MISHNAH: He who was impure or on a far trip and did not make the First shall make the Second¹ on the 14 of Iyar.. If in error or by force² he did not make the First shall make the Second. If this is so, why was it said³ 9:9. impure or on a far trip? Because these are not liable for extirpation⁴ is a positive commandment for which no penalties are indicated in case of omission, in contrast to the First whose intentional omission is a deadly sin implying extirpation. In contrast to the Babli (93b), the Yerushalmi does not expect that those who missed the First in error or by force are subject to extirpation if they intentionally miss the Second. but those are liable for extirpation.

footnotes: ¹ A person impure and/or at a distance from Jerusalem on the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan is obligated to bring a Pesaḥ ² He was pure and in Jerusalem on the 14th of Nisan but forcibly prevented from participating in a Pesaḥ. ³ Num. ⁴ The Second Pesaḥ

HALAKHAH: “He who was impure,” etc. Impure by a corpse⁵ 9:10., I not only have impure by a corpse, from where forced or in error? The verse says, every man, [it added]⁶. So far following Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated, impure by a corpse is not equal to a far-away trip, nor is a far-away trip equal to impure by a corpse, what is common to them⁷ 69, Tosephta 8:2 (in the name of R. Aqiba); Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 9:10. is that he did not make the First and shall make the Second; also I am adding those forced or in error who did not make the First that they shall make the Second. Intentional from where? Rebbi Zeˋira said, but the man, to add the one acting intentionally⁸ 9:13: But the man who was pure. This contradicts the position of R. Aqiba in the Tosephta, that both those impure by a corpse and those on a far trip are prevented from making the First Pesaḥ and therefore the third hermeneutical principle excludes the one who intentionally omitted the First even though he was pure and not far away. Cf. Babli 93a/b.. We have stated; “if in error or by force;” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “if in error, or by force, or intentional.⁹” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this, “because these are not liable for extirpation but those are liable for extirpation;” who is subject to extirpation if not intentional?

footnotes: ⁵ Num. ⁶ Babli 93a. ⁷ This is the third hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael. Sifry Num. ⁸ Num. ⁹ Tosephta 8:1.

Impure by a corpse. I have not only impure by a corpse; impure by genital discharge, impure by skin disease, from where? The verse says impure (by the dead)¹⁰ a dividing accent, טָמֵ֣א ׀ לָנֶ֡פֶשׁ, correctly translated “impure, [e. g.,] by a corpse.” Babli 93a, Sifry Num. 69., it added. Why does the verse say, impure by a corpse¹¹? A man impure by a corpse is pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, but a public impure by the impurity of a corpse are not pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Those impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. They made the impurity of idolatry equal to the impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease¹². If Israel had the possibility to build the Temple¹³, individuals celebrate the Second Pesaḥ but the public does not celebrate the Second Pesaḥ. ¹⁴6:13 (Notes 83–109), Sanhedrin 1:2 (Notes 209–219). Rebbi Jehudah says, the public celebrates the Second Pesaḥ since we find that Hezekia celebrated the Second Pesaḥ. This is what is written, for most of the people from Ephraim and Manasse¹⁵ 30:18., etc.

footnotes: ¹⁰ This word should be deleted since there is no verse containing this expression. The argument is that while one would expect the accents to be טָמֵ֣א לָנֶ֡פֶשׁ “impure by a corpse,” the first word carries legarmeh, ¹¹ The argument is not really from this quote but from the entire first part of the verse: every single man who would be impure, by a corpse. ¹² As explained in the paragraph after the next. ¹³ If the Temple could be rebuilt after the 14th of Nisan but before the 14th of Iyar. ¹⁴ From here on, the text is from Nazir ¹⁵ 2Chr.

Some Tannaïm state: One intercalates the year because of impurity¹⁶ on the 14 of Nisan.. Some Tannaïm state: One does not intercalate the year because of impurity. He who says, one does not intercalate, how does he uphold: for they ate the Passover contrary to what is written¹⁷ 30:18. Hezeqiah celebrated Pesaḥ a month late; that is exactly what Scripture prescribes for impure individuals.? They intercalated in Nisan but only Adar can be intercalated. This follows what Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi said: they found the skull of Ornan the Yebusite under the altar¹⁸ 5:2, Note 90; it must refer to the construction of the altar by Solomon. Hezekiah moved the month because the Temple was not usable in Nisan since similarly the Temple was found to be a “tent” over human bones and thus impure. Ornan was the original owner of the Temple Mount (1Chr. 21:18–26); the text does not imply that Gentiles create tent impurity. Babli Sanhedrin 12a..

footnotes: ¹⁶ One does not intercalate a 13th month to give people time to purify themselves in time for the Pesaḥ ¹⁷ 2Chr. ¹⁸ This statement is from Soṭah

It is written¹⁹ 29:17. They finished cleansing the Temple of idolatry on the 16.: They started on the first of the first month, and on the eighth day …. Could they not have eliminated all idolatry from there in one day? Rebbi Idi said, because of Chaldean idols which were engraved in vermilion. It is written²⁰.30:19. The verse ends: except for the Temple’s purity.: With all his heart he prepared himself to seek the Eternal, the God of his forefathers. Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi and Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: One said, with all he did for the purity of the Temple, he did not fully establish the purity of the Temple. One said, with all the good works he did, he did not fully do his duty for the purity of the Temple.

