json/Mishnah/Seder Moed/Mishnah Pesachim/English/William Davidson Edition - English.json

{
    "language": "en",
    "title": "Mishnah Pesachim",
    "versionSource": "https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1",
    "versionTitle": "William Davidson Edition - English",
    "status": "locked",
    "priority": 2.0,
    "license": "CC-BY-NC",
    "versionNotes": "English from The William Davidson digital edition of the <a href='https://www.korenpub.com/koren_en_usd/koren/talmud/koren-talmud-bavli-no.html'>Koren Noé Talmud</a>, with commentary by <a href='/adin-even-israel-steinsaltz'>Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz</a>",
    "shortVersionTitle": "Koren - Steinsaltz",
    "actualLanguage": "en",
    "languageFamilyName": "english",
    "isBaseText": false,
    "isSource": false,
    "direction": "ltr",
    "heTitle": "משנה פסחים",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Seder Moed"
    ],
    "text": [
        [
            "<b>On the evening [<i>or</i>] of the fourteenth</b> of the month of Nisan, <b>one searches for leavened bread</b> in his home <b>by candlelight. Any place into which one does not</b> typically <b>take leavened bread does not require a search,</b> as it is unlikely that there is any leavened bread there. <b>And with regard to what</b> the Sages of previous generations meant when they <b>said</b> that one must search <b>two rows</b> of wine barrels <b>in a cellar,</b> i.e., <b>a place into which one</b> typically <b>takes</b> some <b>leavened bread,</b> the early <i>tanna’im</i> are in dispute. <b>Beit Shammai say</b> that this is referring to searching the first <b>two rows across the entire cellar, and Beit Hillel say:</b> There is no need to search that extensively, as it is sufficient to search <b>the two external rows, which are the upper ones.</b> This dispute will be explained and illustrated in the Gemara.",
            "After conducting the search, <b>one</b> need <b>not</b> be <b>concerned that perhaps a marten dragged</b> leaven <b>from house to house, or from place to place,</b> placing leaven in a house that was already searched. <b>As if so,</b> one need also be concerned that perhaps leaven might have been dragged <b>from courtyard to courtyard and from city to city.</b> In that case, <b>there is no end to the matter,</b> and it would be impossible to rely on any search for leaven.",
            "<b>Rabbi Yehuda says: One searches</b> for leaven <b>on the evening of the fourteenth</b> of Nisan, <b>and on the fourteenth</b> in <b>the morning, and at the time of</b> the <b>removal</b> of leaven. <b>And the Rabbis say:</b> that is not the case; however, if <b>one did not search on the evening of the fourteenth he</b> should <b>search on the fourteenth</b> during the day. If <b>he did not search on the fourteenth, he should search during the festival</b> of Passover. If <b>he did not search during the Festival, he should search after the Festival,</b> as any leaven that remained in his possession during the Festival is classified as leaven owned by a Jew during Passover, which one is obligated to remove. <b>And</b> the principle is: With regard to the leaven <b>that</b> one <b>leaves</b> after the search, he should <b>place it in</b> a <b>concealed</b> location where it will most likely be left untouched, <b>so that it will not require searching after it</b> if it goes missing.",
            "The <i>tanna’im</i> disagree regarding until what time leaven may be eaten and at what time it must be removed on Passover eve. <b>Rabbi Meir says: One</b> may <b>eat</b> leaven <b>the entire fifth</b> hour of the fourteenth of Nisan, <b>and one</b> must <b>burn</b> it immediately afterward <b>at the beginning of the sixth</b> hour. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says: One</b> may <b>eat the entire fourth</b> hour <b>and</b> one <b>places it in abeyance</b> for <b>the entire fifth</b> hour, <b>and one burns</b> it <b>at the beginning of the sixth</b> hour.",
            "<b>And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: Two disqualified loaves of a thanks-offering are placed on the bench</b> in the colonnade in the Temple as an indicator. There was a specially designated place for these loaves in the Temple. <b>As long as</b> the loaves <b>are placed</b> there, <b>the entire nation</b> continues to <b>eat</b> leaven. When <b>one</b> of the loaves <b>was taken</b> away, the people know that the time had come <b>to place</b> the leaven <b>in abeyance,</b> meaning that they <b>neither eat nor burn</b> their leaven. When <b>they were both taken</b> away, <b>the entire nation began burning</b> their leaven. <b>Rabban Gamliel says</b> that the times are divided differently: <b>Non-sacred</b> foods <b>are eaten the entire fourth</b> hour, <b>and <i>teruma</i></b> may be eaten during <b>the entire fifth</b> hour. Since it is a mitzva to eat <i>teruma</i> and burning it is prohibited, additional time was allocated for its consumption. <b>And one burns</b> all leaven including <i>teruma</i> <b>at the beginning of the sixth</b> hour.",
            "Apropos the removal of leaven on Passover eve, including the consecrated loaves of thanks-offerings and <i>teruma</i>, the mishna cites a related <i>halakha</i>. <b>Rabbi Ḥanina the deputy High Priest says: In</b> all <b>the days of the priests, they did not refrain from burning meat that became ritually impure by</b> coming into contact with <b>a secondary source of ritual impurity,</b> i.e., an object that had come into contact with a primary source of impurity, together <b>with meat that became ritually impure by</b> contact with <b>a primary source of impurity.</b> They would do so <b>even though they</b> would thereby <b>add</b> a degree of <b>impurity to</b> the <b>impurity</b> of the first piece of meat, which was previously impure to a lesser degree. <b>Rabbi Akiva added</b> to the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina the deputy High Priest <b>and said: In</b> all <b>the days of the priests, they did not refrain from lighting</b> <i>teruma</i> <b>oil that was</b> ritually <b>disqualified by</b> coming into contact with <b>one who immersed himself during that day</b> and who does not become completely purified until nightfall <b>in a lamp that became ritually impure</b> with first-degree impurity <b>through</b> contact with one who became <b>ritually impure</b> with impurity imparted by <b>a corpse.</b> They did so <b>even though they</b> would thereby <b>add impurity to</b> the <b>impurity</b> of the oil. A person who immersed himself during that day assumes the status of second-degree ritual impurity. His contact renders the oil ritually impure with third-degree ritual impurity. The lamp with first-degree ritual impurity renders the oil ritually impure with second-degree impurity.",
            "<b>Rabbi Meir said: From their statements we learned that one</b> may <b>burn ritually pure <i>teruma</i> with impure</b> <i>teruma</i> when removing leaven <b>on Passover</b> eve. The rationale that applies to the two previous cases applies here as well. Since both items are being burned, one may disregard the fact that one item will assume a higher degree of ritual impurity in the process. <b>Rabbi Yosei said: That is not the inference</b> from which the <i>halakha</i> in the case of ritually pure and ritually impure <i>teruma</i> can be learned. In those first two cases, the two items are both ritually impure, albeit at different degrees of ritual impurity. Rabbi Meir is referring to the combination of impure <i>teruma</i> with pure <i>teruma</i>, which would render pure <i>teruma</i> ritually impure. <b>And</b> in fact <b>Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua,</b> who disagree with regard to the burning of leavened <i>teruma</i>, nevertheless <b>concede that one burns this</b> ritually pure <i>teruma</i> <b>by itself and that</b> impure <i>teruma</i> <b>by itself. With regard to what did they disagree?</b> They disagreed <b>with regard to</b> whether one may burn <i>teruma</i> <b>in abeyance,</b> i.e., <i>teruma</i> whose purity is uncertain, <b>and</b> definitely <b>impure</b> <i>teruma</i> together, <b>as Rabbi Eliezer says: This</b> <i>teruma</i> in abeyance <b>should be burned by itself, and that</b> impure <i>teruma</i> <b>should be burned by itself; and Rabbi Yehoshua says:</b> In that case, <b>both of them</b> may be burned <b>as one.</b>"
        ],
        [
            "For the <b>entire time that it is permitted to eat</b> leavened bread, <b>one</b> may also <b>feed</b> it <b>to</b> his <b>domesticated animals, to non-domesticated animals, and to birds; and one</b> may <b>sell</b> it <b>to a gentile; and it is permitted to</b> derive <b>benefit from it.</b> After <b>its time passes, it is prohibited to</b> derive <b>benefit from it, and one may not</b> even <b>light an oven or a stove with</b> leavened bread. With regard to the manner of removal of leavened bread, <b>Rabbi Yehuda says: The removal of leavened bread is</b> to be accomplished <b>only</b> through <b>burning. And the Rabbis say:</b> Burning is not required, as <b>one</b> may <b>even crumble</b> it <b>and throw</b> it <b>into the wind or cast</b> it <b>into the sea.</b>",
            "<b>It is permitted</b> for a Jew <b>to</b> derive <b>benefit from leavened bread of a gentile over which Passover has elapsed,</b> i.e., leavened bread that remains after the conclusion of Passover. However, <b>it is prohibited to</b> derive <b>benefit from</b> leaven <b>of a Jew</b> over which Passover has elapsed, <b>as it is stated:</b> “And no leavened bread shall be seen with you, <b>neither shall there be leaven seen with you,</b> in all your borders” (Exodus 13:7).",
            "If <b>a gentile lent money to a Jew,</b> and the Jew gave him <b>leavened bread as</b> collateral until after Passover, and <b>after Passover</b> the gentile retains this leavened bread in lieu of payment, then <b>one is permitted to</b> derive <b>benefit from</b> this leavened bread. Since the leavened bread was retained by the gentile based on the transfer that took place prior to Passover, the leavened bread is considered to have belonged to the gentile during Passover. Whereas if <b>a Jew lent money to a gentile,</b> and <b>leavened bread</b> was given as collateral during Passover in the same manner as in the previous case, then <b>after Passover it is forbidden to</b> derive <b>benefit</b> from this leavened bread. Since this leavened bread was considered to be in the Jew’s property during Passover, it is forbidden to derive benefit from it afterward. <b>Leavened bread upon which a rockslide has fallen is considered as though it has been eliminated,</b> and it is not necessary to dig it up in order to burn it. <b>Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Any</b> leavened bread that has been covered to such an extent <b>that a dog cannot search after it</b> is considered to have been eliminated.",
            "<b>If one unwittingly eats <i>teruma</i> of leavened bread on Passover,</b> not realizing that the food was <i>teruma</i>, then <b>he must pay the principal and an</b> additional <b>fifth.</b> This is because one who unwittingly eats <i>teruma</i> must compensate the priest for the value of the <i>teruma</i> and add a fifth of the value, even though the <i>teruma</i> is considered to be valueless on Passover. If he <b>intentionally</b> ate the <i>teruma</i> then <b>he is exempt from payment;</b> as he is liable to receive the severe punishment of <i>karet</i>, he is therefore exempt from the lesser punishment of payment. If he ate impure <i>teruma</i> in this manner then he is not even required to pay <b>its monetary</b> value <b>in wood,</b> for one who derives benefit from impure <i>teruma</i> calculates its value by treating it as though it were fuel for burning. While impure <i>teruma</i> can be used in this manner during the rest of the year, one may not derive any benefit from leavened bread on Passover, and therefore such <i>teruma</i> is worthless.",
