פסחים דף עח

אלא, לא קשיא: כאן — ביחיד, כאן — בציבור.

Rather, it is not difficult: There, where Rabbi Yehoshua said that it is invalid ab initio, he was referring to the offering of an individual. Here, in the mishna, which states that it may be sacrificed even ab initio, it is referring to an offering involving the public.

נימא מתניתין דלא כרבי יוסי. דתניא, רבי אליעזר אומר: הציץ מרצה על אכילות. רבי יוסי אומר: אין הציץ מרצה על אכילות.

The Gemara asks: Shall we say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says that the frontplate appeases God for the impurity of portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten. Rabbi Yosei says that the frontplate does not appease God for the impurity of portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten; it appeases God only for the impurity of the parts of offerings that are burned on the altar.

קא סלקא דעתך מדקאמר רבי יוסי: אין הציץ מרצה על אכילות — כרבי יהושע סבירא ליה, דאמר בעינן תרתי. נימא השתא מתניתין דלא כרבי יוסי?

The Gemara explains the question: It could enter your mind to say: From the fact that Rabbi Yosei said that the frontplate does not appease God for the impurity of portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten, it can be inferred that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said that we require the two parts of the offering, the blood and the meat, to be valid. If this were not the case, it would be sufficient for the frontplate to appease God for the impurity of the blood, and it would not be necessary for the frontplate to appease God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten. Let us now say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

לא, רבי יוסי כרבי אליעזר סבירא ליה, דאמר: דם — אף על פי שאין בשר.

The Gemara rejects this assertion: No, Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said that the blood of an offering is accepted although there is no meat.

אי הכי, למאי הלכתא אין הציץ מרצה על אכילות? וליטעמיך, רבי אליעזר דאמר: הציץ מרצה, כיון דאמר: דם — אף על פי שאין בשר,

The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to what halakha did Rabbi Yosei say that the frontplate does not appease God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten? Even if it does not appease God for the impurity of these portions, the offering remains valid. The Gemara rejects the question: And according to your reasoning, with regard to Rabbi Eliezer himself, who said that the frontplate appeases God for the impurity of the portions that are supposed to be eaten, since he said that the blood may be sprinkled although there is no meat, with regard to what halakha did he make his other statement that the frontplate appeases God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten? Clearly, whether the frontplate appeases God is significant for reasons other than ensuring that an offering is accepted.

הציץ מרצה על אכילות למאי הלכתא?

אלא, למיקבעיה בפיגול ולאפוקי מידי מעילה קמיפלגי. רבי אליעזר סבר: מרצה ציץ עילויה ומשוי ליה כטהור, וקבע ליה בפיגול, ומפיק ליה מידי מעילה.

Rather, the fact that they disagree about whether the frontplate appeases God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten determines whether it is possible to establish the offering as one disqualified due to improper intent [piggul] and whether it is possible to exclude the offering from the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. The dispute is to be understood in this light: Rabbi Eliezer holds that the frontplate appeases God for the impurity of the meat that is supposed to be eaten, and it renders it like pure meat that is not disqualified. Therefore, although the meat may not be eaten, it may be established as piggul. Similarly, because it is treated as though it were pure, the sprinkling of the blood of the offering excludes the meat from the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.

ורבי יוסי סבר: לא מרצה ציץ עילויה, ולא משוי ליה כטהור, ולא קבע ליה בפיגול, ולא מפיק ליה מידי מעילה.

And Rabbi Yosei holds that the frontplate does not appease God for the impurity of sacrificial meat that has become impure, and it does not render it like pure meat. Therefore, sprinkling the blood of the offering does not establish it as piggul and does not exclude it from the prohibition of misusing consecrated property.

מתקיף לה רב מרי: נהי נמי דרבי יוסי סבר כרבי אליעזר, בשלמא זבחים — איכא דם, עומר נמי — איכא קומץ, לחם הפנים נמי — איכא בזיכין.