footnotes: ¹⁹ 2Chr. ²⁰ 2Chr

Six things did Hezekiah, the King of Judea, do; with three they agreed, with three they did not agree²¹ 10b, Sanhedrin47a.. For the following they agreed with him. He smashed the bronze snake²²18:4. “They” are the Heavenly Court. and they agreed with him. He dragged his father’s bones on a bier of ropes²³ 28:27 that Aḥaz was not buried in the kings’ graves, contradicting 2K. 16:20., and they agreed with him. He hid the table of medicines²⁴, and they agreed with him. For the following they disagreed with him. He cut down the Temple doors²⁵ 18:16; to pay tribute to Assyria. and they disagreed with him. He enclosed the upper Giḥon spring²⁶32:30 with 2K. 20:20. The statement is denied in Avot dR. Nathan A, Chapter 2., and they disagreed with him. He intercalated Nisan in Nisan²⁷; and they disagreed with him.

footnotes: ²¹ This is the last Mishnah in Chapter 4 of the Babli; Maimonides in his Mishnah commentary declares it to be a Tosephta (cf. 8:5). Babli 56a, Berakhot ²² The bronze snake made by Moses, 2K. ²³ He buried him in an undignified way to atone for his sins. The basis is a note in 2Chr. ²⁴ According to Maimonides a book of magical remedies. ²⁵ 2K. ²⁶ It seems that they did not connect 2Chr. ²⁷ As explained in the preceding paragraph, the celebration of Passover was wrong from beginning to end; the intercalation would have to precede Nisan, celebration, and if it was Iyar it should not be a mass celebration.

If the public was half suffering from gonorrhea and half impure. Rav Ada bar Aḥava said, the sufferers from gonorrhea relate to the impure as the impure relate to the pure. They do not make it; the sufferers from gonorrhea are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rav Ḥuna said, there is no make-up for Pesaḥ celebrated in impurity²⁸ is celebrated in impurity. The only difference is that in this case, where everybody is impure, the impure celebrate Pesaḥ in impurity if they make up 50% of the population, not 50%+2, and the healed sufferers from gonorrhea and similar impurity then may celebrate the Second. Cf. Halakhah 7:6, Note 154/.

footnotes: ²⁸ While sufferers from gonorrhea (and in general, all people whose impurity is generated by their own body) are impure and excluded from the sanctuary, only people impure in the impurity of the dead are counted in determining whether Pesaḥ

If most of the public were pure but a minority impure²⁹, and some of the pure died between slaughter and pouring. After what are you going? Slaughter [or] pouring? If you are saying after slaughter, one does not celebrate in impurity; if you are saying after pouring, one celebrates in impurity. If most of the public were impure but a minority pure, and of the impure died between slaughter and pouring. After what are you going? Slaughter or pouring? If you are saying after slaughter, one celebrates in impurity; if you are saying after pouring, one does not celebrate in impurity³⁰.

footnotes: ²⁹ Impure in the impurity of the dead. ³⁰ Since the case cannot happen, no answer is required.

MISHNAH: What is a far-away trip³¹? From Modiˋin³² and farther away, and the same distance in every direction, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Eliezer says, outside the doorstep of the Temple Courtyard. Rebbi Yose said, therefore there is a dot on the ה³³ to indicate not that it be really far but outside the doorstep of the Temple Courtyard.

footnotes: ³¹ That a person being there on the 14th of Nisan be obligated for Second Pesaḥ. ³² In the foothills West of Jerusalem. ³³ The masoretic text is רחקה̇, using the technique that instead of deleting letters one makes dots over them.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon said, the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya and bar Qappara disagreed. One said, that he could come and eat³⁴ if he can reach the walled city of Jerusalem in time for the eating of the Pesaḥ, i. e., between nightfall and midnight.; the other one said that he could come and pour³⁵. And even following him who said, that he could come and eat; on condition that he be within the two thousand cubits of the [Sabbath] domain before nightfall³⁶. Rebbi Zeˋira said, there³⁷ published by L. Ginzberg in his Genizah Fragments (p. 321): “Tannaim state.” they stated, if he happened to be closer than Modiˋin but his feet were bad, I could think that he be liable, the verse said, he refrained³⁸ 9:13., this excludes one who did not refrain. If he happened to be farther than Modiˋin but had a horse at his disposal, I could think that he be liable, the verse said, and he was not on a trip, this excludes this one who was on a trip. If he happened to be closer than Modiˋin before noontime but left before noontime, I could think that he be liable, the verse said, he refrained from doing, he who refrains at the time of doing is liable, not at the time of doing is not liable.

footnotes: ³⁴ A person is not ”far away” to be absolved from participating in the First Pesaḥ ³⁵ He must be there at the time of pouring the blood at the altar walls, in the late afternoon. ³⁶ Since on the holiday he is not permitted to walk more than 2’000 cubits from the place at which he started the holiday, it is clear that nobody farther than 2’000 cubits from Jerusalem at sundown can participate. ³⁷ In Babylonia. In the text of the extracts from the Yerushalmi in Yalqut Šimony ³⁸ Num.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both of them³⁹ explained the same verse, there, there⁴⁰ 16:6) there you shall slaughter the Pesaḥ in the evening, and it is said about Second Tithe (Deut. 14:22): you shall eat before the Eternal, your God, at the place which He will select to have His Name dwell there. Both Pesaḥ and Second Tithe have to be eaten at the place of the Sanctuary, and Tithe has to be accompanied by a sacrifice of appearance. Therefore “there” may be interpreted either as place of the sacrifice, in this case the Temple, or the place of consumption, Jerusalem, with the corresponding meaning of “far away”.. One said, away from doing it, but the other one said, away from its enclosure.

footnotes: ³⁹ R. Aqiba and R. Eliezer, quoted in the Mishnah. ⁴⁰ It is said about the Pesaḥ (Deut.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But the man who is pure and was not on the road³⁸ 9:13., this excludes the one on the road. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: when He warned, He mentioned far away, when He punishes He does not mention “far away”⁴¹ 9:9, where the Second Pesaḥ is defined, but missing in 9:13 where omission of both Pesaḥim is declared to be a deadly sin.. But the rabbis are saying, in case that the letters are more than what is dotted, one explains the letters and disregards what is dotted; in case that the dotted is more than the letters, one explains the dotted and disregards the letter⁴² 18:9 where א֗לי֗ו֗ is read as איו “where?”. Rebbi⁴² 18:9 where א֗לי֗ו֗ is read as איו “where?” said, even though that in this case there is only one letter dotted on top, one explains the dotted and disregards the letters. The he in רחוקה is dotted: the man is far away, not the road far away.

footnotes: ³⁸ Num. ⁴¹ “Far away” is mentioned in Num. ⁴² As in Gen. ⁴² As in Gen.

