AND 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 agreeᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