פסחים צה

פסחים צה

מַתְנִי׳ מָה בֵּין פֶּסַח הָרִאשׁוֹן לַשֵּׁנִי? הָרִאשׁוֹן אָסוּר בְּ״בַל יֵרָאֶה״ וּ״בַל יִמָּצֵא״, וְהַשֵּׁנִי — חָמֵץ וּמַצָּה עִמּוֹ בַּבַּיִת. הָרִאשׁוֹן טָעוּן הַלֵּל בַּאֲכִילָתוֹ, וְהַשֵּׁנִי אֵינוֹ טָעוּן הַלֵּל בַּאֲכִילָתוֹ. זֶה וָזֶה טָעוּן הַלֵּל בַּעֲשִׂיָּיתָן, וְנֶאֱכָלִין צָלִי עַל מַצָּה וּמְרוֹרִים, וְדוֹחִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.

MISHNA: What is the difference between the Paschal lamb offered on the first Pesaḥ and the Paschal lamb offered on the second Pesaḥ? On the first Pesaḥ, at the time of slaughtering the Paschal lamb, it is prohibited to own leavened bread due to the prohibitions: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found. And on the second Pesaḥ it is permissible for one to have both leavened bread and matza with him in the house. Another difference is that the Paschal lamb offered on the first Pesaḥ requires the recitation of hallel as it is eaten and the second does not require the recitation of hallel as it is eaten. However, they are the same in that the Paschal lambs sacrificed on both the first and second Pesaḥ require the recitation of hallel as they are prepared, i.e., as they are slaughtered, and they are both eaten roasted with matza and bitter herbs, and they override Shabbat in that they may be slaughtered and their blood sprinkled even on Shabbat.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כְּכׇל חוּקַּת הַפֶּסַח יַעֲשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ״ — בְּמִצְוָה שֶׁבְּגוּפוֹ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

GEMARA: The Sages taught a halakhic midrash pertaining to the Paschal lamb offered on the second Pesaḥ. The verse states with regard to the second Pesaḥ: “They shall leave none of it to the morning, nor break a bone in it; according to all the entire statute of the Paschal lamb they shall offer it” (Numbers 9:12). The fact that the verse says “it” indicates that the verse is speaking of a mitzva applicable to the body of the Paschal lamb, meaning that halakhot pertaining to the actual Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ apply equally to the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ.

מִצְוָה שֶׁעַל גּוּפוֹ, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַל מַצּוֹת וּמְרוֹרִים יֹאכְלוּהוּ״. יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ מִצְוֹת שֶׁלֹּא עַל גּוּפוֹ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעֶצֶם לֹא יִשְׁבְּרוּ בוֹ״, מָה שְׁבִירַת הָעֶצֶם מְיוּחָד מִצְוָה שֶׁבְּגוּפוֹ — אַף כׇּל מִצְוָה שֶׁבְּגוּפוֹ.

The midrash continues: With regard to a mitzva related to the body of the Paschal lamb but not actually performed on the body of the offering, from where is it derived that it applies to the second Pesaḥ as well? The verse states: “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:11). One might have thought that one must fulfill all mitzvot related to the first Pesaḥ on the second Pesaḥ, even mitzvot not at all related to the body of the Paschal lamb, such as the requirement to destroy all one’s leaven. Therefore, the Torah states: “And they shall not break a bone in it” (Numbers 9:12), which teaches that just as the prohibition of breaking a bone is notable among the mitzvot related to the Paschal lamb in that it is a mitzva applicable to the Paschal lamb itself, so too, any mitzva applicable to the Paschal lamb itself must be fulfilled on the second Pesaḥ. However, other mitzvot pertaining to the first Pesaḥ need not be fulfilled on the second Pesaḥ.

אִיסִי בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״יַעֲשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ״, בְּמִצְוֹת שֶׁבְּגוּפוֹ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

Isi ben Yehuda says: It is unnecessary to derive that halakha from the end of the verse quoted, as the phrase in the first half of the verse: “They shall perform it,” indicates that the verse is speaking only of mitzvot applicable to the body of the Paschal lamb itself.

אָמַר מָר: יָכוֹל אַף מִצְוָה שֶׁלֹּא עַל גּוּפוֹ. הָא אָמְרַתְּ בְּמִצְוָה שֶׁבְּגוּפוֹ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר?

The Gemara clarifies the details of the baraita. The Master said: One might have thought that one must fulfill even a mitzva not at all related to the body of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ. The Gemara expresses surprise: But you said that the verse is speaking only of a mitzva applicable to the body of the Paschal lamb, so why would one think that unrelated mitzvot are also included?

הָכִי קָאָמַר: הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ ״עַל מַצּוֹת וּמְרוֹרִים יֹאכְלוּהוּ״, אַלְמָא ״יַעֲשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ״ לָאו דַּוְקָא הוּא. אֵימָא הָוֵה לֵיהּ כִּפְרָט וּכְלָל, וְנַעֲשָׂה כְּלָל מוֹסִיף עַל הַפְּרָט, וַאֲפִילּוּ כֹּל מִילֵּי נָמֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara explains that this is what the baraita is saying: Now that you said the additional halakha that they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, apparently the phrase: “They shall perform it,” is not specific and does not limit the halakhot of the second Pesaḥ to those applicable to the Paschal lamb itself, say that this verse is expounded according to the principle of a detail and a generalization, as it first said: “They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs” and “They shall leave none of it to the morning,” and then it stated a generalization: “According to all the statute of the Paschal lamb they shall perform it.” The principles of halakhic midrash state that in that case, the generalization adds to the detail and even includes everything, such that all the mitzvot of the first Pesaḥ would apply equally to the second, including the removal of leaven. Therefore, the verse “They shall not break a bone in it” teaches us that mitzvot unrelated to the Paschal lamb do not apply to the second Pesaḥ.

אִיסִי בֶּן יְהוּדָה, הַאי ״עֶצֶם״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְאֶחָד עֶצֶם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מוֹחַ, וְאֶחָד עֶצֶם שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מוֹחַ.

The Gemara asks: What does Isi ben Yehuda do with the end of the verse: “And they shall not break a bone in it”? The Gemara answers: He needs it to teach that the prohibition of breaking a bone applies both to a bone that has marrow and to a bone that does not have marrow.

וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי ״יַעֲשׂוּ אֹתוֹ״ מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ שֶׁאֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת הַפֶּסַח עַל הַיָּחִיד, דְּכַמָּה דְּאֶפְשָׁר לְאַהְדּוֹרֵי מַהְדְּרִינַן.

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who expound differently than Isi ben Yehuda, what do they do with this phrase: “They shall perform it”? The Gemara answers: They need it to teach that one does not slaughter the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ on behalf of a single individual. Since the verse speaks of people performing the second Pesaḥ in the plural, it is derived that as much as it is possible to search for more people to join this individual in his Paschal lamb, we search for them, even if it means causing another individual to become ritually impure to prevent him from performing the first Pesaḥ.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כְּכׇל חוּקַּת הַפֶּסַח יַעֲשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ״. יָכוֹל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהָרִאשׁוֹן אָסוּר בְּ״בַל יֵרָאֶה״ וּ״בַל יִמָּצֵא״ כָּךְ שֵׁנִי אָסוּר בְּ״בַל יֵרָאֶה״ וּ״בַל יִמָּצֵא״ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַל מַצּוֹת וּמְרוֹרִים יֹאכְלוּהוּ״.

The Sages taught in a different baraita: The verse states: “According to the entire statute of the Paschal lamb they shall offer it” (Numbers 9:12). One might have thought that just as at the time of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ it is prohibited to own leaven due to the prohibitions of: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, so too, at the time of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ it is prohibited to own leaven due to the prohibitions of: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found. Therefore, the Torah states: “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:11), which indicates that the other mitzvot pertaining to the first Pesaḥ do not apply on the second.

וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה, מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא יַשְׁאִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר״.

The baraita continues: And from here I have derived only that positive mitzvot related to the first Pesaḥ apply on the second Pesaḥ; from where do I derive that the same is true of negative mitzvot? The verse states: “They shall leave none of it to the morning, nor break a bone in it” (Numbers 9:12).

וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה. מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה גָּמוּר מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעֶצֶם לֹא יִשְׁבְּרוּ בוֹ״. מָה הַפְּרָט — מְפוֹרָשׁ: מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה, וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה, וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה גָּמוּר — אַף כׇּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה, וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה, וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה גָּמוּר.

