מתני׳ האומר לעבדו צא ושחוט עלי את הפסח שחט גדי יאכל שחט טלה יאכל שחט גדי וטלה יאכל מן הראשון שכח מה אמר לו רבו כיצד יעשה ישחט טלה וגדי ויאמר אם גדי אמר לי רבי גדי שלו וטלה שלי ואם טלה אמר לי רבי הטלה שלו וגדי שלי שכח רבו מה אמר לו שניהן יצאו לבית השריפה ופטורין מלעשות פסח שני: גמ׳ פשיטא שחט גדי יאכל אע"ג דרגיל בטלה שחט טלה יאכל אף על גב דרגיל בגדי שחט גדי וטלה יאכל מן הראשון והא תניא אין נמנין על שני פסחים כאחד מתניתין במלך ומלכה והתניא אין נמנין על שני פסחים כאחד ומעשה במלך ומלכה שאמרו לעבדיהם צאו ושחטו עלינו את הפסח ויצאו ושחטו עליהן שני פסחים באו ושאלו את המלך אמר להם לכו ושאלו את המלכה באו ושאלו מן המלכה אמרה להם לכו ושאלו את ר"ג באו ושאלו את ר"ג אמר להם מלכה ומלך דדעתן קלה עליהן יאכלו מן הראשון אנן לא נאכל לא מן הראשון ולא מן השני ושוב פעם אחת נמצאת הלטאה בבית המטבחים ובקשו לטמא כל הסעודה כולה באו ושאלו את המלך אמר להם לכו ושאלו את המלכה באו ושאלו את המלכה אמרה להם לכו ושאלו את רבן גמליאל באו ושאלו אותו אמר להם בית המטבחים רותח או צונן אמרו לו רותח אמר להם לכו והטילו עליה כוס של צונן הלכו והטילו עליה כוס של צונן וריחשה וטהר ר"ג כל הסעודה כולה נמצא מלך תלוי במלכה ונמצאת מלכה תלויה בר"ג נמצאת כל הסעודה תלויה בר"ג:
MISHNA: In the case of one who says to his slave: Go and slaughter the Paschal offering on my behalf, but does not specify which type of animal to slaughter, the halakha is as follows: If the slave slaughtered a kid, his master may eat it; if he slaughtered a lamb, his master may eat it. If the slave slaughtered both a kid and a lamb, his master should eat from the first one that was slaughtered; the second is invalid and should be burned. If the master had stated explicitly which type of animal to slaughter, but the slave forgot what his master said to him, what should he do? He should slaughter both a lamb and a kid and say the following stipulation: If my master said to me that I should slaughter a kid, the kid is for his Paschal offering and the lamb is for mine; and if my master said to me that I should slaughter a lamb, the lamb is for his Paschal offering and the kid is for mine. In this way, once the master ultimately clarifies what he had originally said, both animals may be used accordingly. If his master also forgot what he said to him, neither animal may be used, since it has not been clarified which of the animals the slave and master are registered for. Therefore, both of them, the lamb and the kid, go out to the place designated for burning, in accordance with the halakha pertaining to offerings that may not be eaten. However, despite this, both the master and slave are exempt from observing the second Pesaḥ if the blood of the animals has already been applied to the altar before the master forgot. GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if the master did not specify which type of animal he wishes to use, he eats from whichever type the slave slaughters. The Gemara exclaims: It is obvious. Since the master did not specify, he apparently does not have a preference. Therefore, whichever animal is used will be acceptable. The Gemara answers: The mishna’s ruling is necessary in the case where the slave slaughtered a kid. His master may eat it even though the master is accustomed to use a lamb. Even though he is accustomed to do so, it is not presumed that he is particular to use only a lamb, since he did not explicitly say so. Similarly, if the slave slaughtered a lamb, his master may eat it, although he is accustomed to use a kid for his Paschal offering. We learned in the mishna: If the slave slaughtered a kid and a lamb, his master should eat from the first one the slave slaughtered. To allow for the possibility of eating from whichever one is slaughtered first, the master must have been registered to eat from either animal. The Gemara cites a baraita that appears to contradict this: Wasn’t it taught: One may not be registered for two Paschal offerings at once? The Gemara answers: The mishna discusses a case of a king and queen and similar cases of those for whom food is supplied by slaves. They are content with whatever food is presented to them, since all their food is of good quality. Such people have the intent to be registered with whichever animal their slaves select to slaughter first, and only with that animal. And similarly, it was taught in a baraita: One may not register for two Paschal offerings at once. And there was an incident involving a king and queen who said to their slaves: Go and slaughter the Paschal offering on our behalf. And they went out and slaughtered two Paschal offerings on their behalf. They came and