Pesachim 78b (עח:) — the Talmud in English

And

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

in a communal offering, even Rabbi Yehoshua concedes?!

Rather,

Rabbi Yosei is speaking exclusively of an individual, and this is the meaning of Rabbi Yosei’s statement:

I see

the

words of Rabbi Eliezer, after the fact: if he sprinkled the blood, although there is no meat, it effects acceptance.

if he sprinkled the blood even though no meat remained, the offering is accepted.

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 a case after the fact?

Even after the fact, Rabbi Yehoshua also concedes

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

As

it

teaches [in the beraita cited above, at the end of page 77]: If the meat became impure, or was disqualified, or left the curtains, Rabbi Eliezer says: He should sprinkle; Rabbi Yehoshua says: He should not sprinkle.

And

And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that if he sprinkled, it effected acceptance.

And we answer:

This refers to impurity; that refers to loss and burning.

And the Gemara explains:

When it teaches: Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that if he sprinkled, it effected acceptance, it refers to when the meat became impure

or suffered other disqualifications, since the meat still exists but has become disqualified. For we find Rabbi Yehoshua saying, “If he sprinkled, it effected acceptance,” only with regard to meat that became impure, was disqualified, or left the curtains.

But in a case of loss or burning,

where the meat is entirely absent,

it does 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 loss and burning;

for although Rabbi Yehoshua does not concede this even after the fact, Rabbi Yosei disagrees with him and validates the offering in this case as well, after the fact.

Mishna:

If the meat

of the Paschal offering

and even

even the

the forbidden fat remains,

then

he does not sprinkle the blood,

even according to Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains with regard to all other offerings, “There is blood even when there is no meat.” Since the essence of the Paschal offering is for human consumption, the blood is not sprinkled if there is no meat fit to eat.

But

if the forbidden fat became impure and

the

the meat remains,

then

he sprinkles the blood,

according to everyone.

And with

other

consecrated offerings it is not so,

as we stated in the first clause.

Rather, even if the meat became impure while the forbidden fat remains,

then

he sprinkles the blood,

even according to Rabbi Yehoshua, who maintains: 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.

We raise a difficulty: How did it effect acceptance, thereby exempting him from bringing a second Paschal offering?

But eating is required,

and he cannot eat impure meat?!

And we answer:

Eating does not prevent

the offering from effecting atonement after the fact; therefore, he is exempt from bringing a second Paschal offering.

We raise a difficulty:

But it is written

in the passage concerning the Paschal offering:

“Each man”

“according to his eating”?!

And we answer: This is only

for the mitzva

and ideally, that the verse says, “according to his eating”; but after the fact it does not prevent atonement.

We raise a difficulty:

And

if it were meant

to prevent, would the Torah not have said so?!

would the Torah not have stated so?

But it was taught:

It is written in the passage concerning the Paschal offering: “But if the household is too small for a lamb, then he and his neighbor nearest to his house shall take it, according to the number of persons; each 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

name of

its registered members.

This teaches you that if this group registered for it, he may not slaughter it for another group [Gemara 61a].

One might have thought

that if

he slaughtered it not for its registered members, he would merely have transgressed the mitzva, and

if the Paschal offering were

valid, the verse states: “Each man according to his eating”

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

[Above, page 61a, the version reads: “According to the number, you shall count yourselves.”]

the verse repeats the matter in order to make it preventive.

And now there is a difficulty:

And

yet

those who eat were equated with the registered members,

as the verse says: “According to the number of persons, each man according to his eating shall you count.” We learn from this: Just as slaughtering for its registered members is preventive, so too slaughtering not for those who will eat it—for example, for a sick person or an elderly person who is unfit to eat—renders it invalid, even if they were registered for the Paschal offering.

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 prospective 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 sacrificial service [Tosafot]. How, then, did you say that it effected acceptance even though the meat became impure?!

And we answer:

Rather, Rav—

who maintains that eating does not prevent—

spoke in accordance with Rabbi Natan, who said: Eating the Paschal offerings does not prevent. [See note (\107)]

And we explain:

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 derived that all Israel can fulfill their obligation with one Paschal offering,

even though it does not contain an olive-bulk of meat for each one?

The verse states: “And they shall slaughter it,”

“the entire congregation of the assembly of Israel,”

“between the evenings.” Now does the entire congregation slaughter it? But only one person slaughters it. Rather, this teaches that all Israel can fulfill their obligation with one Paschal offering.

Thus, according to Rabbi Natan, eating the Paschal offering does not prevent, since this Paschal offering does not contain an olive-bulk of meat for each person.

