Daf Ditty Pesachim 66: ‫ בני בתירא‬and Hillel

MISHNA: These are the matters related to the Paschal lamb that override Shabbat, when the
eve of Passover occurs on Shabbat: Its slaughter, the sprinkling of its blood, the cleaning of its
intestines and the burning of its fats on the altar, all of which are services that must be performed

1
on Passover eve while it is still day. However, its roasting and the washing of its intestines,
which need not be done by day, do not override Shabbat; rather, one waits until after Shabbat to
perform these tasks. Carrying the Paschal lamb through a public domain does not override
Shabbat. The Paschal offering consisted of either a lamb or a goat, sometimes quite young and
unable to walk the entire way, so that it had to be carried on a person’s shoulders. Similarly,
bringing it from outside the Shabbat limit and cutting off its wart do not override Shabbat,
as all these tasks could have been performed before Shabbat. A wart is considered a blemish that
disqualifies the animal from being brought as an offering, but once the wart is removed, the animal
is fit to be sacrificed on the altar. Rabbi Eliezer says: All of these procedures override Shabbat.

Rabbi Eliezer said: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference? If slaughter,
which is ordinarily forbidden on Shabbat as a biblically prohibited labor, nonetheless overrides
Shabbat when performed for the sake of the Paschal lamb, then these activities, namely carrying
the animal, bringing it from outside the Shabbat limit, and the like, which are prohibited due to
rabbinic decree, should they not override Shabbat? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: The law
governing a Festival proves otherwise, for the Torah permitted on it acts that are normally
prohibited as labor, such as slaughtering, cooking, and baking, and yet it is forbidden to do on
it acts that are prohibited due to rabbinic decree. Thus, we cannot derive policy with regard to
rabbinic prohibitions from the rules that govern Torah laws.

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: What is this, Yehoshua? How can you suggest such a weak proof?
What proof can be deduced from optional activities that would apply to a mitzva? How does the
fact that rabbinic decrees remain in effect on a Festival with respect to optional activities prove
that one is also forbidden to transgress a rabbinic decree in order to fulfill the mitzva of offering

2
the Paschal lamb? Rabbi Akiva responded and said in defense of Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion:
Sprinkling the purifying water of a red heifer upon someone who had contracted ritual impurity
through contact with a corpse proves the matter, for it is done for the sake of a mitzva, in order
to allow the person to offer the Paschal lamb, and it is prohibited only due to rabbinic decree,
and nonetheless it does not override Shabbat, for the purification rite is not performed on the
eve of Passover that falls on Shabbat. So, too, you should not be surprised about these activities,
namely carrying the animal, bringing it from outside the Shabbat limit, and cutting off its wart,
that although they are performed for the sake of a mitzva and they are prohibited only due to
rabbinic decree, they do not override Shabbat.

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: I do not accept this proof. With regard to this sprinkling itself, I
infer that it, too, is permitted for the same reason: If slaughter, which is a biblically prohibited
labor, overrides Shabbat, is it not right that sprinkling the purifying water of a red heifer,
which is prohibited only due to rabbinic decree, should override Shabbat? You cannot
challenge me based on a premise with which I disagree.

Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Eliezer: Or perhaps we can reverse the order of your argument and
say the opposite: If, as we know by accepted tradition, sprinkling the purifying water on Shabbat,
which is prohibited only due to rabbinic decree, does not override Shabbat, then with regard
to slaughter, which is prohibited as a biblically prohibited labor, is it not right that it should
not override Shabbat? Therefore, it should be prohibited to slaughter the Paschal lamb when the
eve of Passover occurs on Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva, how can you say this? You
have thus uprooted what is written in the Torah:

3
 ,‫ַהָפַּסח‬-‫ ִיְשׂ ָרֵאל ֶאת‬-‫ב ְוַיֲﬠשׂוּ ְבֵני‬ 2 'Let the children of Israel keep the passover in its
.‫ְבּמוֲֹﬠדוֹ‬ appointed season.
Num 9:2

“Let the children of Israel offer the Paschal lamb in its appointed time” the phrase “at its
appointed time” indicates that the offering must be brought on that day, whether it is a weekday
or Shabbat.

Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Eliezer: My teacher, bring me an appointed time stated in the Torah
for these tasks, namely, carrying the animal or bringing it from outside the Shabbat limits, like
the appointed time stated with respect to slaughter. The Paschal lamb must be slaughtered on
the fourteenth of Nisan, but there is no fixed time when the animal must be brought to the Temple,
and it is therefore possible to transport it before Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva stated a principle: Any
prohibited labor required for the offering of the sacrifice that can be performed on the eve of
Shabbat does not override Shabbat; slaughter, which cannot be performed on the eve of
Shabbat, overrides Shabbat.

4
GEMARA: The Sages taught a baraita with regard to the basic halakha governing the eve of
Passover that occurs on Shabbat: This law was forgotten by the sons of Beteira, who were the
leaders of their generation. The fourteenth of Nisan once occurred on Shabbat, and they forgot
and did not know whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not. They said: Is there
any person who knows whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not? They said to
them: There is a certain man in Jerusalem who came up from Babylonia, and Hillel the
Babylonian is his name. At one point, he served the two most eminent scholars of the
generation, Shemaya and Avtalyon, and he certainly knows whether the Paschal lamb
overrides Shabbat or not. The sons of Beteira sent messengers and called for him. They said
to him: Do you know whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not? He said to them:
Have we but one Paschal lamb during the year that overrides Shabbat? Do we not have many
more than two hundred Paschal lambs, i.e., sacrifices, during the year that override Shabbat?

