pesa

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as we have stated there: “One does not slaughter the Pesaḥ for a single individual, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but Rebbi Yose permits.” Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Mana: Where do we find “not liable and qualified”? He told him, here we stated “not liable”, and there we stated “qualified”. But about all of them did Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa say, it should lose its shape and be brought to be burned. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi Yose, one understands if they died or became impure. If the owners became disinterested? If they are alive, does disqualification qualify? It is disqualified. If after it was slaughtered, can one become disinterested after slaughter? Since he has the right to become disinterested, the disqualification qualifies, and it needs {losing its} shape.

MISHNAH: How does one roast the Pesaḥ? A spit of pomegranate wood he sticks from its mouth to its buttocks and puts the hooves and its innards into it, the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean. Rebbi Aqiba says, this is a kind of cooking; but one hangs them outside.

HALAKHAH: “How does one roast the Pesaḥ” etc. Why of pomegranates? Rebbi Ḥiyyas bar Abba said, all wood oozes fluid, but of pomegranates does not ooze fluid. Where do we hold? If fresh, even pomegranate {[wood} oozes. If dry, all other wood does not ooze. But it is so: All other wood if it is dry outside still is moist inside. Pomegranate {wood} if dry outside is dry inside.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: This implies that a person is forbidden to say to another, here you have money and use it to buy meat for Pesaḥ for yourself. But he may say to him, here you have money and buy me meat to roast.

MISHNAH: One roasts the Pesaḥ neither on a spit nor on a grill. Rebbi Ṣadoq said, it happened that Rabban Gamliel said to his slave Tabi, go and roast us the Pesaḥ on a sacrificial hearth. If it touched the pottery of the tannur, he has to shave off its place. If some of its fluid fell on clay and returned, one has to remove this place. If some of its fluid fell on flour, one has to remove its place.

MISHNAH: One roasts the Pesaḥ neither on a spit nor on a grill. Rebbi Ṣadoq said, it happened that Rabban Gamliel said to his slave Tabi, go and roast us the Pesaḥ on a sacrificial hearth. If it touched the pottery of the tannur, he has to shave off its place. If some of its fluid fell on clay and returned, one has to remove this place. If some of its fluid fell on flour, one has to remove its place.

Does Rabban Gamliel not have fire roasted? He does. The Pesaḥ in Egypt was fire roasted; the Pesaḥ for generations is not fire roasted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rabban Gamliel did not consider consequences of fire as fire; the rabbis consider consequences of fire as fire. Rabban Gamliel disagrees with the rabbis and in practice acts on his own opinion.

Does Rabban Gamliel not have fire roasted? He does. The Pesaḥ in Egypt was fire roasted; the Pesaḥ for generations is not fire roasted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rabban Gamliel did not consider consequences of fire as fire; the rabbis consider consequences of fire as fire. Rabban Gamliel disagrees with the rabbis and in practice acts on his own opinion.

MISHNAH: Five kinds are brought in impurity but are not eaten in impurity: The ˋOmer, and the Two Breads, and the shew-bread, and public well-being offerings, and the goats of New Moons. Pesaḥ which is brought in impurity is eaten since from the start this is what it is for.

There are Tannaim who state that all of them are inferred from the Pesaḥ. There are Tannaim who state that each of them is inferred from its place. He who said that all of them are inferred from the Pesaḥ, since at its fixed time which is said (here) [about Pesaḥ pushes impurity aside, also at its fixed time which is written about all of them] pushes impurity aside. He who said that each of them is inferred from its place, from where does he have it? It comes as it is stated: “Rebbi says, why does the verse say, Moses told the holidays of the Eternal. Since we learned only about Pesaḥ and the daily sacrifices that they push the Sabbath aside, since it is said about them at its fixed time, from where the rest of public offerings? The verse says, these you shall offer to the Eternal at your fixed times. For the Omer and what is brought with it, and for the Two Breads and what is brought with them, we have no information. But since it is said, Moses told the holidays of the Eternal to the Children of Israel, this fixed it as obligation that all of them have to be offered in impurity.” Just as they are brought in impurity, should they not be eaten in impurity? It is a decision of the verse: Any meat that touched anything impure may not be eaten. One would say that the same is valid for the Pesaḥ. This is different since from the start this is what it is for.

There are Tannaim who state that all of them are inferred from the Pesaḥ. There are Tannaim who state that each of them is inferred from its place. He who said that all of them are inferred from the Pesaḥ, since at its fixed time which is said (here) [about Pesaḥ pushes impurity aside, also at its fixed time which is written about all of them] pushes impurity aside. He who said that each of them is inferred from its place, from where does he have it? It comes as it is stated: “Rebbi says, why does the verse say, Moses told the holidays of the Eternal. Since we learned only about Pesaḥ and the daily sacrifices that they push the Sabbath aside, since it is said about them at its fixed time, from where the rest of public offerings? The verse says, these you shall offer to the Eternal at your fixed times. For the Omer and what is brought with it, and for the Two Breads and what is brought with them, we have no information. But since it is said, Moses told the holidays of the Eternal to the Children of Israel, this fixed it as obligation that all of them have to be offered in impurity.” Just as they are brought in impurity, should they not be eaten in impurity? It is a decision of the verse: Any meat that touched anything impure may not be eaten. One would say that the same is valid for the Pesaḥ. This is different since from the start this is what it is for.

There are Tannaim who state that all of them are inferred from the Pesaḥ. There are Tannaim who state that each of them is inferred from its place. He who said that all of them are inferred from the Pesaḥ, since at its fixed time which is said (here) [about Pesaḥ pushes impurity aside, also at its fixed time which is written about all of them] pushes impurity aside. He who said that each of them is inferred from its place, from where does he have it? It comes as it is stated: “Rebbi says, why does the verse say, Moses told the holidays of the Eternal. Since we learned only about Pesaḥ and the daily sacrifices that they push the Sabbath aside, since it is said about them at its fixed time, from where the rest of public offerings? The verse says, these you shall offer to the Eternal at your fixed times. For the Omer and what is brought with it, and for the Two Breads and what is brought with them, we have no information. But since it is said, Moses told the holidays of the Eternal to the Children of Israel, this fixed it as obligation that all of them have to be offered in impurity.” Just as they are brought in impurity, should they not be eaten in impurity? It is a decision of the verse: Any meat that touched anything impure may not be eaten. One would say that the same is valid for the Pesaḥ. This is different since from the start this is what it is for.

