Parallel
פסחים 62:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
in the case of uncleanness of the flesh; where was it permitted? Hence it obviously refers to uncleanness of the person, and where was it permitted? In the case of a community? Thus the first clause refers to uncleanness of flesh, while the second clause refers to the uncleanness of the person? — Yes: he argues from the designation of uncleanness. Alternatively, the whole refers to uncleanness of the flesh; and [as to the question,] where was it permitted? [It was] in [the case of] the uncleanness of the Paschal lamb. For we learned: The Paschal lamb which comes [if offered] in uncleanness is eaten in uncleanness, for at the very outset it did not come for [aught] except to be eaten. R. Huna son of R. Joshua raised an objection: If a Paschal lamb has passed its year and he [its owner] slaughtered it at its own time for its own purpose; and similarly, when a man kills other [sacrifices] as a Passover offering in its [own] time, — R. Eliezer disqualifies [it]; while R. Joshua declares it fit. Thus the reason [that R. Eliezer disqualifies it] is that it is in its own time, but [if it were slaughtered] at a different time it is fit; yet why so? Let us say, Since he disqualifies [it] in its own time, he also disqualifies it at a different time? — Said R. Papa. There it is different, because Scripture saith, Then ye shall say, The sacrifice of the Lord's passover it is: let it retain its own nature: neither may it be [slaughtered] in the name of other [sacrifices], nor may others [be slaughtered] in its name; in its time when it is disqualified [if slaughtered] in the name of others, others are disqualified [if slaughtered] in its name; at a different time, when it is fit [if slaughtered] in the name of others, others are fit [if slaughtered] in its name. R. Simlai came before R. Johanan [and] requested him, Let the Master teach me the Book of Genealogies. Said he to him, Whence are you? — He replied, From Lod. And where is your dwelling? In Nehardea. Said he to him, We do not discuss it either with the Lodians or with the Nehardeans, and how much more so with you, who are from Lod and live in Nehardea! But he urged him, and he consented, Let us learn it in three months, he proposed. [Thereupon] he took a clod and threw it at him, saying, If Beruriah, wife of R. Meir [and] daughter of R. Hanina b. Teradion, who studied three hundred laws from three hundred teachers in [one] day, could nevertheless not do her duty in three years, yet you propose [to do it] in three months! As he was going he said to him, Master, What is the difference between [a Passover sacrifice which is offered both] for its own purpose and for a different purpose, and [one that is offered both] for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it? — Since you are a scholar, he answered him, come and I will tell you. [When it is killed] for its own purpose and for another purpose, its disqualification is in [respect of] itself; [when he kills it] for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, its disqualification is not in [respect of] itself; [when it is] for its own purpose and for another purpose, it is impossible to distinguish its prohibition; [when it is] for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, it is possible to distinguish its interdict. [Sacrificing] for its own purpose and for another purpose applies to the four services; for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, does not apply to the four services. [The disqualification of sacrificing] for its own purpose and for another purpose applies to the community as to an individual; for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, does not apply to the community as to an individual. R. Ashi said: [That] its disqualification is intrinsic and [that] it is impossible to distinguish its prohibition are [one and] the same thing. For why does he say [that] its disqualification is intrinsic? Because it is impossible to distinguish its prohibition. Rami the son of Rab Judah said: Since the day that the Book of Genealogies was hidden, the strength of the Sages has been impaired and the light of their eyes has been dimmed. Mar Zutra said, Between ‘Azel’ and ‘Azel’ they were laden with four hundred camels of exegetical interpretations! It was taught: Others say, If he put the circumcised before the uncircumcised, it is fit; the uncircumcised before the circumcised, it is disqualified. Wherein does [the case where he put] circumcised before uncircumcised differ, that it is fit, — because we require [them to be] all uncircumcised: then [where he put] the uncircumcised before the circumcised too, we require all [to be] uncircumcised, which is absent?
—