## Pesachim Daf 91b

###### Pesachim 91b:1
[Pesachim 91b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/91b:1)

פְּרִיצוּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**promiscuity,** i.e., homosexual behavior.


###### Pesachim 91b:2
[Pesachim 91b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/91b:2)

גּוּפָא: אִשָּׁה בָּרִאשׁוֹן — שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלֶיהָ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ, וּבַשֵּׁנִי עוֹשִׂין אוֹתָהּ טְפֵילָה לַאֲחֵרִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אִשָּׁה בַּשֵּׁנִי — שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלֶיהָ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בָּרִאשׁוֹן. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אִשָּׁה בָּרִאשׁוֹן — עוֹשִׂין אוֹתָהּ טְפֵילָה לַאֲחֵרִים, בַּשֵּׁנִי אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלֶיהָ כָּל עִיקָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to discuss **the matter itself,** i.e., the *baraita* partly cited previously, the full version of which states: **A woman; on the first** *Pesaḥ*, **one slaughters** the Paschal lamb **on her behalf** even if she is **by herself. And on the second** *Pesaḥ*, **we make her ancillary to others,** i.e., she may join others in a group registered for a Paschal lamb but we do not slaughter a lamb on her behalf if she is by herself; **this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: A woman; on the second** *Pesaḥ*, **one slaughters** the Paschal lamb **on her behalf** even if she is **by herself. And needless to say** we also slaughter on her behalf even if she is by herself **on the first** *Pesaḥ*. **Rabbi Shimon says: A woman; on the first** *Pesaḥ* **we make her ancillary to others,** and **on the second** *Pesaḥ* **we do not slaughter on her behalf at all.**


###### Pesachim 91b:3
[Pesachim 91b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/91b:3)

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: ״בְּמִכְסַת נְפָשֹׁת״, וַאֲפִילּוּ נָשִׁים. וְכִי תֵּימָא, אִי הָכִי אֲפִילּוּ בַּשֵּׁנִי נָמֵי? כְּתִיב: ״חֶטְאוֹ יִשָּׂא הָאִישׁ הַהוּא״. אִישׁ — אִין, אִשָּׁה — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**With regard to what do they disagree?** The Gemara explains that they disagree about how to interpret the various verses that refer to the first and second *Pesaḥ*: **Rabbi Yehuda holds** that the use of the word souls in the verse: **“According to the number of the souls**…you shall make your count for the lamb” (Exodus 12:4), includes everyone, **and even women,** in the first *Pesaḥ*. **And if you say** that **if so, even on the second** *Pesaḥ*, women should **also** be included, but **it is written** with regard to one who had not offered a Paschal lamb on the first *Pesaḥ* and then neglected to bring one on the second *Pesaḥ*: **“That man shall bear his sin”** (Numbers 9:13), which indicates that **a man, yes,** he is liable for not having brought a Paschal lamb on the second *Pesaḥ*, but **a woman, no,** she is not liable.


###### Pesachim 91b:4
[Pesachim 91b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/91b:4)

וְכִי תֵּימָא, אִי הָכִי אֲפִילּוּ טְפִילָה נָמֵי בַּשֵּׁנִי לָא? אַהֲנִי ״כְּכׇל חֻקַּת הַפֶּסַח״ לִטְפִילָה בְּעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say** that **if so,** a woman should be totally excluded from participating in the second *Pesaḥ*, and **even** in a group in an **ancillary** manner **on the second** *Pesaḥ* she should have **no** part, this is not correct, because the verse states: **“According to the entire statute of the Paschal lamb** they shall offer it” (Numbers 9:12). The verse compares the first *Pesaḥ* to the second, and it is therefore **effective** to enable women to be included in a group in **a merely ancillary** manner.


###### Pesachim 91b:5
[Pesachim 91b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/91b:5)

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּכְתִיב בָּרִאשׁוֹן: ״בְּמִכְסַת נְפָשֹׁת״ — וַאֲפִילּוּ אִשָּׁה, וּכְתִיב בְּפֶסַח שֵׁנִי: ״וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מֵעַמֶּיהָ״, נֶפֶשׁ — וַאֲפִילּוּ נָשִׁים. וְאֶלָּא: ״חֶטְאוֹ יִשָּׂא הָאִישׁ הַהוּא״, לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לְמַעוֹטֵי קָטָן מִכָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yosei, what is the reason** for his opinion? **As it is written** with regard to the **first** *Pesaḥ*: **“According to the number of the souls,”** which includes **even a woman. And it is written** with regard to **the second *Pesaḥ*:** “The man who is ritually pure, and is not on a journey, and refrains from offering the Paschal lamb, **that same soul shall be cut off from among his people”** (Numbers 9:13). The word **soul** includes **even women. But** if so, the conclusion of that verse, which states: **“That man shall bear his sin,”** which appears to emphasize that specifically a man is liable for not participating in the second *Pesaḥ*, is there **to exclude what** case? It is there **to exclude a minor** who did not participate in the Paschal lamb **from** the punishment of ***karet*.**


###### Pesachim 91b:6
[Pesachim 91b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/91b:6)

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: כְּתִיב בָּרִאשׁוֹן ״אִישׁ״, אִישׁ — אִין, אִשָּׁה — לָא. וְכִי תֵּימָא, אִי הָכִי אֲפִילּוּ טְפִילָה נָמֵי לָא? אַהֲנִי לֵיהּ ״בְּמִכְסַת נְפָשֹׁת״ לִטְפִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Shimon,** what is the reason for his opinion? **It is written** in a verse concerning the **first** *Pesaḥ* **“man.”** This teaches that **a man, yes,** a Paschal lamb may be brought on his behalf alone, but **a woman, no. And if you say** that **if so,** a woman should be totally excluded from participating **even** in a group in an **ancillary** manner, this is not correct, because the verse states: **“According to the number of the souls,”** which certainly includes women, and it is therefore **effective** to enable women to be included in a group in **an ancillary** manner.


###### Pesachim 91b:7
[Pesachim 91b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/91b:7)

וְכִי תֵּימָא, אֲפִילּוּ בַּשֵּׁנִי נָמֵי. מִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא בַּשֵּׁנִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״חֶטְאוֹ יִשָּׂא הָאִישׁ״, אִישׁ — אִין, אִשָּׁה — לָא. מִמַּאי קָמְמַעֵיט לֵיהּ? אִי מֵחִיּוּב — הַשְׁתָּא בָּרִאשׁוֹן לָא, בַּשֵּׁנִי מִיבַּעְיָא? אֶלָּא לָאו, מִטְּפִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say** that according to this, **even on the second** *Pesaḥ* women should be able to participate as part of a group, this is not correct, because **the Torah excludes** women from participating **on the second** *Pesaḥ*, **as it is written: “That man shall bear his sin.”** This indicates that **a man, yes; a woman, no. From what** precisely does the verse **exclude** women? **If** you say it is **from** the **obligation** to participate in the second *Pesaḥ*, this cannot be. Since **now, on the first** *Pesaḥ*, a woman has **no** obligation, **on the second** *Pesaḥ* **is it necessary** to say that a woman is not obligated? This is obvious, since the second *Pesaḥ* exists only as a second opportunity for those who neglected to participate in the first *Pesaḥ*. **Rather, is it not** clear that the verse excludes women **from** participating even in **an ancillary** fashion?


###### Pesachim 91b:8
[Pesachim 91b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/91b:8)

וּמַאי ״אִישׁ״ דְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אִי נֵימָא: ״וְיִקְחוּ לָהֶם אִישׁ שֶׂה לְבֵית אָבוֹת וְגוֹ׳״ — הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי יִצְחָק, דְּאָמַר: אִישׁ זוֹכֶה, וְאֵין קָטָן זוֹכֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the source for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that women are excluded also from the first *Pesaḥ*. **And what is** the verse that employs the term **“man” that Rabbi Shimon spoke** of with regard to the first *Pesaḥ*? **If we say** that he is referring to the verse: **“They shall take to them every man a lamb, according to their fathers’ houses,** a lamb for a household” (Exodus 12:3), this is incorrect, because **he needs that** verse **for** the derivation of **Rabbi Yitzḥak, who said:** We learn from that verse that only **a man,** i.e., an adult, **can acquire** an object on behalf of others; but **a minor cannot acquire** on behalf of others.


