Daf Ditty 61: Arel and Pesach

1

2

MISHNA: If one slaughtered the Paschal lamb for people who cannot eat it or for those who did not register in advance to eat it, or if one slaughtered it for people who are uncircumcised or for those who are ritually impure, whom the prohibits from eating the Paschal lamb, it is disqualified. However, if one slaughtered it for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it; for those who have registered for it and for those who have not registered for it; for the circumcised and for the uncircumcised; for the ritually impure and for the ritually pure, it is valid, for a partially invalid intent does not disqualify the offering.

3

If one slaughtered the Paschal lamb before midday it is disqualified, as it is stated:

4 and ye shall keep it unto the fourteenth day of the 6 ו הָיָהְו םֶכָל ,תֶרֶמְשִׁמְל דַﬠ הָﬠָבְּרַא רָשָׂﬠ רָשָׂﬠ הָﬠָבְּרַא דַﬠ ,תֶרֶמְשִׁמְל םֶכָל הָיָהְו same month; and the whole assembly of the םוֹי חַל דֹ שֶׁ ַה ;הֶזּ חָשְׁ ו וּטֲ ,וֹתֹא לֹכּ הְק לַ לַ הְק לֹכּ ,וֹתֹא וּטֲ חָשְׁ ו ;הֶ זּ ַה שֶׁ דֹ חַל םוֹי .congregation of shall kill it at dusk דֲﬠ תַ - לֵאָרְשִׂי -- ןיֵבּ .םִיָבְּרַﬠָה ןיֵבּ Ex 12:6

“And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it in the afternoon”

If he slaughtered it before the daily afternoon offering it is valid, as long as another person stirs its blood in order to prevent it from congealing until the blood of the daily offering is sprinkled. And if the blood of the Paschal lamb is sprinkled before the blood of the daily offering, it is nonetheless valid, as this change does not disqualify the offering.

5

GEMARA: The Sages taught in the : How so the case of slaughtering the Paschal lamb for those who cannot eat it? It is a case where one slaughtered it for the sake of a sick person or for the sake of an old person who is unable to eat even an olive-sized portion of the Paschal lamb. How so the case of slaughtering the Paschal lamb for those who did not register for it? It is a case where one group registered for it, and one slaughtered it for the sake of a different group.

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, which are not explicitly written in the Torah, derived? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught with regard to the verse:

and if the household be too little for a lamb, then shall he 4 ד םִאְו - טַﬠְמִי ,תִיַבַּה תוֹיְהִמ הֶשִּׂמ -- and his neighbour next unto his house take one according to ְו חַקָל אוּה וֹנֵכְשׁוּ בֹרָקַּה לֶא - ,וֹתיֵבּ ,וֹתיֵבּ

6 the number of the souls; according to every man's eating ye תַסְכִמְבּ :תֹשָׁפְנ שׁיִא יִפְל ,וֹלְכָא וּסֹּכָתּ וּסֹּכָתּ ,וֹלְכָא .shall make your count for the lamb לַﬠ - .הֶשַּׂה

Ex 12:4

“And if the household be too little for a lamb, then he and his neighbor who is close to his house shall take one according to the number of the souls; according to every man’s eating you shall make your count for the lamb”

“According to the number of” teaches that the Paschal lamb is slaughtered only for those who have registered for it.

Everything is done according to the number of people who have registered before the slaughtering.

I might have thought that if he slaughtered it for those who did not register for it, he would be considered as one who has violated a commandment, but nonetheless the offering would be valid after the fact.

Therefore, the Torah teaches this law with the double formulation of “according to the number” and “you shall make your count”; the verse repeated it to make this requirement indispensable, so that the offering is disqualified if it is slaughtered for those who did not register for it.

7

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The term “you shall make your count [takhosu]” is Aramaic [Sursi], like one who says to his fellow: Slaughter [kos] me this lamb, to teach that the registration must take place before the slaughtering.

RASHI

Jastrow

8

Tosafos

'סות ה"ד יבר רמוא ןושל יסרוס אוה הז ו ירס ול מא ב " 'ו

Tosfos maintains that Rebbi is coming to explain the Tana Kama, not to argue with him.

י"רוא , יברד אל גילפ ,ק"ת'א הדומו אכיאד אבוכיע וילכואב ,ויונמו וניאו אלא שרפמ ,וירבד אלד ילספ וילכוא ויונמו ויונמו וילכוא ילספ אלד ,וירבד שרפמ אלא וניאו ,ויונמו וילכואב אבוכיע אכיאד הדומו ,ק"ת'א גילפ אל יברד , אלא יחשב הט . טיש ל

The Ri explains that Rebbi is not coming to argue with the Tana Kama. He concedes that Ochlav and Menuyav are crucial to the , and he is merely explaining his words, to teach us that Ochlav and Menuyav only invalidate the Korban by the Shechitah.

ו ןכ עמשמ דציכב ילוצ ן 'ד( ):חע קיסמד בר רמאד הליכא אל יבכעמ יברכ ןתנ , אלו רמאק 'רכ - יהו י נ ו םושמ ישורפלד שרל ומ ה אתא פדכ י ' . ד ת

And this is also implied in 'Keitzad Tzolin' (Daf 78:) where Rav concludes that Achilah is not crucial, like Rebbi Nasan, not like Rebbi - and this is because he (Rebbi is coming to explain, as we just explained).

9

10

We have found a source for the that a Paschal lamb slaughtered for those who have not registered for it is disqualified. But from where do we derive the halakha that it is similarly disqualified if it is slaughtered for those who cannot eat it?

The Gemara answers that the verse says: “According to every man’s eating you shall make your count”; those who eat it are juxtaposed, and thereby equated, to those who are registered for it. This teaches that just as the offering is disqualified if it is slaughtered for those who did not register for it, it is likewise disqualified if it is slaughtered for those who cannot eat it.

11

If one slaughtered the Paschal lamb for people who are circumcised on condition that uncircumcised people achieve atonement through the sprinkling of its blood, i.e., although the uncircumcised people are prohibited from eating the Paschal lamb, it was his intention that they achieve atonement through the blood of the offering, Rav Ḥisda said: The offering is disqualified.

Rabba said: It is valid. The Gemara explains: Rav Ḥisda said it is disqualified because intent that the offering should be for uncircumcised people has sufficient force to disqualify the offering at the time of the sprinkling.

