Pesachim 123

בהאי קרא קמיפלגי (ויקרא א, ד) ונרצה לו לכפר עליו עליו ולא על חבירו רבה סבר חבירו דומיא דידיה מה הוא דבר כפרה אף חבירו דבר כפרה לאפוקי האי ערל דלאו בר כפרה הוא

differ in this verse: And it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 4. [I.e., by sprinkling, v. supra p. 306, n. 2.]');">¹</span> 'for him', but not for his companion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the blood is sprinkled on behalf of a different person, the sacrifice is disqualified.');">²</span> Rabbah holds, His companion must be like himself: just as he is capable of atonement, so must his companion be capable of atonement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only then does this change of name disqualify the sacrifice.');">³</span>

ורב חסדא סבר האי ערל נמי כיון דבר חיובא הוא בר כפרה הוא [הואיל] דאי בעי מתקן נפשיה

thus excluding this uncircumcised person, who is not capable of atonement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he is not fit to have the Paschal offering made acceptable on his behalf; cf. loc. cit. Hence the intention that the sprinkling shall be on his behalf does not disqualify it.');">⁴</span> But R'Hisda holds, This uncircumcised person too, since he is subject to the obligation, he is [also] subject to atonement, since if he wishes he can make himself fit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By circumcision.');">⁵</span> Yet does R'Hisda accept [the argument of] 'since'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., does he accept the view that since a different state of affairs is possible, we take it into account as though it were already in existence?');">⁶</span>

ומי אית ליה לרב חסדא הואיל והא איתמר האופה מיו"ט לחול רב חסדא אמר לוקה רבה אמר אינו לוקה

Surely it was stated, If one bakes [food] on a Festival for [use on] a weekday. - R'Hisda said: He is flagellated; Rabbah said: He is not flagellated.' Rabbah said, He is not flagellated': We say, Since if guests visited him, it would be fit for him, [on the Festival itself].

רבה אמר אינו לוקה אמרינן הואיל ואי מקלעי ליה אורחים חזי ליה השתא נמי חזי ליה ולא לקי רב חסדא אמר לוקה לא אמרינן הואיל

fit for him now too.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though he has no guests. He is therefore regarded as having baked for the Festival itself.');">⁷</span> R'Hisda said, He is flagellated': We do not say, 'since'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 46b.');">⁸</span> As for Rabbah, it is well, [and] he is not self contradictory: here [in the case of circumcision], an action is wanting,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., circumcision, before he is fit; hence though he is potentially circumcised, we cannot regard him as actually so.');">⁹</span>

בשלמא דרבה אדרבה לא קשיא הכא מחוסר מעשה התם דלא מחוסר מעשה אלא דרב חסדא אדרב חסדא קשיא אמרי כי לית ליה לרב חסדא הואיל לקולא לחומרא אית ליה

whereas there an action is not wanting.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The coming of guests involves no action on his part; hence Rabbah's ruling.');">¹⁰</span> But R'Hisda is self-contradictory?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case of baking on a Festival for a weekday.');">¹¹</span> - I will tell you: when does R'Hisda reject [the argument of] 'since'?

אמר ליה מר זוטרא בריה דרב מרי לרבינא קתני הואיל וערלה פוסלת וטומאה פוסלת מה טומאה לא עשה בה מקצת טומאה ככל טומאה אף ערלה לא עשה מקצת ערלה ככל ערלה האי טומאה היכי דמי אילימא בטומאת גברי ומאי לא עשה בה מקצת טומאה ככל טומאה דאי איכא ארבעה וחמשה גברי טמאין וארבעה וחמשה גברי טהורין לא פסלי להו טמאין לטהורין

[where it leads] to [greater] leniency;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he accepts the argument of 'since' even in the case of circumcision, where an action is wanting, how much the more where no action is wanting!');">¹²</span> [but where it results] in stringency, he accepts it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosaf.: according to this, R. Hisda disqualifies the sacrifice (supra ');">¹³</span> Mar Zutra son of R'Mari said to Rabina: [The Baraitha] teaches: 'since uncircumcision disqualifies, and uncleanness disqualifies, [then] just as uncleanness, part uncleanness was not made tantamount to entire uncleanness, so uncircumcision, part uncircumcision was not made tantamount to entire uncircumcision.

