Discussion on the Daf - Pesachim

↑ naturalmom5 ↓

Thu, Mar 04 2021, 6:45 pm

According to God’s instructions in Exodus, the tzitz works to help the high priest remove sin related to the people’s gifts to God, and to facilitate God’s acceptance of the people.

For some time now, the Talmud has been discussing sacrificial errors and their remedies — often in the form of a sin offering. On today’s daf, the rabbis try to figure out which specific errors the tzitz will erase. Does it only work for some types of sacrifices? Specific animal parts? And does the high priest actually have to be wearing it for it to work? Let’s focus on this last question

The instructions in Exodus make it sound like the priest must be wearing the tzitz in order to effect removal of sin and win God’s acceptance for the people. But the Gemara quotes a fascinating beraita (early rabbinic teaching):

The tzitz of the High Priest, whether it is on his forehead or whether it is not on his forehead, appeases — this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Yehuda says: When it is still on his forehead it appeases, but when it is no longer on his forehead it does not appease.

Rabbi Yehuda’s position makes sense given a close reading of the biblical verses, but what is Rabbi Shimon thinking? He goes on to explain:

The halakhah with regard to the High Priest on Yom Kippur shall prove it, as the tzitz is not on his forehead, and it nonetheless appeases.

On Yom Kippur, the High Priest changes into white garments for part of the service and leaves the tzitz off — and Yom Kippur is all about atoning for sin and appeasing God! So surely the tzitz can be effective even when it is not worn.

Both rabbis have thoughtful positions with convincing rationales, but the Gemara doesn’t resolve the dispute. We are left uncertain — does the priest have to be wearing the tzitz in order to overcome ritual impurity and draw Israel closer to God? This question is particularly intriguing given that, by the time of the Gemara, the Temple had been destroyed for hundreds of years, and the priestly garments lost, looted or destroyed. Might Rabbi Shimon’s position open up the possibility that the tzitz is still out there, working to appease God, even without a high priest to wear it?

Interestingly, the later rabbinic commentators foreclose this possibility. Maimonides states this explicitly: “the tzitz only appeases when it is on the forehead [of the high priest].” (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash, 4:8) In a world without a Temple and a high priest, if we want to renew our relationship with God, we have to do that ourselves.

↑ naturalmom5 ↓

Sun, Mar 07 2021, 6:39 pm

Pesachim 78

Rabbi Yosei said: I see as correct the statement of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to animal offerings, and the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to animal offerings, and the statement of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to meal-offerings, and the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to meal-offerings.

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, frequently at odds, disagree strongly about animal offerings and meal offerings. On yesterday’s daf, we read that Rabbi Yehoshua states that “when there is no blood, there is no meat. If there is no meat, there is blood” I.e. both the blood and the meat of the sacrifice have to be fit for sacrifice. Rabbi Eliezer however insists that “Blood brings atonement although there is no suitable meat.” Since these positions are mutually exclusive, how can Rabbi Yosei agree with both of them?! Indeed, Rav Papa notes exactly this in a conversation with Abaye: Rabbi Yosei is like a document that awards something to two — when there is only one thing to be awarded.

We might expect Abaye to agree with Rav Papa and critique Rabbi Yosei’s impossible position. We might expect the Gemara to critique his reasoning or even his intelligence. We might even expect the editors of the Talmud to take the statement out entirely! After all, why dedicate precious page space to something so absurd? Instead, the rest of today’s daf offers the exact opposite approach.

When involved in studying the halakhot of animal offerings, he said: It is reasonable that just as they disagree with regard to animal offerings, they also disagree with regard to meal-offerings.

When involved in studying the halakhot of meal-offerings, he said: It is reasonable that just as they disagree with regard to meal-offerings, they also disagree with regard to animal offerings.

Abaye makes two important moves. First, he assumes that Rabbi Yosei was a reasonable thinker and it is our task to understand his thinking. Second, he shows that Rabbi Yosei models that exact quality himself — working to understand the consistent rationale behind the positions of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua!

Now, at this point, we might think that while Abaye was defending him, Rav Papa was critiquing Rabbi Yosei’s position. But the Gemara has another surprise in store. Rav Papa actually also agrees that Rabbi Yosei’s position was reasonable, though he offers a different rational than Abaye:

When he said: I see as correct the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, he was referring to cases in which part of the offering became impure. When he said that he agreed with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, he was referring to cases in which part of the offering was lost or burned.

