רגל ראשון- the first Festival after her marriage.

And it states [in the Mishnah]: "לא יאכל משל שניהם" – if each of them were stringent towards each other so much so, but if there were between concessions between them, if he wanted he would eat from this one, and if he wanted he would eat from that one (see Tractate Pesahim 88a).

And it states [in the Mishnah]: "לא יאכל משל רבו" – and similarly not from his own, and it will be explained to you (in Tractate Eduyot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 13 [see also the parallel Mishnah in Tractate Gittin, Chapter 4, Mishnah 5]) that we don’t leave a slave who is half-a slave and half a free-man, and therefore, he cannot eat at all until he is made [completely] a free-man.

And that which it (i.e., the Mishnah) said here: "לא יאכל משל רבו" – implies that he eats of his own according to the opinion which says that we leave him as a man, half of whom is a slave and half of whom is a free-man, and this law is built entirely according to the general principle that is with us and it was is stated in a Baraitha (Tosefta Pesahim, Chapter 7, Halakha 4): a person slaughters [the Passover offering] on behalf of his minor age sons and daughters and on behalf of his Canaanite slave and [Canaanite] maidservant whether with their knowledge or without their knowledge.

If his master said to him: "צא ושחוט עלי את הפסח" undefined/without qualification even though it was always his practice, [slaughter for me] “a lamb” and he slaughtered for him a kid, or [slaughter for me] “a kid” and he slaughtered a lamb, he should he consume it, and this is what he wanted to announce to you that we don’t worry about his custom. And the general rule among is that he is not counted on for a share in two Passover lambs, and this is what he warned us here and we stated [in the Mishnah]: "יאכל מן הראשון"/he should eat from the first – specifically regarding only a king or a queen, but if they said to their servants: “Go out and slaughter for us the Passover offering” and they went out and slaughtered two Passover offerings, and all of this on account of the fickle-mindedness that reigns and their limited submission to the Commandments, but the rest of the people should not eat either from the first [Passover offering] nor from the second. And this law that it states [in the Mishnah]: "שכח מה שאמר לו רבו"/he forgot what his master told him – does not exist other than if his master’s shepherd said to him: “take a lamb and a kid a slaughter both of them in order to suit the will of your master,” and here he designated/transferred to you one of them on the condition that there wouldn’t be anything for your master, but if this were not the case he should not fulfill anything from this law, because the general principle among us is what the servant purchased, his master purchased, but here when it (i.e., the Mishnah) said, "שלי" it should not be fulfilled other than what we explained. But they will be exempt from making the second Passover offering, if the master forgot what he said to him after the blood has been poured for surely the Passover offering, at the time of the sprinkling of the blood is appropriate for consumption, but if he forgot prior to the sprinkling of the blood, they are liable for a second Passover offering.

He (i.e., the father) said to them: "על מי שיעלה מכם [ראשון] לירושלים" in order to stimulate/goad them [in the observance of] the Commandments and that they will make ever effort to ascend to Jerusalem, but in regard to the Passover [offering], they already were specifically counted on for a share in the Passover lamb with him, and therefore if the older entered, he merited and his brothers merited with him because they are entered for a share in the Passover sacrifice. But Rabbi Shimon thinks that they are counted on for a share in the Passover lamb until it is slaughtered and withdraw your share after it has been slaughtered until the blood has been sprinkled. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

This is obvious.

