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

Daf Yomi

February 21, 2021 | 讟壮 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.

Pesachim 92

Today’s Daf is dedicated by the Tannenbaum family in loving memory of Miriam’s father, Jack Zemsky z”l on his 17th yahrzeit. “Leiluy nishmat Yaakov Yitzchak ben Moshe Nachum HaLevi z”l. He modeled & imprinted Ahavat HaTorah & Ahavat Yisrael on his daughters throughout his life. He would have celebrated Hadran’s imparting of these values to the world. Yehi Zichro Baruch.”

People who were forbidden to eat sacrifices on the eve of Pesach such as one who lost a close relative and is an onen and others in similar situations or one who converted that day, are they allowed to be a part of the sacrifice that day and they go to the mikveh and can eat the sacrifice at night? In what cases did the sages put override rabbinic law in an issue where there was karet involved and in what cases did they not override rabbinic law in a case of karet. Who can offer a second Passover sacrifice? Who is liable to receive karet if he/she did not celebrate Pesach Rishon? If someone was too far at the time of the sacrifice and made sure that he was included in someone else’s sacrifice, and arrived at night to eat the sacrifice, did he fulfill his obligation or not? Is he allowed to do this?

讜讛诪诇拽讟 诇讜 注爪诪讜转 讟讜讘诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐


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.


讙专 砖谞转讙讬讬专 讘注专讘 驻住讞 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讟讜讘诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讗转 驻住讞讜 诇注专讘 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛驻讜专砖 诪谉 讛注专诇讛 讻驻讜专砖 诪谉 讛拽讘专:


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.


讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽讗 住讘专 讗谞讬谞讜转 讚诇讬诇讛 讚专讘谞谉 讜讙讘讬 驻住讞 诇讗 讛注诪讬讚讜 讚讘专讬讛诐 讘诪拽讜诐 讻专转 讙讘讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讛注诪讬讚讜 讚讘专讬讛诐 讘诪拽讜诐 注砖讛:


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鈥檚 relative鈥檚 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.


讛砖讜诪注 注诇 诪转讜 讜讻讜壮: 诪诇拽讟 注爪诪讜转 讛讗 讘注讬 讛讝讗转 砖诇讬砖讬 讜砖讘讬注讬 讗讬诪讗 砖诇讬拽讟讜 诇讜 注爪诪讜转:


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.


讙专 砖谞转讙讬讬专 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 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘注专诇 讙讜讬


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 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the dispute is about an uncircumcised gentile that was circumcised and converted on Passover eve.


讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讟诪讗 诇砖谞讛 讛讘讗讛 讜讬讗诪专 讗讬砖转拽讚 诪讬 诇讗 讟讘诇转讬 讜讗讻诇转讬 注讻砖讬讜 谞诪讬 讗讟讘讜诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讜诇讗 讬讚注 讚讗砖转拽讚 讙讜讬 讛讜讛 讜诇讗 诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 注讻砖讬讜 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛


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.


讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 讗讘诇 注专诇 讬砖专讗诇 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讟讜讘诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讗转 驻住讞讜 诇注专讘 讜诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 注专诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪砖讜诐 注专诇 讙讜讬


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.


转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 注专诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖讟讜讘诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讗转 驻住讞讜 诇注专讘 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 注专诇 讙讜讬 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讟讜讘诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讗转 驻住讞讜 诇注专讘 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛驻讜专砖 诪谉 讛注专诇讛 讻驻讜专砖 诪谉 讛拽讘专:


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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 注专诇 讛讝讗讛 讜讗讬讝诪诇 讛注诪讬讚讜 讚讘专讬讛谉 讘诪拽讜诐 讻专转 讗讜谞谉 讜诪爪讜专注 讜讘讬转 讛驻专住 诇讗 讛注诪讬讚讜 讚讘专讬讛谉 讘诪拽讜诐 讻专转


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.


注专诇 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉


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.


讛讝讗讛 讚讗诪专 诪专 讛讝讗讛 砖讘讜转 讜讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转


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.


讗讬讝诪诇 讚转谞讬讗 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讚专讱 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻讱 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讚专讱 讙讙讜转 讜讚专讱 讞爪专讜转 讜讚专讱 拽专驻讬驻讜转


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.


讗讜谞谉 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉


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.


诪爪讜专注 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪爪讜专注 砖讞诇 砖诪讬谞讬 砖诇讜 讘注专讘 讛驻住讞 讜专讗讛 拽专讬 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘诇 讜讗讜讻诇


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.


讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讻谞住 讝讛 谞讻谞住 诪讜讟讘 讬讘讗 注砖讛 砖讬砖 讘讜 讻专转 讜讬讚讞讛 注砖讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转


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 鈥淭hey shall send out from the camp every leper and whoever has had issue, and whoever is unclean by the dead鈥 (Numbers 5:2), which requires the removal from the Temple of one who has immersed that day and will become pure only upon nightfall.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 注砖讛 讗讬谉 讘讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬注诪讚 讬讛讜砖驻讟 讘拽讛诇 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘讘讬转 讛壮 诇驻谞讬 讛讞爪专 讛讞讚砖讛 诪讗讬 讞爪专 讛讞讚砖讛 砖讞讚砖讜 讘讜 讚讘专 讜讗诪专讜 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 诇讗 讬讻谞住 讘诪讞谞讛 诇讜讬讛


And furthermore, Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淎nd Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judea and Jerusalem, in the House of the Lord, before the new courtyard鈥 (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.


讘讬转 讛驻专住 讚转谞谉 讜砖讜讬谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇


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


砖讘讜讚拽讬谉 诇注讜砖讬 驻住讞 讜讗讬谉 讘讜讚拽讬谉 诇讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛


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:


诪讗讬 讘讜讚拽讬谉 (诇注讜砖讬 驻住讞) 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪谞驻讞 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜讛讜诇讱 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗讘讬讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讘讬转 讛驻专住 砖谞讬讚砖 讟讛讜专:


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.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讗砖讛



诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 讟诪讗 讗讜 讘讚专讱 专讞讜拽讛 讜诇讗 注砖讛 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉 讬注砖讛 讗转 讛砖谞讬 砖讙讙 讗讜 谞讗谞住 讜诇讗 注砖讛 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉 讬注砖讛 讗转 讛砖谞讬 讗诐 讻谉 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讟诪讗 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讘讚专讱 专讞讜拽讛 砖讗诇讜 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪讛讻专转 讜讗诇讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讛讻专转:


MISHNA: One who was ritually impure or on a distant journey and did not observe the first Pesa岣 by participating in the offering of the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth of Nisan should observe the second Pesa岣 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 Pesa岣, he too should observe the second Pesa岣. If so, that the second Pesa岣 is observed even by someone who forgot or was prevented from observing the first Pesa岣, why is it stated in the Torah that the second Pesa岣 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 Pesa岣, but those who were not ritually impure or on a distant journey are liable to receive karet, as the Gemara will explain.


讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 讛讬讛 讘讚专讱 专讞讜拽讛 讜砖讞讟讜 讜讝专拽讜 注诇讬讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讛讜专爪讛 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讛讜专爪讛 诪讬讞住 讛讜讗 讚讞住 专讞诪谞讗 注诇讬讜 讜讗讬 注讘讬讚 转讘讗 注诇讬讜 讘专讻讛 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛 诪讬讚讞讗 讚讞讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讻讟诪讗


GEMARA: It was stated that the amora鈥檌m 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 Pesa岣 since he was far away at the time that the sacrifice was offered? Rav Na岣an said: His offering was accepted, and he need not observe the second Pesa岣. Rav Sheshet said: His offering was not accepted, and he must sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the second Pesa岣. The Gemara explains their opinions. Rav Na岣an 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 Pesa岣; but if he nonetheless did participate in the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesa岣, may blessing come upon him. And Rav Sheshet said: His offering is not accepted because the Torah deferred his observance to the second Pesa岣 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.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞谉 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 讟诪讗 讗讜 讘讚专讱 专讞讜拽讛 讜诇讗 注砖讛 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉 讬注砖讛 讗转 讛砖谞讬 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬 讘注讬 注讘讚


Rav Na岣an 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 Pesa岣 should observe the second Pesa岣. 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 Pesa岣.


讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 诇讱 讗讬 讛讻讬 住讬驻讗 讚拽转谞讬 砖讙讙 讗讜 谞讗谞住 讜诇讗 注砖讛 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉 讬注砖讛 讗转 讛砖谞讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 讜诇讗 注砖讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬 讘注讬 注讘讚 讛专讬 砖讙讙 讜讛专讬 谞讗谞住


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 Pesa岣, he should observe the second Pesa岣. 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 Pesa岣.


讗诇讗 诪讝讬讚 拽转谞讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讜谞谉 拽转谞讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜


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 Pesa岣 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 Pesa岣, he could have done so.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 讗诇讜 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪讛讻专转 讜讗诇讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讛讻专转 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗砖讜讙讙 讜谞讗谞住 砖讜讙讙 讜谞讗谞住 讘谞讬 讻专转 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讗诪讝讬讚 讜讗讜谞谉


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 Pesa岣, 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 Pesa岣.


讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讱 诇注讜诇诐 讗诪讝讬讚 诇讞讜讚讬讛 讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬转谞讗 讞讬讬讘 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 驻讟讜专讬谉 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 讞讬讬讘讬谉


And Rav Na岣an could have said to you in response: Actually, the mishna refers only to the case of one who intentionally refrains from observing the first Pesa岣 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 Pesa岣, teaches that one on a journey has the option of observing the first Pesa岣 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 Pesa岣.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讟诪讗 讜谞讗诪专 讘讚专讱 专讞讜拽讛


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 Pesa岣 observes the second Pesa岣, and it is stated that one who is on a distant journey observes the second Pesa岣;


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.

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...
alon shvut women

Onen and Others

Daf 92 The status of an Onen and when he can bring the korban. The daf goes on to discuss...

Pesachim 92

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 92

讜讛诪诇拽讟 诇讜 注爪诪讜转 讟讜讘诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐


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.


讙专 砖谞转讙讬讬专 讘注专讘 驻住讞 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讟讜讘诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讗转 驻住讞讜 诇注专讘 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛驻讜专砖 诪谉 讛注专诇讛 讻驻讜专砖 诪谉 讛拽讘专:


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.


讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽讗 住讘专 讗谞讬谞讜转 讚诇讬诇讛 讚专讘谞谉 讜讙讘讬 驻住讞 诇讗 讛注诪讬讚讜 讚讘专讬讛诐 讘诪拽讜诐 讻专转 讙讘讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讛注诪讬讚讜 讚讘专讬讛诐 讘诪拽讜诐 注砖讛:


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鈥檚 relative鈥檚 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.


讛砖讜诪注 注诇 诪转讜 讜讻讜壮: 诪诇拽讟 注爪诪讜转 讛讗 讘注讬 讛讝讗转 砖诇讬砖讬 讜砖讘讬注讬 讗讬诪讗 砖诇讬拽讟讜 诇讜 注爪诪讜转:


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.


讙专 砖谞转讙讬讬专 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 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘注专诇 讙讜讬


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 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the dispute is about an uncircumcised gentile that was circumcised and converted on Passover eve.


讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讟诪讗 诇砖谞讛 讛讘讗讛 讜讬讗诪专 讗讬砖转拽讚 诪讬 诇讗 讟讘诇转讬 讜讗讻诇转讬 注讻砖讬讜 谞诪讬 讗讟讘讜诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讜诇讗 讬讚注 讚讗砖转拽讚 讙讜讬 讛讜讛 讜诇讗 诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 注讻砖讬讜 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛


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.


讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 讗讘诇 注专诇 讬砖专讗诇 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讟讜讘诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讗转 驻住讞讜 诇注专讘 讜诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 注专诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪砖讜诐 注专诇 讙讜讬


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.


转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 注专诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖讟讜讘诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讗转 驻住讞讜 诇注专讘 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 注专诇 讙讜讬 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讟讜讘诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讗转 驻住讞讜 诇注专讘 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛驻讜专砖 诪谉 讛注专诇讛 讻驻讜专砖 诪谉 讛拽讘专:


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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 注专诇 讛讝讗讛 讜讗讬讝诪诇 讛注诪讬讚讜 讚讘专讬讛谉 讘诪拽讜诐 讻专转 讗讜谞谉 讜诪爪讜专注 讜讘讬转 讛驻专住 诇讗 讛注诪讬讚讜 讚讘专讬讛谉 讘诪拽讜诐 讻专转


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.


注专诇 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉


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.


讛讝讗讛 讚讗诪专 诪专 讛讝讗讛 砖讘讜转 讜讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转


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.


讗讬讝诪诇 讚转谞讬讗 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讚专讱 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻讱 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讚专讱 讙讙讜转 讜讚专讱 讞爪专讜转 讜讚专讱 拽专驻讬驻讜转


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.


讗讜谞谉 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉


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.


诪爪讜专注 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪爪讜专注 砖讞诇 砖诪讬谞讬 砖诇讜 讘注专讘 讛驻住讞 讜专讗讛 拽专讬 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘诇 讜讗讜讻诇


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.


讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讻谞住 讝讛 谞讻谞住 诪讜讟讘 讬讘讗 注砖讛 砖讬砖 讘讜 讻专转 讜讬讚讞讛 注砖讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转


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 鈥淭hey shall send out from the camp every leper and whoever has had issue, and whoever is unclean by the dead鈥 (Numbers 5:2), which requires the removal from the Temple of one who has immersed that day and will become pure only upon nightfall.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 注砖讛 讗讬谉 讘讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬注诪讚 讬讛讜砖驻讟 讘拽讛诇 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘讘讬转 讛壮 诇驻谞讬 讛讞爪专 讛讞讚砖讛 诪讗讬 讞爪专 讛讞讚砖讛 砖讞讚砖讜 讘讜 讚讘专 讜讗诪专讜 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 诇讗 讬讻谞住 讘诪讞谞讛 诇讜讬讛


And furthermore, Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淎nd Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judea and Jerusalem, in the House of the Lord, before the new courtyard鈥 (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.


