Pesachim 91a (צא.) — the Talmud in English

And one who clears away the mound.

For example, a wall fell upon a person, and he is beneath a mound of stones. There is concern that he may be dead, and consequently there is concern that the one clearing away the mound, who overshadows him with his body, may become impure.

Nevertheless, the Paschal offering is slaughtered on his account, since in the meantime, as long as we have not found a dead person beneath the mound, he has the presumptive status of purity.

And likewise, one whom they promised to release from prison,

which is outside Jerusalem, and there is concern that ultimately they will not release him and he will be unable to eat the Paschal offering; nevertheless, we rely on the fact that they promised to release him, and the Paschal offering is slaughtered on his account.

And a sick person and an elderly person who are capable of eating an olive-bulk,

even though there is concern that they may weaken during the night and be unable to eat an olive-bulk.

All these people

the offering is slaughtered on their account

if they were counted as members of a group together with other people.

But

for all of them—

the offering is not slaughtered on their account individually

without other people, because

perhaps they will cause the Paschal offering to become disqualified.

There is concern in their cases that they will not be fit to eat the Paschal offering at night, as follows, and consequently the Paschal offering will become disqualified.

In the case of an onen, there is concern that he may become impure through contact with his dead relative during the burial.

In the case of one clearing away the mound, there is concern that he may find a dead person beneath the mound and become impure because he overshadows the corpse.

In the case of one who was promised release from prison, there is concern that they may not release him.

In the case of the sick and the elderly, there is concern that they may weaken during the night and be unable to eat an olive-bulk.

And since we learned that the Paschal offering is slaughtered on behalf of all these people when they are in a group together with others,

therefore, if

the blood was sprinkled on their behalf, and after the sprinkling

a disqualifying circumstance occurred to them,

and they are now unfit to eat the Paschal offering at night, nevertheless—

they are exempt

from

bringing the Second Pesaḥ offering,

since at the time of the slaughter and the sprinkling of the blood they were fit.

Except for one clearing away a mound,

for if it is discovered that there was a dead person at the bottom of the mound, he is obligated to bring the Second Pesaḥ offering, because

he was impure from the outset.

It has now become retroactively clear that he had already become impure before the slaughter, since he overshadowed the corpse from the moment he began clearing away the mound. And the Gemara establishes that the Mishna is referring to a round mound whose top is pointed, in such a manner that it is certain that he overshadowed the corpse. But if the mound is long, so that it is possible that he did not overshadow the corpse, he is exempt from bringing the Second Pesaḥ offering.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna, with regard to one whom they promised to release from prison, that the offering is not slaughtered on his account individually.

Rabba bar Huna said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They taught this only with regard to a prison of gentiles,

as we are concerned that they may not fulfill their promise and may not release him from prison.

But in a Jewish prison,

for example, where they placed him in prison in order to compel him to divorce his wife or to pay money,

the offering is slaughtered on his account individually.

Because we say:

Since they promised him—

they will release him.

Since they promised him, they will release him from there.

As it is written [in Zephaniah 3]:

“The remnant of Israel

will not commit injustice and will not speak lies.”

Rav Ḥisda said: This that you said, that in a prison of gentiles they do not

slaughter the offering on his account individually,

we said

[we said]

only

if the prison was

outside the wall of Beit Pagi,

which is the outermost area of Jerusalem.

But inside the wall of Beit Pagi—

the offering is slaughtered on his account individually.

What is the reason?

[What is the reason?]

It is possible that they will bring it to him and he will eat it.

It is possible to bring him meat from the Paschal offering to the prison, and he will eat it there.

We learned in the Mishna:

Therefore, if a disqualifying circumstance occurred

to them, they are exempt from bringing the Second Pesaḥ offering, except for one clearing away a mound, who was impure from the outset.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They taught

that one clearing away a mound is obligated to bring the Second Pesaḥ offering

only

if there was a

round mound,

with the corpse beneath its center, in which case it is certain that the one clearing away the mound overshadowed it when he stood over its point [Meiri].

But if there was a

long mound,

so that it is possible that the one clearing away the mound stood on its point without being directly above the corpse,

he is exempt from bringing the Second Pesaḥ offering.

