פסחים 88 — Soncino English Talmud

¹dates and occupy themselves with the Torah. ‘Ulla visited Pumbeditha. On being offered a basket [tirama] of dates, he asked them, How many such [are obtainable] for a zuz? ‘Three for a zuz’, they told him. ‘A basketful [zanna] of honey for a zuz’, exclaimed he, ‘yet the Babylonians do not engage in [the study of] the Torah!’ At night they [the dates] upset him. ‘A basketful of deadly poison cost a zuz in Babylonia, exclaimed he, ‘yet the Babylonians study the Torah!’ R. Eleazar also said, What is meant by the verse, And many people shall go and say: ‘Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, To the house of the God of Jacob’, the God of Jacob, but not the God of Abraham and Isaac? But [the meaning is this: we will] not [be] like Abraham, in connection with whom ‘mountain’ is written, as it is said, As it is said to this day, ‘In the mountain where the Lord is seen.’ Nor like Isaac, in connection with whom ‘field’ is written, as it is said, ‘And Isaac when out to meditate in the field at eventide.’ But [let us be] like Jacob, who called Him ‘home’, as it is said, ‘And he called the name of that place Beth-el [God is a home]. R. Johanan said: The reunion of the Exiles is as important as the day when heaven and earth were created, for it is said, And the children of Judah and the children of Israel shall be gathered together, and they shall appoint themselves one head, and shall go up out of the land; for great shall be the day of Jezreel; and it is written, And there was evening and there was morning, one day. AN ORPHAN ON WHOSE BEHALF HIS GUARDIANS SLAUGHTERED etc. You may infer from this that selection is retrospective? — Said R. Zera: [No:] a lamb according to their father's houses [implies] in all cases. Our Rabbis taught: A lamb for a household: this teaches that a man can bring [a lamb] and slaughter [it] on behalf of his son and daughter, if minors, and on behalf of his Canaanitish [non-Jewish] slave and bondmaid, whether with their consent or without their consent. But he cannot slaughter [it] on behalf of his son and daughter, if adults, or on behalf of his Hebrew slaves and bondmaids, or on behalf of his wife, save with their consent. Another [Baraitha] taught: A man must not slaughter [the Passover-offering] on behalf of an adult, his son and daughter, and on behalf of his Hebrew slave and bondmaid, and on behalf of his wife, save with their consent. But he may slaughter [it] on behalf of his son and daughter, if minors, and on behalf of his Canaanitish slave and bondmaid, whether with their consent or without their consent. And all of these, if they [themselves] slaughtered and their master [also] slaughtered on their behalf, can discharge [their duty] with their master's, but they cannot discharge [their duty] with their own, except a woman, because she is able to protest. How is a woman different? — Said Raba, [It means] a woman and those who are like her. This is self-contradictory. You say, ‘Except a woman, because she is able to protest.’ [Thus] the reason is because she protested, but if she did not protest, she cannot discharge [her duty] with her husband's. Yet surely the first clause teaches: ‘Nor on behalf of his wife [etc.] save with their consent’: hence if nothing is said, she cannot discharge [her obligation thus]? — What does ‘save with their consent’ mean? Not that they said ‘yes,’ but when they said nothing, which excludes [the case] where they said ‘no.’ But surely ‘and all of these, if they [themselves] killed and their master killed on their behalf, can discharge [their duty] with their master's, but they cannot discharge [their duty] with their own meal's where nothing is said, yet it teaches, ‘except a woman, because she can protest’? — Said Raba: Since they [themselves] slaughtered, you can have no greater protest than this. A SLAVE BELONGing TO TWO PARTNERS etc. R. ‘Ena Saba pointed out a contradiction to R. Nahman: We learned: A SLAVE BELONGING TO TWO PARTNERS MAY NOT EAT OF EITHER’; yet it was taught: If he wishes, he can eat of this one's [and] if he wishes, he can eat of that one's? Said he to him, ‘Ena Saba! others say, You black pot! Between you and me the law will be clearly defined: our Mishnah [holds good] where they are particular with each other; the Baraitha [was taught] when they are not particular with each other. HE WHO IS HALF SLAVE AND HALF FREE MUST NOT EAT OF HIS MASTER'S. It is only of his master's that he must not eat, yet he may eat of his own? But it was taught: He may not eat, either of his own or of his master's! — There is no difficulty: one is according to the earlier Mishnah, while the other is according to the later Mishnah. For we learned: He who is half slave and half free works one day for his master and one day for himself: this is the view of Beth Hillel. Beth Shammai say:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ

^ᵃnote:Which grow abundantly in Babylonia.
^ᵇnote:[The text appears to be in slight disorder. Read with MS.M.: For how much are such obtainable? — They replied, For a zuz. A zanna denotes a large basket with a capacity of three tirama, cf. Ta'an. 9b.]
^ᶜnote:With the cost of living so low, surely they have plenty of time to study.
^ᵈnote:Suffering makes one charitable-minded.
^ᵉnote:Isa. II, 3.
^ᶠnote:Gen. XXII, 14.
