Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 20, 2021 | 讞壮 讘讗讚专 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!

Pesachim 91

If there is someone who is unsure whether something will prevent them from being able to eat the sacrifice at night, can they be included in the sacrificing of the animal? The mishna describes various cases like this. Can one slaughter a Pesach sacrifice for one individual? Who can make up a group for Pesach 鈥 what combinations of people are not permitted? Why? Are women obligated in Pesach or in Pesach Sheni? Is it obligatory, optional, not allowed? Three opinions are brought and the gemara explains where in the verses they derive their positions. Pesach, matza and marror are obligatory on the first night only. Women are obligated in matza and marror as men 鈥 why?

讜讛诪驻拽讞 讗转 讛讙诇 讜讻谉 诪讬 砖讛讘讟讬讞讜讛讜 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 诪讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬诐 讜讛讞讜诇讛 讜讛讝拽谉 砖讛谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讝讬转 砖讜讞讟讬谉 注诇讬讛谉

and one clearing a pile of stones that collapsed on top of a person, in which case there is a possibility that the person buried underneath is dead and his corpse will impart ritual impurity to the person clearing the pile; and similarly, one whom the governing body promised to release from prison on the night of Passover; and an ill person and an elderly person who are still capable of eating an olive-bulk of meat, one slaughters the Paschal lamb on their behalf, since they are currently fit to eat the Paschal lamb.

注诇 讻讜诇诐 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 砖诪讗 讬讘讬讗讜 讗转 讛驻住讞 诇讬讚讬 驻住讜诇

However, with regard to all of them, this is only true when they are included in a group with other people who will definitely be able to partake of the lamb; but we do not slaughter the Paschal lamb on their behalf if they are by themselves, either as individuals or in a group composed entirely of such people, because perhaps they will cause the Paschal lamb to become disqualified, since there is a possibility that by the night of Passover they will be unable to partake of the Paschal lamb.

诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 讗讬专注 讘讛谉 驻住讜诇 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇注砖讜转 驻住讞 砖谞讬 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛诪驻拽讞 讘讙诇 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 诪转讞诇转讜:

Therefore, since they were registered for a Paschal lamb and it was slaughtered when they were still fit to partake of it, even if a disqualification occurred to them later, preventing them from partaking of the Paschal lamb, they are nevertheless exempt from observing the second Pesa岣. The exemption from the second Pesa岣 is dependent not on whether they partook of a Paschal lamb, but on whether it was validly slaughtered on their behalf. This holds true except for one who was clearing a pile of stones where the person buried underneath was eventually found dead, because in such a case the person searching for him certainly stood over the corpse at some point. He had therefore become ritually impure from the outset, even before the Paschal lamb was slaughtered. Consequently, he would not have been fit even during the slaughter and will have to observe the second Pesa岣.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讚讙讜讬 讗讘诇 讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讚讬砖专讗诇 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讘讟讞讬谞讛讜 诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 砖讗专讬转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讬注砖讜 注讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讬讚讘专讜 讻讝讘

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the Paschal lamb may be slaughtered on behalf of a prisoner only if he is included in a group with other people. Rabba bar Huna said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They taught this only if he is in a prison belonging to gentiles; but if he is in a prison belonging to Jews, one slaughters on his behalf even if he is by himself and not included in a group with other people. Since they promised him they would release him they will certainly release him, as it is written: 鈥淭he remnant of Israel will not do iniquity nor speak lies鈥 (Zephaniah 3:13). Therefore, there is no concern that on the night of Passover he will not be able to partake of the Paschal lamb.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专转 讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讚讙讜讬诐 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪转 讘讬转 驻讗讙讬 讗讘诇 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讞讜诪转 讘讬转 驻讗讙讬 砖讜讞讟讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗驻砖专 讚讗诪讟讜 诇讬讛 讜讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛:

Rav 岣sda said: With regard to that which you said, that the mishna鈥檚 ruling permitting a the Paschal lamb to be slaughtered on behalf of a prisoner, but only when he is included in a group with others, refers to a prisoner in a prison belonging to gentiles, they said this only with regard to a prison outside the wall of Beit Pagei, i.e., the prison is located outside the area where the Paschal lamb may be consumed. But if the prison is located within the wall of Beit Pagei, one slaughters on his behalf even if he is by himself and not included in a group with other people. What is the reason? Even if he is not released from prison, it is possible for them to bring him a portion of the Paschal lamb while still in prison, and he will eat it there.

诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 讗讬专注 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讙诇 注讙讜诇 讗讘诇 讙诇 讗专讜讱 驻讟讜专 诪诇注砖讜转 驻住讞 砖谞讬 讗讬诪讗 讟讛讜专 讛讬讛 讘砖注转 砖讞讬讟讛

We learned in the mishna: Therefore, even if a disqualification occurred to them, they are exempt from observing the second Pesa岣. This holds true except for one who was clearing a pile of stones. The Gemara qualifies this ruling: Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They taught that one who clears a pile of stones is required to observe the second Pesa岣 only if he was clearing a round pile. While clearing it, he certainly stood over the corpse and became ritually impure. But if it was a long pile of stones, it is possible that the corpse was to one side of the pile and the person clearing the stones had not yet stood over the corpse at the time the Paschal lamb was slaughtered. Therefore, he is exempt from observing the second Pesa岣, because one can say that perhaps he was ritually pure at the time of the slaughter. Since the matter is in doubt, he is exempt from observing the second Pesa岣.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 诪驻拽讞 讘讙诇 注转讬诐 驻讟讜专 注转讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讻讬爪讚 讙诇 注讙讜诇 讜谞诪爪讗转 讟讜诪讗讛 转讞转讬讜 讞讬讬讘 讙诇 讗专讜讱 讜谞诪爪讗转 讟讜诪讗讛 转讞转讬讜 驻讟讜专 讗讬诪讗 讟讛讜专 讛讬讛 讘砖注转 砖讞讬讟讛:

That was also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: One who clears a pile of stones that collapsed on top of a person is sometimes exempt from observing the second Pesa岣 and sometimes obligated. How so? If it is a round pile of stones and ritual impurity was found underneath it, he is obligated to observe the second Pesa岣, as he certainly stood over the corpse before his Paschal lamb was slaughtered. However, if it is a long pile of stones and ritual impurity was found underneath it, he is exempt, because one can say that perhaps he was pure at the time of the slaughter.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛驻住讞 注诇 讛讬讞讬讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转讬专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讞讘讜专讛 砖诇 诪讗讛 砖讗讬谞谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讝讬转 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 注诇讬讛谉

MISHNA: We do not slaughter the Paschal lamb on behalf of an individual, only for a group of people; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yosei permits it. And even if there is a group of one hundred who together are unable to eat an olive-bulk of it, we do not slaughter on their behalf.

讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讞讘讜专转 谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 讜拽讟谞讬诐:

And we do not make a group for a Paschal lamb that consists of women, slaves, and minors.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛驻住讞 注诇 讛讬讞讬讚 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讝讘讞 讗转 讛驻住讞 讘讗讞讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讞讬讚 讜讬讻讜诇 诇讗讻诇讜 砖讜讞讟讬谉 注诇讬讜 注砖专讛 讜讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讗讻诇讜 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 注诇讬讛谉

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that we do not slaughter a Paschal lamb on behalf on an individual? The verse states: 鈥淵ou may not sacrifice the Paschal lamb in any one of your gates, which the Lord your God has given you鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:5). The phrase 鈥渋n any one鈥 is expounded to mean: For any one person, which indicates that the Paschal lamb is not slaughtered on behalf of an individual; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yosei says: If there is an individual and he is able to eat an olive-bulk of the Paschal lamb, one slaughters it on his behalf; whereas if there are ten people and they are unable to eat together an olive-bulk of the Paschal lamb, we do not slaughter it on their behalf.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讗讬 讘讗讞讚 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬讬谉 诇讝讜讘讞 讗转 驻住讞讜 讘讘诪转 讬讞讬讚 讘砖注转 讗讬住讜专 讛讘诪讜转 砖讛讜讗 讘诇讗 转注砖讛

The Gemara proceeds to analyze the opinions taught in the baraita: And what does Rabbi Yosei do with this phrase, 鈥渋n any one,鈥 from which Rabbi Yehuda derived the halakha he taught in the mishna? He needs it for that which Rabbi Shimon expounded, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to improvised altars used by individuals for their private offerings, which are permitted for use only when there is no permanent national altar, Rabbi Shimon says: From where do we know that with regard to one who sacrifices his Paschal lamb on an improvised altar, at a time when the prohibition of sacrificing offerings on improvised altars applies, he is in violation of a negative mitzva?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讝讘讞 讗转 讛驻住讞 讘讗讞讚 砖注专讬讱 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讘砖注转 讛讬转专 讛讘诪讜转 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讗讞讚 砖注专讬讱 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘砖注讛 砖讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 谞讻谞住讬谉 讘砖注专 讗讞讚

The verse states: 鈥淵ou may not slaughter the Paschal lamb in any one of your gates.鈥 The phrase 鈥渁ny one of your gates鈥 is referring to the use of improvised altars. I might have thought that even at a time when it is permitted to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars this is so; therefore the verse states 鈥渋n any one of your gates,鈥 which indicates that this prohibition was said only when all of the Jewish people enter into one gate, i.e., when they all come together to sacrifice their offerings on a permanent national altar, such as the Temple. However, where there is no permanent national altar, it is indeed permitted to offer the Paschal lamb on an improvised altar.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 转专转讬 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛

And Rabbi Yehuda, who already used the phrase 鈥渋n any one鈥 to derive the halakha he taught in the mishna, from where does he derive this halakha concerning improvised altars? According to Rabbi Yehuda, you learn two things from the same phrase.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪诪讗讬 讚诇讛讻讬 讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讗诪专 诇讱 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讛讗 讻转讬讘 讗讬砖 诇驻讬 讗讻诇讜

And for Rabbi Yosei, from where does he know that the phrase 鈥渋n any one鈥 should be expounded as Rabbi Shimon said it should be? Perhaps it comes to teach what Rabbi Yehuda said? Rabbi Yosei could have said to you: This cannot enter your mind, because it is written with regard to the Paschal lamb: 鈥淎ccording to every man鈥檚 eating you shall make your count for the lamb鈥 (Exodus 12:4). Since the verse states 鈥渕an鈥 in the singular, it indicates that the Paschal lamb can be slaughtered even for an individual.

专诪讬 诇讬讛 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 诪驻专讬砖谞讗 诇专讘讗 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛驻住讞 注诇 讛讬讞讬讚 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讗砖讛 讘专讗砖讜谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 注诇讬讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜讘砖谞讬 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转讛 讟驻讬诇讛 诇讗讞专讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉

Rav Ukva bar 岣nana from Perishna raised a contradiction to Rava: Did Rabbi Yehuda actually say: We do not slaughter the Paschal lamb on behalf of an individual? But we may raise a contradiction from a baraita: In the case of a woman, on the first Pesa岣, one slaughters the Paschal lamb on her behalf, even if she is by herself. And on the second Pesa岣, we make her ancillary to others, i.e., she may join others in a group registered for a Paschal lamb but we do not slaughter a lamb on her behalf if she is by herself; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. The baraita clearly records Rabbi Yehuda as permitting the offering of a Paschal lamb on behalf of an individual. Rava said to him: Do not say Rabbi Yehuda allows slaughtering the Paschal lamb for a woman by herself; rather, say he allows slaughtering only for a group of women by themselves.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 注讘讚讬谞谉 讞讘讜专讛 砖讻讜诇讛 谞砖讬诐 讜讛转谞谉 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讞讘讜专转 谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 讜拽讟谞讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 谞砖讬诐 诇讞讜讚讬讬讛讜 讜注讘讚讬诐 诇讞讜讚讬讬讛讜 讜拽讟谞讬诐 诇讞讜讚讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 讜拽讟谞讬诐 谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 诪砖讜诐 转驻诇讜转 拽讟谞讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 诪砖讜诐

Rav Ukva questioned this answer and said to him: Do we make a group that is entirely composed of women? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: We do not make a group for a Paschal lamb that consists of women, slaves, and minors. What, is the mishna not referring to forming a group that is composed exclusively of women by themselves and slaves by themselves and minors by themselves? Rava said to him: No, the mishna is referring only to forming a group that is composed of women and slaves and minors together, but a group composed exclusively of women, or slaves, or minors would be permitted. It is prohibited to form a group containing both women and slaves, due to a concern that it may lead to frivolity. It is prohibited to form a group of minors and slaves, due to a concern that it may lead to

驻专讬爪讜转讗

promiscuity, i.e., homosexual behavior.

讙讜驻讗 讗砖讛 讘专讗砖讜谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 注诇讬讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜讘砖谞讬 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转讛 讟驻讬诇讛 诇讗讞专讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗砖讛 讘砖谞讬 砖讜讞讟讬谉 注诇讬讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘专讗砖讜谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗砖讛 讘专讗砖讜谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转讛 讟驻讬诇讛 诇讗讞专讬诐 讘砖谞讬 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 注诇讬讛 讻诇 注讬拽专

The Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself, i.e., the baraita partly cited previously, the full version of which states: A woman; on the first Pesa岣, one slaughters the Paschal lamb on her behalf even if she is by herself. And on the second Pesa岣, we make her ancillary to others, i.e., she may join others in a group registered for a Paschal lamb but we do not slaughter a lamb on her behalf if she is by herself; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: A woman; on the second Pesa岣, one slaughters the Paschal lamb on her behalf even if she is by herself. And needless to say we also slaughter on her behalf even if she is by herself on the first Pesa岣. Rabbi Shimon says: A woman; on the first Pesa岣 we make her ancillary to others, and on the second Pesa岣 we do not slaughter on her behalf at all.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讘诪讻住转 谞驻砖转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 谞砖讬诐 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖谞讬 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 讞讟讗讜 讬砖讗 讛讗讬砖 讛讛讜讗 讗讬砖 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诇讗

With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara explains that they disagree about how to interpret the various verses that refer to the first and second Pesa岣: Rabbi Yehuda holds that the use of the word souls in the verse: 鈥淎ccording to the number of the souls鈥ou shall make your count for the lamb鈥 (Exodus 12:4), includes everyone, and even women, in the first Pesa岣. And if you say that if so, even on the second Pesa岣, women should also be included, but it is written with regard to one who had not offered a Paschal lamb on the first Pesa岣 and then neglected to bring one on the second Pesa岣: 鈥淭hat man shall bear his sin鈥 (Numbers 9:13), which indicates that a man, yes, he is liable for not having brought a Paschal lamb on the second Pesa岣, but a woman, no, she is not liable.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讟驻讬诇讛 谞诪讬 讘砖谞讬 诇讗 讗讛谞讬 讻讻诇 讞拽转 讛驻住讞 诇讟驻讬诇讛 讘注诇诪讗

And if you say that if so, a woman should be totally excluded from participating in the second Pesa岣, and even in a group in an ancillary manner on the second Pesa岣 she should have no part, this is not correct, because the verse states: 鈥淎ccording to the entire statute of the Paschal lamb they shall offer it鈥 (Numbers 9:12). The verse compares the first Pesa岣 to the second, and it is therefore effective to enable women to be included in a group in a merely ancillary manner.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘专讗砖讜谉 讘诪讻住转 谞驻砖转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讗砖讛 讜讻转讬讘 讘驻住讞 砖谞讬 讜谞讻专转讛 讛谞驻砖 讛讛讜讗 诪注诪讬讛 谞驻砖 讜讗驻讬诇讜 谞砖讬诐 讜讗诇讗 讞讟讗讜 讬砖讗 讛讗讬砖 讛讛讜讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 拽讟谉 诪讻专转

And Rabbi Yosei, what is the reason for his opinion? As it is written with regard to the first Pesa岣: 鈥淎ccording to the number of the souls,鈥 which includes even a woman. And it is written with regard to the second Pesa岣: 鈥淭he man who is ritually pure, and is not on a journey, and refrains from offering the Paschal lamb, that same soul shall be cut off from among his people鈥 (Numbers 9:13). The word soul includes even women. But if so, the conclusion of that verse, which states: 鈥淭hat man shall bear his sin,鈥 which appears to emphasize that specifically a man is liable for not participating in the second Pesa岣, is there to exclude what case? It is there to exclude a minor who did not participate in the Paschal lamb from the punishment of karet.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻转讬讘 讘专讗砖讜谉 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诇讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讟驻讬诇讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗讛谞讬 诇讬讛 讘诪讻住转 谞驻砖转 诇讟驻讬诇讛

And Rabbi Shimon, what is the reason for his opinion? It is written in a verse concerning the first Pesa岣 鈥渕an.鈥 This teaches that a man, yes, a Paschal lamb may be brought on his behalf alone, but a woman, no. And if you say that if so, a woman should be totally excluded from participating even in a group in an ancillary manner, this is not correct, because the verse states: 鈥淎ccording to the number of the souls,鈥 which certainly includes women, and it is therefore effective to enable women to be included in a group in an ancillary manner.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖谞讬 谞诪讬 诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讘砖谞讬 讚讻转讬讘 讞讟讗讜 讬砖讗 讛讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诇讗 诪诪讗讬 拽诪诪注讬讟 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪讞讬讜讘 讛砖转讗 讘专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 讘砖谞讬 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪讟驻讬诇讛

And if you say that according to this, even on the second Pesa岣 women should be able to participate as part of a group, this is not correct, because the Torah excludes women from participating on the second Pesa岣, as it is written: 鈥淭hat man shall bear his sin.鈥 This indicates that a man, yes; a woman, no. From what precisely does the verse exclude women? If you say it is from the obligation to participate in the second Pesa岣, this cannot be. Since now, on the first Pesa岣, a woman has no obligation, on the second Pesa岣 is it necessary to say that a woman is not obligated? This is obvious, since the second Pesa岣 exists only as a second opportunity for those who neglected to participate in the first Pesa岣. Rather, is it not clear that the verse excludes women from participating even in an ancillary fashion?

讜诪讗讬 讗讬砖 讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讜讬拽讞讜 诇讛诐 讗讬砖 砖讛 诇讘讬转 讗讘讜转 讜讙讜壮 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 讗讬砖 讝讜讻讛 讜讗讬谉 拽讟谉 讝讜讻讛

The Gemara clarifies the source for Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion that women are excluded also from the first Pesa岣. And what is the verse that employs the term 鈥渕an鈥 that Rabbi Shimon spoke of with regard to the first Pesa岣? If we say that he is referring to the verse: 鈥淭hey shall take to them every man a lamb, according to their fathers鈥 houses, a lamb for a household鈥 (Exodus 12:3), this is incorrect, because he needs that verse for the derivation of Rabbi Yitz岣k, who said: We learn from that verse that only a man, i.e., an adult, can acquire an object on behalf of others; but a minor cannot acquire on behalf of others.