Rabba said that it is valid because intent that the offering should be for uncircumcised people can only disqualify the offering during the slaughter and not during the sprinkling.

12

Rabba said: From where do I derive to say this halakha? As it was taught in a baraita: I might have thought that an uncircumcised person would disqualify the other fit members of the group who come with him. And it may be inferred logically to the contrary that he does not disqualify the others: Since lack of circumcision disqualifies a Paschal lamb slaughtered for that person, and similarly, ritual impurity disqualifies it, the following can be said: Just as with ritual impurity, partial impurity was not made to be like full impurity, meaning that if one member of the group for which the offering is slaughtered is ritually impure, the offering is not disqualified for the entire group, so too, with lack of circumcision; partial lack of circumcision was not made to be like full lack of circumcision, meaning that if one member of the group is uncircumcised, the offering is not disqualified as it would be if all members of the group were uncircumcised.

13

Summary

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

If he slaughtered the korban pesach for those who cannot eat it or for those who were not registered for it, for uncircumcised or for tamei people, it is disqualified. If he slaughtered it for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, for those who were registered and for those who were not registered for it, for those who were circumcised and for those who were uncircumcised, for those who were tamei and for those who were tahor, it is valid. If he slaughtered it before midday, it is invalid, because “in the afternoon” is said in connection with it. If he slaughtered it before the afternoon tamid offering, it is valid, and he must stir its blood until he sprinkles the blood of the tamid.

The Gemora explains that the source for requiring membership in a group is the verse, “b’michsas,” implying a group. The source for people having to be able to eat it is from the following braisa: It is written: According to the number of people. This teaches us that the pesach offering is slaughtered only for those people who are registered for it. One might think that if it was slaughtered for those who were not registered for it, it should be regarded as one who violates the mitzvah, yet it is nevertheless valid. Therefore, it is written: You shall count. It is reiterated to

1 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Pesachim_61.pdf

14 teach us that it is essential. And the halachah pertaining to those who eat from the pesach offering are compared to the registrants (and therefore it should be essential to slaughter only for the people who may eat from it).

There is an argument regarding the law in a case where a person slaughtered the korban pesach for the sake of circumcised people, but sprinkled the blood for the sake of uncircumcised people.

Rabbah and Rav Chisda argue about this in the Gemora. The Gemora explains that they argue regarding a general question of whether or not an intention for uncircumcised people regarding the sprinkling of the blood is a thought that invalidates the korban during the sprinkling of the blood.

A KORBAN PESACH SLAUGHTERED FOR "ARELIM"

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:

Rabah and Rav Chisda argue about a case in which one slaughtered the Korban Pesach for circumcised men, who are fit to eat the Korban, with intention to perform the Zerikah for uncircumcised men (Arelim), who are unfit to eat the Korban.

RASHI (DH Shechato) writes that Arelim are unfit to eat the Korban Pesach regardless of whether or not they are Menuyin (appointed to eat from this Korban).

What does Rashi mean? If the Arelim are not appointed to eat from this Korban, then there is an additional problem other than the Shochet's intention to do the Zerikah for Arelim: the Shochet had intention to do the Zerikah for people who are not the owners of the Korban (a Machshavah of Shinuy Ba'alim). In such a case, even Rabah agrees that the Korban is invalid (61a, Rashi DH Aval and DH k'Mi she'Ein). A Machshavah of Shinuy Ba'alim cannot be the subject of the dispute between Rabah and Rav Chisda. (TOSFOS61a, DH Shechato)

The DEVAR SHMUEL answers that the Pesul of Shinuy Ba'alim does not apply in this case, because the Arelim for whom the Korban was slaughtered are not people for whom the Korban could be brought in the first place ("Bnei Kaparah"). The Gemara (62a)2 teaches that the Pesul of Shinuy Ba'alim applies only when one intends to bring the Korban for another person for whom the Korban may be brought.

The Pesul does not apply when one intends to bring the Korban for a person for whom the Korban may not be brought in the first place. In fact, the Gemara later (62a; see Rashi DH b'Hai Kra) quotes Rav Ashi who concludes that this is the reasoning behind the dispute between Rabah and Rav Chisda who argue whether the Korban Pesach is valid when it is slaughtered with intention to perform the Zerikah for Arelim.

2 see Rashi to 61a, DH v'Eino b'Tzibur

15 Although this answer explains the words of Rashi here, it raises a different question. Why does Rashi mention the conclusion of the Gemara at this point? The Gemara introduces that principle later because it rejects the first explanation of the dispute between Rabah and Rav Chisda. At this stage in the Gemara, though, why does Rashi need to mention that Rabah and Rav Chisda also argue about a case of Zerikah for Arelim who are not appointed to eat from the Korban? (The Devar Shmuel leaves this question unanswered.)

The answer may be that when Rav Ashi introduces his understanding of the dispute between Rabah and Rav Chisda, he does not preface his words with the statement, "Ela Hacha b'Mai Askinan," which would show that the Gemara changes the circumstances of the case in which Rabah and Rav Chisda argue.

It must be that Rav Ashi does not introduce any new circumstances for the case. The case in which Rabah and Rav Chisda argue remains a case of Zerikah for Arelim who are not appointed to eat from this Korban. However, in the earlier stage of the Gemara, the Gemara assumed that their dispute also applies to Arelim who are appointed to eat from this Korban.

AN "AREL" WHO CANNOT CIRCUMCISE HIMSELF

Rabah and Rav Chisda argue about a case in which one slaughtered the Korban Pesach with intention that it should atone for non-owners of the Korban who are Arelim (uncircumcised men). Rabah says that the Korban is valid, since a Machshavah that the Korban should atone for a non- owner who is not a Bar Kaparah -- who is ineligible to attain atonement from the Korban, such as an Arel -- does not invalidate the Korban. Rav Chisda argues that an Arel is a Bar Kaparah, because he could circumcise himself and become fit to attain atonement from the Korban. Only a person who is absolutely unfit to attain atonement from the Korban, such as a non-Jew, is excluded from the category of a Bar Kaparah.

RASHI (60a, DH l'Arelim, and 61b, DH Bnei Chaburah) writes that when the says that "if one slaughters the Korban for an Arel, it is Pasul," it refers to an Arel who is uncircumcised because his brothers died from Milah. Such a person is exempt from Milah because of the danger that Milah poses to his life.