^ᵍnote:Ibid. XXIV, 63.
^ʰnote:Ibid. XXVIII, 19. Visits to the mountain and the held are only made at certain times, but a home is permanent. Thus this teaches that man must live permanently in God.
^ⁱnote:Hos. II, 2.
^ʲnote:Gen. I, 4.
^ᵏnote:V. supra 8a.
^ˡnote:Ex. XII, 3.
^ᵐnote:I.e., the head of the house does not require the consent of the members of the household. For that reason the orphan may now eat whichever he desires and there is no question of retrospective validity.
^ⁿnote:Ibid.
^ᵒnote:She discharges her duty with her own.
^ᵖnote:A married woman can renounce her right to her husband's support and refuse to work for him as she is normally obliged to do.
^ᵠnote:I.e., an adult son and daughter and Hebrew slaves can also protest!
^ʳnote:I.e., his adult son and daughter and his Hebrew slaves.
^ˢnote:‘The old man’.
^ᵗnote:Probably as a pun on his name-scholarly eye!
^ᵘnote:He was of unattractive appearance (Jast.), perhaps swarthy. Rashi in A.Z. 16b softens this by explaining that he was either begrimed through toil (many Rabbis in Talmudic days being workmen) or that in his preoccupation with his studies he had neglected the appearance of his garments.
^ᵛnote:As a result of your question and my answer the exact conditions of the law will emerge. Jast. translates: this tradition will be named from myself and from thee.
^ʷnote:Not to benefit from one another; hence the half of the slave which belongs to one, as it were, may tot eat of the other's offering.

²You have [thus] safeguarded his master, but you have not safeguarded him! He is unable to marry a [Canaanitish] bondmaid, because he is already half free; he is unable to marry a free woman, because he is still half slave. Shall he be made as nought, — but surely the world was not created for aught but procreation as it is said, He created it not a waste, He formed it to be inhabited. Hence in the public interest we compel his master, and he makes him a free man, and he indites a bond for half his value. Then Beth Hillel reverted to rule as Beth Shammai. MISHNAH.IF A MAN SAYS TO HIS SLAVE, ‘GO FORTH AND SLAUGHTER THE PASSOVER-OFFERING ON MY BEHALF’: IF HE SLAUGHTERED A KID, HE EATS [THEREOF]. IF HE SLAUGHTERED A LAMB, HE EATS [THEREOF]. IF HE SLAUGHTERED A KID AND A LAMB, HE MUST EAT OF THE FIRST. IF HE FORGOT WHAT HIS MASTER TOLD HIM, HOW SHALL HE ACT? HE SLAUGHTERS A LAMB AND A KID AND DECLARES, ‘IF MY MASTER TOLD ME [TO SLAUGHTER] A KID, THE KID IS HIS [FOR HIS PASSOVER-OFFERING] AND THE LAMB IS MINE; WHILE IF MY MASTER TOLD ME [TO SLAUGHTER] A LAMB, THE LAMB IS HIS AND THE KID IS MINE. IF HIS MASTER [ALSO] FORGOT WHAT HE TOLD HIM, BOTH GO FORTH TO THE PLACE OF BURNING, YET THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM SACRIFICING THE SECOND PASSOVER. GEMARA. It is obvious that if he slaughtered a kid, he [the master] may eat [thereof] even though he is accustomed to lamb; if he slaughtered a lamb, he may eat [thereof] even though he is accustomed to a kid. But how is it stated, IF HE SLAUGHTERED A KID AND A LAMB, HE MUST EAT OF THE FIRST; surely it was taught, One cannot register for two Passover-offerings simultaneously? — Our Mishnah refers to a king and a queen. And it was taught even so: One may not register for two Passover offerings simultaneously. Yet it once happened that the king and queen instructed their servants, ‘Go forth and slaughter the Passover-offering on our behalf,’ but they went and killed two Passover-offerings for them. [Then] they went and asked the king [which he desired and] he answered then, ‘Go and ask the queen.’ [When] they went and asked the queen she said to them, ‘Go and ask R. Gamaliel.’ They went and asked R. Gamaliel who said to them: The king and queen, who have no particular desires, must eat of the first; but we [in a similar case] might not eat either of the first or of the second. On another occasion a lizard was found in the [Temple] abattoir, and they wished to declare the entire repast unclean. They went and asked the king, who answered them, ‘Go and ask the queen.’ When they went to ask the queen she said to them, ‘Go and ask it. Gamaliel.’ [So] they went and asked him. Said he to then, ‘Was the abattoir hot or cold?’ ‘It was hot,’ replied they. ‘Then go and pour a glass of cold water over it,’ he told them. They went and poured a glass of cold water over it, and it moved, whereupon R. Gamaliel declared the entire repast clean. Thus the king was dependent on the queen and the queen was dependent on R. Gamaliel: hence the whole repast was dependent on R. Gamaliel. IF HE FORGOT WHAT HIS MASTER HAD TOLD HIM etc. MINE? Whatever a slave owns his master owns! — Said Abaye: He repairs to a shepherd with whom his master generally has dealings, who is therefore pleased to make things right for his master, and he gives him possession of one of them on condition that his master shall have no rights therein. IF HIS MASTER FORGOT WHAT HE HAD TOLD HIM etc. Abaye said: They learned this only where he forgot after the