Pesachim 91b — the Talmud in English

Minors and slaves

may not be in one group

because of ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page-column location")

sexual promiscuity,

male intercourse.

The main matter:

Now the Gemara comes to discuss the substance of the words of the beraita that Rav Ukva bar Hinana brought:

We learned in the beraita:

A woman—

with

the first Pesach

they slaughter for her separately. And with the second, they make her ancillary to others

because she is not obligated in it, but it is merely optional,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei says: A woman

is obligated

in

the second Pesach,

and they slaughter for her separately.

And since she is obligated in the second Pesach, which comes to rectify the first Pesach, which is the principal obligation,

there is no need to say

that she is obligated

in the first,

and they slaughter for her separately.

Rabbi Shimon says: With the first, they make

her ancillary to others.

But they do not slaughter for her separately, because she is not obligated in the first Pesach, but it is optional.

Whereas

with the second, they do not slaughter for her at all.

And even if she was counted for it, it is forbidden to feed it to her, because she has no connection to it at all, and this is like one who feeds the Pesach to those who were not counted for it.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

In what do they differ,

for what reason did they differ?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yehuda holds

that they expound from what is stated concerning the Pesach offering: [Exodus 12]

“According to the number of souls”,

which implies all souls,

even women.

And if you would say,

and if you say:

If so, even with

the second Pesach

as well,

should they slaughter the Pesach for women separately?

Rabbi Yehuda would answer:

It is written

in the context of one who was obligated in the second Pesach but did not offer it:

“His sin shall be upon that man.”

And we expound:

“Man”—yes,

so.

“Woman”—no.

From here: a woman is exempt from the second Pesach.

And if you would say,

and if you say:

If so,

a woman

even as ancillary with the second she should not be

made ancillary!

Rabbi Yehuda would answer: With regard to permitting a woman to participate in the second Pesach—

it was beneficial

the verse stated concerning the second Pesach:

“According to all the statute of the

first Pesach, they shall make it.” From here they learned that the second Pesach is similar to the first with regard to a woman,

for mere ancillary participation,

but not alone, separately.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

And Rabbi Yosei,

who said that both with the first Pesach and with the second Pesach they slaughter for a woman even separately,

what is the reason?

And we answer: Because

it is written concerning the first: “According to the number of souls.”

All souls are implied,

even a woman.

And it is written concerning the second Pesach: “And that soul shall be cut off from Israel.”

“Soul”

implies every soul whatsoever,

even women.

But rather,

if you ask:

“His sin shall be upon that man,”

which implies specifically a man and not a woman,

to exclude what,

what does it come to exclude?

Rabbi Yosei would answer: “That man” comes

to exclude a minor from karet.

For the meaning of the verse is a man and not a minor. And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

And Rabbi Shimon,

who says that with the first Pesach they make a woman ancillary, while with the second Pesach they do not slaughter for her at all—what is his reason?

And we answer:

It is written concerning

the

first Pesach: “Man” [and below the Gemara asks in which verse this is stated], and from this they expounded:

man—yes

so. But

woman—no.

And if you would say,

and if you say:

If so,

then

even ancillary participation also not!

Rabbi Shimon would answer:

It was beneficial to him

the text “according to the number of souls,” which implies also a woman, to teach you

for ancillary participation,

that they make her ancillary to others.

And if you would say,

and if you say: If so,

even with the second as well,

let them make the woman ancillary to others!

Rabbi Shimon would answer: Behold,

the Merciful One excluded her with the second,

that they do not make her ancillary to others,

as it is written: “His sin shall be upon the man,”

and from this they expounded:

“Man”—yes

so.

“Woman”—no.

From where

from what

does it exclude her,

did the text exclude the woman with the second Pesach?

If from obligation,

that a woman is not obligated in the second Pesach, this is impossible. For

now, with the first,

a woman

is not

obligated—

with the second, is it necessary to say so,

that is, is it necessary to say that with the second she is not obligated? After all, the second Pesach comes to rectify the first Pesach!

Rather, no—even

from ancillary participation

did the text exclude her.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

And what

“man”

is it that Rabbi Shimon says?

In which verse is “man” stated, from which Rabbi Shimon expounded to exclude—man and not woman?

If we say,

if it is said in the verse concerning the first Pesach: [Exodus 12]

“And they shall take for themselves a man, a lamb for each fathers’ household,”

it is impossible to say so, for the “man” stated there is not superfluous, since

that one is needed

it must be written in order to learn from it

the principle of Rabbi Yitzhak, who says: A man acquires

for others when he takes the Pesach on behalf of the members of his household.

And a minor does not acquire

for others through his taking, for a minor does not become an agent.

but a minor does not acquire

But rather,

it is necessarily the case that Rabbi Shimon expounded from “a man according to his eating”—

a man and not a woman.

But this too is impossible:

For

this is from Rabbi Yosei,

who said that they slaughter the Pesach for an individual; he cannot expound “You may not slaughter the Pesach with one”—as referring to an individual, but rather

he holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

who expounds the verse with regard to one who slaughters the Pesach on an individual altar.

If so, correspondingly, also

Rabbi Shimon as well,

who did not expound from the verse “You may not eat the Pesach with one” that they do not slaughter it for an individual, but expounded it with regard to an individual altar, necessarily

holds in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

who expounded from “a man according to his eating” that they slaughter the Pesach for an individual.

For if you say that Rabbi Shimon does not hold in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, why did he not expound from here that they do not slaughter for an individual, in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda? After all, it is more implied that it should be expounded in this way!

