מפת הסוגיא — חולין כ״חSugya map — Chullin 28

המשנה אומרת ש״אחד בעוף״ כשר. נחלקו: רב נחמן — ״אחד״ פירושו סימן אחד כלשהו, או ושט או קנה. רב אדא בר אהבה — דווקא ושט ולא קנה, ו״אחד״ פירושו המיוחד שבסימנים (הושט).

§ The mishna teaches that in the case of one who cuts one siman in a bird, his slaughter is valid. It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to this matter. Rav Naḥman said: One may cut either the gullet or the windpipe. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: One must cut the gullet for the slaughter to be valid, but cutting the windpipe is not sufficient. The Gemara explains the formulation of the mishna according to the opinion of each amora. Rav Naḥman said: One may cut either the gullet or the windpipe. One siman is taught in the mishna, meaning that the slaughter is valid if he severs one, indicating that either siman is valid. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: One must cut the gullet for the slaughter to be valid, but cutting the windpipe is not sufficient. What is the meaning of: One, in the mishna? It means the special one, the gullet.

סימן (נוטריקון לזיכרון) לסדר הראיות שיובאו: ״שחט״, ״חצאין״, ״גרגרת״, ״פגימה״, ״חטאת העוף״.

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the proofs to be cited by the Gemara: Slaughter, halves, windpipe, deficiency, of a bird sin offering.

קושיא על רב נחמן מברייתא: הברייתא דנה רק בשחיטת הושט (ובשמיטת הגרגרת), ומשמע שאין שוחטים בגרגרת לבדה — כדעת רב אדא, ולא כרב נחמן.

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a baraita: If one cut the bird’s gullet and thereafter the windpipe was displaced, the slaughter is valid. If the windpipe was displaced and thereafter he cut the gullet, the slaughter is not valid. With regard to a case where one cut the gullet and the windpipe was found displaced and he does not know if it was displaced prior to the slaughter or if it was displaced after the slaughter, that was an incident that transpired, and the Sages said: In any case of uncertainty with regard to slaughter, the slaughter is not valid. The baraita mentions only the case of cutting the gullet, while cutting the windpipe is not taught. The baraita supports the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava and is contrary to the opinion of Rav Naḥman.

דחיית הראיה: הברייתא נקטה דווקא ושט (וגרגרת שנשמטה) לא כי אין שוחטים בגרגרת, אלא משום שהגרגרת עלולה להישמט — ולכן הוצרכה לדבר בה.

The Gemara rejects that proof: The baraita mentions only the cutting of the gullet and displacement of the windpipe not because slaughter may be performed only by cutting the gullet. Rather, those scenarios were mentioned because the windpipe, unlike the gullet, is likely to be displaced.

ראיה נגד רב נחמן: ר׳ יהודה מצריך בעוף ״ושט וורידין״ ולא מזכיר קנה — משמע שרק ושט מועיל. דחייה: ר׳ יהודה נקט ושט (ולא קנה) רק מפני שהושט סמוך לורידין.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof contrary to the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a baraita. If one cut two halves, one half of each of the simanim, in a bird, the slaughter is not valid, as the requirement is that a majority of one siman is cut; and needless to say the slaughter performed in that manner is not valid in the case of an animal, where the requirement is that a majority of both simanim are cut. Rabbi Yehuda says: In a bird the slaughter is not valid until he cuts the gullet and the veins; the veins must be cut so that the blood will drain from the body. The fact that Rabbi Yehuda mentions cutting only the gullet and not the windpipe indicates that slaughter is valid only when the gullet is cut. The Gemara rejects that proof: Rabbi Yehuda mentions only the gullet because the gullet is adjacent to the veins.

ראיה לרב נחמן: ״שחט חצי גרגרת… וגמר שחיטתו — כשרה״; ואם בעוף, ה׳גמר׳ הוא בגרגרת — משמע ששחיטה בקנה מועילה. דחייה: בבהמה מדובר, ו׳גמרה׳ פירושו השלמת כל השחיטה (בשני הסימנים).

