Pesachim 185

מה טמא שספק בידו לעשות ואינו עושה אף דרך רחוקה נמי שספק בידו לעשות ואינו עושה

just as an unclean [person] is one who has the means of keeping it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is physically able to keep it.');">¹</span> yet must not keep it, so [a man 'in ] a journey afar off' means one who has the means of keeping it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., one could sacrifice on his behalf and he could reach Jerusalem in time.');">²</span>

ורב נחמן אמר לך ר' עקיבא לטעמי' דקסבר אין שוחטין וזורקין על טמא שרץ ואנא סבירא ליה כמ"ד שוחטין וזורקין על טמא שרץ

yet he must not keep it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But must postpone it; hence if he does have it sacrificed on his behalf, it is not accepted.');">³</span> And R'Nahman? - He can answer you: R'Akiba is consistent with his view, for he holds: One must not slaughter and sprinkle on behalf of a person unclean through a reptile;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though he will be fit to eat in the evening, because at the time of sacrificing he is not fit.The present case is similar.');">⁴</span>

ת"ר אלו שעושין את השני הזבין והזבות המצורעין והמצורעות [ונדות] ובועלי נדות והיולדות השוגגין והאנוסין והמזידין וטמא ושהיה בדרך רחוקה

whereas I agree with the view that one slaughters and sprinkles on behalf of a person unclean through a reptile.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The translation and explanation follows cur. edd. Tosaf. records a different reading, which is supported by the Sifre (Be-ha alotheka) : Just as an unclean person is one who cannot possibly keep it, on account of his uncleanness, and he must not keep it, so a person in 'a journey afar off' means one who cannot possibly reach Jerusalem in time (according to 'Ulla, for the sacrificing; according to Rab Judah, for the eating) ,and he too must not keep it. R. Shesheth deduces that 'he must not keep it' means that even if it is sacrificed on his behalf it is not accepted, since it is completely analogous to the case of an unclean person. R. Nahman answers that because R. Akiba holds that you may not slaughter and sprinkle on behalf of a person unclean through a reptile, therefore he learns the case of 'a journey afar off' from that of uncleanness, since the former two are alike in that both are unfit at the time of slaughtering and fit and able at the time of eating. Hence it is true that in R. Akiba's opinion the sacrifice is not accepted' if offered, but R. Nahman holds that you do slaughter and sprinkle for a person unclean through a reptile. Tosaf. adds that R. Shesheth too holds thus, but that in his view R. Akiba learns it from' a person unclean through the dead, though the cases are not really alike then.');">⁵</span> Our Rabbis taught: The following keep the second [Passover]: zabin and zaboth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Plural of zabb and zabah respectively, q.v. Glos.');">⁶</span>

א"כ למה נאמר טמא למה נאמר דאי בעי למיעבד בראשון לא שבקינן ליה אלא א"כ למה נאמר בדרך רחוקה לפוטרו מן הכרת וכמ"ד הורצה

male lepers and female lepers, niddoth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pl. of niddah, q.v. Glos.');">⁷</span> and those who had intercourse with niddoth, and women after confinement, those who [do not observe the first Passover] inadvertently, and those who are forcibly prevented, and those who [neglect it] deliberately, and he who is unclean, and he who was in 'a journey afar off'.

אשה בשני מי מיחייבא והא תניא יכול לא יהו עושין את השני אלא טמא נפש ושהיה בדרך רחוקה זבין ומצורעין ובועלי נדות מנין ת"ל (במדבר ט, י) איש איש

If so, why is an unclean person mentioned? [You ask] 'why is he mentioned'?

לא קשיא הא ר' יוסי הא ר"י ור"ש

[Surely to teach] that if he wishes to keep it at the first we do not permit him? Rather [the question is] why is [a person] on a journey afar off mentioned? - To exempt him from kareth, this being in accordance with the view that it is accepted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 92b. For if he held that it is not accepted, then this case must be stated for that very teaching.');">⁸</span>

ת"ר חייב כרת על הראשון וחייב כרת על השני דברי רבי רבי נתן אומר חייב כרת על הראשון ופטור על השני ר"ח בן עקביא אומר אף [על הראשון אינו חייב כרת אא"כ לא עשה את השני

Is then a woman obliged [to keep] the second [Passover],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that female lepers, menstruants and women after childbirth are included. aht aht');">⁹</span> but surely it was taught: You might think that only a person unclean through the dead and one who was in 'a journey afar off' keep the second [Passover], - whence do we know [that] zabin and lepers and those who had intercourse with niddoth [must keep it]?

