פסחים 89:2 — Soncino English Talmud

MISHNAH. 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.? —^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

^ᵃnote:Without the knowledge of the other members of the company.
^ᵇnote:Who disapprove of the new companion.
^ᶜnote:Bidding him to go and eat it elsewhere with the new companion of his choice.
^ᵈnote:This Tanna holds that one Paschal lamb may be eaten by two separate companies.
^ᵉnote:To seize food — i.e., he is a glutton and eats more than his due share. Lit., ‘who has fine hands’ — a euphemism.
^ᶠnote:We calculated that so many are required for this lamb.
^ᵍnote:Presumably the two will eat more than the ordinary share of one.
^ʰnote:Enabling me to eat as much as I like.
^ⁱnote:V. supra 86a for notes.
^ʲnote:As one of your company, and since I cannot go to you, you must come to me.
^ᵏnote:Each contributing an equal share.
^ˡnote:In which way is the second ruling more noteworthy than the first?
^ᵐnote:Lit., ‘he states, it is unnecessary"’.
^ⁿnote:That the quick-handed companion may be told to take his portion and go.
^ᵒnote:Each to take his share.
^ᵖnote:But must all eat together.
^ᵠnote:They must eat together.
^ʳnote:From the teaching cited above.
^ˢnote: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.
^ᵗnote:Which he received from those whom he registered.
^ᵘnote:I.e., animals which he consecrated for that purpose.
^ᵛnote:The sacrifice must be offered on behalf of the first owner.
^ʷnote:Even if it exceeds the animal's worth.
^ˣnote:Lit., ‘falls’.
^ʸnote:His action being null, the money remains hullin.
^ᶻnote:He should not have bought another man's sacrifice.
^ᵃᵃnote: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.