Pesachim 78b — the Talmud in English

And

you said [at the beginning of the previous page], that

in a community even Rabbi Yehoshua agrees?!

Rather,

Rabbi Yosei was speaking only about an individual, and this is the explanation of Rabbi Yosei’s words:

I see

the

words of Rabbi Eliezer, after the fact,

that if he sprinkled the blood, even though there is no meat, it effects acceptance.

And

I see the

words of Rabbi Yehoshua, ideally.

And we raise a difficulty: how can we explain, “I see the words of Rabbi Eliezer” as referring to after the fact? But

after the fact Rabbi Yehoshua also agrees

that it effects acceptance, and they did not disagree about this; therefore it is not appropriate to say, “I see the words of Rabbi Eliezer”?!

For

it

teaches [in the beraita brought above, at the end of page 77]: If the meat became impure, or was disqualified, or went outside the curtains, Rabbi Eliezer says, “Let him sprinkle,” while Rabbi Yehoshua says, “Let him not sprinkle”; and

And

Rabbi Yehoshua agrees that if he sprinkled, it effected acceptance.

And we answer:

This is in a case of impurity; that is in a case of being lost or burned.

And the Gemara explains:

When it teaches: Rabbi Yehoshua agrees that if he sprinkled, it effected acceptance, it is referring to when the meat became impure

or suffered other disqualifications, since the meat still exists, but was disqualified; for we find Rabbi Yehoshua saying, “If he sprinkled, it effected acceptance,” only concerning meat that became impure, was disqualified, or went outside the curtains.

But in a case of being lost or burned,

when the meat is entirely absent,

it did not

effect acceptance, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, even after the fact.

When Rabbi Yosei said: I see the words of Rabbi Eliezer after the fact, he was referring to a case of being lost or burned,

for although in this case Rabbi Yehoshua does not agree even after the fact, Rabbi Yosei disagrees with him and validates it even in this case after the fact.

Mishna:

If the meat became impure

of the Paschal offering

and

even the

fat remains,

this

does not sprinkle the blood,

even according to Rabbi Eliezer, who holds concerning all offerings, “There is blood even though there is no meat,” because since the principal purpose of the Paschal offering is human consumption, the blood is not sprinkled if there is no meat fit for consumption.

But

if the fat became impure and

if

the meat remains,

this

sprinkles the blood,

according to everyone.

And with

the other

consecrated offerings it is not so,

as we said in the first clause,

but even though the meat became impure and the fat remains,

this

sprinkles the blood,

even according to Rabbi Yehoshua, who holds: If there is no meat, there is no blood, since the sacrificial portions still exist. (103)

Gemara:

Rav Giddel said in the name of Rav:

If he sprinkled

the blood of the Paschal offering while the meat was impure,

it effected acceptance,

and he need not bring a second Paschal offering.

And we raise a difficulty: how did it effect acceptance, so that he is exempt from a second Paschal offering?

But consumption is required,

and he cannot eat impure meat?!

And we answer:

Consumption does not invalidate

the atonement of the offering after the fact; therefore he is exempt from a second Paschal offering.

We ask:

And we raise a difficulty:

But it is written

“a man”

“according to his eating”?!

And we answer: this is only

for a mitzva

and ideally, that Scripture said “according to his eating”; but after the fact it does not invalidate the atonement.

And we raise a difficulty:

And

if it were

to invalidate,

would the Torah not have said so?!

But it was taught:

It is written in the passage of the Paschal offering: “And if the household is too small for a lamb, then he and his neighbor who is near his house shall take it according to the number of persons; a man according to his eating shall you count for the lamb,”

and the Sages expounded:

“According to the number”: This teaches that the Paschal offering may be slaughtered only for the sake of

those

enrolled for it,

to teach you that if this group enrolled for it, he may not slaughter it for the sake of another group [Gemara 61a].

