Discussion on the Daf - Pesachim

amother

↑ Indigo

Tue, Mar 23 2021, 2:28 am

amother [ Emerald ] wrote:

Rabbi Rosner's last shiur left the last few lines for a siyum. Could be most other maggidei shiur did too. I need a shiur that will complete the last daf. Although I suppose I could just try to do it myself...

I heard him say that too, so I listened to the end of another shiur to get the last few lines. I didn’t hear anything new, so I just looked it up, and I think he said everything. Here is the end:

כהן מברך דקמטי הנאה לידיה או אבי הבן מברך דקא עביד מצוה לא הוה בידיה אתא שאיל ביה מדרשא אמרו ליה אבי הבן מברך שתים והלכתא אבי הבן מברך שתים:

Maybe he left over a few additional thoughts to speak out at the siyum . . .

הדרן עלך ערבי פסחים וסליקא לה מסכת פסחים

מזל טוב to All!!!

↑ imorethanamother

Tue, Mar 23 2021, 4:31 am

Aylat wrote:

Me too! Though also I was זוכה to connect IRL to a couple of women learning daf yomi and so I had a discussion outlet there. We set up a whatsapp group and met most Shabbatot for an hour to discuss and learn. Hoping to continue beH.

That's so amazing. I was interested in the following:

1) That it's more important to spend money on your house than on expensive food. (114a)
2) I found it interesting that it only listed three people who get olam haba. Someone who lives in Israel, someone who raises his children to study Torah, and someone who says Havdalah over wine. I don't understand that last one. And there aren't more?
3) "Do not live in a city whose Mayor is a doctor." Dr. Fauci, anyone? Because a doctor's preoccupations do not necessarily benefit society as a whole! So cool to read that.
4) do not go out alone on Friday night.
5) I now try to cut an odd number of cucumbers.

↑ Aylat ↓

Tue, Mar 30 2021, 4:08 pm

imorethanamother wrote:

2) R Rosner said that it's davka one who saves wine from kiddush for havdala, symbolically bringing kedusha of shabbat into the week.
Are there others listed in other places? I think so.

5) Don't do that
כללא דמילתא: כל דקפיד קפדי בהדיה ודלא קפיד- לא קפדי בהדיה

↑ Aylat ↓

Wed, Mar 31 2021, 1:02 pm

I wrote this for fun, in the style of the announcements that were published in the shul newsletter etc. BeH in a few years time we will consult this list for real. (Corrections and additions welcome!)

**Announcement**
Things to remember this year when erev Pesach falls out on Shabbat

* The קרבן פסח is brought on Shabbat, but not the קרבן חגיגה. Therefore there is no חגיגת י"ד this year. Make sure there are not too many people registered on your קרבן פסח animal - there must be enough meat to fill everyone up, so that each person can eat a כזית על השובע. (For list of which parts of the animal are considered meat, see משנה)
* Rule of thumb - anything which can be done for the קרבן before or after Shabbat cannot be done on Shabbat. So remember to tovel the שחיטה knife before Shabbat.
* On the other hand, אין שבות במקדש.
* To bring the knife to the בית המקדש on Shabbat - stick it in the wool of the קרבן animal.
* If you discover a wart on your קרבן animal on Shabbat, consult a Rav about what to do.
* After the slaughtering, blood service, and skinning of the קרבן is complete, the group representative will wait on הר הבית with the meat of the קרבן until צאת הכוכבים.
* At 7:32 pm צאת הכוכבים the group representatives can bring the קרבן meat to the group's designated eating place and roasting the קרבן can commence. Remember to cut a pomegranate branch before Shabbat.

שבת שלום and חג שמח!

↑ naturalmom5 ↓

Mon, Apr 12 2021, 12:22 am

Pes 84

Sorry catching up slowly

The first part of this mishnah is very standard — so much so that the Gemara has no comment. The Torah (Exodus 12:46) is quite explicit that one should not break the bones of the paschal offering. There is a general rabbinic rule that violating a negative commandment that lacks an explicitly prescribed punishment in the Torah incurs 40 lashes. (Reduced to 39 by the rabbis.) Since the Torah gives no specific punishment for breaking the bones of a paschal offering, 40 lashes is the rabbinic answer.