            "<b>These are</b> the types of grain <b>with which a person fulfills his obligation</b> to eat <i>matza</i> <b>on the</b> first night of <b>Passover: With wheat, with barley, with spelt [<i>kusmin</i>], with rye [<i>shifon</i>], and with oats [<i>shibbolet shu’al</i>]. And one fulfills</b> his obligation by eating not only <i>matza</i> made from properly tithed grains, but even <b>with</b> <i>matza</i> made from <b>doubtfully tithed produce, and</b> <i>matza</i> made <b>with first tithe from which its <i>teruma</i> was</b> already <b>taken,</b> or <b>second tithe and consecrated food that were redeemed. And priests</b> may eat <i>matza</i> prepared <b>from <i>ḥalla</i>,</b> the portion of dough that is given to priests, <b>or with <i>teruma</i>,</b> as priests are permitted to eat these portions. <b>However,</b> one may <b>not</b> fulfill one’s obligation to eat <i>matza</i> made <b>with untithed produce, nor with</b> <i>matza</i> made from the <b>first tithe from which its <i>teruma</i> was not separated, nor with</b> <i>matza</i> made either from the <b>second tithe, nor</b> from <b>consecrated</b> grain <b>that was not redeemed.</b> With regard to one who prepared <b>loaves of</b> <i>matza</i> that are brought with <b>a thanks-offering,</b> or to the <b>wafers</b> brought <b>by a nazirite,</b> the Sages drew the following distinction: If <b>he prepared them for himself,</b> then he <b>does not fulfill</b> his obligation to eat <i>matza</i> <b>with them.</b> However, if <b>he prepared them to sell them in the market</b> to those who require these loaves or wafers, <b>one fulfills</b> the obligation to eat <i>matza</i> <b>with them.</b>",
            "<b>And these are the vegetables with which a person</b> can <b>fulfill his obligation</b> to eat bitter herbs <b>on Passover:</b> One can fulfill his obligation <b>with <i>ḥazeret</i>, with chervil [<i>tamkha</i>], and with field eryngo [<i>ḥarḥavina</i>], and with endives [<i>olashin</i>], and with <i>maror</i>. One fulfills</b> his <b>obligation with them whether</b> they are <b>fresh</b> or <b>whether</b> they are <b>dry. However,</b> one does <b>not</b> fulfill his obligation if they are <b>pickled</b> in water or vinegar, <b>nor</b> if they are <b>over-boiled [<i>shaluk</i>]</b> in hot water, <b>nor</b> if <b>they are boiled [<i>mevushal</i>].</b> The mishna adds: <b>And</b> all these different types of vegetables <b>join together to</b> the measure of <b>an olive-bulk,</b> i.e., it is not necessary to eat this amount from one specific type of vegetable. <b>And one fulfills</b> his obligation by eating <b>their stalk,</b> as it is not necessary to eat the leaves. <b>And</b> one fulfills the obligation <b>with doubtfully tithed</b> produce, <b>with first-tithe</b> produce <b>whose <i>teruma</i> has been taken</b> and given to a priest, <b>and</b> with both <b>second-tithe</b> produce <b>and consecrated property that were redeemed.</b>",
            "<b>One</b> may <b>not soak coarse bran for</b> feeding <b>chickens,</b> lest it be leavened. <b>However, one</b> may <b>pour boiling water</b> onto the bran before feeding it to the chickens, as it will not become leavened from this brief exposure to water. <b>A woman</b> may <b>not soak coarse bran to bring by hand to the bathhouse</b> for use as a cleanser; <b>however, she</b> may <b>rub</b> coarse bran <b>on her dry skin.</b> Likewise, the Sages said: <b>A person</b> may <b>not chew wheat and place it on his wound, due to</b> the fact <b>that</b> the wheat <b>will be leavened</b> from the saliva and his chewing.",
            "<b>One</b> may <b>not add flour to <i>ḥaroset</i>,</b> a seasoned, pungent food, <b>or to mustard,</b> to dull the sharp taste. In both cases, the pungency of these foods might accelerate the leavening of the flour. <b>And if one added</b> flour to either of these, the mixture may <b>be eaten immediately</b> before it is leavened; <b>and Rabbi Meir prohibits</b> this, lest the food be leavened immediately. The mishna continues: <b>One</b> may <b>not boil the Paschal</b> lamb <b>in</b> ordinary <b>liquids or in fruit juices,</b> as the Torah explicitly states that it must be roasted. <b>However,</b> one may <b>baste</b> it while it is roasting <b>and dip it into</b> liquid while eating it. The <i>tanna</i> further states: <b>Water that has been used by a baker</b> for cooling his hands or washing dishes should <b>be poured out, because</b> this water <b>leavens</b> the dough, as the water probably contains a small quantity of flour and dough."
        ],
        [
            "And for possessing <b>these one transgresses [<i>overin</i>]</b> the prohibitions of: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, <b>on Passover,</b> although not all of them are considered food: <b>Babylonian <i>kutaḥ</i>,</b> a dip with a sharp flavor that contains flour; <b>Median beer; Edomite vinegar; Egyptian <i>zitom</i>,</b> a type of beer; <b>dyers’ broth [<i>zoman</i>]; bakers’ well-worked dough; and <i>kolan of soferim</i>.</b> <b>Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> The same prohibition <b>also</b> applies to <b>women’s adornments,</b> i.e., cosmetics, that contain leaven. <b>This is the principle:</b> If one possesses <b>any</b> substance <b>that is</b> derived <b>from a type of grain</b> that became leavened, although it is not actually bread, <b>one transgresses</b> the prohibitions of: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, <b>on Passover. These</b> substances are included <b>in the warning,</b> i.e., the biblical prohibition of possessing leaven, <b>but there is no element of <i>karet</i></b> if one eats them.",
            "With regard to <b>dough that is in the cracks of a</b> kneading <b>bowl, if there is an olive-bulk</b> of dough <b>in one place,</b> one <b>is obligated to remove</b> it. <b>And if</b> the dough does <b>not</b> add up to this amount, <b>it is nullified due to its insignificance.</b> <b>And similarly, with regard to</b> the <i>halakhot</i> of immersion to purify the bowl from <b>ritual impurity, if one is particular about</b> the dough that is stuck in the cracks and he plans to remove it and use it, <b>it</b> is a foreign substance that <b>interposes</b> between the kneading bowl and the water of the ritual bath, and invalidates the immersion of the bowl, leaving it ritually impure. <b>And if he wants</b> the dough <b>to remain</b> in place, <b>its</b> status <b>is like</b> that <b>of the</b> kneading <b>bowl</b> itself and is not an interposition. <b>Deaf dough</b> is dough for which it is difficult to determine if it has been leavened. It is comparable to a deaf-mute, who cannot communicate. <b>If there is</b> dough <b>similar to it</b> in that water was added to both at the same time, <b>which became leavened,</b> the deaf dough <b>is prohibited.</b> Although it has not shown external signs of becoming leavened, it can be presumed that the deaf dough has also become leavened.",
            "<b>How does one separate <i>ḥalla</i> in ritual impurity during the Festival</b> day of Passover? Ordinarily, one may separate ritually pure <i>ḥalla</i> from dough and give it to a priest immediately so that he may eat it. Ritually impure <i>ḥalla</i> is unfit for a priest and must be burned, yet it is prohibited to bake or burn anything that is not fit to be eaten during the Festival day. However, it is also prohibited to wait and burn it after the Festival day, since it will become leavened in the meantime. <b>Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> A woman <b>should not designate it</b> as <i>ḥalla</i> prior to baking; rather, she should refrain from doing so <b>until it is baked.</b> In other words, she should wait until she has baked all of the dough, and there is no risk of it becoming leavened. Only then should she separate <i>ḥalla</i> from it. The portion of <i>ḥalla</i> may then be kept until after the Festival day, when it may be burned. <b>Ben Beteira says: She should</b> separate the <i>ḥalla</i> before it is baked, and <b>place</b> the dough <b>in cold</b> water so that it will not become leavened. <b>Rabbi Yehoshua said:</b> <b>This is not the leavened bread about which we are warned</b> with the prohibitions: <b>It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found.</b> These prohibitions do not apply because the <i>ḥalla</i> does not actually belong to the owner of the dough; it is instead considered to be consecrated property. <b>Rather, she should separate</b> the <i>ḥalla</i> <b>and leave it until the evening; and if it becomes leavened,</b> then <b>it will become leavened,</b> but this is of no concern.",
            "<b>Rabban Gamliel says: Three women may knead</b> their dough <b>as one,</b> meaning at one time, <b>and bake</b> the batches of dough <b>in one oven, one after the other,</b> and they need not be concerned that their dough will become leavened while they are waiting to use the oven. <b>And the Rabbis say: Three women</b> may be <b>engaged</b> in preparing <b>dough as one,</b> in the following manner: <b>One kneads</b> her dough as another <b>one arranges</b> her own dough so it takes the form of <i>matza</i>, while another <b>one bakes</b> her dough. <b>Rabbi Akiva says: Not all women, not all wood, and not all ovens are the same,</b> and therefore no set rules should be established. Rather, <b>this is the principle:</b> If the dough begins to <b>rise, she</b> should <b>spread cold</b> water in which she immersed her hands, onto the dough, in order to stop the leavening process.",
            "Dough at the beginning of the leavening process [<b><i>siur</i></b>], must <b>be burned, but one who eats it is exempt</b> from the punishment of <i>karet</i> because the dough had not become fully leavened. Dough that has reached the stage of <b>cracking</b> must <b>be burned, and one who eats it</b> intentionally <b>is liable to</b> receive <b><i>karet</i>,</b> as he has intentionally eaten leavened bread during Passover. <b>What is</b> considered <b><i>siur</i>?</b> Dough that has been leavened to the point that it has cracks that look <b>like the antennae of locusts.</b> The stage of <b>cracking</b> occurs later in the leavening process, <b>when the cracks intermingle.</b> This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: One who</b> intentionally <b>eats</b> either <b>this or that,</b> dough with cracks like locust antennae or with cracks that have become intermingled, <b>is liable</b> to receive <b><i>karet</i>,</b> as once dough begins to crack it has certainly become leavened. <b>And what is <i>siur</i>?</b> It is any dough <b>whose surface has becomes pale</b> like the face of <b>a person whose hair stands</b> on end due to fear.",
            "With regard to <b>the fourteenth</b> of Nisan <b>that occurs on Shabbat, one removes all</b> leaven from his possession, whether it is <i>teruma</i> or non-sacred food, <b>before Shabbat,</b> except for that which will be eaten during the first part of Shabbat. In that case, one cannot remove leaven from his possession on the fourteenth of Nisan itself as he does in other years. This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say:</b> One may remove the leaven <b>at its</b> usual <b>time</b> on the fourteenth of Nisan by throwing it away or declaring it ownerless. <b>Rabbi Eliezer bar Tzadok says: <i>Teruma</i></b> should be removed <b>before Shabbat,</b> as only a few people are permitted to eat it and therefore one can presume that it will remain uneaten during Shabbat. However, <b>non-sacred</b> foods should be removed <b>at their</b> usual <b>time,</b> on the fourteenth of Nisan itself.",