RASHI

JASTROW

5
6
They said to him: From where do you know this? He said to them: “Its appointed time” is
stated with regard to the Paschal lamb and “its appointed time” is also stated with regard to
the daily offering, for the verse says:

‫ ְוָאַמ ְרָתּ‬,‫ְבֵּני ִיְשָׂרֵאל‬-‫ ב ַצו ֶאת‬2 Command the children of Israel, and say unto them: My food
‫ ֵריַח‬,‫ָק ְרָבּ ִני ַלְחִמי ְלִאַשּׁי‬-‫ ֶאת‬:‫ ֲאֵלֶהם‬which is presented unto Me for offerings made by fire, of a
.‫ ְלַהְק ִריב ִלי ְבּמוֲֹﬠדוֹ‬,‫ ִתְּשְׁמרוּ‬,‫ ִניֹחִחי‬sweet savour unto Me, shall ye observe to offer unto Me in its
due season.
Num 28:2

“Command the children of Israel and say to them, My offering, the provision of My sacrifice made
with fire, for a sweet savor to Me, shall you observe to offer Me at its appointed time”

From here we learn that the daily offering is brought even on Shabbat. Thus, the daily morning
and afternoon offerings are brought on more than fifty Shabbatot over the course of the year, and
two sheep are offered every Shabbat as additional offerings, for a total of more than two hundred
sacrifices a year that override Shabbat. Just as the expression “its appointed time,” which is
stated with regard to the daily offering, indicates that it overrides Shabbat, so too “its
appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb, indicates that it overrides
Shabbat.

And furthermore, it is an a fortiori inference: If the daily offering, the neglect of which is not
punishable by karet, overrides Shabbat, is it not right that the Paschal lamb, the neglect of
which is punishable by karet, should override Shabbat?

7
After Hillel brought these proofs, they immediately seated him at the head and appointed him
Nasi over them, and he expounded the laws of Passover that entire day. In the course of his

8
teaching, he began rebuking them [mekanteran] them with words. He said to them: What
caused this to happen to you, that I should come up from Babylonia and become Nasi over
you? It was the laziness in you that you did not serve the two most eminent scholars of the
generation living in Eretz Yisrael, Shemaya and Avtalyon.

They said to Hillel: Our teacher, if one forgot and did not bring a knife on the eve of Shabbat
and cannot slaughter his Paschal lamb, what is the law? Since he could have brought the knife
before Shabbat, he cannot bring it on Shabbat; but what should he do in this situation? He said to
them: I once heard this halakha from my teachers but I have forgotten it. But leave it to the
Jewish people; if they are not prophets to whom God has revealed His secrets, they are the sons
of prophets, and will certainly do the right thing on their own.

9
The next day, on Shabbat that was the eve of Passover, one whose Paschal offering was a lamb
took the knife and stuck it in its wool; and one whose Paschal offering was a goat, which does
not have wool, stuck it between its horns. Hillel saw the incident and remembered the halakha
that he had once learned and said: This is the tradition I received from the mouths of Shemaya
and Avtalyon, meaning that this is in fact the proper course of action. This concludes the text of
the baraita and the Gemara will begin to elucidate it.

10
The Master said above: “Its appointed time” is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb and
“its appointed time” is stated with regard to the daily offering. Just as “its appointed time,”
which is stated with regard to the daily offering, indicates that it overrides Shabbat, so too “its
appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb, indicates that it overrides
Shabbat. And from where do we derive that the daily offering itself overrides Shabbat? If we
say because “in its appointed time” is written in its regard, “in its appointed time” is also
written with regard to the Paschal lamb. Were it possible to derive from this expression that the
sacrifice is offered even on Shabbat, it would not be necessary to derive the law governing the
Paschal lamb from a verbal analogy between the daily offering and the Paschal lamb.

Rather, you must conclude that the expression “its appointed time,” which is stated with regard
to the Paschal lamb, does not indicate to Hillel that the Torah was so particular about the timing
of the Paschal lamb that its slaughter overrides Shabbat. Here too, with regard to the daily offering,
you must say that “its appointed time” does not indicate to him that it is brought on Shabbat,
and so this expression is not the source of this law. Rather, the law is derived from the verse that
states:

‫ֹעַלת‬-‫ ַﬠל‬,‫ ְבַּשַׁבּתּוֹ‬,‫ֹעַלת ַשַׁבּת‬ 10 This is the burnt-offering of every sabbath, beside the
{‫ }פ‬.‫ ְו ִנְסָכּהּ‬,‫ַהָתִּמיד‬ continual burnt-offering, and the drink-offering thereof.
Num 28:10

“The burnt-offering of Shabbat on its Shabbat, beside the continual burnt-offering and its
libation” from which it may be inferred that the daily burnt-offering is brought even on
Shabbat.

