Pesachim 89a — the Talmud in English

Because there is

a law concerning the sacrifice of peace-offerings with regard to

the breast and the thigh—

it is the priests who eat them

[for only the priests eat them], and they are not eaten by the owners.

Therefore, if each one of them brings a Pesach offering and stipulates concerning it that it is a peace-offering, it is impossible to give them to a priest who is not among the group—for perhaps it is a Pesach offering. And it is likewise impossible to give them to an Israelite who is among the group—for perhaps it is a peace-offering.

And we raise an objection: It is still possible to find a remedy to remove them from the uncertainty:

And

this is what they should do:

let each one bring a priest with him.

Let each one bring a priest with him and enroll him in his sacrifice. And the priest will eat the breast and the thigh. For, whichever way you look at it: if it is a Pesach offering, the priest is enrolled in it and eats by virtue of the law of the owners’ eating. And if it is a peace-offering, the breast and the thigh are eaten by a priest.

And we answer: It is impossible to do so. For

this priest—

what are the circumstances?

Which priest is being discussed here?

If he made a Pesach offering,

if the priest has already made the first Pesach offering,

perhaps

[perhaps]

this

sacrifice

is a Pesach offering! And it turns out that the Pesach offering is eaten

[by a priest]

by one who is not enrolled in it—

for one who fulfilled his obligation through the first Pesach offering has no enrollment in the second Pesach offering!

And if he did not make a Pesach offering—

if the priest has not yet made a Pesach offering and can eat the Pesach offering because he is one of those enrolled in it.

Perhaps

[perhaps this sacrifice]

is a peace-offering.

And

if so, it turns out that the priest

did not make a Pesach offering

[did not make a Pesach offering] at all!

And we raise an objection: It is still possible to find a remedy for this as well:

Let all five bring,

let all five of those whose Pesach offerings became mixed together bring with them

one priest

alone,

who did not make a Pesach offering.

And let these five Pesach offerings be assigned to him,

and each one of the five should enroll this one priest in his Pesach offering, and he, the one priest, will eat the breast and the thigh of all of them.

For, whichever way you look at it, there is one who did not make a Pesach offering,

for certainly one of them did not fulfill his obligation through the first Pesach offering, and the sacrifice that he now brings is a Pesach offering.

And they fulfill [their obligation] through it,

and that one of the five and the priest, who did not make a Pesach offering, fulfill their obligation through this.

And we answer:

Rather,

for another reason it is impossible for each one of them to bring a Pesach offering and stipulate concerning it that it is a peace-offering:

Because

if he stipulates concerning the Pesach offering that it is a peace-offering,

he diminishes the

time of

eating the peace-offering.

For whereas a Pesach offering

is eaten

for one day and one night

alone,

whereas peace-offerings

are eaten

for two days and one night.

And now, when he brings one sacrifice concerning which we are uncertain whether it is a Pesach offering, it is impossible to eat it for more than one day and one night. And what remains after one day and one night must be burned. Yet it is possible that this sacrifice is a peace-offering, and it turns out that he is burning valid sacred offerings!

And we raise an objection: Indeed, it is impossible to bring a Pesach offering and stipulate concerning it that it is a peace-offering, but there is still another remedy:

And

this is what they should do:

let them bring,

let each one of them bring a lamb as a sacrifice

of “the surplus of the Pesach offering.”

“The surplus of the Pesach offering” refers to a case in which a person set aside two lambs for a Pesach offering and one of them remained for him after the Pesach offering.

Or to money that a person set aside to purchase a Pesach offering, and in the end used only part of it; the law of the money that remained in his possession is that he purchases with it a sacrifice called “the surplus of the Pesach offering,” and it is like a peace-offering. Nevertheless, it is eaten only for one day and one night, like a Pesach offering.

And each one of the five should stipulate concerning his own,

and say

[and say]:

If it is mine,

if the sacrifice that I brought at the first Pesach offering was

blemished—

let this one that I have now brought be a Pesach offering.

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

If it is mine,

and if the sacrifice that I brought at the first Pesach offering

is unblemished,

and I am now exempt from making a Pesach offering—

let this one that I have now brought be a peace-offering,

this one that I am bringing now shall be a peace-offering [that is, a peace-offering coming from the surplus of a Pesach offering].

And by doing so he does not diminish its eating,

for

behold,

the surplus of a Pesach offering is eaten for one day and one night!

And we answer:

And does one initially set aside [an offering] for the surplus—

and is it possible initially to set aside a sacrifice for the purpose of “the surplus of the Pesach offering”?!

For the law of the surplus of a Pesach offering was stated only with regard to one who set it aside for the purpose of a Pesach offering, and in the end it remained after the Pesach offering. Only in this case did the Torah innovate the law of “the surplus of the Pesach offering.”

And we raise an objection:

Let them trouble themselves,

let them trouble themselves and search for people who set aside two Pesach offerings and one extra one remained for them [or let them search for people who set aside money for a Pesach offering and part of it remained, and purchase a lamb with it].

And let them bring,

let the five whose Pesach offerings became mixed together bring five such lambs.

And each one should stipulate concerning his own and say: If the sacrifice that I sacrificed at the first Pesach offering was blemished, this is a Pesach offering. And if the sacrifice that I sacrificed at the first Pesach offering was unblemished, this shall be

the surplus of the Pesach offering,

as before, whose law is that it is like a peace-offering and is eaten for one day and one night alone.

And we answer:

Rather,

it is impossible to stipulate concerning one animal that it is a Pesach offering and the surplus of a Pesach offering

because of laying of hands:

For whereas

a

Pesach offering does not require

[does not need]

laying of hands,

and it is forbidden to lay hands upon it, for when one lays hands upon a sacrifice he leans upon it with all his strength, and it is forbidden to perform unnecessary service with sacred offerings. And we answer: Say that we say what we said in the beraita, “all those whose blood is given by throwing, if he gave it by pouring, he has fulfilled [his obligation],” only after the fact, for if he did so he has fulfilled [his obligation]. But is it even initially permitted? ! Surely it is certainly not ! Therefore it is impossible to bring one sacrifice and stipulate concerning it that it is a Pesach offering and a peace-offering, or a Pesach offering and the surplus of a Pesach offering. For the blood of a Pesach offering is subject to pouring, whereas the blood of these is initially subject to throwing. ^m^i^s^h^n^a^: One who says to his sons, “I am slaughtering the Pesach offering for [for the sake of] whoever among you will ascend first to Jerusalem,” once the first one has inserted his head and most of his body— he has acquired his portion. And he confers merit upon the first one who acquired to his brothers with him, so that they too may eat from the Pesach offering. And the Gemara explains how the brothers can eat, seeing that their father did not enroll them. ^g^e^m^a^r^a^: It was already explained above that the tannaim disagreed in several places in the Talmud whether there is “retroactive determination” [that is, something that is not determined now and will become determined later—is it said that retroactively it is revealed that from the first moment it was designated for this]. And in our Mishna we learned that although at the time of slaughtering the Pesach offering it is not known who will ascend first to Jerusalem, nevertheless, after the first one ascended, he acquired his portion. And we infer: Learn from it from our Mishna that there is retroactive determination. And since it is now revealed that this one ascended first, it is considered from the outset that the Pesach offering was slaughtered for him ! And we reject this: Rabbi Yohanan said: In fact, there is no retroactive determination. And the Mishna is speaking of a case in which the father enrolled all his sons. And what did he mean by saying, “I am slaughtering the Pesach offering for whoever among you will ascend first to Jerusalem”?— in order to spur them on in the mitzvot, he said it. And even if he had not ascended first to Jerusalem, he would eat from the Pesach offering; there is no matter of retroactive determination here at all. It is also precise that this is to be inferred from what it teaches in our Mishna, “And he confers merit to his brothers with him”: If you say, it is well, that he enrolled them from the outset, that the father enrolled all the brothers at the time of slaughtering, even the one who would not arrive first, properly, it is good and understandable why he confers merit to his brothers with him. But if you say that he did not enroll them from the outset, that the father did not enroll all of them at the time of slaughtering, but now wants to enroll the remaining brothers with him, then it is difficult: Once after he slaughtered, after he had already slaughtered the Pesach offering— can they be enrolled? Can they be enrolled?!

Whereas the surplus

of the Pesach offering

requires

[needs]

laying of hands.

Therefore it is impossible to stipulate concerning one lamb that it is a Pesach offering and the surplus of a Pesach offering. For it is possible that it is the surplus of a Pesach offering, which requires laying of hands. And it is impossible to lay hands upon this sacrifice, lest it be a Pesach offering.