And

since this is so,

that one

the verse “a man according to his eating”

is needed for him

they need it in order to expound that they slaughter the Pesach for an individual! And how did Rabbi Shimon learn from here to exclude a woman?

He could say to you,

Rabbi Shimon:

If so,

if the verse comes only to teach that they slaughter the Pesach for an individual,

let the Merciful One write “according to his eating”

in the singular, and not write “man.” And this would suffice to learn that they slaughter the Pesach for an individual.

What

“man,”

for what purpose was “man” written?

You learn two things from it.

It is possible to learn two matters from here.

Now the Gemara discusses the words of Rabbi Elazar, who said above (79b): with the first Pesach a woman is obligatory, and with the second she is optional, and it overrides Shabbat.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

According to whom does this go,

[in whose view is it stated,]

that which Rabbi Elazar said: With the first a woman is obligatory, and with the second optional, and it overrides Shabbat—

according to which of the tannaim who differed above does Rabbi Elazar hold? And before the Gemara clarifies this question, the Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the substance of Rabbi Elazar’s words:

If

women with the second Pesach are

optional—

why

did Rabbi Elazar say that it

overrides Shabbat?

After all, an optional matter does not override Shabbat!

Rather, say: With the second, optional. And with the first—

obligatory, and it overrides Shabbat.

That is, specifically the first, which is obligatory also for women, overrides Shabbat.

And now, after we have explained the words of Rabbi Elazar, the Gemara returns to the question that we asked initially:

According to whom—

according to whose view does Rabbi Elazar hold?

And we answer:

In accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who said: With the first Pesach they slaughter for a woman separately, and with the second they make her ancillary. And this is because with the first she is obligatory, and with the second optional.

In accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

Rabbi Yaakov said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: They do not make a group consisting entirely of converts.

For perhaps,

because they are not people of Torah,

they will scrutinize it,

the Pesach offering, so that they will be stringent in scrutinizing it,

and bring it to invalidity,

invalidating it for no reason.

The Sages taught: The Pesach, matza, and maror on the first

night of Pesach,

are obligatory.

From here onward, they are optional.

[Below it is explained what “from here onward” is.]

Rabbi Shimon says: For men, obligatory; and for women, optional.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it: What the beraita said, “from here onward, optional”—

to what does it refer?

To which matter among the three matters, Pesach, matza, and maror, did the tannay say that from here onward it is “optional”?

If you say,

if it is said concerning

the

offering of

the Pesach,

and the intention of the tannay is to say that it is optional throughout all seven days of the festival, this is impossible.

And is the offering of the

Pesach all seven [days] even possible?!

And is it permitted to offer and eat the Pesach offering throughout all seven days of the festival?!

But rather,

necessarily the intention of the tannay is

matza and maror,

which are optional throughout all seven days of the festival.

But this too is difficult. For

consider the latter clause

[it is stated at the end of the beraita]:

Rabbi Shimon says: For men, obligatory, and for women

optional.

And this means the first night, on which the first tannay said that eating matza and maror is obligatory; Rabbi Shimon disagrees with this and says that it is obligatory only for men, but for women it is optional.

And it is difficult:

But does Rabbi Shimon not hold

that he does not hold

that which Rabbi Elazar said: Women are obligated in eating matza by Torah law,

as it is stated

in the context of the Pesach: [Deuteronomy 16]

“You shall not eat leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat matzot with it”—

the text juxtaposed the prohibition against leaven to the positive commandment of eating matza. And from here they expounded:

Everyone who is subject

to the prohibition

of “do not eat leaven,” is subject to

the positive commandment of

“arise, eat matza.”

And these women,

and these women,

since they are subject to “do not eat leaven”

[for with regard to the prohibitions of negative commandments in the Torah, a woman is obligated like a man, as it is stated [Numbers 5]: “Whether man or woman, when they commit any sin of man”]—

they are subject

also

to “arise, eat matza”!

Rather, say

say the words of the beraita in this manner:

The Pesach, matza, and maror on the first are obligatory; from here onward,

matza and maror are

optional.

Rabbi Shimon says: The Pesach

alone

is obligatory for men, and optional for women.

And this accords with the view that we brought in the beraita above: “Rabbi Shimon says: With the first, they make a woman ancillary to others.”

But with matza, women are obligated.

Mishna:

1.

An onen

on the day when one of the seven close relatives has died [his father, his mother, his son, his daughter, his brother, his virgin sister, or his wife]:

he immerses and eats his Pesach in the evening,

even if the deceased has not yet been buried, because mourning by Torah law applies only on the day of death itself.

But he does not

eat

sacred offerings,

because on the night following the day of death, mourning applies by rabbinic enactment. And the Sages upheld their words only with regard to eating other sacred offerings, whose eating involves only a positive commandment [as it is stated: “And they shall eat those things through which atonement was made for them,” Exodus 29]. But with the Pesach, failure to eat which involves an obligation of karet, the Sages did not uphold their words.

And by Torah law he may eat in the evening without immersion, but the Sages enacted concerning an onen that he should immerse before eating sacred offerings, since previously he had been forbidden to eat sacred offerings. [And in our matter, although he is also forbidden to eat sacred offerings at night, nevertheless he immerses because of eating the Pesach, since during the day he had been forbidden by Torah law to eat all sacred offerings. And now he is permitted].

2.

One who hears about his dead,

who died a long time ago, is an onen by rabbinic enactment and is forbidden to eat sacred offerings on that day.

One who hears about the death of his relative

who died some time earlier is an onen by rabbinic decree and is prohibited from eating sacred offerings that entire day.