MISHNAH: The daily sacrifice [The service of the daily afternoon sacrifice which concludes the Temple service for the day is concluded at 3:30 pm local time every day of the year except Passover Eve. In Roman style, an hour is defined as 1/12 of the time of daylight. The night is divided into watches, not hours.] is slaughtered at [hour] eight and a half and brought at nine and a half. On Passover Eve it is slaughtered at [hour] seven and a half and brought at eight and a half whether it be weekday or Sabbath [Since the Pesaḥ is slaughtered after the service of the daily sacrifice is completed, there must be time for several groups of people to prepare their Pesaḥ. Since it must be done on the 14th of Nisan, the rules of the Pesaḥ have precedence over those of the Sabbath.] . If Passover Eve falls on a Friday, it is slaughtered at [hour] six and a half and brought at seven and a half [In this case, roasting the Pesaḥ is an obligation of the 14th of Nisan, and it does not push aside the Sabbath prohibitions on the 15th if that day be a Sabbath. The slaughter has to be early enough to allow for roasting before nightfall.] . The Pesaḥ is following [In all cases, the Pesaḥ follows the completion of the ordinary Temple service.] .
HALAKHAH: “The daily sacrifice is slaughtered,” etc. It is written: The following you shall do on the altar [Ex. 29:38. As usual the reference is to the second part of the verse, not quoted in the text: sheep, yearlings, two per day, in perpetuity.] , etc. I would have said, both of them should be sacrificed in the morning, or both of them in the afternoon. The verse says [Ex. 29:39.] , one sheep you shall do in the morning. I would have said, the morning one should be sacrificed at dawn and the evening one at dusk; the verse says [Ex. 29:39.] , between the evenings. It is said here between the evenings and it is said there [Ex. 12:6, about the Pesaḥ sacrifice.] between the evenings. Since between the evenings which is said there means after six hours [As noted immediately afterwards, this assertion is unproven.] , also between the evenings which is said here must mean after six hours. What did you see that makes you say, between the evenings means after six hours? [Even though it is no proof there is a hint:] [This sentence was not written by the scribe, and also is missing in ג. It was added by the corrector from the parallels, Sifra Emor Pereq 11, Mekhilta deR. Ismael Bo Parasha 5 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 17).] woe on us that the day has turned, that evening shadows are turned [Jer. 6:4.] . Since evening which is said there means after six hours [The verse shows that “evening” is the time when shadows point East. The Babli holds (58a) that this starts not at noontime but about half an hour later. But it seems that for Yerushalmi, Sifra and Mekhilta “six hours” means 12 noon. The argument is only a hint, not a proof, since the thesis that a word can have only one meaning is valid only for the Pentateuch, not for later biblical books.] , also evening which is said here must mean after six hours. Then should it not be qualified after six hours [S. Liebermann thinks that this refers to the Pesaḥ since the Mishnah states that on a 14th of Nisan which is a Friday the daily sacrifice is brought at 12:30 pm. This time must be qualified on all days. But this is a Babli argument, not valid for the Yerushalmi. The question is about the daily sacrifice; why on a 14th of Nisan which is a Friday is the service of the daily evening sacrifice not started at noon?] ? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, what is between the evenings? Split the evening into two, give it two and a half hours before, two and a half hours afterwards, and one hour for its work [Since from noon to sunset there are 6 variable hours, the sacrifice should be brought at 3 pm. Since one does not consider smaller units of time, “3 pm” really means “from 2:30 pm to 3:30 pm”. Babli Zevaḥim 11b.] . It turns out that the daily sacrifice is brought at nine hours and a half.
Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi left out the beginning [The statement of R. Joshua ben Levi actually is an older baraita which makes it explicit that the times of the evening daily sacrifice and the Pesaḥ are identical.] and said the end; is that not what was stated: “Ḥanania ben Jehudah [In Mekhilta deR. Simeon ben Yoḥai (p. 12, ad Ex. 12:6), which according to J. N. Epstein is the Tanna debe Ḥizqiah. Ḥanania ben Ḥakinai).] says, I hear between evenings, between [two] [Added from ג and Mekhilta deR. Simeon ben Yoḥai.] evenings, between the evening of the 14th and the evening of the fifteenth [Reading עַרְבַּיִם as עֲרָבִים. For the rest of the Halakhah ג is not readable.] . I could think that day and night are included; the verse says, day [Ex. 12:6: It should be guarded by you until the fourteenth day of this month.] . Since He said day, this excludes the night. If it is day, I could think at two hours into the day; the verse says, in the evening. If in the evening, I could think after it became dark. The verse says, between the evenings. How is this? Split the evening into two, give it two and a half hours before, two and a half hours afterwards, and one hour for its work. It turns out that the daily sacrifice [And the Pesaḥ.] is brought at nine hours and a half.
Rebbi Yose said, that is, for merit [If one follows all the rules, both Pesaḥ and the daily evening sacrifice have to be brought at 3:30 pm. But as the Mishnah shows, a deviation does not invalidate the sacrifice.] . But for invalidation it is what we have stated [Mishnah 5:3. The Mishnah supports the Yerushalmi position that “6 hours” means exactly this and not “half past twelve”. Any Pesaḥ or daily evening sacrifice slaughtered before noon is invalid.] : “If one slaughtered it before noon it is disqualified; after noon it is immediately qualified. Before the daily evening sacrifice it is qualified.” Could one say that it also is the same for the morning [Meaning that the daily morning sacrifice should preferably be slaughtered at 2½ hours (8:30 am), rather than at dawn?] ? Here it is written between the evenings; do you have a verse between the mornings [Since it says '"morning" but never "between the mornings", there is no reason why it should not be meritorious to start the morning service at soon as possible.] ?
Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, they learned prayers from the patriarchs. One repeats this [Here one should insert a copy of the text in Berakhot 4:1 (Notes 11–124). A number of Medieval authorities (e. g., Rav Nissim Gaon in his Commentary to Berakhot27b, penultimate line) note that the text of Berakhot also appears in Pesaḥim(and partially in Taˋaniot 4:1). In the Venice editio princeps and the later printed editions the sentence has been shortened to become unintelligible.] up to “but made him head of the court.”
Who is the Tanna of “whether it be weekday or Sabbath”? Rebbi Ismael, as it was stated [Babli 58a. In Sifiy zuṭa Beha ˋalotekha9(3) (Yalqut 720) the name tradition is the opposite of that of the Talmudim.] : “As its order is on a weekday so its order is on a Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba says, as its order is on a Friday so is its order on a Sabbath.” This means that Rebbi Ismael makes it an hour later for its arguments [In Maˋaser šeni 1:1 (Note 19) פִּלְפּוּלוֹ refers to the discussion of the rules of tithe money. So it seems that here the interpretation of Pene Moshe is correct, that there is time to solve all questions that arise before the sacrifice is slaughtered on a tight schedule.] , and Rebbi Aqiba makes it an hour earlier to occupy oneself with it, so they would not fulfill the commandment while inebriated [Since it is a Sabbath where usually three meals with bread and wine are prescribed, he makes sure that the entire afternoon no alcohol is consumed and the people are awake for the celebration in the night.] . Could not the Pesaḥ be brought first and the daily sacrifice afterwards [Since if the 14 is a Friday neither the Pesaḥ nor the daily sacrifice are brought at the time which was determined to be the correct between the evenings, it should not make any difference which sacrifice was brought first.] ? If you are saying so, you are eliminating between the evenings of the Pesaḥ. If you are keeping between the evenings of the Pesaḥ, are you not eliminating between the evenings of the daily sacrifice? If you are neglecting between the evenings of the daily sacrifice now, you can observe it at other times. If you are neglecting it now for the Pesaḥ, when can you ever observe it? Could not Pesaḥ be brought first, followed by the daily sacrifice? The one about which is written in the evening [Deut. 16:6: There you shall slaughter the Pesaḥ in the evening, at sundown, at the time of your exodus from Egypt. Babli 59a.] and between the evenings shall be delayed more than one about which is written [only] between the evenings.
Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what did you see to say that evening is later [Since starting at 12:01 pm one greets with “good evening”.] ; could we not say that between the evenings is later? But it must be: The one about which is written between the evenings at sundown [Since starting at 12:01 pm one greets with “good evening”.] shall be delayed more than one about which is written only between the evenings. The formulation of a baraita [Babli Berakhot 9a, Sifry Deut. 113 in the name of R. Eliezer; different wording and authors Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 5, last sentence.] supports Rebbi Jeremiah: “There you shall slaughter the Pesaḥ in the evening. In the evening you are slaughtering, at sundown you are eating, at the time of your exodus from Egypt you are roasting [Since obviously roasting must precede eating and the day of the Exodus was the 15th of Nisan, the day after the night dedicated to the Pesaḥ, with the parallel sources one has to understand “roasting” as “burning” the remainders (Ex. 12:10).] .” There are Tannaim who state: “In the evening you are eating, at sundown you are slaughtering, at the time of your exodus from Egypt you are roasting.”
