Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 5, scan section 48

cases the sprinkling must be done at the base of the altar. Whence do we know that the blood of a burnt-offering must be sprinkled at the base of the altar ? From the passage [ibid. iv. 18]: "And all the blood shall he pour out 2X t\iQ base oi the altar of burnt-oiTering." " The first division went out,** etc. We have learned in a Boraitha that the third division was called the " tardy division." Why should this be so ? One division had to be the last ? Everyone had to strive to be first, as we have learned in a Bo- raitha: " R. Jose said: The world cannot exist without an apothe- cary and without a tanner, yet well is to him who follows the profession of an apothecary and woe is to him who follows the calling of a tanner. The world cannot exist without males and females; yet well is to him who hath sons and woe is to him who hath daughters." The priests, etc., would wash the courts, contrary to the wishes of the sages. ' ' Who Avere the sages who were opposed to this ? Said R. Hisda: " That was only R. Eliezer, for the other sages all held that a rabbinical prohibition was never effec- tive in the Temple." (See Tract Sabbath, page 187.) " R. Jehudah says, 'A cup was filled,*** etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jehudah said: " A cup was filled with the mixed blood lest the blood of one of the bowls held by the priests be spilled in transit, and thus the sacrifice whence the blood came became invalid." R. Jehudah was asked, however: *' Supposing the mixed blood was taken from that which was spilled on the ground and not from that which had been received in the bowls, would this not be unlawful ?" and he replied: " I refer only to such as had been received in the bowls." How could this distinction be made in the midst of such a vast multitude ? The priests were very dexterous. If so, why was there fear that the blood of one of the bowls might be 124 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. spilled ? Just because they were so dexterous, there is all the more reason to assume that in the handling of the bowls some of the blood might be spilt. Was it not certain, however, that in that mixed blood there was the last (life) blood of the sacrifice (which must not be offered up on the altar) ? R. Jehudah holds to his individual theory, that one kind of blood does not interfere with another, and if the proper blood was sprinkled it was suflficient. " The pieces, etc., were placed on a large dish atid offered up.'' Did the same person offer it up on the altar ? Read in the Mishna: He would place it on a large dish until a priest would come and offer it up. We have learned in a Boraitha: As soon as a man had fin- ished preparing his sacrifice, he would wrap up in the skin and carry it off. Said R. Elish: This is after the manner of the Ishmaelitish meat-dealers. CHAPTER VI. REGULATIONS CONCERNING ACTS WHICH SUPERSEDE THE DUE OBSERV- ANCE OF THE SABBATH THE SACRIFICE OF THE PASCHAL OFFER- ING— WHAT IS TO BE DONE IF ONE SACRIFICE IS CONFOUNDED WITH ANOTHER. MISHNA: The following acts necessary for the sacrifice of the paschal offering supersede the due observance of the Sab- bath, namely: The slaughtering thereof, the sprinkling of its blood, the removal of its entrails, and the burning of the fat with incense ; but the roasting of the sacrifice, as well as the washing of its entrails, does not supersede the due observance of the Sabbath. To carry and bring it beyond the sabbatical legal limits, or to remove a wen (or spreading sore) thereon, is an act which does not supersede the due observance of the Sab- bath. R. Eliezer, however, says they do supersede it. " For," said R. Eliezer, " this is surely a logical sequence ; if slaughter- ing an animal, which is prohibited on the Sabbath as being a principal act of labor, is allowed in this instance (of the Pass- over) and even supersedes the Sabbath, does it not follow that these two acts, which are only prohibited by rabbinical law, should also in this instance supersede the Sabbath?" R. Jehoshua answered and said: " The laws concerning the festival will prove the contrarj^; for many things prohibited on the Sab- bath as being principal acts of labor are nevertheless permitted on the festival,* while other things which are prohibited by rab- binical law are yet prohibited on the festival, "f R. Eliezer replied : " What is the matter with thee, Jehoshua? How canst thou adduce proof from purely voluntary acts (such as cooking) to such as are distinctly prohibited by biblical law ? " R. Aqiba then answered: "The act of sprinkling (a person who had become unclean) will prove it; for that is a distinct biblical commandment and is only prohibited on the Sabbath by rab- * Such as cooking, lighting a fire, splitting wood, etc. f Such as moving things from one legal limit into another without the combina- tion of an Erub. ( Vide Tract Betza.) 125 126 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. binical law, still it does not supersede the due observance of the Sabbath ; * do not therefore wonder that these acts, which are also religious duties, and are only prohibited on the Sabbath by rabbinical law, should still not be allowed to supersede the Sabbath." R. Eliezer replied, however: " I also adduce my inference from the act of sprinkling, and maintain that if slaugh- tering, which is prohibited to be done on the Sabbath as a princi- pal act of labor, is in this instance allowed to supersede the due observance of the Sabbath, does it not follow that the sprinkling of a person who had become unclean, and which is only prohibited to be done on Sabbath by rabbinical law, should in so much greater a degree supersede the Sabbath ?" But R. Aqiba said: " Rather conclude the reverse: for if the sprink- ling, which is only prohibited by rabbinical law, nevertheless does not supersede the Sabbath, does it not follow that slaugh- tering, which is prohibited as a principal act of labor, should a fortiori not supersede the Sabbath?" R. Eliezer then said to him: " Aqiba! wouldst thou then annul what is written in the Scriptures [Numb. ix. 3]: ' Toward evening shall ye prepare it, at its appointed season,' (and which signifies) whether it be a week or a Sabbath day ?" Rejoined R. Aqiba: " Rabbi, pray adduce a text that prescribes a particular (and appointed) time for the performance of these acts (mentioned in the first part of this Mishna), even as there is one concerning the slaughtering of the paschal sacrifice. ' ' The following rule therefore did R. Aqiba lay down : Every act necessary for the paschal sacrifice, which can be accomplished previous to the advent of the Sabbath, does not supersede the due observance of the Sabbath ; but as the slaughtering of the paschal lamb cannot be done before the Sab- bath, it supersedes the Sabbath. GEMARA: The rabbis taught: The Halakha in the Mishna