Rav Mari strongly objects to this conclusion: Even granting that Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that an offering is accepted through the blood alone, even if the meat has become ritually impure, there is still a difficulty. Granted, in the case of animal offerings, which have two permitting factors, the blood and the meat, there is at least one of them, the blood, for which the frontplate appeases God and causes the offering to be accepted. With regard to the omer, too, there is the handful, for which the frontplate appeases God and is thereby validated. With regard to the shewbread, too, there are the bowls of frankincense, which permit the bread in the same manner that the handful permits a meal-offering.

אלא שתי הלחם, מאי איכא למימר?

But with regard to the two loaves, what is there to say? They are completely eaten, and nothing is brought on the altar. How can they be brought in a state of ritual impurity, as the mishna has stated, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei?

וכי תימא לקרב עמהן — היינו שלמי ציבור. אם כן, הוו להו ארבעה, ואנן — חמשה תנן!

And if you say that the two loaves are valid because the frontplate appeases God for the impurity of the two lambs that are sacrificed with them, this is the same as the communal peace-offerings that are mentioned separately in the mishna. If so, there are only four offerings listed in the mishna. But we learned in the mishna that there are five, because the two loaves and the communal peace-offerings are listed separately.

אלא, קסבר רבי יוסי: טומאה הותרה בציבור.

Rather, the previous suggestion is rejected. Instead, it is suggested that Rabbi Yosei holds that ritual impurity is permitted in cases involving the public, even without the frontplate. Therefore, the two loaves remain valid.

והא תניא: אחד זה ואחד זה — מזין עליו כל שבעה מכל חטאות שהיו שם, דברי רבי מאיר. רבי יוסי אומר: אין מזין עליו אלא שלישי ושביעי בלבד.

The Gemara asks: But wasn’t the following baraita taught concerning the purity of both the High Priest on Yom Kippur and the priest who burns the red heifer, each of whom is separated from his house for seven days to ensure his purity? The baraita states: In the case of both this priest and that priest, one sprinkles on him all seven days of his separation from all the purification offerings, i.e., the ashes of the red heifers, that are there in the Temple. If he had become impure through contact with a corpse, he will be purified through the sprinkling of the purification offering. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: One does not sprinkle upon him on any day except for the third and seventh days of his separation. This ensures his purification.

ואי סלקא דעתך קסבר רבי יוסי טומאה הותרה בציבור, למה לי הזאה כלל? אלא מחוורתא מתניתין דלא כרבי יוסי.

And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Yosei holds that ritual impurity is permitted in cases involving the public, why do I need sprinkling at all? The offerings of Yom Kippur are communal offerings and may be sacrificed even in a state of ritual impurity. Rather, it is clear that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי: ורבי יוסי שטרא מזכי לבי תרי הוא?! דתניא, אמר רבי יוסי: רואה אני את דברי רבי אליעזר בזבחים, ודברי רבי יהושע בזבחים,

With regard to Rabbi Yosei’s statement quoted earlier, Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Rabbi Yosei is like a document that awards something to two conflicting parties, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: I see as correct the statement of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to animal offerings, and the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to animal offerings, and the statement of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to meal-offerings, and the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to meal-offerings.

ודברי רבי אליעזר במנחות, ודברי רבי יהושע במנחות.

דברי רבי אליעזר בזבחים, שהיה אומר: דם אף על פי שאין בשר. דברי רבי יהושע בזבחים, שהיה אומר: אם אין דם אין בשר, אם אין בשר אין דם.

The statement of Rabbi Eliezer is correct with regard to animal offerings, as he would say that the blood brings atonement although there is no meat. The statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is correct with regard to animal offerings, as he would say that if there is no blood there is no meat, and if there is no meat there is no blood. The statement of Rabbi Eliezer is correct with regard to meal-offerings, as he would say that the handful is fit although there is no remainder. The statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is correct with regard to meal-offerings, as he would say that if there is no valid handful there is no remainder, and if there is no remainder there is no handful. Rabbi Yosei accepted several contradictory statements.

דברי רבי אליעזר במנחות, שהיה אומר: קומץ — אף על פי שאין שם שירים. ודברי רבי יהושע במנחות, שהיה אומר: אם אין שם שירים אין קומץ,

אם אין קומץ אין שירים!

