Parallel
מנחות 82:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
will you say the same of the Passover-offering of later generations which requires the sprinkling of the blood and the offering of the sacrificial portions upon the altar? The other replied. Behold it is written, And thou shalt keep this service in this month, [signifying] that all the services of this month should be like this. [Now let us consider the view of] R. Akiba. If he holds that it is not proper to infer the possible from the impossible, then let him stand by that argument [in refutation]; and if he retracted it, and the only reason why he did not derive the law from the Passover-offering in Egypt was that refutation [which he raised], but surely [that can be countered by] the Passover-offering brought in the wilderness which proves [the reverse]! — He [R. Akiba] was arguing with R. Eliezer from his own standpoint. As for me, I hold that it is not proper to infer the possible from the impossible; but even from your point of view, that one may infer the possible from the impossible, there is surely this refutation: This was so of the Passover-offering in Egypt since it did not require the sprinkling of blood and the offering of the sacrificial parts upon the altar; will you say the same of the Passover-offering of later generations which requires the sprinkling of blood and the offering of the sacrificial portions upon the altar? To this, however, R. Eliezer replied. It is written, ‘And thou shalt keep’. But should not R. Eliezer have replied that the Passover-offering brought in the wilderness proves the reverse? — He [R. Eliezer] was arguing with R. Akiba from his own standpoint. As for me, I hold that it is quite proper to infer the possible from the impossible; and as for that refutation of yours, it can be countered by the Passover-offering brought in the wilderness which proves the reverse; but even from your point of view, that it is not proper to infer the possible from the impossible, [I reply that there is written.] ‘And thou shalt keep’. But even now let him raise this objection! — R. Shesheth answered, This proves that no objections can be entertained against a hekkesh. In the School garden it was asked, May that which has itself been inferred by a hekkesh become the basis for another inference to be made from it again by a hekkesh? — It is derived from the class, for all the Passover-offerings from one class. And whence does R. Akiba derive the law that the Passover- offering may be brought only from what is unconsecrated? — He derives it from the following teaching of Samuel in the name of R. Eliezer: It is written, This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the consecration-offering, and of the sacrifice of peace-offerings. ‘Burnt-offering’: as the burnt-offering requires a vessel, so all the other offerings require a vessel. (What [vessel] is it that is meant? Shall I say a basin? But with regard to the peace-offerings of the congregation it is also written, And put it in basins! — Rather it means a knife. And how do we know this of the burnt-offering itself? Because it is written, And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And there it was a burnt-offering, as it is written, And offered him up for a burnt-offering in the stead of his son.) ‘Meal- offering’: as the meal-offering may be eaten only by the males of the priesthood, so all the other offerings may be eaten only by the males of the priesthood. (What [other offerings] are meant? It cannot be the sin-offering and the guilt-offering.
—