Pesachim 69b (סט:) — the Talmud in English

b.

And

Rabbi Eliezer likewise holds that

every

impurity

that, had it been

in

a

person

alone,

he would have been

deferred

to the Second Pesaḥ—if this impurity had been

in the community—

the community’s servants

the Pesaḥ

in a state of impurity, and they need not purify themselves.

and they do not need to purify themselves.

That is, since according to his view one who is impure due to a creeping animal or one who is impure due to contact with the dead on the seventh day, on the eve of Pesaḥ, is deferred to the Second Pesaḥ, therefore, if the majority of the community were impure through contact with the dead on the seventh day, they are not obligated to purify themselves; rather, they perform the Pesaḥ in impurity, in accordance with the principle that any impurity on account of which an individual is deferred to the Second Pesaḥ does not defer the community; rather, they perform the Pesaḥ in impurity [and they have no obligation to purify themselves!].

c.

And

Rabbi Eliezer likewise holds that

every matter

of mitzva

that exists in the community,

incumbent upon the community,

exists in the individual—

the individual is obligated in it.

And every matter that does not exist in the community—

does not exist in the individual;

the individual is not obligated to perform it.

In light of this, the Gemara explains:

Uncircumcision: for if the entire community were uncircumcised—

we say to them: Arise, circumcise yourselves and perform the Pesaḥ—

since you are obligated to circumcise yourselves, as it is not permitted for a community of uncircumcised men to perform the Pesaḥ; therefore,

an individual

who is uncircumcised

is likewise told: Arise and circumcise

yourself

and perform the Pesaḥ!

And if he does not circumcise himself and performs it—

he is liable to karet

for failing to perform the Pesaḥ offering, since he was obligated to circumcise himself and thereby become fit to perform it.

But

impurity: for if the entire community were impure, we do not sprinkle upon them;

they are not obligated to be sprinkled

upon them; rather, they perform

the Pesaḥ

in impurity—

an individual

who is impure

likewise

is not obligated to purify himself, and if he remains in his state of impurity, he is

exempt

from liability for failing to perform the Pesaḥ, and is deferred to the Second Pesaḥ.

He said—

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua challenged Rava:

But what of the Second Pesaḥ, which does not exist in the community,

and nevertheless

exists in the individual!

This proves that the principle stated by Rabbi Eliezer—that anything that does not exist in the community does not exist in the individual—is not correct!

He said to him: There it is different,

for the mitzva of the Pesaḥ offering exists in the community,

as the community performed it on the first occasion.

However, where the community is not obligated on the first occasion—for example, if the community were impure with the impurity of a zav, which is not permitted for the community, while a minority were impure through contact with the dead and therefore did not perform the first Pesaḥ—they perform neither the first nor the second, because a matter that does not exist in the community does not exist in the individual.

Meitivi

from the beraita in which we learned in accordance with the words of Rabbi Eliezer:

Perhaps one is not liable to karet

for failing to perform the Pesaḥ

unless

he

was pure and was not on a distant journey.

An uncircumcised man

who could have circumcised himself,

and one impure due to a creeping animal

who could have immersed and purified himself,

and all other impure people

of the same category as one impure due to a creeping animal, who can purify themselves on the eve of Pesaḥ—

from where

do we know that they too are liable to karet?

The verse states [Numbers 9]:

“And the man”,

to teach that any man who could have made himself fit, but did not do so, is liable to karet, and not only one who was pure and was not on a distant journey.

The Gemara infers from the wording of the beraita:

From the fact that he seeks

to find an extra word, “the man,” in order to make him liable to karet,

with regard to one impure due to a creeping animal—

it is evident that

he holds

that the tanna

holds that one may not slaughter or sprinkle the blood on behalf of one impure due to a creeping animal.

For if

the tanna held that

one may slaughter and sprinkle the blood on behalf of one impure due to a creeping animal—

why does he need to seek it

to search for an extra word in order to make him liable?

For even without an extra word in the verse, he should be liable to karet, since he can perform the Pesaḥ offering by sending the offering to the Temple courtyard, as one may slaughter and sprinkle the blood on behalf of one impure due to a creeping animal—and

that is,

his law is the same as that of

a pure person

who did not perform the Pesaḥ!

Rather, it must be that the tanna holds that one may not slaughter and sprinkle the blood on behalf of one impure due to a creeping animal, and therefore he cites a special verse to make him liable to karet.

Evidently,

it may be proved from the fact that he makes him liable to karet even though, as long as he has not purified himself, one may not slaughter or sprinkle the blood on his behalf:

a. That

although he is not fit,

he is not fit to perform the offering—

the obligation rests upon him.

b.

And although he does not exist in the community,

as they can perform the Pesaḥ in impurity [since an individual is deferred to the Second Pesaḥ—

he exists in the individual.]]

Rather, Rava said: Rabbi Eliezer holds that one may slaughter and sprinkle the blood on behalf of one impure due to a creeping animal, and the same is true of one impure through contact with the dead on his seventh day.

Therefore, if he did not send an agent to offer the Pesaḥ offering on his behalf, he is liable to karet.

However, had one not been permitted to slaughter and sprinkle the blood on their behalf because of the delay in the sprinkling, Rabbi Eliezer would have permitted sprinkling upon them and required them to purify themselves, even though the community is not obligated to purify itself, but may perform the Pesaḥ in impurity.

The reason Rabbi Eliezer prohibited sprinkling on Shabbat is that there is no need for sprinkling in order to fulfill the obligation of the Pesaḥ offering.

