פסחים 61 — parallel

61:1

and it is [operative] after death, and it is [operative] in the case of the community as in the case of an individual; will you say [the same] of a change of owner, where the disqualification is not intrinsic, and it is not [operative] in respect of the four services, and it is not [operative] after death, and it is not [operative] in the case of the community as in the case of an individual? And though two [of these distinctions] are not exact, two nevertheless are exact. For how is a change of owners different, that [you say] its disqualification is not intrinsic: because its disqualification is merely [one of] intention? Then with a change of sanctity too, its disqualification is merely one of intention. Again, as to what he says. A change of owners is not [operative as a disqualification] after death, then according to R. Phineas the son of R. Ammi who maintained, There is [a disqualification in] a change of owner after death, what is there to be said? Two [of these distinctions] are nevertheless exact! Rather, said Raba: A Paschal lamb which he slaughtered during the rest of the year with a change of owners is regarded as though it had no owners in its proper time, and it is disqualified. MISHNAH. IF HE KILLED IT FOR THOSE WHO CANNOT EAT IT OR FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED FOR IT, FOR UNCIRCUMCISED PERSONS OR FOR UNCLEAN PERSONS, IT IS UNFIT. [IF HE KILLED IT] FOR THOSE WHO ARE TO EAT IT AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT TO EAT IT, FOR THOSE WHO ARE REGISTERED FOR IT AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED FOR IT, FOR CIRCUMCISED AND FOR UNCIRCUMCISED, FOR UNCLEAN AND FOR CLEAN PERSONS, IT IS FIT. IF HE KILLED IT BEFORE MIDDAY, IT IS DISQUALIFIED, BECAUSE IT IS SAID, [AND THE WHOLE ASSEMBLY . . . SHALL KILL IT] AT DUSK. IF HE KILLED IT BEFORE THE [EVENING] TAMID, IT IS FIT, PROVIDING THAT ONE SHALL STIR ITS BLOOD UNTIL [THAT OF] THE TAMID IS SPRINKLED; YET IF IT WAS SPRINKLED, IT IS FIT. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: How is ‘for those who cannot eat it’ meant? [If it was killed] in the name of an invalid or an old man. How is ‘for those who were not registered for it’ meant? If one company registered for it and he killed it in the name of a different company. How do we know this? Because our Rabbis taught, [Then shall he and his neighbour next unto him take one] according to the number of [be-miksath] [the souls]: this teaches that the Paschal lamb is not slaughtered save for those who are registered [numbered] for it. You might think that if he slaughtered it for those who were not registered for it, he should be as one who violates the precept, yet it is fit. Therefore it is stated, ‘according to the number of [be-miksath] [the souls] . . . ye shall make your count [takosu]’: the Writ reiterated it, to teach that it is indispensable. Rabbi said, This is a Syriac expression, as a man who says to his neighbour, ‘Kill [kos] me this lamb.’ We have thus found [it disqualified if killed] for those who are not registered for it; how do we know [the same of] those who cannot eat it? Scripture saith, according to every man's eating ye shall make your count,’ [thus] eaters are assimilated to registered [persons].

—

61:2

If he slaughtered it for circumcised persons on condition that uncircumcised persons should be atoned for therewith at the sprinkling, — R. Hisda said: It [the lamb] is disqualified; Rabbah ruled: It is fit. R. Hisda said, It is disqualified: There is [a disqualification in] an intention for uncircumcised at the sprinkling. Rabbah ruled, It is fit: There is no [disqualification in] an intention for uncircumcised at the sprinkling. Rabbah said, Whence do I know it? Because it was taught: You might think that he [an uncircumcised person] disqualifies the members of the company who come with him, and it is logical: since uncircumcision disqualifies, and uncleanness disqualifies, [then] just as with uncleanness, part uncleanness was not made tantamount to entire uncleanness, so with uncircumcision, part uncircumcision was not made tantamount to entire uncircumcision. Or turn this way: since uncircumcision disqualifies, and time disqualifies: then just as with time, part [in respect to] time was made tantamount to the whole [in respect of] tithe, so with uncircumcision, part [in respect] to uncircumcision should be made tantamount to the whole [in respect to] uncircumcision. Let us see to what it is similar: you judge [draw an analogy between] that which does not apply to all sacrifices by that which does not apply to all sacrifices, and let not time provide an argument, which operates [as a disqualification] in the case of all sacrifices. Or turn this way: you judge a thing which was not freed from its general rule by a thing which was not freed from its general rule; and let not uncleanness provide an argument, seeing that it was freed from its general rule. Therefore it is stated. This [is the ordinance of the Passover]. What is [the purpose of] ‘this’? If we say. [to teach] that entire uncircumcision disqualifies it [the Paschal lamb], but part thereof does not disqualify it, surely that is deduced from, and all uncircumcised person[s] [shall not eat thereof]? Hence he [the Tanna] must have taught thus: Therefore it is stated, ‘and all uncircumcised shall not eat thereof. Entire uncircumcision disqualifies it, [but] part thereof does not disqualify it. And should you say, the same law applies to sprinkling, viz., that entire uncircumcision at least does disqualify it: therefore ‘this’ is stated, [teaching,] it is only at the slaughtering that entire uncircumcision disqualifies, but [as for] sprinkling, even entire uncircumcision too does not disqualify it. And should you ask, What is the leniency of sprinkling? That there is no intention of eaters in respect to sprinkling. But R. Hisda [maintains,] On the contrary, [the Baraitha is to be explained] in the opposite direction. [Thus:] therefore it is stated, and all uncircumcised person[s] [shall not eat thereof]: if the whole of it [the registered company] is [in a state of] uncircumcision, it disqualifies it, but part thereof does not disqualify it. But [as for] sprinkling, even part thereof disqualifies it. And should you say, the same law applies to sprinkling, viz., that unless there is entire uncircumcision it does not disqualify it, therefore ‘this’ is stated, [teaching,] only at the slaughtering does part thereof not disqualify it, but at the sprinkling even part thereof disqualifies it. And should you ask, What is the stringency of sprinkling? [It is] that [the prohibition of] piggul cannot be imposed save at the sprinkling. To this R. Ashi demurred: Whence [do you know] that this [verse] ‘and all uncircumcised person[s],’ implies in its entirety; perhaps this [verse], ‘and all uncircumcised person[s]’ implies whatever there is of uncircumcision, [and] therefore the Merciful One wrote ‘this’ to teach that unless there is an entire [company in a state of] uncircumcision, it does not disqualify it, there being no difference whether [it is] at the slaughtering or at the sprinkling? Rather, said R. Ashi, R. Hisda and Rabbah

—