## Pesachim Daf 93a

###### Pesachim 93a:1
[Pesachim 93a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/93a:1)

מָה טָמֵא, שֶׁסִּפֵּק בְּיָדוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת וְאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה. אַף דֶּרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה נָמֵי, שֶׁסִּפֵּק בְּיָדוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת וְאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**just as** the case of one who was **ritually impure** is referring to **one who has the means to observe** the first *Pesaḥ* via an agent but **does not do** so because the Torah prohibited him from doing so, **so too,** the case of one who was on a **distant journey also** refers to one **who has the means to observe** the first *Pesaḥ* via an agent and eat the offering at night, but **does not do** so because the Torah prohibited him from doing so.


###### Pesachim 93a:2
[Pesachim 93a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/93a:2)

וְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר לָךְ: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּקָסָבַר: אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עַל טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ. וַאֲנָא סְבִירָא לִי כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר: שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עַל טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Naḥman** could have **said to you: Rabbi Akiva** conforms **to his** standard line of **reasoning, as he holds that one** may **not slaughter** a Paschal lamb **and sprinkle** its blood **on** behalf of **one who is ritually impure** due to contact with **a** dead **creeping animal,** even though he could immerse and become ritually pure in time to partake of the Paschal lamb in the evening. This indicates that according to Rabbi Akiva, one who is unfit when the blood is sprinkled is completely disqualified from participating in the offering. **But I hold in accordance with the one who said:** One may **slaughter** a Paschal lamb **and sprinkle** its blood **on** behalf of **one who is ritually impure** due to contact with a dead **creeping animal,** and therefore Rabbi Akiva’s ruling is not relevant to my opinion.


###### Pesachim 93a:3
[Pesachim 93a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/93a:3)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, אֵלּוּ שֶׁעוֹשִׂין אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי: הַזָּבִין וְהַזָּבוֹת, הַמְצוֹרָעִין וְהַמְצוֹרָעוֹת, [וְנִדּוֹת] וּבוֹעֲלֵי נִדּוֹת וְהַיּוֹלְדוֹת, הַשּׁוֹגְגִין וְהָאֲנוּסִין וְהַמְּזִידִין, וְטָמֵא וְשֶׁהָיָה בְּדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a *baraita* in support of Rav Naḥman’s opinion. **The Sages taught** that **these** are the people **who observe the second** *Pesaḥ*: ***Zavim* and *zavot*;** male **lepers and** female **lepers; and menstruating women and those** men **who had sexual relations with menstruating women; and women after childbirth; those who** failed to observe the first *Pesaḥ* **unwittingly, and those who** were **prevented** due to circumstances **beyond their control, and those who intentionally** refrained from doing so; **and one who was ritually impure; and one who was on a distant journey.**


###### Pesachim 93a:4
[Pesachim 93a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/93a:4)

אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר ״טָמֵא״? לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר?! דְּאִי בָּעֵי לְמִיעְבַּד בָּרִאשׁוֹן לָא שָׁבְקִינַן לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא: אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר ״בְּדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה״ — לְפוֹטְרוֹ מִן הִכָּרֵת. וּכְמַאן דְּאָמַר הוּרְצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **If so,** if one who missed the first *Pesaḥ* for any reason observes the second *Pesaḥ*, **why** is the case of one who was **ritually impure stated** explicitly in the Torah? The Gemara expresses surprise at this question: **Why is it stated?** It was necessary to mention this case to teach **that if** an impure person **wishes to perform** the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb **on the first** *Pesaḥ* **we do not allow him** to do so. **Rather,** the question should be: **Why** is the case of **one** who is **on a distant journey stated** in the Torah? It is stated **to exempt him from *karet*** even if he does not observe the second *Pesaḥ*. **And** this is in accordance with the opinion of **the one who said** that if the Paschal lamb was slaughtered on behalf of one who was on a distant journey **it was accepted,** which is the opinion of Rav Naḥman.


