Talmud for Pesachim 156:21

Rav Huna said, if somebody dedicated his Pesaḥ and said, on condition that nobody else subscribe with me, nobody else can subscribe with him. If he dedicated it without specification, any who join are its subscribers⁸⁷From the start the Pesaḥ is dedicated for anybody who will come to join.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Does the Mishnah say so? “If thehouse be less⁸⁸Ex. 12:4., this teaches that they may continuously diminish, on condition that there always be one of the first group and one of the second group, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, either from the first or from the second, if only the Pesaḥ not be left alone.⁸⁹Babli 99a, Tosephta 7:7, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 3, dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 9. It is presumed that practice follows R. Yose (the Tanna, ben Ḥalafta.)” If you are saying that any who join are its subscribers, then the members of the first group are the members of the second group⁹⁰According to Rav Ḥuna, every subscriber is counted as original subscriber; there can be no first and second group.. What is the difference between them? If he dedicated his Pesaḥ, withdrew from it but another person subscribed to it. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is qualified, in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira disqualified⁹¹For Rav Ḥuna, the second person is an original subscriber. For R. Zeˋira the Pesaḥ was left without subscriber for a moment; this disqualifies.. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is dedication by an individual and subject to the laws of substitution; in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira it is dedication by partners and dedication of partners is not subject to the laws of substitution⁹²If the first subscriber left; his replacement now is the original dedicator and all the rules of Tractate Temurah (Lev.27:10) do apply. But for R. Zeˋira, supposing that the second subscriber came before the first one left and the Pesaḥ still is qualified, it now is dedication by partners and any attempt at substitution is invalid and therefore inconsequential.. If a hundred people subscribed to it simultaneously, Rav Ḥuna said, if there is the volume [of an olive for each of them], it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. Rebbi Zeˋira said, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified⁹³Since for Rav Ḥuna all subscribers are original dedicators, simultaneous subscription is possible. The subscriptions either are all valid or all invalid. For R. Zeˋira only sequential subscriptions are possible; as long as there is the volume of an olive available for a new subscriber he is accepted, otherwise he is rejected, but the rejection has no influence on the status of subscribers accepted earlier.. And it was stated thus: “If they subscribed and added subscribers, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified.⁹⁴Babli 78b.”

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is about one “which comes in impurity from the start.”¹⁰⁰Tosephta 6:1. But if it came in purity and then became impure, it cannot be eaten in impurity. “If it was slaughtered in purity but then the public became impure, the blood shall be poured in purity¹⁰¹Obviously if everybody is impure, the blood in the vessel carried by the impure Cohen cannot remain pure. One has to read with the Tosephta: impure. but the meat not eaten in impurity.” (Should one not say the same for pouring?¹⁰²Text written by the scribe and deleted by the corrector; missing in K, which supports the corrector’s text. There seems to be no reason why the blood could be poured in impurity if the blood is only needed to permit the meat to be consumed when the meat is forbidden for consumption.) [Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is Rebbi Nathan’s, as Rebbi Nathan said, one has fulfilled his duty by pouring without eating¹⁰³Babli 78b. The pouring of the blood frees the group subscribing to this particular Pesaḥ from having to bring another animal at the Second Pesaḥ.. “If it was slaughtered in purity but then the blood collected became impure¹⁰⁴This sentence does not make any sense, although it is confirmed by the editio princeps of the Tosephta (6:1). One has to read with K and the Tosephta mss. either וצבור or והציבור: “If it was slaughtered in purity but then the public became impure, the blood may be poured in impurity but the meat may not be eaten in impurity.”, the blood may be poured in impurity but the meat may not be eaten in impurity.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of the bad impression, lest they say, we have seen a Pesaḥ brought in purity which was [poured] {eaten}¹⁰⁵As the following shows, one has to prefer {the text of K} over [the corrector’s text]. in impurity. Then should not the blood be poured in impurity?] Lest they say, we have seen a Pesaḥ brought in purity for which it was poured in impurity. You have to end up saying that it is Rebbi Nathan’s. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a sick or an old person¹⁰⁶R. Nathan only declares pouring the blood as sufficient if at the start there was a possibility that the meat would be eaten, “since from the start this is what it is for.” If nobody in the group is able to eat a full olive-sized piece, there can be no Pesaḥ.. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a group whose officiant became impure¹⁰⁷If the slaughterer makes the sacrifice impure, there can be no pouring of the blood., that they are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a group where a wart was found¹⁰⁸If the animal from the start was unfit to be a sacrifice, there can be no sacrifice., that they are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ.