

2:
The Reisha and Emtza'ita have a Halakhic significance far beyond their simple meaning, and they are key
elements in the modern halakhic discussions concerning the use of the electric light on Shabbat and Yom
Tov.

Recently, on two occasions, the mishnayot that we were learning had developed examples of the application
of the logical process known as Kal va-Ĥomer (inferring the law in one case from a known law
in a related case). Art Werschulz writes:

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that 'kal vachomer' could be translated as 'light and heavy', or perhaps
as 'lenient vs. strict'. The Birnbaum siddur translates 'mikal vachomer' as: Inference is drawn
from a minor premise to a major premise or from a major premise to a minor one. As good as
Birnbaum's translations usually are, this one probably isn't as enlightening as the example he gives in
the footnotes: If, for example, a certain act is forbidden on an ordinary festival, it is so much
the more forbidden on Yom Kippur; if a certain act is permissible on Yom Kippur, it is so much the more
permissible on an ordinary festival. The first instance Birnbaum gives is an example of 'mikal
vachomer', i.e., an inference from a lenient to a strict situation. The second instance is an example of
'michomer vakal', i.e., an inference from a strict to a lenient situation.

---

Ze'ev Orzech writes:

I know you closed the discussion on the subject, but it just occurred to me that the righteous are
promised to feed on the shor habar in the Messianic age. Does this not contradict your
'prediction' of a general vegetarianism?

I respond:

First of all it is not 'my' prediction, but that of rabbis far greater than I can ever hope to be.
Secondly, our sages warned us on many occasions that 'Eyn meshivim min ha-Aggadah'". This means
that Aggadah should never be understood literally (nor should it be used to derive Halakhah). As Rambam
says on many occasions: we won't know till we get there!

---

Irwin Mortman writes:

You stated: On Shabbat in general it is forbidden to slaughter animals (it is even forbidden to
trap them!) Doesn't trapping an animal cause an injury to the animal rendering it non-kosher, or
did they have a way of trapping animals without causing an injury?

I respond:

My apologies for the misunderstanding. 'Trapping' in the context of Shabbat observance means holding an
animal against it's will – even your pet dog! It's their Shabbat as well. Thus selecting an animal for
slaughter becomes forbidden on Shabbat from the moment one takes hold of it in any way. 'Trapping' in
this context does not necessarily imply the use of mechanical means to arrest an animal.

3:
We have already noted that the Reisha and Emtza'ita of our present mishnah (i.e. the first two of the
three sections into which it may be divided) have halakhic repercussions that reach out from a reality of
two thousand years ago into the technology of the 20th and 21st century. The issue is the nature of
electricity and the halakhic considerations concerning the uses to which electricity can be put. In our
mishnah Tanna Kamma states that the paschal lamb may not be roasted on a metal spit or grating,
because then it would be the heat generated by the metal which would cook at least some of the meat and
not the direct heat of the flames of the fire, which is what seems to be required by the Torah when it
states [Exodus 12:9] that the paschal lamb must be 'roasted by fire'. However, in the Emtza'ita
we see that Rabban Gamli'el was not at all perturbed by this consideration.

4:

A logical understanding of this maĥloket [difference of opinion] between Tanna Kamma and
Rabban Gamli'el would suggest that Tanna Kamma holds that the heat generated by heated metal does
cook food and that is why he prohibits its use in the preparation of the paschal lamb. Rabban Gamli'el,
it seems, has no qualms on this matter: he seems to think that the metal is merely a receptacle for
holding the food while it is being cooked and that the actual cooking process is performed by the flames
themselves; and that, therefore, such an arrangement is in accordance with the requirement of the Torah.

5:
Electricity is a phenomenon that exists in nature, but which can also be created (generated) by mechanical
means. The mechanical generation of electricity involves several actions which the Torah prohibits on
Shabbat (the boiling, for example, which takes place within the generator itself). In the diaspora,
however, this is no consideration at all, since the generation of electricity is done by non-Jews for the
benefit of (mainly) non-Jews with no certain consideration of directly benefiting Jews. There is no
reason why on Shabbat any Jew should not benefit incidentally from something done by a non-Jew for his or
her own purposes with no direct thought of benefiting the Jew. Thus, in the diaspora the circumstances
of the generation of electricity create no halakhic problem concerning the use of
electricity on Shabbat and the discussion will only be concerned with the permissibility or otherwise of
the uses to which generated electricity can be put. In the State of Israel, of course, this is not the
case. However, when it wishes to do so the established rabbinate has no qualms at using methods of
inference which, had they been proposed by a Conservative rabbi, for example, would have been roundly
condemned by the orthodox rabbis as being unacceptable. The reasoning is that since electricity is a
commodity that is absolutely necessary for hospitals and the security forces to have in order to be able
to save human lives, which is certainly permitted on Shabbat, it is permissible for Jews to generate it
on Shabbat. Since we have already permitted its generation on Shabbat anyway, goes the reasoning, there
is no objection to other Jews using the generated electricity as well, even though they are not directly
involved with the possibility of piku'ach nefesh. [Piku'ach nefesh is the saving of a
human life in the face of immediate and present danger.]