MISHNAH: What is the difference between the First and the Second Pesaḥ? The First is forbidden [leavened matter] to be seen or found. For the Second, leavened matter and mazzah are with him in the house. The First needs Hallel when it is eaten, but the Second does not need Hallel when it is eaten⁴⁴. Both need Hallel when it is offered⁴⁵ 113–117 sung by the Levitic choir in the Temple, not the family at the table., and they are eaten roasted, with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, and push the Sabbath aside.

footnotes: ⁴⁴ The First is a family celebration, the Second a ritual restricted to adult males. ⁴⁵ Pss.

HALAKHAH: It is written: they shall not leave anything until morning⁴⁶ 9:12, stating the rules of the Second Pesaḥ.**. If it relates to eating, this is the relevant positive commandment. No bone of it may be broken, that is the relevant prohibition. So when He says, according to all rules of the Pesaḥ they shall make it, I could think that I have to add the elimination of leavened matter and mazzah for seven days. The verse says, on mazzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it⁴⁷9:11*.* Cf. Babli 95a.. Nothing external to its body impedes it except mazzot and bitter herbs. And following Rebbi Ismael? Since Rebbi Ismael says, a principle followed by a detail, everything is in the principle, I could think that everything impedes it; the verse says, on mazzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it. Nothing external to its body impedes it except mazzot and bitter herbs⁴⁸ 69, the argument is based on another hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: “Anything mentioned in one setting and repeated in a different setting cannot be considered part of the original setting unless referred to explicitly by the verse.” Since the details, to be eaten with mazzah and bitter herbs, not to be left until morning, and no bone being broken, are repeated from the laws of the First Pesaḥ, they and only they are transferred to the Second..

footnotes: ⁴⁶ Num. ⁴⁷ Num. ⁴⁸ In Sifry Num.

Some Tannain stated, he is punished by extirpation for the Second, he is not punished by extirpation for the First. Some Tannain stated, he is punished by extirpation for the First, he is not punished by extirpation for the Second. And there are Tannaim who state, both for the First as for the Second he is punished by extirpation. He who says, he is punished by extirpation for the First; he shall bear his sin about the First. He who says, he is punished by extirpation for the Second; he shall bear his sin about the Second. He who says, both for the First as for the Second he is punished by extirpation, he shall bear his sin about the First and the Second. He who said, for the Second, he is not punished by extirpation except if he missed the First: For the sacrifice of the Eternal he did did not bring at its appointed time, the First, his sin he shall bear, about the Second⁴⁹ 9:13 is written with the laws of the Second Pesaḥ, it is formulated in terms of the First. Therefore it is not clear whether it refers to the First (as understood by *Sifry Num.*70 and Pseudo-Jonathan), the Second, or both..

footnotes: ⁴⁹ While Num.

Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simon ben Joṣadaq: It is written, the song shall be for you like the night at the start of the holiday of**pilgrimage⁵⁰. 30:29; Babli 95b.. The Passover night comes to instruct about the downfall of Sanherib and taken instruction from it. Since the one needs Hallel. so the other needs Hallel. But then since the one needs a sacrifice of pilgrimage, does the other need a sacrifice of pilgrimage? Rebbi Zeˋira said, like the night at the start of the holiday of pilgrimage, anything needing Hallel needs a sacrifice of pilgrimage; anything not needing Hallel does not need a sacrifice of pilgrimage.

footnotes: ⁵⁰ Is

It pushes aside impurity. You say, in itself it only comes because of impurity, and you are saying, it pushes aside impurity⁵¹70*.* It is clear that the Second Pesaḥ only can be offered in purity.?

footnotes: ⁵¹ Babli 95b, Sifry Num.

MISHNAH: What is the difference between the First and the Second Pesaḥ? The First is forbidden [leavened matter] to be seen or found. For the Second, leavened matter and mazzah are with him in the house. The First needs Hallel when it is eaten, but the Second does not need Hallel when it is eaten⁴⁴. Both need Hallel when it is offered⁴⁵ 113–117 sung by the Levitic choir in the Temple, not the family at the table., and they are eaten roasted, with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, and push the Sabbath aside.

footnotes: ⁴⁴ The First is a family celebration, the Second a ritual restricted to adult males. ⁴⁵ Pss.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi Meïr declares liable but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable⁵⁴ slaughtered for people impure by the impurity of the dead. The Mishnah is R. Simeon’s. In Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 14, the argument is attributed to R. Josua, in Tosephta 8:9 R. Simeon in the name of R. Joshua; in the Babli 95b it is anonymous.. What is Rebbi Simeon’s reason? The meat, every pure person shall eat meat. But the person who would eat meat from the well-being sacrifice⁵⁵ 7:19–20., for any which is permitted to pure persons one is liable for impurity, but for any which is not permitted to pure persons one is not liable for impurity⁵⁶ (מְעִילָה).. If he ate elevation offerings, if he ate parts⁵⁷, since they are not permitted to pure persons one is not liable for it.

footnotes: ⁵⁴ The people whose impurity is caused by their own body who eat from Pesaḥ ⁵⁵ Lev. ⁵⁶ But naturally he still is liable for a sacrifice to atone for the unauthorized use of sancta ⁵⁷ The fat to be burned on the altar and forbidden for human consumption (Chapter 5, Note 50).