###### Pesachim 93a:5
[Pesachim 93a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/93a:5)

אִשָּׁה בַּשֵּׁנִי מִי מִיחַיְּיבָא? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: יָכוֹל לֹא יְהוּ עוֹשִׂין אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי אֶלָּא טְמֵא נֶפֶשׁ וְשֶׁהָיָה בְּדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה. זָבִין וּמְצוֹרָעִין וּבוֹעֲלֵי נִדּוֹת מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* mentioned several types of ritually impure women who observe the second *Pesaḥ* rather than the first. The Gemara asks: **Is a woman obligated** to observe **the second** *Pesaḥ*? **Wasn’t** it **taught** in a *baraita*: I **might** have thought that **only one** who is **impure** due to ritual impurity imparted by **a corpse or one who was on a distant journey observe the second** *Pesaḥ*; with regard to ***zavim*,** male **lepers, and those** men **who had sexual relations with menstruating women, from where** is it derived that they may observe the second *Pesaḥ*? **The verse states:** “If **any man [*ish ish*]** of you or of your generations shall be ritually impure due to a dead body or is on a journey far away, he shall still offer the Paschal lamb to the Lord” (Numbers 9:10). The word *ish* is doubled in order to include these other cases. Women are not included by the repetition of the word *ish*.


###### Pesachim 93a:6
[Pesachim 93a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/93a:6)

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, הָא — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that this is **not difficult: This** first *baraita*, which includes women, is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei** that one may slaughter the Paschal lamb on the second *Pesaḥ* for women, and **that** second *baraita*, which includes only men, is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon,** who hold that women do not have a full-fledged obligation to observe the second *Pesaḥ*.


###### Pesachim 93a:7
[Pesachim 93a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/93a:7)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חַיָּיב כָּרֵת עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן, וְחַיָּיב כָּרֵת עַל הַשֵּׁנִי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: חַיָּיב כָּרֵת עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן, וּפָטוּר עַל הַשֵּׁנִי. רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן עֲקַבְיָא אוֹמֵר: אַף [עַל] הָרִאשׁוֹן אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב כָּרֵת אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן לֹא עָשָׂה אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in the *Tosefta*: One **is liable to** receive ***karet* for** intentionally refraining from observing **the first** *Pesaḥ*; similarly, one who could not observe the first *Pesaḥ* **is liable to** receive ***karet*** if he intentionally refrained from observing **the second** *Pesaḥ*. This is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **Rabbi Natan says: One is liable to** receive ***karet* for** intentionally refraining from observing **the first** *Pesaḥ*; **and one is exempt** from *karet* **for** intentionally refraining from observing **the second** *Pesaḥ* even if he unwittingly failed to observe the first *Pesaḥ*, as the Torah does not specify a punishment of *karet* with regard to the second *Pesaḥ*. **Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya says: Even for** intentionally failing to observe **the first** *Pesaḥ* **one is liable to** receive ***karet* only if he** intentionally **fails to observe the second** *Pesaḥ*.


###### Pesachim 93a:8
[Pesachim 93a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/93a:8)

וְאָזְדוּ לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ. דְּתַנְיָא: גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר בֵּין שְׁנֵי פְסָחִים, וְכֵן קָטָן שֶׁהִגְדִּיל בֵּין שְׁנֵי פְסָחִים — חַיָּיב לַעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁזָּקוּק לָרִאשׁוֹן — זָקוּק לַשֵּׁנִי, כֹּל שֶׁאֵין זָקוּק לָרִאשׁוֹן — אֵין זָקוּק לַשֵּׁנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Natan **follow their** line of **reasoning** as demonstrated by another dispute between them, which is related to the dispute quoted above. **As it was taught** in a *baraita*: **A convert who converted** during the month **between the** offering of the **two Paschal lambs** on the first and second *Pesaḥ*, **and similarly, a minor who grew up** and became obligated in mitzvot during the month **between the** offering of the **two Paschal lambs, is obligated to observe the second *Pesaḥ*;** this is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **Rabbi Natan says: Whoever needs** to observe **the first** *Pesaḥ* **needs** to observe **the second; whoever does not need** to observe **the first** *Pesaḥ*, e.g., one who is a minor or is not yet Jewish, **does not need** to observe **the second** *Pesaḥ* either.