asked the king which one he wished to eat. He said to them: Go and ask the queen. They came and asked the queen. She said to them: Go and ask Rabban Gamliel to rule which one should be used. They came and asked Rabban Gamliel. He said to them: A king and queen, who are easily accepting of whichever foods their slaves choose to present to them, should eat from the first one that was slaughtered, since it is presumed they wished to be registered for any animal the slaves selected. But we, the general populace, who have limited supplies of food and so are particular about what food is served to us, would not eat from the first or from the second, since it is not permitted to be registered for two Paschal lambs at once. And another time there was a similar incident involving the king, queen, and Rabban Gamliel. It happened that a dead lizard was found in the kitchen of the royal house. Since a lizard is one of the creeping animals whose carcasses impart ritual impurity upon contact, they wanted to pronounce the entire meal ritually impure. They came and asked the king. He said to them: Go and ask the queen. They came and asked the queen. She said to them: Go and ask Rabban Gamliel to rule on the matter. They came and asked him, and he said to them: Is the kitchen boiling or cold? They said to him: It is boiling. He said to them: Go and pour a cup of cold liquid upon the lizard. They went and poured a cup of cold liquid on it and it quivered, demonstrating that it was still alive. That being the case, Rabban Gamliel pronounced the entire meal to be ritually pure, as a live creeping animal does not impart ritual impurity. The Gemara comments: It turns out that the king is dependent on the queen, and it turns out that the queen is dependent on Rabban Gamliel. And so it turns out that the entire royal meal is dependent upon Rabban Gamliel.
מתני׳ יום הכפורים אסור באכילה ובשתיה וברחיצה ובסיכה ובנעילת הסנדל ובתשמיש המטה והמלך והכלה ירחצו את פניהם והחיה תנעול את הסנדל דברי רבי אליעזר וחכמים אוסרין
MISHNA: On Yom Kippur, the day on which there is a mitzva by Torah law to afflict oneself, it is prohibited to engage in eating and in drinking, and in bathing, and in smearing oil on one’s body, and in wearing shoes, and in conjugal relations. However, the king, in deference to his eminence, and a new bride within thirty days of her marriage, who wishes to look especially attractive at the beginning of her relationship with her husband, may wash their faces on Yom Kippur. A woman after childbirth, who is suffering, may wear shoes because going barefoot causes her pain. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The Rabbis prohibit these activities for a king, a new bride, and a woman after childbirth.
מ"ט מלך משום דכתיב (ישעיהו לג, יז) מלך ביפיו תחזינה עיניך כלה מאי טעמא כדי שלא תתגנה על בעלה אמר ליה רב לר' חייא כלה עד כמה אמר ליה כדתניא אין מונעין תכשיטין מן הכלה כל שלשים יום
The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, what is the reason that the king may wear shoes? Because it is written: “Your eyes shall see the king in his beauty” (Isaiah 33:17). A king should always look regal before his nation. What is the reason that a bride may wash her face? So that she should not appear repulsive to her husband. Since it is only the beginning of their marriage, her husband may be disgusted at seeing her otherwise. Rav said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: For how long after her wedding is a woman considered a bride? He said to him: As it was taught in a baraita: If she becomes a mourner, we do not prevent the bride from wearing perfumes during the entire first thirty days of her marriage. This shows that for the first thirty days, her appearance is most critical.
(ד) ואֵין מוֹשִׁיבִין מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּסַנְהֶדְרִין שֶׁאָסוּר לַחְלֹק עָלָיו וְלַמְרוֹת אֶת דְּבָרוֹ. אֲבָל מוֹשִׁיבִין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אִם הָיָה רָאוּי בְּחָכְמָה:
(ה) מַלְכֵי בֵּית דָּוִד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתָם בְּסַנְהֶדְרִין יוֹשְׁבִין וְדָנִים הֵם אֶת הָעָם. וְדָנִים אוֹתָם אִם יֵשׁ עֲלֵיהֶן דִּין. אֲבָל מַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵין דָּנִין וְאֵין דָּנִין אוֹתָם לְפִי שֶׁאֵין נִכְנָעִים לְדִבְרֵי תּוֹרָה שֶׁמָּא תָּבוֹא מֵהֶן תַּקָּלָה:
(4) A king of Israel must not be seated among the Sanhedrin, since it is unlawful to disagree with him or to defy him. But a high priest may be given a seat on the Sanhedrin, provided he is well qualified in terms of wisdom.
(5) Although the kings of the House of David may not be included in the Sanhedrin, they may sit in judgment over the people. Conversely, they may be called to judgment if a person has a complaint against them. The Kings of Israel, by contrast, may not serve as judges, nor may they be called to judgment. The rationale is that they do not humble themselves before the words of the Torah, and letting them serve as a judge or issuing a judgment against them may lead to a disaster.
מלך לא דן כו': אמר רב יוסף לא שנו אלא מלכי ישראל אבל מלכי בית דוד דן ודנין אותן דכתיב (ירמיהו כא, יב) בית דוד כה אמר ה' דינו לבקר משפט ואי לא דיינינן ליה אינהו היכי דייני והכתיב (צפניה ב, א) התקוששו וקושו ואמר ר"ל קשט עצמך ואחר כך קשט אחרים אלא מלכי ישראל מ"ט לא משום מעשה שהיה דעבדיה דינאי מלכא קטל נפשא אמר להו שמעון בן שטח לחכמים תנו עיניכם בו ונדוננו שלחו ליה עבדך קטל נפשא שדריה להו שלחו לי' תא אנת נמי להכא (שמות כא, כט) והועד בבעליו אמרה תורה יבא בעל השור ויעמוד על שורו אתא ויתיב א"ל שמעון בן שטח ינאי המלך עמוד על רגליך ויעידו בך ולא לפנינו אתה עומד אלא לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם אתה עומד שנאמר (דברים יט, יז) ועמדו שני האנשים אשר להם הריב וגו' אמר לו לא כשתאמר אתה אלא כמה שיאמרו חבריך
§ The mishna teaches: A king does not judge and is not judged. Rav Yosef says: They taught this halakha only with regard to the kings of Israel, who were violent and disobedient of Torah laws, but with regard to the kings of the house of David, the king judges and is judged, as it is written: “O house of David, so says the Lord: Execute justice in the morning” (Jeremiah 21:12). If they do not judge him, how can he judge? But isn’t it written: “Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together [hitkosheshu vakoshu]” (Zephaniah 2:1), and Reish Lakish says: This verse teaches a moral principle: Adorn [kashet] yourself first, and then adorn others, i.e., one who is not subject to judgment may not judge others. Since it is understood from the verse in Jeremiah that kings from the Davidic dynasty can judge others, it is implicit that they can also be judged. The Gemara asks: But what is the reason that others do not judge the kings of Israel? It is because of an incident that happened, as the slave of Yannai the king killed a person. Shimon ben Shataḥ said to the Sages: Put your eyes on him and let us judge him. They sent word to Yannai: Your slave killed a person. Yannai sent the slave to them. They sent word to Yannai: You also come here, as the verse states with regard to an ox that gored a person to death: “He should be testified against with his owner” (Exodus 21:29). The Torah stated: The owner of the ox should come and stand over his ox. The Gemara continues to narrate the incident: Yannai came and sat down. Shimon ben Shataḥ said to him: Yannai the king, stand on your feet and witnesses will testify against you. And it is not before us that you are standing, to give us honor, but it is before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that you are standing, as it is stated: “Then both the people, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges that shall be in those days” (Deuteronomy 19:17). Yannai the king said to him: I will not stand when you alone say this to me, but according to what your colleagues say, and if the whole court tells me, I will stand.
נפנה לימינו כבשו פניהם בקרקע נפנה לשמאלו וכבשו פניהם בקרקע אמר להן שמעון בן שטח בעלי מחשבות אתם יבא בעל מחשבות ויפרע מכם מיד בא גבריאל וחבטן בקרקע ומתו באותה שעה אמרו מלך לא דן ולא דנין אותו לא מעיד ולא מעידין אותו:
Shimon ben Shataḥ turned to his right. The judges forced their faces to the ground out of fear and said nothing. He turned to his left, and they forced their faces to the ground and said nothing. Shimon ben Shataḥ said to them: You are masters of thoughts, enjoying your private thoughts, and not speaking. May the Master of thoughts, God, come and punish you. Immediately, the angel Gabriel came and struck those judges to the ground, and they died. At that moment, when they saw that the Sanhedrin does not have power to force the king to heed its instructions, the Sages said: A king does not judge others and others do not judge him, and he does not testify and others do not testify concerning him, due to the danger of the matter.
