|
הָאִשָּׁה בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיא בְּבֵית בַּעְלָהּ,
שָׁחַט עָלֶיהָ בַּעְלָהּ וְשָׁחַט עָלֶיהָ אָבִיהָ, תֹּאכַל מִשֶּׁל בַּעְלָהּ.
הָלְכָה רֶגֶל רִאשׁוֹן לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ,
שָׁחַט עָלֶיהָ אָבִיהָ וְשָׁחַט עָלֶיהָ בַּעְלָהּ, תֹּאכַל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהִיא רוֹצָה.
יָתוֹם שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ עָלָיו אַפֹּטְרוֹפְּסִים, יֹאכַל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהוּא רוֹצֶה.
עֶבֶד שֶׁל שְׁנֵי שֻׁתָּפִין לֹא יֹאכַל מִשֶּׁל שְׁנֵיהֶן.
מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין, לֹא יֹאכַל מִשֶּׁל רַבּוֹ:
When a woman is in her husband's house and both her husband and her father slaughtered
[the paschal lamb]
as her [membership of their subscription group], she should should eat
[of the lamb] of her husband. But
if on the first festival she went to celebrate in her father's house and both her husband and her father
slaughtered for her, she should eat with whichever she chooses. An orphan each of whose guardians
slaughtered for him should eat with whichever he chooses. A servant with two masters in partnership
should eat with neither. A servant who is half-servant and half-free should not eat with
[the one who is still] his master.
1:
Chapter 8 will be concerned with the status of certain people in connection with the eating of the paschal
lamb. Three kinds of person are mentioned in our present mishnah and they all have one thing in common:
they are not absolutely free. While we accept this fact with a certain amount of equanimity and
understanding as regards the orphan and the servant, we have great difficulty in understanding and
accepting this stance as regards the adult woman. We have had this discussion before, but I believe that
it warrants presentation anew rather than a reference to a previous discussion. We shall address that
presentation in our next shiur, rather than gloss over it briefly in this one.
I wrote: 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.
Art Werschultz amplifies:
Perhaps people might be interested in why this is so. (Then again, anybody else who's a calendar freak
might already know this, so perhaps not. First of all, we should note that the first day of "Chol
ha-Mo'ed" is the 2nd day of Pesaĥ in this discussion. Since we're talking about Temple observances,
everything is going on in Eretz Yisrael, where we don't double-up the yamim tovim (other than Rosh Hashanah,
but that's another story). The 3rd day of Pesaĥ falls on the same day of the week as the next instance
of Rosh Hashanah. (I won't go into the A"T Ba"Sh mnemonic that helps people
remember such things.) If the 2nd day of Pesaĥ is on Shabbat, then Rosh Hashanah will be on a Sunday.
This violates the rule Lo A"DU Rosh, which says that Rosh Hashanah can't fall on Sunday,
Wednesday, or Friday. If Rosh Hashanah were to fall on Wednesday or Friday, then Yom Kippur would be on
Friday or Sunday, which would cause hardships (regarding food preparation or burying the dead) since these
days adjoin Shabbat. As I understand it, the problem with RH being on a Sunday is that it would put
Hoshanah Rabbah on Shabbat, so that the unique observances of that day wouldn't happen for the given year.
Of course, the 2nd day of Pesaĥ falls on the same day of the week as the next instance of Shavuot. So if
this day is Shabbat, we wouldn't be able to cook blintzes on Shavuot.
Zackary Berger wrote: That's the way systems expand, by applying already existing principles to new
problems.
Mike Mantel writes:
Isnt the underlying tradition that system (handed down at sinai and/or redacted over 400 years) does not
expand. Looking at systemic expansion would be an anthropological/historical approach to the text, which
is a way to study it(clearly), but not Talmud study in the traditional sense.
I respond:
Mike is making several mistaken assumptions here. The 'system' handed down at Sinai was not a closed
system but an open system. Our ideological ancestors, the Pharisees, had already rejected the Sadducean
claim that the Torah was a closed, written, system by the 2nd century BCE at the latest – and probably
much earlier. The medieval resurrection of this Sadducean ideology, by the Karaite movement, was also
similarly rejected out of hand by the rabbanites. All rabbinic Judaism is based upon the assumption that
the Torah is an open system and has been so 'ever since Sinai', when Moses received together with the
Written Torah the Unwritten Torah, the oral tradition that has been organically expanding ever since. We
have mentioned on several occasions that this is seen as being with Divine sanction: the Torah
[Deuteronomy 17:11] commands us to observe the Torah 'as they teach it to you' – they
being 'the judges that shall be at that time'.
It follows that there is a second mistaken assumption here: the system has not been expanded over a period
of 400 years, but over a period of more than 3000 years. Conservative Judaism disagrees with Orthodox
Judaism in that we see 'the judges that are in our time' as having the same rights and duties of
exposition of the Torah as their earlier predecessors. The quality of the leadership is immaterial to the
system. The Gemara [Rosh ha-Shanah 28b] states that 'Yiftach in his generation is as Samuel in
his generation' as regards the rights and duties of religious leadership, even though Samuel is obviously
seen as outstripping Yiftach in religious stature on all counts.
We do not observe the Written Torah. We observe the Written torah as explained and interpreted by the
authorized sages of Israel throughout the generations – including this one.
2:
So often does rabbinic literature bracket together as one legal category 'women, servants and children'
and this is probably among the most 'irritating' of all halakhic terminologies to those whose 'antennae'
are tuned to the implications of this bracketing. But in our study of such terms, at the first stage, we
must put aside our emotions and try to understand the mishnah on its own terms. Only thereafter will we
be sufficiently equipped to address its meaning and its implications for us today. The term 'woman' in our
mishnah means to include all female humans who are at least 12 years old. The term 'servant' refers to
Canaanite servants, not the indentured Hebrew servant. Very briefly: the Eved Ivri – involuntarily
indentured Jewish servant – is a Jew for all purposes except personal freedom for the six-year term of his
indenture, and is not the subject of our mishnah. Nor is the Ammah Ivriyyah
[Jewish maidservant] who, for the purposes of our mishnah, may be included under the rubric of 'women'.
The Eved Kena'ani [Canaanite servant] was a person born as a non-Jew who was sold into slavery and bought
by a Jew. At the end of the first year of his being with his Jewish master he had to decide whether he
was prepared to be circumcised and to accept those mitzvot that were incumbent upon Jewish women or to be
resold to a non-Jew. Our mishnah refers to an Eved Kena'ani who has opted to remain with his Jewish master
and has thus accepted Judaism. Until he might possibly regain his freedom he is required to observe all
those mitzvot that Jewish women are required to observe. Upon his possible manumission he would be
required to observe the totality of Jewish law like any other Jewish male.
3:
A general rule is found in Tractate Kiddushin, Chapter One, Mishnah 7. The relevant part of that mishnah
reads: All positive, time-specific mitzvot are incumbent upon men whereas women are excused; all
positive mitzvot that are not time-specific are incumbent upon both men and women; all negative
commandments, be they time-specific or not, are incumbent upon both men and women… Despite the
questionable tradition that grew up over the long centuries that if someone is 'excused' from the
performance of a duty this means that they may not perform that duty, this is not the case from the
halakhic point of view. Even if someone is 'excused' from a certain mitzvah they may certainly elect to
perform it. The only disagreement between the rabbis of the middle ages in this regard was whether the
excused person electing to perform a mitzvah may recite the berakhah that goes with it. For example, may
a woman electing to 'take the Lulav' [the four species used during the festival of Sukkot] recite the
berakhah that goes with this mitzvah … al netilat Lulav? To simplify a long discussion, we can
say that the general consensus among the rabbis of oriental [Sefaradi] Jewry was that such a person may
not recite the berakhah, whereas the general consensus among the Ashkenazi rabbis was that such a person
may, indeed, recite the berakhah.
4:
All 613 mitzvot of the Torah may be categorized as either 'positive' (Thou shalt) or
'negative' (Thou shalt not). (Of the 613, 365 are negative – an easy number to remember.)
A 'time-specific' mitzvah is one that has to be performed at a certain time, an action that is religiously
meaningless if not performed within the time-frame indicated. For example, there is no religious virtue
living in a sukkah during January, there is no religious virtue in eating matzah during Chanukah – and so
forth. The legalistic generalization codified in Tractate Kiddushin 1:7 is so unsatisfactory that even
the sages themselves had to admit that it is a generalization and 'one cannot deduce specifics from
generalizations'. There are so many exceptions to the rule that one begins to wonder to what extent it is
indeed a rule. For example, women are required to eat matzah at the seder service; women are
required to recite Kiddush on Shabbat and Yom-Tov – and these requirements are not modern innovations,
but 'go back to Sinai' as it were. And both these examples are positive mitzvot that are 'time-specific'.