            "<b>One who is traveling</b> on the eve of Passover <b>to slaughter his Paschal lamb, to circumcise his son, or to eat a betrothal feast in his father-in-law’s house, and he remembers that he has leavened bread in his house, if he is able to return</b> to his house <b>and remove</b> the leaven and afterward <b>return to the mitzva</b> toward which he was traveling, <b>he should return</b> home <b>and remove</b> his leaven. <b>But if</b> there is not enough time for him to go home and remove the leaven, and still complete the mitzva that he already began, <b>he should nullify it in his heart,</b> as by Torah law this is sufficient. If one was traveling <b>to save</b> Jews from an attack by <b>gentiles, from a</b> flooding <b>river, from bandits, from a fire, or from a collapsed</b> building, he should not even attempt to return, and instead <b>he should nullify</b> the leaven <b>in his heart.</b> This applies even if he could remove his leaven and still return to his previous activity. If he went <b>to establish his Shabbat</b> residence in order to adjust his Shabbat limit for an <b>optional</b> purpose, rather than in order to fulfill a commandment, <b>he should return immediately</b> to remove his leaven.",
            "<b>And so too,</b> the same <i>halakha</i> applies to <b>one who left Jerusalem and remembered that there was consecrated meat in his hand.</b> Meat that is taken out of Jerusalem becomes disqualified, and one is required to burn it in proximity to the Temple. <b>If he passed</b> the area of Mount <b>Scopus</b> [<b><i>Tzofim</i>],</b> beyond which one cannot see Jerusalem, <b>he burns</b> the meat <b>at the site</b> where <b>he</b> is located; <b>and if</b> he has <b>not</b> traveled that far, <b>he must return and burn it before the Temple with wood from the arrangement</b> on the altar, which was designated for burning consecrated items that were disqualified. The mishna asks: For <b>how much</b> leaven or consecrated meat is one required <b>to return? Rabbi Meir says:</b> In both <b>this</b> case <b>and that</b> case, one must return for <b>an egg-bulk. Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> In both <b>this</b> case <b>and that</b> case, one must return for <b>an olive-bulk. And the Rabbis say</b> that the amount depends on the case: With regard to <b>consecrated meat,</b> he is required to return if he has <b>an olive-bulk, but</b> in a case where he remembers that he has <b>leavened bread,</b> he required to return only <b>for an egg-bulk.</b>"
        ],
        [
            "In <b>a place where</b> the people were <b>accustomed to perform labor on Passover eve until midday, one</b> may <b>do</b> so on that day. In <b>a place where</b> the people were <b>accustomed not to perform</b> labor, <b>one</b> may <b>not do</b> so. The performance of labor on the eve of Passover is not prohibited by Torah law, but is dependent on local custom. If one <b>travels from a place where</b> people <b>perform</b> labor on Passover eve <b>to a place where</b> people <b>do not perform</b> labor, <b>or from a place where</b> people <b>do not perform</b> labor on Passover eve <b>to a place where</b> people <b>perform</b> labor, the Sages <b>impose upon him the stringencies of</b> both <b>the place from which he left and the stringencies of the place to which he went.</b> In both cases, he may not perform labor. The Sages stated a principle: <b>And a person</b> may <b>not deviate</b> from the local custom, <b>due to</b> potential <b>dispute.</b>",
            "Similarly, one <b>who transports Sabbatical</b> Year produce <b>from a place</b> where a crop <b>has ceased</b> in the fields <b>to a place where it has not</b> yet <b>ceased or from a place where it has not</b> yet <b>ceased to a place where it has</b> already <b>ceased is obligated to remove</b> the produce from his possession, in accordance with the stringencies of both locations. It is permitted for homeowners to eat Sabbatical Year produce in their houses only as long as that species of fruit remains in the field as ownerless property. However, once that particular fruit is no longer available for animals in the fields, one is required to remove what remains of that species from his home. The statement in the mishna is referring to one who transported fruit from a location where it ceased in the fields to one where it did not, and vice versa. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says</b> that he need not remove the produce, as he can say to a local resident: <b>You, too, go out and bring</b> this produce from a place where it remains in the field.",
            "Apropos different local customs discussed in the first mishna in this chapter, this mishna discusses various <i>halakhot</i> with regard to which there are different customs. In <b>a place where</b> the people <b>were accustomed to sell small livestock to gentiles, one</b> may <b>sell</b> them. In <b>a place where</b> the people <b>were not accustomed to sell</b> them due to certain concerns and decrees, <b>one</b> may <b>not sell</b> them. However, <b>in every place, one</b> may <b>sell</b> to gentiles <b>neither large livestock,</b> e.g., cows and camels, nor <b>calves or foals,</b> whether these animals are <b>whole or damaged.</b> The Sages prohibited those sales due to the concern lest the transaction be voided or one side reconsider, creating retroactively a situation where a Jew’s animal performed labor for the gentile on Shabbat in violation of an explicit Torah prohibition. <b>Rabbi Yehuda permits</b> the sale of <b>a damaged</b> animal because it is incapable of performing labor. <b>Ben Beteira permits</b> the sale of <b>a horse</b> for riding, because riding a horse on Shabbat is not prohibited by Torah law.",
            "The mishna cites another custom related to Passover. In <b>a place where</b> people <b>were accustomed to eat roasted</b> meat <b>on Passover evenings,</b> outside of Jerusalem or after the Temple was destroyed, <b>one</b> may <b>eat</b> it. In <b>a place where</b> people <b>were accustomed not to eat</b> outside Jerusalem, <b>one</b> may <b>not eat</b> it. The mishna discusses additional differences between local customs. In <b>a place where</b> people <b>were accustomed to kindle a lamp</b> in the house <b>on Yom Kippur evenings, one kindles</b> it. In <b>a place where</b> people <b>were accustomed not to kindle</b> a lamp, <b>one does not kindle</b> it. <b>However,</b> even in a place where the custom is not to kindle lamps in houses, <b>one kindles in synagogues and study halls,</b> in deference to these places. Similarly, lamps should be kindled <b>in dark alleyways,</b> so people will not be hurt, <b>and next to the sick.</b>",
            "This mishna continues the previous discussion of customs. In <b>a place where</b> people <b>were accustomed to perform labor on the Ninth of Av, one performs</b> labor. In <b>a place where</b> people <b>were accustomed not to perform labor,</b> one does <b>not perform</b> labor. <b>And in all places Torah scholars are idle</b> and do not perform labor on the Ninth of Av, due to the mourning over the Temple’s destruction. <b>Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:</b> With regard to the Ninth of Av, <b>a person should always conduct himself</b> as <b>a Torah scholar</b> and refrain from performing labor. Apropos the discussion of performing labor on Passover eve, differences in other customs were cited. <b>And the Rabbis say: In Judea,</b> people <b>would perform labor on Passover eves until midday, and in the Galilee</b> people <b>would not perform</b> labor on Passover eve <b>at all.</b> With regard to performing labor on <b>the night</b> before Passover eve, the night between the thirteenth and fourteenth of Nisan, <b>Beit Shammai prohibit</b> performing labor, <b>and Beit Hillel permit</b> doing so <b>until sunrise.</b>",
            "<b>Rabbi Meir says:</b> With regard to <b>any labor that one began before the fourteenth</b> of Nisan, <b>he may complete it on the fourteenth</b> before midday. <b>However, one</b> may <b>not begin</b> to perform that labor <b>from the outset on the fourteenth, even if he is able to complete it</b> before midday. <b>And the Rabbis say:</b> The practitioners of only <b>three crafts</b> are permitted to <b>perform labor until midday on Passover eve, and they are: Tailors, barbers, and launderers,</b> whose work is needed for the Festival. <b>Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: Even shoemakers</b> are permitted to work on the fourteenth.",
            "This mishna continues the discussion of the <i>halakhot</i> of Passover eve. <b>One may place eggs under hens</b> on the <b>fourteenth</b> of Nisan so that the birds will brood until the eggs hatch. <b>And</b> if a <b>hen fled</b> from brooding, <b>one</b> may <b>restore it to its place. And if</b> a brooding hen <b>died, one</b> may <b>place another in its stead.</b> Similarly, <b>one may sweep</b> dung <b>from beneath the legs of an animal</b> on <b>the fourteenth</b> of Nisan. <b>And during</b> the intermediate days of the <b>Festival one may clear</b> it <b>to the sides.</b> Similarly, <b>one</b> may <b>take vessels to the craftsman’s house</b> for repair <b>and bring</b> others from there <b>even though they are not for the purpose of the Festival.</b>",
            "The mishna continues the discussion of the <i>halakhot</i> of Passover eve, along with other local customs. <b>Six actions were performed by the</b> Jewish <b>residents of Jericho,</b> contrary to common practice. With regard <b>to three,</b> the Sages <b>reprimanded them, and</b> with regard <b>to three,</b> the Sages <b>did not reprimand them. And these are the ones</b> with regard to <b>which they did not reprimand them:</b> The residents of Jericho would <b>graft palm trees the entire day</b> on the fourteenth of Nisan; <b>and</b> they would <b>bundle <i>Shema</i>,</b> as explained in the Gemara; <b>and</b> they would <b>harvest and pile</b> grain <b>before the <i>omer</i></b> offering was brought. <b>And these are the ones</b> with regard to which the Sages <b>reprimanded them:</b> They would <b>permit</b> the use of <b>consecrated branches</b> of carob or sycamore trees. This refers to trees whose branches were cut and consecrated for Temple upkeep, which subsequently sprouted new branches; <b>and</b> they would <b>eat</b> fallen fruit <b>from beneath</b> palm <b>trees that shed fruit</b> that had fallen <b>on Shabbat; and they</b> would <b>designate</b> the produce in the <b>corner</b> for the poor in a field of <b>vegetables,</b> which is exempt from this obligation even by rabbinic law. <b>And the Sages reprimanded</b> the people of Jericho for doing these three things.",
            "<b>The Sages taught: King Hezekiah performed six actions. With regard to three</b> of them, the Sages of his generation <b>conceded to him; and with regard to three</b> of them, the Sages <b>did not concede to him.</b> Due to King Hezekiah’s father’s wickedness, <b>he dragged the bones of his father</b> Ahaz <b>on a bier of ropes</b> and did not afford him the respect due to a king, <b>and</b> the Sages <b>conceded to him. He ground the copper snake</b> that Moses fashioned in the desert because Israel worshipped it, <b>and</b> the Sages <b>conceded to him. He suppressed the Book of Cures, and they conceded to him. And with regard to three</b> actions, the Sages <b>did not concede to him. He cut off the doors of the Sanctuary and sent them to the King of Assyria, and they did not concede to him</b> because he thereby demeaned the Temple. <b>He sealed the waters of the upper Gihon</b> stream, diverting its water into the city by means of a tunnel, <b>and they did not concede to him,</b> because he harmed the local populace in the process and should have relied upon God (<i>Me’iri</i>). <b>He intercalated</b> the year, delaying the advent of the month <b>of Nisan during Nisan, and they did not concede to him.</b> The Gemara explains that he declared the first of Nisan to be the thirtieth of Adar and only then intercalated the year (see II Chronicles 30:2)."