6:
This is not the place to go into the intricacies of what may or may not be done on Shabbat with generated
electricity. There seems to be general agreement that the current (as its name suggests) is simply
flowing along the conductor wires. The current is enabled to reach an appliance (let's say an electric
light bulb) or is prevented from doing so by use of a switch which simply breaks the electrical circuit
or does not do so. There are two views concerning this. One, logically, holds that making and breaking
an electrical circuit is no different from turning on and off a faucet to control the flow of the current
of water in the pipes. The water is there; the closed faucet is merely preventing the continuance of the
flow and opening the faucet merely removes that prevention (which is certainly permissible according to
specific Talmudic law). This argument sees no difference between the faucet and the flow of water and
the switch and the current (flow) of electricity. Another view holds that making and breaking a circuit
is a derivative of the Torah prohibition of 'building up' and 'tearing down'. This view was vociferously
offered by Rabbi Avraham Karelitz (Ĥazon Ish) of Bnei Berak more than 50 years ago.

7:
This leaves only one consideration: is the heat and light generated by electrical means essentially no
different from the heat and light spoken of in the Torah? Tanna Kamma in our mishnah holds that
it is not, Rabban Gamli'el holds that it is different. (In the matter of the paschal
lamb at least, of course, halakhah follows Tanna Kamma.

8:
It is well-known that Conservative halakhists have accepted both possibilities. However, those
Conservative authorities that permit the making and breaking of an electric circuit on Shabbat and YomTov
did not and do not intend to permit the use of electricity for any purpose which is directly prohibited
by Torah. Thus, accepting that halakhah follows Tanna Kamma, while they permit the making and
breaking of a circuit they would not permit the electricity thus released from being used, say, to cook
food on Shabbat.

1:
Our mishnah is concerned with a further aspect of the problems that can beset the eating of the paschal
lamb. This time the problem centres on what is used for basting the animal while it is roasting. Two
items are mentioned in our mishnah, both with different considerations.

2:
The first item is what happens with a lamb that has been basted with oil that is Terumah. We have had
occasion to explain Terumah on several occasions, but the explanation bears repeating in order that the
situation be understood. Here is an explanation that I have offered in the past:

3:
Item (c) in the above list is of no consequence to our present mishnah. Let us assume that a party of
priests has joined together and subscribed to a common paschal lamb, and let us assume that one of them
has provided oil with which to baste the animal while it is roasting, and that the oil he has provided is
oil that he was given by a farmer as Terumah. Terumah is considered to be sacred produce and can
be eaten only by a priest and his immediate family [Leviticus 22:10-16]. To a party that consists
entirely of priests and their immediate households this is no problem. However, to a party which also
has non-priests in it this is a problem, since the non-priests ['Israelites"' may not partake of the oil.
In such a case two solutions are offered, depending on the circumstances. If the problem was noticed
before the roasting actually began it is enough to wash off the oil and start the roasting again using a
differing baster. However, if the meat was already cooked or partly cooked this was not sufficient since
at least part of the oil would have been absorbed by the heat into the meat of the animal. In such a
case the only solution is to slice off the outer layers of meat and see to it that the non-priests in the
party eat only meat from the inner layers which would not have been reached by the terumah oil.

4:
The second problem mentioned by our mishnah is that of the Second Tithe. The Torah thus institutes the
Second Tithe [Deuteronomy 14:22-27]:

The 'place which God shall choose' obviously refers to the Bet Mikdash in Jerusalem. If one of the
subscription party has brought to Jerusalem oil which is Second Tithe and has offered that oil for the
basting its value can not now be shared out between all the subscribers, each one paying his share (as
most likely was the case with regards to the animal itself). This could have been done before the donor
reached Jerusalem, but once inside the borders of Jerusalem the Second Tithe produce can no longer be
exchanged for money.

1:
This mishnah has the function of an introduction to the following mishnayot, which will be concerned with
various aspects of ritual impurity in the sacrificial system in general and concerning the paschal lamb
in particular.

2:
We studied the whole concept of ritual impurity in detail when we studied tractate Yadayyim recently, so
I will not repeat all that here. In any case, such a repetition is unnecessary for the understanding of
our present context.

3:
There are certain public sacrifices (as opposed to private sacrifices which are brought by an individual
for his or her private reasons and purposes) which ought to be slaughtered by someone in a state of ritual
purity. Most forms of ritual impurity can be easily rectified by bathing in a mikveh (ritual pool),
and, as we saw when studying tractate Tamid, priests on duty in the Bet Mikdash would bathe in a mikveh
before starting their duties. (Indeed, in all probability it is their mikveh which has been
excavated in the Temple Mount.) However, the greatest source of ritual impurity cannot be disposed of so
easily and so quickly. As we noted in our study of tractate Yadayyim the supreme major source of ritual
impurity is contact with a corpse. A priest could become ritually unclean by coming into physical
contact with a corpse or even just by being under the same roof as a corpse. But the purification
process involved the use of the ashes of the Red Heifer and took seven days. Our present mishnah is
concerned with the situation created when a public sacrifice must be offered and all the available priests
are in a state of ritual impurity through contact with a corpse.

4:
Our mishnah tells us that under these circumstances there are five public sacrifices which may be
slaughtered even by a priest who is ritually impure. However, parts of these sacrifices were priestly
perquisites and the priest on duty had the right to certain parts of the animal which he could consume
himself. Our mishnah also teaches that even though a priest who is in a state of ritual impurity through
contact with a corpse is permitted to slaughter one of these sacrifices, he is not permitted to consume
his share, which must be incinerated since it has become ritually impure through contact with him (at the
moment of slaughter).

5:
The five sacrifices mentioned by our mishnah are:

The Omer. The Torah [Leviticus 23:10-14] states:

The two loaves. These were offered on the festival of Shavu'ot [Pentecost]. The Torah
[Leviticus 23:17-21] states:

The Shewbread. This was twelve loaves which the Torah [Leviticus 24:5-8] commands to be placed on
the Golden table in the sanctuary every Shabbat.

