"Speak to the whole congregation of Israel": The speaking was on Rosh Chodesh; the taking (of the lamb), on the tenth; and the slaughtering, on the fourteenth. You say this, but perhaps the speaking and the taking were on the tenth and the slaughtering on the fourteenth? It is, therefore, written "This month is for you. Speak, etc." When was the speaking? On Rosh Chodesh. You must revert, then, to the first formulation. The speaking was on Rosh Chodesh, the taking on the tenth, and the slaughtering on the fourteenth.
R. Acha b. R. Oshiyah says: The speaking was on Rosh Chodesh, the taking on the tenth, and the slaughtering on the fourteenth. You say this, but perhaps the speaking and the taking were on the tenth, and the slaughtering on the fourteenth? It is, therefore, written "Speak to the whole congregation of Israel, saying." Let "saying" not be written. Why is it written? To separate (between the speaking and the taking). You must posit the first formulation, then, and not the second.
R. Yossi Haglili says: The speaking was on Rosh Chodesh, the taking on the tenth, and the slaughtering on the fourteenth. You say this, but perhaps the speaking was on the tenth, and the slaughtering and the taking on the fourteenth? If is, therefore, written (Ibid. 6) "And it shall be to you for a keeping until the fourteenth." If you say this (i.e., that he may slaughter it on the tenth), you have uprooted the entire verse (from its meaning)! You must revert, then, to the first formulation.
(Ibid. 3) "On the tenth day of this month, they shall take": This tells me that only the tenth day is kasher for taking. Whence do I derive (the same for) the fourteenth day? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If the tenth day, which is not kasher for slaughtering, is kasher for taking, then the fourteenth day, which is kasher for slaughtering, how much more so is it kasher for taking! Whence do I derive (the same for) the thirteenth day? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If the tenth day which is not proximate to slaughtering, is kasher for taking, how much more so the thirteenth, which is proximate to slaughtering! And the same applies to the eleventh and twelfth days.
"On the tenth day of this month, they shall take": ("this") excludes the Paschal lamb of all the generations, which, unlike the Paschal lamb of Egypt, need not be taken on the tenth day, but may be taken at all times.
"they shall take for themselves": Now did they all take? The intent is to render a man's messenger akin to himself — whence the expression "A man's messenger is like the man himself."
(Ibid.) "each man, a seh for a household": Included in "seh" is a goat and a sheep, viz. (Devarim 14:4) "the seh of the sheep and the seh of the goats."
I might think that one seh suffices for all; it is, therefore, written "a seh for a household," a "household" being a family, as in (Numbers 1:2) "by their families, according to their households." If there were ten families in one household, I might think that one seh suffices for all; it is, therefore, written "a seh for a house."
(Exodus 12:4) "And if the household is too small for one lamb": We are hereby taught that a lamb can always be subscribed to or withdrawn from, so long as it has not been slaughtered, as long as it is not left as is (i.e., without owners).
R. Yehudah says: As long as one of the original party (to it) remains — so that the primary (the original subscriber) not become secondary (to the new subscribers) and the secondary, primary.
(Ibid.) "then he and his neighbor next to his house shall take it": R. Akiva says: Whence is it derived that if one wishes to make his Pesach for himself he may do so? From "then he and his neighbor shall take." R. Yishmael says: Whence is it derived that if one wishes to appoint others for his lamb he may do so? From "then he and his neighbor, etc." ("neighbor":)
(Does this mean he may appoint even) his neighbor in his roof (i.e., in another domain), or only his neighbor near him? It is, therefore, written "near his house" (but not necessarily in the same domain.)
R. Shimon b. Yochai says: "his neighbor" connotes in any event (i.e., in either domain).
17
"בְּמִכְסַת נְפָשֹׁת". אֵין 'מִכְסַת' אֶלָּא מִנְיָן, שֶׁיִּשְׁחֲטֶנּוּ לִמְנוּיָיו. שְׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִמְנוּיָיו, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, יְהֵי כְעוֹבֵר עַל הַמִּצְוָה וְכָשֵׁר! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "אִישׁ לְפִי אָכְלוֹ תָּכֹסּוּ", שָׁנָה הַכָּתוּב עָלָיו לִפְסֹל.*שָׁנָה הַכָּתוּב: חזר הפסוק פעם נוספת על העניין.
(Ibid.) "according to the michsah of souls": "michsah" connotes a count, i.e., it must be slaughtered for those counted for it. If he does not slaughter it with this intent, I might think that it is nevertheless kasher. It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "Each according to his eating shall you count" — Scripture repeating this to indicate that it is not kasher otherwise. ...
What is the intent of "according to the count of souls"? From (Ibid.) "A man (according to his eating"), I might think only a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman, a tumtum (one of indeterminate sex) and a hermaphrodite? It is, therefore, written "according to the count of souls." This would imply for inclusion even one who is sick and one who is old, who cannot eat an olive-size. It is, therefore, written "A man according to his eating," to exclude the above, in whose behalf the lamb is not slaughtered. ("Each according to his eating) tachosu (over) the lamb": Rebbi says: This ("tachosu") is Aramaic, as one would say to his neighbor "Kos (i.e., 'slaughter') this lamb for me." "over the lamb":
R. Yishmael says: We are hereby taught that the Paschal lamb can always be subscribed to or withdrawn from so long as it has not been slaughtered, as long as it is not left as is (i.e., without owners).
(שמות יב,ג) "דַּבְּרוּ אֶל כָּל עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר: בֶּעָשֹׂר לַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה, וְיִקְחוּ לָהֶם אִישׁ שֶׂה לְבֵית אָבֹת, שֶׂה לַבָּיִת." רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: וְכִי שְׁנֵיהֶם הָיוּ מְדַבְּרִים? וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר: (שמות לא,יג) "וְאַתָּה דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר"? וּמַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "דַּבְּרוּ"? אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁהָיָה מֹשֶׁה מְדַבֵּר, הָיָה אַהֲרֹן מַרְכִּין אָזְנוֹ לִשְׁמֹעַ בְּאֵימָה,*מַרְכִּין אָזְנוֹ: מטה אוזנו כלפי מטה כדי להקשיב היטב. וּמַעֲלֶה עָלָיו כְּאִלּוּ שׁוֹמֵעַ מִפִּי הַקֹּדֶשׁ.
(Exodus 12:3) "Speak to the whole congregation of Israel."
רַבִּי אֲחַי בְּרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה אוֹמֵר: וְכִי שְׁנֵיהֶם מְדַבְּרִים הָיוּ? וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר: (שמות לא,יג) "וְאַתָּה דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל"? וּמַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "דַּבְּרוּ"? אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן שֶׁמֹּשֶׁה מְדַבֵּר, הָיָה אַהֲרֹן מִימִינוֹ וְאֶלְעָזָר מִשְּׂמֹאלוֹ, וְאִיתָמָר מִימִינוֹ שֶׁלְּאַהֲרֹן, וְהַדִּבּוּר יוֹצֵא מִבֵּינֵיהֶם כְּאִלּוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן מְדַבְּרִים.
R. Achai b. R. Yoshiyah says: Now did they both speak? Is it not written (Ibid. 7:2) "You (Moses) shall speak all that I shall command you"?
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: מֹשֶׁה חוֹלֵק כָּבוֹד לְאַהֲרֹן וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ: לַמְּדֵנִי! וְאַהֲרֹן חוֹלֵק כָּבוֹד לְמֹשֶׁה וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ: לַמְּדֵנִי! וְהַדִּבּוּר יוֹצֵא מִבֵּינֵיהֶם כְּאִלּוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם מְדַבְּרִים.
Moses accorded honor to Aaron and said "Teach me," and Aaron did likewise with Moses, and the speech emanated from both as if both were speaking.
"דַּבְּרוּ אֶל כָּל עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר: בֶּעָשֹׂר לַחֹדֶשׁ". הַדִּבֵּר הַזֶּה בְּרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ, וּלְקִיחָה בֶּעָשׂוֹר, וּשְׁחִיטָה בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר הַדִּבֵּר הָיָה בְּרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ, וּלְקִיחָה בֶּעָשׂוֹר, וּשְׁחִיטָה בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא הַדִּבֵּר וּלְקִיחָה בֶּעָשׂוֹר, וּשְׁחִיטָה בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "הַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה לָכֶם דַּבְּרוּ", אֵימָתַי הָיָה הַדִּבֵּר? בְּרֹאשׁ הַחֹדֶשׁ. הָא אֵין עָלֶיךָ לוֹמַר כְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֲרוֹן, אֶלָּא כְלָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן: הַדִּבֵּר בְּרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ, וּלְקִיחָה בֶּעָשׂוֹר, וּשְׁחִיטָה בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר.
