משנה: נִיטְמָא הַבָּשָׂר וְהַחֵלֶב קַייָם אֵינוֹ זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם. נִיטְמָא הַחֵלֶב וְהַבָּשָׂר קַייָם זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם. וּבַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין אֵינוֹ כֵן אֶלָּא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּיטְמָא הַבָּשָר וְהַחֵלֶב קַייָם זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם׃ MISHNAH: If the meat became impure while the fat is unchanged, he does not pour the blood76Since the Pesaḥ is brought only to be eaten, if there is no meat to be eaten, there is no Pesaḥ. If the Pesaḥ was brought but the blood may not be poured, the owner has to bring a second Pesaḥ on the 14th of Iyar.. If the fat became impure while the meat is unchanged, he pours the blood. With sacrifices it is not so, but even if the meat became impure while the fat is unchanged, he pours the blood77Since for sancta burned on the altar only pouring the blood permits the parts to be brought to the altar..
הלכה: וּדְלֹא כְרִבִּי נָתָן. דְּרִבִּי נָתָן אָמַר. יוֹצְאִין בִּזְרִיקָה בְּלֹא אֲכִילָה. מַה טַעֲמָה. וְשָֽׁחֲט֣וּ אוֹתוֹ כֹּ֛ל קְהַ֥ל עֲדַת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בֵּ֥ין הָֽעַרְבָּֽיִם׃ אוֹתוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא פֶּסַח אֶחָד כּוּלְּהוֹן יוֹצְאִין בִּזְרִיקָה אַחַת. וְאֵיפְשָׁר כְּזַיִת לְכָל־אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. HALAKHAH: This does not follow Rebbi Nathan83Pesachim.78b">Babli 78b., for Rebbi Nathan says, one fulfills one’s obligation by pouring without eating. What is the reason? All of Israel shall slaughter it between the evenings84Exodus.12.6">Ex. 12:6.. “It”, even if there is only one Pesaḥ, all fulfill their obligation with one pouring. Ii is impossible that there be an olive-sized bit for everyone85If the entire people bring only one lamb, there is not one olive-size bite for every one. But eating less than an olive-size bite is not counted, it is equivalent to nobody eating anything..
פְּשִׁיטָא דָא מִילְּתַא. נִטְמָא הַבָּשָׂר וְהָאֵימוֹרִין קַייָמִין. זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם עַל [הָאֵימוֹרִין. נִטְמָא הָאֵימוֹרִין וְהַבָּשָׂר קַייָם. זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם עַל] הַבָּשָׂר. נִיטְמָא הַבָּשָׂר וְאָֽבְדוּ הָאֵימוֹרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי שַׁמַּי. וְהָהֵן קיימין לֹא כְמִי שֶׁנִּיטְמָא הַבָּשָׂר וְאָֽבְדוּ הָאֵימוֹרִין הוּא. אַתְּ אָמַר קוֹמֵץ. אוֹף הָכָא זוֹרֵק. אָמַר רִבִּי. תִּיפְתָּר כְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אָמַר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שְׁיֵרִים יֵשׁ קוֹמֶץ. The following is obvious: If the meat became impure but the parts are unchanged, one pours the blood for [the parts. If the parts became impure and the meat is unchanged, one pours the blood for] the meat86Since for all Temple sacrifices which are partially eaten, neither Heaven’s parts can be brought to the altar nor the meat eaten before the blood was poured on the walls of the altar. If one of the two kinds still exists in pure shape, pouring the blood is a positive act and therefore permitted.. If the meat became impure and the parts were lost, Rebbi Shammai said, is the (existing) [fistful]87Reading of K. not as if the meat became impure and the parts were lost88A flour offering is eaten by the priests after a fistful has been burned on the altar. If after the fistful was in the hand of the Cohen but before it was brought to the altar the flour became impure, or was burned, or lost, R. Eliezer permits to burn the fistful on the altar but R. Joshua forbids (Menachot 3:4" href="/Mishnah_Menachot.3.4">Mishnah Menaḥot3:4). The situation can be compared to that of animal sacrifices when only the blood is left.
The text of K has to be followed here; the text of S is a scribal error.? You are saying that he takes the fistful; also here he pours. Rebbi [Mana]87Reading of K. said, explain it following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer says, even if there is no remainder there is a fistful89In practice we follow R. Joshua. Pesachim.77b">Babli 77b..