        ],
        [
            "<b>The daily</b> afternoon <b>offering is slaughtered at eight and a half</b> hours of the day, which is two and a half hours after midday, <b>and is sacrificed,</b> i.e., its offering on the altar is completed, <b>at nine and a half</b> hours of the day. <b>On the eves of Passover,</b> when the Paschal lamb must be offered after the daily offering, the daily offering is sacrificed earlier; <b>it is slaughtered at seven and a half</b> hours <b>and sacrificed at eight and a half</b> hours, <b>whether</b> it occurs <b>during the week or on Shabbat.</b> If <b>Passover eve occurs on Shabbat eve,</b> when the Paschal lamb must be offered even earlier to ensure that it will be roasted before the onset of Shabbat, the daily offering <b>is slaughtered at six and a half</b> hours <b>and sacrificed at seven and a half</b> hours, <b>and the Paschal lamb</b> is offered <b>thereafter.</b>",
            "<b>The Paschal lamb that</b> the priest <b>slaughtered not for its</b> own <b>purpose,</b> i.e., at the time of slaughter he said that his intent was to slaughter it as a different offering, e.g., a peace-offering or burnt-offering, rather than as a Paschal lamb; or if the priest <b>received</b> the blood, or <b>carried</b> the blood to the altar, or <b>sprinkled</b> the blood on the altar while saying that it was <b>not for the purpose</b> of the Paschal lamb; <b>or</b> if the priest performed the rites both <b>for its</b> own <b>purpose and not for its</b> own <b>purpose; or not for its</b> own <b>purpose and for its</b> own <b>purpose;</b> in all these cases, the Paschal lamb is <b>disqualified.</b> <b>How</b> does one perform the rites <b>for its</b> own <b>purpose and not for its</b> own <b>purpose?</b> It is in a case where the priest said that his intent is <b>for the purpose of the Paschal lamb and for the purpose of a peace-offering.</b> And how does one perform rites <b>not for its</b> own <b>purpose and for its</b> own <b>purpose?</b> It is in a case where the priest says that the offering is <b>for the purpose of a peace-offering and for the purpose of a Paschal lamb.</b>",
            "If one <b>slaughtered</b> the Paschal lamb <b>for</b> people <b>who cannot eat it</b> or for <b>those who did not register</b> in advance to eat it, or if one slaughtered it for <b>people who are uncircumcised or for those who are ritually impure,</b> whom the Torah prohibits from eating the Paschal lamb, it <b>is disqualified.</b> However, if one slaughtered it <b>for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it; for those who have registered for it and for those who have not registered for it; for the circumcised and for the uncircumcised; for the ritually impure and for the ritually pure, it is valid,</b> for a partially invalid intent does not disqualify the offering. If one <b>slaughtered</b> the Paschal lamb <b>before midday it is disqualified, as it is stated:</b> “And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it <b>in the afternoon”</b> (Exodus 12:6). If he <b>slaughtered it before the daily</b> afternoon <b>offering it is valid, as long as another</b> person <b>stirs its blood</b> in order to prevent it from congealing <b>until the</b> blood of the <b>daily offering is sprinkled. And if</b> the blood of the Paschal lamb <b>is sprinkled</b> before the blood of the daily offering, <b>it is</b> nonetheless <b>valid,</b> as this change does not disqualify the offering.",
            "<b>One who slaughters the Paschal lamb with leavened bread</b> still in his possession <b>violates a negative commandment,</b> as the Torah states: “You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread; neither shall the sacrifice of the festival of Passover be left until the morning” (Exodus 34:25). <b>Rabbi Yehuda says: Even</b> one who slaughters <b>the daily</b> afternoon <b>offering</b> on Passover eve with leaven in his possession violates the commandment. <b>Rabbi Shimon says:</b> One who slaughters <b>the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth</b> of Nisan <b>for its</b> own <b>purpose</b> with leaven in his possession <b>is liable;</b> but if he slaughtered it <b>for a different purpose he is exempt. And</b> for <b>all other offerings</b> that one slaughters on Passover eve, when owning leaven is prohibited, <b>whether</b> he slaughtered them <b>for their</b> own <b>purpose or</b> he slaughtered them <b>for a different purpose, he is exempt.</b> <b>And during the festival</b> of Passover, if one slaughtered the Paschal lamb <b>for its</b> own <b>purpose he is exempt.</b> Since a Paschal lamb that is slaughtered for its own purpose at an improper time is disqualified, it is not an offering at all and there is no violation of the commandment: “You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread.” However, if he slaughtered it <b>for a different purpose</b> and thereby validated the sacrifice as a peace-offering, <b>he is liable</b> for having sacrificed it with leaven in his possession. <b>And</b> for <b>all other offerings</b> that one slaughters on Passover, when it is prohibited to slaughter with leaven in one’s possession, <b>whether</b> he slaughtered them <b>for their</b> own <b>purpose</b> or he slaughtered them <b>for a different purpose, he is liable.</b> This is <b>with the exception of a sin-offering that he slaughtered for a different purpose</b> with leaven in his possession. Unlike other offerings, a sin-offering is disqualified if it is slaughtered for a different purpose, and therefore one does not violate the prohibition of “You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread.”",
            "<b>The Paschal lamb was slaughtered in three groups,</b> meaning those bringing the offering were divided into three separate sets, <b>as it is stated: “And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it</b> in the afternoon” (Exodus 12:6). The verse is interpreted as referring to three groups: <b>Assembly, congregation, and Israel.</b> The procedure for sacrificing the offering was as follows: <b>The first group</b> of people sacrificing the offering <b>entered,</b> and when <b>the Temple courtyard became filled</b> with them <b>they closed the doors of the Temple courtyard. They sounded uninterrupted, broken, and uninterrupted</b> trumpet <b>blasts,</b> as was done while sacrificing any offering. <b>The priests stood in rows</b> from the place of slaughter to the altar, <b>and in their hands</b> they held <b>bowls [<i>bezikhin</i>] of silver and bowls of gold</b> in order to receive the blood of the offerings. There was <b>a row entirely</b> composed of priests holding <b>silver</b> bowls, <b>and a row entirely</b> composed of priests holding <b>gold</b> bowls, as the gold and silver bowls <b>were not mixed</b> in the same row. <b>The bowls did not have</b> flat <b>bases</b> that would allow them to be put down, out of concern that <b>perhaps</b> the priests would <b>set them down</b> and forget about them <b>and</b> in the meantime <b>the blood would congeal</b> and become disqualified for sprinkling on the altar.",
            "<b>An Israelite would slaughter</b> the sacrifice, <b>and a priest would receive</b> the blood and immediately <b>hand it to another</b> priest standing next to him, <b>and the other</b> priest would pass it <b>to another.</b> Each priest would <b>receive a full</b> bowl of blood from the priest next to him <b>and return</b> to him <b>an empty</b> bowl being passed in the opposite direction, the contents of which had already been sprinkled on the altar. The <b>priest who was closest to the altar would sprinkle a single sprinkling</b> of blood <b>against the base</b> of the altar, i.e., against the north and west sides of the altar, where there was a base.",
            "<b>The first group exited</b> upon completion of the rite, <b>and the second group entered; the second group left</b> upon completion of its rite, <b>and the third group entered. As it was done by the first</b> group, <b>so was it done by the second and third</b> groups. All the people standing in the Temple courtyard while the Paschal lambs were being slaughtered would <b>recite <i>hallel</i>. If they finished</b> reciting it before all the offerings were slaughtered, <b>they</b> recited it <b>a second time, and if they</b> finished reciting it <b>a second time, they</b> recited it <b>a third time, although</b> in practice <b>they never</b> recited it <b>a third time,</b> as the priests worked efficiently and finished the rite before this became necessary. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says: The third group never reached</b> even once the opening verse of the fourth chapter of <i>hallel</i>: <b>“I love that the Lord hears</b> the voice of my supplications” (Psalms 116:1), <b>because its people were few</b> and the slaughtering of all the offerings was completed during the recitation of the first three chapters.",
            "<b>As it was done during the week, so was it done on Shabbat; only that</b> on Shabbat <b>the priests would rinse the Temple courtyard,</b> cleaning away the blood, <b>contrary to the wishes of the Sages,</b> as the priests did not want to veer from the weekday procedure in this regard. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> Before the floor was rinsed, a priest <b>would fill a cup with the blood</b> of the many offerings brought that day <b>that was</b> now <b>mixed</b> together on the floor and then <b>sprinkle it with a single sprinkling upon the altar. But the Rabbis did not agree with</b> Rabbi Yehuda with regard to this point.",
            "<b>How would one suspend and flay</b> the Paschal lamb in the Temple? <b>Iron hooks [<i>unkelayot</i>] were secured into the walls and pillars, and upon them one would suspend</b> the offering <b>and flay</b> it. If <b>anyone lacked a place</b> among the hooks in the Temple courtyard <b>to suspend and flay</b> the offering, <b>there were thin, smooth rods there,</b> which <b>he would place on his</b> own <b>shoulder and on another’s shoulder, and</b> from it <b>he would suspend</b> the offering and flay it. <b>Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> When <b>the fourteenth</b> of Nisan <b>occurred on Shabbat,</b> when moving the rods is prohibited (Rambam), <b>he would rest his hand on another’s shoulder and the other’s hand on his</b> own <b>shoulder and suspend</b> the offering <b>and flay</b> it. ",
            "<b>He would tear</b> open the flesh of the offering <b>and remove its sacrificial parts,</b> i.e., the fats and other parts offered on the altar. <b>He would place</b> the sacrificial parts <b>in a large basin [<i>mageis</i>] and burn them on the altar.</b> If this took place on Shabbat, when carrying is prohibited, <b>the first group would exit and remain on the Temple Mount; the second</b> group would remain within <b>the rampart,</b> which was an area outside the women’s courtyard; <b>and the third</b> group <b>would stand in its place</b> in the Temple. They would wait there until nightfall, and as soon as <b>it became dark, they would</b> all <b>go out and roast their Paschal lambs,</b> everyone in his own place."