One might have thought

that if

they slaughtered it not for those enrolled, it would be like transgressing the mitzva, and

if the Paschal offering were

valid, Scripture says: “A man according to his eating”

“you shall count,” [above, 61a, we read: “According to the number, you shall count,”]

the verse repeated it concerning him to make it indispensable.

And now there is a difficulty:

And

And

it was

likewise equated those who eat with those enrolled,

as the verse says: “According to the number of persons, a man according to his eating shall you count”; and we learned from this: just as slaughtering for those enrolled is indispensable, so slaughtering not for those who will eat—for example, for a sick person or an old person who is not fit to eat—invalidates it, even if they were enrolled for the Paschal offering.

And since the Torah was particular that it be slaughtered for those who will eat it, it is logical that when the Paschal offering has no eaters at all because it became impure, it is invalid even if it was impure only at the time of the sprinkling, since the sprinkling is the principal service [Tosafot]; and how did you say that it effected acceptance even though the meat became impure?!

And we answer:

Rather, Rav—

who holds that consumption is not indispensable—

spoke in accordance with Rabbi Natan, who said: Consumption of the Paschal offerings does not invalidate. [See note (107)]

And we explain:

Which Rabbi Natan?

If you say it is this Rabbi Natan, as it was taught: Rabbi Natan says: From where is it that all Israel may fulfill their obligation with one Paschal offering,

even though it does not contain an olive-bulk of food for each one,

Scripture says: “And they shall slaughter it,”

“the entire congregation of the assembly of Israel,”

at twilight. Now does the entire congregation slaughter it? Surely only one slaughters it! Rather, this teaches that all Israel may fulfill their obligation with one Paschal offering.

Thus, according to Rabbi Natan, consumption of the Paschal offerings is not indispensable, since this Paschal offering does not contain an olive-bulk of food for each one.

And we reject this:

Perhaps there it is different,

since

if these withdraw [if certain enrolled persons in excess of the number fit to eat an olive-bulk were to withdraw from being enrolled for the Paschal offering] from being enrolled for the Paschal offering [Tosafot],

then

these are fit,

those who did not withdraw;

and

if these withdraw,

other enrolled persons, then

these are fit

[the other enrolled persons].

That is to say: each and every one could eat if his fellow withdrew from being enrolled for the Paschal offering. It follows that the offering is fit for everyone, for “which of them can you exclude?” [you cannot say concerning any of the enrolled persons that he is the one who is not fit to eat an olive-bulk, while his fellow is fit]; therefore they are all considered as though they are fit to eat, and they fulfilled their obligation with the Paschal offering. But concerning meat that became impure, we have not heard this from Rabbi Natan.

Rather, this is the Rabbi Natan

who holds that consumption is not indispensable:

