Pesachim 176

Chapter 176

א תקנתם את רבו ואת עצמו לא תקנתם לישא שפחה אינו יכול שכבר חציו בן חורין לישא בת חורין אינו יכול שעדיין חציו עבד יבטל והלא לא נברא העולם אלא לפריה ורביה שנאמר (ישעיהו מה, יח) לא תוהו בראה (אלא) לשבת יצרה אלא מפני תיקון העולם כופין את רבו ועושה אותו בן חורין וכותב שטר על חצי דמיו
1 You have [thus] safeguarded his master,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'repaired his master, - so that he should not suffer loss.');"><sup>1</sup></span> 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.
ב וחזרו בית הילל להורות כבית שמאי:
2 Shall he be made as nought,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Do neither and end in futility.');"><sup>2</sup></span> - 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. XLV, 18.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ג <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> האומר לעבדו צא ושחוט עלי את הפסח שחט גדי יאכל שחט טלה יאכל שחט גדי וטלה יאכל מן הראשון
3 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which becomes an ordinary debt to his former master.');"><sup>4</sup></span> Then Beth Hillel reverted to rule as Beth Shammai.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ד שכח מה אמר לו רבו כיצד יעשה ישחט טלה וגדי ויאמר אם גדי אמר לי רבי גדי שלו וטלה שלי ואם טלה אמר לי רבי הטלה שלו וגדי שלי
4 <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>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].
ה שכח רבו מה אמר לו שניהן יצאו לבית השריפה ופטורין מלעשות פסח שני:
5 IF HE SLAUGHTERED A KID AND A LAMB, HE MUST EAT OF THE FIRST.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While the second is burnt.');"><sup>6</sup></span> IF HE FORGOT WHAT HIS MASTER TOLD HIM, HOW SHALL HE ACT?
ו <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> פשיטא שחט גדי יאכל אע"ג דרגיל בטלה שחט טלה יאכל אף על גב דרגיל בגדי
6 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because they do not know which belongs to whom, and a Paschal offering may be eaten only by those registered for it.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ז שחט גדי וטלה יאכל מן הראשון והא תניא אין נמנין על שני פסחים כאחד
7 YET THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM SACRIFICING THE SECOND PASSOVER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For both the killing and the sprinkling of the blood were valid acts.');"><sup>8</sup></span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>It is obvious that if he slaughtered a kid, he [the master] may eat [thereof] even though he is accustomed to lamb;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that is really what the Mishnah informs us.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ח מתניתין במלך ומלכה
8 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To eat subsequently whichever one chooses, because selection is not retrospective (v. supra, p. 458, n. 6) . Thus the same applies here.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ט והתניא אין נמנין על שני פסחים כאחד ומעשה במלך ומלכה שאמרו לעבדיהם צאו ושחטו עלינו את הפסח ויצאו ושחטו עליהן שני פסחים באו ושאלו את המלך אמר להם לכו ושאלו את המלכה באו ושאלו מן המלכה אמרה להם לכו ושאלו את ר"ג
9 - Our Mishnah refers to a king and a queen.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');"><sup>11</sup></span> And it was taught even so: One may not register for two Passover offerings simultaneously.
י באו ושאלו את ר"ג אמר להם מלכה ומלך דדעתן קלה עליהן יאכלו מן הראשון אנן לא נאכל לא מן הראשון ולא מן השני
10 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.'
יא ושוב פעם אחת נמצאת הלטאה בבית המטבחים ובקשו לטמא כל הסעודה כולה באו ושאלו את המלך אמר להם לכו ושאלו את המלכה באו ושאלו את המלכה אמרה להם לכו ושאלו את רבן גמליאל
11 [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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'their mind is light'.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יב באו ושאלו אותו אמר להם בית המטבחים רותח או צונן אמרו לו רותח אמר להם לכו והטילו עליה כוס של צונן הלכו והטילו עליה כוס של צונן וריחשה וטהר ר"ג כל הסעודה כולה
12 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A dead lizard (halta'ah) defiles.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
יג נמצא מלך תלוי במלכה ונמצאת מלכה תלויה בר"ג נמצאת כל הסעודה תלויה בר"ג:
13 and they wished to declare the entire repast unclean. They went and asked the king, who answered them, 'Go and ask the queen.'