        ],
        [
            "<b>These</b> are the <b>matters</b> related to the <b>Paschal lamb</b> that <b>override Shabbat,</b> when the eve of Passover occurs on Shabbat: <b>Its slaughter, the sprinkling of its blood, the cleaning of its intestines and the burning of its fats</b> on the altar, all of which are services that must be performed on Passover eve while it is still day. <b>However, its roasting and the washing of its intestines,</b> which need not be done by day, <b>do not override Shabbat;</b> rather, one waits until after Shabbat to perform these tasks. <b>Carrying</b> the Paschal lamb through a public domain does not override Shabbat. The Paschal offering consisted of either a lamb or a goat, sometimes quite young and unable to walk the entire way, so that it had to be carried on a person’s shoulders. Similarly, <b>bringing it from outside the Shabbat limit and cutting off its wart do not override Shabbat,</b> as all these tasks could have been performed before Shabbat. A wart is considered a blemish that disqualifies the animal from being brought as an offering, but once the wart is removed, the animal is fit to be sacrificed on the altar. <b>Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> All of these procedures <b>override</b> Shabbat.",
            "<b>Rabbi Eliezer said:</b> Could this <b>not</b> be derived through <b>an <i>a fortiori</i> inference? If slaughter, which is</b> ordinarily forbidden on Shabbat <b>as a</b> biblically prohibited <b>labor,</b> nonetheless <b>overrides Shabbat</b> when performed for the sake of the Paschal lamb, then <b>these</b> activities, namely carrying the animal, bringing it from outside the Shabbat limit, and the like, which are prohibited <b>due to rabbinic decree, should they not override Shabbat? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him:</b> The law governing <b>a Festival proves</b> otherwise, for the Torah <b>permitted on it</b> acts that are normally prohibited <b>as labor,</b> such as slaughtering, cooking, and baking, <b>and</b> yet <b>it is forbidden</b> to do <b>on it</b> acts that are prohibited <b>due to rabbinic decree.</b> Thus, we cannot derive policy with regard to rabbinic prohibitions from the rules that govern Torah laws. <b>Rabbi Eliezer said to him: What is this, Yehoshua?</b> How can you suggest such a weak proof? <b>What proof</b> can be deduced from <b>optional</b> activities that would apply <b>to a mitzva?</b> How does the fact that rabbinic decrees remain in effect on a Festival with respect to optional activities prove that one is also forbidden to transgress a rabbinic decree in order to fulfill the mitzva of offering the Paschal lamb? <b>Rabbi Akiva responded and said</b> in defense of Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion: <b>Sprinkling</b> the purifying water of a red heifer upon someone who had contracted ritual impurity through contact with a corpse <b>proves</b> the matter, <b>for it is</b> done <b>for</b> the sake of <b>a mitzva,</b> in order to allow the person to offer the Paschal lamb, <b>and it is</b> prohibited only <b>due to rabbinic decree, and</b> nonetheless <b>it does not override Shabbat,</b> for the purification rite is not performed on the eve of Passover that falls on Shabbat. <b>So, too, you should not be surprised about these</b> activities, namely carrying the animal, bringing it from outside the Shabbat limit, and cutting off its wart, <b>that although they are</b> performed <b>for</b> the sake of <b>a mitzva and they are</b> prohibited only <b>due to rabbinic decree, they do not override Shabbat.</b> <b>Rabbi Eliezer said to him:</b> I do not accept this proof. <b>With regard to this</b> sprinkling itself, <b>I infer</b> that it, too, is permitted for the same reason: <b>If slaughter, which is</b> a biblically prohibited <b>labor, overrides Shabbat, is it not right that sprinkling</b> the purifying water of a red heifer, <b>which is</b> prohibited only <b>due to rabbinic decree, should override Shabbat?</b> You cannot challenge me based on a premise with which I disagree. <b>Rabbi Akiva said to</b> Rabbi Eliezer: <b>Or</b> perhaps we can <b>reverse</b> the order of your argument and say the opposite: <b>If,</b> as we know by accepted tradition, <b>sprinkling</b> the purifying water on Shabbat, <b>which is</b> prohibited only <b>due to rabbinic decree, does not override Shabbat,</b> then with regard to <b>slaughter, which is</b> prohibited <b>as a</b> biblically prohibited <b>labor, is it not right that it should not override Shabbat?</b> Therefore, it should be prohibited to slaughter the Paschal lamb when the eve of Passover occurs on Shabbat. <b>Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva,</b> how can you say this? <b>You have</b> thus <b>uprooted what is written in the Torah:</b> “Let the children of Israel offer the Paschal lamb <b>in its appointed time”</b> (Numbers 9:2); the phrase “at its appointed time” indicates that the offering must be brought on that day, <b>whether it is a weekday or Shabbat.</b> Rabbi Akiva <b>said to</b> Rabbi Eliezer: <b>My teacher, bring me an appointed time</b> stated in the Torah <b>for these</b> tasks, namely, carrying the animal or bringing it from outside the Shabbat limits, <b>like the appointed time</b> stated <b>with respect to slaughter.</b> The Paschal lamb must be slaughtered on the fourteenth of Nisan, but there is no fixed time when the animal must be brought to the Temple, and it is therefore possible to transport it before Shabbat. <b>Rabbi Akiva stated a principle: Any prohibited labor</b> required for the offering of the sacrifice <b>that can be performed on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat; slaughter, which cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat, overrides Shabbat.</b>",
            "<b>When does one bring a Festival peace-offering with</b> the Paschal lamb? A special offering is brought on the fourteenth of Nisan together with the Paschal lamb <b>when</b> the Paschal lamb <b>comes on a weekday</b> rather than on Shabbat, and when it comes <b>in</b> a state of <b>ritual purity</b> as opposed to when it is brought in a state of impurity because most of the community is impure, <b>and</b> when many people are registered for the Paschal lamb so that each person will receive only <b>a small</b> portion from it. When these three conditions are met, the Festival peace-offering is eaten first and the Paschal lamb is eaten afterward. <b>When,</b> however, the Paschal lamb <b>comes on Shabbat,</b> or <b>when</b> few people are registered for it so that each person will receive <b>a large</b> portion, or when it is brought <b>in</b> a state of <b>ritual impurity, one does not bring a Festival peace-offering with it.</b>",
            "With regard to the extra offering itself, the <b>Festival peace-offering would come from the flock, from the herd, from sheep or from goats, from males or from females,</b> as the Festival peace-offering is not bound by the limitations governing the Paschal offering, which must be specifically a young male sheep or goat. <b>And</b> the Festival peace-offering <b>is eaten for two days and one night</b> like other peace-offerings.",
            "<b>A Paschal lamb that one slaughtered for a different purpose on Shabbat,</b> not knowing that it is prohibited for him to do so, is disqualified, and <b>he is liable</b> to bring <b>a sin-offering for it</b> because he unwittingly performed a prohibited labor on Shabbat. As for <b>all other offerings,</b> such as a peace-offering, <b>that one</b> unwittingly <b>slaughtered</b> on Shabbat <b>for the purpose of a Paschal offering, if they were not fit</b> for the Paschal offering, e.g., if they were female or cattle or more than a year old and clearly ineligible for the Paschal offering, <b>he is liable</b> to bring a sin-offering. Because he did not fulfill the mitzva to bring a Paschal offering, his act of slaughter was therefore unnecessary. <b>And if they were fit, Rabbi Eliezer</b> nevertheless <b>deems</b> him <b>liable</b> to bring <b>a sin-offering</b> for his unwitting transgression. <b>But Rabbi Yehoshua exempts</b> him, because he maintains that if someone intended to perform a mitzva, and despite his error he in fact performed a mitzva, he is not liable to bring a sin-offering. And in this case he performed a mitzva, because offerings that are sacrificed for a different purpose are still fit. <b>Rabbi Eliezer said to</b> Rabbi Yehoshua: <b>If,</b> with regard to <b>the Paschal lamb, which is permitted</b> to be slaughtered on Shabbat <b>for its own purpose, when one changed its purpose he is</b> nevertheless <b>liable,</b> then, with regard to other <b>offerings that are forbidden</b> to be slaughtered on Shabbat even <b>for their own purpose, when one changed their purpose, is it not right that he should be liable? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No,</b> this reasoning is faulty. <b>If you say</b> that one is liable to bring a sin-offering if he slaughtered <b>a Paschal lamb</b> for a different purpose, it is <b>because he changed</b> its purpose <b>for something forbidden,</b> as the offering he intended it to be may not be slaughtered on Shabbat. But <b>can you</b> necessarily <b>say</b> the same thing <b>about</b> other <b>offerings that he</b> slaughtered for the purpose of a Paschal offering and thus <b>changed</b> their purpose <b>for something</b> that is <b>permitted</b> to be sacrificed on Shabbat? <b>Rabbi Eliezer said to</b> Rabbi Yehoshua: <b>Let the communal offerings,</b> such as the daily offering and the additional-offerings of Shabbat and the Festivals, <b>prove</b> the matter, <b>for they are permitted</b> to be slaughtered on Shabbat <b>for their own purpose, and</b> nevertheless, <b>one who</b> unnecessarily <b>slaughters</b> a different offering <b>for their purpose is liable.</b>This indicates that even when a particular offering may be slaughtered, one is nevertheless liable if he slaughtered a different offering for the purpose of the permitted offering. <b>Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, if you say</b> this <i>halakha</i> with regard to <b>communal offerings,</b> it is <b>because they have a limit,</b> as there is a specific number of communal offerings that must be offered on any particular day and there is no reason one would mistakenly sacrifice extra offerings for this purpose. But <b>can you</b> necessarily <b>say</b> the same thing <b>about the Paschal lamb, which does not have a limit,</b> making it more likely for someone to make a mistake? <b>Rabbi Meir says:</b> According to Rabbi Yehoshua, <b>even one who</b> unwittingly <b>slaughters</b> other offerings <b>for the purpose of communal offerings</b> beyond their daily limit <b>is exempt</b> for the same reason, i.e., that he intended to fulfill a mitzva that is permitted on Shabbat.",