ואזדו לטעמייהו דתניא גר שנתגייר בין שני פסחים וכן קטן שהגדיל בין שני פסחים חייב לעשות פסח שני דברי רבי רבי נתן אומר כל שזקוק לראשון זקוק לשני כל שאין זקוק לראשון אין זקוק לשני

From the verse, If any man [etc.]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. IX, 10. Heb. , the repetition denoting extension. Thus nothing is said about women.');">¹⁰</span> -There is no difficulty: one is according to R'Jose; the other, according R'Judah and R'Simeon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Supra 91b. R. Jose holds that even at the second Passover a company consisting entirely of women may be formed; hence in his view the second Passover is binding upon women. Whereas R. Judah and R. Simeon hold that it is voluntary only.');">¹¹</span>

במאי קמיפלגי רבי סבר שני רגל בפני עצמו הוא

Our Rabbis taught: One incurs kareth on account of the first [Passover], and one incurs kareth on account of the second:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deliberate neglect to keep either when there is the obligation involves kareth. Of course, no man can actually incur kareth twice, but the point is that if a man sinned unwittingly in respect of one but deliberately in respect of the other he incurs kareth. Similarly, where a proselyte becomes converted between the two Passovers and deliberately neglects the second.');">¹²</span> this is Rabbi's view.

רבי נתן סבר שני תשלומין דראשון הוא תקוני לראשון לא מתקין ליה

R'Nathan said: One incurs kareth on account of the first, but does not incur it on account of the second.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence if he inadvertently neglected the first, he does not incur kereth even if he deliberately neglects the second.');">¹³</span> R'Hanania B''Akabia said: One does not incur kareth even on account of the first, unless he [deliberately] does not keep the second.

ורבי חנניא בן עקביא סבר שני תקנתא דראשון הוא

Now they are consistent with their views. For it was taught: A proselyte who became converted between the two Passovers, and similarly a minor who attained his majority between the two Passovers,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus both were exempt from the first Passover, but are in a condition to keep the second.');">¹⁴</span>

ושלשתן מקרא אחד דרשו (במדבר ט, יג) והאיש אשר הוא טהור ובדרך לא היה רבי סבר (במדבר ט, יג) וחדל לעשות הפסח ונכרתה דלא עבד בראשון אי נמי (במדבר ט, יג) קרבן ה' לא הקריב במועדו בשני

are bound to keep the second Passover:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He regards it as a separate obligation entirely, even for those who were not subject to the law at all at the first, as in the present instances.');">¹⁵</span> that is Rabbi's view.

וממאי (דהא) חטאו ישא כרת הוא

R'Nathan said: Whoever is subject to the first is subjec to the second, and whoever is not subject to the first is not subject to the second. Wherein do they differ? - Rabbi holds: The second is a separate Festival. R'Nathan holds: The second is a compensation for the second,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence only he who was subject to the law at the first can keep the second.');">¹⁶</span> [but] it does not make amends for the first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence if a person deliberately neglects the first he incurs kareth even if he keeps the second. On the other hand, if he neglects the first unwittingly, he is not liable to kareth even if he deliberately neglects the second, since the second is not an independent obligation apart from the first.');">¹⁷</span> While R'Hanania B''Akabia holds: The second makes amends for the first. Now the three deduce [their views] from the same verse: But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. IX, 13.');">¹⁸</span> Rabbi holds: And forbeareth to keep the Passover, that soul shall be cut off<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');">¹⁹</span> - because he did not keep [it] at the first; or alternatively [if] he brought not the offering of the Lord in i appointed season<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. because (Heb. ki) he brought not the offering etc. Ki is variously translated according to the context, v. R.H. 3a. Rabbi renders it 'if'.');">²⁰</span> [i.e.,] at the second. And how do you know that that [phrase], 'that man shall bear his sin, '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');">²¹</span> means kareth?