The Public Peace-Offerings. Peace offerings were usually brought by private persons, but on Shavu'ot the
Torah requires that, among the other required sacrifices, two lambs must be brought as a peace offering
on behalf of the whole people. Previously we quoted the whole passage from Leviticus [23:17-21],
so here we can just review the salient passage:

The New Moon Goats. The Torah [Numbers 28:11-15] institutes that every Rosh
Chodesh, in addition to a large number of sacrifices, a goat is to be offered as a sin-offering. Again,
sin-offerings were usually brought by individuals, but the goat offered on Rosh Chodesh was a public
sin-offering. (It is mentioned at the very end of the passage, almost as an afterthought.)

6:
Our mishnah states that these five sacrifices may be offered even by priests who are still ritually
impure because of contact with a corpse; however, those priests may not eat their share of these
sacrifices while they are in an impure state and the meat that is their share must be burned.

7:
Rabbi Ovadyah of Bertinoro [Italy and Eretz-Israel early 16th century], in his commentary on our mishnah,
explains that these five sacrifices are the only public sacrifices parts of which are eaten by the priests.
He further explains that it is only when the majority of the priests available are ritually impure that
the sacrifice may be offered by them. This concession was derived by the sages from a similar concession
connected with the paschal lamb, which is the subject of the Seifa of our mishnah.

8:
Chapter 9 of our present tractate will introduce the incidence of Pesaĥ Sheni (Second Pesaĥ). When we
reach that chapter we shall give a full explanation; at this time we shall be as brief as possible. So
important was the participation in the eating of the paschal lamb considered, that the Torah provides for
this ceremony an alternative that is not provided for any other festival ritual – even Yom Kippur. The
Torah states that if, on Nisan 14th, someone was ritually impure because of contact with a corpse, and
therefore not able to take part in the Seder service and the eating of the paschal lamb, they may hold
their own private ceremony one month later, on Iyyar 14th, and at this later ceremony all the rituals
connected with the paschal offering may be observed. The question therefore arises: if provision is made
in the Torah for such an eventuality, how can our present mishnah permit both the offering and the
consumption of the paschal lamb when in a state of ritual impurity?

9:
Rambam, in his commentary, explains that the sages understood that the postponement of the Seder ceremony
because of ritual impurity was only for individuals. If the majority of the priests or the people were
ritually impure on Nisan 14th the ceremonies should proceed as usual. This is stated explicitly by
mishnah 6 in our present chapter. Our present mishnah clarifies that not only may the paschal lamb be
slaughtered in ritual impurity, but it may also be eaten in ritual impurity, since it is only slaughtered
in order to be eaten: there is no other purpose to the sacrifice of the paschal lamb.

1:
Our mishnah appears to be recondite, but in fact it is very simple (however irrelevant it may be to
modern conditions). The previous mishnah was concerned with the offering of the paschal lamb when the
people who were to slaughter it and/or eat it were in a state of ritual impurity. Our present mishnah is
concerned with a paschal lamb which itself becomes ritually impure. Such a lamb may not be eaten.
However, we learned incidentally in our study of 5:3 that the blood that gushed from the lamb's
throat at the moment of slaughter was collected in a bowl by an attendant priest and passed down the line
so that it could be sprinkled on the altar. Our mishnah states that if the carcass became ritually
defiled, even if the internal organs that were to be burned on the altar were intact and usable the
animal was an invalid sacrifice, it could not be served at the Seder and the blood should not be
sprinkled. (On the matter of the burning of the internal organs see on 5:10.) If the situation is
reversed and it is only the internal organs that had become ritually defiled the meat may be served at
the Seder and the animal's blood must be sprinkled on the altar.

In our last shiur I brought a quotation from the Torah:

In the first day of your months you shall offer a holocaust to the Lord… this is the monthly
holocaust, throughout the months of the year. One male goat for a sin-offering to the Lord; it shall be
offered besides the regular holocaust, and its libation.

Two participants have written with the same question:

Jordan Wosnik writes:

I am curious about the word 'holocaust' here. This is for the Heb. word 'olah' (or 'olat' if required)
right? I had always thought of this word as 'offering' or literally 'something that is raised up' and
the use of the word 'holocaust' – especially with all of its connotations – puzzles me. Any insight you
could provide would be greatly appreciated.

And Victor M.J. Ryden writes in similar vein:

I'm curious about your use of the word 'holocaust' in the translation. Could you comment on the actual
Hebrew word?

I respond:

The Merriam Webster online dictionary includes the following information:

Etymology: Middle English, from Old French holocauste, from Late Latin holocaustum, from Greek holokauston,
from neuter of holokaustos burnt whole, from hol- + kaustos burnt, from kaiein to burn.

The dictionary brings three meanings:

1. a sacrifice consumed by fire
2. a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially through fire (a nuclear holocaust)

3. a often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis
   during World War II – usually used with the b : a mass slaughter of people…

My explanatory comments:

The use of the term holocaust to denote the destruction of our people by the Nazis is a borrowed
connotation, the original meaning (first used in English, it would appear, in 13th century) was a
sacrifice completely consumed by fire – and thus eminently and deplorably appropriate for the secondary
meanings associated with the term during 20th century.

When we were studying tractate Tamid we had to distinguish between two Hebrew terms used in the
sacrificial system: Isheh, which obviously is connected with the Hebrew word for fire, 'esh';
and Olah, which is connected with the Hebrew root which indicates ascent. Here is part of the shiur in
Tractate Tamid:

Originally I was not convinced that Aryeh's suggestion was appropriate. I have since changed my mind,
and I adopted the suggestion that the term 'olah' is best translated in English as 'holocaust' – an
offering completely consumed by fire.

