פסחים 92 — Soncino English Talmud

¹AND ONE WHO COLLECTS THE BONES [OF HIS PARENTS], PERFORM TEBILLAH AND EAT SACRED FLESH. IF A PROSELYTE WAS CONVERTED ON THE EVE OF PASSOVER, — BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: HE PERFORMS TEBILLAH AND EATS HIS PASSOVER-OFFERING IN THE EVENING; WHILE BETH HILLEL RULE: ONE WHO SEPARATES HIMSELF FROM [THE STATE OF] UNCIRCUMCISION IS LIKE ONE WHO SEPARATED HIMSELF FROM A GRAVE. GEMARA. What is the reason? — He holds: [The law of] aninuth at night is Rabbinical [only], and where the Passover offering is concerned they did not insist on their law, since it involves kareth; but in respect to sacrifices [in general] they insisted on their law, Seeing that [only] an affirmative precept is involved. ONE WHO HEARS ABOUT HIS DEAD etc. ONE WHO COLLECTS BONES? — But he requires sprinkling on the third and the seventh [days]? — Say: One for whom [his parent's] bones were collected. A PROSELYTE WHO WAS CONVERTED etc. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: The controversy is in respect of an uncircumcised heathen, where Beth Hillel hold: [He is forbidden to eat in the evening] as a preventive measure lest he become defiled the following year [by the dead] and he argues, ‘Did I not perform tebillah last year and eat [of the Passover offering]? So now too I will perform tebillah and eat.’ But he will not understand that the previous year he was a heathen and not susceptible to uncleanness, whereas now he is an Israelite and susceptible to uncleanness. While Beth Shammai hold: We do not enact a preventive measure. But with regard to an uncircumcised Israelite all agree that he performs tebillah and eats his Passover-offering in the evening, and we do not preventively forbid an uncircumcised Israelite on account of an uncircumcised heathen it was taught likewise, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel did not differ about an uncircumcised Israelite, [both agreeing] that he performs tebillah and eats his Passover-offering in the evening. About what do they differ? About an uncircumcised heathen, where Beth Shammai rule: He performs tebillah and eats his Passover-offering in the evening; while Beth Hillel maintain: He who separates himself from uncircumcision is as though he separated from a grave. Raba said: [In the case of] an uncircumcised person, sprinkling, and a knife, they [the Sages] insisted on their enactments [even] where kareth is involved; [in the case of] an onen, a leper and beth ha-peras, they did not insist on their enactments where kareth is involved. ‘An uncircumcised person,’ as stated. ‘Sprinkling,’ for a Master said: Sprinkling is [forbidden as] a shebuth, yet it does not override the Sabbath. ‘A knife,’ as it was taught: Just as one may not bring it [sc. a knife for circumcision] through the street, so may one not bring it by the way of roofs, court-yards. or enclosures. ‘An onen,’ as we have stated. What is this [law of] ‘a leper’? For it was taught: A leper whose eighth day fell on the eve of Passover and who had a nocturnal discharge [keri] on that day. performs tebillah and eats [the Passover-offering in the evening]. [For] the Sages said: Though a tebul yom may not enter [the Levitical Camp], this one does enter: it is preferable that an affirmative precept which involves kareth should come and override an affirmative precept which does not involve kareth. Now R. Johanan said: By the law of Torah there is not even an affirmative precept in connection therewith, for it is said, And Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judah and Jerusalem, in the house of the Lord, before the new court. What does ‘the new court’ mean? That they innovated a law there and ruled: A tebul yom must not enter the Levitical Camp. ‘Beth ha-peras’: for we learned: Now Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel both agree^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ

^ᵃnote:He too is a mourner on that day by Rabbinical law.
^ᵇnote:In the evening. This applies to all sacrifices, for since even during the day he is an onen by Rabbinical law only, the Rabbis did not extend his aninuth (v. Glos.) to the evening.
^ᶜnote:He must be besprinkled with the water of purification on the third and seventh days after the circumcision; hence he is not yet fit in the evening.
^ᵈnote:Lit., ‘in the place of’.
^ᵉnote:Since the neglect of the Passover offering involves kareth, they waived their law.
^ᶠnote:It is an affirmative precept to eat of one's own sacrifice (Ex. XXIX, 33), but the violation of this law does not involve kareth.
^ᵍnote:The Mishnah was understood literally as meaning that he himself gathered them; but these defile just like a corpse, and he is unclean for seven days, and must be besprinkled on the third and the seventh days (Num. XIX, 19).
