Pesachim 88
תְּמָרִים וְיַעַסְקוּ בַּתּוֹרָה. עוּלָּא אִיקְּלַע לְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא, קָרִיבוּ לֵיהּ טִירְיָנָא דְתַמְרֵי. אֲמַר לְהוּ: כַּמָּה כִּי הָנֵי בְּזוּזָא? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: תְּלָת בְּזוּזָא. אֲמַר: מְלָא צַנָּא דְּדוּבְשָׁא בְּזוּזָא, וּבַבְלָאֵי לָא עָסְקִי בְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
the dates that grow there plentifully, which gave them strength and allowed them to engage in Torah study. The Gemara records a related incident: Ulla visited Pumbedita, and his hosts brought him a basket [tirina] of dates. He said to them: How many baskets of dates like these can one purchase for a zuz? They said to him: One can purchase three for a zuz. He said: How can it be that it is possible to purchase a basketful of date honey for just a single zuz, and yet the Babylonians do not engage in Torah study more extensively? Since the cost of food is so low and they do not need to work hard to support themselves, the Babylonians should be more extensively engaged in Torah study.
בְּלֵילְיָא צַעֲרוּהוּ. אָמַר: מְלָא צַנָּא סַמָּא דְמוֹתָא בְּזוּזָא בְּבָבֶל, וּבַבְלָאֵי עָסְקִי בְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
That night, the dates he ate afflicted him and he suffered from indigestion. In light of this, Ulla retracted his original assessment of the Babylonians and instead praised them and said: A basketful of lethal poison, i.e., the dates that cause indigestion, sells for a zuz in Babylonia, and despite the fact that they suffer its effects the Babylonians still engage in Torah study.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָלְכוּ עַמִּים רַבִּים וְאָמְרוּ לְכוּ וְנַעֲלֶה אֶל הַר ה׳ אֶל בֵּית אֱלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב וְגוֹ׳״. אֱלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב, וְלֹא אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם וְיִצְחָק?
The Gemara returns to its discussion of prophecies of consolation that are related to those in the book of Hosea. And Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And many peoples shall go and say: Go and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths” (Isaiah 2:3)? The Gemara notes that Jacob is the only Patriarch mentioned and asks: Is He the God of Jacob and not the God of Abraham and Isaac?
אֶלָּא, לֹא כְּאַבְרָהָם שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ ״הַר״, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר יֵאָמֵר הַיּוֹם בְּהַר ה׳ יֵרָאֶה״, וְלֹא כְּיִצְחָק שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ ״שָׂדֶה״, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֵּצֵא יִצְחָק לָשׂוּחַ בַּשָּׂדֶה״, אֶלָּא כְּיַעֲקֹב שֶׁקְּרָאוֹ ״בַּיִת״, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּקְרָא אֶת שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא בֵּית אֵל״.
Rather, the verse specifically mentions Jacob to allude to the fact that the Temple will ultimately be described in the same way that Jacob referred to it. It will not be referred to as it was referred to by Abraham. It is written of him that when he prayed at the location of the Temple mountain, he called it mount, as it is stated: “As it is said on this day: On the mount where the Lord is seen” (Genesis 22:14). And it will not be referred to as it was referred to by Isaac. It is written of him that he called the location of the Temple field when he prayed there, as it is stated: “And Isaac went out to meditate in the field” (Genesis 24:63). Rather, it will be described as it was referred to by Jacob, who called it house, as it is stated: “And he called the name of that place Beth-El” (Genesis 28:19), which means house of God.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גָּדוֹל קִבּוּץ גָּלִיּוֹת כַּיּוֹם שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ בּוֹ שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנִקְבְּצוּ בְּנֵי יְהוּדָה וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל יַחְדָּו וְשָׂמוּ לָהֶם רֹאשׁ אֶחָד וְעָלוּ מִן הָאָרֶץ כִּי גָדוֹל יוֹם יִזְרְעֶאל״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי עֶרֶב וַיְהִי בֹקֶר יוֹם אֶחָד״.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The day of the ingathering of exiles is as great as the day on which heaven and earth were created. This is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the word day in these two contexts, as it is stated concerning the ingathering of exiles: “And the children of Judea and the children of Israel shall be gathered together, and they shall appoint themselves one head, and shall go up out of the land; for great shall be the day of Jezreel” (Hosea 2:2), and it is written in the narrative of Creation: “And there was evening and there was morning, one day” (Genesis 1:5).