For

sprinkling—

for what

is it needed?

For eating

the Pesaḥ offering alone!

For according to the way we established Rabbi Eliezer’s statement, he holds that one may slaughter and sprinkle the blood on behalf of one impure through contact with the dead on his seventh day, and it follows that one fulfills the obligation of offering the Pesaḥ even without sprinkling.

And

eating the Pesaḥ offerings does not prevent

the fulfillment of the mitzva of offering the Pesaḥ; it is merely the mitzva of eating the Pesaḥ, and if one does not eat the meat, he is not liable to karet. Therefore, sprinkling does not override Shabbat.

Rav Adda bar Abba said to Rava: If so,

if one slaughters the Pesaḥ for impure people who are not going to be sprinkled upon and purify themselves,

it follows that the Pesaḥ is slaughtered not for those who will eat it,

and yet we learned that it is invalid!

He said to him:

The disqualification of “one who slaughters not for those who will eat it” applies when he slaughters

not for those who will eat it, such as a sick person or an elderly person, who are not fit

to eat it.

But this one—

one impure upon whom we do not sprinkle—

is fit.

It is only that

he does not rectify

himself through sprinkling.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Akiva stated a principle:

every labor that can be performed before Shabbat does not override Shabbat.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva.

And we likewise learned with regard to

the mitzva of

circumcision, in a similar manner:

Rabbi Akiva stated a principle: Every labor that can be performed

for the sake of circumcision, such as bringing the scalpel through the public domain,

before Shabbat—

does not override Shabbat.

Only the

circumcision

itself,

which cannot be performed before Shabbat—

overrides Shabbat.

And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva.

It is necessary

for Rav Yehuda, in the name of Rav, to teach us that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva in both places.

If he had taught us this with regard to the Pesaḥ—

there

it is

that the preparations for a mitzva do not override Shabbat, because thirteen covenants were not established concerning it.

But with regard to circumcision, concerning which thirteen covenants were established—

I might say that it should override Shabbat.

And if he had taught us this with regard to circumcision—

there it is that the preparations for a mitzva do not override Shabbat

because

there is no karet

if one postpones the circumcision until the next day.

But with regard to the Pesaḥ, where there is karet

if one postpones it, since he can no longer fulfill it—

I might say that it should override

the preparations for the mitzva should override Shabbat.

Therefore

it is necessary

to state that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva in both cases.

Mishna: "

The Festival offering of the fourteenth" is the offering that was brought together with the Pesaḥ offering in order to make the eating of the meat of the Pesaḥ offering a significant meal.

Eating that a person does while hungry is not a significant eating, since he eats the meal in order to relieve his hunger.

Significant eating is eating that a person does after he is no longer hungry, and it is the eating through which he becomes satiated.

Therefore, they brought the Festival offering, in order to eat it first and relieve their hunger through eating it, so that afterward they could eat the meat of the Pesaḥ with satiety.

There is an obligation to bring it only when it is needed for this purpose; therefore, it does not override either Shabbat or impurity.

Therefore:

When does one bring the Festival offering with it,

with the Pesaḥ offering? Only

when it comes:

On a weekday,

and not on Shabbat, because the Festival offering does not override Shabbat.

In purity,

when the majority of the community was not impure. But if the majority of the community became impure, in which case they bring the Pesaḥ in impurity, they do not bring a Festival offering with it, since it is not brought in impurity even by the community.

And when the group is small,

when the meat of the Pesaḥ itself is insufficient for them to eat enough to become satiated, because many people were registered for it.

And

if

when it

the Pesaḥ offering

comes on Shabbat,

or comes

when the group is large,

when few people were registered and each one had enough meat from the Pesaḥ offering to become satiated,

and

when it comes

in impurity—

they do not bring a Festival offering with it.

The Mishna now explains that although the Festival offering of the fourteenth is brought for the purpose of making the eating of the Pesaḥ significant, its law is not the same as that of the Pesaḥ offering.

Rather, whereas the Pesaḥ offering comes only from sheep or goats, and only from males, and may be eaten only on the night of Pesaḥ—

the Festival offering

brought with it

could come

either

from the flock

or

from cattle, either

from

sheep or

from

goats.

Whether

from males or

whether

from females.

And it may be eaten for two days and one night.

Gemara:

We raised a difficulty: Why

what did the tanna teach,

what did the tanna teach above with regard to the matter of the Festival offering, such that

he teaches

in our Mishna, “When does one bring

the Festival offering?”

And we answer: Our Mishna is a continuation of the matter explained in the preceding Mishna.

For

the tanna taught

in the preceding Mishna the law of preparations for a mitzva, such as

carrying it

the Pesaḥ offering on a person’s shoulders,

and bringing it

the Pesaḥ offering from outside the Shabbat boundary,

which do not override Shabbat,

because they can be performed before Shabbat.

And

therefore, as a continuation of the matters connected with fulfilling the mitzva of the Pesaḥ offering that do not override Shabbat, even though the Pesaḥ offering itself overrides Shabbat,

he also teaches

in our Mishna the law of

the Festival offering

brought with the Pesaḥ,

for

even its slaughter

does not override Shabbat.

And this is what he is saying: When does one bring it with it,

with the Pesaḥ offering,

a Festival offering—

when it comes on a weekday, in purity, and when the group is small.

Rav Ashi said: Learn from this

from our Mishna that

the Festival offering of the fourteenth

brought in Nisan together with the Pesaḥ—