בָּא בְטוּמְאַת עוֹבְדִין. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָה. שָֽׁחֲטוּ אוֹתוֹ בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין וְזָֽרְקוּ אוֹתוֹ טְהוֹרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא. וְהַבָּשָׂ֞ר אֲשֶׁר־יִגַּ֤ע בְּכָל־טָמֵא֙ לֹ֣א יֵֽאָכֵ֔ל. הֲרֵי לֹא נָגַע בוֹ טָמֵא. (וְהַטָּהוֹר) [וְהַ֨בָּשָׂ֔ר] כָּל־טָה֖וֹר יֹאכַ֥ל בָּשָֽׂר׃ הֲרֵי יֵשׁ כָּאן טְהוֹרִים שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּהוּ. רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאִילּוּ הַפֶּסַח הַבָּא בְטוּמְאָה וְנֶאֱכַל בְטוּמְאָה [וְהָכָא כְמִי שֶׁבָּא בְטוּמְאָה]. וֵייְדָא אָמַר. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. רִבִּי זְעוּרָה בָעֵי. בָּא בְטוּמְאַת הַדָּם הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין מַתִּירִין לוֹ לִזְרוֹק כְּמִי שֶׁבָּא בְטוּמְאָה. אוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁאִילּוּ עָבַר וְזָרַק הוּרְצָה כְּמִי שֶׁלֹּא בָא בְטוּמְאָה. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. וְנָשָׂ֨א אַֽהֲרֹ֜ן אֶת־עֲוֹ֣ן הַקֳּדָשִׁ֗ים. עֲוֹן הַקְּרֵיבִים. לֹא עֲוֹן הַמַּקְרִיבִים. הִפְרִישׁ בֵּין קְרֵיבִין לְיָחִיד לַקְּרֵיבִין לַצִּיבּוּר. הַקְּרֵיבִין לְיָחִיד אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ אוֹמְרִין לוֹ. הֲבֵא. [וְאִם לָאו. אֵין מַתִּירִין לוֹ לִזְרוֹק אֶת דָּמוֹ.] עָבַר וְזָרַק הוּרְצָה. הַמַּקְרִיבִין לְיָחִיד בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בֵין שֶׁאֵין לוֹ [לֹא הוּרְצָה. הַקְּרֵיבִין לַצִּבּוּר אִם יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִין לוֹ. הֲבֵא. וְאִם לָאו מַתִּירִין לוֹ לִזְרוֹק בַּתְּחִילָּה. הַמַּקְרִיבִין לַצִּבּוּר בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בֵין שֶׁאֵין לוֹ עָבַר] וְזָרַק הוּרְצָה. If it comes in impurity of the officiants90The case mentioned in the Mishnah, that the people were pure but all officiating priests impure.? How is that? If defective persons91It could have stated, “a pure non-priest”. The statement seems to imply that a priest with a bodily defect, who is barred from officiating Leviticus.21.16-24">(Lev. 21:16–24), still is permitted to act as slaughterer in the Temple. Here it is presumed that he is pure. slaughtered and pure92Obviously one has to read: impure. (K is not legible at this point.) The impure (by the impurity of the dead) priest does not come into direct contact with the sacrificial animal. While the blood collected in the vessel which he holds will be impure, it does not make the carcass impure through the stream of blood falling into his vessel. ones poured. Rebbi Hila said, any meat that touched anything impure may not be eaten75Leviticus.7.19">Lev. 7:19., but here it was not touched by anybody impure. The meat, anybody pure may eat meat75Leviticus.7.19">Lev. 7:19.; there are pure ones available to eat it93The people, as stated in the Mishnah.. Rebbi Zeˋira: Since Pesaḥ made in impurity is eaten, [this one is as if brought in impurity]94Since the people are pure, the argument of R. Hoshaia is superfluous.. And where was this95The source of R. Zeˋira’s argument. said? Rebbi Samuel said, Rebbi Zeˋira asked: If it comes with impurity of the blood96The carcass is pure, the priests are pure, but the blood has become impure. Since only the blood pumped out at the moment of slaughter is acceptable on the altar (Pesachim 5:8:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.5.8.3">Chapter 5, Note 234), it cannot be replaced., what is done? Since one does not permit him to pour, is it as if brought in impurity? Or since if he transgressed and poured, it was made acceptable, is it as if not brought in impurity? Let us hear from the following which was said by [Rebbi Elazar in the name of 87Reading of K. Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices97Exodus.28.38">Ex. 28:38. Explained in more detail in the Pesachim.16b">Babli 16b, Yoma.7a">Yoma 7a, Zevachim.23a">Zevaḥim 23a., the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers98The diadem will not cover deficiencies in either the owners or the officiants of a sacrifice. Zevachim.23b">Babli Zevaḥim 23b.. He separated between what is offered on behalf of an individual and what is offered on behalf of the public. If offered for an individual, if he has another one99Another animal to offer.