יָתוֹם שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ עָלָיו אַפּוֹטְרוֹפְּסִין וְכוּ׳. שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ יֵשׁ בְּרֵירָה. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: ״שֶׂה לַבָּיִת״ — מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.
We learned in the mishna: In the case of an orphan with multiple guardians, if each of his guardians slaughtered a Paschal lamb on his behalf, he may eat in whichever place he wishes. The Gemara suggests: You can learn from it that there is retroactive clarification, and one’s ultimate decision as to which group he wishes to be part of retroactively indicates that from the outset he was registered in that group. This is problematic, as no halakhic conclusion has been reached in the matter of retroactive clarification. The Gemara therefore rejects this suggestion: Rabbi Zeira said: The halakha in the mishna is not based on retroactive clarification, but rather on the following principle: The verse states: “They shall take to them every man a lamb, according to their fathers’ houses, a lamb for a household” (Exodus 12:3), indicating that a minor’s membership in the household is sufficient for him to be registered in the household’s Paschal lamb in any case, even without his agreement.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״שֶׂה לַבָּיִת״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאָדָם מֵבִיא וְשׁוֹחֵט עַל יְדֵי בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַקְּטַנִּים וְעַל יְדֵי עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הַכְּנַעֲנִים, בֵּין מִדַּעְתָּן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתָּן. אֲבָל אֵינוֹ שׁוֹחֵט עַל יְדֵי בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַגְּדוֹלִים וְעַל יְדֵי עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הָעִבְרִים וְעַל יַד אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֶלָּא מִדַּעְתָּן.
The Sages taught in a baraita: A lamb for a household teaches that a person brings and slaughters a Paschal lamb on behalf of his minor son and daughter and on behalf of his Canaanite slave and maidservant, whether with their consent or without their consent. Since they do not have a legal identity independent of their household membership, their membership is sufficient to include them, even without their consent. However, one may not slaughter the Paschal lamb on behalf of his adult son or daughter, or on behalf of his Hebrew slave and maidservant, or on behalf of his wife unless he has their consent. Since they have legal identities independent of their household membership, their inclusion can be achieved only through their consent.
תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: לֹא יִשְׁחוֹט אָדָם לֹא עַל יְדֵי בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַגְּדוֹלִים וְעַל יְדֵי עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הָעִבְרִים וְעַל יַד אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֶלָּא מִדַּעְתָּן. אֲבָל שׁוֹחֵט הוּא עַל יְדֵי בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַקְּטַנִּים וְעַל יְדֵי עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הַכְּנַעֲנִים, בֵּין מִדַּעְתָּן וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתָּן, וְכוּלָּן שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ וְשָׁחַט רַבָּן עֲלֵיהֶן — יוֹצְאִין בְּשֶׁל רַבָּן, וְאֵין יוֹצְאִין בְּשֶׁל עַצְמָן,
It was taught in another baraita: A person may not slaughter a Paschal lamb on behalf of his adult son or daughter, or on behalf of his Hebrew slave and maidservant, or on behalf of his wife unless he has their consent. However, he may slaughter on behalf of his son or daughter who are minors, or on behalf of his Canaanite slave or maidservant, both with their consent or without their consent. And if any of them who slaughtered a Paschal lamb for themselves, and their master, i.e., the father or owner, also slaughtered on their behalf, they can fulfill their obligation only with the Paschal lamb of their master, and they do not fulfill their obligation with their own.
חוּץ מִן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לְמַחוֹת.
The baraita concludes that this is the halakha except with regard to the wife, who is able to protest to her husband and say: I choose not to be supported by you and will therefore not grant you the proceeds of my labor. She therefore retains the ability to slaughter her own Paschal lamb, despite the fact that her husband slaughtered one on her behalf.
מַאי שְׁנָא אִשָּׁה? אָמַר רָבָא: אִשָּׁה וְכׇל דְּדָמֵי לַהּ.