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬砖 诇驻讬 讗讻诇讜 讛讗 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讚砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛驻住讞 注诇 讛讬讞讬讚

Rather, perhaps Rabbi Shimon derived his halakha from the verse: 鈥淎ccording to every man鈥檚 eating you shall make your count for the lamb鈥 (Exodus 12:4). This is problematic. Since Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that a Paschal lamb cannot be offered on an improvised altar, presumably Rabbi Shimon also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, that a Paschal lamb can be slaughtered for an individual. If so, Rabbi Shimon needs that verse, 鈥渁ccording to every man鈥檚 eating,鈥 in order to teach that we may slaughter the Paschal lamb for an individual, since that verse is the source of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 halakha.

讗诪专 诇讱 讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇驻讬 讗讻诇讜 诪讗讬 讗讬砖 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara justifies that Rabbi Shimon does indeed use the verse as the source of his opinion with regard to the first Pesa岣: Rabbi Shimon could have said to you: If so, if it were true that the verse was only meant to teach Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 halakha concerning improvised altars, the Torah should have simply written: According to his eating, which is phrased in the singular and therefore indicates that the Paschal lamb may be slaughtered for an individual. What then is the significance of the additional term 鈥渕an鈥? It must be that you learn from the verse two separate halakhot, that the Paschal lamb may be slaughtered for an individual and that it must be for a man and not a woman.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗砖讛 讘专讗砖讜谉 讞讜讘讛 讜讘砖谞讬 专砖讜转 讜讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗讬 专砖讜转 讗诪讗讬 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讘砖谞讬 专砖讜转 讜讘专讗砖讜谉 讞讜讘讛 讜讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabbi Elazar said: A woman鈥檚 participation in the first Pesa岣 is mandatory, and her participation in the second Pesa岣 is optional and overrides Shabbat? Before resolving this question, the Gemara questions whether Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 opinion is even reasonable: If offering the second Pesa岣 is optional for a woman, why does it override Shabbat? Rather, emend his statement and say: A woman鈥檚 participation in the second Pesa岣 is optional, and her participation in the first Pesa岣 is mandatory and overrides Shabbat. In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yehuda, as stated previously.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讞讘讜专讛 砖讻讜诇讛 讙专讬诐 砖诪讗 讬讚拽讚拽讜 讘讜 讜讬讘讬讗讜讛讜 诇讬讚讬 驻住讜诇:

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: We do not make a group for the Paschal lamb that is composed entirely of converts, because perhaps they will be overly meticulous with it and cause it to become unnecessarily disqualified. Converts can be especially zealous in their observance, and out of ignorance may cause an offering to be unnecessarily disqualified by adding extra details to the requirements of the offering.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻住讞 讜诪爪讛 讜诪专讜专 讘专讗砖讜谉 讞讜讘讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 专砖讜转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘讗谞砖讬诐 讞讜讘讛 讜讘谞砖讬诐 专砖讜转

The Sages taught in a baraita: Eating the Paschal lamb and matza and bitter herbs on the first night of Passover is mandatory. From here on, i.e., the remaining days, it is optional. Rabbi Shimon says: For men it is mandatory and for women it is optional.

讗讛讬讬讗 拽讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗驻住讞 驻住讞 讻诇 砖讘注讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讜讗诇讗 讗诪爪讛 讜诪专讜专 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘讗谞砖讬诐 讞讜讘讛 讜讘谞砖讬诐 专砖讜转

The Gemara clarifies the precise intention of the last clause of the first tanna: To which part of the baraita does the halakha that eating after the first night is optional refer? If you say it is referring to the Paschal lamb, is there a Paschal lamb all seven days? Certainly not, and consequently it does not make sense to speak of whether eating it is mandatory or optional after the first night. Rather, if you say that it is referring to matza and bitter herbs, how will you say and explain accordingly the last part of the baraita, i.e., Rabbi Shimon says: For men it is mandatory and for women it is optional. If the second clause is referring only to matza and bitter herbs, then Rabbi Shimon would appear to be saying that women are exempt from eating them.

诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 谞砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讜转 讘讗讻讬诇转 诪爪讛 讚讘专 转讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 讞诪抓 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 诪爪讜转 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 讞诪抓 讬砖谞讜 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 诪爪讛 讜讛谞讬 谞砖讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬砖谞谉 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 讞诪抓 讬砖谞谉 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 诪爪讛

This is difficult: Does Rabbi Shimon not accept that which Rabbi Elazar said, that women are obligated in the command of eating matza by Torah law, despite the fact that it is a time-bound, positive mitzva, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shall you eat matzot with it鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:3), which teaches that all who are subject to the prohibition to not eat leavened bread are also subject to the positive mitzva to arise and eat matza? And those women, since they are subject to the prohibition to not eat leavened bread, since women are required to observe all the prohibitions of the Torah, they are subject also to the positive mitzva to arise and eat matza. Clearly, Rabbi Shimon was not referring to matza.

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 驻住讞 诪爪讛 讜诪专讜专 讘专讗砖讜谉 讞讜讘讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 专砖讜转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 驻住讞 讘讗谞砖讬诐 讞讜讘讛 讘谞砖讬诐 专砖讜转:

Rather, say instead that the baraita should be read as follows: Eating the Paschal lamb, matza, and bitter herbs on the first day of Passover is mandatory. From here on, i.e., the remaining days of Passover, it is optional to eat matza and bitter herbs. Rabbi Shimon says: The Paschal lamb is mandatory for men and optional for women, in accordance with his opinion stated previously.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讜谞谉 讟讜讘诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讗转 驻住讞讜 诇注专讘 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讛砖讜诪注 注诇 诪转讜

MISHNA: An acute mourner, i.e., a mourner on the day of the death of an immediate relative, is prohibited from eating sacrificial food. By Torah law, the prohibition applies only to the day of death itself, but it is permitted to partake of sacrificial food on the following night. By rabbinic decree, the period of acute mourning is extended to include the night as well. Despite this, an acute mourner immerses and eats his Paschal lamb in the evening. But he may still not eat other sacrificial food. However, one who hears about the death of his dead, i.e., he discovers that one of his immediate relatives died more than thirty days after the death, his status of acute mourning applies on a rabbinic level.

