## Pesachim Daf 92b

###### Pesachim 92b:1
[Pesachim 92b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/92b:1)

שֶׁבּוֹדְקִין לְעוֹשֵׂי פֶסַח, וְאֵין בּוֹדְקִין לְאוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**that we examine** a *beit haperas* that lies in the path to Jerusalem **for those offering the Paschal lamb** to determine whether there is actually any ritual impurity present, in order to enable those who pass through it to know whether they are still ritually pure and able to offer the Paschal lamb. But **we do not examine** a *beit haperas* **for** the sake of **those eating *teruma*** in order that they should be able to eat *teruma* in purity. The Gemara asks:


###### Pesachim 92b:2
[Pesachim 92b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/92b:2)

מַאי בּוֹדְקִין (לְעוֹשֵׂי פֶּסַח)? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מְנַפֵּחַ בֵּית הַפְּרָס וְהוֹלֵךְ. רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר אַבָּיֵי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: בֵּית הַפְּרָס שֶׁנִּידַּשׁ טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is** meant when we say that **we examine for those offering the Paschal lamb?** Practically, how is it examined? **Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said: One must blow** the dust on the path before taking each step in **the *beit haperas* as he walks** through it, in order to see if there is a hidden bone there. **Rav Yehuda bar Abaye in the name of Rav Yehuda said: A *beit haperas* that has been trodden** underfoot is considered **ritually pure,** since it is assumed that any bones that were there have been removed or broken. The impurity of a *beit haperas* is due to a rabbinic decree. The Sages waived this decree in a case where the necessary examination is made, in order to allow people to be able to offer their Paschal lambs. However, this leniency is limited to the case of the Paschal lamb, since its neglect carries the prohibition of *karet*. It is not extended to other cases, such as the prohibition to eat impure *teruma*.


###### Pesachim 92b:3
[Pesachim 92b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/92b:3)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הָאִשָּׁה

**


###### Pesachim 92b:4
[Pesachim 92b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/92b:4)

מַתְנִי׳ **מִי שֶׁהָיָה טָמֵא** אוֹ בְּדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה וְלֹא עָשָׂה אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן — יַעֲשֶׂה אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי. שָׁגַג אוֹ נֶאֱנַס וְלֹא עָשָׂה אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן — יַעֲשֶׂה אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר טָמֵא אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה בְּדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה? שֶׁאֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין מֵהִכָּרֵת, וְאֵלּוּ חַיָּיבִין בְּהִכָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One who was** ritually **impure or on a distant journey and did not observe** the **first** *Pesaḥ* by participating in the offering of the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth of Nisan **should observe the second** *Pesaḥ* by participating in the offering on the fourteenth of Iyyar. If one **unwittingly** forgot **or** was **prevented** due to circumstances **beyond his control and did not observe the first** *Pesaḥ*, **he** too **should observe the second** *Pesaḥ*. **If so,** that the second *Pesaḥ* is observed even by someone who forgot or was prevented from observing the first *Pesaḥ*, **why is it stated** in the Torah that the second *Pesaḥ* is observed only by one who was ritually **impure or on a distant journey?** These cases were specified in order to teach **that these** two groups of people **are exempt from *karet*** if they do not observe the second *Pesaḥ*, **but those** who were not ritually impure or on a distant journey **are liable to** receive ***karet*,** as the Gemara will explain.


###### Pesachim 92b:5
[Pesachim 92b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/92b:5)

**גְּמָ׳** אִיתְּמַר: הָיָה בְּדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה וּשְׁחָטוֹ וְזָרְקוּ עָלָיו, רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: הוּרְצָה. רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: לֹא הוּרְצָה. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: הוּרְצָה, מֵיחָס הוּא דְּחַס רַחֲמָנָא עָלָיו. וְאִי עָבֵיד — תָּבֹא עָלָיו בְּרָכָה. וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: לֹא הוּרְצָה, מִידְחֵא דַּחְיֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא כְּטָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **It was stated** that the *amora’im* disagreed about the following issue: If **one was on a distant journey and** others **slaughtered** the Paschal lamb **and sprinkled** its blood **on his** behalf, and he arrived in time to eat the Paschal lamb, does he need to observe the second *Pesaḥ* since he was far away at the time that the sacrifice was offered? **Rav Naḥman said:** His offering **was accepted,** and he need not observe the second *Pesaḥ*. **Rav Sheshet said:** His offering **was not accepted,** and he must sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the second *Pesaḥ*. The Gemara explains their opinions. **Rav Naḥman said:** His offering **was accepted** because **the Torah has mercy on** one who was on a distant journey and allows him the option of observing the second *Pesaḥ*; but **if he** nonetheless **did** participate in the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the first *Pesaḥ*, may **blessing come upon him. And Rav Sheshet said:** His offering **is not accepted** because **the Torah deferred his** observance to the second *Pesaḥ* just **as** it does for **one who is ritually impure.** Just as one who is ritually impure may not voluntarily participate in the Paschal lamb, neither may one who is on a distant journey.


