How to rejoice on our holidays. TB Pesakhim 71

When the Temple stood in Jerusalem a Jew was obligated to bring three different sacrifices on the three pilgrimage holidays. The first was the Olah Re-eyah (עולה ראיה), a complete burnt offering. The next was a Peace Well-being offering to increase joy (שלמי שמחה) aka Simkha. The last sacrifice was the Haggigah (חגיגה) which was also a Peace Well-being korban. To fulfill the mitzvah of the Simkha and Haggigah, one must eat some of the cooked meat. Back then most diets were vegetarian because meat was too expensive to have as a single serving. Only in the second half of the 20th century in the United States, people started eating an individual serving of meat like a steak or hamburger on a regular basis. 

Only in conjunction with a celebration did people eat meat. That is why “Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: When the Temple is standing, rejoicing is only through the eating of sacrificial meat, as it is stated: “And you shall sacrifice peace-offerings and you shall eat there and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 27:7).” (TB Pesakhim 109a, Sefaria.org translation) The today’s Gemara, TB Pesakhim 71,  asks the question how can you rejoice on the holiday when you can not offer the Simkha? Rav Pappa provides an innovation (חידוש) that not only applies today when the Temple no longer stands, but apparently would work even when the Temple was in existence. “Rav Pappa said: In such a situation, one rejoices with clean clothes and old wine.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 Since laundering clothes isn’t such a big deal in the modern era like it was in the past, I am guessing that this must be the origin of today’s custom of  wearing a brand-new piece of clothing on every holiday. Indeed, wearing something brand-new for the first time makes the person happy. One even says the blessing shehekhiyanu over new clothes thanking God for allowing you to reach this happy occasion. If that doesn’t make you happy, there’s always a glass of fine wine to improve your spirits.

Overeating on Passover is a mitzvah TB Pesakhim 70

The Haggigah (חגיגה) sacrifice is a special and unique offering. It is a peace well-being sacrifice (שלמים) that is offered up and then eaten to celebrate and enjoy on the three pilgrimage holidays, Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot. It is an individual’s sacrifice; however, it is also considered like a public sacrifice because all of Israel is bringing his own Haggigah. Only animals and not fowls or meal offerings are acceptable as a Haggigah. There is a whole massekhet dedicated to this topic which we will start studying in just over a year from now. On erev Passover, there is a non-obligatory sacrifice that is called the Haggigah of the 14th (of Nisan). The Mishnah is discussing this non-obligatory Haggigah.

There are two possible versus where the rabbis expounded the mitzvah of the korban Haggigah. The first possibility is “וְהָיָה֩ הַיּ֨וֹם הַזֶּ֤ה לָכֶם֙ לְזִכָּר֔וֹן וְחַגֹּתֶ֥ם אֹת֖וֹ חַ֣ג לַֽיהוָ֑ה לְדֹרֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם חֻקַּ֥ת עוֹלָ֖ם תְּחָגֻּֽהוּ:-This day shall be to you one of remembrance: you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD throughout the ages; you shall celebrate it as an institution for all time.” The word  וְחַגֹּתֶ֥םis reference to the Haggigah.1 Today’s daf TB Pesakhim 70 suggests the second possible source. “Rav said: What is ben Dortaif’s reason? As it is written: ‘And you shall slaughter the Paschal offering to the Lord your God from the flock and from the herd, in the place which the Lord shall choose to rest His name there’ (Deuteronomy 16:2). A question must be asked: Does the Paschal offering come from the herd, i.e., from cattle? Doesn’t the Paschal offering come from only the sheep and from the goats, as commanded in the book of Exodus (12:5)? Rather, the verse should be understood as follows. ‘Flocks’- this is referring to the Paschal offering. ‘Herd’; this is referring to the Festival peace-offering that is brought along with it.’” (Sefaria.org translation)

You may be wondering why the Gemara is discussing the Haggigah of the 14th  now. The first Mishnah of chapter delineated what aspects of the korban Pesakh supersede Shabbat and which aspects don’t when the 14th of Nisan falls on Shabbat. The next Mishnah found that the very bottom of TB Pesakhim 69 brings up the korban Haggigah because it doesn’t supersede the Shabbat at all.

“When, however, the Paschal lamb comes on Shabbat, or when few people are registered for it so that each person will receive a large portion, or when it is brought in a state of ritual impurity, one does not bring a Festival peace-offering with it.” (Sefaria.org translation) The Mishnah includes lots of other details about this sacrifice.

The Gemara teaches us which sacrifice, the korban Pesakh or the korban Haggigah, is is in first and why. “The Gemara asks: If there is no obligation to bring this offering, what is the reason that it nevertheless comes when each person’s portion of the Paschal lamb is small? The Gemara explains that the reason is as it was taught in a baraita: The Festival peace-offering that comes with the Paschal lamb is eaten first; the reason for this is so that the Paschal lamb will be eaten when one is already satiated. The Paschal lamb should not be eaten in a needy manner, but rather in joy and when one is already filled to satisfaction.” (Sefaria.org translation) 

This has to be the source of the tradition where people who prepare the food for the Seder night make so much food that we overeat beyond satisfaction.

Miscommunication or forgetfulness, you decide TB Pesakhim 69

Throughout the entire Talmud, Rabbi Eliezer has an expanded view of what is permitted on Shabbat. Consequently, he would permit “Carrying the Paschal lamb through a public domain, bringing it from outside the Shabbat limit and cutting off its wart ” (TB Pesakhim 65b, Sefaria.org translation) even though each one of these activities could have been done the day before. First Rabbi Yehoshua and then Rabbi Akiva who disagree and forbid these activities enter into a debate with him. Today’s daf TB Pesakhim 69 brings a baraita that fills in the conversation between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva that was missing in the Mishnah. 