"Speak to the whole congregation of Israel": The speaking was on Rosh Chodesh; the taking (of the lamb), on the tenth; and the slaughtering, on the fourteenth. You say this, but perhaps the speaking and the taking were on the tenth and the slaughtering on the fourteenth? It is, therefore, written "This month is for you. Speak, etc." When was the speaking? On Rosh Chodesh. You must revert, then, to the first formulation. The speaking was on Rosh Chodesh, the taking on the tenth, and the slaughtering on the fourteenth.
רַבִּי אֲחַי בְּרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה אוֹמֵר: הַדִּבֵּר בְּרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ, וּלְקִיחָה בֶּעָשׂוֹר, וּשְׁחִיטָה בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא הַדִּבֵּר וּלְקִיחָה בְּרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ, וּשְׁחִיטָה בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "דַּבְּרוּ אֶל כָּל עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר", שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד (לוֹמַר) "לֵאמֹר", אֶלָּא לְהַפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן. הָא אֵין עָלֶיךָ לָדוּן כְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֲרוֹן, אֶלָּא כְלָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן: הַדִּבֵּר בְּרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ, וּלְקִיחָה בֶּעָשׂוֹר, וּשְׁחִיטָה בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר.
R. Acha b. R. Oshiyah says: The speaking was on Rosh Chodesh, the taking on the tenth, and the slaughtering on the fourteenth. You say this, but perhaps the speaking and the taking were on the tenth, and the slaughtering on the fourteenth? It is, therefore, written "Speak to the whole congregation of Israel, saying." Let "saying" not be written. Why is it written? To separate (between the speaking and the taking). You must posit the first formulation, then, and not the second.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵה הַגָּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: הַדִּבֵּר בְּרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ, וּלְקִיחָה בֶּעָשׂוֹר, וּשְׁחִיטָה בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא הַדִּבֵּר בְּרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ, וּלְקִיחָה וּשְׁחִיטָה בֶּעָשׂוֹר? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (שמות יב,ו) "וְהָיָה לָכֶם לְמִשְׁמֶרֶת עַד אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם". אִם אָמַרְתָּ כֵן, עָקַרְתָּ אֶת כָּל הַכָּתוּב! הָא אֵין עָלֶיךָ לָדוּן כְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֲרוֹן, אֶלָּא כְלָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן: הַדִּבֵּר בְּרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ, וּלְקִיחָה בֶּעָשׂוֹר, וּשְׁחִיטָה בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר.
R. Yossi Haglili says: The speaking was on Rosh Chodesh, the taking on the tenth, and the slaughtering on the fourteenth. You say this, but perhaps the speaking was on the tenth, and the slaughtering and the taking on the fourteenth? If is, therefore, written (Ibid. 6) "And it shall be to you for a keeping until the fourteenth." If you say this (i.e., that he may slaughter it on the tenth), you have uprooted the entire verse (from its meaning)! You must revert, then, to the first formulation.
"בֶּעָשֹׂר לַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה וְיִקְחוּ". אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עֲשִׂירִי שֶׁהוּא כָשֵׁר לִלְקִיחָה; אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, מְנַיִן? אָמַרְתָּ קַל וָחֹמֶר: מָה עֲשִׂירִי, שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָשֵׁר לִשְׁחִיטָה, כָּשֵׁר לִלְקִיחָה, אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, שֶׁהוּא כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁחִיטָה, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵי כָשֵׁר לִלְקִיחָה? שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר מְנַיִן? אָמַרְתָּ קַל וָחֹמֶר: מָה עֲשִׂירִי, שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָרוֹב לִשְׁחִיטָה, כָּשֵׁר לִלְקִיחָה, שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר, שֶׁהוּא קָרוֹב לִשְׁחִיטָה, דִּין הוּא שֶׁיִּכְשַׁר לִלְקִיחָה.*שֶׁיִּכְשַׁר: שיהיה כשר. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְאַחַד עָשָׂר וְלִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר.
(Ibid. 3) "On the tenth day of this month, they shall take": This tells me that only the tenth day is kasher for taking. Whence do I derive (the same for) the fourteenth day? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If the tenth day, which is not kasher for slaughtering, is kasher for taking, then the fourteenth day, which is kasher for slaughtering, how much more so is it kasher for taking! Whence do I derive (the same for) the thirteenth day? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If the tenth day which is not proximate to slaughtering, is kasher for taking, how much more so the thirteenth, which is proximate to slaughtering! And the same applies to the eleventh and twelfth days.