###### Pesachim 91b:9
[Pesachim 91b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/91b:9)

וְאֶלָּא ״מֵאִישׁ לְפִי אׇכְלוֹ״, הָא מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נָמֵי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, וְהַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ דְּשׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת הַפֶּסַח עַל הַיָּחִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** perhaps Rabbi Shimon derived his *halakha* **from** the verse: **“According to every man’s eating** you shall make your count for the lamb” (Exodus 12:4). This is problematic. **Since Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon,** that a Paschal lamb cannot be offered on an improvised altar, presumably **Rabbi Shimon also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei,** that a Paschal lamb can be slaughtered for an individual. If so, Rabbi Shimon **needs that** verse, “according to every man’s eating,” in order to teach **that we may slaughter the Paschal lamb for an individual,** since that verse is the source of Rabbi Yosei’s *halakha*.


###### Pesachim 91b:10
[Pesachim 91b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/91b:10)

אָמַר לָךְ: אִם כֵּן נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״לְפִי אׇכְלוֹ״. מַאי ״אִישׁ״ — שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara justifies that Rabbi Shimon does indeed use the verse as the source of his opinion with regard to the first *Pesaḥ*: Rabbi Shimon could have **said to you: If so,** if it were true that the verse was only meant to teach Rabbi Yosei’s *halakha* concerning improvised altars, **the Torah should have** simply **written: According to his eating,** which is phrased in the singular and therefore indicates that the Paschal lamb may be slaughtered for an individual. **What** then is the significance of the additional term **“man”?** It must be that **you learn from** the verse **two** separate *halakhot*, that the Paschal lamb may be slaughtered for an individual and that it must be for a man and not a woman.


###### Pesachim 91b:11
[Pesachim 91b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/91b:11)

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אִשָּׁה בָּרִאשׁוֹן חוֹבָה וּבַשֵּׁנִי רְשׁוּת, וְדוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. אִי רְשׁוּת, אַמַּאי דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: בַּשֵּׁנִי רְשׁוּת וּבָרִאשׁוֹן חוֹבָה, וְדוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. כְּמַאן — כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In accordance with whose** opinion **is that which Rabbi Elazar said: A woman’s** participation **in the first** *Pesaḥ* **is mandatory, and** her participation **in the second** *Pesaḥ* **is optional and overrides Shabbat?** Before resolving this question, the Gemara questions whether Rabbi Elazar’s opinion is even reasonable: **If** offering the second *Pesaḥ* is **optional** for a woman, **why does it override Shabbat? Rather,** emend his statement and **say:** A woman’s participation **in the second** *Pesaḥ* **is optional, and** her participation **in the first** *Pesaḥ* **is mandatory and overrides Shabbat. In accordance with whose** opinion is this ruling? **It is in accordance with** the view of **Rabbi Yehuda,** as stated previously.


###### Pesachim 91b:12
[Pesachim 91b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/91b:12)

אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין עוֹשִׂין חֲבוּרָה שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ גֵּרִים, שֶׁמָּא יְדַקְדְּקוּ בּוֹ וִיבִיאוּהוּ לִידֵי פְּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ya’akov said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: We do not make a group** for the Paschal lamb **that is** composed **entirely of converts,** because **perhaps they will be** overly **meticulous** with it **and cause it to become** unnecessarily **disqualified.** Converts can be especially zealous in their observance, and out of ignorance may cause an offering to be unnecessarily disqualified by adding extra details to the requirements of the offering.