If it comes in impurity of the officiants? How is that? If defective persons slaughtered and pure ones poured. Rebbi Hila said, any meat that touched anything impure may not be eaten, but here it was not touched by anybody impure. The meat, anybody pure may eat meat; there are pure ones available to eat it. Rebbi Zeˋira: Since Pesaḥ made in impurity is eaten, [this one is as if brought in impurity]. And where was this said? Rebbi Samuel said, Rebbi Zeˋira asked: If it comes with impurity of the blood, what is done? Since one does not permit him to pour, is it as if brought in impurity? Or since if he transgressed and poured, it was made acceptable, is it as if not brought in impurity? Let us hear from the following which was said by [Rebbi Elazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices, the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers. He separated between what is offered on behalf of an individual and what is offered on behalf of the public. If offered for an individual, if he has another one, one tells him, bring! If not, [one does not permit him to pour the blood;] if he transgressed and poured, it was made acceptable. The sacrificers for an individual, whether he has or does not have, [it was not made acceptable. If offered for the public, if he has another one, one tells him, bring! If not, one permits him to pour the blood a priori. The sacrificers for the public, whether he has or does not have,] it was made acceptable.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is about one “which comes in impurity from the start.” But if it came in purity and then became impure, it cannot be eaten in impurity. “If it was slaughtered in purity but then the public became impure, the blood shall be poured in purity but the meat not eaten in impurity.” (Should one not say the same for pouring?) [Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is Rebbi Nathan’s, as Rebbi Nathan said, one has fulfilled his duty by pouring without eating. “If it was slaughtered in purity but then the blood collected became impure, the blood may be poured in impurity but the meat may not be eaten in impurity.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of the bad impression, lest they say, we have seen a Pesaḥ brought in purity which was [poured] {eaten} in impurity. Then should not the blood be poured in impurity?] Lest they say, we have seen a Pesaḥ brought in purity for which it was poured in impurity. You have to end up saying that it is Rebbi Nathan’s. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a sick or an old person. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a group whose officiant became impure, that they are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a group where a wart was found, that they are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is about one “which comes in impurity from the start.” But if it came in purity and then became impure, it cannot be eaten in impurity. “If it was slaughtered in purity but then the public became impure, the blood shall be poured in purity but the meat not eaten in impurity.” (Should one not say the same for pouring?) [Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is Rebbi Nathan’s, as Rebbi Nathan said, one has fulfilled his duty by pouring without eating. “If it was slaughtered in purity but then the blood collected became impure, the blood may be poured in impurity but the meat may not be eaten in impurity.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of the bad impression, lest they say, we have seen a Pesaḥ brought in purity which was [poured] {eaten} in impurity. Then should not the blood be poured in impurity?] Lest they say, we have seen a Pesaḥ brought in purity for which it was poured in impurity. You have to end up saying that it is Rebbi Nathan’s. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a sick or an old person. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a group whose officiant became impure, that they are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a group where a wart was found, that they are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is about one “which comes in impurity from the start.” But if it came in purity and then became impure, it cannot be eaten in impurity. “If it was slaughtered in purity but then the public became impure, the blood shall be poured in purity but the meat not eaten in impurity.” (Should one not say the same for pouring?) [Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is Rebbi Nathan’s, as Rebbi Nathan said, one has fulfilled his duty by pouring without eating. “If it was slaughtered in purity but then the blood collected became impure, the blood may be poured in impurity but the meat may not be eaten in impurity.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of the bad impression, lest they say, we have seen a Pesaḥ brought in purity which was [poured] {eaten} in impurity. Then should not the blood be poured in impurity?] Lest they say, we have seen a Pesaḥ brought in purity for which it was poured in impurity. You have to end up saying that it is Rebbi Nathan’s. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a sick or an old person. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a group whose officiant became impure, that they are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a group where a wart was found, that they are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is about one “which comes in impurity from the start.” But if it came in purity and then became impure, it cannot be eaten in impurity. “If it was slaughtered in purity but then the public became impure, the blood shall be poured in purity but the meat not eaten in impurity.” (Should one not say the same for pouring?) [Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is Rebbi Nathan’s, as Rebbi Nathan said, one has fulfilled his duty by pouring without eating. “If it was slaughtered in purity but then the blood collected became impure, the blood may be poured in impurity but the meat may not be eaten in impurity.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of the bad impression, lest they say, we have seen a Pesaḥ brought in purity which was [poured] {eaten} in impurity. Then should not the blood be poured in impurity?] Lest they say, we have seen a Pesaḥ brought in purity for which it was poured in impurity. You have to end up saying that it is Rebbi Nathan’s. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a sick or an old person. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a group whose officiant became impure, that they are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a group where a wart was found, that they are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ.

“If the skins of the Pesaḥ sacrifices of five groups were intermingled and a wart was found on one of them, all of them have to be brought to the place of burning, but they are not liable to bring a Second Pesaḥ.” They wanted to say that this is Rebbi Nathan’s. Explain it following everybody, {they made it} like one which has become impure by a doubt of a grave of the abyss. Following Rebbi Nathan would he have poured the blood?

“If the skins of the Pesaḥ sacrifices of five groups were intermingled and a wart was found on one of them, all of them have to be brought to the place of burning, but they are not liable to bring a Second Pesaḥ.” They wanted to say that this is Rebbi Nathan’s. Explain it following everybody, {they made it} like one which has become impure by a doubt of a grave of the abyss. Following Rebbi Nathan would he have poured the blood?

HALAKHAH: Who is the Tanna of “majority”? Rebbi Meïr, as it was stated: Either half of the tribes or half of each tribe, if only it be a majority. Rebbi Jehudah says, half of each tribe, but only a majority of entire tribes. One tribe drags all tribes. Rebbi Meïr says, all tribes are called “the public”. Rebbi Jehudah says, each single tribe is called “public”. What is between them? Dragging. Rebbi Meïr says, a single tribe does not drag all tribes, but Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. And Rebbi Jehudah follows Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon said, one tribe drags all tribes, so Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. Even though Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes, he agrees that only if the ruling came from the ashlar hall. Rebbi Yose said, the reason of that Tanna: From this place which the Eternal will choose. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? The entire community of the Children of Israel will be forgiven. What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? Since the entire people acted in error. How does Rebbi Simeon uphold Rebbi Jehudah’s reason, the entire community of the Children of Israel will be forgiven? Except women and children. How does Rebbi Jehudah uphold Rebbi Simeon’s reason, since the entire people acted in error? Except if the beginning was criminal and the conclusion in error. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Benjamin bar Levi: The verse supports him who said that each tribe is called “public”, as it is written: A people and a public of peoples will come from you, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, just as they differ here, so they differ about impurity, as it was stated: If the public was half pure and half impure; pure [people] celebrate the first [Pesaḥ] and impure the second, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the pure ones celebrate for themselves, and the impure ones celebrate for themselves. They told him, there is no split Passover; either all celebrate in purity or all celebrate in impurity. Who is “they told him”? Rebbi Meïr. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as we have stated there: “If one of the loaves or one of the orders became impure, Rebbi Jehudah said, both have to be brought to be burned for a public offering cannot be split. But the Sages say, the impure in its impurity, and the pure shall be eaten.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: who is “they told him”? The Sages who argue like Rebbi Meïr.

In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, how does one act if they are half and half? As majority or as minority? If you are saying as a majority, the pure persons cannot make the First. If you are saying as a minority, the impure persons cannot make the Second. Rebbi Yose said, he did not say that a majority of pure persons cannot make the First, a majority of impure persons cannot make the Second. He only said, a majority of impure persons is not pushed to the Second Pesaḥ.

If the public became impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity, you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, it only is logical that you should clarify it to its advantage in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him before pouring he should be treated as if he became impure after pouring, that he should not be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, you restrict him in public, so that if it became known to him after pouring he should be treated as if he became impure before pouring, that he should not be able to eat the meat. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him before pouring he is treated as impure after pouring, that he should not have to bring a sacrifice of impurity, you treat as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after pouring he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure; he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case. [As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case.] If somebody is officiating for the Pesaḥ, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad majus. Since for the owner [of the Pesaḥ] whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. Since for the owner you clarify to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; what can you say for the officiating where you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? For you, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought to say, on him, not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other.

If the public became impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity, you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, it only is logical that you should clarify it to its advantage in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him before pouring he should be treated as if he became impure after pouring, that he should not be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, you restrict him in public, so that if it became known to him after pouring he should be treated as if he became impure before pouring, that he should not be able to eat the meat. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him before pouring he is treated as impure after pouring, that he should not have to bring a sacrifice of impurity, you treat as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after pouring he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure; he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case. [As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case.] If somebody is officiating for the Pesaḥ, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad majus. Since for the owner [of the Pesaḥ] whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. Since for the owner you clarify to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; what can you say for the officiating where you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? For you, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought to say, on him, not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other.

If the public became impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity, you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, it only is logical that you should clarify it to its advantage in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him before pouring he should be treated as if he became impure after pouring, that he should not be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, you restrict him in public, so that if it became known to him after pouring he should be treated as if he became impure before pouring, that he should not be able to eat the meat. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him before pouring he is treated as impure after pouring, that he should not have to bring a sacrifice of impurity, you treat as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after pouring he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure; he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case. [As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case.] If somebody is officiating for the Pesaḥ, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad majus. Since for the owner [of the Pesaḥ] whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. Since for the owner you clarify to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; what can you say for the officiating where you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? For you, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought to say, on him, not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other.