"בֶּעָשֹׂר לַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה", לְהוֹצִיא פֶּסַח דּוֹרוֹת, שֶׁפֶּסַח מִצְרָיִם מַקָּחוֹ מִבֶּעָשׂוֹר,*מַקָּחוֹ: קנייתו. וּפֶסַח דּוֹרוֹת מַקָּחוֹ כָּל זְמַן.
"On the tenth day of this month, they shall take": ("this") excludes the Paschal lamb of all the generations, which, unlike the Paschal lamb of Egypt, need not be taken on the tenth day, but may be taken at all times.
"וְיִקְחוּ לָהֶם". וְכִי כֻלָּם הָיוּ לוֹקְחִים? אֶלָּא לַעֲשׁוֹת שְׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁלָּאָדָם כְּמוֹתוֹ. מִכָּן אָמָרוּ: שְׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁלָּאָדָם כְּמוֹתוֹ.
"they shall take for themselves": Now did they all take? The intent is to render a man's messenger akin to himself — whence the expression "A man's messenger is like the man himself."
"אִישׁ שֶׂה לְבֵית אָבֹת". בִּכְלַל שֶׂה, גְּדִי וְטָלֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים יד,ד) "שֵׂה כְשָׂבִים וְשֵׂה עִזִּים."
(Ibid.) "each man, a seh for a household": Included in "seh" is a goat and a sheep, viz. (Devarim 14:4) "the seh of the sheep and the seh of the goats."
"לְבֵית אָבֹת", אֵין "לְבֵית אָבֹת" אֶלָּא לְמִשְׁפָּחוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (במדבר א,ב) "לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם". וַהֲרֵי שֶׁהָיוּ עֶשֶׂר מִשְׁפָּחוֹת לְבֵית אָב אֶחָד, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, שֶׂה אֶחָד לְכֻלָּם! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "שֶׂה לַבָּיִת".
I might think that one seh suffices for all; it is, therefore, written "a seh for a household," a "household" being a family, as in (Numbers 1:2) "by their families, according to their households." If there were ten families in one household, I might think that one seh suffices for all; it is, therefore, written "a seh for a house."
(שמות יב,ד) ["וְאִם יִמְעַט הַבַּיִת מִהְיוֹת מִשֶּׂה, וְלָקַח הוּא וּשְׁכֵנוֹ הַקָּרֹב אֶל בֵּיתוֹ בְּמִכְסַת נְפָשֹׁת, אִישׁ לְפִי אָכְלוֹ תָּכֹסּוּ עַל הַשֶּׂה."] "וְאִם יִמְעַט הַבַּיִת מִהְיוֹת מִשֶּׂה". בָּא הַכָּתוּב לְלַמְּדָךְ, שֶׁלְּעוֹלָם נִמְנִין עַל הַפֶּסַח*נִמְנִין עַל הַפֶּסַח: מצטרפים לחבורה שתאכל שה אחד לקרבן הפסח. וּמוֹשְׁכִין יְדֵיהֶם מִמֶּנּוּ,*וּמוֹשְׁכִין יְדֵיהֶם מִמֶּנּוּ: מבטלים את ההצטרפות לחבורה. עַד שֶׁיִּשָּׁחֵט, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַנִּיחַ אֶת הַפֶּסַח כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא.*כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא: בלי אף מנוי עליו.
(Exodus 12:4) "And if the household is too small for one lamb": We are hereby taught that a lamb can always be subscribed to or withdrawn from, so long as it has not been slaughtered, as long as it is not left as is (i.e., without owners).
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵי שָׁם אֶחָד מֵחֲבוֹרָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲשׁוֹת עִקָּר טְפֵלָה וּטְפֵלָה עִקָּר.
R. Yehudah says: As long as one of the original party (to it) remains — so that the primary (the original subscriber) not become secondary (to the new subscribers) and the secondary, primary.
"וְלָקַח הוּא וּשְׁכֵנוֹ". רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: מְנַיִן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר, שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה אָדָם לְמַנּוֹת עִמּוֹ אֲחֵרִים עַל פִּסְחוֹ, שֶׁהוּא רַשַּׁי? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וְלָקַח הוּא וּשְׁכֵנוֹ".
(Ibid.) "then he and his neighbor next to his house shall take it": R. Akiva says: Whence is it derived that if one wishes to make his Pesach for himself he may do so? From "then he and his neighbor shall take." R. Yishmael says: Whence is it derived that if one wishes to appoint others for his lamb he may do so? From "then he and his neighbor, etc." ("neighbor":)
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: מְנַיִן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר, שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה אָדָם לַעֲשׁוֹת פִּסְחוֹ יְחִידִי, שֶׁהוּא רַשַּׁי? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וְלָקַח הוּא וּשְׁכֵנוֹ". שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, שְׁכֵנוֹ שֶׁבְּגַגּוֹ, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁכֵנוֹ שֶׁבַּשָּׂדֶה? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "הַקָּרֹב אֶל בֵּיתוֹ", דִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב בַּהוֹוֶה.
