Pesachim 92a (צב.) — the Talmud in English

3.

And

likewise,

one whose bones were gathered for him.

One for whom the bones of his father and mother were gathered, and who is obligated to observe mourning on that day.

He immerses and eats sacrificial meat in the evening.

The Sages did not impose the status of an acute mourner upon such a person at night, since the status of an acute mourner on the day itself is only by rabbinic law; therefore, they did not add an additional prohibition upon him at night as well.

4.

A convert who converted on the eve of Passover,

Beit Shammai say: He immerses

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

And he eats his Paschal 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. [The Gemara explains the reason for this.]

Gemara:

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

And we raised a difficulty:

What is the reason?

And we answer:

He holds

that the law of

the mourning of the night,

which follows the day of death, is only

by rabbinic law.

And

therefore,

with regard to

the offering of

the Paschal offering,

the Sages did not establish

their

words

to prohibit him from eating his Paschal offering [and consequently from offering it on the fourteenth

in a case involving karet.

But

with regard to sacrificial meat,

they did establish their words

to prohibit an acute mourner from eating sacrificial meat

in a case involving merely a positive mitzva,

for if he refrains from eating it, he merely neglects a positive mitzva, as it is stated: [Exodus 29] “And they shall eat those things through which atonement was effected for them.”

We learned in the Mishna:

One who hears of the death of his relative

and one for whom bones were 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 Paschal offering?

But he requires

for surely he requires

sprinkling on the third and seventh days!

And we answer:

Say

that our Mishna means: “One who hears of the death of his relative, 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 that he immerses and eats his Paschal offering in the evening, and Beit Hillel say that one who separates from the foreskin is like one who separates from the grave.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The dispute concerns a gentile with a foreskin

who circumcised himself in order to convert. Although it is certain to us that he came into contact with a corpse before he converted, he is not impure by Torah law, since a gentile does not contract ritual impurity.

For Beit Hillel hold

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

a decree lest he become impure the following year,

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

and he will say: Last year

in the previous year,

who did I not

immerse and eat

immediately after I came into contact with a corpse? And if so,

now too, I will immerse and eat

immediately.

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

Whereas

now he is a Jew

he is

and contracts ritual impurity.

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

[Although a zav cannot eat sacrificial meat even after seven days until he brings his offering, they did not impose this decree upon a convert. For had they imposed it upon a convert who converted, he would be prohibited from bringing the Paschal offering forever, since he cannot bring offerings of atonement because he did not contract the impurity of gonorrhea while he was a gentile; and the Sages did not decree that he be prohibited from the Paschal offering forever.]

And Beit Shammai hold: We do not issue such a decree.

But with regard to a Jewish man with a foreskin,

for example, his brothers died as a result of circumcision, and therefore he was not circumcised: if he now comes to circumcise in order to eat his Paschal offering,

he immerses,

and eats his Paschal offering in the evening.

And we do not issue a decree

to prohibit

a Jewish man with a foreskin because of

a decree lest we come to permit

a gentile with a foreskin

to immerse and eat immediately.

It was taught likewise in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to a Jewish man with a foreskin, that he immerses and eats his Paschal 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 Paschal offering in the evening, and Beit Hillel say: One who separates from the foreskin is like one who separates from the grave.

Rava said:

There are three enactments: a.

a man with a foreskin,

b.

sprinkling,

c.

and a scalpel which will be explained below—

the Sages established

their

words in a case involving karet.

They instructed that the mitzva of preparing the Paschal offering be nullified, even though one who deliberately nullifies it is liable to karet.

And in 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 case involving karet,

but permitted one to violate their decree in order to eat the Paschal offering, since one who nullifies it is liable to karet.

And what are these enactments?

a.

A man with a foreskin—

that which we said,

that Beit Hillel decreed with regard to a gentile with a foreskin that he does not perform the Paschal offering until he waits seven days and is sprinkled upon and immerses. It follows that he nullifies the preparation of the Paschal offering, for which there is liability to karet.

b.

Sprinkling—

a person impure through contact with a corpse, upon whom sprinkling is performed 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 for ritual purposes. Rashi, above, 65b [and Raavad, in chapter 6 of the Laws of the Paschal Offering, halakha 6, wrote that they decreed lest he carry an object four cubits through the public domain].

And from where do we know that they prohibited sprinkling upon one impure through contact with a corpse on Shabbat, even when it is the eve of Passover?