Rav Papa harmonizes the contradiction between the two positions by using a technique we have seen before: he explains that each was referring to a more specific situation. In this case, Rabbi Eliezer was referring to cases when part of the offering became impure and Rabbi Yehoshua to when the part of the offering was lost or burned.

Finally, the anonymous voice of the Gemara chimes in, offering a number of other explanations for how Rabbi Yosei’s position is rational and makes sense.

Today’s daf models a kind of discourse which is foreign to many of us today. When faced with something that is on its face absurd or contradictory, the rabbis do not dismiss it, but actively work to understand it. What would it look like for us, when someone says something apparently illogical and absurd, to assume that they are making some kind of internal sense and actually thoughtfully work to understand their reasoning? It’s important to note that the Gemara never says that Rabbi Papa and Abaye agreed with Rabbi Yosei. But whether or not they agree, they assume that he is saying something meaningful and well-thought out, and that it is their job to understand it.

amother

↑ Jetblack ↓

Sun, Mar 07 2021, 9:22 pm

naturalmom5 wrote:

Both rabbis have thoughtful positions with convincing rationales, but the Gemara doesn’t resolve the dispute. We are left uncertain — does the priest have to be wearing the tzitz in order to overcome ritual impurity and draw Israel closer to God? This question is particularly intriguing given that, by the time of the Gemara, the Temple had been destroyed for hundreds of years, and the priestly garments lost, looted or destroyed. Might Rabbi Shimon’s position open up the possibility that the tzitz is still out there, working to appease God, even without a high priest to wear it?

The question wasn't actually relevant for the times of the gemara, as the appeasement attained by the tzitz is specifically for the sin of being makriv korbonois while tamei. In the times of gemara the beis hamikdosh hand long been destroyed, and there hadn't been any korbonois for centuries.

↑ naturalmom5 ↓

Sat, Mar 13 2021, 11:54 pm

Pesachim 79

The holiday of Pesach Sheni, Second Passover, happens exactly one month after Passover, on the fourteenth of Iyar. The holiday is instituted in the book of Numbers, when some men are unable to offer the paschal sacrifice because they are ritually impure with death. They come to Moses and ask what they should do. Moses kicks the question upstairs and God supplies the answer: “When any of you or of your posterity who are defiled by a corpse or are on a long journey would offer a Passover sacrifice to the Lord, they shall offer it in the second month, on the fourteenth day of the month, at twilight…” (Number 9: 11-2)

Pes sheni second of all, it’s the holiday of second chances, an opportunity to do something wonderful when you weren’t able to before. The mishnah on today’s daf affirms this emergency make-up holiday with an important caveat:

If the entire community or most of it became ritually impure, or the priests were all impure and the community was pure, they should perform the ritual of the paschal lamb in ritual im If a minority of the community became impure, those who are pure perform the ritual of the paschal lamb on the first Passover, and those who are impure perform the ritual on the second Passover.

If only a minority are impure, they are gifted with a second chance, on Pesach Sheni. But if the majority of the community is impure, then actually the paschal sacrifice can be offered in ritual impurity!

The example from the Book of Numbers involves tum’at met, death impurity. But let’s be honest — according to the rabbinic schema, the vast majority of people who would be seriously ritually impure on any given day would be people who menstruate, who contract tum’at niddah. Furthermore, the average menstrual cycle is about 28 days, so if someone has tum’at niddah on the fourteenth of Nissan, then they are very likely to have it again on the fourteenth of Iyar!

Women’s exclusion is not just implicit in today’s discussion of Pesach Sheni. Given that we follow the majority in deciding whether or not the paschal sacrifice can be offered in communal ritual impurity, the rabbis ask what to do if there is a 50/50 split. If the numbers are equal, how do we determine who is in the majority? The Gemara suggests removing women from the count, and following the majority status of men only.

Pesach Sheni is a chance for people who couldn’t be part of communal ritual to join in, better late than never. But who is part of that community? Today’s daf pulls in two opposite directions. On the one hand, it insists that those who are ritually impure (at least with tum’at met) can and must participate in Passover when they are able to, to be part of the community of Israel offering their paschal sacrifices. On the other hand, it implicitly and explicitly removes women from the communal calculus — when we have already learned that women are obligated in paschal sacrifice.