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof in support of the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a baraita. If one cut half the windpipe and interrupted the slaughter for an interval equivalent to the duration of the slaughter of another animal, and then completed his slaughter, the slaughter is valid and it is not invalidated due to an interrupted slaughter. What, is the baraita not referring to the slaughter of a bird? And what does the term: Completed it, mean in the baraita? Doesn’t it mean that he completed cutting the windpipe, which he had started cutting, indicating that with the cutting of the windpipe the slaughter is valid, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman as opposed to the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava? The Gemara rejects that proof: No, the baraita is referring to slaughter of an animal, for which both simanim must be cut. And what does the term: Completed it, mean in the baraita? It means that he completed the entire slaughter.

ראיה לרב נחמן: חצי קנה היה פגום, הוסיף כלשהו וגמרו — כשר; ואם בעוף, ה׳גמרו׳ הוא בקנה — שחיטת קנה מועילה. דחייה: בבהמה, ו׳גמרו׳ פירושו שגמר את השחיטה בושט.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof in support of the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a baraita: In a case where half of the windpipe was deficient, i.e., somewhat cut, prior to the slaughter and the slaughterer added to that deficiency an incision of any size, and completed it, his slaughter is valid. What, is it not referring to the slaughter of a bird? And what does the term: Completed it, mean in the baraita? Doesn’t it mean that he completed cutting the majority of the windpipe, indicating that cutting the windpipe renders the bird fit for consumption? The Gemara rejects that proof: No, the baraita is referring to slaughter of an animal, for which both simanim must be cut. And what does the term: Completed it, mean in the baraita? It means that he completed the entire slaughter by cutting the gullet.

ראיה מכרעת: במליקת חטאת העוף ״חותך סימן אחד״ — או ושט או קנה. תיובתא (הפרכה מוחלטת) לדעת רב אדא בר אהבה.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof in support of the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a baraita: How does one pinch the nape of the neck of a bird sin offering? Using his thumbnail, the priest cuts the spine and the neck bone, without cutting through the majority of the surrounding flesh until he reaches either the gullet or the windpipe. Once he reaches the gullet or the windpipe, he cuts one siman with his nail and a majority of the surrounding flesh with it. And in the case of a bird burnt offering, he cuts the two simanim or the majority of the two simanim. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava from this baraita is indeed a conclusive refutation.

מהי המסקנה? הגמרא מסייגת: אולי שאני התם (מליקה), שיש שם שדרה ומפרקת שנחתכות תחילה — ולכן די בקנה; אבל בשחיטת חולין שמא רק ושט.

The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about the matter? The Gemara asks in response: What halakhic conclusion was reached about the matter? It is as you said, that the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava was conclusively refuted. The Gemara says that there is not absolute proof from the baraita, as perhaps it is different there with regard to pinching, as in that case there is the spine and the neck bone that are cut initially, and therefore cutting the windpipe is sufficient. But in the case of slaughter of a non-sacred bird, perhaps only if one cuts the gullet the slaughter is valid.

מה אם כן ההלכה? מעשה: בר אווז (אווזה) שהיה בבית רבא בא כשצווארו מלוכלך בדם — ספק אם ניקב הושט או נחתך הקנה (טריפה). אמר רבא: כיצד נעשה?

The Gemara asks: What then is the halakha in the case of slaughter? The Gemara answers: Come and hear proof from the following incident, that there was a certain duck that was in the house of Rava, which came for slaughter with its neck filthy with blood and they did not know whether the blood was the result of its windpipe having been severed or its gullet having been perforated, in which cases the duck is a tereifa. Rava said: What should we do with regard to this duck?

שתי הצעות נדחות: לשחוט ואחר כך לבדוק — שמא ישחט במקום הנקב ולא נדע; לבדוק ואחר כך לשחוט — הרי אמר רבה שהושט אין לו בדיקה מבחוץ אלא מבפנים.

