Pesachim 89a (פט.) — the Talmud in English

Because there is

a law concerning the offering of shelamim with regard to the

chest and thigh—

which are eaten only by kohanim

[as only kohanim eat them,] and they are not eaten by the owners.

Therefore, if each of them were to bring a Paschal offering and stipulate that it be a shelamim, it would be impossible to give them to a kohen who is not a member of the group, lest it be a Paschal offering. And it would likewise be impossible to give them to an Israelite who is a member of the group, lest it be a shelamim.

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

And

this is what they should do:

Let each one bring a kohen with him.

Let each one bring a kohen with him and designate him as a member of his group for his offering. And the kohen will eat the chest and thigh. For whichever way one looks at it: If it is a Paschal offering, the kohen is designated as a member of its group and eats it by virtue of the law governing the owners’ eating. And if it is a shelamim, the chest and thigh are eaten by a kohen.

And we answer: This cannot be done. For

this kohen—

what are the circumstances

of the kohen under discussion here?

If he has performed a Paschal offering,

if the kohen has already performed the first Pesaḥ offering,

perhaps

perhaps

this

offering

is a Paschal offering! And it would emerge that the Paschal offering is eaten

by a kohen

who is not one of its designated members—

for one who fulfilled his obligation with the first Pesaḥ offering has no designation at all as a member of the group for the second Pesaḥ offering!

And if he has not performed a Paschal offering—

if the kohen has not yet performed a Paschal offering, and can eat the Paschal offering because he is one of its designated members—

perhaps

perhaps this offering

is a shelamim.

And

if so, it emerges that the kohen

has not performed a Paschal offering

[has not performed a Paschal offering] at all!

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

Let all five of them bring

all five whose Paschal offerings became intermingled should bring with them

one kohen

alone,

who has not performed a Paschal offering.

And let these five Paschal offerings be designated for him,

and each of the five should designate this one kohen as a member of his group for his Paschal offering; and he, the one kohen, will eat the chest and thigh of all of them.

For whichever way one looks at it, there is one who has not performed a Paschal offering,

as certainly one of them did not fulfill his obligation with the first Pesaḥ offering, and the offering he now brings is therefore a Paschal offering.

And they fulfill their obligation with it

and that one among the five and the kohen, who did not perform a Paschal offering, fulfill their obligation with this offering.

And we answer:

Rather,

for another reason it is impossible for each of them to bring a Paschal offering and stipulate that it be a shelamim:

Because

if he stipulates that the Paschal offering be a shelamim, he

reduces the

time of

eating the shelamim.

For whereas a Paschal offering

is eaten

for one day and one night

only,

whereas a shelamim

is eaten

for two days and one night.

And now, when he brings one offering about which we are uncertain whether it is a Paschal offering, it is impossible to eat it for more than one day and one night. Any remainder after one day and one night must be burned. Yet it is possible that this offering is a shelamim, and it would emerge that he is burning valid sacred offerings!

And we raise an objection: Although it is impossible to bring a Paschal offering and stipulate that it be a shelamim, there is still another remedy:

And

this is what they should do:

Let them bring

each of them should bring a lamb as an offering

of “the surplus of the Paschal offering.”

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

Alternatively, it refers to money that a person set aside to purchase a Paschal offering but ultimately used only part of it. The law governing the money that remains in his possession is that he should purchase with it an offering called “the surplus of the Paschal offering,” which has the status of a shelamim. Nevertheless, it is eaten only for one day and one night, like a Paschal offering.

And each of the five should stipulate concerning his offering,

and say

[and say]:

If it is mine,

if the offering that I brought for the first Pesaḥ

was blemished—

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

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

If it is mine,

and if the offering that I brought for the first Pesaḥ

was unblemished,

and I am now exempt from performing a Paschal offering—

let this one that I have brought now be a shelamim,

let this one that I am bringing now be a shelamim [that is, a shelamim brought from the surplus of a Paschal offering].