There, we have stated: “All sacrifices whose blood was collected by a non-Cohen, a deep mourner, one immersed on this day, missing garments, missing atonement, with unwashed hands or feet, uncircumcised, impure, sitting, standing on utensils, on [an animal, on] another person, disqualified it.” The Southerners say, we hold this for those impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, but impurity of the dead does not desecrate since it was permitted in case of the impurity of the many for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to the Southerners: Since for the owner, where you clarified to his advantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year, you clarified to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ, for the officiant, where you clarified to his disadvantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year, it is only logical that you should clarify to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ. In addition to what Rebbi stated, “the diadem makes impurity of the blood acceptable but not impurity of the body.” If you want to say that this refers to the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, you cannot, since we have stated, “if the impurity was caused by impurity of the abyss, the diadem makes acceptable.” What are the Southerners doing with this? They explain if for the owner. But did we not state “a nazir”? They explain it for the officiant. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, there is no difference; it is equal for owner or officiant. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is an argument de minore ad maius that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, what can you say about the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, this is an argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are indispensable for him, what can you say about the officiating, for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are not indispensable. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid.

There, we have stated: “All sacrifices whose blood was collected by a non-Cohen, a deep mourner, one immersed on this day, missing garments, missing atonement, with unwashed hands or feet, uncircumcised, impure, sitting, standing on utensils, on [an animal, on] another person, disqualified it.” The Southerners say, we hold this for those impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, but impurity of the dead does not desecrate since it was permitted in case of the impurity of the many for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to the Southerners: Since for the owner, where you clarified to his advantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year, you clarified to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ, for the officiant, where you clarified to his disadvantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year, it is only logical that you should clarify to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ. In addition to what Rebbi stated, “the diadem makes impurity of the blood acceptable but not impurity of the body.” If you want to say that this refers to the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, you cannot, since we have stated, “if the impurity was caused by impurity of the abyss, the diadem makes acceptable.” What are the Southerners doing with this? They explain if for the owner. But did we not state “a nazir”? They explain it for the officiant. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, there is no difference; it is equal for owner or officiant. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is an argument de minore ad maius that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, what can you say about the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, this is an argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are indispensable for him, what can you say about the officiating, for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are not indispensable. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid.

There, we have stated: “All sacrifices whose blood was collected by a non-Cohen, a deep mourner, one immersed on this day, missing garments, missing atonement, with unwashed hands or feet, uncircumcised, impure, sitting, standing on utensils, on [an animal, on] another person, disqualified it.” The Southerners say, we hold this for those impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, but impurity of the dead does not desecrate since it was permitted in case of the impurity of the many for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to the Southerners: Since for the owner, where you clarified to his advantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year, you clarified to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ, for the officiant, where you clarified to his disadvantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year, it is only logical that you should clarify to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ. In addition to what Rebbi stated, “the diadem makes impurity of the blood acceptable but not impurity of the body.” If you want to say that this refers to the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, you cannot, since we have stated, “if the impurity was caused by impurity of the abyss, the diadem makes acceptable.” What are the Southerners doing with this? They explain if for the owner. But did we not state “a nazir”? They explain it for the officiant. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, there is no difference; it is equal for owner or officiant. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is an argument de minore ad maius that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, what can you say about the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, this is an argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are indispensable for him, what can you say about the officiating, for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are not indispensable. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid.

Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If an individual could learn from the public for the Pesaḥ, the officiant during the rest of the year might infer from the public for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Immi asked: how do you explain this “impure”? Impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease? But did we not state, “missing atonement”? If he desecrates when he had been immersed, not so much more before he was immersed! How do you explain “immersed on this day”? If he immersed himself on that day because of a corpse. Come and see: the one impure from a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a corpse? But he must be immersed on that day because of a crawling animal. Come and see: the immersed on that day because of a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a crawling animal? Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, people having touched sufferers from gonorrhea. The rabbis of Caesarea explain everything from a sufferer from gonorrhea. “One immersed on this day,” if he had one episode. “Impure” (in the impurity of the dead) if he had two episodes. “Missing atonement,” if he had three episodes. Are people having touched a sufferer from gonorrhea like a sufferer from gonorrhea in the opinion of the Southerners? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices, the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers. What is iniquity of the sacrifices? The blood of a sufferer from gonorrhea? No, what was touched by a sufferer from gonorrhea. Similarly, the iniquity of the sacrificers, who touched a sufferer from gonorrhea. This implies that if the public were impure because they had touched sufferers from gonorrhea or women suffering from flux, they cannot make it in impurity.

Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If an individual could learn from the public for the Pesaḥ, the officiant during the rest of the year might infer from the public for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Immi asked: how do you explain this “impure”? Impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease? But did we not state, “missing atonement”? If he desecrates when he had been immersed, not so much more before he was immersed! How do you explain “immersed on this day”? If he immersed himself on that day because of a corpse. Come and see: the one impure from a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a corpse? But he must be immersed on that day because of a crawling animal. Come and see: the immersed on that day because of a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a crawling animal? Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, people having touched sufferers from gonorrhea. The rabbis of Caesarea explain everything from a sufferer from gonorrhea. “One immersed on this day,” if he had one episode. “Impure” (in the impurity of the dead) if he had two episodes. “Missing atonement,” if he had three episodes. Are people having touched a sufferer from gonorrhea like a sufferer from gonorrhea in the opinion of the Southerners? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices, the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers. What is iniquity of the sacrifices? The blood of a sufferer from gonorrhea? No, what was touched by a sufferer from gonorrhea. Similarly, the iniquity of the sacrificers, who touched a sufferer from gonorrhea. This implies that if the public were impure because they had touched sufferers from gonorrhea or women suffering from flux, they cannot make it in impurity.

MISHNAH: Pesaḥ which left or which became impure has to be burned immediately. If the owners became impure or died it shall lose its shape and be brought to the place of burning. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, this one also has to be burned immediately since it has no eaters.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “A disqualification of the body [is piggul and] is immediately burned. [If the owners became impure or died it is] a disqualification of enabler and needs to lose its shape. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “Pesaḥ which left or which became impure is a disqualification of the body and has to be burned immediately. If the owner became impure or died it is a disqualification of the enabler and it shall lose its shape.”

MISHNAH: Pesaḥ which left or which became impure has to be burned immediately. If the owners became impure or died it shall lose its shape and be brought to the place of burning. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, this one also has to be burned immediately since it has no eaters.

MISHNAH: Anything eaten of a large bull shall be eaten of the soft lamb, including the ends of the shoulder bone and cartilage. He who breaks a bone of a pure Pesaḥ is whipped forty [lashes]; but he who leaves over of a pure or who breaks of an impure is not whipped forty [lashes].

“But he who leaves over of a pure {Pesaḥ} or who breaks of an impure is not whipped forty {ashes}.” Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Mishnah if it came in impurity from the start. But if it came in purity and became impure it is as if coming in purity and one is whipped for its breaking.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: They did not sanctify under the wing in Jerusalem. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav Samuel bar Rav Isaac: That the sufferers from skin disease might find shelter in summer from the sun and in the rainy season from rain. Did they similarly not sanctify under the wing of the Temple Mount, that sufferers from gonorrhea and flux might find shelter in summer from the sun and in the rainy season from rain? The sufferer from skin disease has no place to find shelter; the sufferer from gonorrhea finds shelter in all of Jerusalem. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Since we see that the rabbis take off their sandals under the wing of the Temple Mount, this implies that they did not sanctify under the wing of the Temple Mount. Rav asked the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: What is the status of roofs in Jerusalem? He told him, since one uses as proverb: the Pesaḥ in an olive-sized bit and Hallel breaks the roof, this implies that the roofs of Jerusalem are sanctified. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Miasha, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: The roofs of Jerusalem are profane. But did we not state, “From the wing and inside it is like inside; from the wing and outside it is like outside”? Explain it that the Mishnah speaks about a roof surrounded by buildings forming a courtyard. But did we not state, “windows and the thickness of the wall are like inside”? Explain it again that the Mishnah speaks about a roof surrounded by buildings forming a courtyard. This parallels what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: glacis and wall mourned, the wall and the ante-wall. If they sanctified the thickness of the wall, not so much more the window? Rebbi Aḥa said, it is necessary for the window on top of the wing. Even though you are saying that they did not sanctify under the wing of Jerusalem, they sanctified the window over the wing.