And we raise an objection:

That works—

the answer that we gave, that it is impossible to stipulate concerning the surplus of a Pesach offering because of laying of hands, is a good answer with regard to

a sacrifice of men,

for it requires laying of hands.

But

a sacrifice of women does not require laying of hands. And concerning this,

and in this case,

what can be said—why can women who were enrolled among the five whose Pesach offerings became mixed together not bring a lamb and stipulate concerning it that it is a Pesach offering and the surplus of a Pesach offering?

Why can the women who were registered among the five whose Passover-offerings became intermingled not bring a lamb and stipulate concerning it that it is a Passover-offering or the surplus of a Passover-offering?

Rather,

for another reason it is impossible to bring one sacrifice and stipulate concerning it that it is a Pesach offering and the surplus of a Pesach offering:

Because of the applications,

which are given upon the altar, and there is a difference between a Pesach offering and the surplus of a Pesach offering in this matter,

for whereas a Pesach offering

has its blood poured upon the altar with

one application

upon one of the corners of the altar,

whereas peace-offerings

have their blood thrown upon the altar with

two

throws

which are four

applications [he throws the blood upon two corners—upon the northeastern corner and the southwestern corner—and the blood falls upon the four walls of the altar, because the blood upon the corner spreads toward the two walls on its sides], and this is likewise the law with regard to the surplus of a Pesach offering, which is like a peace-offering.

And we raise an objection:

What practical difference is there?

But we learned: All those given upon the outer altar, if he gave them with one application,

alone—even if initially more than one application is required, nevertheless

he effected atonement

after the fact.

Peace-offerings and the surplus of a Pesach offering are given upon the outer altar, and if so he can bring one lamb and stipulate concerning it that it is a Pesach offering and the surplus of a Pesach offering, and throw its blood with one application alone!

And we answer:

Rather,

for another reason it is impossible to bring one sacrifice and stipulate concerning it that it is a Pesach offering and the surplus of a Pesach offering:

Because whereas a Pesach offering

has its blood given upon the altar

by pouring,

gently, bringing the basin near the wall of the altar and pouring it upon it opposite the base,

whereas peace-offerings are given by throwing.

He throws the blood from a distance, from the basin to the altar. And this is likewise the law with regard to the surplus of a Pesach offering, which is like a peace-offering.

And we raise an objection:

What practical difference is there?

But it was taught: All

the sacrifices

whose blood is given by throwing, if he gave it by pouring, he has fulfilled [his obligation].

And if so, he can bring one lamb and stipulate concerning it that it is a Pesach offering and the surplus of a Pesach offering, and give its blood by pouring!

And we answer:

Say that we say

what we said in the beraita, “all those whose blood is given by throwing, if he gave it by pouring, he has fulfilled [his obligation],” only

after the fact,

for if he did so he has fulfilled [his obligation]. But is it

even initially

permitted?! Surely it is certainly not!

Therefore it is impossible to bring one sacrifice and stipulate concerning it that it is a Pesach offering and a peace-offering, or a Pesach offering and the surplus of a Pesach offering. For the blood of a Pesach offering is subject to pouring, whereas the blood of these is initially subject to throwing.

Mishna:

One who says to his sons, “I am slaughtering the Pesach offering for

[for the sake of]

whoever among you will ascend first to Jerusalem,”

once the first one has inserted his head and most of his body—

he has acquired his portion.

And he confers merit

upon the first one who acquired

to his brothers with him,

so that they too may eat from the Pesach offering. And the Gemara explains how the brothers can eat, seeing that their father did not enroll them.

Gemara:

It was already explained above that the tannaim disagreed in several places in the Talmud whether there is “retroactive determination” [that is, something that is not determined now and will become determined later—is it said that retroactively it is revealed that from the first moment it was designated for this].

And in our Mishna we learned that although at the time of slaughtering the Pesach offering it is not known who will ascend first to Jerusalem, nevertheless, after the first one ascended, he acquired his portion.

And we infer

learn from it

from our Mishna that

there is retroactive determination.

And since it is now revealed that this one ascended first, it is considered from the outset that the Pesach offering was slaughtered for him!

And we reject this:

Rabbi Yohanan said:

In fact, there is no retroactive determination. And the Mishna is speaking of a case in which the father enrolled all his sons. And what did he mean by saying, “I am slaughtering the Pesach offering for whoever among you will ascend first to Jerusalem”?—

in order to spur them on in the mitzvot, he said it.