Rashi is consistent with the way he defines "Arel" in other places in the Gemara (see, for example, Yevamos 70a, and Insights there). Whenever the Gemara discusses an Arel who is unable to eat from the Korban Pesach, Rashi explains that the Arel is one whose brothers died from Milah, as opposed to an Arel who chose to transgress and remain uncircumcised. Rashi defines "Arel" in this way because if the reason why the Arel did not have a Milah was due to his own choice, then he may not eat from the Korban Pesach for a different reason: He is a Mumar, one who rejects the Mitzvos, and a Mumar may not eat from the Korban Pesach (as the verse says, "Ben Nechar Lo Yochal Bo," Ex 12:43)

Rashi's explanation, however, is difficult in the context of the Gemara here. The Gemara says that an Arel is a Bar Kaparah because "if he wants, he could circumcise himself." According to Rashi's

16 explanation, he cannot choose to circumcise himself, because Milah poses a danger to his life (as his brothers died from Milah)! Consequently, he should not be considered a Bar Kaparah.3

(a) It is true that this Arel is not allowed to circumcise himself because of the danger that Milah poses to his life. However, if he does circumcise himself (or someone else cuts off his Orlah), he may eat from the Korban. He is considered to be a Bar Kaparah since it is in his power to circumcise himself, even though he will transgress the prohibition of "v'Nishmartem Me'od l'Nafshoseichem" (Devarim 4:15) if he does so.4

(b) Rashi earlier explains that the Arel who cannot eat from the Korban is one whose brothers died from Milah, because that is the only possible explanation there. In the case of who one slaughtered the Korban with intention to feed it to an Arel who chose not to circumcise himself, Rashi maintains that the Korban is valid. Since it is in the hands of the Arel to repent and circumcise himself before the time at which the Korban must be eaten, he is able to make himself fit to eat the Korban. For this reason, an Arel by choice is not considered unfit to eat the Korban (she'Lo l'Ochlav).

The case of the Gemara here is different. In this case, one slaughtered the Korban with intention to perform the Zerikah for Arelim who are not owners of the Korban (she'Lo l'Ba'alav). When one slaughters the Korban Pesach for a person who is not the owner, but who is entirely unfit to eat the Korban Pesach, this is not considered she'Lo l'Ba'alav and the Korban remains valid. The question of the Gemara is whether an Arel is also considered unfit to eat the Pesach since he is "Mechusar Ma'aseh" -- he lacks an action which must be done to him in order to make him fit to eat the Korban, or whether he is considered fit to eat the Korban since he may circumcise himself at will. This law certainly applies to a person who is an Arel by choice. Rashi understands that the Gemara here refers to such a person. Moreover, if one slaughters the Pesach for an Arel whose brothers died from Milah, the Korban certainly will be invalid (that is, even Rabah agrees that it is invalid), because such an Arel is not a Bar Kaparah since it is not in his ability to circumcise himself.

The Gemara discusses the case of one who slaughters the Korban for an Arel by choice, and not for any Mumar who rejects the Mitzvos, because everyone agrees that a Mumar is able to attain Kaparah, since his ineligibility is due to his frame of mind which he can easily alter, and he is not "Mechusar Ma'aseh."

3 See MAHARSHAM in TECHELES MORDECHAI, end of Lech Lecha, and see his son-in-law's note in HAGAHOS MAHARSHAM by Rav Moshe Feldman. 4 TECHELES MORDECHAI; see YASHRESH YAKOV to Yevamos 70b, and Insights to Yevamos 70:1.

17 After determining that the Korban Pesach would be disqualified if slaughtered without having in our daf teaches through scriptural ( נמל ו י ו אלש ) mind those who had reserved to eat from it that this same law applies if the intent while slaughtering was for people who ( שקיה ) association 5 נמל י י ן אלש - (are incapable of eating from it (i.e. sick or old people

then, ילכוא ן and נמ ו י י ן is valid to connect the rules of שקיה notes being that this ( שקתיאו ה”ד) Tosafos we would also expect this methodology to result in other conclusions as well. For example, the can ruin the offering at any time during the four main services of the נמל ו י ן אלש disqualification of offering (slaughtering, collecting blood, transporting blood to the and sprinkling the blood).

This should be the case as well for the problem of intending the offering for incapable people. Yet, the halachah is that the wrong intention for incapable people only ruins that offering if it is done should work שקיה but not while carrying out any other service. Furthermore, the , חש י ט ה during the . נמ ו י י ן should apply to ילכוא ן both ways, and the laws of

,should also ruin all offerings נמל ו י ן אלש of ספ ו ל Therefore, asks Tosafos, we should expect that the Yet we do not find this to be the case. What, therefore, are the parameters of . אל ו לכ י ו לש א as does ? שקיה this

It is a unique issue, and. לעבל י ו אלש וש טח is not the same as being נמל ו י ו אלש Tosafos explains that must חש י ט ה from which we learn that the, לע י ו רפכל and not from סכת ו it is learned from the verse be for the atonement of the specific owner.

It also has no counterpart. לעבל י ו אלש unlike, חש י ט ה Therefore, it is only effective at the moment of explains that ברק נ ו ת . לה ו י ז” יר רמ ן does not extend to other שקיה in other offerings. Therefore, the refers to the eating of the Korban Pesach, as נמל ו י ן אלש the lesson of Tosafos is that the law of .which is an aspect of the atonement procured by an offering, לעב י ם יש נ ו י opposed to

When a person registers to partake in a Pesach, he is arranging to eat from its flesh. This is why The atonement. כת ו ס ו as we learn it from the verse, חש י ט ה this factor is determined at the moment of of all other offerings is a function of the sprinkling of the blood, and this is determined based upon . הקירז the moment of

When the time came to leave Mitzrayim, the Jewish people were lacking the merit needed to survive makas bechoros and earn .