(The only time that we must eat matzah is at the seder service; for the rest of Pesaĥ
we need not if we choose not to, it's just that we may not eat bread. It goes without saying that the
Shabbat Kiddush if recited on a Tuesday is ritually meaningless.)
5:
So now let us return to our question: why are the persons mentioned in Kiddushin1:7 excused? What do the
sages see 'women, servants and children' as having in common that they are bracketed together? What is
the characteristic that is common to all three? If the women were not on the list it would be easier for
us, today, to intuitively understand the common characteristic. If, for instance, the list were to read
'children, soldiers on active service and persons incarcerated in a state penitentiary' it would be easier
for us to spot the common characteristic (as perceived by the sages). None of these persons are 'masters
of their own fate'. The Talmud [Kiddushin 30b] quotes from the Midrash Halakhah called Sifra.
Let us try and follow the discussion. The Torah, in Leviticus 19:3, rules: Let each man respect his
mother and father. (This translation in no way reflects the complexity of the Hebrew original,
which is the basis of the midrash we shall study.) Despite the fact that the Torah refers to 'each man'
the sages ruled that 'sometimes' women also were obligated by this command. The inclusion of daughters in
the command to respect parents is based on the fact that the verb 'respect' in Hebrew is in the plural.
That being the case, the Sifra asks, Why does the verse start with the noun 'man' [ish]?
The answer given is now easy for us to understand (even if it is almost impossible to swallow): A man is
always a free agent to do his parents' bidding, whereas a woman [i.e. wife] is not such a free
agent because someone else has tutelary rights over her. [Ish – sipek be-yado la'asot, ishah eyn
sipek be-yadah la'asot mipney she-reshut acherim aleha.] There can be no doubt that our
interpretation is correct, since the Gemara [Kiddushin 30b] continues: Rav Iddi bar Avin reports
that Rav says that when a wife is divorced she becomes a man's equal again in this respect [since she is
once again a free agent.
6:
Much ink has been needlessly spilled in trying to 'smooth over the rough edges' of this midrash. The most
ubiquitous 'resolution' of the dilemma is to explain that a married woman is not a free agent because of
her duties to her household and her children. We discussed this a couple of months ago and I said then
what I say now: that 'explanation' is a red herring. We must face the fact that, for the sages, women –
however much they were loved and respected – were not considered part of general society. This was not
always the case and is not now the case, but it was the case in Talmudic times. It seems reasonable to
assume that the subordinate situation of the wife in rabbinic literature reflects a general social
situation. There were obviously shining exceptions, but as a rule women were lacking in education and
public social standing. The sociology of the situation is, in my opinion, outside the scope of our study:
I only state what seems to be an objective description of an historical situation. (To those interested in
further reading on this topic I can heartily recommend an article by the late Rabbi Theodore Friedman:
The shifting role of women from the Bible to the Talmud, first published in Judaism,
Vol. 36, No.4, Fall 1987.)
7:
The historical-sociological situation that we have been describing has, of course, implications for the
present (and the future), since it pervades the ambience of the discussion on the halakhic status of women
to this day. We live in an age and in a society (Western-type society in general) in which women are no
longer considered social and legal subordinates. In all spheres of social importance women are accorded –
in theory at any rate – an equal status with men, or at the very least it is generally conceded that they
should be. The average woman no longer wishes to be secluded from public gaze or excused from public duty –
in that she is a woman. That is as true in our synagogues as it is in the shopping mall, in the courtroom
or on public transport. Marriage is now seen as a partnership between two equals who have an equal and
parallel claim on each other. Thus we have a situation in which the halakhic basis governing the duties
and privileges of women (their status before the law, halakhah) no longer accords with almost universally
held understanding. The heretofore halakhic basis derives from Torah interpretations (in the Midrashim
and in the Gemara) that sometimes seems almost ingenuous. I bring but one example, both because it is
typical and also because it is no longer practically relevant. A woman who brought a private sacrifice to
the Bet Mikdash was not permitted to lay her hand on its head, as was required of a man in a similar
capacity. The reason derives from the midrashic interpretation of the Torah basis, Leviticus 1:2.
"'Speak unto the sons of Israel [b'ney Israel]' – the sons of Israel lay hands,
the daughters of Israel do not". How easy it would have been to interpret b'ney Israel as
including both men and women! It is almost as if the midrash uses the verse to 'prove' a conclusion
already arrived at!
Marc Weinstein has written the following explanation concerning one aspect of electricity:
To clarify how the incandescent light works: When the switch is closed current flows through the circuit
to the light. Current passing through the filament causes the filament to heat until it reaches a
temperature of 100's of degrees C and begins to glow. The higher the temperature the whiter the light.
When the switch is opened, current stops and the filament quickly cools. Eventually, the filament ages
and when there is a sudden current surge when it is turned on the filament melts and the light is
burnt-out. The only combustion is if the glass globe breaks and the filament quickly oxidizes.
Fluorescent light: When the switch is closed a high voltage is created by the ballast
that energizes the gas in the tube. The gas emits electrons that strike a coating on the inside of the
tube this coating then emits the light.
I will be happy to bore everyone with the equations if there is interest.
8:
Despite everything that we have written concerning those mitzvot from whose performance a woman was
considered to be excused, we must bear in mind that certain mitzvot did not fall neatly into the category
of 'positive time-specific commands' from which a woman is exempt. There are some mitzvot which a woman
is required to observe even though they answer to the definition of 'positive and time-specific'.
Eating matzah, maror and the paschal lamb at the Seder service are such exceptions. Therefore, a woman
had to be included in a subscription for the paschal lamb just like a man, and we have mentioned on
several occasions that in order to fulfill the mitzvah of eating the paschal lamb a person had to have a
prior subscription, as it were, to a particular lamb. Being subscribed to a lamb meant that they could
fulfill the mitzvah by eating of that lamb and that lamb alone. Put differently, at the moment of the
lamb's slaughter a person had to be included in the party that was in the mind of the head of the group
for that particular lamb.
9:
Now, obviously, the head of a household would automatically include in his subscription all the members of
his household and his dependents. Now a situation might arise in which both a woman's husband and her
father, when slaughtering their lamb, had included her in their group. Our mishnah teaches that in such
a situation the initial presumption must be that a woman would choose to celebrate the seder with her
husband and that if both her father and her husband mentally included her in the subscription of their
lamb she should eat together with her husband.
10:
This being the case, it is pertinent to ask why the thought should arise that her father may have included
her in his subscription. The situation, it transpires, is not as strange as it may seem. We must bear in
mind that our mishnah points out that there was an established custom that for the first Pesaĥ after her
marriage a woman celebrated the Seder in her father's home. (This custom is still observed in some
communities. Obviously, the husband joins his wife for seder at the home of her parents, for the first
year of their marriage.) After the first year the presumption is that the wife will celebrate with her
husband in their mutual home. However, it could be that she often decided to celebrate the seder in her
father's home even in the later years of her marriage. If this was the case, the Gemara
[Pesaĥim 87a] the grants the woman the right to choose of which lamb she will eat – of her
father's or of her husband's. However, she must make the choice at the time of the slaughtering of the
lamb. If she had not specifically decided at that time that she would eat of her father's lamb the
presumption must be that she will eat of that of her husband.
Concerning an Eved Kena'ani I wrote: Until he might possibly regain his freedom he is required to
observe all those mitzvot that Jewish women are required to observe. Upon his possible manumission he
would be required to observe the totality of Jewish law like any other Jewish male.
Meir Noach writes:
I was wondering what was the view of the Sages when it comes to freeing slaves ?
I respond:
It would seem that the sages were very liberal in their views on this matter. Some of the details will
become apparent later in our discussions in this chapter. In the meantime let us note that there are
several examples of servants being manumitted by their sage-masters purely for reasons of convenience,
such as the famous example where one sage manumitted his servant in order to have a tenth for a
minyan [prayer quorum].
The discussion concerning electricity still continues. I wrote 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.
Brandel Falk writes:
I am by no means an expert, however, I just wanted to point out that we are warned, in case of a gas leak,
not to turn on any lights lest a spark ignite the gas in the room. So … while I cannot state that a
spark is likely or unlikely to be produced by using electricity, apparently it is possible.
11:
Another person who is not entirely the captain of his own fate is the orphan. Usually we can define
'orphan' as a term often used in rabbinic sources to denote someone for whom a Bet Din has appointed
'guardians' to administer his or her financial affairs and general supervision to their benefit. The term
used for such a guardian is apotropos which is clearly a term borrowed from the Greek. If
one has more than one such 'guardian' (which was most usual) it is possible that both (or all) of them
mentally included their charge in the subscription list for their paschal lamb. As in the case of the
married woman, the 'orphan' must make his or her own choice as to with which of these guardians they will
celebrate the Seder – provided that the choice is made before the paschal lamb is slaughtered.
