Pesachim 61

וישנו לאחר מיתה וישנו בצבור כביחיד תאמר בשינוי בעלים דאין פסולו בגופו ואינו בארבע עבודות ואינו לאחר מיתה ואינו בצבור כביחיד

And furthermore, the disqualification following from a change in sanctity applies after death. If one consecrates an offering and dies, his son must bring the offering in his place, and it can be invalidated through a change in sanctity. Moreover, it applies to communal offerings as it does to the offerings of an individual. However, can you necessarily say the same thing with regard to a change in owner that does not have these characteristics? Its disqualification is not in the offering itself; and it does not apply to all four rites but only to the sprinkling of the blood on the altar; and it does not apply after death, for after the owner has died there is no true owner of the offering, and therefore, if the priest intends to offer it for someone else the offering remains valid; and it does not apply to communal offerings as it does to the offerings of an individual, since it is not possible to have in mind a different owner, as it is owned by the whole community.

ואף על גב דתרתי לאו דוקא תרתי מיהא דוקא דמאי שנא שינוי בעלים דלא הוי פסולו בגופו דפסולו מחשבה בעלמא היא שינוי קודש נמי פסולו מחשבה בעלמא היא

And even though two of these differences are not fully accurate and can be disputed, as will be explained, two, at least, are accurate. The Gemara explains the lack of accuracy: For what is different about a change in owner that defines its disqualification as not being in the offering itself? Is it that its disqualification is merely due to thought? If so, it is possible to say that a change of sanctity is also merely a disqualification due to thought and not in the offering itself, and therefore there is no real difference.

ותו הא דאמר שינוי בעלים אינו לאחר מיתה ולרב פנחס בריה דרב אמי דאמר יש שינוי בעלים לאחר מיתה מאי איכא למימר תרתי מיהת דוקא נינהו

And furthermore, with regard to that which was said, that a change in owner does not apply after death, there is the following difficulty: According to Rav Pineḥas, son of Rav Ami, who said that the disqualification resulting from a change in owner applies after death, so that if the offering of the deceased was brought for a different person, the son of the deceased must bring another offering in his father’s name, what is there to say? However, at least two of these differences are accurate.

אלא אמר רבא פסח ששחטו בשאר ימות השנה בשינוי בעלים נעשה כמי שאין לו בעלים בזמנו ופסול:

Rather, Rav Pappa’s suggestion should be rejected, and Rava said: A Paschal lamb that one slaughtered on the rest of the days of the year with a change of owner is considered like one that does not have an owner. In other words, it is considered like a Paschal lamb that was slaughtered not for the sake of its owner at its proper time on Passover eve, and it is disqualified.

מתני׳ שחטו שלא לאוכליו ושלא למנויו לערלים ולטמאים פסול לאוכליו ושלא לאוכליו למנויו ושלא למנויו למולים ולערלים לטמאים ולטהורים כשר

MISHNA: If one slaughtered the Paschal lamb for people who cannot eat it or for those who did not register in advance to eat it, or if one slaughtered it for people who are uncircumcised or for those who are ritually impure, whom the Torah prohibits from eating the Paschal lamb, it is disqualified. However, if one slaughtered it for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it; for those who have registered for it and for those who have not registered for it; for the circumcised and for the uncircumcised; for the ritually impure and for the ritually pure, it is valid, for a partially invalid intent does not disqualify the offering.

שחטו קודם חצות פסול משום שנאמר בין הערבים שחטו קודם לתמיד כשר ובלבד שיהא אחר ממרס בדמו עד שיזרק התמיד ואם נזרק כשר:

If one slaughtered the Paschal lamb before midday it is disqualified, as it is stated: “And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it in the afternoon” (Exodus 12:6). If he slaughtered it before the daily afternoon offering it is valid, as long as another person stirs its blood in order to prevent it from congealing until the blood of the daily offering is sprinkled. And if the blood of the Paschal lamb is sprinkled before the blood of the daily offering, it is nonetheless valid, as this change does not disqualify the offering.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן כיצד שלא לאוכליו לשום חולה או לשום זקן כיצד שלא למנויו נמנו עליו חבורה זו ושחטו לשם חבורה אחרת

GEMARA: The Sages taught in the Tosefta: How so the case of slaughtering the Paschal lamb for those who cannot eat it? It is a case where one slaughtered it for the sake of a sick person or for the sake of an old person who is unable to eat even an olive-sized portion of the Paschal lamb. How so the case of slaughtering the Paschal lamb for those who did not register for it? It is a case where one group registered for it, and one slaughtered it for the sake of a different group.

מנהני מילי דתנו רבנן במכסת מלמד שאין הפסח נשחט אלא למנויו

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, which are not explicitly written in the Torah, derived? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught with regard to the verse: “And if the household be too little for a lamb, then he and his neighbor who is close to his house shall take one according to the number of the souls; according to every man’s eating you shall make your count for the lamb” (Exodus 12:4). “According to the number of” teaches that the Paschal lamb is slaughtered only for those who have registered for it. Everything is done according to the number of people who have registered before the slaughtering.