The Gemara is more interested in the second part of the mishnah because it appears unexpectedly lenient: no flogging for one who breaks the bones of an impure offering, and no flogging for one who leaves any portion of the offering over to the next day (see Exodus 12:10 which prohibits leftovers). The ensuing rabbinic discussion makes clear that in the case of the broken-boned impure paschal offering no prohibition has, in fact, been violated. The rabbis understand the Torah’s specificity in the prohibition “you shall not break a bone in it” (Exodus 12:46) to exclude any disqualified paschal offering.

The case of the left-over offering is different however. (Recall: the Torah says no leftovers are allowed.) In this case, one clearly has violated a biblical prohibition. Why then should one not receive lashes? It turns out there are two possible reasons.

Rabbi Yehudah argues that while the Torah clearly prohibits paschal leftovers (eat up, everyone!), the Torah also offers this solution: …any of it that was left until morning you shall burn in. (Exodus 12:10) Some talmudic rabbis hold that when the Torah offers a positive commandment like this one (burn the leftovers) that resolves a transgression (having leftovers), there is no flogging for the violation.

That is, one who leaves the paschal offering overnight and into the morning does violate a negative commandment, but because there is a way to undo the damage (burn the leftovers) there is no flogging.

Rabbi Ya’akov disagrees with the reasoning. (Although not stated explicitly here, this seems to imply that Rabbi Ya’akov does not hold with this principle that prohibitions resolvable by positive commandments are not subject to flogging.) Instead, he argues that because the transgression itself does not involve an action it cannot be punished by flogging. What has the person done, after all? He or she has simply not eaten (or burned) the entire offering. For Rabbi Ya’akov, one is flogged for doing something, not for not doing something.

Although we (thankfully) no longer use lashes as a punishment, the theoretical underpinnings of this debate between Rabbis Yehudah and Ya’akov are consequential. How do we think about what it means to violate a prohibition of the Torah? If there are violations that we can “clean up” with subsequent actions are those somehow less important transgressions? Or, if the lapse we commit contains no action — maybe simply a thought or an omission — should we consider such failings less weighty? The Talmud does not decide on our daf today, but the lenient ruling of the mishnah in the case of the left-over paschal offering suggests that, at least for some prohibitions, not all sins are created equal.

↑ Aylat ↓

Mon, Apr 12 2021, 2:16 am

naturalmom5 wrote:

Pes 84

Although we (thankfully) no longer use lashes as a punishment, the theoretical underpinnings of this debate between Rabbis Yehudah and Ya’akov are consequential. How do we think about what it means to violate a prohibition of the Torah? If there are violations that we can “clean up” with subsequent actions are those somehow less important transgressions? Or, if the lapse we commit contains no action — maybe simply a thought or an omission — should we consider such failings less weighty? The Talmud does not decide on our daf today, but the lenient ruling of the mishnah in the case of the left-over paschal offering suggests that, at least for some prohibitions, not all sins are created equal.

The first sentence of the bolded doesn't follow. You could equally well say: If we can clean up the sin - clean it up! Don't mess around with punishment if you can do something about the problem. Maybe lashes are always a second-best - to give a כפרה to someone who has sinned when there's nothing else they can do to compensate?

The second bolded sentence is an interesting debate. There are often times when we are told שב ואל תעשה - sin by omission does seem to be preferable to sin by comission.

ETA you said you're catching up - good for you, and just wanted to say I hope it's because you've been busy with good things and not ch'v because of illness or other difficulty. תהיי ברוכה.