If he⁵⁸ (which is to be brought in impurity) cannot be slaughtered. The question presupposes that practice follows R. Eliezer. entered in the night, if he entered before noontime? Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Eliezer would hold with Rebbi Simeon, what is the reason on she may not touch any sancta and into the Sanctuary she may not come⁵⁹ 12:4, of the woman after birth and before she brought the sacrifice which permits her to enter the sacred domain.? In case one be liable for eating sancta one is liable for entering the Sanctuary, and in case one be not liable for eating sancta one is not liable for entering the Sanctuary. If Rebbi Simeon would hold with Rebbi Eliezer, what is the reason on she may not touch any sancta and in the Sanctuary she may not come? In case one is liable for entering the Sanctuary one is liable for eating sancta and in case one is not liable for entering the Sanctuary one is not liable for eating sancta⁶⁰*.*

footnotes: ⁵⁸ The persons whose impurity is caused by their own body, who are excluded from the sacred domain, entering at a time when the Pesaḥ ⁵⁹ Lev. ⁶⁰ The Mishnah is consistent; the anonymous part and that attributed to R. Eliezer express the same principles.

MISHNAH: What is the difference between Passover in Egypt and the Passover of generations⁶¹? The Pesaḥ in Egypt was bought on the Tenth⁶² 12:3., and needed sprinkling with a bunch of hyssop on the lintel and two door-posts⁶³ 12:22., and was eaten in a hurry⁶⁴. 12:11., during one night⁶⁵. But Passover of generations is all of seven [days].

footnotes: ⁶¹ Passover for future generations. ⁶² Ex. ⁶³ Ex. ⁶⁴ Ex ⁶⁵ The following day was a common workday on which they left Egypt.

HALAKHAH: Some Tannaim state, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were disqualifying for it⁶⁶ 22:22–24. Mekhilta dR. Isamel Bo 4.. Some Tannaim state, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were not disqualifying for it⁶⁷. He who said, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were disqualifying for it, is understandable, since it is written, a perfect lamb⁶⁸ 12:5.. He who said, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were not disqualifying for it, how does he confirm a perfect lamb? ⁶⁹ 9:5, Notes 109–112. Even for offerings of the descendants of Noah it is impossible! Did not Rebbi Yasa say that Rebbi Eleazar made it clear to the colleagues, from all living, from all flesh⁷⁰ 6:19. From all living creatures, each one with its entire flesh, i. e., a whole body. Babli Avodah zarah 5b. Since Noah sacrificed some of the pure animals after the Flood, they must have conformed to the rules of sacrificial animals. But the Pesaḥ in Egypt was not an altar sacrifice., that they were complete in their limbs. There, some of them were for the altar, here nothing is for the altar. ⁷¹ it has no place here.(Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, since you say, purgation is written there as for sacrifices, but here the altar has no part) But is was stated thus: Our forefathers in Egypt had three altars, the lintel and two door-posts. Some Tannaim state, four: the door-step, and the lintel, and two door-posts. Some Tannaim state, סַף is a vessel. Some Tannaim state, סַף is the door-step. He who said, סַף is a vessel, the cups, and the pruning knives, and the vessels for pouring⁷² 6:50. The words are badly misspelled. The word is סף I.. He who said, סַף is the door-step, when they used My door-step and their door-step⁷³ 43:8, סף II.. He who said, סַף is a vessel, is understandable⁷⁴ 12:22.; from the blood in the סַף. He who said, סַף is the door-step, how does he confirm that סַף may mean a vessel? He brings a cup as סַף, puts it down on the door-step, dunks and sprinkles.

footnotes: ⁶⁶ As they are disqualifying for sacrifices; Lev. ⁶⁷ Tosephta 8:11. ⁶⁸ Ex. ⁶⁹ The next sentences are from Soṭah ⁷⁰ Gen. ⁷¹ This sentence belongs to Soṭah, ⁷² 1K. ⁷³ Ez. ⁷⁴ Ex.

It was stated: Ben Bag-bag says, a perfect lamb, shorn is not perfect. But was it not stated, of small cattle⁷⁵ 1:2. As always, prefix mem is read as: from some, not all., to exclude the smooth of them. Rebbi Abun said, to exclude those which the Torah separated⁷⁶ 2., the male or female used for bestiality, one dedicated for idolatrous worship, and one worshipped.

footnotes: ⁷⁵ Lev. ⁷⁶ Sifra Wayyiqra I (Nedavah) Pereq

Rebbi Yose said, also Rebbi Yose the Galilean is with them⁷⁷, as it was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, I am saying that Passover in Egypt was only one day, as it is said, no leavened matter shall be eaten; today⁷⁸ 13:3–4..

footnotes: ⁷⁷ With the author of the last statement in the Mishnah, that Passover in Egypt was only one day. Tosephta 8:21, as minority opinion. ⁷⁸ Ex.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joshua said, I have heard that the substitute of a Pesaḥ is sacrificed and that the substitute of a Pesaḥ is not sacrificed, and I cannot explain it. Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall explain it. The Pesaḥ which is found⁷⁹ when it was lost and another animal was designated in its stead. If then it is found before the afternoon of the 14 of Nisan, it remains dedicated but cannot be sacrificed since only one Pesaḥ is possible for one group. A sacrifice which could not be used for the intended purpose cannot be used anymore. before the time of slaughtering the Pesaḥ shall graze until it becomes unusable⁸⁰, then be sold, and for the money one shall bring well-being offerings; the same holds for its substitute⁸¹ 27:10).. After the time of slaughtering the Pesaḥ, it shall be brought as well-being offering⁸² after the 14th of Nisan automatically becomes dedication as well-being offering.; the same holds for its substitute.

