פסחים 89 — Soncino English Talmud

¹because there is the breast and the shoulder [of the peace offering], which is eaten by priests [only]. Then let each one bring a priest with him? — What is the position of this priest? If he has [already] sacrificed a Passover-offering, then perhaps this [too] is a passover-offering, with the result that the Passover offering is eaten by those who have not registered for it. While if he has not observed the Passover, perhaps this is a peace offering, and so he will not observe the Passover? Then let all the five [jointly] bring one priest who had not kept the Passover and register him for these five Passover-offerings, for on any hypothesis there is one [sacrifice] with which he will discharge [his duty]! — Rather [the reason is] because he reduces [the time allowed for] the eating of the peace-offering, for the Passover offering [is eaten] a day and a night, whereas a peace-offering [is eaten] two days and one night. Then let them bring a Passover ‘remainder’ and declare, ‘If mine was blemished, let this which I bring now be a passover-offering; while if mine was unblemished, let this which I bring now be a peace-offering,’ for a Passover ‘remainder’ is eaten one day and one night [only]? — May we then set aside [animals] in the first instance to be remainders! Then let us take the trouble to bring a Passover-remainder? Rather [the reason is] because of the laying [of hands]; for whereas the Passover-offering does not require laying [of the hands], a remainder requires laying [of the hands]. That is well of a mens’ sacrifice, [but] what can be said of a women s sacrifice? — Rather it is on account of the [blood] applications: for whereas the Passover-offering [requires] one application, the peace-offering [requires] two, which are four. [But] what does that matter? Surely we learned: All [blood] which is sprinkled on the outer altar, if he [the priest] applied them with one sprinkling, he has made atonement? — Rather [the reason is] because whereas [the blood of] the Passover-offering must be poured out [gently], [that of] the peace-offerings requires dashing [against the altar]. But what does that matter? Surely it was taught: All [blood] which is applied by dashing [against the altar], if he [the priest] applied [it] by pouring it out, he has discharged [his duty]? — Granted that we say [thus] where he has done so; [do we say thus] as the very outset too? MISHNAH. IF A MAN SAYS TO HIS CHILDREN, ‘BEHOLD, I SLAUGHTER THE PASSOVER-OFFERING ON BEHALF OF WHICHEVER OF YOU GOES UP FIRST TO JERUSALEM,’ AS SOON AS THE FIRST HAS INSERTED HIS HEAD AND THE GREATER PART OF HIS BODY [IN JERUSALEM] HE HAS ACQUIRED HIS PORTION, AND HE ACQUIRES IT ON BEHALF OF HIS BRETHREN WITH HIM. GEMARA. This proves that selection is retrospective? Said R. Johanan: He [their father] said this in order to encourage them in [the performance of] precepts. This may be proved too, for he [the Tanna] teaches: AND HE ACQUIRES IT ON BEHALF OF HIS BRETHREN WITH HIM; now it is well if you say that he had registered them beforehand, then it is correct. But if you say that he had not registered them beforehand, can they be registered after he has slaughtered it? Surely we learned: They may register and withdraw their hands from it until it is killed! This proves it. It was taught likewise: It once happened that the daughters outstripped the sons, and so it was seen that the daughters were zealous while the sons were indolent. MISHNAH. ONE MAY ALWAYS REGISTER FOR IT AS LONG AS THERE IS AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE THEREIN FOR EACH ONE [REGISTERED]. THEY MAY REGISTER AND WITHDRAW THEIR HANDS FORM IT UNTIL IT IS SLAUGHTERED; R. SIMEON SAID: UNTIL THE BLOOD IS SPRINKLED. GEMARA. What does he inform us? — He informs us this, viz., though this company had registered for it, it can retract [entirely] and a different company register for it. THEY MAY REGISTER AND WITHDRAW THEIR HANDS FROM IT UNTIL IT IS KILLED etc. Abaye said: The controversy is in respect of withdrawing, for the Rabbis hold: [And if the household be too little] for being [me-heyoth] for a lamb [implies] in the lifetime [mi-hayuth] of the lamb; while R. Simeon holds [that it implies] during the existence [mi-hawayuth] of the lamb. But in respect of registering all agree [that this can be done only] until it is killed, because the Writ saith, according to the number of [bemiksath] the souls, and then, ye shall make your count [takosu]. It was taught likewise: They may register and withdraw their hands from it until it is slaughtered. R. Simeon said: They may register until it is slaughtered and withdraw until the blood is sprinkled.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ

^ᵃnote:And since it may be a Passover sacrifice and no priests are registered for this, they cannot eat it.
^ᵇnote:I.e., let a priest register for each sacrifice.
^ᶜnote:Having been unclean or on a distant journey at the First Passover.