Today’s daf highlights the complexities of defining community, of moving towards inclusion, and thinking seriously about who counts.

amother

↑ Jetblack ↓

Sun, Mar 14 2021, 8:38 pm

naturalmom5 wrote:

Pesachim 79

Women’s exclusion is not just implicit in today’s discussion of Pesach Sheni. Given that we follow the majority in deciding whether or not the paschal sacrifice can be offered in communal ritual impurity, the rabbis ask what to do if there is a 50/50 split. If the numbers are equal, how do we determine who is in the majority? The Gemara suggests removing women from the count, and following the majority status of men only.

Pesach Sheni is a chance for people who couldn’t be part of communal ritual to join in, better late than never. But who is part of that community? Today’s daf pulls in two opposite directions. On the one hand, it insists that those who are ritually impure (at least with tum’at met) can and must participate in Passover when they are able to, to be part of the community of Israel offering their paschal sacrifices. On the other hand, it implicitly and explicitly removes women from the communal calculus — when we have already learned that women are obligated in paschal sacrifice.

Today’s daf highlights the complexities of defining community, of moving towards inclusion, and thinking seriously about who counts.

This isn't exactly correct. In the interpretation of the gemara that women are excluded from the majority, is only according to the opinion that women are not obligated to do the korban Pesach.

From Sefaria:
And this tanna holds that the participation of women in the first Pesaḥ is optional. Therefore, remove the women from those who are impure, and the impure become the minority. And the sacrifice of the minority is deferred to the second Pesaḥ according to all opinions.

The gemara has nothing to with modern ideas of inclusion. It's a simple calculation, only those who are obligated count towards the majority.

↑ naturalmom5 ↓

Mon, Mar 15 2021, 9:24 am

Pes 80

What is “the deep”? The term tehom appears in numerous places in the Hebrew Bible. It first appears in Genesis 1:2, which describes the earth prior to creation as “unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep.” Other passages in Genesis describe “the deep” as a source of spring water and blessings. (Genesis 7:11, 49:25) While some of the prophets warn that sin will lead God to destroy the sinners by flooding them with the waters of the deep (Ezekiel 26:19), other prophetic texts describe the deep as a source of nourishment (Ezekiel 31:4), praise of God (Habakkuk 3:10, Job 28:14) and, in a popular verse from the Psalms, a metaphor for divine justice: “Your beneficence is like the high mountains; Your justice like the great deep; man and beast You deliver, O Lord” (Psalm 36:7). Clearly, in the Hebrew Bible, the deep — containing powerful waters and many mysteries — evokes God’s primordial power, greatness, ability to sustain humankind and justice. So then, what is “impurity of the deep”?

The rabbinic concept of impurity of the deep refers to a kind of impurity that is hidden from everyone (often because it is buried in the ground) and only discovered later. Let’s imagine that someone stayed overnight at a hotel. Weeks later, the hotel begins some needed renovations and it is discovered that the hotel was built on a forgotten graveyard. Our imaginary hotel guest, it turns out, was unwittingly exposed to corpse impurity — “impurity of the deep.”

In the case discussed in today’s daf, the situation is even more urgent because our imaginary guest only discovers that they have been exposed to this kind of impurity after bringing the paschal offering! As we’ve already learned, you can’t offer the paschal sacrifice in a state of ritual impurity. What are they to do? The Mishnah explains that the high priest’s tzitz (frontlet) atones for this kind of unintentional mis-offering. Over the next several pages, the Gemara continues to tease out exactly what this means.

It’s striking that the concept of tum’at ha-tehom causes such difficulty for the rabbinic rules of impurity. This kind of unknown can be deeply concerning — if anywhere you go could theoretically be contaminated with hidden impurities, is anywhere really safe for those trying to stay ritually pure? Should we just stay home, and even that only after having done an extensive archeological excavation of our home’s foundations? And yet the biblical verses emphasize the ways that the tehom is an intentional part of God’s creation, a source of life, blessing and divine justice.

In avodas Hashem, often that which offers the grestest potential for spir. Growth presents the greatest risk.
The tzitz and the concept of Pes Sheni teaches us never give up
When striving for ruchniys always find a way to forge ahead

amother

↑ Jetblack ↓

Mon, Mar 15 2021, 1:12 pm

It's just a coincidence that the word tehom (תהום) is used for both the general idea of deep into the earth's surface, and for the concept of tumas hatehom, which just means a buried and unknown source of tumah. But there is no connection between the two.

