Pesachim 89b

מַתְנִי׳ הַמְמַנֶּה עִמּוֹ אַחֵר בְּחֶלְקוֹ — רַשָּׁאִין בְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה לִיתֵּן לוֹ אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ, וְהוּא אוֹכֵל מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְהֵן אוֹכְלִין מִשֶּׁלָּהֶן.

MISHNA: If one who is registered for a Paschal lamb unilaterally registers another person with him in his portion of the Paschal lamb, the other members of his group are permitted to give him, i.e., the one who included the additional person, only his portion, which was originally allotted to him. And he, the additional person, eats from his portion, i.e., the portion of he who added him; and they, the other members of the group, eat from theirs. This is because they did not agree to the inclusion of the additional person.

גְּמָ׳ אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: בְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה שֶׁהָיוּ יָדָיו שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן יָפוֹת, מַהוּ שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ: טוֹל חֶלְקְךָ וָצֵא. מִי אָמְרִינַן, מָצֵי אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָא קַבֵּילְתּוּן. אוֹ דִילְמָא, מָצוּ לְמֵימַר לֵיהּ: כִּי קַבֵּלְינַן — לְתַיקּוֹנֵי זְבִיחָה, אַדַּעְתָּא דְּאָכְלַתְּ טְפֵי מִינַּן — לָא קַבֵּלְינָךְ.

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If there is among the members of a group one of them who has fine hands, a euphemism for one who always hastens to take a large quantity of food, what is the halakha concerning whether they can say to him: Take your allotted portion to eat and leave; and don’t take any more from the other’s members portions? Do we say that he can say to them: You accepted me in the group without preconditions, and you therefore have no right to limit how much I can take now? Or perhaps they can say to him: When we accepted you, it was only for the preparation of the offering, to ensure that enough people would be registered to guarantee that the entire offering would be eaten with none left over. However, we did not accept you with the understanding that you would eat considerably more than us.

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמְמַנֶּה אֲחֵרִים עִמּוֹ עַל חֶלְקוֹ — רַשָּׁאִין [בְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה] לִיתֵּן לוֹ אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ, וְהוּא אוֹכֵל אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ, וְהֵן אוֹכְלִין אֶת שֶׁלָּהֶן. מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי לֵיהּ כְּיָדַיִם שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן יָפוֹת. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ יָדָיו יָפוֹת מָצֵי אֲמַר לְהוּ קַבֵּילְתּוּן, נִיהְוֵי הַאי כְּיָדָיו יָפוֹת!

Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from what we learned in the mishna: If one who registered for a Paschal lamb registers other people with him in his portion, the other members of the group are permitted to give him only his portion. And then he and the additional people eat from his portion, and they, the other members of the group, eat from theirs. What is the reason for this? Is it not because it is comparable to a case where one of them has fine hands, because in the case of one who adds a person, he and the additional person together eat more than one portion? And if it could enter your mind to say that one with fine hands can say to them: You accepted me without preconditions, then this person, who registered an additional person to join him, should be considered as though he had fine hands, and he should be able to take a double portion. Therefore, the mishna rules that the group can limit the quantity of food he takes. It is apparent that the claim of one with fine hands is not accepted.

אָמְרִי: לָא, דֵּעוֹת שָׁאנֵי, דְּאִי נָמֵי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ כְּחַד מִבְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה הוּא דְּאָכְלִי, מָצֵי אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: דְּלָא נִיחָא לַן אִינָשׁ נוּכְרָא גַּבָּן.

The Gemara rejects this proof: They say: No, a comparison should not be drawn. Including additional people of individual minds is different. Even if both of them together would eat a quantity equivalent to a single member of the group, the other members of the group can nonetheless say to him: It is not pleasant for us to have a strange person among us. Therefore, no proof can be offered from the mishna.

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַשַּׁמָּשׁ שֶׁאָכַל כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר בְּצַד הַתַּנּוּר, אִם הָיָה פִּקֵּחַ — מְמַלֵּא כְּרֵיסוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ. אִם רָצוּ בְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה לַעֲשׂוֹת טוֹבָה עִמּוֹ — בָּאִין וְיוֹשְׁבִין בְּצִדּוֹ וְאוֹכְלִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רָצוּ — אִין, לֹא רָצוּ — לָא. וְאַמַּאי? נֵימָא לְהוּ: הָא קַבֵּילְתּוּן.

