Korban Pesach - Chapter 3

We assume that the master was willing to partake of whatever animal the servant would have slaughtered. We are not concerned with his usual practice [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 8:2)]

And burnt there like other sacrifices that were disqualified.

Chapter 1, Halachah 11, states that when a person enumerates himself on two Paschal sacrifices, he should partake of the one slaughtered first. This, however, applies when the person had the intent to partake of both of them. In this instance, however, at the time the Paschal sacrifice was slaughtered, the person did not have the intent to partake of either of the sacrifices. He was waiting to make up his mind. As such, it is not considered as if he intended to partake of either of them.
The rationale for this ruling is that the principle of bereirah, that retroactively, the decision which a person ultimately made will be considered as if it was made at the outset, does not apply to questions of Scriptural Law. Thus since his decision was not made at the outset, it is considered as if he did not have in mind to partake of a Paschal sacrifice at all (Rashi, Pesachim 88b).

Rav Kapach in his translation of Rambam’s Commentary of the Mishnah (Pesachim 8:2) explains that the Sages feared the rulers were fickle and did not have the proper respect for the mitzvot. Hence they permitted this leniency rather than risk incurring their wrath. As the Kessef Mishneh explains, other commentaries interpret the Mishnah differently.

In this manner, two animals will be slaughtered and neither will have been slaughtered unnecessarily.

Because at the time the blood was cast, the sacrifice was not fit to be eaten [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 8:2)].

Because at the time the blood was cast, the sacrifice was fit to be eaten.

The Mishnah (Pesachim 8:2) indeed speaks about a Canaanite servant. The Rambam, however, initially speaks of an agent, because an agent has an independent financial capacity and hence, the difficulties concerning a servant do not apply (Kessef Mishneh).

Seemingly, the intent is a shepherd with whom his master deals with frequently. The shepherd, however, must be giving his own animals and not the master’s.

Since the servant does not have an independent financial capacity, normally, whatever he acquires becomes the property of his master. If, however, the shepherd gives it to him when making a stipulation, the animal can become the private property of the servant. It must, however, be noted that there the Rambam is speaking in general terms, quoting the wording used in Pesachim 88b. In Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 3:13-14, the Rambam deals with this issue in particular, stating that it is not sufficient to give an article to a servant on the condition that his master does not own it. Instead, it must be given for a specific purpose, e.g., “on the condition that you use it for food.”

In the first clause.

This concept is derived from the principles stated in the laws that follow. It is considered as if both the members of the company and the agent agreed to partake of the sacrificial animal offered first. Hence, it is not considered as if they enumerated themselves on two Paschal sacrifices.

They are thus reiterating the fact that they are enumerated on his sacrifice.

Since his was slaughtered first and they were enumerated upon it, they may not remove themselves from it.

Because it has no one to partake of it.

By slaughtering their sacrifice first, they are removing themselves from the one offered by the agent.

Because by slaughtering his own sacrifice, he departed from their company.

Because it is possible that theirs was offered first and thus they were removed from his sacrifice.

Because it is possible that his was offered first and thus they would not have been permitted to partake of their own sacrifice.

Because they were enumerated on an acceptable Paschal sacrifice, whether his or their own. The fact that the unresolved doubt prevented them from partaking of it is not of consequence (Rashi, Pesachim 98b).

They did not, however, explicitly instruct him to slaughter the animal for their sake (Kessef Mishneh).

Thus he is enumerating himself on their Paschal sacrifice. This factor leads to the difference between this and the previous halachah.

Because he was enumerated on their sacrifice.

Since his was offered first, it is not considered as if he removed himself from his own sacrifice.

For they had not enumerated themselves on his sacrifice.

Since it is possible that his offering was slaughtered first, in which instance, he is not considered to be enumerated on their sacrifice.

For it is as if each one enumerated the other on their Paschal sacrifice.

After the first was slaughtered, it is impossible for those who brought the second to have removed themselves from it.

And thus it cannot be known on which sacrifice, they were all enumerated.

And each one eats from his own sacrificial animal, regardless of which was slaughtered first. If they do not find their own sacrifice, they are not permitted to partake of the other one.

And thus it is still possible to enumerate and remove persons from the sacrificial animal.

I.e., from your original company.

I.e., at least one person from the original group must remain enumerated on the animal (see Pesachim 99a). The laws that apply if there are less members of the company than stated above can be derived from the following halachah.

Even though he does not know which animal is his. He can have another person enumerated upon it. It is necessary to take another person, because, as mentioned in the notes to the previous halachah, it is necessary that at least one member of the original company remain enumerated on a Paschal sacrifice.

It appears that even the person who originally owned the sacrifice can transfer to the other sacrifice. Since he has enumerated another person on his sacrifice, they are now considered as a company and he may switch to the other (Lechem Mishneh).

For both sacrifices can be offered and eaten.

I.e., one that causes an animal to be disqualified as a sacrifice, as stated in Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 7:10).

Since it was not known which of the animals was disqualified, it is forbidden to partake of any of them, because it is possible that one is partaking of a disqualified sacrifice.

Because at the time the blood was cast on the altar, it was forbidden to partake of the sacrifices. As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 6, ordinarily, the animal would be skinned after its blood was poured on the altar.

For four of the animals were offered in an acceptable manner and there is no way to ensure that the fifth sacrifice can be brought on the second Pesach, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

This is forbidden, as stated in Hilchot Shechitah 2:1-2.

In that way, the sacrifice would certainly be valid, for there would be some who would be obligated to offer it enumerated upon it.

The standard text of Pesachim 88b, the Rambam’s source states “It will be eaten by those who are not enumerated upon it.”

For those whose first Paschal sacrifice was acceptable are not obligated to bring a second one.

Because he fulfilled his obligation with the first Paschal sacrifice.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 6.

Hilchot Ma’aseh Hakorbanot 5:6.

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 2:2 which states that, after the fact, however, it is considered as if one has fulfilled his obligation.