sprinkling, so that when the blood was sprinkled it was fit for eating. But if he [the master] forgot before the sprinkling, so that when the blood was sprinkled it was not fit for eating, they are bound to observe the Second Passover. Others recite this in reference to the [following] Baraitha: If the hides of five [companies’] Passover-offerings became mixed up with each other, and a wart was found on one of them, they all go out to the place of burning, and they [their owners] are exempt for observing the Second Passover. Said Abaye: This was taught only where they were mixed up after the sprinkling, so that at least when the blood was sprinkled it was fit for eating; but if they were mixed up before the sprinkling, they are bound to observe the Second Passover. He who recites [this] in reference to our Mishnah, [holds that] all the more [does it apply] to the Baraitha. But he who recites it in reference to the Baraitha [holds] that [it does] not [apply] to our Mishnah: since [the sacrifices themselves] are valid, for if he reminds himself [of what the Master had told him],it would be fit for eating, it is [indeed] revealed before Heaven. The Master said: ‘And [their owners] are exempt from observing the Second Passover.’ But one has [definitely] not discharged [his duty]? — [The reason is] because it is impossible [to do otherwise]. What should be done? Should each bring a [second] Passover-offering, — then they bring hullin to the Temple Court, since four of them have [already] sacrificed. If all of them bring one Passover-offering, the result is that the Passover-offering is eaten by those who have not registered for it. How so? Let each of them bring his Passover-offering and stipulate and declare: ‘If mine was blemished, let this one which I am bringing now be a Passover-offering; while if mine was unblemished, let this one which I am bringing now be a peace-offering’? — That is impossible,^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ

^ˣnote:Lit., ‘repaired his master, — so that he should not suffer loss.
^ʸnote:Do neither and end in futility.
^ᶻnote:Isa. XLV, 18.
^ᵃᵃnote:Which becomes an ordinary debt to his former master.
^ᵃᵇnote:After having ruled in actual practice on their own view for some time (v. Halevi, Doroth, I, 3, p. 576), they adopted Beth Shammai's ruling. Now the law is always as Beth Hillel. Before they retracted, he could not eat of his own, because the half in him that is free is sharply differentiated from the half that is not. But when they retracted they would regard him as entirely free, even before he is actually so, since we compel his master to free him; hence he could eat of his own.
^ᵃᶜnote:While the second is burnt.
^ᵃᵈnote:Because they do not know which belongs to whom, and a Paschal offering may be eaten only by those registered for it.
^ᵃᵉnote:For both the killing and the sprinkling of the blood were valid acts.
^ᵃᶠnote:And that is really what the Mishnah informs us.
^ᵃᵍnote:To eat subsequently whichever one chooses, because selection is not retrospective (v. supra, p. 458, n. 6). Thus the same applies here.
^ᵃʰnote:Being surfeited with luxury they do not care what they eat, and generally leave it to their servants. Hence the question of retrospective validity does not arise.
^ᵃⁱnote:Lit., ‘their mind is light’.
^ᵃʲnote:A dead lizard (halta'ah) defiles.
^ᵃᵏnote:I.e., was it found in hot water or in cold?
^ᵃˡnote:They now saw that it was alive.
^ᵃᵐnote:[Derenbourg (Essai p. 211) identifies the King and Queen in these two stories with Agrippa I and his wife Kypros; Buchler (Synedrion p. 129 n. 1) with Agrippa II and his sister Berenice. On either view it is to R. Gamaliel I that reference is here made.]
^ᵃⁿnote:How then can the slave stipulate that one of these should be his?
^ᵃᵒnote:Lit., ‘where his master is accustomed’.
^ᵃᵖnote:Since this is in the master's own interests.
^ᵃᵠnote:This is a blemish which disqualifies an animal as a sacrifice.
^ᵃʳnote:I.e., the Paschal-offerings.
^ᵃˢnote:For in the Mishnah the sacrifices themselves are both definitely fit, but that we do not know who registered for them, and yet if the doubt arose before the sprinkling they are bound to observe the Second Passover. How much the more then in the Baraitha, where the fitness of the sacrifices themselves is in question!
^ᵃᵗnote:Hence even if the doubt arose before the sprinkling, they are exempt from observing the Second] Passover.
^ᵃᵘnote:Sc. the one whose offering was blemished.
^ᵃᵛnote:A Passover-offering can only be brought when there is an actual obligation. and if a man not under this obligation consecrates an animal as such, the consecration is invalid and the animal remains hullin (q.v. Glos.), which may not be brought into the Temple Court for slaughtering. Here four have actually discharged their duty already, though we do not know who they are, so that four of the animals must remain unconsecrated.
^ᵃʷnote:Because the registration of those whose duty has been done is of no account.