Pesachim 92a — the Talmud in English

3.

And

so

the one for whom bones are gathered.

One whose father’s and mother’s bones were gathered for him, who is obligated in mourning on that day.

He immerses, and eats sacrificial meat in the evening.

And the Sages did not decree upon them the status of an acute mourner at night, since the acute mourning of the day itself is only rabbinic; therefore, they did not add to prohibit them also during the night.

4.

A convert who converted on the eve of Passover,

Beit Shammai say: He immerses

for every convert requires immersion, as we find at the giving of the Torah: “Sanctify them today and tomorrow,” Tosafot Yom Tov].

And he eats his Passover-offering in the evening.

And Beit Hillel say: One who separates from the foreskin

who circumcised his foreskin

is like one who separates from the grave,

who is impure for seven days and requires sprinkling on the third and seventh days, and immersion on the seventh day. [And in the Gemara the reason for this is explained].

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: An acute mourner immerses and eats his Passover-offering in the evening, but not sacrificial meat.

And we raised an objection concerning it:

What is the reason?

And we answer:

It holds

that the law of

nighttime acute mourning,

which is after the day of death, is only from

the Rabbis.

And

therefore

with regard to

the offering of

the Passover-offering—

they did not establish

the Sages

their words

to prohibit him from eating his Passover-offering [and consequently from offering it on the fourteenth day]

in a place involving karet.

But

with regard to sacrificial meat—

they did establish their words

to prohibit an acute mourner from eating sacrificial meat

in a place involving a positive commandment

alone, for if he refrains from eating it, he does nothing other than neglect a positive commandment. As it is stated: [Exodus 29,] “And they shall eat those things through which atonement was made for them.”

We learned in the Mishna:

One who hears concerning his dead

and one for whom bones are gathered immerses and eats sacrificial meat.

And we wondered:

One who gathers bones,

which implies that he touched the bones while gathering them—how can he immerse and perform his Passover-offering?

But he requires

for surely he requires

sprinkling on the third and seventh days!

And we answer:

Say,

say in our Mishna: “One who hears concerning his dead, and likewise one

for whom bones were gathered.”

And he did not gather them himself.

We learned in the Mishna:

A convert who converted,

Beit Shammai say: He immerses and eats his Passover-offering in the evening. And Beit Hillel say: One who separates from the foreskin is like one who separates from the grave.

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: The dispute is concerning a gentile with a foreskin

who circumcised himself in order to convert, for although it is certain to us that he touched a corpse before he converted, he is not impure by Torah law, since a gentile does not contract impurity.

For Beit Hillel hold

that he is impure for seven days by rabbinic decree, and they sprinkle upon him on the third and seventh days, and only afterward does he eat the Passover-offering, because of

a decree lest he become impure next year,

after he will be a full-fledged Israelite, who contracts impurity by Torah law,

and he will say: Last year

in the previous year,

who [

did I perhaps ]

not immerse and eat

immediately after I touched a corpse? And if so,

now also, I will immerse and eat

immediately.

And he would not know that last year he was a gentile and did not contract impurity.

But

now he is an Israelite

he

and contracts impurity.

Therefore they instituted that after he circumcises he should wait seven days, for there is no impurity that has passed over him for seven days from which he has not become pure.

And although a zav cannot eat sacrificial meat even after seven days until he brings his offering, they did not enact this decree with regard to a convert. For if we were to enact this with regard to a convert who converted, he would be prohibited from the Passover-offering forever. For he cannot bring atonement-offerings, since he did not contract the impurity of a flux at the time when he was a gentile; and the Sages did not decree to prohibit him from the Passover-offering forever.

And Beit Shammai hold: We do not enact a decree.

But an Israelite with a foreskin,

for example, his brothers died because of circumcision and therefore they did not circumcise him—if he now comes to circumcise himself in order to eat his Passover-offering,

he immerses,

and eats his Passover-offering in the evening.

And we do not enact a decree

to prohibit

an Israelite with a foreskin on account of

a decree lest we come to permit

a gentile with a foreskin

to immerse and eat immediately.

It was likewise taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree concerning an Israelite with a foreskin, that he immerses and eats his Passover-offering in the evening.

With regard to what did they disagree?

With regard to a gentile with a foreskin.

For Beit Shammai say: He immerses and eats his Passover-offering in the evening, and Beit Hillel say: One who separates from the foreskin is like one who separates from the grave.

Rava said:

with regard to three enactments: a.

one with a foreskin,

b.

sprinkling,

c.

and a scalpel [

which are explained below ]—

the Sages established

their

words in a place involving karet.

For they instructed one to nullify the mitzva of making the Passover-offering, despite the fact that one who deliberately nullifies it is liable for karet.

And with three other enactments: a.

an acute mourner,

b.

and a leper,

c.

and a field of uncertain impurity—

the Sages did not establish

their

words in a place involving karet,

but rather they permitted one to transgress their decree in order to eat the Passover-offering, since one who nullifies it is liable for karet.

And what are these enactments?

a.

One with a foreskin—

that which we said,

what we said: that Beit Hillel decreed with regard to a gentile with a foreskin that he does not perform the Passover-offering until he waits seven days, and they sprinkle upon him and he immerses. It follows that he nullifies the making of the Passover-offering, for which there is karet.

b.

Sprinkling—

a corpse-impure person upon whom they sprinkle on the third and seventh days. If his seventh day falls on Shabbat, the Sages prohibited sprinkling upon him on the seventh day because it appears as though one is making a person fit. Rashi above, 65b [and the Raavad, chapter 6 of the Laws of the Passover-offering, halakha 6, wrote that they decreed lest he carry four cubits in the public domain].

And from where do we know that they prohibited sprinkling upon a corpse-impure person on Shabbat, even on the eve of Passover?

