## Pesachim Daf 90a

###### Pesachim 90a:1
[Pesachim 90a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/90a:1)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִי לָאו דְּאוֹקְמֵיהּ רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא לְהַהִיא בִּמְמַנֶּה זוֹנָה עַל פִּסְחוֹ וְרַבִּי הִיא, הֲוָה מוֹקֵמְינָא לָהּ לְהַהִיא בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, דְּאָמַר: קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים מָמוֹן בְּעָלִים הוּא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
A mishna and *baraita* that the Gemara cites later on in the discussion teach that, logically, were it not for a verse teaching otherwise, the prohibition against using as an offering an animal given as payment for a prostitute’s services should apply even in a case where the animal had already been consecrated as an offering before being given as payment. **Abaye said: If not that Rabbi Oshaya established** that **that** mishna is referring to a case of **one who registers a prostitute for his Paschal lamb** as her payment, **and** this position **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, whom Rabbi Oshaya apparently understood and who holds that a person retains monetary rights to his Paschal lamb even after consecration, which is why one is able to register the prostitute for it, **I would have established that** mishna as referring only to **offerings of lesser sanctity and** claimed it is **in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,** who **said: Offerings of lesser sanctity are the monetary property of their owners,** and therefore it is possible for the owner to use them as payment for a prostitute.


###### Pesachim 90a:2
[Pesachim 90a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/90a:2)

אֲבָל בְּפֶסַח לָא מְשַׁיַּיר אִינִישׁ, בְּמָעוֹת וַדַּאי מְשַׁיַּיר אִינִישׁ, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא כִּי מַפְרֵישׁ לְהוּ — אַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי מַפְרֵישׁ לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** I would have presumed that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that **a Paschal lamb** is unlike regular offerings of lesser sanctity, in that **a person does not restrict** its consecration in order to retain monetary rights to it, and it is therefore not considered to be his property at all. However, with regard to **money** consecrated for a Paschal lamb, **a person certainly restricts** its consecration. **When one initially designates it, he designated it with this intent:** If he should wish to purchase a portion in someone else’s Paschal lamb that was already consecrated, then the money should remain non-sacred in order to allow for that purchase to take hold.


###### Pesachim 90a:3
[Pesachim 90a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/90a:3)

וְהָא רַבִּי הִיא, וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי מָעוֹת שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ חוּלִּין, דְּבַפֶּסַח לָא מְשַׁיַּיר אִינִישׁ, וּבְמָעוֹת וַדַּאי מְשַׁיַּיר אִינִישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
I would have therefore been able to explain that **this** *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **Due to this** opinion of his, the **money in the hand** of the owner of the lamb, which he received for selling a share in his Paschal lamb, **is non-sacred because,** although **with regard to the Paschal lamb a person does not restrict** its consecration, **with regard to money a person certainly restricts** its consecration.


###### Pesachim 90a:4
[Pesachim 90a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/90a:4)

וְהָהִיא דְּקָא מוֹקֵי לַהּ רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא כְּרַבִּי — לָא מוֹקֵמְינָא לֵיהּ אֲנָא כְּרַבִּי, דִּבְפֶסַח לָא מְשַׁיַּיר אִינִישׁ — וּבְמָעוֹת מְשַׁיַּיר אִינִישׁ. דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא כִּי מַפְרֵישׁ לְהוּ — אַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי מַפְרֵישׁ לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye continues his line of thinking: **And that** mishna **that Rabbi Oshaya established as** being **in accordance** with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **I would not establish it as** being **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. According to him, when designating **a Paschal lamb, a person does not limit** its consecration from fully taking effect, and therefore he retains monetary rights to the lamb; whereas **with regard to money, a person** does **limit** its consecration, **for when one originally designates it, he designates it with this intent.**


###### Pesachim 90a:5
[Pesachim 90a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/90a:5)

וְהָא לֵיכָּא לְאוֹקֹמֵי כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּהָא תָּנֵי בַּהּ: וְהַמּוֹכֵר עוֹלָתוֹ וּשְׁלָמָיו — לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye admits that there is a problem with explaining the *baraita* in this way: **However, this,** the *baraita* we are addressing, **cannot be established** in **accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, for it** also **teaches** in a different clause that **one who sells his burnt-offering and peace-offerings has not done anything.** Meanwhile, Rabbi Yosei maintains that a peace-offering is one’s personal property, and therefore if one sells it the sale is valid.