The fact that the conclusion of the baraita specifically mentions a wife implies she is the only exception, but adult children or Hebrew slaves would perforce be included in their father’s and master’s Paschal lamb, even if they slaughtered one for themselves. The Gemara challenges this: What is different about a wife; how is her status any different from that of adult children or Hebrew slaves? Rava said: The conclusion of the baraita is not limited to a wife, rather, it is referring to a wife and all who are similar to her, including adult children and Hebrew slaves. Since they all enjoy legal identities independent of their master, they may slaughter a Paschal lamb for themselves despite the master’s intention to include them in his. However, minor children and Canaanite slaves lack any legally independent identity, and so their master’s intention for them to be included in his Paschal lamb precludes their ability to offer their own.
הָא גּוּפָא קַשְׁיָא, אָמְרַתְּ: חוּץ מִן הָאִשָּׁה — שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לְמַחוֹת. טַעְמָא דְּמַחַי, הָא לָא מַחַי — נָפְקָא בְּשֶׁל בַּעְלָהּ, וְהָא קָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא: ״וְלֹא עַל יְדֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶלָּא מִדַּעְתָּן״, הָא סְתָמָא לָא נָפְקָא!
The Gemara notes that this matter itself is difficult. You said in the conclusion of the baraita: Except for a wife, who is able to protest. She may therefore slaughter her own Paschal lamb, despite the fact that her husband slaughtered one on her behalf. The baraita states that the reason she can slaughter her own Paschal lamb is that she protests, which implies that if she does not protest, she must fulfill her obligation with her husband’s Paschal lamb. But doesn’t the first clause of that same baraita teach that a man slaughters a Paschal lamb on behalf of his adult children, Hebrew slaves, and his wife only with their consent, from which one can infer that in an indeterminate case, where the woman did not explicitly give her consent, she does not fulfill her obligation with her husband’s lamb?
מַאי ״אֶלָּא מִדַּעְתָּן״ — לָאו דְּאָמְרִי אִין, אֶלָּא בִּסְתָמָא, לְאַפּוֹקֵי הֵיכָא דַּאֲמוּר לָא.
The Gemara resolves this difficulty: What does the first clause mean when it teaches that one may slaughter the Paschal lamb only with their consent? It is not referring to a case where they explicitly said yes, thereby clarifying their intent; rather, it is referring to an indeterminate case where they did not explicitly agree, but their implicit consent is presumed. The ruling of the baraita comes to exclude only the case where they explicitly said no, clearly excluding themselves from their master’s Paschal lamb.
וְהָא ״כּוּלָּם שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ וְשָׁחַט רַבָּן עֲלֵיהֶן — יוֹצְאִין בְּשֶׁל רַבָּן״ דְּבִסְתָמָא, וְקָתָנֵי: חוּץ מִן הָאִשָּׁה — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לְמַחוֹת!
The Gemara challenges this reading of the first clause. But wasn’t it taught in the baraita: Any of them, i.e., minor children and Canaanite slaves, who slaughtered a Paschal lamb and their master also slaughtered a Paschal lamb on their behalf, fulfills his obligation only with the lamb of their master, which is an indeterminate case, and the baraita teaches: This is the halakha, except for the wife, because she is able to protest, and except for adult children and Hebrew slaves, who share her independent status, as explained previously in the Gemara? Apparently, a person is included in his master’s sacrifice, unless he explicitly indicates intent to the contrary.
אָמַר רָבָא: כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ אֵין לְךָ מִיחוּי גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה.
Rava resolved this difficulty and said: Since they slaughtered their own Paschal lambs, you do not have a protest greater than this. The act of slaughtering their own Paschal lambs clearly demonstrates they intend to partake of their own lambs and do not intend to be included in the master’s group.
עֶבֶד שֶׁל שְׁנֵי שׁוּתָּפִין וְכוּ׳. רָמֵי לֵיהּ רַב עֵינָא סָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: תְּנַן, עֶבֶד שֶׁל שְׁנֵי שׁוּתָּפִין לֹא יֹאכַל מִשֶּׁל שְׁנֵיהֶן. וְהָתַנְיָא: רָצָה — מִזֶּה אוֹכֵל, רָצָה — מִזֶּה אוֹכֵל!
