Pesachim 87a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

1.

The woman

who is married,

when she is in her husband's house

on the fourteenth of Nisan, behold:

If

her husband slaughtered for her

a Paschal offering with the intention that she would be counted among those registered for it,

and slaughtered for her

also

her father.

She shall eat from that of her husband.

For presumably her intention is to be counted among those registered for her husband's Paschal offering, as long as she did not specify that her intention was to be counted among those registered for her father's Paschal offering.

And even if this Passover was at the time of the first pilgrimage festival after the marriage. For since she is in her husband's house, her intention is to join him in his Paschal offering. Meiri according to Rashi's view.

But if

she went

at the time of the

first pilgrimage festival

after the marriage

to make

it

in her father's house,

for this is the way of married women, to go at the first pilgrimage festival after their marriage to their fathers' house, behold, if:

Her father slaughtered for her [

since she was in his house, he thought that she would eat with him],

and slaughtered for her

also

her husband,

who thought that she would return to his house to eat with him [Meiri according to Rashi's view].

She shall eat in the place that she wants.

Because we are uncertain whether she intended to eat at her father's or at her husband's.

And the Gemara explains that the Mishna is speaking of a woman who was not “eager” [desirous] before the fourteenth of Nisan to go constantly to her father's house. Therefore, we are uncertain lest she intended to return to her husband and eat with him.

2.

An orphan

who has two guardians,

for whom

two

guardians slaughtered,

and each one of them registered the orphan among those registered for his Paschal offering—

he shall eat

the orphan

in the place that he wants.

Since we are uncertain for which of them he wants to be registered.

3.

A slave jointly owned by two partners,

for each one of them registered the slave among those registered for his Paschal offering—

he shall not eat from either of them.

For the slave depends on the will of his master. And he may not eat from the Paschal offering of one of his masters, because half of him belongs to his other master, and the other master did not give him permission to register for the offering of his other master.

One who is half slave and half free,

such as a slave who belonged to two partners, and one of them emancipated his share [it follows that half of him belongs to one partner, and half of him is free]:

He may not eat from his master's offering,

for presumably it was not his master's intention to register the free portion of the slave among those registered for his offering.

Gemara:

In several places in the Talmud, tannaim disputed whether there is berera. That is, something that stands in doubt, and in the end the matter becomes clarified and leaves the category of doubt: do we say that the matter is retroactively clarified, that from the outset it stood destined for this?

In our Mishna we learned: A woman who went at the first pilgrimage festival to make [the Paschal offering] in her father's house, and both her father and her husband slaughtered for her—she shall eat in the place that she wants.

And we infer:

You may infer from this,

it may be proved from our Mishna that

there is berera.

For at the time of slaughter it was not known whether the woman wanted to be registered for that of her father or for that of her husband, and nevertheless we learned that she shall eat in the place that she wants. Necessarily, there is berera, and we say that it was retroactively clarified that the blood of the Paschal offering [of her father or of her husband] was sprinkled for her!

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

And

what is the meaning of “she shall eat in the place that she

wants

”?—

In the place that she wants

at the time of slaughter,

for we asked her opinion at the time of slaughter, and she said, “I want [to eat] this one.”

And now the Gemara asks, for we find a contradiction between the words of the Mishna—that if she went at the first pilgrimage festival to make [the offering] in her father's house, and her father slaughtered for her and her husband slaughtered for her, she shall eat in the place that she wants—and the beraita.

And we raise a contradiction

between the Mishna and the beraita:

For we learned in a beraita:

A woman—

at the first pilgrimage festival she eats from that of her father.

From then onward—

if she wants, she eats from that of her father; if she wants, from that of her husband.

And it is explained in the beraita that at the first pilgrimage festival, presumably her intention is to eat from that of her father, whereas in the Mishna we learned that she shall eat in the place that she wants!

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

Here,

in the beraita, it is speaking

of one eager to go—

of a woman who is accustomed to go to eat at her father's house all year. Therefore, when she went at the first pilgrimage festival to her father's house, presumably her intention was to eat at his. But if it was not the first pilgrimage festival, we are uncertain what her intention is, and she shall eat in the place that she wants.