1:
We have already explained this mishnah, since its meaning was subsumed in part of our explanation of
mishnah 4. The Torah states that if, on Nisan 14th, someone was ritually impure because of contact with
a corpse, and therefore not able to take part in the Seder service and the eating of the paschal lamb,
they may hold their own private ceremony one month later, on Iyyar 14th. Rambam, in his commentary on
mishnah 4, explains that the sages understood that the postponement of the Seder ceremony because of
ritual impurity was only for individuals who had been in contact with a corpse and had not had sufficient
time to complete the purification process.

2:
Mishnah 4 is now easily understood. If the majority of the people are ritually impure the ceremony
should go ahead on Nisan 14th because the postponement was only for individuals and the majority of the
people cannot be subsumed under such a category. The same applies if the available priests are ritually
impure. It follows that if only a minority of the people have become ritually impure in circumstances
explained above the impure ones must wait until Iyyar 14th while the ritually fit perform their
ceremonies on time.

Our study of mishnah 2 of this present chapter included a long exposition of the relationship of the
implications of that mishnah to the halakhic status of electricity in our own times. Amit
Gvaryahu writes:

The most common use of electricity is the light bulb, which is 'cooking', or heating the filament. Thus
prohibited. Rabbi Shlomo Salman Auerbach held the electricity (which did not involve melachot) is
'Asur Derabanan'. This ruling is used by soldiers in the army in order to determine the
actions they may do with a greater degree of ease on shabbat, It may be a real melecha derabanan,
shvut, or uvdin deĥol, but prohibited by the majority of orthodox halakhists just the
some, with good reason, I believe.

I respond:

I must leave it to those who are much more technically knowledgeable than I am concerning the nature of
electricity and its uses to respond to Amit's comment. In my technical ignorance I would think that
there are certain aspects which require consideration: the process of cooking requires that the material
being cooked change its structure through the application of a heat source; but the filament in an
electric light bulb does not change its structure; can it therefore be said to have been cooked? Also,
electricity itself is not a heat source, the heat being created by the friction of the current on the
filament. Thus the filament itself would be what halakhah calls 'toldot ha'ur' [a 'kind' of heat]
and only a substance whose structure is changed by the heat of the filament would be cooked. However, as
I said, I would appreciate input from experts in the nature of electricity and its uses. (Regardless of
what might be the halakhic status of electricity and the uses to which it can be put, I personally hold
that one should not directly open and close an electric circuit on Shabbat because of the consideration
of 'uvdin de-ĥol'. As Rabbi Avraham Yehoshu'a Heschel taught, Shabbat exists as a temple in time
because of what we do and do not do on that day. It becomes sanctified – and therefore exists – by our
abstaining from doing on that day things that we habitually do on other days. Our sages wisely, in my
view, prohibited 'uvdin de-ĥol' – doing secular, mundane tasks, doing on Shabbat what you would
do anyway on any other day.)

---

We have discussed the application of the term 'holocaust' to the sacrificial system. Bayla
Singer writes:

Many of us are uneasy about the term 'Holocaust' for the destruction of our people by the Nazis. Yes,
they were burnt whole – but, as a sacrifice to what god? Surely not HaShem! Yet we also say that they
perished 'kiddush HaShem', for the sanctification of the Name. In America, at least, the word
'holocaust' is divorced from its meaning as burnt-offering, and used exclusively to describe mass death.
Habits are changed with difficulty, but we are trying to substitute the word 'Sho'ah' to refer to
the Nazi activities. Failing that, perhaps it would be best to avoid the word 'holocaust' in describing
the burnt-offerings. If people are willing to mis-spell the Name (Elokeinu instead of Eloheinu"),
to avoid inadvertent transgression, how much more so should we avoid associating the mitzvot with grievous
evil.

---

In that same discussion I quoted an original contribution by Aryeh Abramowitz. Benjamin Fleischer
adds further information:

Olam haTanakh VaYikra 21:6 points out: 'It is customary to interpret the term 'Isheh'
as an offering burned in fire on the altar, and its original derivation comes from the word fire ('Esh').
However, it is possible that its meaning is: a present consecrated to the Lord, which is derived from the
Ugaritic ITh'Th, that means 'present', or from the Arabic ATh'aTh, things of any sort
(Chafetzim mikol sug shehu).

1:
On several occasions we have explained that on Nisan 14th after a paschal lamb was slaughtered its blood
was collected in a basin which was then passed down the line from one priest to the next until the last
one in the line would dash the contents of the basin on the main altar. Our mishnah states that it,
after the blood had been sprinkled, it became apparent that somehow it had contracted ritual impurity the
ceremony is not invalid and the paschal lamb may be roasted and consumed at the seder service later that
evening. (Rambam in his commentary says that 'it' refers to the blood; Rabbi Ovadyah of Bertinoro in his
commentary says that 'it' refers to the lamb itself.) However if it becomes apparent that the person
making the offering had been ritually impure the ceremony is invalid and must be postponed to Iyyar 14th
as is the case with all ritually impure individuals, as we have seen. (Rambam in his commentary says
that 'a person' refers to one of the priests involved; Rabbi Ovadyah of Bertinoro in his commentary says
that 'a person' refers to the owner of the lamb.)

2:
Our mishnah states that in the former case 'the headband makes amends' but in the latter case it does
not. The headband referred to here is one of the items of the vestments of the High Priest. Its
specifics are to be found in Exodus 28:36-38:-

Thus this headband was held to make amends for errors that might have crept in to a sacrificial ceremony
while those affected were unaware of this fact.

