Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 17, 2021 | 讛壮 讘讗讚专 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!

Pesachim 88

Today’s Daf is sponsored by Dr. Stu and Ellen Shaffren to commemorate the 14th yahrtzeit of Stu鈥檚 mother Henneyeh bat Moshe Binyamin. “She very much valued learning and would have been extremely proud of her granddaughter learning daf yomi for her second cycle and her daughter in law being inspired to start as well.” And by Elana Riback Rand in memory of her grandfather, Harvey Riback (Yechiel Yaakov ben Moshe HaLevi) on the occasion of his shloshim. “Zaidy showed us what it means to live life to the fullest and to be a true mensch. May his neshama have an aliyah.”

Ulla brings a different reason why the Jews were exiled to Babylonia and brings a story to support it. Other drashot are brought regarding the temple being referred to as the house of the God of Jacob 鈥 why not the other fathers? And also about the significance of the day of the ingathering of the exiles. The gemara discusses different types of people – who is automatically included in the Passover sacrifice of the head of the household and who is not? How is a woman different? In which cases and why? Who else has the same status? The gemara explains why in the mishnah a slave who works for two masters is not counted in either master鈥檚 sacrifice. What does one who is half a slave and half a free man do? There is a contradiction between the mishnah and braita and the gemara resolves the contradiction by bringing a famous dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai regarding a slave of this kind. Because he can not marry in such a situation, what do we do to rectify the situation. In the end, Beit Hillel agrees with Beit Shamai that we force the master to release him so that he can fulfill the commandment of procreation. To answer the contradiction, the gemara distinguishes between before Beit Hillel changed their minds to after. The mishnah describes different situations in which someone tells his servant to slaughter Pesach and then something is unclear, such as, what kind of animal? If there are two animals slaughtered, how do you know which animal was slaughtered for whom? In which cases is the sacrifice considered valid, but no one can eat the meat? The gemara raises several questions about the mishna.

转诪专讬诐 讜讬注住拽讜 讘转讜专讛 注讜诇讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 拽专讬讘讜 诇讬讛 讟讬专讬谞讗 讚转诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻诪讛 讻讬 讛谞讬 讘讝讜讝讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 转诇转 讘讝讜讝讗 讗诪专 诪诇讗 爪谞讗 讚讚讜讘砖讗 讘讝讜讝讗 讜讘讘诇讗讬 诇讗 注住拽讬 讘讗讜专讬讬转讗

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.

讘诇讬诇讬讗 爪注专讜讛讜 讗诪专 诪诇讗 爪谞讗 住诪讗 讚诪讜转讗 讘讝讜讝讗 讘讘讘诇 讜讘讘诇讗讬 注住拽讬 讘讗讜专讬讬转讗

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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛诇讻讜 注诪讬诐 专讘讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 诇讻讜 讜谞注诇讛 讗诇 讛专 讛壮 讗诇 讘讬转 讗诇讛讬 讬注拽讘 讜讙讜壮 讗诇讛讬 讬注拽讘 讜诇讗 讗诇讛讬 讗讘专讛诐 讜讬爪讞拽

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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?

讗诇讗 诇讗 讻讗讘专讛诐 砖讻转讜讘 讘讜 讛专 砖谞讗诪专 讗砖专 讬讗诪专 讛讬讜诐 讘讛专 讛壮 讬专讗讛 讜诇讗 讻讬爪讞拽 砖讻转讜讘 讘讜 砖讚讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬爪讗 讬爪讞拽 诇砖讜讞 讘砖讚讛 讗诇讗 讻讬注拽讘 砖拽专讗讜 讘讬转 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬拽专讗 讗转 砖诐 讛诪拽讜诐 讛讛讜讗 讘讬转 讗诇

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: 鈥淎s it is said on this day: On the mount where the Lord is seen鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd Isaac went out to meditate in the field鈥 (Genesis 24:63). Rather, it will be described as it was referred to by Jacob, who called it house, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he called the name of that place Beth-El鈥 (Genesis 28:19), which means house of God.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讚讜诇 拽讘讜抓 讙诇讬讜转 讻讬讜诐 砖谞讘专讗讜 讘讜 砖诪讬诐 讜讗专抓 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞拽讘爪讜 讘谞讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讬讞讚讜 讜砖诪讜 诇讛诐 专讗砖 讗讞讚 讜注诇讜 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讻讬 讙讚讜诇 讬讜诐 讬讝专注讗诇 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬讛讬 注专讘 讜讬讛讬 讘拽专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚:

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Hosea 2:2), and it is written in the narrative of Creation: 鈥淎nd there was evening and there was morning, one day鈥 (Genesis 1:5).

