MISHNAH: A woman living in her husband’s house¹ as her father’s child, and both her husband and her father slaughtered for her²., should eat of her husband’s. If she went to her father’s house for the first holiday³ and both her father and her husband slaughtered for her, she may eat where she desires. An orphan for whom guardians⁴ slaughtered may eat where he desires. A slave of two owners may not eat from either of them⁵. A person who is half slave and half freedman may not eat of his master’s⁶.

footnotes: ¹ If she only is preliminarily married, she still lives in her father’s house and eats Pesaḥ ² Both are in Jerusalem and both counted her on the list of subscribers to their Pesaḥ ³ There was a general custom of the bride returning to her father’s house for the first holiday after the definitive marriage. ⁴ . If there are multiple guardians (Greek ἐπίτροπος, ὁ). ⁵ Since neither of the joint owners has the right to take from the other, the part of the slave belonging to one cannot profit from the other’s food. He has to participate in a separate Pesaḥ. ⁶ He has to behave like a free person.

HALAKHAH: “A woman living in her husband’s house,” etc. ⁷ 2:1, Notes 15–23 which is the original since the last sentence, which makes the argument intelligible, is missing here. Rebbi Joḥanan said, for the four who are missing atonement⁸ 12:6–8), the person healed from skin disease (Lev. 14: 1–32) and the persons healed from genital discharges (Lev. 15:14–15,29–30). others may dedicate without their knowledge; these are the following: Man or woman [healed from] genital discharges, the woman after childbirth and one [healed from] skin disease, since a father may dedicate for his small son who is lying in a crib⁹. One understands man or woman [healed from] genital discharges or [healed from] skin disease, but a woman after childbirth? May a minor give birth? ¹⁰ 1:2, Note 153. It implies that a woman giving birth is an adult and no longer in her father’s power. Did not Rebbi Redifa, Rebbi Jonah, say in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If a woman became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs, she and her son will die. After she grew two hairs, she and her son will live. If she became pregnant before she grew two hairs and gave birth after she grew two hairs, she will live but her son will die. How is the situation? Since a man may dedicate for his underage daughter¹¹. Since he married her off¹², she already left his power. But it must be since a man may dedicate for his deaf-mute wife. Here, in the case of the suspected wife, the case of the minor does not apply since ¹³ 1:2, Note 91. In the language of the Babli, Yebamot33b, “the seduction of an under-age girl is rape.” Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Yosa¹⁴ read: Yasa. said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband. The case of the deaf-mute does not apply since it is written¹⁵ 5:22. The answer of the wife is a requirement that cannot be waved. Therefore, a mute woman cannot undergo the sotah ordeal. The Babli concurs, Sotah27b, quoted in Num. rabba 9(18).: The woman shall say: Amen, amen. Rebbi Abun said, since it is written¹⁶ 14:26. A man’s house usually means his wife. The missing final sentence explains that since he cannot enjoy himself if his wife is forbidden to him, she cannot hinder him in the preparations for her rehabilitation. This answers the original question for the husband. At the same time, R. Abun disagrees with R. Joḥanan and holds that only the husband may dedicate the purgation offering of the woman after childbirth without her knowledge since he has a direct interest in it. While the woman after childbirth is permitted to her husband once she is recovered and pure, she cannot enjoy the holiday sacrifices with him as long as her sacrifice has not been handed over to the Temple personnel.: You shall enjoy together with your house.

footnotes: ⁷ This paragraph is from Sotah ⁸ Anyone whose own body was the source of impurity, when he is pure again cannot enter the Temple precinct unless he first brought a sacrifice of cleansing: The woman after childbirth (Lev. ⁹ Who could have been afflicted with skin disease and, if female, with a discharge at her birth mimicking menstruation ¹⁰ This text also is in Yebamot ¹¹ Therefore, he should be able to dedicate for his wife who also is dependent upon him. ¹² Even without growing pubic hair, if he married her off she is emancipated from him. ¹³ This statement also is in Sotah ¹⁴ With the text in Sotah ¹⁵ Num. ¹⁶ Deut.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : A person chooses another’s nezirut sacrifice without the other’s knowledge. But he cannot dedicate it without the other’s knowledge¹⁷ 2:5 Note 84. Since an animal cannot be brought to the Temple without having been dedicated, and the dedication has to be for a specific obligation, the nazir whose sacrifices are paid for must be informed of the dedication for it to be valid. Denied by the Babli, Nedarim 36a.. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : A person chooses another’s purification sacrifice for fat¹⁸ 7:25. Denied by the Babli, Nedarim 36a. without the other’s knowledge. But he cannot dedicate it without the other’s knowledge.

footnotes: ¹⁷ Cf. Nazir ¹⁸ A general name for inadvertent sins punishable by extirpation, cf. Lev.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A person may slaughter another’s Pesaḥ without his knowledge, but he cannot dedicate it without his knowledge. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah says so: “A woman living in her husband’s house, and both her father and her husband slaughtered for her, should eat of her husband’s.¹⁹ she actually is neither in her husband’s nor in her father’s permanent home.” Where do we hold? If giving instructions²⁰, normally a woman gives instructions saying, I want to be with my children²¹. So not giving instructions²² without the knowledge of the other person.. The Mishnah may be about giving instructions²³. There came Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , the Mishnah is about giving instructions. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, a person may slaughter another’s Pesaḥ without his knowledge, but he may not choose it without his knowledge²⁴ 36a.? There is a difference between Pesaḥ and a purification sacrifice. If a Pesaḥ grows it may be used to satisfy an obligation²⁵ but not used automatically is dedicated as well-being sacrifice to be used later for satisfying a vow by the owner.; a purification sacrifice if it grows may not be used to satisfy an obligation²⁶.