(Does this mean he may appoint even) his neighbor in his roof (i.e., in another domain), or only his neighbor near him? It is, therefore, written "near his house" (but not necessarily in the same domain.)
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: "שְׁכֵנוֹ", מִכָּל מָקוֹם.
R. Shimon b. Yochai says: "his neighbor" connotes in any event (i.e., in either domain).
"בְּמִכְסַת נְפָשֹׁת". אֵין 'מִכְסַת' אֶלָּא מִנְיָן, שֶׁיִּשְׁחֲטֶנּוּ לִמְנוּיָיו. שְׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִמְנוּיָיו, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, יְהֵי כְעוֹבֵר עַל הַמִּצְוָה וְכָשֵׁר! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "אִישׁ לְפִי אָכְלוֹ תָּכֹסּוּ", שָׁנָה הַכָּתוּב עָלָיו לִפְסֹל.*שָׁנָה הַכָּתוּב: חזר הפסוק פעם נוספת על העניין.
(Ibid.) "according to the michsah of souls": "michsah" connotes a count, i.e., it must be slaughtered for those counted for it. If he does not slaughter it with this intent, I might think that it is nevertheless kasher. It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "Each according to his eating shall you count" — Scripture repeating this to indicate that it is not kasher otherwise. ...
דָּבָר אַחֵר: "בְּמִכְסַת נְפָשֹׁת", לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "אִישׁ", אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִישׁ; אִשָּׁה, טוּמְטוּם, אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "בְּמִכְסַת נְפָשֹׁת", רִבָּה.*רִבָּה: הרחיב, הוסיף על המשמעות המצומצמת של 'איש'. מַשְׁמָע מֵבִיא אֶת אֵלּוּ,*מֵבִיא: מכניס להגדרה. וּמֵבִיא אֶת הַחוֹלֶה וְאֶת הַקָּטָן שֶׁאֵינָן יְכֹלִין לֹאכַל כַּזַּיִת! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "אִישׁ לְפִי אָכְלוֹ", יָצְאוּ הַחוֹלֶה וְהַקָּטָן שֶׁאֵינָן יְכֹלִין לֹאכַל כַּזַּיִת. מִכָּן אָמַר רַבִּי: הַחוֹלֶה וְהַקָּטָן שֶׁאֵינָן יְכֹלִין לֹאכַל כַּזַּיִת, אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין עֲלֵיהֶן.
What is the intent of "according to the count of souls"? From (Ibid.) "A man (according to his eating"), I might think only a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman, a tumtum (one of indeterminate sex) and a hermaphrodite? It is, therefore, written "according to the count of souls." This would imply for inclusion even one who is sick and one who is old, who cannot eat an olive-size. It is, therefore, written "A man according to his eating," to exclude the above, in whose behalf the lamb is not slaughtered. ("Each according to his eating) tachosu (over) the lamb": Rebbi says: This ("tachosu") is Aramaic, as one would say to his neighbor "Kos (i.e., 'slaughter') this lamb for me." "over the lamb":
"תָּכֹסּוּ עַל הַשֶּׂה". רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה אוֹמֵר: לָשׁוֹן סֻרְסִי הוּא זֶה,*לָשׁוֹן סֻרְסִי: ארמית מערבית. כְּאָדָם שֶׁאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ: כּוֹס לִי טָלֶה זֶה!
R. Yishmael says: We are hereby taught that the Paschal lamb can always be subscribed to or withdrawn from so long as it has not been slaughtered, as long as it is not left as is (i.e., without owners).
"עַל הַשֶּׂה". רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: בָּא הַכָּתוּב לְלַמְּדָךְ שֶׁנִּמְנִין עַל הַפֶּסַח, וּמוֹשְׁכִים אֶת יְדֵיהֶם מִמֶּנּוּ עַד שֶׁיִּשָּׁחֵט, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַנִּיחַ אֶת הַפֶּסַח כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא. רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: בַּמֵּי הָעִנְיָן מְדַבֵּר? בְּחַי.
R. Yitzchak says: Scripture has hereunto been speaking of a living lamb, (so that no special verse is needed for this teaching.)