Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 5, scan section 75

ing, i.e., beyond the walls of Jerusalem, he is considered as being on a distant journey. R. Jose the son of R. Jehudah, however, said in the name of R. Eliezer, that a man is not con- sidered as being on a distant journey if he is outside of the place where he is allowed to eat the paschal sacrifice, but only if he is outside of the place where he should prepare it, and that is beyond the walls of the Temple. According to whose opinion is the statement of R. Itz'hak the son of R. Joseph to the effect that the paschal sacrifice must be brought in accordance with the condition of the majority of the people inside of the Temple; /.^.,if the majority of the men on the inside of the Temple-court were in a state of defilement although the majority of the entire community standing outside 198 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. of the Temple were undefiled, the paschal sacrifice must never- theless be brought in a state of defilement (because those stand- ing on the outside are considered as being on a distant journey) ? This is in accordance with the opinion of R. Jose bar Jehudah, quoting R. Eliezer. " R. Jose said : * It was to confirm this,' " etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jose the Galilean said: The term " distant journey," as mentioned in the Scriptures, would lead us to presume that at least a three or four days' journey is meant; but as it is written further [Numb. ix. 13], " if he was not on a distant journey," we may conclude that as soon as a man is outside of the threshold of the court he is considered as being on a distant journey. MISHNA: What is the difference between the first and second Passover ? They differ, that during the (seven days of the) first Passover no leaven of any kind may be seen or even found in the house, while in the second both leavened and unleav- ened articles may be used in the house. At the eating of the pas- chal offering on the first Passover, the " Hallel " prayer must be recited but not at the eating on the second Passover. During the time, however, that the offering is sacrificed, either on the first or on the second Passover, the " Hallel " must be recited; the sacrifices on both Passovers must be roasted and eaten with unleavened cakes and bitter herbs, and the sacrifice of both supersedes the due observance of the Sabbath. GEMARA: The rabbis taught: It is written [Numb. ix. 12]: " According to the whole ordinance of the Passover-lamb shall they prepare it. ' ' Thus this passage refers to the Passover- lamb itself; but whence do we know that its accessories are to be observed in the same manner ? To that end it is written [ibid. 11]: "With unleavened bread and bitter herbs shall they eat it." Shall we assume, that all other ordinances that are not directly accessory to the sacrifice should also be observed ? For that purpose it is also written [ibid. 12] : " No bone shall they break on it" ; and as this behest concerns only the sacrifice when it has been slaughtered, so should all other commands be observed only in so far as they concern the paschal lamb itself. Issi ben Jehudah said: " (All these explanations are unnec- essary, as) the words, * shall they prepare //,' signify that the behest concerns only that which belongs to the preparation of the sacrifice " (when it was slaughtered). The rabbis taught : From the passage, " According to the TRACT PESACHIM (PASSOVER). 199 whole ordinance of the Passover-lamb shall they prepare it," we might infer that the laws ordaining against leaven being seen or found in the house should also be effective on the second Pass- over; to that end the single ordinance providing for its being eaten with unleavened cakes and bitter herbs is quoted, thus demonstrating that it is only in this respect that the second Passover should be observed in conformity with the first. Thus we see that so far the "whole ordinance" of the Passover- lamb was made up of the positive commandment, but whence do we derive a negative commandment on the " whole ordinance " ? For that purpose it is written [Numb. ix. 12]: "They shall leave none of it until morning." Still, this negative command- ment is virtually contained in the positive commandment, " they shall eat //," or " they shall burn what is left over." Whence do we derive, however, an independent negative commandment ? The behest, " No bone shall they break on it," furnishes that negative commandment. From the particularization of this whole ordinance of the Passover we find that concerning the Passover-lamb both the first and second have in common a posi- tive commandment, a negative dependent on or contained in the positive, and an independent negative, and thus the rule may be derived that only such behests are to be carried out on the sec- ond Passover as are covered by the three kinds of command- ments on both Passovers. What other positive commandment may be added which is analogous to the one ordaining that the paschal lamb should be eaten with unleavened cakes and bitter herbs ? The one ordering that it should be roasted with fire. Which commandments, however, are excluded by the particularization ? The removal of the leaven. Perhaps the contrary should be done, i.e., the removal of leaven should be added to the positive and the roast- ing with fire should be excluded ? Nay; a commandment per- taining to the sacrifice itself should be given preference. What other negative commandment contained in a positive should be added to the one, " They shall leave none of it until morning " ? The negative commandment, " They shall not carry aught of the meat outside." Which negative commandment, dependent on a positive, is excluded ? The one ordaining, " It shall not be seen nor found." Perhaps the contrary should be done ? i.e., "they shall leave none of it" should be excluded, and " it shali not be seen nor found " included ? Nay; a command- ment pertaining to the sacrifice itself should be given preference. 200 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. Which independent negative commandment should be added to the one, " No bone shall they break on it" ? The negative commandment, " Ye shall not eat of it raw." And which should be excluded ? The one stating, " Ye shall not offer up with leaven the blood of my sacrifice" [Exod. xxxiv. 35]. Perhaps the contrary should be done ? Nay; a commandment bearing upon the sacrifice itself is given preference. "At the eating of the first paschal offering'' HalleV should be recited, but ?iot at the eating of the second," etc. Whence do we adduce this ? Said R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon ben Jehu Zadok: From the passage [Isaiah xxx. 29]: "Then shall ye have a song, as in the night when a festival is ushered in." Hence on the night which ushers in a festival " Hallel should be recited," but on the night of the second Pass-