footnotes: ¹⁹ The first sentence of the Mishnah, which prescribes the wife’s place, seems to contradict the second, which gives her freedom of choice. It is to be assumed that neither her father nor her husband are permanent dwellers in Jerusalem so that for the Pesaḥ ²⁰ Reading מַמְחָה as מַנְחָה; not derived from any of the roots מחה “protest; erase, rub out”. ²¹ So one may assume that the Mishnah does not refer tot a wife who already has children. ²² Neither father nor husband had her agreement to eat with him. This would follow R. Eleazar who allows slaughtering the Pesaḥ ²³ The Mishnah cannot be used to prove that practice agrees with R. Eleazar. ²⁴ Then she at least has to be informed beforehand. Babli, Nedarim ²⁵ An animal dedicated for Pesaḥ ²⁶ An animal dedicated as purification sacrifice but not used may not be used for anything else.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this about the follow-holiday²⁷7:5 (Notes 43–45), Babli Ketubot 71b.. What is the follow-holiday? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is the first holiday when her father follows her to her husband’s house. If she did not go for the first holiday, does the second holiday become the follow-holiday²⁸? She always has a follow-holiday. Does a widow have a follow-holiday? Let us hear from the following: “If she went to her father’s house for the first holiday.” Either this means that she always has a follow-holiday or it means that a widow has a follow-holiday²⁹. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that she has children but no husband. Normally a woman gives instructions saying, I want to be with my children³⁰ is resolved; she no longer has to be asked where she wants to be..

footnotes: ²⁷ Using the root רדף not in the biblical sense “to pursue” but the related meaning “to follow closely”, Arabic ردف. The definition of follow-holiday is from Ketubot ²⁸ So if that should be Passover she has a choice whether to join her father or her husband for the Pesaḥ. ²⁹ To make sense of the duplication in the Mishnah since following R. Joḥanan also the first sentence of the Mishnah refers to a newly-wed who still has no child. ³⁰ Once she has children, the question of where she celebrates the Pesaḥ

³¹ 1:7, Notes 612–623. The origin probably is here. Rebbi Eleazar said: The Pesaḥ of women is voluntary³² 12:4 which designates the participants as “persons”, not “men” (Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Pisḥa 3, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 10; cf. Mishnah 8:1,7 Tosephta 8:10; Babli 91a/b.) But it should be noted that missing the sacrificial meal is a deadly sin only for men (Num. 9:13); only men are required (and permitted) to make up the missed sacrifice on the 14th of Iyar (Num. 9:13; Tosephta 8:10). The statement means that an unaffiliated female, living neither in her father’s nor a husband’s house, is not obligated to seek a group with which to celebrate Passover. It would be considered most inappropriate if a single woman would join a group of men unrelated to her. But since she is included in the circle of celebrants of Passover by biblical law, if she alone or a group of similarly situated women want to organize their own Pesaḥ and meal, they are authorized to do so. Circumcised slaves are included in the group of Passover celebrants in Ex. 12:44. The owner of uncircumcised slaves is prohibited from bringing a Pesaḥ., but one pushes the Sabbath away for it³³. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice from women and slaves is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their mazzah? Rebbi Eleazar said, it is obligatory. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is voluntary³⁴ This is in dispute.. Rebbi Hila said, it is everybody’s {opinion}. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeˋira: Lettuce, mazzah and Pesaḥ are obligatory the first night; on all other days they are voluntary. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: It was said: Do not eat leavened matter with it, for seven days you shall eat with it mazzot, the bread of deprivation³⁵ 17:3. Rules stated in the same verse must be of one and the same category.. Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat mazzah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat mazzah³⁶ 130, its contrapositive is a statement of R. Simeon.. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”³⁷ 1:7.? Rebby Mana said, it is a powerful positive commandment since it is implied by a prohibition³⁸.

footnotes: ³¹ This paragraph also appears in Qiddušin ³² S. Liebermann has emphasized repeatedly that in the Yerushalmi רְשׁוּתmeans “meritorious act which is not obligatory.” The Babli disagrees in the name of R. Eliezer, 91a.In the Babli and related texts, it is taken for granted that women present in Jerusalem on Passover eve are obligated to take part in the Passover meal, based on Ex. ³³ Since women are biblically empowered to celebrate Passover, the rule also applies to groups of women. ³⁴ In Qiddušin: ³⁵ Deut ³⁶ In the Babli, 91b, this is a statement by R. Eleazar, probably the Tanna. In Sifry Deut. ³⁷ Mishnah Qiddušin ³⁸ And therefore follow the rules of prohibitions, obligatory for women.

³⁹ 4:12 and originates there. It refers to Mishnah Ḥallah4:12 which reports that a certain Joseph Hakohen brought his entire family, women and children, to celebrate Second Pesaḥ but the Temple authorities admitted only the adult males. Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary? It was stated⁴⁰: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining \others, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, and certainly the First. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar⁴¹ says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? Every man a sheep for the family, if they want for the house⁴². 12:3. Everywhere “house” is read as synonym of “wife”.. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, every man a sheep for the family, a fortiori for the house. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? “Every man”, not a woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, lest it become an obligation⁴³.

footnotes: ³⁹ This paragraph is from Ḥallah ⁴⁰ Tosephta 8:10. ⁴¹ This should read with the other sources: R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon. ⁴² Ex ⁴³ If a renowned authority does something, everybody will rush to emulate him and in the next generation it will already be a common standard and acquire the status of “practice of the forefathers from time immemorial”. Even R. Yose will agree that in such a situation one should not allow a public display of special devotion.

“An orphan for whom guardians⁴ slaughtered may eat where he desires.” The Mishnah refers to an underage orphan. But an adult orphan is like one who subscribed to two Pesaḥim; as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated⁴⁴, one who subscribed to two Pesaḥim eats from the one which was slaughtered first⁴⁵. Rebbi Yose says, the Mishnah says so, “if he slaughtered a kid goat and a lamb, one eats from the first.⁴⁶”

footnotes: ⁴ . If there are multiple guardians (Greek ἐπίτροπος, ὁ). ⁴⁴ Tosephta 7:3; cf. Babli 89b. ⁴⁵ Therefore the adult orphan has no choice but the order of slaughter determines where he is obligated to eat. ⁴⁶ Mishnah 8:2, referring to a case where the person who slaughtered was fully empowered to do so.

