Study Pesachim folio 90A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
A Mishnah and baraita that the Talmud cites later on in the discussion teach that, logically, were it not for a verse teaching otherwise, the prohibition against using as an offering an animal given as payment for a prostitute’s services should apply even in a case where the animal had already been
But I would have presumed that R' Yehuda HaNasi holds that a Paschal lamb is unlike regular offerings of lesser sanctity, in that a person does not restrict its consecration in order to retain monetary rights to it, and it is therefore not considered to be his property at all. However, with regard t
I would have therefore been able to explain that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda HaNasi. Due to this opinion of his, the money in the hand of the owner of the lamb, which he received for selling a share in his Paschal lamb, is non-sacred because, although with regard to
Abaye continues his line of thinking: And that Mishnah that R' Oshaya established as being in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda HaNasi, I would not establish it as being in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda HaNasi. According to him, when designating a Paschal lamb, a person does not li
Abaye admits that there is a problem with explaining the baraita in this way: However, this, the baraita we are addressing, cannot be established in accordance with the opinion of R' Yosei, for it also teaches in a different clause that one who sells his burnt-offering and peace-offerings has not d