אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִי לָאו דְּאוֹקְמֵיהּ רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא לְהַהִיא בִּמְמַנֶּה זוֹנָה עַל פִּסְחוֹ וְרַבִּי הִיא, הֲוָה מוֹקֵמְינָא לָהּ לְהַהִיא בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, דְּאָמַר: קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים מָמוֹן בְּעָלִים הוּא, A mishna and baraita that the Gemara cites later on in the discussion teach that, logically, were it not for a verse teaching otherwise, the prohibition against using as an offering an animal given as payment for a prostitute’s services should apply even in a case where the animal had already been consecrated as an offering before being given as payment. Abaye said: If not that Rabbi Oshaya established that that mishna is referring to a case of one who registers a prostitute for his Paschal lamb as her payment, and this position is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, whom Rabbi Oshaya apparently understood and who holds that a person retains monetary rights to his Paschal lamb even after consecration, which is why one is able to register the prostitute for it, I would have established that mishna as referring only to offerings of lesser sanctity and claimed it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said: Offerings of lesser sanctity are the monetary property of their owners, and therefore it is possible for the owner to use them as payment for a prostitute.
אֲבָל בְּפֶסַח לָא מְשַׁיַּיר אִינִישׁ, בְּמָעוֹת וַדַּאי מְשַׁיַּיר אִינִישׁ, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא כִּי מַפְרֵישׁ לְהוּ — אַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי מַפְרֵישׁ לְהוּ. But I would have presumed that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that a Paschal lamb is unlike regular offerings of lesser sanctity, in that a person does not restrict its consecration in order to retain monetary rights to it, and it is therefore not considered to be his property at all. However, with regard to money consecrated for a Paschal lamb, a person certainly restricts its consecration. When one initially designates it, he designated it with this intent: If he should wish to purchase a portion in someone else’s Paschal lamb that was already consecrated, then the money should remain non-sacred in order to allow for that purchase to take hold.
וְהָא רַבִּי הִיא, וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי מָעוֹת שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ חוּלִּין, דְּבַפֶּסַח לָא מְשַׁיַּיר אִינִישׁ, וּבְמָעוֹת וַדַּאי מְשַׁיַּיר אִינִישׁ. I would have therefore been able to explain that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Due to this opinion of his, the money in the hand of the owner of the lamb, which he received for selling a share in his Paschal lamb, is non-sacred because, although with regard to the Paschal lamb a person does not restrict its consecration, with regard to money a person certainly restricts its consecration.
וְהָהִיא דְּקָא מוֹקֵי לַהּ רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא כְּרַבִּי — לָא מוֹקֵמְינָא לֵיהּ אֲנָא כְּרַבִּי, דִּבְפֶסַח לָא מְשַׁיַּיר אִינִישׁ — וּבְמָעוֹת מְשַׁיַּיר אִינִישׁ. דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא כִּי מַפְרֵישׁ לְהוּ — אַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי מַפְרֵישׁ לְהוּ. Abaye continues his line of thinking: And that mishna that Rabbi Oshaya established as being in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, I would not establish it as being in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. According to him, when designating a Paschal lamb, a person does not limit its consecration from fully taking effect, and therefore he retains monetary rights to the lamb; whereas with regard to money, a person does limit its consecration, for when one originally designates it, he designates it with this intent.
וְהָא לֵיכָּא לְאוֹקֹמֵי כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּהָא תָּנֵי בַּהּ: וְהַמּוֹכֵר עוֹלָתוֹ וּשְׁלָמָיו — לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם. Abaye admits that there is a problem with explaining the baraita in this way: However, this, the baraita we are addressing, cannot be established in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, for it also teaches in a different clause that one who sells his burnt-offering and peace-offerings has not done anything. Meanwhile, Rabbi Yosei maintains that a peace-offering is one’s personal property, and therefore if one sells it the sale is valid.
וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאוֹקְמֵיהּ רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא לְהָהִיא בִּמְמַנֶּה זוֹנָה עַל פִּסְחוֹ, וְרַבִּי הִיא, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ אֲפִילּוּ בְּפִסְחוֹ מְשַׁיַּיר אִינִישׁ. Nevertheless, now that Rabbi Oshaya has established that mishna as referring to one who registers a prostitute for his Paschal lamb, and he established that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, learn from it that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that even with regard to one’s Paschal lamb, a person restricts its consecration. Should someone wish to purchase a portion of it, he will be able to do so. In such a case, from the outset that portion was not considered consecrated. This will answer the question raised by Ulla as to how the sanctity of the money can be transferred to a Paschal lamb that was already consecrated. In such a case, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, one does not fully consecrate the animal from the outset. Therefore, the animal is considered non-sacred for this purpose, and the sanctity may be transferred from the money to the animal.