Because

perhaps

[it can be said that]

he was pure at the time of the slaughter.

It was taught likewise in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: One who clears away a mound—

sometimes

[at times]

is exempt

from bringing the Second Pesaḥ offering,

and sometimes he is liable.

How so?

If it was a round mound and impurity was found beneath it, he is liable. If it was a long mound and impurity was found beneath it, he is exempt,

because

perhaps he was pure at the time of the slaughter.

Mishna:

The Paschal offering may not be slaughtered for an individual; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda,

and the Gemara explains his reason.

And Rabbi Yosei permits it.

The slaughter of the Paschal offering is not dependent on the number of people counted for it, but only on whether they are fit to eat an olive-bulk.

There is an individual for whom the offering is slaughtered—for example, one who is fit to eat an olive-bulk— and there are many for whom the offering is not slaughtered—

even a group of one hundred who are unable to eat an olive-bulk,

for example, because they are weak,

the offering is not slaughtered on their account.

And

they do not form

a group consisting of women, slaves, and minors.

And the reason for this is explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: From where is it derived that the Paschal offering may not be slaughtered for an individual?

The verse states:

[Deuteronomy 16]

“You cannot slaughter the Paschal offering in one

of your gates.” And they expound from here: “You cannot eat the Paschal offering as one”—as a single person.

This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

And Rabbi Yosei says: If an individual is capable of eating it,

the offering is slaughtered on his account;

if ten are unable to eat it,

even an olive-bulk of it,

the offering is not slaughtered on their account.

And we raise a difficulty:

And Rabbi Yosei, what does he do with this

“You cannot eat the Paschal offering

as one”—

what does he derive from it?

What does he derive from the word “as one”?

And we answer:

He requires it

as a basis for deriving from the word “as one”

the teaching of Rabbi Shimon,

who expounded this verse with regard to one who slaughters the Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan before noon on a private altar, thereby transgressing a prohibition, as follows:

When the Children of Israel were in the wilderness, they offered their sacrifices only in the Tabernacle and not on private altars.

When they entered the Land of Israel, before the Tabernacle at Shiloh was built, they offered communal sacrifices on the great communal altar. An individual could also offer individual sacrifices on a small private altar.

The Paschal offering has the status of a communal offering in this regard.

[And once the Tabernacle at Shiloh was chosen, private altars became prohibited, and they offered sacrifices only in the Tabernacle. After the Tabernacle at Shiloh was destroyed, private altars again became permitted, until the Temple was built in Jerusalem.]

One who offered communal sacrifices on a private altar was liable to karet [as is the law concerning one who slaughters or offers consecrated sacrifices outside the designated area].

But all this applies to a valid offering, which, had it been offered on the great altar, would have achieved atonement.

However, for an invalid communal offering, or one offered outside its proper time, there is no liability to karet if it was offered on a small private altar.

And Rabbi Shimon learned from the verse “You cannot slaughter the Paschal offering” that if one slaughtered the Paschal offering or other communal sacrifices on a private altar outside their proper time, he transgresses a prohibition, even though he is exempt from karet, as follows:

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon says: From where is it derived that one who slaughters his Paschal offering on a private altar

during the period when private altars are prohibited

[when they were in the wilderness, when sacrifices could be offered only in the Tabernacle; and likewise when the Tabernacle was in Shiloh, and when the Temple in Jerusalem was standing]—from where

is it derived that he violates a prohibition,

even though he slaughtered the Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan, before its proper time, before noon?

The verse states: “You cannot slaughter the Paschal offering in one of your gates.”

[It does not come to teach that one who slaughters the Paschal offering on a private altar at its proper time, after noon, transgresses a prohibition, because this does not need to be taught, as it entails even liability to karet. Rather, it must be referring to before noon, to teach that although there is no liability to karet, one transgresses a prohibition. Zevaḥim 114b]

And this is how they expounded the verse: “You cannot slaughter the Paschal offering,” even before its proper time, except in the place mentioned later in the passage: “But only at the place that the Lord your God will choose to make His Name dwell there”—that is, in the Temple.

