Pesachim 78b

הָא אָמְרַתְּ, בְּצִיבּוּר אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מוֹדֶה.

Didn’t you say that with regard to an offering involving the public, even Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that ritual impurity is permitted?

אֶלָּא: רוֹאֶה אֲנִי דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּדִיעֲבַד, וְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְכַתְּחִלָּה. דִּיעֲבַד — אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ נָמֵי מוֹדֶה הוּא, דְּקָתָנֵי: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁאִם זָרַק — הוּרְצָה!

Rather, Rabbi Yosei’s statement should be understood differently. When he said: I see as correct the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, he was referring to after the fact. When he said: I see as correct the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, he meant ab initio . The Gemara asks: After the fact Rabbi Yehoshua also concedes, as it teaches: Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that if one sprinkled the blood, it was accepted and the offering is valid.

הָא בְּטוּמְאָה, הָא בְּאָבוּד וְשָׂרוּף. כִּי קָתָנֵי: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁאִם זָרַק הוּרְצָה — בְּנִטְמָא, אֲבָל בְּאָבוּד וְשָׂרוּף לָא. כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּדִיעֲבַד — בְּאָבוּד וְשָׂרוּף.

The Gemara responds: This case is with regard to ritual impurity, and that case is with regard to an offering that was lost or burned. The Gemara explains: When it teaches that Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that if one sprinkled the blood it is accepted, that is with regard to a case in which the meat of the offering became impure; but with regard to a case where the meat of the offering was lost or burned, he does not agree, even after the fact. When Rabbi Yosei said: I see as correct the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer after the fact, that was with regard to cases in which the meat was lost or burned, with regard to which Rabbi Yehoshua did not concede to Rabbi Eliezer.

מַתְנִי׳ נִטְמָא בָּשָׂר וְחֵלֶב קַיָּים — אֵינוֹ זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם. נִטְמָא הַחֵלֶב וְהַבָּשָׂר קַיָּים — זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם. וּבַמּוּקְדָּשִׁים אֵינוֹ כֵּן, אֶלָּא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּטְמָא הַבָּשָׂר וְהַחֵלֶב קַיָּים — זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם.

MISHNA: If the meat of the Paschal lamb became ritually impure, and the fat remains pure and may be burned on the altar, one may not sprinkle the blood. On the other hand, if the fat became impure and the meat remains pure, one may sprinkle the blood because the meat remains fit to be eaten. This is the halakha with regard to a Paschal lamb, whose primary purpose is to be eaten by those who have registered for it. However, with regard to other offerings it is not so. Rather, although the meat has become impure and the fat remains pure, one may sprinkle the blood, because part of the offering still remains valid.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: אִם זָרַק — הוּרְצָה. וְהָא בָּעֵינַן אֲכִילָה! אֲכִילָה לָא מְעַכְּבָא.

GEMARA: Rav Giddel said that Rav said: If one sprinkled the blood despite the fact that the meat was ritually impure, it was nonetheless accepted; one is not obligated to observe the second Pesaḥ . The Gemara asks: Don’t we require that the Paschal lamb be eaten, which could not occur in this case? The Gemara answers: Failure to engage in eating the offering does not preclude it from being accepted.

וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״אִישׁ לְפִי אׇכְלוֹ״?! לְמִצְוָה.

The Gemara asks: Isn’t it written: “And if the household be too little for a lamb, then he and his neighbor who is close to his house shall take one according to the number of the souls; according to every man’s eating you shall make your count for the lamb” (Exodus 12:4)? This indicates that the Torah requires one to eat the Paschal lamb. The Gemara responds: This verse is stated as a mitzva only. It should be fulfilled, but it does not preclude acceptance of the offering.

