Pesachim 88b (פח:) — the Talmud in English

Beit Shammai say [to Beit Hillel]:

Beit Hillel]:

You have rectified the situation for his master

so that he loses nothing of what is rightfully due to him.

And

if so,

have you not rectified the situation for him himself!

For

he cannot marry a maidservant,

even though a slave is permitted to marry a maidservant,

since he is already half free.

And an Israelite is forbidden to marry a maidservant, as it is stated in Deuteronomy 23: “There shall not be a kadesh among the Children of Israel,” and Onkelos translates: An Israelite may not marry a maidservant, since betrothal does not take effect with her, and intercourse with her is licentious intercourse.

And

he also cannot marry a free woman,

even though he is half free, because

he is still half a slave,

and it is forbidden for a free woman to marry a slave.

If so,

he will be prevented

from procreation?!

But was the world created for any purpose other than procreation?

As it is stated [in Isaiah 45]:

in Isaiah 45:

“He did not create it for emptiness; He formed it to be inhabited!”

The Holy One, blessed be He, formed the world so that it would be settled through procreation!

Rather,

therefore Beit Shammai said:

For the betterment of the world [so that it would be settled through procreation],

so that it would be inhabited through having children,

we compel his master. And he makes him free

through a bill of manumission.

And

the slave

writes

his master a deed of obligation

for half his value,

in which he undertakes to pay the value of the master’s share at a later time, when he has the means.

And Beit Hillel returned to rule in accordance with Beit Shammai.

It follows that at first Beit Hillel held that we do not compel his master to free him—and this is what the Gemara calls the first Mishna. Ultimately, Beit Hillel retracted their position and ruled in accordance with Beit Shammai, that we compel his master to free him—and this is what the Gemara calls the latter Mishna.

Accordingly, according to the first Mishna, when he serves his master one day and himself one day, he is like a slave owned by two partners, who does not eat from either of them [when they are particular with one another, as stated above].

But according to the latter Mishna, since we compel his master to free him, he is already considered free from now on, and he eats from his own portion.

Mishna:

One who says to his slave,

“Go and slaughter the Paschal offering on my behalf,”

and did not tell him whether he wanted a kid or a lamb:

If

the slave slaughtered

a

kid—

he may eat.

And if

he slaughtered a lamb—

he may eat.

If

the slave

slaughtered both a kid and a lamb, the master may eat

from

the

one that was slaughtered

first,

and the second is burned.

If he said to his slave, “Slaughter a kid for me,” or he said to him, “Slaughter a lamb for me,” and the slave

forgot what his master had said to him.

What should he do?

He should slaughter both a lamb and a kid. And he should say

before the slaughter:

If my master said to me, ‘A kid,’—

the kid is his, and the lamb

will be for the Paschal offering

of mine. [The Gemara explains how the slave can say, “The lamb is mine.” After all, whatever a slave acquires belongs to his master, so the lamb is not his property].

And the Gemara explains how the slave can say “the lamb is mine.” For whatever a slave acquires, his master acquires; it follows that the lamb is not his property].

And if my master said to me, ‘A lamb,’—

the lamb is his, and the kid is mine.

And if, after he had already slaughtered both of them,

his master forgot what he had said to him,

both are taken to the place of burning,

since it is unknown which belongs to the master and which belongs to the slave. The Paschal offering may be eaten only by those registered for it.

And

even though they are taken to the place of burning,

they are exempt from performing the second Paschal offering,

since the slaughter and the sprinkling were performed properly: the kid was for one of them and the lamb was for the other, and it is revealed before Heaven for whom each one was intended. Therefore, they fulfilled their obligation through the offering of the Paschal sacrifice.

Gemara:

We learned at the beginning of the Mishna: One who says to his slave, “Go and slaughter the Paschal offering on my behalf”; if he slaughtered a kid, he may eat; if he slaughtered a lamb, he may eat.

And we raise an objection:

Obviously!

After all, the master was not particular about what he slaughtered.

And we answer: This is the meaning of the Mishna:

If he slaughtered a kid,

he may eat, even though

the master each year is accustomed to a lamb.

a lamb.

And likewise,

if he slaughtered a lamb, he may eat, even though he is accustomed to a kid.

The Mishna teaches that we do not say that the master is particular that the slave slaughter the animal he is accustomed to. Rather, since he did not specify to the slave what he wanted, we assume that he relied on the slave’s judgment.

We learned in the Mishna:

But was it not taught in a beraita: One may not register for two Paschal offerings at once,

in order to eat afterward from whichever one he wishes? This is because the beraita maintains that there is no retroactive designation. Although at the time of eating he wishes to eat from one of them, perhaps at the time of slaughter he had not had this one in mind; and it is forbidden for him to eat from it. And if so, this is difficult: When a slave registered his master for two Paschal offerings, how may the master eat from the first?