讬转讜诐 砖砖讞讟讜 注诇讬讜 讗驻讜讟专讜驻住讬谉 讜讻讜壮: 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讬砖 讘专讬专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 砖讛 诇讘讬转 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

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鈥檚 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: 鈥淭hey shall take to them every man a lamb, according to their fathers鈥 houses, a lamb for a household鈥 (Exodus 12:3), indicating that a minor鈥檚 membership in the household is sufficient for him to be registered in the household鈥檚 Paschal lamb in any case, even without his agreement.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讛 诇讘讬转 诪诇诪讚 砖讗讚诐 诪讘讬讗 讜砖讜讞讟 注诇 讬讚讬 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛拽讟谞讬诐 讜注诇 讬讚讬 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛讻谞注谞讬诐 讘讬谉 诪讚注转谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诪讚注转谉 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讜 砖讜讞讟 注诇 讬讚讬 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜注诇 讬讚讬 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛注讘专讬诐 讜注诇 讬讚 讗砖转讜 讗诇讗 诪讚注转谉

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.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讗讚诐 诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜注诇 讬讚讬 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛注讘专讬诐 讜注诇 讬讚 讗砖转讜 讗诇讗 诪讚注转谉 讗讘诇 砖讜讞讟 讛讜讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛拽讟谞讬诐 讜注诇 讬讚讬 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛讻谞注谞讬诐 讘讬谉 诪讚注转谉 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诪讚注转谉 讜讻讜诇谉 砖砖讞讟讜 讜砖讞讟 专讘谉 注诇讬讛谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘砖诇 专讘谉 讜讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘砖诇 注爪诪谉

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.

讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讗砖讛 砖讬讻讜诇讛 诇诪讞讜转

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.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗砖讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗砖讛 讜讻诇 讚讚诪讬 诇讛

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鈥檚 and master鈥檚 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鈥檚 intention to include them in his. However, minor children and Canaanite slaves lack any legally independent identity, and so their master鈥檚 intention for them to be included in his Paschal lamb precludes their ability to offer their own.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讗砖讛 砖讬讻讜诇讛 诇诪讞讜转 讟注诪讗 讚诪讞讬 讛讗 诇讗 诪讞讬 谞驻拽讗 讘砖诇 讘注诇讛 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 讜诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讗砖转讜 讗诇讗 诪讚注转谉 讛讗 住转诪讗 诇讗 谞驻拽讗

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鈥檚 Paschal lamb. But doesn鈥檛 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鈥檚 lamb?

诪讗讬 讗诇讗 诪讚注转谉 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讗诇讗 讘住转诪讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪讜专 诇讗

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鈥檚 Paschal lamb.

讜讛讗 讻讜诇诐 砖砖讞讟讜 讜砖讞讟 专讘谉 注诇讬讛谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘砖诇 专讘谉 讚讘住转诪讗 讜拽转谞讬 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讗砖讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讻讜诇讛 诇诪讞讜转

The Gemara challenges this reading of the first clause. But wasn鈥檛 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鈥檚 sacrifice, unless he explicitly indicates intent to the contrary.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讬讜谉 砖砖讞讟讜 讗讬谉 诇讱 诪讬讞讜讬 讙讚讜诇 诪讝讛:

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鈥檚 group.