footnotes: ⁷⁹ An animal had been designated as Pesaḥ ⁸⁰ Either is develops a defect which disqualifies it for the altar or it becomes too old. Then it may be sold and the dedication is removed from the animal and transferred to the money, which only may be used to buy sacrificial animals. ⁸¹ This refers to unauthorized substitutes, where the act of substitution is sinful but the substituted animal nevertheless acquires the status of the animal for which it is substituted (Lev. ⁸² Since the dedication as Pesaḥ

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan asked, is it the same for the substitute of a reparation offering, that the substitute of a reparation offering is sacrificed and the substitute of a reparation offering is not sacrificed⁸³ 27:10 prescribes that the status of an (illegal) substitute of a sacrifice is that of the sacrifice for which it is substituted. But this condition cannot be fulfilled for a reparation sacrifice since for one obligation only one sacrifice is possible. Therefore it is decreed (Mishnsh Temurah 3:3) that in all cases the substitute of a reparation sacrifice (in contrast to substitutes of purification sacrifices) should be sent to graze until it becomes unusable, then be sold, and for the money one shall buy elevation sacrifices. The question is why, if the animal was lost and only found after the original had been sacrificed, it cannot be used directly as elevation sacrifice. No answer is given. As S. Liebermann points out, in the opinion of Tosaphot (73a, *s.v.*אשם), by biblical standards any substitute of a reparation sacrifice could be brought as elevation offering and the circuitous route via grazing is purely rabbinic; since the original rule does not mention exceptions, the question should not have been asked.? ⁸⁴ mentioned in the Mishnah: this is the afternoon of the Fourteenth of Nisan. Therefore, in the following, “Thirteenth” really means “Thirteenth and morning of Fourteenth”, and “Fourteenth” means “Afternoon of the Fourteenth”. Rebbi Yose said, a Pesaḥ which one sacrificed [in the morning] is no Pesaḥ; an elevation offering which one sacrificed in the morning is an elevation offering.

footnotes: ⁸³ Lev. ⁸⁴ This sentence is copied from Chapter 4:1, Note 27. However, only the first part is relevant here. It defines “the time of slaughtering the Pesaḥ”

If he substituted for it on the Thirteenth, Rebbi Zeˋira said, the substitute is brought as a well-being offering⁸⁵ animal which is not used automatically is that of well-being sacrifice.; Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the substitute is not brought as a well-being offering⁸⁶. The strength of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac is from the following: “after the time of slaughtering the Pesaḥ, it shall be brought as well-being offering.” If you are saying, if he substituted for it on the Thirteenth and the substitute is brought as a well-being offering, is it not better to infer the {rules of the} substitute of a Pesaḥ from the {rules of the} Pesaḥ than to infer the [rules of the] substitute of a well-being sacrifice from the {rules of the} Pesaḥ⁸⁷*?*

footnotes: ⁸⁵ Since the dedication of a Pesaḥ ⁸⁶ But it must be sent to graze, as spelled out in the Mishnah. ⁸⁷ The Mishnah, which treats the substitute together with the lost and found animal is more logically consistent than R. Zeˋira’s correction; the Mishnah should be followed to the letter.

Rebbi Hila in the name of Samuel: If the owner died⁸⁸ on the Thirteenth, its body is offered as a well-being sacrifice. Why did he not say, on the Fourteenth? Any {animal} which is due to be sacrificed as Pesaḥ, its body is not offered as a well-being sacrifice⁸⁹ automatically reverts to that of well-being sacrifice after the 14th of Nisan..

footnotes: ⁸⁸ And no family member is subscribing. Babli 98a, Tosephta 9:16. ⁸⁹ The rule that an animal which had been designated for a certain sacrifice, but at the moment of actual sacrifice was not used, never could be used for another sacrifice, has precedence over the rule which states that a designation of Pesaḥ

There⁹⁰4*:*1., we have stated: “The offspring of a purification offering⁹¹ but since only its mother can be sacrificed, it may neither be redeemed nor used for any other sacrifice., and the substitute of a purification offering, and a purification offering whose owner died⁹² 1:1)., …⁹³, and whose year has passed⁹⁴, and which was lost and found, defective⁹⁵.”

footnotes: ⁹⁰ Mishnah Temurah ⁹¹ The purification offering from a private person is a female sheep or goat. If it produces a lamb, the lamb is a sanctum ⁹² Since it is dedicated, it may not be redeemed. As a purification offering, the dedication may not be transferred to the benefit of any other person (Mishna Zevaḥim ⁹³ The portion missing here states that all the previously enumerated animals must be allowed to die since they cannot be used; even if they develop a defect they cannot be sold. ⁹⁴ Sheep are acceptable as sacrifice only if one year old. ⁹⁵ The question whether one has to read “which was lost and found defective” or “which was lost and found, and the defective” is resolved in the discussion in favor of the first alternative. For this second group the Mishnah prescribes that they have to die if found after the owners had offered a substitute but if found before that time they are to be put out to graze, to be sold once no longer qualified as sacrifices.