“We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva responded and said to Rabbi Eliezer that the law governing the sprinkling of the purifying water of a red heifer proves that actions prohibited by a rabbinic decree, even when they are performed for the sake of a mitzva, do not override Shabbat. He then goes on to argue that we can reverse the order of the argument and conclude by way of an a fortiori inference that even slaughter does not override Shabbat. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said to him about this: Akiva, you have lightheartedly responded to me with a faulty a fortiori inference with regard to slaughter (because everybody agrees that slaughtering the korban Pesakh supersedes  the Shabbat. Consequently, Rabbi Eliezer felt using this argument that Rabbi Akiva was not treating him respectfully-gg) ...Rabbi Akiva said to him: My teacher, do not deny my contention at the time we are discussing this inference, for this is the tradition I received from you: Sprinkling is forbidden by rabbinic decree and does not override Shabbat.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara provides two possible why Rabbi Eliezer retracted his view that sprinkling is forbidden by rabbinic decree and does not override Shabbat. Ulla posits that there was miscommunication between the two. “Ulla said: When Rabbi Eliezer taught him this halakha, he taught it to him with respect to sprinkling that is performed in order to enable a ritually impure priest to partake of teruma. This sprinkling does not override Shabbat because even separating teruma itself does not override Shabbat. But he never taught Rabbi Akiva this halakha with respect to sprinkling that is performed in order enable someone to eat of the Paschal lamb. 

“The Gemara notes that Rabbi Akiva as well, when he challenged Rabbi Eliezer, challenged him with regard to the halakha of sprinkling for teruma, and his objection should be understood as follows: Eating teruma is a mitzva, and sprinkling purifying water on someone who is ritually impure is only prohibited due to a rabbinic decree; nevertheless, sprinkling purifying water on a ritually impure priest, in order to enable him to eat teruma, is prohibited on Shabbat. Thus it follows by a fortiori inference that slaughter, which is a biblically prohibited labor, should certainly be forbidden on Shabbat, even when performed for the sake of a mitzva. And Rabbi Eliezer thought Rabbi Akiva was challenging him with regard to the halakha of sprinkling that is performed in order to enable someone to eat of the Paschal lamb; that is why he said that he disagreed about sprinkling as well.” Sefaria.org translation)

Rabba suggests a different reason to explain the discrepancy concerning Rabbi Eliezer’s position on sprinkling. He just forgot what he taught. “Rabbi Eliezer forgot his own teaching and Rabbi Akiva came to remind him of his teaching by drawing an a fortiori inference that would cause Rabbi Eliezer to remember what he himself had taught. The Gemara asks: If so, then let Rabbi Akiva say explicitly that this is what Rabbi Eliezer himself had taught him. The Gemara answers: He thought that it would not be proper to tell his teacher that he had forgotten his teaching, and therefore his initial attempt was to remind him indirectly.”

Of the two solutions identify more with Rabba’s. The older I get the more I do forget.1

1. Does this song “Oh no, I’m looking for my glasses” by the 4 Bitchin Babes resonates with you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch993THMi4U

Accentuating the positive TB Pesakhim 68

Judy Tenuta once quipped,“My mother always told me I wouldn't amount to anything because I procrastinate. I said, 'Just wait.” Procrastination is working tomorrow for better today. Let’s be honest, we all procrastinate one time or another. One of my favorite 4 Bitchin Babes’ songs is “Breakfast Dishes.1” The singer hates doing breakfast dishes then has to deal with all the consequences of neglecting to wash her breakfast dishes.

Amongst my many bad habits you can find procrastination. I always have to be on guard against this inclination to procrastinate because I have learned from experience how soon “not now” becomes “never.”2 I goggled procrastination quotes and the vast majority them focus on the negative aspects and results of procrastination like “Putting off easy things makes it hard. Putting off hard things makes it impossible.”3  Instead of focusing on the negative, today’s daf  TB Pesakhim 68 accentuates the positive

The Mishnah on daf TB Pesakhim 65b enumerates four aspects of the korban Pesakh that override Shabbat prohibitions when erev  Passover falls on Shabbat. “These are the matters related to the Paschal lamb that override Shabbat, when the eve of Passover occurs on Shabbat: Its slaughter, the sprinkling of its blood, the cleaning of its intestines and the burning of its fats on the altar, all of which are services that must be performed on Passover eve while it is still day.” (Sefaria.org translation) The burning of the fats on the altar comes to teach us how much God loves us when we run to do a mitzvah.

“The Gemara notes that it was taught in the Tosefta: Rabbi Shimon said: Come and see how dear is a mitzva performed in its proper time. For burning the fats and limbs and inner fats is valid all night and it would have been possible to wait until the conclusion of Shabbat and burn them at night, but nonetheless we do not wait with them until nightfall; rather, we burn them immediately, even on Shabbat.” (Sefaria.org translation)

To do things in their proper time and not procrastinate is a good action plan for all the different areas of our lives. We shall be able to accomplish so much more. We shall not only find favor in God’s eyes and all those around us, but we feel good about ourselves as well.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d71o_XEVthQ

2. Martin Luther

3. George H Lorimer

 

I can enter and go no farther TB Pesakhim 67

The first five mishnayot in massekhet kelim1 enumerate the different levels of ritual unreadiness (טוּמְאָה) starting with the lowest level and ending with the most severe level. The korban Pesakh overrides ritual unreadiness was the first topic discussed on our daf  TB Pesakhim 67. Through a careful analysis of relevant verses, only when the vast majority of the Jewish people who became ritually unready because they have come into contact with a corpse (טמאי מת) may still offer up their korban Pesakh. People who are ritually unready because they are a zav2 or a metzora3 have to become ritually ready first and afterwards may offer up their korban Pesakh on Pesakh Sheni, one month later.