↑ naturalmom5 ↓

Mon, Apr 12 2021, 12:07 pm

Thank you Aylat

No. Bh nothing bad. We went away for pes and I am still unpacking and getting reoriented with the daily grind

Pes 85

today’s daf we find ourselves nearly at the end of Pesachim chapter 7, which concerns itself with roasting and consuming the paschal lamb. We have learned previously that unlike some large holiday meals we can imagine (or may have even hosted – seder for 40, anyone?) in which the party might spill from the house into the backyard with guests eating and drinking in various locations throughout the night, the paschal lamb must be eaten in one location.

This strange rule is biblical; in Exodus 12:46, we read: In one house shall it be eaten; you shall not carry out any of the meat from the house to the outside. So, it’s not just a matter of decorum, but a biblical commandment that, if transgressed, would effect a severe punishment.

A mishnah on today’s page explores a particular detail: What happens if one of the roasted animal’s limbs ends up protruding outside of the boundary of the location in which the seder is being conducted? In doing so, the Mishnah describes how to delineate the boundaries themselves:

Then the Gam explores an interesting tangent
What is requiring for a minyan to be considered a minyan spatially speaking

Remember the porch minyans.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: And the halakhah is similar with regard to prayer, in that one who is standing outside the doorway cannot be included together with those praying inside.

Rav disagrees with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Even a barrier of iron does not separate between the Jewish people and their Father in Heaven.

This exchange between Rav Yehuda and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi seems to be about two different things. First, there is the proximity of worshipers to each other: How close do you have to be to everyone else in order to be included in the minyan? Is someone standing just outside the door considered to be part of the congregation? What if they’re on the other side of an adjacent room but you can still see them? These questions are still relevant today in new ways as Jewish communities explore the requirement for communal prayer in digital spaces.

Second, there is the question of proximity to God. For Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, the relationship between God and the Jews supersedes all physical barriers. This profound statement is one of my favorites in all of the Talmud.

Many medieval commentators side with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi in the matter of prayer. Rashi says that there is no such thing as a barrier before the Omnipresent since everything is revealed to God. The Meiri, a medieval Spanish commentator, says that even a wall between members of a minyan won’t stop God from viewing them as one group. Maimonides agrees, saying that when the Kohanim offer the priestly blessing, everyone within hearing range is included, even if some are behind a barrier.

The Torah tells us that when we commemorate the Exodus from Egypt, we have to eat the paschal sacrifice all in one location, with delineated boundaries — perhaps because our ancestors had to eat it hunkered down in their own homes while the Angel of Death prowled the streets outside. But when coming together with fellow Jews to pray to God, this is not the case — as no barrier can separate the Jewish people and their Creator in Heaven. And, as the Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi seems to imply, no barrier should separate Jews from one another, either.

↑ naturalmom5 ↓

Sun, Apr 18 2021, 4:33 pm

Pes 86

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, came to the house of Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak. They said to him: What is your name? He said to them: Rav Huna. They said: Our master may sit on the bed. He sat. They gave him a cup of wine that he accepted the first time (without initially refusing it). And he drank it in two sips and did not turn his face from the rest of the people who were present (as would have apparently been polite).

At first glance, everything that Rav Huna does seems rude: insisting on his title, not politely declining the offer to sit on someone’s bed and drinking his wine in two gulps while maintaining eye contact with his hosts. What is Rav Huna
doing?! In what is apparently not a break with etiquette (or, perhaps, just a rabbinic device) his hosts ask their guest to explain himself:

Rav Huna explains that he has put in the time and effort to become not just Huna but Rav Huna. Using the title is not arrogant, just a reflection of his true identity. An effort to be straightforward and polite is what motivates his next actions as well:

They asked him: What is the reason that when they told you to sit on the bed, you sat (immediately and did not initially refuse)? He said to them: We have learned that anything the master of the house says to you, you should do, except for an inappropriate request, such as if he says to leave.

What is the reason that when they gave you the cup, you accepted it the first time (and did not politely demur)? He said to them: One may refuse a lesser person, but one may not refuse a great person.

Rav Huna explains that it is his great respect for Rav Nahman bar Yitzchak, both as his host and as a sage (his elder, as well), that led him to obey the host’s requests.