All the mishnayot of this chapter are concerned with problems associated with the paschal lamb and ritual
impurity through contact with a corpse. Concerning mishnah 5 Ed Frankel writes:

Today's mishna seems to suggest two central concepts regarding the Pesaĥ. The most important seems to me
to be the involvement of the people. Were this not the case, why sprinkle blood of an animal whose
innards were impure? Also, why still allow the carcass to be eaten? Further, why ban the sprinkling of
animals whose inner organs are fine when its carcass cannot be eaten. More than it was a classical
sacrifice, the mishna suggests to me, the Pesaĥ was a celebratory feast that is begun at the Temple
Mount in order to fimrly establish its importance.

---

Comments are beginning to come in concerning the halakhic status of electricity, a discussion started by
Amit Gevaryahu. Amit wrote: The most common use of electricity is the light bulb,
which is 'cooking'… Yesterday I made some comments on that, and now Keith Bierman
adds:

Aside from your reasoning, it should be noted that only incandescent bulbs result in much heat. LED bulbs
(rare) and fluorescent (very common) result in almost none. As far as I know, the people who forbid use
of electricity don't permit some bulbs and forbid others… so it would seem that there is some other
principle that they appeal to. As for making and breaking circuits, one could employ dimmers to avoid
completely 'breaking' or 'making' a circuit.

Amit also wrote: or heating the filament. Thus prohibited. Keith comments:

Also, as you no doubt already have observed, this incidental heating (outside of a childs toy or special
purpose devices, we don't typically turn on lights to create heat) akin to dragging a bench …. while
tilling is forbidden, if one is doing something permitted it may have side effects that wouldn't have
been permitted in and of themselves.

I explain:

Halakhah recognizes that certain permitted actions, done in all innocence on Shabbat, may have
consequences that involve a prohibition. In Mishneh Torah [Shabbat 1:5] Rambam gives the example
of someone pulling a bench (which is permitted) and by doing so inadvertently uprooting grass or making a
groove in the ground (which is not permitted). Rambam states that it is quite permissible to drag the
bench under such circumstances. I think that Keith is saying that even if the electric light bulb were
to give off heat it should still be permitted to turn it on and off since it is not one's purpose to do
so in order to create heat, and the heat would be purely incidental. In all halakhic honesty I must
point out that in the very next halakhah [Shabbat 5:6] Rambam states that if a prohibited event is
the inevitable consequence of a permitted action then the permitted action becomes
prohibited.

Keith continues:

And if it is 'cooking' what's the minimum temp at which cooking begins … and where must one measure it?

I respond:

The sages define the temperature at which cooking begins as one 'which would scald the hand'
[Tur Orach Chayyim 318, for example]. In his modern work Shemirat Shabbat Kehilkhatah,
the ultra-orthodox Rabbi Yehoshu'a Neuwirth states that this temperature is now held to be 45 degrees
centigrade.

1:
We have already learned that a paschal lamb whose meat had contracted ritual impurity was thus invalidated
and could not serve as the paschal lamb to be eaten, together with matzah and maror, at the Seder service.
If all or most of the animal were contaminated by ritual impurity (through contact with a corpse) the
carcass had to be disposed of by incineration. This was done immediately, using wood from the stock that
fueled the fire stack on the main altar. According to the Talmud of Eretz-Israel [Pesaĥim 53a]
it was done this way – immediately and publicly – in order to shame the owner who had been so careless as
to let his animal contract ritual impurity. If only part of the animal had contracted ritual impurity
that too had to be incinerated, but this could be done privately and at the owner's expense.

2:
Concerning the consumption of the paschal lamb at the seder service the Torah stipulates:

You shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; but that which remains of it until the
morning you shall burn with fire.

Our mishnah explains that if the subscription party was not able to consume a whole lamb the 'left-overs'
were to be treated in similar fashion: they were to be burned privately at the owner's expense.

3:
Our mishnah adds one further detail. It seems that certain people who could have burned their left-overs
privately chose to do so publicly, in the Bet Mikdash, at public expense, using the fire stack wood
instead of their own. This is put down to miserliness on their part.

4:
Our mishnah uses a Hebrew word 'Birah'. In 3:8 I translated this term as 'shrine', an oblique reference
to the Bet Mikdash. This is based on the interpretation of the Hebrew term by the 2nd century Amora of
Eretz-Israel Resh Lakish, who says in the Talmud of Eretz-Israel [Pesaĥim 53a] that the term is
biblical [1Chronicles 29:19] and there clearly indicates the Bet Mikdash. His even greater friend,
Rabbi Yoĥanan, holds that the Hebrew word 'Birah' is an attempt to render the Greek word 'Baris'.
According to Yosef ben-Matityahu (Josephus) this was a citadel overlooking the courtyard of the Bet
Mikdash. In Roman times it was called Antonia and was used to house troops to prevent and deal with
riots [Antiquities of the Jews 15:11:4]. The whole context of our mishnah strongly suggests to me
that Resh Lakish is correct in this matter.

Concerning the use of electricity on Shabbat, Bayla Singer writes:

It might help the discussion of electricity if it were more widely realized that the current in the
utility system flows regardless of the status of any given switch. The function of the switch is similar
to that of a gate or valve, allowing the current to be diverted through another channel. Only if the
generator itself were turned off would the current cease to flow. (Battery operation is an entirely
different matter.)

I respond:

Unless I have misunderstood Bayla's comment I think that I already indicated this in my original response
to Amit's message. In a different response to also wrote that cooking involved a change in the structure
of the food by the application of a heat source.