讘讬转 讛驻专住 讚转谞谉 讜砖讜讬谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇


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


砖讘讜讚拽讬谉 诇注讜砖讬 驻住讞 讜讗讬谉 讘讜讚拽讬谉 诇讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛


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:


诪讗讬 讘讜讚拽讬谉 (诇注讜砖讬 驻住讞) 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪谞驻讞 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜讛讜诇讱 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗讘讬讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讘讬转 讛驻专住 砖谞讬讚砖 讟讛讜专:


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.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讗砖讛



诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 讟诪讗 讗讜 讘讚专讱 专讞讜拽讛 讜诇讗 注砖讛 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉 讬注砖讛 讗转 讛砖谞讬 砖讙讙 讗讜 谞讗谞住 讜诇讗 注砖讛 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉 讬注砖讛 讗转 讛砖谞讬 讗诐 讻谉 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讟诪讗 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讘讚专讱 专讞讜拽讛 砖讗诇讜 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪讛讻专转 讜讗诇讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讛讻专转:


MISHNA: One who was ritually impure or on a distant journey and did not observe the first Pesa岣 by participating in the offering of the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth of Nisan should observe the second Pesa岣 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 Pesa岣, he too should observe the second Pesa岣. If so, that the second Pesa岣 is observed even by someone who forgot or was prevented from observing the first Pesa岣, why is it stated in the Torah that the second Pesa岣 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 Pesa岣, but those who were not ritually impure or on a distant journey are liable to receive karet, as the Gemara will explain.


讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 讛讬讛 讘讚专讱 专讞讜拽讛 讜砖讞讟讜 讜讝专拽讜 注诇讬讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讛讜专爪讛 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讛讜专爪讛 诪讬讞住 讛讜讗 讚讞住 专讞诪谞讗 注诇讬讜 讜讗讬 注讘讬讚 转讘讗 注诇讬讜 讘专讻讛 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛 诪讬讚讞讗 讚讞讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讻讟诪讗


GEMARA: It was stated that the amora鈥檌m 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 Pesa岣 since he was far away at the time that the sacrifice was offered? Rav Na岣an said: His offering was accepted, and he need not observe the second Pesa岣. Rav Sheshet said: His offering was not accepted, and he must sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the second Pesa岣. The Gemara explains their opinions. Rav Na岣an 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 Pesa岣; but if he nonetheless did participate in the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesa岣, may blessing come upon him. And Rav Sheshet said: His offering is not accepted because the Torah deferred his observance to the second Pesa岣 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.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞谉 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 讟诪讗 讗讜 讘讚专讱 专讞讜拽讛 讜诇讗 注砖讛 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉 讬注砖讛 讗转 讛砖谞讬 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬 讘注讬 注讘讚


Rav Na岣an 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 Pesa岣 should observe the second Pesa岣. 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 Pesa岣.


讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 诇讱 讗讬 讛讻讬 住讬驻讗 讚拽转谞讬 砖讙讙 讗讜 谞讗谞住 讜诇讗 注砖讛 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉 讬注砖讛 讗转 讛砖谞讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 讜诇讗 注砖讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬 讘注讬 注讘讚 讛专讬 砖讙讙 讜讛专讬 谞讗谞住


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 Pesa岣, he should observe the second Pesa岣. 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 Pesa岣.


讗诇讗 诪讝讬讚 拽转谞讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讜谞谉 拽转谞讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜


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 Pesa岣 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 Pesa岣, he could have done so.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 讗诇讜 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪讛讻专转 讜讗诇讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讛讻专转 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗砖讜讙讙 讜谞讗谞住 砖讜讙讙 讜谞讗谞住 讘谞讬 讻专转 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讗诪讝讬讚 讜讗讜谞谉


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 Pesa岣, 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 Pesa岣.


讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讱 诇注讜诇诐 讗诪讝讬讚 诇讞讜讚讬讛 讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬转谞讗 讞讬讬讘 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 驻讟讜专讬谉 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 讞讬讬讘讬谉


And Rav Na岣an could have said to you in response: Actually, the mishna refers only to the case of one who intentionally refrains from observing the first Pesa岣 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 Pesa岣, teaches that one on a journey has the option of observing the first Pesa岣 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 Pesa岣.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讟诪讗 讜谞讗诪专 讘讚专讱 专讞讜拽讛


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 Pesa岣 observes the second Pesa岣, and it is stated that one who is on a distant journey observes the second Pesa岣;


Scroll To Top