“A slave of two owners may not eat from either of them.” Rebbi Yose said, his master has no right to say, it is impossible that you should be counted for a Pesaḥ, but he may say to him, you may not be counted for this one, only for that one⁴⁷ and thereby force him to eat from the other owner’s Pesaḥ. But he cannot forbid him a Pesaḥ since it is a biblical obligation.. Sometimes he is counted for three Pesaḥim simultaneously. How is this? A slave of two owners must subscribe to a Pesaḥ. If one of them freed his part, he has to subscribe to another Pesaḥ⁴⁸*.* If both of them freed, he has to subscribe to yet another Pesaḥ. Samuel bar Abba asked, may the slave eat from all three of them? If you are saying that the slave may not eat from all three of them, then he should not be able to subscribe to a Pesaḥ, since perhaps his master might want to free him and it turns out that an invalid dedication is mixed up in the offering⁴⁹ (and the master is barred from Pesaḥ if he owns uncircumcised slaves). If manumission would invalidate the dedication, neither slaveholder nor his slaves would be able to eat any Pesaḥ since there always would be the possibility that the master manumit a slave which would retroactively invalidate the dedication and an undedicated animal may not be sacrificed. Therefore it is clear that manumission does not invalidate dedication.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Zeˋira asked, may the owner fulfill his obligation by the slave’s dedication? Is that not a Mishnah: “One says to his slave, go and slaughter the Pesaḥ for me.⁵⁰ and to dedicate it on behalf of his master.” The Mishnah on the instruction of his master, what is problematic for him not on the instruction of his master.

footnotes: ⁴⁷ To resolve the problem spelled out in the Mishnah, one of the masters may bar him from his own Pesaḥ ⁴⁸ The part of his which is free cannot fulfill his absolute obligation with the dedication for the limited obligation of a slave. ⁴⁹ It is a biblical obligation that circumcised slaves eat from their master’s Pesaḥ ⁵⁰ Mishnah 2. It is clear from the remainder of the text of this Mishnah that the slave is authorized to buy the animal for Pesaḥ

“A person who is half slave and half freedman may not eat of his master’s.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a man who is half slave and half freedman preliminarily married a woman, one disregards his preliminary marriage. It is the same for divorce⁵² 4:5 (Notes 135–141), has to be interpreted in the light of the explanation given there, following the House of Hillel who say that he works for his owner one day and for himself the other day. On his owner’s day he is a slave unable either to marry or divorce; on his own day he can marry preliminarily (but is unable to consummate the marriage, as explained there.) In Giṭtin and in Qiddušin1:1 (Note 139), the statement about divorce is a straight declarative sentence which is unchallenged. Here it is possible to read it as a question: is it the same for divorce? Samuel holds that since on his own day he may contract a preliminary marriage, just as a half-freed woman can contract a preliminary marriage to be consummated after her complete emancipation, so he can dissolve the preliminary marriage on his own day. Samuel says, one takes notice of his divorce. Samuel’s statement parallels Rebbi Jehudah’s, as we have stated, “One who kidnapped a person half slave and half free Rebbi Jehudah declares punishable but the Sages make him not prosecutable.⁵³ without detailed instructions about what to do.”

footnotes: ⁵² Obviously if there can be no marriage there can be no divorce. Therefore the text, which also is copied in Giṭtin ⁵³ He delegates him to dedicate and slaughter the Pesaḥ

MISHNAH: One says to his slave, go and slaughter the Pesaḥ for me⁵³ without detailed instructions about what to do.. If he slaughtered a kid goat, it should be eaten; if he slaughtered a lamb, it should be eaten. If he slaughtered kid goat and lamb, one eats from the first. If he forgot what his master had told him⁵⁴ may not be dedicated if it is known beforehand that it will not be eaten. Since only two kinds of animal are allowed fur Pesaḥ, the slave can resolve the problem by buying two animals and making sure that there are people able to eat either one of them., what can he do? He shall slaughter a kid goat and a lamb and say, if my master said to me a kid goat, the kid goat is his and the lamb mine, but if my master said to me a lamb, the lamb is his and the kid goat mine. If his master had forgotten what he told him, both shall be brought to the place of burning⁵⁵ comes only for its eaters,” the slaughter cannot permit the meat to be eaten. But since an attempt was made to bring the First Pesaḥ, the conditions for a Second are not satisfied. but they are free from bringing the Second Pesaḥ.

footnotes: ⁵³ He delegates him to dedicate and slaughter the Pesaḥ ⁵⁴ But he remembers that he was instructed to buy a particular kind of animal. Then he is not empowered to dedicate an animal not conforming to his master’s instructions; also a Pesaḥ ⁵⁵ Since it cannot be determined which animal has to be slaughtered for him and since “Pesaḥ

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated⁴⁴: One who simultaneously subscribed to two Pesaḥim eats from the one which was slaughtered first. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this; “if he slaughtered kid goat and lamb, one eats from the first.” Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, this is Rebbi Nathan’s since Rebbi Nathan said, one fulfills his obligation by pouring without eating. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Explain it that the master forgot between slaughter and pouring⁵⁶ would be eaten and it is qualified according to everybody.. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, one of the rabbis objected; some say that it was himself: Did we not state, “If he forgot what his master had told him, he shall slaughter a kid goat and a lamb⁵⁷”?

footnotes: ⁴⁴ Tosephta 7:3; cf. Babli 89b. ⁵⁶ Babli 88b. Then the blood was poured when it was known that the Pesaḥ ⁵⁷ Since this presupposes that the master knows what he told him, the next sentence must deal with the case that the master did nor remember at the time of slaughter and the Mishnah necessarily follows R. Nathan.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he dedicated a Pesaḥ before he converted and then converted⁵⁸ automatically reverts to a well-being offering, since the Gentile is barred from offering a Pesaḥ, he dedicated a well-being offering, and after conversion is without a dedicated Pesaḥ., before he was manumitted and then was manumitted, before he grew two pubic hairs⁵⁹ therefore he cannot dedicate one. and then grew two pubic hairs, has to subscribe to another Pesaḥ⁶⁰4:9) and Meïri (Pesaḥim, ed. Y. Klein, Jerusalem 1964, p. 366b) read: “he brings [the animal when he is ineligible] as Pesaḥ.”**. Rebbi Yudan said, all doubts⁶¹ follow Rebbi Nathan, except for him who pours the blood of his purification offering or the blood of his reparation offering when there is a doubt whether he poured during nighttime or poured during daytime⁶², where there is a doubt of atonement, and every doubt of atonement atones⁶³.

footnotes: ⁵⁸ Since a Gentile may bring a well-being offering, and an unused Pesaḥ ⁵⁹ An adult is a person growing two pubic hairs. As a minor he has no obligation to bring a Pesaḥ; ⁶⁰ However Maimonides (Qorban Pesaḥ ⁶¹ Whether a sacrifice required to be eaten (either by the Cohanim or by lay people) is acceptable in case that its blood was poured but it could not be eaten. ⁶² No sacrificial act is possible (except burning excess sacrifices) during nighttime. ⁶³ Even following the majority no other sacrifice is required.

