(a)We just learned that if a wart is found on one of five Pesach-skins they cannot bring a Pesach Sheni, because, if they were each to bring one, then they would be bringing Chulin to the Azarah. Why can they not ...
1. ... each bring a lamb and stipulate that if he was Yotzei with the first Pesach, then this Pesach should be a Shelamim?
2. ... do exactly the same thing, resolving the problem by bringing a Kohen with him?
(b)How is it possible to circumvent this problem by bringing one Kohen with them?
(c)In that case, on what grounds do we reject the suggestion to bring five Pesachim and stipulate that for those who have already been Yotzei, the lamb will be a Shelamim?
(d)Why can they not make this stipulation, only instead of declaring the other option to be a Shelamim, they declare it a Mosar Shelamim (which, like the Pesach, is eaten for only one night)?
(a)If a wart is found on one of five Pesach-skins, they do not ...
1. ... each bring a lamb and stipulate that if he was Yotzei with the first Pesach, then this Pesach should be a Shelamim - because of the Chazeh v'Shok of a Shelamim, which must be given to a Kohen, whereas those of a Pesach, it must be eaten by the members of the group.
2. ... do the same thing, resolving the problem by each one bringing a Kohen with him - because four of the animals are Shelamim and one, a Pesach, which means that four of the Kohanim will not be fulfilling their obligation.
(b)It is possible to circumvent this problem by bringing just one Kohen with them and appointing him a member of all five groups, and by giving him all five chests and right calves. In fact, one set will be the Chazeh v'Shok of the Pesach, and the other four, of the Shelamim.
(c)We now reject the suggestion to bring five Pesachim and stipulate that for those who have already been Yotzei, the lamb will be a Shelamim - on the grounds that by treating the lambs as Shelamim, one will be detracting from the allotted time of two days and a night, allowing it only one night (thereby causing it to be burned, should it become Nosar by the morning, and perhaps even by midnight).
(d)It is not possible to bring five lambs and to make the above stipulation (declaring them either Pesachim or Mosar ha'Pesach) - because how can one declare an animal that is not a Pesach, a 'Mosar ha'Pesach'.
(a)The Gemara rejects the previous answer too, on the grounds that it would be possible to take the trouble and find a Mosar ha'Pesach (of which there must have been many), and make the same stipulation. The Gemara concludes however that it is not possible to use one lamb for either a Pesach or a Shelamim because of Semichah. What is the problem with Semichah?
(b)Why can one not make Semichah anyway? So what if the Pesach does not need Semichah?
(c)What is the problem with this answer from a woman's Korban Shelamim?
(d)On what grounds does the Gemara dismiss both of the following answers that it had tried to give?
1. That whereas a Shelamim requires four Matnos Dam (one on each corner), a Pesach requires only one;
2. That whereas a Shelamim requires Zerikah, the Pesach requires Shefichah?
(a)It is not possible to use one lamb for either a Pesach or a Shelamim because, whereas a Shelamim requires Semichah (leaning both one's hands hard on the animal's neck) a Pesach does not.
(b)One cannot make Semichah on a Pesach anyway - because leaning on Kodshim when not required to do so, constitutes working with Kodshim, which is forbidden.
(c)The problem with this answer is that the Korban of a woman does not require Semichah, so why not use the Mosar ha'Pesach of a woman?
(d)The Gemara dismisses the answer that ...
1. ... whereas a Shelamim requires four Matnos Dam (one on each corner), a Pesach requires only one - on the grounds that that is only l'Chatchilah, but b'Di'eved, we have learned in a Mishnah in Zevachim that if the Kohen gave one Matanah instead of four, the Korban is Kosher.
2. ... whereas a Shelamim requires Zerikah, the Pesach requires Shefichah - on the basis of a Beraisa, which validates any a Korban whose blood was poured instead of being sprinkled.
(a)How does the Gemara finally resolve the problem? Why is it not possible to bring a lamb of Mosar ha'Pesach and to use it as either a Pesach or a Shelamim?
(a)The Gemara concludes that it is not possible to bring a lamb of Mosar ha'Pesach and to use it as either a Pesach or a Shelamim - because even though a Shelamim is kosher b'Di'eved with one Matanah, and even with Shefichah instead of Zerikah, that is only b'Di'eved. But how can we to that l'Chatchilah to a Safek Shelamim?
