Pesachim — Daf 90a

אמר אביי אי לאו דאוקמיה רבי אושעיא לההיא בממנה זונה על פסחו ורבי היא הוה מוקמינא לה לההיא בקדשים קלים ואליבא דרבי יוסי הגלילי דאמר קדשים קלים ממון בעלים הוא

אבל בפסח לא משייר איניש במעות ודאי משייר איניש דמעיקרא כי מפריש להו אדעתא דהכי מפריש להו

והא רבי היא ומשום הכי מעות שבידו חולין (דבפסח לא משייר איניש) ובמעות ודאי משייר איניש

וההיא דקא מוקי לה רבי אושעיא כרבי לא מוקמינא ליה אנא כרבי דבפסח לא משייר איניש (ובמעות משייר איניש דמעיקרא כי מפריש להו אדעתא דהכי מפריש להו

והא ליכא לאוקמי כרבי יוסי דהא תני בה והמוכר עולתו ושלמיו לא עשה ולא כלום

והשתא דאוקמיה רבי אושעיא לההיא בממנה זונה על פסחו ורבי היא ש"מ דסבירא לי' אפילו בפסחו משייר איניש

מאי היא דרבי אושעיא דתנן נתן לה מוקדשין באתננה הרי אלו מותרין

עופות דחולין הרי אלו אסורין שהיה בדין ומה אם מוקדשים שהמום פוסל בהן אין אתנן ומחיר חל עליהן עופות שאין המום פוסל בהן אינו דין שאין אתנן ומחיר חל עליהן ת"ל (דברים כג, יט) לכל נדר לרבות את העופות

ק"ו למוקדשין מעתה מה עופות שאין המום פוסל בהן אתנן ומחיר חל עליהן מוקדשין שהמום פוסל בהן אינו דין שאתנן ומחיר חל עליהן ת"ל לכל נדר פרט לנדור

אלא טעמא דכתב רחמנא נדר הא לאו הכי הוה אמינא מוקדשים חל איסור אתנן עליהן והא אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו

א"ר אושעיא בממנה זונה על פסחו ורבי היא

מאי רבי דתניא (שמות יב, ד) אם ימעט הבית מהיות משה החייהו משה מכדי אכילה ולא מכדי מקח

רבי אומר אף מכדי מקח שאם אין לו ממנה אחר עמו על פסחו ועל חגיגתו ומעות שבידו חולין שעל מנת כן הקדישו ישראל את פסחיהן

רבה ורבי זירא חד אמר בעצים לצלייתו כולי עלמא לא פליגי דכיון דתקנתא דפסח הוא כגופא דפסח דמי כי פליגי במצה ומרור

רבנן סברי הא אכילה אחריתי היא ורבי סבר כיון דהכשירו דפסח הוא כגופא דפסח דמי

וחד אמר במצה ומרור נמי כולי עלמא לא פליגי דכתיב (שמות יב, ח) על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו דכיון דמכשירין דפסח נינהו כפסח דמי כי פליגי ליקח בו חלוק ליקח בו טלית רבנן סברי מהיות משה אמר רחמנא החייהו לשה ורבי סבר החיה עצמך משה

ולאביי דאמר אי לאו דאוקמה רבי אושעיא לההיא בממנה זונה על פסחו ורבי היא הוי מוקמינן לה בקדשים קלים ואליבא דר"י הגלילי דאמר קדשים [קלים] ממון בעלים הוא אבל בפסח לא משייר איניש

הא קתני בהדיא שעל מנת כן הקדישו ישראל את פסחיהן אימא שעל מנת כן הקדישו ישראל מעות פסחיהן:

מתני׳ זב שראה שתי ראיות שוחטין עליו בשביעי ראה שלש שוחטין עליו בשמיני שלו

שומרת יום כנגד יום שוחטין עליה בשני שלה ראתה שני ימים שוחטין עליה בשלישי

והזבה שוחטין עליה בשמיני:

גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר רב שוחטין וזורקין על טבול יום ומחוסר כפורים

Said Abaye: Had not R. Oshaia related that [Mishnah]1 to a case where he registers a harlot for his Passover-offering,2 and in accordance with Rabbi,3 I would have related it to sacrifices of lesser sanctity4 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.5 While this [the present Baraitha]6 is [the view of] Rabbi,7 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.8 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.’9 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 he10 holds that a man leaves [something unconsecrated] even in his Passover-offering [itself].11 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];12 [if he gave her] birds of hullin, they are forbidden.13 Though [the reverse] would have been logical: if with consecrated animals, which a blemish disqualifies, yet [the interdict of] ‘hire’ or ‘price’14 does not fall upon them;15 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].16 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:17 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,18 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.19 Their controversy is only about unleavened bread and bitter herbs: the Rabbis hold: This is a different eating;20 while Rabbi holds: Since it is a requisite of the Passover-offering,21 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;22 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;23 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’?24 — Say: ‘for on this condition did the Israelites consecrate the money for their Passover-offerings.’ 25 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].26 IF A WOMAN WATCHES DAY BY DAY,27 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,28 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 yom29 and one who lacks atonement,30 this would disqualify the animal from being offered as a sacrifice (v. Deut. XXIII, 19). Though a mail cannot render forbidden that which does not belong to him, we say there that he would do so, though since it is sanctified it is really not his. Passover-offering and spend his money so acquired on clothes. Thus he holds that an animal sanctified for a Passover offering is entirely his private property; consequently he could also render it forbidden (but for the verse) by making it a harlot's hire. consecrates an animal for a Passover-offering he leaves part of it unconsecrated, as it were, so that if a man gives him consecrated money for a share in the sacrifice the sanctity of the money is transferred to that unconsecrated portion of the animal, while the money itself thereby becomes hullin and can be expended on anything. The reason is on the contrary that when a man consecrates money for the Passover-offering he leaves that money partly unconsecrated, as it were, in the sense that it automatically reverts to hullin when he gives it in payment for a share in a sacrifice, and in fact, the money is technically to be regarded as a gift, not as payment at all; Hence the vendor can use it as he pleases. sense. peace-offering is valid. God for any vow etc. the verse stated here. the lamb, e.g., the unleavened bread and bitter herbs which accompany it. their behalf