Pesachim 87a (פז.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

1.

The woman

who is married,

when she is in her husband’s home

on the fourteenth of Nisan, this is the law:

If

her husband slaughtered on her behalf

a Paschal offering with the intention that she be registered among those who would partake of it,

and her father also slaughtered on her behalf

also

her father .

She shall eat from her husband’s offering.

For presumably her intention is to be registered among those who would partake of her husband’s Paschal offering, as long as she did not specify that her intention was to be registered among those who would partake of her father’s offering.

[Even if this was the first Festival after her marriage. Since she is in her husband’s home, her intention is to partake with him of his Paschal offering. Meiri in explaining Rashi’s view.]

But if

she went

at the time of the

first Festival

after her marriage

to make

it

in her father’s home,

as it is customary for married women to go to their father’s home for the first Festival after their marriage, this is the law: If

her father slaughtered on her behalf

[since she was in his home, he assumed that she would eat with him],

and he slaughtered on her behalf

also

her husband,

who assumed that she would return to his home to eat with him [Meiri in explaining Rashi’s view],

she may eat wherever she wishes.

Since we are uncertain whether her intention was to eat at her father’s home or at her husband’s home.

And the Gemara explains that the Mishna is referring to a woman who was not redufa [eager] before the fourteenth of Nisan to go to her father’s home regularly. Therefore, we are uncertain; perhaps her intention was to return to her husband and eat with him.

2.

An orphan

who has two guardians,

for whom

the two

guardians slaughtered

and each of them registered the orphan among those who would partake of his Paschal offering—

he shall eat

the orphan

wherever he wishes.

Since we are uncertain which of them he wishes to join.

3.

A slave jointly owned by two partners,

for each of them registered the slave among those who would partake of his Paschal offering—

he may not eat from either of them.

Because the slave is dependent on the will of his master. He may not eat from the Paschal offering of one master, because half of him belongs to the other master, and the second master did not authorize him to register for the Paschal offering of his other master.

One who is half slave and half free,

for example, a slave who belonged to two partners, one of whom emancipated his share [so that half of him belongs to one partner, and half of him is free]:

he may not eat from his master’s offering,

since presumably it was not his master’s intention to register the free half of the slave among those who would partake of his Paschal offering.

Gemara:

In several places in the Talmud, the tannaim dispute whether there is berera—that is, when something is initially uncertain and ultimately the matter becomes clarified and leaves the realm of uncertainty: do we say that it is retrospectively clarified that from the outset it was designated for this purpose?

In our Mishna we learned: If a woman went to make the first Festival after her marriage at her father’s home, and both her father and her husband slaughtered on her behalf, she may eat wherever she wishes.

And we infer:

You may learn from it

that our Mishna proves

that there is berera.

For at the time of the slaughter it was not known whether the woman wished to register among those who would partake of her father’s offering or of her husband’s offering, and nevertheless we learned that she may eat wherever she wishes. Necessarily, there is berera, and we say that it is retrospectively clarified that the blood of the Paschal offering [of her father or of her husband] was sprinkled on her behalf!

And we reject this: In fact, it is possible to establish our Mishna in accordance with the one who says that there is no berera.

And

what does “

she may eat wherever she

wishes” mean?—

Wherever she wishes

at the time of slaughter,

for we asked her at the time of slaughter, and she said: I wish to eat this one.

The Gemara now asks, as we find a contradiction between the words of the Mishna—which says that if she went to make the first Festival after her marriage at her father’s home, and her father and her husband both slaughtered on her behalf, she may eat wherever she wishes—and the beraita.

And we raise a contradiction

between the Mishna and the beraita:

For we learned in a beraita:

A woman—

for the first Festival, she eats from her father’s offering.

From that point onward—

if she wishes, she eats from her father’s offering; if she wishes, from her husband’s offering.

It is clear from the beraita that for the first Festival, presumably her intention is to eat from her father’s offering, whereas in the Mishna we learned that she may eat wherever she wishes!

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

Here,

the beraita is referring

to one who is eager to go—

to a woman who regularly goes to eat at her father’s home throughout the year. Therefore, when she went to her father’s home for the first Festival, presumably her intention was to eat there. But if it was not the first Festival, we are uncertain what her intention was, and she may eat wherever she wishes.

Whereas

here,

our Mishna is referring

to one who is not eager—

to a woman who does not regularly go to eat at her father’s home throughout the year, because her husband’s home is dearer to her. Therefore, if she went to her father’s home for the first Festival, we are uncertain what her intention was, and she may eat wherever she wishes. And if it was the second Festival, she eats from her husband’s offering. The Gemara brings a verse from which we learn that it is customary for a woman to be eager to go to her father’s home for the first Festival.

As it is written: “Then I was in his eyes like one who finds peace”

[Song of Songs 8].

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Like a bride who is found to be intact in her father-in-law’s home

[in her husband’s home].

And eager to go to proclaim her virtue in her father’s home.

The verse “Then I was in his eyes like one who finds peace” speaks of the Congregation of Israel, which is compared to a woman married to a husband. Therefore, incidentally, the Gemara brings another passage in which the Congregation of Israel is compared to a married woman [Rashi below].

It is written:

[in Hosea 2]

“And it shall be on that day, says the Lord: You shall call

Me

‘My Husband,’ and you shall no longer call Me ‘My Master.’”