יכול שחטו שלא למנויו יהא כעובר על המצוה וכשר תלמוד לומר במכסת תכסו הכתוב שנה עליו לעכב

I might have thought that if he slaughtered it for those who did not register for it, he would be considered as one who has violated a commandment, but nonetheless the offering would be valid after the fact. Therefore, the Torah teaches this law with the double formulation of “according to the number” and “you shall make your count”; the verse repeated it to make this requirement indispensable, so that the offering is disqualified if it is slaughtered for those who did not register for it.

רבי אומר לשון סורסי הוא כאדם שאומר לחבירו כוס לי טלה זה

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The term “you shall make your count [takhosu]” is Aramaic [Sursi], like one who says to his fellow: Slaughter [kos] me this lamb, to teach that the registration must take place before the slaughtering.

אשכחן שלא למנויו שלא לאוכליו מנא לן אמר קרא איש לפי אכלו תכוסו איתקש אוכלין למנויין

We have found a source for the halakha that a Paschal lamb slaughtered for those who have not registered for it is disqualified. But from where do we derive the halakha that it is similarly disqualified if it is slaughtered for those who cannot eat it? The Gemara answers that the verse says: “According to every man’s eating you shall make your count”; those who eat it are juxtaposed, and thereby equated, to those who are registered for it. This teaches that just as the offering is disqualified if it is slaughtered for those who did not register for it, it is likewise disqualified if it is slaughtered for those who cannot eat it.

שחטו למולין על מנת שיתכפרו בו ערלים בזריקה רב חסדא אמר פסול רבה אמר כשר רב חסדא אמר פסול יש מחשבת ערלים בזריקה רבה אמר כשר אין מחשבת ערלים בזריקה

If one slaughtered the Paschal lamb for people who are circumcised on condition that uncircumcised people achieve atonement through the sprinkling of its blood, i.e., although the uncircumcised people are prohibited from eating the Paschal lamb, it was his intention that they achieve atonement through the blood of the offering, Rav Ḥisda said: The offering is disqualified. Rabba said: It is valid. The Gemara explains: Rav Ḥisda said it is disqualified because intent that the offering should be for uncircumcised people has sufficient force to disqualify the offering at the time of the sprinkling. Rabba said that it is valid because intent that the offering should be for uncircumcised people can only disqualify the offering during the slaughter and not during the sprinkling.

אמר רבה מנא אמינא לה דתניא יכול יפסול בני חבורה הבאין עמו ודין הוא הואיל וערלה פוסלת וטומאה פוסלת מה טומאה לא עשה בה מקצת טומאה ככל טומאה אף ערלה לא עשה בה מקצת ערלה ככל ערלה

Rabba said: From where do I derive to say this halakha? As it was taught in a baraita: I might have thought that an uncircumcised person would disqualify the other fit members of the group who come with him. And it may be inferred logically to the contrary that he does not disqualify the others: Since lack of circumcision disqualifies a Paschal lamb slaughtered for that person, and similarly, ritual impurity disqualifies it, the following can be said: Just as with ritual impurity, partial impurity was not made to be like full impurity, meaning that if one member of the group for which the offering is slaughtered is ritually impure, the offering is not disqualified for the entire group, so too, with lack of circumcision; partial lack of circumcision was not made to be like full lack of circumcision, meaning that if one member of the group is uncircumcised, the offering is not disqualified as it would be if all members of the group were uncircumcised.

או כלך לדרך זו הואיל וערלה פוסלת וזמן פוסל מה זמן עשה בה מקצת זמן ככל זמן אף ערלה עשה בה מקצת ערלה ככל ערלה

Or perhaps go this way and maintain the following: Since lack of circumcision disqualifies the offering, and similarly, intent to eat the offering beyond the allotted time disqualifies the offering, this can be said: Just as if one said at the time of the slaughter that he intended to eat part of the offering beyond the allotted time, partial invalid intent was made to be like intent to eat the entire offering at an invalid time, and the offering is disqualified, so too, with lack of circumcision; partial lack of circumcision was made to be like full lack of circumcision, and the offering is disqualified.

נראה למי דומה דנין דבר שאינו נוהג בכל הזבחים מדבר שאינו נוהג בכל הזבחים ואל יוכיח זמן שנוהג בכל הזבחים

Let us see to which it is similar, i.e., which comparison seems more reasonable: Do we derive a matter, namely, the halakha with regard to uncircumcised males, that does not apply to all offerings, from another matter, namely, the halakha with regard to the ritually impure, that does not apply to all offerings, as when it comes to other offerings, one who is ritually impure may send his offering with a proxy and thereby achieve atonement? And the halakha with regard to intent to eat the offering beyond the allotted time, which applies to all other offerings, should not be used to prove anything about our case.

או כלך לדרך זו דנין דבר שלא הותר מכללו מדבר שלא הותר מכללו ואל תוכיח טומאה שהותרה מכללה

Or, perhaps, go this way: We derive a matter, namely, the law with regard to uncircumcised males, for which no allowance is made from its rule, from a matter, namely improper intent with regard to the time, for which no allowance is made from its rule, as there are no exceptions for either of these two disqualifications. And the law with regard to ritual impurity should not be used to prove anything, as there are circumstances in which an allowance is made from its rule. Under certain circumstances it is permitted to offer the Paschal lamb while ritually impure, such as when the entire Jewish people is ritually impure.

