פסחים 91:2 — Soncino English Talmud

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^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ

^ᵃnote:Pederasty; cf. Weiss, Dor, II, 21 on the rifeness of pederasty among the Romans. — Heathen slaves are meant here.
^ᵇnote:Ex. XII, 4.
^ᶜnote:Since men are not specified.
^ᵈnote:Num. IX, 13; this refers to the Second Passover.
^ᵉnote:Ibid. 12.
^ᶠnote:Ibid. 13.
^ᵍnote:The Gemara discusses below which verse is meant.
^ʰnote:I.e., the verse teaches that she need not keep the Second Passover.
^ⁱnote:Ex. XII, 3.
^ʲnote:He deduces it from the present verse. For this person took the lamb not on his behalf alone but on behalf of ‘their 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.
^ᵏnote:Ibid. 4.
^ˡnote:That the Passover-offering may not be sacrificed at a private bamah, and that this is deduced from, thou mayest not sacrifice the Passover-offering at one of the gates, as stated supra.
^ᵐnote:That the Passover-offering may be slaughtered for a single person.
^ⁿnote:For if R. Simeon does not accept this view, then he should employ the verse, ‘thou mayest not sacrifice the Passover 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.
^ᵒnote:That the verse is intended for R. Jose's teaching only.
^ᵖnote:Which would show that the matter depends entirely on his powers of eating.
^ᵠnote:Lit., ‘as who does it go.’
^ʳnote:In their ignorance of the law they may object to points which really do not matter, and thus disqualify it without cause.
^ˢnote:I.e., for the rest of Passover.
^ᵗnote:That is surely not permitted even voluntarily.
^ᵘnote:Deut. XVI, 3.
^ᵛnote:An onen may not eat the flesh of sacrifices (v. Lev. X. 19f). By Scriptural law a man is an onen on the day of death 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.
^ʷnote:On the day when a man is informed of the death of a near relative, e.g., his father, he is an onen by Rabbinical law, even if death took place earlier.