###### Pesachim 92b:6
[Pesachim 92b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/92b:6)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ, דִּתְנַן: מִי שֶׁהָיָה טָמֵא אוֹ בְּדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה וְלֹא עָשָׂה אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן — יַעֲשֶׂה אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי. מִכְּלָל דְּאִי בָּעֵי — עָבֵד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said: From where do I say** my opinion? **As we learned** in the mishna: **One who was ritually impure or on a distant journey and did not observe** the **first** *Pesaḥ* **should observe the second** *Pesaḥ*. The expression: And did not observe, indicates **by inference that** regarding one who was on a distant journey, **had he wished, he** could have **observed** it and would thereby be exempt from participating in the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the second *Pesaḥ*.


###### Pesachim 92b:7
[Pesachim 92b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/92b:7)

וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר לָךְ: אִי הָכִי, סֵיפָא דְּקָתָנֵי: שָׁגַג אוֹ נֶאֱנַס וְלֹא עָשָׂה אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן — יַעֲשֶׂה אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי. מִדְּקָתָנֵי ״וְלֹא עָשָׂה״, מִכְּלָל דְּאִי בָּעֵי — עָבֵד. הֲרֵי שָׁגַג, וַהֲרֵי נֶאֱנַס!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Sheshet said** in response: **If so,** consider **the latter clause** of the mishna, **which teaches:** If one **unwittingly** forgot **or** was **prevented** due to circumstances **beyond his control and did not observe the first** *Pesaḥ*, **he should observe the second** *Pesaḥ*. According to your reasoning, **from** the fact **that it is taught: And did not observe,** conclude **by inference that had he wished, he** could have **observed** it. However, this is not possible, **as** the mishna states explicitly that **he unwittingly** forgot **or** was **prevented** due to circumstances **beyond his control** and was unable to observe the first *Pesaḥ*.


###### Pesachim 92b:8
[Pesachim 92b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/92b:8)

אֶלָּא, מֵזִיד קָתָנֵי בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ. הָכָא נָמֵי: אוֹנֵן קָתָנֵי בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the mishna must be explained differently, as follows: Even though it does not say so explicitly, the mishna **is teaching** with the phrase: And he did not observe, the case of one who **intentionally** refrained from observing the first *Pesaḥ* together **with** the other cases in the mishna. **Here, too,** in the first part of the mishna, the phrase: And he did not observe, must be understood as including another category of people: It **is teaching** the case of **an acute mourner,** i.e., one whose relative died that same day and has not yet been buried, together **with the** other cases. The first part of the mishna includes three cases: One who was ritually impure, one who was on distant journey, and one who was an acute mourner. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that had he wished to observe the first *Pesaḥ*, he could have done so.


###### Pesachim 92b:9
[Pesachim 92b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/92b:9)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין מֵהִכָּרֵת וְאֵלּוּ חַיָּיבִין בְּהִכָּרֵת. אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַשּׁוֹגֵג וְנֶאֱנָס, שׁוֹגֵג וְנֶאֱנָס בְּנֵי כָרֵת נִינְהוּ?! אֶלָּא לָאו — אַמֵּזִיד וְאוֹנֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: The mishna is also precisely** formulated according to this interpretation, **as it teaches: These are exempt from *karet*, but those are liable to** receive ***karet*. To which** part of the mishna is this referring? **If we say** that this statement is referring **to one who unwittingly** forgot **and one who** was **prevented** due to circumstances **beyond his control, are one who unwittingly** forgot **and one** who was **prevented** due to circumstances **beyond his control subject to** the punishment of ***karet*?** One is liable to receive *karet* only for performing a transgression intentionally. **Rather, is it not** referring to the case of one who **intentionally** refrained from observing the *Pesaḥ*, which is included in the phrase in the latter clause: And he did not observe, **and to** the case of **an acute mourner,** which is included in the parallel phrase in the first clause? These two categories of people are liable to receive *karet* if they fail to sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the second *Pesaḥ*.


###### Pesachim 92b:10
[Pesachim 92b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/92b:10)

וְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר לָךְ: לְעוֹלָם אַמֵּזִיד לְחוֹדֵיהּ. וּבְדִין הוּא דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמִיתְנֵא ״חַיָּיב״, וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי ״חַיָּיבִין״ — אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא ״פְּטוּרִין״, תְּנָא סֵיפָא ״חַיָּיבִין״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Naḥman** could have **said to you** in response: **Actually,** the mishna refers **only to** the case of one who **intentionally** refrains from observing the first *Pesaḥ* and not to the case of an acute mourner; **and by right it** should have **taught** this ruling with the expression: **He is liable,** in the singular. **And** the reason **that it teaches** this ruling with the phrase: These **are liable,** in the plural, is that **since the first clause** of the mishna **teaches** its ruling with the expression: These **are exempt,** in the plural, **the latter clause** also **teaches** its ruling with the expression: Those **are liable,** in the plural. Therefore, the phrase in the first clause: And did not observe the first *Pesaḥ*, teaches that one on a journey has the option of observing the first *Pesaḥ* if he wishes. And the same phrase in the latter clause: And did not observe, comes to include the case of one who intentionally refrains from observing the first *Pesaḥ*.


###### Pesachim 92b:11
[Pesachim 92b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/92b:11)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר ״טָמֵא״, וְנֶאֱמַר ״בְּדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say** my opinion? **As it was taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Akiva says: It is stated that** one who is **ritually impure** on the first *Pesaḥ* observes the second *Pesaḥ*, **and it is stated** that one who is on a **distant journey** observes the second *Pesaḥ*;