And we reject this:

Perhaps there it is different,

since

if these were to withdraw

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

these would be fit,

those who did not withdraw;

and if these were to withdraw,

other registered members, then

these would be fit

[the other registered members].

In other words, each and every one could eat if his fellow withdrew from being registered for the Paschal offering. Consequently, the offering is fit for everyone, for “whom can you exclude?” [You cannot say of any one of the registered members that he is the one unfit to eat an olive-bulk while his fellow is fit]. Therefore, they are all considered fit to eat and fulfill their obligation with the Paschal offering. But we have not heard from Rabbi Natan that the same applies when the meat became impure.

Rather, it is this Rabbi Natan

who maintains that eating does not prevent:

And we answer: Rav, who interpreted it in this manner, did so because the Mishna posed a difficulty for him. That is, Rav proved from the Mishna itself that this applies ideally, but not after the fact. For: Why does it teach [the version in our Mishna is] “we learned 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 acceptable. And we explain: And according to Rabbi Natan, “Each man according to his eating,” why do I need it? That is, what does Rabbi Natan expound from it? [It cannot be said that it applies to the mitzva but is not preventive, since those who eat were equated with the registered members, as stated above, Tosafot]. And we answer: According to Rabbi Natan, the verse comes only to say that we require a person who is fit to eat [that the person must be fit to eat], but the offering itself need not even be fit to eat. Who is the tanna of that which the Sages taught: “He slaughtered it for those who will eat it,” that is, for the registered members fit to eat it, “but he sprinkled its blood not for those who will eat it,” for example, for a sick or elderly person who was registered for it: the Paschal offering itself is valid for sprinkling its blood and burning the sacrificial portions [but not for eating the meat; this was the initial understanding of the questioner], and a person fulfills his obligation with it. In accordance with whom does this beraita accord? Should we say that this beraita is Rabbi Natan, who maintains that eating the Paschal offering does not prevent, and therefore it does not matter that the meat is unfit to eat, and not the Rabbis, who maintain that eating the Paschal offering prevents?! [This was explained according to Rashi; Tosafot explain it differently.] And we reject this: You may even say that this beraita is the Rabbis, who maintain that eating the Paschal offering prevents! The beraita does not mean, as the questioner understood, that the meat is unfit to eat; rather, the meat is also fit to eat. The reason is that the intention concerning those who will eat does not invalidate the offering at all during the sprinkling, [but only during slaughter], even with regard to eating the meat; since “each man according to his eating” is written with regard to slaughter, [as it is written: “Each man according to his eating shall you count,” that is, slaughter, according to Rashi in Zevahim 23a]. Who is the tanna of that which the Sages taught: “If it was the case that the owner of the Paschal offering was sick, unfit to eat, at the time of slaughter, and even if he became healthy [well] at the time of the sprinkling; or if he was healthy at the time of slaughter and became sick only at the time of the sprinkling, we do not slaughter and sprinkle it for him the Paschal offering, until For it was taught: If one group registered for it

and each of them had an olive-bulk,

and afterward another group registered for it

later people, who do not have an olive-bulk,

another group,

so that now there is not an olive-bulk for each one, their law is as follows:

The

first ones who

at the time they registered

had an olive-bulk

were registered properly, and they

may eat and are exempt from making a second Paschal offering.

Whereas the

later ones, who did not have an olive-bulk,

when they registered, were not registered properly, and

may not eat and are obligated to make a second Paschal offering,

because eating prevents [explained according to the 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 eating does not prevent.

And we reject this: This too is no proof that, according to Rabbi Natan, eating does not prevent, for

perhaps it is still different there,

since

if the first ones withdraw,

the first group,

they become fit

for the later ones to eat; but Rabbi Natan did not say this with regard to meat that became impure.

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

“the blood has already been sprinkled”?

Then

learn from this

that according to Rabbi Natan,

the matter depends on the blood, but eating does not prevent.

And we return to Rav’s essential statement and ask:

What compelled Rav [Was Rav really compelled]

the view of Rabbi Natan,

to interpret it as referring to the

On the contrary,

Mishna,

which teaches, “If the meat became impure while the forbidden 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 maintains that eating does not prevent?

On the contrary,

let us establish

Rav’s interpretation of the Mishna

in accordance with the Rabbis,

who maintain that eating prevents,

and even after the fact as well it does not

effect acceptance, since it is not fit to eat?!

And we answer:

Rav,

who interpreted it in this manner, did so because

the Mishna posed a difficulty for him. That is, Rav proved from the Mishna itself that this applies ideally, but not after the fact.

means only

For:

Why

(does it teach

[we learned])

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 acceptable.

