Pesachim 88b — the Talmud in English

Beit Shammai say [

to Beit Hillel]:

you have instituted a remedy for his master,

for he loses nothing of what is fitting for him.

But

if

you have not instituted a remedy for himself!

For

he cannot marry a maidservant,

even though a slave is permitted to marry a maidservant,

since he is already half a free man.

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 take a maidservant, for betrothal does not take effect with her, and intercourse with her is intercourse of promiscuity].

And also

he cannot marry a free woman,

even though he is half a free man, because

he is still half a slave,

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

If so,

let him cease

from procreation?!

But surely the world was created only for procreation,

as it is stated [

in Isaiah 45]:

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

The Holy One, blessed is 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]

we compel his master. And he makes him a free man

through a bill of manumission.

And

the slave

writes

his master a document 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: At first Beit Hillel held that his master is not compelled to free him—and this is what the Gemara calls the first Mishna. In the end Beit Hillel changed their view and ruled in accordance with Beit Shammai, that his master is compelled to free him—and this is what the Gemara calls the latter Mishna.

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

But according to the latter Mishna, since his master is compelled to free him, he is already like a free man from now, and eats from his own.

Mishna:

He who says to his slave

“Go out and slaughter the Pesach offering for me,”

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 he slaughtered

a slave

a kid and a lamb, the master may eat

from

the

one that was slaughtered

first,

and the second shall be burned.

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 told him.

What shall he do?

He shall slaughter a lamb and a kid. And he shall say

before the slaughter:

If my master told me “a kid,”—

the kid is his, and the lamb

shall be for the Pesach offering

of mine. [

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 told 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 told him,

both shall go to the place of burning,

for it is not known which of them belongs to the master and which belongs to the slave. And the Pesach offering may be eaten only by its registered members.

And

even though they go to the place of burning,

they are exempt from making a Second Pesach,

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

Gemara:

We learned at the beginning of the Mishna: He who says to his slave, “Go out and slaughter the Pesach offering for me”; if he slaughtered a kid, he may eat; if he slaughtered a lamb, he may eat.

And we raise an objection:

Obviously!

For the master was not particular about what he should slaughter.

And we answer: This is the intention of the Mishna—

if he slaughtered a kid,

he may eat, even though he is accustomed

to [slaughtering] every year

a lamb.

And likewise,

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

And the Mishna teaches that we do not say that the master is particular that the slave slaughter for him what he is accustomed to. Rather, since he did not specify to the slave what he wanted, we say 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 Pesach offerings at once,

with the intention of afterward eating from whichever one he wishes. For the beraita holds that there is no retroactive determination. Even though 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.

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 concerns 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 with the first, and eat from it, while the second was slaughtered for no purpose.

And was it not taught

that this can also be demonstrated from the beraita:

One may not register for two Pesach offerings at once. And there was an incident involving a king and queen who said to their slaves, “Go out and slaughter the Pesach offering for us,” and they went out and slaughtered two Pesach 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,

for she is wise.

They came and asked the queen; 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 דעת is light upon them,

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

may eat from the first.

But

we,

if a kid and a lamb were slaughtered for one of us—

we would eat neither from the first nor from the second.

For since he is particular about this, it is uncertain which one he wanted.

And again,

there was another incident of this kind:

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 creatures mentioned in the Torah that render impure through contact upon their death. And they thought that the lizard was dead.

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

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

They came and asked him.

He said to them:

Was

the slaughterhouse

where the lizard was found

hot,

was the place in which it was found

or cold

?

They said to him: Hot.

He said to them: Go and place a cup of cold water upon it.

They went and placed a cup of cold water upon it, and it moved

—it fluttered within the cold water.

And Rabban Gamliel declared the entire meal pure,

for the eight creeping creatures do not render impure while alive, as it is stated concerning them: “upon their death.”

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

it follows that the entire meal was dependent on Rabban Gamliel.

We learned in the Mishna:

If he forgot what his master had told him,

what shall he do? He shall slaughter a kid and a lamb, and say: If my master told me “a kid,” the kid is his and the lamb is mine; and if my master told me “a lamb,” the lamb is his and the kid is mine.

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

mine?

But

whatever a slave acquires, his master acquires.

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

Abaye said:

This is what he does:

he goes

the slave

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

that shepherd

to make a remedy for his master,

for it is agreeable to this shepherd to assist in the remedy for the slave’s master.

And he transfers to him

the shepherd to the slave

one of them—

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

And the shepherd says to the slave: Behold, I transfer to you the one of them that your master does not want to offer as a Pesach, on the condition that your master have no authority over it.

We learned in the Mishna:

If his master forgot what he had told him,

both go to the place of burning, and they are exempt from making a Second Pesach.