            "The mishna continues with another <i>halakha</i> with regard to the Paschal lamb: <b>If one slaughtered</b> a Paschal lamb on Shabbat and mistakenly intended it <b>for those who cannot eat it,</b> such as sick or elderly people who are unable to eat the meat, <b>or for those who did not register for it,</b> or <b>for</b> the sake of <b>the uncircumcised or for those ritually impure,</b> the offering is disqualified and <b>he is liable</b> to bring a sin-offering for his unnecessary act of slaughter. If, however, he slaughtered it <b>for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it,</b> or <b>for those who registered for it and for those who did not register for it,</b> or <b>for the circumcised and for those who are uncircumcised,</b> or <b>for those who are ritually impure and those who are ritually pure, he is exempt.</b> Since a Paschal lamb slaughtered with dual intentions of these types is valid, the act of slaughter was justified. If <b>he slaughtered it and it was found to have a blemish,</b> the offering is disqualified, and <b>he is liable</b> to bring a sin-offering for having unwittingly performed a prohibited labor on Shabbat, as he should have examined the animal before it was slaughtered. If <b>he slaughtered it and it was found to have a hidden condition that would cause it to die within twelve months [<i>tereifa</i>]</b> and that could not have been discovered before the slaughter even if it were examined properly, the offering is disqualified, but <b>he is exempt</b> from bringing a sin-offering. This is not a case of <i>shogeg</i>, unwitting violation of Shabbat, but rather of <i>ones</i>, an unavoidable accident. If <b>he slaughtered it and</b> afterward <b>it became known that the owners had withdrawn</b> from it and registered for a different Paschal lamb, in which case this one was slaughtered unnecessarily, as no one was registered for it, <b>or</b> it became known that <b>they had died or became ritually impure,</b> in all these cases <b>he is exempt</b> from bringing a sin-offering, <b>because he slaughtered with permission.</b> At the time of the slaughter, he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the offering would be disqualified."
        ],
        [
            "<b>How does one roast the Paschal lamb? One brings a spit [<i>shappud</i>] of pomegranate</b> wood <b>and thrusts it into the mouth</b> of the lamb <b>until</b> it reaches <b>its anus, and</b> one then <b>puts its legs and entrails inside it</b> and roasts it all together; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says:</b> One does not insert its legs and entrails inside it, as <b>this is a type of cooking.</b> Anything placed inside the offering does not get roasted directly by the fire and is considered to have been cooked. <b>Rather, one suspends</b> the legs and entrails from the spit above the animal’s head <b>outside it. </b>",
            "One may <b>not roast the Paschal lamb on the</b> metal <b>spit nor on</b> a metal <b>grill [<i>askela</i>].</b> However, <b>Rabbi Tzadok said: There was an incident with Rabban Gamliel, who said to his slave Tavi: Go and roast the Paschal lamb for us on the grill.</b> If the Paschal lamb <b>touched</b> the <b>earthenware</b> surface <b>of an oven, one</b> must <b>peel</b> off <b>its place</b> on the Paschal lamb, as it was roasted by the heat of the oven and not by the fire itself. If some <b>of</b> the <b>gravy</b> of the Paschal lamb <b>dripped on the earthenware and</b> then <b>returned to it,</b> i.e., the gravy splattered back onto the meat, <b>one</b> must <b>remove its place.</b> Peeling off the outer layer is not enough, and one must remove some of the meat underneath the outer layer, because it is considered to have been cooked by the liquid rather than roasted by the fire. If some <b>of</b> the Paschal lamb’s <b>gravy dripped onto</b> hot <b>flour, one</b> must <b>remove a handful of</b> flour from <b>its place,</b> i.e., the place where the gravy landed in the flour, and destroy it. ",
            "In a case where one <b>smears</b> the Paschal lamb <b>with <i>teruma</i> oil, if</b> the Paschal lamb belongs to <b>a group of priests they may eat it,</b> as they are permitted to eat <i>teruma</i>. <b>If</b> the Paschal lamb belongs to a group <b>of Israelites,</b> then <b>if</b> it is still <b>raw, one</b> must <b>rinse it</b> in order to remove the <i>teruma</i> oil; <b>and if it is roasted, one</b> must <b>peel off the outer</b> layer that has absorbed the oil, so that the Israelites do not eat the <i>teruma</i>, which is prohibited to them. If <b>one smears</b> the Paschal lamb <b>with oil of</b> the <b>second tithe, he may not demand money for it from the members of the group, as one</b> may <b>not redeem second tithe in Jerusalem.</b> Second-tithe produce that is in Jerusalem is meant to be eaten; it may be given as a gift to others, but may not be redeemed or sold. ",
            "<b>Five items,</b> i.e., offerings, may <b>be brought in</b> a state of ritual <b>impurity,</b> but <b>they</b> may <b>not be eaten in</b> a state of ritual <b>impurity.</b> They are all communal offerings: <b>The <i>omer</i>,</b> which is brought in Nisan; <b>the two loaves</b> brought on <i>Shavuot</i>; <b>the shewbread,</b> which were arranged each week; <b>the communal peace-offerings,</b> which were brought on <i>Shavuot</i>; <b>and the goats</b> sacrificed on <b>the New Moons,</b> which were sin-offerings eaten by the priests. However, <b>the Paschal lamb that is sacrificed in impurity is eaten</b> even <b>in impurity, as it is brought to begin with only for eating,</b> which is the essence of the mitzva. With regard to other offerings, the essence of their mitzva is fulfilled when they are sacrificed on the altar, and the eating is non-essential.",
            "If <b>the meat</b> of the Paschal lamb <b>became ritually impure, and the fat remains</b> pure and may be burned on the altar, <b>one</b> may <b>not sprinkle the blood.</b> On the other hand, if <b>the fat became impure and the meat remains</b> pure, <b>one</b> may <b>sprinkle the blood</b> because the meat remains fit to be eaten. This is the <i>halakha</i> with regard to a Paschal lamb, whose primary purpose is to be eaten by those who have registered for it. However, <b>with regard to</b> other <b>offerings it is not so. Rather, although the meat has become impure and the fat remains</b> pure, <b>one</b> may <b>sprinkle the blood,</b> because part of the offering still remains valid.",
            "If the entire <b>community or most of it became ritually impure, or the priests were</b> all <b>impure and the community was pure, they should perform</b> the ritual of the Paschal lamb <b>in ritual impurity.</b> If <b>a minority of the community became impure,</b> even if they are many people, <b>those who are pure perform</b> the ritual of the Paschal lamb on <b>the first</b> <i>Pesaḥ</i>, <b>and those who are impure perform</b> the ritual on <b>the second</b> <i>Pesaḥ</i>.",
            "In a case of <b>a Paschal lamb whose blood was sprinkled and subsequently it became known that</b> the meat or blood <b>was ritually impure, the frontplate</b> of the High Priest <b>appeases</b> God for the ritual impurity after the fact, and the owners are exempt from observing the second <i>Pesaḥ</i>. If it became known later that <b>the body</b> of the individual who brought the Paschal lamb <b>had become ritually impure, the frontplate does not appease</b> God. The individual has not fulfilled his obligation to bring the Paschal lamb, and therefore he must observe the second <i>Pesaḥ</i>. This is <b>because</b> the Sages <b>said</b> that with regard to <b>the nazirite and one who performs</b> the ritual of <b>the Paschal lamb, the frontplate appeases</b> God <b>for</b> both <b>impurity of the blood</b> and meat of the offering, but <b>the frontplate does not appease</b> God <b>for impurity of the body</b> of the individual bringing the offering. The mishna introduces a <i>halakha</i> with regard to ritual impurity of the deep, a term that refers to a source of impurity that is unknown to anyone and is discovered only after it has rendered someone impure. If it became known after the offering was brought that the person had <b>become impure</b> due to <b>ritual impurity of the deep,</b> e.g., if he was informed that there was a concealed grave under the place he had sat in a house where he had previously stayed, <b>the frontplate appeases</b> God and the offering is valid.",
            "If the <b>whole</b> Paschal lamb <b>or most of it became ritually impure, one burns it before the Temple [<i>habira</i>] with wood from the arrangement</b> of wood on the altar that was given to the owners of the Paschal lamb for this purpose. If <b>a minority of it became impure, and</b> similarly, with regard to <b>the</b> parts of the Paschal lamb that are <b>leftover,</b> which must be burned, the owners of the Paschal lamb <b>burn it in their courtyards or on their roofs, with their own wood.</b> Only <b>the miserly,</b> who want to save the expenditure of wood, <b>burn it before the Temple in order to benefit from the wood of the arrangement.</b>",
            "<b>A Paschal lamb that was taken out</b> of its permissible area <b>or that became ritually impure should be burned immediately</b> on the eve of Passover. If <b>the owners became ritually impure or died, its form must</b> be allowed to <b>decay</b> by leaving it for a period of time instead of burning it immediately, <b>and it should be burned on the sixteenth</b> of Nisan, immediately after the first day of the Festival. <b>Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: This, too, should be burned immediately, because it has no one to eat it,</b> which is also so severe a disqualification that decay of form is not required.",
            "<b>The bones</b> of the Paschal lamb that contain edible marrow but cannot be eaten because it is prohibited to break the bones of the Paschal lamb; <b>and the sinews; and the leftover</b> meat <b>should</b> all <b>be burned on the sixteenth</b> of Nisan, immediately after the first day of the Festival. If <b>the sixteenth occurs on Shabbat, they should be burned on the seventeenth, because</b> the mitzva to burn <b>them does not override Shabbat or the Festival.</b> Therefore, they are burned on the first weekday.",
