text size

Treatise Iv. On The Passover Chapter VI, The Talmud

Top comments

{{ annotation.praises_count }} Likes
{{ annotation.creator_alias }}
{{ annotation.creator_score }}

There are no comments yet. Be the first to start comment or request an explanation.

The Talmud, by Joseph Barclay, [1878] 1. These things in the passover abrogate the command against work on the Sabbath: its slaughtering, and the sprinkling of its blood, and purging its inwards, and incensing its fat. But its roasting and the rinsing of its inwards do not abrogate the Sabbath. But to carry it, and to bring it beyond a Sabbath day's journey, and to cut off its wen, do not abrogate the Sabbath. Rabbi Eleazar said, "they abrogate it." 2. Said Rabbi Eleazar, "and is not this the teaching? when slaughtering is work it abrogates the Sabbath. Things which are for 'resting' do not abrogate the Sabbath." 1 To him said Rabbi Joshua, "a holiday will give the proof; the Sages permitted that which is work, and they forbade that which is resting." Rabbi Eleazar said to him, "what do you mean, Joshua? what comparison is there between a command and that which is voluntary?" Rabbi Akiba answered and said, "sprinkling 2 will give the proof, because it is a positive command, and it is for 'resting,' and does not abrogate the Sabbath; but you should not wonder at this, even though it be a command, as it is for 'resting,' and does not abrogate the Sabbath." Rabbi Eleazar said to him, "and on that I form my judgment, when slaughtering is work it abrogates the Sabbath; sprinkling, which is for 'resting,' does it not teach that it abrogates the Sabbath?" Rabbi Akiba said to him, "on the contrary, if sprinkling, which is for 'resting,' does not abrogate the Sabbath, slaughtering, which is for work, is it not the teaching? should not abrogate the Sabbath." Rabbi Eleazar said to him, "Akiba, thou hast annulled what is written in the Law, 'between the evenings,' 'in its appointed time,' whether it be a week day or a Sabbath." He said to him, "My teacher, give me proof of an appointed time for these things, like the appointed time for slaughtering the passover-offering?" The rule is, said R. Akiba, "all work for the passover which it is possible to do on the eve of the Sabbath does not abrogate the Sabbath; slaughtering, which it is impossible to do on the eve of the passover which falls on a Sabbath, abrogates the Sabbath." 3. "When do men bring with the passover a feast-offering?" "When the passover falls on a week-day, when those who offer it are legally clean, and when the lamb is too small for the eaters. But when the passover falls on a Sabbath, when the lamb is too much for the eaters, and there is legal uncleanness, they should not bring with it a feast-offering." 4. The feast-offering 1 came from flocks, from herds, from sheep and goats, from rams and ewes, and it may be eaten during a period of two days and one night. 5. "The passover which was slaughtered without the proper intention on a Sabbath?" "The offerer of it is indebted for a sin-offering." "And all the other sacrifices which he slaughtered for the passover?" "If they be not suitable for it he is guilty." "And if they be suitable?" Rabbi Eleazar declares him "indebted for a sin-offering." But R. Joshua "frees him." Said Rabbi Eleazar, "what! if the passover which was allowed for proper intention when the offerer changed its intention, makes him guilty; is it not the teaching that sacrifices, which are disallowed for want of proper intention when the offerer changed their intention, make him also guilty?" Rabbi Joshua said to him, "no; if thou saidst in the passover when he changed its intention it is changed to a thing disallowed, thou wilt say in the other sacrifices when he changed their intention they are changed to a thing allowed." Rabbi Eleazar said to him, "the congregational offerings will give the proof, because they are rendered lawful on the Sabbath by intention, but whoever slaughtered (another) sacrifice with their intention is guilty." Rabbi Joshua said to him, "no; if thou sayest so in the congregational offerings, which are a determined number, thou wilt also say so in the passover sacrifice which has no determined number." Rabbi Meier said, "even he who slaughtered other offerings on the Sabbath, with the intention of the congregational offerings, is free." 6. "When one slaughtered the passover, but not for its eaters, or not for those numbered to eat it, for uncircumcised and for unclean persons?" "He is guilty." "For its eaters and not for its eaters? For its reckoning and not for its reckoning? For circumcised and uncircumcised? For clean and unclean?" "He is free." "He slaughtered it, and it was found blemished?" "He is guilty." "He slaughtered it and it was found torn in secret?" "He is free." "He slaughtered it, and it became known that its owners retired from it, or died, or became legally unclean?" "He is free, because he slaughtered it with lawful permission." 106:1 The following subtle discussion arises out of the distinction between "work" forbidden by the law of God and "resting from work" enjoined by tradition. 106:2 The sprinkling of a person unclean from touching a dead body when the passover fell on a Sabbath. 107:1 This refers to the second chagigah—the feast-offering of individuals on the 15th of Nisan. It is called by the general name passover, John xviii. 28. Want of acquaintance with this subject has led some commentators to suppose that there is a discrepancy between the account of the last passover of our Lord as related in the Synoptical Gospels, and as recorded by St. John.

read all comments

1 Ahmed M = "The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels because they include many of the same stories, often in a similar sequence and in similar wording."
2 Ahmed M = "Synoptical Gospels stand in contrast to John, whose content is comparatively distinct."
3 Ahmed M = "This strong parallelism among the three gospels in content, arrangement, and specific language is widely attributed to literary interdependence."