Come and hear a resolution to the question from another mishna: In the case of an attendant who ate an olive-bulk of meat of the Paschal lamb next to the oven in which it is being roasted, if he were judicious, he should continue eating there to fill his stomach with it. By eating an olive-bulk, he has established his current location as his place for eating his Paschal lamb, and he may not eat any more in an additional location. If the members of the group wanted to do him a favor so that he may continue eating, they can come and sit at his side and eat there; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara makes the following inference: If they wanted to do him a favor, yes; but if they did not want to do so, no. But why should this be left to their discretion? Let him say to them: You accepted me unconditionally into the group, and therefore you have no right to prevent me from continuing to eat. The latter claim is not accepted, as is apparent by the mishna’s ruling that it is left to the group’s discretion

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמְרִי לֵיהּ: כִּי קַבֵּלְינָךְ — אַדַּעְתָּא דְּנַטְרְחָךְ קַמַּן. לְמִטְרַח לַן לְדִידָךְ — לָא קַבֵּלְינָךְ.

It is different there, in the case of an attendant, for they can say to him: When we accepted you, it was with the understanding that you would exert yourself before us and provide our needs by serving as our waiter; but for us to exert ourselves by moving to a place that is convenient for you, we did not accept you. Therefore, no proof can be derived from the mishna.

תָּא שְׁמַע: בְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה שֶׁהָיָה יָדָיו שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן יָפוֹת, רַשָּׁאִין לוֹמַר: טוֹל חֶלְקְךָ וָצֵא. וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ חֲמִשָּׁה וְעָשׂוּ סִיבּוֹלֶת, רַשָּׁאִין לוֹמַר לוֹ: טוֹל חֶלְקְךָ וָצֵא. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

Come and hear an explicit resolution to this question from the Tosefta : Members of a group in which one of the group had fine hands are permitted to say to him: Take your allotted portion to eat and leave; don’t take any more from the other members’ portions. And not only is this true of a group sharing a Paschal lamb, but even five people who made a shared meal of friends [ sibolet ] throughout the year are permitted to say to one who has fine hands: Take your portion and leave. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that that is the ruling.

מַאי ״וְלֹא עוֹד״? לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר. לָא מִיבַּעְיָא פֶּסַח, דְּמָצֵי אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: כִּי קַבֵּלְינָךְ לְתַקּוֹנֵי זְבִיחָה, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ סִיבּוֹלֶת נָמֵי, דְּצַוְותָּא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, רַשָּׁאִין לוֹמַר לוֹ: טוֹל חֶלְקְךָ וָצֵא.

The Gemara discusses the text of the Tosefta : What new ruling is introduced by the expression: And not only? The Tosefta is speaking employing the style of: There is no need. The Gemara explains: There is no need to state this rule in the case of a group sharing a Paschal lamb, since they have a strong claim, as they can say to him: When we accepted you, it was only for the preparation of the offering, to ensure that there would be enough people to guarantee that the entire offering would be eaten. It is therefore immediately understood that the group retains a right to limit the size of the portion he takes. Rather, the Tosefta emphasizes that even with regard to a shared friendly meal, which is for the sake of companionship only, they are permitted to say to him: Take your portion and leave.

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: הָא לָא אִיבַּעְיָא לַן, אֶלָּא הָכִי הוּא דְּאִיבַּעְיָא לַן: בְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה רַשָּׁאִין לְחַלֵּק, אוֹ אֵינָן רַשָּׁאִין לְחַלֵּק?

There are those who say that this question concerning what a group may say to a member who has fine hands is not our dilemma. Rather, this is our dilemma: Are members of a group permitted to divide up into smaller separate groups, or are they not allowed to divide up if there is no special reason to do so?

תָּא שְׁמַע: בְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה שֶׁהָיוּ יָדָיו שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן יָפוֹת — רַשָּׁאִין לוֹמַר לוֹ: טוֹל חֶלְקְךָ וָצֵא. יָדָיו יָפוֹת — אִין, אֵין יָדָיו יָפוֹת — לָא. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

Come and hear a resolution: Members of a group in which one of them had fine hands are permitted to say to him: Take your portion and leave, which is equivalent to instructing him to form his own group, albeit of only one person. This indicates that only if his hands are fine, yes, they may divide into separate groups, but if his hands are not fine, no, they may not. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that they are not allowed to divide up into separate groups for no reason.

רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ עָרִיבוּ רִיפְתָּא בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי. אַדְּאָכֵיל רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ חֲדָא, אָכֵיל רַב פָּפָּא אַרְבַּע. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פְּלַג לִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קַבֵּילְתּוּן.