MISHNAH: If one says to his children, I am going to slaughter the Pesaḥ in the name of whoever of you will come first to Jerusalem. When the first of them entered with his head and most of his body, he acquired his part and acquires for his siblings with him. Forever one subscribes to it as long as there is the volume of an olive for each participant. One subscribes to it or cancels until it has been slaughtered; Rebbi Simeon says until the blood is poured.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no “I am going to slaughter” here, only “I am going to dedicate.⁶⁴” And why was it stated “I am going to slaughter”? To urge him on.

footnotes: ⁶⁴ Since after slaughter the animal is Heaven’s property, nobody can acquire a part of the animal. If the Mishnah mentions that the first to come acquires his own part and those of his siblings, by necessity this must be for the dedication as sacrifice.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: It is a stipulation of the Court that one dedicate his Pesaḥ and the other his money⁶⁵ that already is dedicated as a sacrifice? It is Heaven’s property and no longer can be considered the owner’s; how can he take money for participation? Subscription is only possible because of a stipulation, probably part of Ezra’s reorganization of Jewish worship, that a Pesaḥ be open to subscription and that money dedicated for this purpose become profane in the hand of the person who dedicated the animal.. He lets him subscribe to his [part] and the money automatically becomes profane. How? It becomes profane and then dedicated again? Or for this purpose it was dedicated from the start⁶⁶ mentions the monetary aspect, it is up to Amoraim to determine how to harmonize this exception with the generally known rules of dedication of sancta. Either the Pesaḥ after dedication is not considered a sanctum but becomes one piecewise when olive-sized parts of it are sold to a subscriber and the sanctity of the dedicated money is transferred to the piece of the Pesaḥ while the money becomes profane in the hand of the seller, as is the general rule for money dedicated for sacrifices which become profane in the hand of the seller of the animal which is dedicated in being bought as sacrifice, or the money dedicated for Pesaḥ has a status different from money dedicated for any other sacrifice in that it is intrinsically profane with the restriction to be used only for the Pesaḥ. Cf. Babli 89b.? What is the difference between them? If he dedicated 100 mina for his Pesaḥ and used 50 to subscribe⁶⁷ are 10’000 drachma (denar), while in the old (Augustean) Mishnah Ḥagigah 1:2 the value of a sacrifice is between an obolus(⅙ denar) and 2 denar.. If you are saying that it becomes profane and is dedicated again, the remainder of the monies are profane. If you are saying that for this purpose he dedicated it from the start, the rest of the monies are (profane) [dedicated]⁶⁸ animal, to which the sanctity of the subscription money is transferred while the unused part in the hand of the buyer is not touched by the transaction; it remains dedicated. But if the dedication of the money was conditional for the stated purpose of acquiring part of a Pesaḥ, the remaining money never was dedicated and is profane.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Samuel bar Abba asked: Think of it if he lets him subscribe gratis. Where do you have “becomes profane and is dedicated again”⁶⁹ In order to have a fully dedicated sacrifice it should be forbidden to invite non-paying guests for the Pesaḥ. This is a restriction which nowhere is mentioned and has to be rejected.? The words of the rabbis imply that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. We have stated there⁷⁰ 6:4, dealing with wages of prostitution which may not be used for Temple dedications (Deut. 23:19). The reference is to the sentence following the quote, “if he (the customer) gave her (the prostitute) sancta, they are permitted (as sacrifice)” since as Heaven’s property they never became the prostitute’s.: “If he gave her monies, they are permitted; wines, oils, and fine flour, or anything of whose kind one offers on the altar, are forbidden.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he lets him⁷¹ or his festival offering it is an acceptable arrangement. Temurah 30b. subscribe to his Pesaḥ and to his festival offering. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it would be forbidden as harlot’s wages⁷² 4:3, detailing what A can legally do for B if A made a vow that B may not have any usufruct from him. A can pay for B’s sacrifices as long as no money comes into B’s hand, since sacrifices dedicated for B are Heaven’s, not B’s property.. Explain it if nothing was given into his hand; you should know as it was stated there⁷³ 5:2 (צ)., “he can bring for him nests for male or female sufferers from genital discharges, nests for childbirth;” not if nothing came into his hands? Here also if nothing came into his⁷¹ or his festival offering it is an acceptable arrangement. Temurah 30b. hands.

footnotes: ⁶⁵ The problem is, how can one have people subscribe to a Pesaḥ ⁶⁶ Since no Mishnah in Pesaḥim ⁶⁷ This is a typically 3rd Century example from the time of the inflation of the Military Anarchy in the Roman Empire. 100 mina ⁶⁸ The text in parentheses is the original text of the scribe, the one in brackets his own correction. It seems that the scribe felt compelled to correct the text since in the preceding sentence he wrote “profane”. But it seems more logical to assume that the first “profane” is in error and should be replaced by “dedicated” while in the second sentence “profane” is the correct expression.In the preceding sentence “it” refers to the Pesaḥ ⁶⁹ Since no money changes hands, there is dedicated money whose sanctity can be transferred to parts of the Pesaḥ. ⁷⁰ Mishnah Temurah ⁷¹ This must be “her”. R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that a sacrifice in the hands of a prostitute is barred from the Temple, but if the prostitute is paid by a subscription to his Pesaḥ ⁷² Mishnah Nedarim ⁷³ This paragraph also is in Beṣah ⁷¹ This must be “her”. R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that a sacrifice in the hands of a prostitute is barred from the Temple, but if the prostitute is paid by a subscription to his Pesaḥ

⁷³ 5:2 (צ). Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, one dedicates; the other said, one does not dedicate. The rabbis of Caesarea make it explicit: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one dedicates without problems on a holiday; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not dedicate, without problems on a holiday⁷⁴. There are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of lambs; there are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim⁷⁵ 148b).. He who says, he goes to sellers of lambs, follows him who says, one dedicates. He who says, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim, follows him who says, one does not dedicate. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it should be forbidden because of dedicating, and we have stated, “one does not dedicate.⁷⁶ 5:2.” Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, if he dedicates for the next day; but the other said, if he dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple⁷⁷. Rebbi Shammai said, even for him who said that one dedicates⁷⁸5:2 explicitly declares that the prohibition of dedication of sacrifices is rabbinical, it implies that inside the Temple precinct proper the prohibition does not apply. In this situation there is no disagreement between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish and no inference may be drawn about the status of monies dedicated for Pesaḥ., in the Temple Court because rabbinic Sabbath prohibitions were permitted in the Temple.

