Study Pesachim folio 78B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Didn’t you say that with regard to an offering involving the public, even R' Yehoshua concedes that ritual impurity is permitted?
Rather, R' Yosei’s statement should be understood differently. When he said: I see as correct the statement of R' Eliezer, he was referring to after the fact. When he said: I see as correct the statement of R' Yehoshua, he meant ab initio. The Talmud asks: After the fact R' Yehoshua also conced
The Talmud responds: This case is with regard to ritual impurity, and that case is with regard to an offering that was lost or burned. The Talmud explains: When it teaches that R' Yehoshua concedes that if one sprinkled the blood it is accepted, that is with regard to a case in which the meat of
Mishnah: If the meat of the Paschal lamb became ritually impure, and the fat remains pure and may be burned on the altar, one may not sprinkle the blood. On the other hand, if the fat became impure and the meat remains pure, one may sprinkle the blood because the meat remains fit to be eaten. This
Talmud: Rav Giddel said that Rav said: If one sprinkled the blood despite the fact that the meat was ritually impure, it was nonetheless accepted; one is not obligated to observe the second Pesaḥ. The Talmud asks: Don’t we require that the Paschal lamb be eaten, which could not occur in this case