Pesachim 65aפסחים ס״ה א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
65aס״ה א

ועולה גופה מנלן אמר קרא אל יסוד מזבח העולה אלמא עולה טעונה יסוד:

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive with respect to the burnt-offering itself that its blood must be sprinkled on the altar in a place where there is a base? The Gemara answers that the verse said: “And he shall pour all the blood of the bull at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering, which is at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 4:7). Apparently, the blood of a burnt-offering requires sprinkling at the base, as the verse specifically links the base of the altar to the burnt-offering.

יצתה כת ראשונה וכו׳: תנא היא נקראת כת עצלנית והא לא סגי דלאו הכי מאי הוי להו למיעבד

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?

אפילו הכי איבעי להו לזרוזי נפשייהו כדתניא רבי אומר אי אפשר לעולם בלא בסם ובלא בורסי אשרי מי שאומנתו בסם אוי לו מי שאומנתו בורסי ואי אפשר לעולם בלא זכרים ובלא נקבות אשרי מי שבניו זכרים אוי לו מי שבניו נקבות:

The Gemara answers: Nonetheless, the members of the third group should have hurried themselves so that they would not be in the last group. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The world cannot function without a perfume merchant or without a tanner [bursi], who processes bad-smelling hides. While both of these occupations are necessary, fortunate is he whose profession is that of a perfume merchant, and woe to him whose profession is that of a tanner. Likewise, the world cannot exist without males or without females; yet fortunate is he whose children are males, and woe to him whose children are females.

כמעשהו בחול וכו׳: שלא ברצון מאן אמר רב חסדא שלא ברצון רבי אליעזר דאי רבנן הא אמרי שבות הוא ואין שבות במקדש

It was further stated in the mishna that in the same manner that the procedure involving the Paschal lamb was performed during the week, so was it performed on Shabbat, and that even on Shabbat the priests would rinse the floor of blood, contrary to the wishes of the Sages. The Gemara asks: Contrary to the wishes of whom? Which Sage did not consent to this practice? Rav Ḥisda said: It was contrary to the wishes of Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that rinsing the floor on Shabbat is prohibited by Torah law. As, if one accepts the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with him, don’t they say that rinsing the floor is prohibited due to a rabbinic decree? And the principle is that rabbinic decrees do not apply in the Temple. Consequently, it should be permitted to wash the floor in the Temple on Shabbat according to the opinion of the Rabbis.

מאי היא דתניא אחד החולב והמחבץ והמגבן כגרוגרות המכבד והמרבץ והרודה חלות דבש בשוגג בשבת חייב חטאת הזיד ביום טוב לוקה את הארבעים דברי רבי אליעזר

The Gemara asks: What is the source of this dispute? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in the following baraita: One who milks an animal, or sets milk to curdle (Arukh), or makes cheese is liable if he performed the activity in the measure of a dried fig-bulk; one who sweeps the house, or sprinkles water on the floor, or removes honeycombs, if he did so unwittingly on Shabbat, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, as he has performed a labor prohibited by Torah law on Shabbat. And if he did so intentionally on a Festival, he is flogged with forty lashes; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

וחכמים אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה אינו אלא משום שבות

And the Rabbis say with regard to the cases of sweeping, sprinkling water on the floor, and harvesting honeycombs: Both this, performing these actions on Shabbat, and that, doing so on a Festival, are prohibited only due to rabbinic decrees. According to Rabbi Eliezer, rinsing the floor is the same as sweeping the floor. Therefore, it is prohibited on Shabbat even in the Temple, as there is no allowance to perform a labor prohibited by Torah law that is not essential for the proper sacrifice of the offerings.

רב אשי אמר אפילו תימא שלא ברצון חכמים ורבי נתן היא דתניא רבי נתן אומר שבות צריכה התירו שבות שאינה צריכה לא התירו:

Rav Ashi said: You can even say that the priests rinsed the floor contrary to the wishes of the Rabbis, who hold that the prohibition is due to a rabbinic decree, and that the mishna is according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says that a rabbinic prohibition that it is absolutely necessary to violate for the sacrificial rite, they permitted in the Temple. However, a rabbinic prohibition that it is not absolutely necessary to violate for the sacrificial rite, they did not permit in the Temple. Rinsing the floor is not essential, as the Temple rite can continue even if the floor is not washed. Therefore, this rabbinically prohibited activity was not permitted in the Temple.

רבי יהודה אומר כוס היה ממלא וכו׳: תניא רבי יהודה אומר כוס היה ממלא מדם התערובות שאם ישפך דמו של אחד מהן נמצא זה מכשירו

The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yehuda says that the priest would fill a cup with the blood that was mixed together on the floor and then sprinkle it on the altar. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: He would fill a cup with the mixed blood, so that if all of the blood of one of the sacrifices was spilled, this cup would contain a small amount of that blood, and sprinkling it on the altar would render the sacrifice fit.

אמרו לו לרבי יהודה והלא לא נתקבל בכלי מנא ידעי אלא הכי קאמרי ליה שמא לא נתקבל בכלי אמר להן אף אני לא אמרתי אלא בנתקבל בכלי

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: But this blood that poured from the throat of the animal onto the floor had not been received in a vessel and is therefore unfit to be sprinkled on the altar. The Gemara expresses surprise: How do they know with certainty that this blood had not been received in a vessel? Rather, this is what the Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: Perhaps this blood had not been received in a vessel and is therefore unfit to be sprinkled on the altar. Rabbi Yehuda said to them: I, too, spoke only about blood that had been received in a vessel.

מנא ידע כהנים זריזין הן אי זריזין אמאי משתפיך אגב זריזותייהו דעבדי משתפיך

The Gemara expresses surprise in the opposite direction: How does Rabbi Yehuda know that the blood collected from the floor had in fact been received in a vessel? The Gemara answers: Priests are vigilant, and so they were certainly careful to receive all the blood in a vessel. The Gemara asks: But if they are so vigilant, why did the blood spill? The Gemara responds: Owing to the speed with which they worked, the blood spilled. Therefore, it is necessary to fill a cup with a mixture of the blood found on the floor and sprinkle it upon the altar.

והלא דם התמצית מעורב בו רבי יהודה לטעמיה דאמר דם התמצית דם מעליא הוא דתניא דם התמצית באזהרה רבי יהודה אומר בהיכרת

The Gemara asks: But isn’t blood squeezed from an animal after the initial spurt concluded mixed with it? Some of the blood on the floor is blood that continued to drain from the animal after the initial spurts of blood that followed the slaughter, and such blood is unfit for the altar. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says that blood squeezed from an animal after the initial spurt concluded is proper blood in every way. As it was taught in a baraita: One who consumes blood squeezed from an animal after the initial spurt concluded violates a warning, i.e., a Torah prohibition for which flogging is the punishment for its violation. This is not as severe as consuming regular life blood, the blood that spurts out from an animal as it is being slaughtered, for which one is liable to receive karet. Rabbi Yehuda says: One who consumes blood squeezed from an animal after the initial spurt concluded is liable to receive karet, as this blood is treated as proper blood.

והאמר רבי אלעזר מודה רבי יהודה לענין כפרה שאינו מכפר שנאמר כי הדם הוא בנפש יכפר

The Gemara challenges this answer: Didn’t Rabbi Elazar say that even Rabbi Yehuda concedes with regard to atonement that sprinkling on the altar blood squeezed from the animal after the initial spurt concluded does not make atonement? As it is stated: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of life” (Leviticus 17:11).