וּלְעַכֵּב לָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״בְּמִכְסַת״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין הַפֶּסַח נִשְׁחָט אֶלָּא לִמְנוּיָו. יָכוֹל שְׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִמְנוּיָו יְהֵא כְּעוֹבֵר עַל הַמִּצְוָה וְכָשֵׁר — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִישׁ לְפִי אׇכְלוֹ תָּכֹסּוּ״, הַכָּתוּב שָׁנָה עָלָיו לְעַכֵּב.

The Gemara asks: And was it not stated to preclude acceptance of the offering if it cannot be eaten? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita : “According to the number of the souls”; this teaches that the Paschal lamb is slaughtered only for those who have registered for it and have thereby included themselves in advance in the number of the souls? I might have thought that if one slaughtered it for those who have not registered for it, he is merely like one who violates a mitzva, but the offering is still valid after the fact. Therefore, the verse states: “According to every man’s eating you shall make your count”; the verse repeated that the Paschal lamb is eaten only by those registered in order to underscore that failure to register precludes the offering from being valid.

וְאִיתַּקַּשׁ אוֹכְלִין לִמְנוּיִין.

And those who are able to eat the offering, as opposed to the sick or elderly who are unable to eat it, are juxtaposed in the verse to those who registered. Therefore, just as a Paschal lamb is disqualified if it is slaughtered for those who did not register for it, it is disqualified if it cannot be eaten. This poses a difficulty for the opinion of Rav.

אֶלָּא רַב דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי נָתָן, דְּאָמַר: אֲכִילַת פְּסָחִים לָא מְעַכְּבָא.

The Gemara answers: Rather, Rav said his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who said that failure to engage in eating the Paschal lamb does not preclude one from fulfilling one’s obligation to bring the offering, as the eating is a separate mitzva.

הֵי רַבִּי נָתָן? אִילֵּימָא הָא רַבִּי נָתָן דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁכׇּל יִשְׂרָאֵל יוֹצְאִין בְּפֶסַח אֶחָד — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְשָׁחֲטוּ אֹתוֹ כֹּל קְהַל עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם״, וְכִי כָּל הַקָּהָל שׁוֹחֲטִין? וַהֲלֹא אֵין שׁוֹחֵט אֶלָּא אֶחָד! אֶלָּא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכׇּל יִשְׂרָאֵל יוֹצְאִין בְּפֶסַח אֶחָד.

The Gemara asks: Which statement of Rabbi Natan is this referring to? If we say it is this statement of Rabbi Natan, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that all Jews may fulfill their obligation after the fact with one Paschal lamb? The verse states: “And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it in the afternoon” (Exodus 12:6). He asked: And does the entire assembly slaughter it? Is it a mitzva for each individual to slaughter his own Paschal lamb? Is it not true that only one person slaughters for the entire group? Rather, this formulation of the verse teaches that all Jews may fulfill their obligation with one Paschal lamb. It is considered as though they all slaughtered it and fulfilled their obligation, although they cannot all eat an olive-bulk of the offering.

דִּילְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאִי מִמַּשְׁכִי הָנֵי חֲזֵי לְהָנֵי, וְאִי מִמַּשְׁכִי הָנֵי חֲזֵי לְהָנֵי!

The Gemara responds that this is not comparable to the case at hand: Perhaps it is different there, as, if these withdraw from the offering, it is fit for those, and if those withdraw it is fit for these. Although it is impossible for all Jews to partake of the same offering, the offering is fit for each individual, who could eat an olive-bulk of it if enough other people would withdraw.

אֶלָּא, הָא רַבִּי נָתָן דְּתַנְיָא: נִמְנוּ עָלָיו חֲבוּרָה אַחַת, וְחָזְרוּ וְנִמְנוּ עָלָיו חֲבוּרָה אַחֶרֶת, רִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן כְּזַיִת, אוֹכְלִין — וּפְטוּרִין מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי, אַחֲרוֹנִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם כַּזַּיִת, אֵין אוֹכְלִין — וְחַיָּיבִין לַעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי.

