Parallel
פסחים 90
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Said Abaye: Had not R. Oshaia related that [Mishnah] to a case where he registers a harlot for his Passover-offering, and in accordance with Rabbi, I would have related it to sacrifices of lesser sanctity and in accordance with R. Jose the Galilean who maintained: sacrifices of lesser sanctity are their owner's property. But [on Rabbi's view] a man does not leave anything over [unconsecrated] in the Passover-offering, yet he certainly does leave over in the case of money, because when he set it aside [for a Passover-offering] in the first place, he did so with this intention. While this [the present Baraitha] is [the view of] Rabbi, and for that reason the money he holds is hullin, as a man certainly leaves over [something] of money [unconsecrated]. Again, what R. Oshaia explains as the view of Rabbi, I do not explain as [the view of] Rabbi, for a man does not leave over anything [unconsecrated] of the Passover-offering. But this [present Baraitha] cannot be established as agreeing with R. Jose, since it is taught therein, ‘and he who sells his burnt-offering and his peace-offering has effected nothing.’ Now however that R. Oshaia related that [Mishnah] to the case of a man who registers a harlot in his Passover-offering and in accordance with Rabbi, it follows that he holds that a man leaves [something unconsecrated] even in his Passover-offering [itself]. What is [this statement] of R. Oshaia [which is alluded to]? — For we learned: If he gave her [a harlot] consecrated animals as her hire, they are permitted [for the altar]; [if he gave her] birds of hullin, they are forbidden. Though [the reverse] would have been logical: if with consecrated animals, which a blemish disqualifies, yet [the interdict of] ‘hire’ or ‘price’ does not fall upon them; then with birds, which a blemish does not disqualify, is it not logical that [the interdict of] ‘hire’ and ‘price’ does not fall upon them? Therefore it is stated, ‘for any vow,’ which includes birds. [But] now you might argue a minori in respect of consecrated animals: if with birds, though a blemish does not disqualify them, yet ‘hire’ and ‘price’ fall upon them, then with consecrated animals, which a blemish disqualifies, is it not logical that ‘hire’ and ‘price’ fall upon them? Therefore it is stated, ‘for any vow [neder]’, which excludes that which is [already] vowed [nadar]. Now the reason is because the Divine Law wrote ‘vow’; but otherwise I would say: The interdict of ‘hire’ falls upon consecrated animals: but surely a man cannot prohibit that which is not his? — Said R. Oshaia: It refers to the case of a man registering a harlot for his Passover offering, this being according to Rabbi. What is [this allusion to] Rabbi? — For it was taught, And If the household be too little from being for a lamb: sustain him with [the proceeds of] the lamb in his food requirements, but not in his requirements of [general] purchases. Rabbi said: In his requirements of [general] purchases too, so that if he has nought [wherewith to purchase], he may register another in his Passover offering and his hagigah, while the money he receives is hullin, for on this condition did the Israelites consecrate their Passover offerings. Rabbah and R. Zera [disagree]. One maintains: None differ about fuel for roasting it, for since this makes the Passover offering fit [to be eaten], it is as the Passover-offering itself. Their controversy is only about unleavened bread and bitter herbs: the Rabbis hold: This is a different eating; while Rabbi holds: Since it is a requisite of the Passover-offering, it is as the Passover-offering itself. The other maintains: None disagree about unleavened bread and bitter herbs either, for it is written, [They shall eat the flesh . . .] and unleavened bread; with bitter herbs they shall eat it; hence since they are a requisite of the Passover-offering they are as the Passover-offering. Their controversy is only about buying a shirt therewith [or] buying a cloak therewith. The Rabbis hold: The Divine Law saith, from being for a lamb [mi-heyoth miseh]: devote it [hahayehu] to the lamb; while Rabbi holds: Sustain [hahayeh] thyself with [the proceeds of] the lamb. But according to Abaye, who said: ‘Had not R. Oshaia related that [Mishnah] to a case where he registers a harlot in his Passover offering, and in accordance with Rabbi, I would have related it to sacrifices of lesser sanctity, and in accordance with R. Jose the Galilean who maintained, Sacrifices of lesser sanctity are their owner's property; but [on Rabbi's view] a man does not leave anything over [unconsecrated] in the Passover-offering’; — surely it is explicitly stated, ‘for on this condition did the Israelites consecrate their Passover-offerings’? — Say: ‘for on this condition did the Israelites consecrate the money for their Passover-offerings.’ MISHNAH. IF A ZAB HAS SUFFERED TWO ATTACKS [OF DISCHARGE], ONE SLAUGHTERS [THE PASSOVER-OFFERING] ON HIS BEHALF ON HIS SEVENTH [DAY]; IF HE HAS HAD THREE ATTACKS, ONE SLAUGHTERs ON HIS BEHALF ON HIS EIGHTH [DAY]. IF A WOMAN WATCHES DAY BY DAY, ONE SLAUGHTERS ON HER BEhalf ON HER SECOND DAY; IF SHE SAW [A DISCHARGE] ON TWO DAYS, ONE SLAUGHTERS ON HER BEHALF ON THE THIRD [DAY]. AND AS TO A ZABAH, ONE SLAUGHTERS ON HER BEHALF ON THE EIGHTH [DAY]. GEMARA. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: One slaughters and sprinkles on behalf of a tebul yom and one who lacks atonement,
—
