Pesachim 92
וְהַמְלַקֵּט לוֹ עֲצָמוֹת — טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל בַּקֳּדָשִׁים.
And one who gathers the bones of his parents, who are buried in a temporary location for their flesh to decay and who is moving them to a permanent burial place must also observe a day of acute mourning by rabbinic decree. These mourners immerse and eat all types of sacrificial food at night. Since in these cases, even during the day, the mourning is by rabbinic decree, the Sages did not extend it into the evening.
גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר בְּעֶרֶב פֶּסַח, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל אֶת פִּסְחוֹ לָעֶרֶב, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִן הָעׇרְלָה כְּפוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַקֶּבֶר.
With regard to a convert who converted on Passover eve, Beit Shammai say: He immerses and eats his Paschal lamb in the evening. And Beit Hillel say: One who separates from the foreskin by being circumcised is ritually impure, like one who separates from the grave after coming in contact with a corpse. Consequently, he must first observe the seven-day purification process necessary to remove ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. Only then, from the eighth day onward, may he partake of sacrificial meat.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? קָא סָבַר אֲנִינוּת דְּלַיְלָה דְּרַבָּנַן, וְגַבֵּי פֶּסַח לֹא הֶעֱמִידוּ דִּבְרֵיהֶם בִּמְקוֹם כָּרֵת, גַּבֵּי קָדָשִׁים הַעֲמִידוּ דִּבְרֵיהֶם בִּמְקוֹם עֲשֵׂה.
GEMARA: What is the reason that an acute mourner may eat the Paschal lamb in the evening? The tanna of the mishna holds that the observance of acute mourning at night after the day of one’s relative’s death is a rabbinic prohibition. And with regard to the Paschal lamb, the Sages waived their prohibition because they did not uphold their statement prohibiting consumption of sacrificial food in a situation in which doing so would violate a prohibition that carries the punishment of karet, as is the case with one who neglects to offer the Paschal lamb. On the other hand, with regard to other sacrificial food, they maintained the prohibition, because they upheld their statement in a situation in which neglecting to eat the sacrificial food entails only the neglect of a positive mitzva.
הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ עַל מֵתוֹ וְכוּ׳. מְלַקֵּט עֲצָמוֹת? הָא בָּעֵי הַזָּאַת שְׁלִישִׁי וּשְׁבִיעִי! אֵימָא: שֶׁלִּיקְּטוּ לוֹ עֲצָמוֹת.
We learned in the mishna: One who hears about the death of his dead relative more than thirty days after the death and one who gathers bones immerse and eat sacrificial food in the evening. The Gemara expresses surprise: Can this apply to one who gathers bones? But by doing so he came in contact with the bones of a corpse, and he needs sprinkling on the third and seventh days in order to become ritually pure. The Gemara answers: Emend the teaching of the mishna and instead say: One for whom they gathered bones, meaning that other people gathered the bones of his parents to transfer them to a new grave but he himself did not touch them, has a rabbinical requirement to observe a day of acute mourning, but he is not ritually impure.
גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּעָרֵל גּוֹי,
We learned in the mishna: With regard to a convert who converted on Passover eve, there is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel as to whether he may immerse and eat the Paschal sacrifice in the evening. The Gemara discusses the scope of this dispute: Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the dispute is about an uncircumcised gentile that was circumcised and converted on Passover eve.
דְּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִטָּמֵא לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה, וְיֹאמַר: אֶישְׁתָּקַד, מִי לֹא טָבַלְתִּי וְאָכַלְתִּי? עַכְשָׁיו נָמֵי אֶטְבּוֹל וְאוֹכַל. וְלָא יָדַע דְּאֶשְׁתָּקַד — גּוֹי הֲוָה וְלָא מְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה, עַכְשָׁיו — יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה.