And we answer: Rav who explained it in this way, because the Mishna presented him with a difficulty, that is to say: from the Mishna itself Rav proved that this applies ideally, but after the fact it does not. For why (does it teach) [do we learn] in our Mishna: “He does not sprinkle the blood”; let it teach “It is invalid”?! Rather, learn from this as Rav said: “He does not sprinkle” only ideally, but after the fact it is properly effective. And we explain: And according to Rabbi Natan: “A man according to his eating,” why do I need it? That is to say: what does Rabbi Natan expound from it? [And one cannot say that it is for the mitzva but not to make it indispensable, since those who eat were equated with those enrolled, as we said above, Tosafot.] And we answer: according to Rabbi Natan, the verse came only to say: we require a person who is fit for consumption [that the person be fit to eat], but the offering itself need not even be fit for consumption. Who is the author of this, which the Sages taught: “He slaughtered it for those who will eat it”, that is to say, for the enrolled persons fit to eat it, “and he sprinkled its blood not for those who will eat it,” for example, for a sick person or an old person who were enrolled for it: the Paschal offering itself is valid for sprinkling the blood and burning the sacrificial portions [but not for eating the meat—that was the initial assumption of the questioner], and a person fulfills his obligation through it. In accordance with whom does this beraita accord? Would we say that this beraita is Rabbi Natan, who holds that consumption of the Paschal offerings does not invalidate, and therefore we do not care that the meat is not fit for consumption, and not the Sages, who hold that consumption of the Paschal offerings is indispensable?! [This was explained according to Rashi; Tosafot explained it differently.] And we reject this: Even you may say that this beraita is the Sages, who hold that consumption of the Paschal offerings is indispensable! For the beraita does not mean, as the questioner reasoned, that the meat is unfit for consumption; rather, the meat too is fit for consumption. And because the thought concerning those who will eat does not invalidate at all with the sprinkling [but only with slaughtering], even to eat the meat, since “a man according to his eating” is written with regard to slaughtering [for it is written: “A man according to his eating, you shall count,” which refers to slaughtering, according to Rashi, Zevahim 23a]. Who is the author of this, which the Sages taught: “It happened that” the owner of the Paschal offering was sick, not fit for consumption, at the time of slaughtering, and even if he became healthy [well] at the time of sprinkling; or he was healthy at the time of slaughtering and sick only at the time of sprinkling. They do not slaughter and sprinkle it on his behalf the Paschal offering, until it is taught: One group enrolled for it and each one had an olive-bulk, and then another group enrolled for it another group, until there was now no olive-bulk for each one. This is their law: The first ones who, at the time they enrolled, had an olive-bulk, enrolled properly, and they are eating and exempt from making a second Paschal offering. But the later ones, who have no olive-bulk, at the time they enrolled, did not enroll properly, and they do not eat and are obligated to make a second Paschal offering, because consumption is indispensable [explained according to Meiri]. Rabbi Natan says: Both these and those are exempt from making a second Paschal offering, since the blood has already been sprinkled for all of them, and consumption is not indispensable. And we reject this: this too is no proof that according to Rabbi Natan consumption is not indispensable, for

perhaps in that case it is still different,

since

if these

the first ones

were to withdraw,

they would be fit

for the latter ones to eat, but concerning meat that became impure, Rabbi Natan did not say this.

And we explain:

If so,

if that is the reason,

let it teach

in the beraita the reason

“since they are fit to withdraw”; what is the meaning of

“since the blood has already been sprinkled”?

This

teaches us that according to Rabbi Natan

the matter depends on the blood, but consumption does not invalidate.

And we return to Rav’s principal statement, and raise a difficulty:

What compelled Rav [what forced Rav]

to establish it as

the

Mishna, which teaches, “If the meat became impure and the fat remains, he does not sprinkle the blood,” as referring specifically

to

ideally,

but after the fact it effected acceptance,

and

our Mishna

is Rabbi Natan’s, who holds that consumption is not indispensable?

But on the contrary,

let us establish

Rav’s interpretation of the Mishna

in accordance with the Sages,

who hold that consumption is indispensable,

and even after the fact it did not

effect acceptance, since it is not fit for consumption?!

And we answer:

Rav,

who explained it in this way, because

the Mishna presented him with a difficulty, that is to say: from the Mishna itself Rav proved that this applies ideally, but after the fact it does not. For

why

(does it teach) [do we learn]

in our Mishna:

“He does not sprinkle the blood”; let it teach

“It is invalid”?!

Rather, learn from this

as Rav said:

“He does not sprinkle”

only

ideally, but after the fact it is properly effective.

And we explain:

And according to Rabbi Natan: “A man according to his eating,” why do I need it?

That is to say: what does Rabbi Natan expound from it? [And one cannot say that it is for the mitzva but not to make it indispensable, since those who eat were equated with those enrolled, as we said above, Tosafot.]

And we answer: according to Rabbi Natan, the verse came only to say:

we require a person who is fit for consumption [that the person be fit to eat], but the offering itself need not even be fit for consumption.