What is the reason you drank it in two sips? He said to them: As it was taught: One who drinks his cup at one time is a guzzler; drinking it in two sips is proper manners; one who drinks his cup in three sips is haughty.

What is the reason you did not turn your face? He said to them: We learned in the mishnah that a bride turns her face.

Rav Huna thus explains that he is familiar both with social etiquette and with rabbinic teachings — when the mishnah states that a bride must turn her face to drink (presumably out of some kind of modesty), this suggests that only a bride should turn her face. In citing the mishnah, Rav Huna demonstrates that he understands that the rabbis’ social etiquette might be slightly different from common etiquette — but as a rabbi eating at another rabbi’s home, he must follow rabbinic etiquette, even when it contradicts the norm.

Though we aren’t likely to be deciding whether it is rude to accept an invitation to sit on someone’s bed or precisely counting our sips of wine, Rav Huna’s lesson is salient: all etiquette is nuanced and relative — it depends on the host and guest, and no rule applies universally.

And dont forget to bring a gift lol

↑ naturalmom5 ↓

Tue, Apr 20 2021, 4:15 pm

Pes 87

What is the meaning of that which is written: The righteous acts of his rulers (pirzono) in Israel? (Judges 5:11) The Holy One, Blessed be He, performed a charitable deed toward Israel in that He scattered them (pizran) among the nations.

Rabbi Oshaya suggests the scattering of Israel is actually a blessing; gathering all Israel in one place creates a dangerous vulnerability — making it too easy for an enemy to wipe out the entire nation.

The Gemara now recounts a story (almost assuredly fictional, as will become obvious from the way it is told) about a time when Rabbi Oshaya put this argument to good use. In the story, a gentile mocks the Jewish people for impatience, reflecting that King David wiped out the Edomites in six months flat, while Rome has bided its time, extending toward Israel relative tolerance because it is in no hurry to destroy the Jews. (Note: The rabbis identify the Edomites with Rome, so there’s a symmetry here — both groups trying to destroy the other.) The set up is almost too obvious; Rabbi Oshaya responds with the same argument we saw above:

This is simply because you (Rome) do not know how to do it (I.e., destroy us). You cannot destroy all of the Jewish people, because they are not all within your kingdom. And if you destroy only those Jews who are with you in your kingdom, you will be called a severed kingdom for murdering part of your own population.

In other words, Rabbi Oshaya retorts, Rome is not patiently biding its time to destroy the Jews — it wishes very much to wipe them out, but cannot because the spread of the Jewish people presents too much of a challenge.

While Rabbi Oshaya doesn’t explicitly elevate the general concept of diaspora above Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, his statement at the least implies that a scattered existence among many ruling countries is preferable to all Jews living in the Land of Israel under Roman rule.

Perhaps Rabbi Oshaya is making lemons out of lemonade: in contrast to early Zionists, Rabbi Oshaya wasn’t in a position to recreate Jewish sovereignty or gather Jewish exiles from around the world, and his goals didn’t include bringing such changes about. Perhaps instead of complaining about the challenges of diaspora, he sought out a silver lining.

The debate over where Jews should live rages elsewhere in rabbinic and post-rabbinic literature. Ketubot 110b offers an opposite perspective: “anyone who resides in the Land of Israel is considered as one who has a God, and anyone who resides outside of the Land of Israel is considered as one who does not have a God.” But the Tosafot commentary on the same page holds that going to live in the Land of Israel “is not practiced in our times, as there is danger on the roads. And Rabbenu Chaim says that today it is not a commandment to live in the Land of Israel.”

Shelilat hagolah continues to have its advocates and detractors. What sticks with me from this page, though, is how Rabbi Oshaya is able to highlight the benefits of a challenging state of affairs and provide a real-life example of that favorite adage: don’t put all your eggs in one basket.