            "<b>Anything that is</b> fit to be <b>eaten in an adult ox,</b> whose bones have fully hardened, may <b>be eaten in a young kid.</b> One may register for a Paschal offering in order to eat any of these parts, and eating any such part is considered a fulfillment of the mitzva to eat the Paschal lamb. However, any part of the animal that is inedible in an adult ox is not considered meat, even if it is soft enough to be eaten in a young kid. One may not register for a Paschal offering in order to eat one of these parts, and eating it is not a fulfillment of the mitzva to eat the Paschal lamb. <b>And</b> the soft <b>ends of the ribs and the cartilage</b> are soft enough to be considered edible and may therefore be eaten from the Paschal lamb. <b>One who breaks the bone of a Paschal lamb that is ritually pure receives forty lashes</b> for having violated a prohibition stated in the Torah. <b>But one who leaves over</b> part <b>of a ritually pure</b> Paschal lamb <b>and one who breaks</b> the bone <b>of a ritually impure</b> Paschal lamb <b>do not receive forty lashes.</b>",
            "If <b>a portion of a limb has gone out</b> of its permissible boundary, <b>one must cut</b> the meat <b>until one reaches the bone</b> at the point that separates between the part of the limb that went out of its boundary and the part that did not, <b>and</b> then <b>peel</b> the meat away from the bone <b>until one reaches the joint, and cut</b> off the limb at the joint, as it is prohibited to break the bone itself. <b>And with regard to</b> other <b>offerings, one may chop</b> off the part that exited <b>with a hatchet, as it is not subject to</b> the prohibition of <b>breaking a bone.</b> How does one determine the outer boundaries of a particular location? Anything that is located <b>from the</b> inside of the <b>doorway inward is</b> considered <b>as though</b> it is <b>inside,</b> and anything that is located <b>from the doorway outward is</b> considered <b>as though</b> it is <b>outside. And the windows</b> in the wall <b>and the thickness of the wall are</b> considered <b>as though</b> they are <b>inside,</b> such that an offering is considered to have exited the premises only if it is taken outside the wall.",
            "<b>Two groups that were eating</b> one Paschal lamb <b>in one house</b> need not be concerned that they will appear to be one group. Rather, <b>these turn their faces this way and eat, and these turn their faces that way and eat. And</b> it is permissible for them to have <b>the boiler</b> from which they pour hot water <b>in the middle,</b> so that the waiter can easily serve both groups. <b>When the attendant</b> who is serving both groups <b>gets up to pour</b> for the group of which he is not a member, <b>he must close his mouth and turn his face</b> so that he does not accidentally eat with the other group, <b>until he reaches his group</b> again <b>and eats</b> with it. <b>And the bride,</b> who is embarrassed to eat in the presence of men she does not know, <b>turns her face</b> away from her group <b>and eats,</b> although this may make it seem as though she is part of a different group."
        ],
        [
            "<b>A woman, when she is</b> living <b>in her husband’s house,</b> if <b>her husband slaughtered</b> the Paschal lamb <b>on her behalf and her father</b> also <b>slaughtered</b> the Paschal lamb <b>on her behalf, she</b> should <b>eat from her husband’s</b> lamb because it is assumed that the wife intended to be included in her husband’s group. However, if, as was often customary, <b>she went on the first Festival</b> following her marriage <b>to observe</b> the Festival <b>in her father’s house,</b> then, if both <b>her husband slaughtered</b> the Paschal lamb <b>on her behalf and her father</b> also <b>slaughtered</b> the Paschal lamb <b>on her behalf, she</b> may <b>eat in</b> whichever <b>place she wishes,</b> since it is not obvious with whose group she intended to be included. In the case of <b>an orphan</b> with multiple guardians, if each of his <b>guardians [<i>apotropsin</i>] slaughtered</b> a Paschal lamb <b>on his behalf,</b> intending that he be included in their group, he may <b>eat in</b> whichever <b>place he wishes. A slave</b> jointly owned <b>by two partners</b> may <b>not eat from</b> the lamb of <b>either of them,</b> unless it was stipulated beforehand from whose lamb he will partake. <b>One who is half slave and half free man may not eat from his master’s</b> lamb. It is assumed that the master did not intend to allow this person’s free half to partake of the lamb, and therefore the master did not slaughter the lamb with him in mind. Consequently, the half slave is not included among those registered for his master’s offering unless he was explicitly included.",
            "In the case of <b>one who says to his slave: Go and slaughter the Paschal offering on my behalf,</b> but does not specify which type of animal to slaughter, the <i>halakha</i> is as follows: If the slave <b>slaughtered a kid,</b> his master <b>may eat</b> it; if <b>he slaughtered a lamb,</b> his master <b>may eat</b> it. If the slave <b>slaughtered</b> both <b>a kid and a lamb,</b> his master <b>should eat from the first one</b> that was slaughtered; the second is invalid and should be burned. If the master had stated explicitly which type of animal to slaughter, but the slave <b>forgot what his master said to him, what should he do? He should slaughter</b> both <b>a lamb and a kid and say</b> the following stipulation: <b>If my master said to me</b> that I should slaughter <b>a kid, the kid is</b> for <b>his</b> Paschal offering <b>and the lamb is</b> for <b>mine; and if my master said to me</b> that I should slaughter <b>a lamb, the lamb is</b> for <b>his</b> Paschal offering <b>and the kid is</b> for <b>mine.</b> In this way, once the master ultimately clarifies what he had originally said, both animals may be used accordingly. If <b>his master</b> also <b>forgot what he said to him,</b> neither animal may be used, since it has not been clarified which of the animals the slave and master are registered for. Therefore, <b>both of them,</b> the lamb and the kid, <b>go out to the place</b> designated <b>for burning,</b> in accordance with the <i>halakha</i> pertaining to offerings that may not be eaten. However, despite this, both the master and slave are <b>exempt from observing the second <i>Pesaḥ</i></b> if the blood of the animals has already been applied to the altar before the master forgot.",
            "In the case of <b>one who says to his children: I am slaughtering the Paschal lamb on behalf of whomever of you goes up first to Jerusalem, as soon as the first</b> of the children <b>has entered his head and the majority of his</b> body into Jerusalem, <b>he has acquired his portion and acquires</b> on behalf of <b>his brothers</b> their portions together <b>with him.</b> Additional people <b>can always be registered for</b> a Paschal lamb, <b>as long as there will be</b> at least <b>an olive-bulk</b> of the lamb’s meat <b>for each and every</b> person registered. People <b>can be registered and withdraw themselves from</b> being registered for a Paschal lamb <b>until it is slaughtered. Rabbi Shimon says:</b> Even <b>until</b> the priest <b>sprinkles the blood.</b>",
            "If one who is registered for a Paschal lamb unilaterally <b>registers another</b> person <b>with him in his portion</b> of the Paschal lamb, the other <b>members of</b> his <b>group are permitted to give him,</b> i.e., the one who included the additional person, only <b>his</b> portion, which was originally allotted to him. <b>And he,</b> the additional person, <b>eats from his</b> portion, i.e., the portion of he who added him; <b>and they,</b> the other members of the group, <b>eat from theirs.</b> This is because they did not agree to the inclusion of the additional person.",
            "<b>A <i>zav</i>,</b> a man who experiences a gonorrheal discharge, <b>who saw two sightings</b> of discharge is ritually impure. To become ritually pure and able to partake of offerings, he must wait seven clean days during which he does not see any discharge. Then he immerses in a ritual bath. He will then be considered ritually pure upon nightfall. <b>One slaughters</b> the Paschal lamb <b>on his behalf</b> if Passover eve is <b>on his seventh</b> day, despite the fact he is still not ritually pure at the time of slaughter, since by the night of Passover he will be ritually pure and able to eat it. If <b>he saw three</b> sightings, in which case, in addition to the seven clean days he must bring an offering on the eighth day to be allowed to partake of offerings, <b>one slaughters</b> the Paschal lamb <b>on his behalf</b> if Passover eve is <b>on his eighth</b> day. It is presumed that by the evening his offering will <b>have</b> been brought and his purification complete. <b>A woman who keeps watch a day for a day</b> is one who became ritually impure after experiencing a discharge of blood outside of her regular menstrual cycle on one day or two consecutive days. She must keep watch on the day following her last discharge to be certain she does not experience any additional discharges. To ritually purify herself, she should, on that day, immerse in a ritual bath, and on condition that she doesn’t experience any discharges throughout that day, she is considered ritually pure already from the time she immersed. If she saw a discharge on one day, <b>one slaughters</b> the Paschal lamb <b>on her behalf</b> after she has immersed <b>on her second day,</b> despite the possibility that she may see additional discharges later that day. If <b>she saw</b> a discharge on <b>two days, one slaughters</b> the Paschal lamb <b>on her behalf on the third</b> day. <b>And a <i>zava</i></b> is a woman who experienced discharges on three consecutive days. She must, like a <i>zav</i>, wait a full seven clean days with no discharges, immerse, and then bring a sacrifice on the eighth day. <b>One slaughters</b> a Paschal lamb <b>on her behalf</b> only <b>on the eighth</b> day.",