This Mishnah requires general principles/rules and I am explaining them to you, and this is that if someone with gonorrhea saw two attacks, he is defiled and counts seven days without an other attack and he becomes ritually pure when he immerses [in a Mikveh] on the seventh day and he may eat Holy Things in the evening. And similarly, if he saw three attacks he is defiled and counts seven days without any attacks and immerses [in a Mikveh] on the seventh day and brings a sacrifice on the eighth day and afterwards may eat Holy Things because he is lacking atonement, but someone who is lacking atonement does not eat Holy things. God said (Leviticus 15:2): “[Speak to the Israelite people and say to them:] When any man has a discharge issuing from his member, he is impure.”/"[דברו אל-בני ישראל ואמרתם אלהם] איש איש כי יהיה זב מבשרו זובו טמא הוא" - It (i.e., the Torah) mentions the word "זיבות"/a person suffering from gonorrhea- twice and it says that he is impure, and it states further (Leviticus 15:3): “The impurity from his discharge shall mean the following – whether his member runs with the discharge or is stopped up so that there is no discharge, his impurity means this.”/"וזאת היהי טמאתו בזובו רר בשרו את-זובו או-החתים בשרו מזובו טמאתו הוא" – it mentions the word "זיבות" three times and states his impurity/טומאתו , and the accepted tradition comes and counts two and calls him impure, [and it counts] three times and calls him impure. How can this be that two [mentions of the word זב] makes him impure but three [mentions of the word זב] requires of him a sacrifice (see Tractate Megillah 8a, Tractate Niddah 43b. But the details of the laws of the attack will be explained in their place and we don’t have the need to go into length with this. And similarly, the woman who saw blood not at the time of her menstrual cycle for three consecutive days, she becomes a woman with a flux and counts seven days without an attack and brings a sacrifice on the eighth day like a man with gonorrhea and she eats Holy Things (if she is married to a Kohen or is a divorced/single daughter of a Kohen) in the evening, as it states (Leviticus 15:25): “When a woman had a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her period of menstrual impurity, [she shall be impure, as though at the time of her menstrual impurity, as long as her discharge lasts].” And our received tradition comes [and teaches] that [the word] "ימים" means “two” [days] and that [the word] "רבים" means “three” days, for if she did not see it (i.e., blood) for one day, she watches until the morrow, if she didn’t see anything at all she immerses [in the Mikveh] on the second day and eats Holy Things at night. But if she also saw [blood] on the second day she keeps watch the third “day,” if she didn’t see anything, she immerses [in the Mikveh] on the third day and eats Holy Things at night, but if she saw [blood] also on the third day, she becomes a complete woman with a flux, and all these three days are called שומרת יום כנגד יום/a woman who observes a day for a day, and after knowing these general principles, this Halakhah will be explained completely. And this law according to the generally principle that I have announced to you is in the previous chapter (Mishnah six) and he for whom it is not appropriate to the Passover offering on the fourteenth [of Nisan] but he will be appropriate in the evening that they slaughter on his behalf, and with the condition that he already immersed [in a Mikveh] and he doesn’t need anything other than sunset and also he had already transmitted his sacrifices to the Bet Din if he was lacking atonement, and then he would slaughter on his behalf and even though that on the same day he is not appropriate, except for/besides someone who has ritual impurity upon contact with a corpse alone, like we have explained to you there.

אונן – [a person who has lost a kinsman prior to burial] does not eat Holy Things for God said (Deuteronomy 26:14): “I have not eaten of it while in mourning,” and an אונן is called a person whose suffered the death of one of his relatives that he is obligated to mourn over them, on the day of death he is an אונן according to the Torah, and all the time that the corpse is lying on the face of the ground, he is also an אונן, and similarly, on the day of burial he is an אונן , but [only] according to the Rabbis (see also Maimonides’ comments on Tractate Demai, Chapter 1, Mishnah 2). And we are not concerned about the period of grief between the death of a kinsman and his/her burial according to the Rabbis with regard to the subject of the Passover [Sacrifice], and thus they (i.e., the Rabbis – in Tractate Zevakhim 99-101a and also Tractate Maaser Sheni, Chapter 3, Mishnah 6) said that there is no אנינות/intense grief other than on the day of death alone, and this is in regard to consuming the Passover Offering.

ומפקח בגל – this is a person who digs in a hill/mound to search underneath for a corpse to remove it, and we don’t slaughter for him [the Passover offering] because his end is unknown, for it is possible that he would find in that heap of stones/ruins a corpse and he would be ritually impure and it is forbidden for him to eat the Passover offering that was slaughtered and they intended for him with it [to consume it]. But it is possible that he would not find a corpse and he could eat from it.

