פסחים 93:1 — Soncino English Talmud

just as an unclean [person] is one who has the means of keeping it, yet must not keep it, so [a man ‘in ] a journey afar off’ means one who has the means of keeping it, yet he must not keep it. And R. Nahman?- He can answer you: R. Akiba is consistent with his view, for he holds: One must not slaughter and sprinkle on behalf of a person unclean through a reptile; whereas I agree with the view that one slaughters and sprinkles on behalf of a person unclean through a reptile. Our Rabbis taught: The following keep the second [Passover]: zabin and zaboth, male lepers and female lepers, niddoth and those who had intercourse with niddoth, and women after confinement, those who [do not observe the first Passover] inadvertently, and those who are forcibly prevented, and those who [neglect it] deliberately, and he who is unclean, and he who was in ‘a journey afar off’. If so, why is an unclean person mentioned? [You ask] ‘why is he mentioned’? [Surely to teach] that if he wishes to keep it at the first we do not permit him? Rather [the question is] why is [a person] on a journey afar off mentioned? — To exempt him from kareth, this being in accordance with the view that it is accepted. Is then a woman obliged [to keep] the second [Passover], but surely it was taught: You might think that only a person unclean through the dead and one who was in ‘a journey afar off’ keep the second [Passover], — whence do we know [that] zabin and lepers and those who had intercourse with niddoth [must keep it]? From the verse, If any man [etc.]? -There is no difficulty: one is according to R. Jose; the other, according to R. Judah and R. Simeon. Our Rabbis taught: One incurs kareth on account of the first [Passover], and one incurs kareth on account of the second: this is Rabbi's view. R. Nathan said: One incurs kareth on account of the first, but does not incur it on account of the second. R. Hanania b. ‘Akabia said: One does not incur kareth even on account of the first, unless he [deliberately] does not keep the second. Now they are consistent with their views. For it was taught: A proselyte who became converted between the two Passovers, and similarly a minor who attained his majority between the two Passovers, are bound to keep the second Passover: that is Rabbi's view. R. Nathan said: Whoever is subject to the first is subject to the second, and whoever is not subject to the first is not subject to the second. Wherein do they differ? — Rabbi holds: The second is a separate Festival. R. Nathan holds: The second is a compensation for the second, [but] it does not make amends for the first. While R. Hanania b. ‘Akabia holds: The second makes amends for the first. Now the three deduce [their views] from the same verse: But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey. Rabbi holds: And forbeareth to keep the Passover, that soul shall be cut off - because he did not keep [it] at the first; or alternatively [if] he brought not the offering of the Lord in its appointed season [i.e.,] at the second. And how do you know that that [phrase], ‘that man shall bear his sin, ‘ means kareth?^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ

^ᵃnote:He is physically able to keep it.
^ᵇnote:E.g., one could sacrifice on his behalf and he could reach Jerusalem in time.
^ᶜnote:But must postpone it; hence if he does have it sacrificed on his behalf, it is not accepted.
^ᵈnote:Though he will be fit to eat in the evening, because at the time of sacrificing he is not fit.The present case is similar.
^ᵉnote:The translation and explanation follows cur. edd. Tosaf. records a different reading, which is supported by the Sifre (Be-ha alotheka): Just as an unclean person is one who cannot possibly keep it, on account of his uncleanness, and he must not keep it, so a person in ‘a journey afar off’ means one who cannot possibly reach Jerusalem in time (according to ‘Ulla, for the sacrificing; according to Rab Judah, for the eating),and he too must not keep it. R. Shesheth deduces that ‘he must not keep it’ means that even if it is sacrificed on his behalf it is not accepted, since it is completely analogous to the case of an unclean person. R. Nahman answers that because R. Akiba holds that you may not slaughter and sprinkle on behalf of a person unclean through a reptile, therefore he learns the case of ‘a journey afar off’ from that of uncleanness, since the former two are alike in that both are unfit at the time of slaughtering and fit and able at the time of eating. Hence it is true that in R. Akiba's opinion the sacrifice is not accepted’ if offered, but R. Nahman holds that you do slaughter and sprinkle for a person unclean through a reptile. Tosaf. adds that R. Shesheth too holds thus, but that in his view R. Akiba learns it from’ a person unclean through the dead, though the cases are not really alike then.
^ᶠnote:Plural of zabb and zabah respectively, q.v. Glos.
^ᵍnote:Pl. of niddah, q.v. Glos.
^ʰnote:Supra 92b. For if he held that it is not accepted, then this case must be stated for that very teaching.
^ⁱnote:So that female lepers, menstruants and women after childbirth are included.
^ʲnote:Num. IX, 10. Heb. aht aht, the repetition denoting extension. Thus nothing is said about women.
^ᵏnote:V. Supra 91b. R. Jose holds that even at the second Passover a company consisting entirely of women may be formed; hence in his view the second Passover is binding upon women. Whereas R. Judah and R. Simeon hold that it is voluntary only.
^ˡnote:Deliberate neglect to keep either when there is the obligation involves kareth. Of course, no man can actually incur kareth twice, but the point is that if a man sinned unwittingly in respect of one but deliberately in respect of the other he incurs kareth. Similarly, where a proselyte becomes converted between the two Passovers and deliberately neglects the second.
^ᵐnote:Hence if he inadvertently neglected the first, he does not incur kereth even if he deliberately neglects the second.
^ⁿnote:Thus both were exempt from the first Passover, but are in a condition to keep the second.
^ᵒnote:He regards it as a separate obligation entirely, even for those who were not subject to the law at all at the first, as in the present instances.
^ᵖnote:Hence only he who was subject to the law at the first can keep the second.
^ᵠnote:Hence if a person deliberately neglects the first he incurs kareth even if he keeps the second. On the other hand, if he neglects the first unwittingly, he is not liable to kareth even if he deliberately neglects the second, since the second is not an independent obligation apart from the first.
^ʳnote:Num. IX, 13.
^ˢnote:Ibid.
^ᵗnote:Ibid. because(Heb. ki) he brought not the offering etc. Ki is variously translated according to the context, v. R.H. 3a. Rabbi renders it ‘if’.
^ᵘnote:Ibid.