Could not both be brought simultaneously? Rebbi Yose said, the sheep is second, the Pesaḥ is not second. It was stated: Rebbi Nathan says, every day the daily sacrifice was slaughtered at eight and a half, and brought at nine and a half. What means “every day”? Every Passover Eve. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the reason of this Tanna is to allow half an hour between one group and the next.
It was stated [Sifry Num. 143, Babli 58b. The argument seems to be that the Pesaḥ, while a personal sacrifice from the offerers, has the status of a public sacrifice, since only public sacrifices can override Sabbath prohibitions and be offered if the people are impure (Mishnah 9:3). Then the verse states that the daily evening offering has to be the second public offering of the day, not the third. (This implies that the additional offerings of Sabbath and holidays are counted as appendices to the daily morning sacrifice.)] : “The blood of the daily sacrifice and its limbs precede the Pesaḥ, and the Pesaḥ the incense, and the incense the trimming of the lights. [Ex. 27:2.] ” There are Tannaim who state: “The blood of the daily sacrifice and its limbs precede the incense, and the incense the Pesaḥ, and the Pesaḥ the trimming of the lights, so that the libations of the daily sacrifice should be accompanying it [“It” here is the burning of the incense on the golden altar in the Temple. Since the daily sacrifices and in the morning may precede, in the evening follow, the daily offering (Babli 59a)] .” There is nothing preceding the daily morning sacrifice and nothing later than the daily evening sacrifice except Pesaḥ and incense on Passover Eve. “ [Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(10).] From where that nothing should precede the daily morning sacrifice? The verse says, on it ˋolah [S. Liebermann conjectures that here one reads עולה as Aramaic אַוְלַא “first”.] . And from where that nothing should invalidate the daily evening sacrifice? The verse says, on it šelamim [Reading שִׁלּוּמִים “finishing”.] . Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, it is not written here he arranges on it ˋolah but he arranges on it the ˋolah, that no elevation offering precede the daily morning sacrifice [Babli 58b. The definite article describes an offering that certainly is brought on the altar immediately after it is readied for service; this must be the daily morning sacrifice.] . It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, people lacking expiation [People forbidden access to sancta unless a reparation sacrifice has been brought in the Temple on their behalf: The woman after childbirth (Lev. 12:6–8), the male sufferer from gonorrhea (Lev.15:14–15), the female sufferer from flux (Lev. 15:29–30), and the person healed from skin disease (Lev. 14:19,31). Babli 59a.] bring their expiatory sacrifices after the daily evening sacrifice to enable them to immerse themselves and eat their Pesaḥ in the evening. Rebbi Yudan said, that is, for a rich sufferer from skin disease. But a poor sufferer from skin disease, does he not bring a bird [It is clear from Lev. 14:19 that of the two sacrifices offered, an elevation (עולה) and a reparation (חטאת) one, only the latter is expiatory. But in case this is a bird (in all cases except the wealthy sufferer from skin disease), nothing is burned on the altar, only its blood is squeezed out on wall and bottom of the altar (Lev. 5:9). Therefore these offerings by their nature are not subject to the limitations imposed on offerings of which parts are burned on the altar.] ? Said Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon, does he not bring a reparation sacrifice [And Lev. 14:21 declares also the reparation offering as expiatory.] ?
MISHNAH: Pesaḥ which he [The sacrifice may be slaughtered by its owner, or by a Levitic slaughterer attached to the Temple. The blood must be received in a vessel, transported to the altar, and sprinkled on the walls of the altar by a Cohen. Everybody involved in the service must have the intent of performing his duty explicitly for the Pesaḥ. If he started with the correct idea but in the act changed his mind and thought, e. g., that he is performing for the festival offering (Mishnah 6:6), we do not say that his prior thought is a dedication which excludes additional dedications, but the association of Pesaḥ and any other kind of sacrifice in any order disqualifies the sacrifice; it must be disposed of by burning outside the Temple district.] slaughtered not for its purpose, received [the blood], transported it, or poured it, not for its purpose, or for its purpose and not for its purpose, or not for its purpose and for its purpose, is disqualified. What is “for its purpose and not for its purpose”? As Pesaḥ and as well-being offering. “Not for its purpose and for its purpose”? As well-being offering and as Pesaḥ.
HALAKHAH: [Babli Zevaḥim 7b. The topic here really is Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:1: “All sacrifices which were not slaughtered specifically for the benefit of their owners are qualified except for Pesaḥ and purification offerings.” In all matters of required intent, the rules for Pesaḥ and purification offerings are equal.] From where that he must slaughter it for its purpose? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: And you shall say, a Pesaḥ slaughter it is [Ex. 20:27. Quoted in this sense in Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai (p. 26, line 20).] ; to imply that if he slaughtered it for the purpose of Pesaḥ it is Pesaḥ, otherwise it is not Pesaḥ. From where the remainder of its actions? You shall make [a Pesaḥ] [Deut. 16:1. The unspecific עשה always is interpreted to include all necessary actions.] , that all its actions shall be for the purpose of Pesaḥ. But then also the burning of its parts [Greek αἱ μοῖραι [τοῦ θεοῦ], the fat which is forbidden for human consumption.] ? The verse says, slaughter But then also the burning of its parts [Greek αἱ μοῖραι [τοῦ θεοῦ], the fat which is forbidden for human consumption.] ? The verse says, slaughter [זבח indicates slaughter in preparation of a meal; often “sacrifice of which at least a part is consumed as sanctum”; whereas שחט (سحط) specifically means “to cut the throat”.] . Since slaughter is particular in that it invalidates expiation [Since it is spelled out that the blood is it which atones for the soul(Lev. 17:11), if anything goes wrong in any action necessary up to the pouring of the blood on the altar’s wall the sacrifice is invalid, but nothing that happens afterwards can invalidate the offering. If the parts to be burned become impure, they have to be burned outside the Temple district but the sacrifice remains valid.] , this excludes the burning of its parts which does not invalidate expiation.
From where for purification offerings? He shall slaughter it as purification offering [Lev. 4:33.] . From where the remainder of its actions? [He]shall make [Deut. 16:1. The unspecific עשה always is interpreted to include all necessary actions.] one as purification offering [There is no verse exactly as quoted in the text. The reference seems to be to Lev.16:30, the Cohen shall bring one as purification offering.] . But then also the burning of its parts [Greek αἱ μοῖραι [τοῦ θεοῦ], the fat which is forbidden for human consumption.] ? The verse says, he shall slaughter. Since slaughter is particular in that it invalidates expiation, this excludes the burning of its parts which does not invalidate expiation.
From where that a purification sacrifice must be for the name of its owner [All Temple personnel dealing with the sacrifice have to know the name of the owner, and the purpose of the sacrifice, and have to intend to help his expiation.] ? Rebbi Jeremiah said, the Cohen shall make the purification offering and expiate for the one who purifies himself from his impurity [Lev. 14:19. Babli Zevaḥim 8a in the name of Rava, a contemporary of R. Jeremiah. From here through Chapter 7 there exists a series of Genizah fragments from the Kaufmann collection in Budapest, published by S. Loewinger in the Hebrew part of the Alexander Marx Jubilee Volumes (New York 1950), indicated here by K.] . Rebbi Yose said to him, but then also the burning of its parts [Greek αἱ μοῖραι [τοῦ θεοῦ], the fat which is forbidden for human consumption.] ? The verse says, and expiate. Since pouring is particular in that it invalidates expiation [Since it is spelled out that the blood is it which atones for the soul(Lev. 17:11), if anything goes wrong in any action necessary up to the pouring of the blood on the altar’s wall the sacrifice is invalid, but nothing that happens afterwards can invalidate the offering. If the parts to be burned become impure, they have to be burned outside the Temple district but the sacrifice remains valid.] , this excludes the burning of its parts which does not invalidate expiation.