Bayla continues:

'Cooking' does indeed refer to a change in structure by application of heat. In the case of food it
generally refers to the denaturation of proteins, making them more easily digestible by humans. Since
proteins are denatured at relatively low temperatures, blurring of the distinction between 'heating' and
'cooking' is understandable. 'Heating' is a separate activity, but I believe it is covered by other
halacha. I seem to remember, for instance, a talmudic prohibition against adding a small amount of cool
water to a larger amount of hot water, in order to raise the temperature of the small amount. However, I
do not know what the halacha would be in reference to, say, leaving a jug of water out in the sun in
order that the temperature of the water should rise.

I respond:

Rambam [Mishneh Torah, Shabbat 23:9] states that warming something in the direct heat of the sun
is permitted, but warming through the indirect heat of the sun is prohibited. Thus in the case of
Bayla's example there would be no halakhic objection to using the warm water on Shabbat; however, leaving
an egg (or cat!) to cook on a hot tin roof is prohibited.

1:
First we must explain the enigmatic 'paschal lamb that left'. We learned in 3:8 that the portions of
sacrificial meat intended for human consumption must not be removed from Jerusalem (one of whose
boundaries was defined as passing Mount Scopus). Such meat must be burned as it may no longer be eaten.
Our present mishnah applies this principle to the paschal lamb: if, after slaughter and during the
afternoon of Nisan 14th, a paschal lamb was removed from Jerusalem or contracted ritual impurity it must
be burned before the onset of the festival because it cannot be eaten.

2:
In his commentary on our mishnah Rambam gives a different explanation: the Torah [Exodus 12:46]
stipulates:

In one house shall it be eaten; you shall not carry forth anything of the flesh abroad out of the
house; neither shall you break a bone of it.

Rambam explains our mishnah as disqualifying the meat of a lamb which was removed from the house in which
the Seder was to be celebrated.

3:
If, after its slaughter, the owners of the lamb could not eat it (either because they died or because
they came into contact with a corpse) the meat is not incinerated immediately but held over until the
first day of ĥol ha-Mo'ed, Nisan 16th. The meat may not be burned immediately because it is
'sacred meat' which, of itself, is not disqualified. Therefore it is held over and incinerated on the
third day as all sacrificial meat that became 'pigul' [Leviticus 19:6]; an alternative explanation
is that by the third day it would have begun to putrefy and thus is disqualified.

4:
Rabbi Yoĥanan ben-Baroka disagrees with Tanna Kamma in this last matter. He holds that since the
only purpose of the paschal lamb is to be eaten at the Seder service by its subscribed owners it has
become disqualified by the death or incapacity of its owners, and therefore should be incinerated
immediately. Halakhah follows Tanna Kamma.

Still on electricity. Zackary Berger writes:

I very much appreciate the discussion of electricity and hilkhot Shabbat, but there is something that
hasn't been mentioned yet. When a new phenomenon makes its appearance on the halachic scene, it's only
natural to try and compare it in some fashion to something already known to halachah. That's the way
systems expand, by applying already existing principles to new problems. However, none of the metaphors
I've seen on this list or others are convincing. In an important sense, electricity is not like cooking,
turning on or off a faucet, tying a temporary knot, building a structure, or lighting a fire. Electricity
is not like any phenomenon known to the Rabbis because it is a controllable, microscopic phenomenon with
macroscopic consequences. Halachah must concern itself with the macroscopic consequences – light, heat,
etc. – but cannot do so by applying macroscopic categories to microscopic phenomena. It does not make any
sense to talk of 'cooking' when electrons are involved any more than it does to speak of 'writing' when
we talk of recording information on a compact disc. The processes are different enough to invalidate the
old metaphors. Where does this leave us? Most satisfying to me are the esthetic, general categories,
like uvdin d'ĥol (which you mentioned), or molid. These recognize the nature of
Sabbath rest and do not try in literalist fashion to stretch Tannaitic and Amoraic examples beyond the
breaking point. These are the categories I use when explaining to my non-Jewish and non-observant friends
why I do not turn lights on and off on Shabbat.

I respond:

During the past 100 years or so several ideas have been put forward by orthodox poskim [decisors]
as to why electricity should not be operated (as opposed to used) on Shabbat. (At the end of 19th
century a prevalent view was that it was permitted.) The most salient are, of course, connected with
some aspect or other of the creation of an electrical circuit which seems to fit into the category of one
or more of the 39 melakhot – actions which the Torah forbids on Shabbat. It was the ultra-orthodox Rabbi
Avraham Yeshaya Karelitz (Chazon Ish) who, fifty years ago, suggested that the opening and closing
of an electric circuit was molid [creating something that was previously non-existent] or boneh
[constructively putting together two or more items to create a new whole]. Later orthodox poskim
realized that these categories are not appropriate to the nature of the electrical current. Amit
Gevaryahu originally suggested that currently orthodoxy prohibits the turning on of an electric light
because of bishul [cooking – the element]. Personally, I think that current orthodox thought is
that this is an action involving hav'arah [ignition, causing a spark]. However, I see this as
being no less problematic scientifically.

---

I wrote: The sages define the temperature at which cooking begins as one 'which would scald the
hand' [Tur Orach Chayyim 318, for example]. In his modern work 'Shemirat Shabbat Kehilkhatah', the ultra-
orthodox Rabbi Yehoshu'a Neuwirth states that this temperature is now held to be 45 degrees centigrade.