If one suggests: Let us slaughter it and then we will examine it to determine whether its windpipe was severed or its gullet was perforated, that is difficult, because perhaps the slaughterer will slaughter the duck precisely in the place of the perforation and it will be impossible to determine whether the gullet was perforated before the slaughter. If one suggests: Let us slice open the hide and examine the simanim and then we will slaughter it, that is difficult, because didn’t Rabba say: The gullet has no possible examination from without, as its outer side is red, and a small perforation would be indiscernible, but only from within, as its inner side is white, and blood at the site of the perforation would be discerned?

מסקנה: רב יוסף בנו הציע — נבדוק את הקנה (מבחוץ), נשחט בו ונכשירנו, ואחר כך נהפוך את הושט ונבדקנו. ושיבחו רבא. מכאן ש״אחד״ פירושו או זה (ושט) או זה (קנה) — כרב נחמן.

Rav Yosef, son of Rava, said to him: Let us examine the windpipe, as it is possible to discern from without whether the majority of the windpipe was severed, and then cut the duck’s windpipe and thereby render it permitted, as cutting either of the two simanim suffices in a bird. And then let us turn the gullet inside out and examine its inner side to determine whether it was perforated and the duck is a tereifa. Rava said: My son Yosef is as wise in the halakhot of tereifot as Rabbi Yoḥanan. Apparently, one siman, which is taught in the mishna as being sufficient in the slaughter of a bird, means either this siman, the gullet, or that siman, the windpipe.

המשנה: ר׳ יהודה מצריך לשחוט (גם את הורידין). רב חסדא: ר׳ יהודה אמר זאת רק בעוף, מפני שצולים אותו שלם כאחד (ויש לדאוג להוצאת הדם); אבל בהמה שמנתחים אבר אבר — אין צורך.

§ The mishna states: Rabbi Yehuda says: The slaughter is not valid until he cuts the veins in the neck. Rav Ḥisda said: Rav Yehuda said that one must cut the veins only in the slaughter of a bird, as one typically roasts it in its entirety as one whole entity; therefore, one must cut the veins to ensure that the blood drains. But with regard to the slaughter of an animal, since it is typically quartered into limbs, resulting in the blood draining more readily, one need not cut the veins.

קושיא: וכי טעם ר׳ יהודה הוא רק משום הוצאת דם? הרי שנינו במשנה ״עד שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט את הורידין״ — לשון שחיטה משמע שהורידין הם חלק מן השחיטה עצמה.

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the reason that Rabbi Yehuda requires cutting of the veins is due to the need to drain the blood? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: The slaughter is not valid until he cuts [sheyishḥot] the veins, indicating that the cutting of the veins is a component of the slaughter [sheḥita]?

תירוץ: אמור שכוונת ר׳ יהודה ״עד שינקב את הורידין״; ומה שאמר ״עד שישחוט״ פירושו עד שינקב בשעת השחיטה (לא שהורידין מעכבים את השחיטה).

The Gemara answers: Say that Rabbi Yehuda’s statement is until he punctures the veins. And what is the meaning of: Until he cuts? Until he punctures the veins at the moment of slaughter, when the blood flows.

ראיה נגד התירוץ: ברייתא — ״ורידין בשחיטה, דברי ר׳ יהודה״ — משמע חלק מהשחיטה. דחייה: אמור שהברייתא היא ״צריך לנקבן בשעת שחיטה״.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof rejecting this interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda’s statement from a baraita: The veins through slaughter, this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, which indicates that the cutting of the veins is a component of slaughter. The Gemara rejects that proof: Say that the correct reading of the baraita is: He must puncture the veins at the moment of slaughter; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

ראיה נוספת: חכמים אמרו לר׳ יהודה — מאחר שהורידין רק להוצאת דם, מה לי בשחיטה מה לי שלא בשחיטה? מכלל דבריהם — ר׳ יהודה סובר שצריך בשחיטה דווקא.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from a baraita: The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: Since veins were mentioned only to drain blood from them, what difference is there to me whether one cuts them as a component of slaughter, and what difference is there to me whether one cuts them not as a component of slaughter? One can learn by inference from this baraita that Rabbi Yehuda holds that one cuts the veins as a component of slaughter.