(a)If someone tells his children that he is Shechting the Korban Pesach for whichever of them reaches Yerushalayim first, what happens when the first one reaches Yerushalayim?
(b)Why can the reason for this not be because of 'Yesh Bereirah'? What then is the reason for it?
(c)What proof does the Beraisa bring for this from the story where the girls came first?
(a)If someone tells his children that he is Shechting the Korban Pesach for whichever of them reaches Yerushalayim first - then the moment first one reaches Yerushalayim, he acquires his own portion in his father's Pesach, and he also causes all of his siblings to acquire their portions, too.
(b)The reason for this cannot be because of 'Yesh Bereirah' - because then why would his siblings acquire a portion, too? So it must be because the father never really intended to give one of his children more than the others. All he wanted was to make them hurry up.
(c)The Gemara proves this from the story where, under similar circumstances to our Mishnah, the girls arrived in Yerushalayim before the boys, and the Beraisa concludes 've'Nimtza Banos Zerizos, u'Vanim Shefeilim', implying that the father's intention was to make his children Zerizim, and not to give one more than the other.
(a)One may join a group for the Pesach up to the time it is Shechted. Until when may one withdraw from it - according to the Tana Kama)?
(b)What does Rebbi Shimon say?
(c)Their Machlokes is based on the Pasuk in Bo "v'Im Yim'at ha'Bayis Miheyos mi'Seh". How does each one explain it?
(d)What do they (even Rebbi Shimon) learn from the Pasuk (ibid.) "b'Michsas Nefashos ... Tachosu"?
(a)According to the Tana Kama, one may join a group for the Pesach and withdraw from it - up to the time it is Shechted.
(b)According to Rebbi Shimon, one may withdraw up to the time that its blood has been sprinkled.
(c)The Tana Kama explains the Pasuk "v'Im Yim'at ha'Bayis Miheyos mi'Seh" to mean - that, if one wants to withdraw ("v'Im Yim'at ha'Bayis"), it must be "Miheyos mi'Seh" - 'mi'Chiyuto shel Seh' - as long as it is alive; whereas Rebbi Shimon explains "Miheyos mi'Seh" - 'me'Havyasei' as long as its Avodah is not yet concluded.
(d)They both learn from the Pasuk "b'Michsas Nefashos ... Tachosu" - that one is permitted to join the group ("b'Michsas Nefashos"), up to the time of Shechitah ("Tachosu"), and no later.
(a)If one member of the group invites a friend to eat with him, what may the other members of the group say to him?
(b)According to which Tana does this Mishnah go (Rebbi Yehudah - on 86a, or Rebbi Shimon)?
(a)If one member of the group invites a friend to eat with him, the other members of the group say to him - 'take your portion and go'.
(b)This Mishnah (like the Mishnah at the end of 'Keitzad Tzolin') holds like Rebbi Yehudah, that one Pesach may be eaten in two places.
(a)Is there a proof from the Tana of our Mishnah (who permits the members of the group to ask the member with the guest to take his portion and go) - that they may also do the same with a member who has an unusually large appetite?
(b)Rebbi Yehudah (in the Mishnah on 86a) lauds the members of the group who joined the waiter who inadvertently ate a k'Zayis by the oven, but does not obligate them to do so. Is there a proof from there that, just as the members of the group are permitted to retract from their original undertaking (to eat with the waiter) due to the inconvenience of moving, so too, can they retract if they are worried about receiving a smaller portion?
(c)How does the Gemara finally resolve the She'eilah?
(d)The Beraisa concludes 've'Lo Od, Ela Afilu Chamishah she'Asu Siboles, Resha'in Lomar Lo Tul Chelkecha, v'Tzei'. What does this mean? What is the Chidush?
(a)Our Tana may well permit the members of the group to ask the member with the guest to leave, not, because they are worried about the amount of meat they will eat, but because they do not want new members not originally anticipated.
(b)The reason that they are permitted to retract from their original undertaking to eat together with the waiter, when it becomes inconvenient, is because they can say to him 'we included you in our group for you serve us, not for us to serve you'. This does not mean that they can retract from their undertaking regarding other members of the group.