The baraita continues: And from this verse I have derived only that a negative mitzva whose violation can be rectified by the fulfillment of a positive mitzva applies on the second Pesaḥ, e.g., the prohibition of leaving over meat from the Paschal lamb until morning, which can be rectified by the positive mitzva of burning the leftovers; from where is it derived that the same is true of a full-fledged negative mitzva? The verse states: “They shall not break a bone in it.” It may be concluded from these examples that just as the detail, i.e., the specific mitzvot mentioned in these verses, is explicit and includes a positive mitzva, a prohibition whose violation can be rectified by the fulfillment of a positive mitzva, and a full-fledged negative mitzva; so too, every positive mitzva, every prohibition whose violation can be rectified by the fulfillment of a positive mitzva, and every full-fledged negative mitzva is included.

בִּכְלָלֵיהּ דְּ״מַצּוֹת וּמְרוֹרִים״, מַאי קָא מְרַבֵּי? צְלִי אֵשׁ. בִּפְרָטֵיהּ מַאי מְמַעֵיט לֵיהּ? הַשְׁבָּתַת שְׂאוֹר. אֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא! מִצְוָה דְגוּפֵיהּ עֲדִיף.

Now that the generalization has been interpreted as referring to the specific examples mentioned earlier, what is included through the generalization of unleavened bread and bitter herbs? The Gemara answers: It comes to teach that the mitzva of roasting in fire applies to the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ as well as to the first. Given that unleavened bread and bitter herbs is also a qualifying detail, what does it exclude through its detail? It teaches that the mitzva of removal of leaven does not apply on the second Pesaḥ. The Gemara asks: Perhaps I can reverse it and say that on the second Pesaḥ one is not obligated to roast the offering by fire, but one is obligated to remove all leaven? The Gemara answers: A mitzva relating to the Paschal lamb itself is preferable, as it is more reasonable to assume that the first and second Pesaḥ are comparable with regard to halakhot pertaining to the offering itself.

בִּכְלָלֵיהּ דְּ״לֹא יַשְׁאִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר״ מַאי קָא מְרַבֵּה לֵיהּ? ״לֹא תוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ״ (דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ. דְּהַאי מִיפְּסַל בְּנוֹתָר, וְהַאי מִיפְּסַל בְּיוֹצֵא).

The Gemara asks further: What is included through the generalization of: They shall leave none of it to the morning? The Gemara answers that it includes the prohibition of: You shall not remove any of its meat from one group to another, which is similar to it, as through this prohibition mentioned in the verse it is disqualified as leftovers, and through this prohibition of removing the meat of the offering it is disqualified as sacrificial meat that has left its permitted boundary.

בִּפְרָטֵיהּ מַאי קָא מְמַעֵט לֵיהּ? ״לֹא יֵרָאֶה וְלֹא יִמָּצֵא״ (דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ, דְּהַאי אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה דְּהָוֵה לָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה. וְהַאי אֵינוֹ לוֹקָה דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ לָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה). אֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא! מִצְוָה דְגוּפֵיהּ עֲדִיף.

The Gemara asks further: What does it exclude through its detail? It excludes the prohibitions: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, which are similar to it, as one who violates this prohibition of leaving over the meat of the offering until morning is not flogged because it is a prohibition whose violation can be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva by burning the leftovers; and one who violates this prohibition of owning leaven is not flogged because it is a prohibition whose violation can be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva of burning the leaven. The Gemara asks: Perhaps I can reverse it and say that the generalization is meant to include removal of leaven and the detail excludes the prohibition of leaving over the meat of the offering? The Gemara answers: In a comparison of the first Pesaḥ and the second, including a mitzva related to the Paschal lamb itself is preferable to including one that does not relate to the Paschal lamb.

בִּכְלָלֵיהּ דְּ״עֶצֶם לֹא יִשְׁבְּרוּ בוֹ״

The Gemara continues to ask: Through the generalization: They shall not break a bone in it,

מַאי קָא מְרַבֵּה? ״אַל תֹּאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ נָא״. בִּפְרָטֵיהּ מַאי קָא מְמַעֲטִי? ״לֹא תִשְׁחַט עַל חָמֵץ דַּם זִבְחִי״. אֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא! מִצְוָה דְגוּפֵיהּ עֲדִיף.

what is it including, beyond what is mentioned explicitly in the verse? The Gemara answers that it includes the mitzva: “Do not eat from it raw” (Exodus 12:9). The Gemara asks: What does it exclude through its detail? The Gemara answers that it excludes the mitzva: “You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread” (Exodus 34:25). The Gemara asks: Perhaps I can reverse it and say the opposite, that the prohibition against eating the offering raw is excluded, and the prohibition against owning leaven is included. The Gemara answers: Including a mitzva related to the Paschal lamb itself is preferable to including one that does not relate as directly to the Paschal lamb. Therefore, the prohibition against eating the Paschal lamb raw is included, and the prohibition against slaughtering the Paschal lamb with leaven in one’s possession is excluded.