As part of our discussion on the role allocated to women historically in Judaism I wrote: To those
interested in further reading on this topic I can heartily recommend an article by the late Rabbi Theodore
Friedman: "The shifting role of women from the Bible to the Talmud", first published in Judaism,
Vol. 36, No.4, Fall 1987.)
Naomi Graetz writes:
You recommend reading T. Friedman's article. However, this article is written in an apologetic mode.
'Apologetics' in Judaism is defined as 'that literature which endeavors to defend Jews, their religion,
and their culture in reply to adverse criticism'. Apologetics was prevalent whenever Jews felt
threatened by the surrounding culture. It was used consciously as a tool by Jewish historians of the late
nineteenth and early twentieth century. Today, perhaps it is a form of conscious suppression or
unconscious denial. Theodore Friedman was a modern scholar who was guilty of apologetics in the article
you recommend below. He ascribed the source of misogyny to 'Greek' influence. Friedman apologizes for the
'lapses' in Kohelet (Ecclesiastes): "Koheleth's misogynic view of women is readily explained by the
consensus of Biblical scholars that the book is to be dated somewhere in the Hellenistic period and that
it clearly betrays strong Greek influence." After summing up the social situation of women in the
Talmudic period by describing a woman 'swathed like a mourner – a reference to the covering of her face
and hair by a veil – isolated from people and shut up in prison,' Friedman draws the following conclusion
from his evidence: "Virtually every one of the features of the picture that we have drawn of the
seclusion of women in the Talmudic period finds its analogue in ancient Athenian society in the post-
Homeric age. In his conclusion Friedman writes that one would search Rabbinic literature in vain for
anything approaching such acidulous statements [about women]. "Compared with the dominant strain of
anti-feminism that runs through classical Greek literature … Rabbinic statements on the subject are
sweetness and light. The Midrash that describes a woman as a tattler, gadabout, etc. is really a ribbing
and hardly breathes the misogyny of the Greeks. On the contrary, the Sages advise a man to be zealous in
honoring his wife because it is through her that blessing is found in his home." Friedman's
conclusion that in comparison "rabbinic statements are sweetness and light" is to let the
Jewish sources off too lightly. His final argument that the discriminatory life of Jewish women in
Talmudic times "was not a home-grown produce, but rather, a foreign import" is laudable only in
that he wants to show that it is not intrinsic to Judaism and thus cannot be justified today. However, in
his love for Jewish tradition, he is willing to overlook the fact that some Jewish sources are
intrinsically misogynist and that Jewish sexism can not be blamed totally on foreign influences.
I respond:
Two points, one general and one specific. In general, we often recommend sources not necessarily because
we agree with everything they contain, but because they contain valuable information. Specifically, Naomi
writes that "apologetics was prevalent whenever Jews felt threatened by the surrounding culture".
Karen Armstrong has demonstrated that the ultimate religious reaction to a fear of the surrounding culture
is fundamentalism. Perhaps apologetics is born of a desire to be absorbed into a surrounding culture.
On the subject of women celebrating with their parents Ed Frankel writes:
On the matter of which lamb a woman eats, I find no surprise at all even in our own day. While today there
is no sacrifice, often the seder remains the time when family/clans gather to celebrate together. I can
tell you that for the bulk of the years that I was married, it was the one time I knew that the ganza
mishpocheh gathered at my folks home. Indeed it was a rare year that my nuclear family celebrated apart
from them.
12:
We now come to the last section of our mishnah, which deals with the most obvious kind of person who is
not truly 'captain of his own ship' – the indentured servant. We have explained the nature of servitude
in ancient Israel on several occasions. the subject was dealt with most fully when we studied tractate
Kiddushin, but for the purposes of our present study we should briefly recapitulate the salient points.
13:
There were two kinds of indentured servant in ancient Israel: the Eved Ivri [Jewish servant] was a
full Jew who had been remanded into servitude by a Bet Din because he could not honour his debts. (This
was usually a thief who could not repay what he had stolen; but it could also be a destitute person.)
Such a person served for six years and was required to be released at the onset of the seventh year of
his service. During the period of his indenture he was to be treated with respect and he remained a full
Jew with all the rights and duties that are incumbent on a full Jew.
14:
The other kind of servant was the Eved Kena'ani ('Canaanite' servant). He was a non-Jew who had
been sold into slavery. A Jew could hold such a slave for no longer than twelve months, at the end of
which period the slave had to decide whether he wished to be resold (back to a non-Jew) or to remain with
his Jewish master. If he chose the latter option he had to become Jewish (circumcision, mikveh etc), and
was required to observe the same mitzvot as Jewish women were to observe – mainly, all negative commands
of the Torah and those which were not time-specific positive ones. If and when he was manumitted he
immediately assumed all the rights and privileges of any Jewish male.
15:
Our mishnah is concerned with a situation in which an Eved Kena'ani is owned jointly by more than
one master. Such a situation may not have been as extraordinary as it appears. On the one hand the
servant is required to celebrate the Seder (we have already seen that Jewish women were also required to
celebrate the Seder even though it is a time-specific positive command: to eat the paschal lamb, Matzah
and Maror and to recount the story of the Exodus at a specific time, the night of Nisan 15th). On the
other hand, such a servant does not fully belong to either (or any) of the masters, each of whom only has
a part share in his ownership. Therefore, none of the servant's masters has the right to include him in
their subscription group for the paschal lamb, because he is not fully of their household, and for the
servant to celebrate with one of them would be an infringement of the rights of the others. However,
unlike the married woman and the orphan, a servant in such a situation may not choose with which master
to celebrate, but must be part of a completely different subscription group (a third party). Perhaps
this was a mechanism to ensure that at the Seder service such a servant servant was technically free,
since he was not permitted to serve with any of his masters.
16:
Now, let us assume a situation in which one of the servant's two masters decides to grant him his freedom,
to relinquish his ownership of the man's services. The servant is now half slave and half free: he has
gained his freedom from one of his masters, but is still in service to the other. (Though in such a
situation the courts would put pressure on the remaining master until he agreed to manumit his slave so
that he could be completely free.) In such circumstances the servant may not celebrate the
Seder with his master, but must celebrate that part of himself which is free, and observe the mitzvot of
the Seder service only as a free man.
I wrote: 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.
Juan-Carlos Kiel writes:
According to archeological findings, the 'Baris' or the 'Akra' as is called, was located south of the
Temple in pre-Hasmonean times. When Shimon ben Matityahu conquered Jerusalem, he tore down the Akra.
Today we can see the huge cisterns that seem to have served this fortress. Herod, when he rebuilt the
Temple, he built as well the Antonia Fortress, North of the Temple.
הָאוֹמֵר לְעַבְדּוֹ, צֵא וּשְׁחוֹט עָלַי אֶת הַפֶּסַח, שָׁחַט גְּדִי, יֹאכַל.
שָׁחַט טָלֶה, יֹאכַל. שָׁחַט גְּדִי וְטָלֶה, יֹאכַל מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן.
שָׁכַח מָה אָמַר לוֹ רַבּוֹ, כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה, יִשְׁחוֹט טָלֶה וּגְדִי וְיֹאמַר,
אִם גְּדִי אָמַר לִי רַבִּי, גְּדִי שֶׁלוֹ וְטָלֶה שֶׁלִי.
וְאִם טָלֶה אָמַר לִי רַבִּי הַטָּלֶה שֶׁלּוֹ וּגְדִי שֶׁלִּי.
שָׁכַח רַבּוֹ מָה אָמַר לוֹ, שְׁנֵיהֶם יֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּרֵפָה, וּפְטוּרִין מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי:
If someone says to his servant, "Go and slaughter the paschal lamb for me," if he slaughtered a
kid or a lamb he must eat thereof. If he slaughtered [for him] both a
kid and a lamb he should eat from
the first. If he forgot what his master told him, what should he do? He should slaughter both a kid and
a lamb and he should say, "If my master told me [to slaughter] a
lamb, the lamb is his and the kid
is mine; and if he told me [to slaughter] a kid, the kid is his and the lamb is mine." If the
master forgot what he told him both [carcasses] must be incinerated,
but they are excused [the need] to observe the Second Passover.