注讘讚 砖诇 砖谞讬 砖讜转驻讬谉 讜讻讜壮: 专诪讬 诇讬讛 专讘 注讬谞讗 住讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 转谞谉 注讘讚 砖诇 砖谞讬 砖讜转驻讬谉 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诪砖诇 砖谞讬讛谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 专爪讛 诪讝讛 讗讜讻诇 专爪讛 诪讝讛 讗讜讻诇

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 Na岣an. We learned in the mishna: A slave jointly owned by two partners may not eat from the lamb of either of them. But wasn鈥檛 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讬谞讗 住讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 驻转讬讗 讗讜讻诪讗 诪讬谞讬 讜诪讬谞讱 转住转讬讬诐 砖诪注转转讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讚拽驻讚讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讘专讬讬转讗 讚诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讗讛讚讚讬:

Rav Na岣an 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鈥檚 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.

诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诪砖诇 专讘讜 讜讻讜壮: 诪砖诇 专讘讜 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讗讘诇 诪砖诇 注爪诪讜 讬讗讻诇 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诇讗 诪砖诇讜 讜诇讗 诪砖诇 专讘讜

We learned in the mishna: One who is half slave and half free man may not eat from his master鈥檚 Paschal lamb. It is specifically from his master鈥檚 lamb that he may not eat; however, from his own lamb he may eat. But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: He may eat neither from his own nor from his master鈥檚 Paschal lamb?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讻诪砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讻讗谉 讻诪砖谞讛 讗讞专讜谞讛 讚转谞谉 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 注讜讘讚 讗转 专讘讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗转 注爪诪讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐

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鈥檚 lamb, is in accordance with the original version of the mishna, which cites Beit Hillel鈥檚 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鈥檚 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:

转拽谞转诐 讗转 专讘讜 讜讗转 注爪诪讜 诇讗 转拽谞转诐 诇讬砖讗 砖驻讞讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 砖讻讘专 讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 诇讬砖讗 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 砖注讚讬讬谉 讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讬讘讟诇 讜讛诇讗 诇讗 谞讘专讗 讛注讜诇诐 讗诇讗 诇驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讛讜 讘专讗讛 (讗诇讗) 诇砖讘转 讬爪专讛 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜驻讬谉 讗转 专讘讜 讜注讜砖讛 讗讜转讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讜讻讜转讘 砖讟专 注诇 讞爪讬 讚诪讬讜

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: 鈥淗e did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited鈥 (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.

讜讞讝专讜 讘讬转 讛讬诇诇 诇讛讜专讜转 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬:

The ultimate version of the mishna records the retraction of Beit Hillel: And Beit Hillel retracted its position and ruled like Beit Shammai.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 诇注讘讚讜 爪讗 讜砖讞讜讟 注诇讬 讗转 讛驻住讞 砖讞讟 讙讚讬 讬讗讻诇 砖讞讟 讟诇讛 讬讗讻诇 砖讞讟 讙讚讬 讜讟诇讛 讬讗讻诇 诪谉 讛专讗砖讜谉

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.

砖讻讞 诪讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讜 讻讬爪讚 讬注砖讛 讬砖讞讟 讟诇讛 讜讙讚讬 讜讬讗诪专 讗诐 讙讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬 专讘讬 讙讚讬 砖诇讜 讜讟诇讛 砖诇讬 讜讗诐 讟诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬 专讘讬 讛讟诇讛 砖诇讜 讜讙讚讬 砖诇讬

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.

砖讻讞 专讘讜 诪讛 讗诪专 诇讜 砖谞讬讛谉 讬爪讗讜 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇注砖讜转 驻住讞 砖谞讬:

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 Pesa岣 if the blood of the animals has already been applied to the altar before the master forgot.

讙诪壮 驻砖讬讟讗 砖讞讟 讙讚讬 讬讗讻诇 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚专讙讬诇 讘讟诇讛 砖讞讟 讟诇讛 讬讗讻诇 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚专讙讬诇 讘讙讚讬

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鈥檚 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.

砖讞讟 讙讚讬 讜讟诇讛 讬讗讻诇 诪谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇 砖谞讬 驻住讞讬诐 讻讗讞讚

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鈥檛 it taught: One may not be registered for two Paschal offerings at once?