11
The Gemara answers: This is precisely what the sons of Beteira asked Hillel: If there is an act
that is permitted by Torah law, and a rabbinic decree stands before it and disallows it, what
is the law with regard to the permissibility of uprooting the rabbinic decree in an unusual
manner, in a situation in which one does so in order to fulfill a mitzva? Bringing the sacrifice is
a mitzva, whereas leading the animal while it carries a knife is an unusual way of violating a
rabbinic prohibition. Is this permitted? Hillel said to them: I once heard this halakha but I have
forgotten it. But leave it to the Jewish people and rely on them to come up with a solution on
their own, for if they are not prophets, they are the sons of prophets.

With regard to the incident with Hillel, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Anyone who acts
haughtily, if he is a Torah scholar, his wisdom departs from him; and if he is a prophet, his
prophecy departs from him.

The Gemara explains: That if he is a Torah scholar, his wisdom departs from him is learned
from Hillel, for the Master said in this baraita: Hillel began to rebuke them with words.
Because he acted haughtily, he ended up saying to them: I once heard this halakha, but I have
forgotten it, as he was punished for his haughtiness by forgetting the law.

That if he is a prophet his prophecy departs from him is learned from Deborah, as it is written:
“The villagers ceased, they ceased in Israel, until I, Deborah, arose, I arose a mother in
Israel” (Judges 5:7). For these words of self-glorification, Deborah was punished with a loss of
her prophetic spirit, as it is written later that it was necessary to say to her: “Awake, awake,
Deborah; awake, awake, utter a song” (Judges 5:12), because her prophecy had left her.

12
PERFORMING "HAZA'AH" ON SHABBOS IN ORDER TO EAT
THE KORBAN PESACH

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:1

In our Mishnah (65b), Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Akiva argue whether one may carry the Korban
Pesach through Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos in order to bring it to the Azarah. They also argue
whether one may cut off a wart from the Korban Pesach in order to make it valid. Rebbi Akiva
prohibits these actions, based on the principle that any action that could have been done for the
Korban Pesach prior to Shabbos may not be done on Shabbos. These two acts could have been
done prior to Shabbos.

Rebbi Akiva also prohibits performing Haza'ah on Shabbos for a person who is Tamei with Tum'as
Mes, when the seventh day of his purification process coincides with Shabbos Erev Pesach, and
he needs Haza'ah in order to eat the Korban Pesach that night. Why is Haza'ah prohibited in this
case? The Haza'ah could not have been done prior to Shabbos, because Haza'ah may not be done
before the seventh day of the purification process.

Why does Rebbi Akiva prohibit Haza'ah on Shabbos Erev Pesach?

RASHI (DH Havah Li) says (as the MAHARSHA understands his words) that only an action
which is an essential part of the Korban Pesach overrides Shabbos in the same way that the offering
of the Korban Pesach itself overrides Shabbos. The fact that an act could have been done before
Shabbos shows that it is not an essential part of the Korban Pesach, and therefore it does not
override Shabbos. Haza'ah, even though it cannot be done before the seventh day of the purification
process, is not a part of the Korban Pesach itself. It is a stage in the purification process of
the person who is Tamei, and it just happens to make him fit to eat the Korban Pesach. Therefore,
Rebbi Akiva prohibits Haza'ah on Shabbos.

RASHASH cites the Yerushalmi (Pesachim 6:4) that proposes a similar reasoning. What is the
Halachah in a case in which the Korban Pesach develops a removable blemish on Erev Pesach that
falls on Shabbos? Obviously, the blemish could not have been removed before Erev Pesach,
because it did not yet exist. Is one permitted to remove the blemish on Shabbos Erev Pesach? The
Yerushalmi states that one is not permitted to remove the blemish. Just as a blemish that appears
before Erev Pesach may not be cut off on Shabbos Erev Pesach, so, too, a blemish that appears on
Shabbos Erev Pesach may not be cut off. The removal of the blemish is not an intrinsic part of the
Avodah of the Korban Pesach, since the blemish could have appeared, and been removed, before
Erev Pesach.

1
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/pesachim/insites/ps-dt-066.htm

13
Similarly, the Yerushalmi concludes with regard to Haza'ah that even if it happens that the seventh
day of a person's purification process falls on Erev Pesach which is also Shabbos, the Haza'ah may
not be done, because it could have just as well occurred on the day before Erev Pesach (in which
case it certainly would have been prohibited on Shabbos, since it could have been done the day
before). The Haza'ah may not be done on Shabbos Erev Pesach because it is not part of the Avodah
of the Korban Pesach, since, under other circumstances, it could be done before Erev Pesach.

Rambam Hil Korban Pesach 6:6

When the seventh day of the purification process of one who became impure due to contact with a
human corpse falls on the Sabbath, the ashes of the Red Heifer are not sprinkled upon him until
the following day. Even if his seventh day falls on the thirteenth of Nisan which is a Sabbath, the
sprinkling of the ashes should be postponed until the fourteenth. The ashes should be sprinkled
upon him, but the Paschal sacrifice should not be slaughtered on his behalf, as we explained.
Instead, his offering is postponed and he brings the second Paschal sacrifice.

One might argue: The prohibition against sprinkling the ashes on the Sabbath was instituted as
a shvut and the failure to bring the Paschal sacrifice is punishable by karet. How then could the
Sages uphold their prohibition in the face of a prohibition punishable by karet? In resolution, it
can be explained that the day on which he is forbidden to have the ashes sprinkled upon him is not
the time when the sacrifice punishable by karet is obligated to be brought. Therefore, they upheld
their words as instituted, even though this matter will lead to it having to stand in a place
punishable by karet.