מַאי הִיא דְּרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא, דִּתְנַן: נָתַן לָהּ מוּקְדָּשִׁין בְּאֶתְנַנָּהּ — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוּתָּרִין. What is this teaching of Rabbi Oshaya that Abaye alluded to? Rabbi Oshaya’s teaching concerns the following mishna in Temura: As we learned in a mishna: If one gave animals consecrated as offerings for a prostitute’s payment, they are nevertheless permitted to be sacrificed. Although generally, animals given to a prostitute as payment are disqualified for use as offerings, this disqualification does not apply to an animal that was consecrated beforehand.
עוֹפוֹת דְּחוּלִּין — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין. שֶׁהָיָה בַּדִּין: וּמָה אִם מוּקְדָּשִׁים שֶׁהַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן — אֵין אֶתְנַן וּמְחִיר חָל עֲלֵיהֶן, עוֹפוֹת שֶׁאֵין הַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֵין אֶתְנַן וּמְחִיר חָל עֲלֵיהֶן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְכׇל נֶדֶר״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָעוֹפוֹת. However, if one gave her birds that were non-sacred, they are prohibited for use as an offering. The ruling concerning birds needs to be stated as, by right, it should have been permitted based on the following a fortiori inference: What? If consecrated animals, for which a blemish disqualifies them for use, may nevertheless be used as an offering, since the status of a prostitute’s payment or the status of a dog’s price does not take effect upon them, then with regard to birds, for which a blemish does not disqualify them for use as an offering, is it not logically right that the status of a prostitute’s payment or a dog’s price should not take effect upon them? In repudiation of this argument, the verse states: “You shall not bring the payment of a prostitute, or the price of a dog, into the House of the Lord your God for any vow” (Deuteronomy 23:19). A derivation is made from the extraneous phrase “for any vow” to include birds, which may be brought as vows.
קַל וָחוֹמֶר לַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין מֵעַתָּה: מָה עוֹפוֹת שֶׁאֵין הַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן — אֶתְנַן וּמְחִיר חָל עֲלֵיהֶן, מוּקְדָּשִׁין שֶׁהַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֶתְנַן וּמְחִיר חָל עֲלֵיהֶן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְכׇל נֶדֶר״ — פְּרָט לִנְדּוֹר. The Gemara cites a baraita that expands the argument made in the mishna and suggests that the opposite argument can also be made: From now, since it is known that birds used as a prostitute’s payment are disqualified, the following a fortiori inference can be made to disqualify an animal already consecrated: Just as with regard to birds, for which a blemish does not disqualify them, the status of a prostitute’s payment and a dog’s price takes effect upon them, so too, with regard to animals consecrated as offerings, for which a blemish does disqualify them, is it not logically right that the status of a prostitute’s payment and a dog’s price should take effect upon them? In repudiation of this argument, the verse states: “For any vow,” indicating that the disqualification applies to everything except for something that has already been vowed to be offered and consecrated for that purpose.
אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״נֶדֶר״, הָא לָאו הָכִי, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא מוּקְדָּשִׁים חָל אִיסּוּר אֶתְנַן עֲלֵיהֶן, וְהָא אֵין אָדָם אוֹסֵר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ! The Gemara analyzes the assumption of this baraita: But the only reason consecrated animals are disqualified is that the Torah writes the word vow; but if not for that I would have said that even with regard to consecrated animals, the prohibition of a prostitute’s payment takes effect upon them. The Gemara questions this assumption: But there is the following established principle: A person cannot make forbidden something that is not his. A consecrated animal is considered to be the property of the Temple and no longer of the individual who consecrated it. If so, how can one make it forbidden by giving it to a prostitute?
אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: בִּמְמַנֶּה זוֹנָה עַל פִּסְחוֹ, וְרַבִּי הִיא. Rabbi Oshaya said: The mishna and baraita are referring to one who registers a prostitute for his Paschal lamb, giving her a portion in it as payment for her services, and the mishna and baraita are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that a Paschal lamb is considered a person’s personal property for the purposes of allowing additional people to register for it.