Rather, it is this statement of Rabbi Natan, as it was taught in a baraita : If one group registered for a Paschal lamb and then another group registered for it, and there was not enough meat to allow each person to eat an olive-bulk, the first ones, who have an olive-bulk of the Paschal lamb for each person, eat and are exempt from performing the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ ; the latter ones, who do not have an olive-bulk available from the Paschal lamb for each person, do not eat and are obligated to perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ .

רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי, שֶׁכְּבָר נִזְרַק הַדָּם.

Rabbi Natan says: Both these and those are exempt from performing the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ , as the blood has already been sprinkled. Therefore, they have all fulfilled their obligation. This indicates that, according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan, eating is not essential.

אַכַּתִּי: דִּילְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאִי מִמַּשְׁכִי הָנֵי חֲזֵי לְהוּ. אִם כֵּן, לִיתְנֵי: הוֹאִיל וּרְאוּיִים לִימָּשֵׁךְ, מַאי ״שֶׁכְּבָר נִזְרַק הַדָּם״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בְּדָם תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא, אֲבָל אֲכִילָה לָא מְעַכְּבָא.

The Gemara responds that one can still ask: Perhaps it is different there, as, if these members of the first group withdraw, it is fit for the members of the second group. The Gemara rejects the question: If so, let it teach that the second group is exempt from the second Pesaḥ since the members of the first group are fit to withdraw. What is the reason for the statement of the baraita that the blood has already been sprinkled? Learn from this that the matter depends on the blood, but failure to engage in eating the Paschal lamb does not preclude one from fulfilling his obligation.

מַאי דּוּחְקֵיהּ דְּרַב דְּמוֹקֵים לַהּ מַתְנִיתִין לְכַתְּחִלָּה, וְרַבִּי נָתָן? נוֹקְמַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן, וַאֲפִילּוּ דִּיעֲבַד נָמֵי לָא! רַב מַתְנִיתִין קְשִׁיתֵיהּ: אַמַּאי (תָּנֵי) ״אֵין זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם״? לִיתְנֵי ״פָּסוּל״. אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: ״אֵין זוֹרֵק״ — לְכַתְּחִלָּה, אֲבָל דִּיעֲבַד שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.

The Gemara asks: What compelled Rav to establish the mishna as teaching that the blood may not be sprinkled on the altar ab initio , in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan? Let us establish the mishna in accordance with the view of the Rabbis and say that even after the fact, no, one does not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara answers: Rav had difficulty with the mishna: Why does it teach that one may not sprinkle the blood? It should teach that the offering is disqualified. Rather, learn from this use of language that one may not sprinkle the blood on the altar ab initio , but after the fact it seems well.

וּלְרַבִּי נָתָן, ״אִישׁ לְפִי אׇכְלוֹ״ לְמָה לִי? דְּבָעֵינַן גַּבְרָא דַּחֲזֵי לַאֲכִילָה.

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan, why do I need the phrase “according to every man’s eating,” if it does not teach that the eating is essential? The Gemara answers: It is necessary, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan, to teach that we require a person who is fit for eating. Although it is possible to fulfill one’s obligation without actually eating the Paschal lamb, if one is physically unable to eat some of it, e.g., one who is sick or elderly, he does not fulfill his obligation.

מַאן תְּנָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: שָׁחֲטוּ לְאוֹכְלָיו וְזָרְקוּ דָּמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לְאוֹכְלָיו — הַפֶּסַח עַצְמוֹ כָּשֵׁר, וְאָדָם יוֹצֵא בּוֹ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ. כְּמַאן? נֵימָא רַבִּי נָתָן הִיא, וְלָא רַבָּנַן?

The Gemara raises a discussion based on the views cited above. Who is the tanna that taught this baraita ? As the Sages taught: If one slaughtered it for individuals who are able to eat it and sprinkled its blood for individuals who cannot eat it, the Paschal lamb itself is valid, and one fulfills his obligation with it. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita ? Let us say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who holds that eating is not essential, and not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis?