1:
Despite the fact that we habitually refer to the 'paschal lamb' we should recognize that this is, indeed,
habit. In actual fact, a choice could be made, since either a yearling sheep (lamb) or a yearling goat
(kid) could be used [ Exodus 12:5]. However, an important word in that last sentence must be
"either" – either a lamb or a kid, but not both, since no one may be subscribed to two
paschal sacrifices simultaneously. Since an indentured servant (Eved Kena'ani) was required to observe
the mitzvot of the Seder just like his master, there was no reason why he could not represent his master,
as it were, and slaughter the paschal sacrifice for him.
2:
The first part of our mishnah is concerned with the choice between and lamb and a kid. It is clear that
historically there was a distinct preference for the paschal lamb, and presumably far less people chose
to slaughter a paschal kid. The meaning of the first part of our mishnah is that even if the master
always had a certain preference he must accept whichever choice the servant made, even if it was different
from his usual custom.
3:
The next part of our mishnah seems to be bordering on nonsense. Why should a servant, having been told
to slaughter the paschal sacrifice, slaughter two animals, both a lamb and a kid? Furthermore, how can
the situation thus described be solved by the master eating of the animal that was slaughtered first? –
we have already stated several times that one cannot be subscribed to two paschal sacrifices at the same
time. The Gemara [Pesaĥim 88b] seeks to solve the problem by reserving this part of the mishnah
to a special case: it describes what may have been an historical situation. King Herod Agrippa (who
reigned 40-44 CE) was the darling of the sages because he was careful to observe the mitzvot. The Gemara
recounts that on one occasion both he and his wife gave instructions to their servants to slaughter a
paschal sacrifice. Faced with two sacrifices ("his" and "hers") the king told the
servants to ask the queen what to do. She told them to "go and ask Rabban Gamli'el". His
response clarifies our mishnah: monarchs have the kind of entourage that makes such a mix up possible
("they give orders with little thought") and therefore whichever animal was the first to be
sacrificed should be used and the second should be incinerated. But "ordinary people" in a
similar situation should eat neither and both should be incinerated.
4:
The next part of our mishnah is concerned with a situation in which the master was specific: "Go
and slaughter a paschal lamb" (or kid) but the servant could not recall which kind of
animal he was instructed to slaughter. Our mishnah says that the servant should slaughter both kinds:
one will serve the master and the other will serve himself. However, if the master eventually forgets
what it was that he ordered both animals must be incinerated. But they do not need to observe the second
Passover in one month's time since the sacrifice as such was efficacious, the blood having been sprinkled
on the walls of the altar. (Concerning "the alternative Passover" see wqhat we have written previously
(Chapter 7, Mishnah 4) – or be patient until we reach the next chapter!)
Brandel Falk wrote: we are warned, in case of a gas leak, not to turn on any lights
lest a spark ignite the gas in the room. So … while I cannot state that a spark is likely or
unlikely to be produced by using electricity, apparently it is possible.
Warren Green, Albert Ringer and Michal Roth have all
demurred for the same reason. I feel, however, that
their common comment is best expressed by Al Sporer, who writes:
I don't mean to prolong the discussion about the use of electricity but, as a scientist, I just wish to
modify some of the technical comments made regarding electricity. While it is correct that an electric
light does not give off sparks of light, but as a previous commentator noted, it gives off light simply
by heating a wire until it is "white" hot. the issue of a spark arises at the switch, not at
the light. When one turns the light switch to the "on" position a surge of electricity occurs
which, while not noticeable to the eye, nevertheless can create a miniscule spark at the switch itself.
That is why people are cautioned not to turn on lights when there is a gas leak. It is that miniscule
spark that could trigger the explosion. And that is what the Orthodox poskim use as the argument why one
should not turn any electrical switch to the "on" position on Shabbat. I thought the
Conservative position on this matter was that a "spark" is not a fire because, I believe it is
Rashi who defined a fire as that which generates heat light and ash. Since a spark does not generate ash,
it does not qualify as fire.
הָאוֹמֵר לְבָנָיו, הֲרֵינִי שׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַפֶּסַח עַל מִי שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה מִכֶּם רִאשׁוֹן לִירוּשָׁלַיִם,
כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִכְנִיס הָרִאשׁוֹן רֹאשׁוֹ וְרֻבּוֹ, זָכָה בְחֶלְקוֹ וּמְזַכֶּה אֶת אֶחָיו עִמּוֹ.
לְעוֹלָם נִמְנִין עָלָיו עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בוֹ כַזַּיִת לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד.
נִמְנִין וּמוֹשְׁכִין אֶת יְדֵיהֶן מִמֶּנּוּ עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיִּזְרוֹק עָלָיו אֶת הַדָּם:
If someone says to his sons, 'I shall slaughter the paschal lamb in the name of whichever one of you
reaches Jerusalem first,' the moment the first one puts his head and most of his torso inside
[the city] he has won his part [of the
lamb] together with that of the rest of his brothers [on their
behalf]. One can always subscribe [to a lamb] as long as there
will be an "olive's bulk" for each one. One can subscribe and unsubscribe from it until it is
slaughtered; Rabbi Shim'on says, until its blood is sprinkled.
1:
In order to understand our mishnah we must imagine that the father, as head of the family, has preceded
the rest of his family to Jerusalem – presumably to make all the arrangements necessary for them to be
able to celebrate the Seder in the city. In order to make sure that his sons do not dawdle on their way
after him to Jerusalem he offered them an incentive: whichever one of them reaches Jerusalem first will
have the honour of being the one who wins their part in the animal for all of them.
2:
It is not at all clear to me what this incentive means. What is does not mean is clear: it does not mean
that he subscribes to the animal in the name of all his brothers. Rambam, in his commentary on our mishnah,
presumably also senses this difficulty and comments thus:
He tells them, 'whichever one of you reaches Jerusalem first' in order to give them an incentive to
perform the mitzvot and to make the effort to go up to Jerusalem. But as far as the paschal lamb is
concerned there can be no doubt that they have already subscribed to it. Therefore when the first one
enters [town] he earns it and does so on behalf of his brothers as well, since all of them have subscribed
to this paschal lamb.
My own contribution to this conundrum is pure guesswork: although one is already subscribed to a lamb that
subscription must be actualized by one's presence in Jerusalem. The father encourages his sons by saying
that the honour of actualizing their share will fall on the first one to reach the city. Other suggestions
have been put forward which seem to me to be even more far-fetched.
3:
Any number of people can be subscribed to a lamb. The only provision is that there will be enough meat
for each of the subscribers to eat at least one "olive's bulk" of meat. (For a discussion on
the practical meaning of this measurement see RMSG Pesaĥim 28.) Obviously, anyone who gets less than
that minimal amount of meat will not have fulfilled the mitzvah.
4:
Our mishnah also explains that people can subscribe to a lamb and then change their mind and subscribe to
a different lamb (presumably for social reasons) as often as they wish. The last moment to change your
subscription was the actual moment of slaughtering. At least, this is the view of Tanna Kamma. Rabbi
Shim'on ben-Yochai holds that the actualizing moment is when the blood of the paschal lamb is sprinkled on
the altar (see RMSG Pesaĥim 57); however, his view is not halakhah.
I brought the comment of Ed Frankel, who wrote: On the matter of which lamb a woman
eats, I find no surprise at all even in our own day. While today there is no sacrifice, often the seder
remains the time when family/clans gather to celebrate together. I can tell you that for the bulk of the
years that I was married, it was the one time I knew that the ganza mishpocheh gathered at my folks home.
Indeed it was a rare year that my nuclear family celebrated apart from them.
Art Werschulz now comments:
In a similar vein, one of the 'advantages' of having two days of the the first day of Pesaĥ (is that an
oxymoron?) in galut is that a young family can spend one first seder with the husband's family, and the
other with the wife's, thereby avoiding arguments and increasing sh'lom bayit. 🙂 In fact, I have heard
it said that at one point the Rabbinical Assembly was considering eliminating yom tov sheini shel galut,
but decided not to just because of this very reason!! Can anybody verify this, or is this just an Urban
Legend?
I comment:
I do hope that is an urban legend!
Elaine Handelman sends the following useful information:
Professor Judith Hauptman, in the most recent issue of Judaism,asserts that portions of the Tosefta
Pesaĥim predate the Mishnah Pesaĥim. Thus, she sees the earliest material on the Haggadah in Tosefta. I
found the article very interesting. An 'anthropological' note: She quotes the Tosefta as prescribing
intestines dipped in salt water as an "hors d'oeuvre" for the seder (vs our greens). While
watching a travelogue into the hinterlands of Morocco, I noted that the first part of a lamb slaughtered
at the end of Ramadan that was eaten was the intestines. I wonder if this custom remains among the
Sephardic or Mizrachi Jews. Of course, I also wonder what it tastes like. In these parts, eating
intestines is unknown.