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘诪诇讱 讜诪诇讻讛

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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇 砖谞讬 驻住讞讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讜诪注砖讛 讘诪诇讱 讜诪诇讻讛 砖讗诪专讜 诇注讘讚讬讛诐 爪讗讜 讜砖讞讟讜 注诇讬谞讜 讗转 讛驻住讞 讜讬爪讗讜 讜砖讞讟讜 注诇讬讛谉 砖谞讬 驻住讞讬诐 讘讗讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 讛诪诇讱 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讻讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 讛诪诇讻讛 讘讗讜 讜砖讗诇讜 诪谉 讛诪诇讻讛 讗诪专讛 诇讛诐 诇讻讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

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.

讘讗讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪诇讻讛 讜诪诇讱 讚讚注转谉 拽诇讛 注诇讬讛谉 讬讗讻诇讜 诪谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 讗谞谉 诇讗 谞讗讻诇 诇讗 诪谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛砖谞讬

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.

讜砖讜讘 驻注诐 讗讞转 谞诪爪讗转 讛诇讟讗讛 讘讘讬转 讛诪讟讘讞讬诐 讜讘拽砖讜 诇讟诪讗 讻诇 讛住注讜讚讛 讻讜诇讛 讘讗讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 讛诪诇讱 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讻讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 讛诪诇讻讛 讘讗讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 讛诪诇讻讛 讗诪专讛 诇讛诐 诇讻讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

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.

讘讗讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗讜转讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诪讟讘讞讬诐 专讜转讞 讗讜 爪讜谞谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 专讜转讞 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讻讜 讜讛讟讬诇讜 注诇讬讛 讻讜住 砖诇 爪讜谞谉 讛诇讻讜 讜讛讟讬诇讜 注诇讬讛 讻讜住 砖诇 爪讜谞谉 讜专讬讞砖讛 讜讟讛专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讻诇 讛住注讜讚讛 讻讜诇讛

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.

谞诪爪讗 诪诇讱 转诇讜讬 讘诪诇讻讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 诪诇讻讛 转诇讜讬讛 讘专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 谞诪爪讗转 讻诇 讛住注讜讚讛 转诇讜讬讛 讘专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇:

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.

砖讻讞 诪讛 砖讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讜 讜讻讜壮: 砖诇讬 诪讛 砖拽谞讛 注讘讚 拽谞讛 专讘讜

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讜诇讱 讗爪诇 专讜注讛 讛专讙讬诇 专讘讜 讗爪诇讜 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘转拽谞转讗 讚专讘讬讛 讜诪拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇专讘讜 专砖讜转 讘讜:

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.

砖讻讞 专讘讜 诪讛 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖砖讻讞 讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗讬讝专讬拽 讚诐 讛讜讛 讞讝讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗讘诇 砖讻讞 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 讚讻讬 讗讬讝专讬拽 讚诐 诇讗 讛讜讛 讞讝讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇注砖讜转 驻住讞 砖谞讬

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 Pesa岣. Abaye said: They taught that they are exempt from the second Pesa岣 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 Pesa岣. 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 Pesa岣.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讘专讬讬转讗 讞诪砖讛 砖谞转注专讘讜 注讜专讜转 驻住讞讬讛谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讬讘诇转 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讻讜诇谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇注砖讜转 驻住讞 砖谞讬

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 Pesa岣.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞转注专讘讜 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗讬讝专讬拽 讚诐 诪讬讛讗 讛讜讛 讞讝讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗讘诇 谞转注专讘讜 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇注砖讜转 驻住讞 砖谞讬

It is with regard to this baraita that Abaye said: They taught that they are all exempt from the second Pesa岣 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 Pesa岣. 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 Pesa岣.

诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗讘专讬讬转讗 诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讗讘专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讻砖讬专讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讗讬 讗讬讚讻专 讛讜讬 讞讝讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 拽诪讬 砖诪讬讗 讙诇讬讗

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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 of the offerings鈥 validity, and therefore both the master and slave are exempt from the second Pesa岣.

讗诪专 诪专 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇注砖讜转 驻住讞 砖谞讬 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讞讚 讚诇讗 谞驻讬拽

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 Pesa岣. 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?

诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗讬驻砖专 讛讬讻讬 诇讬注讘讬讚 诇讬转讬 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 驻住讞 拽讗 诪讬讬转讬 讞讜诇讬谉 诇注讝专讛 讚讗专讘注讛 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 注讘讚讬 诇讛讜

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.

诇讬转讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讞讚 驻住讞 谞诪爪讗 驻住讞 谞讗讻诇 砖诇讗 诇诪谞讜讬讜

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.

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 谞讬转讬 讻诇 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 驻住讞讜 讜谞讬转谞讬 讜谞讬诪讗 讗讬 讚讬讚讬 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讛讗讬 讚讗讬讬转讬 讛砖转讗 谞讬讛讜讬 驻住讞 讜讗讬 讚讬讚讬 转诐 讛讗讬 讚讗讬讬转讬 讛砖转讗 谞讬讛讜讬 砖诇诪讬诐

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.

诇讗 讗驻砖专

It is not possible to do this,

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Pesachim 88-94 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we are going to learn how different members of the household join in to the Korban Pesach, who...

Pesachim 88

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 88

转诪专讬诐 讜讬注住拽讜 讘转讜专讛 注讜诇讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 拽专讬讘讜 诇讬讛 讟讬专讬谞讗 讚转诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻诪讛 讻讬 讛谞讬 讘讝讜讝讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 转诇转 讘讝讜讝讗 讗诪专 诪诇讗 爪谞讗 讚讚讜讘砖讗 讘讝讜讝讗 讜讘讘诇讗讬 诇讗 注住拽讬 讘讗讜专讬讬转讗

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.

讘诇讬诇讬讗 爪注专讜讛讜 讗诪专 诪诇讗 爪谞讗 住诪讗 讚诪讜转讗 讘讝讜讝讗 讘讘讘诇 讜讘讘诇讗讬 注住拽讬 讘讗讜专讬讬转讗

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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛诇讻讜 注诪讬诐 专讘讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 诇讻讜 讜谞注诇讛 讗诇 讛专 讛壮 讗诇 讘讬转 讗诇讛讬 讬注拽讘 讜讙讜壮 讗诇讛讬 讬注拽讘 讜诇讗 讗诇讛讬 讗讘专讛诐 讜讬爪讞拽

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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?

讗诇讗 诇讗 讻讗讘专讛诐 砖讻转讜讘 讘讜 讛专 砖谞讗诪专 讗砖专 讬讗诪专 讛讬讜诐 讘讛专 讛壮 讬专讗讛 讜诇讗 讻讬爪讞拽 砖讻转讜讘 讘讜 砖讚讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬爪讗 讬爪讞拽 诇砖讜讞 讘砖讚讛 讗诇讗 讻讬注拽讘 砖拽专讗讜 讘讬转 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬拽专讗 讗转 砖诐 讛诪拽讜诐 讛讛讜讗 讘讬转 讗诇

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: 鈥淎s it is said on this day: On the mount where the Lord is seen鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd Isaac went out to meditate in the field鈥 (Genesis 24:63). Rather, it will be described as it was referred to by Jacob, who called it house, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he called the name of that place Beth-El鈥 (Genesis 28:19), which means house of God.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讚讜诇 拽讘讜抓 讙诇讬讜转 讻讬讜诐 砖谞讘专讗讜 讘讜 砖诪讬诐 讜讗专抓 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞拽讘爪讜 讘谞讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讬讞讚讜 讜砖诪讜 诇讛诐 专讗砖 讗讞讚 讜注诇讜 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讻讬 讙讚讜诇 讬讜诐 讬讝专注讗诇 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬讛讬 注专讘 讜讬讛讬 讘拽专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚:

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Hosea 2:2), and it is written in the narrative of Creation: 鈥淎nd there was evening and there was morning, one day鈥 (Genesis 1:5).