Incidental to this discussion, the Gemara recounts a related incident: Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, mixed their bread together in order to share it between them. By the time Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, ate one slice, Rav Pappa ate four slices. Rav Huna said to him: Let us stop sharing. Instead, divide the meal with me so that I can eat my portion. He said to him: You accepted my companionship, and it is improper to now retract.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ כׇּל הָנֵי תְּיוּבָתָא, וְשַׁנִּי כִּדְשַׁנִּינַן. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ בְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם דְּאָמְרִי לֵיהּ כִּי קַבֵּלְינָךְ — לְתַיקּוֹנֵי זְבִיחָה. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ סִיבּוֹלֶת, פְּלַג לֵיהּ.

Rav Huna raised all these objections mentioned previously, and Rav Pappa answered him as we answered that those cases dealt with exceptional circumstances. Rav Huna then raised an objection from the mishna with regard to the members of a group sharing a Paschal lamb. Rav Pappa said to him: There, they are permitted to limit his portion only because they can say to him: When we accepted you it was for the preparation of the sacrifice, but when friends share a meal it is with the understanding that each one will fully participate regardless of how much he eats. Rav Huna finally raised an objection from the ruling of the Tosefta concerning a shared meal. Rav Pappa accepted the proof and divided the meal with him.

אֲזַל עָרֵיב בַּהֲדֵי רָבִינָא. אַדְּאָכֵיל רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ חֲדָא, אָכֵיל רָבִינָא תְּמָנְיָא. אֲמַר: מְאָה פָּפֵּי וְלָא חֲדָא רָבִינָא.

On another occasion Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, went and mixed his bread together with Ravina. By the time Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, ate one slice, Ravina ate eight. Rav Huna said jokingly: It is better to eat together with one hundred Pappas and not with one Ravina, because Ravina eats significantly more.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמְמַנֶּה אֲחֵרִים עִמּוֹ עַל פִּסְחוֹ וְעַל חֲגִיגָתוֹ — מָעוֹת שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ חוּלִּין. וְהַמּוֹכֵר עוֹלָתוֹ וּשְׁלָמָיו — לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְּלוּם, וּמָעוֹת כׇּל שֶׁהֵן יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה.

The Sages taught in a baraita : One who registers others with him for his Paschal lamb or for his Festival peace-offering for the fourteenth of Nisan and takes money from them for their share, the money in his hand that he took for them is non-sacred. And one who sells his burnt-offering or peace-offerings to another person has not done anything; the sale is completely invalid, and any money he receives for the transaction should go to the Temple fund to be used for the purchase of public free-will offerings which will be sacrificed as burnt - offerings.

וְכִי מֵאַחַר דְּלֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְּלוּם, מָעוֹת אַמַּאי יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה? אָמַר רָבָא: קְנָסָא. וּמַאי ״כׇּל שֶׁהֵן״ — אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הֲווֹ שָׁווּ אֶלָּא אַרְבְּעָה, וִיהַבוּ לֵיהּ חַמְשָׁה — אֲפִילּוּ בְּהָהִיא יַתִּירָא נָמֵי קַנְסוּהוּ רַבָּנַן.

The Gemara asks: But since he has not done anything, the sale being completely invalid, why does the money fall to the fund used for free-will offerings? The money should remain non-sacred. Rava said: It is a fine that the Sages imposed to dissuade people from attempting to purchase others’ offerings. And what is the meaning of the phrase: And any money? It indicates that, although these offerings were worth only four zuz and they mistakenly gave him five zuz , even with regard to that extra zuz the Sages also fined him. They required it to be used for free-will offerings rather than considering the extra money a gift to the seller.

אָמַר עוּלָּא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: אֶפְשָׁר יָדְעִי חַבְרִין בַּבְלָאֵי טַעְמָא דְּהַאי מִלְּתָא. זֶה הִפְרִישׁ טָלֶה לְפִסְחוֹ, וְזֶה הִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְפִסְחוֹ, הֵיאַךְ הֶקְדֵּשׁ חָל עַל הֶקְדֵּשׁ, דְּקָתָנֵי: מָעוֹת שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ חוּלִּין?

Ulla said, and some say it was Rabbi Oshaya: Is it possible that our Babylonian friends know the reason of this following matter: This person designated a lamb for his Paschal lamb, consecrating it as such; and this other person designated money to give to the owner of the lamb in order to register with his Paschal lamb, consecrating the money for that purpose. The sanctity endowed in the money can be removed from it only when transferred to the lamb upon purchasing a portion in it. Ulla questions the rationale for this: How does the sanctity of the money take effect upon and transfer to the Paschal lamb, which is itself already sacred, as implied by the baraita that teaches that the money in his hand is non-sacred, clearly indicating that the sanctity was indeed transferred from the money? Surely, if it is already sacred, no more sanctity can be transferred to it.