↑ naturalmom5 ↓

Wed, Apr 21 2021, 1:29 pm

Pes 88

Toward the end of yesterday’s daf, Rabbis Hiyya, Elazar and Hanina all gave their own interpretations of the verse “God understands its ways

and He knows its place” (Job 28:23) — each offering a different reason God would exile the Jewish people to Babylonia while the Romans controlled the holy land of Israel. Each successive explanation offers a silver lining to the pain of exile. Rabbi Hiyya says the Babylonians are less cruel than the Romans. Rabbi Elazar says exile signals future redemption. And Rabbi Hanina points out that at least the local language is easy for Hebrew speakers, so the exiles will study more Torah. Rabbi Yohanan says it’s because Babylonia is where our ancestors were from. But on today’s page we get what initially appears to be a very strange answer.

Ulla said: in order to eat dates and engage in Torah study.

That’s right. Dates. (To be fair, the dates in Babylonia were delicious and plentiful.) Then the Gemara tells a story:

Ulla visited Pumbedita and his hosts brought him a basket of dates. He said to them: How many baskets of dates like these can one purchase for a zuz? They said to him: three for a zuz. He said: A basketful of date honey for just a single zuz! And yet the Babylonians do not engage in more Torah study?

Ulla, who was from the Land of Israel, visited his colleagues in Pumbetida (in Babylonia) and said to himself: wow, if food were as cheap for me as it is for them I would have so much more time for Torah study! (Note: Being a rabbi didn’t always pay the bills. Many of the talmudic rabbis had day jobs.) It’s the classic thought experiment: what would you do if you were blessed with sudden wealth — if you won the lottery? (Cue Fiddler’s “If I Were a Rich Man” or “If I Ruled the World” by Nas.)

But Ulla’s judgement, that the Babylonian Jews have nothing to worry on account of the plentiful dates about and that they should study more Torah, is short lived:

↑ naturalmom5 ↓

Wed, Apr 21 2021, 1:30 pm

That night, the dates afflicted him.

Ulla said: A basketful of lethal poison sells for a zuz in Babylonia, and yet the Babylonians still engage in Torah study!

That great sage, the Notorious B.I.G., once said, “Mo’ money, mo’ problems.” Perhaps he learned this from studying Talmud. We often believe, as it seems Ulla did, that if we had more money, we would have more time to do what we really want (in Ulla’s case, study Torah). And it is true that if we are working multiple jobs trying to make ends meet, we don’t have much time left for other things we hold as important in life. Yet, it is also true that wealth comes with problems of its own. As Hillel says in Pirke Avot 2:7, “The more property, the more anxiety.”

Ulla’s reversal is swift. He goes from wondering why the wealthy don’t spend more time studying Torah, to wondering how they manage to spend so much time studying Torah.

Many of us have lived both sides of this coin. Those of us who are financially successful (however that is defined) struggle to find “free time” for deeper engagement with things like Torah study. And those of us who are harried and over-scheduled still find time to make it happen.

↑ Aylat ↓

Thu, Apr 22 2021, 11:06 am

naturalmom5 wrote:

I didn't understand it like this. I read it to mean that he jumped to conclusions about the financial ease they lived in and then
discovered that his assumption was wrong - what looked like cheap luxury was actually unpleasant and unhealthy. Also an applicable lesson.

↑ naturalmom5 ↓

Thu, Apr 22 2021, 3:17 pm

Pes 89

If there is among the members of a group one of them who has “fine hands,” can they say to him: “Take your allotted portion to eat and leave”?

Or do we say that he can say to them: “You accepted me in the group without preconditions (on how much I can eat)”?

In antiquity, meat was very expensive and a rare delicacy for most common folk. Hogging more than one’s share of meat at any meal was probably considered to be pretty rude; at a paschal barbeque, all the more so. Definitely more offensive than grabbing an extra large fistful of cheesy chips! But what to do? One possibility is to say, as the mishnah suggests: “take your share of the food and leave!”

But, the Gemara admits, your friend with the healthy appetite could object that there was no initial agreement about how much each person could eat. If the fine-handed glutton points this out, you can respond as follows:

When we accepted you, it was only for the preparation of the offering, to ensure enough people would be registered to guarantee that the entire offering would be eaten with none left over. However, we did not accept you with the understanding that you would eat considerably more than us.

