Talmud Bavli, Pesahim Reader

This is not difficult: this case refers to our fire, and that case refers to the fire of Gehenna. Our fire was created at the conclusion of the Sabbath; the fire of Gehenna was created on the eve of the Sabbath. And was the fire of Gehenna created on the eve of the Sabbath? But surely it was taught in a baraita: Seven things were created before the world was created, and these are they: the Torah, repentance, the Garden of Eden, Gehenna, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, and the name of the Messiah. The Torah, as it is written: "The LORD acquired me as the beginning of His way" (Proverbs 8:22). Repentance, as it is written: "Before the mountains were born" (Psalms 90:2), and it is written: "You turn man back to contrition, and You say, Return, O children of man" (Psalms 90:3). The Garden of Eden, as it is written: "And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden from the east" (Genesis 2:8). Gehenna, as it is written: "For Topheth has been set in order from of old" (Isaiah 30:33). The Throne of Glory and the Temple, as it is written: "A throne of glory, on high from the beginning, is the place of our Sanctuary" (Jeremiah 17:12). The name of the Messiah, as it is written: "May his name endure forever; before the sun, his name shall be continued" (Psalms 72:17). They said: Its hollow was what was created before the world was created, but its fire was created on the eve of the Sabbath. And Rabbi Banaah son of Rabbi Ulla said: Why was "that it was good" not said on the second day of the week? Because on it was created the fire of Gehenna.

And was fire created at the conclusion of the Sabbath? But it is taught in a baraita: Ten things were created on Sabbath eve at twilight, and they are these: the well, and the manna, and the rainbow, the writing, and the writing instrument, and the tablets, and the grave of Moses, and the cave in which Moses and Elijah stood, the opening of the mouth of the donkey, and the opening of the mouth of the earth to swallow the wicked. This is not difficult: this teaching refers to our fire, and that teaching refers to the fire of Gehinnom. Our fire was created at the conclusion of the Sabbath; the fire of Gehinnom was created on Sabbath eve. And was the fire of Gehinnom created on Sabbath eve? But it is taught in a baraita: Seven things were created before the world was created, and they are these: the Torah, and repentance, and the Garden of Eden, and Gehinnom, and the Throne of Glory, and the Temple, and the name of the Messiah. The Garden of Eden, as it is written: "And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east" (Genesis 2:8). Gehinnom, as it is written: "For Tofteh is ordained of old" (Isaiah 30:33). The Throne of Glory and the Temple, as it is written: "A throne of glory, exalted from the first, is the place of our Sanctuary" (Jeremiah 17:12). The name of the Messiah, as it is written: "May his name endure forever; before the sun his name shall be continued" (Psalms 72:17)!

just as the case of one who was ritually impure is referring to one who has the means to observe the first Pesaḥ via an agent but does not do so because the Torah prohibited him from doing so, so too, the case of one who was on a distant journey also refers to one who has the means to observe the first Pesaḥ via an agent and eat the offering at night, but does not do so because the Torah prohibited him from doing so. And Rav Naḥman could have said to you: Rabbi Akiva conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he holds that one may not slaughter a Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood on behalf of one who is ritually impure due to contact with a dead creeping animal, even though he could immerse and become ritually pure in time to partake of the Paschal lamb in the evening. This indicates that according to Rabbi Akiva, one who is unfit when the blood is sprinkled is completely disqualified from participating in the offering. But I hold in accordance with the one who said: One may slaughter a Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood on behalf of one who is ritually impure due to contact with a dead creeping animal, and therefore Rabbi Akiva’s ruling is not relevant to my opinion. The Gemara cites a baraita in support of Rav Naḥman’s opinion. The Sages taught that these are the people who observe the second Pesaḥ: Zavim and zavot; male lepers and female lepers; and menstruating women and those men who had sexual relations with menstruating women; and women after childbirth; those who failed to observe the first Pesaḥ unwittingly, and those who were prevented due to circumstances beyond their control, and those who intentionally refrained from doing so; and one who was ritually impure; and one who was on a distant journey. The baraita continues: If so, if one who missed the first Pesaḥ for any reason observes the second Pesaḥ, why is the case of one who was ritually impure stated explicitly in the Torah? The Gemara expresses surprise at this question: Why is it stated? It was necessary to mention this case to teach that if an impure person wishes to perform the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ we do not allow him to do so. Rather, the question should be: Why is the case of one who is on a distant journey stated in the Torah? It is stated to exempt him from karet even if he does not observe the second Pesaḥ. And this is in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that if the Paschal lamb was slaughtered on behalf of one who was on a distant journey it was accepted, which is the opinion of Rav Naḥman. The baraita mentioned several types of ritually impure women who observe the second Pesaḥ rather than the first. The Gemara asks: Is a woman obligated to observe the second Pesaḥ? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: I might have thought that only one who is impure due to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse or one who was on a distant journey observe the second Pesaḥ; with regard to zavim, male lepers, and those men who had sexual relations with menstruating women, from where is it derived that they may observe the second Pesaḥ? The verse states: “If any man [ish ish] of you or of your generations shall be ritually impure due to a dead body or is on a journey far away, he shall still offer the Paschal lamb to the Lord” (Numbers 9:10). The word ish is doubled in order to include these other cases. Women are not included by the repetition of the word ish. The Gemara answers that this is not difficult: This first baraita, which includes women, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei that one may slaughter the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ for women, and that second baraita, which includes only men, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, who hold that women do not have a full-fledged obligation to observe the second Pesaḥ. The Sages taught in the Tosefta: One is liable to receive karet for intentionally refraining from observing the first Pesaḥ; similarly, one who could not observe the first Pesaḥ is liable to receive karet if he intentionally refrained from observing the second Pesaḥ. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Natan says: One is liable to receive karet for intentionally refraining from observing the first Pesaḥ; and one is exempt from karet for intentionally refraining from observing the second Pesaḥ even if he unwittingly failed to observe the first Pesaḥ, as the Torah does not specify a punishment of karet with regard to the second Pesaḥ. Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya says: Even for intentionally failing to observe the first Pesaḥ one is liable to receive karet only if he intentionally fails to observe the second Pesaḥ. The Gemara adds that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Natan follow their line of reasoning as demonstrated by another dispute between them, which is related to the dispute quoted above. As it was taught in a baraita: A convert who converted during the month between the offering of the two Paschal lambs on the first and second Pesaḥ, and similarly, a minor who grew up and became obligated in mitzvot during the month between the offering of the two Paschal lambs, is obligated to observe the second Pesaḥ; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Natan says: Whoever needs to observe the first Pesaḥ needs to observe the second; whoever does not need to observe the first Pesaḥ, e.g., one who is a minor or is not yet Jewish, does not need to observe the second Pesaḥ either. The Gemara explains: With regard to what do they disagree? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the second Pesaḥ is its own Festival, and anyone who did not participate in the first Pesaḥ is obligated to participate in the second even if he was not fit to bring the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ. Conversely, Rabbi Natan holds that the second Pesaḥ is merely a redress for the first Pesaḥ, such that if one was obligated to bring the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ and did not, he may do so on the second Pesaḥ; however, it does not repair the failure to bring the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ. Therefore, one who intentionally refrained from bringing the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ is liable to receive karet even if he brought the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ. However, if one unwittingly failed to sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ, he is not liable to receive karet even if he intentionally refrained from observing the second Pesaḥ. And Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya held: The second Pesaḥ repairs the failure to offer the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ. In other words, the Paschal lamb brought on the second Pesaḥ is not an independent obligation; rather, it allows a second chance to avoid the liability to receive karet. And all three of them expounded the same verse to derive their opinions: “But the man who is ritually pure, and is not on a journey, and refrains from offering the Paschal lamb, that soul shall be cut off from his people; because [ki] he did not bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season, that man shall bear his sin” (Numbers 9:13). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the verse should be understood as follows: The phrase: “And refrains from offering the Paschal lamb, that soul shall be cut off,” means that he did not participate in the offering on the first Pesaḥ. In the continuation of the verse, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi understands the word ki to mean: If, as the word ki has various meanings, one of which is: If. Therefore, the verse can be interpreted in the following manner: If he also “did not bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season,” with regard to the second Pesaḥ, “that man shall bear his sin.” The Gemara asks: And from where do we know that this phrase: Shall bear his sin, refers to karet and not to some other punishment?