For the Master said Rabbi Akiva in the Mishna, 65b:

Sprinkling

is a rabbinic prohibition,

and it does not override Shabbat

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

c.

A scalpel—

as it was taught

with regard to circumcision on Shabbat: Although the Torah permitted circumcision at its appointed time, on the eighth day, even on Shabbat, it is prohibited by rabbinic law to carry the scalpel through the public domain in order to circumcise with it.

And they said about this in a beraita:

Just as one may not bring it

the scalpel

through the public domain,

so too one may not bring it through roofs, through courtyards, or through enclosed fields,

since it is prohibited by rabbinic law to bring it from those areas into a house.

And it was taught in a beraita: One who has a minor son or a slave whom he is obligated to circumcise but did not circumcise is not fit to offer the Paschal offering.

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

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

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

a.

An acute mourner—

that which we said,

that an acute mourner immerses and eats his Paschal offering in the evening. They permitted him to eat his Paschal offering during the mourning of the night, which is by rabbinic law.

b.

A leper—

what is it?

A leper who immersed on the seventh day and whose sunset has passed must offer his sacrifices on the eighth day. With regard to the sacrifices of a leper it is stated: “The priest who purifies the man shall place the man being purified, and them, before the Lord.” And “before the Lord” means in the 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 blood of the guilt offering upon them.

As it was taught: If the eighth day of a leper falls on the eve of Passover, and he experiences a seminal emission that day,

and one who experiences a seminal emission may not enter the Temple Mount, since the law of the Temple Mount is like that of the Levite camp, and one who experiences a seminal emission is prohibited from entering the Levite camp.

If so, how can he offer his leper’s sacrifices so that he may eat from the Paschal offering in the evening?

He immerses,

enters the Temple Mount, and offers the sacrifices of a leper,

and eats

from the Paschal offering in the evening.

The Sages said: Although one who has immersed that day

whose sunset has not yet arrived

may not enter

the Temple Mount [as it is stated in Deuteronomy 23: “And it shall be, toward evening, he shall bathe in water; and when the sun has set, he may enter the camp,” meaning the Levite camp].

This man,

whose eighth day as a leper falls on the eve of Passover,

enters

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

For

it is preferable

that

a positive mitzva should come

of the Paschal offering,

which involves karet, and override a positive mitzva

prohibiting one who has immersed that day from entering the Temple Mount,

which does not involve karet.

And

with regard to this

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: By Torah law,

with regard to one who has immersed that day and enters the Temple Mount, the Levite camp,

even

the violation of a prohibition

of a positive mitzva is not involved,

but it is prohibited only by rabbinic law.

And when the beraita says, “Let a positive mitzva that involves karet come and override a positive mitzva that does not involve karet,” “positive mitzva” that does not involve karet is not meant literally. Rather, it refers to a rabbinic positive mitzva.

[Although it is stated in Deuteronomy 23, “And when the sun has set, he may enter the camp,” that verse is speaking of the camp of the Divine Presence, namely, the courtyard.]

As it is stated:

[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 is the Temple Mount called the new courtyard?

Because

they instituted something new in it,

the Sages

something.

And they said: One who has immersed that day

may not enter the Levite camp.

If so, it is evident from the verse that the prohibition against one who has immersed that day entering the Levite camp is only rabbinic.

[Although it is not explicitly stated in the verse what the Sages instituted in it, Rabbi Yoḥanan received from his teachers that this is the innovation they instituted there. Rashi. See Tosafot.]

And from Rabbi Yoḥanan’s words we learn that the prohibition against one who has immersed that day entering the Levite camp is by rabbinic law. Thus, the Sages did not establish their words in a case involving karet, and they permitted one who had immersed that day to enter the Temple Mount in order to eat from the Paschal 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” [over the distance of the furrow, one hundred cubits in each direction, Rambam, chapter 10 of the Laws of Impurity of a Corpse]. For the Sages were concerned that the plow might have crushed the bones and scattered them along the furrow [the plowed area], and there may be a barley-grain-sized bone from the corpse, which imparts impurity through contact and carrying. When a person passes there, he may shift [move] the bone, and the legal status of shifting is like that of carrying. He is therefore impure through contact with a corpse.

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

For we learned:

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed with regard to a nazirite who passed through a field of uncertain impurity [Beit Shammai say that the field is examined, and if no bone is found in it, the nazirite is pure. And Beit Hillel say that the field is not examined, for even if no bone is found in it, he is impure as a matter of uncertainty].