אמר ליה: מסתברא קאמר. כי קאי בזבחים, אמר: מסתברא כי היכי דפליגי בזבחים — פליגי נמי במנחות. קאי במנחות, אמר:

Abaye said to him: Rabbi Yosei did not intend to issue a halakhic ruling in favor of both opinions. Rather, he said what was reasonable. How so? When involved in studying the halakhot of animal offerings, he said: It is reasonable that just as they disagree with regard to animal offerings, they also disagree with regard to meal-offerings. When involved in studying the halakhot of meal-offerings, he said: It is reasonable that just as they disagree with regard to meal-offerings, they also disagree with regard to animal offerings.

מסתברא כי היכי דפליגי במנחות — פליגי נמי בזבחים.

אמר ליה, התינח: כי קאי בזבחים אמר, מסתברא כי היכי דפליגי בזבחים פליגי נמי במנחות, דעיקר קראי כי כתיבי — בזבחים כתיבי. אלא, כי קאי במנחות ואמר,

Rav Pappa said to him: It works out well to say that when he was involved in animal offerings, he said: It is reasonable that just as they disagree with regard to animal offerings, they also disagree with regard to meal-offerings, as the essential verses written about this topic are written with regard to animal offerings. But it does not seem realistic to say that when he was involved in meal-offerings, he said: It is reasonable that just as they disagree with regard to meal-offerings, they disagree with regard to animal offerings. Aren’t the essential verses about this topic written with regard to animal offerings? Clearly, meal-offerings would not serve as a model for animal-offerings.

מסתברא כי היכי דפליגי במנחות פליגי נמי בזבחים — והא עיקר קראי בזבחים הוא דכתיבי!

אלא, לא קשיא: רואה אני את דברי רבי אליעזר בנטמא, ודברי רבי יהושע באבוד ושרוף.

Rather, this answer has been refuted, and Rabbi Yosei’s statement is not difficult for a different reason. When he said: I see as correct the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, he was referring to cases in which part of the offering became impure. When he said that he agreed with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, he was referring to cases in which part of the offering was lost or burned. In other words, Rabbi Yosei partially accepts the opinions of both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua.

בנטמא מאי טעמא — משום דמרצי ציץ. הא שמעת ליה לרבי יוסי דאמר: אין הציץ מרצה על אכילות!

The Gemara asks: In a case in which the offering became impure, what is the reason that Rabbi Yosei accepts the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? It is because the frontplate appeases God for the impurity. But this is impossible, as you have heard that Rabbi Yosei said that the frontplate does not appease God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten.

אלא, לא קשיא: רואה אני את דברי רבי אליעזר בציבור, רואה אני את דברי רבי יהושע ביחיד.

Rather, this answer should be rejected, and Rabbi Yosei’s opinion is not difficult for the following reason. When he said: I see as correct the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, he was referring to a case in which an offering involves the public. When he said: I see as correct the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, he was referring to the offering of an individual.

בציבור מאי טעמא — משום דטומאה הותרה בציבור? חדא: דשמעת ליה לרבי יוסי דאמר טומאה דחויה היא בציבור, ועוד: אי בציבור, רבי אליעזר מכשיר ולא רבי יהושע?

The Gemara asks: With regard to an offering involving the public, what is the reason that Rabbi Yosei accepts the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? It is because ritual impurity is permitted in cases involving the public. This explanation can be rejected for two reasons. One reason is that you have heard that Rabbi Yosei said that ritual impurity is merely overridden in cases involving the public; it is not wholly permitted. And furthermore, if Rabbi Yosei was referring to the offering of the public, is it only Rabbi Eliezer who validates the offering, and not Rabbi Yehoshua?

הא אמרת, בציבור אפילו רבי יהושע מודה.

Didn’t you say that with regard to an offering involving the public, even Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that ritual impurity is permitted?

אלא: רואה אני דברי רבי אליעזר בדיעבד, ודברי רבי יהושע לכתחלה. דיעבד — אפילו רבי יהושע נמי מודה הוא, דקתני: מודה רבי יהושע שאם זרק — הורצה!

