Talmud su Esodo 12:22

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁹Babli 3b.: But since the he-goat of initiation obstructs, does the he-goat of the Day of Atonement also obstruct²⁰In the ceremonies for the eighth day of initiation, the commandment to Aaron to take a bull and a he-goat (Lev. 9:2) is one unit; there could be no bull without a he-goat. But in Mishnah Menaḥot 4:2 it is stated that for all holiday sacrifices bulls and he-goats are independent of one another. If the rules of the Day of Atonement are derived from the rules of the initiation rites, the Mishnah would have to state an exception for the Day of Atonement.? And he accepted it from him²¹The rules of the Day of Atonement cannot be derived from the rules of the initiation rites.. [On that Rebbi Mana said, I am wondering how could Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish ask before Rebbi Joḥanan and he accepted it from him?] Should he not have objected to him that we do not find that anything obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, nor can anything not obstructing be inferred from anything obstructing? “He breaks the neck”, “to burn in smoke”²²In the rules of the elevation offering of a bird (Lev. 1:15), in the same verse it is required that the Cohen break the neck of the bird and burn it in smoke on the altar.. Since (breaking the neck)²³This must read: “burning in smoke”. is done on top of the altar, so (breaking the neck) [burning in smoke]²⁴The text in parentheses was first written by the scribe, the text in brackets is the correction. The original text in parentheses is the correct one. Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata 7(4). is done on the top of the altar. Breaking the neck obstructs, burning in smoke does not obstruct²⁵If the sacrifice would become impure and disqualified after the breaking of the neck but before the burning, the offerer has fulfilled his vow and it is not necessary to bring a second sacrifice.. “Permanently,” [“permanently].” “Permanently” is mentioned for the pan-baked breads²⁶Therefore one part of R. Mana’s objection has been shown to be invalid.
The daily offering of the High Priest (Lev. 6:12–16), a tenth of an epha of fine flour baked into “breads” (v. 14) without a specified number. “Permanent” is stated in v. 13. and “permanently” is mentioned for the shew-bread²⁷The shew-bread is specified as 12 loaves, Lev. 24:5. The arrangement is called “permanent” in v. 24:8..] The shew-breads are obstructive, the pan-baked breads are not obstructive. Since [“permanently” mentioned for the pan-baked breads refers to twelve,] so “permanently” mentioned [for the shew-bread refers to twelve²⁸It is obvious that here also one has to switch the places of “shew-bread” and “panbaked breads”. The number of breads of the High Priest is fixed as 12 in Mishnah Menaḥot 6:5, but a deviation from this number invalidates only shew-bread, not the High Priest’s offering.. “Taking”, “taking”. “Taking” mentioned in Egypt²⁹Ex. 12:22, the commandment to take “a bundle of hyssop”., “taking” is mentioned for lulav³⁰Lev. 23;40, the commandment to take 4 kinds of plants; it is not mentioned that they must be tied as a bundle.. [Since “taking” mentioned in Egypt implies a bundle³¹In the Babli Sukkah 11b, and Sifra Emor Pereq 16(1), this is rejected as R. Jehudah’s minority opinion., so also “taking” mentioned for lulav implies a bundle³²Both of R. Mana’s objections were disregarded by Tannaim; R. Simeon ben Laqish is justified..] For the lulav it obstructs, in Egypt it did not obstruct. Therefore we found things obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, and things not obstructing can be inferred from anything obstructing³⁴Babli 4a..

MISHNAH: What is the difference between Passover in Egypt and the Passover of generations⁶¹Passover for future generations.? The Pesaḥ in Egypt was bought on the Tenth⁶²Ex. 12:3., and needed sprinkling with a bunch of hyssop on the lintel and two door-posts⁶³Ex. 12:22., and was eaten in a hurry⁶⁴Ex. 12:11., during one night⁶⁵The following day was a common workday on which they left Egypt.. But Passover of generations is all of seven [days].

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.