הָרִאשׁוֹן טָעוּן הַלֵּל בַּאֲכִילָתוֹ וְכוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק: אָמַר קְרָא ״הַשִּׁיר יִהְיֶה לָכֶם כְּלֵיל הִתְקַדֶּשׁ חָג״. לַיְלָה הַמְקוּדָּשׁ לֶחָג — טָעוּן הַלֵּל, לַיְלָה שֶׁאֵין מְקוּדָּשׁ לֶחָג — אֵין טָעוּן הַלֵּל.

It was taught in the mishna that the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ requires the recitation of hallel as it is eaten, whereas on the second Pesaḥ it does not. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yoḥanan said, citing Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak, that the verse states: “You shall have a song as in the night when a Festival is sanctified” (Isaiah 30:29). From here it may be derived that a night sanctified as a Festival, on which labor is prohibited, such as the first night of Passover, requires the recitation of hallel; however, a night which is not sanctified as a Festival, such as the night when the Paschal lamb is eaten following the second Pesaḥ, does not require the recitation of hallel.

זֶה וָזֶה טְעוּנִין הַלֵּל בַּעֲשִׂיָּיתָן כּוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לַיְלָה קָא מְמַעֵט, יוֹם לָא קָא מְמַעֵט. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אֶפְשָׁר יִשְׂרָאֵל שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת פִּסְחֵיהֶן וְנוֹטְלִין אֶת לוּלְבֵיהֶן, וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים הַלֵּל?!

It was stated in the mishna that the Paschal lambs sacrificed on both the first and second Pesaḥ require the recitation of hallel as they are prepared. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that hallel must be recited while one prepares the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the verse quoted above: “As in the night when a festival is sanctified,” excludes laws that apply at night, but it does not exclude laws that apply by day; therefore, the recitation of hallel is required while slaughtering the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ just as it is required while slaughtering the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ. And if you wish, say that this halakha simply makes logical sense: Is it possible that the Jewish people are slaughtering their Paschal lambs or taking their lulavim on Sukkot and not reciting hallel? It is inconceivable that they would not be reciting hallel and there is no need for an explicit biblical source for this halakha.

וְנֶאֱכָלִין צָלִי וְכוּ׳. שַׁבָּת אִין, טוּמְאָה לָא. מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. דְּתַנְיָא: דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, וְאֵין דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה.

It was also taught in the mishna that the Paschal lambs on both the first and second Pesaḥ are eaten roasted and override Shabbat. It may be inferred from this that with regard to Shabbat, yes, it is overridden by the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ, but with regard to ritual impurity, no, it is not overridden for the sake of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ. The Gemara points out that this understanding of the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita: The Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ overrides Shabbat and does not override ritual impurity. Rabbi Yehuda says: It overrides even ritual impurity.

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא: מִפְּנֵי טוּמְאָה דְּחִיתִיו יַחְזוֹר וְיֵעָשֶׂה בְּטוּמְאָה?! וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: הַתּוֹרָה חָזְרָה עָלָיו לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ בְּטׇהֳרָה, לֹא זָכָה — יֵעָשֶׂה בְּטוּמְאָה.

The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the opinion of the first tanna? He holds that once this person was deferred from the first Pesaḥ due to ritual impurity, shall he now return and perform the offering of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ in ritual impurity? And Rabbi Yehuda reasoned: The Torah sought to allow this person the opportunity to perform the offering of the Paschal lamb in ritual purity; if it ultimately becomes clear that he did not merit doing so, let him at least perform the offering of the second Pesaḥ in a state of ritual impurity.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: פֶּסַח רִאשׁוֹן דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. פֶּסַח רִאשׁוֹן דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה, פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה. פֶּסַח רִאשׁוֹן טָעוּן לִינָה, פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי טָעוּן לִינָה.

The Sages taught in a different baraita: The offering of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ overrides Shabbat, and similarly, the offering of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ overrides Shabbat. The first Pesaḥ overrides ritual impurity, and similarly, the second Pesaḥ overrides ritual impurity. The first Pesaḥ requires remaining until morning, meaning that it is prohibited for people who have participated in the Paschal lamb to return that night to their homes outside Jerusalem, and similarly, the second Pesaḥ requires remaining until morning.

דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה, כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

The Gemara clarifies: With regard to the statement that the second Pesaḥ overrides ritual impurity, in accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

וּלְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה טָעוּן לִינָה? וְהָא תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִין לְפֶסַח שֵׁנִי שֶׁאֵין טָעוּן לִינָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּפָנִיתָ בַבֹּקֶר וְהָלַכְתָּ לְאֹהָלֶיךָ״, וּכְתִיב: ״שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תֹּאכַל מַצּוֹת״, הַנֶּאֱכָל לְשִׁשָּׁה טָעוּן לִינָה, שֶׁאֵין נֶאֱכָל לְשִׁשָּׁה — אֵין טָעוּן לִינָה!

But according to Rabbi Yehuda, does the second Pesaḥ require remaining until morning? Wasn’t it taught explicitly in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: From where is it derived that the second Pesaḥ does not require remaining until morning? As it is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb: “And you shall roast and eat it in the place which the Lord your God shall choose; and you shall turn in the morning and go to your tents” (Deuteronomy 16:7), and it is written immediately after: “Six days you shall eat matzot; and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the Lord your God; you shall do no work on it” (Deuteronomy 16:8). From this juxtaposition it may be concluded that the first Pesaḥ, which is followed by the mitzvah to eat matza for six days, requires remaining until morning, whereas the second Pesaḥ, which is not followed by the mitzva to eat matza for six days, does not require remaining until morning. This contradicts what was previously stated citing Rabbi Yehuda.

תְּרֵי תַנָּאֵי וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

The Gemara answers: These statements were made by two tanna’im in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but the two tanna’im disagreed about whether or not Rabbi Yehuda maintained that one is required to stay overnight on the second Pesaḥ.

מַתְנִי׳ הַפֶּסַח שֶׁבָּא בְּטוּמְאָה, לֹא יֹאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ זָבִין וְזָבוֹת נִדּוֹת וְיוֹלְדוֹת. וְאִם אָכְלוּ — פְּטוּרִין מִכָּרֵת.

MISHNA: When the Paschal lamb is sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity due to the fact that the majority of the Jewish people are ritually impure, zavim, and zavot, and menstruating women, and women after childbirth may not eat it, because the Paschal lamb overrides only ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, but it does not override other forms of ritual impurity. However, if they violated the halakha and ate from the offering, they are exempt from karet. One who eats sacrificial food in a state of ritual impurity is generally liable to receive karet; however, since in this case the offering is sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity, there is no punishment of karet even for ritually impure individuals who are not permitted to eat it.

וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹטֵר אַף עַל בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ.

And Rabbi Eliezer exempts these individuals from karet even for entering the Temple in a state of ritual impurity, despite their not being permitted to enter, because people who are impure due to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse are permitted to enter the Temple in this situation despite their impurity.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: זָבִין וְזָבוֹת נִדּוֹת וְיוֹלְדוֹת שֶׁאָכְלוּ בְּפֶסַח שֶׁבָּא בְּטוּמְאָה, יָכוֹל יְהוּ חַיָּיבִין — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇּל טָהוֹר יֹאכַל בָּשָׂר. וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר מִזֶּבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים אֲשֶׁר לַה׳ וְטוּמְאָתוֹ עָלָיו וְנִכְרְתָה״.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to zavim, and zavot, and menstruating women, and women after childbirth who ate of the Paschal lamb that was sacrificed while the majority of the Jewish people were in a state of ritual impurity, one might have thought that they would be liable to receive karet; therefore, the verse states: “The meat that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten, it shall be burned in fire; and the meat, every one that is ritually pure may eat the meat. But the soul that eats of the meat of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that belong to the Lord, having his impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off [venikhreta] from his people” (Leviticus 7:19–20).

נֶאֱכַל לִטְהוֹרִים — חַיָּיבִים עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם טָמֵא, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל לִטְהוֹרִין — אֵין טְמֵאִין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם טָמֵא.

The baraita continues: The juxtaposition of these verses teaches that if the offering is eaten only by people who are ritually pure, ritually impure people are liable for eating it due to being ritually impure, but if it is not eaten only by people who are ritually pure, because it was offered when the majority of the Jewish people were impure, those who are ritually impure are not liable for eating it due to being impure.

