Pesachim 61 a, b

Daf 61 begins with a question: what if one's status changes because s/he dies?  This sparks a conversation about the nature of disqualification.  Is an offering communal or individual? Can an offering be disqualified on the basis of a thought alone?  These are some of the questions that I have been asking throughout our discussion of the Paschal lamb offering.

A new mishna tells us that a Paschal lamb is permitted if all have paid for it and if the group is comprised of those allowed and those not allowed to partake of it (uncircumcized, ritually impure).  However, the Paschal lamb is disqualified if the group is made up of only those who are not allowed to partake of it.  The mishna then tells us that the offering is disqualified if slaughtered before midday (based on Exodus 12:6).  It also describes what should be done if it is slaughtered before the afternoon offering - the blood must be stirred to prevent congealment before it is sprinkled.  Finally, the sprinkling is permitted even after the afternoon offering.

Among other details, the Gemara looks at the importance of each person receiving their portion. Clearly, in Exodus 12:4, the exact numbers are counted and thus are extremely important.  We come across this frequently in the Torah, the 'counts'.  If every word, every letter, in the Torah is meaningful, how can we argue leniency in the name of an elderly person who cannot partake of the Paschal lamb and thus might disqualify his/her offering?  To some degree, the rabbis are forced to grapple with the inherent inequality of this process.

Rav Ashi and Rav Chida disagree regarding atonement for those who are uncircumsized.  Does the rite of sprinkling result in atonement, and thus even those who are uncircumsized can atone?  Or if the priest intends to do these rites for the circumsized and the uncircumsized, has he disqualified the offering?  The rabbis continue to break down this question and argue about whether or not there can be any leniency in this situation.  

I am guessing that this decision confirms that we are not supposed to invite non-Jews to the Passover seders.  Steinsaltz uses a note to tell us that uncircumsized men were not allowed to partake of the Paschal lamb in any circumstance (Sefat Emet).  Families continue to suffer because of this ruling.  I do not know whether there is a direct connection between being disallowed from eating the Paschal lamb and being disallowed to eat the seder meal.  However, the similarity in manner of exclusion is striking. 

Again, faced with the black/white, boxy, legal designations of the rabbi's rulings, we must balance between inclusion and exclusion.  So much of Judaism (and of every religion, of course) is predicated upon building a community.  The foundation of community is a feeling of inclusion.  However, as soon as we experience inclusion, exclusion exists as well.  How might we create a world where we can derive the significant benefits of 'feeling part of something bigger' without creating the likelihood that others will be pushed away, left out, etc.?