We learned in the mishna: A slave jointly owned by two partners may not eat from the lamb of either of them unless it was stipulated beforehand from whose lamb he will partake. Rav Eina the Elder raised a contradiction before Rav Naḥman. We learned in the mishna: A slave jointly owned by two partners may not eat from the lamb of either of them. But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: If he wanted to, he may eat from this one, and if he wanted to, he may eat from that one?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עֵינָא סָבָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: פַּתְיָא אוּכָּמָא, מִינִּי וּמִינָּךְ תִּסְתַּיֵּים שְׁמַעְתְּתָא. מַתְנִיתִין — בִּדְקָפְדִי אַהֲדָדֵי, בָּרַיְיתָא — דְּלָא קָפְדִי אַהֲדָדֵי.
Rav Naḥman said to him: Eina the Elder, and some say that he called him black pot [patya], a term of endearment for a scholar who works hard studying Torah: From me and from you, clarification of this halakha will be concluded. The mishna is referring to a case where the partners are exacting with each other. Therefore, presumably, neither partner will allow his half of the slave to partake from his partner’s Paschal lamb. The baraita is referring to a case where they are not exacting with each other. In that case, the slave may eat from the Paschal lamb of whichever partner he chooses.
מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין לֹא יֹאכַל מִשֶּׁל רַבּוֹ וְכוּ׳. מִשֶּׁל רַבּוֹ הוּא דְּלֹא יֹאכַל, אֲבָל מִשֶּׁל עַצְמוֹ — יֹאכַל. וְהָא תַּנְיָא: לֹא יֹאכַל לֹא מִשֶּׁלּוֹ וְלֹא מִשֶּׁל רַבּוֹ.
We learned in the mishna: One who is half slave and half free man may not eat from his master’s Paschal lamb. It is specifically from his master’s lamb that he may not eat; however, from his own lamb he may eat. But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: He may eat neither from his own nor from his master’s Paschal lamb?
לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — כְּמִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, כָּאן — כְּמִשְׁנָה אַחֲרוֹנָה. דִּתְנַן: מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין — עוֹבֵד אֶת רַבּוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד, דִּבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים:
The Gemara answers that this is not difficult: Here, the baraita that rules that the half slave may partake neither of his own nor of his master’s lamb, is in accordance with the original version of the mishna, which cites Beit Hillel’s opinion that the master retains his rights to the half slave. There, the mishna that allows the half slave to partake of his own lamb, is in accordance with the ultimate version of the mishna, which cites Beit Hillel’s revised opinion, according to which the status of the half slave is altered such that he is considered like a free man as pertains to his inclusion in a group for the Paschal lamb. As we learned in a mishna: One who is half slave and half free man serves his master one day and himself one day; this is the statement of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai say:
תִּקַּנְתֶּם אֶת רַבּוֹ, וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ לֹא תִּקַּנְתֶּם. לִישָּׂא שִׁפְחָה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל — שֶׁכְּבָר חֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין, לִישָּׂא בַּת חוֹרִין אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל — שֶׁעֲדַיִין חֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד. יִבְטַל, וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא לִפְרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ (אֶלָּא) לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ״. אֶלָּא, מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם כּוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין, וְכוֹתֵב שְׁטָר עַל חֲצִי דָמָיו.
You have remedied the situation of his master, who benefits fully from all his rights to the slave, but his own situation you have not remedied. How so? He is not able to marry a maidservant, since half of him is already free, and a free Jew may not marry a Canaanite maidservant. He is also not able to marry a free woman, since half of him is still a slave, and a Jewish woman may not marry a Canaanite slave. And if you say he should be idle and not marry, but is it not true that the world was created only for procreation, as it is stated: “He did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18)? Rather, for the improvement of the world we force his master to make him a free man, and the slave writes a bill accepting his responsibility to pay half his value to his master. This was the original version of the mishna.
וְחָזְרוּ בֵּית הִילֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי.
The ultimate version of the mishna records the retraction of Beit Hillel: And Beit Hillel retracted its position and ruled like Beit Shammai.
