Pesachim 122

שחטו למולין על מנת שיתכפרו בו ערלים בזריקה רב חסדא אמר פסול רבה אמר כשר רב חסדא אמר פסול יש מחשבת ערלים בזריקה רבה אמר כשר אין מחשבת ערלים בזריקה

If he slaughtered it for circumcised persons on condition that uncircumcised persons should be atoned for therewith at the sprinkling,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether the latter were registered for it or not. ['To be atoned for' here is employed in a technical sense denoting to have the blood sprinkled on behalf of (a person) , as there is no question of atonement with the Paschal lamb. The words 'at the sprinkling' are accordingly superfluous, and in fact do not appear in MS.M.]');">¹</span> - R'Hisda said: It [the lamb] is disqualified; Rabbah ruled: It is fit. R'Hisda said, It is disqualified: There is [a disqualification in] an intention for uncircumcised at the sprinkling.

אמר רבה מנא אמינא לה דתניא יכול יפסול בני חבורה הבאין עמו ודין הוא הואיל וערלה פוסלת וטומאה פוסלת מה טומאה לא עשה בה מקצת טומאה ככל טומאה אף ערלה לא עשה בה מקצת ערלה ככל ערלה

Rabbah ruled, It is fit: There is no [disqualification in] an intention for uncircumcised at the sprinkling. Rabbah said, Whence do I know it? Because it was taught: You might think that he [an uncircumcised person] disqualifies the members of the company who come with him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he registered together with duly circumcised, all are disqualified from partaking of this lamb.');">²</span>

או כלך לדרך זו הואיל וערלה פוסלת וזמן פוסל מה זמן עשה בה מקצת זמן ככל זמן אף ערלה עשה בה מקצת ערלה ככל ערלה

and it is logical: since uncircumcision disqualifies, and uncleanness disqualifies, [then] just as with uncleanness, part uncleanness was not made tantamount to entire uncleanness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only if all who register are unclean is the sacrifice disqualified. but not if merely some of them are unclean.');">³</span> so with uncircumcision, part uncircumcision was not made tantamount to entire uncircumcision.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is not disqualified.');">⁴</span> Or turn this way:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., argue thus.');">⁵</span>

נראה למי דומה דנין דבר שאינו נוהג בכל הזבחים מדבר שאינו נוהג בכל הזבחים ואל יוכיח זמן שנוהג בכל הזבחים

since uncircumcision disqualifies, and time disqualifies: then just as with time, part [in respect to] time was made tantamount to the whole [in respect of] tithe,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he expressed an intention of eating only part of the sacrifice even after the time legally permitted, the whole sacrifice is piggul (q.v. Glos.) and disqualified.');">⁶</span> so with uncircumcision, part [in respect] to uncircumcision should be made tantamount to the whole [in respect to] uncircumcision. Let us see to what it is similar: you judge [draw an analogy between] that which does not apply to all sacrifices by that which does not apply to all sacrifices,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Uncircumcision and uncleanness are not disqualifications in the case of other sacrifices, which may be killed on behalf of their owners even if they are uncircumcised or unclean.');">⁷</span>

או כלך לדרך זו דנין דבר שלא הותר מכללו מדבר שלא הותר מכללו ואל תוכיח טומאה שהותרה מכללה

and let not time provide an argument, which operates [as a disqualification] in the case of all sacrifices. Or turn this way: you judge a thing which was not freed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'permitted'.');">⁸</span> from its general rule by a thing which was not freed from its general rule;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In no case may a sacrifice be eaten by an uncircumcised person or after its permitted time.');">⁹</span>

ת"ל (שמות יב, כה) זאת מאי זאת אילימא דכולה ערלה פסלה מקצתה לא פסלה האי מוכל ערל נפקא

and let not uncleanness provide an argument, seeing that it was freed from its general rule.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the whole community is unclean, the Paschal lamb is sacrificed and eaten by them. - Thus two contradictory arguments are possible.');">¹⁰</span> Therefore it is stated. This [is the ordinance of the Passover].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 43; the passage proceeds to disqualify an uncircumcised person (v. 49) , and this word is quoted as teaching that an uncircumcised person does not disqualify others who register with him. 'This' is a limitation, teaching that the law is exactly as stated, and is not to be extended to others.');">¹¹</span>

אלא לאו הכי קתני ת"ל וכל ערל כולה ערלה פסלה מקצתה לא פסלה וכי תימא הוא הדין לזריקה דכולה ערלה מיהא פסלה ת"ל זאת בשחיטה הוא דכולה ערלה מיהא פסלה אבל זריקה אפילו כולה ערלה נמי לא פסלה

What is [the purpose of] 'this'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is part of Rabbah's argument. How does 'this' signify that the uncircumcised does not disqualify the members of the company that come with him?');">¹²</span> If we say. [to teach] that entire uncircumcision disqualifies it [the Paschal lamb], but part thereof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when only some of the registered company are uncircumcised.');">¹³</span>