And even if he had not ascended first to Jerusalem, he would eat from the Pesach offering; there is no matter of retroactive determination here at all.

It is also precise

that this is to be inferred from

what it teaches

in our Mishna,

“And he confers merit to his brothers with him”:

If you say, it is well, that he enrolled them from the outset,

that the father enrolled all the brothers at the time of slaughtering, even the one who would not arrive first,

properly,

it is good and understandable why he confers merit to his brothers with him.

But if you say that he did not enroll them from the outset,

that the father did not enroll all of them at the time of slaughtering, but now wants to enroll the remaining brothers with him, then it is difficult:

But once

after he slaughtered,

after he had already slaughtered the Pesach offering—

can they be enrolled?

Can they be enrolled?!

But we learned

below:

“They may be enrolled and withdraw from it

only

until it is slaughtered”!

Rather, necessarily,

learn from it

that the father had already enrolled all the sons at the time of slaughtering.

It was also taught likewise,

for it is likewise implied from the beraita that the father said it in order to spur them on in the mitzvot.

Thus they taught in a beraita:

It once happened that the daughters preceded the sons,

and arrived first in Jerusalem.

And it turned out that the daughters were diligent and the sons were lowly.

The beraita did not say, “It turned out that the daughters acquired [their portions] and the sons did not acquire [their portions].” It follows that all acquired [their portions], and only with regard to diligence did it turn out that the daughters were diligent and the sons were lowly.

Mishna:

Forever,

all who wish to be enrolled in the Pesach offering

may be enrolled in it until there is in it

enough for the eating of

an olive-sized portion for each and every one.

They may be enrolled,

those who wish to be enrolled in it, and

they may withdraw their hands from it,

those who wish to withdraw from this Pesach offering and be enrolled in another Pesach offering,

until it is slaughtered.

But after it has been slaughtered, they may not be enrolled in it. And likewise, they may not withdraw from it.

Rabbi Shimon says:

They may withdraw their hands from it

until the blood is thrown.

Gemara:

We learned at the beginning of the Mishna: Forever, they may be enrolled in it until there is in it an olive-sized portion for each and every one.

And we raise an objection:

What does it teach us?

What did the tanna come to teach us, for this law is obvious?!

And we answer:

this comes to teach us [

this comes to make this known]:

that even though they have been counted [

counted themselves]

upon it, this group,

all the members of the group can all withdraw their hands from it, and

the members of another group can be counted upon it.

And there is a novelty in this, for Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Yosei already disagreed about this [below 99a]:

Rabbi Judah’s view is that if all the members of the group who took the Paschal offering withdrew, the new group cannot be counted upon it.

Whereas Rabbi Yosei holds that the members of the new group can be counted upon it. And our Mishna teaches that the law is like Rabbi Yosei, and not like Rabbi Judah.

We learned in the Mishna:

They count themselves upon it and withdraw their hands from it until it is slaughtered.

Rabbi Shimon says: until the blood is sprinkled.

Abaye said: the dispute

between the Sages and Rabbi Shimon is with regard to

withdrawing:

For the Rabbis hold:

one withdraws from the Paschal offering only until the time of slaughter, as it is stated: [Exodus 12] “And if the household be too little

for the lamb.”

And they expounded the verse: “If the household be too little”—if the members of the group come to become fewer and to withdraw, they shall do so “for the lamb”: they shall withdraw their hands

from the lamb’s being alive,

while the lamb is still alive.

And Rabbi Shimon holds: “for the lamb”—

the meaning of this is

from its being of the lamb.

As long as there is something still to be brought into being with it, that there are still services that must be performed with it [namely, sprinkling the blood. Rashash].

But

with regard to

counting oneself, everyone agrees

that one is counted only

until it is slaughtered.

For Scripture says [Exodus 12]: “And he shall take, he and his neighbor who is near his house, according to the number of persons; each man according to what he eats shall you count yourselves for the lamb.”

And the Sages expounded:

“According to the number of persons”—

according to the counting of the persons.

And afterwards,

afterward—“each man according to what he eats

shall you count yourselves”

you shall slaughter.

And from here it follows that the counting must be before the slaughter.

It was taught likewise:

They count themselves upon it and withdraw their hands from it until it is slaughtered.

Rabbi Shimon says: They count themselves upon it until it is slaughtered, and withdraw their hands until

it is sprinkled,

the blood.