מַתְנִי׳ הָאוֹמֵר לְעַבְדּוֹ צֵא וּשְׁחוֹט עָלַי אֶת הַפֶּסַח, שָׁחַט גְּדִי — יֹאכַל, שָׁחַט טָלֶה — יֹאכַל, שָׁחַט גְּדִי וְטָלֶה — יֹאכַל מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן.
MISHNA: In the case of one who says to his slave: Go and slaughter the Paschal offering on my behalf, but does not specify which type of animal to slaughter, the halakha is as follows: If the slave slaughtered a kid, his master may eat it; if he slaughtered a lamb, his master may eat it. If the slave slaughtered both a kid and a lamb, his master should eat from the first one that was slaughtered; the second is invalid and should be burned.
שָׁכַח מָה אָמַר לוֹ רַבּוֹ, כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה? יִשְׁחַט טָלֶה וּגְדִי, וְיֹאמַר: אִם גְּדִי אֲמַר לִי רַבִּי — גְּדִי שֶׁלּוֹ וְטָלֶה שֶׁלִּי, וְאִם טָלֶה אֲמַר לִי רַבִּי — הַטָּלֶה שֶׁלּוֹ וּגְדִי שֶׁלִּי.
If the master had stated explicitly which type of animal to slaughter, but the slave forgot what his master said to him, what should he do? He should slaughter both a lamb and a kid and say the following stipulation: If my master said to me that I should slaughter a kid, the kid is for his Paschal offering and the lamb is for mine; and if my master said to me that I should slaughter a lamb, the lamb is for his Paschal offering and the kid is for mine. In this way, once the master ultimately clarifies what he had originally said, both animals may be used accordingly.
שָׁכַח רַבּוֹ מָה אָמַר לוֹ, שְׁנֵיהֶן יֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה, וּפְטוּרִין מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי.
If his master also forgot what he said to him, neither animal may be used, since it has not been clarified which of the animals the slave and master are registered for. Therefore, both of them, the lamb and the kid, go out to the place designated for burning, in accordance with the halakha pertaining to offerings that may not be eaten. However, despite this, both the master and slave are exempt from observing the second Pesaḥ if the blood of the animals has already been applied to the altar before the master forgot.
גְּמָ׳ פְּשִׁיטָא! שָׁחַט גְּדִי — יֹאכַל, אַף עַל גַּב דִּרְגִיל בְּטָלֶה. שָׁחַט טָלֶה — יֹאכַל, אַף עַל גַּב דִּרְגִיל בִּגְדִי.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if the master did not specify which type of animal he wishes to use, he eats from whichever type the slave slaughters. The Gemara exclaims: It is obvious. Since the master did not specify, he apparently does not have a preference. Therefore, whichever animal is used will be acceptable. The Gemara answers: The mishna’s ruling is necessary in the case where the slave slaughtered a kid. His master may eat it even though the master is accustomed to use a lamb. Even though he is accustomed to do so, it is not presumed that he is particular to use only a lamb, since he did not explicitly say so. Similarly, if the slave slaughtered a lamb, his master may eat it, although he is accustomed to use a kid for his Paschal offering.
שָׁחַט גְּדִי וְטָלֶה — יֹאכַל מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן. וְהָא תַנְיָא: אֵין נִמְנִין עַל שְׁנֵי פְסָחִים כְּאֶחָד!
We learned in the mishna: If the slave slaughtered a kid and a lamb, his master should eat from the first one the slave slaughtered. To allow for the possibility of eating from whichever one is slaughtered first, the master must have been registered to eat from either animal. The Gemara cites a baraita that appears to contradict this: Wasn’t it taught: One may not be registered for two Paschal offerings at once?
מַתְנִיתִין בְּמֶלֶךְ וּמַלְכָּה.
The Gemara answers: The mishna discusses a case of a king and queen and similar cases of those for whom food is supplied by slaves. They are content with whatever food is presented to them, since all their food is of good quality. Such people have the intent to be registered with whichever animal their slaves select to slaughter first, and only with that animal.
וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵין נִמְנִין עַל שְׁנֵי פְסָחִים כְּאֶחָד, וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּמֶלֶךְ וּמַלְכָּה שֶׁאָמְרוּ לְעַבְדֵיהֶם: צְאוּ וְשַׁחֲטוּ עָלֵינוּ אֶת הַפֶּסַח, וְיָצְאוּ וְשָׁחֲטוּ עֲלֵיהֶן שְׁנֵי פְסָחִים. בָּאוּ וְשָׁאֲלוּ אֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ, אָמַר לָהֶם: לְכוּ וְשַׁאֲלוּ אֶת הַמַּלְכָּה. בָּאוּ וְשָׁאֲלוּ מִן הַמַּלְכָּה, אָמְרָה לָהֶם: לְכוּ וְשַׁאֲלוּ אֶת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.
And similarly, it was taught in a baraita: One may not register for two Paschal offerings at once. And there was an incident involving a king and queen who said to their slaves: Go and slaughter the Paschal offering on our behalf. And they went out and slaughtered two Paschal offerings on their behalf. They came and asked the king which one he wished to eat. He said to them: Go and ask the queen. They came and asked the queen. She said to them: Go and ask Rabban Gamliel to rule which one should be used.
בָּאוּ וְשָׁאֲלוּ אֶת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אָמַר לָהֶם: מַלְכָּה וּמֶלֶךְ דְּדַעְתָּן קַלָּה עֲלֵיהֶן — יֹאכְלוּ מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן. אֲנַן לֹא נֹאכַל לֹא מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא מִן הַשֵּׁנִי.
They came and asked Rabban Gamliel. He said to them: A king and queen, who are easily accepting of whichever foods their slaves choose to present to them, should eat from the first one that was slaughtered, since it is presumed they wished to be registered for any animal the slaves selected. But we, the general populace, who have limited supplies of food and so are particular about what food is served to us, would not eat from the first or from the second, since it is not permitted to be registered for two Paschal lambs at once.
וְשׁוּב פַּעַם אַחַת נִמְצֵאת הַלְטָאָה בְּבֵית הַמִּטְבָּחַיִם וּבִקְּשׁוּ לְטַמֵּא כָּל הַסְּעוּדָה כּוּלָּהּ. בָּאוּ וְשָׁאֲלוּ אֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ, אָמַר לָהֶם: לְכוּ וְשַׁאֲלוּ אֶת הַמַּלְכָּה. בָּאוּ וְשָׁאֲלוּ אֶת הַמַּלְכָּה, אָמְרָה לָהֶם: לְכוּ וְשַׁאֲלוּ אֶת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.
And another time there was a similar incident involving the king, queen, and Rabban Gamliel. It happened that a dead lizard was found in the kitchen of the royal house. Since a lizard is one of the creeping animals whose carcasses impart ritual impurity upon contact, they wanted to pronounce the entire meal ritually impure. They came and asked the king. He said to them: Go and ask the queen. They came and asked the queen. She said to them: Go and ask Rabban Gamliel to rule on the matter.
בָּאוּ וְשָׁאֲלוּ אוֹתוֹ, אָמַר לָהֶם: בֵּית הַמִּטְבָּחַיִם רוֹתֵחַ אוֹ צוֹנֵן? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: רוֹתֵחַ. אָמַר לָהֶם: לְכוּ וְהָטִילוּ עָלֶיהָ כּוֹס שֶׁל צוֹנֵן. הָלְכוּ וְהֵטִילוּ עָלֶיהָ כּוֹס שֶׁל צוֹנֵן וְרִיחֲשָׁה, וְטִהֵר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל כׇּל הַסְּעוּדָה כּוּלָּהּ.
They came and asked him, and he said to them: Is the kitchen boiling or cold? They said to him: It is boiling. He said to them: Go and pour a cup of cold liquid upon the lizard. They went and poured a cup of cold liquid on it and it quivered, demonstrating that it was still alive. That being the case, Rabban Gamliel pronounced the entire meal to be ritually pure, as a live creeping animal does not impart ritual impurity.
נִמְצָא מֶלֶךְ תָּלוּי בַּמַּלְכָּה, וְנִמְצֵאתָ מַלְכָּה תְּלוּיָה בְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, נִמְצֵאת כׇּל הַסְּעוּדָה תְּלוּיָה בְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.