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, אֵין מַחְשְׁבֶת אוֹכְלִין בִּזְרִיקָה.

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: The baraita can be understood even if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Everyone agrees that improper intent pertaining to those who will eat the offering disqualifies the offering only if it occurs during the slaughter; it does not disqualify the offering if it occurs during the sprinkling of the blood.

מַאן תְּנָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה חוֹלֶה בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה וְחָלִים בִּשְׁעַת זְרִיקָה, חָלִים בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה וְחוֹלֶה בִּשְׁעַת זְרִיקָה. אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עָלָיו, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא חָלִים מִשְּׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה עַד שְׁעַת זְרִיקָה. כְּמַאן? נֵימָא רַבָּנַן הִיא, וְלָא רַבִּי נָתָן? אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי נָתָן, גַּבְרָא דַּחֲזֵי לַאֲכִילָה בָּעֵינַן.

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna that taught this baraita ? As the Sages taught: With regard to one who was sick and not able to eat meat at the time of the slaughter and was healthy at the time of the sprinkling of the blood, or one who was healthy at the time of the slaughter and sick at the time of the sprinkling of the blood, one may not slaughter or sprinkle blood for him until he is healthy from the time of slaughter until the time of the sprinkling of the blood. In accordance with whose opinion is this? Let us say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that eating the Paschal lamb is essential, and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: The baraita can be understood even if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, because even Rabbi Natan holds that we require a person who is fit for eating.

מַאן תְּנָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁחָטוֹ בְּטׇהֳרָה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִטְמְאוּ הַבְּעָלִים — יִזָּרֵק הַדָּם בְּטׇהֳרָה, וְאַל יֵאָכֵל בָּשָׂר בְּטוּמְאָה. כְּמַאן?

The Gemara records a further discussion: Who is the tanna that taught this baraita ? As the Sages taught: If one slaughtered the Paschal lamb in ritual purity, and after that the owners became ritually impure, the blood should be sprinkled in purity and the meat should not be eaten in impurity. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita ?

אָמַר רַבִּי (אֱלִיעֶזֶר): בְּמַחְלוֹקֶת שְׁנוּיָה, וְרַבִּי נָתָן הִיא. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן הִיא. הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בְּצִיבּוּר, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּטוּמְאָה נָמֵי עָבְדִי.

Rabbi Eliezer said: This halakha is subject to dispute, and it is taught in this baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who holds that eating is not essential, and not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The baraita can be understood even if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. With what are we dealing here? With a situation in which the majority of the public is ritually impure, in which case everyone agrees that they perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb even in a state of impurity.

אִי בְּצִיבּוּר, אַמַּאי אֵין הַבָּשָׂר נֶאֱכָל בְּטוּמְאָה? גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִטָּמְאוּ הַבְּעָלִים לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה, וְיֹאמְרוּ: אֶשְׁתָּקַד לֹא נִטְמֵאנוּ וְאָכַלְנוּ? הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי נֵיכוֹל. וְלָא יָדְעִי דְּאֶשְׁתָּקַד כִּי אִיזְדְּרִיק דָּם, בְּעָלִים טְמֵאִים הֲווֹ, הַשְׁתָּא בְּעָלִים טְהוֹרִין הָווּ.

The Gemara asks: If it is in a case involving the public, why is the meat not eaten in a state of impurity? When the majority of the public is impure, they may sacrifice and even consume the Paschal lamb. The Gemara answers that this prohibition is due to a rabbinic decree lest the owners become impure after the sprinkling of the blood, and they will say: Last year, didn’t we become impure, and nevertheless we ate the Paschal lamb? Now too, we will eat. And they will not know that last year, when the blood was sprinkled the owners were already impure, and therefore the offering could be consumed in a state of impurity. Now, the owners were pure when the blood was sprinkled and became impure only afterward, and a Paschal lamb sacrificed in a state of purity cannot be eaten in a state of impurity, even if everyone is impure.