5 https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Pesachim%20061.pdf

18 Rav Tzadok HaKohen zt”l explains that Hashem responded by providing korban Pesach. It repairs One experiences a . תעדה ץע all defilement of the body at its root—the of eating from the revelation of the highest levels of Godliness. This is provided the person had first done the necessary groundwork to sanctify his body through bris milah. This was the greatness of the first korban Pesach, that even the bodies of essentially unworthy people could be so purified and prepared for . This can be reached every time the korban is brought in the future. Even today, when we are unable to bring the actual offering, we can still draw these levels down to us wants what is in מחר נ א אביל עב י —by yearning to bring it with our whole heart! One Merciful The our hearts!

During the time of the Ariza”l, a man who had escaped the Inquisition by hiding his returned to the fold and was taught about the lechem hapanim. In his great simplicity, the fellow immediately went and baked twelve loaves of bread in the shape of the offering and placed it before the ark in the . The shammash found the breads, and took the unexpected bounty home for himself. This went on for some time, with the man believing that the bread was “accepted from Above.”

When the heard the story, he immediately put a stop to the charade, and insisted that the ba’al teshuvah stop bringing the loaves. Just as the words left his mouth, a messenger arrived for the Rabbi from the Ariza”l bearing a letter: “Your fate has already been decided, and the time has come for you to leave the world. By what right did you disrupt the heartfelt offering of this simple man that brought such pleasure to HaKadosh Boruch Hu, as if it was the actual lechem hapanim?!”

The Merciful One wants the heart!

Rabbi Koby Geller writes:6

Having an all or nothing mentality is not productive — and our knew it. Let me explain.

A running theme throughout the is that intention matters. We’ve covered it many times in this series. The mishnah on today’s daf is also concerned with intent. In this case, what matters is that the paschal lamb should be properly assigned to a party of people who intend to consume it that very evening. Furthermore, it must be slaughtered for people who are qualified to eat it:

If one slaughtered the paschal lamb for people who cannot eat it or for those who did not register in advance to eat it, or if one slaughtered it for people who are uncircumcised or for those who are ritually impure, it is disqualified.

Circumcision (for men) and a state of ritual purity are both preconditions for eating the paschal lamb. If the lamb is slaughtered for people who do not meet these basic criteria, not only are they not allowed to eat it, but the itself is invalid — it can’t be eaten by anyone.

6 Myjewishlearning.com

19 This is true for a group that are all disqualified from eating the offering. But would one or two disqualified members spoil a sacrifice for an entire group of otherwise qualified eaters? The mishnah addresses this next:

If one slaughtered it for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it; for those who have registered for it and for those who have not registered for it; for the circumcised and for the uncircumcised; for the ritually impure and for the ritually pure, it is valid.

No, one rotten apple doesn’t spoil the bunch. If a person slaughters a paschal lamb for a mixed group of some people that are not allowed to eat it and some that are, then the paschal lamb is not disqualified and can be used (though it still may not be eaten by those who are not qualified to do so).

As we read further in the mishnah, we see an even more nuanced approach to this sacrifice:

If one slaughtered the paschal lamb before midday it is disqualified, as it is stated: And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it in the afternoon.(Exodus 12:6)

If he slaughtered it before the daily afternoon offering (tamid) it is valid, as long as another person stirs its blood (to prevent it from congealing) until the blood of the daily offering is sprinkled. And even if the blood of the paschal lamb is sprinkled before the blood of the daily offering, it is nonetheless valid.

Exodus clearly states that the paschal lamb must be offered in the afternoon — no points are scored for accomplishing it earlier in the day (in fact, doing so invalidates it). The rabbis took this to mean that the paschal offering should technically be made after the afternoon tamid, the daily afternoon sacrifice. (On Pesachim 58, we learned that they sacrificed the tamid earlier in the day on Erev to accommodate the paschal offerings.) However, there is quite a bit of latitude here. If the paschal lamb is slaughtered before the tamid, it is not considered invalid, one simply must keep stirring the collected blood (which is to be offered on the altar) to keep it from congealing, and then throw it on the altar after the tamid has been offered so that at least the offerings (if not the slaughterings) take place in the right order. But the mishnah also states, even if everything happens out of order and the paschal offering is slaughtered and offered before the tamid, as long as the paschal offering was made after noon it is still valid.

As we can see in this mishnah, there is a progression toward ever more nuance and leniency. Yes, in the minds of the rabbis, there is a right way to do things.

But sometimes that isn’t possible or realistic, and the mishnah does not wish to make the perfect the enemy of the good. Especially in an age such as ours in which too many see disagreements as a matter of “all or nothing,” nuance and leniency are necessary, or we’ll all end up screaming into the void with no one to listen.

20 Everything According to those who have Registered

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:7

The Mishna on our daf discusses a case where the person who is slaughtering the has intention that the korban be for people who will not be eating from it. Such people include individuals who cannot eat the meat of the sacrifice because they are old or ill, people who had not joined this particular group, or people who were not permitted to eat from the korban, e.g. someone who does not have a brit mila.

In such cases, if the intention was just for such people, the korban is no good. If, however, the person thought about people who would eat from thekorban, as well as people like the aforementioned, then the sacrifice is valid.

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, which are not explicitly written in the Torah, derived? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught with regard to the verse: “And if the household be too little for a lamb, then he and his neighbor who is close to his house shall take one according to the number of the souls; according to every man’s eating you shall make your count for the lamb” (Ex 12:4). “According to the number of” teaches that the Paschal lamb is slaughtered only for those who have registered for it. Everything is done according to the number of people who have registered before the slaughtering.

I might have thought that if he slaughtered it for those who did not register for it, he would be considered as one who has violated a commandment, but nonetheless the offering would be valid after the fact. Therefore, the Torah teaches this law with the double formulation of “according to the number (bemikhsat)” and “you shall make your count (takhosu)”; the verse repeated it to make this requirement indispensable, so that the offering is disqualified if it is slaughtered for those who did not register for it.

This discussion points to one of the ways in which the Talmudic hermeneutics differ when dealing with issues regarding . Generally speaking, when the Torah commands us to perform an act in a specific way, it is understood that if it is not done properly, the act is an invalid one.

Regarding sacrifices, however, it is commonplace to find that a single passage may command that a specific action be done, yet if one skips that detail, the sacrifice will remain valid after the fact.

Only if there is an extra pasuk – as in our case – or a specific key word, does the Gemara conclude that it is essential for the sacrifice.