Beit Hillel hold that there is a rabbinic decree due to a concern that perhaps he will become contaminated by a corpse in the following year and he will say: Last year, even though I had come in contact with a corpse previous to Passover, did I not immerse and eat the Paschal lamb without completing the purification process for impurity imparted by a corpse? Now also, I will immerse and eat. And he does not know and understand that last year, before his conversion on Passover eve, he was a gentile and therefore he was not susceptible to ritual impurity, because gentiles do not contract ritual impurity according to Torah law, but now he is a Jew and is susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, the Sages decreed that he should complete the seven-day purification process for impurity imparted by a corpse before he can partake of sacrificial food in order to avoid such a mistake.
וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: לָא גָּזְרִינַן. אֲבָל עָרֵל יִשְׂרָאֵל — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל אֶת פִּסְחוֹ לָעֶרֶב, וְלָא גָּזְרִינַן עָרֵל יִשְׂרָאֵל מִשּׁוּם עָרֵל גּוֹי.
And Beit Shammai hold that we do not make a decree due to this concern. But with regard to an uncircumcised Jew who for some reason had not been circumcised until Passover eve, all agree that he may immerse and eat his Paschal lamb in the evening. The concern that he will err the following year does not apply, and we do not decree in the case of an uncircumcised Jew who was circumcised on Passover eve, due to concern that the case will be confused with that of an uncircumcised gentile who was circumcised and converted on Passover eve.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל עַל עָרֵל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁטּוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל אֶת פִּסְחוֹ לָעֶרֶב, עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ — עַל עָרֵל גּוֹי. שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל אֶת פִּסְחוֹ לָעֶרֶב, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִן הָעׇרְלָה כְּפוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַקֶּבֶר.
That was also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about the fact that an uncircumcised Jew who was circumcised on Passover eve may immerse and eat his Paschal lamb in the evening. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to an uncircumcised gentile who converted on Passover eve. Beit Shammai say that he may immerse and eat his Paschal lamb in the evening, and Beit Hillel say that one who separates from the foreskin is ritually impure like one who separates from the grave.
אָמַר רָבָא: עָרֵל הַזָּאָה וְאִיזְמֵל — הֶעֱמִידוּ דִּבְרֵיהֶן בִּמְקוֹם כָּרֵת. אוֹנֵן וּמְצוֹרָע וּבֵית הַפְּרָס — לֹא הֶעֱמִידוּ דִּבְרֵיהֶן בִּמְקוֹם כָּרֵת.
Rava said: With regard to an uncircumcised gentile who converted, sprinkling the purification waters to purify impurity imparted by a corpse, and a circumcision scalpel [izmel], the Sages upheld their statement even in a situation in which doing so would violate a prohibition that carries the punishment of karet. However, with regard to an acute mourner, a leper, and a beit haperas, an area in which a doubt exists concerning the location of a grave or a corpse, they did not uphold their statement in a situation in which doing so would violate a prohibition that carries the punishment of karet.
עָרֵל — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן.
The Gemara details all the cases Rava referred to: The case of an uncircumcised gentile who converted is as we have said previously. Beit Hillel disqualify a convert from offering the Paschal lamb, despite the fact that neglecting to do so renders one liable to receive karet.
הַזָּאָה — דְּאָמַר מָר: הַזָּאָה שְׁבוּת וְאֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
The case of sprinkling the purification waters to purify impurity imparted by a corpse is as the Master said in a mishna: Sprinkling is prohibited on Shabbat due to rabbinic decree, and it does not override Shabbat even on Passover eve, despite the fact that one who requires sprinkling will then be unable to offer the Paschal lamb.
אִיזְמֵל — דְּתַנְיָא: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין מְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ דֶּרֶךְ רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, כָּךְ אֵין מְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ דֶּרֶךְ גַּגּוֹת וְדֶרֶךְ חֲצֵרוֹת וְדֶרֶךְ קַרְפֵּיפוֹת.
The case of the circumcision scalpel is as it was taught in a baraita: If a circumcision scalpel was not brought to the location of the baby from before Shabbat, just as we may not bring it through a public domain in violation of Torah law, so too we may not bring it through roofs, through courtyards, and through enclosures, even though carrying in this manner is prohibited by rabbinic decree. One who has an uncircumcised member of his household may not bring a Paschal lamb and is liable for karet. The Sages maintained the prohibition of carrying the scalpel in all circumstances, even when doing so would mean the baby would remain uncircumcised on Passover eve, preventing his household from offering a Paschal lamb.
