Zevachim 45

לפי אכלו למצוה

eating?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 4. This implies that he must be fit to partake thereof.');">¹</span> - That [too] is [only] a recommendation.

ולעכובי לא והתניא (שמות יב, ד) במכסת נפשות מלמד שאין הפסח נשחט אלא למנוייו שחטו שלא למנוייו יכול יהא כעובר על המצוה תלמוד לומר תכוסו הכתוב שנה עליו לעכב ואיתקש אוכלין למנויין

Yet is it not indispensable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the sense that the sacrifice offered in contravention of this law does not count at all, and the man must bring the second Passover.');">²</span> Surely it was taught: [Then shall he and his neighbor next unto him take one] according to the number of [be-miksath] the souls:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 4.');">³</span>

זקני דרום לא מקשי וכי לא מקשי נמי מהא נמי אית להו פירכא ומה במקום שנטמאו בעלים בשרץ שמשלחין קרבנותיהם לכתחילה כהן שנטמא בשרץ אינו מרצה מקום שנטמאו בעלים במת שאין משלחין קרבנותיהן לכתחילה כהן שנטמא במת אינו דין שאינו מרצה

this teaches that the Paschal lamb is not slaughtered save for those who are registered [numbered] for it. You might think that if he slaughtered it for those who were not registered for it, he should be as one who violates the precept, yet it is fit.

מיתיבי מפני שאמרו נזיר ועושה פסח הציץ מרצה על טומאת דם ואין הציץ מרצה על טומאת הגוף

Therefore it is stated, Ye shall make your count [takosu]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 4.');">³</span> it is reiterated 't teach that it is indispensable; and eaters are assimilated to registered [persons]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as the sacrifice is unfit if slaughtered for those who are not registered for it, so is it unfit if slaughtered on behalf of men who cannot partake of it, for the eaters are coupled with the registered persons in the same verse.');">⁴</span>

במאי אילימא בטומאת שרץ האמרת שוחטין וזורקין על טומאת שרץ אלא טומאת מת וקתני אין הציץ מרצה אלמא נטמאו בעלים במת אין משלחין קרבנותיהם

- The Elders of the south do not assimilate [them].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since only 'number' is repeated, but not 'eating'.');">⁵</span> Yet even if they do not assimilate [them], there is still the same refutation: If a priest who was defiled by a reptile cannot propitiate, though if the owners were defiled by a reptile they can send their sacrifices at the very outset; is it not logical that a priest who was defiled through a corpse shoul not be able to propitiate, seeing that if the owners were defiled through a corpse they cannot send their sacrifices at the very outset?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the Elders of the south merely maintain that if they sent their sacrifices and had them slaughtered, they do not bring a second Passover. But they must of course admit that they must not send them in the first place. - The objection remains unanswered.');">⁶</span>

לא אי דאיטמו בעלים במת ה"נ הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שנטמא כהן בשרץ

An objection is raised: [If the blood of a Passover-offering is sprinkled, and then it became known that it was unclean, the headplate propitiates; if the person became unclean, the headplate does not propitiate;] because they [the Sages] ruled: [In the case of] a nazirite one who sacrifices the Passover-offering, the headplate propitiates for the uncleanness of the blood, but the headplate does not propitiate for the uncleanness of the person. With what [was the person defiled]?

אי הכי אימא סיפא ניטמא טומאת התהום הציץ מרצה הא תני רבי חייא לא אמרו טומאת התהום אלא למת בלבד למת למעוטי מאי לאו למעוטי טומאת התהום דשרץ

Shall we say, With the uncleanness of a reptile? surely you maintain [that] you may slaughter [the Passover-offering] and sprinkle [its blood] on behalf of one who is unclean through a reptile! Hence it must refer to defilement by a corpse, yet it teaches, 'The headplate does not propitiate', which proves that if the owners were defiled, they cannot send their sacrifices!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the sense that even if they do, they must still bring the second Passover.');">⁷</span>

לא למעוטי טומאת התהום דזיבה

- No: if the owners were defiled through a corpse, that would indeed be so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The headplate would propitiate.');">⁸</span> But the meaning here is that the priest was defiled by a reptile.

ואלא הא דבעי רמי בר חמא כהן המרצה בקרבנותיהם הותרה לו טומא' התהום או לא הותרה לו טומאת התהום תפשוט דטומאת התהום הותרה לו דהא הכא בכהן קיימינא

If so, consider the last clause: If he was defiled with the 'uncleanness of the deep',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a technical term denoting the hidden uncleanness of a corpse which is now discovered for the first time. E.g., if he was in a house and it is subsequently learned that a corpse had been there; v. Pesahim 80b.');">⁹</span> the headplate propitiates.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he is not liable to a second offering. This is a traditional law.');">¹⁰</span>

דרמי בר חמא ודאי פליגי

But surely R'Hiyya taught: They [the Sages] spoke of the 'uncleanness of the deep' in respect of a corpse alone. What does this exclude?

תא שמע (שמות כח, לח) ונשא אהרן את עון הקדשי' וכי איזהו עון נושא

Surely it excludes the 'uncleanness of the deep' caused by a reptile? - No: it excludes the 'uncleanness of the deep' of gonorrhoea.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A zab (gonorrhoeist) is unclean seven days, and the Passover-offering may not be offered on his behalf. Now, if the eve of Passover marks the seventh day of his uncleanness, he is in a state of doubt: if he does not discharge on that day, he will be clean in the evening; if he does discharge, he becomes unclean for a further seven days. Thus he too is unclean with the 'uncleanness of the deep', and R. Hiyya teaches that the headplate does not propitiate in his case.');">¹¹</span> Again, as to what Rami B'Hama asked: As to the priest who propitiates with their sacrifices, is the 'uncleanness of the deep permitted to him, or is the 'uncleanness of the deep' not permitted to him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the priest who offers the Passover sacrifice or the sacrifices of a nazirite on behalf of their owners was defiled with the 'uncleanness of the deep', does the headplate propitiate, so that the sacrifices are valid, or not?');">¹²</span> You may solve that the 'uncleanness of the deep' is permitted to him, for here we are treating of the priest?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the interpretation of the Elders of the south.');">¹³</span> - Rami B'Hama certainly disagrees [with the Elders of the south].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He must interpret the Mishnah as referring to the uncleanness of the owners.');">¹⁴</span> Come and hear:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a refutation of Rami b. Hama.');">¹⁵</span> And Aaron shall bear the iniquity of the holy things:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXVIII, 38. 'Shall bear' means shall make atonement for, i.e., shall make a sacrifice valid in spite of certain irregularities.');">¹⁶</span> now, what iniquity does he bear?