וכי תימא מאי קולא דזריקה דאין מחשבת אוכלין בזריקה

does not disqualify it, surely that is deduced from, and all uncircumcised person[s] [shall not eat thereof]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 48, which is thus interpreted: when all who have registered for a particular animal are uncircumcised, none must eat thereof. But if only a fraction are uncircumcised, the circumcised may eat thereof. (E.V. but no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.)');">¹⁴</span> Hence he [the Tanna] must have taught thus: Therefore it is stated, 'and all uncircumcised shall not eat thereof. Entire uncircumcision disqualifies it, [but] part thereof does not disqualify it.

ורב חסדא אדרבה לאידך גיסא ת"ל וכל ערל כולה ערלה פסלה מקצתה לא פסלה אבל זריקה אפילו מקצתה נמי פסלה וכי תימא הוא הדין לזריקה דעד דאיכא כולה ערלה לא פסלה ת"ל זאת שחיטה הוא דמקצתה לא פסלה אבל זריקה אפילו מקצתה פסלה

And should you say, the same law applies to sprinkling, viz. , that entire uncircumcision at least does disqualify it:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., where he expressed an intention that the sprinkling should make atonement for uncircumcised only.');">¹⁵</span> therefore 'this' is stated [teaching,] it is only at the slaughtering that entire uncircumcision disqualifies, but [as for] sprinkling, eve entire uncircumcision too does not disqualify it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'This' implies that uncircumcision disqualifies at one of the four services only, which is assumed to be the slaughtering. This interpretation of the Baraitha supports Rabbah's view.');">¹⁶</span> And should you ask, What is the leniency of sprinkling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What other leniency do you find in sprinkling, that you assume that the limitation of 'this' teaches a further leniency in respect to uncircumcision.');">¹⁷</span>

וכ"ת ומאי חומריה דזריקה דלא מקבע פיגול אלא בזריקה

That there is no intention of eaters in respect to sprinkling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He need not sprinkle expressly for those who are registered, as the requirement of registration and eaters is stated in connection with slaughtering, v. supra ');">¹⁸</span> But R'Hisda [maintains,] On the contrary, [the Baraitha is to be explained] in the opposite direction. [Thus:] therefore it is stated, and all uncircumcised person[s] [shall not eat thereof]: if the whole of it [the registered company] is [in a state of] uncircumcision, it disqualifies it, but part thereof does not disqualify But [as for] sprinkling, even part thereof disqualifies it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As his view supra.');">¹⁹</span>

מתקיף לה רב אשי ממאי דהאי וכל ערל כולה משמע דילמא האי וכל ערל משמע כל דהו ערלה כתב רחמנא זאת דעד דאיכא כולה ערלה לא פסלה לא שנא בשחיטה ולא שנא בזריקה אלא אמר רב אשי רב חסדא ורבה

And should you say, the same law applies to sprinkling, viz. , that unless there is entire uncircumcision it does not disqualify it, therefore 'this' is stat [teaching,] only at the slaughtering does part thereof not disqualify it, but at the sprinkling even part thereo disqualifies it. And should you ask, What is the stringency of sprinkling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What other stringency do you find in sprinkling, that you assume that the limitation of 'this' teaches a further stringency in respect to uncircumcision.');">²⁰</span> [It is] that [the prohibition of piggul cannot be imposed save at the sprinkling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An illegitimate intention to partake of the sacrifice after the permitted time, expressed at one of the four services (v. Mishnah supra 59b) renders it piggul, and he who eats it even within the permitted time, incurs kareth, only if the subsequent services are performed without any intention at all or with a legitimate intention or with the same illegitimate intention. But if any one of the subsequent services is performed with a different illegitimate intention, e.g.. to eat it without the permitted boundaries, it ceases to be piggul and does not involve kareth, v. Zeb. 28b. Hence the only service in which it can definitely be fixed as piggul without possibility of revocation is sprinkling, because that is the last service. That is regarded as a stringency of sprinkling.');">²¹</span> To this R'Ashi demurred: Whence [do you know] that this [verse] 'and all uncircumcised person[s],' implies in its entirety; perhaps this [verse], 'and all uncircumcised person[s]' implies whatever there is of uncircumcision,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., on the contrary it may imply that even if a single person of those who are registered for the sacrifice is uncircumcised, it is disqualified.');">²²</span> [and] therefore the Merciful One wrote 'this' to teach that unless there is an entire [company in a state of] uncircumcision, it does not disqualify it, there being no difference whether [it is] at the slaughtering or at the sprinkling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For on the present exegesis there is no verse to intimate a distinction.');">²³</span> Rather, said R'Ashi, R'Hisda and Rabbah