RAMBAM (Hilchos Korban Pesach 6:6) above, has an entirely different approach to the Mishnah.
The Rambam writes that if the seventh day of a person's purification process coincides with Erev
Pesach, he may not undergo Haza'ah in order to permit him to eat the Korban even if it
is not Shabbos. Since he is Tamei during the day on which the Korban is offered, he is disqualified
from eating the meat of the Korban at night, whether or not he underwent Haza'ah.

14
According to the Rambam, what does the Mishnah mean when it says that if Erev Pesach occurs
on Shabbos, Haza'ah may not be done? The Rambam explains that the Mishnah refers to a case in
which the thirteenth of Nisan occurs on Shabbos, and the following day is Erev Pesach. The
Mishnah teaches that even though he will not be able to eat the Korban the following night if he
does not undergo Haza'ah on the thirteenth (since Haza'ah cannot be done on Erev Pesach, as the
Rambam maintains), he still is prohibited from doing Haza'ah on the thirteenth, since Haza'ah does
not override Shabbos.

Even though the lack of Haza'ah prevents him from offering the Korban, the Rambam explains
that the Chachamim did not permit Haza'ah on Shabbos (the thirteenth of Nisan), because it is not
the day on which the Korban is actually offered. Accordingly, Haza'ah is exactly like the case of
cutting off the removable blemish. In that case, the removal of the blemish is prohibited on
Shabbos, since it could have been done before Shabbos. In the case of Haza'ah, Haza'ah is
prohibited on Shabbos because it could be done after Shabbos, on Erev Pesach. (Even though, in
practice, Haza'ah on Erev Pesach will not enable him to eat the Korban Pesach, when we determine
what one may do today (on Shabbos), we do not take into account what will happen tomorrow.
One may desecrate Shabbos for the sake of Haza'ah only if the Haza'ah on Shabbos actually
benefits him.)

Does the Paschal Lamb Override Shabbat?

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:2

The sixth Perek of Massekhet Pesahim focuses on the occasional occurrence

of erev Pesah she’hal lehiyot be-Shabbat – when Passover falls out on Sunday and the
sacrifice needs to be brought on Shabbat. Which activities are considered essential for
thekorban Pesah to the extent that they “push aside” the restrictions of Shabbat, and
which should be left to be done when Shabbat ends? The Mishna (65b-66a) presents the
basic rules (e.g. slaughtering the korban is permitted on Shabbat, but roasting it should
be left for after Shabbat), including the general principle taught by Rabbi Akiva, that
any melakha that is an essential part of the sacrifice that cannot be done before (or
after Shabbat) will, in fact, be permitted.

To illustrate the confusion with regard to this halakha, the Gemara quotes a baraita that
tells how Benei Beteira had forgotten the rule that the Pesah sacrifice is brought even
on Shabbat.

The Benei Beteira appear to have been the ancestors of a well-known rabbinic family,
including, for example, the sage Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, who lived several generations
after the destruction of the Temple. It appears that this family held a position of national

2
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/pesahim66/

15
religious and spiritual authority, even though they did not have an official position as
did the family of the Nasi. We find that they are consulted on matters of national
importance not only during Hillel’s time, but after the destruction of the Temple
during Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai’s time, as well.

Faced with this uncertainty, the Benei Beteira sought out someone who had a tradition
about this situation.

They said to them: There is a certain man in Jerusalem who came up from Babylonia,
and Hillel the Babylonian is his name. At one point, he served the
two most eminent scholars of the generation, Shemaya and Avtalyon, and he
certainly knows whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not. The sons of
Beteira sent messengers and called for him.

They said to him: Do you know whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not? He
said to them: Have we but one Paschal lamb during the year that overrides Shabbat?
Do we not have many more than two hundred Paschal lambs, i.e. sacrifices, during the
year that override Shabbat?

Hillel ruled that the Pesah sacrifice is brought on Shabbat, just as the
daily korban tamid is brought on Shabbat, by pointing out that a similar word be-
mo’ado appears in the Torah with regard to each of them (see Num 9:2 and 28:2). After
Hillel brought the proofs for this ruling, he was immediately given the position of Nasi.

The Jerusalem Talmud asks why this halakha had been forgotten, after all, was it so
uncommon to have erev Pesah fall out on Shabbat? Several answers are given to this
question:

The answer that appears in the Jerusalem Talmud is that miraculously the two dates had
not coincided in years so that Hillel would be given the opportunity to gain prominence.

Another approach suggests that the years of Sadducee control of the Temple left many
areas of Jewish law in question.

Rabbi Carl Perkins writes:3

As we’ve seen throughout this tractate, the 14th of Nisan, Erev Passover, is no
ordinary day. It’s neither a regular weekday nor a festival: it’s the day devoted to

3
Myjewishlearning.com

16
preparing for Passover. In the morning, all of one’s hametz is to be removed and burnt;
by afternoon, only unleavened food may be eaten. Back when the Temple stood, Jews
would gather in the Temple courts to slaughter their paschal lambs.

When the day before Passover falls out on Shabbat, questions arise: can all the normal
procedures for preparing the paschal lamb — transporting it to the Temple, slaughtering
it, roasting it and preparing to eat it — still be performed even though these activities
normally violate Shabbat? How does one square the circle of being commanded to offer
the paschal lamb and also being commanded to observe the Sabbath?

The Gemara on today’s daf offers a compelling story to demonstrate that this question
stumped even experts in the days of the Temple. I can remember exactly where I was
when I first encountered this story, almost fifty years ago, because it opened my eyes to
the delights of moralistic rabbinic storytelling.

It begins like this: when the sons of Beteira (leaders in their generation) forget whether
one can offer the paschal lamb when Erev Passover coincides with Shabbat, they ask
around and are informed that one man might be able to answer: “a certain person
who immigrated from Babylonia named Hillel the Babylonian.” They immediately
send for this new, foreign expert.

Of course, Hillel is now known to us as one of the most famous sages of all time, full of
wisdom and empathy. In this story, however, he’s relatively new and unknown. While we
might have expected him to give a pithy response, Hillel instead responds in the
proverbially Jewish fashion by answering a question with a question:

And do we have only one paschal sacrifice during the year that overrides
Shabbat? We have more than 200 “paschal sacrifices” throughout the year
that override Shabbat!

Like the paschal offering, the daily Temple offering (known as the tamid) was also a
yearling lamb. Hillel then uses a gezerah shavah, a verbal analogy between two texts to
prove that just as the tamid, which the Torah says is given “in its appointed time,”
(Numbers 28:2) overrides Shabbat — so too the paschal offering, which also is given “in
its appointed time” (Numbers 9:2) overrides Shabbat.

How brilliant! As if it weren’t dazzling enough to both know the correct answer and offer
scriptural proof, Hillel gives another proof in the form of a kal va’chomer (a fortiori)
argument: since the tamid, which is not punishable by karet (premature death) overrides
Shabbat, surely the paschal offering, which is punishable by karet (and therefore is more
significant) must override Shabbat. His exposition is so erudite that:

Immediately, they appointed Hillel the Nasi (the head of their Sanhedrin) and
throughout the day, he taught them the laws of Passover.

17
Demonstrating one’s brilliance has its rewards! But now, there’s a sharp turning point in
the story:

Then, Hillel began rebuking and demeaning them (for their forgetfulness).

They asked him a specific question: What if a Jew forgot to bring the
slaughtering knife with him on the eve of Shabbat — what is to be done?

Hillel responded: I once learned this law, but I’ve forgotten it.

But, he continued, leave it to the Jewish people — if they’re not prophets,

they’re the children of prophets.

So, the next day (the 14th of Nisan), what did they see? Jews who were
bringing lambs to be slaughtered brought the knives stuck in their lamb’s
wool; those bringing goats stuck them between their goat’s horns.

When Hillel saw this, it jarred his memory, and he said: This is the tradition I
received from my teachers.

Even the great Hillel, known for being slow to anger, when suddenly elevated from
relative unknown to head of the Sanhedrin was susceptible to not only losing his temper
but succumbing to arrogant rudeness. And what happens when he does this? He forgets
his learning. The very flaw that he criticized in the people became his own.

And from whom does Hillel relearn the law that he had forgotten? ordinary Jews. In
this case, they show him that if one forgets to deposit a slaughtering knife at the Temple
ahead of time, one can tangle the knife in the animal’s wool or horns in order to avoid
violating the Shabbat prohibition of carrying.

As important as it is to hear the law expounded by our scholars and teachers, there is
wisdom to be gleaned from the behavior of ordinary Jews — even for the best of those
teachers. Hillel was not immune to the corruption of power, but at least he didn’t forget
this fundamental truth.

18
Our daf informed us of the famous method of Hillel, whose idea helped everyone to avoid ever
being in violation of transgressing against private usage of an Olah. The suggestion was not to
declare an animal as consecrated until it was brought into the courtyard of the Mikdash.4

Only at that moment would the owner declare it to be holy, and he would immediately place his
hands upon the animal (‫( סמיכה‬and do the ‫ שחיטה‬.

This was a wonderful idea, and it allowed no time for accidental personal use of an animal that
was to be used as an offering. The only problem was if erev Pesach fell on Shabbos, where the
Gemara suggests this same method be used. However, asks the Gemara, how could this be
effective? It is prohibited to declare an item as consecrated on Shabbos!

The Gemara answers that in this case specifically, because the Korban Pesach is an offering which
is fixed in time, it is allowed. Sfas Emes notes that in its question, the Gemara finds it difficult
how an animal for a Korban Pesach could become ‫ הקדש‬on Shabbos. There seems to be a simple
solution which the Gemara does not suggest. Why can we not be speaking of a case where the
person declared this animal to be a Korban Pesach on Friday, but where he stipulated that the
actual consecration not be effective until Shabbos when he enters the courtyard? In fact, the
Gemara (Nedarim 29a) says that such a statement is binding.

This seems to solve everything. The animal can walk to the ‫ עזרה‬with the knife placed in its fur
or horns, because at that moment it is an unusual manner of carrying, and the animal is still ‫חולין‬.
As the animal enters the courtyard it becomes consecrated, so we also avert the problem of ‫בעזרה‬
‫חולין‬.

Sfas Emes answers that this is still in the realm of being rabbinically prohibited, for it is as if he
declared it to be holy during Shabbos. This still mimics a business transaction, as the animal
transfers from the private to the holy domain due to his declaration.

This can resolve a query proposed by Rabbi Akiva Eiger (#159) whether before Shabbos one may
set in motion a condition for ‫ הקדש‬to apply on Shabbos.