From where that a Pesaḥ must be in the name of its owner? Is it not a logical argument [דִּין usually introduces an informal argument de minore ad majus.] ? Since a purification sacrifice, where intent for the uncircumcised or impure [Sacrifices of the uncircumcised (e. g., a hemophiliac who may not be circumcised) or an impure person (e. g., a resident outside the Land) sent through third persons are accepted in the Temple. But any uncircumcised is excluded from the Pesaḥ(Ex.12:48) and the person who will not be pure by nightfall is excluded by the requirement that the Pesaḥ be slaughtered for the group of subscribers (Ex. 12:3–4); adding the name of a person prohibited from eating sacred food will invalidate the slaughter. This argument is somewhat circular; since the argument is rejected for other reasons, this does not have to be pointed out.] does not invalidate it, needs to be in the name of the owner, Pesaḥ, where intent for the uncircumcised or impure does invalidate it, is it not logical that it needs to be in the name of its owner? No. If you are saying about purification sacrifice which is most holy [It may be eaten only by male Cohanim in the Temple precinct.] , would you say that about Pesaḥ which is a simple sanctum [It may be eaten by every pure person within the walls of the city of the Temple.] ? Rebbi Yose said, did you not argue about intent? The Torah insisted about intent for Pesaḥ more than for purification sacrifice. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: Do we infer this from the purification sacrifice of the sufferer from skin disease? But is not the purification sacrifice of the sufferer from skin disease separate for something new [As stated in Mishnah Menaḥot 9:6, no purification offering other than that of the sufferer from skin disease needs accompanying offerings of flour and wine. The offering of flour is explicit in Lev. 14:10; that of wine is inferred in Sifra Mesoraˋ Pereq 2(10).] ? And one cannot infer from anything which is separate for something new [This is R. Ismael’s 12th hermeneutical principle: Anything which was in a group, but is taken from the group to be under a separate rule, cannot be returned to its original group unless the verse returns it explicitly. An example is the reparation sacrifice of the sufferer from skin disease, whose blood is not for the altar but for the right thumb and right great toe of the owner, but which Lev. 14:13 declares to follow the rules of reparation sacrifices in all respects. Such a note is missing for the purification sacrifice. The Babli, Zevaḥim 8a, accepts the argument as valid.] . He told him, from where do you infer that it be invalid if not for its purpose? Not from the following verse, he shall slaughter it as purification sacrifice [Lev. 4:33. Sifra Wayyiqra II (Ḥovah) Pereq 11(3).] , and it is written: this is the doctrine of the purification sacrifice [Lev. 6:18. Babli Zevaḥim 9a. Interpreted differently in Sifra Ṣaw Parašah 3(1).] . There is one doctrine for all purification sacrifices. But from the place where it is being inferred, there it permits inferences [Since the flour offering does not accompany the purification offering of the sufferer from skin disease but his elevation offering (14:20), the attribution of the wine offering to the purification offering is an inference of the oral tradition which cannot override Lev. 6:18.] .
If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to sprinkle its blood not for its purpose [The slaughterer, who most probably is not priestly, is different from the person who will pour the blood. He has the correct intention for his own action, but intends a future action to be disqualifying. Does this have an influence on the status of Pesaḥ or purification offering? Babli Zevaḥim9b/10a, Ḥulin 39a.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service and it is disqualified. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, is there transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service [In K: “Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there is no transfer of ‘not for its purpose’ from service to service.”] ? It should be qualified. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned this from thought of piggul [The source is Lev. 19:7. A well-being offering must be eaten on the day of its offering and the next. But if it is intended to be eaten on the third day, it is piggul(“mushy”) and will not be wanted. Eating from sacrificial meat on the third day is sinful, but this has no influence on the validity of the sacrifice. But from the start intending to eat on the third day disqualifies the sacrifice and any consumption of its meat, even on the first day, is a deadly sin. This clearly is disqualification by intent for a future action by a different person. The argument is accepted in both Babli sources.] . If he poured not for its purpose would that not cause piggul [It would cause disqualification but not piggul.] ? If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification [He objects of comparing required actions in the presentation of sacrifices to piggul.] . If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified [Since the Cohen who receives the blood must be present at the moment of slaughter, the Cohen’s intent is what counts; a contrary intent by the slaughterer is irrelevant since it cannot precede the Cohen’s.] ? If he slaughtered for its purpose and received its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified [In this sentence and the next, only the scribe’s text is reproduced and translated; the corrector’s additions and deletions are disregarded. The scribe’s text is fully confirmed by K. The argument goes as follows: For any action up to the pouring of the blood, the wrong intent before or during the action disqualifies. But for actions required after the pouring of the blood, such as burning of the parts or eating the meat, a wrong intent before the pouring of the blood disqualifies, but a wrong intent at the moment of the action is irrelevant. Therefore, the rules of piggul cannot be used to infer rules for actions preceding the pouring of the blood.] . If he slaughtered for its purpose in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose and in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, it is qualified.
Rebbi Yose said, I saw Rebbi Jeremiah grabbing Rebbi Abba and saying to him, tell me the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan , why it is disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and it is disqualified. He told him, if this is so, even if he slaughtered not [For the text to make sense, this word has to be deleted with K.] for its eaters and to sprinkle its blood not for its eaters, it should be as if from the start he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters and be qualified [Mishnah 3.] . This you cannot do, as Rebbi Ila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified [Obviously, here one has to read “disqualified,” even though the text is confirmed by K.] . There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified [The argument of R. Yose is correct; the tradition of R. Ila is incorrect, and R. Joḥanan is consistent in his opinions.] . Rebbi Yose got his strength [To reject a comparison with piggul.] from the two reasons of Rebbi Joḥanan . Why is it disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and is disqualified. Why is it qualified if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters, and is qualified.
Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana in the name of Rebbi Yudan. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan that if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking [Since sacrifices may become disqualified if a necessary action is made with the wrong intent, it is preferable that the Cohen not have any thought other than doing his duty for whom and for what it is needed.] , one continues thinking from another action. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, would that not be piggufl68? If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. If one slaughtered for its purpose and to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified, since on the act of receiving he is thinking [Since the Cohen who receives the blood must be present at the moment of slaughter, the Cohen’s intent is what counts; a contrary intent by the slaughterer is irrelevant since it cannot precede the Cohen’s.] . Therefore, if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues the thinking from another action. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If at the moment of burning he does not think, then if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues the thinking from another action [As stated in Note 71, the intent at the moment of the action after the pouring of the blood cannot have retroactive influence on the validity of the sacrifice.] . He told him, do not object to me about disqualification because of piggul, since Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification.
What results from the difference between them? Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, switching on the other days of the year. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to sprinkle its blood not for its purpose, on the other days of the year. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is qualified; in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it is disqualified [For R. Joḥanan , Pesaḥ at any other day is a well-being sacrifice which is not disqualified by an action not done for its purpose (Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:1). For R. Simeon ben Laqish, Pesaḥ on any other day is out of order.] .
[This paragraph also appears in Šeqalim2:4 (ש). The readings of the editio princeps of the Babli with Yerushalmi Šeqalim are noted (שׁ); those of interest of the very shortened Munich ms. of the Babli as (M). The version of Šeqalim in the Babli is characterized by much babylonized spelling; there is an addition in Babylonian Aramaic directly taken from the parallel in the Babli Zevaḥim 8b-9a.] Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba [He is the father of Samuel (Babli Zevaḥim 8b), head of the school of Nahardea in the generation of transition from Tannaim to Amoraim. He reports a Babylonian tradition.] enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed [An offering in the Temple declared as Pesaḥ on any day other than the 14th of Nisan automatically is for well-being. Therefore animals dedicated as Pesaḥ but not needed on the 14th, at nightfall of the 15th automatically become dedicated well-being offerings.] into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says [Lev. 3:6.] , and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering [from small cattle] [Scribe’s text, incorrectly deleted by corrector and missing in printed editions but confiirmed by ש. K is lacunary at this point.] ? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering [Which never comes from large cattle.] ? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. [Rebbi Abun objected,] [Scribe’s text, incorrectly deleted by corrector and missing in printed editions but confiirmed by ש. K is lacunary at this point.] everywhere you are saying that מִן is to include, but here you are saying that מִן is to exclude [The text is difficult since it is standard rabbinic interpretation to consider prefix mem or מִן as privative, excluding certain categories (cf. Šabbat 7 Note 26, Ševuot 1:2 Note 75, Bava Mesiaˋ 4:8 Note 122, Nazir5:4 Note 105). Also in the next sentence, R. Mana gives the interpretation that here מִן is privative. On the other hand, the testimony of K, M, and the scribe’s text of ש do not permit emendation. It seems that here “every where” is derogatory, meaning Babylonian. The sequence of arguments leads to a contradiction. Abba bar Abba treats מִן as inclusive, R. Abun bar Cahana as exclusive. R. Mana explains that מִן always is partitive; automatic switch to well-being offerings is possible only for sacrifices that totally correspond to the declaration צאן, i. e., both sheep and goats, male and female.] ? Rebbi Mana said, it excludes it, since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written, [Lev. 1:10.] and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, [but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten.] [Addition by the corrector from ש, confirmed by K.] Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices [The latter category includes both elevation and reparation sacrifices.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that you are saying, Pesaḥ is changed [An offering in the Temple declared as Pesaḥ on any day other than the 14th of Nisan automatically is for well-being. Therefore animals dedicated as Pesaḥ but not needed on the 14th, at nightfall of the 15th automatically become dedicated well-being offerings.] into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi [Il]la said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan : And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering [Lev. 3:6.] ; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts [If the animal dedicated as Pesaḥ is used against the rules for something other than a well-being offering, do the rules of the other kind apply or is it disqualified and no rules of intent apply.] ? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day [This being forbidden certainly disqualifies.] . In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul [If the animal still is a sacrifice, now under the rules of elevation sacrifices, the intention to perform any required action out of its prescribed time-frame generates piggul, which is a deadly sin causing extirpation.] . If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified.