The Israelite’s camp in the desert and Jerusalem were divided into three different sections or camps, each one holier than the next. The first and holiest camp was the  Makhanah Shekhinah (מחנה שכינה) where the tabernacle was situated. In Jerusalem this section was the Temple’s courtyard. The second camp was the Makhanah Leviyah (מחנה לויה), the area around the tabernacle where the Levites were permitted to fulfill their obligations. In Jerusalem this section was the entire Temple Mount. The third camp was Makhanah Yisrael (מחנה ישראל) and this is the rest of the walled-in city of Jerusalem. Today’s daf teaches what areas were different people of different kinds of ritual on readiness allowed in.

“Having cited verses dealing with the requirement to send out the ritually impure from the camp, the Gemara addresses several halakhot relevant to that topic. Rav Hisda said: A leper, who must be sent out from all of the camps including the Israelite camp, who went in beyond his boundary, that is, he entered an area that is prohibited to him, is nonetheless exempt from the punishment of lashes. With regard to the ritually impure, the Torah states: 'Both male and female shall you send out, outside the camp shall you send them, and they shall defile not their camps in the midst of which I dwell' (Numbers 5:3), from which we learn that an impure person who enters the camp is liable to receive lashes for having violated the prohibition of they shall not defile. A leper, however, is exempt, as it is stated: ‘All the days that the plague shall be in him he shall be impure; he is impure, he shall dwell in isolation, his dwelling shall be outside the camp.’ (Leviticus 13:46). 

"...zavin and zavot, who are prohibited from entering the Levite camp.... And one who is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse is permitted to enter even the Levite camp." (Sefaria.org translation)

In summary somebody who is ritually unready because he has come into contact with a corpse is still allowed in the Makhanah Leviyah. A zav is still allowed in the Makhanah Yisrael. Unfortunately the metzora was expelled to beyond the walls of Jerusalem.

Because the Temple no longer stands and no rites to become ritual readiness are possible, every Jew is considered to be ritually unready by virtue of becoming in contact with a corpse. Putting politics aside, an observant Jew will not enter the Temple Mount where the Temple courtyard stood because he falls into the category of being ritually unready by virtue of coming into contact with a corpse.

1. https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Kelim.1.5?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en Mishnayot 6-9 enumerates the levels of wholeness from the least holy to the most holy.

2. a person who has a discharge

3. a person who has various types of skin disease

Arrogance and anger have disastrous impact on our lives. TB Pesakhim 66

With yesterday’s daf we began the sixth chapter of our massekhet. The opening Mishnah details when erev Passover falls on Shabbat which aspects of the korban Pesakh supersedes the Shabbat prohibitions and which do not. Coincidentally, this year 5781 erev Passover falls on Shabbat.

Today’s Gemara TB Pesakhim 66 recounts  the back-story  how  Hillel the Elder who emigrated to Israel from Babylonia became the head of the Jewish people, the Nasi. The sons of Beteira forgot whether the korban Pesakh overrides the Shabbat. They were told that Hillel studied under Shemaya and Avtalyon and he knows the answer.1 After Hillel shared two different ways proving that the korban Pesakh supersedes the  Shabbat and they appointed him the Nasi, he spent the whole day teaching the laws of Passover. In the course of the lesson, Hillel rebuked the sons of Beteira. 

“He began rebuking them [mekanteran] them with words. He said to them: What caused this to happen to you, that I should come up from Babylonia and become Nasi over you? It was the laziness in you that you did not serve the two most eminent scholars of the generation living in Eretz Yisrael, Shemaya and Avtalyon. ” (Sefaria.org translation)

“Immediately they asked him a question and he forgot what he had learned. “They said to Hillel: Our teacher, if one forgot and did not bring a knife on the eve of Shabbat and cannot slaughter his Paschal lamb, what is the law? Since he could have brought the knife before Shabbat, he cannot bring it on Shabbat; but what should he do in this situation? He said to them: I once heard this halakha from my teachers but I have forgotten it. But leave it to the Jewish people; if they are not prophets to whom God has revealed His secrets, they are the sons of prophets, and will certainly do the right thing on their own.” (Sefaia.org translation) 

The rabbis learned two important ethical imperatives from the story. Arrogance and anger have disastrous impact on our lives.

“With regard to the incident with Hillel, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Anyone who acts haughtily, if he is a Torah scholar, his wisdom departs from him; and if he is a prophet, his prophecy departs from him. The Gemara explains: That if he is a Torah scholar, his wisdom departs from him is learned from Hillel, for the Master said in this baraita: Hillel began to rebuke them with words. Because he acted haughtily, he ended up saying to them: I once heard this halakha, but I have forgotten it, as he was punished for his haughtiness by forgetting the law. That if he is a prophet his prophecy departs from him is learned from Deborah, as it is written: The villagers ceased, they ceased in Israel, until I, Deborah, arose, arose a mother in Israel.