תלמוד לומר זאת מאי זאת אילימא דכולה ערלה פסלה מקצתה לא פסלה האי מוכל ערל נפקא

In order to resolve this issue, the verse states: “This,” as it says: “And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron: This is the ordinance of the Passover: No stranger shall eat of it; but every man’s servant that is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then shall he eat of it” (Exodus 12:43–44). What is implied from the emphasis of “this”? If you say that it comes to teach that if all the members of the group are uncircumcised the offering is disqualified, but if only part of the group is uncircumcised it is not disqualified, this is derived from the words “and all uncircumcised males,” in the verse: “And all uncircumcised males shall not eat of it” (Exodus 12:48). The amplification indicated by the word all teaches that the offering is invalidated only if all members of the group are uncircumcised.

אלא לאו הכי קתני תלמוד לומר וכל ערל כולה ערלה פסלה מקצתה לא פסלה וכי תימא הוא הדין לזריקה דכולה ערלה מיהא פסלה תלמוד לומר זאת בשחיטה הוא דכולה ערלה מיהא פסלה אבל זריקה אפילו כולה ערלה נמי לא פסלה

Rather, is this not what it is teaching: The verse states: “And all uncircumcised males,” to teach that only if all members of the group are uncircumcised is the offering disqualified, but if only part of the group is uncircumcised it is not disqualified. And if you say that the same is true of sprinkling the blood of the offering, i.e., that if it is done for a group whose members are all uncircumcised, the offering is in any event disqualified; therefore the verse states: “This,” to restrict application of this law and teach: It is during slaughter that if all members of a group are uncircumcised, the offering is disqualified; but during sprinkling, even if all members of the group are uncircumcised, it is not disqualified.

וכי תימא מאי קולא דזריקה דאין מחשבת אוכלין בזריקה

And if you say: What is the leniency of sprinkling such that this intent for a group whose members are all uncircumcised disqualifies the offering only during the slaughter but not during the sprinkling? Rabba’s reasoning is that there is no intent concerning those who may eat of the offering during the sprinkling. Intent to feed the Paschal lamb to those who are unable to eat it invalidates the offering only during the slaughter, but not during the sprinkling.

ורב חסדא אדרבה לאידך גיסא תלמוד לומר וכל ערל כולה ערלה פסלה מקצתה לא פסלה אבל זריקה אפילו מקצתה נמי פסלה וכי תימא הוא הדין לזריקה דעד דאיכא כולה ערלה לא פסלה תלמוד לומר זאת שחיטה הוא דמקצתה לא פסלה אבל זריקה אפילו מקצתה פסלה

And Rav Ḥisda is of the opinion that, on the contrary, the baraita should be understood in the opposite direction. The verse states: “And all uncircumcised males,” teaching that only if all the members of the group are uncircumcised is the offering disqualified, but if only part of the group is uncircumcised, it is not disqualified. This applies during slaughter; however, during the sprinkling, even if only part of the group is uncircumcised it is disqualified. And if you say that the same is true of sprinkling in that the offering is not disqualified unless all members are uncircumcised; therefore the verse states “this” to restrict the application of this halakha and teach that it is only during slaughter that part of the group does not disqualify the offering, but during the sprinkling even part of the group disqualifies the offering.

וכי תימא ומאי חומריה דזריקה דלא מקבע פיגול אלא בזריקה

And if you say: What is the stringency of sprinkling such that part of the group being uncircumcised disqualifies the offering during the sprinkling, but not during slaughter? The answer is that piggul status is established only during sprinkling. The status of piggul applies to an offering when one performs at least one of the rites with the intent that the offering be consumed outside the allotted time, but only if no rite was performed with some other invalid intent, such as intending that the offering be eaten outside its designated place. This can only be confirmed at the time of the sprinkling, which is the last of the four essential rites. Consequently, sprinkling is the rite most likely to disqualify an offering due to improper intent.

מתקיף לה רב אשי ממאי דהאי וכל ערל כולה משמע דילמא האי וכל ערל משמע כל דהו ערלה כתב רחמנא זאת דעד דאיכא כולה ערלה לא פסלה לא שנא בשחיטה ולא שנא בזריקה אלא אמר רב אשי רב חסדא ורבה

Rav Ashi strongly objects to this method of interpretation: From where do you derive that this expression “and all uncircumcised males” means that all the members of the group are uncircumcised? Perhaps this expression “and all [kol] uncircumcised males” means that any of its members is uncircumcised. Therefore, the Merciful One says in the Torah: “This,” to teach that the offering is not disqualified unless all of its members are uncircumcised, and there is no difference between slaughtering and sprinkling. Therefore, the dispute between Rabba and Rav Ḥisda must be based on some other proof text and issue. Rather, Rav Ashi said: Rav Ḥisda and Rabba