Pesachim 69b — the Talmud in English

b.

And

Rabbi Eliezer likewise holds that

every

impurity

which, had it

been

in a

person

individual,

he would have been

deferred

to the Second Passover—if this impurity were

in the public—

the public performs

the Passover offering

in impurity,

and they do not need to purify themselves.

That is, since in his view one impure through a creeping creature or one impure through a corpse on the seventh day, on the eve of Passover, is deferred to the Second Passover, therefore a public whose majority were impure through a corpse on the seventh day are not obligated to purify themselves; rather, they perform the Passover offering in impurity, according to the rule that for every impurity on account of which an individual is deferred to the Second Passover, the public is not deferred, but performs the Passover offering in impurity [and has no obligation to purify itself]]!

c.

And

Rabbi Eliezer likewise holds that

every matter

of a mitzva

that exists with regard to the public,

which is incumbent upon the public—

exists with regard to the individual,

the individual is obligated in it.

And every matter that does not exist with regard to the public—

does not exist with regard to the individual,

the individual is not obligated to perform it.

And in light of this the Gemara explains:

Uncircumcision: for if the entire public are uncircumcised—

we say to them: Arise, circumcise yourselves, and perform the Passover offering,

for you are obligated to circumcise yourselves, since it was not permitted for an uncircumcised public to perform the Passover offering; therefore

an individual

uncircumcised

we likewise say to him: Arise, circumcise

yourself

and perform the Passover offering!

And if he does not circumcise himself and perform it—

he is liable to karet,

for not performing the Passover offering, since he was obligated to circumcise himself and become fit to perform it.

But

impurity: for if the entire public are impure, we do not sprinkle upon them,

they are not obligated to have sprinkling performed

upon them; rather, they perform

the Passover offering

in impurity—

an individual

who is impure

likewise

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

is exempt

for not performing the Passover offering, and is deferred to the Second Passover.

He said

he raised an objection

to Rava, Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua: But what of the Second Passover, which does not exist with regard to the public,

and nevertheless

exists with regard to the individual!

And it follows that the rule stated by Rabbi Eliezer, that everything which does not exist with regard to the public does not exist with regard to the individual, is not correct!

He said to him: It is different there,

for the mitzva of the Passover offering does exist with regard to the public,

as the public performed it on the first [Passover].

But in a place where the public is not obligated on the first [Passover], such as if the public were impure with the impurity of a zav, which was not permitted with regard to the public, and there was a minority of those impure through a corpse who did not perform the first Passover offering, they perform neither the first nor the second, because a matter that does not exist with regard to the public does not exist with regard to the individual.

They raised an objection

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

Could it be that he is not liable to karet

for not performing the Passover offering

except

one

who was pure and was not on a distant road.

An uncircumcised person

who could circumcise himself,

and one impure through a creeping creature

who could immerse and purify himself,

and all the other impure persons

of the type of one impure through a creeping creature, who can purify themselves on the eve of Passover—

from where

is it derived that they too are liable to karet?

The verse states [במדבר ט]

“and the man,”

to teach that every man who could make himself fit, but did not do so, is liable to karet, and not only one who was pure and one who was not on a distant road.

And the Gemara infers from the wording of the beraita:

From the fact that he searches,

from the fact that the tan­nai seeks to find an extra word, “the man,” in order to make him liable to karet,

with regard to one impure through a creeping creature—

it is evident that

he holds,

that the tan­nai

holds: one does not slaughter and toss the blood on behalf of one impure through a creeping creature.

For if

the tan­nai held that

one does slaughter and toss the blood on behalf of one impure through a creeping creature—

why does he need to search concerning him

to seek an extra word in order to make him liable?

For even without the extra word in the verse, he should be made liable to karet, since he can perform the Passover offering by sending the offering to the Temple courtyard, as one does slaughter and toss the blood on behalf of one impure through a creeping creature—and

that is,

and his law is like the law of

one who is pure

who did not perform the Passover offering!

Rather, necessarily, the tan­nai held that one does not slaughter and toss the blood on behalf of one impure through a creeping creature, and therefore he brought a special verse in order to make him liable to karet.

It follows,

one can prove from the fact that he is made liable to karet even though, so long as he has not become pure, one does not slaughter and toss the blood on his behalf:

a. That

even though he is not fit

that he is unfit—

the obligation is upon him.

b.

And even though it does not exist with regard to the public,

for they can perform it in impurity [since the individual is deferred to the Second Passover]—

it exists with regard to the individual.

Rather, Rava said: Rabbi Eliezer holds that one does slaughter and toss the blood on behalf of one impure through a creeping creature, and the same is the law for one impure through a corpse on his seventh day.