Rebbi Immi asked, if he removed from group to group (the volume of two olives) he is twice liable, because of do not remove from the house and do not remove to the outside. If they subscribed to a Pesaḥ, and an individual removed the volume of an olive, he is liable. Two or three persons are not liable since the members of the group may be drawn after them; but they infringe on a positive commandment; and following Rebbi Simeon they do not infringe. As it was stated, over the houses in which they are eating it there, this teaches that the Pesaḥ may be eaten in two places. I could think that its eaters also could eat it in two places, the verse says, in one house it shall be eaten. How is that? A Pesaḥ may be eaten in two places, but its eaters may not eat it in two places. [Rebbi Simeon says, also its eaters could eat it in two places.] How does Rebbi Simeon uphold in one house it shall be eaten? Lest part of one group eat inside and another part outside. An individual who removed the volume of an olive, since the members of the group may be drawn after him, becomes absolved from the positive commandment. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked, why following Rebbi Simeon? Even following the rabbis, since the members of the group may be drawn after him, they are absolved from the prohibition; neither should they be under the positive commandment.

Rebbi Immi asked, if he removed from group to group (the volume of two olives) he is twice liable, because of do not remove from the house and do not remove to the outside. If they subscribed to a Pesaḥ, and an individual removed the volume of an olive, he is liable. Two or three persons are not liable since the members of the group may be drawn after them; but they infringe on a positive commandment; and following Rebbi Simeon they do not infringe. As it was stated, over the houses in which they are eating it there, this teaches that the Pesaḥ may be eaten in two places. I could think that its eaters also could eat it in two places, the verse says, in one house it shall be eaten. How is that? A Pesaḥ may be eaten in two places, but its eaters may not eat it in two places. [Rebbi Simeon says, also its eaters could eat it in two places.] How does Rebbi Simeon uphold in one house it shall be eaten? Lest part of one group eat inside and another part outside. An individual who removed the volume of an olive, since the members of the group may be drawn after him, becomes absolved from the positive commandment. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked, why following Rebbi Simeon? Even following the rabbis, since the members of the group may be drawn after him, they are absolved from the prohibition; neither should they be under the positive commandment.

Rebbi Immi asked, if he removed from group to group (the volume of two olives) he is twice liable, because of do not remove from the house and do not remove to the outside. If they subscribed to a Pesaḥ, and an individual removed the volume of an olive, he is liable. Two or three persons are not liable since the members of the group may be drawn after them; but they infringe on a positive commandment; and following Rebbi Simeon they do not infringe. As it was stated, over the houses in which they are eating it there, this teaches that the Pesaḥ may be eaten in two places. I could think that its eaters also could eat it in two places, the verse says, in one house it shall be eaten. How is that? A Pesaḥ may be eaten in two places, but its eaters may not eat it in two places. [Rebbi Simeon says, also its eaters could eat it in two places.] How does Rebbi Simeon uphold in one house it shall be eaten? Lest part of one group eat inside and another part outside. An individual who removed the volume of an olive, since the members of the group may be drawn after him, becomes absolved from the positive commandment. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked, why following Rebbi Simeon? Even following the rabbis, since the members of the group may be drawn after him, they are absolved from the prohibition; neither should they be under the positive commandment.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A person may slaughter another’s Pesaḥ without his knowledge, but he cannot dedicate it without his knowledge. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah says so: “A woman living in her husband’s house, and both her father and her husband slaughtered for her, should eat of her husband’s.” Where do we hold? If giving instructions, normally a woman gives instructions saying, I want to be with my children. So not giving instructions. The Mishnah may be about giving instructions. There came Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , the Mishnah is about giving instructions. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, a person may slaughter another’s Pesaḥ without his knowledge, but he may not choose it without his knowledge? There is a difference between Pesaḥ and a purification sacrifice. If a Pesaḥ grows it may be used to satisfy an obligation; a purification sacrifice if it grows may not be used to satisfy an obligation.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A person may slaughter another’s Pesaḥ without his knowledge, but he cannot dedicate it without his knowledge. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah says so: “A woman living in her husband’s house, and both her father and her husband slaughtered for her, should eat of her husband’s.” Where do we hold? If giving instructions, normally a woman gives instructions saying, I want to be with my children. So not giving instructions. The Mishnah may be about giving instructions. There came Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , the Mishnah is about giving instructions. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, a person may slaughter another’s Pesaḥ without his knowledge, but he may not choose it without his knowledge? There is a difference between Pesaḥ and a purification sacrifice. If a Pesaḥ grows it may be used to satisfy an obligation; a purification sacrifice if it grows may not be used to satisfy an obligation.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A person may slaughter another’s Pesaḥ without his knowledge, but he cannot dedicate it without his knowledge. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah says so: “A woman living in her husband’s house, and both her father and her husband slaughtered for her, should eat of her husband’s.” Where do we hold? If giving instructions, normally a woman gives instructions saying, I want to be with my children. So not giving instructions. The Mishnah may be about giving instructions. There came Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , the Mishnah is about giving instructions. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, a person may slaughter another’s Pesaḥ without his knowledge, but he may not choose it without his knowledge? There is a difference between Pesaḥ and a purification sacrifice. If a Pesaḥ grows it may be used to satisfy an obligation; a purification sacrifice if it grows may not be used to satisfy an obligation.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A person may slaughter another’s Pesaḥ without his knowledge, but he cannot dedicate it without his knowledge. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah says so: “A woman living in her husband’s house, and both her father and her husband slaughtered for her, should eat of her husband’s.” Where do we hold? If giving instructions, normally a woman gives instructions saying, I want to be with my children. So not giving instructions. The Mishnah may be about giving instructions. There came Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , the Mishnah is about giving instructions. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, a person may slaughter another’s Pesaḥ without his knowledge, but he may not choose it without his knowledge? There is a difference between Pesaḥ and a purification sacrifice. If a Pesaḥ grows it may be used to satisfy an obligation; a purification sacrifice if it grows may not be used to satisfy an obligation.

Rebbi Eleazar said: The Pesaḥ of women is voluntary, but one pushes the Sabbath away for it. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice from women and slaves is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their mazzah? Rebbi Eleazar said, it is obligatory. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is voluntary. Rebbi Hila said, it is everybody’s {opinion}. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeˋira: Lettuce, mazzah and Pesaḥ are obligatory the first night; on all other days they are voluntary. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: It was said: Do not eat leavened matter with it, for seven days you shall eat with it mazzot, the bread of deprivation. Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat mazzah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat mazzah. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”? Rebby Mana said, it is a powerful positive commandment since it is implied by a prohibition.

Rebbi Eleazar said: The Pesaḥ of women is voluntary, but one pushes the Sabbath away for it. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice from women and slaves is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their mazzah? Rebbi Eleazar said, it is obligatory. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is voluntary. Rebbi Hila said, it is everybody’s {opinion}. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeˋira: Lettuce, mazzah and Pesaḥ are obligatory the first night; on all other days they are voluntary. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: It was said: Do not eat leavened matter with it, for seven days you shall eat with it mazzot, the bread of deprivation. Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat mazzah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat mazzah. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”? Rebby Mana said, it is a powerful positive commandment since it is implied by a prohibition.

Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary? It was stated: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining \others, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, and certainly the First. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? Every man a sheep for the family, if they want for the house. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, every man a sheep for the family, a fortiori for the house. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? “Every man”, not a woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, lest it become an obligation.

Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary? It was stated: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining \others, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, and certainly the First. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? Every man a sheep for the family, if they want for the house. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, every man a sheep for the family, a fortiori for the house. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? “Every man”, not a woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, lest it become an obligation.

Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary? It was stated: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining \others, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, and certainly the First. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? Every man a sheep for the family, if they want for the house. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, every man a sheep for the family, a fortiori for the house. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? “Every man”, not a woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, lest it become an obligation.

Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary? It was stated: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining \others, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, and certainly the First. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? Every man a sheep for the family, if they want for the house. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, every man a sheep for the family, a fortiori for the house. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? “Every man”, not a woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, lest it become an obligation.

“An orphan for whom guardians slaughtered may eat where he desires.” The Mishnah refers to an underage orphan. But an adult orphan is like one who subscribed to two Pesaḥim; as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, one who subscribed to two Pesaḥim eats from the one which was slaughtered first. Rebbi Yose says, the Mishnah says so, “if he slaughtered a kid goat and a lamb, one eats from the first.”

“An orphan for whom guardians slaughtered may eat where he desires.” The Mishnah refers to an underage orphan. But an adult orphan is like one who subscribed to two Pesaḥim; as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, one who subscribed to two Pesaḥim eats from the one which was slaughtered first. Rebbi Yose says, the Mishnah says so, “if he slaughtered a kid goat and a lamb, one eats from the first.”

“A slave of two owners may not eat from either of them.” Rebbi Yose said, his master has no right to say, it is impossible that you should be counted for a Pesaḥ, but he may say to him, you may not be counted for this one, only for that one. Sometimes he is counted for three Pesaḥim simultaneously. How is this? A slave of two owners must subscribe to a Pesaḥ. If one of them freed his part, he has to subscribe to another Pesaḥ. If both of them freed, he has to subscribe to yet another Pesaḥ. Samuel bar Abba asked, may the slave eat from all three of them? If you are saying that the slave may not eat from all three of them, then he should not be able to subscribe to a Pesaḥ, since perhaps his master might want to free him and it turns out that an invalid dedication is mixed up in the offering. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Zeˋira asked, may the owner fulfill his obligation by the slave’s dedication? Is that not a Mishnah: “One says to his slave, go and slaughter the Pesaḥ for me.” The Mishnah on the instruction of his master, what is problematic for him not on the instruction of his master.

“A slave of two owners may not eat from either of them.” Rebbi Yose said, his master has no right to say, it is impossible that you should be counted for a Pesaḥ, but he may say to him, you may not be counted for this one, only for that one. Sometimes he is counted for three Pesaḥim simultaneously. How is this? A slave of two owners must subscribe to a Pesaḥ. If one of them freed his part, he has to subscribe to another Pesaḥ. If both of them freed, he has to subscribe to yet another Pesaḥ. Samuel bar Abba asked, may the slave eat from all three of them? If you are saying that the slave may not eat from all three of them, then he should not be able to subscribe to a Pesaḥ, since perhaps his master might want to free him and it turns out that an invalid dedication is mixed up in the offering. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Zeˋira asked, may the owner fulfill his obligation by the slave’s dedication? Is that not a Mishnah: “One says to his slave, go and slaughter the Pesaḥ for me.” The Mishnah on the instruction of his master, what is problematic for him not on the instruction of his master.

“A slave of two owners may not eat from either of them.” Rebbi Yose said, his master has no right to say, it is impossible that you should be counted for a Pesaḥ, but he may say to him, you may not be counted for this one, only for that one. Sometimes he is counted for three Pesaḥim simultaneously. How is this? A slave of two owners must subscribe to a Pesaḥ. If one of them freed his part, he has to subscribe to another Pesaḥ. If both of them freed, he has to subscribe to yet another Pesaḥ. Samuel bar Abba asked, may the slave eat from all three of them? If you are saying that the slave may not eat from all three of them, then he should not be able to subscribe to a Pesaḥ, since perhaps his master might want to free him and it turns out that an invalid dedication is mixed up in the offering. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Zeˋira asked, may the owner fulfill his obligation by the slave’s dedication? Is that not a Mishnah: “One says to his slave, go and slaughter the Pesaḥ for me.” The Mishnah on the instruction of his master, what is problematic for him not on the instruction of his master.

“A slave of two owners may not eat from either of them.” Rebbi Yose said, his master has no right to say, it is impossible that you should be counted for a Pesaḥ, but he may say to him, you may not be counted for this one, only for that one. Sometimes he is counted for three Pesaḥim simultaneously. How is this? A slave of two owners must subscribe to a Pesaḥ. If one of them freed his part, he has to subscribe to another Pesaḥ. If both of them freed, he has to subscribe to yet another Pesaḥ. Samuel bar Abba asked, may the slave eat from all three of them? If you are saying that the slave may not eat from all three of them, then he should not be able to subscribe to a Pesaḥ, since perhaps his master might want to free him and it turns out that an invalid dedication is mixed up in the offering. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Zeˋira asked, may the owner fulfill his obligation by the slave’s dedication? Is that not a Mishnah: “One says to his slave, go and slaughter the Pesaḥ for me.” The Mishnah on the instruction of his master, what is problematic for him not on the instruction of his master.

“A slave of two owners may not eat from either of them.” Rebbi Yose said, his master has no right to say, it is impossible that you should be counted for a Pesaḥ, but he may say to him, you may not be counted for this one, only for that one. Sometimes he is counted for three Pesaḥim simultaneously. How is this? A slave of two owners must subscribe to a Pesaḥ. If one of them freed his part, he has to subscribe to another Pesaḥ. If both of them freed, he has to subscribe to yet another Pesaḥ. Samuel bar Abba asked, may the slave eat from all three of them? If you are saying that the slave may not eat from all three of them, then he should not be able to subscribe to a Pesaḥ, since perhaps his master might want to free him and it turns out that an invalid dedication is mixed up in the offering. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Zeˋira asked, may the owner fulfill his obligation by the slave’s dedication? Is that not a Mishnah: “One says to his slave, go and slaughter the Pesaḥ for me.” The Mishnah on the instruction of his master, what is problematic for him not on the instruction of his master.

“A slave of two owners may not eat from either of them.” Rebbi Yose said, his master has no right to say, it is impossible that you should be counted for a Pesaḥ, but he may say to him, you may not be counted for this one, only for that one. Sometimes he is counted for three Pesaḥim simultaneously. How is this? A slave of two owners must subscribe to a Pesaḥ. If one of them freed his part, he has to subscribe to another Pesaḥ. If both of them freed, he has to subscribe to yet another Pesaḥ. Samuel bar Abba asked, may the slave eat from all three of them? If you are saying that the slave may not eat from all three of them, then he should not be able to subscribe to a Pesaḥ, since perhaps his master might want to free him and it turns out that an invalid dedication is mixed up in the offering. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Zeˋira asked, may the owner fulfill his obligation by the slave’s dedication? Is that not a Mishnah: “One says to his slave, go and slaughter the Pesaḥ for me.” The Mishnah on the instruction of his master, what is problematic for him not on the instruction of his master.

“A slave of two owners may not eat from either of them.” Rebbi Yose said, his master has no right to say, it is impossible that you should be counted for a Pesaḥ, but he may say to him, you may not be counted for this one, only for that one. Sometimes he is counted for three Pesaḥim simultaneously. How is this? A slave of two owners must subscribe to a Pesaḥ. If one of them freed his part, he has to subscribe to another Pesaḥ. If both of them freed, he has to subscribe to yet another Pesaḥ. Samuel bar Abba asked, may the slave eat from all three of them? If you are saying that the slave may not eat from all three of them, then he should not be able to subscribe to a Pesaḥ, since perhaps his master might want to free him and it turns out that an invalid dedication is mixed up in the offering. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Zeˋira asked, may the owner fulfill his obligation by the slave’s dedication? Is that not a Mishnah: “One says to his slave, go and slaughter the Pesaḥ for me.” The Mishnah on the instruction of his master, what is problematic for him not on the instruction of his master.

MISHNAH: One says to his slave, go and slaughter the Pesaḥ for me. If he slaughtered a kid goat, it should be eaten; if he slaughtered a lamb, it should be eaten. If he slaughtered kid goat and lamb, one eats from the first. If he forgot what his master had told him, what can he do? He shall slaughter a kid goat and a lamb and say, if my master said to me a kid goat, the kid goat is his and the lamb mine, but if my master said to me a lamb, the lamb is his and the kid goat mine. If his master had forgotten what he told him, both shall be brought to the place of burning but they are free from bringing the Second Pesaḥ.

MISHNAH: One says to his slave, go and slaughter the Pesaḥ for me. If he slaughtered a kid goat, it should be eaten; if he slaughtered a lamb, it should be eaten. If he slaughtered kid goat and lamb, one eats from the first. If he forgot what his master had told him, what can he do? He shall slaughter a kid goat and a lamb and say, if my master said to me a kid goat, the kid goat is his and the lamb mine, but if my master said to me a lamb, the lamb is his and the kid goat mine. If his master had forgotten what he told him, both shall be brought to the place of burning but they are free from bringing the Second Pesaḥ.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: One who simultaneously subscribed to two Pesaḥim eats from the one which was slaughtered first. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this; “if he slaughtered kid goat and lamb, one eats from the first.” Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, this is Rebbi Nathan’s since Rebbi Nathan said, one fulfills his obligation by pouring without eating. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Explain it that the master forgot between slaughter and pouring. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, one of the rabbis objected; some say that it was himself: Did we not state, “If he forgot what his master had told him, he shall slaughter a kid goat and a lamb”?

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he dedicated a Pesaḥ before he converted and then converted, before he was manumitted and then was manumitted, before he grew two pubic hairs and then grew two pubic hairs, has to subscribe to another Pesaḥ. Rebbi Yudan said, all doubts follow Rebbi Nathan, except for him who pours the blood of his purification offering or the blood of his reparation offering when there is a doubt whether he poured during nighttime or poured during daytime, where there is a doubt of atonement, and every doubt of atonement atones.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he dedicated a Pesaḥ before he converted and then converted, before he was manumitted and then was manumitted, before he grew two pubic hairs and then grew two pubic hairs, has to subscribe to another Pesaḥ. Rebbi Yudan said, all doubts follow Rebbi Nathan, except for him who pours the blood of his purification offering or the blood of his reparation offering when there is a doubt whether he poured during nighttime or poured during daytime, where there is a doubt of atonement, and every doubt of atonement atones.

MISHNAH: If one says to his children, I am going to slaughter the Pesaḥ in the name of whoever of you will come first to Jerusalem. When the first of them entered with his head and most of his body, he acquired his part and acquires for his siblings with him. Forever one subscribes to it as long as there is the volume of an olive for each participant. One subscribes to it or cancels until it has been slaughtered; Rebbi Simeon says until the blood is poured.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: It is a stipulation of the Court that one dedicate his Pesaḥ and the other his money. He lets him subscribe to his [part] and the money automatically becomes profane. How? It becomes profane and then dedicated again? Or for this purpose it was dedicated from the start? What is the difference between them? If he dedicated 100 mina for his Pesaḥ and used 50 to subscribe. If you are saying that it becomes profane and is dedicated again, the remainder of the monies are profane. If you are saying that for this purpose he dedicated it from the start, the rest of the monies are (profane) [dedicated]. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Samuel bar Abba asked: Think of it if he lets him subscribe gratis. Where do you have “becomes profane and is dedicated again”? The words of the rabbis imply that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. We have stated there: “If he gave her monies, they are permitted; wines, oils, and fine flour, or anything of whose kind one offers on the altar, are forbidden.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he lets him subscribe to his Pesaḥ and to his festival offering. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it would be forbidden as harlot’s wages. Explain it if nothing was given into his hand; you should know as it was stated there, “he can bring for him nests for male or female sufferers from genital discharges, nests for childbirth;” not if nothing came into his hands? Here also if nothing came into his hands.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: It is a stipulation of the Court that one dedicate his Pesaḥ and the other his money. He lets him subscribe to his [part] and the money automatically becomes profane. How? It becomes profane and then dedicated again? Or for this purpose it was dedicated from the start? What is the difference between them? If he dedicated 100 mina for his Pesaḥ and used 50 to subscribe. If you are saying that it becomes profane and is dedicated again, the remainder of the monies are profane. If you are saying that for this purpose he dedicated it from the start, the rest of the monies are (profane) [dedicated]. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Samuel bar Abba asked: Think of it if he lets him subscribe gratis. Where do you have “becomes profane and is dedicated again”? The words of the rabbis imply that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. We have stated there: “If he gave her monies, they are permitted; wines, oils, and fine flour, or anything of whose kind one offers on the altar, are forbidden.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he lets him subscribe to his Pesaḥ and to his festival offering. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it would be forbidden as harlot’s wages. Explain it if nothing was given into his hand; you should know as it was stated there, “he can bring for him nests for male or female sufferers from genital discharges, nests for childbirth;” not if nothing came into his hands? Here also if nothing came into his hands.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: It is a stipulation of the Court that one dedicate his Pesaḥ and the other his money. He lets him subscribe to his [part] and the money automatically becomes profane. How? It becomes profane and then dedicated again? Or for this purpose it was dedicated from the start? What is the difference between them? If he dedicated 100 mina for his Pesaḥ and used 50 to subscribe. If you are saying that it becomes profane and is dedicated again, the remainder of the monies are profane. If you are saying that for this purpose he dedicated it from the start, the rest of the monies are (profane) [dedicated]. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Samuel bar Abba asked: Think of it if he lets him subscribe gratis. Where do you have “becomes profane and is dedicated again”? The words of the rabbis imply that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. We have stated there: “If he gave her monies, they are permitted; wines, oils, and fine flour, or anything of whose kind one offers on the altar, are forbidden.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he lets him subscribe to his Pesaḥ and to his festival offering. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it would be forbidden as harlot’s wages. Explain it if nothing was given into his hand; you should know as it was stated there, “he can bring for him nests for male or female sufferers from genital discharges, nests for childbirth;” not if nothing came into his hands? Here also if nothing came into his hands.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, one dedicates; the other said, one does not dedicate. The rabbis of Caesarea make it explicit: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one dedicates without problems on a holiday; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not dedicate, without problems on a holiday. There are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of lambs; there are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim. He who says, he goes to sellers of lambs, follows him who says, one dedicates. He who says, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim, follows him who says, one does not dedicate. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it should be forbidden because of dedicating, and we have stated, “one does not dedicate.” Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, if he dedicates for the next day; but the other said, if he dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Shammai said, even for him who said that one dedicates, in the Temple Court because rabbinic Sabbath prohibitions were permitted in the Temple.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, one dedicates; the other said, one does not dedicate. The rabbis of Caesarea make it explicit: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one dedicates without problems on a holiday; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not dedicate, without problems on a holiday. There are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of lambs; there are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim. He who says, he goes to sellers of lambs, follows him who says, one dedicates. He who says, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim, follows him who says, one does not dedicate. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it should be forbidden because of dedicating, and we have stated, “one does not dedicate.” Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, if he dedicates for the next day; but the other said, if he dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Shammai said, even for him who said that one dedicates, in the Temple Court because rabbinic Sabbath prohibitions were permitted in the Temple.

HALAKHAH: The members of a group of which one had beautiful hands were entitled to tell him, take your part and eat alone Not only Pesaḥ, but even if they made a meal by contributions they are entitled to tell him, take your part and eat alone, if they did know him, since this was a stipulation from the start.

Rav Huna said, if somebody dedicated his Pesaḥ and said, on condition that nobody else subscribe with me, nobody else can subscribe with him. If he dedicated it without specification, any who join are its subscribers. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Does the Mishnah say so? “If thehouse be less, this teaches that they may continuously diminish, on condition that there always be one of the first group and one of the second group, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, either from the first or from the second, if only the Pesaḥ not be left alone.” If you are saying that any who join are its subscribers, then the members of the first group are the members of the second group. What is the difference between them? If he dedicated his Pesaḥ, withdrew from it but another person subscribed to it. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is qualified, in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira disqualified. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is dedication by an individual and subject to the laws of substitution; in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira it is dedication by partners and dedication of partners is not subject to the laws of substitution. If a hundred people subscribed to it simultaneously, Rav Ḥuna said, if there is the volume [of an olive for each of them], it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. Rebbi Zeˋira said, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. And it was stated thus: “If they subscribed and added subscribers, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified.”

Rav Huna said, if somebody dedicated his Pesaḥ and said, on condition that nobody else subscribe with me, nobody else can subscribe with him. If he dedicated it without specification, any who join are its subscribers. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Does the Mishnah say so? “If thehouse be less, this teaches that they may continuously diminish, on condition that there always be one of the first group and one of the second group, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, either from the first or from the second, if only the Pesaḥ not be left alone.” If you are saying that any who join are its subscribers, then the members of the first group are the members of the second group. What is the difference between them? If he dedicated his Pesaḥ, withdrew from it but another person subscribed to it. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is qualified, in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira disqualified. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is dedication by an individual and subject to the laws of substitution; in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira it is dedication by partners and dedication of partners is not subject to the laws of substitution. If a hundred people subscribed to it simultaneously, Rav Ḥuna said, if there is the volume [of an olive for each of them], it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. Rebbi Zeˋira said, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. And it was stated thus: “If they subscribed and added subscribers, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified.”

Rav Huna said, if somebody dedicated his Pesaḥ and said, on condition that nobody else subscribe with me, nobody else can subscribe with him. If he dedicated it without specification, any who join are its subscribers. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Does the Mishnah say so? “If thehouse be less, this teaches that they may continuously diminish, on condition that there always be one of the first group and one of the second group, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, either from the first or from the second, if only the Pesaḥ not be left alone.” If you are saying that any who join are its subscribers, then the members of the first group are the members of the second group. What is the difference between them? If he dedicated his Pesaḥ, withdrew from it but another person subscribed to it. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is qualified, in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira disqualified. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is dedication by an individual and subject to the laws of substitution; in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira it is dedication by partners and dedication of partners is not subject to the laws of substitution. If a hundred people subscribed to it simultaneously, Rav Ḥuna said, if there is the volume [of an olive for each of them], it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. Rebbi Zeˋira said, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. And it was stated thus: “If they subscribed and added subscribers, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified.”

MISHNAH: One slaughters for the deep mourner, and one who digs out a collapsed building, and one who was promised that he would be freed from jail, the sick person or the old who are able to eat the volume of an olive. But for all of these one does not slaughter for themselves lest the Pesaḥ become disqualified. Therefore if a disqualification should occur they are not liable for the Second Pesaḥ except for one who digs out a collapsed building who from the start could expect to be impure.

MISHNAH: One slaughters for the deep mourner, and one who digs out a collapsed building, and one who was promised that he would be freed from jail, the sick person or the old who are able to eat the volume of an olive. But for all of these one does not slaughter for themselves lest the Pesaḥ become disqualified. Therefore if a disqualification should occur they are not liable for the Second Pesaḥ except for one who digs out a collapsed building who from the start could expect to be impure.

MISHNAH: One does not slaughter the Pesaḥ for a single person, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; but Rebbi Yose permits. One does not slaughter for a group, even of a hundred, if none of them can eat the volume of an olive, and one does not form a group of women, slaves, and minors.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, the season of Rebbi Jehudah: You may not sacrifice the Pesaḥ in one of your gates How does Rebbi Yose interpret Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? He explains it following Rebbi Eleazar ben Matthew, as it was stated: Rebbi Eleazar says, I could think that a single person clinches for impurity, the verse says, you may not sacrifice the Pesaḥ in one. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah concedes that if he transgressed and poured, it was made acceptable; if he transgressed and slaughtered one permits him to pour.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, the season of Rebbi Jehudah: You may not sacrifice the Pesaḥ in one of your gates How does Rebbi Yose interpret Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? He explains it following Rebbi Eleazar ben Matthew, as it was stated: Rebbi Eleazar says, I could think that a single person clinches for impurity, the verse says, you may not sacrifice the Pesaḥ in one. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah concedes that if he transgressed and poured, it was made acceptable; if he transgressed and slaughtered one permits him to pour.

MISHNAH: The deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Pesaḥ in the evening but not [other] sancta. He who hears about a death or for whom bones were collected immerses himself and eats sancta. A proselyte who converted on Passover eve, the House of Shammai say that he immerses himself and eats his Pesaḥ in the evening, but the House of Hillel say that he who separates from the prepuce is like one who separates from a grave.

MISHNAH: The deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Pesaḥ in the evening but not [other] sancta. He who hears about a death or for whom bones were collected immerses himself and eats sancta. A proselyte who converted on Passover eve, the House of Shammai say that he immerses himself and eats his Pesaḥ in the evening, but the House of Hillel say that he who separates from the prepuce is like one who separates from a grave.

And it was stated: “What is deep mourning? From the moment of death until the moment of burial, the word of Rebbi. But the Sages say, the entire day.” It turns out that one describes leniencies and stringencies following Rebbi, leniencies and stringencies following the rabbis. What leniencies following Rebbi? If he died and was buried within the hour. Following Rebbi he is forbidden only that hour, following the rabbis he is forbiddden the entire day. Leniencies following the rabbis? If he died and was buried after three days. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rebbi he is forbidden up to three days. There came Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rav Ḥuna, both of whom said that Rebbi agrees with the Sages that he is forbidden only during the first day, as it was stated: Rebbi said, you know that deep mourning [in the night] is not biblical, since they said, “the deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Pesaḥ in the evening.” But they declared deep mourning during daytime as biblical. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Explain it that he was buried close to sundown and one cannot infer anything.

It was stated: “The day of information is like the day of burial as regards tearing, and mourning, and counting Seven and Thirty; but to eat sancta it is like gathering bones, (he immerses himself and eats sancta).” About gathering bones, may he immerse himself and eat sancta? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, explain it if he was buried after nightfall. “In both cases they immerse themselves and eat their Pesaḥ in the evening.” After burial may one eat sancta? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, both are about information. If he was informed that a relative died the day before, he immerses himself and eats sancta; if he was informed that bones were collected the day before, he immerses himself and eats sancta.

A nazir who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain (on Oassover) [not related to the Pesaḥ.] The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir does not shave, since we have stated there: “For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, [one is liable] if entering the Sanctuary, but any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, [one is not liable] if entering the Sanctuary.” What kind of doubt? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the start of the Chapter. The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the one here. A person who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Hoshaia said, he should be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one sends him on a far journey. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he became impure by the impurity of the broken field, one sends him on a far journey. The community who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain on Passover. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they should present it in their doubt. Does the great Rebbi Hoshaia say, it should be made in impurity? Rebbi Hoshaia (said) [also agrees] that it should be presented in their doubt; what Rebbi Hoshaia said referred only to restrictions.

A nazir who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain (on Oassover) [not related to the Pesaḥ.] The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir does not shave, since we have stated there: “For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, [one is liable] if entering the Sanctuary, but any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, [one is not liable] if entering the Sanctuary.” What kind of doubt? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the start of the Chapter. The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the one here. A person who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Hoshaia said, he should be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one sends him on a far journey. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he became impure by the impurity of the broken field, one sends him on a far journey. The community who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain on Passover. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they should present it in their doubt. Does the great Rebbi Hoshaia say, it should be made in impurity? Rebbi Hoshaia (said) [also agrees] that it should be presented in their doubt; what Rebbi Hoshaia said referred only to restrictions.