7 https://steinsaltz.org/daf/pesahim61/

21

Midrash Rabba Ex R. 19:5

22

Pesach and Milah8

The Parashat mentions the mitzva of , which is closely related to the Korban Pesach (Pascal lamb), highlighted in the maftir. However, the maftir (Ex 12: 1-20) does not mention the halacha that an arel (one who did not have a brit) cannot bring the korban, which is found in a later portion, two dozen p’sukim later (ibid. 12: 43-50).

It is not only several p’sukim that separate them. Rashi points out that while our maftir occurred on the first day of , the need for brit milah before partaking in the Korban Pesach was taught on the 14th of Nisan. It doesn’t seem logical to wait to tell people to do a brit milah until they are busy with the final stages of pre-redemption, imminently followed by exodus. Using the two weeks’ time to have the milah and recuperate seems more sensible.

The way the above cited ( Rabba 19:5) connects Korban Pesach and milah may clarify somewhat. The people were reluctant to perform milah but, according to the midrash’s first version, when they found out it was a prerequisite for taking part in the Korban Pesach, they became willing to do it. According to the second version, it was

8 http://www.eretzhemdah.org/newsletterArticle.asp?lang=en&pageid=4&cat=7&newsletter=544&article=2044

23 not until the preparations for the Korban Pesach began and the smell enticed them to beg to take part that Moshe was able to get them to perform milah.

That still does not explain why the connection between the two was not revealed earlier. The midrash mentions the significance of the intermingling of the blood of the milah and that of the Pesach. Thus, the fact that the milah was done at the last moment might have had some positive value.

However, it is likely that Hashem would have preferred for the people to fulfill their obligation of milah well in advance without prodding. Indeed, the midrash praises the Tribe of Levi for having been careful about the matter throughout the years of servitude. Bnei Yisrael, in their downtrodden state, were not in the practice of performing any mitzvot. They had enough trouble following the commandments that Pharaoh imposed upon them. Why should they follow the practices their fathers related from a G-d who had allowed them to be in a wretched situation? Only when the final steps of redemption were palpable, represented by the Korban Pesach, were they willing to put in their bodies a sign of servitude to Hashem instead of to Pharaoh. According to the midrash’s second version, it was not even enough to know that this was to happen. Rather, they had to “smell in the air,” literally and figuratively, the festivity of freedom in order to do so.

Since ancient times, we have never forgotten the status of free men and the related obligation of milah that encourages us to give ourselves over to Hashem. May the stages of redemption and the “smell” of hopefully imminent further redemption encourage more of us to intensify our service of Hashem.

OWNERSHIP OF AN AREL THAT DISQUALIFIES A KORBAN PESACH

Rav Lichtenstein writes:9

One of the practical differences relates to the laws governing an uncircumcised person regarding the korban pesach. The Torah commands us as part of the mitzva of the korban pesach: "No uncircumcised person [arel] shall eat of it" (Ex 12:48).

And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the 48 חמ יִכְו - רוּגָי ְתִּא ,רֵגּ הָשָׂﬠְו הָשָׂﬠְו ,רֵגּ ְתִּא רוּגָי passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then חַסֶפ הָוהיַל -- לוֹמִּה וֹל לָכ - רָכָז רָכָז let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born זָאְו בַרְקִי ,וֹתֹשֲׂﬠַל הָיָהְו חַרְזֶאְכּ חַרְזֶאְכּ הָיָהְו ,וֹתֹשֲׂﬠַל בַרְקִי זָאְו .in the land; but no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof ;ץֶרָאָה לָכְו - ,לֵרָﬠ אֹל - לַכאֹי .וֹבּ לַכאֹי

9 https://www.etzion.org.il/en/essence-mitzva-mila

24 Ex 12:28

The prohibition of an arel regarding the korban pesach exists on two levels:

1) An uncircumcised person is disqualified from offering or eating of a korban pesach, similar to the disqualification of an arel in other realms, such as teruma.

2) Uncircumcised sons or slaves disqualify their fathers or masters from offering a korban pesach.

As for the second level, two factors may be responsible for disqualifying the father or master from offering the sacrifice:

1) A person who is obligated to circumcise his son or slave is disqualified from bringing a korban pesach.

2) A person under whose authority or in whose possession there is an uncircumcised son or slave is disqualified from offering a korban pesach.

The practical difference between these two factors relates to the obligation of a woman, on the assumption that the Gemara's conclusion is that she enjoys a sweeping exemption even from the general obligation of circumcision. If we say that the first factor is the dominant one, a woman can offer a korban pesach even if she has uncircumcised slaves in her possession, since she is not bound whatsoever by the mitzva. According to the second factor, a woman is disqualified from bringing a korban pesach by the very fact that she is in possession of uncircumcised slaves, even though the mitzva of circumcision does not fall upon her at all.

To summarize, as for the question who is bound by the obligation, we have seen that within the Jewish people, the obligation of circumcision falls first and foremost, and in full intensity, upon the person himself.

Over and beyond this obligation, a duty falls upon the father by way of a positive precept, and so too a duty falls upon the court, in one of two variations – as representatives of society, or alternatively, as the body that is responsible for maintaining Jewish life.

25

Ask the Rabbis // Special Passover Edition10

INDEPENDENT

It is permitted, but they are not allowed to share in the sacrificial lamb ritual unless they surrender their foreskin. No exceptions. As for whether it’s a good idea—it’s a great idea. Let them sit there reading about blood, frogs and lice while getting buzzed on and chewing on salted parsley and matzoh while smelling the delicious aroma of the main dish emanating from the kitchen for hours on end—but never arriving at the Seder table because of endless discussions about Pharaohs, slavery, suffering and sea-splitting, accompanied by songs that smack of pirate ballads, after which they bite into the Jewish version of peyote, that white horseradish root. At this point, tears streaming down their face, they will cast off their paper yarmulke, tear off their bib and storm out of the house muttering “No wonder you people are a minority! You’re all stark- raving mad!”

10 https://momentmag.com/ask-the-rabbis-special-passover-edition/

26 Most of us don’t understand what Passover is really about. So why do we presume we can let non-Jews in on something we ourselves can’t figure out? Is not our most classical of philosophical texts titled Guide for the Perplexed? Better to leave well enough alone.