And therefore, if he did not send an agent to offer the Passover offering on his behalf, he is liable to karet.

But if one did not slaughter and toss the blood on their behalf because of the delay in the sprinkling, Rabbi Eliezer would permit sprinkling upon them and obligate them to purify themselves, even though the public is not obligated to purify itself, but can perform the offering in impurity.

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

For

sprinkling—

for what purpose

is there a need for it?

For eating

the Passover offering alone!

For according to the way we established the words of Rabbi Eliezer, he holds that one slaughters and tosses the blood on behalf of one impure through a corpse on the seventh day, and it follows that one fulfills the obligation of offering the Passover offering even without sprinkling.

And

eating the Passover offerings does not prevent

fulfilling the mitzva of offering the Passover offering; rather, it is only the mitzva of eating the Passover offering, and if he 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,

that one slaughters the Passover offering on behalf of impure persons who are not going to have sprinkling performed and purify themselves—

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

and we learned that it is invalid!

He said to him:

the invalidity of “one who slaughters not for those who will eat it” applies when he slaughters

not for those who will eat it—for a sick person or an old person, who are not fit,

who are incapable of eating it.

But this one,

an impure person upon whom sprinkling is not performed—

is fit with regard to seeing.

And only

he does not correct

himself through sprinkling.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Akiva stated a general principle

that every mitzva which can be performed on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva.

And we likewise learned with regard to

the mitzva of

circumcision in this manner:

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

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

on the eve of Shabbat—

does not override Shabbat.

And only the

circumcision

itself,

which cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat—

overrides Shabbat.

And Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva.

And it is necessary

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

For if he had informed us with regard to the Passover offering—

there it is

that preparations for a mitzva do not override Shabbat—

because thirteen covenants were not established concerning it.

But circumcision, concerning which thirteen covenants were established—

I might say that it should override [Shabbat].

And if he had informed us [only] with regard to circumcision—

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

because

there is no karet

if he postpones the circumcision until tomorrow.

But the Passover offering, for which there is karet

if he postpones it, since he can no longer perform it—

I might say that the preparations for the mitzva should override

the Shabbat.

Therefore

it is necessary

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

Mishna: "

The Festival offering of the fourteenth" is the offering that came with the Passover offering, with the aim of making the eating of the meat of the Passover offering a significant eating.

For eating that a person eats while hungry is not significant eating, since he partakes of it in order to dispel his hunger.

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

And therefore they brought the Festival offering, in order to eat it first and dispel the hunger through eating it, so as to eat after it the meat of the Passover offering to satiation.

And there is an obligation to bring it only if he needs it for the stated purpose, and therefore it overrides neither Shabbat nor impurity.

And therefore:

When does one bring the Festival offering with it,

with the Passover 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 public were not impure. But if the majority of the public became impure, in which case they bring the Passover offering in impurity, they do not bring a Festival offering with it, since it does not come in impurity even with regard to the public.

And with few,

when the meat of the Passover offering itself is insufficient for eating by which they can become satiated, because many eaters were registered for it.

And

if

when it,

the Passover offering,

comes on Shabbat,

or comes

in abundance,

when there were few registered participants and each one had enough meat from the Passover offering to become satiated from it,

and

when it comes

in impurity—

they do not bring a Festival offering with it.

And now the Mishna explains that although the Festival offering of the fourteenth comes for the purpose of the significant eating of the Passover offering, its law is not the same as the law of the Passover offering.

Rather, whereas the Passover offering comes only from sheep or goats, and only from males, and is eaten only on the night of Passover—

the Festival offering

that comes with it—

would come

both

from the flock

and both

from cattle,

both

from sheep

and both

from goats.

Both

from males

and both

from females.

And it is eaten for two days and one night.

Gemara:

And we raised it: Is it so that

what did he teach,

what did the tan­nai teach above concerning the matter of the Festival offering, so that

the tan­nai 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

he taught

in the preceding Mishna the law of preparations, such as

carrying it

the Passover offering on a person’s shoulders,

and bringing it

the Passover offering from outside the boundary,

which does not override Shabbat

because they can be performed on the eve of Shabbat.

And

therefore, as a continuation of the matters connected with fulfilling the mitzva of the Passover offering that do not override Shabbat, although the Passover offering itself overrides Shabbat—

he also teaches

in our Mishna the law of

the Festival offering

that comes with the Passover offering,

that

even its slaughter

does not override Shabbat.

And this is what he says: When do they bring with it,

with the Passover offering,

a Festival offering—

when it comes on a weekday, in purity, and with few.

Rav Ashi said: Learn from it

from our Mishna that

the Festival offering of the fourteenth

of Nisan that comes with the Passover offering—