###### Pesachim 90a:6
[Pesachim 90a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/90a:6)

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאוֹקְמֵיהּ רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא לְהָהִיא בִּמְמַנֶּה זוֹנָה עַל פִּסְחוֹ, וְרַבִּי הִיא, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ אֲפִילּוּ בְּפִסְחוֹ מְשַׁיַּיר אִינִישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Nevertheless, **now that Rabbi Oshaya has established that** mishna as referring **to one who registers a prostitute for his Paschal lamb, and** he established that **it is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **learn from it that** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **holds that even with regard to one’s Paschal lamb, a person restricts** its consecration. Should someone wish to purchase a portion of it, he will be able to do so. In such a case, from the outset that portion was not considered consecrated. This will answer the question raised by Ulla as to how the sanctity of the money can be transferred to a Paschal lamb that was already consecrated. In such a case, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, one does not fully consecrate the animal from the outset. Therefore, the animal is considered non-sacred for this purpose, and the sanctity may be transferred from the money to the animal.


###### Pesachim 90a:7
[Pesachim 90a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/90a:7)

מַאי הִיא דְּרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא, דִּתְנַן: נָתַן לָהּ מוּקְדָּשִׁין בְּאֶתְנַנָּהּ — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוּתָּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is** this teaching of **Rabbi Oshaya** that Abaye alluded to? Rabbi Oshaya’s teaching concerns the following mishna in *Temura*: As **we learned** in a mishna: If **one gave** animals **consecrated** as offerings **for** a prostitute’s **payment, they are** nevertheless **permitted** to be sacrificed. Although generally, animals given to a prostitute as payment are disqualified for use as offerings, this disqualification does not apply to an animal that was consecrated beforehand.


###### Pesachim 90a:8
[Pesachim 90a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/90a:8)

עוֹפוֹת דְּחוּלִּין — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין. שֶׁהָיָה בַּדִּין: וּמָה אִם מוּקְדָּשִׁים שֶׁהַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן — אֵין אֶתְנַן וּמְחִיר חָל עֲלֵיהֶן, עוֹפוֹת שֶׁאֵין הַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֵין אֶתְנַן וּמְחִיר חָל עֲלֵיהֶן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְכׇל נֶדֶר״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָעוֹפוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, if one gave her **birds** that were **non-sacred, they are prohibited** for use as an offering. The ruling concerning birds needs to be stated **as, by right, it should have been** permitted based on the following *a fortiori* inference: **What? If consecrated** animals, for **which a blemish disqualifies them** for use, may nevertheless be used as an offering, since the status of a prostitute’s **payment** or the status of a dog’s **price does not take effect upon them,** then with regard to **birds,** for **which a blemish does not disqualify them** for use as an offering, **is it not** logically **right that** the status of a prostitute’s **payment** or a dog’s **price should not take effect upon them?** In repudiation of this argument, **the verse states:** “You shall not bring the payment of a prostitute, or the price of a dog, into the House of the Lord your God **for any vow”** (Deuteronomy 23:19). A derivation is made from the extraneous phrase “for any vow” **to include birds,** which may be brought as vows.