footnotes: ⁷³ This paragraph also is in Beṣah ⁷⁴ There is no doubt that biblically one is permitted to dedicate animals as sacrifices on a holiday; the question is whether there is a rabbinic prohibition. ⁷⁵ If the 14th of Nisan is a Sabbath. In the first formulation, the lambs are profane and have to be dedicated on the Sabbath to be permitted into the Temple court; in the second version they already are dedicated (cf. Babli Šabbat ⁷⁶ Mishnah Beṣah ⁷⁷ Dedication of a sacrifice to be eaten on the holiday has to be considered part of the preparation of food and is permitted; what the Mishnah forbids are dedications either not for use on the holiday or not for food at all. ⁷⁸ It seems that one has to read “that one does not dedicate”. Since Mishnah Beṣah

From where that one subscribes? The verse says, by the number of souls⁷⁹ 12:4. By biblical decree a person not counted as participant is barred from eating the Pesaḥ. Babli 89a.. From where that one appoints⁸⁰? It is said here a lamb, and it is said in Egypt a lamb. Since the lamb quoted in Egypt is live, not slaughtered, so the lamb quoted here is live, not slaughtered⁸¹ at all times. “Lamb” also is mentioned in v. 12:3 which uniquely refers to the Pesaḥ in Egypt since only there was the lamb selected on the 10th of Nisan. Since the lamb was slaughtered only in the evening of the 14th; on both occasions the reference is to a living lamb. This implies that the count must be made while the lamb is alive, the position of the anonymous majority.. What is Rebbi Simeon’s reason? If he dies between slaughtering and pouring, would it not count for the owner as merit? What is the difference between the owner dying or the owner withdrawing from it⁸³ as an individual but now appears with several people which he has invited without paying for them. They may give him the portion of an individual and tell him to divide it among his guests while everybody else get the full volume for which he has paid..

footnotes: ⁷⁹ Ex. ⁸⁰ Appoints people as eaters. ⁸¹ “Lamb” is mentioned in v. 12:4 which, since its topic is not otherwise dealt with in the Pentateuch, refers to Pesaḥ ⁸³ A person subscribed to a Pesaḥ

MISHNAH: If somebody lets others subscribe to his part, they are empowered to give him his part, so that he eats of his and they eat of theirs⁸³ as an individual but now appears with several people which he has invited without paying for them. They may give him the portion of an individual and tell him to divide it among his guests while everybody else get the full volume for which he has paid..

footnotes: ⁸³ A person subscribed to a Pesaḥ

HALAKHAH: The members of a group of which one had beautiful hands⁸⁴ were entitled to tell him, take your part and eat alone Not only Pesaḥ, but even if they made a meal by contributions⁸⁵ they are entitled to tell him, take your part and eat alone, if they did know him⁸⁶, since this was a stipulation from the start.

footnotes: ⁸⁴ The traditional explanation is: He grabs a lot and eats an inordinate amount of food. Babli 89b, Tosephta 7:9. ⁸⁵ Greek συμβόλαια, τὰ, “contributions to partake in a common meal/” ⁸⁶ They did know from the start that letting him participate might be unfair to the remainder of the group.

Rav Huna said, if somebody dedicated his Pesaḥ and said, on condition that nobody else subscribe with me, nobody else can subscribe with him. If he dedicated it without specification, any who join are its subscribers⁸⁷ is dedicated for anybody who will come to join.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Does the Mishnah say so? “If the**house be less⁸⁸ 12:4., this teaches that they may continuously diminish, on condition that there always be one of the first group and one of the second group, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, either from the first or from the second, if only the Pesaḥ not be left alone.⁸⁹ 3, dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 9. It is presumed that practice follows R. Yose (the Tanna, ben Ḥalafta.)” If you are saying that any who join are its subscribers, then the members of the first group are the members of the second group⁹⁰. What is the difference between them? If he dedicated his Pesaḥ, withdrew from it but another person subscribed to it. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is qualified, in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira disqualified⁹¹ was left without subscriber for a moment; this disqualifies.. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is dedication by an individual and subject to the laws of substitution; in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira it is dedication by partners and dedication of partners is not subject to the laws of substitution⁹²27:10) do apply. But for R. Zeˋira, supposing that the second subscriber came before the first one left and the Pesaḥ still is qualified, it now is dedication by partners and any attempt at substitution is invalid and therefore inconsequential.. If a hundred people subscribed to it simultaneously, Rav Ḥuna said, if there is the volume [of an olive for each of them], it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. Rebbi Zeˋira said, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified⁹³. And it was stated thus: “If they subscribed and added subscribers, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified.⁹⁴”

footnotes: ⁸⁷ From the start the Pesaḥ ⁸⁸ Ex. ⁸⁹ Babli 99a, Tosephta 7:7, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo ⁹⁰ According to Rav Ḥuna, every subscriber is counted as original subscriber; there can be no first and second group. ⁹¹ For Rav Ḥuna, the second person is an original subscriber. For R. Zeˋira the Pesaḥ ⁹² If the first subscriber left; his replacement now is the original dedicator and all the rules of Tractate Temurah (Lev. ⁹³ Since for Rav Ḥuna all subscribers are original dedicators, simultaneous subscription is possible. The subscriptions either are all valid or all invalid. For R. Zeˋira only sequential subscriptions are possible; as long as there is the volume of an olive available for a new subscriber he is accepted, otherwise he is rejected, but the rejection has no influence on the status of subscribers accepted earlier. ⁹⁴ Babli 78b.