The statement was made before Shabbos, but the effect occurs on Shabbos. R’ Akiva Eiger
concludes, as we have found, that such a situation is unacceptable.

A Humble Lesson for Hillel

Rabbi Jay Kelman writes:5

4
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Pesachim%20066.pdf
5
https://www.torahinmotion.org/discussions-and-blogs/pesachim-66a-humble-lesson-hillel

19
While Korbanot tzibbur, public offerings, were sacrificed on Shabbat and Yom Tov--and serve as
the basis for our davening mussaf on these days--private sacrifices were not.

Similar to a public offering, the korban pesach was brought at a fixed time. On the other hand, the
obligation to bring such rests on the individual, leading to uncertainty as to whether it may be
brought on Shabbat.

"This law escaped the B'nei Betirah; one time, the 14th [of Nissan] fell on a Shabbat, and they
forgot and did not know if the Pesach sacrifice overrides the Shabbat. Is there anyone who knows
if the Pesach [sacrifice] overrides Shabbat or not?" (Pesachim 66a).

It must have been many years since erev Pesach had fallen on Shabbat, and no one recalled the
correct practice. While many today find a Shabbat erev Pesach inconvenient, during Temple times,
the inconvenience was even greater; and the Sanhedrin tried to avoid such an eventuality--
something that was much easier to do with a non-fixed calendar.

"They said to them, there is a person who made aliyah from Bavel--and Hillel the Bavli is his
name--who served the two giants of the generation, Shemaya and Avtalyon, and he knows if Pesach
overrides Shabbat".
Hillel, through a careful analysis of the biblical text, demonstrated that yes, indeed, the korban
pesach may and must be brought on Shabbat. The B'nei Betirah, leaders of the Sanhedrin,
immediately resigned, insisting Hillel become the Nasi, the President of the Sanhedrin.

Upon his appointment, he rebuked them, declaring, "What caused for you that I should come from
Bavel and become the Nasi over you? The laziness that you exhibited when you did not serve the
two giants of the generation, Shemaya and Avtalyon".

The B'nei Betirah displayed great insight and humility in resigning their posts. They recognized
that they were not quite up to the task of religious leadership-perhaps even that they really were
lazy, and did not properly serve their mentors. While a religious leader can't know everything, to
be paralyzed into action over a question that is easily foreseeable is a sign of weak leadership. To
their great credit, they recognized such and immediately, even eagerly, stepped aside so that Hillel
could become the Nasi. Such, ironically, are the character traits we should seek in our leaders.

Hillel's critique was thus unnecessary, and even insensitive. As he was appointed, Hillel was asked,
"What if one forgot, and did not bring the knife on erev Shabbat? What would be the law?"6 and,
measure for measure, Hillel responded, "This law I heard, but I forgot".

The Talmud simply notes, "Whoever displays arrogance, if he is wise, his wisdom will depart from
him" (ibid 66b).

Hillel learned his lesson well. "A person should always be as humble as Hillel" (Shabbat 30b),
and story after story is told of his great patience, humility, and simplicity. "And why does the law

6
While the slaughtering of the korban pesach can only be done on the eve of Passover, the knife for slaughtering could be brought
to the Temple beforehand--thus obviating the need for carrying in a public domain on Shabbat.

20
follow the ruling of Beit Hillel? Because they were pleasant and humble, and taught their
views and the views of Beit Shammai" (Eiruvin 13b).

Hillel both taught and inspired his students to lives of great humility. And thus, a "heavenly voice"
declared, the law is in accordance with Beit Hillel.

The First Day of Hillel's Career

Rav Yitzchak Blau writes:7

Our Rabbis taught: This halakha was forgotten by the sons of Beteira (the family
of the patriarchs of the supreme Rabbinical court). One time, the fourteenth of
Nissan fell on a Shabbat. They forgot whether or not the service of the Pesach
offering overrides the Shabbat. They said: "Does anyone know if Pesach
overrides Shabbat?"

They said to them: "A man came up from Babylon by the name of Hillel ha-Bavli.
He attended upon the great sages of our generation, Shemaya and Avtalyon, and
he knows if Pesach overrides Shabbat."

They sent for him and asked him: "Do you know if Pesach overrides the
Shabbat?"

He said to them: "Does only one Pesach offering a year override Shabbat? Is it
not the case that more than two hundred Pesach[-like] offerings a year override
the Shabbat?" …

They immediately sat him at the head and appointed him to be the patriarch. He
was expounding all day about the laws of Pesach. He began to vex them with
words. He said to them: "What caused this to you, that I came up from Babylon
and became the patriarch? Your laziness, that you did not attend upon the great
sages of our generation, Shemaya and Avtalyon."

7
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/first-day-hillels-career

21
 They said to him: "Rebbe, if one forgets to bring the knife (for the paschal
offering) on Friday, what is the law?"

He said to them: "This halakha I heard and forgot. Rather, leave the Jewish
people be. If they are not prophets, they are the children of prophets."