If so, it is difficult: When a slave registered his master for two Pesach offerings, how may the master eat from the first?

And we answer:

The Mishna is referring to a king and queen

who have many delicacies and do not care whether they eat a kid or a lamb. Since they are not particular about this, they fulfilled their obligation through the first one and eat from it, while the second was slaughtered for no purpose.

But was it not taught

as proof also from the words of the beraita:

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 out and slaughter the Paschal offering on our behalf,’ and they went out and slaughtered two Paschal offerings for them.

They came and asked the king

from which one he had fulfilled his obligation.

He said to them: Go and ask the queen,

as she was wise.

They came and asked the queen, and she said to them: Go and ask Rabban Gamliel.

They came and asked Rabban Gamliel.

He said to them: A queen and a king, whose minds are easily stirred,

as they are not particular whether they eat a kid or a lamb,

may eat from the first one.

But

we,

if a kid and a lamb were slaughtered on behalf of one of us,

would eat neither from the first nor from the second.

Since he is particular about this, it remains uncertain which one he wanted.

And again,

there was another incident similar to this:

Once a lizard was found in the slaughterhouse, and they sought to render the entire meal impure,

since the lizard is one of the eight creeping animals mentioned in the Torah that transmit impurity upon death through contact. They thought that the lizard was dead.

They came and asked the king, and he said to them: Go and ask the queen.

They came and asked the queen, and she said to them: Go and ask Rabban Gamliel.

They came and asked him.

He said to them: Was

Was the

the slaughterhouse

where the lizard was found

hot,

was the place in which it was found hot,

or cold,

was it?

They said to him: It was hot.

He said to them: Go and pour a cup of cold water over it.

They went and poured a cup of cold water over it. And it moved

writhing in the cold water.

And Rabban Gamliel declared the entire meal pure.

After all, the eight creeping animals do not transmit impurity while alive, as it is stated concerning them: “Upon their death.”

It follows that the king depended on the queen, and the queen depended on Rabban Gamliel—

it follows that the entire meal depended on Rabban Gamliel.

We learned in the Mishna:

If he forgot what his master had said to him,

what should he do? He should slaughter a kid and a lamb and say: If my master said to me, “A kid,” the kid is his and the lamb is mine. And if my master said to me, “A lamb,” the lamb is his and the kid is mine.

And we wonder: Can the slave say of the kid or the lamb that it is

mine?

But

whatever a slave acquires belongs to his master.

If so, both the kid and the lamb belong to his master!

Abaye said:

This is what he does:

He goes

the slave

to a shepherd with whom his master regularly deals, for it is agreeable to him

the shepherd

to assist in his master’s rectification,

as this shepherd is pleased to help rectify the situation for the slave’s master.

And he transfers ownership

the shepherd to the slave

of one of them—

on the condition that his master have no authority over it!

The shepherd says to the slave: I hereby transfer ownership of one of them to you, the one your master does not wish to offer as a Paschal sacrifice, on the condition that your master have no authority over it.

We learned in the Mishna:

If his master forgot what he had said to him,

both are taken to the place of burning, and they are exempt from performing the second Paschal offering.

Abaye said: They taught this only

with regard to their being exempt from performing the second Paschal offering,

if he forgot

what his master had said to him

after the sprinkling,

for at the time the blood was sprinkled, it was fit to be eaten—

since at the time the blood was sprinkled it was fit to be eaten, as it was possible to ask the master, and it would then become clear who had been registered for the kid and who for the lamb.

But

if he

forgot before the sprinkling,

for when the blood was sprinkled, it was not fit to be eaten—

since when the blood was sprinkled, [the kid or the lamb] was not fit to be eaten. Therefore, they did not fulfill their obligation through the Paschal offering, because a Paschal offering that is unfit to be eaten does not fulfill the obligation to offer the Paschal sacrifice through the sprinkling of its blood.

And they are obligated to perform the second Paschal offering.

There are those who apply it to a beraita—

some say that Abaye’s statement, “They taught this only after the sprinkling,” was not said with regard to our Mishna. Rather, he was speaking about the beraita below:

For this is what was taught in a beraita:

Five people whose Paschal offering skins became intermingled with one another, and a wart was found on one of them,

and an offering with a wart is disqualified because it is blemished:

They are all taken to the place of burning,

since none of the offerings may be eaten, as perhaps the wart was on its skin.

And they are exempt from performing the second Paschal offering.

Since four of them were fit. [And below the Gemara asks: Is there not one among them who did not fulfill his obligation? After all, a blemish was found on one of the offerings].

