(Mishnah): One who told his slave - "Go and slaughter a Pesach for me''. If the slave slaughtered a kid, the master may eat; if he slaughtered a lamb, the master may eat. If he slaughtered a kid and a lamb, the master should eat from the first one slaughtered.

Question: If the slave forgot the order that the master had given him what should he do?

Answer: He should slaughter a kid and a lamb and declare - if my master asked for a kid, the kid is for him and the lamb is for me; if he asked for a lamb, the lamb is for him and the kid is for me.

If the master forgot what he had told the slave - both animals must be taken out to burn and both the master and the slave are exempt from Pesach Sheni (as both Korbanos were valid but neither can be eaten).

(Gemara) - Beraisa-R.Chiya: One who was designated on two Pesachs should eat from the one that was slaughtered first.

Support (R. Yosa-our Mishnah): If he slaughtered a kid and a lamb, he should eat from the first animal slaughtered.

R. Elazar/R.Yochanan: This is the opinion of R. Noson who said that a person fulfils his obligation if the blood was thrown even if the flesh was not eaten.

Rejection (R. Chizkiyah quoting R. Ba bar Mamal): One could explain that the master forgot between throwing the blood and eating (as the blood was thrown when the Korban was valid).

Question (R. Chizkiyah): One of the Rabbanan asked and some say Chizkiyah himself asked - Our Mishnah had taught that if the master forgot what he had said, he should slaughter a kid and a lamb. (This Mishnah is obviously referring to before the slaughtering, which is also therefore true for the latter part of the Mishnah - this shows that the author is R. Noson and he therefore validates throwing without eating.)

R. Yochanan: If a person separated his Pesach and then converted or was then freed or he then brought two pubic hairs (thereby becoming an adult), he must be designated on another Korban.

R. Yudan: All cases where we are in doubt and the Mishnah nevertheless rules that he is not obligated in Pesach Sheni, they are authored by R. Noson, except for one who throws the blood of his Chatas, his Asham (guilt-offering), perhaps it was nighttime when he threw it; it is viewed as a case like doubtful atonement and it achieves atonement and may be eaten.

(Mishnah): One who tells his sons - "I am slaughtering the Pesach to include whichever son arrives first in Yerushalayim''. As soon as the first son's head and most of his body arrives there, he merits his portion and merits his brothers' portions for them.

One is only designated on a Korban when there is a Kzayis of meat for each person designated upon it.

One may designate and withdraw from a Korban Pesach at any point until it is slaughtered.

R. Shimon says that one may do this even until the blood is thrown.

(Gemara) - R. Yochanan: The Mishnah does not mean that the father said, "I am slaughtering'' but rather, "I am separating'' the animal to be slaughtered (as after the slaughtering, it is too late to designate someone on the Korban). So why did he say "I am slaughtering''? In order to encourage their alacrity.

R. Elazar quoting R. Hoshiya: It was a stipulation of Beis Din that after this one separates his Korban Pesach and this one separates his money in order to use it to 'buy' a designation on that Korban, the second one becomes designated on the Korban and the money accepted by the owner of the animal becomes regular non-consecrated money (even though both the money and the animal were previously consecrated.

Question: Does the owner: a)'leave' a part of the Korban available so that if someone will wish to be designated on the Korban, that part becomes non-consecrated and the person can then come and use his consecrated money to exchange Kedushah onto the animal? or b) the owner who originally separated his animal for the Pesach did so for anyone who will wish to be designated on it, but the money becomes non-consecrated at the time of the exchange by means of the stipulation of Beis Din? (Note: This follows the explanation of Rav Chaim Kanievski.)

Question: What is the practical difference between these two possibilities?

Answer: If a person separated 100 Mana (a large quantity of money) in order to 'buy' a portion in a Pesach offering, but the owner of the animal designated him to the value of only 50 Mana -

If you say that option a), in this case, the Kedushah was only removed from 50 Mana, but the other 50 remains consecrated.

If you say option b), all of the money will become non-consecrated.

R. Yaakov bar Acha quoting Shmuel bar Aba: If a person was designated without giving money, would the Pesach not be consecrated? (You cannot say option a), rather it is option b)).

The Rabbanan (i.e. R. Shimon ben Lakish below) agree with Shmuel who reasons like option b).

The Mishnah in Temurah teaches - If he gave a prostitute her payment, it is permitted, but it may not be used to buy wine, oil, fine flour or anything which can be brought to the altar as a Korban. If he gave her consecrated items, they are permitted.

R''SBL: This last statement refers to designating her on his Pesach or his Chagigah.

Question: This teaching is not like option a) above, as if it would be, the Pesach would be prohibited because of the law of Esnan (payment of a prostitute)!

Answer: This is not the case, as nothing actually came into her hand.

Proof (Mishnah - Nedarim): (One who prohibited his friend from benefitting from his property,) he may nevertheless bring on that person's behalf bird offerings of Zavim and of women after childbirth - this is permitted since the benefit did not actually come into that person's hand; here also it is permitted since nothing actually came into the prostitute's hand.