The Gemara comments: It turns out that the king is dependent on the queen, and it turns out that the queen is dependent on Rabban Gamliel. And so it turns out that the entire royal meal is dependent upon Rabban Gamliel.
שָׁכַח מַה שֶּׁאָמַר לוֹ רַבּוֹ וְכוּ׳. שֶׁלִּי?! מַה שֶּׁקָּנָה עֶבֶד קָנָה רַבּוֹ!
We learned in the mishna: If the master had explicitly stated which type of animal to slaughter, but the slave forgot what his master said to him, the slave should slaughter both a lamb and a kid and stipulate: If my master said to slaughter a kid, the kid is for his Paschal offering and the lamb is for mine. The Gemara asks: How does it help if the slave stipulates that lamb will be for mine? Whatever a slave acquires, he does not gain ownership of it; rather, his master acquires it in his stead.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הוֹלֵךְ אֵצֶל רוֹעֶה הָרָגִיל רַבּוֹ אֶצְלוֹ, דְּנִיחָא לֵיהּ בְּתַקַּנְתָּא דְרַבֵּיהּ, וּמַקְנֵי לֵיהּ חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין לְרַבּוֹ רְשׁוּת בּוֹ.
Abaye said the slave can retain ownership of the lamb in the following manner: The slave goes to a shepherd that his master regularly patronizes, since it can be assumed such a person is pleased to find a solution for his master. The shepherd grants the slave ownership of one of the animals on condition that his master has no rights to it. With this condition, the slave is able to retain ownership of the animal, thus allowing him to effectively make the stipulation described in the mishna.
שָׁכַח רַבּוֹ מַה שֶּׁאָמַר לוֹ וְכוּ׳. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁשָּׁכַח אַחַר זְרִיקָה, דִּבְעִידָּנָא דְּאִיזְּרִיק דָּם — הֲוָה חֲזֵי לַאֲכִילָה. אֲבָל שָׁכַח לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה, דְּכִי אִיזְּרִיק דָּם לָא הֲוָה חֲזֵי לַאֲכִילָה — חַיָּיבִין לַעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי.
We learned in the mishna: If a slave forgot which animal his master had specified and therefore offered a lamb and a kid with a stipulation, and his master also forgot what he said to him, neither animal may be used. Instead, both are burned. However, despite this, both the master and the slave are exempt from observing the second Pesaḥ. Abaye said: They taught that they are exempt from the second Pesaḥ in a case where the master forgot only after the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, for at the time the blood of each animal was sprinkled, it was still fit to be eaten, since the master still knew which animal he desired. Both animals are therefore considered to have been offered properly, and so both master and slave are exempt from the second Pesaḥ. But if the slave had already forgotten which animal he specified before the sprinkling, so that when the blood was sprinkled the offering was not fit to be eaten, the animals are not considered to have been properly offered. Consequently, the master and slave are both obligated to observe the second Pesaḥ.
אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַבָּרַיְיתָא: חֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ עוֹרוֹת פִּסְחֵיהֶן זֶה בָּזֶה, וְנִמְצֵאת יַבֶּלֶת בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן — כּוּלָּן יוֹצְאִין לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה, וּפְטוּרִין מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי.
Some teach this statement of Abaye as referring to the following baraita: Five people had the hides of their Paschal lambs mixed up together, and a wart was found on one of them. Since a wart is one of the blemishes that disqualify an animal from being used as an offering, the Paschal lamb from which the hide came is invalid. Since it is not possible to identify which lamb the hide came from, the meat of all of the lambs must go out to the place designated for burning. Nevertheless, all five people are exempt from observing the second Pesaḥ.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה, דִּבְעִידָּנָא דְּאִיזְּרִיק דָּם מִיהָא הֲוָה חֲזֵי לַאֲכִילָה. אֲבָל נִתְעָרְבוּ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה — חַיָּיבִין לַעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי.