For the Master said [

Rabbi Akiva in the Mishna, 65b ]:

Sprinkling—

is a rabbinic prohibition

it is,

and it does not override Shabbat

on the eve of Passover, even though this causes him to nullify the making of the Passover-offering, for which there is karet.

c.

A scalpel—

for it was taught

with regard to circumcision on Shabbat that although the Torah permitted circumcision at its appointed time, on the eighth day, even on Shabbat, it is rabbinically prohibited to carry the scalpel through the public domain in order to circumcise with it.

And they said concerning this in a beraita:

Just as one may not bring it

the scalpel

through the public domain—

so one may not bring it through roofs, through courtyards, or through enclosures,

because it is rabbinically prohibited to bring it from them into the house.

And they taught in a beraita: One who has a minor son or a slave whose circumcision is incumbent upon him, and he did not circumcise them, is not fit for the Passover-offering.

And if he has a son whose eighth day falls on Shabbat, the eve of Passover, and the scalpel is lying on roofs or in enclosures, they prohibited him from bringing the scalpel and circumcising his son. It follows that he nullifies the making of the Passover-offering, for which there is karet.

In the three enactments that we mentioned, the Sages established their words in a place involving karet.

And these are the three enactments in which the Sages did not establish their words in a place involving karet:

a.

An acute mourner—

that which we said,

that an acute mourner immerses and eats his Passover-offering in the evening. They permitted him to eat his Passover-offering during nighttime acute mourning, which is rabbinic.

b.

A leper—

what is it?

A leper who immersed on the seventh day and the sun set over him must offer his offerings on the eighth day, and it is stated concerning the offerings of a leper: “And the priest who purifies the man shall place the man being purified and them before the Lord.” And “before the Lord” means in the Temple courtyard.

But one lacking atonement is prohibited from entering the courtyard. If so, what shall he do?

He stands on the Temple Mount at the Nicanor Gate, whose interior was not sanctified with the sanctity of the courtyard, and inserts the thumbs of his hands and feet into the courtyard, and the priest places some of the guilt-offering’s blood upon them.

For it was taught: A leper whose eighth day falls on the eve of Passover, and who experienced a seminal emission on that day,

and one who experienced a seminal emission cannot enter the Temple Mount, for the law of the Temple Mount is like the law of the Levite camp, and one who experienced a seminal emission is prohibited from entering the Levite camp.

If so, how can he offer his leper’s offerings in order to eat from the Passover-offering in the evening?

He immerses,

and enters the Temple Mount and offers the offerings of the leper,

and eats

from the Passover-offering in the evening.

The Sages said: Even though one who immersed that day

whose sun has not yet set for him

does not enter

the Temple Mount [as it is stated in Deuteronomy 23:12 concerning one who experienced a seminal emission: “And it shall be, toward evening, he shall wash himself in water, and when the sun has set he shall enter into the midst of the camp,” and this means the Levite camp].

This one,

whose leper’s eighth day falls on the eve of Passover,

enters

the Temple Mount in order to insert his thumbs into the courtyard, so that he may become pure and be able to eat his Passover-offering in the evening.

For

it is preferable

that

a positive commandment should come

of the Passover-offering

which involves karet, and override a positive commandment

of one who immersed that day, who may not enter the Temple Mount,

which does not involve karet.

And

concerning this

Rabbi Yohanan said: By Torah law

with regard to one who immersed that day entering the Temple Mount, the Levite camp,

even

the nullification of a prohibition

of a positive commandment is not involved,

but rather it is prohibited only rabbinically.

And what the beraita said—“a positive commandment that involves karet shall come and override a positive commandment that does not involve karet”—it does not specifically mean a “positive commandment” that does not involve karet. Rather, the intention is a rabbinic positive commandment.

And although it is stated in Deuteronomy 23: “And when the sun has set, he shall enter into the midst of the camp,” there the verse is speaking of the camp of the Divine Presence, namely, the courtyard.

As it is stated: [

in II Chronicles 20:] “And Jehoshaphat stood in the assembly of Judah and Jerusalem, in the House of the Lord, before the new courtyard.” And “the new courtyard” is the Temple Mount.

What is

“the new courtyard”?

Why was the Temple Mount called the new courtyard?

Because

they instituted in it

the Sages

a matter.

And they said: One who immersed that day—

may not enter the Levite camp.

If so, it is apparent from the verse that the prohibition of one who immersed that day in the Levite camp is only rabbinic.

Although it is not explained explicitly in the verse what matter the Sages instituted in it, Rabbi Yohanan received from his teachers that this is the innovation that they instituted in it. Rashi. And see Tosafot.

And from Rabbi Yohanan’s words we learned that the prohibition of one who immersed that day in the Levite camp is rabbinic. Thus, they did not establish their words in a prohibition involving karet, and they permitted one who immersed that day to enter the Temple Mount in order to eat from the Passover-offering.

c.

A field of uncertain impurity—

a field in which a grave was plowed; the Sages decreed upon it the impurity of “a field of uncertain impurity” within the measure of the plowed furrow, one hundred cubits on each side [Rambam, chapter 10 of the Laws of Corpse Impurity]. For the Sages were concerned lest the plow have crushed the bones and scattered them along the furrow [the plowing], and there is here a barley-grain-sized bone from the dead, which imparts impurity through contact and carrying. And when a person passes there, it is possible that he will displace [move] the bone, and displacement has the status of carrying. Thus, he is corpse-impure.

And where do we find that the Sages did not establish this decree in a place involving karet?

For we learned:

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed concerning a nazirite who passed through a field of uncertain impurity [Beit Shammai say: The field is examined, and if there is no bone in it, the nazirite is pure. And Beit Hillel say: The field is not examined, for even if no bone is found in it, he is impure by uncertainty].