מַאי רַבִּי? דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִם יִמְעַט הַבַּיִת מִהְיוֹת מִשֶּׂה״, הַחֲיֵיהוּ מִשֶּׂה. מִכְּדֵי אֲכִילָה, וְלֹא מִכְּדֵי מִקָּח. What is this teaching of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that Abaye alluded to? As it was taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And if the household be too little for a lamb, then shall he and his neighbor next to his house take one” (Exodus 12:4). The phrase “if the household be too little” is taken to mean the household cannot afford the basic necessities of the Festival. Continuing this interpretation, the phrase “for a lamb [miheyot miseh]” is then taken to mean: sustain him [haḥayeihu] from the lamb, i.e., he may use the Paschal lamb as a means of supporting himself. He takes money from his neighbor in return for registering his neighbor for a portion of his Paschal lamb and then uses that money to purchase his needs. However, this applies only if one lacks sufficient means to purchase food to eat, but not if he lacks only sufficient means to purchase other items.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אַף מִכְּדֵי מִקָּח, שֶׁאִם אֵין לוֹ — מְמַנֶּה אַחֵר עִמּוֹ עַל פִּסְחוֹ וְעַל חֲגִיגָתוֹ, וּמָעוֹת שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ חוּלִּין, שֶׁעַל מְנָת כֵּן הִקְדִּישׁוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת פִּסְחֵיהֶן. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It applies even if one lacks sufficient means to purchase other necessary items, for if he does not have sufficient funds he may register another person with him for his Paschal lamb and for his Festival peace-offering. And the money in his hand that he receives for registering that person is non-sacred, for it is on this condition that the Jewish people consecrate their Paschal lambs.
רַבָּה וְרַבִּי זֵירָא, חַד אָמַר: בְּעֵצִים לִצְלִיָּיתוֹ כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי, דְּכֵיוָן דְּתַקַּנְתָּא דְפֶסַח הוּא — כְּגוּפָא דְפֶסַח דָּמֵי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּמַצָּה וּמָרוֹר. Rabba and Rabbi Zeira disagreed with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis. One said: If one needs wood to roast the Paschal lamb, everyone agrees that since it is for the preparation of the Paschal lamb, it is comparable to something necessary for the Paschal lamb itself, and both Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis agree that one may register additional people for the Paschal lamb and use the money received to procure wood. Where they disagree is in the case of one who doesn’t have sufficient means to purchase matza and bitter herbs.
רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: הָא אֲכִילָה אַחֲרִיתִי הִיא. וְרַבִּי סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ דְפֶסַח הוּא — כְּגוּפָא דְפֶסַח דָּמֵי. The Rabbis hold that this is considered a different eating, not directly related to the Paschal lamb. Therefore, one may not use money for registering additional people for purchasing these items. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that since it facilitates the consumption of the Paschal lamb, since the Paschal lamb must be eaten together with matza and bitter herbs, it is like the Paschal lamb itself and the money may therefore be used to purchase them.
וְחַד אָמַר: בְּמַצָּה וּמָרוֹר נָמֵי כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״עַל מַצּוֹת וּמְרֹרִים יֹאכְלֻהוּ״, דְּכֵיוָן דְּמַכְשִׁירִין דְפֶסַח נִינְהוּ — כְּפֶסַח דָּמֵי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי לִיקַּח בּוֹ חָלוּק, לִיקַּח בּוֹ טַלִּית. רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: ״מִהְיוֹת מִשֶּׂה״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, הַחֲיֵיהוּ לַשֶּׂה, וְרַבִּי סָבַר: הַחֲיֵה עַצְמְךָ מִשֶּׂה. And one said: Also with regard to matza and bitter herbs everyone agrees, as it is written: “They shall eat it with matza and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:11), for since they are items that facilitate the consumption of the Paschal lamb, they are like the Paschal lamb itself. Where they disagree is when the money is to be used to purchase a shirt with it or to purchase a cloak with it. The Rabbis hold that the Torah stated “miheyot miseh,” which should be taken to mean sustain the lamb [haḥayeihu leseh], allowing the use of funds only for the direct needs of the Paschal lamb. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that it should be interpreted to mean sustain yourself from the lamb [haḥayei atzmekha miseh], which includes taking care of all one’s needs.