The next day, those whose Pesach offering was a sheep, inserted the knife in the
wool. Those whose Pesach offering was a kid inserted the knife between the
horns. Hillel saw the deed and remembered the law. He said: "This is as I
received from Shemaya and Avtalyon." (Pesachim 66a)

R. Yehuda said in the name of Rav: "If a scholar acts arrogantly, his wisdom
departs from him…." From where do we know this? From Hillel. (Pesachim 66b)

Let us begin with the relatively minor issue of chronology. Shemaya and Avtalyon taught Torah
in Israel, and so Hillel could have been their student only if he had moved to Israel from Babylon
long before this episode. However, this story implies that he had only recently moved from
Babylon. A number of commentaries therefore suggest that Hillel made two trips from Babylon.
He initially traveled to Israel to learn from the great teachers of his time, Shemaya and Avtalyon.
Later, after years of learning, he returned to his place of birth, perhaps to teach his old community,
only to move back to Israel just before this story occurs.

Hillel's impressive effort to hear the words of Torah from the finest teachers of his time gives
added meaning to his harsh admonition of the local Israeli population (note Maharsha's
understanding that his words of vexation addressed all the learned locals, and not just the sons of
Beteira). Hillel left the comforts of his hometown and made the difficult trek to another land to
hear Torah at its finest. The local population of rabbinic students, on the other hand, had somehow
missed the wonderful opportunity that presented itself in their own back yard.

Of course, Hillel's harsh demeanor surprises us. The Talmudic paragon of humility here errs in a
most arrogant way and immediately receives his comeuppance. This does not reflect the Hillel we
have grown accustomed to learning about. R. Yaakov Reisher, in his Iyyun Yaakov, explains that
Hillel had very good intentions in administering this reproach. Sometimes a well-placed jibe can
spur others on to greater educational success; for example, a student might remark to his chavruta,

22
"Had you come to seder on time, maybe you would have understood the material!" Hillel intended
such a result, but erred nonetheless. His noble intentions notwithstanding, his comment came
across as arrogant and self-aggrandizing, and Hillel temporarily lost his wisdom as a result.

The idea that the arrogant person loses his wisdom can be explained in either metaphysical or
naturalistic terms. The metaphysical approach would explain, quite simply, that Hashem
intervenes to remove the haughty person's wisdom as punishment for his hubris. Alternatively, the
boastful fellow will not put in the time and effort needed to arrive at proper conclusions. Assuming
that one knows everything often stifles his pursuit of knowledge. Hillel stumbled in this regard
and as a result, he could not answer a follow-up question.

The oddity of finding Hillel making a mistake in the area of haughtiness may be the point of the
entire story. Hillel eventually becomes the paradigm of humility, able to hear several foolish
questions late on a Friday afternoon without feeling that his honor has been affronted. The gemara
wanted us to know that Hillel did not begin his career as a perfectly humble individual. On the
contrary, he displayed gratuitous arrogance during his first week on the job. However, the ease
with which he admitted his lapse in knowledge and the good-natured way in which he turned to
communal practice for guidance foreshadowed the great strides he would subsequently make in
this area.

In an important letter, Rav Yitzchak Hutner (Pachad Yitzchak Iggerot, p. 217) faults us for talking
about the great sages only at the height of their achievement, ignoring the struggles they endured
in arriving at loftier heights. He writes of one of the saintliest men of the twentieth century:
"Everyone talks about, is amazed by, and places on a pedestal the purity of speech of the Chafetz
Chayim zt"l. But who knows about the battles, struggles, stumbles, losses and retreats that
the Chafetz Chayim experienced along the path of his war with his evil inclination?"

R. Hutner explains the educational fallout from our approach. Any student who struggles in a
religious matter immediately assumes that he or she has no potential for great achievements, as the
models of greatness seem to never have dealt with such difficulties. An honest approach, which
maintains reverence for the sages while recognizing that they were not excellent from birth, would
help our students understand that struggles and failures are part of the arduous path to success.

23
I often think about these ideas when I glance at contemporary rabbinic biographies that rarely talk
about the difficulties and errors of their heroes, and instead portray them as saintly from the cradle.
How different such works are from the portrait of great individuals in Tanakh andChazal! These
books fail on three levels. On a most basic level, they are simply inaccurate. Secondly, as R. Hutner
argues, these books set a standard that gives readers the wrong idea and encourages such readers
to feel excessive negativity about their own shortcomings. Finally, these works ultimately
shortchange the gedolim, as well, as they make greatness a right of birth more than the product of
years of arduous work that includes the ability to overcome mistakes and failures.

Hillel kicked off his career with great drama, solving a national halakhic problem just before
Pesach. The excitement of the moment temporarily bolstered his sense of pride and achievement,
and he uttered a condescending remark to those who sought his expertise. However, he soon
righted himself and became our enduring model of humility. May we all have similar success in
correcting the areas of our religious lives in need of improvement.

‫בני בתירא‬
BATHYRA, SONS OF

BATHYRA, SONS OF were members of a famous Jewish family who were prominent from the

first century b.c.e. to the second century c.e. Some scholars conjecture that the family was named

after the city of Bathyra in northern Transjordan. It is inferred from talmudic sources that members

of this family were the religious authorities of their time, but that when Hillel demonstrated his

superior knowledge of Torah (on the question of whether the paschal offering overrides the

Sabbath) "they set him at their head and appointed him nasi over them" (TJ, Kil. 9:4, 32b; Pes.