Gently remind the greedy eater that they were invited so there would be enough people to “secure a reservation” (I.e. to consume the whole offering in accordance with the Torah law that says the whole animal must be eaten that very night) — but not with the understanding that they could gorge at the expense of others.

The Talmud here implies a clear “no hogging the paschal lamb (or nachos)!” policy is best articulated in advance to avoid any misunderstanding and protect everybody’s portion. In the “after the fact” scenario, however, the Gemara ultimately recommends the “take your share and leave” approach. And not just for the paschal lamb, but at any communal meal with one of these fine-handed diners.

So, be friendly but direct with your fine-handed friend and let them know you are standing on solid talmudic ground when you tell them to back away from the table so that everyone can get their fair share

↑ naturalmom5 ↓

Sun, Apr 25 2021, 1:01 pm

Pes 90aschal lamb doesn’t come cheap! In a pre-industrial world both the animal and the fuel for the fire were dear. Given this, we are taught in today’s daf that those who joined with another family for the paschal offering would make a financial contribution in order to be legally considered as part of the offering and also to cover some of the costs.

Still, the rabbis were concerned that selling parts of a paschal offering might become an inappropriate money-making business. Given this, they limited the funds that one family could receive for the paschal offering to those items directly related to the sacrifice (such as wood to roast it on the fire). This leads to a fascinating debate regarding how we define “items directly related” to the offering.

We are taught (Exodus 12:8) that the paschal lamb was to be accompanied by matzah (unleavened bread) and maror (bitter herbs). Are these “items directly related” to the offering? One Amoraic view in the Gemara holds that opinion is divided:

The Rabbis hold that this is considered a different eating.

But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that since it facilitates the consumption of the paschal lamb, it is like the paschal lamb itself.

According to this opinion in the Gemara, the rabbis felt that someone who had purchased a paschal lamb (along with matzah and maror) could not ask for a financial contribution for the matzah and maror by arguing that these were “items directly related” to the paschal offering, while Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees and says that this may be done.

However, according to a different Amoraic opinion, all agree that it is reasonable to ask participants to make a financial contribution to the matzah and maror. Instead, the real point of disagreement between the rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was the extent to which the owner of the paschal lamb can personally gain from those contributions:

The rabbis hold that the Torah stated “If the household is too small miheyot miseh (for a lamb)” meaning “sustain the lamb” (hachayeihu leseh).

But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that it means “sustain yourself from the lamb” (hachayei atzmekha miseh).

What this teaches us is that while the rabbis acknowledged that contributions could be sought for all paschal related costs but nothing more, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi argued that the costs involved in a paschal offering include the costs relating to the basic needs of the person bringing it. Taking care of that person is, ultimately, considered to be among the “items directly related” to the paschal offering. This leads us to consider how far we take such a ruling. Does it show sensitivity for the needs of those who bring the paschal lamb? Or does it open the door to possible profiteering? What do you think?

↑ Aylat

Wed, Apr 28 2021, 5:11 pm

naturalmom5 wrote:

I thought this was an interesting sugya.

↑ naturalmom5 ↓

Thu, Apr 29 2021, 8:30 pm

If a man has been imprisoned, and is set to be released on Erev Passover, someone else can fulfill the mitzvah of slaughtering the paschal lamb for him on the assumption that he will be free to complete the ritual by eating it on the first night of Passover. The mishnah continues with an important caveat:

We do not slaughter the paschal lamb on their behalf if they are by themselves, either as individuals or in a group composed entirely of such people, because perhaps they will cause the paschal lamb to become disqualified.

The rabbis of the Mishnah are concerned that a paschal lamb assigned only to someone or someones due to be let out from prison on Erev Passover will fail to connect with that designated consumer. In that case, it would go uneaten and will be made pasul, invalid. The Gemara explains the concern — that the jailers will renege on their promise to release their prisoner:

Rabba bar Huna said that Rabbi Yohanan said: They taught this only if he is in a prison belonging to gentiles; but if he is in a prison belonging to Jews, one slaughters on his behalf even if he is by himself and not included in a group with other people. Since they promised him they would release him they will certainly release him, as it is written: The remnant of Israel will not do iniquity nor speak lies.