###### Pesachim 90a:9
[Pesachim 90a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/90a:9)

קַל וָחוֹמֶר לַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין מֵעַתָּה: מָה עוֹפוֹת שֶׁאֵין הַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן — אֶתְנַן וּמְחִיר חָל עֲלֵיהֶן, מוּקְדָּשִׁין שֶׁהַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֶתְנַן וּמְחִיר חָל עֲלֵיהֶן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְכׇל נֶדֶר״ — פְּרָט לִנְדּוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a *baraita* that expands the argument made in the mishna and suggests that the opposite argument can also be made: **From now,** since it is known that birds used as a prostitute’s payment are disqualified, the following ***a fortiori* inference** can be made to disqualify an animal already **consecrated: Just as** with regard to **birds,** for **which a blemish does not disqualify them,** the status of a prostitute’s **payment and** a dog’s **price takes effect upon them,** so too, with regard to animals **consecrated** as offerings, for **which a blemish does disqualify them, is it not** logically **right that** the status of a prostitute’s **payment and** a dog’s **price should take effect upon them?** In repudiation of this argument, **the verse states: “For any vow,”** indicating that the disqualification applies to everything **except for** something that has **already been vowed** to be offered and consecrated for that purpose.


###### Pesachim 90a:10
[Pesachim 90a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/90a:10)

אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״נֶדֶר״, הָא לָאו הָכִי, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא מוּקְדָּשִׁים חָל אִיסּוּר אֶתְנַן עֲלֵיהֶן, וְהָא אֵין אָדָם אוֹסֵר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the assumption of this *baraita*: **But the** only **reason** consecrated animals are disqualified **is that the Torah writes** the word **vow; but if not for that I would have said** that even with regard to **consecrated** animals, **the prohibition of a** prostitute’s **payment takes effect upon them.** The Gemara questions this assumption: **But** there is the following established principle: **A person cannot make forbidden something that is not his.** A consecrated animal is considered to be the property of the Temple and no longer of the individual who consecrated it. If so, how can one make it forbidden by giving it to a prostitute?


###### Pesachim 90a:11
[Pesachim 90a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/90a:11)

אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: בִּמְמַנֶּה זוֹנָה עַל פִּסְחוֹ, וְרַבִּי הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Oshaya said:** The mishna and *baraita* are referring **to one who registers a prostitute for his Paschal lamb,** giving her a portion in it as payment for her services, **and** the *mishna and baraita* **are** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that a Paschal lamb is considered a person’s personal property for the purposes of allowing additional people to register for it.


###### Pesachim 90a:12
[Pesachim 90a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/90a:12)

מַאי רַבִּי? דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִם יִמְעַט הַבַּיִת מִהְיוֹת מִשֶּׂה״, הַחֲיֵיהוּ מִשֶּׂה. מִכְּדֵי אֲכִילָה, וְלֹא מִכְּדֵי מִקָּח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is** this teaching of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi that Abaye alluded to? **As it was taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: “And **if the household be too little for a lamb,** then shall he and his neighbor next to his house take one” (Exodus 12:4). The phrase “if the household be too little” is taken to mean the household cannot afford the basic necessities of the Festival. Continuing this interpretation, the phrase “for a lamb [*miheyot miseh*]” is then taken to mean: **sustain him [*haḥayeihu*] from the lamb,** i.e., he may use the Paschal lamb as a means of supporting himself. He takes money from his neighbor in return for registering his neighbor for a portion of his Paschal lamb and then uses that money to purchase his needs. However, this applies only if one lacks **sufficient means to** purchase food to **eat,** but **not** if he lacks only **sufficient means to purchase** other items.


###### Pesachim 90a:13
[Pesachim 90a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/90a:13)

רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אַף מִכְּדֵי מִקָּח, שֶׁאִם אֵין לוֹ — מְמַנֶּה אַחֵר עִמּוֹ עַל פִּסְחוֹ וְעַל חֲגִיגָתוֹ, וּמָעוֹת שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ חוּלִּין, שֶׁעַל מְנָת כֵּן הִקְדִּישׁוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת פִּסְחֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** It applies **even** if one lacks **sufficient means to purchase** other necessary items, **for if he does not have** sufficient funds **he may register another** person **with him for his Paschal lamb and for his Festival peace-offering. And the money in his hand** that he receives for registering that person **is non-sacred, for it is on this condition that the Jewish people consecrate their Paschal lambs.**