And it states [in the Mishnah]: "וכן מי שהבטיחוהו להוציאו מבית האסורים" – and this is with two conditions – the first that he would be in a prison of non-Jews, and regarding them Scripture testified (Psalms 144:8): “whose mouths speak lies, [and whose oaths are false],” but from a prison of Israelites, if they promised him, certainly they will take him out, [as it says in] (Zephaniah 3:13): “The remnant of Israel shall do no wrong, and speak no falsehood.” And the second is that the prison will be outside of the wall [of Jerusalem], but if it was within Jerusalem, we carry the Passover [offering] to the prison and he will at of it there. And know that it is permitted for a person who just sustained the loss of a kinsman but has not yet buried him/her to eat the Passover [Offering] at night as will be explained later on (in Mishnah 8 – there is a misprint in the footnote of Mishnah 5 instead of 8), but we stated that one does not ab initio slaughter for him lest he not eat anything from his great pain [and distress on suffering the loss of a kinsman], for we have already relied upon his consuming it, but the meat will remain over and it will need to be burned, therefore it stated [in the Mishnah]: "ועל כולם אין שוחטין עליהם בפני עצמן" – meaning to say that they don’t slaughter the Passover [Offering] for a group of those who have just sustained the loss of a kinsman prior to burial or to a group of sick people or sick people or removal of debris from ruins that are upon a person, and afterwards, it explained this reason and stated, that lest one think that this is on account of the fact that they are not worthy to celebrate Passover, [but] they are worthy, but we prohibited this so that they would not bring the Passover [Offering] lest they disqualify it for they don’t consume it and we are required to burn it. And similarly, regarding the removal of ruins/debris lest they will discover the corpse after the slaughtering of the Passover [Offering] and they will defile it [through contact with a corpse] and have to burn it. And Just as we were informed that they are worthy, it states, therefore, if a disqualification occurred in them, meaning to say, if they slaughtered the Passover [Offering] and the blood was sprinkled upon them, even though that ab initio it is not appropriate to slaughter on their behalf, and afterwards a disqualification occurred in these people who had sustained a loss prior to being able to bury their kinsman or the sick people or the elders and they were defiled through [contact with] a corpse which they are not able to eat of it in the night, they are exempt from observing the Second Passover (on 14 Iyar) for they have slaughtered it when they were worthy to observe the Passover [Offering], except for removal of debris/ruins of a heap alone if it the Passover [Sacrifice] is slaughtered for him and he is worthy, as we have explained and afterwards the corpse is found in that heap, he is liable for the Second Passover, because he was ritually impure at the time of the slaughter when he was removing the ruins of a heap. And all of this is with the condition that the heap is round that if a corpse is found underneath it, we know with an absolute certainty that all that was on top of that heap was ritually impure because it was on top of a corpse (see Tractate Pesahim 91a). But if the place that he removes the debris of the heap/mound lengthwise and a corpse is found underneath it, it is exempt from observing the Second Passover, for we state that he was ritually pure at the time of the slaughter and it is possible that there wasn’t on top of the place that was opposite the corpse. But a round heap, which is like it is pointed projection – the ASTUNANA – which is in the form of a triangle.

This is simple, and its desire (i.e., the Mishnah) is to state that women and slaves or minors and slaves because of licentiousness (i.e., should not sacrifice together), but each gender alone is permitted, when on their own, or slaves on their own. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi.

What we caused to need to permit him the consumption of the Passover offering ut not the rest of the Holy Things is because the period of mourning between death and burial of a kinsman at night [following burial] is according to the Rabbis (see also Maimonides’ comments on Tractate Demai, Chapter 1, Mishnah 2) but it is explained in the Torah on the day of death alone, and it was it said regarding Aaron on the day of the death of [his sons] Nadav and Avihu (Leviticus 10:19): “Had I eaten purification offering today, would the LORD have approved?,” but because the Passover offering [is punishable] with extirpation, we permitted its being eaten during the period of mourning between death and burial of a kinsman according to the Rabbis, but the eating of Holy Things which is only a positive commandment, it did not permit him. But we obligated the person in the period of mourning between the death and burial of a kinsman ritual immersion in order to demonstrate his removal from that mindset and the removal of his mourning (compare Maimonides in the Laws of Mikveh, Chapter 11, Halakha 12 and the differing view in the Laws of Primary Defilement, Chapter 12, Halakha 14), and he is not liable in this other than if he suffered a loss after Noon on the fourth day of [of Nisan] where he was already responsible for the Passover Sacrifice and it occurred upon him prior to his being in the period of mourning between death and burial of a kinsman. But if he suffered a loss of a kinsman prior to Noon that he became a person in the period between death and burial of a kinsman before the time of the obligation of the [Passover] Sacrifice, it (i.e., the consumption of the Passover Sacrifice) should be postponed until the Second Passover (i.e., a month later in Iyyar), and we don’t offer it on his behalf when he is in the period between the death and burial of a kinsman because it is not appropriate on account of his deep grief.

והמלקט לו עצמות – meaning to say, that if another person assembled [the bones] for him , because this is one of the forms of the period between death and burial of a kinsman, and the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel did not disagree other than regarding the convert alone, for we are concerned lest in the next year he will be unclean of soul and he will say like I was purified ij the previous year and I ate my Passover Sacrifice at night, thus now also I will ritually immerse and eat my Passover Sacrifice, but an uncircumcised Israelite immerses (but in the Laws of the Passover Sacrifice, Chapter 6, Halakha 7 – Maimonides states that we slaughter for him after he has circumcised, but it doesn’t mention ritual immersion) and eats his Passover Sacrifice in the evening.