וּלְאַבָּיֵי דְּאָמַר: אִי לָאו דְּאוֹקְמַהּ רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא לְהַהִיא בִּמְמַנֶּה זוֹנָה עַל פִּסְחוֹ וְרַבִּי הִיא, הֲוֵי מוֹקְמִינַן לַהּ בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, דְּאָמַר קָדָשִׁים [קַלִּים] מְמוֹן בְּעָלִים הוּא, אֲבָל בְּפֶסַח לָא מְשַׁיַּיר אִינִישׁ — The Gemara questions the plausibility of Abaye’s opinion: And according to Abaye, who said: If Rabbi Oshaya had not established that mishna as referring to one who registers a prostitute for his Paschal lamb and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, I would have established it as referring to sacrifices of lesser sanctity and according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said: Sacrifices of lesser sanctity are the property of their owners, but in the case of the Paschal sacrifice one does not leave any of it unconsecrated. Rather, it is fully consecrated.
הָא קָתָנֵי בְּהֶדְיָא: ״שֶׁעַל מְנָת כֵּן הִקְדִּישׁוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת פִּסְחֵיהֶן״? אֵימָא: שֶׁעַל מְנָת כֵּן הִקְדִּישׁוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מְעוֹת פִּסְחֵיהֶן. The Gemara asks: How could Abaye have ever claimed that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that a Paschal lamb is fully consecrated to the extent that it is no longer considered the property of its owners, but the baraita teaches explicitly that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: It is on this condition, that the consecration should not be complete, that the Jewish people consecrate their Paschal lamb? The Gemara answers that the conclusion of the baraita should be emended to say: For it is on this condition that the Jewish people consecrated money for their Paschal lambs. This version leaves open the possibility of understanding Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as Abaye suggested.
מַתְנִי׳ זָב שֶׁרָאָה שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת — שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלָיו בַּשְּׁבִיעִי. רָאָה שָׁלֹשׁ — שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלָיו בַּשְּׁמִינִי שֶׁלּוֹ. MISHNA: A zav, a man who experiences a gonorrheal discharge, who saw two sightings of discharge is ritually impure. To become ritually pure and able to partake of offerings, he must wait seven clean days during which he does not see any discharge. Then he immerses in a ritual bath. He will then be considered ritually pure upon nightfall. One slaughters the Paschal lamb on his behalf if Passover eve is on his seventh day, despite the fact he is still not ritually pure at the time of slaughter, since by the night of Passover he will be ritually pure and able to eat it. If he saw three sightings, in which case, in addition to the seven clean days he must bring an offering on the eighth day to be allowed to partake of offerings, one slaughters the Paschal lamb on his behalf if Passover eve is on his eighth day. It is presumed that by the evening his offering will have been brought and his purification complete.
שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם — שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלֶיהָ בַּשֵּׁנִי שֶׁלָּהּ, רָאֲתָה שְׁנֵי יָמִים — שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלֶיהָ בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי. A woman who keeps watch a day for a day is one who became ritually impure after experiencing a discharge of blood outside of her regular menstrual cycle on one day or two consecutive days. She must keep watch on the day following her last discharge to be certain she does not experience any additional discharges. To ritually purify herself, she should, on that day, immerse in a ritual bath, and on condition that she doesn’t experience any discharges throughout that day, she is considered ritually pure already from the time she immersed. If she saw a discharge on one day, one slaughters the Paschal lamb on her behalf after she has immersed on her second day, despite the possibility that she may see additional discharges later that day. If she saw a discharge on two days, one slaughters the Paschal lamb on her behalf on the third day.
וְהַזָּבָה — שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלֶיהָ בַּשְּׁמִינִי. And a zava is a woman who experienced discharges on three consecutive days. She must, like a zav, wait a full seven clean days with no discharges, immerse, and then bring a sacrifice on the eighth day. One slaughters a Paschal lamb on her behalf only on the eighth day.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עַל טְבוּל יוֹם וּמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One slaughters the Paschal lamb and sprinkles its blood on behalf of one who has immersed himself during the day due to a type of ritual impurity from which he will become fully ritually pure upon nightfall. If he immerses on the fourteenth of Nisan, a Paschal lamb may be offered on his behalf. And a Paschal lamb may be offered on behalf of one who is ritually impure with a type of ritual impurity that requires that he also bring an atonement offering to fully complete his purification process, even if he still lacks the atonement offering, i.e., it has not yet been offered. Since he will be ritually pure and able to partake of the Paschal lamb by the evening, the Paschal lamb may be slaughtered on his behalf during the day, although at the time of slaughter he has not yet completed his purification process.