The following text in brackets is a corrector’s addition which by the concurrent testimony of the original scribe and K should be deleted., one tells him, bring! If not, [one does not permit him to pour the blood;] if he transgressed and poured, it was made acceptable. The sacrificers for an individual, whether he has or does not have, [it was not made acceptable. If offered for the public, if he has another one, one tells him, bring! If not, one permits him to pour the blood a priori. The sacrificers for the public, whether he has or does not have,] it was made acceptable.
אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מַתְנִיתָא בְּבָא בְטוּמְאָה מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. אֲבָל אִם בָּא בְטַהֲרָה וְנִיטְמָא אֵינוֹ נֶאֱכַל בְּטוּמְאָה. שְׁחָטוֹ בְטַהֲרָה וְנִיטְמָא הַצִּיבּוּר. יִיזָרֵק הַדָּם בְּטַהֲרָה וְאַל יֵיאָכֶל הַבָּשָׂר בְּטוּמְאָה. (וְאָמַר אַף בִּזְרִיקָה כֵן.) [רִבִּי לָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. רִבִּי נָתָן הִיא. דְּרִבִּי נָתָן אָמַר. יוֹצְאִין בִּזְרִיקָה בְּלֹא אֲכִילָה. שְׁחָטוֹ בְטַהֲרָה וְנִטְמָא הַדָּם הָצָּבוּר. יִזָרֵק הַדָּם בְּטוּמְאָה וְאַל יֵאָכֶל הַבָּשָׂר בְּטוּמְאָה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן. שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ. רָאִינוּ פֶּסַח בָּא בְטַהֲרָה וְנִזְרַק בְּטוּמְאָה. מֵעַתָּה לֹא יִזָרֵק הַדָּם בְּטוּמְאָה.] שָׁלֹּא יְהוּ אוֹמְרִין. רָאִינוּ פֶּסַח שֶׁבָּא בְטַהֲרָה וְנִזְרַק בְּטוּמְאָה. הָא סוֹפָךְ מֵימַר דְּרִבִּי נָתָן הִיא. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי נָתָן בְּחוֹלֶה וּבְזָקֵן. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי נָתָן הִיא בַחֲבוּרָה שֶׁנִּיטְמָא עוֹבֵד שֶׁלָּהּ. שֶׁהֵן נִדָּחִין לַפֶּסַח הַשֵּׁינִי. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי נָתָן בַּחֲבוּרָה שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת יַבֶּולֶת בְּעוֹרָהּ. שֶׁהֵן נִדָּחִין לַפֶּסַח הַשֵּׁינִי. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is about one “which comes in impurity from the start.”100Tosephta 6:1. But if it came in purity and then became impure, it cannot be eaten in impurity. “If it was slaughtered in purity but then the public became impure, the blood shall be poured in purity101Obviously if everybody is impure, the blood in the vessel carried by the impure Cohen cannot remain pure. One has to read with the Tosephta: impure. but the meat not eaten in impurity.” (Should one not say the same for pouring?102Text written by the scribe and deleted by the corrector; missing in K, which supports the corrector’s text. There seems to be no reason why the blood could be poured in impurity if the blood is only needed to permit the meat to be consumed when the meat is forbidden for consumption.) [Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is Rebbi Nathan’s, as Rebbi Nathan said, one has fulfilled his duty by pouring without eating103Pesachim.78b">Babli 78b. The pouring of the blood frees the group subscribing to this particular Pesaḥ from having to bring another animal at the Second Pesaḥ.. “If it was slaughtered in purity but then the blood collected became impure104This sentence does not make any sense, although it is confirmed by the editio princeps of the Tosephta (6:1). One has to read with K and the Tosephta mss. either וצבור or והציבור: “If it was slaughtered in purity but then the public became impure, the blood may be poured in impurity but the meat may not be eaten in impurity.”, the blood may be poured in impurity but the meat may not be eaten in impurity.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of the bad impression, lest they say, we have seen a Pesaḥ brought in purity which was [poured] {eaten}105As the following shows, one has to prefer {the text of K} over [the corrector’s text]. in impurity. Then should not the blood be poured in impurity?] Lest they say, we have seen a Pesaḥ brought in purity for which it was poured in impurity. You have to end up saying that it is Rebbi Nathan’s. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a sick or an old person106R. Nathan only declares pouring the blood as sufficient if at the start there was a possibility that the meat would be eaten, “since from the start this is what it is for.” If nobody in the group is able to eat a full olive-sized piece, there can be no Pesaḥ.. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a group whose officiant became impure107If the slaughterer makes the sacrifice impure, there can be no pouring of the blood., that they are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a group where a wart was found108If the animal from the start was unfit to be a sacrifice, there can be no sacrifice., that they are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ.