[This paragraph also has a parallel in Šeqalim.] For its purpose and not for its purpose on the other days of the year [The slaughterer has intent both for Pesaḥ and for well-being offering. Since the Pesaḥ then is a well-being offering, it should not make any difference.] ? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Samuel bar Abba: Since it is left without a name it is as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and is qualified [Since now Pesaḥ and well-being offering mean the same, there is no contradiction. But since the names are different, it may be treated as if it was slaughtered for “what may apply”. It is presumed that slaughtering a simple sacrifice without spelling out the category is qualified.] . They said to him. if it is so, even if he slaughtered for its purpose to pour the blood not for its purpose it should be treated as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and be qualified [Since two different designations were used, the presumption should be that this is disqualified, as given in K.] . Rebbi Abba Mari said, who says that in silence it is qualified [The premise of Samuel bar Abba is unproven. The question remains unanswered.] ? Or may we say, in silence it is disqualified?
MISHNAH: If he slaughtered it for those who cannot not eat it [For example a sick person who will not be able to eat a full olive-sized piece of meat.] , for those who did not subscribe to it [The Pesaḥ may be eaten only by people who beforehand formed a group to this purpose, Ex. 12:4.] , for the uncircumcised, [He is forbidden to participate even if he is a hemophiliac who may not be circumcised, Ex. 12:48.] or for the impure [If he will be impure in the evening, such as a person impure in the impurity of the dead who is impure for seven days. For an impure person eating sancta is a deadly sin, Lev. 7:21.] , it is disqualified [The meat of a simple sacrifice must be eaten; it may not be slaughtered in the absence of people who would consume it.] . For those who eat it and those who will not eat it, for those who subscribed to it and those who did not subscribe to it, for the circumcised and the uncircumcised, or for the pure and the impure, it is qualified [Since people may decide to join the group until the blood is poured on the walls of the altar, which is after slaughtering, the slaughter is qualified as long as there is at least one person for whom it is validly slaughtered.] . If one slaughtered it before noon it is disqualified since it was said about it: between the evenings [See Halakhah 1.] . If one slaughtered it before the daily evening sacrifice it is qualified, on condition that somebody stir the blood until after the blood of the daily evening sacrifice was poured; [Since any sacrifice may be slaughtered by a lay person and the sacral activities only start with the reception of the blood in a sacral vessel by a Cohen, the status of a Pesaḥ slaughtered before the daily sacrifice, whose blood was stirred to prevent jellying and which then was poured on the walls of the altar after the daily sacrifice, is identical with one which was slaughtered after the daily sacrifice.] but if the blood was poured it is qualified [Even if the pouring was done before the daily sacrifice. Cf. Note 20.] .
HALAKHAH: From where that he needs to slaughter for those who will eat it? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: For each man according to his eating you shall cut [Ex. 12:4. This translation reads the hapax תָּכֹ֖סּוּ with Ibn Ezra as derived from a root כסס “to cut into pieces”, as in Accadic. R. Josia reads it as imperative of Syriac נכס “to slaughter”. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo Parašah 3, end. Differetly Babli, 61a, 78b. K reads: For each man according to his eating, one has to slaughter according to its eaters.] . Rebbi Josia said, it is a Syriac expresssion, as if a person say to his neighbor, slaughter for me this lamb.
“How is ‘those who cannot eat it’? If he slaughtered it in the name of a sick person, in the name of an old person, who cannot eat the volume of an olive. How about ‘those who did not subscribe to it’? If he slaughtered it in the name of a different group. [Tosephta 4:2; Babli 61a.] ” This implies that a baby can be counted to disqualify [Since the baby cannot eat solid food. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael Ba, Parašah 3, the baby is mentioned instead of the old person.] . This implies that if one was on a distant trip [Who cannot possibly be near the central sanctuary to participate in the Pesaḥ; Num. 9:9.] and he slaughtered it in this person’s name, it is disqualified. This implies that it supports the Southerners, since the Southerners are saying, one thinks about parts which were lost as if they were in existence [Meˋilah 7a. It has been stated before that the validity of a sacrifice depends on the intent of the slaughterer. There is a general rule, that intent regarding less than the volume of an olive is disregarded (Note 125; Babli Zevaḥim 29b, 31a). But if the intent was for at least the volume of an olive, but in fact it was impossible that it be the volume of an olive, as in the case of the baby or the sick person, it is intent that counts and not the fact. Similarly, if the intent was that parts should be burned out of time, it makes the sacrifice piggul even if the parts are lost and it is physically impossible to burn them out of time.] . This implies that if one slaughtered so that half of the group should eat, it is disqualified [Part of the group were sick and could not eat the volume of an olive. If the Pesaḥ was slaughtered for those who can eat and those who cannot, it is qualified as stated in the Mishnah. But if it was slaughtered for all of them as being able to eat the volume of an olive, the slaughter was not “for those who eat it and those who will not eat it” and therefore those who cannot eat it will make it disqualified.] . Rebbi Haggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it that all of them were sick [Certainly as a group they are able to consume meat in the volume of an olive.] . He told him, then one should have stated, “in the name of disqualified members of the group.” He said to him, if there were qualified people, but he slaughtered in the name of the disqualified [hen certainly the sacrifice is invalid.] .
Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah if he slaughtered it for those who eat it, but it was covered by those who eat it and those who cannot eat it. But it is disqualified if from the start he slaughtered it so that it should be covered by those who eat it and those who cannot eat it [It seems that R. Eleazar interprets the Mishnah that the sacrifice is qualified if the slaughterer intended it for the entire group, without inquiring whether all members of the group were entitled to eat or able to consume a minimum. If then it turned out that some members were barred or unable to participate, there was no false intent and the sacrifice is qualified. But if from the start there was explicit intent to include incapable or disqualified persons, the intent was disqualifying (S. Liebermann).] .
Rebbi Simlai came to Rebbi Jonathan [Babli 62b. R. Simlai became famous as a preacher. K and the Medieval sources add that he was too young to be taught these matters.] . He said to him, teach me homiletics. He answered him, I have a tradition from my forefathers not to teach homiletics either to a Babylonian or to a Southerner, since they are gross in spirit and have little learning. And you are from Nahardea and live in the South. He said to him, tell me this one thing, what is the difference between “for its purpose and not for its purpose” and “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it” [Why is the former disqualified and the latter qualified.] ? He answered him, “for its purpose and not for its purpose”, the disqualification is intrinsic. “For those who eat it and those who cannot eat it”, the disqualification is of others. “For its purpose and not for its purpose”, you cannot pick out the disqualified from the qualified. [“For those who eat it and those who cannot eat it”, you can pick out the disqualified from the qualified.] [The corrector’s addition is justified by K, which reads “you can’t” instead of “you can.] “For its purpose and not for its purpose”, applies to all sacrifices [Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:1: “All sacrifices, except Pesaḥ and purification offerings, which were slaughtered not for their purpose are qualified but do not relieve their owners from their obligations.”] ; “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it” applies only to the Pesaḥ.