^ʰnote:By others: he himself is nevertheless regarded as an onen on that day.
^ⁱnote:Who was circumcised on the eve of Passover.
^ʲnote:I.e. , through fear that if the former is permitted it may be thought that the latter is permitted too.
^ᵏnote:I.e., though thereby a Scriptural command, failure to observe which involves kareth, is disregarded.
^ˡnote:Peras is half the length of a hundred-cubit furrow, hence fifty cubits; beth ha-peras is the technical designation for a field a square peras in area, declared unclean on account of crushed bones carried over it from a ploughed grave (Jast.). Its uncleanness is Rabbinical only.
^ᵐnote:Supra: Beth Hillel forbid him to eat of the Passover-offering as a preventive measure, which is only a Rabbinical enactment.
^ⁿnote:V. Supra 65b. Thus on account of a Shebuth, which is a Rabbinical prohibition, the unclean person may not participate in the Passover-offering.
^ᵒnote:Karpf, pl. karpifoth, is an enclosure not more than two se'ahs in area (this is slightly over seventy cubits square). If the eighth day of birth, when a child must be circumcised (v. Lev. XII, 3), falls on the Sabbath, the knife must be brought the previous day. If it was forgotten, however, it must not be brought on the Sabbath, even by way of roofs, etc., carrying on which is forbidden by Rabbinical law only, and circumcision must be postponed, notwithstanding that failure to circumcise involves kareth (Gen. XVII, 14). — Actually no kareth would be incurred in the present case, since it would be done another day, but Raba means that to the precept of circumcision there is attached the penalty of kareth.
^ᵖnote:V. Mishnah and p. 490. n. 4.
^ᵠnote:When a leper was healed from his leprosy he waited seven days, performing tebillah on the seventh, and brought his sacrifices on the eighth (v. Lev. XIV, 9f). When he brought these he was still not permitted to enter the Temple Court (‘the camp of the Shechinah) but stood at the east gate (‘the gate of Nicanor’). whose sanctity was lower (it was regarded as ‘the Levitical camp’), while the priest, standing inside the Temple Court, applied the blood and the on to the thumbs and the great toes of the leper (ibid. 14f).
^ʳnote:Before he had offered his sacrifices. A ba'al keri (v. Glos.) might not enter even the Levitical Camp (v. supra 67b).
^ˢnote:Again. Though he had performed tebillah the previous day, that was on his leprosy, whereas now he performs it on account of his discharge.
^ᵗnote:Thus after the tebillah he would bring his sacrifices for leprosy.
^ᵘnote:V. Glos.
^ᵛnote:For his purification rites; v. n. 3.
^ʷnote:Sc. the Passover-offering.
^ˣnote:Sc. that a tebul yom must not enter the Levitical Camp. That is derived in Naz. 45a from, ‘he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him’ (Num. XIX, 13); since that is an affirmative statement, the injunction likewise counts as an affirmative precept. Its violation does not involve kareth.
^ʸnote:The Pentateuch.
^ᶻnote:II Chron. XX, 5.
^ᵃᵃnote:Since this was all innovation, it is only Rabbinical, and as seen supra it was waived for the sake of the Passover-offering. V. Yeb., Sonc. ed. pp. 31ff notes.