הַמְמַנֶּה עִמּוֹ אֲחֵרִים בְּחֶלְקוֹ, רַשָּׁאִין בְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה לִתֵּן לוֹ אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ,
וְהוּא אוֹכֵל מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְהֵן אוֹכְלִין מִשֶּׁלָּהֶן:
If someone subscribes others to his share the [other] members of the
group are at liberty to give him his share and have him eat from his and they from theirs.
1:
Our mishnah is about subcontracting. Since it was enough for each member of the subscription group to
eat one "olive's bulk" of the meat of the paschal lamb in order to have fulfilled the
mitzvah it was possible for someone who was subscribed to a relatively small group to invite
others to join in his share, since his share of the meat would have been relatively large and there would
have been enough for all of the new invitees to eat at least the minimal amount.
2:
If someone 'sub-subscribes', the members of the original group are entitled to tell the subscriber who has
'sub-subscribed' to take his share of the meat and form another group, away from theirs. It is necessary
for our mishnah to state this permission clearly since we have already learned that two different
subscription groups must maintain their discrete individuality.
3:
Of course, the group which consists of the 'sub-subscribed' must constitute a separate group upon request,
but they may not constitute their new group elsewhere: the two groups must celebrate in the same house,
since such is the specific ruling of the Torah [Exodus 12:46].
We have recently had occasion to mention the halakhic status, rights and duties of an originally
non-Jewish indentured servant. Albert Ringer asks:
Does a Jewish slave in the hands of a non-Jewish master have a special Halachical status? I know that
Jewish communities collected money to set as many slaves as possible free. However, many remained in
slavery, like the captives from the Jewish war of whom we are told that they build the coliseum in Rome.
I respond:
From the halakhic point of view, regardless of his or her status among non-Jews, a Jew is a Jew and is
required to observe all the mitzvot as far as is possible. Strange as it may sound to our ears, the
Romans (for example) were a liberal people. They felt required to permit their slaves to observe their
own religious customs. As a result of the failure of the two great insurgencies against the Romans,
between 70 and 136 CE thousands of Jews were uprooted from Eretz-Israel as prisoners of war and taken to
Rome and there sold as slaves. It soon became apparent to their Roman masters that having a Jewish slave
was not an easy economic proposition: they spend one seventh of their time doing nothing (Sabbath
observance), they had to be provided with special food (kashrut observance) and so forth. Thus it was
that by the beginning of the 3rd century CE Rome was full of freed Jewish slaves. These freedmen, for
economic reasons, followed army units into northern Italy, selling the soldiers trinkets and so forth.
Next, these freedmen settled around the large Roman army camps in Europe – especially along the Rhine
frontier – and thus founded what was to become the Ashkenazi settlement of Europe.
Albert has another question, connected with the father 'encouraging' his sons to make haste to Jerusalem
(Mishnah 3):
Did people who subscribed to a lamb, as a rule, pay their part? If so, can it be that the incentive to
the quickest son simply be, that the father pays his part of the bill?
I respond:
I do not think that there was a hard and fast rule in this matter. While it is reasonable to assume that
subscribers would be expected to pay for their share in the paschal lamb, I do not think that this
precludes the possibility of generosity on the part of a benefactor. While I cannot deny the possibility
of Albert's suggestion, my instinct tells me that it is not an appropriate resolution of the conundrum of
Mishnah 3.
Art Werschulz commented that I have heard it said that at one point the Rabbinical Assembly was
considering eliminating yom tov sheini shel galut, but decided not to just because of this very reason!!
Can anybody verify this, or is this just an Urban Legend?
David Sieradzki writes:
Actually, it's not an urban legend – it's true! In 1969 a majority of the Vaad Halachah [Law Committee]
agreed that eliminating the second day of Yom Tov Shel Galuyot would be permissible, for a number of
reasons – the most significant being to conform practice outside Israel with that in Israel. A minority
of members of the committee disagreed – their dissenting opinion is also included [in the responsum], and
the rationale cited by Art is only one of many that they cite. Needless to say, this proposed reform has
not been widely adopted by Conservative synagogues in the U.S., although perhaps it should be considered
more seriously.
זָב שֶׁרָאָה שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת, שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלָיו בַּשְּׁבִיעִי.
רָאָה שָׁלֹשׁ, שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלָיו בַּשְּׁמִינִי שֶׁלּוֹ.
שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם, שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלֶיהָ בַּשֵּׁנִי שֶׁלָּהּ.
רָאֲתָה שְׁנֵי יָמִים, שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלֶיהָ בַשְּׁלִישִׁי. וְהַזָּבָה שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלֶיהָ בַּשְּׁמִינִי:
If man has twice had a genital discharge, on his seventh day he may be included in the sacrificial party;
if three times, on his eighth day he may be included. A woman who is counting day-for-day may be included
on her second day; if she sees [blood] two days
[running] she may be included on the third day. And a
woman who has a genital discharge may be included on the eighth day.
1:
Our mishnah (and the next) is concerned with the validity of the inclusion of certain people in a
subscription party. What they have in common is that at the moment of the actual paschal sacrifice
during the afternoon of Nisan 14th they are disqualified from participating, but it is expected that when
the time comes to eat the paschal lamb at the Seder service later that evening their disqualification will
have been removed. Our mishnah states that it is acceptable to include such people in the subscription
party.
2:
Three kinds of people are the subject of our mishnah: a man who has suffered a genital discharge, a woman
who has suffered a similar discharge, and a woman who is still in a state of niddah.
3:
The Torah [Leviticus 15:1-15] gives detailed instructions which, it seems reasonable to
assume, are designed to prevent the spread of venereal diseases.
דַּבְּרוּ אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַאֲמַרְתֶּם אֲלֵהֶם
אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי יִהְיֶה זָב מִבְּשָׂרוֹ זוֹבוֹ טָמֵא הוּא:
וְזֹאת תִּהְיֶה טֻמְאָתוֹ בְּזוֹבוֹ רָר בְּשָׂרוֹ אֶת־זוֹבוֹ אוֹ־הֶחְתִּים בְּשָׂרוֹ מִזּוֹבוֹ טֻמְאָתוֹ הִוא: …
וְכִֽי־יִטְהַר הַזָּב מִזּוֹבוֹ וְסָפַר לוֹ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים לְטָהֳרָתוֹ וְכִבֶּס בְּגָדָיו וְרָחַץ בְּשָׂרוֹ בְּמַיִם חַיִּים וְטָהֵר:
When any man has a genital discharge from his body, because of his discharge he is unclean. This shall be
his uncleanness in his discharge: whether his body runs with his discharge, or his body has stopped from
his discharge, it is his uncleanness… When he recovers from his discharge he must count seven days from
his recovery, wash his clothes, wash his body in fresh water and thus be ritually pure again.
Verse 3 is somewhat enigmatic: Whether his body runs with his discharge, or his body has stopped from his
discharge, it is his uncleanness. The sages see here two possibilities. The first is an
uncontrolled discharge of semen from a non-erect penis; the latter is where undischarged semen has
completely blocked the penis up. I do not know whether either of these possibilities answers to any
venereal disease known today.
4:
The point of connection with our present mishnah is, of course, the requirement to count seven days. On
the seventh day after the complete cessation if his discharge the man must bathe; then, at the end of the
seventh day and the start of the eighth day he is ritually pure again. During his ritual impurity he is
disqualified from eating the paschal lamb. However, if Nisan 14th falls on the seventh day after his
discharge stopped he will become qualified to eat the paschal lamb at the Seder after nightfall. Our
mishnah explains that even though he is still disqualified at the moment the paschal lamb is sacrificed
during the afternoon he may be included in the subscription group in the expectation that he will be
qualified in time to eat the meat later on.
Elaine Handelman asked about the taste of animals' intestines. Avraham Jacobs obliges:
In households of Eastern European origin, intestines are an integral part of the Shabbos Cholent. They are
filled with minced meat, rice or farfel etc. and spices. The Jewish name is 'kishkes'. Their taste:
me'ein haolam habah [a foretaste of paradise].
Zackary Berger offers what he calls 'yet another crack at Mishnah 3' and the father encouraging his sons
to make haste to Jerusalem: could 'khelko' mean 'his [preferred] part [of the sacrifice]'? Perhaps the
first son to enter got his choice of portion? Or perhaps the mishnah means exactly what you (and the
Rambam) say it could not mean: perhaps the father had specified an explicit condition according to which
the sons would actually not be subscribed to the sacrifice until the first son entered Jerusalem – then
he (the first to enter) would merit the honor of subscribing his brothers. It might not be consistent with
the other Mishnahs, but who ever said the Mishnah was consistent? It's the most satisfying explanation.