“Similarly, Reish Lakish said: Any person who becomes angry, if he is a Torah scholar, his wisdom departs from him, and if he is a prophet, his prophecy departs from him. The Gemara explains: That if he is a Torah scholar his wisdom departs from him is learned from Moses, as it is written: And Moses became angry with the officers of the host, the captains over thousands and the captains over hundreds, who came from the battle (Numbers 31:14). And what was his punishment? As it is written afterward: And Elazar the priest said to the men of war who went to the battle: This is the statute of the law, which the Lord commanded Moses (Numbers 31:21), which proves by inference that this law had become hidden from Moses due to his anger. 

“And that if he is a prophet, his prophecy departs from him, we learn from Elisha, as it is written that he became angry with the king of Israel and said to him: Were it not that I have regard for the presence of Jehoshaphat the king of Judea, I would not look toward you, nor see you (II Kings 3:14), and it is afterward written: But now bring me a minstrel; and it came to pass when the minstrel played that the hand of the Lord came upon him (II Kings 3:15). Because Elisha became angry with the king of Israel, his prophetic spirit departed from him and a minstrel was needed to rouse it anew. 

"Rabbi Mania bar Latish said: Whoever becomes angry, even if greatness has been apportioned to him from heaven, he is lowered from his greatness. From where do we derive this? From Eliab, David’s older brother, as it is stated: and Eliab’s anger burned against David and he said: Why did you come down, and with whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know your insolence and the evil of your heart, for you have come down to see the battle (I Samuel 17:28); we see that Eliab became angry. And when Samuel went to anoint him after God had told him that one of Yishai’s sons was to be the king, concerning all of the other brothers it is written: The Lord has not chosen this one (I Samuel 16:8), whereas with regard to Eliab it is written: and the Lord said to Samuel: Look not at his appearance, nor at the height of his stature, for I have rejected him (I Samuel 16:7). This proves by inference that until now He had loved him, and it was only at this point that Eliab was rejected. Had it not been for his anger, Eliab would have been fit for greatness; but owing to this shortcoming, God rejected him (Sefaria.org translation)”

Moses Maimonides teaches we should follow the Golden mean, השביל הזהב, with all the attributes except two, arrogance and anger.2 According to him we should distance ourselves from arrogance and anger as far as possible. Remember the story how a heathen made a bet that he could make  Hillel angry and lost because Hillel remained composed and answered his silly and nonsensical questions.3 Hillel’s rebuke of the sons of  Beteira  seem so out of character. Perhaps Hillel learned his lesson from today’s story and  became the Hillel we all know and love.

Don’t jump to conclusions TB Pesakhim 65

Yesterday we learned that all the Jews coming to bring the Passover sacrifice had to be divided into three groups based on the interpretation of the verse “And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it -וְשָׁחֲטוּ אוֹתוֹ כֹּל קְהַל עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל” (Exodus 12:6) קְהַל  means one group; עֲדַת means a second group; and יִשְׂרָאֵל  means the third group. Today’s daf TB Pesakhim 65 in my opinion unfairly describes and denigrates the third group.

“It was stated in the next clause of the mishna that after the first group exited, the second group and then the third group would enter. It was taught in the Tosefta with regard to the third group: It was called the lazy group because it was the last of the three groups. The Gemara asks: But it would not have been sufficient without this third group, as the Paschal lamb must be offered in three shifts. What, then, should the members of the third group have done? The Gemara answers: Nonetheless, the members of the third group should have hurried themselves so that they would not be in the last group.” (Sefaria.org translation)

I think the rabbis forgot in this case to apply their own dictum “When you assess people, tip the balance in their favor- וֶהֱוֵי דָן אֶת כָּל הָאָדָם לְכַף זְכוּת” (Avot 1:6) or in other words give him the benefit of the doubt. I’ve learned how wrong I could be when I jumped to conclusions about another person’s actions. Perhaps the Jews who were put in the third group came late because their child was sick and needed to be taken care of, because a wheel of their wagon fell off they had to repair it, or because they were delayed for a myriad of other good reasons.

Members of my congregation often come late to my services. Instead of chastising them, making them feel bad, and discouraging them from coming to future services, I thank them for coming and appreciate them for joining us. They are always welcome whether early, on time, or late. Those who are habitually late and nothing will ever change them, I still thank them and tell them better late than never.

Besides labeling people is never a good idea for perhaps they will internalize the message you’re sending him/her, start believing that message, and succumbing to the pressure of not being able to live up to the positive attribution or adopting that negative behavior.

A song in our hearts and in our mouth TB Pesakhim 64

Passover is one of the three pilgrimage holidays as the Torah says “You shall slaughter the Passover sacrifice for the Lord your God, from the flock in the herd, in the place with the Lord will choose to establish his name.” (Deuteronomy 16:2) Jews were supposed to go up to Jerusalem, offer up their korban Pesakh (Passover sacrifice), and celebrate Passover by eating the korban Pesakh, matzah, and bitter herbs. Imagine the magnitude of the number of people going up to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover!“

Today’s daf TB Pesakhim 64 tells the story about who King Agrppas[1] wanted to know how many Jews actually came to the Temple Mount to offer up their korban Pesakh.  “The Sages taught: Once, King Agrippa wished to set his eyes on the multitudes [ukhlosin] of Israel to know how many they were. He said to the High Priest: Set your eyes on the Paschal lambs; count how many animals are brought in order to approximate the number of people. The High Priest took a kidney from each one, as the kidneys are burned on the altar, and six hundred thousand pairs of kidneys were found there, double the number of those who left Egypt. This did not reflect the sum total of the Jewish people, as it excluded those who were ritually impure or at a great distance, who did not come to offer the sacrifice. Furthermore, this was a count of the Paschal lambs and not of the people, and there was not a single Paschal lamb that did not have more than ten people registered for it. They called that Passover the Passover of the crowded, due to the large number of people.” (Sefaria.org translation)

How did the priests sacrifice so many lambs in the time slot allowed? Well, they used korban copies! (I waited 64 days to tell this joke that only people of a certain age will understand.) Actually, the Mishnah explains the assembly line procedure which enabled the priests to accomplish this daunting obligation.