Rabbi Gershon Winkler Walking Stick Foundation Thousand Oaks, CA

HUMANIST

I am amazed by this question. Actually, that’s an understatement. I was stunned by its insensitivity. Sure, it is a tradition to ask lots of questions at the Seder, but this one crossed a line for me. Why is this question different than all other questions? Because it is exclusionary, clannish, alienating and insulting to all our families and friends whose non-Jewish members are not “good enough” to participate in our celebration with us.

I know what the says, that “no foreigner could eat of it”—meaning the Passover sacrifice— nor could any uncircumcised male partake of the Paschal lamb. But that was then, when observing cultic practices was only for the initiated. Thankfully, we live in different times, when “breaking bread” with the stranger—especially the unleavened variety of bread—is a good thing because it tears down barriers and builds goodwill.

There is a famous story about Rabbi Hillel, who could not recall a particular practice relating to Passover. He resolved the matter by saying, “Go out and see what the people are doing.” For Hillel, and for us, folk wisdom and custom trump halakhic rulings, especially ones that are archaic. So come, look at my house, and you’ll see how we do it—with an array of participants. Jews, non-Jews, all are welcome here!

Rabbi Peter Schweitzer The City Congregation for Humanistic Judaism New York, NY

27

REFORM

Not only is it permitted; it is encouraged!

Passover is the time of year when we remember and retell the story that forms our master narrative. Over the course of the Seder meal, we remind ourselves of the experience of slavery and the liberation from bondage by eating symbolic foods, telling stories and singing songs. In that experience, we are also called to recommit ourselves to the Jewish obligation to end bondage and slavery elsewhere in the world. When we include non-Jews in our Seder rituals and experiences, we are able to share our master narrative with them. We give non-Jews a window into the core experience and identity of what it means to be Jewish. We also impress upon them our enduring commitment to civil rights and social justice. Sharing the with our non-Jewish friends, colleagues and neighbors builds bridges in our communities, helps develops shared understandings of one another and lays the foundation for partnerships that can work toward social change.

Rabbi Laura Novak Winer Fresno, CA

CONSERVATIVE

I invite people to my Seder who I think would be interested in understanding the Seder rituals. It would never occur to me to invite only Jews. My Seder is an opportunity to share Jewish rituals, ideas and theology with people who are curious, who are interested in big religious ideas and who want to experience a Seder. As a rabbi, I have always invited non-Jewish to my Seder as well. These men and women have felt honored to be invited, and I know they have shared the experience with their congregants. In our modern open society, most of us have classsmates, neighbors, colleagues, friends and often family who are not Jewish. It is important that we open our homes and explain our traditions to those who are not familiar with them.

28 The idea of excluding non-Jews from the Seder was intended to promote group solidarity and was reinforced during centuries of persecution. Today many non-Jews are interested in and respectful of Judaism. Hence, I believe it is a very good thing to expose these individuals to a Seder. This is a hospitable, welcoming way to build bridges.

Rabbi Amy Wallk Katz Temple Beth El Springfield, MA

MODERN ORTHODOX

The little-known prohibition on inviting a non-Jew to participate in one’s Seder is in part a residue of the severe Biblical prohibition that an uncircumcised male (e.g. one who has not joined the Jewish covenant) may not partake of the Paschal lamb sacrifice. The national Passover ritual meal celebrated the core event of Jewish religion, the Exodus, which liberated the to join in the covenant of tikkun olam and set in motion their mission to lead the world toward redemption. Only full citizens—that is, full covenant partners—were permitted to eat this sacred food. (If a citizen did not participate, this was an equally grave sin.) But the Temple was destroyed almost 2,000 years ago; the Paschal sacrifice is long gone. The rabbis created the Seder to fill the void of losing the sacrifice, but the sacramental and purity level of holiness of the Biblical Paschal feast was no longer maintained. Rather, the rabbinic prohibition of Gentile participation reflected the implacable hostility between non-Jews and Jews and the consequent policy to exclude Gentiles from significant social or religious contacts with Jews.

Today, in countries such as the United States, Jews are in positive, fully human contact with Gentiles. Jews are treated with full respect and equality before the law. In religious dialogue, Christians seriously uphold the validity and dignity of Jewish religion. Jews can influence, teach our values and advance the cause of tikkun olam by inviting non-Jews to our Seder. Under these circumstances, the prohibition should have been repealed formally. Unfortunately, as in other important areas, haredi resistance has blocked needed official action. Individuals should feel free to act in accordance with their heart, their friendships, their respect for all people as

29 images of and invite non-Jews to their Seders. I am aware that there is a serious problem of close relationships with non-Jews leading to assimilation and intermarriage. But not inviting Gentiles to the Seder is not the right (or efficacious) way to deal with this challenge.

Rabbi Yitzhak Greenberg Riverdale, NY

ORTHODOX

I’ve always told students that any question about Judaism can be answered in two words but that those words vary with the audience. If the interlocutor is familiar with traditional scholarship, the answer is “machloket ” (it is disputed by the great medieval authorities). If he or she is not, the answer is “It’s complicated.”

Let’s try the second formula. Unlike with a meal, there is a halakhic issue with inviting a non-Jew to any holiday meal, not just Pesach. (There are workarounds. Consult your local Orthodox rabbi.)

Additionally, there are customs—albeit not laws—precluding non-Jewish participation at a Seder. In a very traditional Seder, where there are hours of discussion before the meal, some of the material can be intensely. . . Jewish, and not so appropriate for non-Jews. Nonetheless, we have had many Christians and Muslims at our Seders over the years (in a halakhically permitted manner), and they have always found the experience uplifting.

Rabbi Yitzchak Adlerstein Loyola Law School Los Angeles, CA

Is it Permissible to Invite a Gentile to the Passover Seder?

30 Rivon Krygier11 writes:12

Question: Rabbi, some days ago, I had 'observant' friends call me and invite my sister and her partner for the second Seder of Pessah. The friend then wanted to extend her invitation, and asked me if I wanted to join my sister. When I told her that my husband was not Jewish, she told me that she was sorry, but could not invite him for the Seder, for "this is the only Jewish celebration where non-Jews are not invited to take part." She seemed surprised that I do not know this halakha. In fact, I do not know it. Where does it come from? Where is it mentioned? At first I was understanding and simply thanked her, but after a while I felt uncomfortable. What do you think?

Response: There is a well-established halachic ruling which forbids inviting a non-Jewish person to festival meals prescribed by the Torah, as opposed to those of Shabbat, where this is permitted.