###### Pesachim 91b:13
[Pesachim 91b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/91b:13)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: פֶּסַח וּמַצָּה וּמָרוֹר, בָּרִאשׁוֹן — חוֹבָה, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ — רְשׁוּת, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בָּאֲנָשִׁים חוֹבָה וּבַנָּשִׁים רְשׁוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: Eating the **Paschal lamb and *matza* and bitter herbs on the first** night of Passover **is mandatory. From here on,** i.e., the remaining days, **it is optional. Rabbi Shimon says: For men it is mandatory and for women it is optional.**


###### Pesachim 91b:14
[Pesachim 91b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/91b:14)

אַהֵיָיא קָאֵי? אִילֵּימָא אַפֶּסַח, פֶּסַח כׇּל שִׁבְעָה מִי אִיכָּא? וְאֶלָּא אַמַּצָּה וּמָרוֹר, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בָּאֲנָשִׁים חוֹבָה וּבְנָשִׁים רְשׁוּת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the precise intention of the last clause of the first *tanna*: **To which part** of the *baraita* does the *halakha* that eating after the first night is optional **refer? If you say** it is referring **to the Paschal lamb, is there a Paschal lamb all seven** days? Certainly not, and consequently it does not make sense to speak of whether eating it is mandatory or optional after the first night. **Rather,** if you say that it is referring **to *matza* and bitter herbs,** how will you **say** and explain accordingly **the last part** of the *baraita*, i.e., **Rabbi Shimon says: For men it is mandatory and for women it is optional.** If the second clause is referring only to *matza* and bitter herbs, then Rabbi Shimon would appear to be saying that women are exempt from eating them.


###### Pesachim 91b:15
[Pesachim 91b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/91b:15)

לֵית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת בַּאֲכִילַת מַצָּה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תֹּאכַל עָלָיו מַצּוֹת״ — כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בְּבַל תֹּאכַל חָמֵץ, יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּקוּם אֱכוֹל מַצָּה. וְהָנֵי נָשִׁים, הוֹאִיל וְיֶשְׁנָן בְּבַל תֹּאכַל חָמֵץ, יֶשְׁנָן בְּקוּם אֱכוֹל מַצָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is difficult: **Does Rabbi Shimon not** accept **that which Rabbi Elazar said, that women are obligated in** the command of **eating *matza* by Torah law,** despite the fact that it is a time-bound, positive mitzva, **as it is stated: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shall you eat *matzot* with it”** (Deuteronomy 16:3), which teaches that **all who are subject to the prohibition to not eat leavened bread** are also **subject** to the positive mitzva to **arise and eat *matza*? And those women, since they are subject to the prohibition to not eat leavened bread,** since women are required to observe all the prohibitions of the Torah, **they are subject also to** the positive mitzva to **arise and eat *matza*.** Clearly, Rabbi Shimon was not referring to *matza*.


###### Pesachim 91b:16
[Pesachim 91b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/91b:16)

אֶלָּא אֵימָא: פֶּסַח מַצָּה וּמָרוֹר, בָּרִאשׁוֹן — חוֹבָה, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ — רְשׁוּת. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: פֶּסַח בָּאֲנָשִׁים חוֹבָה, בַּנָּשִׁים רְשׁוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, say** instead that the *baraita* should be read as follows: Eating the **Paschal lamb, *matza*, and bitter herbs on the first** day of Passover **is mandatory. From here on,** i.e., the remaining days of Passover, **it is optional** to eat *matza* and bitter herbs. **Rabbi Shimon says:** The **Paschal lamb is mandatory for men and optional for women,** in accordance with his opinion stated previously.


###### Pesachim 91b:17
[Pesachim 91b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/91b:17)

**מַתְנִי׳** אוֹנֵן — טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל אֶת פִּסְחוֹ לָעֶרֶב, אֲבָל לֹא בַּקֳּדָשִׁים. הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ עַל מֵתוֹ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **An acute mourner,** i.e., a mourner on the day of the death of an immediate relative, is prohibited from eating sacrificial food. By Torah law, the prohibition applies only to the day of death itself, but it is permitted to partake of sacrificial food on the following night. By rabbinic decree, the period of acute mourning is extended to include the night as well. Despite this, an acute mourner **immerses and eats his Paschal lamb in the evening. But** he may still **not** eat other **sacrificial food.** However, **one who hears about** the death of **his dead,** i.e., he discovers that one of his immediate relatives died more than thirty days after the death, his status of acute mourning applies on a rabbinic level.