讬转讜诐 砖砖讞讟讜 注诇讬讜 讗驻讜讟专讜驻住讬谉 讜讻讜壮: 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讬砖 讘专讬专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 砖讛 诇讘讬转 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

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鈥檚 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: 鈥淭hey shall take to them every man a lamb, according to their fathers鈥 houses, a lamb for a household鈥 (Exodus 12:3), indicating that a minor鈥檚 membership in the household is sufficient for him to be registered in the household鈥檚 Paschal lamb in any case, even without his agreement.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讛 诇讘讬转 诪诇诪讚 砖讗讚诐 诪讘讬讗 讜砖讜讞讟 注诇 讬讚讬 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛拽讟谞讬诐 讜注诇 讬讚讬 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛讻谞注谞讬诐 讘讬谉 诪讚注转谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诪讚注转谉 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讜 砖讜讞讟 注诇 讬讚讬 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜注诇 讬讚讬 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛注讘专讬诐 讜注诇 讬讚 讗砖转讜 讗诇讗 诪讚注转谉

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.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讗讚诐 诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜注诇 讬讚讬 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛注讘专讬诐 讜注诇 讬讚 讗砖转讜 讗诇讗 诪讚注转谉 讗讘诇 砖讜讞讟 讛讜讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛拽讟谞讬诐 讜注诇 讬讚讬 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛讻谞注谞讬诐 讘讬谉 诪讚注转谉 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诪讚注转谉 讜讻讜诇谉 砖砖讞讟讜 讜砖讞讟 专讘谉 注诇讬讛谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘砖诇 专讘谉 讜讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘砖诇 注爪诪谉

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.

讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讗砖讛 砖讬讻讜诇讛 诇诪讞讜转

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.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗砖讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗砖讛 讜讻诇 讚讚诪讬 诇讛

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鈥檚 and master鈥檚 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鈥檚 intention to include them in his. However, minor children and Canaanite slaves lack any legally independent identity, and so their master鈥檚 intention for them to be included in his Paschal lamb precludes their ability to offer their own.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讗砖讛 砖讬讻讜诇讛 诇诪讞讜转 讟注诪讗 讚诪讞讬 讛讗 诇讗 诪讞讬 谞驻拽讗 讘砖诇 讘注诇讛 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 讜诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讗砖转讜 讗诇讗 诪讚注转谉 讛讗 住转诪讗 诇讗 谞驻拽讗

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鈥檚 Paschal lamb. But doesn鈥檛 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鈥檚 lamb?

诪讗讬 讗诇讗 诪讚注转谉 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讗诇讗 讘住转诪讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪讜专 诇讗

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鈥檚 Paschal lamb.

讜讛讗 讻讜诇诐 砖砖讞讟讜 讜砖讞讟 专讘谉 注诇讬讛谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘砖诇 专讘谉 讚讘住转诪讗 讜拽转谞讬 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讗砖讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讻讜诇讛 诇诪讞讜转

The Gemara challenges this reading of the first clause. But wasn鈥檛 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鈥檚 sacrifice, unless he explicitly indicates intent to the contrary.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讬讜谉 砖砖讞讟讜 讗讬谉 诇讱 诪讬讞讜讬 讙讚讜诇 诪讝讛:

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鈥檚 group.

注讘讚 砖诇 砖谞讬 砖讜转驻讬谉 讜讻讜壮: 专诪讬 诇讬讛 专讘 注讬谞讗 住讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 转谞谉 注讘讚 砖诇 砖谞讬 砖讜转驻讬谉 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诪砖诇 砖谞讬讛谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 专爪讛 诪讝讛 讗讜讻诇 专爪讛 诪讝讛 讗讜讻诇

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 Na岣an. We learned in the mishna: A slave jointly owned by two partners may not eat from the lamb of either of them. But wasn鈥檛 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讬谞讗 住讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 驻转讬讗 讗讜讻诪讗 诪讬谞讬 讜诪讬谞讱 转住转讬讬诐 砖诪注转转讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讚拽驻讚讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讘专讬讬转讗 讚诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讗讛讚讚讬:

Rav Na岣an 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鈥檚 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.

诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诪砖诇 专讘讜 讜讻讜壮: 诪砖诇 专讘讜 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讗讘诇 诪砖诇 注爪诪讜 讬讗讻诇 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诇讗 诪砖诇讜 讜诇讗 诪砖诇 专讘讜

We learned in the mishna: One who is half slave and half free man may not eat from his master鈥檚 Paschal lamb. It is specifically from his master鈥檚 lamb that he may not eat; however, from his own lamb he may eat. But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: He may eat neither from his own nor from his master鈥檚 Paschal lamb?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讻诪砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讻讗谉 讻诪砖谞讛 讗讞专讜谞讛 讚转谞谉 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 注讜讘讚 讗转 专讘讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗转 注爪诪讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐

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鈥檚 lamb, is in accordance with the original version of the mishna, which cites Beit Hillel鈥檚 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鈥檚 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:

转拽谞转诐 讗转 专讘讜 讜讗转 注爪诪讜 诇讗 转拽谞转诐 诇讬砖讗 砖驻讞讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 砖讻讘专 讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 诇讬砖讗 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 砖注讚讬讬谉 讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讬讘讟诇 讜讛诇讗 诇讗 谞讘专讗 讛注讜诇诐 讗诇讗 诇驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讛讜 讘专讗讛 (讗诇讗) 诇砖讘转 讬爪专讛 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜驻讬谉 讗转 专讘讜 讜注讜砖讛 讗讜转讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讜讻讜转讘 砖讟专 注诇 讞爪讬 讚诪讬讜

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: 鈥淗e did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited鈥 (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.

讜讞讝专讜 讘讬转 讛讬诇诇 诇讛讜专讜转 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬:

The ultimate version of the mishna records the retraction of Beit Hillel: And Beit Hillel retracted its position and ruled like Beit Shammai.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 诇注讘讚讜 爪讗 讜砖讞讜讟 注诇讬 讗转 讛驻住讞 砖讞讟 讙讚讬 讬讗讻诇 砖讞讟 讟诇讛 讬讗讻诇 砖讞讟 讙讚讬 讜讟诇讛 讬讗讻诇 诪谉 讛专讗砖讜谉

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.

砖讻讞 诪讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讜 讻讬爪讚 讬注砖讛 讬砖讞讟 讟诇讛 讜讙讚讬 讜讬讗诪专 讗诐 讙讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬 专讘讬 讙讚讬 砖诇讜 讜讟诇讛 砖诇讬 讜讗诐 讟诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬 专讘讬 讛讟诇讛 砖诇讜 讜讙讚讬 砖诇讬

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.

砖讻讞 专讘讜 诪讛 讗诪专 诇讜 砖谞讬讛谉 讬爪讗讜 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇注砖讜转 驻住讞 砖谞讬:

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 Pesa岣 if the blood of the animals has already been applied to the altar before the master forgot.

讙诪壮 驻砖讬讟讗 砖讞讟 讙讚讬 讬讗讻诇 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚专讙讬诇 讘讟诇讛 砖讞讟 讟诇讛 讬讗讻诇 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚专讙讬诇 讘讙讚讬

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鈥檚 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.

砖讞讟 讙讚讬 讜讟诇讛 讬讗讻诇 诪谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇 砖谞讬 驻住讞讬诐 讻讗讞讚

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鈥檛 it taught: One may not be registered for two Paschal offerings at once?

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘诪诇讱 讜诪诇讻讛

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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇 砖谞讬 驻住讞讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讜诪注砖讛 讘诪诇讱 讜诪诇讻讛 砖讗诪专讜 诇注讘讚讬讛诐 爪讗讜 讜砖讞讟讜 注诇讬谞讜 讗转 讛驻住讞 讜讬爪讗讜 讜砖讞讟讜 注诇讬讛谉 砖谞讬 驻住讞讬诐 讘讗讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 讛诪诇讱 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讻讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 讛诪诇讻讛 讘讗讜 讜砖讗诇讜 诪谉 讛诪诇讻讛 讗诪专讛 诇讛诐 诇讻讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

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.

讘讗讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪诇讻讛 讜诪诇讱 讚讚注转谉 拽诇讛 注诇讬讛谉 讬讗讻诇讜 诪谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 讗谞谉 诇讗 谞讗讻诇 诇讗 诪谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛砖谞讬

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.