But later the Gemara asks: Surely one of them did not fulfill his obligation, since a blemish was found on his offering.

And concerning this

Abaye said: They taught this only

with regard to their being exempt from performing the second Paschal offering

if the skins became intermingled

of their Paschal offerings

after the sprinkling.

For at the time the blood was sprinkled, at least, it was fit to be eaten—

since at least at the time of the sprinkling, four of the Paschal offerings were fit to be eaten, as it was possible to determine on which skin the wart was found. Therefore, they do not perform the second Paschal offering. [And below the Gemara asks: After all, one of them did not fulfill his obligation, since there was a blemish in his offering].

But

if

they became intermingled before the sprinkling,

then already at the time of the sprinkling, since they did not know which offering was blemished, all the offerings were unfit for their owners to eat and were disqualified. Therefore,

they are obligated to perform the second Paschal offering.

The one who applies it to the Mishna

is the one who teaches Abaye’s statement with regard to our Mishna: If the master forgot what he had said to the slave before the sprinkling, the offering is disqualified.

All the more so

would Abaye say this

with regard to the beraita.

After all, the beraita deals with a disqualification in the body of the offering—a wart was found on it. Whereas in the Mishna, the disqualification is not in the body of the offering, but results from an external circumstance that makes it impossible to eat it.

And since Abaye says that an offering unfit to be eaten because of uncertainty is called a disqualified offering and requires a second Paschal offering, all the more so in the case of a wart, which is more severe, since it is a disqualification in the body of the offering; certainly the offering is considered disqualified because of the uncertainty. Consequently, he must perform a second Paschal offering.

But

the one who applies it to the beraita

is the one who teaches Abaye’s statement with regard to the beraita. According to him, one must say that specifically in the case of the disqualification of a wart, which is in the body of the offering, Abaye said that the offering is considered disqualified because of the uncertainty.

But with regard to the Mishna, he did not say so.

Abaye did not say that if there was uncertainty at the time of the sprinkling, they are obligated to perform a second Paschal offering.

Since

the lamb and the kid

are intrinsically fit,

in and of themselves,

for

they are,

if he had remembered, [if the master had remembered whether he had asked for a kid or a lamb,]

if the master had remembered whether he had asked for a young goat or a lamb,

fit to be eaten [the meat would have been fit to be eaten]. Therefore,

the meat would have been fit to be eaten;

it is revealed before Heaven

that the Holy One, blessed be He, knows which animal the master had requested to be slaughtered. If so, the offering is valid.

The master said:

Five people whose Paschal offering skins became intermingled with one another: They are all taken to the place of burning

and are exempt from performing the second Paschal offering.

And we raise an objection:

But there is one who did not fulfill his obligation—

there is one who did not fulfill his obligation through the Paschal offering! If so, why are all of them exempt from performing the second Paschal offering?

And we answer:

Because it is impossible

to emerge from the uncertainty. For

what can they do?

How should they act?

Let each and every one bring a Paschal offering—

if each one brings a second Paschal offering.

Only one of them is obligated to bring the Paschal offering. If so,

they would be bringing [bring]

a non-sacred animal

non-sacred animals into the Temple courtyard! For four of them would be offering them.

Since four of them had already performed the first Paschal offering, the lamb they now bring into the courtyard has not acquired the sanctity of a Paschal offering, and is therefore non-sacred!

Let all five bring one Pesach offering -

if they bring one Pesach offering for all five, they will all fulfill their obligation, and there will be no non-sacred offering in the Temple courtyard.

This too is impossible, for four of them are exempt from bringing a Pesach Sheni, and even though they were registered for the second Pesach offering, their registration has no effect.

And it would emerge that a Pesach offering is eaten by someone not registered for it!

for it is forbidden to feed the Pesach offering to someone not registered for it].

And we ask:

What is this?

What answer is this? It is still possible to find a solution that will remove them from doubt.

Rather, let them do the following:

Let each one bring his own Pesach offering,

let each one bring a Pesach offering separately.

And let him stipulate -

and make the following stipulation:

And let him say

and say]:

If my offering was blemished,

if the offering that I brought for the first Pesach was blemished -

this one that I am bringing now shall be a Pesach offering.

This one that I am bringing now shall be a Pesach offering.

And if my offering was unblemished,

if the offering that I brought for the first Pesach was unblemished, and I fulfilled my obligation -

this one that I am bringing now shall be a shelamim offering.

This one that I am bringing now shall be a shelamim offering [since shelamim offerings may be brought voluntarily and are eaten by their owners like a Pesach offering].

And we answer:

It is not possible

to make such a stipulation.