Rebbi Yose said, from that of Rebbi Eleazar one may deduce two [conclusions]. Since Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah if he slaughtered it for those who eat it, but it was covered by those who eat it and those who cannot eat it. But it is disqualified if from the start he slaughtered for those who eat it and it was covered by those who eat it and those who cannot eat it [It seems that R. Eleazar interprets the Mishnah that the sacrifice is qualified if the slaughterer intended it for the entire group, without inquiring whether all members of the group were entitled to eat or able to consume a minimum. If then it turned out that some members were barred or unable to participate, there was no false intent and the sacrifice is qualified. But if from the start there was explicit intent to include incapable or disqualified persons, the intent was disqualifying (S. Liebermann).] . Then its disqualification is of others and you can pick out the disqualified from the qualified, and you are saying so? But it must be the following, “for its purpose and not for its purpose”, applies to all sacrifices [Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:1: “All sacrifices, except Pesaḥ and purification offerings, which were slaughtered not for their purpose are qualified but do not relieve their owners from their obligations.”] ; “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it” applies only to the Pesaḥ [Of all the arguments of R. Jonathan, only the last is valid.] . Rebbi Abin said, there are others. “For its purpose and not for its purpose”, applies to all services [Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:4: The sacrifice becomes disqualified [by wrong intent] in four cases: For slaughter, for reception of the blood, for carrying the blood to the altar, for pouring the blood.] ; “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it” applies only to slaughtering.
For those who eat it in volumes of an olive and those who cannot eat it in volumes of an olive, it is qualified [This is the normal case mentioned in the Mishnah.] . For those who eat it in volumes of an olive and those who cannot eat it in volumes of half an olive, it is qualified a fortiori. For those who eat it in volumes of half an olive and those who cannot eat it in volumes of half an olive? Where do we hold? If intent was qualifying, intent is disqualifying [If intent regarding consumption of less than the volume of an olive is counted as qualifying, then it also must be counted as disqualifying. In this case, the rule formulated by R. Eleazar applies as if the intent was for volumes of an olive.] . If intent is not disqualifying then the intent should be qualifying. [If intent regarding consumption of less than the volume of an olive is disregarded, then the slaughter was made without special condition, “for whom it may apply”, and is qualified.] Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the intent in qualifying, as we have stated there [Mishnah Zevaḥim 2:5.] : “To eat half the volume of an olive and to burn half the volume of an olive is qualified since slaughter and burning do not combine [The sacrifice was slaughtered with the intent that half the volume of an olive should be eaten out of its allotted time and half the volume of an olive be burned on the altar out of its allotted time. Since it is stated that the sacrifice is qualified, it follows that any intent about half the volume of an olive is disregarded. Therefore in the preceding case the intent is disregarded and the sacrifice is qualified.] .” If he slaughtered it that half of its group should be covered, Rebbi Jonah disqualifies. It is as grabbing the cover for these and those. Since these are not covered, neither are those covered [Since an entire group paid for the Pesaḥ, they are its owners. If the intent was to eliminate part of the owners, the Pesaḥ is slaughtered not for its owners and therefore disqualified.] . Rebbi Yose said, it is qualified. During the second cycle [When the entire material of the Yerushalmi was reviewed a second time in the Academy of RR. Yose in Tiberias, he] , Rebbi Yose retracted. Rebbi Phineas said to him, did the rabbi not teach us, it is qualified. He told him, is this fixed for you by nails?
“If one slaughtered it before noon it is disqualified,” [after noontime] immediately it is qualified. “If one slaughtered it before the daily sacrifice it is qualified.” It was stated thus [Sifry zuta Pinhas 28(3). The question was whether slaughter of the Pesaḥ prohibits later slaughter of the daily sacrifice. The answer is that the wording of the verse Num.. 28:4, וְאֵת֙ הַכֶּ֣בֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִ֔י תַּֽעֲשֶׂה֭ בֵּ֥ין הָֽעַרְבָּֽיִם when it would have been possible to say simply וְאֵת הַכֶּבֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִי בֵּין הָֽעַרְבָּיִם implies that it must be broughtr in any case.] : One could think that if Pesaḥ preceded the daily sacrifice, the daily sacrifice could not be delayed. The verse says, do, adding. Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah implies that the Pesaḥ itself is qualified. If you would say, it is disqualified, it would be as if it did not precede.
There [Sifry Num. 143, Babli 58b. The argument seems to be that the Pesaḥ, while a personal sacrifice from the offerers, has the status of a public sacrifice, since only public sacrifices can override Sabbath prohibitions and be offered if the people are impure (Mishnah 9:3). Then the verse states that the daily evening offering has to be the second public offering of the day, not the third. (This implies that the additional offerings of Sabbath and holidays are counted as appendices to the daily morning sacrifice.)] , you are saying: “The blood of the daily sacrifice and its limbs precede the Pesaḥ, and the Pesaḥ the incense, and the incense the trimming of the lights. [Ex. 27:2.] ” And here you are saying so? Rebbi La said, one if it is living, the other if it is slaughtered [The baraita requires that the Pesaḥ be brought after the limbs of the daily sacrifice are on the altar, but Mishnah 3 mentions only pouring of the blood, without mention of the limbs. If the Pesaḥ is still alive, one has to wait until the limbs have been disposed of; if it is slaughtered, one waits only for the pouring of the blood.] .
MISHNAH: One who slaughters the Pesaḥ on leavened matter transgresses a prohibition [Ex. 23:18; 34:25: Do not sacrifice on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice; the sacrifice of the Pesaḥ pilgrimage. “On leavened matter” means that he has leavened matter in his possession.] ; Rebbi Jehudah says, also the daily sacrifice [Since this is an elevation offering which is completely burned, it is My sacrifice.] . Rebbi Simeon says, the Pesaḥ on the Fourteenth, if for its purpose, he is liable, not for its purpose he is not liable [A disqualified sacrifice is no sacrifice at all and therefore not a subject of the prohibition.] . All other sacrifices, whether for their purposes or not for their purposes, he is not liable [Since the verse refers only to the Pesaḥ.] . On the holiday, for its purpose he is not liable, not for its purpose he is liable [R. Simeon reads the verse as referring not only to the 14th of Nisan but also to the entire Holiday of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 15–21. Since the Pesaḥ slaughtered for its purpose on any day other than the 14th is disqualified, it does not count. But not for its purpose it is a qualified well-being sacrifice.] ; for all other sacrifices, whether for their purposes or not for their purposes, he is liable except for the purification offering which he slaughtered not for its purpose [Which is disqualified (Mishna Zevaḥim 1:1).] .
HALAKHAH: From where that one who slaughters the Pesaḥ on leavened matter transgresses a prohibition? The verse says [Ex. 23:18; 34:25: Do not sacrifice on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice; the sacrifice of the Pesaḥ pilgrimage. “On leavened matter” means that he has leavened matter in his possession.] , do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice. I have not only the slaughterer, from where the one who pours the blood? The verse says, not on leavened matter the blood. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, since he becomes guilty for pouring, this implies that the Pesaḥ be qualified [A disqualified sacrifice is no sacrifice at all and therefore not a subject of the prohibition.] [Tosephta 4:3.] . Rebbi Yose said, explain it that leavened matter came to him between slaughter and pouring or that one person was slaughtering and another pouring [In both cases the slaughter was correct and only the pouring incorrect. One still has to assume that the Pesaḥ slaughtered on leavened matter even in the afternoon of the 14th is disqualified.] .
Ḥizqiah stated: Do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice [Ex. 23:18; 34:25: Do not sacrifice on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice; the sacrifice of the Pesaḥ pilgrimage. “On leavened matter” means that he has leavened matter in his possession.] , the Torah called it “My sacrifice” [This implies that it is a valid sacrifice. Cf. Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 219, line 1.] . Rebbi Mana said, if Ḥizqiah had not stated this, do we find anything disqualified because of which one is liable for a purification sacrifice [Without Ḥizqiah”s statement we would have declared the sacrifice disqualified since in fact we find that a person who sacrifices outside the official sanctuary is liable (i. e., for extirpation or a purification sacrifice) both for the slaughter and for burning on an altar even though the slaughter disqualifies (Mishnah Zevaḥim13:1).] ? If somebody leavens the disqualified [This refers to flour offerings the entire year. They are required to be unleavened, Lev.2:11.] . There are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says liable, if it became disqualified because of its leavening [Being inside the sacred district, they could not sit down.] ; he who says not liable, if it did not become disqualified because of its leavening.
The burning of the parts on leavening [On the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan. Differently Babli 63b-64a.] . There are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. He who says liable, blood anywhere. He who says not liable, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, this excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement.