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Pesachim 88-94 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we are going to learn how different members of the household join in to the Korban Pesach, who...

Pesachim 91

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 91

讜讛诪驻拽讞 讗转 讛讙诇 讜讻谉 诪讬 砖讛讘讟讬讞讜讛讜 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 诪讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬诐 讜讛讞讜诇讛 讜讛讝拽谉 砖讛谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讝讬转 砖讜讞讟讬谉 注诇讬讛谉

and one clearing a pile of stones that collapsed on top of a person, in which case there is a possibility that the person buried underneath is dead and his corpse will impart ritual impurity to the person clearing the pile; and similarly, one whom the governing body promised to release from prison on the night of Passover; and an ill person and an elderly person who are still capable of eating an olive-bulk of meat, one slaughters the Paschal lamb on their behalf, since they are currently fit to eat the Paschal lamb.

注诇 讻讜诇诐 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 砖诪讗 讬讘讬讗讜 讗转 讛驻住讞 诇讬讚讬 驻住讜诇

However, with regard to all of them, this is only true when they are included in a group with other people who will definitely be able to partake of the lamb; but we do not slaughter the Paschal lamb on their behalf if they are by themselves, either as individuals or in a group composed entirely of such people, because perhaps they will cause the Paschal lamb to become disqualified, since there is a possibility that by the night of Passover they will be unable to partake of the Paschal lamb.

诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 讗讬专注 讘讛谉 驻住讜诇 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇注砖讜转 驻住讞 砖谞讬 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛诪驻拽讞 讘讙诇 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 诪转讞诇转讜:

Therefore, since they were registered for a Paschal lamb and it was slaughtered when they were still fit to partake of it, even if a disqualification occurred to them later, preventing them from partaking of the Paschal lamb, they are nevertheless exempt from observing the second Pesa岣. The exemption from the second Pesa岣 is dependent not on whether they partook of a Paschal lamb, but on whether it was validly slaughtered on their behalf. This holds true except for one who was clearing a pile of stones where the person buried underneath was eventually found dead, because in such a case the person searching for him certainly stood over the corpse at some point. He had therefore become ritually impure from the outset, even before the Paschal lamb was slaughtered. Consequently, he would not have been fit even during the slaughter and will have to observe the second Pesa岣.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讚讙讜讬 讗讘诇 讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讚讬砖专讗诇 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讘讟讞讬谞讛讜 诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 砖讗专讬转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讬注砖讜 注讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讬讚讘专讜 讻讝讘

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the Paschal lamb may be slaughtered on behalf of a prisoner only if he is included in a group with other people. Rabba bar Huna said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They taught this only if he is in a prison belonging to gentiles; but if he is in a prison belonging to Jews, one slaughters on his behalf even if he is by himself and not included in a group with other people. Since they promised him they would release him they will certainly release him, as it is written: 鈥淭he remnant of Israel will not do iniquity nor speak lies鈥 (Zephaniah 3:13). Therefore, there is no concern that on the night of Passover he will not be able to partake of the Paschal lamb.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专转 讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讚讙讜讬诐 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪转 讘讬转 驻讗讙讬 讗讘诇 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讞讜诪转 讘讬转 驻讗讙讬 砖讜讞讟讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗驻砖专 讚讗诪讟讜 诇讬讛 讜讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛:

Rav 岣sda said: With regard to that which you said, that the mishna鈥檚 ruling permitting a the Paschal lamb to be slaughtered on behalf of a prisoner, but only when he is included in a group with others, refers to a prisoner in a prison belonging to gentiles, they said this only with regard to a prison outside the wall of Beit Pagei, i.e., the prison is located outside the area where the Paschal lamb may be consumed. But if the prison is located within the wall of Beit Pagei, one slaughters on his behalf even if he is by himself and not included in a group with other people. What is the reason? Even if he is not released from prison, it is possible for them to bring him a portion of the Paschal lamb while still in prison, and he will eat it there.

诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 讗讬专注 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讙诇 注讙讜诇 讗讘诇 讙诇 讗专讜讱 驻讟讜专 诪诇注砖讜转 驻住讞 砖谞讬 讗讬诪讗 讟讛讜专 讛讬讛 讘砖注转 砖讞讬讟讛

We learned in the mishna: Therefore, even if a disqualification occurred to them, they are exempt from observing the second Pesa岣. This holds true except for one who was clearing a pile of stones. The Gemara qualifies this ruling: Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They taught that one who clears a pile of stones is required to observe the second Pesa岣 only if he was clearing a round pile. While clearing it, he certainly stood over the corpse and became ritually impure. But if it was a long pile of stones, it is possible that the corpse was to one side of the pile and the person clearing the stones had not yet stood over the corpse at the time the Paschal lamb was slaughtered. Therefore, he is exempt from observing the second Pesa岣, because one can say that perhaps he was ritually pure at the time of the slaughter. Since the matter is in doubt, he is exempt from observing the second Pesa岣.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 诪驻拽讞 讘讙诇 注转讬诐 驻讟讜专 注转讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讻讬爪讚 讙诇 注讙讜诇 讜谞诪爪讗转 讟讜诪讗讛 转讞转讬讜 讞讬讬讘 讙诇 讗专讜讱 讜谞诪爪讗转 讟讜诪讗讛 转讞转讬讜 驻讟讜专 讗讬诪讗 讟讛讜专 讛讬讛 讘砖注转 砖讞讬讟讛:

That was also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: One who clears a pile of stones that collapsed on top of a person is sometimes exempt from observing the second Pesa岣 and sometimes obligated. How so? If it is a round pile of stones and ritual impurity was found underneath it, he is obligated to observe the second Pesa岣, as he certainly stood over the corpse before his Paschal lamb was slaughtered. However, if it is a long pile of stones and ritual impurity was found underneath it, he is exempt, because one can say that perhaps he was pure at the time of the slaughter.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛驻住讞 注诇 讛讬讞讬讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转讬专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讞讘讜专讛 砖诇 诪讗讛 砖讗讬谞谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讝讬转 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 注诇讬讛谉

MISHNA: We do not slaughter the Paschal lamb on behalf of an individual, only for a group of people; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yosei permits it. And even if there is a group of one hundred who together are unable to eat an olive-bulk of it, we do not slaughter on their behalf.

讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讞讘讜专转 谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 讜拽讟谞讬诐:

And we do not make a group for a Paschal lamb that consists of women, slaves, and minors.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛驻住讞 注诇 讛讬讞讬讚 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讝讘讞 讗转 讛驻住讞 讘讗讞讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讞讬讚 讜讬讻讜诇 诇讗讻诇讜 砖讜讞讟讬谉 注诇讬讜 注砖专讛 讜讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讗讻诇讜 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 注诇讬讛谉

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that we do not slaughter a Paschal lamb on behalf on an individual? The verse states: 鈥淵ou may not sacrifice the Paschal lamb in any one of your gates, which the Lord your God has given you鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:5). The phrase 鈥渋n any one鈥 is expounded to mean: For any one person, which indicates that the Paschal lamb is not slaughtered on behalf of an individual; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yosei says: If there is an individual and he is able to eat an olive-bulk of the Paschal lamb, one slaughters it on his behalf; whereas if there are ten people and they are unable to eat together an olive-bulk of the Paschal lamb, we do not slaughter it on their behalf.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讗讬 讘讗讞讚 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬讬谉 诇讝讜讘讞 讗转 驻住讞讜 讘讘诪转 讬讞讬讚 讘砖注转 讗讬住讜专 讛讘诪讜转 砖讛讜讗 讘诇讗 转注砖讛

The Gemara proceeds to analyze the opinions taught in the baraita: And what does Rabbi Yosei do with this phrase, 鈥渋n any one,鈥 from which Rabbi Yehuda derived the halakha he taught in the mishna? He needs it for that which Rabbi Shimon expounded, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to improvised altars used by individuals for their private offerings, which are permitted for use only when there is no permanent national altar, Rabbi Shimon says: From where do we know that with regard to one who sacrifices his Paschal lamb on an improvised altar, at a time when the prohibition of sacrificing offerings on improvised altars applies, he is in violation of a negative mitzva?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讝讘讞 讗转 讛驻住讞 讘讗讞讚 砖注专讬讱 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讘砖注转 讛讬转专 讛讘诪讜转 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讗讞讚 砖注专讬讱 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘砖注讛 砖讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 谞讻谞住讬谉 讘砖注专 讗讞讚

The verse states: 鈥淵ou may not slaughter the Paschal lamb in any one of your gates.鈥 The phrase 鈥渁ny one of your gates鈥 is referring to the use of improvised altars. I might have thought that even at a time when it is permitted to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars this is so; therefore the verse states 鈥渋n any one of your gates,鈥 which indicates that this prohibition was said only when all of the Jewish people enter into one gate, i.e., when they all come together to sacrifice their offerings on a permanent national altar, such as the Temple. However, where there is no permanent national altar, it is indeed permitted to offer the Paschal lamb on an improvised altar.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 转专转讬 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛

And Rabbi Yehuda, who already used the phrase 鈥渋n any one鈥 to derive the halakha he taught in the mishna, from where does he derive this halakha concerning improvised altars? According to Rabbi Yehuda, you learn two things from the same phrase.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪诪讗讬 讚诇讛讻讬 讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讗诪专 诇讱 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讛讗 讻转讬讘 讗讬砖 诇驻讬 讗讻诇讜

And for Rabbi Yosei, from where does he know that the phrase 鈥渋n any one鈥 should be expounded as Rabbi Shimon said it should be? Perhaps it comes to teach what Rabbi Yehuda said? Rabbi Yosei could have said to you: This cannot enter your mind, because it is written with regard to the Paschal lamb: 鈥淎ccording to every man鈥檚 eating you shall make your count for the lamb鈥 (Exodus 12:4). Since the verse states 鈥渕an鈥 in the singular, it indicates that the Paschal lamb can be slaughtered even for an individual.

专诪讬 诇讬讛 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 诪驻专讬砖谞讗 诇专讘讗 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛驻住讞 注诇 讛讬讞讬讚 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讗砖讛 讘专讗砖讜谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 注诇讬讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜讘砖谞讬 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转讛 讟驻讬诇讛 诇讗讞专讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉

Rav Ukva bar 岣nana from Perishna raised a contradiction to Rava: Did Rabbi Yehuda actually say: We do not slaughter the Paschal lamb on behalf of an individual? But we may raise a contradiction from a baraita: In the case of a woman, on the first Pesa岣, one slaughters the Paschal lamb on her behalf, even if she is by herself. And on the second Pesa岣, we make her ancillary to others, i.e., she may join others in a group registered for a Paschal lamb but we do not slaughter a lamb on her behalf if she is by herself; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. The baraita clearly records Rabbi Yehuda as permitting the offering of a Paschal lamb on behalf of an individual. Rava said to him: Do not say Rabbi Yehuda allows slaughtering the Paschal lamb for a woman by herself; rather, say he allows slaughtering only for a group of women by themselves.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 注讘讚讬谞谉 讞讘讜专讛 砖讻讜诇讛 谞砖讬诐 讜讛转谞谉 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讞讘讜专转 谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 讜拽讟谞讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 谞砖讬诐 诇讞讜讚讬讬讛讜 讜注讘讚讬诐 诇讞讜讚讬讬讛讜 讜拽讟谞讬诐 诇讞讜讚讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 讜拽讟谞讬诐 谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 诪砖讜诐 转驻诇讜转 拽讟谞讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 诪砖讜诐

Rav Ukva questioned this answer and said to him: Do we make a group that is entirely composed of women? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: We do not make a group for a Paschal lamb that consists of women, slaves, and minors. What, is the mishna not referring to forming a group that is composed exclusively of women by themselves and slaves by themselves and minors by themselves? Rava said to him: No, the mishna is referring only to forming a group that is composed of women and slaves and minors together, but a group composed exclusively of women, or slaves, or minors would be permitted. It is prohibited to form a group containing both women and slaves, due to a concern that it may lead to frivolity. It is prohibited to form a group of minors and slaves, due to a concern that it may lead to

驻专讬爪讜转讗

promiscuity, i.e., homosexual behavior.