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Like a bride in her father-in-law’s home,

who has already married [and calls her husband “my husband”],

and not like a bride in her father’s home,

who is still betrothed [and calls her betrothed “my master”].

The Gemara now brings another homiletic interpretation of Rabbi Yoḥanan from the book of Song of Songs, following its citation of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s interpretation from Song of Songs.

It is stated [in Song of Songs 8]:

“We have a little sister, and she has no breasts.”

She has no breasts with which to nurse others. That is, no benefit is derived from her.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This

is analogous to the province of

Elam, which was privileged

to have Daniel, who was privileged

to learn, but was not privileged to teach.

For Daniel was not privileged to disseminate Torah in Israel.

But in contrast, Babylonia was privileged to have Ezra the Scribe grow up there, who learned himself and taught Israel.

It is further stated in Song of Songs 8: “I am

a wall, and my breasts are like towers.”

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

“I am a wall”—

this is Torah,

which protects those who study it like a wall that protects the inhabitants of a city [Rabbenu Gershom, Bava Batra 7b].

“And my breasts are like towers”—

these are Torah scholars,

who nurse others [by teaching them Torah], and they are like towers that protect the generation.

And Rava said: “I am a wall”—

this is the Congregation of Israel,

who enclose themselves with a wall so as not to assimilate among the nations [Rashi, Bava Batra 8a].

“And my breasts are like towers”—

these are synagogues and houses of study

[which protect them].

Rav Zutra bar Tuvya said that Rav said: What is the meaning of that which is written

[in Psalms 144]

“May our sons be like saplings, fully grown in their youth;

our daughters

like cornerstones, hewn in the form of a palace”?

“May our sons be like saplings”—

these are the young men of Israel who have not tasted the taste of sin,

like young saplings that have not yet been spoiled and in which no break has occurred.

“Our daughters like cornerstones”—these are the virgins of Israel who bind their openings

and are not possessed by others until they are married

to their husbands.

And so

the verse

says that “cornerstones” is an expression denoting filling with blood. For it says [in Zechariah 9]:

“And they shall be filled like a basin, like the corners of the altar.”

“And they shall be filled like a basin, like the corners of the altar.”

And just as there “corners” denotes filling with blood, so here too it denotes filling with desire.

Alternatively,

one can learn that “corners” denotes filling

from here

[from this passage], as it says [there, later in the psalm]:

“Our storehouses

[our corners]

are full, supplying food from one season to the next.”

The Gemara now expounds the verse, “Our sons are like saplings; our daughters like cornerstones,

hewn in the form of a palace.”

Both the former and the latter,

our sons and our daughters, are so outstanding that

the verse considers it as though a palace were built in their days. “

Hewn” is an expression of hewing. “The form of a palace” means the construction of the palace.

And since the Gemara cited above Rabbi Yoḥanan’s interpretation of the verse “You shall call Me ‘My Husband’” in Hosea 2, it adds and brings further homiletic interpretations from the book of Hosea:

It is stated in Hosea [1]:

“The word of the Lord that came to Hosea

son of Beeri,

in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.”

Four prophets prophesied in one period,

Hosea, Isaiah, Amos, and Micah, for it is stated concerning all of them that they prophesied during the time of Uzziah.

[Although concerning Micah it is stated [Micah 1], “In the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah,” and Uzziah is not mentioned there, nevertheless, since the verse says “in the days of Jotham” without qualification, it implies that he prophesied from the beginning of Jotham’s reign. At that time Uzziah was still alive, but had been afflicted, and his son Jotham reigned in his place during his lifetime. Tosafot.]

And

the prophet who was

the greatest of them all—

Hosea.

And the proof is:

As it is stated

[in Hosea, there]

“The beginning of the word of the Lord through Hosea.”

From here the Gemara infers that Hosea was the most distinguished among them.

For ostensibly one should wonder:

Was it through Hosea that the word of the Lord came

first?

But from Moses until Hosea

there were

many

prophets!

Rather,

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “The beginning”—

meaning that Hosea was first in importance

among the four prophets who prophesied during that period.

And these are they: Hosea, Isaiah, Amos, and Micah.

The Gemara further expounds the book of Hosea. It is stated there [chapter 1]: “And the Lord said to Hosea: Take for yourself a wife of prostitution and children of prostitution, for the land will surely go astray.” And why did He not say this to any other prophet, but only to Hosea? Rather, this is what happened:

The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Hosea: Your sons

have sinned!

And it would have been

proper

for him

to Hosea

to say:

After all,

“They are Your sons, the sons of Your beloved ones,”

“Your tested ones”

[Rashash],

they are—

for

they are the sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,

and therefore

turn Your mercy upon them!

And

was it not enough

for Hosea

not to say this, but he said

Hosea

before Him:

“Master of the Universe, the entire world is Yours. Replace them

[exchange Israel]

with another nation.”

The Holy One, blessed be He, said: What shall I do with this elder?

He said to him: Go and take a prostitute as a wife, and beget for yourself children of prostitution,

so that you will not know whether they are your sons or belong to others.

And afterward He said to him: Send her away,

divorce the prostitute

from your presence.

If he can send away

his wife,

I too shall send Israel away

from My presence and replace them with another nation.

As it is stated: “And the Lord said to Hosea: Take for yourself a wife of prostitution and children of prostitution.”

And it is written: “And he went and took Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim.”

“Gomer”—

why was she called by this name?

Rav said: Because everyone consummated

his desire with her.