###### Pesachim 93a:9
[Pesachim 93a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/93a:9)

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רַבִּי סָבַר: שֵׁנִי רֶגֶל בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **With regard to what do they disagree? Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **holds** that **the second** *Pesaḥ* **is its own Festival,** and anyone who did not participate in the first *Pesaḥ* is obligated to participate in the second even if he was not fit to bring the Paschal lamb on the first *Pesaḥ*.


###### Pesachim 93a:10
[Pesachim 93a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/93a:10)

רַבִּי נָתָן סָבַר: שֵׁנִי תַּשְׁלוּמִין דְּרִאשׁוֹן הוּא. תַּקּוֹנֵי לָרִאשׁוֹן, לָא מְתַקֵּין לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Conversely, **Rabbi Natan holds** that **the second** *Pesaḥ* **is** merely **a redress for the first** *Pesaḥ*, such that if one was obligated to bring the Paschal lamb on the first *Pesaḥ* and did not, he may do so on the second *Pesaḥ*; however, **it does not repair the** failure to bring the Paschal lamb on **the first** *Pesaḥ*. Therefore, one who intentionally refrained from bringing the Paschal lamb on the first *Pesaḥ* is liable to receive *karet* even if he brought the Paschal lamb on the second *Pesaḥ*. However, if one unwittingly failed to sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the first *Pesaḥ*, he is not liable to receive *karet* even if he intentionally refrained from observing the second *Pesaḥ*.


###### Pesachim 93a:11
[Pesachim 93a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/93a:11)

וְרַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן עֲקַבְיָא סָבַר: שֵׁנִי תַּקַּנְתָּא דְרִאשׁוֹן הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya held: The second** *Pesaḥ* **repairs the** failure to offer the Paschal lamb on the **first** *Pesaḥ*. In other words, the Paschal lamb brought on the second *Pesaḥ* is not an independent obligation; rather, it allows a second chance to avoid the liability to receive *karet*.


###### Pesachim 93a:12
[Pesachim 93a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/93a:12)

וּשְׁלׇשְׁתָּן מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ: ״וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הוּא טָהוֹר וּבְדֶרֶךְ לֹא הָיָה״. רַבִּי סָבַר: ״וְחָדַל לַעֲשׂוֹת הַפֶּסַח וְנִכְרְתָה״, דְּלָא עֲבַד בָּרִאשׁוֹן, אִי נָמֵי: ״קׇרְבַּן ה׳ לֹא הִקְרִיב בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״, בַּשֵּׁנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** all **three of them expounded the same verse** to derive their opinions: **“But the man who is ritually pure, and is not on a journey,** and refrains from offering the Paschal lamb, that soul shall be cut off from his people; because [*ki*] he did not bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season, that man shall bear his sin” (Numbers 9:13). **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **holds** that the verse should be understood as follows: The phrase: **“And refrains from offering the Paschal lamb,** that soul **shall be cut off,”** means **that he did not participate** in the offering on **the first** *Pesaḥ*. In the continuation of the verse, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi understands the word *ki* to mean: If, as the word *ki* has various meanings, one of which is: If. Therefore, the verse can be interpreted in the following manner: **If he also “did not bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season,”** with regard to **the second** *Pesaḥ*, “that man shall bear his sin.”


###### Pesachim 93a:13
[Pesachim 93a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/93a:13)

וּמִמַּאי (דְּהָא) ״חֶטְאוֹ יִשָּׂא״ כָּרֵת הוּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And from where** do we know **that this** phrase: **Shall bear his sin,** refers to ***karet*** and not to some other punishment?