###### Pesachim 90a:14
[Pesachim 90a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/90a:14)

רַבָּה וְרַבִּי זֵירָא, חַד אָמַר: בְּעֵצִים לִצְלִיָּיתוֹ כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי, דְּכֵיוָן דְּתַקַּנְתָּא דְפֶסַח הוּא — כְּגוּפָא דְפֶסַח דָּמֵי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּמַצָּה וּמָרוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba and Rabbi Zeira** disagreed with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis. **One said:** If one needs **wood to roast** the Paschal lamb, **everyone agrees that since it is for the preparation of the Paschal lamb, it is comparable to** something necessary for **the Paschal lamb itself,** and both Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis agree that one may register additional people for the Paschal lamb and use the money received to procure wood. **Where they disagree** is in the case of one who doesn’t have sufficient means to purchase ***matza* and bitter herbs.**


###### Pesachim 90a:15
[Pesachim 90a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/90a:15)

רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: הָא אֲכִילָה אַחֲרִיתִי הִיא. וְרַבִּי סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ דְפֶסַח הוּא — כְּגוּפָא דְפֶסַח דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Rabbis hold that this is** considered **a different eating,** not directly related to the Paschal lamb. Therefore, one may not use money for registering additional people for purchasing these items. **And Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **holds that since it facilitates** the consumption of **the Paschal lamb,** since the Paschal lamb must be eaten together with *matza* and bitter herbs, **it is like the Paschal lamb itself** and the money may therefore be used to purchase them.


###### Pesachim 90a:16
[Pesachim 90a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/90a:16)

וְחַד אָמַר: בְּמַצָּה וּמָרוֹר נָמֵי כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״עַל מַצּוֹת וּמְרֹרִים יֹאכְלֻהוּ״, דְּכֵיוָן דְּמַכְשִׁירִין דְפֶסַח נִינְהוּ — כְּפֶסַח דָּמֵי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי לִיקַּח בּוֹ חָלוּק, לִיקַּח בּוֹ טַלִּית. רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: ״מִהְיוֹת מִשֶּׂה״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, הַחֲיֵיהוּ לַשֶּׂה, וְרַבִּי סָבַר: הַחֲיֵה עַצְמְךָ מִשֶּׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And one said: Also with regard to *matza* and bitter herbs everyone agrees, as it is written: “They shall eat it with *matza* and bitter herbs”** (Numbers 9:11), **for since they are** items **that facilitate** the consumption of **the Paschal lamb, they are like the Paschal lamb** itself. **Where they disagree is** when the money is to be used **to purchase a shirt with it** or **to purchase a cloak with it. The Rabbis hold** that **the Torah stated “*miheyot miseh*,”** which should be taken to mean **sustain the lamb [*haḥayeihu leseh*],** allowing the use of funds only for the direct needs of the Paschal lamb. **And Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **holds** that it should be interpreted to mean **sustain yourself from the lamb [*haḥayei atzmekha miseh*],** which includes taking care of all one’s needs.


###### Pesachim 90a:17
[Pesachim 90a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/90a:17)

וּלְאַבָּיֵי דְּאָמַר: אִי לָאו דְּאוֹקְמַהּ רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא לְהַהִיא בִּמְמַנֶּה זוֹנָה עַל פִּסְחוֹ וְרַבִּי הִיא, הֲוֵי מוֹקְמִינַן לַהּ בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, דְּאָמַר קָדָשִׁים [קַלִּים] מְמוֹן בְּעָלִים הוּא, אֲבָל בְּפֶסַח לָא מְשַׁיַּיר אִינִישׁ —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions the plausibility of Abaye’s opinion: **And according to Abaye, who said: If Rabbi Oshaya had not established that** mishna as referring **to one who registers a prostitute for his Paschal lamb and it is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **I would have established it** as referring to **sacrifices of lesser sanctity and according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said: Sacrifices of lesser sanctity are the property of their owners, but in** the case of **the Paschal sacrifice one does not leave** any of it unconsecrated. Rather, it is fully consecrated.