⁹⁶ is brought as well-being offering, but those put out to graze follow the same rules in both cases.“The offspring of a purification offering,” as they disagreed: If the community dedicated a female, and so the prince who dedicated a she-goat, Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is not dedicated⁹⁷ 4:14) and that of a prince (Lev. 4:23) a ram. He holds that a dedication against the rules is void. and its offspring may be offered; Rebbi Yose said, it is dedicated and its offspring must die⁹⁸. The strength of Rebbi Yose is from the following⁹⁹ also quoted in the Babli, Temurah 16a.: “You cannot speak about the offspring of a purification offering of the community, since the community does not bring a female.” He only said, “you cannot speak about”; therefore if he dedicated it¹⁰⁰ does not state that there is no dedication. it is dedicated. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Jeremiah said it correctly. Is it not Rebbi Simeon’s? As Rebbi Simeon said, a female as elevation offering is dedicated only for its money’s worth¹⁰¹ 1:3,10). The dedication of a female is valid as gift to the Temple but invalid as sacrifice; therefore the animal has to be given to the Temple to be sold for its benefit. (A matter of dispute in the Babli, Temurah 20a/b.) R. Jeremiah may also hold that the value of the animals is dedicated to the Temple, but this does not imply any sacrificial status..

footnotes: ⁹⁶ The Mishnah is discussed item by item, the hypothesis being that any animal which if dedicated as purification offering is left to die, as Pesaḥ ⁹⁷ Since the purification offering of the community has to be a bull (Lev. ⁹⁸ The dedication is valid but obviously the animal cannot be used. Not only the calf but also its mother must die. ⁹⁹ A baraita ¹⁰⁰ The baraita ¹⁰¹ An elevation offering has to be male (Lev.

“And the substitute of a purification offering,” as they disagreed: if he substituted for it on the Thirteenth, Rebbi Zeˋira said, the substitute is brought as a well-being offering⁸⁵ animal which is not used automatically is that of well-being sacrifice.; Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the substitute is not brought as a well-being offering⁸⁶.

footnotes: ⁸⁵ Since the dedication of a Pesaḥ ⁸⁶ But it must be sent to graze, as spelled out in the Mishnah.

“And a purification offering whose owner died,” [has to die. Parallel to what] Rebbi Hila said in the name of Samuel, If the owner died⁸⁸ on the Thirteenth, its body is offered as a well-being sacrifice. Why did he {not} say, on the Fourteenth? Everybody agrees that the body of any {animal} due to be sacrificed as Pesaḥ, is not offered as a well-being sacrifice⁸⁹ automatically reverts to that of well-being sacrifice after the 14th of Nisan..

footnotes: ⁸⁸ And no family member is subscribing. Babli 98a, Tosephta 9:16. ⁸⁹ The rule that an animal which had been designated for a certain sacrifice, but at the moment of actual sacrifice was not used, never could be used for another sacrifice, has precedence over the rule which states that a designation of Pesaḥ

“And whose year has passed.” Parallel to what Rav Ḥisda said¹⁰², If its year was completed between First and Second. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When the time for its propitiation was passed.

footnotes: ¹⁰² Chapter 5, Notes 178–179.

“And which was lost and found.” (Defective.) [Is it not certainly permitted?] Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: No body of a Pesaḥ is brought as well-being sacrifice except the one which was lost but found only after the owners propitiated¹⁰³.

footnotes: ¹⁰³ In all other cases, while he agrees that the value of the animal is dedicated for well-being offerings, he demands that the animal be put out to grazing, to be sold once disqualified as sacrifice. Babli 97b.The scribe’s text “defective” is certainly a scribal error from the following paragraph.

“And the defective.” Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Yasa: Is it not reasonable that the defective quoted here is the one which was lost¹⁰⁴? He said to him, I also am of this opinion.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁴ Since a defective animal cannot be dedicated as sacrifice; its dedication automatically would only be for its money’s worth. It is to be sold without delay for the benefit of the Temple.

If he dedicated his Pesaḥ, but it became lost, and he dedicated another in its stead. Before he could sacrifice the second, the first was found, and now both are at his disposal. There are Tannaim who state, it is meritorious to sacrifice the first; there are Tannaim who state, it is meritorious to sacrifice the second. Samuel stated as follows: He selects the better of the two, and the other one shall graze until it becomes unusable, then be sold, and he shall bring for its value well-being offerings on the Sixteenth¹⁰⁵ but it became lost, and he dedicated another in its stead. Before he could sacrifice the second, the first was found, and now both are at his disposal. He should bring the one he chooses following the words of the Sages. Rebbi Yose says, it is meritorious to sacrifice the first one, but if the second is better he should sacrifice that one and the first one shall graze until it becomes unusable, then be sold, and he shall bring for its value well-being offerings on the Sixteenth.” The excess sacrifice cannot be brought before the Sixteenth since the Fifteenth is a holiday and only obligatory sacrifices are permitted on that day. No commentary known to me addresses the problem that first it is required that the animal graze for an indeterminate period but then be sacrificed on short notice on the second day after the first sacrifice. Probably one should read the text as “not before the Sixteenth”.. Rebbi Eleazar says, itself shall be brought as well-being offering on the Sixteenth. Rebbi comes with Rebbi Eleazar, and Samuel stated according to his system⁸⁹ automatically reverts to that of well-being sacrifice after the 14 of Nisan., as it was stated¹⁰⁶ 22b, has a completely different tradition. One may not emend the Yerushalmi according to the Babli, in particular in this case where R. Salomon Adani in his commentary מלאכת שלמה to the Mishnah quotes the Yerushalmi from a Yemenite ms. in the form given here.: “Rebbi says, no purification offering {dies}¹⁰⁷ but one which was found after that the owner had been atoned⁹⁵, no money is thrown into the Dead Sea except which was found after the owner had been atoned¹⁰⁸ 1:6), if the money was lost and only found after a substitute animal had been offered, it has to be destroyed in a way in which nobody could have future usufruct of any kind, such as throwing the coins into the Dead Sea where the metal will quickly be dissolved..”