And even in the first sense, it just means very deep down below the earth's surface, and in general there is nothing esoteric about it. In the verse "...Your justice is like the great deep...", Dovid Hamelech is simply saying that Hashem's justice is absolute. Rather than being superficial, it goes to the core of any issue, and takes everything into account to the nth degree. But it's not the tehom itself that has some mysterious implication.

The mishna is saying something quite simple, that although the tztitz only appeases when the actual korban became tamei, but not when it's person who was tamei. However, when the person became tumei through a hidden and unknown tumah, the tzitz does appease, and he doesn't need to bring another korban Pesach.

↑ naturalmom5 ↓

Thu, Mar 18 2021, 1:41 am

Pes 81

he Talmud has discussed at some length what must be done if a person becomes impure in the run-up to Passover. But what if it’s not the person but the paschal lamb itself that contracts impurity? This was a more likely complication than you might think. The owner who purchased the lamb on the 10th of the month had to spend four whole days ensuring that it did not come into contact with any impure object, creepy crawly creature (yes, that’s a technical category in the Talmud), or a corpse (less rare in the ancient world than in the modern one) — all in order to make sure that it made it to the altar in a state of purity, a fitting offering for God.

The mishnah at the very end of today’s daf addresses this potential complication of a paschal lamb that unfortunately becomes impure:

If the whole or most of it (the paschal lamb) became ritually impure, one burns it before the Temple with wood from the arrangement (I.e. wood belonging to the Temple).

Ordinarily, of course, the paschal lamb would be taken back to the person’s home, rented room or encampment and burned there before being eaten. But this lamb found to be largely or wholly impure is instead burned immediately at the Temple, using wood provided by the Temple.

It is highly unusual for the rabbis to prescribe intentional embarrassment. Indeed, the Torah and rabbinic literature both prohibit private and public shaming. We read in Baba Metzia 59a that it is more comfortable for a person to cast himself into a fiery furnace than to humiliate another in public. How could it be that our sages endorse public embarrassment in today’s mishnah?

Presumably the reason that the offering became impure is that the owners were negligent. The transgressors are punished in front of others as a reminder to be more diligent in the future and ensure that paschal lambs, which are so important that their sacrifice takes place only once a year and overrides the laws of Shabbat — so important, indeed, that there is a make-up date for those who cannot sacrifice on the 14th of Nisan — never becomes impure.

This punishment is reserved for the most egregious cases. The second part of the mishnah softens the rule:

If a minority of it (the paschal offering) became impure, and similarly, the parts leftover, which must be burned, the owners of the paschal lamb burn it in their courtyards or on their roofs, with their own wood. Only the miserly burn it before the Temple in order to benefit from the wood of the arrangement.

Those whose sacrifice became only partially impure, with the majority of it remaining pure, have the option to burn the unfit meat privately at home — and are thereby spared public embarrassment. But the final remark here is particularly telling. There are those who are permitted to burn their impure lamb at home, but choose to burn at the Temple in order to save their own wood supply. The Gemara implies that the miserly value their pinched pennies more than their dignity.

Tosafot (a medieval commentary) explains that this dispensation is made with concern that the miserly, while permitted to burn a partially impure paschal lamb at home, will not actually do so, unwilling to use their own wood.

Why are such extreme measures taken to prevent the miserly from sin? We see here an important principle that is found throughout rabbinic literature: it is necessary to acknowledge human tendencies when making and enforcing rules. It is important not to “put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14) and instead enable people to avoid transgression by understanding their natural inclinations.

amother

↑ Jetblack

Thu, Mar 18 2021, 1:16 pm

A few points:
The korban Pesach did not have to be guarded from tumah during the 4 days from 10-14 Nissan, as a living animal can't become tamei. That could only happen from when it was shechted, meaning from Erev Pesach afternoon until midnight, by which time it must have been eaten.

It's not "creepy crawlies" that impart tumah upon touching, but 8 sheratzim, which are specific small mammals and reptiles (mice, moles, and various lizards), and only when they're dead.

I'm not entirely sure why there would have been more corpses in those times as mortals have always died. There were certainly no corpses lying about in Jerusalem, where burial always happened on the same day and strictly outside of the city walls.

