ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 88
(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
(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
(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.
Our Mishnah, which rules that a slave belonging to two masters may not eat
from the Pesach of either master, speaks when the two masters are fussy,
and neither wishes his slave to benefit from the other one; whereas the
Beraisa, which permits him to eat from whichever Pesach he chooses, speaks
when the owners are not fussy.
(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.
(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
(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.
(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,
(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
In the case of the wart (9b), the reason that they are all Patur from
bringing a Pesach Sheni, despite the fact that one of them was definitely
not Yotze - is because there is nothing that they can really do: if they
each bring a Pesach Sheini, then four of them (who were already Yotze by
Pesach Rishon) will be bringing Chulin to the Azarah (seeing as they are not
Chayav to bring a Pesach Sheini, and it is not possible to bring a Pesach
voluntarily). On the other hand, should they bring the Pesach Sheini
jointly, then four of them will be considered 'she'Lo li'Menuyav', and how
can the Pesach be Shechted on their behalf?
(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.