If one broke a bird’s neck on leavening [This must refer to the middle days of the holiday following R. Simeon, since it was stated earlier that on the 14 one is liable only for the Pesaḥ and possibly the daily sacrifice.] . There are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. He who says liable, blood anywhere. He who says not liable, sacrifice. This excludes the bird which is not slaughtered as sacrifice [זֶבַח is a sanctum, parts of which are consumed by lay people. A bird sacrifice, not killed by šehitah, if eaten at all is reserved for priests.] . Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Yose. Him who said “liable” one understands as you are saying for freeing from liability [Scribe’s text deleted by corrector, therefore iy is not found in the printed texts. But it is confirmed by K and necessary to understand R. Yose’s response. R. Jacob bar Zavdi argues that since bird sacrifices are treated as equal to animal sacrifices on the 14th, there is no liability if the owner still has leavened matter while bringing his offering, they also should be treated like animal sacrifices on the holiday and there should be liability.] . What is the reason of him who frees from liability? He said to him, one may infer punishment from punishment but one may not infer punishment from exemption.
The rabbis of Caesarea asked: I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood] [The Cohen who receives the blood of the sacrifice slaughtered by a layman or Levite, and the one who carries it to the altar. These two actions are biblically required. Reception of the blood in a sanctified vessel is mentioned explicitly; the action of carrying the blood is required implicitly since slaughter of the sacrifice must be performed away from the altar (North of the altar for most holy sacrifices, Lev. 1:11; before the Tent of Meeting for simple sacrifices, Lev. 3:2,8,13).] on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that one is liable for it outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside [In the prohibition of sacrifices outside the Sanctuary (Lev. 17), only slaughter (v.4), pouring and burning of the parts (v. 6) are mentioned. There exists liability for extirpation or a purification sacrifice even if the slaughter was performed so that collection of the blood and carrying it was not necessary.] . I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, and he atones [This expression is never used for the Pesaḥ. The reference is to the verses referring to purification sacrifices, Lev.4:26,31, from which it would appear that the burning of the fat on the altar is the atoning agent but which in Sifra Wayyiqra II (Ḥovah) Pereq 11 (5–6) is explained to refer only to the pouring of the blood.] . Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, this excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Yose. Instead of arguing for absence of liability, argue for liability. I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood] [The argument shows that instead of “the one who receives or carries” one has to read “one who burns parts”.] on leavened matter not be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], I also am adding burning of the parts for which one is liable outside. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter [The argument shows that instead of “one who burns parts” one has to read “the one who receives or carries”.] not be liable. The verse says, and he atones. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, I also am adding the one who receives or carries who is indispensable for atonement [The argument of the rabbis of Caesarea is invalid since it can be turned upside down.] . He said to him, anything equal in both respects instructs; anything not equal in both respects does not instruct. Sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement and for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside; it excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement [The statement of the rabbis of Caesarea is correct but their argument is incomplete.] .
[This paragraph has a parallel in Yom Tov 1:1 (end).] There, we have stated [Mishnah Yom Tov (Beṣah) 1:1.] : “The House of Shammai say, leavening in the volume of an olive, and leavened matter in the volume of a dried fig.” Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They stated this only for its elimination, but for eating the volume of an olive [Even the House of Shammai agree that eating leavened matter in the volume of an olive on Passover creates liability.] . Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive [This statement refers only to the opinion of the House of Hillel. While leavened matter is forbidden on Passover in the most minute amount, liability is created only by the volume of an olive, whether active leavening or passive leavened matter.] . Rebbi Mana was standing with Rebbi Ḥizqiah; he said to him, from where did the rabbi hear this?. He told him, from Rebbi Abbahu. He answered, we also are saying, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive [In this version, nothing can be learned from the discussion between RR. Mana and Ḥizqiah. In Yom Tov the statement of R. Abbahu continues with a proof, that if there were different standards for leavening and leavened matter, the Mishnah in Keritut which enumerates the transgressions causing extirpation should have enumerated them separately.] .
If one slaughtered on leavened matter, after what are you going? After eating or after elimination? There [Halakhah 3:2, beginning.] did Rebbi Jeremiah say in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Two volumes of half an olive in one house, the house does not combine them; in one vessel, the vessel does combine them. If one slaughtered on them, if they were in the house, and the house did not combine them, he is not liable; or if they were in one vessel and the vessel combines them, he is liable. If he slaughtered on leavening. Since Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav, he is permitted to feed it to his dog [Halakhah 2:1, Note 9.] , he is not liable; or since Rav said, one flogs for eating it, he is liable [The questions are not answered.] .
Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if it belongs to the slaughterer who is one of the group [What does it mean, “one who slaughters the Pesaḥ on leavened matter”? Whose leavened matter?] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, to the slaughterer even if he is not of the group, to one of the group even if he is not the slaughterer. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if it is with him in Jerusalem; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if it is with him in the Temple courtyard [He reads “on” as meaning “physically close” (Babli Menaḥot 98a). In the text of K, the opinion of R. Joḥanan is repeated (supported) by R. Jacob bar [Aha].] . [Yebamot 11:7 Note 171, Nazir 8:1 Notes 48,49. Babli 64b, Ševuot 3b.] Each of them follows his own opinion, since they disagreed: about the two holidays of the diaspora [Before the publication of the computed calendar, communities which could not be informed by messengers about the determination of the first days of the months of Nisan and Tishri, kept two days of holidays to account for possible variations in the dates. Since each day was only one of a possible two, and in talmudic interpretation no infraction could be prosecuted unless the perpetrator was duly warned by two witnesses not to commit the crime, work on the holidays could not be prosecutable unless the warning was given for both days, the infraction occurred on both days, and this kind of long-term conditional warning was accepted in court. [After the publication of the calendar computations, the first day of a holiday is of biblical character; the second day is purely rabbinic and is kept only because the algorithm was published on condition that its users continue to keep the second day (Eruvin 3, Note 190; Babli Beṣah 4b).]] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, one accepts forewarning in case of a doubt; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not accept forewarning in case of a doubt. Everybody agrees if it was lying opposite him in a window in Jerusalem. He who said, a doubt [The disagreement of RR. Joḥanan and Simeon ben Laqish can be explained as one about warnings in cases of doubt only if the leavened matter is not visible by the slaughterer at the moment of slaughter, for it might have been disposed of in the meantime. If it is visible to the slaughterer on the Temple Mount the doubt does not apply. But if the reason is that “on” means physical presence, R. Simeon ben Laqish still will declare the slaughterer not liable even though the leavened matter is visible in Jerusalem.] , it is certain. He who said, in the Temple courtyard, it is in Jerusalem.
What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? The blood of my sacrifices, the blood of Pesaḥ and the blood of the daily sacrifice [R. Jehudah in the Mishnah includes the daily sacrifice in the prohibition of leavened matter. He reads זְבָחַי instead of זְבְחִי. Babli 64a.] .
Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon: One verse says, do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of my sacrifice, and another verse [The second verse is Ex. 23:18, where it says לֹא־תִזְבַּח, the first is Ex..34:25. Babli 64a.] says, do not sacrifice on leavened matter the blood of my sacrifice. One refers to the Pesaḥ on the Fourteenth, one [This is formulated as if the second verse referred to the intermediate days of the holiday.] to all other consumed sacrifices on the workdays of the holiday. How did you understand to add them on the workdays of the holiday and to exclude them from the Fourteenth? After that the verse added, it subtracted [Ex. 23:18 is general, referring to sacrifices eaten by its owners in general, while Ex..34:25 explicitly mentions the Pesaḥ and therefore restricts its meaning.] . I am adding them on the workdays of the holiday since these are subject to “it should not be seen nor found” [Chapter 2:2 Note 90.] , and exclude them from the Fourteenth where they are not under “it should not be seen nor found”. And this parallels what Rebbi Meïr said; as Rebbi Meïr said, after noontime it is of their words [Chapter 1:4, Notes 109–110.] . Rebbi Mana said, there where it says, the consumed sacrifice of the Pesaḥ holiday of pilgrimage, we hold that it refers to the Fourteenth [Ex..34:25 must refer to the 14th of Nisan; the anonymous majority is justified in rejecting R. Simeon’s position] .