讜砖讜讘 驻注诐 讗讞转 谞诪爪讗转 讛诇讟讗讛 讘讘讬转 讛诪讟讘讞讬诐 讜讘拽砖讜 诇讟诪讗 讻诇 讛住注讜讚讛 讻讜诇讛 讘讗讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 讛诪诇讱 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讻讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 讛诪诇讻讛 讘讗讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 讛诪诇讻讛 讗诪专讛 诇讛诐 诇讻讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

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.

讘讗讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗讜转讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诪讟讘讞讬诐 专讜转讞 讗讜 爪讜谞谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 专讜转讞 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讻讜 讜讛讟讬诇讜 注诇讬讛 讻讜住 砖诇 爪讜谞谉 讛诇讻讜 讜讛讟讬诇讜 注诇讬讛 讻讜住 砖诇 爪讜谞谉 讜专讬讞砖讛 讜讟讛专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讻诇 讛住注讜讚讛 讻讜诇讛

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.

谞诪爪讗 诪诇讱 转诇讜讬 讘诪诇讻讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 诪诇讻讛 转诇讜讬讛 讘专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 谞诪爪讗转 讻诇 讛住注讜讚讛 转诇讜讬讛 讘专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇:

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.

砖讻讞 诪讛 砖讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讜 讜讻讜壮: 砖诇讬 诪讛 砖拽谞讛 注讘讚 拽谞讛 专讘讜

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讜诇讱 讗爪诇 专讜注讛 讛专讙讬诇 专讘讜 讗爪诇讜 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘转拽谞转讗 讚专讘讬讛 讜诪拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇专讘讜 专砖讜转 讘讜:

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.

砖讻讞 专讘讜 诪讛 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖砖讻讞 讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗讬讝专讬拽 讚诐 讛讜讛 讞讝讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗讘诇 砖讻讞 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 讚讻讬 讗讬讝专讬拽 讚诐 诇讗 讛讜讛 讞讝讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇注砖讜转 驻住讞 砖谞讬

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 Pesa岣. Abaye said: They taught that they are exempt from the second Pesa岣 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 Pesa岣. 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 Pesa岣.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讘专讬讬转讗 讞诪砖讛 砖谞转注专讘讜 注讜专讜转 驻住讞讬讛谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讬讘诇转 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讻讜诇谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇注砖讜转 驻住讞 砖谞讬

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 Pesa岣.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞转注专讘讜 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗讬讝专讬拽 讚诐 诪讬讛讗 讛讜讛 讞讝讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗讘诇 谞转注专讘讜 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇注砖讜转 驻住讞 砖谞讬

It is with regard to this baraita that Abaye said: They taught that they are all exempt from the second Pesa岣 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 Pesa岣. 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 Pesa岣.

诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗讘专讬讬转讗 诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讗讘专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讻砖讬专讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讗讬 讗讬讚讻专 讛讜讬 讞讝讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 拽诪讬 砖诪讬讗 讙诇讬讗

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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 of the offerings鈥 validity, and therefore both the master and slave are exempt from the second Pesa岣.

讗诪专 诪专 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇注砖讜转 驻住讞 砖谞讬 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讞讚 讚诇讗 谞驻讬拽

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 Pesa岣. 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?

诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗讬驻砖专 讛讬讻讬 诇讬注讘讬讚 诇讬转讬 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 驻住讞 拽讗 诪讬讬转讬 讞讜诇讬谉 诇注讝专讛 讚讗专讘注讛 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 注讘讚讬 诇讛讜

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.

诇讬转讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讞讚 驻住讞 谞诪爪讗 驻住讞 谞讗讻诇 砖诇讗 诇诪谞讜讬讜

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.

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 谞讬转讬 讻诇 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 驻住讞讜 讜谞讬转谞讬 讜谞讬诪讗 讗讬 讚讬讚讬 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讛讗讬 讚讗讬讬转讬 讛砖转讗 谞讬讛讜讬 驻住讞 讜讗讬 讚讬讚讬 转诐 讛讗讬 讚讗讬讬转讬 讛砖转讗 谞讬讛讜讬 砖诇诪讬诐

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.

诇讗 讗驻砖专

It is not possible to do this,

Scroll To Top