Pesachim 156

הא אמרת בציבור אפילו רבי יהושע מודה

Surely you have said, even R'Joshua agrees in the case of a community! Rather [explain it thus:] I agree with the words of R'Eliezer where It was done [offered], and with the words of R'Joshua [where it is] at the very outset. [But] if it was done, even R'Joshua agrees, for it is taught: R'Joshua agrees that if he sprinkled [th blood] it is made acceptable?

אלא רואה אני דברי ר"א בדיעבד ודברי ר' יהושע לכתחלה דיעבד אפילו רבי יהושע נמי מודה הוא דקתני מודה רבי יהושע שאם זרק הורצה

One refers to uncleanness; the other to [the case where it] is lost or burnt. [Thus:] when does he teach, R'Joshua agrees that if he sprinkled [the blood] it is made acceptable, where [the flesh] was defiled, but not if it was lost or burnt; [and] when does R'Jose say, I agree with the words of R'Eliezer if it was done, where [the flesh] was lost or burnt.

הא בטומאה הא באבוד ושרוף כי קתני מודה רבי יהושע שאם זרק הורצה בנטמא אבל באבוד ושרוף לא כי קאמר ר' יוסי רואה אני את דברי ר"א בדיעבד באבוד ושרוף:

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF THE FLESH WAS DEFILED WHILE THE FAT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The portions burnt on the altar.');">¹</span> HAS REMAINED [CLEAN], HE MUST NOT SPRINKLE THE BLOOD;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even according to R. Eliezer, because the main purpose of the Passover-offering is that it should be eaten.');">²</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> נטמא בשר וחלב קיים אינו זורק את הדם נטמא החלב והבשר קיים זורק את הדם ובמוקדשים אינו כן אלא אע"פ שנטמא הבשר והחלב קיים זורק את הדם:

IF THE FAT WAS DEFILED WHILE THE FLESH HAS REMAINED [CLEAN], HE MUST SPRINKLE THE BLOOD. BUT IN THE CASE OF [OTHER] DEDICATED SACRIFICES IT IS NOT SO, FOR EVEN IF THE FLESH WAS DEFILED WHILE THE FAT HAS REMAINED CLEAN, HE MUST SPRINKLE THE BLOOD.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even according to R. Joshua, since the fat is clean.');">³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב גידל אמר רב אם זרק הורצה והא בעינן אכילה אכילה לא מעכבא

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Giddal said in Rab's name: If he sprinkled [the blood], it [the Passover-offering] is made acceptable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the owner does not bring another.');">⁴</span> But we require eating?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is impossible, since the flesh is defiled.');">⁵</span>

והא כתיב (שמות יב, ד) איש לפי אכלו למצוה

- The eating is not indispensable. But surely it is written, according to every man's eating [ye shall make your count for the lamb]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 4.');">⁶</span>

ולעכב לא והתניא (שמות יב, ד) במכסת מלמד שאין הפסח נשחט אלא למנויו יכול שחטו שלא למנויו יהא כעובר על המצוה וכשר ת"ל איש לפי אכלו תכוסו הכתוב שנה עליו לעכב

- That is for preference.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. , 'for a precept'. I.e. 'in the first place the lamb must certainly be brought for this purpose; nevertheless, even when it cannot be eaten the sacrifice is valid.');">⁷</span> And is [this] not [to intimate that] it is indispensable?

ואיתקש אוכלין למנויין

Surely it was taught: According to the number of [bemiksath] the souls:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');">⁸</span> this teaches that the paschal lamb is killed for none save those who registered for it.

