Previous daf

1)

(a) When they told Ula that the price of dates in Bavel was three basketsfull for a Zuz - he exclaimed 'A basket-full of honey for a Zuz, and the Babylonians don't study Torah'?

(b) But after he suffered stomach pains from those very dates, he changed his tune, and exclaimed 'a basket-full of poison, and the Babylonians study Torah?

(c) In time to come, the nations of the world will say "Come, let us go up to the Mountain of Hashem, to the House of the G-d of Ya'akov" - of Ya'akov, who called it a house ("Vayikra es Sheim ha'Makom ha'Hu, Beis-Keil" - Vayeitzei) - symbolizing permanence and security, not of Avraham, who called it a mountain ("Asher Ye'amer ha'Yom be'Har Hashem Yera'eh" - Vayera), nor of Yitzchak, who called it a field ("Vayetzei Yitzchak Lasuach ba'Sadeh" - Chayei Sarah). These symbolize the three Batei Mikdash - see Agados Maharsha.

(d) The day of the in-gathering of the exiles is compared to the day that Hashem created Heaven and earth.

(a) If two guardians Shecht a Pesach for a young orphan, our Mishnah permits him to partake of whichever one he chooses - even if we hold 'Ein Bereirah', because 'Seh la'Bayis Mikol Makom' (meaning that the master of the household Shechts for all the members of his household - we shall soon see who is incorporated - and does not need their consent). We learn this from the Pasuk in Bo "Seh la'Bayis".

(b) Children who are over Bar and Bas-Mitzvah, Jewish servants and one's own wife are not included in "Seh la'Bayis". They must be designated on the Pesach by the master of the house.

(a) A woman eats of her husband's Pesach if she agrees to do so, and does not, should she specifically protest. If she is silent, it is as if she had agreed and she eats from her husband's Pesach.

(b) If a man Shechted a Pesach on behalf of his wife, and she too, Shechted one, then she eats of her own, even though she issued no *verbal* protest - because there is no more effective protest than Shechting her own Pesach (i.e. 'actions speak louder than words').

(c) These Dinim (of protesting, either verbally, or through her actions) are not confined to a wife, but apply to all of those mentioned in 2c.

5)

(a) A slave becomes half-slave, half free - if one of two joint masters sets him free, but the other one done doesn't; or if the slave (who obtains money specifically for this purpose) - pays the money to his master for half his redemption.

(b) We can infer from our Mishnah, which forbids him to eat from his remaining master - that he is permitted to eat from his *own* Pesach.

(c) The Beraisa, which states "Lo Yochal Lo mi'Shelo ve'Lo mi'Shel Rabo" - speaks acording to the Mishnah Rishonah, which rules like Beis Hillel's origial opinion (namely, that a half slave, half free man, continues to serve his master every other day). In other words, half of him remains a slave. That half does not belong to him, and will therefore deter him from eating his Pesach; whereas our Mishnah, which permits him to eat his own Pesach, holds like the Mishnah Acharonah, where Beis Hillel retracted from his original opinion, to follow the opinion of Beis Shamai, who holds that we force the master of a half-slave, half free-man to set him free (and he must write out a document obligating himself to pay for half his value). And since the master is obligated to set the half that is still a slave, free, it is as if he had already done so, and he may eat the Pesach.

6)

(a) The problem with a slave who is half-slave, half free - is that he cannot get married. Why not? Because the half of him that is free prevents him from marrying a maid-servant, and the half that is a slave, a free woman, a situation that is untenable, either because of the Mitzvah of 'P'ru u'Revu' (which every man is obligated to fulfill), or because of the Pasuk in Yeshayah "He did not create it for it to remain empty, He formed it in order to inhabit it" (a statement which pertains even to women, who were given a stronger desire to procreate, and whose logic pertains to slaves, too).

(b) The slave who gains his complete freedom, must write a document in which he states that he owes half of the assessed value of himself to his master.

(c) According to Beis Hillel, a half-slave, half free-man remains half- slave, half free - serving his master one day, and himself, the next.

(d) Beis Hillel later retracted, and agreed with Beis Shamai. The Halachah therefore, is like Beis Shamai.

(a) Someone who is accustomed to eating lamb's meat, and who asked his slave to Shecht a Pesach for him, if the slave then went and Shechted a kid, he cannot now Shecht a lamb on the grounds that he prefers lamb - because, since he did not specify that he prefers lamb, we take into account what he *said*, and not what he *thought* ('Devarim she'ba'Lev Einan Devarim'); his words over-ride his intentions.

(b) If the master told him which animal to Shecht, but he forgot - he must Shecht both a lamb and a goat, and declare 'If my master told me to Shecht a kid, then the kid is his, and the goat mine; and if it was a lamb, then the lamb is his and the kid, mine.' When his master clarifies the issue, each one will take his Pesach and eat it.

(c) If, he asked his master, and he too, had forgotten what he said - then both animals must be burned (since they do not know which one to eat), and they are Patur from Pesach Sheini.

(d) They are both Patur from bringing a Pesach Sheni - since the Shechitah and the Zerikah were performed be'Kashrus, and Hashem knows which Pesach is which, removing it from the realm of Bereirah.

(a) Our Mishnah (which rules that if a slave who was not ordered which animal to Shecht, went and Shechted both a kid and a lamb, the master eats the first one that was Shechted) - speaks about a king or a queen, who tend to rely entirely on their servants, and are not themselves fussy about which animal they eat. In that case, it is not Bereirah at all - because whichever one the slave Shechted first, that was the one that the king wanted *then*.

(b) When the question was put to the King concerning the Sheretz that they found in the slaughter-house (i.e. whether they had to consider all their food Tamei or not), he passed the buck to the Queen, who, in turn, passed it to Raban Gamliel.

(c) Raban Gamliel asked them whether the slaughterhouse was hot or cold. Upon being informed that it was hot, he advised them to pour a cup of cold water over the 'dead' Sheretz, which promptly wriggled, proving that it was not yet dead, rendering everything that it had touched, Tahor.

(d) If the slave forgot what his master told him, we learned that the slave prepares two Pesachim, one for his master and one for himself. This is possible when someone gives money to the slave on condition that his master has no rights in it.

(a) Abaye claims that (in the case where his master also forgot) they are both Patur from Pesach Sheini - only if his master forgot *after* the Zerikah, in which case, the Korban was completely Kosher at the strategic moment; but that if he forgot *before* the Zerikah, so that at the time of Zerikah it was not known whose Korban it was, they must both bring a Pesach Sheini.

(b) If a wart (which is a blemish on a Korban) is found on one of a group of five Pesachim-skins - all five Pesachim must be burned, though they are Patur from Pesach Sheini.

(c) This Din is not absolute - Abaye's distinction whether he forgot *before* the Zerikah or *after* it, definitely applies to this case.

(d) Abaye's distinction might apply to the case in the Beraisa but not to that of the Mishnah - because whereas in the Beraisa, one of the Korbanos was blemished and therefore intrinsically Pasul (a good reason to obligate them all to bring a Pesach Sheini, should the mix-up have occured before the sprinkling), that will not be the case in our Mishnah, where was only a matter of she'Lo li'Menuyav, but the Korban itself was intrinsically Kosher; Hashem knew full-well which Pesach was which, so it makes no difference whether they forgot *before* the Zerikah or *after* it, they are Patur from Pesach Sheini.

Next daf