^ᵈnote:Lit., ‘whatever you will’.
^ᵉnote:This is Rashi's text. Cur. edd. read: there is one who has kept the Passover and so they will discharge etc., i.e., by this device we ensure that all shall have discharged their duty. — The priest then would partake of the breast and shoulders of each sacrifice.
^ᶠnote:And what is left over after that must be burnt as nothar,
^ᵍnote:Since each sacrifice may be a Passover-offering, we can only permit the shorter period, whereas actually it may be a peace-offering.
^ʰnote:[The text is not clear. R. Hananel reads, let him bring (an offering) and make a stipulation for (it to become if necessary) a Passover-’remainder’.]
^ⁱnote:If an animal is consecrated as a Passover-offering but not sacrificed as such, it is a Passover-’remainder’, which is then brought as a peace-offering but eaten only during the shorter period. Hence here, let each consecrate the animal for a Passover-offering. If his animal was blemished, he discharges his duty with this one. But if his animal was unblemished, this is automatically a Passover-’remainder’, since it cannot be sacrificed for its own purpose (Tosaf.; Rashi explains slightly differently.)
^ʲnote:Surely not.
^ᵏnote:I.e., let us find an animal which was actually left over from the first Passover.
^ˡnote:V, Lev, III, 2.
^ᵐnote:This does not require laying of the hands.
^ⁿnote:The blood was applied to the north-east and the south-west corners of the altar, thus making it appear that the four corners were besprinkled; v. Zeb. 53b.
^ᵒnote:This includes the blood of the peace-offering.
^ᵖnote:I.e., the sacrifice is valid, though in the first place two applications are required.
^ᵠnote:From the basin on to the wall of the altar near the base.
^ʳnote:Vigorously, from a distance.
^ˢnote:The sacrifice is valid.
^ᵗnote:Surely we may not arrange at the very outset that the blood should be gently poured out where it really requires to be dashed against the altar. Hence there is no possibility of observing the Second Passover.
^ᵘnote:V. supra 87a. It is now assumed that only one was registered.
^ᵛnote:But actually he had registered all of them beforehand.
^ʷnote:But not after.
^ˣnote:This disagrees with R. Judah, who maintains infra 99a that one member at least of the original company must remain.
^ʸnote:Ex. XII, 4.
^ᶻnote:The verse is understood to refer to withdrawal, it being translated: And if the household has become too little etc., because some of its members have withdrawn. The present interpretation of mi-heyoth teaches that this withdrawal is possible only while the animal is still alive.
^ᵃᵃnote:I.e., as long as it still exists for its sacrifice rites to be preformed, which is until the blood is sprinkled.
^ᵃᵇnote:Ibid. ‘Be-miksath’ and ‘takosu’ are connected with a root meaning to slaughter, while at the same time retaining their connotation of numbering, i.e., registering. Hence registration is permitted only until it is slaughtered; cf. supra 61a.

²MISHNAH. IF A MAN REGISTERS ANOTHER WITH HIM [TO SHARE] IN HIS PORTION, THE MEMBERS OF THE COMPANY ARE AT LIBERTY TO GIVE HIM HIS [PORTION], AND HE EATS HIS AND THEY EAT THEIRS. GEMARA. The scholars asked: Can the members of a company, one of whom is quickhanded, say to him, ‘Take your portion and go!’ Do we rule that he can say to them, ‘Surely you have accepted [me]’; or perhaps they can answer him, ‘We accepted you for the purpose of the sacrifice, but we did not accept you with the view that you should eat more than we’? — Come and hear: IF A MAN REGISTERS ANOTHER WITH HIM, THE MEMBERS OF THE COMPANY ARE AT LIBERTY TO GIVE HIM HIS [PORTION], AND HE EATS HIS AND THEY EAT THEIR. What is the reason? Is it not because it is as though one of them were quick-handed: and if you should think that one who is quick-handed can say to them, ‘You have accepted me,’ then let this one be as though he is quick-handed? — I will tell you: That is not so, [for] characters differ, for even if both of them together eat [only] as much as one member of the company, they can say to him that they are not willing to have a stranger with them. Come and hear: If the attendant ate as much as an olive at the side of the oven, if he is wise he eats his fill of it; but if the members of the company wish to do him a favour, they come and sit at his side and eat: this is R. Judah's opinion. Thus, only if they wish, but not if they do not wish. Yet why so? Let him say to them, ‘Surely you have accepted [me.]’ — There it is different, because they can say to him, ‘We accepted you with the intention of troubling you to attend on us; [but] we did not accept you that we should take the trouble of attending to you.’ Come and hear: Members of a company, one of whom is quickhanded, are at liberty to say [to him], ‘Take your portion and go.’ And not only that, but even when five arrange for a meal in common, they are at liberty to say to him, ‘Take your portion and go.’ This proves it. What does ‘and not only that’ mean? — He proceeds to a climax. In the case of Passover-offerings it goes without saying, for they can say to him, ‘We accepted you for the purpose of the sacrifice.’ But even in the case of a meal in common, which is mere companionship, they are at liberty to say to him, ‘Take your portion and go. Others state: That is no problem to us, but this is our question: Are the members of a company permitted to divide, or are they not permitted to divide? — Come and hear: Members of a company, one of whom was quick-handed, are at liberty to say to him, ‘Take your portion and go.’ Thus, only if he is quickhanded, but not if he is not quick-handed. This proves it. R. Papa and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua joined their bread together. But by the time R. Huna the son of R. Joshua ate one [piece], R. Papa ate four. Said he to him, ‘Divide with me.’ ‘You have accepted [me as a partner],’ he retorted. [Thereupon] he raised all these objections to him, and he answered him as we have answered them. He then refuted him by [the teaching regarding] ‘the members of a company [etc.]’. Said he to him, There the reason is because they can say to him, ‘We accepted you for the purpose of the sacrifice.’ He refuted him by [the teaching regarding] ‘a meal in common [etc.]’, so he divided with him. Then he went and joined bread with Rabina. By the time R. Huna the son of R. Joshua ate one [piece], Rabina ate eight. Said he: A hundred Papas rather than one Rabina! Our Rabbis taught: If a man registers others with him for his Passover-offering and his hagigah, the money he holds is hullin. And he who sells his burnt-offering and his peace-offering has effected nothing, and the money, however much it is, is utilized for a freewill-offering. But since he has not effected anything, why should it be utilized for a freewill-offering? Said Raba: As a penalty. And what does ‘however much it is’ mean? — Even if they [the animals] were only worth four [zuz] and he paid five, the Rabbis penalized him even in respect of that additional [zuz]. ‘Ulla — others state, R. Oshaia — said: Perhaps our Babylonian colleagues know the reason for this ruling. [Consider:] one set aside a lamb for his Passover-offering, and another set aside money for his Passover-offering: how can sanctification fall upon sanctification, that he teaches, ‘the money he holds is hullin.? —^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ

^ᵃᶜnote:Without the knowledge of the other members of the company.
^ᵃᵈnote:Who disapprove of the new companion.
^ᵃᵉnote:Bidding him to go and eat it elsewhere with the new companion of his choice.
^ᵃᶠnote:This Tanna holds that one Paschal lamb may be eaten by two separate companies.
^ᵃᵍnote:To seize food — i.e., he is a glutton and eats more than his due share. Lit., ‘who has fine hands’ — a euphemism.
^ᵃʰnote:We calculated that so many are required for this lamb.
^ᵃⁱnote:Presumably the two will eat more than the ordinary share of one.
^ᵃʲnote:Enabling me to eat as much as I like.
^ᵃᵏnote:V. supra 86a for notes.
^ᵃˡnote:As one of your company, and since I cannot go to you, you must come to me.
^ᵃᵐnote:Each contributing an equal share.
^ᵃⁿnote:In which way is the second ruling more noteworthy than the first?
^ᵃᵒnote:Lit., ‘he states, it is unnecessary"’.
^ᵃᵖnote:That the quick-handed companion may be told to take his portion and go.
^ᵃᵠnote:Each to take his share.
^ᵃʳnote:But must all eat together.
^ᵃˢnote:They must eat together.
^ᵃᵗnote:From the teaching cited above.
^ᵃᵘnote:Here the Festive peace-offering which was brought on the fourteenth likewise and eaten before the Passover-offering. This was eaten by the same who had registered for the Passover-offering.
^ᵃᵛnote:Which he received from those whom he registered.
^ᵃʷnote:I.e., animals which he consecrated for that purpose.
^ᵃˣnote:The sacrifice must be offered on behalf of the first owner.
^ᵃʸnote:Even if it exceeds the animal's worth.
^ᵃᶻnote:Lit., ‘falls’.
^ᵇᵃnote:His action being null, the money remains hullin.
^ᵇᵇnote:He should not have bought another man's sacrifice.
^ᵇᶜnote:Money consecrated for a sacrifice can revert to hullin only if an animal of hullin is bought therewith, whereby the animal receives the sanctity of the money, which in turn loses it and becomes hullin. Here, however, the money was consecrated and given for an animal (or part of it, which is the same) which was already consecrated for a Passover-offering: how then can additional sanctity fall upon the animal, in the sense that the sanctity of the money is transferred thereto, leaving the money hullin? — It cannot be answered that this refers to unconsecrated money, for in that case it is obvious.