[The different commentators offer different emendations of this paragraph. The following commentary is offered as a tentative explanation of the text as it stands.] Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, where are we holding [Discussion of the statement of the Mishnah, “on the holiday, for its purpose he is not liable, not for its purpose he is liable.”] ? If it was lost and found before propitiation, whether it was for its purpose or not for its purpose it is qualified and sent to grazing [Mishnah 9:5. If an animal had been designated as Pesaḥ, was lost, another animal was designated, and then the original was found before the other was slaughtered, it is qualified as sacrifice but cannot be used as Pesaḥ. A qualified sacrifice cannot be redeemed (Lev. 27:10); therefore it shall graze until it develops a defect, then be sold and the money used to buy well-being offerings.] . If it was lost and found after propitiation, whether for its purpose or not for its purpose, it is disqualified as well-being offering [While Mishnah 9:5 states clearly that a Pesaḥ animal, which was lost and only found after the replacement was slaughtered, is a qualified well-being offering, there is an opinion in Halakhah 9:6 that “the body of any which was acceptable as a Pesaḥ cannot be brought as well-being offering.” While this is explained away in Halakhah 9:6, it seems to be the basis of the statement here.] . But we confirmed it when the owner became impure or acted criminally and already pushed to the Second Pesaḥ [The offering on the 14 of Iyar for those incapable of coming to the Sanctuary on the 14th of Nisan; Num. 9:9–14.] . For its purpose, he is not liable and it is disqualified. Not for its purpose, he is liable and it is qualified [R. Simeon reads the verse as referring not only to the 14th of Nisan but also to the entire Holiday of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 15–21. Since the Pesaḥ slaughtered for its purpose on any day other than the 14th is disqualified, it does not count. But not for its purpose it is a qualified well-being sacrifice.] . There they are saying in the name of Rav Ḥisda: If its year was completed between First and Second [The Pesaḥ lamb must be a yearling., Ex. 12:5. If the animal was dedicated before Passover but then its owner was prevented from coming to the Sanctuary in time, it automatically is dedicated for the Second Pesaḥ. If then it will be too old, it is automatically dedicated as well-being offering and can be used as such during the holiday; this is “not for its purpose” as Pesaḥ.] . Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : When the time for its propitiation was passed [If for some reason it was not used on the 14 and its owner is not eligible to celebrate the Second Pesaḥ, it may be used as well-being sacrifice during the holiday.] . “If a Pesaḥ whose time had passed was slaughtered for its purpose at its time [An old animal, which had been dedicated when young, slaughtered on the 14th as Pesaḥ.] , or that he slaughtered another one for its purpose at its time [An animal dedicated as well-being offering used as Pesaḥ.] , Rebbi Eliezer disqualifies and Rebbi Joshua qualifies. Rebbi Eliezer disqualifies since he is like one who slaughters a Pesaḥ for the purpose of a well-being sacrifice. Rebbi Joshua qualifies since he is like one who slaughters a well-being sacrifice for the purpose of a Pesaḥ. [The Babylonian version of the baraita is in Babli Zevaḥim 11a, Tosephta Pesaḥim 4:5.] ” Since its time is passed, there is no difference whether he slaughtered a Pesaḥ for the purpose of a well-being sacrifice or he slaughtered a well-being sacrifice for the purpose of a Pesaḥ. In the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, if its year was completed between First and Second. In the opinion of Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , when the time for its propitiation was passed [Interpretations of: “Pesaḥ whose time had passed.”] .
MISHNAH: The Pesaḥ was being slaughtered in three groups, as it is said [Ex. 12:6.] , and they shall slaughter it, the entire assembly of the community of Israel, assembly, community, and Israel. When the first group entered, the courtyard was filled, they locked the doors of the courtyard. They [The priests whose duty it was to blow horns for the daily sacrifice. “Straight” means an extended single tone.] blew the trumpets, straight, modulated, and straight. The priests were standing in rows [The people went in with their lamb and stood in front of the priests, one priest per lamb.] and in their hands were silver and golden cups; one row only silver, one row only gold, they were not mixed. The cups had no flat bottoms lest they would be put down and the blood jellying [That it could no longer be sprinkled on the wall of the altar.] .
HALAKHAH: [A sermon, introducing the recitation of the “Egyptian Hallel”, Ps. 113–118, in the Passover night celebration. Cf. the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah p. 319; Midrash Tehillim 113(2), Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo Parashah 14.] Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa. Power was given to Moses’s voice and his voice went through the entire land of Egypt, a distance of 40 days of travel [Or 400 Egyptian parasangs.] . What did he say? From place X to place Y one group, from place Z to place U one group. You should not be astonished. If about dust, which does not usually move, it is said [Ex. 9:9.] , it will bedust in the entire land of Egypt, voice which usually is moving, not so much more? Rebbi Levi said, just as power was given to Moses’s voice, so power was given to Pharao’s voice, [and his voice went through the entire land of Egypt, a distance of forty days of travel.] [Addition by the corrector, confirmed by K and Medieval sources.] What did he say? Get up, leave from the midst of my people [Ex. 12:31. The argument is based on the part of the verse not quoted here, but quoted in K: both you and the Children of Israel and go to serve the Eternal.] . In the past you were servants of Pharao, from now on you are servants of the Eternal. At that moment, they were saying [Ps. 113:1.] , Hallelujah, give praise, servants of the Eternal, but not servants of Pharao.
It was stated: For the daily sacrifice, which is accompanied by libations, one blows the trumpets for the libations [Mishnah Tamid 7:2; Num. 10:10.] . For the Pesaḥ, which has no libations, one blows the trumpets for its slaughter.
Explanation [Greek δήλωμα; cf. Berakhot 1:1 Note 72.] . Rebbi Zeˋira, and Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, and Rebbi Abinna were sitting. Rebbi Abinna said, because of the tricksters [The vessels in one row of Cohanim are all of the same metal lest a Cohen bring a silver vessel from home and substitute it for a gold vessel of the Temple.] . Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said to him, a mouthful [It is insolent to suspect that holy priests would steal from the Temple. Accepted by the Babli, 64b.] . Rebbi Zeˋira said to him, say it with half a mouthful. There came Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : because of the tricksters.
MISHNAH: The Israel slaughters [If he so wishes since slaughter is permitted to everybody.] and the Cohen receives [The blood; an action for which only priests are qualified.] ; he hands it to his colleague and the colleague to his colleague; he accepts the full [cup] and returns the empty one [So that one Cohen may serve many slaughterers.] . The Cohen standing next to the altar pours it in one pouring in the direction of the foundations [Foundation stones extending one cubit outside the altar proper; Mishnah Middot 3:1.] .
HALAKHAH: One verse says [Num. 18:17.] , but a firstling bull, or a firstling sheep, or a firstling goat, shall not be redeemed; holy they are; and their blood you shall pour on the altar. Another verse says [Deut. 12:27.] , and the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled on the altar of the Eternal, your God. If spilling, why pouring, and if pouring, why spilling? It was stated, shall be spilled, he may not let it fall in drips. Shall be spilled, he shall not sprinkle. Shall be spilled, he shall not pour. And it is explained in tradition [2 Chr. 35:11.] that the priests pour the blood from the hands of the Levites. Everybody agrees on spilling how it is done; about sprinkling how it is done. Where do they disagree? About pouring. Rebbi Mana said, pouring is like spilling. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, pouring is like sprinkling. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius said, a verse supports Rebbi Ḥananiah: For the throwing water was not poured on him, impure he shall be [Num. 19:20, about sprinkling with water containing ashes of the Red Cow. Cf. Zevaḥim 36b/37a.] , etc. Does he not talk about sprinkling and calls it pouring?
MISHNAH: When the first group left, the second entered; when the second left, the third entered. Like the arrangement for the first, so is the arrangement for second and third. They read the Hallel [Ps. 113–118, sung by the Levites (cf. Note 188).] ; when they finished they repeated, after they repeated they tripled, even though they never tripled. Rebbi Jehudah says, during the existence of a third group they never reached I am loving; truly the Eternal listened to my voice [Ps. 116:1] , since its people were few.
HALAKHAH: [Mishnah Taˋaniot 3:14, about a fast in a year of drought which was cut short by rainfall. The text is Halakhah 3:14 in Taˋaniot (ו).] There, we have stated: “They went, ate, and drank. In the evening they returned and red the Great Hallel.” What is the Great Hallel? Rebbi Pamakh in the name of Rebbi Ḥaninah; Give thanks to Almighty God [Ps. 136. Babli 118a.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, on condition of who stand in the Eternal’s house [Ps. 135 as introduction to Ps. 136.] . Why these two chapters? Because rainfall is included in them. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is understandable, for it is written [Ps. 135:7.] , He brings up vapors from the ends of the earth. How is it for Rebbi Ḥaninah? Because it is written [Ps.136:25.] , He gives nourishment to all flesh; Truly, His kindness is forever. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Simon, both are saying, ours [Ps. 113–118.] . Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, ours. Bar Qappara said, ours. Bar Qappara follows his opinion, as it was stated: “during the existence of a third group they never reached I am loving; truly the Eternal listened to my voice, my supplication, since its people were few.” Bar Qappara stated, this is the Great Hallel. A patrician stood before the Ark [To be the reader in a service of thanksgiving for rain relieving a drought.] ; he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying. This implies that it is not ours [If it were the regular Hallel, the congregation would not repeat the verses but answer every half-verse with “Hallelujah” (cf. Šabbat 16, Note 59).] . Rebbi Mana said, it is ours. The miracle was great; therefore he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying [Because of the extraordinary nature of the event, he changed the usual response to repetition of the entire Hallel.] .