footnotes: ¹⁰⁵ In Tosephta 9:12 the text is: “If he dedicated his Pesaḥ, ⁸⁹ The rule that an animal which had been designated for a certain sacrifice, but at the moment of actual sacrifice was not used, never could be used for another sacrifice, has precedence over the rule which states that a designation of Pesaḥ ¹⁰⁶ The Babli 97a, Temurah ¹⁰⁷ The word is missing in the text here but is quoted by R. Salomon Adani and is needed for understanding. The quote is based on the rule explained in Note 96, that any animal left to die as purification sacrifice is brought as well-being sacrifice in the case of Pesaḥ. ⁹⁵ The question whether one has to read “which was lost and found defective” or “which was lost and found, and the defective” is resolved in the discussion in favor of the first alternative. For this second group the Mishnah prescribes that they have to die if found after the owners had offered a substitute but if found before that time they are to be put out to graze, to be sold once no longer qualified as sacrifices. ¹⁰⁸ No animal had been bought yet but money was dedicated to be used for a purification sacrifice. Since gifts to Heaven are irrevocable (Mishnah Qiddušin

MISHNAH: If he dedicates a female as his Pesaḥ or a two year old male¹⁰⁹ 12:5 requires a male yearling, the dedications as Pesaḥ are invalid. Since the animal never was a Pesaḥ, the rule that a dedication of Pesaḥ implies a dedication as well-being offering cannot be applied., it shall graze until it becomes unusable, then be sold, and the monies given for voluntary sacrifices¹¹⁰. If he dedicates his Pesaḥ and dies, his son may not bring it after him as Pesaḥ but as well-being offering¹¹¹ was left without subscribers; i. e., the son was not a subscriber to his father’s Pesaḥ (Tosephta 9:17)..

footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ Since Ex. ¹¹⁰ The Temple account from which elevation offerings are paid to cover periods where otherwise the altar would be empty. ¹¹¹ Only if the Pesaḥ

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah after propitiation¹¹², following {neither Rebbi nor¹¹³ Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated¹¹⁴: “Before Passover it shall graze until it becomes unusable, then be sold, and he shall bring for its value a Pesaḥ¹¹⁵*.* After Passover it shall be brought as well-being sacrifice. Rebbi Simeon¹¹⁶ says, before Passover it shall be sold without a defect, after Passover it shall be brought as well-being sacrifice.” Did we not understand that “the body of any {animal} due to be sacrificed as Pesaḥ is not offered as a well-being sacrifice⁸⁹ automatically reverts to that of well-being sacrifice after the 14th of Nisan.”? Explain it if he dedicated coins.

footnotes: ¹¹² The question is why in the first sentence of the Mishnah one does not distinguish as always between the situations before and after the 14th of Nisan. The sentence cannot deal with the situation before Passover when everything stilli can be put in order. ¹¹³ These words are missing in the ms., they are quoted by R. Salomon Adani from a Yemenite ms. of the Yerushalmi and are necessary for the understanding of the text. The agreement of Rebbi and R. Simeon is in Tosephta 9:19. ¹¹⁴ Tosephta 9:20, about a female sheep dedicated as Pesaḥ. ¹¹⁵ Since the money always was intended for Pesaḥ. ¹¹⁶ In the Tosephta: “R. Simeon ben Jehudah”. ⁸⁹ The rule that an animal which had been designated for a certain sacrifice, but at the moment of actual sacrifice was not used, never could be used for another sacrifice, has precedence over the rule which states that a designation of Pesaḥ

MISHNAH: If a Pesaḥ was mingled with sacrifices¹¹⁷ mixed with well-being sacrifices is brought as well-being sacrifice on the 16th of Nisan., all of them shall graze until they become unusable, then be sold, and for the value of the best among them he shall bring one of each kind and lose the difference on his account¹¹⁸. If it was mingled with firstlings, Rebbi Simeon says, if it is a company of priests, they shall eat¹¹⁹ and firstlings is identical. The majority disagrees since firstlings may be eaten during two days and the night in between but a Pesaḥ only half a night..

footnotes: ¹¹⁷ Other than well-being sacrifices, since a Pesaḥ ¹¹⁸ He redeems all animals and but spends money in a multiple of the proceeds obtained for the best in the flock. ¹¹⁹ Since the Temple service for Pesaḥ

HALAKHAH: ¹²⁰ 3:2 (ם) Notes 28–36. Sabbatical produce must be consumed by humans, Second Tithe money must be used to buy produce to be eaten in purity at the place of the Temple. The situation is similar to that of a Pesaḥ mingled with a firstling; the question is whether the disagreement of R. Simeon and the rabbis carries over to tithes and Sabbatical produce. It was stated: “One does not buy Sabbatical [produce] with tithe money.” Rebbi Yose said, that is a disagreement. Rebbi Jonah said, that is the opinion of everybody. The eaters of heave are careful. Rebbi Ḥananiah objected before Rebbi Mana: Did we not state: “If they were mingled with firstlings, Rebbi Simeon says, if it is a company of Cohanim they should eat.” And we have stated on that, they should be eaten following the more stringent rules. He said to him, eaters of the Pesaḥ in its time are as careful as the eaters of heave. You should know this since we have stated¹²¹ 1:14. “They should be roasted before nightfall”.: “One roasts meat, onion, or egg only that they should be roasted“, but we have stated:¹²² 1:15, contradicting the preceding Mishnah unless one accepts R. Mana’s argument (which is that of his father R. Jonah). “One lowers the Pesaḥ into the oven at nightfall.”

footnotes: ¹²⁰ This Halakhah also is a paragraph in Maˋaser Šeni ¹²¹ Mishnah Šabbat ¹²² Mishnah Šabbat