Rather, Rabbi Yosei’s statement should be understood differently. When he said: I see as correct the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, he was referring to after the fact. When he said: I see as correct the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, he meant ab initio. The Gemara asks: After the fact Rabbi Yehoshua also concedes, as it teaches: Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that if one sprinkled the blood, it was accepted and the offering is valid.

הא בטומאה, הא באבוד ושרוף. כי קתני: מודה רבי יהושע שאם זרק הורצה — בנטמא, אבל באבוד ושרוף לא. כי קאמר רבי יוסי:

The Gemara responds: This case is with regard to ritual impurity, and that case is with regard to an offering that was lost or burned. The Gemara explains: When it teaches that Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that if one sprinkled the blood it is accepted, that is with regard to a case in which the meat of the offering became impure; but with regard to a case where the meat of the offering was lost or burned, he does not agree, even after the fact. When Rabbi Yosei said: I see as correct the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer after the fact, that was with regard to cases in which the meat was lost or burned, with regard to which Rabbi Yehoshua did not concede to Rabbi Eliezer.

רואה אני את דברי רבי אליעזר בדיעבד — באבוד ושרוף.

מתני׳ נטמא בשר וחלב קיים — אינו זורק את הדם. נטמא החלב והבשר קיים — זורק את הדם. ובמוקדשים אינו כן, אלא אף על פי שנטמא הבשר והחלב

MISHNA: If the meat of the Paschal lamb became ritually impure, and the fat remains pure and may be burned on the altar, one may not sprinkle the blood. On the other hand, if the fat became impure and the meat remains pure, one may sprinkle the blood because the meat remains fit to be eaten. This is the halakha with regard to a Paschal lamb, whose primary purpose is to be eaten by those who have registered for it. However, with regard to other offerings it is not so. Rather, although the meat has become impure and the fat remains pure, one may sprinkle the blood, because part of the offering still remains valid.

קיים — זורק את הדם.

גמ׳ אמר רב גידל אמר רב: אם זרק — הורצה. והא בעינן אכילה! אכילה לא מעכבא.

GEMARA: Rav Giddel said that Rav said: If one sprinkled the blood despite the fact that the meat was ritually impure, it was nonetheless accepted; one is not obligated to observe the second Pesaḥ. The Gemara asks: Don’t we require that the Paschal lamb be eaten, which could not occur in this case? The Gemara answers: Failure to engage in eating the offering does not preclude it from being accepted.

והא כתיב: ״איש לפי אכלו״?! למצוה.

The Gemara asks: Isn’t it written: “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)? This indicates that the Torah requires one to eat the Paschal lamb. The Gemara responds: This verse is stated as a mitzva only. It should be fulfilled, but it does not preclude acceptance of the offering.

ולעכב לא? והתניא: ״במכסת״, מלמד שאין הפסח נשחט אלא למנויו. יכול שחטו שלא למנויו יהא כעובר על המצוה וכשר — תלמוד לומר: ״איש לפי אכלו תכסו״,

The Gemara asks: And was it not stated to preclude acceptance of the offering if it cannot be eaten? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: “According to the number of the souls”; this teaches that the Paschal lamb is slaughtered only for those who have registered for it and have thereby included themselves in advance in the number of the souls? I might have thought that if one slaughtered it for those who have not registered for it, he is merely like one who violates a mitzva, but the offering is still valid after the fact. Therefore, the verse states: “According to every man’s eating you shall make your count”; the verse repeated that the Paschal lamb is eaten only by those registered in order to underscore that failure to register precludes the offering from being valid.

הכתוב שנה עליו לעכב.

ואיתקש אוכלין למנויין.

And those who are able to eat the offering, as opposed to the sick or elderly who are unable to eat it, are juxtaposed in the verse to those who registered. Therefore, just as a Paschal lamb is disqualified if it is slaughtered for those who did not register for it, it is disqualified if it cannot be eaten. This poses a difficulty for the opinion of Rav.

אלא רב דאמר כרבי נתן, דאמר: אכילת פסחים לא מעכבא.

The Gemara answers: Rather, Rav said his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who said that failure to engage in eating the Paschal lamb does not preclude one from fulfilling one’s obligation to bring the offering, as the eating is a separate mitzva.

