Pesachim 184

שבודקין לעושי פסח ואין בודקין לאוכלי תרומה

that we examine [a beth ha-peras] for the sake of those who would keep the Passover,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If there is no other way to reach Jerusalem in time to sacrifice the Passover-offering save by crossing a beth ha-peras, the field is examined and they pass through it.');">¹</span> but we do not examine [it] for those who would eat terumah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a priest wishes to go somewhere to eat terumah and his way lies across a beth ha-peras, he cannot examine it but must take a circuitous course, even if this delays him a day or more. - One who passes over the beth ha-peras becomes unclean, and may not partake either of the Passover-offering or of terumah.');">²</span> How is it examined?

מאי בודקין (לעושי פסח) אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מנפח בית הפרס והולך רב יהודה בר אביי משמיה דרב יהודה אמר בית הפרס שנידש טהור:

Said Rab Judah in Samuel's name: He sifts the beth ha-peras as he proceeds.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He takes up the earth en route and sifts it, to see if any small bones are hidden there, and if there are none he is clean, cf. note 7.');">³</span> R'Judah B'Abaye<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec.: Ammi.');">⁴</span> said in Rab's name: A beth ha-peras which was [thoroughly] trodden down is clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is assumed that every bone which may be there has been reduced to less than the size of a wheat, which is the minimum standard for conveying uncleanness 'through contact' or treading upon it. Therefore if a man sees this he may cross it to sacrifice the Passover-offering, but not to eat terumah. Now the uncleanness of a beth ha-peras is only Rabbinical, and as we see here this law was waived somewhat in favour of the Passover-offering.');">⁵</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך האשה</strong></big><br><br>

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>HE WHO WAS UNCLEAN OR IN A JOURNEY AFAR OFF'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Num. IX, 10 f.');">⁶</span> AND DID NOT KEEP THE FIRST [PASSOVER] MUST KEEP THE SECOND. IF HE UNWITTINGLY ERRED OR WAS ACCIDENTALLY PREVENTED AND DID NOT KEEP THE FIRST, HE MUST KEEP THE SECOND.

מתני׳ <big><strong>מי</strong></big> שהיה טמא או בדרך רחוקה ולא עשה את הראשון יעשה את השני שגג או נאנס ולא עשה את הראשון יעשה את השני א"כ למה נאמר טמא או שהי' בדרך רחוקה שאלו פטורין מהכרת ואלו חייבין בהכרת:

IF SO, WHY IS AN UNCLEAN PERSON AND ONE WHO WAS IN 'A JOURNEY AFAR OFF SPECIFIED? [TO TEACH] THAT THESE'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Enumerated in this Mishnah-all the four.');">⁷</span> ARE NOT LIABLE TO KARETH, WHEREAS THOSE ARE LIABLE TO KARETH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained in the GEMARA:');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> איתמר היה בדרך רחוקה ושחטו וזרקו עליו רב נחמן אמר הורצה רב ששת אמר לא הורצה רב נחמן אמר הורצה מיחס הוא דחס רחמנא עליו ואי עביד תבא עליו ברכה ורב ששת אמר לא הורצה מידחא דחייה רחמנא כטמא

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>It was stated: If he was in a journey afar off'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He can reach Jerusalem by nightfall in time to eat the offering, but not by day when the offering is sacrificed.');">⁹</span> and they slaughtered [the Passover-offering] and sprinkled [its blood] on his behalf, - R'Nahman said: It is accepted;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sacrifice is valid, and he does not keep the second Passover.');">¹⁰</span> R'Shesheth said: It is not accepted.

אמר ר"נ מנא אמינא לה דתנן מי שהיה טמא או בדרך רחוקה ולא עשה את הראשון יעשה את השני מכלל דאי בעי עבד

R'Nahman said, It is accepted: The Divine Law indeed had compassion on him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By giving him the opportunity of a second Passover.');">¹¹</span> but if he kept [the first], blessing come upon him!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., all the better.');">¹²</span> While R'Shesheth said, It is not accepted: The Divine Law did in fact suspend him, like an unclean person.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that he is not permitted to keep the first.');">¹³</span>

ורב ששת אמר לך אי הכי סיפא דקתני שגג או נאנס ולא עשה את הראשון יעשה את השני מדקתני ולא עשה מכלל דאי בעי עבד הרי שגג והרי נאנס

R'Nahman said, Whence do I know it? Because we learned, HE WHo WAS UNCLEAN OR IN A JOURNEY AFAR OFF AND DID NOT KEEP THE FIRST [Passover] MUST KEEP THE SECOND; whence it follows that if he wished, he could keep it. And R'Shesheth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he rebut this?');">¹⁴</span>

אלא מזיד קתני בהדייהו ה"נ אונן קתני בהדייהו

-He can answer you: If so, the second clause which teaches, IF HE UNWITTINGLY ERRED OR WAS ACCIDENTALLY PREVENTED AND DID NOT KEEP THE FIRST, HE MUST KEEP THE SECOND: [will you argue that] since he [the Tanna] states, AND DID NOT KEEP, it follows that had he desired he could have kept it? But surely he had unwittingly erred or been accidentally prevented! Hence [you must answer that] he teaches of deliberate neglect together with these;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., though it is not specifically stated, yet the words 'AND DID NOT KEEP can only apply to such, and he is therefore to be understood as included in the MISHNAH:');">¹⁵</span> so here too [in the first clause] he teaches about an onen together with these.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Mishnah is to be read in the first clause as including onen (v. Hananel) . He could have kept the First Passover had he desired, v. supra 90b, and it is to this that the words 'AND DID NOT KEEP' refer.');">¹⁶</span>

אמר רב אשי מתניתין נמי דיקא דקתני אלו פטורין מהכרת ואלו חייבין בהכרת אהייא אילימא אשוגג ונאנס שוגג ונאנס בני כרת נינהו אלא לאו אמזיד ואונן

R'Ashi said: Our Mishnah too implies this,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the first clause includes also onen.');">¹⁷</span> for it is taught, THESE ARE NOT LIABLE TO KARETH, WHILE THOSE ARE LIABLE TO KARETH: Now to what [does this refer]? Shall we say, to one who errs unwittingly or is accidentally prevented?

ורב נחמן אמר לך לעולם אמזיד לחודיה ובדין הוא דאיבעי ליה למיתנא חייב והאי דקתני חייבין איידי דתנא רישא פטורין תנא סיפא חייבין

are then he who errs unwittingly and he who is accidentally prevented subject to kareth!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not.');">¹⁸</span> Hence it must surely [refer] to a deliberate offender and an onen. And R'Nahman?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does he not admit this argument?');">¹⁹</span>

אמר רב ששת מנא אמינא לה דתניא ר"ע אומר נאמר (במדבר ט, י) טמא ונאמ' (במדבר ט, י) בדרך רחוקה

-He can answer you: In truth it refers to a deliberate offender alone,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the first clause does not treat of an onen, and consequently R. Nahman's deduction holds good.');">²⁰</span> and logically he should have taught, he is liable [in the singular]; but the reason that he teaches, THEY ARE LIABLE is that because the first clause teaches THEY ARE NOT LIABLE, the second clause teaches THEY ARE LIABLE. R'Shesheth said: Whence do I know it? Because It was taught, R'Akiba said: 'Unclean' is stated and 'in a journey afar off'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. IX, 10.');">²¹</span> is stated: