פסחים 91 — parallel

91:1

AND ONE WHO IS REMOVING A HEAP [OF DEBRIS], AND LIKEWISE ONE WHO HAS RECEIVED A PROMISE TO BE RELEASED FROM PRISON, AND AN INVALID, AND AN AGED PERSON WHO CAN EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE, ONE SLAUGHTERS ON THEIR BEHALF. [YET IN THE CASE OF] ALL THESE, ONE MAY NOT SLAUGHTER FOR THEM ALONE, LEST THEY BRING THE PASSOVER-OFFERING TO DISQUALIFICATION. THEREFORE IF A DISQUALIFICATION OCCURS TO THEM, THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM KEEPING THE SECOND PASSOVER, EXCEPT ONE WHO WAS REMOVING DEBRIS, BECAUSE HE WAS UNCLEAN FROM THE BEGINNING. GEMARA. Rabbah son of R. Huna said in R. Johanan's name: They learned this only of a heathen prison; but [if he is incarcerated in] an Israelite prison, one slaughters for him separately; since he was promised, he will [definitely] be released, as it is written, The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies. R. Hisda observed: As to what you say, [If he is in] a heathen prison [one may] not [kill on his behalf alone]; that was said only [when the prison is] without the walls of Beth Pagi; but [if it is] within the walls of Beth Pagi, one slaughters on his behalf alone. What is the reason? It is possible to convey it [the flesh] to him and he will eat it. THEREFORE IF A DISQUALIFICATION OCCURS etc. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: They learned [this] only of a round heap; but [if it was] a long heap, he is exempt from keeping the Second Passover, [for] perhaps he was clean at the time of the shechitah. It was also taught likewise: R. Simeon the son of R. Johanan b. Berokah said: One who is removing a heap [of debris] is sometimes exempt [from the Second Passover] and sometimes liable. How so? [It if was] a round heap and uncleanness [a corpse] was found underneath it, he is liable; a long heap, and uncleanness was found underneath it, he is exempt, [for] I assume [that] he was clean at the time of shechitah. MISHNAH. ONE MAY NOT SLAUGHTER THE Passover offering FOR A SINGLE PERSON: THIS IS R. JUDAH'S VIEW; BUT R. JOSE PERMITS IT. AND EVEN A COMPANY OF A HUNDRED WHO CANNOT EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE [JOINTLY], ONE MAY NOT KILL FOR THEM. AND ONE MAY NOT FORM A COMPANY OF WOMEN AND SLAVES AND MINORS. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: How do we know that one may not slaughter the Passover-offering for a single person? Because it is said, Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover-offering for one: this is R. Judah's opinion. But R. Jose maintained: A single person and he is able to eat it, one may slaughter on his behalf; ten who are unable to eat it, one must not slaughter on their behalf. Now R. Jose, how does he employ this ‘for one’? — He requires it for R. Simeon's [deduction]. For it was taught, R. Simeon said: How do we know that one who sacrifices his Passover offering at a private bamah at the time when bamoth were prohibited violates a negative command? Because it is said, ‘Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover-offering within one of thy gates’. You might think that it is also thus when bamoth were permitted: therefore it is stated, ‘within one of thy gates’: They ruled [that he violates a negative injunction] only when all Israel enter through one gate. And how does R. Judah know this? — You may infer two things from it. Now according to R. Jose, whence [does he know] that its purpose is for what R. Simeon said: perhaps it comes for what was stated by R. Judah? — He can tell you: you cannot think so, for surely it is written, according to every man's eating. R. ‘Ukba b. Hinena of Parishna pointed out a contradiction to Raba: Did then R. Judah Say: One may not kill the Paschal lamb for a single person? But the following contradicts it: [As to] a woman; at the First [Passover] one may slaughter for her separately, but at the second one makes her an addition to others: this is the view of R. Judah. — Said he to him, Do not Say, ‘for her separately,’ but ‘for them separately.’ Yet may we form a company consisting entirely of women? Surely we learned, ONE MAY NOT FORM A COMPANY OF WOMEN AND SLAVES AND MINORS. Does that not mean women separately and slaves separately and minors separately? — No, he replied, [it means] women and slaves and minors [together]. Women and slaves, on account of obscenity; minors and slaves, on account of