讙讜驻讗 讗砖讛 讘专讗砖讜谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 注诇讬讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜讘砖谞讬 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转讛 讟驻讬诇讛 诇讗讞专讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗砖讛 讘砖谞讬 砖讜讞讟讬谉 注诇讬讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘专讗砖讜谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗砖讛 讘专讗砖讜谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转讛 讟驻讬诇讛 诇讗讞专讬诐 讘砖谞讬 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 注诇讬讛 讻诇 注讬拽专

The Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself, i.e., the baraita partly cited previously, the full version of which states: A woman; on the first Pesa岣, one slaughters the Paschal lamb on her behalf even if she is by herself. And on the second Pesa岣, we make her ancillary to others, i.e., she may join others in a group registered for a Paschal lamb but we do not slaughter a lamb on her behalf if she is by herself; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: A woman; on the second Pesa岣, one slaughters the Paschal lamb on her behalf even if she is by herself. And needless to say we also slaughter on her behalf even if she is by herself on the first Pesa岣. Rabbi Shimon says: A woman; on the first Pesa岣 we make her ancillary to others, and on the second Pesa岣 we do not slaughter on her behalf at all.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讘诪讻住转 谞驻砖转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 谞砖讬诐 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖谞讬 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 讞讟讗讜 讬砖讗 讛讗讬砖 讛讛讜讗 讗讬砖 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诇讗

With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara explains that they disagree about how to interpret the various verses that refer to the first and second Pesa岣: Rabbi Yehuda holds that the use of the word souls in the verse: 鈥淎ccording to the number of the souls鈥ou shall make your count for the lamb鈥 (Exodus 12:4), includes everyone, and even women, in the first Pesa岣. And if you say that if so, even on the second Pesa岣, women should also be included, but it is written with regard to one who had not offered a Paschal lamb on the first Pesa岣 and then neglected to bring one on the second Pesa岣: 鈥淭hat man shall bear his sin鈥 (Numbers 9:13), which indicates that a man, yes, he is liable for not having brought a Paschal lamb on the second Pesa岣, but a woman, no, she is not liable.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讟驻讬诇讛 谞诪讬 讘砖谞讬 诇讗 讗讛谞讬 讻讻诇 讞拽转 讛驻住讞 诇讟驻讬诇讛 讘注诇诪讗

And if you say that if so, a woman should be totally excluded from participating in the second Pesa岣, and even in a group in an ancillary manner on the second Pesa岣 she should have no part, this is not correct, because the verse states: 鈥淎ccording to the entire statute of the Paschal lamb they shall offer it鈥 (Numbers 9:12). The verse compares the first Pesa岣 to the second, and it is therefore effective to enable women to be included in a group in a merely ancillary manner.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘专讗砖讜谉 讘诪讻住转 谞驻砖转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讗砖讛 讜讻转讬讘 讘驻住讞 砖谞讬 讜谞讻专转讛 讛谞驻砖 讛讛讜讗 诪注诪讬讛 谞驻砖 讜讗驻讬诇讜 谞砖讬诐 讜讗诇讗 讞讟讗讜 讬砖讗 讛讗讬砖 讛讛讜讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 拽讟谉 诪讻专转

And Rabbi Yosei, what is the reason for his opinion? As it is written with regard to the first Pesa岣: 鈥淎ccording to the number of the souls,鈥 which includes even a woman. And it is written with regard to the second Pesa岣: 鈥淭he man who is ritually pure, and is not on a journey, and refrains from offering the Paschal lamb, that same soul shall be cut off from among his people鈥 (Numbers 9:13). The word soul includes even women. But if so, the conclusion of that verse, which states: 鈥淭hat man shall bear his sin,鈥 which appears to emphasize that specifically a man is liable for not participating in the second Pesa岣, is there to exclude what case? It is there to exclude a minor who did not participate in the Paschal lamb from the punishment of karet.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻转讬讘 讘专讗砖讜谉 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诇讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讟驻讬诇讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗讛谞讬 诇讬讛 讘诪讻住转 谞驻砖转 诇讟驻讬诇讛

And Rabbi Shimon, what is the reason for his opinion? It is written in a verse concerning the first Pesa岣 鈥渕an.鈥 This teaches that a man, yes, a Paschal lamb may be brought on his behalf alone, but a woman, no. And if you say that if so, a woman should be totally excluded from participating even in a group in an ancillary manner, this is not correct, because the verse states: 鈥淎ccording to the number of the souls,鈥 which certainly includes women, and it is therefore effective to enable women to be included in a group in an ancillary manner.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖谞讬 谞诪讬 诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讘砖谞讬 讚讻转讬讘 讞讟讗讜 讬砖讗 讛讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诇讗 诪诪讗讬 拽诪诪注讬讟 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪讞讬讜讘 讛砖转讗 讘专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 讘砖谞讬 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪讟驻讬诇讛

And if you say that according to this, even on the second Pesa岣 women should be able to participate as part of a group, this is not correct, because the Torah excludes women from participating on the second Pesa岣, as it is written: 鈥淭hat man shall bear his sin.鈥 This indicates that a man, yes; a woman, no. From what precisely does the verse exclude women? If you say it is from the obligation to participate in the second Pesa岣, this cannot be. Since now, on the first Pesa岣, a woman has no obligation, on the second Pesa岣 is it necessary to say that a woman is not obligated? This is obvious, since the second Pesa岣 exists only as a second opportunity for those who neglected to participate in the first Pesa岣. Rather, is it not clear that the verse excludes women from participating even in an ancillary fashion?

讜诪讗讬 讗讬砖 讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讜讬拽讞讜 诇讛诐 讗讬砖 砖讛 诇讘讬转 讗讘讜转 讜讙讜壮 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 讗讬砖 讝讜讻讛 讜讗讬谉 拽讟谉 讝讜讻讛

The Gemara clarifies the source for Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion that women are excluded also from the first Pesa岣. And what is the verse that employs the term 鈥渕an鈥 that Rabbi Shimon spoke of with regard to the first Pesa岣? If we say that he is referring to the verse: 鈥淭hey shall take to them every man a lamb, according to their fathers鈥 houses, a lamb for a household鈥 (Exodus 12:3), this is incorrect, because he needs that verse for the derivation of Rabbi Yitz岣k, who said: We learn from that verse that only a man, i.e., an adult, can acquire an object on behalf of others; but a minor cannot acquire on behalf of others.