דחיית הראיה: כך אמרו לו — מה לי לנקבם בשעת שחיטה ומה לי שלא בשעתה (אפשר אחר כך). ור׳ יהודה סובר: בשעת שחיטה הדם חם ויוצא, שלא בשעתה הדם קר ואינו יוצא היטב.

The Gemara rejects this proof. This is what the Rabbis are saying to Rabbi Yehuda: What difference is there to me whether one punctures them at the moment of slaughter, and what difference is there to me whether one punctures them not at the moment of slaughter? One can puncture the veins after the slaughter. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that at the time of slaughter the blood emerges from the body quickly because the blood is warm; when it is not at the time of slaughter, the blood does not emerge from the body quickly because it is cool.

בעיה של ר׳ ירמיה: לדעת ר׳ יהודה, אם בחיתוך הורידין שהה (הפסיק) או דרס (לחץ במקום להוליך ולהביא) — מה הדין? האם פסולי השחיטה חלים גם עליהם?

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: In cutting the veins according to Rabbi Yehuda, if one interrupted the act in the midst of cutting them, or if he pressed the knife and cut them instead of drawing the knife back and forth, what is the halakha? Do these actions, which invalidate slaughter when cutting the simanim, also invalidate slaughter when performed in the cutting of the veins?

מסקנה: אותו זקן מסר בשם ר׳ יוחנן — מנקבים את הורידין אפילו בקוץ והם כשרים; כלומר ניקוב הורידין אינו חלק מהשחיטה, ודיני שהייה ודריסה אינם חלים עליהם.

A certain elder said to him: This is what Rabbi Elazar said; and some say that a certain elder said to Rabbi Elazar that this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He punctures the veins with a thorn and their cutting is valid. Cutting the veins is not a component of the slaughter.

ברייתא המסייעת לרב חסדא: שני חצאי סימנים בעוף — פסול, וכל שכן בבהמה; ר׳ יהודה אומר: בעוף — עד שישחוט את הושט ואת הורידין (משמע: הורידין רק בעוף).

The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda that Rabbi Yehuda requires cutting of the veins only in the slaughter of birds, and not in the slaughter of animals. If one cut two halves, one half of each of the simanim, in a bird, the slaughter is not valid, and needless to say the slaughter performed in that manner is not valid in the case of an animal. Rabbi Yehuda says: In a bird the slaughter is not valid until he cuts the gullet and the veins.

המשנה: חצי אחד (חצי סימן) בעוף, או אחד וחצי בבהמה — שחיטתו פסולה. נחלקו האמוראים: רב — מחצה על מחצה (חצי מדויק) דינו כרוב; רב כהנא — אינו כרוב.

§ The mishna teaches: If one cut half of one siman in a bird or one and a half simanim in an animal, his slaughter is not valid. It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute. Rav said: The halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is like that of a siman of which the majority was cut. Rav Kahana said: The halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is not like that of a siman of which the majority was cut.

נימוקי המחלוקת: רב — הציווי הוא ״אל תשייר רוב״, ובחצי מדויק לא נשתייר רוב, ולכן כרוב. רב כהנא — הציווי הוא ״שחוט רוב״, ובחצי לא שחט רוב, ולכן אינו כרוב.

The Gemara elaborates. Rav said: The halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is like that of a siman of which the majority was cut, and this is what the Merciful One said to Moses: Do not leave the majority uncut. When cutting precisely half, the majority does not remain uncut. Rav Kahana said: The halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is not like that of a siman of which the majority was cut, and this is what the Merciful One said to Moses: Cut the majority of the siman. Therefore, cutting precisely half is insufficient.

סימן (נוטריקון לזיכרון) לראיות שיובאו במחלוקת זו: ״חצי״, ״קטינא״, ״גרגרת״, ״פגימה״.