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל דָּחֲקוּ זָבִין וְנִכְנְסוּ לָעֲזָרָה בְּפֶסַח הַבָּא בְּטוּמְאָה, יָכוֹל יְהוּ חַיָּיבִין — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וִישַׁלְּחוּ מִן הַמַּחֲנֶה כׇּל צָרוּעַ וְכׇל זָב וְכֹל טָמֵא לָנָפֶשׁ״, בִּזְמַן שֶׁטְּמֵאֵי מֵתִים מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין — זָבִין וּמְצוֹרָעִין מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין, אֵין טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין — אֵין זָבִין וּמְצוֹרָעִין מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין.

Rabbi Eliezer says: One might have thought that if zavim or lepers pushed their way in and entered the courtyard, which they are prohibited from entering, in order to sacrifice the Paschal lamb that is brought when the majority of the Jewish people are in a state of ritual impurity, one might have thought that they would be liable to receive karet for entering the Temple while ritually impure; therefore, the verse states: “That they send out from the camp any leper and any zav and anyone defiled by the dead” (Numbers 5:2). This teaches that at a time when those who are impure due to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse are sent out from the Temple, zavim and lepers are also sent out; when those who are impure due to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse are not sent out but are permitted to sacrifice the offering in a state of ritual impurity, zavim and lepers are also not sent out.

בָּעֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: דָּחֲקוּ טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים וְנִכְנְסוּ לַהֵיכָל בְּפֶסַח הַבָּא בְּטוּמְאָה, מַהוּ? מִדְּאִישְׁתְּרַי טוּמְאַת עֲזָרָה אִישְׁתְּרַי נָמֵי טוּמְאַת הֵיכָל, אוֹ דִילְמָא מַאי דְּאִישְׁתְּרַי — אִישְׁתְּרַי, מַאי דְּלָא אִישְׁתְּרַי — לָא אִישְׁתְּרַי!

Rav Yosef asked a question related to the halakhot discussed above: If those who are impure due to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse pushed their way in and entered the Sanctuary, which is an area in which no services are performed for the Paschal lamb and which only priests may enter ab initio, and this occurs in a case in which the Paschal lamb is brought when the majority of the Jewish people are in a state of ritual impurity, what is the halakha? Is the halakha that since ritual impurity was permitted in the courtyard for the sake of the Paschal lamb, ritual impurity in the Sanctuary was also permitted; or perhaps what was permitted was permitted and what was not permitted was not permitted, and consequently they are liable for entering the Sanctuary?

אָמַר רָבָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וִישַׁלְּחוּ מִן הַמַּחֲנֶה״, אֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת מַחֲנֶה.

Rava said in answer to this question that the verse states: “They send out from the camp” (Numbers 5:2); the phrase “from the camp” indicates that the halakha applies even to a part of the camp. Therefore, when the majority of the Jewish people are ritually impure, even though people who are ritually impure are permitted to enter part of the Temple, as they must bring their offerings to the Temple courtyard, they are not permitted to enter everywhere inside the Temple, and the prohibition of entering the Sanctuary remains in place.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אָמַר רָבָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וִישַׁלְּחוּ מִן הַמַּחֲנֶה … אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה תְּשַׁלְּחוּם״, כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּקָרֵינַן בֵּיהּ ״אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה תְּשַׁלְּחוּם״ — קָרֵינַן בֵּיהּ ״וִישַׁלְּחוּ מִן הַמַּחֲנֶה״.

Some say that Rava said a different answer: The verse states: “That they send out from the camp any leper and any zav and anyone defiled by the dead…outside the camp you shall send them” (Numbers 5:2–3). This implies that anywhere that we apply the phrase: “Outside the camp you shall send them,” which is referring to a case in which the majority of the Jewish people are ritually pure and indicates that the impure people must be sent outside of the entire camp, we also apply the phrase: “They must send out from the camp,” meaning it is prohibited for people who are ritually impure to enter the Sanctuary. However, if the majority of the Jewish people are impure and the offering is sacrificed in a state of impurity, those who are impure are not liable if they enter the Sanctuary.

בָּעֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: דָּחֲקוּ טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים וְאָכְלוּ אֵימוּרֵי פֶּסַח הַבָּא בְּטוּמְאָה,

Rav Yosef asked a similar question: If people who are impure due to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse pushed their way in and ate portions that are supposed to be consumed on the altar, such as the fats, the kidneys, and the fat tail, from a Paschal lamb offered in ritual impurity,