Perhaps Rabbi Yohanan understands that a prison run by Jews is more likely to be sensitive to the ritual needs of a lamb assigned to a prisoner due for release on Erev Passover and make sure that prisoner is released on time to complete the mitzvah. Rav Hisda adds a bit more nuance to this distinction, stating that it is also acceptable to slaughter a paschal offering for a prisoner who is held in a gentile prison. The logic here is that if the jailers fail to free him in time to eat the paschal offering, his friends can bring the meat to him in his prison cell.

In reading today’s daf, I am as struck by what is not there as I am by the text itself. There is no discussion of the imprisoned man’s crimes, or his guilt and liability in committing them. There is no assumption that he must have been imprisoned unjustly by a hostile empire — indeed, the Gemara is explicit that these rulings apply to men imprisoned in Jewish prisons (which they assume are not administered by hostile Romans). Instead, this is a discussion about a guilty man who has served his time and is now re-entering society, willing and able (and perhaps even required!) to rejoin ritual and communal life.

The daf makes it clear that being formerly incarcerated is no barrier to ritual participation. Even more intriguing, the last statement opens the door to the possibility that, if it is feasible, even one who is still incarcerated should participate in the paschal offering.

↑ naturalmom5 ↓

Mon, May 03 2021, 1:31 am

Pes 92

With regard to a convert who converted on Passover eve, Beit Shammai say: He immerses and eats his paschal lamb in the evening. And Beit Hillel say: One who separates from the foreskin is like one who separates from the grave.

Huh?!? According to Beit Hillel, the removed foreskin is now “dead” and so the now-Jewish person has come into contact with dead flesh and the rules of corpse impurity require a seven-day purification process before he can participate in a ritual sacrifice.

At first glance, Beit Shammai’s position seems to be the more welcoming. After conversion, a Jew-by-choice is a Jew, and so is required to participate in all Jewish ritual immediately. Beit Hillel’s position, on the other hand, seems to be more exclusive, stating that one who becomes Jewish cannot immediately participate in the paschal offering because the act of circumcision causes a disqualifying impurity for seven days.

However the Gam sees it differently

Beit Hillel hold that there is a rabbinic decree due to a concern that perhaps he will become contaminated by a corpse in the following year and he will say: Last year, didn’t I immerse and eat the paschal lamb? Now also, I will immerse and eat. And he does not know and understand that last year, before his conversion on Passover eve, he was a gentile and therefore he was not susceptible to ritual impurity, but now he is a Jew and is susceptible to ritual impurity.

According to the Gemara, the removed foreskin does not actually make the now-Jewish person impure, because they were really exposed to it before they were Jewish (and according to the rabbis, non-Jews can’t be made ritually impure due to corpse impurity). Instead, Beit Hillel institutes this ruling as a teaching tool, recognizing that someone with a limited Jewish knowledge base might try to extrapolate incorrectly from one experience to another. On the other hand, the Gemara explains, Beit Shammai do not have this concern, assuming that one who has become Jewish will immediately understand these ritual distinctions.

As a general rule, whenever the rabbis cite a dispute between these two, Beit Hillel’s position carries the day. So according to the rabbis, one who converts on the 14th of Nissan does not participate in the paschal offering and is impure for seven days. But this is not designed to be an act of exclusion, to keep the new Jew from participating in the first ritual for which he is potentially eligible. Instead, it is a teaching tool. Rather than assuming that the magic of circumcision imparts all necessary Jewish knowledge, Beit Hillel insists that one who becomes Jewish will continue to learn and explore the wealth of their tradition going forward. And because the paschal offering must be eaten in community, the rabbis ensure that that the community of Jews which they have chosen to join will support them in that learning and exploration.