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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 18, 2021 | 讜壮 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 is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit

Pesachim 89

Today’s Daf is sponsored by Erica Kolatch in commemoration of the 5th yahrtzeit of her mother, “the Honorable Constance Glube, Chaya Rachel bat Shmuel. Connie shattered glass ceilings in the field of law in Canada throughout her life. Michelle was a scholar-in-residence at the Kemp Mill Synagogue in Maryland in spring 2016 while I was in avelut and I have been learning the daf ever since. I wonder what my mother’s reaction would be?” And by Risa Tzohar in loving memory of Esther Deena bat Risa v’David on her fifth yahrtzeit. And by Dina Hirshfeld-Becker in memory of her mother, Sarina Bialik Hirshfeld, z”l whose 13th yahrtzeit is today. “My mother told me that she was in the first class at Yeshiva of Flatbush High School in which girls were allowed to learn Talmud, and her father was the teacher (Dr. Manoach Bialik, z”l). Her memory is a blessing that is with me.” And by Stuart Pilichowski in loving memory of his mother, Faiga Rochel bat Yosef, “a survivor of the Shoah, who would be so proud of her great-granddaughter, Temimah, for learning Daf Yomi.”

In a case of five people who sacrificed and the hides mixed and they realized one was blemished and they do not know which was blemished, everyone is exempt from Pesach Sheni. Why don鈥檛 they each bring a sacrifice on Pesach Sheni on condition – either it will be a Pesach if theirs was blemished and if not, will be offered as a peace offering? The gemara raises several explanations for why this is not a possibility and from the discussion, we learn about the differences between the Passover and peace offerings. The mishna brings a story about a father who tried to encourage (鈥渂ribe鈥) his children to get to Jerusalem quickly. The gemara discusses the case and the halakhic details. Until what point can one change groups (chaburas) for the Pesach offering? If someone invites guests to add to the group without checking with the others, the other members can give him his share and tell him to create a new group with his food only with the new guest. Is it possible to learn from this case to one where someone eats too much food that the group can give him his portion and tell him to sit separately? Does this also apply to a regular meal?

 

诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讚讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讻诇讬 诇讬讛


because there are the breast and the hind leg, which the priests eat only if the offering is a peace-offering, but not if it is a Paschal lamb. Due to the distinction between the two types of offerings, the proposed stipulation does not provide a solution. It would remain unclear who should eat these portions of the offering.


讜谞讬转讬 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讻讛谉 讘讛讚讬讛


The Gemara suggests that it may still be possible to find a way to use the stipulation: Let each one of these five people bringing a new Paschal lamb bring a priest to be registered with him for their Paschal lamb. Then the priest will eat the breasts and hind legs. Since the priest eats these portions of the offering in any event, there is no longer any practical distinction between the two types of offerings. The stipulation should therefore provide a solution.


讛讗讬 讻讛谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚注讘讬讚 驻住讞 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讗讬 驻住讞 讛讜讗 讜谞诪爪讗 驻住讞 谞讗讻诇 砖诇讗 诇诪谞讜讬讜 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 驻住讞 讚讬诇诪讗 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 注讘讬讚 驻住讞


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: What are the circumstances of this priest? If he had already performed the ritual of the Paschal lamb during the first Pesa岣, then, as the Gemara explained previously, he is unable to be registered to partake of a new Paschal lamb. If so, there is concern that perhaps this offering is a Paschal lamb and not a peace-offering, and it will turn out that a Paschal lamb is eaten by those who did not register for it. And if, on the other hand, the priest had not performed the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesa岣, there is concern that perhaps this offering is a peace-offering, and it would turn out that this priest did not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb at all.


讜谞讬转讬 讻诇 讞诪砖讛 讞讚 讻讛谉 讚诇讗 注讘讚 驻住讞 讜谞讬诪谞讬 注讬诇讜讬讛 讛谞讬 讞诪砖讛 驻住讞讬诐 讚诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬讻讗 讞讚 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 驻住讞 讜拽讗 谞驻拽讬 讘讬讛


The Gemara modifies its suggestion: Let all five together bring one priest, who has not yet performed the ritual of the Paschal lamb. And let the priest register for all these five Paschal lambs. This should provide a solution. Whichever way you look at it, there is one person who has not yet performed the ritual of the Paschal lamb, and the priest will now fulfill his obligation together with him. If the priest then eats the breasts and hind legs of all the offerings, the stipulation should provide a viable solution.


讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪诪注讬讟 讘讗讻讬诇转 砖诇诪讬诐 讚讗讬诇讜 驻住讞 诇讬讜诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讜讗讬诇讜 砖诇诪讬诐 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚


The Gemara identifies a further distinction between a peace-offering and the Paschal lamb that precludes the use of the stipulation: Rather, the reason it is not possible to use the stipulation is because it would reduce the amount of time available for eating the peace-offering, for a Paschal lamb may be eaten only for a day and a night, whereas a peace-offering may be eaten for two days and one night. Were the stipulation to be made, all the offerings would have an uncertain status of either being a peace-offering or a Paschal lamb. They would therefore all be treated with the strictures of a Paschal lamb, and any meat remaining on the morning after the first night would have to be burnt. However, in the event that the offering was actually a peace-offering, this would be premature, since it may still be eaten for another day.


讜谞讬转讬 诪讜转专 讛驻住讞


The Gemara modifies the proposed stipulation: Instead of making a stipulation between a Paschal lamb and a regular peace-offering, let each one of them specify that if they have already fulfilled their obligations to bring a Paschal lamb, their intention is to consecrate and bring the current offering as a surplus Paschal lamb. The status of a surplus Paschal lamb is usually achieved when an animal is originally consecrated as a Paschal lamb but for some reason is not offered. Such an animal is offered as a type of peace-offering.


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 讗讬 讚讬讚讬 转诐 讛讜讗 谞讬讛讜讬 讛讗讬 讚讗讬讬转讬 讛砖转讗 砖诇诪讬诐 讚诪讜转专 讛驻住讞 谞讗讻诇 诇讬讜诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚


The Gemara assumes here that it is also possible to consecrate an animal directly with this status, and therefore the following stipulation could be used. And when bringing their lambs they should each 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 surplus Paschal lamb, which is a type of peace-offering and may therefore be offered even if one has already fulfilled his obligation to bring a Paschal lamb. Although a surplus Paschal lamb has the sanctity of a peace-offering, it may be eaten for only one day and one night, similar to a Paschal lamb. Since there is no distinction between the time allotted to eat the two types of offerings, this stipulation should provide a solution.


讜讻讬 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 转讞诇讛 诇诪讜转专讜转 讜谞讟专讞讜 讜谞讬讬转讬 诪讜转专 讛驻住讞


The Gemara challenges this suggestion: But can we designate animals initially as surplus Paschal lambs? This cannot be done; the sanctity of a surplus Paschal lamb is achieved only with an animal that was initially designated for a Paschal lamb but remained unused. If so, how is the suggested stipulation tenable? The Gemara explains: Let them trouble themselves to find and bring an unused leftover animal already invested with the sanctity of a surplus Paschal lamb, and let them make the suggested stipulation upon it. In this way, the stipulation should work and provide a solution.


讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 住诪讬讻讛 讚讗讬诇讜 驻住讞 诇讗 讘注讬 住诪讬讻讛 讜讗讬诇讜 诪讜转专 讘注讬 住诪讬讻讛


The Gemara identifies a distinction that exists even between a Paschal lamb and a surplus Paschal lamb that precludes the use of even this suggested stipulation. Rather, it is not possible to use the stipulation because of the requirement to perform the act of placing one鈥檚 hands on the head of the offering, for a Paschal lamb does not need the act of placing one鈥檚 hands, whereas a surplus Paschal lamb, since it is a type of peace-offering, does need the act of placing one鈥檚 hands. Due to this distinction, the proposed stipulation cannot provide a solution. It would remain unclear whether the offering requires one to perform the act of placing one鈥檚 hands on its head, an act that one is prohibited to do on an offering that does not require it.


讛讗 转讬谞讞 拽专讘谉 讗谞砖讬诐 拽专讘谉 谞砖讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


This distinction works out well to explain why the stipulation can鈥檛 be used for an offering of men, since a man鈥檚 offering requires the act of placing one鈥檚 hands. However, if the case involved an offering of women, for which there is no such requirement, what is there to say? In such a case, there is no distinction between a Paschal lamb and a surplus Paschal lamb, and therefore the stipulation should provide a solution.


讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 诪转谞讜转 讚讗讬诇讜 驻住讞 诪转谞讛 讗讞转 讜讗讬诇讜 砖诇诪讬诐 砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注


The Gemara identifies a further distinction between a Paschal lamb and a surplus Paschal lamb that precludes the use of the stipulation: Rather, it is not possible to use the stipulation because of the requirement to apply presentations of sacrificial blood upon the altar. For whereas the blood of a Paschal lamb is applied to the altar in one presentation, the blood of a peace-offering is applied to the altar with two that constitute four, i.e., the blood is applied on two opposite corners so that it runs down all four sides of the altar.


诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讻诇 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 砖谞转谞谉 讘诪转谉 讗讞转 讻驻专


What difference does the distinction in the number of presentations make? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: With regard to all offerings whose blood must be presented upon the outer altar, once the blood has been presented with one presentation, the offering has atoned, even if more presentations are ideally required? If so, it should be possible to use the stipulation and then make a single presentation of blood upon the altar, which would be valid for whichever type of offering it turned out to be.


讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬诇讜 驻住讞 讘砖驻讬讻讛 讜讗讬诇讜 砖诇诪讬诐 讘讝专讬拽讛


The Gemara identifies a further distinction: Rather, the proposal is not possible because of the following: Whereas the blood of the Paschal lamb must be applied to the altar by pouring it on the base of the altar, the blood of a peace-offering is applied by sprinkling it upon the altar.


诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讻诇 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 讘讝专讬拽讛 砖谞转谞谉 讘砖驻讬讻讛 讬爪讗 讗讬诪专 讚拽讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讗讬 注讘讚 诇讻转讞诇讛 谞诪讬:


What difference does the manner of applying the blood make? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In the case of all offerings whose blood must be applied to the altar by sprinkling, if one applied their blood by pouring, one has nonetheless fulfilled one鈥檚 obligation? If so, it should be possible to use the stipulation and then pour the blood upon the base of the altar. This pouring would be valid, whichever type of offering it turned out to be. The Gemara answers: Say in response that we say that one fulfilled his obligation only if he already did it this way; but would he be allowed to do so ab initio as well? Certainly not. Since the offering cannot be offered in a manner that is permissible ab initio, the distinction in the manner of applying the blood will preclude the use of the stipulation.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 诇讘谞讬讜 讛专讬谞讬 砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛驻住讞 注诇 诪讬 砖讬注诇讛 诪讻诐 专讗砖讜谉 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讻谞讬住 讛专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讝讻讛 讘讞诇拽讜 讜诪讝讻讛 讗转 讗讞讬讜 注诪讜:


MISHNA: In the case of one who says to his children: I am slaughtering the Paschal lamb on behalf of whomever of you goes up first to Jerusalem, as soon as the first of the children has entered his head and the majority of his body into Jerusalem, he has acquired his portion and acquires on behalf of his brothers their portions together with him.


讙诪壮 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讬砖 讘专讬专讛


GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: You can learn from the case in the mishna that there is retroactive clarification. Although when the father slaughters the Paschal lamb it cannot be known which child will ultimately enter Jerusalem first, once one of the children does enter, the children are considered to have been registered for the father鈥檚 Paschal lamb from the outset. This is problematic, as no halakhic conclusion has been reached in the matter of retroactive clarification.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讚讬 诇讝专讝谉 讘诪爪讜转 拽讗诪专


Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The mishna is not based on retroactive clarification. Rather, the father included all his children in his Paschal lamb from the outset. He created this competition only in order to enthuse them, so that they would be expeditious in their fulfillment of mitzvot; but in fact his statement had no halakhic implications.


讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讜诪讝讻讛 讗讞讬讜 注诪讜 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚讗诪谞讬谞讛讜 诪注讬拽专讗 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚诇讗 讗诪谞讬谞讛讜 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讘转专 讚砖讞讬讟 诪讬 拽讗 诪转诪谞讜 讜讛讗 转谞谉 谞诪谞讬谉 讜诪讜砖讻讬谉 讬讚讬讛谉 诪诪谞讜 注讚 砖讬砖讞讟 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


According to the explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan, the language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: And he acquires on behalf of his brothers their portions together with him. Granted, if you say that the father registered them from the beginning, before slaughtering the Paschal lamb, the case is well understood. But if you say that he did not register them from the beginning, but only after he slaughtered the Paschal lamb, can they then be registered? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: People can be registered and withdraw themselves from being registered for a Paschal lamb until it is slaughtered, but not after? Clearly, then, the children must have already been registered from the outset, and we may learn from this precise reading of the mishna that Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 explanation is correct.


转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪注砖讛 讜拽讚诪讜 讘谞讜转 诇讘谞讬诐 讜谞诪爪讗 讘谞讜转 讝专讬讝讜转 讜讘谞讬诐 砖驻诇讬诐:


That the competition was meant only to enthuse his children to be expeditious in their fulfillment of mitzvot was also implied by that which was taught in the conclusion of a baraita that also records this competition: There was an incident such as this, and the daughters preceded the sons. And it turned out that the daughters demonstrated that they were enthusiastic, whereas the sons demonstrated that they were lazy.


诪转谞讬壮 诇注讜诇诐 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 注讚 砖讬讛讬讛 讘讜 讻讝讬转 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 谞诪谞讬谉 讜诪讜砖讻讬谉 讗转 讬讚讬讛谉 诪诪谞讜 注讚 砖讬砖讞讟 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讝专拽 讗转 讛讚诐:


MISHNA: Additional people can always be registered for a Paschal lamb, as long as there will be at least an olive-bulk of the lamb鈥檚 meat for each and every person registered. People can be registered and withdraw themselves from being registered for a Paschal lamb until it is slaughtered. Rabbi Shimon says: Even until the priest sprinkles the blood.