[1] The reason for the prohibition is that the law authorizing cooking in these days (in contrast to Shabbat) applies only for those who observe the laws of the festival, which is, of course, is not the case with non-Jews. This is not the place to detail the relevant sources. But we maintain that as long as certain precautions are taken, such as cooking for all of the guests together (and not in separated utensils) - one would not transgress the basic law. These measures should be followed in order to remove all difficulties. But in fact, there exist, in our humble opinion, major religious reasons which support inviting non-Jews to festival meals:

1. "Mishum chinuch, letzorech mitzva" : for educational reasons, for the purpose of performing the commandments" - allowing conversion candidates to initiate themselves in Jewish practice. [2]

2. "Mishum K'vod Horim" :Respecting one's parents -- honouring a non-Jewish parent. Many Rabbis have ruled that this principle remains binding after the conversion of the child to Judaism. [3] It is hurtful for a parent not to be invited to a meal because of his status of "gentile" [4]

3. "Mishum Kiruv" :To bring people close" -- This is applicable for both partners of a mixed marriage. It is not right to refuse the Jewish partner the opportunity to perform a commandment, just so that he holds to the prohibition. [5] It is preferable to include the non-Jewish spouse in Jewish life, rather than to move them away. [6]

4. "Mipnei Darkei Shalom - Mishum Eiva" (To walk in ways of peace or: to prevent animosity)": Many halachic authorities, in different circumstances, have preferred to ignore various antique rules of discrimination, in order to reinforce confidence and to edify the brotherhood between religions and between people. [7]

As to the specific question of the Passover seder, in my enquiries in the halachic sources I never saw a specific prohibition forbidding the participation of non-Jews. I even heard explicitly from my teacher ("Manitou", Léon Askénazi) that the presence of non-Jewish people was permitted, according to certain conditions mentioned below. Nevertheless, I know that this "rule" circulates and that certain rabbis uphold it. Where does it originate? In my opinion, it comes from the biblical prohibition to consume the Paschal lamb: "The LORD said to and , These are the

11 1 First published in: Quest, New London Synagogue publication, Vol. IV, June 2009, pp. 47-51. 2 12 https://www.adathshalom.org/RK/a-Gentile-to-the-Passover-Seder.pdf

31 regulations for the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it. It must be eaten inside one house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones. The whole community of Israel must celebrate it. An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the LORD's Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat of it. The same law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you".

Ex 12: 43-49

From this passage, we see that in the era where the ritual Paschal lamb was consumed -- that is, as long as the Temple existed, and possibly for some centuries after -- only those "members of the alliance of Israel" were allowed to eat of it. This consumption constituted the essence of the celebration of the Passover Seder. It excluded the male uncircumcised "not carrying the alliance of in their flesh" and the foreigners. But not all the foreigners! Those that lived in the Hebrew society and identified themselves with their destiny, to the point that they would enter into the circumcision alliance, could consume the ritual offering without any discrimination. On the other hand, one with only "sympathy" towards the Jewish people was not enough to authorize this consumption.

It is necessary to understand the fundamental ideas: to consume the lamb was a sign of allegiance, of "communion", and did not therefore hold significance for those who were not part of the community of Israel. This point is raised in an aggada of the Talmud [8]: the Roman commander Antonin expressed his bitterness to Rabbi (Judah the Prince) on the paradoxical fact that Judaism promised him that he would be able to consume Leviathan [9] in the world to come (as a "righteous one among the nations"), but forbade him (as non-Jew) to consume the Paschal lamb! Although contradictory at first sight, the rule has its coherence. Only the could hold as allegiance to the people of Israel, and therefore be expressed symbolically by the consumption of the Paschal lamb. That did not remove any dignity or deservingness of the non-Jews who were promised "bliss" in the world to come if they had behaved in a just way during their earthly stay.

Since in the era of Rabbi (3rd century CE.), the Temple had already been destroyed for more than a century, some were able to deduct that what Rabbi had forbidden Antonin was not the lamb itself, but its symbolic substitute, the "". [10] In fact, in a later era, one sees in the Babylonian Talmud Rav Yehuda teaching in the name of Shmuel that henceforth a piece of unleavened bread, matza, was to replace symbolically the lamb, or at least to remind us of the ritual that accompanied it. [11] This piece of matza substituted in memory of the Paschal lamb later took on the greek name "Afikoman."

Probably, it was this transposition of the ban from the Paschal lamb to the afikoman that induced the opinion that it was not permitted to share the Passover meal of with non Jews. Nevertheless, I did not see anything written that such a "rule" exists in Jewish law. The afikoman is a symbolic memorial, and has not therefore an equivalent value to the Paschal lamb. And if there is a prohibition against non-Jews eating from the Passover meal, it concerns only the consumption of the afikoman, that is, the small piece of matza eaten symbolically at the end of the festive meal.

32 Apart from this, a non-Jew can certainly be invited and attend the Pessach Seder, as long as at some point he is told that he should not eat from the afikoman. It may be easier for those coming from Christian backgrounds to understand, if one explains with the required delicacy that the afikoman has a similar function to the communion host, and that this is a ritual act of allegiance for the one that is part of Israel. It is an act that respects the identity choice that each person makes. It goes without saying that a person that decides that in the future he will convert to Judaism will consume the afikoman like every other Jewish person.

In conclusion, and in response to the original question, I would say that if it is true that Passover is a festival of Jewish identity which concerns at first the Jews, one must not ignore the fact that inviting a non-Jewish partner of a Jew to the Seder table not only allows the spouse to maintain his or her Jewish identity, despite the mixed marriage, but is also likely to awaken in him the desire to be part of the community of Israel. This especially allows their children to maintain that identity. Inviting a non-Jewish parent produces the same positive effect. On the other hand, an abrupt exclusion is not only offending but risks having harmful effects. Inviting a non-Jew to the Seder, even without family considerations, constitutes equally, in an era of wide communication and of globalization, a tremendous opportunity to make our religion known and understood, which allows us both to banish the old suspicions, and to establish better comprehension and brotherhood between the religious families.

Notes:

[1] Cf. , Orach Chaim, 512.

[2] For example: Moshe Feinstein, Igerot Moshe, Yore Deah 3:90 authorizes teaching Torah to a conversion candidate.