Whereas

here,

in our Mishna, it is speaking

of one who is not eager—

of a woman who is not accustomed to go to eat at her father's house throughout the year, because her husband's house is dear to her. Therefore, if she went at the first pilgrimage festival to her father's house, we are uncertain what her intention is, and therefore she shall eat in the place that she wants. And if it was the second pilgrimage festival, she shall eat from that of her husband. And the Gemara brings a verse from which we learned that it is the way of a woman to be eager to go at the first pilgrimage festival to her father's house.

For it is written: “Then I was in his eyes as one who finds peace” [Song of Songs 8].

[Song of Songs 8].

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Like a bride who is found intact in her father-in-law's house

[in her husband's house].

And eager to go to proclaim her virtue in her father's house.

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

It is written:

[in Hosea 2]

“And it shall be in that place, says the Lord: You shall call

Me

‘My husband,’ and you shall no longer call Me ‘My master.’”

Rabbi Yohanan said: Like a bride in her father-in-law's house,

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

and not like a bride in her father's house,

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

And now the Gemara brings another exposition of Rabbi Yohanan in the book of Song of Songs, incidentally to the fact that we brought Rabbi Yohanan's exposition in Song of Songs.

It is said: [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, there is no benefit from her.

Rabbi Yohanan said: This

is an analogy to the province of

Elam, which merited

having Daniel in it, who merited

to learn, but did not merit to teach.

For Daniel did not merit to disseminate Torah in Israel.

But opposite it, Babylonia merited that Ezra the Scribe grew up in it, who learned himself and taught Israel.

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

a wall, and my breasts are like towers.”

Rabbi Yohanan said:

“I am a wall”—

this is Torah,

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

“And my breasts are like towers”—

these are Torah scholars,

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

And Rava said: “I am a wall”—

this is the Congregation of Israel,

which fences itself with a wall against becoming assimilated among the nations [Rashi, Bava Batra 8a].

“And my breasts are like towers”—

these are synagogues and study halls

[which protect them].

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

[in Psalms 144]

“For our sons are like saplings, grown up in their youth,

our daughters

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

“For our sons are like saplings”—

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

like young saplings that have not yet become spoiled, and no break has occurred in them.

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

and are not possessed by others until they are married

to their husbands.

And so it

[the verse]

says that “cornerstones” is an expression of 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 fill like a basin, like the corners of the altar.”

And just as there “corners” is an expression of filling with blood, so here too it is an expression of filling desire.

Alternatively,

it may be learned that “cornerstones” is an expression of filling

from here

[from this]: for it is said [there, later in the psalm],

“Our storehouses

[our corners]

are full, supplying food from one season to another.”

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

hewn in the form of a palace.”

Both these and those,

our sons and our daughters, are so excellent that

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

“Hewn” is an expression of hewing. “The form of a palace”—the building of the palace.

And incidentally to the fact that the Gemara above brings Rabbi Yohanan's exposition of the verse “You shall call Me ‘my husband’” in Hosea 2, the Gemara adds and brings further expositions in the book of Hosea:

It is said in Hosea [1]:

“The word of the Lord that was to Hosea

son of Beeri,

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

Four prophets prophesied in one chapter,

Hosea, Isaiah, Amos, and Micah, for in all of them it is said that they prophesied in the time of Uzziah.

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

And

the prophet

greatest of all of them—

Hosea.

And the proof is:

as it is said

[in Hosea there]

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

And from here the Gemara infers that Hosea was the most important among them.

For ostensibly it is difficult:

And was the word

of the Lord

first through Hosea?

But from Moses until Hosea

there were

several prophets!

Rather,

Rabbi Yohanan said: “Beginning”—

that Hosea was first in importance

among the four prophets who prophesied in that chapter.

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

The Gemara further expounds the book of Hosea: It is said there [chapter 1], “And the Lord said to Hosea: Take for yourself a wife of harlotry and children of harlotry, for the land will surely commit harlotry.” 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

fitting

for him

to Hosea

to say:

Behold,

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

roll Your mercy over 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. Remove them,

replace Israel

with another nation.

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

He says to him: Go and take a harlot, and beget for yourself children of harlotry,

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

And afterward He says to him: Send her away,

divorce the wife of harlotry

from before your face.

If he can send away

his wife—

I too shall send Israel away

from before Me and replace them with another nation.

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

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

“Gomer”—

because of what was she called this?

Rav said: Because everyone consummated in her

his desire.