I comment:
Me and Rambam? It reminds me of a teacher I had in Yeshivah who at one very dramatic moment flung his
arms up and declaimed: "Isaiah says – and I agree with him! – that…" Zackary Berger:
"Rambam says – and I disagree with him! – that…" But Zack's right to
disagreement is in perfect accord with Jewish tradition.
5:
It is well-known, I would imagine, that menstruation is included among the many categories of ritual
impurity that can beset men and women, and that are regulated by the Torah. In ancient times both men
and women regularly visited the Mikveh (ritual bath) in order to cleanse themselves from the
ritual impurities and disqualifications that they may have contracted. It is perhaps unfortunate that
over the centuries all of these have fallen by the wayside except one: the niddah or
menstruous woman. (Though, it seems that there is a resurgence of the phenomenon of men visiting the
mikveh, in Israel at any rate: I regularly see many men and boys entering the local mikveh on a daily
basis, and many more on Friday afternoons.) I cannot help feeling that part of the 'strangeness' of the
laws and practices of niddah for people with modern susceptibilities derives from the fact
that it is now restricted to women for all practical intents and purposes. ( Part of the
strangeness, but certainly not all of the strangeness.)
6:
The Torah states that a woman who has menstruated is ritually impure, and must repurify herself by
bathing in a mikveh – either an artificially constructed ritual pool or a natural reservoir of flowing
water (a river, the sea).
7:
Let us first review the biblical origins [Leviticus 15:19-32]:
וְאִשָּׁה כִּי־תִהְיֶה זָבָה דָּם יִהְיֶה זֹבָהּ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תִּהְיֶה בְנִדָּתָהּ
וְכָל־הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּהּ יִטְמָא עַד־הָעָרֶב:
וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁכַּב עָלָיו בְּנִדָּתָהּ יִטְמָא וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר־תֵּשֵׁב עָלָיו יִטְמָא:
וְכָל־הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּמִשְׁכָּבָהּ יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם וְטָמֵא עַד־הָעָרֶב: …
וְאִם שָׁכֹב יִשְׁכַּב אִישׁ אֹתָהּ וּתְהִי נִדָּתָהּ עָלָיו וְטָמֵא שִׁבְעַת יָמִים
וְכָל־הַמִּשְׁכָּב אֲשֶׁר־יִשְׁכַּב עָלָיו יִטְמָא:
וְאִשָּׁה כִּֽי־יָזוּב זוֹב דָּמָהּ יָמִים רַבִּים בְּלֹא עֶת־נִדָּתָהּ
אוֹ כִֽי־תָזוּב עַל־נִדָּתָהּ כָּל־יְמֵי זוֹב טֻמְאָתָהּ כִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ תִּהְיֶה טְמֵאָה הִוא: …
וְאִם־טָהֲרָה מִזּוֹבָהּ וְסָפְרָה־לָּהּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים וְאַחַר תִּטְהָר: …
זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַזָּב וַֽאֲשֶׁר תֵּצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁכְבַת־זֶרַע לְטָמְאָה־בָהּ: וְהַדָּוָה בְּנִדָּתָהּ וְהַזָּב אֶת־זוֹבוֹ לַזָּכָר וְלַנְּקֵבָה וּלְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב עִם־טְמֵאָה:
If a woman has a [menstrual] discharge [of
blood]… she shall be in her impurity seven days: and whoever
touches her shall be unclean until the evening. Everything that she lies on in her impurity shall be
unclean. Everything also that she sits on shall be unclean. Whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes,
and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening. Whoever touches anything that she sits on
shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening… If any man lies
with her, and her monthly flow is on him, he shall be unclean seven days; and every bed whereon he lies
shall be unclean. If a woman has a discharge of her blood many days not in the time of her period, or if
she has a discharge beyond the time of her period; all the days of the discharge of her uncleanness shall
be as in the days of her period: she is unclean… When she is cleansed of her discharge, then she shall
count to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean… This is the law of him who has a
discharge, and of him who has an emission of semen, so that he is unclean thereby; and of her who has her
period, and of a man or woman who has a discharge, and of him who lies with her who is unclean.
8:
Put in more modern terms of expression the Torah states that a woman who has a menstrual discharge is in
a state of ritual impurity. As we learned when we studied tractate Yadayyim this ritual impurity is
transferable by physical contact to anyone and anything else. When the bleeding has stopped the woman
must count seven days and then she can remove the status of ritual impurity. These regulations were
explored, expanded and explained in tractate Niddah of the Mishnah and its amplification in the Gemara.
The upshot of all this is that Halakhah, as at present codified, prohibits sexual intercourse (and any
other intimacies which may lead to it) from the time a woman expects her menstrual period until seven
clean days (i.e., days on which no blood whatsoever is seen) have elapsed. For this purpose a minimum of
five days is fixed for the period itself. Thus the minimum period of separation is twelve days. In the
evening of the seventh day without sign of blood the woman immerses herself in a mikveh and normal marital
relations are resumed until the next menses are expected. Any bleeding from the genital area (whether it
is menstrual or not) is considered as menstrual and requires a waiting period of seven clean days.
9:
If a woman sees blood after the seven clean days mentioned above and before the onset of her next period
she is required to observe one day of purity for each day of impurity ('counting day-for-day') and bathes
in a mikveh on the following evening.
10:
The relevance of all this to our present mishnah should now be clear. A woman may not be included in a
subscription group for the paschal lamb if she is menstruous. However, she may be included if she is due
to bathe in a mikveh on the evening of the Seder, even though she is still technically menstruous at the
time of the sacrifice. This is exactly the same reasoning as we have seen previously in this same mishnah
concerning a man with ritual impurity.
הָאוֹנֵן, וְהַמְפַקֵּחַ אֶת הַגָּל,
וְכֵן מִי שֶׁהִבְטִיחוּהוּ לְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִבֵּית הָאֲסוּרִים,
וְהַחוֹלֶה וְהַזָּקֵן שֶׁהֵן יְכוֹלִין לֶאֱכוֹל כַּזַּיִת, שׁוֹחֲטִין עֲלֵיהֶן.
עַל כֻּלָּן אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין עֲלֵיהֶן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן, שֶׁמָּא יָבִיאוּ אֶת הַפֶּסֶח לִידֵי פְסוּל.
לְפִיכָךְ אִם אֵרַע בָּהֶן פְּסוּל, פְּטוּרִין מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי,
חוּץ מִן הַמְפַקֵּחַ בַּגַּל שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא מִתְּחִלָתוֹ:
We may slaughter [a paschal lamb] and include
[in the subscription party] a newly bereaved person, someone
who is performing a rescue from rubble, someone who was promised their release from incarceration and the
infirm or the aged who are able to eat an olive's-bulk. We may not slaughter it and include any of these
by themselves, for they might cause the paschal sacrifice to become disqualified. Therefore, if they
actually become disqualified they are excused the duty of observing the Alternate Paschal lamb, with the
exception of someone who is performing a rescue from rubble, who is already ritually impure.
1:
Our present mishnah continues the line of thought begun in the previous one, but with different
considerations. Certain people may be included in a subscription party even though, at the moment of the
animal's slaughter, it is not clear whether they will be able to eat the meat at the Seder service later
on. The consideration is that they will celebrate the Seder if they become qualified in time.
2:
Everyone is required by the Torah to observe statutory mourning for certain relatives (regardless of one's
feelings towards the deceased). The list is given in Leviticus 21:1-3 –
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה אֱמֹר אֶל־הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם
לְנֶפֶשׁ לֹא־יִטַּמָּא בְּעַמָּיו:
כִּי אִם־לִשְׁאֵרוֹ הַקָּרֹב אֵלָיו
לְאִמּוֹ וּלְאָבִיו וְלִבְנוֹ וּלְבִתּוֹ וּלְאָחִיו:
וְלַאֲחֹתוֹ הַבְּתוּלָה הַקְּרוֹבָה אֵלָיו
אֲשֶׁר לֹא־הָֽיְתָה לְאִישׁ לָהּ יִטַּמָּא:
God said to Moses, "Tell the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them, 'A priest shall not defile
himself for the dead among his people; except for his relatives that are near to him: for his mother, for
his father, for his son, for his daughter, for his brother, and for his unmarried sister'"…
As we learned in our study of tractate Yadayyim, a kohen [priest] is not permitted to come
into contact with a corpse, but special permission is given to the kohen to do so in the case
of parents, offspring and siblings. The reasoning is that if the sanctity of the priest must give way to
his duty to observe mourning for these relatives, how much more must this duty be imposed on Jews who are
not priests.
