Zevachim

eating?1 — That [too] is [only] a recommendation. Yet is it not indispensable?2 Surely it was taught: [Then shall he and his neighbor next unto him take one] according to the number of [be-miksath] the souls:3 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, Ye shall make your count [takosu]:3 it is reiterated ‘to teach that it is indispensable; and eaters are assimilated to registered [persons]!4 — The Elders of the south do not assimilate [them].5 Yet even if they do not assimilate [them], there is still the same refutation: If a priest who was defiled by a reptile cannot propitiate, though if the owners were defiled by a reptile they can send their sacrifices at the very outset; is it not logical that a priest who was defiled through a corpse should not be able to propitiate, seeing that if the owners were defiled through a corpse they cannot send their sacrifices at the very outset?6 An objection is raised: [If the blood of a Passover-offering is sprinkled, and then it became known that it was unclean, the headplate propitiates; if the person became unclean, the headplate does not propitiate;] because they [the Sages] ruled: [In the case of] a nazirite one who sacrifices the Passover-offering, the headplate propitiates for the uncleanness of the blood, but the headplate does not propitiate for the uncleanness of the person. With what [was the person defiled]? Shall we say, With the uncleanness of a reptile? surely you maintain [that] you may slaughter [the Passover-offering] and sprinkle [its blood] on behalf of one who is unclean through a reptile! Hence it must refer to defilement by a corpse, yet it teaches, ‘The headplate does not propitiate’, which proves that if the owners were defiled, they cannot send their sacrifices!7 — No: if the owners were defiled through a corpse, that would indeed be so.8 But the meaning here is that the priest was defiled by a reptile. If so, consider the last clause: If he was defiled with the ‘uncleanness of the deep’,9 the headplate propitiates.10 But surely R. Hiyya taught: They [the Sages] spoke of the ‘uncleanness of the deep’ in respect of a corpse alone. What does this exclude? Surely it excludes the ‘uncleanness of the deep’ caused by a reptile? — No: it excludes the ‘uncleanness of the deep’ of gonorrhoea.11 Again, as to what Rami b. Hama asked: As to the priest who propitiates with their sacrifices, is the ‘uncleanness of the deep permitted to him, or is the ‘uncleanness of the deep’ not permitted to him?12 You may solve that the ‘uncleanness of the deep’ is permitted to him, for here we are treating of the priest?13 — Rami b. Hama certainly disagrees [with the Elders of the south].14 Come and hear:15 And Aaron shall bear the iniquity of the holy things:16 now, what iniquity does he bear? second Passover. of men who cannot partake of it, for the eaters are coupled with the registered persons in the same verse. bring a second Passover. But they must of course admit that they must not send them in the first place. — The objection remains unanswered. if he was in a house and it is subsequently learned that a corpse had been there; v. Pesahim 80b. eve of Passover marks the seventh day of his uncleanness, he is in a state of doubt: if he does not discharge on that day, he will be clean in the evening; if he does discharge, he becomes unclean for a further seven days. Thus he too is unclean with the ‘uncleanness of the deep’, and R. Hiyya teaches that the headplate does not propitiate in his case. with the ‘uncleanness of the deep’, does the headplate propitiate, so that the sacrifices are valid, or not? irregularities.