חָמֵשׁ חֲבוּרוֹת שֶׁנִּתְעָֽרְבו עוֹרוֹת פִּסְחֵיהֶן וְנִמְצֵאת יַבּוֹלֶת בְּעוֹרָהּ שֶׁלְאַחַת מֵהֶן. כּוּלְּהֹן יֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה וּפְטוּרִין מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח שֵׁינִי. סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר דְּרִבִּי נָתָן הִיא. תִּיפְתָּר דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בְּמִיטָּמֵא בִּסְפֵק קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. וּכְרִבִּי נָתָן זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם. “If the skins of the Pesaḥ sacrifices of five groups were intermingled and a wart was found on one of them, all of them109The sacrifices have to be brought to the spot where disqualified sacrifices were burned outside the sacred precinct. have to be brought to the place of burning, but they110The members of the groups. Since the animal with the wart never was a potential sacrifice, the group bringing this particular animal must be considered as not having offered a Pesaḥ at all, and obligated to bring a Second Pesaḥ. But since for each person there only is a 20% probability that his Pesaḥ was the invalid one, and a Second Pesaḥ may not be brought by a person not obligated, nobody is provably obligated and therefore nobody is entitled to bring a Second Pesaḥ. are not liable to bring a Second Pesaḥ.111Pesachim.88b">Babli 88b.” They wanted to say that this is Rebbi Nathan’s. Explain it following everybody, {they made it}87Reading of K. like one which has become impure by a doubt of a grave of the abyss112Since if the blood was poured for the Pesaḥ of a person who assumes that he was pure and between this act and the consumption of the sacrifice he was informed that possibly he was made impure by stepping over a previously unknown grave, he cannot eat, so also here all members of the group whose Pesaḥ possibly was a non-sacrifice cannot eat from it.. Following Rebbi Nathan would he have poured the blood113Even following R. Nathan, the situation is possible only if the wart was discovered after the blood was poured; even R. Nathan does not allow pouring the blood of a non-sacrifice. Pesachim.88b">Babli 88b, opinion of Abbai.?
רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר אַ֣ךְ בְּכוֹר־שׁ֡וֹר אֽוֹ־בְכ֨וֹר כֶּ֜שֶׂב אֽוֹ־בְכ֥וֹר עֵז֖ וגו׳. וְכָתוּב אַחֵר אוֹמֵר וְזָרַ֨ק הַכֹּהֵ֤ן אֶת־הַדָּם֙ עַל־מִזְבַּ֣ח יְי פֶּ֖תַח אוֹהֶל מוֹעֵ֑ד וְהִקְטִ֣יר הַחֵ֔לֶב לְרֵ֥יחַ נִיחֹ֖חַ לַֽיי. עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא שָׁם אוֹ בָשָׂר לַאֲכִילָה אוֹ אֵימוֹרִין לְהַקְטָרָה. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. נִטְמְאוּ שְׁיֵרֶיהָ נִשְרְפוּ שְׁיֵרֶיהָ אָֽבְדוּ שְׁיֵרֶיה. כְּמִידַּת רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר כְּשֵׁירָה וּכְמִידַּת רֵבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פְּסוּלָה. [שֶׁלֹּא בִכְלִי שָׁרֵת פְּסוּלָה. רִבִּי יִשָׁמָעֵאל מַכְשִׁיר. הִקְטִיר קֻמְצוֹ פַּעֲמַיִם. כְּשֵׁרָה׃] עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. אִם אֵין דָּם אֵין בָּשָׂר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בָּשָׂר יֵשׁ דָּם. אִם אֵין קוֹמֶץ אֵין שְׁיֵרִיים. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שְׁירִיים יֵשׁ קוֹמֶץ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. אִם אֵין דָּם אֵין בָּשָׂר. אִם אֵין בָּשָׂר אֵין דָּם. אִם אֵין קוֹמֶץ אֵין שְׁיֵרִיים. אִם אֵין שְׁיֵרִיים אֵין קוֹמֶץ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. תִּיפְתָּר כְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. דְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אָמַר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שְׁיֵרִיים יֵשׁ קוֹמֶץ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. רַב וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן תְּרֵיהוֹן אָֽמְרִין. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁאִם עָבַר וְזָרַק אֶת הַדָּם שֶׁהוּרְצָה. 114Discussion of the statement of the Mishnah that both the Omer and the Two Breads are brought in impurity even though they cannot be consumed by the priest and it is questionable whether a fistful of the Omer can be burned or the breads presented before the altar if that action seems purposeless since it does not serve to permit anything to be eaten. Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ismael in the name of Rebbi Joshua: One verse says, but a firstling of cattle, or a firstling of sheep, or a firstling of goats115Numbers.18.17">Num. 18:17. The verse continues: pour their blood on the altar, and burn their fat, … and their meat shall be yours., etc. And another verse says116Leviticus.17.6">Lev. 17:6. the Cohen shall pour the blood on the Eternal’s altar at the door of the Tent of Meeting, and burn the fat for a pleasant smell before the Eternal. Only if there be there either meat be be eaten or parts to be burned117Since Numbers.18.17">Num. 18:17 mentions fat and meat but Lev.17:6 only fat, it follows that the sacrifice is acceptable if the blood is poured either to permit the fat to be burned or the meat to be eaten.. There we have stated118Menachot 3:4" href="/Mishnah_Menachot.3.4">Mishnah Menaḥot3:4. For flour offerings, the fistful to be burned on the altar permits the remainder to be eaten by the Cohanim; the relationship of the fistful taken by the priest for the altar to the remainder to be consumed in the sacred domain is parallel to that of blood to be poured and the parts to be burned or the meat to be eaten.: “If the remainders became impure, the remainders were burned, the remainders were lost. In the rules of Rebbi Eliezer it is qualified, in the rules of Rebbi Joshua it is disqualified. [Not in a vessel of service it is disqualified; Rebbi Ismael119The second part of the Mishnah was added by the corrector; by the testimony of K this should be deleted. “R. Ismael” is a scribal error for “R. Simeon” in the Mishnah and in a quote of the Mishnah in Yoma 2:1, 39c line 32. qualifies. If he burned the fistful in two parts it is qualified.”] In Rebbi Eliezer’s opinion, if there is no blood there is no meat; even though if there is no meat there is blood120For him, pouring the blood is a sacral act independent of the fact that pouring the blood is needed to enable the parts to be burned and the meat to be eaten.. If there is no fistful there are no remainders, even though if there are no remainders there is a fistful. In Rebbi Joshua’s opinion, if there is no blood there is no meat; if there is no meat there is no blood121If nothing is to be enabled, the act of pouring becomes meaningless and therefore has to be avoided. But then R. Joshua cannot permit the Omer to be brought in impurity, since this also would be a meaningless act.. If there is no fistful there are no remainders, if there are no remainders there is no fistful. Rebbi Mana said, explain it114Discussion of the statement of the Mishnah that both the Omer and the Two Breads are brought in impurity even though they cannot be consumed by the priest and it is questionable whether a fistful of the Omer can be burned or the breads presented before the altar if that action seems purposeless since it does not serve to permit anything to be eaten. following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, even though there are no remainders there is a fistful. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, Rebbi Joshua agrees that if he transgressed and poured the blood that it was made acceptable122Since the diadem justifies the act retroactively, the same can be said for the Omer and the entire Mishnah may be R. Joshua’s..