Who is the author of this, which the Sages taught: “He slaughtered it for those who will eat it”,

that is to say, for the enrolled persons fit to eat it,

“and he sprinkled its blood not for those who will eat it,”

for example, for a sick person or an old person who were enrolled for it:

It follows that

the Paschal offering itself is valid

for sprinkling the blood and burning the sacrificial portions [but not for eating the meat—that was the initial assumption of the questioner],

and a person fulfills his obligation through it.

In accordance with whom does this beraita accord? Would we

say that this beraita

is Rabbi Natan,

who holds that consumption of the Paschal offerings does not invalidate, and therefore we do not care that the meat is not fit for consumption,

and not

the

Sages, who hold that consumption of the Paschal offerings is indispensable?!

And we reject this:

Even you may say that this beraita

is the Sages, who hold that consumption of the Paschal offerings is indispensable!

For the beraita does not mean, as the questioner reasoned, that the meat is unfit for consumption; rather, the meat too is fit for consumption.

And because

the thought concerning those who will eat does not invalidate at all with the sprinkling [but only with slaughtering], even to eat the meat; since “a man according to his eating” is written with regard to slaughtering [for it is written: “A man according to his eating, you shall count,” which refers to slaughtering, according to Rashi, Zevahim 23a].

Who is the author of this, which the Sages taught:

“It happened that”

the owner of the Paschal offering was

sick,

not fit for consumption,

at the time of slaughtering, and even if he was

healthy [well]

at the time of sprinkling.

Or he was

healthy at the time of slaughtering, and sick only

at the time of sprinkling.

They do not slaughter and sprinkle it on his behalf

the Paschal offering,

until

he is healthy

and fit for consumption

from the time of slaughtering until the time of sprinkling, [and the law does not depend on the condition of the owner at evening, at the time of consumption; for a sick person, whether at slaughtering or at sprinkling, is a bodily postponement, Hazon Ish, Zevahim, end of section 4].

In accordance with whom does this beraita accord? Would we

say that it is the Sages,

who hold that consumption of the Paschal offerings is indispensable,

and not Rabbi Natan,

who holds that consumption of the Paschal offerings does not invalidate?

And we reject this:

Even you may say that it is Rabbi Natan, since

we require a person who is fit for consumption, even according to Rabbi Natan, and a sick person is not fit for consumption; for the reason is that when “a man according to his eating” is written, it is written concerning the person, that he must be fit to eat, but concerning the Paschal offering we do not care if it is not fit [Rashi].

Who is the author of this, which the Sages taught:

“He slaughtered it in purity”

of the owners

and afterward,

before the sprinkling,

the owners became impure:

The blood shall be sprinkled in purity

of the priests and the service vessels.

That is to say: it is permitted to sprinkle the blood even though the owners are impure at the time of sprinkling. Nevertheless, we do not say: since the offering is sprinkled while the owners are impure, and it is an offering brought in impurity, therefore there is no need to be particular even about the purity of the priests and the service vessels, since in any event it is brought in impurity; rather, it shall be sprinkled in purity.

And he shall not eat

the owners of the Paschal offering

the meat in impurity

belonging to them.

Thus we have learned that the blood is sprinkled when the owners are impure and are not fit for consumption, and

in accordance with whom does this beraita accord, which holds that we do not even require a person fit for consumption?

And we reject this:

It may even be said that it is the view of Rabbi Natan, since

we require a person who is fit to eat even according to Rabbi Natan. A sick person is not fit to eat. The reason is that when the verse says, “A man according to his eating,” it refers to the person: he must be fit to eat. But we do not care whether the Paschal offering itself is fit to be eaten [Rashi].

Who is the author of this teaching that the Sages taught in a beraita:

If they slaughtered it when the owners were pure

and afterward,

before the sprinkling,

the owners became impure:

The blood should be sprinkled in a state of purity

by the kohanim—members of the priestly family who perform the Temple service—and with ritually pure sacred vessels.