“The Paschal lamb was slaughtered in three groups, meaning those bringing the offering were divided into three separate sets, as it is stated: “And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it in the afternoon” (Exodus 12:6). The verse is interpreted as referring to three groups: Assembly, congregation, and Israel. The procedure for sacrificing the offering was as follows: The first group of people sacrificing the offering entered, and when the Temple courtyard became filled with them they closed the doors of the Temple courtyard. They sounded uninterrupted, broken, and uninterrupted trumpet blasts, as was done while sacrificing any offering.

“The priests stood in rows from the place of slaughter to the altar, and in their hands they held bowls [bezikhin] of silver and bowls of gold in order to receive the blood of the offerings. There was a row entirely composed of priests holding silver bowls, and a row entirely composed of priests holding gold bowls, as the gold and silver bowls were not mixed in the same row. The bowls did not have flat bases that would allow them to be put down, out of concern that perhaps the priests would set them down and forget about them and in the meantime the blood would congeal and become disqualified for sprinkling on the altar.

“An Israelite would slaughter the sacrifice, and a priest would receive the blood and immediately hand it to another priest standing next to him, and the other priest would pass it to another. Each priest would receive a full bowl of blood from the priest next to him and return to him an empty bowl being passed in the opposite direction, the contents of which had already been sprinkled on the altar. The priest who was closest to the altar would sprinkle a single sprinkling of blood against the base of the altar, i.e., against the north and west sides of the altar, where there was a base.

“The first group exited upon completion of the rite, and the second group entered; the second group left upon completion of its rite, and the third group entered. As it was done by the first group, so was it done by the second and third groups. All the people standing in the Temple courtyard while the Paschal lambs were being slaughtered would recite hallel[2]. If they finished reciting it before all the offerings were slaughtered, they recited it a second time, and if they finished reciting it a second time, they recited it a third time, although in practice they never recited it a third time, as the priests worked efficiently and finished the rite before this became necessary. Rabbi Yehuda says: The third group never reached even once the opening verse of the fourth chapter of hallel: “I love that the Lord hears the voice of my supplications” (Psalms 116:1), because its people were few and the slaughtering of all the offerings was completed during the recitation of the first three chapters.” (Sefaia.org translation)

Rashi and Tosefot disagree who recited hallel. Rashi says it was the Israelites in each group and Tosefot says it was the Levites who sang the hallel. The Brisker Rav, Rabbi Yitskhak Zev Halevi Soloveichik, explains how each understood the purpose of the hallel. Tosefot understood that the korban Pesakh was no different from all the other sacrifices. The Levites always sang hallel as part of the worship service because that was their job. Consequently, they sang hallel at the time of the shekhitah, the slaughtering of the Paschal lamb. Rashi on the other hand says that the law that Levites sing hallel had nothing to do with the korban Pesakh. The korban Pesakh itself needed this recitation of hallel. A Jew can’t take the lulav and etrog[3] on Sukkot without reciting hallel; so too a Jew can’t offer up the korban Pesakh without a song in his mouth.

 

Rambam poskins like the Tosefot declaring it should be the Levites who sing hallel. (Mishneh Torah, Sefer Korbanot, hilkhot korban Pesakh, chapter 1, halakha 11)

 

 

---

[1] Herod Agrippa, also known as Herod or Agrippa I (Hebrew: אגריפס‎; 11 BC – AD 44), was a King of Judea from AD 41 to 44. He was the last ruler with the royal title reigning over Judea and the father of Herod Agrippa II, the last king from the Herodian dynasty. The grandson of Herod the Great and son of Aristobulus IV and Berenice,^[1] he is the king named Herod in the Acts of the Apostles 12:1: "Herod (Agrippa)" (Ἡρῴδης Ἀγρίππας). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Agrippa)

[2] Hallel is the collection of Psalms from Psalm 113 through Psalm 118. Some commentators say that Psalm 136 and even Psalm 135 was added to this hallel.

[3] The lulav and etrog are certainly not sacrifices, but we sing hallel holding them in our hands.

Don’t be like Eddie Haskell TB Pesakhim 63

Growing as a young boy one of my favorite TV shows was Leave it to Beaver. Wally was Beaver’s big brother. Today’s daf TB Pesakhim 63 reminded me of Wally’s friend Eddie Haskell.

Several attempts were made to make sense of the following Rabbi Meir’s statement. This Rabba’s explaination. "It was taught in a baraita that Akherim (Rabbi Meir) say: If one sacrifices a Paschal lamb for both circumcised and uncircumcised people and had in mind first the circumcised people and then the uncircumcised people, the offering is valid. But if he had in mind first the uncircumcised people and then the circumcised people, it is disqualified.”  (Sefaria.org translation) One explanation really troubled the Gemara. It couldn’t believe that Rabbi Meir would hold the position the heart and the mouth need not be the same.