And learn from it that if one has only one cup of wine, he may recite two sanctifications over one cup, as the baraita states that one may recite two entirely unrelated blessings over a single cup. And learn from it that this baraita is according to the ruling of Beit Shammai, in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that Beit Shammai maintain that one should recite the blessing over fire before the blessing over spices. Rav Ashi said: On close examination, two of the inferences from the baraita, the ruling that once one who has tasted the cup has disqualified it and the ruling that a cup of blessing requires a specific minimum measure, are actually one matter and should not be counted separately. Rav Ashi elaborates: And this is what the baraita is saying: What is the reason that once one has tasted the cup he has disqualified it from further usage as a cup of blessing? It is because a cup of blessing requires a specific minimum measure. Once one has tasted, there is not enough wine left in the cup. The disqualification is not because of the act of tasting itself. If enough wine remains in the cup after one has taken a sip, it may be used again as a cup of blessing. This ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of certain Sages, who maintain that sipping from the cup itself constitutes an inherent disqualification. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi was particular with regard to a blemished pitcher, i.e., he would not recite kiddush or havdala with a pitcher from which someone had already taken a sip. Rav Idi bar Sheisha was particular with regard to a blemished cup. Mar bar Rav Ashi was particular even with regard to a blemished barrel and would take wine for kiddush only from a previously unopened barrel. The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Remember the day of Shabbat to sanctify it” (Exodus 20:7): Remember it over wine, through the recitation of kiddush. I have only derived that there is a mitzva to recite kiddush during the day, as the verse is referring to the day of Shabbat. From where do I derive that one must also recite kiddush at night? The verse states: “Remember the day of Shabbat to sanctify it,” which indicates that one should also remember Shabbat as soon as it is sanctified. The Gemara expresses surprise at this last question: From where is it derived that one must recite kiddush at night? Is this the appropriate question? On the contrary, the essential mitzva of kiddush is to sanctify the day at night, as one must sanctify the beginning of the day, i.e., Friday night; there is no reason to sanctify Shabbat in the middle of the day, i.e., in the morning. And furthermore, the continuation of the baraita states: From where do we derive the obligation of kiddush at night? The verse states: “Remember the day of Shabbat.” The tanna is seeking a source for kiddush at night, and yet he cites a verse that is referring to the day. The Gemara answers that this is what the tanna is saying: “Remember the day of Shabbat to sanctify it” is a mitzva to remember it over wine when it begins. I have only derived the obligation to recite kiddush at night; from where do I derive that one must also recite kiddush during the day? The verse states: “Remember the day of Shabbat.” The emphasis of the word day indicates that one must recite kiddush again during the day. The Gemara asks: During the day, when one does not recite the same kiddush as at night, what blessing does one recite? Rav Yehuda said: Before the meal, one brings a cup of wine and simply recites the usual blessing over wine: Who creates the fruit of the vine. The Gemara relates that Rav Ashi happened to come to the city of Meḥoza. The Sages of Meḥoza said to him on Shabbat day: Will the Master recite for us the great kiddush? And they immediately brought him a cup of wine. Rav Ashi was unsure what they meant by the term great kiddush and wondered if the residents of Meḥoza included other matters in their kiddush. He thought: What is this great kiddush to which they refer? He said to himself: Since with regard to all the blessings that require a cup of wine, one first recites the blessing: Who creates the fruit of the vine, I will start with that blessing. He recited: Who creates the fruit of the vine, and lengthened it to see if they were expecting an additional blessing. He saw a particular elder bending over his cup and drinking, and he realized that this was the end of the great kiddush. He read the following verse about himself: “The wise man, his eyes are in his head” (Ecclesiastes 2:14), as he was alert enough to discern the expectations of the local residents. As stated above, the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya say: One who did not recite havdala at the conclusion of Shabbat may recite havdala anytime over the course of the entire week. The Gemara asks: And until how many days of that week have passed may one still recite havdala? Rabbi Zeira said: Until the fourth day of the week, Wednesday, after which it is no longer considered the same week as the previous Shabbat. This is like that ruling of halakha stated when Rabbi Zeira sat before Rav Asi, and some say it was Rav Asi who sat before Rabbi Yoḥanan. And he sat and said: With regard to the wording of bills of divorce, the first day of the week and the second and third days of the week are all called: After Shabbat. If a bill of divorce or a condition upon which the document depends includes the phrase: After Shabbat, it refers to one of the first three days of the week. However, the fourth and fifth days of the week and the eve of the day of Shabbat are called: Before Shabbat. Likewise, with regard to havdala, the first three days of the week are considered the time period after Shabbat, and therefore one may still recite havdala on these days. Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said: However, one who recites havdala during this time period may not recite the blessing over fire. This blessing may be recited only at the conclusion of Shabbat, at the time when fire was originally created. Rav Beruna said that Rav said: