Pesachim — Daf 62b

בטומאת בשר היכא הותרה אלא פשיטא בטומאת גברי והיכא הותרה מכללה בציבור

רישא בטומאת בשר סיפא בטומאת גברי אין שם טומאה קפריך

ואיבעית אימא כולה בטומאת בשר והיכא הותרה בטומאת פסח דתנן פסח הבא בטומאה נאכל בטומאה שלא בא מתחילתו אלא לאכילה

מתיב רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע הפסח שעברה שנתו ושחטו בזמנו לשמו וכן השוחט אחרים לשם פסח בזמנו ר"א פוסל ורבי יהושע מכשיר

טעמא בזמנו הא שלא בזמנו כשר ואמאי נימא הואיל ובזמנו פוסל שלא בזמנו נמי פוסל

אמר רב פפא שאני התם דאמר קרא (שמות יב, כז) ואמרתם זבח פסח הוא הוא בהוייתו לא הוא לשום אחרים ולא אחרים לשמו

בזמנו שהוא פסול לשום אחרים אחרים פסולין לשמו שלא בזמנו שהוא כשר לשום אחרים אחרים כשרים לשמו

ר' שמלאי אתא לקמיה דרבי יוחנן א"ל ניתני לי מר ספר יוחסין א"ל מהיכן את א"ל מלוד והיכן מותבך בנהרדעא א"ל אין נידונין לא ללודים ולא לנהרדעים וכל שכן דאת מלוד ומותבך בנהרדעא כפייה וארצי

א"ל ניתנייה בג' ירחי שקל קלא פתק ביה א"ל ומה ברוריה דביתהו דר"מ ברתיה דר"ח בן תרדיון דתניא תלת מאה שמעתתא ביומא מג' מאה רבוותא ואפ"ה לא יצתה ידי חובתה בתלת שנין ואת אמרת בתלתא ירחי

כי שקיל ואזיל א"ל רבי מה בין לשמו ושלא לשמו לאוכליו ושלא לאוכליו

א"ל הואיל וצורבא מרבנן את תא ואימא לך לשמו ושלא לשמו פסולו בגופו לאוכליו ושלא לאוכליו אין פסולו בגופו

לשמו ושלא לשמו א"א לברר איסורו לאוכליו ושלא לאוכליו אפשר לברר איסורו

לשמו ושלא לשמו ישנו בד' עבודות לאוכליו ושלא לאוכליו אינו בארבע עבודות לשמו ושלא לשמו ישנו בציבור כביחיד לאוכליו ושלא לאוכליו אינו בציבור כביחיד

רב אשי אמר פסולו בגופו וא"א לברר איסורו חדא מילתא היא דמה טעם אמר פסולו בגופו משום דא"א לברר איסורו

אמר רמי בר רב יודא א"ר מיום שנגנז ספר יוחסין תשש כחן של חכמי' וכהה מאור עיניהם

אמר מר זוטרא (דברי הימים א ח, לח) בין אצל לאצל טעינו ד' מאה גמלי דדרשא

תניא אחרים אומרים הקדים מולים לערלים כשר ערלים למולים פסול מאי שנא מולין לערלים דכשר דכולה ערלה בעינן וליכא ערלים למולין נמי כולה ערלה בעינן וליכא

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?1 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.2 R. Huna son of R. Joshua raised an objection: If a Paschal lamb has passed its year3 and he [its owner] slaughtered it at its own time4 for its own purpose;5 and similarly, when a man kills other [sacrifices] as a Passover offering in its [own] time, — R. Eliezer disqualifies [it];6 while R. Joshua declares it fit.7 Thus the reason [that R. Eliezer disqualifies it] is that it is in its own time, but [if it were slaughtered] at a different time8 it is fit; yet why so? Let us say, Since he disqualifies [it]9 in its own time, he also disqualifies it at a different time?10 — Said R. Papa. There it is different, because Scripture saith, Then ye shall say, The sacrifice of the Lord's passover it is:11 let it retain its own nature:12 neither may it be [slaughtered] in the name of other [sacrifices], nor may others [be slaughtered] in its name; in its time13 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.14 Said he to him, Whence are you? — He replied, From Lod.15 And where is your dwelling? In Nehardea.16 Said he to him, We do not discuss it17 either with the Lodians or with the Nehardeans, and how much more so with you, who are from Lod and live in Nehardea!18 But he urged19 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 duty20 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?21 — 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;22 [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;23 [when it is] for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, it is possible to distinguish its interdict.24 [Sacrificing] for its own purpose and for another purpose applies to the four services;25 for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, does not apply to the four services.26 [The disqualification of sacrificing] for its own purpose and for another purpose applies to the community as to an individual;27 for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, does not apply to the community as to an individual.28 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]29 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,30 the strength of the Sages has been impaired and the light of their eyes has been dimmed.31 Mar Zutra said, Between ‘Azel’ and ‘Azel’ they were laden with four hundred camels of exegetical interpretations!32 It was taught: Others33 say, If he put the circumcised before the uncircumcised,34 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:35 then [where he put] the uncircumcised before the circumcised too, we require all [to be] uncircumcised, which is absent? extreme limit for such (v. Ex. XII, 5: a male of the first year), it automatically stands to be a peace-offering, being unfit for its original purpose. eve of Passover) as a peace-offering, though if left until after Passover it must be offered as such; then how much the more is a peace-offering disqualified if killed on the eve of Passover as a Passover offering, seeing that if left over and not brought as a peace-offering at the time appointed for same, it cannot be brought as a Passover offering on Passover eve. argues a minori: if during the rest of the year, when it is disqualified if slaughtered in its own’ name (Sc. as a Passover sacrifice), yet if others (i.e., peace-offerings) are slaughtered in its name they are fit (in accordance with the general rule stated at the beginning of this note); then in its own time, when it is of course fit if slaughtered in its own name, how much the more are others fit if killed in its name! explained in the text. purpose. others. sons of Azel’ (Ibid. IX, 44) there were such an enormous number of different interpretations! This too, of course, is not to be understood literally.