Ed Frankel writes:

Forty-five degrees seems awfully low for cooking. I can almost remember experiencing that much heat in a
ĥamsin.

I respond:

I assume that this is a degree of heat which is presumed to answer to the Talmudic definition: a heat
which would scorch the skin of a newborn.

1:
Mishnah 10 is concerned with those parts of the paschal lamb which will remain after the Seder service is concluded: the bones and sinews, which are inedible, and meat which was not eaten. In previous mishnayot we have seen that none of the lamb may be left over; therefore what was not consumed at the Seder service must be incinerated. This incineration does not override the sanctity of either Shabbat or YomTov; therefore it cannot be done on the first day of the festival itself (which is YomTov) nor even on the second day (the first day of Chol ha-Mo'ed – the intermediate days) if that day happens to be Shabbat. (As we have seen in our discussions on the nature and uses of electricity, ignition, incineration, burning, causing a flame or spark are all subsumed under the Torah prohibition of "hav'arah" which is a violation of the sanctity of Shabbat.) We should perhaps note that as the calendar has been regulated for the past 1650 years or so the first day of Chol ha-Mo'ed can no longer fall on Shabbat in any year.

2:
Mishnah 11 is also concerned with parts of the paschal lamb which were not consumed. This time the
consideration is which parts of the meat of the paschal lamb may be considered inedible, and therefore if
not consumed would not be a violation of the prohibition of the Torah [Exodus 12:10] not to leave
any meat unconsumed. The general rule given is that all parts of the body of a properly cooked ox which
would be eaten must be eaten in the case of the paschal lamb. Traditional commentators indicate that the
problematic parts (from the ancient gastronomic point of view) were the meat covering the animal's
shoulders and various limbs that consisted mainly of cartilage: ear lobes, breast etc. Our mishnah
teaches that all these must be consumed.

3:
Concerning the consumption of the paschal lamb at the Seder service two verses of the Torah [Exodus
12:10 and 46] underlie mishnah 11:

The Torah prohibits the breaking of any of the animal's bones. Therefore, anyone who willfully does so
is liable to the punishment of 39 lashes. (We described this aspect of the rabbinic criminal code when
we studied tractate Sanhedrin.) However, if the animal was ritually unfit to serve as a paschal lamb
this, of course, would not apply. The Torah also prohibits leaving any of the meat of the paschal lamb
uneaten, as we have seen. However, in this case an infraction of this rule is not punishable since the
Torah itself recognizes that this might happen and provides for such an eventuality: left-over meat must
be incinerated.

Mishnah 8 of this present chapter read (in part): If all of it or most of it contracted ritual
impurity … If a small part of it contracted ritual impurity …

Ze'ev Orzech writes:

I'm intrigued by the notion of localized impurity. It implies that ritual impurity is a physical
phenomenon; as if a person who has touched a dirty abject with one hand is remains clean except for the
hand that got sullied. That's not how I perceived tum'ah. Since only the contacted areas are affected,
I have trouble visualizing a case where the whole lamb becomes ritually impure through contact with a
corpse.

I respond:

I think that the mishnah is referring to parts of the carcass that had been separated off from the body
when they became ritually contaminated. (We learned that immediately after slaughter various internal
organs were removed from the carcass, for example.) After the lamb had been slaughtered it was taken by
its owners out of the precincts of the Bet Mikdash to wherever the Seder was to be celebrated. Is it not
possible that somewhere, somehow, the animal might come into contact with a corpse – however remote the
possibility might be?

1:
This long and rather strange chapter is gradually drawing to its close. We have already seen that the
Torah [Exodus 12:46] requires the paschal lamb to be eaten in one place and that none of the meat
may be removed from the house where the Seder is being celebrated. Our present mishnah is concerned with
a situation which must seem to us to be bizarre and far-fetched: what to do when part of the lamb which
is being roasted and eaten leaves the boundaries of the house!

2:
However, upon deeper consideration our mishnah points to the sociological facts of the situation. There
was overcrowding of people living in hovels: while many (maybe most) Jews lived in reasonable housing,
the poor and the indigent (of whom there must have been very many) lived in huts, some of which may not
have been large enough to contain a full-grown modern person! But even the more affluent in Jerusalem at
Pesaĥ time suffered from severe overcrowding: most were from out of town and were celebrating their
Seder in temporary accommodation (hotel rooms, guest houses, rented rooms etc). Here I add something
which is very unusual: I am going to offer a quotation from the Christian scriptures [Mark 14:12-16]
because it is most apposite historical indication of what we are saying:

3:
To all this add the consideration that most of the subscription groups were very large indeed: one only
had to eat 'an olive's bulk' of the roast lamb, so the more people who subscribed to a lamb the cheaper
the subscription would be all round. But, as we shall see in the next chapter, all the subscribers had
to be in the same place at the same time in order to eat the paschal sacrifice. These considerations
lead us to understand more fully the problem of what to do when part of the animal 'leaves' the premises.
Today we would use the term 'protrudes'.

4:
There is no need to go into details here. The offending limb may be cut off, taking care not to break a
bone, and the meat that was still 'within the precincts' could be sliced off and consumed. The Seifa of
our mishnah sheds light on the actual problem: the rooms were so crowded that people were jammed into the
doorways and onto the window sills, so that inevitably some part of the animal being held by a celebrant
might be pushed 'outside'.