MISHNAH: For a sufferer from gonorrhea after two episodes one slaughters on the seventh {day}, if he had three episodes one slaughters for him on the eighth. Similarly for a woman watching day for day one slaughters on the second, if she had episodes on two consecutive days one slaughters on the third; but for the sufferer from flux one slaughters on the eighth⁹⁵ If he has two episodes in at most two consecutive days, he is impure for seven days; after seven days in remission he can be purified by immersion in a miqweh. After three episodes he still needs seven days in remission but then is still prohibited sancta unless on the eighth day he brings a couple of birds as sacrifice to the Temple. He can subscribe to a Pesaḥ if there is a reasonable chance that he will be permitted sancta after nightfall. A menstruating woman is impure for seven days, Lev. 15:19. A woman having non-menstrual discharges for many days (Lev. 15:25), interpreted as three days, is in the same situation as a male sufferer from gonorrhea after three episodes (15:28–29). For isolated episodes on one or two days, she may immerse herself in a miqweh on the next day and become pure for sancta at nightfall..

footnotes: ⁹⁵ A person who suffers a single episode of gonorrhea is impure for the day and can be purified by immersion in a miqweh.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “For the menstruating woman one slaughters on her eighth day. For a man having had intercourse with a menstruating woman one slaughters on his seventh day.” Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a man having had intercourse with a menstruating woman is pure on his seventh day⁹⁶(Lev.. 15:19) which is read to mean that she can go to a miqweh only after nightfall at the end of the seventh day. The next sundown which permits her to partake of sancta therefore is the sundown of the eighth day (Babli 90b). But for a male who lies with her it says (Lev.. 15:24) he is impure for seven days, and since part of a day is counted as a full day, he can purify himself on the seventh day before nightfall (Babli Yoma 6a)..

footnotes: ⁹⁶ For a woman it is written seven days she shall stay in her separation

MISHNAH: One slaughters for the deep mourner⁹⁷, and one who digs out a collapsed building⁹⁸ but this is very uncertain., and one who was promised that he would be freed from jail, the sick person or the old who are able to eat the volume of an olive. But for all of these one does not slaughter for themselves lest the Pesaḥ become disqualified⁹⁹ would be without eaters and would have to be burned.. Therefore if a disqualification should occur they are not liable for the Second Pesaḥ except for one who digs out a collapsed building who from the start could expect to be impure.

footnotes: ⁹⁷ The status of a person a close relative of whom has died, between the time of death and burial. As a deep mourner he is barred from all religious rites, but if he does not become impure by the impurity of the dead by nightfall he is able to participate in religious ceremonies. ⁹⁸ He searches for survivors or for the corpses of the slain. If he finds no corpses he remains pure and can eat the Pesaḥ, ⁹⁹ If something happened, the Pesaḥ

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Abba bar bar Hana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : The Mishnah¹⁰⁰ if he was jailed by Jews. But if he was jailed by gentiles, whose mouth speaks vanity and whose oath is false oath¹⁰¹ 144:8.. If he was held outside of Jerusalem, but if he was held in Jerusalem even if they did not promise it is as if they had promised¹⁰² to the jail and eat there with him..

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ About the person who had been promised that he would be freed. ¹⁰¹ Ps. ¹⁰² Since they can bring the Pesaḥ

Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both are saying, in the beginning we used to say that one may sprinkle on an uncircumcised Jew; but we were saying nothing¹⁰³ this applies only to those already circumcised, as explained in the following sentence.. Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi stated before Rebbi Hila: It is said here then he shall come near to make it, and it is said there, then he may eat of it¹⁰⁴ 12:43–50, it is said of the slave (v.44) that he must be circumcised, then he may eat of it, and of the proselyte (v.48) that all his males have to be circumcised, then he may come near to make it. Since the verse about the slave states that circumcision is what is needed before he can eat, the same is true for the proselyte, and he must be circumcised and receive sprinkling before he can eat. Babli Yebamot 71a.. Since then mentioned there presumes that he is qualified at the time of eating, so also there mentioned here presumes that he is qualified at the time of (eating) [slaughter]¹⁰⁵.

footnotes: ¹⁰³ Sprinkling with water mixed with ashes of the Red Cow belongs to the ritual of cleansing the impurity of the dead; it is applicable to all Jews including those uncircumcised (cf. Note 160). But for people intending to eat Pesaḥ, ¹⁰⁴ In the rules of the Pesaḥ, Ex. ¹⁰⁵ The text in parentheses was first written by the scribe who then corrected it to the text in brackets. It is obvious that the original text is the correct one.

Sometimes he¹⁰⁶ has the status of them and sometimes they have the status of him. Sometimes he has the status of them, a long collapsed building. I am saying that the blood was poured for him before he reached the impurity¹⁰⁷ Babli 91a.. Sometimes they have the status of him, at a circular collapsed building¹⁰⁸; if a disqualification occurred for them between slaughter and pouring, they have the status of him at a circular collapsed building.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ The person digging for victims in a collapsed building who is obligated for Second Pesaḥ. ¹⁰⁷ Then he may not bring a Second Pesaḥ. ¹⁰⁸ Where in all likelihood he stood over the corpse if any was found at all, then he is impure by “tent impurity”.

MISHNAH: One does not slaughter the Pesaḥ for a single person, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; but Rebbi Yose permits. One does not slaughter for a group, even of a hundred, if none of them can eat the volume of an olive¹⁰⁹, and one does not form a group of women, slaves, and minors.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ Even though together they eat more than the volume of an olive.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, the season of Rebbi Jehudah: You may not sacrifice the Pesaḥ in one of your gates¹¹⁰ 16:5. Halakhah 9:9, Babli 91a, 99a; Sifry Deut. #132. How does Rebbi Yose interpret Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? He explains it following Rebbi Eleazar ben Matthew, as it was stated: Rebbi Eleazar says, I could think that a single person clinches for impurity, the verse says, you may not sacrifice the Pesaḥ in one¹¹¹. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah concedes that if he transgressed and poured, it was made acceptable; if he transgressed and slaughtered one permits him to pour.

footnotes: ¹¹⁰ Deut. ¹¹¹ Cf. Chapter 7, Note 149.

It was stated: one does not form a group of women, slaves, and minors, since they increase lewd behavior¹¹². Bar Qappara stated, because they bring sancta to disqualification¹¹³ 11, Note 58.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Issy: One does not form a group from proselytes. Since they are [faulty they are not]¹¹⁴. שמא. diligent about it and bring it to disqualification.

footnotes: ¹¹² Without the presence of adult free males. ¹¹³ Cf. Šabbat ¹¹⁴ The text in brackets is an addition at the margin of the ms. The text without the addition is that of the Babli 91b, the text with the addition is quoted there by Tosaphot s.v

MISHNAH: The deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Pesaḥ in the evening but not [other] sancta. He who hears about a death or for whom bones were collected immerses himself and eats sancta¹¹⁶ is purely rabbinical; this rabbinic extension of the rules of deep mourning in no case extends to the night (Mishnah Ḥagigah 3:3.. A proselyte who converted on Passover eve, the House of Shammai say that he immerses himself¹¹⁷ additional to that required for conversion. and eats his Pesaḥ in the evening, but the House of Hillel say that he who separates from the prepuce is like one who separates from a grave¹¹⁸.

