## Yoma Daf 51a

###### Yoma 51a:1
[Yoma 51a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/51a:1)

בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר, דְּחָלִין עַל בַּעַל מוּם קָבוּעַ, וְאֵין יוֹצְאִין לְחוּלִּין לִיגָּזֵז וְלֵיעָבֵד. אֶלָּא שֵׁם זֶבַח לָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
e.g., **a firstborn or** an animal **tithe,** the sanctity of which **takes effect** even **on a permanently blemished animal, and** this offering **cannot vacate** its sanctified status and assume **non-sacred** status for its wool **to be sheared and to be worked. Rather,** you must say that the *baraita* is **not teaching** a general **category of sacrifices,** but when it states: Offering, it is referring to a particular one.


###### Yoma 51a:2
[Yoma 51a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/51a:2)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא? תְּמוּרָה — שֵׁם תְּמוּרָה אַחַת הִיא. זֶבַח — אִיכָּא בְּכוֹר וְאִיכָּא מַעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is different** about the two statements, i.e., why does the *tanna* deal with a specific case in one area, but a general category in the other? The Gemara explains: **Substitution is one category,** as there is no difference between one case of substitution and another. By contrast, with regard to **sacrifices, there is a firstborn and there is** the animal **tithe,** whose *halakhot* differ from other offerings, and therefore one cannot establish a single general principle. Consequently, the *tanna* certainly is referring to a specific offering.


###### Yoma 51a:3
[Yoma 51a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/51a:3)

וּלְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת, אַדְּמוֹקֵים לַהּ בְּאֵילוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, לוֹקְמַהּ בְּפֶסַח, דְּדוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְאֶת הַטּוּמְאָה וְעוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה, דְּקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד הוּא? קָסָבַר: אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין הַפֶּסַח עַל הַיָּחִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues the previous discussion: **And** according to the opinion of **Rav Sheshet,** who explains that the offering in question is not the bull of the High Priest but his ram, **rather than establishing** and interpreting this *baraita* **as** referring to **the ram of Aaron, let him establish** that it deals **with the Paschal offering, which overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity and** one can **perform substitution** for it, **as** according to all opinions, it **is the offering of an individual.** The Gemara answers: Rav Sheshet **maintains** that one may **not slaughter the Paschal lamb on behalf of an individual,** but only for a group. This means that it is not an offering of an individual but, at the very least, that of partners. For this reason, one cannot perform substitution for a Paschal lamb.


###### Yoma 51a:4
[Yoma 51a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/51a:4)

וְנוֹקְמֵיהּ בְּפֶסַח שֵׁנִי! מִי דָּחֵי טוּמְאָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And let** Rav Sheshet **establish** the *baraita* as referring **to the second *Pesaḥ*,** which is slaughtered by an individual. The Gemara answers: **Does** the second *Pesaḥ* **override ritual impurity?** Since this offering does not override ritual impurity, it cannot be the offering referred to in the *baraita*.


###### Yoma 51a:5
[Yoma 51a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/51a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרָבָא: וְתַנָּא, מַאי שְׁנָא פֶּסַח דְּקָרֵי לֵיהּ קׇרְבַּן יָחִיד, וּמַאי שְׁנָא חֲגִיגָה דְּקָרֵי לַהּ קׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר? אִי מִשּׁוּם דְּאָתֵי בְּכִנּוּפְיָא — פֶּסַח נָמֵי אָתֵי בְּכִנּוּפְיָא? אִיכָּא פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי דְּלָא אָתֵי בְּכִנּוּפְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: And** according to the ***tanna*** of the aforementioned *baraita*, concerning the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Ya’akov, **what is different** with regard to **the Paschal offering, that he calls it the offering** of **an individual? And what is different** with regard to the **Festival peace-offering,** which is eaten with the Paschal offering, **that he calls it a communal offering? If** this distinction is **because** the Festival peace-offering **is brought by a multitude,** i.e., the entire nation brings it, **the Paschal offering is also brought by a multitude,** not as an individual offering. Rava replied: **There is the second *Pesaḥ*, which is not brought by a multitude,** and therefore the *tanna* does not call the Paschal offering a communal offering.


###### Yoma 51a:6
[Yoma 51a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/51a:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם כֵּן יְהֵא דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְאֶת הַטּוּמְאָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר דָּחֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, וְאֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא — אָמַר לָךְ: מִפְּנֵי טוּמְאָה דְּחִיתוֹ וְיֵעָשֶׂה בְּטוּמְאָה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**He said to him: If so,** that the second *Pesaḥ* is a communal offering, **it should override Shabbat and ritual impurity. He said to him: Yes,** as the opinion of this *tanna* is **in accordance with the one who said** that the second *Pesaḥ* **overrides** ritual impurity. **As it was taught** in a *baraita*: **The second *Pesaḥ* overrides Shabbat, but it does not override ritual impurity. Rabbi Yehuda says:** It **even overrides ritual impurity.** The Gemara asks: **What is the reason of the first *tanna*?** The first *tanna* could have **said to you** that one brings a second *Pesaḥ* solely **because ritual impurity overrode his** obligation to sacrifice the first *Pesaḥ*, i.e., he did not sacrifice the first *Pesaḥ* because he was impure at that time. **And** should **he** now **perform** the **second *Pesaḥ* in** a state of **ritual impurity?**


###### Yoma 51a:7
[Yoma 51a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/51a:7)

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר לָךְ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״כְּכׇל חֻקַּת הַפֶּסַח יַעֲשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ״, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּטוּמְאָה. הַתּוֹרָה הֶחְזִירָה עָלָיו לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ בְּטׇהֳרָה, לֹא זָכָה — יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ בְּטוּמְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yehuda** could have **said to you** that, with regard to the second *Pesaḥ*, **the verse states: “According to all the statute of the Paschal offering they shall keep it”** (Numbers 9:12), which indicates that it should **even** be brought **in** a state of **ritual impurity,** unlike the first *Pesaḥ*. As for the claim of the first *tanna*, that the whole reason for the second *Pesaḥ* is due to ritual impurity, Rabbi Yehuda could respond: **The Torah sought** an opportunity **for** one who was impure at the time of the first *Pesaḥ* **to perform it in** a state of **ritual purity;** if **he did not merit** to perform it in purity, **he should** nevertheless **perform it** even **in** a state of **ritual impurity.**