“We are dealing with a case where one decided in his mind to slaughter the offering for both of them, both circumcised and uncircumcised people, and he verbally expressed his intention with the phrase: For uncircumcised people, but did not have a chance to say: For circumcised people, before the slaughter was already finished as he was saying: For uncircumcised people. And it is with regard to this point that they disagree: Rabbi Meir, who is Akherim, holds that we do not require that one’s mouth and heart be the same; what is legally significant is his verbal expression. Since he said: For uncircumcised people, he has disqualified the offering. And the Rabbis hold that we require that his mouth and heart be the same. Since he wanted to express his intent for both circumcised and uncircumcised people, he has not disqualified the offering. 

The Gemara expresses surprise: But does Rabbi Meir hold that we require that his mouth and heart be the same? The Gemara raises a contradiction based on a mishna in tractate Terumot that states: With regard to one who intended to say that the produce he has designated should be teruma, but he mistakenly said the word tithe; or he intended to say tithe but mistakenly said teruma; or he intended to vow: I will not enter this house, but mistakenly said: That house, i.e., he mistakenly referred to a different house; or he intended to vow: I will not derive benefit from this person, but he said: From that person, i.e., he mistakenly referred to someone else; he has not said anything until his mouth and heart are the same. This is an unattributed mishna, and unattributed mishnayot are presumed to be authored by Rabbi Meir.“ (Sefaria.org translation)

God commands that  when the ark is constructed it should be overlaid with gold both on the inside and on the outside. (Exodus 25:11) The need to cover the outside of the Ark with gold is understandable: The centerpiece of the Mishkan should certainly be majestic and regal. But what need is there to cover the wood on the inside of the box as well?  “The verse states concerning the Ark: “From within and from without you shall cover it” (Exodus 25:11). Rava said: This alludes to the idea that any Torah scholar whose inside is not like his outside, i.e., whose outward expression of righteousness is insincere, is not to be considered a Torah scholar.” (TB Yoma 72b, Sefaria.org translation) The Talmud explains that we should not be a hypocrite.

Which brings me back to Eddie Haskell. His character was a negative role model. When speaking to Beaver and Wally’s parents, he sounded like a perfect angel. But his actions always got him in trouble. His words and his heart were not the same. He is someone we definitely  should not follow. Of course, Rabbi Meir holds that the person’s mouth and heart needs to be the same.

What is more important the intention (מחשבה) or the action (מעשה)? TB Pesakhim 62

Yesterday’s daf TB Pesakhim 61a cites a disagreement between Rabba and Rav Ḥisda. “If one slaughtered the Paschal lamb for people who are circumcised on condition that uncircumcised people achieve atonement through the sprinkling of its blood, i.e., although the uncircumcised people are prohibited from eating the Paschal lamb, it was his intention that they achieve atonement through the blood of the offering, Rav Ḥisda said: The offering is disqualified. Rabba said: It is valid. The Gemara explains: Rav Ḥisda said it is disqualified because intent that the offering should be for uncircumcised people has sufficient force to disqualify the offering at the time of the sprinkling. Rabba said that it is valid because intent that the offering should be for uncircumcised people can only disqualify the offering during the slaughter and not during the sprinkling.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Today’s daf TB Pesakhim 62 analyzes the basis of the argument. They are arguing about the principle of “ho-il (הואיל), if something could happen do we consider it as already happened.

“Rather, Rav Ashi said: Rav Ḥisda and Rabba disagree with regard to this verse, which is stated with regard to a different offering: “And it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him” (Leviticus 1:4). It is inferred: For him and not for his fellow. One cannot achieve atonement through an offering that has been designated for someone else. Rabba and Rav Ḥisda disagree with regard to the halakhic conclusions that should be drawn from this law. Rabba holds that the law applies to another who is similar to him: Just as he is eligible for atonement through the sprinkling of the blood of this offering, so the law applies to another who is eligible for atonement. This comes to exclude this uncircumcised person, who is not eligible for atonement. Since an uncircumcised person is not fit for the Paschal lamb, slaughtering it for him does not disqualify the offering.

“And Rav Ḥisda holds that with regard to this uncircumcised person as well, since he is obligated to bring the Paschal lamb, he is considered eligible for atonement through the Paschal lamb. Why is an uncircumcised person seen as obligated to bring the Paschal lamb? Since if he wants, he can make himself fit through circumcision, and the obligation will automatically apply to him. There is a way for him to include himself among those who eat the offering; therefore, he cannot categorically be considered someone who is not eligible for atonement. Consequently, slaughtering the Paschal lamb for him disqualifies the offering.

“The Gemara challenges this explanation: But does Rav Ḥisda accept this argument of since? Does he maintain that one can discuss a situation that does not exist due to the possibility that the present circumstances might change? But it was said that Rabba and Rav Ḥisda disagree about this as it pertains to the case of one who bakes on a Festival for use during the week: Rav Ḥisda said he is flogged for having violated the Festival by baking in order to eat the food on a weekday; Rabba said he is not flogged.

“The Gemara explains: Rabba said he is not flogged for the following reason: Since if guests arrive, whatever he bakes will be fit for him to use on the Festival itself, and he will not be guilty of any transgression, now too, although guests have not yet arrived, the food is considered fit for him, and he is not flogged. At the time of the baking, the act was not unequivocally prohibited. Rav Ḥisda said he is flogged; we do not state the principle of since. At first glance, there is an internal contradiction with regard to the opinions of both Rabba and Rav Ḥisda.

