Talmud zu Schemot 12:5

One verse says²⁵Deut. 16:2., you shall sacrifice a Pesaḥ to the Eternal, your God, small cattle and large cattle. Another verse says²⁶Ex. 12:5.,from sheep and goats you shall take. How is this? Small cattle for Pesaḥ, small and large cattle for the festival sacrifice²⁷Babli 70b, Sifry Deut. 129, not in the name of Hillel..

One verse says²⁸Deut. 16:8., you shall eat mazzot for six days; another verse says²⁹Ex. 12:5., seven days you shall eat mazzot. How is this? Six days from the new crop³⁰After the Omer ceremony on the second day of the Holiday of Unleavened Bread, when grain from the new harvest becomes permitted (Lev. 23:14). Sifry Deut. 134 in the name of R. Simeon, 5 generations after Hillel; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo, Parašah 8, anonymous., seven days from the old. He interpreted, and agreed, and immigrated, and received practice³¹He had found the solutions himself; he immigrated into Palestine to have his explanations accepted by Shemaya and Avtalion and to have it harmonized with existing practice..

⁸⁶This and the next paragraph also appear in Pesaḥim5:1, Notes 80–97, where also the readings of B are noted (ג is unreadable or lacunary for the present paragraph.) Only the most necessary notes are given here, the remainder should be consulted there. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says⁸⁷Lev. 3:6., and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering from small cattle? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. Everywhere you are saying that מִן (is to include) [is to exclude], but here you are saying that (מִן is to exclude) [is to include]⁸⁸The text is difficult since it is standard rabbinic interpretation to consider prefix mem or מִן as privative, excluding certain categories (cf. Šabbat7 Note 26, Ševuot1:2 Note 75, Bava Meṣia`4:8 Note 122, Nazir5:4 Note 105). Also in the next sentence, R. Mana gives the interpretation that here מִן is privative. On the other hand, the testimony of the scribe’s two texts, the Genizah fragment available for Pesaḥim, and the Munich ms. of Šeqalim do not permit emendation. It seems that here “every where” is derogatory, meaning Babylonian. The sequence of arguments leads to a contradiction. Abba bar Abba treats מִן as inclusive, R. Abun bar Cahana as exclusive. R. Mana explains that מִן always is partitive; automatic switch to well-being offerings is possible only for sacrifices that totally correspond to the declaration צאן, i. e., both sheep and goats, male and female.. Rebbi Mana said, (it excludes it,) [here also מִן is to exclude: It excludes in that it may not be brought two years old; it excludes that it cannot be brought female; and for a reparation offering also it excludes]⁸⁹Corrector’s addition from B. since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written,⁹⁰Lev. 1:10. and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that they are saying, Pesaḥ is changed into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi Illa said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering⁸⁷Lev. 3:6.; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts⁹¹If the animal dedicated as Pesaḥ is used against the rules for something other than a well-being offering, do the rules of the other kind apply or is it disqualified and no rules of intent apply?? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul⁹²If the animal still is a sacrifice, now under the rules of elevation sacrifices, the intention to perform any required action out of its prescribed time-frame is piggul, a deadly sin causing extirpation.. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified⁹³If the animal is disqualified and not under the rule of any kind of sacrifice, the illegitimate intent is inconsequential..

HALAKHAH: Some Tannaim state, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were disqualifying for it⁶⁶As they are disqualifying for sacrifices; Lev. 22:22–24. Mekhilta dR. Isamel Bo 4.. Some Tannaim state, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were not disqualifying for it⁶⁷Tosephta 8:11.. He who said, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were disqualifying for it, is understandable, since it is written, a perfect lamb⁶⁸Ex. 12:5.. He who said, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were not disqualifying for it, how does he confirm a perfect lamb? ⁶⁹The next sentences are from Soṭah 9:5, Notes 109–112. Even for offerings of the descendants of Noah it is impossible! Did not Rebbi Yasa say that Rebbi Eleazar made it clear to the colleagues, from all living, from all flesh⁷⁰Gen. 6:19. From all living creatures, each one with its entire flesh, i. e., a whole body. Babli Avodah zarah 5b.
Since Noah sacrificed some of the pure animals after the Flood, they must have conformed to the rules of sacrificial animals. But the Pesaḥ in Egypt was not an altar sacrifice., that they were complete in their limbs. There, some of them were for the altar, here nothing is for the altar. ⁷¹This sentence belongs to Soṭah, it has no place here.(Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, since you say, purgation is written there as for sacrifices, but here the altar has no part) But is was stated thus: Our forefathers in Egypt had three altars, the lintel and two door-posts. Some Tannaim state, four: the door-step, and the lintel, and two door-posts. Some Tannaim state, סַף is a vessel. Some Tannaim state, סַף is the door-step. He who said, סַף is a vessel, the cups, and the pruning knives, and the vessels for pouring⁷²1K. 6:50. The words are badly misspelled. The word is סף I.. He who said, סַף is the door-step, when they used My door-step and their door-step⁷³Ez. 43:8, סף II.. He who said, סַף is a vessel, is understandable⁷⁴Ex. 12:22.; from the blood in the סַף. He who said, סַף is the door-step, how does he confirm that סַף may mean a vessel? He brings a cup as סַף, puts it down on the door-step, dunks and sprinkles.