Abaye said: They taught this only

that they are exempt from making a Second Pesach,

when he forgot

what his master had told him

after the sprinkling,

for at the time when the blood was sprinkled it was fit for eating—

for at the time the blood was sprinkled it was fit for eating, since it was possible to ask the master, and then it would 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 for eating—

for when the blood was sprinkled, the [kid or lamb] was not fit for eating; therefore they did not fulfill the obligation of the Pesach, for a Pesach offering that is not fit for eating does not fulfill the obligation of offering the Pesach through the sprinkling of its blood.

And they are obligated to make a Second Pesach.

Some transmit this concerning the beraita—

there are those who say that Abaye’s statement, “They taught this only after the sprinkling,” was not said concerning our Mishna, but he spoke concerning the beraita below:

For this is what they taught in a beraita:

Five whose skins of their Pesach offerings became intermingled with one another, and a wart was found on one of them,

and an offering that has a wart is disqualified because it is blemished:

All go to the place of burning,

for it is impossible to eat any offering, lest the wart was on its skin.

And they are exempt from making a Second Pesach.

For four of them were fit. [

And below the Gemara asks: Is there not one of them who did not fulfill his obligation? For a blemish was found on one].

Concerning this,

Abaye said: They taught this only

that they are exempt from making a Second Pesach,

when their skins became intermingled

of their Pesach offerings

after the sprinkling.

For at the time the blood was sprinkled, at least, it was fit for eating—

for at least at the time of the sprinkling of the blood, four Pesach offerings were fit for eating, since it was possible to determine on which skin the wart was. Therefore they do not make a Second Pesach. [And below the Gemara asks: Surely 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 do not know which offering is blemished, all the offerings are not fit for eating by their owners and are disqualified; therefore

they are obligated to make a Second Pesach.

He who transmits it concerning the Mishna—

he who teaches Abaye’s words concerning our Mishna, that if the master forgot what he had told the slave before the sprinkling, the offering is disqualified—

all the more so

would Abaye say this

concerning the beraita.

For in the beraita the disqualification concerns the offering itself—a wart was found on it. Whereas in the Mishna the disqualification is not in the offering itself, but because of another matter, that it cannot be eaten.

And since Abaye says that an offering that is not fit for eating because of uncertainty is called a disqualified offering and requires a Second Pesach, all the more so in the case of a wart, which is more severe, since this is a disqualification in the offering itself: certainly the offering is considered disqualified because of the uncertainty, and consequently one must require a Second Pesach.

But

he who transmits it concerning the beraita

—he who teaches Abaye’s words concerning the beraita—according to him it must be said that specifically in the matter of a wart, which is in the offering itself, Abaye said that the offering is considered disqualified because of the uncertainty.

But concerning the Mishna, no,

Abaye did not say that if there was uncertainty at the time of the sprinkling, they are obligated to make a Second Pesach.

Since

the lamb and the kid

are fit,

in themselves,

for

if

he had remembered, [

if the master had remembered whether he had requested a kid or a lamb]

it would have been fit for eating [

the meat would have been fit for eating],

before Heaven it is revealed

what the master had requested to slaughter. If so, the offering is fit.

The Master said:

Five whose skins of their Pesach offerings became intermingled with one another: all go to the place of burning

and are exempt from making a Second Pesach.

And we object:

But there is one who did not emerge—

there is one who did not fulfill the obligation of the Pesach! If so, why are all of them exempt from making a Second Pesach?

And we answer:

Because it is impossible

to emerge from the uncertainty. For

what should they do,

how should they act?

Let each and every one bring a Pesach offering—

if each and every one brings a Second Pesach offering.

Only one of them is obligated to bring a Pesach offering. If so,

they are bringing [

bringing]

non-sacred animals into the Temple courtyard! For four of them are making them.

For four of them already made the first Pesach offering; it follows that the lamb they now bring into the Temple courtyard has no sanctity of Pesach resting upon it, and it is non-sacred!

Let all of them bring one Pesach -

if all five bring one Pesach, and through this they all fulfill their obligation, and there is no unconsecrated offering in the Temple courtyard.

This too is impossible to do—for four of them are exempt from making a second Pesach, and even though they were counted for the second Pesach, their being counted has no effect.

And it follows that a Pesach is eaten not by its registered members!

[For it is forbidden to feed the Pesach to one who is not among its registered members].

And we raise an objection:

What is this?

What answer is there in this? It is still possible to find an arrangement to remove them from the doubt.

For this is what they should do:

Let each one of them bring his Pesach,

each one of them should bring a Pesach separately.

And let him stipulate—

and make a stipulation concerning it:

And let him say

[and say]:

If mine was blemished,

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

this one that I have brought now shall be a Pesach.

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

And if mine was unblemished,

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

this one that I have brought now shall be shelamim.

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

And we answer:

It is not possible

to make such a stipulation.