אוֹנֵן — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן.
The Gemara lists the cases where the Sages waived their prohibition in the face of a prohibition carrying the punishment of karet: The case of an acute mourner is that which we said in the mishna.
מְצוֹרָע — מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: מְצוֹרָע שֶׁחָל שְׁמִינִי שֶׁלּוֹ בְּעֶרֶב הַפֶּסַח, וְרָאָה קֶרִי בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם — טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל.
The case of the leper, what is it? It is as it was taught in a baraita: A leper is ritually impure and must undergo an involved, eight-day purification process, which culminates on the eighth day with the bringing of various offerings in the Temple. If his eighth day occurs on Passover eve, such that it would be possible to bring his offerings and be fit to partake of the Paschal lamb that evening, and he saw an occurrence of semen on that day, and one who experiences such a discharge is ritually impure and prohibited from entering the Temple, he may immerse in order to purify himself from the discharge and then bring his offerings and eat the Paschal lamb at night.
אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁטְּבוּל יוֹם אֵינוֹ נִכְנָס, זֶה נִכְנָס. מוּטָב יָבֹא עֲשֵׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כָּרֵת, וְיִדְחֶה עֲשֵׂה שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת.
The Sages said: Although normally, with regard to ritual impurity from seminal discharge, one who has immersed on that day may not enter the Temple until nightfall, this one may enter. The reason is that it is better for a positive mitzva that has a punishment of karet, i.e., the bringing of the Paschal lamb, to come and override a positive mitzva that does not have a punishment of karet, i.e., the mitzva of “They shall send out from the camp every leper and whoever has had issue, and whoever is unclean by the dead” (Numbers 5:2), which requires the removal from the Temple of one who has immersed that day and will become pure only upon nightfall.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה אֲפִילּוּ עֲשֵׂה אֵין בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיַּעֲמֹד יְהוֹשָׁפָט בִּקְהַל יְהוּדָה וִירוּשָׁלִַים בְּבֵית ה׳ לִפְנֵי הֶחָצֵר הַחֲדָשָׁה״, מַאי חָצֵר הַחֲדָשָׁה? שֶׁחִדְּשׁוּ בּוֹ דָּבָר, וְאָמְרוּ: טְבוּל יוֹם לֹא יִכָּנֵס בְּמַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה.
And furthermore, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: By Torah law, there is not even a positive mitzva that restricts one who has immersed that day and will become pure only upon nightfall from entering the Temple, as it is stated: “And Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judea and Jerusalem, in the House of the Lord, before the new courtyard” (II Chronicles 20:5). What is indicated by identifying the courtyards as the new courtyard? It indicates that they innovated something in it, and they said: One who has immersed on that day but will become pure only upon nightfall may not enter the Levite camp, which includes the entire Temple Mount. This suggests that the prohibition is of rabbinic origin and is not a positive mitzva.
בֵּית הַפְּרָס, דִּתְנַן: וְשָׁוִין בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל
The case of a beit haperas, in which the Sages did not uphold their decree, is as it was taught in a mishna: And Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree
שֶׁבּוֹדְקִין לְעוֹשֵׂי פֶסַח, וְאֵין בּוֹדְקִין לְאוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה.
that we examine a beit haperas that lies in the path to Jerusalem for those offering the Paschal lamb to determine whether there is actually any ritual impurity present, in order to enable those who pass through it to know whether they are still ritually pure and able to offer the Paschal lamb. But we do not examine a beit haperas for the sake of those eating teruma in order that they should be able to eat teruma in purity. The Gemara asks:
מַאי בּוֹדְקִין (לְעוֹשֵׂי פֶּסַח)? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מְנַפֵּחַ בֵּית הַפְּרָס וְהוֹלֵךְ. רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר אַבָּיֵי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: בֵּית הַפְּרָס שֶׁנִּידַּשׁ טָהוֹר.