footnotes: ¹¹⁶ If he did not become impure by the impurity of the dead, the immersion required for sancta ¹¹⁷ An immersion for sancta, ¹¹⁸ After conversion he has to be sprinkled with water containing ashes of the Red Cow on the 3rd and 7th days after conversion.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah is about one who newly became a deep mourner between slaughter and pouring¹¹⁹. But if he became a deep mourner after atonement it already was accepted¹²⁰ but he has fulfilled his religious duty..

footnotes: ¹¹⁹ It may have occurred earlier. The reason for this formulation is explained at the end of the paragraph. ¹²⁰ Since the sacrifice is accepted, there is no reason to wave any rules and the deep mourner may not eat from the Pesaḥ

¹²¹ 2:1 (Notes 52–55), Horaiot 3:2. And it was stated¹²² 100b; a suspect text in Semaḥot 4:4.: “What is deep mourning? From the moment of death until the moment of burial, the word of Rebbi. But the Sages say, the entire day.” It turns out that one describes leniencies and stringencies following Rebbi, leniencies and stringencies following the rabbis. What leniencies following Rebbi? If he died and was buried within the hour. Following Rebbi he is forbidden only that hour, following the rabbis he is forbiddden the entire day. Leniencies following the rabbis? If he died and was buried after three days. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rebbi he is forbidden up to three days. There came Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rav Ḥuna, both of whom said that Rebbi agrees with the Sages that he is forbidden only during the first day, as it was stated¹²³ 100b.: Rebbi said, you know that deep mourning [in the night] is not biblical, since they said, “the deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Pesaḥ in the evening.” But they declared deep mourning during daytime as biblical. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Explain it that he was buried close to sundown and one cannot infer anything.¹²⁴

footnotes: ¹²¹ This also is in Sanhedrin ¹²² Babli Zevaḥim ¹²³ Babli Zevaḥim ¹²⁴ The Mishnah only refers to the unlikely case that the deep mourner was not defiled with the impurity of the dead in a case in which both Rebbi and the Sages will agree on the duration of the deep mourning.

¹²¹ 2:1 (Notes 52–55), Horaiot 3:2. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: “Deep sorrow”¹²⁵3:1, Note 42. is only for the dead, for it is written¹²⁶ 3:26. The gates of Jerusalem are in sorrow because all its men are dead.: *Its gates are in deep sorrow and mourning.*Ḥiyya bar Ada objected: Is it not written¹²⁷ 19:8. The fishermen are in deep sorrow (and they mourn as quoted in the two parallel texts) because the Nile dried up. This proves that both terms used for the religious obligations of a person whose close relative died are used in the Bible also to describe other situations.: the fishermen are in deep sorrow, and mourning all who throw a fishing hook into the Nile? Rebbi Ḥanina said, so is the baraita: there is no deep sorrow in impurity except for the dead.

footnotes: ¹²¹ This also is in Sanhedrin ¹²⁵ In its legal implications, that the person not only be forbidden to eat sanctified food but also cannot be counted in a quorum for religious services; cf. Berakhot ¹²⁶ Is. ¹²⁷ Is.

It was stated¹²⁸ 100b; Semaḥot 12:1. In both sources, “and eats sancta in the evening.” From the following it is clear that this also was the reading of the Yerushalmi.: “The day of information is like the day of burial as regards tearing¹²⁹, and mourning¹³⁰, and counting Seven and Thirty; but to eat sancta it is like gathering bones, (he immerses himself and eats sancta)¹³¹.” About gathering bones, may he immerse himself and eat sancta¹³²*?* Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, explain it if he was buried after nightfall¹³³ only a day later.. “In both cases they immerse themselves and eat their Pesaḥ in the evening.¹³⁴ but not for other sancta, it seems that here one should read sancta for Pesaḥ.” After burial may one eat sancta? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, both are about information. If he was informed that a relative died the day before, he immerses himself and eats sancta; if he was informed that bones were collected the day before, he immerses himself and eats sancta¹³⁵ may be eaten, not sancta in general..

footnotes: ¹²⁸ Babli Zevaḥim ¹²⁹ The obligation to tear his clothes. ¹³⁰ To observe the rules of the seven days of intensive followed by the thirty days of lesser mourning. ¹³¹ The text in parentheses was written by the scribe but then was deleted. The deletion is in error as shown by the question following the statement. ¹³² Why is the qualification “in the evening” missing in the Mishnah? ¹³³ Then he can eat sancta ¹³⁴ Since the Mishnah states that the rules of deep mourning are waved for Pesaḥ ¹³⁵ But in the evening of the day itself only Pesaḥ

¹³⁶ 1:5 (מ). There also exists a Genizah text for most of the Halakhah there. It was stated: If a person transports a casket from place to place the rules¹³⁷ of collecting bones do not apply. Rebbi Aḥa said, that only is about a stone sarcophagus. But to a wooden casket the rules of collecting bones do apply. Rebbi Yose said, even to a wooden casket the rules of collecting bones do not apply. When is there collecting bones? If one transports them in a striped garment¹³⁸ from place to place. Rebbi Haggai in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Collecting bones [is] what it means¹³⁹. And it was stated thus: In collecting bones one collects them bone by bone after the flesh has decomposed. It was stated: There is no information¹⁴⁰ about collecting bones. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, that is if he was informed the next day. But on the day itself there is information about collecting bones. Is there a minimum for collecting bones? Nikomachos stated before Rebbi Zeˋira: There is no minimum about collecting bones. About this, Rebbi Mana instructed Rebbi Hillel from Kifra to tear and mourn following Rebbi Aḥa but not to defile himself following Rebbi Yose¹⁴¹. It was stated: When collecting bones one does not recite lamentations and dirges; one recites neither the blessings for mourners nor the consolations for mourners. These are blessings for mourners: what is recited in the synagogue. These are consolations of mourners, what is said in the row¹⁴². It was stated: But one says words. What are words? The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, eulogies¹⁴³.

footnotes: ¹³⁶ This text is from Moˋed qaṭan ¹³⁷ Prescribing mourning rites. ¹³⁸ Greek ἐπικάρσιον, τό. ¹³⁹ The rules apply only to the act of collecting bones, not of transporting. ¹⁴⁰ No prescribed mourning rites when one is informed of the act. ¹⁴¹ R. Hillel was a Cohen; he was instructed to follow R. Aḥa to observe mourning rites when his parents’ bone were brought in ossuaries but not to violate the biblical rules which prohibit a Cohen from becoming impure in the impurity of the dead except for the burial of close relatives. The rules spelled out by R. Aḥa are purely rabbinic. ¹⁴² After the burial the people attending form two rows between which the mourners walk and are greeted with a wish that “the Omnipresent may console you with all the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.” ¹⁴³ קִילוּס “praise” is derived from Greek καλῶς! “beautiful, excellent”. For the use as “eulogy” compare καλολογέω, same as ἐυλογέω (E. G.).