“The Gemara notes: Granted, the apparent contradiction between the first statement of Rabba and the second statement of Rabba is not difficult. Here, in the case of the Paschal lamb whose blood is sprinkled for an uncircumcised person, an action is lacking, as the person must undergo circumcision in order to become eligible to eat from the Paschal lamb. However, there, in the case of one who bakes on a Festival, no action is lacking on the part of the baker. But the first statement of Rav Ḥisda and the second statement of Rav Ḥisda are difficult to reconcile. They say, in answer to this contraction: When Rav Ḥisda does not accept the principle of since, it is only to be lenient and exempt a person from lashes; however, to be stringent and disqualify the Paschal lamb, he does accept this line of reasoning.” (Sefaria.org translation)

I appreciate that this is a lot of text to read. I wanted to share the Passover case and the Shabbat case in their entirety so we can fully understand the point of contention concerning matters of Shabbat and holidays between Rabba and Rav Ḥisda. Rabbi Yosef Engel[1] teaches that the point of contention between them is what is more important, the intention (מחשבה) or the action (מעשה)?

 Rav Ḥisda holds that the intention is more important. In the case of cooking on Shabbat, the real intention was preparation for a weekday which is forbidden on Shabbat. In the case of the Passover sacrifice, his real intention was to include those uncircumcised men. By including those unregistered uncircumcised men, he changed the original group who brought the sacrifice and thus disqualifying it.

Rabba holds that the action is more important. In the case of cooking on Shabbat, guests could really come and food will be needed. No further action is required; consequently, he considers the guests as if they were already present. In the case of the Passover sacrifice, an additional action, that is the uncircumcised person would need to be circumcised, is required. Consequently, he could not be considered changing the registered group because he could never participate in the Passover sacrifice.

What do you think is more important the intention (מחשבה) or the action (מעשה)?

---

[1] For short biography go to http://revach.net/stories/gedolim-biographies/Rav-Yosef-Engel-A-Modern-Day-Solomon/2914

My twin goals of the Seder TB Pesakhim 61

I’m never surprised what I am studying at any given moment has direct application to something else going on in my life. We shall read about the last three plagues, the laws of Passover, and the Exodus from Egypt this coming Saturday in parashat Bo. Today’s daf TB Pesakhim 61 elaborates on the following three versus from our weekly Torah portion.

“Speak to the whole community of Israel and say that on the tenth of this month each of them shall take a lamb to a family, a lamb to a household. But if the household is too small for a lamb, let him share one with a neighbor who dwells nearby, in proportion to the number of persons: you shall contribute for the lamb according to what each household will eat. (Exodus 12:3-4)

“If a stranger who dwells with you would offer the passover to the LORD, all his males must be circumcised; then he shall be admitted to offer it; he shall then be as a citizen of the country. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it.” (Exodus 12:48)

I’m putting the cart before the horse because I’m quoting the Gemara before the Mishnah. The korban Pesakh needs to be offered up in the name of specific people. To create a group one must register all the participants. The rabbis learn the necessity of this registration from verse 4. “The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, which are not explicitly written in the Torah, derived? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught with regard to the verse: “And if the household be too little for a lamb, then he and his neighbor who is close to his house shall take one according to the number of the souls; according to every man’s eating you shall make your count for the lamb” (Exodus 12:4). “According to the number of” teaches that the Paschal lamb is slaughtered only for those who have registered for it. Everything is done according to the number of people who have registered before the slaughtering.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The korban Pesakh, the Passover sacrifice, is unique amongst all the sacrifices because its sole purpose is to be eaten celebrating Passover. The Mishnah elaborates on the laws when the korban Pesakh is offered up for an ineligible person.  “If one slaughtered the Paschal lamb for people who cannot eat it[1] or for those who did not register in advance to eat it, or if one slaughtered it for people who are uncircumcised or for those who are ritually impure[2], whom the Torah prohibits from eating the Paschal lamb, it is disqualified. However, if one slaughtered it for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it; for those who have registered for it and for those who have not registered for it; for the circumcised and for the uncircumcised; for the ritually impure and for the ritually pure, it is valid, for a partially invalid intent does not disqualify the offering.” (Sefaria.org translation)

As long as some people in the registered group are eligible to eat some of the korban Pesakh, the korban Pesakh is kosher. I like this idea of inclusivity. The modern Jewish family is more diverse than ever before. Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews are intermarrying bringing with them diverse Passover customs. Jews from the different streams and different educational backgrounds have married and bring with them different understandings, customs, and appreciation of the Passover Seder. Many Jewish families now include non-Jewish spouses and perhaps even non-Jewish children. Nobody should be excluded. I think the twin goals of the Seder is to be inclusive and meaningful to all the participants. If the Seder is inclusive and meaningful, I believe that the meal will be even more delicious.

---

[1] “The Sages taught in the Tosefta: How so the case of slaughtering the Paschal lamb for those who cannot eat it? It is a case where one slaughtered it for the sake of a sick person or for the sake of an old person who is unable to eat even an olive-sized portion of the Paschal lamb.” (TB Pesakhim 61a, sefria.org translation)

[2] I have always translated the term as ritually unready.

The impact of proper and improper intentions TB Pesakhim 60

Now that we know the timing of the korban Pesakh, today’s daf TB Pesakhim 60 begins to discuss the korban Pesakh, the Passover sacrifice, itself. Like all other sacrifices (singular-קָרְבָּן korban), the korban Pesakh needs proper intention (לִשְׁמוֹ) and an improper intention (שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ) would have a profound effect on the sacrifice.