###### Pesachim 90a:18
[Pesachim 90a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/90a:18)

הָא קָתָנֵי בְּהֶדְיָא: ״שֶׁעַל מְנָת כֵּן הִקְדִּישׁוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת פִּסְחֵיהֶן״? אֵימָא: שֶׁעַל מְנָת כֵּן הִקְדִּישׁוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מְעוֹת פִּסְחֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: How could Abaye have ever claimed that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that a Paschal lamb is fully consecrated to the extent that it is no longer considered the property of its owners, **but** the *baraita* **teaches explicitly that** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: **It is on this condition,** that the consecration should not be complete, **that the Jewish people consecrate their Paschal lamb?** The Gemara answers that the conclusion of the *baraita* should be emended to **say: For it is on this condition that the Jewish people consecrated money for their Paschal lambs.** This version leaves open the possibility of understanding Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as Abaye suggested.


###### Pesachim 90a:19
[Pesachim 90a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/90a:19)

**מַתְנִי׳** זָב שֶׁרָאָה שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת — שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלָיו בַּשְּׁבִיעִי. רָאָה שָׁלֹשׁ — שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלָיו בַּשְּׁמִינִי שֶׁלּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **A *zav*,** a man who experiences a gonorrheal discharge, **who saw two sightings** of discharge is ritually impure. To become ritually pure and able to partake of offerings, he must wait seven clean days during which he does not see any discharge. Then he immerses in a ritual bath. He will then be considered ritually pure upon nightfall. **One slaughters** the Paschal lamb **on his behalf** if Passover eve is **on his seventh** day, despite the fact he is still not ritually pure at the time of slaughter, since by the night of Passover he will be ritually pure and able to eat it. If **he saw three** sightings, in which case, in addition to the seven clean days he must bring an offering on the eighth day to be allowed to partake of offerings, **one slaughters** the Paschal lamb **on his behalf** if Passover eve is **on his eighth** day. It is presumed that by the evening his offering will **have** been brought and his purification complete.


###### Pesachim 90a:20
[Pesachim 90a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/90a:20)

שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם — שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלֶיהָ בַּשֵּׁנִי שֶׁלָּהּ, רָאֲתָה שְׁנֵי יָמִים — שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלֶיהָ בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A woman who keeps watch a day for a day** is one who became ritually impure after experiencing a discharge of blood outside of her regular menstrual cycle on one day or two consecutive days. She must keep watch on the day following her last discharge to be certain she does not experience any additional discharges. To ritually purify herself, she should, on that day, immerse in a ritual bath, and on condition that she doesn’t experience any discharges throughout that day, she is considered ritually pure already from the time she immersed. If she saw a discharge on one day, **one slaughters** the Paschal lamb **on her behalf** after she has immersed **on her second day,** despite the possibility that she may see additional discharges later that day. If **she saw** a discharge on **two days, one slaughters** the Paschal lamb **on her behalf on the third** day.


###### Pesachim 90a:21
[Pesachim 90a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/90a:21)

וְהַזָּבָה — שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלֶיהָ בַּשְּׁמִינִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And a *zava*** is a woman who experienced discharges on three consecutive days. She must, like a *zav*, wait a full seven clean days with no discharges, immerse, and then bring a sacrifice on the eighth day. **One slaughters** a Paschal lamb **on her behalf** only **on the eighth** day.


###### Pesachim 90a:22
[Pesachim 90a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/90a:22)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עַל טְבוּל יוֹם וּמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said: One slaughters** the Paschal lamb **and sprinkles** its blood **on behalf of one who has immersed himself during the day** due to a type of ritual impurity from which he will become fully ritually pure upon nightfall. If he immerses on the fourteenth of Nisan, a Paschal lamb may be offered on his behalf. **And** a Paschal lamb may be offered on behalf of one who is ritually impure with a type of ritual impurity that requires that he also bring an atonement offering to fully complete his purification process, even if he still **lacks** the **atonement** offering, i.e., it has not yet been offered. Since he will be ritually pure and able to partake of the Paschal lamb by the evening, the Paschal lamb may be slaughtered on his behalf during the day, although at the time of slaughter he has not yet completed his purification process.