What is the reason of the House of Shammai? You and your captives¹⁴⁴ 31:19, speaking of the captive Midianite women.. Since you could not be impure before you entered the covenant, also your captives cannot be impure before they enter the covenant¹⁴⁵ # 157 notes that mention of the captives in relation to impurity implies that these had to be converted.. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? You and your captives. Since you need sprinkling on the third and seventh {days}, so your captives need sprinkling on the third and seventh {days}. But it is not logically consistent¹⁴⁶, since Rav Ḥiyya bar Joseph, Giddul bar Benjamin said in the name of Rav: The House of Hillel agree that if he transgressed and poured the blood, that it is accepted.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁴ Num. ¹⁴⁵ While it seems from the text there that a Gentile corpse imparts impurity of the dead by touch, it is clear that a living Gentile cannot biblically be impure; the impurities attributed to Gentiles are of purely rabbinic character and must be disregarded in matters of conversions. Sifry Num. ¹⁴⁶ There is no claim that the restrictive practice of the House of Hillel is biblical.

¹⁴⁷ 8:1 (Notes 56–63) but, as the quotes in the paragraph show clearly, the source is Nazir, in contrast to the next paragraph which in Nazir is a copy from Pesaḥim. A nazir who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain¹⁴⁸ (on Oassover) [not related to the *Pesaḥ.*¹⁴⁹ and the corrector inserted “not”. Both words should be deleted.] The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir does not shave¹⁵⁰ is that the person must let his hair grow, abstain from all products of the vine, and avoid any impurity of the dead. If he should become impure in this impurity, he has to shave, bring required sacrifices, and start his nezirut all over again., since we have stated there¹⁵¹ 7:4. In Mishnah 7:2 it is explained that the Nazir shaves only if the cause of the impurity is a verified part of a corpse; the cases of doubt enumerated in Mishnah 7:3 are excluded. The liability for entering the Sanctuary in impurity is for a sacrifice if inadvertent or for extirpation if intentional.: “For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, [one is liable] if entering the Sanctuary, but any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, [one is not liable] if entering the Sanctuary.” What kind of doubt? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the start of the Chapter¹⁵² 8:1: A person saw that one of two nezirim became impure but he cannot identify whom he saw. Then there certainly is impurity but it is not known to whom it refers.. The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the one here¹⁵³ 7:3, where t is not known whether actually impurity was created.. A person who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Hoshaia said, he should be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one sends him on a far journey¹⁵⁴ but he holds that like any other sacrifice it may be brought for a certain, rather than a possible, obligation.. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he became impure by the impurity of the broken field¹⁵⁵, one sends him on a far journey. The community who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain on Passover. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they should present it in their doubt¹⁵⁶ are made in impurity. If the majority is in doubt whether they are impure, the pure minority brings their offerings in purity and the possibly impure majority theirs in possible impurity.. Does the great Rebbi Hoshaia say, it should be made in impurity? Rebbi Hoshaia (said) [also agrees] that it should be presented in their doubt; what Rebbi Hoshaia said referred only to restrictions.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁷ This paragraph is a reformulation of one in Nazir ¹⁴⁸ The general principle is that a doubt about impurity arising in a private domain is treated as certain impurity, in the public domain as certain purity. The rule becomes void if the character of the place itself is doubtful. ¹⁴⁹ The scribe wrote “on Pesaḥ” ¹⁵⁰ The essence of a vow of nazir ¹⁵¹ Mishnah Nazir ¹⁵² Mishnah Nazir ¹⁵³ One of the cases of Mishnah Nazir ¹⁵⁴ For him also the person has to bring the Second Pesaḥ, ¹⁵⁵ A field which contained a grave ploughed under. Not only is the suspected place of the grave impure by biblical standards but the entire field is rabbinically impure since the plough might have caught a bone and transported it to another part of the field. ¹⁵⁶ If the majority of the public is certainly impure, all Pesaḥim

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah: One sprinkles on an uncircumcised Jew¹⁵⁷ celebration as asserted by the House of Shammai., for we find that our forefathers in the desert¹⁵⁸ 4:19). They were then circumcised (Jos. 5:2–8) and celebrated the Pesaḥ on the 14 (Jos. 5:10). received sprinkling when uncircumcised. Rav Ḥisda said, following him who said that they circumcised on the eleventh¹⁵⁹. But for him who said that they circumcised on the tenth, they did not count sprinkling when uncircumcised. Rebbi Abun said, did they not have to count for sprinkling when uncircumcised in any case160 on the 14th, the counting had to start on the 7th, when according to the biblical text everybody (except Joshua, Caleb, and possibly Levites and/or Priests) were uncircumcised. He will hold that the first Passover in Canaan was held in impurity. This argument, represented in the Babli, loc. cit., by Mar Zuṭra, there is rejected by Rav Ashi.? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: It happened that an uncircumcised Cohen sprinkled¹⁶¹ “he was sprinkled” (passive voice). and the sprinklings were declared valid. It was stated so: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, there were soldiers¹⁶² and gate keepers in Jerusalem who immersed themselves and ate their Pesaḥ in the evening¹⁶³ on the 14th of Nisan, and participated in Passover, not needing cleansing by sprinkling following the House of Shammai.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁷ The position of the House of Hillel in the Mishnah is rejected. It is asserted that the uncircumcised can purify himself from the impurity and, being circumcised later, participate in the Pesaḥ ¹⁵⁸ Not in the desert, but after crossing the Jordan on the 10th of Nisan (Jos. ¹⁵⁹ If they were circumcised on the 11th they had to be sprinkled on the 10th, when they still were uncircumcised, in order to become pure on the 14th. ¹⁶¹ In Nazir: ¹⁶² Greek στρατιώτης, ὁ. ¹⁶³ They were Gentiles who converted to Judaism, were circumcised, immersed themselves in a miqweh