גבי ערלה נמי הא לא פסלי דתנן למולין ולערלים כשר מאי שנא טומאה דפשיטא ליה ומאי שנא ערלה דמספקא ליה

How is this uncleanness meant? Shall we say, it means uncleanness of the person, and what is meant by, 'part uncleanness was not made tantamount to entire uncleanness'? That if there are four or five unclean persons and four or five clean persons,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Registered for the same Paschal lamb.');">¹⁴</span>

אלא בטומאת בשר ומאי לא עשה בה מקצת טומאה ככל טומאה דאילו איטמי חד מאברים האי דאיטמי שרפינן ליה ואידך אכלינן ליה

the unclean do not disqualify [the Paschal lamb] for the clean. But then in the case of uncircumcision too they do not disqualify, for we learned, FOR CIRCUMCISED AND UNCIRCUMCISED. IT IS FIT: how then is uncleanness different, that he is certain about it, and how is uncircumcision different, that he is doubtful?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the one must be deduced from the other.');">¹⁵</span>

במאי אוקימתא בטומאת בשר אימא סיפא דנין דבר שאינו נוהג בכל הזבחים מדבר שאינו נוהג בכל הזבחים ואל יוכיח זמן שנוהג בכל הזבחים ומאי טומאה אי נימא טומאת בשר אמאי אינו נוהג בכל הזבחים

Hence it must refer to uncleanness of the flesh, and what is meant by, 'part uncleanness was not made tantamount to entire uncleanness'? For where one of the limbs becomes unclean, that which becomes unclean we burn, while the others we eat. To what have you [thus] referred it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in what (case) have you established it?'');">¹⁶</span>

אלא פשיטא בטומאת גברי ומאי אינו נוהג בכל הזבחים דאילו בכל הזבחים ערל וטמא משלחין קרבנותיהן ואילו בפסח ערל וטמא אין משלחין פסחיהן רישא בטומאת בשר וסיפא בטומאת גברי

To uncleanness of the flesh! Then consider the sequel: 'you judge that which does not apply to all sacrifices by that which does not apply to all sacrifices,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference to uncleanness. V. supra p. 307, n. 2.');">¹⁷</span> hence let not time [dis]prove it, since it applie to all sacrifices'. Now what does 'uncleanness mean?

א"ל אין שם טומאה קא פריך

Shall we say, uncleanness of the flesh, - why does it not apply to all sacrifices?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It certainly does.');">¹⁸</span> Hence it is obvious that it refers to uncleanness of person, and what does 'it does not apply to all sacrifices' mean? For whereas in the case of all [other] sacrifices an uncircumcised person and an unclean person can send their sacrifices,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be sacrificed on their behalf, though they cannot partake of them personally.');">¹⁹</span>

ואיבעית אימא סיפא נמי בטומאת בשר ומאי אינו נוהג בכל הזבחים דאילו בכל הזבחים בין שנטמא חלב ובשר קיים בין שנטמא בשר וחלב קיים זורק את הדם

in the case of the Passover offering an uncircumcised person and an unclean person cannot send their Passover offerings. Thus the first clause refers to uncleanness of the flesh, while the second clause refers to uncleanness of the person? - Yes, answered he to him, he argues<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he rebuts'.');">²⁰</span> from the designation of uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., from uncleanness as a cause of disqualification, without particularizing the nature of the uncleanness.');">²¹</span>

ואילו בפסח נטמא חלב ובשר קיים זורק את הדם נטמא בשר וחלב קיים אינו זורק את הדם

Alternatively, the sequel too refers to the uncleanness of flesh. Then what is [meant by] 'it does not apply to all sacrifices'? [It means this], for whereas in the case of all [other] sacrifices, whether the fat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is burnt on the altar.');">²²</span>

במאי אוקימתא בטומאת בשר אימא סיפא דנין דבר שלא הותר מכללו מדבר שלא הותר מכללו ואל תוכיח טומאה שהרי הותרה מכללה במאי אילימא

is defiled while the flesh remains [clean], or the flesh is defiled while the fat remains [clean], he [the officiating prie sprinkles the blood;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the sacrifice effects its purpose.');">²³</span> in the case of the Passover offering, if the fat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is burnt on the altar.');">²²</span> is defiled while the flesh remains [clean], he sprinkles the blood; but if the flesh is defiled while the fat remains [clean], he must not sprinkle the blood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For there must be at least as much as an olive of eatable flesh before its blood may be sprinkled.');">²⁴</span> To what have you referred it: to uncleanness of the flesh? Then consider the final clause: 'you judge a thing which was not freed from its general interdict by a thing which was not freed from its general interdict, hence let not uncleanness disprove it, seeing that it was freed from its general interdict.' In which [case]? Shall we say.