And in this way he does not reduce the time during which it may be eaten,

as

after all,

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

And we answer:

Do they initially set aside an offering for the surplus—

is it possible to set aside an offering expressly as “the surplus of a Paschal offering” ab initio?!

The law of the surplus of a Paschal offering was stated only with regard to one who set aside an offering for the sake of a Paschal offering and ultimately had it remain after Pesaḥ. It is only in this case that the Torah introduced the law of “the surplus of a Paschal offering.”

And we raise an objection:

Let them trouble themselves

and exert themselves and search for people who set aside two Paschal offerings and had one extra one remain [or search for people who set aside money for a Paschal offering and had some of it remain. They can purchase a lamb with it].

Let them bring

the five whose Paschal offerings became intermingled should bring five such lambs.

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

the surplus of a Paschal offering,

as before, whose status is that of a shelamim and which is eaten only for one day and one night.

And we answer:

Rather,

it is impossible to stipulate concerning a single animal that it is both a Paschal offering and the surplus of a Paschal offering

because of semikha:

For whereas

an offering,

a Paschal offering does not require

[does not require]

semikha,

and it is forbidden to perform semikha on it, since when one performs semikha on an offering he leans upon it with all his strength, and it is forbidden to perform unnecessary work with sacred offerings. And we answer: You may say that we say what we said in the beraita, “All offerings whose blood is presented by throwing, if one presented it by pouring, he has fulfilled his obligation,” only in a case of after the fact, where, if he did so, he has fulfilled his obligation. But is it also permitted initially to do so? Certainly not! Therefore, it is impossible to bring one offering and stipulate concerning it that it is either a Paschal offering or a shelamim, or either a Paschal offering or the surplus of a Paschal offering. For the blood of a Paschal offering is to be presented by pouring, whereas the blood of these offerings is initially to be presented by throwing. The Mishna: [for] The one who says to his sons, “I am slaughtering the Paschal offering for whoever among you enters Jerusalem first”; once the first one has inserted his head and most of his body— he has acquired his portion. And he grants the first one who acquired his portion his brothers a share with him, so that they too may eat from the Paschal offering. And the Gemara explains how the brothers can eat, given that their father did not designate them as members of the group. Infer from this from our Mishna that there is retroactive clarification. And since it has now become clear that this one entered first, it is considered from the outset that the Paschal offering was slaughtered for him! And we reject this: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Actually, there is no retroactive clarification. The Mishna is speaking of a case in which the father designated all his sons as members of the group. And when he said, “I am slaughtering the Paschal offering for whoever among you enters Jerusalem first”—he said this in order to motivate them to perform the mitzva. Even if one of them had not entered Jerusalem first, he would have eaten from the Paschal offering; there is therefore no issue of retroactive clarification at all. This is also precise and this can also be inferred from what it teaches in our Mishna, “And he grants his brothers a share with him”: Granted, if you say that he designated them from the outset, that the father designated all the brothers at the time of slaughter, including one who would not arrive first, it is well, it is understandable why he grants his brothers a share with him. But if you say that he did not designate them from the outset, that the father did not designate all of them at the time of slaughter, but now wishes to designate the other brothers together with him, one can ask: After he has slaughtered, after he has already slaughtered the Paschal offering— can they still be designated? Can they be designated?!

Whereas the surplus

of a Paschal offering

requires

[requires]

semikha.

Therefore, it is impossible to stipulate concerning one lamb that it is either a Paschal offering or the surplus of a Paschal offering. For it may be the surplus of a Paschal offering, which requires semikha; yet it is impossible to perform semikha on this offering, lest it be a Paschal offering.

And we raise an objection:

This works well—

the resolution that we gave, that it is impossible to stipulate that an offering is the surplus of a Paschal offering because of semikha, is a good resolution with regard to

an offering brought by men,

since such an offering requires semikha.