What is meant when we say that we examine for those offering the Paschal lamb? Practically, how is it examined? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One must blow the dust on the path before taking each step in the beit haperas as he walks through it, in order to see if there is a hidden bone there. Rav Yehuda bar Abaye in the name of Rav Yehuda said: A beit haperas that has been trodden underfoot is considered ritually pure, since it is assumed that any bones that were there have been removed or broken. The impurity of a beit haperas is due to a rabbinic decree. The Sages waived this decree in a case where the necessary examination is made, in order to allow people to be able to offer their Paschal lambs. However, this leniency is limited to the case of the Paschal lamb, since its neglect carries the prohibition of karet. It is not extended to other cases, such as the prohibition to eat impure teruma.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הָאִשָּׁה
מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁהָיָה טָמֵא אוֹ בְּדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה וְלֹא עָשָׂה אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן — יַעֲשֶׂה אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי. שָׁגַג אוֹ נֶאֱנַס וְלֹא עָשָׂה אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן — יַעֲשֶׂה אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר טָמֵא אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה בְּדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה? שֶׁאֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין מֵהִכָּרֵת, וְאֵלּוּ חַיָּיבִין בְּהִכָּרֵת.
MISHNA: One who was ritually impure or on a distant journey and did not observe the first Pesaḥ by participating in the offering of the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth of Nisan should observe the second Pesaḥ by participating in the offering on the fourteenth of Iyyar. If one unwittingly forgot or was prevented due to circumstances beyond his control and did not observe the first Pesaḥ, he too should observe the second Pesaḥ. If so, that the second Pesaḥ is observed even by someone who forgot or was prevented from observing the first Pesaḥ, why is it stated in the Torah that the second Pesaḥ is observed only by one who was ritually impure or on a distant journey? These cases were specified in order to teach that these two groups of people are exempt from karet if they do not observe the second Pesaḥ, but those who were not ritually impure or on a distant journey are liable to receive karet, as the Gemara will explain.
גְּמָ׳ אִיתְּמַר: הָיָה בְּדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה וּשְׁחָטוֹ וְזָרְקוּ עָלָיו, רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: הוּרְצָה. רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: לֹא הוּרְצָה. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: הוּרְצָה, מֵיחָס הוּא דְּחַס רַחֲמָנָא עָלָיו. וְאִי עָבֵיד — תָּבֹא עָלָיו בְּרָכָה. וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: לֹא הוּרְצָה, מִידְחֵא דַּחְיֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא כְּטָמֵא.
GEMARA: It was stated that the amora’im disagreed about the following issue: If one was on a distant journey and others slaughtered the Paschal lamb and sprinkled its blood on his behalf, and he arrived in time to eat the Paschal lamb, does he need to observe the second Pesaḥ since he was far away at the time that the sacrifice was offered? Rav Naḥman said: His offering was accepted, and he need not observe the second Pesaḥ. Rav Sheshet said: His offering was not accepted, and he must sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ. The Gemara explains their opinions. Rav Naḥman said: His offering was accepted because the Torah has mercy on one who was on a distant journey and allows him the option of observing the second Pesaḥ; but if he nonetheless did participate in the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ, may blessing come upon him. And Rav Sheshet said: His offering is not accepted because the Torah deferred his observance to the second Pesaḥ just as it does for one who is ritually impure. Just as one who is ritually impure may not voluntarily participate in the Paschal lamb, neither may one who is on a distant journey.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ, דִּתְנַן: מִי שֶׁהָיָה טָמֵא אוֹ בְּדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה וְלֹא עָשָׂה אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן — יַעֲשֶׂה אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי. מִכְּלָל דְּאִי בָּעֵי — עָבֵד.
Rav Naḥman said: From where do I say my opinion? As we learned in the mishna: One who was ritually impure or on a distant journey and did not observe the first Pesaḥ should observe the second Pesaḥ. The expression: And did not observe, indicates by inference that regarding one who was on a distant journey, had he wished, he could have observed it and would thereby be exempt from participating in the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ.
וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר לָךְ: אִי הָכִי, סֵיפָא דְּקָתָנֵי: שָׁגַג אוֹ נֶאֱנַס וְלֹא עָשָׂה אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן — יַעֲשֶׂה אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי. מִדְּקָתָנֵי ״וְלֹא עָשָׂה״, מִכְּלָל דְּאִי בָּעֵי — עָבֵד. הֲרֵי שָׁגַג, וַהֲרֵי נֶאֱנַס!
And Rav Sheshet said in response: If so, consider the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches: If one unwittingly forgot or was prevented due to circumstances beyond his control and did not observe the first Pesaḥ, he should observe the second Pesaḥ. According to your reasoning, from the fact that it is taught: And did not observe, conclude by inference that had he wished, he could have observed it. However, this is not possible, as the mishna states explicitly that he unwittingly forgot or was prevented due to circumstances beyond his control and was unable to observe the first Pesaḥ.
אֶלָּא, מֵזִיד קָתָנֵי בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ. הָכָא נָמֵי: אוֹנֵן קָתָנֵי בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ.
Rather, the mishna must be explained differently, as follows: Even though it does not say so explicitly, the mishna is teaching with the phrase: And he did not observe, the case of one who intentionally refrained from observing the first Pesaḥ together with the other cases in the mishna. Here, too, in the first part of the mishna, the phrase: And he did not observe, must be understood as including another category of people: It is teaching the case of an acute mourner, i.e., one whose relative died that same day and has not yet been buried, together with the other cases. The first part of the mishna includes three cases: One who was ritually impure, one who was on distant journey, and one who was an acute mourner. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that had he wished to observe the first Pesaḥ, he could have done so.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין מֵהִכָּרֵת וְאֵלּוּ חַיָּיבִין בְּהִכָּרֵת. אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַשּׁוֹגֵג וְנֶאֱנָס, שׁוֹגֵג וְנֶאֱנָס בְּנֵי כָרֵת נִינְהוּ?! אֶלָּא לָאו — אַמֵּזִיד וְאוֹנֵן.
Rav Ashi said: The mishna is also precisely formulated according to this interpretation, as it teaches: These are exempt from karet, but those are liable to receive karet. To which part of the mishna is this referring? If we say that this statement is referring to one who unwittingly forgot and one who was prevented due to circumstances beyond his control, are one who unwittingly forgot and one who was prevented due to circumstances beyond his control subject to the punishment of karet? One is liable to receive karet only for performing a transgression intentionally. Rather, is it not referring to the case of one who intentionally refrained from observing the Pesaḥ, which is included in the phrase in the latter clause: And he did not observe, and to the case of an acute mourner, which is included in the parallel phrase in the first clause? These two categories of people are liable to receive karet if they fail to sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ.
וְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר לָךְ: לְעוֹלָם אַמֵּזִיד לְחוֹדֵיהּ. וּבְדִין הוּא דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמִיתְנֵא ״חַיָּיב״, וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי ״חַיָּיבִין״ — אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא ״פְּטוּרִין״, תְּנָא סֵיפָא ״חַיָּיבִין״.
And Rav Naḥman could have said to you in response: Actually, the mishna refers only to the case of one who intentionally refrains from observing the first Pesaḥ and not to the case of an acute mourner; and by right it should have taught this ruling with the expression: He is liable, in the singular. And the reason that it teaches this ruling with the phrase: These are liable, in the plural, is that since the first clause of the mishna teaches its ruling with the expression: These are exempt, in the plural, the latter clause also teaches its ruling with the expression: Those are liable, in the plural. Therefore, the phrase in the first clause: And did not observe the first Pesaḥ, teaches that one on a journey has the option of observing the first Pesaḥ if he wishes. And the same phrase in the latter clause: And did not observe, comes to include the case of one who intentionally refrains from observing the first Pesaḥ.
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר ״טָמֵא״, וְנֶאֱמַר ״בְּדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה״,
Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say my opinion? As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: It is stated that one who is ritually impure on the first Pesaḥ observes the second Pesaḥ, and it is stated that one who is on a distant journey observes the second Pesaḥ;