MISHNAH: A group whose Pesaḥ was lost and they said to one of them go, and search for it, and slaughter for us. He went, found¹²³, and slaughtered, and they bought and slaughtered. If his was slaughtered first, he eats of his, and they eat with him¹²⁴; but if theirs was slaughtered first, they eat of theirs, and he eats of his¹²⁵. If it is not known which one was slaughtered first, or they slaughtered simultaneously, they eat of theirs, but he does not eat with them¹²⁶. His is brought to be burned¹²⁷ is by burning outside the sacred domain., and he is not liable for a Second Pesaḥ. If he told them, if I would tarry, slaughter for me; he went, found, and slaughtered, and they bought and slaughtered. If theirs was slaughtered first, they eat of theirs, and he eats with them; but if his was slaughtered first, he eats of his and they eat of theirs. If it is not known which one was slaughtered first, or they slaughtered simultaneously, he eats of his, but they he may not eat with him; and theirs is brought to be burned, but they are not liable for a Second Pesaḥ¹²⁹ it is not part of the manuscript text. It is obvious that this Mishnah was copied twice; the text of the second version is that of the Babli and Maimonides. Since the Mishnah is not discussed, it is impossible to decide between the versions. Maimonides declares the Mishnah to be obvious and not in need of explanation.. If he told them, if I would tarry, go and slaughter for me; he went, found, and slaughtered, and they bought and slaughtered. If theirs was slaughtered first, they eat of theirs, and he eats with them¹³⁰ was slaughtered first, which makes his redundant.; but if his was slaughtered first, he eats of his and they eat of theirs. If it is not known which one was slaughtered first, or they slaughtered simultaneously, they eat of theirs, and he may not eat with them; and his is brought to be burned¹³¹ the slaughter of the first makes his redundant., but he is not liable for a Second Pesaḥ. If he said to them and they said to him, all of them eat of the first. If he did not talk to them nor did they talk to him, they are not responsible for one another. Two groups whose Pesaḥim were commingled¹³², each of them draws one for them. One of each group joins the other and they¹³³ declare: If this Pesaḥ is ours, your hand is removed from yours and you are subscribing to ours, and if this Pesaḥ is yours, our hand is removed from ours and we are subscribing to yours. The same holds for five groups of five members each, or ten of ten, one exchanges members of each group and so they declare¹³⁴ were commingled, each group must have at last n members so that one member of each group joins another. They all have to make the declaration formulated in the previous Mishnah..

footnotes: ¹²³ The original sheep. ¹²⁴ Since all of them are subscribers to the one. ¹²⁵ By their action they cancelled their subscription to the first sheep, but he never was involved with the second. ¹²⁶ Since it is not known whether they still are subscribers to their sheep or whether the subscription was cancelled by their action. ¹²⁷ This disposal of any disabled sanctum ¹²⁹ The text of the Mishnah in the Yerushalmi is that of the editio princeps, ¹³⁰ Since he does not renounce his membership in the group and their Pesaḥ ¹³¹ Since he had made them his agents to slaughter a Pesaḥ, ¹³² When the animals are alive and it is possible to change affiliations. ¹³³ Each group has to make a separate declaration. ¹³⁴ If n Pesaḥim

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, this¹²⁸ since the blood of their sheep was correctly poured on the altar, even though it turned out that they could not eat from it. is Rebbi Nathan’s, since Rebbi Nathan said, one fulfills one’s obligation by pouring without eating.

footnotes: ¹²⁸ The statement in this and the following Mishnah that one is not liable for a Second Pesaḥ

Bar Qappara stated: Silence behoves the Sages, and so much more the fools. And also Solomon says¹³⁵. 17:28., also a silent dolt is considered to be wise, and it is not necessary to say, a silent sage¹³⁶.

footnotes: ¹³⁵ Prov ¹³⁶ Since the only uncomplicated case in the Mishnaiot is when nobody says anything. Babli 99a.

MISHNAH: If the Pesaḥim of two people were intermingled¹³⁷ They cannot simply re-subscribe each to one of the animals since then the dedicated Pesaḥim would for a moment be left without subscribers and therefore disqualified., each of them takes one, and each one invites another from the street to subscribe with him¹³⁸ were intermingled and one may apply the rule spelled out in Mishnah 11.. One of each group joins the other, and each one declares¹³⁹ as follows: If this Pesaḥ be mine, your hand is removed from yours and you are subscribing to mine, and if this Pesaḥ be yours, my hand is removed from mine and I am subscribing to yours.

footnotes: ¹³⁷ And no other people subscribed to these Pesaḥim. ¹³⁸ Then there are two groups of two people whose Pesaḥim ¹³⁹ To the one who comes to join the other group.

HALAKHAH: ¹⁴⁰ belongs to a group of at least 2 subscribers and therefore should be treated following Mishnah 11. A minimally invasive emendation would be to read in R. Joḥanan ’s statement: “This is not R. Jehudah’s.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Jehudah’s as we have stated there¹⁴¹, “One does not slaughter the Pesaḥ for a single person, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; but Rebbi Yose permits.” Therefore not of the Fourteenth. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, this is Rebbi Jehudah’s? Rebbi Yose said, does it proclaim that it is Rebbi Jehudah’s? As we have stated there, “One does not slaughter the Pesaḥ for a single person, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; but Rebbi Yose permits.”

footnotes: ¹⁴⁰ S. Liebermann writes: “I cannot explain this paragraph without major emendations.” In fact, as R. Yose the Amora notes in the second part of the paragraph, Mishnah 13 must follow R. Yose the Tanna, since according to R. Jehudah every Pesaḥ ¹⁴¹ Mishnah 8:7.