but one may not slaughter and sprinkle for a person unclean through a reptile. But ‘Ulla maintained: One slaughters and sprinkles for a person unclean through a reptile. According to Rab, wherein does a tebul yom differ? Because he is fit in the evening. But one unclean through a reptile too is fit in the evening? — He lacks tebillah. Then a tebul yom too lacks the setting of the sun? The sun goes down of its own accord. Then one who lacks atonement too, surely lacks forgiveness? — It means where his pair [of birds] are in his hand. Then a person unclean through a reptile too, surely the mikweh stands before him? — He may neglect it. If so, he who lacks sacrifice too, perhaps he will neglect [to sacrifice]? — It means e.g., that he had delivered them [his birds] to the Beth din, this being in accordance with R. Shemaiah, who said: It is a presumption that the Beth din of Priests do not rise from there until the money in the horn-shaped receptacles is finished. Now according to Rab, by Scriptural law he is indeed fit, and it was the Rabbis who preventively forbade him; why then did Rab say: We defile one of them with a reptile? — Rather [say] according to Rab he is not fit by Biblical law either, for it is written, If any man be unclean by reason of a dead body: does this not hold good [even] when his seventh day falls on the eve of Passover, which case is [tantamount to] uncleanness through a reptile, yet the Divine Law said, Let him be relegated [to the second Passover]? [But] how do you know that it is so? — He holds as R. Isaac, who said: They were unclean through an unattended corpse whose seventh day fell on the eve of Passover, for it is said, and they could not keep the Passover on that day: thus only on that day could they not keep it, but on the morrow they could keep it, yet the Divine Law said, Let them be put off. We learned: IF A ZAB HAS SUFFERED TWO ATTACKS, ONE SLAUGHTERS ON HIS BEHALF ON HIS SEVENTH [DAY]; does that not mean where he had not performed tebillah, which proves [that] one slaughters and sprinkles for a person unclean through a reptile? No; it means where he has performed tebillah. If he has performed tebillah, what does it [the Mishnah] inform us? If he informs us this, that though he lacks the setting of the sun, the sun sets automatically. Reason too supports this [interpretation], since the second clause teaches: IF HE HAS HAD THREE ATTACKS, ONE SLAUGHTERS ON HIS BEHALF ON HIS EIGHTH [DAY]. Now it is well if you agree that [the clause] ‘IF A ZAB HAS SUFFERED TWO ATTACKS, ONE SLAUGHTERS ON HIS BEHALF ON HIS SEVENTH [DAY]’ means where he has performed tebillah: then [the second clause] is necessary. You might argue: Only when he has had two attacks [do we slaughter for him] on his seventh [day], because he does not lack a positive act; but [in the case of] ‘one who has had three attacks, on his eighth day,’ where an action is wanting [in that] he lacks forgiveness, it is not so. Therefore [the Mishnah] informs us that though he lacks forgiveness, we slaughter and sprinkle on his behalf. But if you say that [the clause, ‘IF A ZAB] HAS SUFFERED TWO ATTACKS, [ONE SLAUGHTERS ON HIS BEHALF] ON HIS SEVENTH DAY,’ means where he has not performed tebillah, what is the purpose of [teaching about] one who has had three attacks? Seeing that you say that one slaughters and sprinkles on behalf of one who had two discharges, and is in his seventh day, but has not performed tebillah, so that he is quite unclean; then how much the more does one slaughter and sprinkle for one who had three attacks, and is in his eighth day, and has performed tebillah on the seventh, so that his uncleanness is of a lighter nature! Hence it surely follows that [the law] that we slaughter on behalf of one who has had two attacks and is in [his] seventh [day] refers to the case where he has performed tebillah! — No. In truth I may tell you that he has not performed tebillah, and [yet] it is necessary. I might argue: Only on the seventh day [do we slaughter for him], since [it lies] in his own hand to make himself fit; but on the eighth day, when it is not in his power to offer the sacrifice, I might say, the priests may neglect him. Hence we are informed [that it is] as R. Shemaiah [stated]. AND AS TO A ZABAH, ONE SLAUGHTERS etc. A tanna recited before R. Adda b. Ahabah: And as to a zabah, one slaughters on her behalf on her seventh day. Said he to him: Is then a zabah on her seventh day fit? Even on the view that one slaughters and sprinkles for a person unclean through a reptile, that is only for a person unclean through a reptile, who is fit in the evening. But this one is not fit until the morrow when she brings her atonement. Say [instead], ‘on the eighth.’ Then it is obvious? — You might say, since she lacks atonement, [one must] not slaughter [on her behalf]; hence he informs us [that it is] as R. Shemaiah [stated]. Rabina said: He [the Tanna] recited before him [about] a niddah, [thus]: And as to a niddah, one slaughters for her on the seventh [day]. Said he to him: Is then a niddah fit on the seventh [day]? Even on the view that one slaughters and sprinkles for a person unclean through a reptile [that is] because he is fit in the evening. But a niddah performs tebillah in the evening of [i.e., following] the seventh day: [hence] she is not fit for eating [the Passover offering] until the [evening after the] eighth, by when she has had the setting of the sun. But say, ‘on the eighth.’ That is obvious: seeing that one slaughters and sprinkles for a zabah on the eighth day, though as yet she lacks atonement, need it be taught that one slaughters and sprinkles on behalf of a niddah, who does not lack atonement? — He finds it necessary [to teach about] a niddah, [and] informs us this: only on the eighth, but not on the seventh, even as it was taught: All who are liable to tebillah. their tebillah takes place by day; a niddah and a woman in confinement, their tebillah takes place at night. For it was taught: You might think that she [a niddah] performs tebillah by day; therefore it is stated, she shall be in her impurity seven days: let her be in her impurity full seven days. And a woman in confinement is assimilated to Juddah. MISHNAH. [As To] AN OMEN,
—