יד שכח מה שאמר לו רבו וכו': שלי מה שקנה עבד קנה רבו
14 When they went to ask the queen she said to them, 'Go and ask it. Gamaliel.'
טו אמר אביי הולך אצל רועה הרגיל רבו אצלו דניחא ליה בתקנתא דרביה ומקני ליה חד מינייהו על מנת שאין לרבו רשות בו:
15 [So] they went and asked him. Said he to then, 'Was the abattoir hot or cold? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., was it found in hot water or in cold?');"><sup>14</sup></span>
טז שכח רבו מה שאמר לו וכו': אמר אביי לא שנו אלא ששכח אחר זריקה דבעידנא דאיזריק דם הוה חזי לאכיל' אבל שכח לפני זריקה דכי איזריק דם לא הוה חזי לאכילה חייבין לעשות פסח שני
16 'It was hot,' replied they.' Then go and pour a glass of cold water over it,' he told them.
יז איכא דמתני לה אברייתא חמשה שנתערבו עורות פסחיהן זה בזה ונמצאת יבלת באחד מהן כולן יוצאין לבית השריפה ופטורין מלעשות פסח שני
17 They went and poured a glass of cold water over it, and it moved,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They now saw that it was alive.');"><sup>15</sup></span> whereupon R'Gamaliel declared the entire repast clean.
יח אמר אביי לא שנו אלא שנתערבו לאחר זריקה דבעידנא דאיזריק דם מיהא הוה חזי לאכילה אבל נתערבו לפני זריקה חייבין לעשות פסח שני
18 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [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.]');"><sup>16</sup></span> IF HE FORGOT WHAT HIS MASTER HAD TOLD HIM etc. MINE?
יט מאן דמתני אמתני' כ"ש אברייתא מאן דמתני אברייתא אבל אמתניתין לא כיון דכשירין נינהו דאי אידכר הוי חזי לאכילה קמי שמיא גליא
19 Whatever a slave owns his master owns!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then can the slave stipulate that one of these should be his?');"><sup>17</sup></span> - Said Abaye: He repairs to a shepherd with whom his master generally has dealings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'where his master is accustomed'.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
כ אמר מר ופטורין מלעשות פסח שני והא איכא חד דלא נפיק
20 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since this is in the master's own interests.');"><sup>19</sup></span> 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.
כא משום דלא איפשר היכי ליעביד ליתי כל חד וחד פסח קא מייתי חולין לעזרה דארבעה מינייהו עבדי להו
21 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a blemish which disqualifies an animal as a sacrifice.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
כב ליתי כולהו חד פסח נמצא פסח נאכל שלא למנויו
22 was found on one of them, they all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Paschal-offerings.');"><sup>21</sup></span> go out to the place of burning, and they [their owners] are exempt for observing the Second Passover.
כג האי מאי ניתי כל חד מינייהו פסחו וניתני ונימא אי דידי בעל מום האי דאייתי השתא ניהוי פסח ואי דידי תם האי דאייתי השתא ניהוי שלמים
23 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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!');"><sup>22</sup></span>
כד לא אפשר
24 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence even if the doubt arose before the sprinkling, they are exempt from observing the Second] Passover.');"><sup>23</sup></span> before Heaven. The Master said: 'And [their owners] are exempt from observing the Second Passover.' But one has [definitely] not discharged [his duty]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the one whose offering was blemished.');"><sup>24</sup></span> - [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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');"><sup>25</sup></span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the registration of those whose duty has been done is of no account.');"><sup>26</sup></span> 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,
Previous ChapterNext Chapter