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the proofs that it cites with regard to this dispute: Half, Ketina, windpipe, deficiency.

קושיא על רב מהמשנה: חצי אחד בעוף פסול; ואם מחצה כרוב, מדוע פסול — הרי עשה רוב! תירוץ: מדרבנן פסלוהו, מחשש שלא יבוא לחתוך אפילו חצי.

We learned in the mishna: If one cut half of one siman in a bird or one and a half simanim in an animal, his slaughter is not valid. The Gemara questions the opinion of Rav: If you say that the halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is like that of a siman of which the majority was cut, why is his slaughter not valid? By cutting half, didn’t he perform the cutting of a majority of the siman? The Gemara rejects that proof: By rabbinic law, the slaughter is not valid, due to the concern that perhaps he will not come to perform cutting on even half of the siman.

ראיה (רב קטינא) נגד רב, מדין כלי חרס טמא הנשבר: חילקו לשניים והם שווים — שניהם טמאים, לפי שאי אפשר לצמצם (לחלק בדיוק לחצאים שווים).

Rav Ketina said: Come and hear proof contrary to Rav’s opinion from a baraita with regard to an impure earthenware vessel that is purified through being broken. If it is broken in two, the larger portion remains impure and the smaller portion is purified. If he divided it into two and they are seemingly equal halves, both are impure, because it is impossible to measure precisely in breaking an earthenware vessel and render both halves equal. Since it is impossible to determine which half is larger, both remain impure due to uncertainty.

דיוק הראיה: אבל אם אפשר לצמצם (לחלק בדיוק) — טהורים. ואם מחצה כרוב, מדוע טהורים? לך לכאן יש רוב, לך לכאן יש רוב (כל חצי ייחשב רוב)!

The Gemara infers: But were it possible to measure precisely and divide it into equal halves, both would be pure. If, as Rav states, the halakhic status of half is like that of a majority, why are they pure? Go here, to one half of the vessel, and you will see that there is a majority and it should remain impure, and go there, to the other half, and you will see that there is a majority and it should remain impure.

דחיית הראיה (רב פפא): אין שני רובים בכלי אחד; לכן שם אי אפשר להחשיב כל חצי כרוב, אבל בסימן יחיד החצי המדויק יכול להיחשב כרוב.

Rav Pappa said in rejecting that proof: There are not two majorities in one vessel. Therefore, one cannot consider the halakhic status of half like that of a majority. By contrast, with regard to cutting the windpipe or gullet, the halakhic status of precisely half can be like that of a majority, as there is no other majority contradicting that status.

ראיה נוספת נגד רב (תחילת הברייתא): שחט חצי גרגרת ושהה בה… (ההמשך בקטע הבא).

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof contrary to Rav’s opinion from a baraita: If one cut half the windpipe and interrupted the slaughter

המשך הברייתא וקושייתה: …כדי שחיטה אחרת וגמרה — כשרה. ואם מחצה כרוב, כבר נטרפה בחתיכת חצי הגרגרת (כאילו נחתך רובה).

for an interval equivalent to the duration of the slaughter of another animal, and then completed his slaughter, his slaughter is valid. But if you say the halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is like that of the majority, then by cutting half the windpipe he rendered it a tereifa because it is as though the majority of the windpipe is severed.

תירוץ: הברייתא בעוף (סימן אחד), וממה נפשך כשרה: אם מחצה כרוב — עשה רוב; ואם אינו כרוב — לא עשה כלום (וחצי הגרגרת לא הטריף). אין מכאן ראיה.

The Gemara answers: Do you hold that this baraita is referring to the slaughter of an animal? No, it is referring to the slaughter of a bird, which requires the cutting of only one siman. Whichever way you look at it, the slaughter should be valid. If the halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is like that of the majority, he has performed the cutting of the majority and the slaughter is valid. And if the halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is not like that of the majority, then in cutting half the siman he did not perform any action that would render the animal a tereifa.

