Pesachim 179

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

Said Abaye: Had not R'Oshaia related that [Mishnah]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra in reference to a man who gave a sanctified animal to a harlot, where it is implied that but for a certain verse 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.');">¹</span> to a case where he registers a harlot for his Passover-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In return for the 'hire' which he owes her.');">²</span>

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

and in accordance with Rabbi,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbi rules infra that if a man needs money e.g.. for clothes, he may register other people with him for 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.');">³</span> I would have related it to sacrifices of lesser sanctity<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 108, n. 2. Thus he gave the harlot an animal consecrated for a peace-offering.');">⁴</span>

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

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when Rabbi permits the owner to spend the money on clothes etc., it is not because he holds that when a man 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.');">⁵</span>

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

While this [the present Baraitha]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Introduced by 'our Rabbis taught'.');">⁶</span> is [the view of] Rabbi,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained in the preceding note.');">⁷</span>

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

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence on Rabbi's view if he registers a harlot it does not prohibit it, since nothing at all of the animal is his in that sense.');">⁸</span>

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

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.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas on R. Jose's view that sacrifices of lesser sanctity are the owner's personal property, the sale of the peace-offering is valid.');">⁹</span> 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 he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., Rabbi, in R. Oshaia's view.');">¹⁰</span>

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

holds that a man leaves [something unconsecrated] even in his Passover-offering [itself].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not only in the money set aside for the Passover-offering.');">¹¹</span> 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];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they were consecrated before he gave them to her, he cannot make them forbidden.');">¹²</span>

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

[if he gave her] birds of hullin, they are forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be offered henceforth as a sacrifice.');">¹³</span> Though [the reverse] would have been logical: if with consecrated animals, which a blemish disqualifies, yet [the interdict of] 'hire' or 'price'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXIII, 19: Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow etc.');">¹⁴</span>

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

does not fall upon them;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To make them forbidden.');">¹⁵</span> 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?

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

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 'hir and 'price' fall upon them?

א"ר אושעיא בממנה זונה על פסחו ורבי היא

Therefore it is stated, 'for any vow [neder]', which excludes that which is [already] vowed [nadar].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The hire of a harlot cannot be vowed as a sacrifice; but a consecrated animal has already been vowed.');">¹⁶</span> 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.

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

What is [this allusion to] Rabbi? - For it was taught, And If the household be too little from being for a lamb:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 4, lit. translation.');">¹⁷</span> sustain him with [the proceeds of] the lamb in his food requirements, but not in his requirements of [general] purchases.

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

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the fourteenth.');">¹⁸</span> while the money he receives is hullin, for on this condition did the Israelites consecrate their Passover offerings.

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

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence one may certainly sell a share in the sacrifice for this purpose.');">¹⁹</span>

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

Their controversy is only about unleavened bread and bitter herbs: the Rabbis hold: This is a different eating;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence he cannot buy it with the proceeds of the sacrifice.');">²⁰</span> while Rabbi holds: Since it is a requisite of the Passover-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which must be eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.');">²¹</span>

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

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 unleaven bread; with bitter herbs they shall eat it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 8. The verse actually quoted, which is slightly different, is Num. IX, 11, but the Talmud probably means the verse stated here.');">²²</span>

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

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.

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

The Rabbis hold: The Divine Law saith, from being for a lamb [mi-heyoth miseh]: devote it [hahayehu] to the lamb;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'make it live for the lamb' - i.e., the money realized from the lamb must be expended on what is needed for the lamb, e.g., the unleavened bread and bitter herbs which accompany it.');">²³</span> while Rabbi holds: Sustain [hahayeh] thyself with [the proceeds of] the lamb.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> זב שראה שתי ראיות שוחטין עליו בשביעי ראה שלש שוחטין עליו בשמיני שלו

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'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This definitely implies a reservation in the sacrifice itself.');">²⁴</span> - Say: 'for on this condition did the Israelites consecrate the money for their Passover-offerings.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is not an emendation but an interpretation.');">²⁵</span>

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

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 423, n. 3. In both these cases they are fit to eat the Passover offering in the evening; hence we kill it on their behalf');">²⁶</span> IF A WOMAN WATCHES DAY BY DAY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Supra p. 422, n. 5.');">²⁷</span>

והזבה שוחטין עליה בשמיני:

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who had three discharges.');">²⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב יהודה אמר רב שוחטין וזורקין על טבול יום ומחוסר כפורים

ONE SLAUGHTERS ON HER BEHALF ON THE EIGHTH [DAY]. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Rab Judah said in Rab's name: One slaughters and sprinkles on behalf of a tebul yom<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">²⁹</span> and one who lacks atonement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 84, n. 1; p. 294, n. 4.');">³⁰</span>