3:
Everyone in such a situation is termed Onen ['newly-bereaved'] from the moment their relative
dies until the deceased is buried. However, even if the burial takes place on the day of the death, the
Torah holds them to be 'newly-bereaved' for that day. From the moment the burial service is concluded
their status changes from 'newly-bereaved' to 'mourner'.
4:
We have mentioned on several occasions that among the 'taxes' that the agriculturalist was required to pay
in earlier times was one tenth of his crop which was to be given to the destitute every third and sixth
year of the seven-year cycle. When separating off this tithe the Torah [Deuteronomy 26:13-15]
requires the farmer to make a declaration:
וְאָמַרְתָּ לִפְנֵי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בִּעַרְתִּי הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִן־הַבַּיִת
וְגַם נְתַתִּיו לַלֵּוִי וְלַגֵּר לַיָּתוֹם וְלָאַלְמָנָה כְּכָל־מִצְוָתְךָ אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתָנִי
לֹא־עָבַרְתִּי מִמִּצְוֹתֶיךָ וְלֹא שָׁכָחְתִּי:
לֹא־אָכַלְתִּי בְאֹנִי מִמֶּנּוּ וְלֹא־בִעַרְתִּי מִמֶּנּוּ בְּטָמֵא
וְלֹא־נָתַתִּי מִמֶּנּוּ לְמֵת
שָׁמַעְתִּי בְּקוֹל יְהוָה אֱלֹהָי עָשִׂיתִי כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתָנִי:
הַשְׁקִיפָה מִמְּעוֹן קָדְשְׁךָ מִן־הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבָרֵךְ אֶת־עַמְּךָ אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל
וְאֵת הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר נָתַתָּה לָנוּ כַּאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתָּ לַאֲבֹתֵינוּ אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ:
I have put aside the holy things out of my house, and have given them to the Levite, and to the foreigner,
to the fatherless, and to the widow, according to all your commandment which you have commanded me: I have
not transgressed any of your commandments, neither have I forgotten them: I have not eaten of it in my
bereavement, neither have I put away of it, being unclean, nor given of it for the dead: I have listened
to the voice of the Lord my God; I have done according to all that you have commanded me. Look down from
your holy habitation, from heaven, and bless your people Israel, and the ground which you have given us,
as you swore to our ancestors, a land flowing with milk and honey.
For our present purposes it is important to note that the farmer says that he did not eat of the 'holy
things' in his bereavement. From this the sages learned that an onen (the Torah uses this
term) may not eat sacrificial meat. It follows that if someone's relative died and was buried on Nisan
14th, at the time of the sacrifice of the paschal lamb during that afternoon they are disqualified from
eating it; however, with nightfall the disqualification imposed on them by the Torah is removed and they
may eat of the paschal lamb, and therefore they may be included in a subscription party. (The sages
extended the period of one being a 'newly-bereaved' to include the night following the burial, but they
waived this extension in the case of the paschal lamb.)
To be continued.
In Pesaĥim 103 I wrote: The Torah gives detailed instructions which, it seems reasonable to assume,
are designed to prevent the spread of venereal diseases.
Avraham Jacobs writes:
It is indeed reasonable to assume that our regulations about uncleanness due to discharges from genital
areas indeed diminished the spread of diseases. However, I doubt that they were designed for that purpose.
In any case, menstruation and the involuntary discharge (which was a major topic in [tractate] Tamid) are
normal functions of the body and not diseases. I always understood that the ritual cleanness and
uncleanness are a measure of our closeness or distance from the Source of our being. In these cases of
uncleanness reproduction becomes temporarily impossible. Death of course is the ultimate disconnection
from the goal of our being. The use of natural flowing water is than symbolic for the reconnection with
the Source.
5:
Our mishnah now turns its attention to other people who may find themselves in a situation in which they
are not at liberty to participate in the consumption of the paschal lamb at the time of its slaughter,
but may nevertheless be counted in a subscription party in the expectation that they will be able to do
so at the Seder service.
6:
In Pesaĥim 20 I wrote:
In mishnaic times (and later) many dwellings were very flimsily built – even those that consisted of more
than one floor. So it was a usual occurrence for buildings or floors of buildings to collapse. When such
a thing happens and people are trapped under the rubble it is an obvious religious requirement to spare
no efforts to rescue them.
Let us assume that a building collapses on Nisan 14th. Reuven has subscribed to a lamb that Shim'on is
arranging, but at the time that Shim'on is having their lamb slaughtered in the Bet Mikdash Reuven is
busy helping with the rescue operations: people are trapped beneath the rubble. Reuven may remain
subscribed to that lamb on the assumption that by nightfall he will be free to celebrate the Seder.
(There is a possibility that nevertheless he will not be able to do so for halakhic reasons, but we shall
deal with that when we explain the seifa [last clause] of this mishnah.)
7:
Similarly, Levi was incarcerated during the afternoon of Nisan 14th, but had been promised that he would
be released in time for the Seder service. In most cases Yehudah may include Levi in the subscription
party that he is organizing.
If Levi is a prisoner of non-Jews and they have promised to release him in time for the festival, there
is no halakhic reason to assume that they will not do so, so he may be included in Yehudah's group. If
Levi is in a Jewish gaol one of two things may happen. If he is outside Jerusalem and the authorities
have promised to release him in time for him to reach Jerusalem and celebrate the Seder there, Yehudah
may include Levi in his group. However, if the hapless Levi has the bad luck to be incarcerated in
Jerusalem he is not necessarily released, but Yehudah may include him in his group nevertheless, and must
take Levi his share of the lamb so that he can eat it in prison.
8:
I wrote:
The verse from the Torah … includes the phrase 'each person according to what he can eat'.
This meant for the sages that only people who would actually eat from the lamb could be a part of the
subscription group. This would exclude invalids, the aged and youngsters – anyone who could not be
expected to eat the minimal amount of lamb, "an olive's-bulk".
Our present mishnah teaches that invalids and the aged may be included in a subscription group if it may
be assumed that they will be well enough to eat at least an olive's-bulk of the roast lamb at the Seder
service.
9:
Despite the liberality demonstrated by the sages in permitting people to be included in a subscription
party even if it is not certain that they will be able to participate in the Seder, nevertheless there
did make one restriction: no party may be constituted only of such people. One may not organize a
subscription party which consists solely of people whose eventual participation is in doubt. They may be
included provided that others, whose participation need not be doubted, are included as well. This is in
order to preclude the possibility that a paschal lamb will be come disqualified because there is no one
at liberty to eat it.
10:
If any of the people mentioned in our mishnah eventually are indeed precluded from participation they
nevertheless do not have to observe the Alternative Passover (on Iyyar 14th) since they were included in
the atonement effected by the sprinkling of the blood of the lamb at the time of its sacrifice. The
exception to this is the person who was engaged in a rescue operation. The fear is that it may transpire
that there was a fatality among the debris. In such a case the rescuer has become ritually impure the
moment he entered the site of the rubble through being 'under the same roof' as a corpse. If a corpse was
indeed found in the rubble the rescuer must observe the Alternative Passover.
אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת הַפֶּסַח עַל הַיָּחִיד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מַתִּיר.
אֲפִלּוּ חֲבוּרָה שֶׁל מֵאָה שֶׁאֵין יְכוֹלִין לֶאֱכוֹל כַּזַּיִת, אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין עֲלֵיהֶן.
וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין חֲבוּרַת נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים:
The paschal lamb may not be sacrificed for an individual. This is the view of Rabbi Yehudah, but Rabbi
Yosé permits. We may not sacrifice [a paschal lamb] even for a
group of one hundred if they cannot
eat an olive's-bulk. We may not create a group that consists solely of women, servants and children.
1:
What underlies our present mishnah is the issue of what constitutes 'a group' – for the purposes of a
subscription party for the paschal sacrifice. Two views are brought in this mishnah: that of Rabbi
Yehudah bar-Ilai and that of Rabbi Yosé ben-Chalafta. Rabbi Yehudah holds that an individual, by
himself or by herself, cannot constitute a group. It seems that, part from logic, he bases himself also
on a biblical verse. The Torah [Deuteronomy 16:5] states:
לֹא תוּכַל לִזְבֹּחַ אֶת־הַפָּסַח בְּאַחַד שְׁעָרֶיךָ
אֲשֶׁר־יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ:
You may not sacrifice the passover in one of the provincial cities which God is giving you.