That is, it is permitted to sprinkle the blood even though the owners are impure at the time of sprinkling. Nevertheless, we do not say: Since the offering is being sprinkled while the owners are impure and is therefore an offering brought in impurity, there is no need to be particular about the purity of the kohanim and the sacred vessels, since in any event it is being brought in impurity. Rather, the blood should be sprinkled in a state of purity.

And he may not eat

the

meat in a state of impurity

belonging to the owners of the Paschal offering.

Thus, we have learned that the blood is sprinkled when the owners are impure and unfit to eat.

In accordance with whom does this beraita accord, since it holds that we do not even require a person to be fit to eat?

does this beraita accord? Should we

say that it is the Rabbis,

who maintain that eating the Paschal offering prevents,

and not Rabbi Natan,

who maintains that eating the Paschal offering does not prevent?

And we reject this:

You may even say that it is Rabbi Natan, since

we require a person who is fit to eat

even according to Rabbi Natan. A sick person is not capable of eating. The reason is that when “each man according to his eating” is written, it is written with regard to the person, that the person must be capable of eating; but it does not matter if the Paschal offering itself is unfit [Rashi].

Who is the tanna of that which the Sages taught:

“If they slaughtered it in purity

of the owners

and afterward,

before the sprinkling,

the owners became impure:

The blood shall be sprinkled in purity

of the priests and the service vessels.”

That is, it is permitted to sprinkle the blood even though the owners are impure at the time of the sprinkling. Nevertheless, we do not say: Since the offering is being sprinkled in the impurity of the owners, and it is an offering brought in impurity, there is no need to be particular about the purity of the priests and the service vessels, since in any event it is being brought in impurity. Rather, it shall be sprinkled in purity.

But he shall not eat

the owners of the Paschal offering

the meat in impurity

that belongs to them.

We have learned that the blood is sprinkled when the owners are impure and unfit to eat.

In accordance with whom

does this beraita accord, maintaining that we do not even require a person who is fit to eat?

Rabbi said

(Eliezer)

Eleazar:

in a dispute

of Rabbi Natan and the Sages it is taught,

and it is Rabbi Natan's

who holds: eating of the Paschal offerings does not invalidate, and we do not even require a person fit to eat, [see note ].

And Rabbi Yohanan said: You may even say that it is the Sages' view

who hold: eating of the Paschal offerings does invalidate, and even so the blood shall be thrown in impurity, because:

Here, with what are we dealing: with the community,

whose majority became impure between the eating and the throwing of the blood [the prince died and the majority of Israel became impure for him, Rashi]

for even in impurity they too perform it

for they are permitted, according to the essential law, to perform and eat the Passover offering even in impurity, and the owners were found fit to eat, and therefore the Passover offering is valid, as it explains further.

And we ask, in order to explain:

if

it is speaking

of the community, why is the meat not eaten in impurity?!

And we explain: it is merely a rabbinic prohibition.

And because: for the owners are not permitted to eat in their impurity, even when it is the community, except in a case where the Passover offering itself comes in impurity, that is, when the blood was thrown while the owners were impure; but if the blood was thrown in purity, and the owners became impure afterward, it was not permitted to eat it in impurity, even if the majority of the community became impure.

And the Sages said: Since this Passover offering was slaughtered in the purity of the owners, and only its throwing of the blood was in impurity, it should not be permitted to eat it in impurity, and the reason is:

A decree, lest

in the following year

the owners become impure

also

after

the

throwing of the blood

and they are not permitted to eat it in impurity,

and they will say:

But

did we not become impure last year

at the time of eating

and eat

even though its slaughter had been in purity? If so,

now too, let us eat

the Passover offering in impurity.

And they will not know that last year

it was permitted to them for this reason, since

when the blood was thrown

of the Passover offering, already

the owners were impure,

and it was a Passover offering that comes in impurity; but

now

the

owners

at the time of the throwing of the blood

were pure,

and this is not a Passover offering that comes in impurity, and they are forbidden to eat it in impurity.