讙诪壮 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬诪谞讬 注诇讬讜 讞讘讜专讛 讝讜 讞讜讝专转 讜谞诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讞讘讜专讛 讗讞专转:


GEMARA: What is the first clause of the mishna teaching us? It is obvious that additional people can be registered. This comes to teach us that although this group was registered for it, the entire group can withdraw and a different group can register for it, despite the fact that no one from the original group remains.


谞诪谞讬谉 讜诪讜砖讻讬谉 讗转 讬讚讬讛谉 注讚 砖讬砖讞讟 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 诇讬诪砖讱


We learned in the mishna: People can be registered and withdraw themselves from being registered for a Paschal lamb until it is slaughtered. Rabbi Shimon says: Even until the priest sprinkles the blood. The Gemara discusses the scope of the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon: Abaye said: The dispute is only with regard to when one is able to withdraw from being registered. Both sides derive their opinions from the following verse: 鈥淎nd if the household be too little for a lamb [miheyot miseh], then shall he and his neighbor next to his house take one according to the number of the souls; according to every man鈥檚 eating you shall make your count for the lamb鈥 (Exodus 12:4). The phrase miheyot miseh literally means: From being from a lamb. It is exegetically interpreted to refer to withdrawing from being registered for a lamb.


讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪讛讬讜转 诪砖讛 诪讞讬讜转讬讛 讚砖讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诪讛讜讬讬转讬讛 讚砖讛 讗讘诇 诇讬诪谞讜转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 注讚 砖讬砖讞讟 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讘诪讻住转 谞驻砖转 讜讛讚专 转讻住讜


The Rabbis hold that 鈥渇rom being [miheyot] from a lamb鈥 indicates that one can withdraw only during the life [mei岣yutei] of the lamb, i.e., while the lamb is still alive. And Rabbi Shimon holds that the phrase indicates that one can withdraw during the happenings [meihavayatei] of the lamb, i.e., as long as the sacrificial service is still being performed, which culminates with the application of the blood upon the altar. But with regard to being registered for the Paschal lamb, all agree that one can be registered for a lamb only until it is slaughtered, as the previously cited verse concerning registration states, in its conclusion: 鈥淎ccording to the number [bemikhsat] of the people,鈥 and then 鈥測ou shall make your count [takhosu].鈥 The word takhosu is taken to mean: You shall slaughter, in accordance with its meaning in Aramaic. The order of the verse therefore indicates that people can be registered only prior to the animal鈥檚 slaughter.


转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 谞诪谞讬谉 讜诪讜砖讻讬谉 讗转 讬讚讬讛谉 诪诪谞讜 注讚 砖讬砖讞讟 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 谞诪谞讬谉 注讚 砖讬砖讞讟 讜诪讜砖讻讬谉 注讚 砖讬讝专拽 讛讚诐:


That was also taught in a baraita: People can be registered and withdraw themselves from being registered for a Paschal lamb until it is slaughtered. Rabbi Shimon says: They can be registered until it is slaughtered and withdraw themselves from being registered until the priest sprinkles the blood.


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪诪谞讛 注诪讜 讗讞专 讘讞诇拽讜 专砖讗讬谉 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 诇讬转谉 诇讜 讗转 砖诇讜 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 诪砖诇讜 讜讛谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪砖诇讛谉:


MISHNA: If one who is registered for a Paschal lamb unilaterally registers another person with him in his portion of the Paschal lamb, the other members of his group are permitted to give him, i.e., the one who included the additional person, only his portion, which was originally allotted to him. And he, the additional person, eats from his portion, i.e., the portion of he who added him; and they, the other members of the group, eat from theirs. This is because they did not agree to the inclusion of the additional person.


讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 砖讛讬讜 讬讚讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬驻讜转 诪讛讜 砖讬讗诪专讜 诇讜 讟讜诇 讞诇拽讱 讜爪讗 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讗 拽讘讬诇转讜谉 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪爪讜 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 拽讘诇讬谞谉 诇转讬拽讜谞讬 讝讘讬讞讛 讗讚注转讗 讚讗讻诇转 讟驻讬 诪讬谞谉 诇讗 拽讘诇讬谞讱


GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If there is among the members of a group one of them who has fine hands, a euphemism for one who always hastens to take a large quantity of food, what is the halakha concerning whether they can say to him: Take your allotted portion to eat and leave; and don鈥檛 take any more from the other鈥檚 members portions? Do we say that he can say to them: You accepted me in the group without preconditions, and you therefore have no right to limit how much I can take now? Or perhaps they can say to him: When we accepted you, it was only for the preparation of the offering, to ensure that enough people would be registered to guarantee that the entire offering would be eaten with none left over. However, we did not accept you with the understanding that you would eat considerably more than us.


转讗 砖诪注 讛诪诪谞讛 讗讞专讬诐 注诪讜 注诇 讞诇拽讜 专砖讗讬谉 [讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛] 诇讬转谉 诇讜 讗转 砖诇讜 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 讗转 砖诇讜 讜讛谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗转 砖诇讛谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讻讬讚讬诐 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬驻讜转 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讬讚讬讜 讬驻讜转 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 拽讘讬诇转讜谉 谞讬讛讜讬 讛讗讬 讻讬讚讬讜 讬驻讜转


Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from what we learned in the mishna: If one who registered for a Paschal lamb registers other people with him in his portion, the other members of the group are permitted to give him only his portion. And then he and the additional people eat from his portion, and they, the other members of the group, eat from theirs. What is the reason for this? Is it not because it is comparable to a case where one of them has fine hands, because in the case of one who adds a person, he and the additional person together eat more than one portion? And if it could enter your mind to say that one with fine hands can say to them: You accepted me without preconditions, then this person, who registered an additional person to join him, should be considered as though he had fine hands, and he should be able to take a double portion. Therefore, the mishna rules that the group can limit the quantity of food he takes. It is apparent that the claim of one with fine hands is not accepted.


讗诪专讬 诇讗 讚注讜转 砖讗谞讬 讚讗讬 谞诪讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻讞讚 诪讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 讛讜讗 讚讗讻诇讬 诪爪讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇谉 讗讬谞砖 谞讜讻专讗 讙讘谉


The Gemara rejects this proof: They say: No, a comparison should not be drawn. Including additional people of individual minds is different. Even if both of them together would eat a quantity equivalent to a single member of the group, the other members of the group can nonetheless say to him: It is not pleasant for us to have a strange person among us. Therefore, no proof can be offered from the mishna.


转讗 砖诪注 讛砖诪砖 砖讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讘爪讚 讛转谞讜专 讗诐 讛讬讛 驻拽讞 诪诪诇讗 讻专讬住讜 诪诪谞讜 讗诐 专爪讜 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 诇注砖讜转 讟讜讘讛 注诪讜 讘讗讬谉 讜讬讜砖讘讬谉 讘爪讚讜 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专爪讜 讗讬谉 诇讗 专爪讜 诇讗 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诇讛讜 讛讗 拽讘讬诇转讜谉


Come and hear a resolution to the question from another mishna: In the case of an attendant who ate an olive-bulk of meat of the Paschal lamb next to the oven in which it is being roasted, if he were judicious, he should continue eating there to fill his stomach with it. By eating an olive-bulk, he has established his current location as his place for eating his Paschal lamb, and he may not eat any more in an additional location. If the members of the group wanted to do him a favor so that he may continue eating, they can come and sit at his side and eat there; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara makes the following inference: If they wanted to do him a favor, yes; but if they did not want to do so, no. But why should this be left to their discretion? Let him say to them: You accepted me unconditionally into the group, and therefore you have no right to prevent me from continuing to eat. The latter claim is not accepted, as is apparent by the mishna鈥檚 ruling that it is left to the group鈥檚 discretion


砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 拽讘诇讬谞讱 讗讚注转讗 讚谞讟专讞讱 拽诪谉 诇诪讟专讞 诇谉 诇讚讬讚讱 诇讗 拽讘诇讬谞讱


It is different there, in the case of an attendant, for they can say to him: When we accepted you, it was with the understanding that you would exert yourself before us and provide our needs by serving as our waiter; but for us to exert ourselves by moving to a place that is convenient for you, we did not accept you. Therefore, no proof can be derived from the mishna.