[3] Example: There is a duty to pray for the health of a non-Jewish parent, or to say in his memory. cf. Ovadia Yossef, Yechavei Daat 6:60.

[4] Example: On the importance of not humiliating a non-Jewish parent, cf. Moshe Feinstein, Igrot Moshe, Yoreh Deah 213:130.

[5] "Even if it causes resentment towards the person who reproves, the Torah Says: ‘‘Reprove your kinsman’’, meaning: relieve the wrath that is in your heart. On the contrary, this is an order to counter it with love. Maybe he will succeed in preventing it this way'' (Moshe Cordovero, Palm Tree of Debora, 1:5).

[6] Why does one fear the "mixed marriages"? Because of the assimilation and the dissolution of the Jewish people. But by pushing away these families, one pushes them to the very assimilation that one claimed to fight! See in this direction, the responsum of the great rabbi: "It is evident that in similar circumstance (of mixed marriages), it is an obligation to attract them" (BenTsion Uziel, 1880-1953, Piskei Uziel be-cheelot hazman, siman 65).

[7] Examples: Tosefta, Gittin 3:13-14. It continues: " In a city where Jews and non-Jews, one those responsible for charity collections collect from the Jews and non-Jews to walk in the ways of peace; one supports the poor of the Jews and non-Jews to walk in the ways of peace, one visits the ill of the Jews and non-Jews to walk in the ways of peace, one buries the dead Jews and non-Jews, one consoles their bereaved at time of mourning to walk in the ways of peace " (T.J. Gittin, ch. 5, halakha 9). The Hafetz Haim (1838-1933) evokes the of Poskim (post-Shulchan Aruch), such Moshe Isserles that permit sending prepared food during the festivals to non-Jews, if the foods were prepared in a same cooking, "mi-shum eiva : To prevent animosity" (cf. Mishna Brura 512: 100, 6).

[8] Cf. Megila 1:11, 72B.

[9] The Leviathan is a sort of mythical cetacean whose flesh is preserved from the time of the Creation World and reserved for the consumption of the just ones in the world to come.

[10] Indeed, it is more probable than the lamb again was consumed ritual during some generations after the destruction of the Temple (cf. Shmuel & Ze'ev Safrai, of the Sages, Jerusalem, Karta, 1998, p. 27-30; and infra ,note 3)

33

[11] Cf. Pesachim 119b. This is from this passage that commentators such Rashi and the Rashbam declare that it is necessary to consume a quantity of matza equivalent to the volume of a big olive "ka-zait matza" as last food of the meal. It is in the Mahzor Vitry (XIe-XIIe c.), and other works from this time, that this last piece of matza takes the name of "afikoman". Two possible explanations are given to the substitution of the Paschal lamb by the matza: "To remember matza that was consumed at the same time that the Paschal lamb" (Rachi, Rashbam on Pessachim 119b) or "to remember Paschal lamb that was consumed to satiation" (Rosh, ibid., Tur and Shulchan Aruch OH 478a). The latter explanation is found in the Haggadot Sefaradiot (cf. Safrai, op. cit. p. 170). But in both cases, it is evidently that it refers symbolically to the lamb that is no longer consumed.

The Passover Leap

Rav Kook Torah13

Spiritual Leap

13 Adapted from Ein Eyah vol. IV, p. 178

34 Chana Morrison writes:14

Lofty teachings cannot be revealed to those who are unsuitable or not ready for them. The enlightenment itself risks becoming debased and twisted when it is associated with sordid individuals. There are, however, exceptional cases, when the current spiritual-moral level of the receiver may be disregarded, and a spiritual ‘leap’ may be accomplished.

God’s revelation to the Israelite slaves in Egypt will forever stand out as an example of such a miraculous “leap.” This is the inner significance of the Passover offering, the korban Pesach, which literally means to “leap” or “skip.” The Jewish people in Egypt had sunken to the lowest levels of degradation and idolatry. In the words of the Midrash, they were on the 49th gate of tum'ah - just one before the lowest state of impurity. For God to be revealed to them during their redemption from Egyptian bondage required a spiritual jump of historic dimensions.

Nonetheless, even the leap of Passover has its limitations.

“This is the law of the Passover offering: no foreigner may eat of it.” (Exodus 12:43)

Who is a “foreigner” who may not partake of the korban Pesach? The Sages taught that this refers not only to Gentiles, but even to Jewish apostates who have abandoned God. These are Jews have forsaken the Torah’s principles to such an extent that they now fall under the category of “foreigners” ( 22b).

In other words, even the spiritual leap of the Passover redemption was not boundless in its scope. It could not encompass those Jews who had so completely assimilated into their surrounding idolatrous culture that they lacked even an elementary faith in God.

Rescuing the Light of the First Luchot

This understanding of God’s revelation during the redemption from Egypt sheds light on another historic event.

Moses’ act of breaking the luchot habrit (the stone tablets of the Ten Commandments) took tremendous courage. How did Moses dare destroy such a uniquely holy object? How did he know that this was the correct thing to do?

The Talmud suggests that Moses’ act was based on the above-quoted law of the Passover offering. “The Passover offering is just one of the 613 mitzvot, and yet an apostate may not share in it,” he

14 [email protected]

35 reasoned. “Certainly the Jewish people, after they have sinned by worshiping idols, are unworthy of the Torah in its entirety!” (Shabbat 87a)

In light of our previous comments, Moses’ a priori reasoning becomes even more forceful. What is the inner message of the Passover offering? That God revealed Himself to the Jewish people, despite their spiritual poverty. Nonetheless, even this mitzvah cannot encompass those who reject the fundamental tenets of monotheism. Certainly, the Torah as a whole could not be bestowed to the Jewish people in their idolatrous state after worshipping the Golden Calf.

Had Moses in fact given the first set of luchot to the Jewish people, this would have bound the Torah to the state of spiritual impoverishment that enveloped the Jewish people at that time. This would have brought a terrible spiritual danger - to the world, to Israel, and to the Torah itself. Only by hiding that great light, by breaking the physical vessel that bound it to the material world, was Moses able to ensure the spiritual development of the Jewish people and the entire world.

The first luchot, however, were not lost forever. Moses’ act rescued that lofty light, so that it may be revealed at the end of days with a pure and eternal illumination.

36