But

an offering brought by women does not require semikha. With regard to this,

and in this case,

what can be said—

why can women who were designated members of the five groups whose Paschal offerings became intermingled not bring a lamb and stipulate concerning it that it is either a Paschal offering or the surplus of a Paschal offering?

Rather,

for another reason it is impossible to bring one offering and stipulate concerning it that it is either a Paschal offering or the surplus of a Paschal offering:

Because of the presentations,

the presentations of blood on the altar, and there is a difference in this matter between a Paschal offering and the surplus of a Paschal offering:

For whereas a Paschal offering,

its blood is poured on the altar in

one presentation,

on one of the altar’s corners,

whereas a shelamim,

its blood is thrown on the altar in

two

throwings

that are four

presentations [the blood is thrown on two corners—the southeastern and northwestern corners—and the blood falls on the four walls of the altar, because the blood on the corner spreads toward each of the two walls adjacent to it]. The same law applies to the surplus of a Paschal offering, whose status is that of a shelamim.

And we raise an objection:

What difference does it make?

But we learned: All offerings whose blood is presented on the outer altar, if one presented it in one presentation,

only—even if initially more than one presentation is required, nevertheless

he has achieved atonement

after the fact.

The shelamim and the surplus of a Paschal offering are presented on the outer altar. If so, he can bring one lamb and stipulate concerning it that it is either a Paschal offering or the surplus of a Paschal offering, and present its blood in only one presentation!

And we answer:

Rather,

for another reason it is impossible to bring one offering and stipulate concerning it that it is either a Paschal offering or the surplus of a Paschal offering:

Because whereas a Paschal offering,

its blood is presented on the altar

by pouring,

gently, by bringing the basin to the wall of the altar and pouring the blood against the base,

whereas a shelamim is presented by throwing.

The blood is thrown from a distance, from the basin toward the altar. The same law applies to the surplus of a Paschal offering, whose status is that of a shelamim.

And we raise an objection:

What difference does it make?

But it was taught: All

the offerings

whose blood is presented by throwing, if one presented it by pouring, he has fulfilled his obligation.

If so, he can bring one lamb and stipulate concerning it that it is either a Paschal offering or the surplus of a Paschal offering, and present its blood by pouring!

And we answer:

You may say that we say

what we said in the beraita, “All offerings whose blood is presented by throwing, if one presented it by pouring, he has fulfilled his obligation,” only in a case of

after the fact,

where, if he did so, he has fulfilled his obligation. But is it

also permitted initially

to do so?! Certainly not!

Therefore, it is impossible to bring one offering and stipulate concerning it that it is either a Paschal offering or a shelamim, or either a Paschal offering or the surplus of a Paschal offering. For the blood of a Paschal offering is to be presented by pouring, whereas the blood of these offerings is initially to be presented by throwing.

The Mishna:

The one who says to his sons, “I am slaughtering the Paschal offering for

[for]

whoever among you enters Jerusalem first,”

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

he has acquired his portion.

And he grants

the first one who acquired his portion

his brothers a share with him,

so that they too may eat from the Paschal offering. And the Gemara explains how the brothers can eat, given that their father did not designate them as members of the group.

The Gemara:

It was already explained above that the tannaim disagreed in several places in the Talmud as to whether there is “retroactive clarification” [that is, when something is not clarified now but will be clarified later, do we say that it is retroactively revealed that from the very beginning it had been designated for that purpose].

And in our Mishna we learned that although at the time of slaughtering the Paschal offering it is not known who will enter Jerusalem first, nevertheless, after the first one enters, he acquires his portion.

And we infer:

Infer from this

from our Mishna that

there is retroactive clarification.

And since it has now become clear that this one entered first, it is considered from the outset that the Paschal offering was slaughtered for him!

And we reject this:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

Actually, there is no retroactive clarification. The Mishna is speaking of a case in which the father designated all his sons as members of the group. And when he said, “I am slaughtering the Paschal offering for whoever among you enters Jerusalem first”—

he said this in order to motivate them to perform the mitzva.

