About this episode
Study Guide Pesachim 72 Today's Daf is sponsored by Shira Krebs to mark the completion of shloshim for her father in law, Eliezer ben Dov v'Rachel, "who never stopped engaging our multifaceted Jewish tradition and who always appreciated a good debate." And by Jennifer Lankin in honor of Marilyn Kaiman, with love from her granddaughters who are consistently inspired by her dedication to gemara learning. "May we celebrate the next daf yomi siyum together be'ezrat Hashem." And by Gitta Neufeld in honor of Rabbanit Michelle Farber, her teacher, mentor and friend on her birthday. "May you be blessed with many years of health, wisdom and nachat from your family and your students. חילך לאורייתא." Is the beginning of the mishna referring to a case where one intentionally changed the sacrifice or unintentionally. In the end, it is concluded that the first case was intentional and the next case in the mishna is unintentional. The gemara raises some questions on that interpretation. Rabbi Yehoshua claims in the mishna that something that is limited we would be more strict with and make the sinner liable. This doesn't hold true in the circumcision case where it is also limited. The gemara explains how the cases differ. Which tana is our mishna said according to regarding the distinction between a case where the animal could have been used for a Pesach offering and one where the animal could not have been use? Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan bring other cases where one would be liable or exempt regarding a mistake. Does Rabbi Yochanan disagree with Reish Lakish or is he adding? What is the distinction between the cases that Rabbi Yochanan brings? On which tannaitic opinion is he relying?