אלא רב דאמר כרבי נתן דאמר אכילת פסחים לא מעכבא

You might think that if he killed it for those who are not registered for it, he should be regarded as violating the precept, yet it is Therefore it is stated, 'according to every man's eating. ye shall make your count [takosu]': The Writ reiterated it, to teach that it is indispensable; and eaters are assimilated to registered persons.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as registration is indispensable, so are eaters, and consequently eating, indispensable.');">⁹</span>

הי רבי נתן אילימא הא רבי נתן דתניא רבי נתן אומר מנין שכל ישראל יוצאין בפסח אחד ת"ל (שמות יב, ו) ושחטו אותו כל קהל עדת ישראל בין הערבים וכי כל הקהל שוחטין והלא אין שוחט אלא אחד אלא מלמד שכל ישראל יוצאין בפסח אחד

-Rather, Rab ruled as R'Nathan, who said: The eating of the Passover-offerings is not indispensable. Which [statement of] R'Nathan [is alluded to]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he does not rule thus explicitly, and it must be inferred from some other statement.');">¹⁰</span>

דילמא שאני התם דאי ממשכי הני חזי להני ואי ממשכי הני חזי להני

Shall we say, the following [dictum] of R'Nathan? For it was taught, R'Nathan said: How do we know that all Israel can discharge [their obligation] with one Passover-offering?

אלא הא ר' נתן דתניא נמנו עליו חבורה אחת וחזרו ונמנו עליו חבורה אחרת ראשונים שיש להן כזית אוכלין ופטורין מלעשות פסח שני אחרונים שאין להם כזית אין אוכלין וחייבין לעשות פסח שני

Because it is said, and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at dusk:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 6.');">¹¹</span> does then the whole assembly kill?

רבי נתן אומר אלו ואלו פטורין מלעשות פסח שני שכבר נזרק הדם

Surely only one kills! But it teaches that all Israel can discharge [their duty] with one Passover-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now in that case there is certainly not as much as an olive of flesh for each, which is the minimum to constitute eating.');">¹²</span> Perhaps it is different there, because if some withdraw it is fit for the others, and if t others withdraw it is fit for these?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that virtually it is fit for all, but in the present case it is not fit for any.');">¹³</span>

אכתי דילמא שאני התם דאי ממשכי הני חזי להו א"כ ליתני הואיל וראויים לימשך מאי שכבר נזרק הדם ש"מ בדם תליא מילתא אבל אכילה לא מעכבא

- Rather it is this [dictum of] R'Nathan. For it was taught: If one company registered for it, and then another company registered for it, the former, for whom there is as much as an olive [per person], eat it and are exempt from sacrificing a second Passover-offering; the latter, for whom there is not as much as an olive [per person], cannot eat, and they are bound to sacrifice a second Passover-offering.

מאי דוחקיה דרב דמוקים לה מתני' לכתחלה ור' נתן נוקמה כרבנן ואפילו דיעבד נמי לא רב מתני' קשיתיה אמאי (תני) אין זורק את הדם ליתני פסול אלא שמע מינה אין זורק לכתחלה אבל דיעבד שפיר דמי

R'Nathan said: Both are exempt from sacrificing a second Passover-offering, because the blood has already been sprinkled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that in R. Nathan's view the eating is not indispensable.');">¹⁴</span> Yet still perhaps it is different there, because if these withdraw it is for them [the others]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that virtually it is fit for all, but in the present case it is not fit for any.');">¹³</span>

ולר' נתן איש לפי אכלו למה לי דבעינן גברא דחזי לאכילה

- If so, let him teach, because it is possible for them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they are fit, eligible.'');">¹⁵</span> to withdraw?

מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן שחטו לאוכליו וזרקו דמו שלא לאוכליו הפסח עצמו כשר ואדם יוצא בו ידי חובתו כמאן נימא רבי נתן היא ולא רבנן

Why [state] 'because the blood has already been sprinkled? ' That proves' that the matter depends [entirely] on [the sprinkling of] the blood, but the eating is not indispensable. Now, what compels Rab to establish our Mishnah as meaning in the first place [only] and [in accordance with] R'Nathan: let us establish it as [agreeing with] the Rabbis, and even if it was done,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even if the blood was sprinkled.');">¹⁶</span>

אפילו תימא רבנן אין מחשבת אוכלין בזריקה

it is not [fit]? - To Rab our Mishnah presents a difficulty: why does it state, HE MUST NOT SPRINKLE THE BLOOD: let it teach, 'It is unfit'? Hence this proves that he must not sprinkle in the first place [only], but if done it is indeed well.

מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן הרי שהיה חולה בשעת שחיטה וחלים בשעת זריקה חלים בשעת שחיטה וחולה בשעת זריקה אין שוחטין וזורקין עליו עד שיהא חלים משעת שחיטה עד שעת זריקה כמאן נימא רבנן היא ולא רבי נתן אפילו תימא רבי נתן גברא דחזי לאכילה בעינן

But on R'Nathan's view, what is the purpose of 'according to every man's eating? ' - [To teach] that we require men who are fit to eat [to register for it]. Who is the author of the following which our Rabbis taught: If he slaughtered it for those who can eat of it but sprinkled its blood for those who cannot eat of it, the paschal-offering itself is fit,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is assumed to mean that it is fit for the sprinkling of its blood and the burning of the fat, but not for eating.');">¹⁷</span>

מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן שחטו בטהרה ואחר כך נטמאו הבעלים יזרק הדם בטהרה ואל יאכל בשר בטומאה כמאן

and a man discharges his duty therewith? With whom [does this agree]?

אמר רבי (אליעזר) במחלוקת שנויה ורבי נתן היא ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו תימא רבנן היא הכא במאי עסקינן בציבור דאפילו בטומאה נמי עבדי

Shall we say [that] it is [according to] R'Nathan, but not the Rabbis? - You may even say [that it agrees with] the Rabbis: There is no intention of eaters at the sprinkling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra, 61b.');">¹⁸</span> Who is the author of the following which our Rabbis taught: If he was ill at the time of the slaughtering but well at the time of sprinkling, [or] well at the time of slaughtering but ill at the time of sprinkling, one may not slaughter and sprinkle on his behalf, unless he is well from the time of the slaughtering until the time of the sprinkling?

אי בציבור אמאי אין הבשר נאכל בטומאה גזירה שמא יטמאו הבעלים לאחר זריקה ויאמרו אשתקד לא נטמאנו ואכלנו השתא נמי ניכול ולא ידעי דאשתקד כי איזדריק דם בעלים טמאים הוו השתא בעלים טהורין הוו

With whom [does this agree]? Shall we say [that] it is [according to] the Rabbis but not R'Nathan? - You may even say [that it agrees with] R'Nathan: we require a man who is capable of eating [to be registered for it]. Who is the author of the following which our Rabbis taught: If he slaughtered it in cleanness and then its owners became unclean, he must sprinkle the blood in cleanness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by ritually clean priests and with clean service vessels.');">¹⁹</span> but the flesh must not be eaten in uncleanness? With whom [does this agree]? - Said R'Eleazar: This was taught as a controversy, and it is [the view of] R'Nathan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintains that the eating is not indispensable. R. Eleazar holds that he does not require those registered for it even to be fit to eat. Consequently he explains the previous Baraitha as the view of the Rabbis only');">²⁰</span> But R'Johanan said: You may even say [that] it is [the view of] the Rabbis: we treat here of the community,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the whole or the majority of the community became unclean between the killing and the sprinkling, e.g., if the nasi died just then.');">²¹</span> who may even sacrifice in [a state of] uncleanness. If it refers to the community, why may the flesh not be eaten in uncleanness? - As a preventive measure, lest the owners<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the community, cf. n. 1.');">²²</span> become unclean [in a subsequent year] after the sprinkling and they argue: Were we not unclean last year, and yet we ate; then now too we will eat! But they will not know that in the previous year the owners were unclean when the blood was sprinkled,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it was a Passover-offering sacrificed in uncleanness, which is eaten in uncleanness too.');">²³</span> whereas this year the owners were clean [when the blood was sprinkled].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the sacrifice came in a state of cleanness, and may therefore not be eaten now that the owners are unclean.');">²⁴</span>