—

91:2

licentiousness. [To turn to] the [main] text: [As to] a woman, at the First [Passover] one slaughters for her separately, while at the second one makes her an addition to others: this is the view of R. Judah. R. Jose said: [As to] a woman, at the Second [Passover] one slaughters for her separately, and at the First it goes without saying. R. Simeon said: [As to] a woman, at the First one makes her an addition to others; at the second one may not slaughter for her at all. Wherein do they differ? — R. Judah holds: according to the number of the souls [implies] even women. And should you say, if so, even at the Second too? It is [therefore] written, that man shall bear his sin: only a man, but not a woman. Yet should you argue: if so, she may not even be [made] an addition at the Second, [therefore is written,] according to all the statue of the [first] passover , which is effective in respect of [her being made] a mere addition. And R. Jose? What is his reason! — Because in connection with the First [Passover] it is written, ‘according to the number of souls,’ [implying] even a woman. Again, in connection with the Second Passover it is written, that soul shall be cut off from his people, ‘soul’ [implying] even women. While what does ‘that man shall bear his sin’ exclude? It excludes a minor from kareth. While R. Simeon [argues]: In connection with the First [Passover] ‘a man is written: only a man but not a woman. Yet should you say. If so, [she may] not even [be made] an addition:. [therefore is written] ‘according to the number of sous’, which is effective in respect of [her being] an addition. But should you say, then even at the Second too, — [therefore] the Divine Law excluded [her] from the second, for it is written, ‘that man shall bear his sin’: [implying] only a man, but not a woman. Now from what is she excluded? If from an obligation, [this cannot be maintained]: seeing that there is no [obligation] at the first, is there a question of the second! Hence [she is surely excluded] from [participation even as] an addition. Now, what is [this] ‘man’ which R. Simeon quotes? If we say, they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to their fathers’ houses etc. Surely that is required for [the teaching] of R. Isaac. who deduced: only a ‘man’ can acquire [on behalf of others], but a minor cannot acquire [on behalf of others]! Rather [it is derived] from ‘a man, according to his eating’. But since R. Jose agrees with R. Simeon, R. Simeon too must agree with R. Jose, and he needs that [verse to teach] that one slaughters the Passover-offering for a single person? — He can answer you: If so, let the Divine Law write ‘according to his eating’, why [state] ‘a man’? Hence you infer two [laws] from it. With whom does the following dictum of R. Eleazar agree. [viz.]: ‘[The observance of the Passover-offering by] a woman at the First [Passover] is obligatory, while at the Second it is voluntary, and it overrides the Sabbath.’ If voluntary, why does it override the Sabbath? Rather say: ‘at the Second it is voluntary, while at the First it is obligatory and overrides the Sabbath.’ With whom [does it agree]? With R. Judah. R. Jacob said in R. Johanan's name: A company must not be formed [consisting] entirely of proselytes, lest they be [too particular about it and bring it to disqualification. Our Rabbis taught: The Passover-offering and unleavened bread and bitter herbs are obligatory on the first [night], but voluntary from then onwards. R. Simeon said: In the case of men [it is] obligatory; in the case of women, voluntary. To what does this refer? Shall we say, to the Passover-offering is there then a Passover-offering the whole seven days! Hence [it must refer] to unleavened bread and bitter herbs. Then consider the sequel: R. Simeon said: In the case of men [it is] obligatory; in the case of women, voluntary. Does then R. Simeon not agree with R. Eleazar's dictum: Women are bound to eat unleavened bread by Scriptural law, for it is said, Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith: whoever is subject to, ‘thou shalt eat no leavened bread,’ is subject to [the law]. ‘arise, eat unleavened bread’; and these women, since they are subject to, ‘thou shalt eat no leavened bread,’ are also subject to [the law], ‘arise, eat unleavened bread?’ — Rather say: The Passover-offering, unleavened bread, and bitter herbs are obligatory on the first [night]; from then onwards [the latter two] are voluntary. R. Simeon said: As for the Passover-offering, in the case of men it is obligatory, in the case of women it is voluntary. MISHNAH. AN ONEN PERFORMS TEBILLAH AND EATS HIS PASSOVER-OFFERING IN THE EVENING, BUT [HE MAY] NOT [PARTAKE] OF [OTHER] SACRIFICES. ONE WHO HEARS ABOUT HIS DEAD [FOR THE FIRST TIME],23

—