Even if one of them had not entered Jerusalem first, he would have eaten from the Paschal offering; there is therefore no issue of retroactive clarification at all.

This is also precise

and this can also be inferred from

what it teaches

in our Mishna,

“And he grants his brothers a share with him”:

Granted, if you say that he designated them from the outset,

that the father designated all the brothers at the beginning, at the time of slaughter, including one who would not arrive first,

it is well,

it is understandable why he grants his brothers a share with him.

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

that the father did not designate all of them at the beginning, at the time of slaughter, but now wishes to designate the other brothers together with him, one can ask:

But after

he has slaughtered,

after he has already slaughtered the Paschal offering—

can they still be designated?

Can they be designated?!

But we learned

below:

“People may join a group and withdraw from it

only

until it is slaughtered”!

Rather, necessarily,

infer from this

that the father had already designated all the sons at the time of slaughter.

It was taught likewise,

the beraita also indicates that the father said this in order to motivate them to perform the mitzva.

For the following was taught in a beraita:

It once happened that the daughters preceded the sons,

and arrived in Jerusalem first.

And it emerged that the daughters were diligent and the sons were lowly.

The beraita did not say that the daughters were found to have acquired their portions and the sons did not acquire portions. This indicates that all of them acquired their portions; it was only with regard to diligence that the daughters were found to be diligent and the sons lowly.

The Mishna:

In all cases,

all who wish to join the Paschal offering

may join it until there is in it

enough for the eating of

an olive-bulk for each and every person.

People may join

those who wish to join it,

and may withdraw from it

those who wish to withdraw from this Paschal offering and join another Paschal offering,

until it is slaughtered.

But after it has been slaughtered, no one may join it, and no one may withdraw from it.

Rabbi Shimon says:

One may withdraw from it

until the blood is thrown.

The Gemara:

We learned at the beginning of the Mishna: One may join it in all cases until there is in it an olive-bulk for each and every person.

And we raise an objection:

What is it coming to teach us?

What is the tanna coming to teach us, when this law is obvious?!

And we answer:

This teaches us [

this comes to teach us]:

that even though [

they counted themselves]

as members of this fellowship,

all the members of the fellowship may withdraw from it,

and the members of another fellowship may count themselves as members of it.

This contains a novel element, since Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei already disagreed about this matter [below, 99a]:

Rabbi Yehuda’s view is that if all the members of the fellowship who took the Pesach withdrew, the new fellowship may not count itself as members of it.

Whereas Rabbi Yosei maintains that the members of the new fellowship may count themselves as members of it. Our Mishna teaches that the law is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, and not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

We learned in the Mishna:

“They may count themselves for it and withdraw from it until it is slaughtered.”

Rabbi Shimon says: Until the blood is sprinkled.

Abaye said: The disagreement

between the Sages and Rabbi Shimon is with regard to

withdrawing:

As the Sages maintain:

One may withdraw from the Pesach only until the time of slaughter, as it is stated: [Exodus 12] “And if the household be too small

for a lamb.”

And they expounded the verse: “If the household be too small” — if the members of the fellowship come to diminish their number and withdraw, they shall do so “for a lamb,”

while the lamb is alive,

while the lamb is still alive.

But Rabbi Shimon maintains: “For a lamb”—

what is its meaning?

For as long as the lamb exists.

As long as there remains something to “bring about” with regard to it, meaning that there are still rites that must be performed with it [namely, sprinkling the blood. Rashash].

But

with regard to

counting oneself for it, everyone agrees

that one may count oneself only

until it is slaughtered.

As the verse states [Exodus 12]: “And he shall take it together with his neighbor who is nearest to 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 then,

afterward: “Each man according to what he eats

shall you count yourselves”

—you shall slaughter.

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

It was taught likewise:

“They may count themselves for it and withdraw from it until it is slaughtered.”

Rabbi Shimon says: They may count themselves for it until it is slaughtered, and they may withdraw from it until

the blood is

sprinkled.