And we explain:

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

That is, what does Rabbi Natan expound from it? [It cannot be said that it applies to the mitzva but is not preventive, since those who eat were equated with the registered members, as stated above, Tosafot.]

And we answer: According to Rabbi Natan, the verse comes only to say

that we require a person who is fit to eat [that the person must be fit to eat],

but the offering itself need not even be fit to eat.

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

that is, for the registered members fit to eat it,

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

for example, for a sick or elderly person who was registered for it:

Then

the Paschal offering itself is valid

for sprinkling its blood and burning the sacrificial portions [but not for eating the meat; this was the initial understanding of the questioner],

and a person fulfills his obligation with it.

In accordance with whom

does this beraita accord? Should we

say

that this beraita is

Rabbi Natan,

who maintains that eating the Paschal offering does not prevent, and therefore it does not matter that the meat is unfit to eat,

and not

If the owner of the Paschal offering was

the Rabbis,

who maintain that eating the Paschal offering prevents?! [This was explained according to Rashi; Tosafot explain it differently.]

And we reject this:

You may even say

that this beraita is

the Rabbis,

who maintain that eating the Paschal offering prevents!

The beraita does not mean, as the questioner understood, that the meat is unfit to eat; rather, the meat is also fit to eat.

The reason is that

the intention concerning those who will eat

does not invalidate the offering at all

during the sprinkling,

[but only during slaughter], even with regard to eating the meat; since “each man according to his eating” is written with regard to slaughter, as it is written: “Each man according to his eating shall you count,” that is, slaughter, according to Rashi in Zevahim 23a.

Who is the tanna of that which the Sages taught:

“If it was the case that

the owner of the Paschal offering was

sick,

unfit to eat,

at the time of slaughter,

and even if he became

healthy

[well]

at the time of the sprinkling.

Or if he was

healthy at the time of slaughter and became sick

only

at the time of the sprinkling.

We do not slaughter and sprinkle it for him

the Paschal offering,

until

he is healthy

and fit to eat

from the time of slaughter until the time of the sprinkling, [the law does not depend on the owner’s condition extending into the time of eating; for a sick person, whether at slaughter or at the sprinkling, constitutes a deferral inherent in his person, Ḥazon Ish, Zevahim, end of section 4].

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? 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

(Eliezer

Eleazar):

It is a dispute

of Rabbi Natan and the Sages that is being cited,

and it is Rabbi Natan’s view

who holds that eating the Pesah offering does not invalidate it, and that we do not even require a person fit to eat it.

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

who hold that eating the Pesah offering does invalidate it; nevertheless, the blood should be sprinkled in a state of ritual impurity, because:

Here, with what are we dealing? With the community,

whose majority became ritually impure between the eating and the sprinkling [for the Nasi died and the majority of Israel became impure for him, Rashi]

for they perform it even in a state of ritual impurity,

as they are permitted, as a matter of basic law, to perform and eat the Pesah offering even in a state of ritual impurity. Consequently, the owners are fit to eat it, and therefore the Pesah offering is valid, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

And we ask, in order to clarify:

If

the case concerns

the community, why is the meat not eaten in a state of ritual impurity?

And we explain: It is merely a rabbinic prohibition.

The reason is that the owners are not permitted to eat in their state of ritual impurity, even when they are part of the community, except when the Pesah offering itself was brought in a state of ritual impurity—that is, when the blood was sprinkled while the owners were ritually impure. But if the blood was sprinkled in a state of ritual purity and the owners became impure afterward, they may not eat it in a state of ritual impurity, even if the majority of the community became impure.

And the Sages said: Since this Pesah offering was slaughtered while its owners were ritually pure, and only its sprinkling was performed in a state of ritual impurity, it should not be permitted to be eaten in a state of ritual impurity. The reason is:

As a preventive decree, lest

the following year

the owners become impure

even

after

the

sprinkling,

in which case they would not be permitted to eat it in a state of ritual impurity,

and they would say:

But

last year, did we not become impure

at the time of eating

and eat

even though its slaughter had been performed in a state of ritual purity? If so,

this year as well, let us eat

the Pesah offering in a state of ritual impurity.

And they would not know that last year

they were permitted to do so for this reason: since

when the blood

of the Pesah offering was

sprinkled, the owners were already ritually impure,

it was a Pesah offering brought in a state of ritual impurity. But

this year,

the

owners

at the time of the sprinkling

were ritually pure,

and this is not a Pesah offering brought in a state of ritual impurity; therefore, they are forbidden to eat it in a state of ritual impurity.