A nazir who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain (on Oassover) [not related to the Pesaḥ.] The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir does not shave, since we have stated there: “For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, [one is liable] if entering the Sanctuary, but any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, [one is not liable] if entering the Sanctuary.” What kind of doubt? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the start of the Chapter. The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the one here. A person who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Hoshaia said, he should be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one sends him on a far journey. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he became impure by the impurity of the broken field, one sends him on a far journey. The community who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain on Passover. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they should present it in their doubt. Does the great Rebbi Hoshaia say, it should be made in impurity? Rebbi Hoshaia (said) [also agrees] that it should be presented in their doubt; what Rebbi Hoshaia said referred only to restrictions.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah: One sprinkles on an uncircumcised Jew, for we find that our forefathers in the desert received sprinkling when uncircumcised. Rav Ḥisda said, following him who said that they circumcised on the eleventh. But for him who said that they circumcised on the tenth, they did not count sprinkling when uncircumcised. Rebbi Abun said, did they not have to count for sprinkling when uncircumcised in any case? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: It happened that an uncircumcised Cohen sprinkled and the sprinklings were declared valid. It was stated so: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, there were soldiers and gate keepers in Jerusalem who immersed themselves and ate their Pesaḥ in the evening.

Impure by a corpse. I have not only impure by a corpse; impure by genital discharge, impure by skin disease, from where? The verse says impure (by the dead), it added. Why does the verse say, impure by a corpse? A man impure by a corpse is pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, but a public impure by the impurity of a corpse are not pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Those impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. They made the impurity of idolatry equal to the impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease. If Israel had the possibility to build the Temple, individuals celebrate the Second Pesaḥ but the public does not celebrate the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Jehudah says, the public celebrates the Second Pesaḥ since we find that Hezekia celebrated the Second Pesaḥ. This is what is written, for most of the people from Ephraim and Manasse, etc.

Impure by a corpse. I have not only impure by a corpse; impure by genital discharge, impure by skin disease, from where? The verse says impure (by the dead), it added. Why does the verse say, impure by a corpse? A man impure by a corpse is pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, but a public impure by the impurity of a corpse are not pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Those impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. They made the impurity of idolatry equal to the impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease. If Israel had the possibility to build the Temple, individuals celebrate the Second Pesaḥ but the public does not celebrate the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Jehudah says, the public celebrates the Second Pesaḥ since we find that Hezekia celebrated the Second Pesaḥ. This is what is written, for most of the people from Ephraim and Manasse, etc.

Impure by a corpse. I have not only impure by a corpse; impure by genital discharge, impure by skin disease, from where? The verse says impure (by the dead), it added. Why does the verse say, impure by a corpse? A man impure by a corpse is pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, but a public impure by the impurity of a corpse are not pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Those impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. They made the impurity of idolatry equal to the impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease. If Israel had the possibility to build the Temple, individuals celebrate the Second Pesaḥ but the public does not celebrate the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Jehudah says, the public celebrates the Second Pesaḥ since we find that Hezekia celebrated the Second Pesaḥ. This is what is written, for most of the people from Ephraim and Manasse, etc.

Impure by a corpse. I have not only impure by a corpse; impure by genital discharge, impure by skin disease, from where? The verse says impure (by the dead), it added. Why does the verse say, impure by a corpse? A man impure by a corpse is pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, but a public impure by the impurity of a corpse are not pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Those impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. They made the impurity of idolatry equal to the impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease. If Israel had the possibility to build the Temple, individuals celebrate the Second Pesaḥ but the public does not celebrate the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Jehudah says, the public celebrates the Second Pesaḥ since we find that Hezekia celebrated the Second Pesaḥ. This is what is written, for most of the people from Ephraim and Manasse, etc.

Impure by a corpse. I have not only impure by a corpse; impure by genital discharge, impure by skin disease, from where? The verse says impure (by the dead), it added. Why does the verse say, impure by a corpse? A man impure by a corpse is pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, but a public impure by the impurity of a corpse are not pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Those impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. They made the impurity of idolatry equal to the impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease. If Israel had the possibility to build the Temple, individuals celebrate the Second Pesaḥ but the public does not celebrate the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Jehudah says, the public celebrates the Second Pesaḥ since we find that Hezekia celebrated the Second Pesaḥ. This is what is written, for most of the people from Ephraim and Manasse, etc.

Impure by a corpse. I have not only impure by a corpse; impure by genital discharge, impure by skin disease, from where? The verse says impure (by the dead), it added. Why does the verse say, impure by a corpse? A man impure by a corpse is pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, but a public impure by the impurity of a corpse are not pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Those impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. They made the impurity of idolatry equal to the impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease. If Israel had the possibility to build the Temple, individuals celebrate the Second Pesaḥ but the public does not celebrate the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Jehudah says, the public celebrates the Second Pesaḥ since we find that Hezekia celebrated the Second Pesaḥ. This is what is written, for most of the people from Ephraim and Manasse, etc.

Impure by a corpse. I have not only impure by a corpse; impure by genital discharge, impure by skin disease, from where? The verse says impure (by the dead), it added. Why does the verse say, impure by a corpse? A man impure by a corpse is pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, but a public impure by the impurity of a corpse are not pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Those impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. They made the impurity of idolatry equal to the impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease. If Israel had the possibility to build the Temple, individuals celebrate the Second Pesaḥ but the public does not celebrate the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Jehudah says, the public celebrates the Second Pesaḥ since we find that Hezekia celebrated the Second Pesaḥ. This is what is written, for most of the people from Ephraim and Manasse, etc.

If the public was half suffering from gonorrhea and half impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥava said, the sufferers from gonorrhea relate to the impure as the impure relate to the pure. They do not make it; the sufferers from gonorrhea are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rav Ḥuna said, there is no make-up for Pesaḥ celebrated in impurity.

If the public was half suffering from gonorrhea and half impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥava said, the sufferers from gonorrhea relate to the impure as the impure relate to the pure. They do not make it; the sufferers from gonorrhea are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rav Ḥuna said, there is no make-up for Pesaḥ celebrated in impurity.

MISHNAH: What is the difference between the First and the Second Pesaḥ? The First is forbidden [leavened matter] to be seen or found. For the Second, leavened matter and mazzah are with him in the house. The First needs Hallel when it is eaten, but the Second does not need Hallel when it is eaten. Both need Hallel when it is offered, and they are eaten roasted, with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, and push the Sabbath aside.

HALAKHAH: It is written: they shall not leave anything until morning. If it relates to eating, this is the relevant positive commandment. No bone of it may be broken, that is the relevant prohibition. So when He says, according to all rules of the Pesaḥ they shall make it, I could think that I have to add the elimination of leavened matter and mazzah for seven days. The verse says, on mazzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it. Nothing external to its body impedes it except mazzot and bitter herbs. And following Rebbi Ismael? Since Rebbi Ismael says, a principle followed by a detail, everything is in the principle, I could think that everything impedes it; the verse says, on mazzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it. Nothing external to its body impedes it except mazzot and bitter herbs.

MISHNAH: What is the difference between the First and the Second Pesaḥ? The First is forbidden [leavened matter] to be seen or found. For the Second, leavened matter and mazzah are with him in the house. The First needs Hallel when it is eaten, but the Second does not need Hallel when it is eaten. Both need Hallel when it is offered, and they are eaten roasted, with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, and push the Sabbath aside.

MISHNAH: What is the difference between Passover in Egypt and the Passover of generations? The Pesaḥ in Egypt was bought on the Tenth, and needed sprinkling with a bunch of hyssop on the lintel and two door-posts, and was eaten in a hurry, during one night. But Passover of generations is all of seven [days].

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joshua said, I have heard that the substitute of a Pesaḥ is sacrificed and that the substitute of a Pesaḥ is not sacrificed, and I cannot explain it. Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall explain it. The Pesaḥ which is found before the time of slaughtering the Pesaḥ shall graze until it becomes unusable, then be sold, and for the money one shall bring well-being offerings; the same holds for its substitute. After the time of slaughtering the Pesaḥ, it shall be brought as well-being offering; the same holds for its substitute.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joshua said, I have heard that the substitute of a Pesaḥ is sacrificed and that the substitute of a Pesaḥ is not sacrificed, and I cannot explain it. Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall explain it. The Pesaḥ which is found before the time of slaughtering the Pesaḥ shall graze until it becomes unusable, then be sold, and for the money one shall bring well-being offerings; the same holds for its substitute. After the time of slaughtering the Pesaḥ, it shall be brought as well-being offering; the same holds for its substitute.