Tosafot
במלך ומלכה - שיש להם רוב מעדנים ולא קפדי אם גדי ואם טלה אם שמן אם כחוש:
במלך ומלכה - שיש להם רוב מעדנים ולא קפדי אם גדי ואם טלה אם שמן אם כחוש:
(א) הָאוֹמֵר לְעַבְדּוֹ צֵא וּשְׁחֹט עָלַי אֶת הַפֶּסַח. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ רַבּוֹ לִשְׁחֹט טָלֶה בְּכָל שָׁנָה וְהָלַךְ וְשָׁחַט עָלָיו גְּדִי אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה דַּרְכּוֹ לִשְׁחֹט גְּדִי וְהָלַךְ וְשָׁחַט עָלָיו טָלֶה הֲרֵי זֶה יֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ. שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא פֵּרֵשׁ וְאָמַר לוֹ שְׁחֹט לִי מִמִּין פְּלוֹנִי. הָלַךְ וְשָׁחַט גְּדִי וְטָלֶה אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל מִשְּׁנֵיהֶן אֶלָּא יֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה שֶׁאֵין נִמְנִין עַל שְׁנֵי פְּסָחִים. וְאִם הָיָה מֶלֶךְ אוֹ מַלְכָּה וְאָמַר לְעַבְדּוֹ לִשְׁחֹט עָלָיו וְשָׁחַט גְּדִי וְטָלֶה יֹאכַל מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן מִשּׁוּם שְׁלוֹם מַלְכוּת:
The following rules apply when a person tells his servant: "Go and sacrifice a Paschal sacrifice for me." Even though his master usually slaughters a lamb every year and the servant slaughtered a goat - or his master would usually slaughter a goat and he went and slaughtered a lamb, the master may partake of it, since he did not explicitly say: "Slaughter this particular type."
If the servant went and slaughtered both a kid and a lamb, the master may not partake of either of them. Instead, they should be taken to the place where sacrifices are burnt, because one may not be enumerated on two Paschal sacrifices. If, however, it was a king or queen who told his servant to sacrifice an animal for him and the servant slaughtered a kid and a lamb, the king or queen may partake of the one slaughtered first. This leniency was granted to placate the king.
Kesef Mishneh
ורבינו נראה שמפרש טעמא דמלך ומלכה משום שלום מלכות והיינו שדעתו קלה עליהם ומשמע לי דהיינו לומר שאם נאמר למלך שלא יאכל כלל יכעוס על עבדו ויהרגהו או שמא יכעוס על החכמים שאמרו דלא יאכל כלל משום דאין ברירה שיעלה על דעתו של מלך דיש ברירה מן הדין אלא שלהקניטו אמרו כן. ודברי רבינו בפירוש המשנה אינם מובנים לי:
(1488 - 1575 Joseph Karo
Yosef Karo, expelled from Spain as a child, was a rabbi, Talmudist, mystic and the pre-emiment halachic codifier. His best-known work, the Shulchan Aruch, was accepted in his lifetime and formally recognized thereafter as the definitive statement of Jewish legal and religious practice. He also wrote basic commentaries on the Mishneh Torah and the Arba'ah Turim (the latter forming the basis from which the Shulchan Aruch was distilled). He was also a mystic who received heavenly revelations. Some of these were set down in writing and formed the impetus to come to the Land of Israel.
ורבינו נראה שמפרש טעמא דמלך ומלכה משום שלום מלכות והיינו שדעתו קלה עליהם ומשמע לי דהיינו לומר שאם נאמר למלך שלא יאכל כלל יכעוס על עבדו ויהרגהו או שמא יכעוס על החכמים שאמרו דלא יאכל כלל משום דאין ברירה שיעלה על דעתו של מלך דיש ברירה מן הדין אלא שלהקניטו אמרו כן. ודברי רבינו בפירוש המשנה אינם מובנים לי:
(1488 - 1575 Joseph Karo
Yosef Karo, expelled from Spain as a child, was a rabbi, Talmudist, mystic and the pre-emiment halachic codifier. His best-known work, the Shulchan Aruch, was accepted in his lifetime and formally recognized thereafter as the definitive statement of Jewish legal and religious practice. He also wrote basic commentaries on the Mishneh Torah and the Arba'ah Turim (the latter forming the basis from which the Shulchan Aruch was distilled). He was also a mystic who received heavenly revelations. Some of these were set down in writing and formed the impetus to come to the Land of Israel.
Rambam - Commentary on the Mishna with notes by Rabbi Yosef Qafih
Rambam - Laws of Paschal Sacrifice 3:2 with commentary of Rabbi Yosef Qafih