转讗 砖诪注 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 砖讛讬讛 讬讚讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬驻讜转 专砖讗讬谉 诇讜诪专 讟讜诇 讞诇拽讱 讜爪讗 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诪砖讛 讜注砖讜 住讬讘讜诇转 专砖讗讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讟讜诇 讞诇拽讱 讜爪讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Come and hear an explicit resolution to this question from the Tosefta: Members of a group in which one of the group had fine hands are permitted to say to him: Take your allotted portion to eat and leave; don鈥檛 take any more from the other members鈥 portions. And not only is this true of a group sharing a Paschal lamb, but even five people who made a shared meal of friends [sibolet] throughout the year are permitted to say to one who has fine hands: Take your portion and leave. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that that is the ruling.


诪讗讬 讜诇讗 注讜讚 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 驻住讞 讚诪爪讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 拽讘诇讬谞讱 诇转拽讜谞讬 讝讘讬讞讛 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 住讬讘讜诇转 谞诪讬 讚爪讜讜转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 专砖讗讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讟讜诇 讞诇拽讱 讜爪讗


The Gemara discusses the text of the Tosefta: What new ruling is introduced by the expression: And not only? The Tosefta is speaking employing the style of: There is no need. The Gemara explains: There is no need to state this rule in the case of a group sharing a Paschal lamb, since they have a strong claim, as they can say to him: When we accepted you, it was only for the preparation of the offering, to ensure that there would be enough people to guarantee that the entire offering would be eaten. It is therefore immediately understood that the group retains a right to limit the size of the portion he takes. Rather, the Tosefta emphasizes that even with regard to a shared friendly meal, which is for the sake of companionship only, they are permitted to say to him: Take your portion and leave.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 专砖讗讬谉 诇讞诇拽 讗讜 讗讬谞谉 专砖讗讬谉 诇讞诇拽


There are those who say that this question concerning what a group may say to a member who has fine hands is not our dilemma. Rather, this is our dilemma: Are members of a group permitted to divide up into smaller separate groups, or are they not allowed to divide up if there is no special reason to do so?


转讗 砖诪注 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 砖讛讬讜 讬讚讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬驻讜转 专砖讗讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讟讜诇 讞诇拽讱 讜爪讗 讬讚讬讜 讬驻讜转 讗讬谉 讗讬谉 讬讚讬讜 讬驻讜转 诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Come and hear a resolution: Members of a group in which one of them had fine hands are permitted to say to him: Take your portion and leave, which is equivalent to instructing him to form his own group, albeit of only one person. This indicates that only if his hands are fine, yes, they may divide into separate groups, but if his hands are not fine, no, they may not. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that they are not allowed to divide up into separate groups for no reason.


专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 注专讬讘讜 专讬驻转讗 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗讚讗讻讬诇 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讞讚讗 讗讻讬诇 专讘 驻驻讗 讗专讘注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻诇讙 诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讘讬诇转讜谉


Incidental to this discussion, the Gemara recounts a related incident: Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, mixed their bread together in order to share it between them. By the time Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, ate one slice, Rav Pappa ate four slices. Rav Huna said to him: Let us stop sharing. Instead, divide the meal with me so that I can eat my portion. He said to him: You accepted my companionship, and it is improper to now retract.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讻诇 讛谞讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讜砖谞讬 讻讚砖谞讬谞谉 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讚讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 拽讘诇讬谞讱 诇转讬拽讜谞讬 讝讘讬讞讛 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 住讬讘讜诇转 驻诇讙 诇讬讛


Rav Huna raised all these objections mentioned previously, and Rav Pappa answered him as we answered that those cases dealt with exceptional circumstances. Rav Huna then raised an objection from the mishna with regard to the members of a group sharing a Paschal lamb. Rav Pappa said to him: There, they are permitted to limit his portion only because they can say to him: When we accepted you it was for the preparation of the sacrifice, but when friends share a meal it is with the understanding that each one will fully participate regardless of how much he eats. Rav Huna finally raised an objection from the ruling of the Tosefta concerning a shared meal. Rav Pappa accepted the proof and divided the meal with him.


讗讝诇 注专讬讘 讘讛讚讬 专讘讬谞讗 讗讚讗讻讬诇 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讞讚讗 讗讻讬诇 专讘讬谞讗 转诪谞讬讗 讗诪专 诪讗讛 驻驻讬 讜诇讗 讞讚讗 专讘讬谞讗


On another occasion Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, went and mixed his bread together with Ravina. By the time Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, ate one slice, Ravina ate eight. Rav Huna said jokingly: It is better to eat together with one hundred Pappas and not with one Ravina, because Ravina eats significantly more.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪诪谞讛 讗讞专讬诐 注诪讜 注诇 驻住讞讜 讜注诇 讞讙讬讙转讜 诪注讜转 砖讘讬讚讜 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讛诪讜讻专 注讜诇转讜 讜砖诇诪讬讜 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讜诪注讜转 讻诇 砖讛谉 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛


The Sages taught in a baraita: One who registers others with him for his Paschal lamb or for his Festival peace-offering for the fourteenth of Nisan and takes money from them for their share, the money in his hand that he took for them is non-sacred. And one who sells his burnt-offering or peace-offerings to another person has not done anything; the sale is completely invalid, and any money he receives for the transaction should go to the Temple fund to be used for the purchase of public free-will offerings which will be sacrificed as burntofferings.


讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 诪注讜转 讗诪讗讬 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 拽谞住讗 讜诪讗讬 讻诇 砖讛谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛讜讜 砖讜讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注讛 讜讬讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讞诪砖讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讛讛讬讗 讬转讬专讗 谞诪讬 拽谞住讜讛讜 专讘谞谉


The Gemara asks: But since he has not done anything, the sale being completely invalid, why does the money fall to the fund used for free-will offerings? The money should remain non-sacred. Rava said: It is a fine that the Sages imposed to dissuade people from attempting to purchase others鈥 offerings. And what is the meaning of the phrase: And any money? It indicates that, although these offerings were worth only four zuz and they mistakenly gave him five zuz, even with regard to that extra zuz the Sages also fined him. They required it to be used for free-will offerings rather than considering the extra money a gift to the seller.


讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗驻砖专 讬讚注讬 讞讘专讬谉 讘讘诇讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讛讗讬 诪诇转讗 讝讛 讛驻专讬砖 讟诇讛 诇驻住讞讜 讜讝讛 讛驻专讬砖 诪注讜转 诇驻住讞讜 讛讬讗讱 讛拽讚砖 讞诇 注诇 讛拽讚砖 讚拽转谞讬 诪注讜转 砖讘讬讚讜 讞讜诇讬谉


Ulla said, and some say it was Rabbi Oshaya: Is it possible that our Babylonian friends know the reason of this following matter: This person designated a lamb for his Paschal lamb, consecrating it as such; and this other person designated money to give to the owner of the lamb in order to register with his Paschal lamb, consecrating the money for that purpose. The sanctity endowed in the money can be removed from it only when transferred to the lamb upon purchasing a portion in it. Ulla questions the rationale for this: How does the sanctity of the money take effect upon and transfer to the Paschal lamb, which is itself already sacred, as implied by the baraita that teaches that the money in his hand is non-sacred, clearly indicating that the sanctity was indeed transferred from the money? Surely, if it is already sacred, no more sanctity can be transferred to it.


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 is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit

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 89

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 89

诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讚讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讻诇讬 诇讬讛


because there are the breast and the hind leg, which the priests eat only if the offering is a peace-offering, but not if it is a Paschal lamb. Due to the distinction between the two types of offerings, the proposed stipulation does not provide a solution. It would remain unclear who should eat these portions of the offering.


讜谞讬转讬 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讻讛谉 讘讛讚讬讛


The Gemara suggests that it may still be possible to find a way to use the stipulation: Let each one of these five people bringing a new Paschal lamb bring a priest to be registered with him for their Paschal lamb. Then the priest will eat the breasts and hind legs. Since the priest eats these portions of the offering in any event, there is no longer any practical distinction between the two types of offerings. The stipulation should therefore provide a solution.


讛讗讬 讻讛谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚注讘讬讚 驻住讞 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讗讬 驻住讞 讛讜讗 讜谞诪爪讗 驻住讞 谞讗讻诇 砖诇讗 诇诪谞讜讬讜 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 驻住讞 讚讬诇诪讗 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 注讘讬讚 驻住讞


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: What are the circumstances of this priest? If he had already performed the ritual of the Paschal lamb during the first Pesa岣, then, as the Gemara explained previously, he is unable to be registered to partake of a new Paschal lamb. If so, there is concern that perhaps this offering is a Paschal lamb and not a peace-offering, and it will turn out that a Paschal lamb is eaten by those who did not register for it. And if, on the other hand, the priest had not performed the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesa岣, there is concern that perhaps this offering is a peace-offering, and it would turn out that this priest did not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb at all.


讜谞讬转讬 讻诇 讞诪砖讛 讞讚 讻讛谉 讚诇讗 注讘讚 驻住讞 讜谞讬诪谞讬 注讬诇讜讬讛 讛谞讬 讞诪砖讛 驻住讞讬诐 讚诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬讻讗 讞讚 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 驻住讞 讜拽讗 谞驻拽讬 讘讬讛


The Gemara modifies its suggestion: Let all five together bring one priest, who has not yet performed the ritual of the Paschal lamb. And let the priest register for all these five Paschal lambs. This should provide a solution. Whichever way you look at it, there is one person who has not yet performed the ritual of the Paschal lamb, and the priest will now fulfill his obligation together with him. If the priest then eats the breasts and hind legs of all the offerings, the stipulation should provide a viable solution.


讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪诪注讬讟 讘讗讻讬诇转 砖诇诪讬诐 讚讗讬诇讜 驻住讞 诇讬讜诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讜讗讬诇讜 砖诇诪讬诐 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚


The Gemara identifies a further distinction between a peace-offering and the Paschal lamb that precludes the use of the stipulation: Rather, the reason it is not possible to use the stipulation is because it would reduce the amount of time available for eating the peace-offering, for a Paschal lamb may be eaten only for a day and a night, whereas a peace-offering may be eaten for two days and one night. Were the stipulation to be made, all the offerings would have an uncertain status of either being a peace-offering or a Paschal lamb. They would therefore all be treated with the strictures of a Paschal lamb, and any meat remaining on the morning after the first night would have to be burnt. However, in the event that the offering was actually a peace-offering, this would be premature, since it may still be eaten for another day.


讜谞讬转讬 诪讜转专 讛驻住讞


The Gemara modifies the proposed stipulation: Instead of making a stipulation between a Paschal lamb and a regular peace-offering, let each one of them specify that if they have already fulfilled their obligations to bring a Paschal lamb, their intention is to consecrate and bring the current offering as a surplus Paschal lamb. The status of a surplus Paschal lamb is usually achieved when an animal is originally consecrated as a Paschal lamb but for some reason is not offered. Such an animal is offered as a type of peace-offering.


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 讗讬 讚讬讚讬 转诐 讛讜讗 谞讬讛讜讬 讛讗讬 讚讗讬讬转讬 讛砖转讗 砖诇诪讬诐 讚诪讜转专 讛驻住讞 谞讗讻诇 诇讬讜诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚


The Gemara assumes here that it is also possible to consecrate an animal directly with this status, and therefore the following stipulation could be used. And when bringing their lambs they should each 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 surplus Paschal lamb, which is a type of peace-offering and may therefore be offered even if one has already fulfilled his obligation to bring a Paschal lamb. Although a surplus Paschal lamb has the sanctity of a peace-offering, it may be eaten for only one day and one night, similar to a Paschal lamb. Since there is no distinction between the time allotted to eat the two types of offerings, this stipulation should provide a solution.


讜讻讬 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 转讞诇讛 诇诪讜转专讜转 讜谞讟专讞讜 讜谞讬讬转讬 诪讜转专 讛驻住讞


The Gemara challenges this suggestion: But can we designate animals initially as surplus Paschal lambs? This cannot be done; the sanctity of a surplus Paschal lamb is achieved only with an animal that was initially designated for a Paschal lamb but remained unused. If so, how is the suggested stipulation tenable? The Gemara explains: Let them trouble themselves to find and bring an unused leftover animal already invested with the sanctity of a surplus Paschal lamb, and let them make the suggested stipulation upon it. In this way, the stipulation should work and provide a solution.


讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 住诪讬讻讛 讚讗讬诇讜 驻住讞 诇讗 讘注讬 住诪讬讻讛 讜讗讬诇讜 诪讜转专 讘注讬 住诪讬讻讛


The Gemara identifies a distinction that exists even between a Paschal lamb and a surplus Paschal lamb that precludes the use of even this suggested stipulation. Rather, it is not possible to use the stipulation because of the requirement to perform the act of placing one鈥檚 hands on the head of the offering, for a Paschal lamb does not need the act of placing one鈥檚 hands, whereas a surplus Paschal lamb, since it is a type of peace-offering, does need the act of placing one鈥檚 hands. Due to this distinction, the proposed stipulation cannot provide a solution. It would remain unclear whether the offering requires one to perform the act of placing one鈥檚 hands on its head, an act that one is prohibited to do on an offering that does not require it.


讛讗 转讬谞讞 拽专讘谉 讗谞砖讬诐 拽专讘谉 谞砖讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


This distinction works out well to explain why the stipulation can鈥檛 be used for an offering of men, since a man鈥檚 offering requires the act of placing one鈥檚 hands. However, if the case involved an offering of women, for which there is no such requirement, what is there to say? In such a case, there is no distinction between a Paschal lamb and a surplus Paschal lamb, and therefore the stipulation should provide a solution.


讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 诪转谞讜转 讚讗讬诇讜 驻住讞 诪转谞讛 讗讞转 讜讗讬诇讜 砖诇诪讬诐 砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注


The Gemara identifies a further distinction between a Paschal lamb and a surplus Paschal lamb that precludes the use of the stipulation: Rather, it is not possible to use the stipulation because of the requirement to apply presentations of sacrificial blood upon the altar. For whereas the blood of a Paschal lamb is applied to the altar in one presentation, the blood of a peace-offering is applied to the altar with two that constitute four, i.e., the blood is applied on two opposite corners so that it runs down all four sides of the altar.


诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讻诇 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 砖谞转谞谉 讘诪转谉 讗讞转 讻驻专


What difference does the distinction in the number of presentations make? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: With regard to all offerings whose blood must be presented upon the outer altar, once the blood has been presented with one presentation, the offering has atoned, even if more presentations are ideally required? If so, it should be possible to use the stipulation and then make a single presentation of blood upon the altar, which would be valid for whichever type of offering it turned out to be.


讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬诇讜 驻住讞 讘砖驻讬讻讛 讜讗讬诇讜 砖诇诪讬诐 讘讝专讬拽讛


The Gemara identifies a further distinction: Rather, the proposal is not possible because of the following: Whereas the blood of the Paschal lamb must be applied to the altar by pouring it on the base of the altar, the blood of a peace-offering is applied by sprinkling it upon the altar.


诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讻诇 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 讘讝专讬拽讛 砖谞转谞谉 讘砖驻讬讻讛 讬爪讗 讗讬诪专 讚拽讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讗讬 注讘讚 诇讻转讞诇讛 谞诪讬:


What difference does the manner of applying the blood make? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In the case of all offerings whose blood must be applied to the altar by sprinkling, if one applied their blood by pouring, one has nonetheless fulfilled one鈥檚 obligation? If so, it should be possible to use the stipulation and then pour the blood upon the base of the altar. This pouring would be valid, whichever type of offering it turned out to be. The Gemara answers: Say in response that we say that one fulfilled his obligation only if he already did it this way; but would he be allowed to do so ab initio as well? Certainly not. Since the offering cannot be offered in a manner that is permissible ab initio, the distinction in the manner of applying the blood will preclude the use of the stipulation.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 诇讘谞讬讜 讛专讬谞讬 砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛驻住讞 注诇 诪讬 砖讬注诇讛 诪讻诐 专讗砖讜谉 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讻谞讬住 讛专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讝讻讛 讘讞诇拽讜 讜诪讝讻讛 讗转 讗讞讬讜 注诪讜:


MISHNA: In the case of one who says to his children: I am slaughtering the Paschal lamb on behalf of whomever of you goes up first to Jerusalem, as soon as the first of the children has entered his head and the majority of his body into Jerusalem, he has acquired his portion and acquires on behalf of his brothers their portions together with him.


讙诪壮 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讬砖 讘专讬专讛


GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: You can learn from the case in the mishna that there is retroactive clarification. Although when the father slaughters the Paschal lamb it cannot be known which child will ultimately enter Jerusalem first, once one of the children does enter, the children are considered to have been registered for the father鈥檚 Paschal lamb from the outset. This is problematic, as no halakhic conclusion has been reached in the matter of retroactive clarification.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讚讬 诇讝专讝谉 讘诪爪讜转 拽讗诪专


Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The mishna is not based on retroactive clarification. Rather, the father included all his children in his Paschal lamb from the outset. He created this competition only in order to enthuse them, so that they would be expeditious in their fulfillment of mitzvot; but in fact his statement had no halakhic implications.


讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讜诪讝讻讛 讗讞讬讜 注诪讜 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚讗诪谞讬谞讛讜 诪注讬拽专讗 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚诇讗 讗诪谞讬谞讛讜 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讘转专 讚砖讞讬讟 诪讬 拽讗 诪转诪谞讜 讜讛讗 转谞谉 谞诪谞讬谉 讜诪讜砖讻讬谉 讬讚讬讛谉 诪诪谞讜 注讚 砖讬砖讞讟 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


According to the explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan, the language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: And he acquires on behalf of his brothers their portions together with him. Granted, if you say that the father registered them from the beginning, before slaughtering the Paschal lamb, the case is well understood. But if you say that he did not register them from the beginning, but only after he slaughtered the Paschal lamb, can they then be registered? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: People can be registered and withdraw themselves from being registered for a Paschal lamb until it is slaughtered, but not after? Clearly, then, the children must have already been registered from the outset, and we may learn from this precise reading of the mishna that Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 explanation is correct.


转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪注砖讛 讜拽讚诪讜 讘谞讜转 诇讘谞讬诐 讜谞诪爪讗 讘谞讜转 讝专讬讝讜转 讜讘谞讬诐 砖驻诇讬诐:


That the competition was meant only to enthuse his children to be expeditious in their fulfillment of mitzvot was also implied by that which was taught in the conclusion of a baraita that also records this competition: There was an incident such as this, and the daughters preceded the sons. And it turned out that the daughters demonstrated that they were enthusiastic, whereas the sons demonstrated that they were lazy.


诪转谞讬壮 诇注讜诇诐 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 注讚 砖讬讛讬讛 讘讜 讻讝讬转 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 谞诪谞讬谉 讜诪讜砖讻讬谉 讗转 讬讚讬讛谉 诪诪谞讜 注讚 砖讬砖讞讟 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讝专拽 讗转 讛讚诐:


MISHNA: Additional people can always be registered for a Paschal lamb, as long as there will be at least an olive-bulk of the lamb鈥檚 meat for each and every person registered. People can be registered and withdraw themselves from being registered for a Paschal lamb until it is slaughtered. Rabbi Shimon says: Even until the priest sprinkles the blood.


讙诪壮 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬诪谞讬 注诇讬讜 讞讘讜专讛 讝讜 讞讜讝专转 讜谞诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讞讘讜专讛 讗讞专转:


GEMARA: What is the first clause of the mishna teaching us? It is obvious that additional people can be registered. This comes to teach us that although this group was registered for it, the entire group can withdraw and a different group can register for it, despite the fact that no one from the original group remains.


谞诪谞讬谉 讜诪讜砖讻讬谉 讗转 讬讚讬讛谉 注讚 砖讬砖讞讟 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 诇讬诪砖讱


We learned in the mishna: People can be registered and withdraw themselves from being registered for a Paschal lamb until it is slaughtered. Rabbi Shimon says: Even until the priest sprinkles the blood. The Gemara discusses the scope of the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon: Abaye said: The dispute is only with regard to when one is able to withdraw from being registered. Both sides derive their opinions from the following verse: 鈥淎nd if the household be too little for a lamb [miheyot miseh], then shall he and his neighbor next to his house take one according to the number of the souls; according to every man鈥檚 eating you shall make your count for the lamb鈥 (Exodus 12:4). The phrase miheyot miseh literally means: From being from a lamb. It is exegetically interpreted to refer to withdrawing from being registered for a lamb.


讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪讛讬讜转 诪砖讛 诪讞讬讜转讬讛 讚砖讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诪讛讜讬讬转讬讛 讚砖讛 讗讘诇 诇讬诪谞讜转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 注讚 砖讬砖讞讟 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讘诪讻住转 谞驻砖转 讜讛讚专 转讻住讜


The Rabbis hold that 鈥渇rom being [miheyot] from a lamb鈥 indicates that one can withdraw only during the life [mei岣yutei] of the lamb, i.e., while the lamb is still alive. And Rabbi Shimon holds that the phrase indicates that one can withdraw during the happenings [meihavayatei] of the lamb, i.e., as long as the sacrificial service is still being performed, which culminates with the application of the blood upon the altar. But with regard to being registered for the Paschal lamb, all agree that one can be registered for a lamb only until it is slaughtered, as the previously cited verse concerning registration states, in its conclusion: 鈥淎ccording to the number [bemikhsat] of the people,鈥 and then 鈥測ou shall make your count [takhosu].鈥 The word takhosu is taken to mean: You shall slaughter, in accordance with its meaning in Aramaic. The order of the verse therefore indicates that people can be registered only prior to the animal鈥檚 slaughter.


转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 谞诪谞讬谉 讜诪讜砖讻讬谉 讗转 讬讚讬讛谉 诪诪谞讜 注讚 砖讬砖讞讟 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 谞诪谞讬谉 注讚 砖讬砖讞讟 讜诪讜砖讻讬谉 注讚 砖讬讝专拽 讛讚诐:


That was also taught in a baraita: People can be registered and withdraw themselves from being registered for a Paschal lamb until it is slaughtered. Rabbi Shimon says: They can be registered until it is slaughtered and withdraw themselves from being registered until the priest sprinkles the blood.


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪诪谞讛 注诪讜 讗讞专 讘讞诇拽讜 专砖讗讬谉 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 诇讬转谉 诇讜 讗转 砖诇讜 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 诪砖诇讜 讜讛谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪砖诇讛谉:


MISHNA: If one who is registered for a Paschal lamb unilaterally registers another person with him in his portion of the Paschal lamb, the other members of his group are permitted to give him, i.e., the one who included the additional person, only his portion, which was originally allotted to him. And he, the additional person, eats from his portion, i.e., the portion of he who added him; and they, the other members of the group, eat from theirs. This is because they did not agree to the inclusion of the additional person.


讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 砖讛讬讜 讬讚讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬驻讜转 诪讛讜 砖讬讗诪专讜 诇讜 讟讜诇 讞诇拽讱 讜爪讗 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讗 拽讘讬诇转讜谉 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪爪讜 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 拽讘诇讬谞谉 诇转讬拽讜谞讬 讝讘讬讞讛 讗讚注转讗 讚讗讻诇转 讟驻讬 诪讬谞谉 诇讗 拽讘诇讬谞讱


GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If there is among the members of a group one of them who has fine hands, a euphemism for one who always hastens to take a large quantity of food, what is the halakha concerning whether they can say to him: Take your allotted portion to eat and leave; and don鈥檛 take any more from the other鈥檚 members portions? Do we say that he can say to them: You accepted me in the group without preconditions, and you therefore have no right to limit how much I can take now? Or perhaps they can say to him: When we accepted you, it was only for the preparation of the offering, to ensure that enough people would be registered to guarantee that the entire offering would be eaten with none left over. However, we did not accept you with the understanding that you would eat considerably more than us.


转讗 砖诪注 讛诪诪谞讛 讗讞专讬诐 注诪讜 注诇 讞诇拽讜 专砖讗讬谉 [讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛] 诇讬转谉 诇讜 讗转 砖诇讜 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 讗转 砖诇讜 讜讛谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗转 砖诇讛谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讻讬讚讬诐 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬驻讜转 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讬讚讬讜 讬驻讜转 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 拽讘讬诇转讜谉 谞讬讛讜讬 讛讗讬 讻讬讚讬讜 讬驻讜转


Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from what we learned in the mishna: If one who registered for a Paschal lamb registers other people with him in his portion, the other members of the group are permitted to give him only his portion. And then he and the additional people eat from his portion, and they, the other members of the group, eat from theirs. What is the reason for this? Is it not because it is comparable to a case where one of them has fine hands, because in the case of one who adds a person, he and the additional person together eat more than one portion? And if it could enter your mind to say that one with fine hands can say to them: You accepted me without preconditions, then this person, who registered an additional person to join him, should be considered as though he had fine hands, and he should be able to take a double portion. Therefore, the mishna rules that the group can limit the quantity of food he takes. It is apparent that the claim of one with fine hands is not accepted.


讗诪专讬 诇讗 讚注讜转 砖讗谞讬 讚讗讬 谞诪讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻讞讚 诪讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 讛讜讗 讚讗讻诇讬 诪爪讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇谉 讗讬谞砖 谞讜讻专讗 讙讘谉


The Gemara rejects this proof: They say: No, a comparison should not be drawn. Including additional people of individual minds is different. Even if both of them together would eat a quantity equivalent to a single member of the group, the other members of the group can nonetheless say to him: It is not pleasant for us to have a strange person among us. Therefore, no proof can be offered from the mishna.


转讗 砖诪注 讛砖诪砖 砖讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讘爪讚 讛转谞讜专 讗诐 讛讬讛 驻拽讞 诪诪诇讗 讻专讬住讜 诪诪谞讜 讗诐 专爪讜 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 诇注砖讜转 讟讜讘讛 注诪讜 讘讗讬谉 讜讬讜砖讘讬谉 讘爪讚讜 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专爪讜 讗讬谉 诇讗 专爪讜 诇讗 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诇讛讜 讛讗 拽讘讬诇转讜谉


Come and hear a resolution to the question from another mishna: In the case of an attendant who ate an olive-bulk of meat of the Paschal lamb next to the oven in which it is being roasted, if he were judicious, he should continue eating there to fill his stomach with it. By eating an olive-bulk, he has established his current location as his place for eating his Paschal lamb, and he may not eat any more in an additional location. If the members of the group wanted to do him a favor so that he may continue eating, they can come and sit at his side and eat there; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara makes the following inference: If they wanted to do him a favor, yes; but if they did not want to do so, no. But why should this be left to their discretion? Let him say to them: You accepted me unconditionally into the group, and therefore you have no right to prevent me from continuing to eat. The latter claim is not accepted, as is apparent by the mishna鈥檚 ruling that it is left to the group鈥檚 discretion


砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 拽讘诇讬谞讱 讗讚注转讗 讚谞讟专讞讱 拽诪谉 诇诪讟专讞 诇谉 诇讚讬讚讱 诇讗 拽讘诇讬谞讱


It is different there, in the case of an attendant, for they can say to him: When we accepted you, it was with the understanding that you would exert yourself before us and provide our needs by serving as our waiter; but for us to exert ourselves by moving to a place that is convenient for you, we did not accept you. Therefore, no proof can be derived from the mishna.


