Talmud - Pesahim 61b פסחים ס״א ב׳

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Pesachim 61b explores whether intent to atone uncircumcised individuals through the Paschal lamb's blood disqualifies the sacrifice, debating slaughter versus sprinkling.