ראיה נוספת נגד רב: חצי קנה היה פגום, הוסיף כלשהו וגמרו — כשרה; ואם מחצה כרוב, היה צריך להיות טרפה (שהרי חצי הקנה הפגום כאילו רובו).

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof contrary to Rav’s opinion from a baraita: In a case where half of the windpipe was deficient prior to the slaughter and the slaughterer added to that deficiency an incision of any size, and completed it, his slaughter is valid. And if you say that the halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is like that of the majority, the animal is a tereifa, as half its windpipe was deficient before the slaughter.

תירוץ רבא: שאני לעניין טריפה — שם צריך ״רוב הנראה לעיניים״, וחצי מדויק אינו נראה כרוב; אבל בשחיטה החצי כרוב.

Rava said: The matter of tereifa is different, as we require a majority that is clearly visible. If precisely half the windpipe is deficient it does not appear to be a majority. By contrast, with regard to slaughter, the status of half is like that of the majority.

דחיית אביי (קל וחומר): ומה טריפה, שדי בכל-שהוא לטרֵף, ובכל זאת כשצריך רוב — צריך רוב הנראה לעיניים; שחיטה, שאינה כשרה עד שיהיה רוב — לא כל שכן שצריך רוב הנראה לעיניים! משמע שגם בשחיטה אינו כרוב.

Abaye said to Rava: And is it not derived through an a fortiori inference that all the more so, a conspicuous majority is required for slaughter? And just as with regard to tereifa, where the animal is rendered a tereifa by a deficiency of any size, e.g., by a minuscule perforation of the gullet, in cases where we require a majority, we require a majority that is clearly visible, with regard to slaughter, where until there is a majority of the simanim cut, the slaughter is not valid, all the more so is it not clear that we require a majority that is clearly visible?

מסקנה: אלא — לכולי עלמא מחצה על מחצה אינו כרוב (לעניין שחיטה וטריפה); ומחלוקת רב ורב כהנא לא נאמרה כאן אלא לעניין הפסח.

Rather, the Gemara revises its understanding of the dispute between Rav and Rav Kahana. Everyone agrees that the halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is not like that of a siman of which the majority was cut. And when the dispute of Rav and Rav Kahana was stated, it was stated with regard to the matter of the Paschal offering. If a majority of the Jewish people were ritually impure on the fourteenth of Nisan, the Paschal offering is sacrificed that day and eaten in a state of impurity. If only a minority of the Jewish people were impure, the ritually pure majority brings the Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan, and the impure minority brings the Paschal offering on the second Pesaḥ one month later.

הצגת המחלוקת בפסח: היו ישראל מחצה טהורים ומחצה טמאים — רב: מחצה כרוב (וכולם עושים בראשון בטומאה); רב כהנא: אינו כרוב (הטהורים בראשון והטמאים בפסח שני).

In a case where the Jewish people were equally divided on the fourteenth of Nisan, with half of them pure and half of them impure, Rav said: The halakha in the case where half the people were impure and half were pure is like that of a case where the majority was impure, and the entire people brings the Paschal offering in Nisan. And Rav Kahana said: The halakha in the case where half the people were impure and half were pure is not like that of a case where the majority was impure. Therefore, those who are pure bring the Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan, and those who are impure bring the Paschal offering on the second Pesaḥ.

טעם רב בפסח: שנאמר ״איש איש כי יהיה טמא לנפש״ — יחיד (איש) נדחה לפסח שני, אבל ציבור אינו נדחה; ומחצה דינו כציבור, ולכן כולם עושים בראשון.

The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to the Paschal offering, what is the reason that Rav accords half the people the status of a majority? It is as it is written: “Any man who shall be impure by reason of a corpse…shall observe the Passover to the Lord. On the fourteenth day of the second month at evening they shall observe it” (Numbers 9:10–11), from which it is derived: A ritually impure person is deferred to observe the second Pesaḥ, but a ritually impure congregation is not deferred to observe the second Pesaḥ. The status of half the people is that of a congregation, not that of a collection of individuals.