转讗 砖诪注 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 砖讛讬讛 讬讚讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬驻讜转 专砖讗讬谉 诇讜诪专 讟讜诇 讞诇拽讱 讜爪讗 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诪砖讛 讜注砖讜 住讬讘讜诇转 专砖讗讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讟讜诇 讞诇拽讱 讜爪讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Come and hear an explicit resolution to this question from the Tosefta: Members of a group in which one of the group had fine hands are permitted to say to him: Take your allotted portion to eat and leave; don鈥檛 take any more from the other members鈥 portions. And not only is this true of a group sharing a Paschal lamb, but even five people who made a shared meal of friends [sibolet] throughout the year are permitted to say to one who has fine hands: Take your portion and leave. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that that is the ruling.


诪讗讬 讜诇讗 注讜讚 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 驻住讞 讚诪爪讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 拽讘诇讬谞讱 诇转拽讜谞讬 讝讘讬讞讛 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 住讬讘讜诇转 谞诪讬 讚爪讜讜转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 专砖讗讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讟讜诇 讞诇拽讱 讜爪讗


The Gemara discusses the text of the Tosefta: What new ruling is introduced by the expression: And not only? The Tosefta is speaking employing the style of: There is no need. The Gemara explains: There is no need to state this rule in the case of a group sharing a Paschal lamb, since they have a strong claim, as they can say to him: When we accepted you, it was only for the preparation of the offering, to ensure that there would be enough people to guarantee that the entire offering would be eaten. It is therefore immediately understood that the group retains a right to limit the size of the portion he takes. Rather, the Tosefta emphasizes that even with regard to a shared friendly meal, which is for the sake of companionship only, they are permitted to say to him: Take your portion and leave.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 专砖讗讬谉 诇讞诇拽 讗讜 讗讬谞谉 专砖讗讬谉 诇讞诇拽


There are those who say that this question concerning what a group may say to a member who has fine hands is not our dilemma. Rather, this is our dilemma: Are members of a group permitted to divide up into smaller separate groups, or are they not allowed to divide up if there is no special reason to do so?


转讗 砖诪注 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 砖讛讬讜 讬讚讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬驻讜转 专砖讗讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讟讜诇 讞诇拽讱 讜爪讗 讬讚讬讜 讬驻讜转 讗讬谉 讗讬谉 讬讚讬讜 讬驻讜转 诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Come and hear a resolution: Members of a group in which one of them had fine hands are permitted to say to him: Take your portion and leave, which is equivalent to instructing him to form his own group, albeit of only one person. This indicates that only if his hands are fine, yes, they may divide into separate groups, but if his hands are not fine, no, they may not. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that they are not allowed to divide up into separate groups for no reason.


专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 注专讬讘讜 专讬驻转讗 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗讚讗讻讬诇 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讞讚讗 讗讻讬诇 专讘 驻驻讗 讗专讘注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻诇讙 诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讘讬诇转讜谉


Incidental to this discussion, the Gemara recounts a related incident: Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, mixed their bread together in order to share it between them. By the time Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, ate one slice, Rav Pappa ate four slices. Rav Huna said to him: Let us stop sharing. Instead, divide the meal with me so that I can eat my portion. He said to him: You accepted my companionship, and it is improper to now retract.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讻诇 讛谞讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讜砖谞讬 讻讚砖谞讬谞谉 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讚讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 拽讘诇讬谞讱 诇转讬拽讜谞讬 讝讘讬讞讛 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 住讬讘讜诇转 驻诇讙 诇讬讛


Rav Huna raised all these objections mentioned previously, and Rav Pappa answered him as we answered that those cases dealt with exceptional circumstances. Rav Huna then raised an objection from the mishna with regard to the members of a group sharing a Paschal lamb. Rav Pappa said to him: There, they are permitted to limit his portion only because they can say to him: When we accepted you it was for the preparation of the sacrifice, but when friends share a meal it is with the understanding that each one will fully participate regardless of how much he eats. Rav Huna finally raised an objection from the ruling of the Tosefta concerning a shared meal. Rav Pappa accepted the proof and divided the meal with him.


讗讝诇 注专讬讘 讘讛讚讬 专讘讬谞讗 讗讚讗讻讬诇 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讞讚讗 讗讻讬诇 专讘讬谞讗 转诪谞讬讗 讗诪专 诪讗讛 驻驻讬 讜诇讗 讞讚讗 专讘讬谞讗


On another occasion Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, went and mixed his bread together with Ravina. By the time Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, ate one slice, Ravina ate eight. Rav Huna said jokingly: It is better to eat together with one hundred Pappas and not with one Ravina, because Ravina eats significantly more.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪诪谞讛 讗讞专讬诐 注诪讜 注诇 驻住讞讜 讜注诇 讞讙讬讙转讜 诪注讜转 砖讘讬讚讜 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讛诪讜讻专 注讜诇转讜 讜砖诇诪讬讜 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讜诪注讜转 讻诇 砖讛谉 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛


The Sages taught in a baraita: One who registers others with him for his Paschal lamb or for his Festival peace-offering for the fourteenth of Nisan and takes money from them for their share, the money in his hand that he took for them is non-sacred. And one who sells his burnt-offering or peace-offerings to another person has not done anything; the sale is completely invalid, and any money he receives for the transaction should go to the Temple fund to be used for the purchase of public free-will offerings which will be sacrificed as burntofferings.


讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 诪注讜转 讗诪讗讬 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 拽谞住讗 讜诪讗讬 讻诇 砖讛谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛讜讜 砖讜讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注讛 讜讬讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讞诪砖讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讛讛讬讗 讬转讬专讗 谞诪讬 拽谞住讜讛讜 专讘谞谉


The Gemara asks: But since he has not done anything, the sale being completely invalid, why does the money fall to the fund used for free-will offerings? The money should remain non-sacred. Rava said: It is a fine that the Sages imposed to dissuade people from attempting to purchase others鈥 offerings. And what is the meaning of the phrase: And any money? It indicates that, although these offerings were worth only four zuz and they mistakenly gave him five zuz, even with regard to that extra zuz the Sages also fined him. They required it to be used for free-will offerings rather than considering the extra money a gift to the seller.


讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗驻砖专 讬讚注讬 讞讘专讬谉 讘讘诇讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讛讗讬 诪诇转讗 讝讛 讛驻专讬砖 讟诇讛 诇驻住讞讜 讜讝讛 讛驻专讬砖 诪注讜转 诇驻住讞讜 讛讬讗讱 讛拽讚砖 讞诇 注诇 讛拽讚砖 讚拽转谞讬 诪注讜转 砖讘讬讚讜 讞讜诇讬谉


Ulla said, and some say it was Rabbi Oshaya: Is it possible that our Babylonian friends know the reason of this following matter: This person designated a lamb for his Paschal lamb, consecrating it as such; and this other person designated money to give to the owner of the lamb in order to register with his Paschal lamb, consecrating the money for that purpose. The sanctity endowed in the money can be removed from it only when transferred to the lamb upon purchasing a portion in it. Ulla questions the rationale for this: How does the sanctity of the money take effect upon and transfer to the Paschal lamb, which is itself already sacred, as implied by the baraita that teaches that the money in his hand is non-sacred, clearly indicating that the sanctity was indeed transferred from the money? Surely, if it is already sacred, no more sanctity can be transferred to it.


Scroll To Top