Two terms used in this translation are noteworthy, provincial cities and you;
but only the latter is relevant to the understanding of our mishnah. In the Hebrew original the word
'you' is in the singular, and Rabbi Yehudah obviously interprets this as meaning you, the individual,
may not sacrifice the passover…'
2:
Rabbi Yosé, on the other hand, seems to think that what motivates the view of his colleague is the
fear that a sole individual would not be able to consume a whole lamb and thus the sacrifice would become
disqualified. Rabbi Yosé holds that what is necessary is that each individual eat one olive's-bulk of
the paschal meat. Therefore, since we may assume that an ordinary individual is capable of doing so there
is no reason not to permit the slaughter of a private paschal sacrifice. On the other hand, we may not
slaughter a paschal lamb even for a subscription party of one hundred unless each and every one of them
will eat at least an olive's-bulk of the meat. In his commentary on our mishnah Rabbi Ovadyah of
Bertinoro states that in this matter halakhah follows the view of Rabbi Yosé.
3:
The last clause of our mishnah states that we may not create a group that consists solely of women,
servants and children. Actually this translation is problematic, since the pivotal Hebrew word in
this context may be understood as indicating and or or. Does our mishnah outlaw
a group that consists of a mixture of women, servants and children, or does it intend to outlaw a group
that consists entirely of women, servants or children? In their commentaries on our mishnah both Rambam
and Rabbi Ovadyah of Bertinoro understand our mishnah as intending to outlaw a mixed group, but permitting
a homogeneous group. Rabbi Ovadyah (basing himself of the Gemara [Pesaĥim 92a-b] explains:
We do not permit the constitution of a group that consists
solely of women and servants for fear that they become habituated to sin; and we do not permit the
constitution of a group that consists of servants and children alone for fear of pedophilia. But the
constitution of a womens' group or a servants' group is permitted.
In both cases the fear is that of sexual promiscuity. I can only assume that this fear was based on
experience. Certainly these vices were commonplace among the Romans and the Greeks, and it was well-known
that women could throw a party 'for women only' after which they would consort with the male slaves who
served them (in more than one sense). Also incidents of pedophilia were quite common between 'pedagogues'
(servants regularly accompanying a minor) and their charges. At any rate, what is clear from the
interpretation of our mishnah is that there is no intention to disqualify women or servants per se.
We recently noted that a menstruating woman was not permitted to eat of the paschal lamb because she was
in a state of ritual impurity. Yiftah Shapir writes:
Regarding menstruation and joining the pascal lamb
A. if we eliminate 12 days out of each 28 days – we get probability of about 42% that a woman cannot
participate!!! that's pretty much !!!
B. On top of that… since the average menstrual cycle is 28 days… there is a very good probability that
a woman who was impure on Pessah will also be impure on Pessah Sheni…
I respond:
I can find no reference to a solution to the problem that Yiftah raises (which does not, of course, mean
that there is not one). The Gemara [Pesaĥim 92a] speaks of women being 'attached' to a
paschal lamb for Pesaĥ Sheni (the Alternative Passover), but I do not think that this is intended as a
solution to the second problem that Yiftah raises. Could it not be that under such circumstances a woman
was held to be excused by heaven because of her natural situation? After all, a similar situation could –
in theory – prevail for a man, who was ritually defiled by contact with a corpse both in Nisan and in
Iyyar.
אוֹנֵן טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל אֶת פִּסְחוֹ לָעֶרֶב, אֲבָל לֹא בַקֳּדָשִׁים.
הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ עַל מֵתוֹ, וְהַמְלַקֵּט לוֹ עֲצָמוֹת, טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל בַּקֳּדָשִׁים.
גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיַּר בְּעֶרֶב פֶּסַח,
בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל אֶת פִּסְחוֹ לָעֶרֶב.
וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִן הָעָרְלָה כְּפוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַקֶּבֶר:
A newly bereaved person bathes and eats his paschal lamb in the evening, but not
[other] sacred sacrifices.
One who hears of a death and one who reburies human remains bathes and may eat [all] sacred sacrifices.
If an non-Jew converts on the day before Passover, Bet Shammai say that he bathes and eats his paschal
lamb in the evening; but Bet Hillel say that a person who takes leave of his prepuce is similar to a
person who takes leave of a grave site.
1:
The Torah [ Leviticus 10:1-5] tells of the death of two of the sons of Aaron, the High Priest,
during his installation ceremonies. Moses berates his brother for not eating from the installation
sacrifice, but Aaron responds, 'After what has happened to me today would God view it favourably if I were
to eat the sin-offering?' Moses accepts his brother's riposte [ Leviticus 10:16-20]. The
halakhic repercussions of this account are that someone who is newly bereaved may not eat of those
sacrifices which are technically termed 'sacred' – kodashim. The paschal lamb is one of
these. However, as we learned in mishnah 6 [Pesaĥim 105], the Torah only imposes on a mourner the status
of newly-bereaved [ onen] on the day of the death of his or her relative. The sages, however,
extended this status to include the following night.
2:
The Mishnah [Chagigah 3:3] imposes the duty of bathing in a ritual bath on a newly-bereaved
person when they cease to be an onen. Our present mishnah teaches that someone who is an
onen on Nisan 14th must bathe in a ritual bath at the end of the day in order to eat the
paschal lamb at the Seder service, for the sages had to relax their extension of the status of
onen in this case: their innovation does not have the power to prevent a mourner from
fulfilling a specific mitzvah of the Torah – the duty of eating of the paschal lamb. However, as our
mishnah points out, this 'exception' may not be extended to the eating of other sacred sacrifices.
3:
It is not only the person who buries his dead who has the status of onen for that day, but
also someone who hears of the death of one of his close relatives (parents, offspring, siblings) is also
an onen, even if he is not present at the burial.
4:
When we studied another tractate I wrote:
In Mishnaic times burial plots were situated outside the towns and villages, mostly on the eastern
side of town and some way off. The reason for this was the manner of burial. The body of the deceased
was laid on ledges or 'shelves' hewn into the rocky walls of a handy cave, whose entrance was then
carefully blocked until it was next needed to be opened. About a year later the family would enter the
cave and retrieve the bones of the deceased, put them in a small receptacle and bury them.
Our present mishnah explains that someone burying the bones of their deceased has the status of
onen. If that day is Nisan 14th they bathe in a ritual bath and eat their paschal lamb that
evening.
5:
Our present mishnah also deals with the status of someone who completes the process of their conversion to
Judaism on Nisan 14th. Bet Shammai say that the bathing in the ritual bath on that day qualifies the new
Jew to eat of the paschal lamb that evening. Bet Hillel say that the bathing in a ritual bath is not
enough. Just as a person who has been in contact with a corpse must be purified by the ashes-in-water of
the Red Heifer on the third and seventh day of their purification [Numbers 19:18-19], so must
a convert undergo the same purification. Bet Hillel impose this severity in order to prevent a possible
misunderstanding: if, in a future year, this new Jew should be in a state of ritual impurity through
contact with a corpse he might draw a mistaken analogy: 'On the day I converted I bathed and then ate of
the paschal lamb, so that is what I should do now as well' – whereas this is not the case as in the case
of contact with a corpse he needs the full seven-day purification process. He may not understand that on
the day of his conversion he was still a non-Jew, and non-Jews by definition cannot contract ritual
impurity, therefore there was no need for him to undergo the ritual purification at that time.
Yiftah Shapir claimed that since 42% of women could be expected to menstruate on Nisan 14th and, because
of a 28-day cycle, they would also be menstruous one month later, they would not be able to participate in
the eating of the paschal lamb at all.
It seems that this is somewhat of a red herring. I have received two comments on this, both of which are
cogently reasoned and say more or less the same thing. David Morris writes:
Regarding the odds that a woman would be menstruating on Pesaĥ: as my wife has pointed out to me, the
actual percentage of women likely to be menstruating is far less than 42%, since pregnant women and most
nursing mothers do not menstruate. Given that our ancestors did not have artificial birth control and
probably nursed much longer than most americans and israelis do, most women of child-bearing age probably
fell in one of these categories. And of course, post menapausal women do not menstruate either.
And Avraham Jacobs writes:
I think that in the period of the second temple, statistics were different from the 42% of today. Women
married (or were married off) at early ages. For a woman, having as many children as possible was the best
life insurance. Also, pills, contraceptives etc., the essentials of modern western lifestyle, were hardly
known. Thus, statistically, the probability for any (married) woman being pregnant or lactating on seider-
evening was much higher than having a cycle. This emphasizes the predicament of barren women in those
days (and in Biblical times). I assume that some women never experienced a cycle in their lifetime.
I respond:
In the rest of the cases, now obviously far less than 42%, my original comment stands: if a woman is in
such a predicament she is excused, just as a man would be too. Rambam says so explicitly in Korban
Pesaĥ 5:2.
This concludes our study of chapter 8 of this tractate.
|