It was stated: It was called the group of the lazy ones [Babli 65a.] . Rebbi Abun said, If in a case where the commandment is followed [Since “between the evenings” implies that late afternoon is preferred.] it is called the group of the lazy ones, in a case one is lazy in fulfilling a commandment so much more.
MISHNAH: As it is done on weekdays it is done on the Sabbath, only that the priests rinse the courtyard against the wish of the Sages [Between two groups entering the courtyard they were stopping the flow of the water canal passing through the courtyard to flood the stone floor and thereby cleansing it (Tosephta 4:12). This is a rabbinic Sabbath infraction.] . Rebbi Jehudah says, one was filling a cup of the mixture of blood [Covering the floor.] and poured it in a single pouring on the altar, but the Sages did not agree with him.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonathan said [In Eruvin 10 (Note 133), the statement is in the name of the last generation R. Yose ben R. Abun instead of the first generation R. Jonathan. The statement explained why the inundating of the Temple courtyard was frowned upon by the pharisaic establishment.] , not every rabbinic Sabbath prohibition was permitted in the Temple. The priest would have sunk into the blood up to their knees [This would have dirtied the priestly garments and made them unfit for service. The sweeping was necessary and therefore the displeasure of the Sages misplaced.] . How did they do it? They made them benches [The priests stood on elevated benches above the accumulated blood. Since the priestly garments are enumerated in Ex. 28 and shoes are not mentioned there, the priests had to officiate barefoot, their feet touching the floor of the courtyard. Therefore one has to assume that the benches were rows of stones connected to the floor and counted as floor. Babli 65b.] .
There, we have stated [Mishnah Keritut 5:1.] : “Rebbi Jehudah declares liable for squeezed blood [If an animal is slaughtered by having its throat cut, the blood pumped out from the carotid arteries by the heart is called “life blood”; all other blood is “squeezed out” blood unfit for sacrificial use. For the majority, all blood is prohibited (Lev. 7:23) but only life blood is forbidden on penalty of extirpation (Lev. 17:10). R. Jehudah disagrees since life blood is mentioned only in v. 17:11.] .” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah added it only for extirpation [He agrees that only life blood is qualified for the altar.] . There came Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah added it only for extirpation. There [Tosephta 4:12; Babli 65a, Zevaḥim34b, 60a.] , they are saying in the name of Rav Ḥisda: a baraita [Tosephta 4:12; Babli 65a, Zevaḥim34b, 60a.] says so: “They said to him, is that not squeezed blood? And squeezed blood is disqualified on the altar [As explained at the end of the paragraph.] . And also from the following, most of it was not received in a vessel, and blood not received in a vessel is disqualified on the altar [Mishnah Zevaḥim 2:1.] .” Does Rebbi Jehudah hold that blood invalidates blood [In Mishnah Zevaḥim 8:6, R. Jehudah is quoted as saying that no blood invalidates blood. Therefore if only a small portion of the blood collected in the cup was qualified, the remainder is disregarded and the entire contents can be poured on the altar.] ? Since he did not reply, it follows that he accepted their position [A possible interpretation of the Mishnah here.] . Since in the other case he does not hold so but did not respond, so here he does not hold so but did not respond [Since we know that R. Jehudah holds that no blood invalidates blood and he is not reported to have answered the argument in the Tosephta, nothing can be inferred from his silence in the Mishnah.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: a baraita [The priests stood on elevated benches above the accumulated blood. Since the priestly garments are enumerated in Ex. 28 and shoes are not mentioned there, the priests had to officiate barefoot, their feet touching the floor of the courtyard. Therefore one has to assume that the benches were rows of stones connected to the floor and counted as floor. Babli 65b.] says so: “Not only life blood for sancta, matter appropriate for atonement, from where life blood for profane animals and squeezed blood for both sancta and profane animals? The verse says blood and all blood. When it is about life it mentions atonement, for squeezed blood it does not mention atonement [This is R. Jehudah’s argument. In Lev.17:10 all blood is prohibited under penalty of extirpation. In Lev. 17:11 blood is the carrier of life, showing that life blood used for atonement is less than all blood. Babli 65a.] .
MISHNAH: How does one hang and skins [The Pesaḥ has to be roasted whole; for this it has to be skinned. For this purpose the carcass it hung on its hind feet and stripped from there to the head. This has to be done in the Temple enclosue since the required innards have to be burned on the altar and sacrificial meat which leaves the Temple precinct becomes disqualified for the altar.] ? Iron hooks [Greek ἀγκύλη, ἡ.] were fixed in the walls and on the pillars where one hangs and skins. For anybody who does not find a place to hang and skin there were thin smooth rods; he puts one on his shoulder and another’s shoulder, and hangs and skins. Rebbi Eliezer says, if the Fourteenth falls on a Sabbath, he puts his arm on another’s shoulder who puts his arm on the first person’s shoulder [Since he holds that the rods are muqṣeh and may not be used on the Sabbath.] , and hangs and skins.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Half-pipes and rods were stated before the permission of vessels [This is quoted from Šabbat 17 (Notes 32,33), Babli Šabbat 123b. The half-pipes mentioned in MishnahMenaḥot 11:6 which separate between the loaves of the shew-bread, where it is mentioned that they cannot be removed or put in on the Sabbath. This clearly contradicts Mishnah Šabbat 17:1 which declares that all implements may be moved on the Sabbath. The rods are mentioned here. In view of Mishnah Šabbat 17:1 there is no reason not to use the rods on the Sabbath. It would be easy to say that practice does not follow R. Eliezer, but since he is a very reliable historical source there can be no doubt that he accurately reports Temple practice from his own experience. One has to conclude that the general permission to use all implements (with the exception of expensive tools of trade) has to be dated to the council of Jabneh after the destruction of the Second Temple.] .
MISHNAH: He tears it open and removes the parts [Greek αἱ μοῖραι [τοῦ θεοῦ], the fat which is forbidden for human consumption.] which he [The officiating priest.] puts in a tureen and burns on the altar. The first group left and sat on the Temple Mount [According to Rashi and Maimonides, this refers only to a Sabbath, when they could not carry outside the enclosure of the Temple Mount.] , the second within the inner wall of the Temple Mount, the third stood [Being inside the sacred district, they could not sit down.] at its place. When it got dark, they left and roasted their Pesaḥ.
HALAKHAH: It is written, he sprinkled from it [There is no verse like this; probably what is meant is Lev. 8:11: וַיַּז֥ מִמֶּ֛נּוּ. Cf. Babli Bekhorot 39b.] , from its entirety. Rebbi Abuna said, only from a complete sacrifice. [Sifra Wayyiqra I Parsheta 14(10).] “It is written, they shall burn it, and he shall burn it, and he shall burn them [The three expressions, from Lev. 3:5, 3:11, 3:16, all refer to well-being sacrifices, the first of cattle, the second of sheep, the third of goats. All three expressions are taken to refer to all three kinds, each one implying a different rule.] . Why does the verse say they shall burn it, the qualified, not the disqualified [Since “it” is expressed by a separate word, it is for emphasis: This one but not one which does not follow the rules.] . And he shall burn it, that he may not mix fat with fat. And he shall burn them, all of them together.” Here you are saying, and he shall burn it, that he may not mix fat with fat; and there you are saying, and he shall burn them, all of them together. Rebbi La said, here in the tureen, there on the top of the altar [Once the priest has started, he may not stop before all parts lifted from one animal are burned.] .
Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “nobody could sit in the Temple courtyard except kings of the Davidic dynasty” [Babli Yoma 25a,69b, Soṭah 40a, Tamid 27a, Sanhedrin 101b; Yerushalmi Yoma 3:2, Soṭah 7:7.] ? And Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, even the kings of the Davidic dynasty could not sit in the Temple courtyard. Explain it that he leaned on the wall as if sitting. But is it not written, King David came and sat before the Eternal [1Chr. 17:16.] , etc.? Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, he concentrated [Since in Mishnaic Hebrew יִשׂוּב דַּעַת means “concentration”.] for prayer.
“The first group left and sat on the Temple Mount, the second within the inner wall of the Temple Mount, the third at its place.” Rebbi Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Mana: Did we state “sat at its place”? “Stood at its place [The preceding paragraph explains why the third group is required to stand. The text implies that the reading in the Mishnah was simply שְׁלִישִׁית בִּמְקוֹמָהּ “the third at its place.”] ”.