Pesachim

If he slaughtered it for circumcised persons on condition that uncircumcised persons should be atoned for therewith at the sprinkling,1 — 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,2 and it is logical: since uncircumcision disqualifies, and uncleanness disqualifies, [then] just as with uncleanness, part uncleanness was not made tantamount to entire uncleanness,3 so with uncircumcision, part uncircumcision was not made tantamount to entire uncircumcision.4 Or turn this way:5 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,6 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,7 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 freed8 from its general rule by a thing which was not freed from its general rule;9 and let not uncleanness provide an argument, seeing that it was freed from its general rule.10 Therefore it is stated. This [is the ordinance of the Passover].11 What is [the purpose of] ‘this’?12 If we say. [to teach] that entire uncircumcision disqualifies it [the Paschal lamb], but part thereof13 does not disqualify it, surely that is deduced from, and all uncircumcised person[s] [shall not eat thereof]?14 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:15 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.16 And should you ask, What is the leniency of sprinkling?17 That there is no intention of eaters in respect to sprinkling.18 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.19 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?20 [It is] that [the prohibition of] piggul cannot be imposed save at the sprinkling.21 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,22 [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?23 Rather, said R. Ashi, R. Hisda and Rabbah have the blood sprinkled on behalf of (a person), as there is no question of atonement with the Paschal lamb. The words ‘at the sprinkling’ are accordingly superfluous, and in fact do not appear in MS.M.] sacrifice is piggul (q.v. Glos.) and disqualified. behalf of their owners even if they are uncircumcised or unclean. arguments are possible. that an uncircumcised person does not disqualify others who register with him. ‘This’ is a limitation, teaching that the law is exactly as stated, and is not to be extended to others. of the company that come with him? must eat thereof. But if only a fraction are uncircumcised, the circumcised may eat thereof. (E.V. but no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.) slaughtering. This interpretation of the Baraitha supports Rabbah's view. in respect to uncircumcision. connection with slaughtering, v. supra 61a note on Rabbi's exegesis. stringency in respect to uncircumcision. Mishnah supra 59b) renders it piggul, and he who eats it even within the permitted time, incurs kareth, only if the subsequent services are performed without any intention at all or with a legitimate intention or with the same illegitimate intention. But if any one of the subsequent services is performed with a different illegitimate intention, e.g.. to eat it without the permitted boundaries, it ceases to be piggul and does not involve kareth, v. Zeb. 28b. Hence the only service in which it can definitely be fixed as piggul without possibility of revocation is sprinkling, because that is the last service. That is regarded as a stringency of sprinkling. uncircumcised, it is disqualified.