²that we examine [a beth ha-peras] for the sake of those who would keep the Passover, but we do not examine [it] for those who would eat terumah. How is it examined? Said Rab Judah in Samuel's name: He sifts the beth ha-peras as he proceeds. R. Judah b. Abaye said in Rab's name: A beth ha-peras which was [thoroughly] trodden down is clean. MISHNAH. HE WHO WAS UNCLEAN OR IN A JOURNEY AFAR OFF’ AND DID NOT KEEP THE FIRST [PASSOVER] MUST KEEP THE SECOND. IF HE UNWITTINGLY ERRED OR WAS ACCIDENTALLY PREVENTED AND DID NOT KEEP THE FIRST, HE MUST KEEP THE SECOND. IF SO, WHY IS AN UNCLEAN PERSON AND ONE WHO WAS IN ‘A JOURNEY AFAR OFF SPECIFIED? [TO TEACH] THAT THESE’ ARE NOT LIABLE TO KARETH, WHEREAS THOSE ARE LIABLE TO KARETH. GEMARA. It was stated: If he was in a journey afar off’ and they slaughtered [the Passover-offering] and sprinkled [its blood] on his behalf, — R. Nahman said: It is accepted; R. Shesheth said: It is not accepted. R. Nahman said, It is accepted: The Divine Law indeed had compassion on him, but if he kept [the first], a blessing come upon him! While R. Shesheth said, It is not accepted: The Divine Law did in fact suspend him, like an unclean person. R. Nahman said, Whence do I know it? Because we learned, HE WHo WAS UNCLEAN OR IN A JOURNEY AFAR OFF AND DID NOT KEEP THE FIRST [Passover] MUST KEEP THE SECOND; whence it follows that if he wished, he could keep it. And R. Shesheth? -He can answer you: If so, the second clause which teaches, IF HE UNWITTINGLY ERRED OR WAS ACCIDENTALLY PREVENTED AND DID NOT KEEP THE FIRST, HE MUST KEEP THE SECOND: [will you argue that] since he [the Tanna] states, AND DID NOT KEEP, it follows that had he desired he could have kept it? But surely he had unwittingly erred or been accidentally prevented! Hence [you must answer that] he teaches of deliberate neglect together with these; so here too [in the first clause] he teaches about an onen together with these.’ R. Ashi said: Our Mishnah too implies this, for it is taught, THESE ARE NOT LIABLE TO KARETH, WHILE THOSE ARE LIABLE TO KARETH: Now to what [does this refer]? Shall we say, to one who errs unwittingly or is accidentally prevented? are then he who errs unwittingly and he who is accidentally prevented subject to kareth! Hence it must surely [refer] to a deliberate offender and an onen. And R. Nahman? -He can answer you: In truth it refers to a deliberate offender alone, and logically he should have taught, he is liable [in the singular]; but the reason that he teaches, THEY ARE LIABLE is that because the first clause teaches THEY ARE NOT LIABLE, the second clause teaches THEY ARE LIABLE. R. Shesheth said: Whence do I know it? Because It was taught, R. Akiba said: ‘Unclean’ is stated and ‘in a journey afar off’ is stated:^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ

^ᵃᵇnote:If there is no other way to reach Jerusalem in time to sacrifice the Passover-offering save by crossing a beth ha-peras, the field is examined and they pass through it.
^ᵃᶜnote:If a priest wishes to go somewhere to eat terumah and his way lies across a beth ha-peras, he cannot examine it but must take a circuitous course, even if this delays him a day or more. — One who passes over the beth ha-peras becomes unclean, and may not partake either of the Passover-offering or of terumah.
^ᵃᵈnote:He takes up the earth en route and sifts it, to see if any small bones are hidden there, and if there are none he is clean, cf. note 7.
^ᵃᵉnote:Var. lec.: Ammi.
^ᵃᶠnote:As it is assumed that every bone which may be there has been reduced to less than the size of a wheat, which is the minimum standard for conveying uncleanness ‘through contact’ or treading upon it. Therefore if a man sees this he may cross it to sacrifice the Passover-offering, but not to eat terumah. Now the uncleanness of a beth ha-peras is only Rabbinical, and as we see here this law was waived somewhat in favour of the Passover-offering.
^ᵃᵍnote:V. Num. IX, 10 f.
^ᵃʰnote:Enumerated in this Mishnah-all the four.
^ᵃⁱnote:This is explained in the Gemara.
^ᵃʲnote:He can reach Jerusalem by nightfall in time to eat the offering, but not by day when the offering is sacrificed.
^ᵃᵏnote:The sacrifice is valid, and he does not keep the second Passover.
^ᵃˡnote:By giving him the opportunity of a second Passover.
^ᵃᵐnote:I.e., all the better.
^ᵃⁿnote:So that he is not permitted to keep the first.
^ᵃᵒnote:How does he rebut this?
^ᵃᵖnote:I.e., though it is not specifically stated, yet the words ‘AND DID NOT KEEP can only apply to such, and he is therefore to be understood as included in the Mishnah.
^ᵃᵠnote:I.e., the Mishnah is to be read in the first clause as including onen (v. Hananel). He could have kept the First Passover had he desired, v. supra 90b, and it is to this that the words ‘AND DID NOT KEEP’ refer.
^ᵃʳnote:That the first clause includes also onen.
^ᵃˢnote:Surely not.
^ᵃᵗnote:Does he not admit this argument?
^ᵃᵘnote:For the first clause does not treat of an onen, and consequently R. Nahman's deduction holds good.
^ᵃᵛnote:Num. IX, 10.