(c)The Gemara finally resolves the She'eilah - from a Beraisa, which specifically permits the members of the group to tell a member who has a particularly large appetite to take his portion and go.
(d)'ve'Lo Od, Ela Afilu Chamishah she'Asu Siboles, Resha'in Lomar Lo Tul Chelkecha, v'Tzei' - means that even during the rest of the year, by a group of people who eat together for the sake of socializing - they may nevertheless ask the person with the particularly large appetite to leave.
(a)Alternatively, the She'eilah concerns splitting up the Pesach (not retracting because of someone's large appetite, which this Lashon takes for granted is permitted - but) because of a Din in Hilchos Se'udah). What exactly is the She'eilah?
(b)How does the Gemara resolve it?
(a)According to the second Lashon, the She'eilah is whether one is permitted to divide the Korban Pesach, to give each designee his portion, which he takes away and eats individually, or whether they are obligated to eat it together, sharing it among the participants like one does by a regular feast.
(b)The Gemara resolves the She'eilah from our Mishnah, which permits the members of the group to send away the member who invited a guest, implying that were it not for the guest, it would be prohibited to force members of the group to eat individually.
(a)Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua seems to have made a bad deal when he sat down to share a meal with Rav Papa. who ate four times as much as he did. What did Rav Papa argue when Rav Huna asked him from the Beraisa, which permits the members of the group to send the member with the hearty appetite away to eat on his own?
(b)What did Rav Papa do when Rav Huna asked him from the Beraisa of 'Siboles', which specifically speaks about the rest of the year?
(c)What is the significance of the statement 'Me'ah Papi, v'Lo Chad Ravina'?
(a)When Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua queried Rav Papa (who was eating far more than his fair share of the food) from the Beraisa, which permits the members of the group to send the member with the hearty appetite away to eat on his own, he replied that that is only because the sole purpose of a group is to validate the Korban Pesach, and not for social reasons; whereas he (Rav Huna), had acepted him in order to socialize, in which case, he had to accept him irrespective of what he ate.
(b)The moment Rav Huna asked Rav Papa from the Beraisa of 'Siboles', which specifically speaks about the rest of the year - he retracted and divided the portions equally with his friend.
(c)Ravina it seems, ate twice as much as Rav Papa, so, when Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua had occasion to dine with him, he exclaimed 'Me'ah Papi, v'Lo Chad Ravina' (though this was of course, an exaggeration).
(a)Does the Chagigah need to be designated, like the Pesach?
(b)What is the status of the money which the owner receives from the designees for their portion of Pesach?
(c)What happens to an Olah or a Shelamim, already designated for one person, that is sold to another?
(d)Since the transaction is invalid, why does the money go to Nedavah?
(a)The Chagigah, like the Pesach, needs to be designated.
(b)The status of the money which the owner receives from the designees for their portion of Pesach remains Chulin.
(c)If someone sells his Olah or Shelamim with the intention that it atones for the purchaser, the sale is invalid, and it atones for the original owner.
(d)Even though the transaction is invalid, the money nevertheless goes to Nedavah - as a fine.
(a)In the previous case, what does the Tana mean by 'Ma'os Kol Shehen Yiplu li'Nedavah'?
(b)Rebbi Oshaya establishes the Mishnah of 'Esnan Chal Al ha'Mukdashin' by someone who designates a prostitute on his Pesach - and according to Rebbi, who holds 'Pesach Mamon Be'alim Hu', (which will be discussed shortly). Abaye would have explained the Mishnah according to Rebbi Yosi Hagelili. What does he mean by that? What does Rebbi Yosi Hagelili say?
(a)'Ma'os Kol Shehen Yiplu li'Nedavah' - means that even if the purchaser gave the seller more than the value of the Korban, the excess money goes to Nedavah, too.
(b)Abaye would have explained the Mishnah 'Esnan Chal Al ha'Mukdashin' - by Kodshim Kalim according to Rebbi Yosi Hagelili, who holds that Kodshim Kalim are considered the property of the owner, which will explain why Esnan will take effect on them.