הי רבי נתן? אילימא הא רבי נתן דתניא, רבי נתן אומר: מנין שכל ישראל יוצאין בפסח אחד — תלמוד לומר: ״ושחטו אתו כל קהל עדת ישראל בין הערבים״,

The Gemara asks: Which statement of Rabbi Natan is this referring to? If we say it is this statement of Rabbi Natan, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that all Jews may fulfill their obligation after the fact with one Paschal lamb? The verse states: “And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it in the afternoon” (Exodus 12:6). He asked: And does the entire assembly slaughter it? Is it a mitzva for each individual to slaughter his own Paschal lamb? Is it not true that only one person slaughters for the entire group? Rather, this formulation of the verse teaches that all Jews may fulfill their obligation with one Paschal lamb. It is considered as though they all slaughtered it and fulfilled their obligation, although they cannot all eat an olive-bulk of the offering.

וכי כל הקהל שוחטין? והלא אין שוחט אלא אחד! אלא מלמד שכל ישראל יוצאין בפסח אחד.

דילמא שאני התם, דאי ממשכי הני חזי להני, ואי ממשכי הני חזי להני!

The Gemara responds that this is not comparable to the case at hand: Perhaps it is different there, as, if these withdraw from the offering, it is fit for those, and if those withdraw it is fit for these. Although it is impossible for all Jews to partake of the same offering, the offering is fit for each individual, who could eat an olive-bulk of it if enough other people would withdraw.

אלא, הא רבי נתן דתניא: נמנו עליו חבורה אחת, וחזרו ונמנו עליו חבורה אחרת, ראשונים שיש להן כזית, אוכלין — ופטורין מלעשות פסח שני, אחרונים שאין להם כזית,

Rather, it is this statement of Rabbi Natan, as it was taught in a baraita: If one group registered for a Paschal lamb and then another group registered for it, and there was not enough meat to allow each person to eat an olive-bulk, the first ones, who have an olive-bulk of the Paschal lamb for each person, eat and are exempt from performing the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ; the latter ones, who do not have an olive-bulk available from the Paschal lamb for each person, do not eat and are obligated to perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ.

אין אוכלין — וחייבין לעשות פסח שני.

רבי נתן אומר: אלו ואלו פטורין מלעשות פסח שני, שכבר נזרק הדם.

Rabbi Natan says: Both these and those are exempt from performing the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ, as the blood has already been sprinkled. Therefore, they have all fulfilled their obligation. This indicates that, according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan, eating is not essential.

אכתי: דילמא שאני התם, דאי ממשכי הני חזי להו. אם כן, ליתני: הואיל וראויים לימשך, מאי ״שכבר נזרק הדם״? שמע מינה בדם תליא מילתא, אבל אכילה לא מעכבא.

The Gemara responds that one can still ask: Perhaps it is different there, as, if these members of the first group withdraw, it is fit for the members of the second group. The Gemara rejects the question: If so, let it teach that the second group is exempt from the second Pesaḥ since the members of the first group are fit to withdraw. What is the reason for the statement of the baraita that the blood has already been sprinkled? Learn from this that the matter depends on the blood, but failure to engage in eating the Paschal lamb does not preclude one from fulfilling his obligation.

מאי דוחקיה דרב דמוקים לה מתניתין לכתחלה, ורבי נתן? נוקמה כרבנן, ואפילו דיעבד נמי לא! רב מתניתין קשיתיה: אמאי (תני) ״אין זורק את הדם״? ליתני ״פסול״.

The Gemara asks: What compelled Rav to establish the mishna as teaching that the blood may not be sprinkled on the altar ab initio, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan? Let us establish the mishna in accordance with the view of the Rabbis and say that even after the fact, no, one does not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara answers: Rav had difficulty with the mishna: Why does it teach that one may not sprinkle the blood? It should teach that the offering is disqualified. Rather, learn from this use of language that one may not sprinkle the blood on the altar ab initio, but after the fact it seems well.

אלא שמע מינה: ״אין זורק״ — לכתחלה, אבל דיעבד שפיר דמי.

ולרבי נתן, ״איש לפי אכלו״ למה לי? דבעינן גברא דחזי לאכילה.

