Talmud - Pesahim 87a פסחים פ״ז א׳

MISHNA: A woman, when she is living in her husband’s house, if her husband slaughtered the Paschal lamb on her behalf and her father also slaughtered the Paschal lamb on her behalf, she should eat from her husband’s lamb because it is assumed that the wife intended to be included in her husband’s group. However, if, as was often customary, she went on the first Festival following her marriage to observe the Festival in her father’s house, then, if both her husband slaughtered the Paschal lamb on her behalf and her father also slaughtered the Paschal lamb on her behalf, she may eat in whichever place she wishes, since it is not obvious with whose group she intended to be included.

In the case of an orphan with multiple guardians, if each of his guardians [apotropsin] slaughtered a Paschal lamb on his behalf, intending that he be included in their group, he may eat in whichever place he wishes. A slave jointly owned by two partners may not eat from the lamb of either of them, unless it was stipulated beforehand from whose lamb he will partake. One who is half slave and half free man may not eat from his master’s lamb. It is assumed that the master did not intend to allow this person’s free half to partake of the lamb, and therefore the master did not slaughter the lamb with him in mind. Consequently, the half slave is not included among those registered for his master’s offering unless he was explicitly included.

GEMARA: The mishna states that in certain cases one partakes of the lamb of whichever group he desires. One’s inclusion in a group requires that he be registered with that group from the outset, before the lamb is slaughtered. The Gemara suggests: You learn from it that there is retroactive clarification. One’s ultimate decision as to which group he wishes to be part of retroactively indicates that, from the outset, he was registered in that group. This is problematic, as no halakhic conclusion has been reached in the matter of retroactive clarification. The Gemara therefore rejects this suggestion: What is the meaning of the phrase: She may eat in whichever place she wishes? It is referring to a case where a woman has already expressed her choice before the time of slaughter. Therefore, this case does not relate to the principle of retroactive clarification, and no conclusion concerning it may be drawn from it.

The Gemara raises a contradiction between the ruling in the mishna and a parallel ruling in a baraita. The baraita states: A woman, on the first Festival following her marriage, eats from her father’s Paschal lamb. From here on, if she wishes, she eats from her father’s lamb, and if she wishes, she eats from her husband’s lamb. Whereas the mishna teaches that after the first Festival, she eats exclusively with her husband, the baraita teaches that she may continue to choose.

This is not difficult. There, the baraita is referring to the case of a woman who eagerly hurries as one pursued to go to her father’s house. It is therefore reasonable that, even after the first year of her marriage, she wishes to be included in her father’s group. However, here the mishna is referring to the case of a woman who does not eagerly hurry as one pursued to go to her father’s house, and it is therefore presumed she wishes to be included in her husband’s group.

There is a homiletic interpretation of verses that conveys a similar idea, as it is written: “I am a wall, and my breasts are like towers; then I was in his eyes as one who finds peace” (Song of Songs 8:10). And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: She is like a bride who was found perfect. She was warmly received in her father-in-law’s house. And she eagerly hurries, as one pursued, to go to tell of her praise, i.e., her warm welcome, in her father’s house. As it is written: “And it shall be at that day, says the Lord, that you shall call Me: My Husband, and shall call Me no more: My Master” (Hosea 2:18), of which Rabbi Yoḥanan said: She shall be like a bride in her father-in-law’s house, where she experiences a close relationship with her husband. And she shall not be like a bride still in the betrothal period and living in her father’s house, during which time her relationship with her husband has still not developed.

Apropos the verse from Song of Songs cited previously, the Gemara homiletically interprets an adjacent verse: “We have a little sister, and she has no breasts” (Song of Songs 8:8). Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is an allusion to the Jewish community of Eilam, which was privileged to study Torah and become Torah scholars, but was not privileged to teach and influence the masses.

The Gemara interprets another verse: “I am a wall and my breasts are like towers” (Song of Songs 8:10). Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “I am a wall”; this is a reference to the Torah. “And my breasts are like towers”; these are the Torah scholars, who, by disseminating their Torah and influencing the masses protect them like watchtowers. And Rava said: “I am a wall”; this is the Congregation of Israel. “And my breasts are like towers”; these are the synagogues and study halls in which the Congregation of Israel is nurtured by the Torah, from which it draws its spiritual strength.

Rav Zutra bar Toviya said that Rav said a homiletic interpretation of another verse in praise of Israel: What is the meaning of that which is written: “We whose sons are as plants grown up in their youth; whose daughters are as corner pillars carved after the fashion of a palace” (Psalms 144:12)?

The Gemara interprets each phrase of this verse: “We whose sons are as plants” indicates they are healthy and undamaged; these are the young men of Israel who have not tasted the taste of sin. “Whose daughters are as corner pillars” indicates that they are filled and sealed; these are the virgins of Israel, who bind and seal their openings exclusively for their husbands. And similarly, another verse demonstrates that a corner refers to something full: It is stated: “And they shall be filled like the basins, like the corners of the altar” (Zechariah 9:15). If you wish, say an alternative support for this idea from here: “Our corners are full, affording all manner of store” (Psalms 144:13).

The Gemara returns and interprets the final phrase of the verse: “Carved after the fashion of a palace”; the verse ascribes to both these and those, the young men and women who vigilantly preserve their modesty, as though the Sanctuary were built in their days.

Apropos the verse from Hosea, the Gemara interprets additional verses there: “The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judea, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel” (Hosea 1:1). The Sages explained: Four prophets prophesied in one era and the oldest of them was Hosea, as it is stated: “When the Lord spoke at first with Hosea” (Hosea 1:2), indicating that Hosea was the first of these prophets. If not, the question arises: And was it with Hosea that the Lord spoke first of all the prophets? Weren’t there several prophets who lived and prophesied during the period from Moses until Hosea? Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He was the first of the four prophets who prophesied during that period, and these are they: Hosea, Isaiah, Amos, and Micah.

The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Hosea: Your sons, the Jewish people, have sinned. Hosea should have said to God in response: But they are Your sons; they are the sons of Your beloved ones, the sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Extend Your mercy over them. Not only did he fail to say that, but instead he said before Him: Master of the Universe, the entire world is Yours; since Israel has sinned, exchange them for another nation.

The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: What shall I do to this Elder who does not know how to defend Israel? I will say to him: Go and take a prostitute and bear for yourself children of prostitution. And after that I will say to him: Send her away from before you. If he is able to send her away, I will also send away the Jewish people. This deliberation provides the background of the opening prophecy in Hosea, as it is stated: “The Lord said to Hosea: Go, take for yourself a wife of prostitution and children of prostitution” (Hosea 1:2). And then it is written: “So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim” (Hosea 1:3), and the Sages interpreted her name homiletically. “Gomer”; Rav said she was so called because everyone would finish [gomerim] having relations with her and satisfy their desires with her. “The daughter of

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Pesachim 87a examines which household a married woman or an orphan joins for the Paschal lamb offering, raising the halakhic question of retroactive clarification.