66a; bm 85a). As a result of this abdication they were regarded exemplars of humility; Judah ha-

Nasi said of them "whatever I am bidden I am prepared to do except what the Elders of Bathyra

did for my ancestor (Hillel), namely abdicating from their high office in order to elevate him" (tj,

Ket. 12:3, 35a). The talmudic sources do not specify their names. According to the Jerusalem

24
Talmud they were nesi'im. In other talmudic sources, while they were not specifically designated

as such, it is implied that they held the patriarchate before Hillel was appointed. According to

Halevy, the Sons of Bathyra carried out the functions of the patriarchate when the Sanhedrin was

not functioning (possibly at the beginning of Herod's rule). Apparently members of this family

exercised influence even after the destruction of the Temple, when the Sanhedrin was in Jabneh.

Johanan b. Zakkai was said to have consulted the Sons of Bathyra in regard to certain legal rulings.

A number of tannaim known by this patronymic, e.g., Judah b. Bathyra, Joshua b. Bathyra, and

Simeon b. Bathyra, presumably belonged to this family.

Bnei Bathyra (Hebrew: ‫בני בתירא‬, lit. "The Sons of Bathyra"; Also referred to in the Jerusalem
Talmud as ‫זקני בתירא‬, lit. "The Elders of Bathyra") were a family of Jewish sages who were
religious leaders around the period of the Destruction of the Second Temple. This family is known
for its many important Jewish Sages over the course of several generations. Some tannaim are
considered to belong to this family; the best known of these is Judah ben Bathyra, who resided
in Nusaybin west to Babylon.
According to Heinrich Graetz, the family is named after the city Batira (‫)בטירא‬, near Mount
Hermon, which was settled by Herod and gave its name to the settlers. However, others disagree
with this assessment, as the story involving the family and Hillel the Elder (in which the family is
already established as leaders in Jerusalem) takes place near the beginning of Herod's reign,
leading to a chronological difficulty.

According to the Talmud, in about 30 BCE they served as leaders of the Sanhedrin. However, they
were unable to remember the law regarding whether the Passover sacrifice is offered when the
14th of Nisan falls out on Shabbat. Hillel the Elder was able to answer the question for them, and
as a result they were demoted from their position and Hillel took their place.[3] As two brothers
were not allowed to serve on the Sanhedrin at the same time, this suggests that the phrase "Sons
of Bathyra" was not apatronymic, but a family name (nomen gentilicium).
About 100 years later, the sons of Bathyra are recorded disputing with Johanan ben
Zakkai whether the shofar should be blown when Rosh Hashana falls on Shabbat. Since this takes
place about 100 years after the story involving Hillel, the sons of Bathyra mentioned here must

25
have been descendants of the earlier leaders of the Sanhedrin, who probably still retained some of
their ancestors' reputation.

http://www.antiquities.org.il/survey/new/default_en.aspx

BATHYRA , place in the toparchy of Batanea (i.e.,*Bashan, east of Golan) founded by Jewish
military settlers from Babylonia. Desirous of defending his borders from attacks by the
neighboring Trachonites, Herod decided to settle a large number of Jews in the area of Bathyra
with the further intention that it would serve also as a base for his own military offensives. Upon
learning that Zamaris, a Jew from Babylon, had crossed the Euphrates with five hundred horsemen

26
and was staying near Antioch under the patronage of Saturninus, the governor of Syria, Herod
offered them the territory for the proposed buffer-zone, promising to rescind all taxes and tributes.
The Babylonians took possession of the land, building fortresses and a village named Bathyra. The
settlers defended not only the local population from Trachonite brigandage, but also Jewish
pilgrims from Babylonia on their way to Jerusalem.

The family of Zamaris became a major ally of Herod, supporting his policies as well as those of
the two Agrippas. Although Bathyra remained their base, members of the family also resided
throughout the neighboring territories. Relatives of Philip, grandson of Zamaris, were among the
prominent residents of Gamala at the beginning of the Roman War (66 c.e.). Philip played a vital
if somewhat ambiguous part during that uprising, as well as in the events in Jerusalem on the eve
of the outbreak of the war in 66. It was his task to secure Batanea from insurrection against Agrippa
ii and the Romans. Numerous scholars have made the connection between Bathyra and the rabbis
referred to in the Talmud as "the sons of *Bathyra," who held high offices in Jerusalem until they
were superseded by Hillel. However, it is improbable that there was any connection between the
warriors of Bathyra and the rabbinical "sons of Bathyra."

Philip and the Establishment of the Tetrarchy of Northern Transjordan –

After the death of Herod (4 BCE) his kingdom was divided between his three surviving sons.
Northern Transjordan fell to Philip (Ant. 16, 189, 318–219; War 2, 95). Only the Hellenistic city
of Sussita, which was annexed in 30 BCE to Herod's kingdom, was torn from his kingdom and
annexed to Provincia Syria (Ant. 17, 320; War 2, 97). Philip's tetrarchy covered an extensive area
and included the Golan, the area of Paneas, the Bashan, the Hauran and Trachonitis. The
population was varied.

The western part, in the Golan Heights, was already settled with Itureans, Jews and Syrians. Part
of the Bashan was settled with the Babylonian Jews who were concentrated in the military colony
of Batira and the surrounding villages. The eastern regions – the Hauran, Bashan and Trachonitis,
were populated by Syrians – Arameans and Arabs, who were in the midst of sedentarization. The
lack of security in the region until the time of Herod was replaced with stability and tranquility
that persisted for more than a hundred years.

27