Still on electricity. In answer to a comment from Ed Frankel I wrote: I assume that this is a
degree of heat which is presumed to answer to the Talmudic definition: a heat which would scorch the skin
of a newborn. Now Keith Bierman writes:

The question of precise temp aside, where must one measure it? Consider a standard light bulb,
the element reaches some temp which we can't directly measure, there is the temp at the bulb 'face' and
there is the temp we can touch directly (controlled by the lamp fixture). In any event, if 'cooking' is
the category, we can construct lighting systems which don't exceed 45 degrees … I am sure that the
orthodox decisors which hold that electricity is forbidden wouldn't permit them either (perhaps it is my
lack of understanding, but it seems to me that they start with the presumption that it is forbidden and
have spent decades figuring out why).

I respond:

Keith writes of the problematica of considering the electric light bulb as involving the prohibition of
cooking. While not disagreeing with what he writes I feel that I should repeat my opinion that the
cooking reference (in the original comment which started this thread) is mistaken, and that modern
orthodoxy sees the prohibition of 'ignition' as being involved. My (comparative) ignorance tells me that
there is no ignition within a light bulb, but those with greater expertise must relate to this point.

As to Keith's second point: after much thought I must agree with him. I have already written that in the
early days of mass-generated electricity many respected orthodox poskim [decisors] did not see it as
being prohibited on Shabbat. About a decade later a reaction set in. I think that in earlier times the
Sanhedrin would probably have made a decree [gezerah] prohibiting the essentially permitted use of
electricity because of its acute similarity to other forms of light and heat which are prohibited –
'lest one confuse the two'. Orthodoxy, not wishing to issue a gezerah in modern times, has become
bogged down in an attempt to demonstrate that there is a Torah prohibition where such a prohibition is
not tenable on the basis of the empirical facts.

Personally, I have already expressed my view that whatever the halakhic status of electrical circuits
might be, Conservative Jews should consider refraining from opening and closing them on Shabbat because
of 'Uvdin de-ĥol'.

1:
This is the last mishnah of the present chapter. It is, in fact, a kind of bridge between this chapter
and the next. In my view it has more connection with the next than this present chapter, therefore,
before we begin its explanation I want to make a short general comment about chapter 7 (and many elements
in chapters 5 and 6 as well). It must seem to all of us that the detail into which Tractate PesaƉim
goes concerning the paschal lamb itself is strange, to say the least. Three whole chapters have been
concerned with this matter solely, and the next chapter is also connected with it, though less directly.
To us, this seems strange, maybe even obsessive. However, if we look at the matter from the historical
point of view I think we should be able to place the matter into a perspective. When we started our
study of this tractate I pointed out that the name of the tractate should really be translated as
'Paschal Lambs'. The demise of the worship in the Bet Mikdash was the catalyst in creating a paradigm
shift in the very ethos of the Seder service. For our ancestors the central feature of the Passover
Seder service was the fulfillment of the Torah command to eat the roast meat of a paschal lamb together
with matzah and maror, according to all its minute regulations of how, who, when, and where. For us, this
major element has almost completely disappeared: what was, for our ancestors, the central feature of
their celebration is now, for us, reduced to a symbolic 'shankbone' on the Seder dish which is referred
to once in the ceremony and never actually physically used in even the least meaningful way. Perhaps
this should be noted at the Seder service when we read the admonition of Rabban Gamli'el concerning the
Paschal Lamb (but we must wait until Chapter Ten for further elucidation).

2:
Chapters 5, 6 and 7 have been concerned with the 'how' of the slaughter of the paschal lamb in the Bet
Mikdash, with the 'when' of this ceremony (at what time on Nisan 14th and what to do when that day falls
on Shabbat and so forth), and the 'where' of its consumption (the regulations that derive from the
requirement that it be eaten 'in one house'. Chapter 8 will be concerned with the 'who': the regulations
that apply to the people actually participating in this ceremony and their manner of doing so. It is in
this sense that I see our present mishnah as a bridge between the two chapters.

3:
We have already mentioned the sever overcrowding that was a usual concomitant on the celebration of the
Seder in Temple times. Our present mishnah is concerned with the fact that it was no uncommon occurrence
for two discrete subscription groups to have to share the same accommodation for their celebration. The
Torah [Exodus 12:3-4] stipulates, as we have seen, that people must subscribe to a particular lamb
and that they may then only fulfill the mitzvah by eating of that particular animal. Our mishnah
describes what is required of two groups sharing the same room. They must form two discrete groups,
which must be physically separated by the samovar – a utensil for dispensing hot water. The members of
each group must take care to be facing in opposite directions so that there may be no danger of their
being combined in any way.

4:
We have often had occasion to mention that one of the customs in ancient dining was that one of the
diners serve as waiter. Perhaps wine-waiter would be a better indication. (This task was usually
performed by the eldest son in the family or a student for his rabbi and so forth.) It was this person's
task to make sure that all the diners had wine and to mix it for them. (Wine was 'neat' and had to be
diluted with water before being drunk.) From our present mishnah it seems that it was also customary to
use warmed water to dilute the wine. It seems that table manners were not the same as those we are used
to today, and our mishnah describes what a waiter must do if he is called upon to fulfill his function
which he still has his mouth full of the meat of the paschal lamb. If he is serving the 'other' group
(the one to which he personally is not subscribed) he must keep his mouth closed – i.e. he must be
careful not to chew or swallow the meat that is in his mouth while he is serving the other group.

5:
The bride is mentioned because she is considered to be extraordinary in this context. I suppose it is
but natural that people should show an acute interest in a newly-wed. Given the rather sheltered nature
of many women in those times it could be an embarrassment for a woman to have people looking at her while
she is eating. She is thus given permission to face in the 'wrong' direction when eating the paschal
lamb – away from her own group – so as to avoid her embarrassment.

This concludes our study of Chapter 7.