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan, why do I need the phrase “according to every man’s eating,” if it does not teach that the eating is essential? The Gemara answers: It is necessary, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan, to teach that we require a person who is fit for eating. Although it is possible to fulfill one’s obligation without actually eating the Paschal lamb, if one is physically unable to eat some of it, e.g., one who is sick or elderly, he does not fulfill his obligation.

מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן: שחטו לאוכליו וזרקו דמו שלא לאוכליו — הפסח עצמו כשר, ואדם יוצא בו ידי חובתו. כמאן? נימא רבי נתן היא, ולא רבנן?

The Gemara raises a discussion based on the views cited above. Who is the tanna that taught this baraita? As the Sages taught: If one slaughtered it for individuals who are able to eat it and sprinkled its blood for individuals who cannot eat it, the Paschal lamb itself is valid, and one fulfills his obligation with it. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? Let us say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who holds that eating is not essential, and not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis?

אפילו תימא רבנן, אין מחשבת אוכלין בזריקה.

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: The baraita can be understood even if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Everyone agrees that improper intent pertaining to those who will eat the offering disqualifies the offering only if it occurs during the slaughter; it does not disqualify the offering if it occurs during the sprinkling of the blood.

מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן: הרי שהיה חולה בשעת שחיטה וחלים בשעת זריקה, חלים בשעת שחיטה וחולה בשעת זריקה. אין שוחטין וזורקין עליו,

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna that taught this baraita? As the Sages taught: With regard to one who was sick and not able to eat meat at the time of the slaughter and was healthy at the time of the sprinkling of the blood, or one who was healthy at the time of the slaughter and sick at the time of the sprinkling of the blood, one may not slaughter or sprinkle blood for him until he is healthy from the time of slaughter until the time of the sprinkling of the blood. In accordance with whose opinion is this? Let us say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that eating the Paschal lamb is essential, and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: The baraita can be understood even if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, because even Rabbi Natan holds that we require a person who is fit for eating.

עד שיהא חלים משעת שחיטה עד שעת זריקה. כמאן? נימא רבנן היא, ולא רבי נתן? אפילו תימא רבי נתן, גברא דחזי לאכילה בעינן.

מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן: שחטו בטהרה, ואחר כך נטמאו הבעלים — יזרק הדם בטהרה, ואל יאכל בשר בטומאה. כמאן?

The Gemara records a further discussion: Who is the tanna that taught this baraita? As the Sages taught: If one slaughtered the Paschal lamb in ritual purity, and after that the owners became ritually impure, the blood should be sprinkled in purity and the meat should not be eaten in impurity. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita?

אמר רבי (אליעזר): במחלוקת שנויה, ורבי נתן היא. ורבי יוחנן אמר: אפילו תימא רבנן היא. הכא במאי עסקינן — בציבור, דאפילו בטומאה נמי עבדי.

Rabbi Eliezer said: This halakha is subject to dispute, and it is taught in this baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who holds that eating is not essential, and not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The baraita can be understood even if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. With what are we dealing here? With a situation in which the majority of the public is ritually impure, in which case everyone agrees that they perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb even in a state of impurity.

אי בציבור, אמאי אין הבשר נאכל בטומאה? גזירה שמא יטמאו הבעלים לאחר זריקה, ויאמרו: אשתקד לא נטמאנו ואכלנו? השתא נמי ניכול. ולא ידעי דאשתקד כי איזדריק דם,

The Gemara asks: If it is in a case involving the public, why is the meat not eaten in a state of impurity? When the majority of the public is impure, they may sacrifice and even consume the Paschal lamb. The Gemara answers that this prohibition is due to a rabbinic decree lest the owners become impure after the sprinkling of the blood, and they will say: Last year, didn’t we become impure, and nevertheless we ate the Paschal lamb? Now too, we will eat. And they will not know that last year, when the blood was sprinkled the owners were already impure, and therefore the offering could be consumed in a state of impurity. Now, the owners were pure when the blood was sprinkled and became impure only afterward, and a Paschal lamb sacrificed in a state of purity cannot be eaten in a state of impurity, even if everyone is impure.

בעלים טמאים הוו, השתא בעלים טהורין הוו.