Pesachim — Daf 91b

פריצותא

גופא אשה בראשון שוחטין עליה בפני עצמה ובשני עושין אותה טפילה לאחרים דברי ר' יהודה ר' יוסי אומר אשה בשני שוחטין עליה בפני עצמה ואין צ"ל בראשון ר"ש אומר אשה בראשון עושין אותה טפילה לאחרים בשני אין שוחטין עליה כל עיקר

במאי קמיפלגי רבי יהודה סבר (שמות יב, ד) במכסת נפשות ואפילו נשים וכי תימא א"ה אפילו בשני נמי כתיב (במדבר ט, יג) חטאו ישא האיש ההוא איש אין אשה לא

וכי תימא אי הכי אפילו טפילה נמי בשני לא אהני ככל חקת הפסח לטפילה בעלמא

ורבי יוסי מ"ט דכתיב בראשון במכסת נפשות ואפילו אשה וכתיב בפסח שני (במדבר ט, יג) ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מישראל נפש ואפילו נשים ואלא חטאו ישא האיש ההוא למעוטי מאי למעוטי קטן מכרת

ור"ש כתיב בראשון איש איש אין אשה לא וכי תימא אי הכי אפילו טפילה נמי לא אהני ליה במכסת נפשות לטפילה

וכ"ת אפילו בשני נמי מיעט רחמנא בשני דכתיב חטאו ישא האיש איש אין אשה לא ממאי קממעיט ליה אי מחיוב השתא בראשון לא בשני מיבעיא אלא לאו מטפילה

ומאי איש דקאמר ר"ש אי נימא (שמות יב, ג) ויקחו להם איש שה לבית אבות וגו' ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדרבי יצחק דאמר איש זוכה ואין קטן זוכה

ואלא (שמות יב, ד) מאיש לפי אכלו הא מדר' יוסי סבר לה כר' שמעון רבי שמעון נמי סבר לה כר' יוסי וההוא מיבעי ליה דשוחטין את הפסח על היחיד

אמר לך אם כן נכתוב רחמנא לפי אכלו מאי איש שמעת מינה תרתי

כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רבי אלעזר אשה בראשון חובה ובשני רשות ודוחה את השבת אי רשות אמאי דוחה את השבת אלא אימא בשני רשות ובראשון חובה ודוחה את השבת כמאן כרבי יהודה

א"ר יעקב א"ר יוחנן אין עושין חבורה שכולה גרים שמא ידקדקו בו ויביאוהו לידי פסול:

ת"ר פסח ומצה ומרור בראשון חובה מכאן ואילך רשות ר' שמעון אומר באנשים חובה ובנשים רשות

אהייא קאי אילימא אפסח פסח כל שבעה מי איכא ואלא אמצה ומרור אימא סיפא ר"ש אומר באנשים חובה ובנשים רשות

לית ליה לרבי שמעון הא דאמר רבי אלעזר נשים חייבות באכילת מצה דבר תורה שנאמר (דברים טז, ג) לא תאכל עליו חמץ שבעת ימים תאכל עליו מצות כל שישנו בבל תאכל חמץ ישנו בקום אכול מצה והני נשים הואיל וישנן בבל תאכל חמץ ישנן בקום אכול מצה

אלא אימא פסח מצה ומרור בראשון חובה מכאן ואילך רשות ר' שמעון אומר פסח באנשים חובה בנשים רשות:

מתני׳ אונן טובל ואוכל את פסחו לערב אבל לא בקדשים השומע על מתו

licentiousness.1 [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 souls2 [implies] even women.3 And should you say, if so, even at the Second too? It is [therefore] written, that man shall bear his sin:4 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] passover5 , 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,6 ‘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:7 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,8 [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.9 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]!10 Rather [it is derived] from ‘a man, according to his eating’.11 But since R. Jose agrees with R. Simeon,12 R. Simeon too must agree with R. Jose,13 and he needs that [verse to teach] that one slaughters the Passover-offering for a single person?14 — He can answer you: If so,15 let the Divine Law write ‘according to his eating’,16 why [state] ‘a man’? Hence you infer two [laws] from it. With whom does the following dictum of R. Eleazar agree.17 [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.18 Our Rabbis taught: The Passover-offering and unleavened bread and bitter herbs are obligatory on the first [night], but voluntary from then onwards.19 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!20 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:21 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.22 ONE WHO HEARS ABOUT HIS DEAD [FOR THE FIRST TIME],23 fathers’ houses’, who thereby gained the right to participate therein, and Scripture specifies that a man is required for this, not a minor. Hence a minor cannot be vested with the powers of an agent. sacrifice the Passover-offering at one of the gates, as stated supra. offering for one’ as teaching that it may not be slaughtered for a single person, as R. Judah does supra 91a, in which case his ruling on the private bamah is without foundation. cause. only, but not at night; the Rabbis, however, extended these restrictions to the night too. Since, however, the Passover-offering is a Scriptural obligation, they waived their prohibition in respect of the night, and hence he may eat thereof. He is not unclean, but requires tebillah to emphasize that until the evening sacred flesh was forbidden to him, whereas now it is permitted. In respect of other sacrifices the Rabbinical law stands, and he may not partake of them. even if death took place earlier.