The dispensation Chazal gave to the misers, that they should be allowed to burn what needed burning at the Beis Hamikdosh using communal wood, is not because of the aveirah of not placing a stumbling block. That would only be applicable when one actually causes another to sin, which is obviously not the case here.

In actuality one of the main roles of Chazal was protecting the Jews from sinning. This is why they enacted all their issurim, frum muktzah to harchakos niddah and everything else. Here too, in order to make sure the misers don't scrimp on wood which might make them end up not burning, and later eating, a tamei korban, they allowed the misers to use communal wood.

↑ naturalmom5 ↓

Tue, Mar 23 2021, 12:47 am

Pes 83

The Torah teaches that the paschal lamb should be consumed in its entirety and any leftovers — including inedible parts — must be burned. A mishnah on today’s daf informs us that the burning takes place he Torah teaches that the paschal lamb should be consumed in its entirety and any leftovers — including inedible parts — must be burned. A mishnah on today’s daf informs us that the burning takes place after the festival, by which it means the first day of Passover (the 15th of Nisan) which is a sacred day on which most labors are forbidden. Instead, the leftovers are burned on the 16th of Nisan (or on the 17th, if the 16th is Shabbat). The Gemara is curious about why this is so. After all, we learned that paschal lambs can be slaughtered on Shabbat. Why not burn the leftovers then, too? Isn’t that a positive biblical commandment and part of the mitzvah as well?

And why isn’t the leftover of the paschal lamb burned on the festival day itself? The positive mitzvah to burn the leftover should come and override the prohibition that prohibits the performance of labor on festivals. the festival, by which it means the first day of Passover (the 15th of Nisan) which is a sacred day on which most labors are forbidden. Instead, the leftovers are burned on the 16th of Nisan (or on the 17th, if the 16th is Shabbat). The Gemara is curious about why this is so. After all, we learned that paschal lambs can be slaughtered on Shabbat. Why not burn the leftovers then, too? Isn’t that a positive biblical commandment and part of the mitzvah as well?

And why isn’t the leftover of the paschal lamb burned on the festival day itself? The positive mitzvah to burn the leftover should come and override the prohibition that prohibits the performance of labor on festivals.

concerning the obligation to circumcise a male newborn on the 8th day of life. While the sages limit our ability to complete tasks on Shabbat that may be completed in advance, the circumcision itself (a positive commandment) can be performed on Shabbat and on festivals. So why is this not the case for burning paschal leftovers?

The Gemara provides four answers that justify the ruling of the mishnah

Answer #1: ⁦Hizkiya cites Exodus 12:10: And you shall not leave any of it until morning; and that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire. He notes the repetition of the words “until morning.” What can we learn from this? That the burning can take place on two different mornings, the 16th and the 17th, when the 16th is Shabbat.

Answer #2: Abaye cites Numbers 28:10 which says: the burnt-offering of each Shabbat on its Shabbat. This suggests that we can only burn offerings on Shabbat that are part of the Shabbat sacrifices. Thus, the burning of the leftovers from Passover must be delayed to the 17th.

Of course, these solutions explain why the burning must be deferred when Shabbat falls on the 16th, but do not explain why one can’t burn leftovers on the festival itself, on the 15th. And so, the Gemara keeps searching.

⁦Answer #3: Rava cites Exodus 12:16, which states concerning festivals: no kind of labor shall be done on them, save that which every man must eat, only that may be done for you. This verse is the source that allows for the preparation of food on festivals, but only preparation. Therefore, the burning must be deferred.

Answer #4: Finally, ⁦Rav Ashi provides additional logic, arguing that a positive commandment (something you must do, such as burning the Passover leftovers) might in some cases override a negative commandment (something you must not do, such as perform labor on Shabbat and festivals). However, in this particular case we have a positive commandment (burning) competing against both a negative commandment (the prohibition of labor on Shabbat and festivals) and a positive commandment (one’s obligation to rest on Shabbat and festivals). And, he concludes, in this case that positive commandment (burning) does not override the one-two punch of both a prohibition (labor) and a positive commandment (rest) — so the burning must be delayed.

It’s clear that the Gemara is interested in preserving the ruling of the mishnah that one may only burn paschal leftovers on a weekday — neither Shabbat nor the first day of Passover which is a festival. It’s also clear that there was no single accepted tradition about why, so the Talmud here generates a number of explanations.