Consequently, the words “in one of your gates” are superfluous, since the end of the verse states, “But only at the place.”

And what do these words come to teach? Rather, “in one of your gates” is stated for this purpose:

For

one might have thought

that

even during the period when private altars were permitted,

it is

so.

For example, when they were at Gilgal, Nob, and Gibeon, perhaps even then it would be said that there is a prohibition if one slaughtered the Paschal offering before its proper time on a private altar. [For even during the period when private altars were permitted, only offerings brought as vows or freewill offerings could be offered on a small private altar. But the Paschal offering, which is an obligatory offering brought on the fourteenth of Nisan, could not be offered on private altars.]

The verse states: “In one of your gates.”

They said

that one who slaughters the Paschal offering before its proper time on a private altar transgresses a prohibition

only when all Israel enter through one gate

to the Temple, and not through the many gates of private altars.

And we raise a difficulty:

And Rabbi Yehuda,

who derives from “in one of your gates” that the Paschal offering may not be slaughtered for a single person—

this,

the principle we stated, that during the period when private altars were permitted there is no prohibition for one who slaughters the Paschal offering before its proper time,

from where does he derive it?

From where did Rabbi Yehuda learn this?

And we answer: Rabbi Yehuda holds that

two teachings are derived from it.

It is possible to learn two things from “in one of your gates”: first, that the Paschal offering may not be slaughtered for an individual; and second, that during the period when private altars were permitted, one who slaughters the Paschal offering before its proper time does not transgress a prohibition.

And we raise a difficulty:

And as for Rabbi Yosei,

who expounded the verse “in one of your gates” with regard to one who slaughters the Paschal offering outside the Temple, the following difficulty arises:

From where do you know that this is what Rabbi Shimon was saying,

that the verse came to teach us Rabbi Shimon’s ruling?

Perhaps it came to teach what Rabbi Yehuda said.

Perhaps the verse came to teach that the Paschal offering may not be slaughtered for an individual, as Rabbi Yehuda said!

And we answer:

Rabbi Yosei could say

to him:

This cannot be inferred.

It is impossible to interpret it as Rabbi Yehuda did.

For it is written

[in Exodus 12], concerning the Paschal offering:

“Each man according to his eating

shall you count for the lamb.” That is, for each individual according to his eating, you shall slaughter the lamb on his account.

Rav Ukva bar Ḥinana of Parishana

[a place name]

raised an objection to Rava,

for there is a contradiction in Rabbi Yehuda’s statements:

Is it

that

Rabbi Yehuda said

that

the offering may not be slaughtered

on behalf of the Paschal offering

for an individual?

But we raise a contradiction:

We learned in a beraita:

A woman, with regard to the

Paschal offering

first,

on the fourteenth of Nisan, is obligated to bring the Paschal offering, and

the offering is slaughtered on her account

even if she is

by herself.

And with regard to the

Paschal offering

second,

a woman is not obligated to bring it, and the offering is not slaughtered on her account individually. If she wishes to offer the Paschal offering—

she is made ancillary to others,

she is joined to a group of men.

This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

It is therefore clear that Rabbi Yehuda explicitly said that for the first Paschal offering, the offering is slaughtered on behalf of a woman individually, even though she is alone!

He said to him

Rava answered him:

Do not say,

do not understand Rabbi Yehuda’s words, “the offering is slaughtered on her account

by herself,”

in the singular.

Rather, say

that the text reads

“by themselves,”

in the plural. Rabbi Yehuda is teaching us that the first Paschal offering may be slaughtered for a group of women.

He said to him

Rav Ukva bar Ḥinana said to Rava, raising a difficulty:

Do we make

such a group,

consisting entirely of women?

But we learned

in our Mishna:

“They do not form a group of women, slaves, and minors.”

Is that not

referring to a group of

women alone

[by themselves],

and slaves alone, and minors alone?

If so, it is explicit in our Mishna that one does not form a group of women.

He said to him

Rava answered him:

No!

The intention of the Mishna is not that it is prohibited to form a group consisting of women alone. Rather, it is referring to groups of

women, slaves, and minors

together.

Women and slaves

are prohibited from being in one group

because of licentiousness,

that is, because of transgression.