Intention plays the crucial role only in four stages of the sacrificial worship (avodah-עָבוֹדָה). These stages are: 1, the slaughtering of the animal (שְׁחִיטָה); 2, the receiving of the blood in a vessel (קִבּוּל); 3, the walking of the blood to the altar (הָלָכָה); and 4, sprinkling the blood on the altar (זְרִיקָה). Even though the Gemara uses the term מַחְשְׁבֶת which means thought, the priest needs to verbally articulate his intention beyond just thinking it.

What is the ramification of an improper intention? The general rule is that an improper intention doesn’t disqualify the sacrifice and it can still be offered up on the altar; however, the improper intention detaches the sacrifice from the owner of the animal. He doesn’t get credit for the korban and needs to bring another. There are two exceptions where improper intention disqualifies the sacrifice and becomes ineligible (פָּסוּל) to be offered up on the altar. The two exceptions are the sin offering (חָטָאת) and the korban Pesakh.

Today’s Gemara analyzes when the kohan articulates both the proper intention and an improper intention at one time. This could happen in one stage of the avodah. For example, the kohan says that the sacrifice is both a korban Pesakh and a shelamim, a peace offering. This could happen in two different stages of the avodah. For example, the kohan slaughters the lamb as a korban Pesakh, but sprinkles the blood on the altar as a shelamim.

Based on the disagreement between Rabbi Yossi “who said that a person is held accountable even for the conclusion of his statement?” and Rabbi Meir who taught “Hold one accountable for the first expression, and what he says after that is of no consequence” (Sefaria.org translation), the Gemara tries to ascribe the Mishna at the bottom of TB Pesakhim 59 to one of them.  Unfortunately, no conclusive answer is ever given to who was the author of the Mishnah.

Although we no longer offer up the korban Pesakh as part of our Passover celebration, intention still can play an important role at our Seder. Some traditional haggadot include a kabalistic kavanah, intention, before each cup of wine, the prayer motzi, and eating the afikomen to help us focus our proper attention on the prayer we are about to say. This is an example of the kavanah recited over the 1^st cup of wine, kiddush.

“I am prepared and ready to fulfill the positive commandment of the 1^st cup of wine out of the 4 cups[1]. For the sake of unification of the Holy One, Blessed be He and his Divine presence, though He is hidden and concealed, in the name of all Israel. May the pleasantness of the Lord our God be upon us establish for us the work of our hands, O establish the work of our hands.” (My translation)

 

 

---

[1] Here is where you would insert the name of the prayer or action you're about to say or do.

Which would win the battle of the commandments? TB Pesakhim 59

My sons and I have been reading comic books for close to 35 years. My boys would debate who would win imaginary battles like Aquaman of the DC universe versus Namor the sub-mariner of the Marvel universe. Then they became even more creative by asking who would win in a fight, Rabbi Akiva or the Ba’al Shem Tov? (They are rabbi sons!) Today’s daf TB Peskhim asks the same question which commandment would win the battle when two positive commandments are in the same ring or when a positive commandment (מצוה עשה) is facing of a negative commandment (מצוה לא תעשה)

Yesterday we learned that all sacrifices had to be sandwiched between the two daily Temidim with the exception of the korban Pesakh, the Paschal Lamb. Today we learned about three other exceptions. Two are part of the worship service in the Temple, but are not animal sacrifices. These new exceptions are the burning of the incense (קְטֹרֶת), the lighting of the menorah, and on erev Pesakh the offering of one who lacks atonement on Passover eve (מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים[1]).

“And similarly, nothing may be delayed until after the daily afternoon offering but the afternoon burning of the incense, the lighting of the lamps, the offering of the Paschal lamb, and one who lacks atonement on Passover eve, i.e., one who was ritually impure, such as a leper[2] or a zav, and who immersed in a ritual bath to become pure. Such a person is required to bring an offering before he may partake of consecrated food, and he is referred to as one who lacks atonement until he does so. In the event that he neglects to bring his offering before the daily afternoon offering on Passover eve, the Sages instituted a special ordinance to enable him to bring his offering even after the daily offering. He immerses a second time after bringing the offering, thereby becoming fit to eat sacrificial foods, and he eats his Paschal lamb in the evening.” (Sefaria.org translation)

When you have competing positive commandments on equal footing, there is no way to gauge which one is more important than the other. Consequently, whatever positive commandment comes first is the dominant positive commandment and wins. When one positive commandment like the korban Pesakh is more important because it has the penalty of kareit[3], it wins the battle over the regular Tamid sacrifice which doesn’t have such a penalty. In the battle between a positive commandment and a negative commandment, the positive commandment wins if the opportunity to do both are simultaneous. Otherwise a negative commandment wins.

 

---

[1] This is a person who is ritually unready like the metzora, a person who has some kind of skin disease. He sits for seven days in a ritually ready state and on the seventh day he immerses in a mikvah. This person is in and in between state called “one who lacks atonement.” If he was a priest, he may now eat terumah, but forbidden to eat any sacrificial food until he offers up his sacrifices. He immerses a second time and now may eat sacrifices like the korban Pesakh.

[2] This is a misleading translation of the word metzora. “The identification of biblical tzara-at with leprosy is unlikely, if by ‘leprosy’ is meant Hansen's disease; the symptoms presented in this chapter (Leviticus 13) do not conform to the nature or the course of that disease. The term ‘tzara-at’ probably designated a complex of various elements.” Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary, above the line commentary, page 651.

[3] a penalty of premature death by the hands of the Holy One