It is with regard to this baraita that Abaye said: They taught that they are all exempt from the second Pesaḥ in a case where the hides were mixed up together only after the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, for at the time the blood of each of the other four animals was sprinkled, each one of the four unblemished lambs was, at any rate, fit to be eaten, and therefore the owners are considered to have fulfilled their obligation to slaughter a fit Paschal lamb. As such, they are exempt from the second Pesaḥ. But if they were mixed up together before the sprinkling, each of the five lambs could possibly be the blemished one. Because of the doubt that exists with regard to all of them, they are all disqualified from being offered. Therefore, none of the five people fulfill their obligation, and they are all obligated to observe the second Pesaḥ.
מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי אַמַּתְנִיתִין, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַבָּרַיְיתָא. מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי אַבָּרַיְיתָא, אֲבָל אַמַּתְנִיתִין לָא. כֵּיוָן דִּכְשֵׁירִין נִינְהוּ, דְּאִי אִידְּכַר הֲוֵי חֲזֵי לַאֲכִילָה, קַמֵּי שְׁמַיָּא גַּלְיָא.
The Gemara comments: The one who teaches this statement of Abaye as referring to the case in the mishna, where the disqualification is due only to a lack of awareness of which animals are registered for whom, but the animals themselves are inherently valid to be used, he would say that Abaye’s ruling applies all the more so to the baraita, where the disqualification is due to a blemish in the body of the animal itself. However, the one who teaches Abaye’s statement as referring to the case in the baraita would say that with regard to the mishna, no, it does not apply. Since both animals are inherently valid to be used, for if the slave remembers which animal the master requested, each one will be fit to be eaten, the following may be said: It is revealed before God in Heaven which offering belongs to which person; the lack of awareness of this information does not impinge on the offerings’ validity, and therefore both the master and slave are exempt from the second Pesaḥ.
אָמַר מָר: וּפְטוּרִין מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי. וְהָא אִיכָּא חַד דְּלָא נָפֵיק!
The Gemara returns to discuss the previously mentioned baraita concerning five people who offered Paschal lambs, and it was made clear that one of the lambs was invalid: The Master said: All of them are exempt from observing the second Pesaḥ. The Gemara asks: But there is one, the owner of the lamb with the blemished hide, who did not fulfill his obligation to bring a valid Paschal lamb. How then can all five be exempt?
מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אִיפְשָׁר. הֵיכִי לֶיעְבֵּיד? לַיְתֵי כׇּל חַד וְחַד פֶּסַח — קָא מַיְיתֵי חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה, דְּאַרְבְּעָה מִינַּיְיהוּ עָבְדִי לְהוּ.
The Gemara answers: Because it is not possible to do otherwise; for what should he do? Let each one of the five bring a Paschal lamb. This would not be a solution. They would be bringing unconsecrated animals into the Temple courtyard, since four of them, i.e., the owners of the unblemished lambs, have already validly performed the ritual of the Paschal lamb. They are not obligated to bring another Paschal lamb; therefore, they are unable to consecrate another Paschal lamb. If they attempt to do so, the lamb remains unconsecrated and may not be brought into the Temple courtyard.
לַיְתֵי כּוּלְּהוּ חַד פֶּסַח — נִמְצָא פֶּסַח נֶאֱכָל שֶׁלֹּא לִמְנוּיָו.
The Gemara suggests an alternative way for the five to ensure that they have all fulfilled their obligations: Let them all bring one Paschal lamb as a unified group. The Gemara rejects this as well: This would also not be a solution. It would turn out that the Paschal lamb was eaten by those who have not registered for it, since one who has already fulfilled his obligation to bring a Paschal lamb is unable to be registered in a group formed in order to offer another one.
הַאי מַאי? נַיְתֵי כׇּל חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ פִּסְחוֹ, וְנַיתְנֵי וְנֵימָא: אִי דִּידִי בַּעַל מוּם — הַאי דְּאַיְיתַי הַשְׁתָּא נִיהְוֵי פֶּסַח, וְאִי דִּידִי תָּם — הַאי דְּאַיְיתַי הַשְׁתָּא נִיהְוֵי שְׁלָמִים!
What is this? Surely a solution can be found by using the following stipulation: Let each one bring his Paschal lamb and stipulate and say: If mine was the blemished lamb, this lamb that I am bringing now shall be a Paschal lamb, and if mine was unblemished, this lamb that I am bringing now shall be a peace-offering.
לָא אֶפְשָׁר,
It is not possible to do this,