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬砖 诇驻讬 讗讻诇讜 讛讗 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讚砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛驻住讞 注诇 讛讬讞讬讚

Rather, perhaps Rabbi Shimon derived his halakha from the verse: 鈥淎ccording to every man鈥檚 eating you shall make your count for the lamb鈥 (Exodus 12:4). This is problematic. Since Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that a Paschal lamb cannot be offered on an improvised altar, presumably Rabbi Shimon also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, that a Paschal lamb can be slaughtered for an individual. If so, Rabbi Shimon needs that verse, 鈥渁ccording to every man鈥檚 eating,鈥 in order to teach that we may slaughter the Paschal lamb for an individual, since that verse is the source of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 halakha.

讗诪专 诇讱 讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇驻讬 讗讻诇讜 诪讗讬 讗讬砖 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara justifies that Rabbi Shimon does indeed use the verse as the source of his opinion with regard to the first Pesa岣: Rabbi Shimon could have said to you: If so, if it were true that the verse was only meant to teach Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 halakha concerning improvised altars, the Torah should have simply written: According to his eating, which is phrased in the singular and therefore indicates that the Paschal lamb may be slaughtered for an individual. What then is the significance of the additional term 鈥渕an鈥? It must be that you learn from the verse two separate halakhot, that the Paschal lamb may be slaughtered for an individual and that it must be for a man and not a woman.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗砖讛 讘专讗砖讜谉 讞讜讘讛 讜讘砖谞讬 专砖讜转 讜讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗讬 专砖讜转 讗诪讗讬 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讘砖谞讬 专砖讜转 讜讘专讗砖讜谉 讞讜讘讛 讜讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabbi Elazar said: A woman鈥檚 participation in the first Pesa岣 is mandatory, and her participation in the second Pesa岣 is optional and overrides Shabbat? Before resolving this question, the Gemara questions whether Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 opinion is even reasonable: If offering the second Pesa岣 is optional for a woman, why does it override Shabbat? Rather, emend his statement and say: A woman鈥檚 participation in the second Pesa岣 is optional, and her participation in the first Pesa岣 is mandatory and overrides Shabbat. In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yehuda, as stated previously.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讞讘讜专讛 砖讻讜诇讛 讙专讬诐 砖诪讗 讬讚拽讚拽讜 讘讜 讜讬讘讬讗讜讛讜 诇讬讚讬 驻住讜诇:

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: We do not make a group for the Paschal lamb that is composed entirely of converts, because perhaps they will be overly meticulous with it and cause it to become unnecessarily disqualified. Converts can be especially zealous in their observance, and out of ignorance may cause an offering to be unnecessarily disqualified by adding extra details to the requirements of the offering.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻住讞 讜诪爪讛 讜诪专讜专 讘专讗砖讜谉 讞讜讘讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 专砖讜转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘讗谞砖讬诐 讞讜讘讛 讜讘谞砖讬诐 专砖讜转

The Sages taught in a baraita: Eating the Paschal lamb and matza and bitter herbs on the first night of Passover is mandatory. From here on, i.e., the remaining days, it is optional. Rabbi Shimon says: For men it is mandatory and for women it is optional.

讗讛讬讬讗 拽讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗驻住讞 驻住讞 讻诇 砖讘注讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讜讗诇讗 讗诪爪讛 讜诪专讜专 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘讗谞砖讬诐 讞讜讘讛 讜讘谞砖讬诐 专砖讜转

The Gemara clarifies the precise intention of the last clause of the first tanna: To which part of the baraita does the halakha that eating after the first night is optional refer? If you say it is referring to the Paschal lamb, is there a Paschal lamb all seven days? Certainly not, and consequently it does not make sense to speak of whether eating it is mandatory or optional after the first night. Rather, if you say that it is referring to matza and bitter herbs, how will you say and explain accordingly the last part of the baraita, i.e., Rabbi Shimon says: For men it is mandatory and for women it is optional. If the second clause is referring only to matza and bitter herbs, then Rabbi Shimon would appear to be saying that women are exempt from eating them.

诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 谞砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讜转 讘讗讻讬诇转 诪爪讛 讚讘专 转讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 讞诪抓 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 诪爪讜转 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 讞诪抓 讬砖谞讜 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 诪爪讛 讜讛谞讬 谞砖讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬砖谞谉 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 讞诪抓 讬砖谞谉 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 诪爪讛

This is difficult: Does Rabbi Shimon not accept that which Rabbi Elazar said, that women are obligated in the command of eating matza by Torah law, despite the fact that it is a time-bound, positive mitzva, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shall you eat matzot with it鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:3), which teaches that all who are subject to the prohibition to not eat leavened bread are also subject to the positive mitzva to arise and eat matza? And those women, since they are subject to the prohibition to not eat leavened bread, since women are required to observe all the prohibitions of the Torah, they are subject also to the positive mitzva to arise and eat matza. Clearly, Rabbi Shimon was not referring to matza.

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 驻住讞 诪爪讛 讜诪专讜专 讘专讗砖讜谉 讞讜讘讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 专砖讜转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 驻住讞 讘讗谞砖讬诐 讞讜讘讛 讘谞砖讬诐 专砖讜转:

Rather, say instead that the baraita should be read as follows: Eating the Paschal lamb, matza, and bitter herbs on the first day of Passover is mandatory. From here on, i.e., the remaining days of Passover, it is optional to eat matza and bitter herbs. Rabbi Shimon says: The Paschal lamb is mandatory for men and optional for women, in accordance with his opinion stated previously.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讜谞谉 讟讜讘诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讗转 驻住讞讜 诇注专讘 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讛砖讜诪注 注诇 诪转讜

MISHNA: An acute mourner, i.e., a mourner on the day of the death of an immediate relative, is prohibited from eating sacrificial food. By Torah law, the prohibition applies only to the day of death itself, but it is permitted to partake of sacrificial food on the following night. By rabbinic decree, the period of acute mourning is extended to include the night as well. Despite this, an acute mourner immerses and eats his Paschal lamb in the evening. But he may still not eat other sacrificial food. However, one who hears about the death of his dead, i.e., he discovers that one of his immediate relatives died more than thirty days after the death, his status of acute mourning applies on a rabbinic level.

Scroll To Top