תלמוד על פסחים 8:1

⁴⁸In addition to the parallel in Horaiot, there exists one in Pesahim 8:7 36a l. 76 ff. (פ). Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: “Deep sorrow”⁴⁹In its legal implications, that the person not only be forbidden to eat sanctified food but also cannot be counted in a quorum for religious services; cf. Berakhot3:1, Note 42. is only for the dead, for it is written⁵⁰Is. 3:26. The gates of Jerusalem are in sorrow because all its men are dead.: Its gates are in deep sorrow and mourning. Ḥiyya bar Ada objected: Is it not written⁵¹Is. 19:8. The fishermen are in deep sorrow (and they mourn as quoted in the two parallel texts) because the Nile dried up. This proves that both terms used for the religious obligations of a person whose close relative died are used in the Bible also to describe other situations.: the fishermen are in deep sorrow? Rebbi Ḥanina said, so is the baraita: there is no deep sorrow in impurity except for the dead. It was stated⁵²Babli Zevaḥim 100b; a suspect text in Semahot 4:4.: “What is deep sorrow? From the moment of death until the moment of burial, the word of Rebbi. But the Sages say, the entire day.” It turns out that one describes leniencies and stringencies following Rebbi, leniencies and stringencies following the rabbis. What is the difference between them? If he died and was buried within the hour. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rebbi he is forbidden only that hour. If he died and was buried after three days. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rebbi he is forbidden up to three days. There came Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rav Ḥisda, both of whom said that Rebbi agrees with the Sages that he is forbidden only during the first day, as it was stated⁵³Babli Zevaḥim 100b.: Rebbi said, you know that deep mourning in the night is not biblical, since they said⁵⁴Mishnah Pesahim 8:8. This naturally presupposes that the person was not defiled by the impurity of the dead; otherwise, he would have to observe a seven day cleansing period. If he had no occasion to be near the corpse, the biblical prohibitions upon the deep mourner lapse at sundown., “the deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Passover sacrifice in the evening.” But they said, deep mourning [during daytime]⁵⁵Inserted from the parallel sources, necessary for understanding the text. is biblical. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Huna: Explain it⁵⁶The Mishnah in Pesahim only refers to the unlikely case that the deep mourner was not defiled with the impurity of the dead in a case in which both Rebbi and the Sages will agree on the duration of the deep sorrow. that he was buried close to sundown [and one cannot infer anything.⁵⁵Inserted from the parallel sources, necessary for understanding the text.]

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it¹⁴⁶The last sentence in the Mishnah, that if the owner(s) lost interest, died, or became impure, the slaughterer on the Sabbath is not liable. A difficulty is created by idiomatic rabbinic Hebrew, where “owner” is בְּעָלִים with the verb in the plural whether there is one owner or there are many owners. is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as we have stated there¹⁴⁷Mishnah 8:7. R. Jehudah may read the Mishnah here that if a Pesaḥ was slaughtered for a number of subscribers, and all of them except one either lost interest, or died, or became impure, the sacrifice still is valid even though it would not have been permitted to be slaughtered if the facts had been known beforehand.: “One does not slaughter the Pesaḥ for a single individual, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but Rebbi Yose permits.” Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Mana: Where do we find “not liable and qualified”? He told him, here we stated “not liable”, and there we stated “qualified”¹⁴⁸In Mishnah 8:7 R. Jehudah only says “one does not slaughter;” he does not state that if one slaughtered for a single eater the Pesaḥ was disqualified. Therefore it is qualified even for R. Jehudah.. But about all of them did Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa say, it should lose its shape and be brought to be burned¹⁴⁹Babli 73b. Since the disqualification is extrinsic, the sacrifice cannot be burned immediately; one has to wait until it must be burned even if it is treated as well-being offering.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi Yose, one understands if they died or became impure. If the owners became disinterested¹⁵⁰In the first two cases, it is an accident and one understands that the sacrifice cannot be burned immediately. But if the owner became disinterested, the animal may not be slaughtered. If it was slaughtered anyhow, the action is illegitimate and the carcass should be burned immediately.? If they are alive, does disqualification qualify? It is disqualified. If after it was slaughtered, can one become disinterested after slaughter? Since he has the right to become disinterested, the disqualification qualifies¹⁵¹K: “It must be R. Simeon’s, since R. Simeon said, one may become disinterested after slaughtering” (up to the time of pouring the blood, Mishnah 8:3) is suspect as lectio facilior. In keeping with the earlier statements, one may read the scribe’s text as implying that, since before slaughter one may subscribe or cancel the subscription at will, cancelling after slaughter is an excusable error, not intrinsic, and has to follow the general rules of sacrifices becoming disqualified by extrinsic factors., and it needs {losing its} shape.

HALAKHAH: ¹⁴⁰S. Liebermann writes: “I cannot explain this paragraph without major emendations.” In fact, as R. Yose the Amora notes in the second part of the paragraph, Mishnah 13 must follow R. Yose the Tanna, since according to R. Jehudah every Pesaḥ belongs to a group of at least 2 subscribers and therefore should be treated following Mishnah 11. A minimally invasive emendation would be to read in R. Joḥanan ’s statement: “This is not R. Jehudah’s.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Jehudah’s as we have stated there¹⁴¹Mishnah 8:7., “One does not slaughter the Pesaḥ for a single person, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; but Rebbi Yose permits.” Therefore not of the Fourteenth. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, this is Rebbi Jehudah’s? Rebbi Yose said, does it proclaim that it is Rebbi Jehudah’s? As we have stated there, “One does not slaughter the Pesaḥ for a single person, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; but Rebbi Yose permits.”