            "<b>An acute mourner,</b> i.e., a mourner on the day of the death of an immediate relative; <b>and one clearing a pile</b> of stones that collapsed on top of a person, in which case there is a possibility that the person buried underneath is dead and his corpse will impart ritual impurity to the person clearing the pile; <b>and similarly, one whom</b> the governing body <b>promised to release from prison</b> on the night of Passover; <b>and an ill person and an elderly person who are</b> still <b>capable of eating an olive-bulk</b> of meat, <b>one slaughters</b> the Paschal lamb <b>on their behalf,</b> since they are currently fit to eat the Paschal lamb. However, <b>with regard to all of them,</b> this is only true when they are included in a group with other people who will definitely be able to partake of the lamb; but <b>we do not slaughter</b> the Paschal lamb <b>on their behalf</b> if they are <b>by themselves,</b> either as individuals or in a group composed entirely of such people, because <b>perhaps they will cause the Paschal lamb to become disqualified,</b> since there is a possibility that by the night of Passover they will be unable to partake of the Paschal lamb. <b>Therefore,</b> since they were registered for a Paschal lamb and it was slaughtered when they were still fit to partake of it, even <b>if a disqualification occurred to them</b> later, preventing them from partaking of the Paschal lamb, <b>they are</b> nevertheless <b>exempt from observing the second <i>Pesaḥ</i>.</b> The exemption from the second <i>Pesaḥ</i> is dependent not on whether they partook of a Paschal lamb, but on whether it was validly slaughtered on their behalf. This holds true <b>except for one who was clearing a pile</b> of stones where the person buried underneath was eventually found dead, <b>because</b> in such a case the person searching for him certainly stood over the corpse at some point. He had therefore become <b>ritually impure from the outset,</b> even before the Paschal lamb was slaughtered. Consequently, he would not have been fit even during the slaughter and will have to observe the second <i>Pesaḥ</i>.",
            "<b>We do not slaughter the Paschal lamb on behalf of an individual,</b> only for a group of people; <b>this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yosei permits</b> it. <b>And even</b> if there is <b>a group of one hundred who</b> together <b>are unable to eat an olive-bulk</b> of it, <b>we do not slaughter on their behalf.</b> <b>And we do not make a group</b> for a Paschal lamb that consists <b>of women, slaves, and minors.</b>",
            "<b>An acute mourner,</b> i.e., a mourner on the day of the death of an immediate relative, is prohibited from eating sacrificial food. By Torah law, the prohibition applies only to the day of death itself, but it is permitted to partake of sacrificial food on the following night. By rabbinic decree, the period of acute mourning is extended to include the night as well. Despite this, an acute mourner <b>immerses and eats his Paschal lamb in the evening. But</b> he may still <b>not</b> eat other <b>sacrificial food.</b> However, <b>one who hears about</b> the death of <b>his dead,</b> i.e., he discovers that one of his immediate relatives died more than thirty days after the death, his status of acute mourning applies on a rabbinic level. <b>And one who gathers</b> the <b>bones</b> of his parents, who are buried in a temporary location for their flesh to decay and who is moving them to a permanent burial place must also observe a day of acute mourning by rabbinic decree. These mourners <b>immerse and eat</b> all types of <b>sacrificial food</b> at night. Since in these cases, even during the day, the mourning is by rabbinic decree, the Sages did not extend it into the evening. With regard to <b>a convert who converted on Passover eve, Beit Shammai say: He immerses and eats his Paschal lamb in the evening. And Beit Hillel say: One who separates from the foreskin</b> by being circumcised is ritually impure, <b>like one who separates from the grave</b> after coming in contact with a corpse. Consequently, he must first observe the seven-day purification process necessary to remove ritually impurity imparted by a corpse. Only then, from the eighth day onward, may he partake of sacrificial meat."
        ],
        [
            "<b>One who was</b> ritually <b>impure or on a distant journey and did not observe</b> the <b>first</b> <i>Pesaḥ</i> by participating in the offering of the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth of Nisan <b>should observe the second</b> <i>Pesaḥ</i> by participating in the offering on the fourteenth of Iyyar. If one <b>unwittingly</b> forgot <b>or</b> was <b>prevented</b> due to circumstances <b>beyond his control and did not observe the first</b> <i>Pesaḥ</i>, <b>he</b> too <b>should observe the second</b> <i>Pesaḥ</i>. <b>If so,</b> that the second <i>Pesaḥ</i> is observed even by someone who forgot or was prevented from observing the first <i>Pesaḥ</i>, <b>why is it stated</b> in the Torah that the second <i>Pesaḥ</i> is observed only by one who was ritually <b>impure or on a distant journey?</b> These cases were specified in order to teach <b>that these</b> two groups of people <b>are exempt from <i>karet</i></b> if they do not observe the second <i>Pesaḥ</i>, <b>but those</b> who were not ritually impure or on a distant journey <b>are liable to</b> receive <b><i>karet</i>,</b> as the Gemara will explain.",
            "<b>What is the</b> definition of <b>a distant journey</b> that exempts one from observing the first <i>Pesaḥ</i>? Anywhere <b>from the</b> city of <b>Modi’im and beyond, and</b> from anywhere located an equal <b>distance</b> from Jerusalem and beyond <b>in every direction;</b> this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer says: From the threshold of the</b> Temple <b>courtyard and beyond</b> is considered a distant journey;therefore, anyone located outside the courtyard at the time that the Paschal lamb is slaughtered is exempt from observing the first <i>Pesaḥ</i>. <b>Rabbi Yosei said to him: Therefore,</b> the word is <b>dotted over the</b> letter <b><i>heh</i></b> in the word “distant [<i>reḥoka</i>]” <b>to say</b> that the meaning of the word should be qualified: It should be understood that <b>it is not because he is really distant; rather,</b> it includes anyone located <b>from the threshold of the</b> Temple <b>courtyard and beyond.</b>",
            "<b>What is</b> the difference <b>between </b>the Paschal lamb offered on <b>the first <i>Pesaḥ</i></b> and the Paschal lamb offered on <b>the second </b><i>Pesaḥ</i>? On <b>the first</b> <i>Pesaḥ</i>, at the time of slaughtering the Paschal lamb, <b>it is prohibited</b> to own leavened bread due to the prohibitions: <b>It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found. And</b> on <b>the second</b> <i>Pesaḥ</i> it is permissible for one to have both <b>leavened bread and <i>matza</i> with him in the house.</b> Another difference is that the Paschal lamb offered on <b>the first</b> <i>Pesaḥ</i> <b>requires</b> the recitation of <b><i>hallel</i> as it is eaten and the second does not require</b> the recitation of <b><i>hallel</i> as it is eaten.</b> However, they are the same in that the Paschal lambs sacrificed on <b>both</b> the first and second <i>Pesaḥ</i> <b>require</b> the recitation of <b><i>hallel</i> as they are prepared,</b> i.e., as they are slaughtered, <b>and they are</b> both <b>eaten roasted with <i>matza</i> and bitter herbs, and they override Shabbat</b> in that they may be slaughtered and their blood sprinkled even on Shabbat.",
            "When <b>the Paschal lamb is sacrificed in</b> a state of <b>ritual impurity</b> due to the fact that the majority of the Jewish people are ritually impure, <b><i>zavim</i>, and <i>zavot</i>,</b> and <b>menstruating women, and women after childbirth may not eat it,</b> because the Paschal lamb overrides only ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, but it does not override other forms of ritual impurity. However, <b>if they</b> violated the <i>halakha</i> and <b>ate</b> from the offering, <b>they are exempt from <i>karet</i>.</b> One who eats sacrificial food in a state of ritual impurity is generally liable to receive <i>karet</i>; however, since in this case the offering is sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity, there is no punishment of <i>karet</i> even for ritually impure individuals who are not permitted to eat it. <b>And Rabbi Eliezer exempts</b> these individuals from <i>karet</i> <b>even for entering the Temple</b> in a state of ritual impurity, despite their not being permitted to enter, because people who are impure due to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse are permitted to enter the Temple in this situation despite their impurity.",
            "<b>What</b> are the differences <b>between the Paschal lamb</b> that the Jewish people offered in <b>Egypt and the Paschal lamb</b> offered in all later <b>generations? The Paschal lamb</b> the Jewish people offered in <b>Egypt</b> had to be <b>taken from the tenth</b> of the month of Nisan <b>and required</b> the people to <b>sprinkle</b> its blood <b>with a bundle of hyssop,</b> unlike the Paschal lamb in all later years, <b>and</b> its blood was also sprinkled <b>upon the lintel and the two doorposts, and it was eaten with haste;</b> in addition, the Paschal lamb in Egypt was only <b>on one night,</b> whereas <b>the Paschal lamb</b> throughout the <b>generations is observed for seven</b> days.",
            "<b>Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard</b> two rulings from my teachers: One ruling was <b>that the substitute of a Paschal lamb is sacrificed</b> as a peace-offering after Passover, and another ruling was that <b>the substitute of a Paschal lamb is not sacrificed</b> as a peace-offering after Passover; <b>and I cannot explain</b> these two rulings, as I do not remember the circumstances to which each ruling applies. <b>Rabbi Akiva said: I will explain:</b> With regard to a lamb that is separated as a <b>Paschal lamb</b> and is then lost, leading the owner to separate another animal as its replacement, <b>and is</b> later <b>found before the slaughter of the</b> replacement <b>Paschal lamb,</b> it is left to <b>graze until it becomes unfit [<i>yista’ev</i>]</b> and disqualified for use as a sacrifice. It is then <b>sold</b> and becomes unconsecrated, <b>and</b> the owner must <b>bring a peace-offering with its proceeds. And so too,</b> the same is true with regard to <b>its substitute:</b> If one separates another lamb as a substitute for this replacement, the sanctity of the original lamb extends to the substitute as well. In the case outlined above, the substitute would graze, just like the replacement, until it developed a blemish and would then be sold. This is the circumstance in which the substitute of a Paschal lamb is not sacrificed. On the other hand, if the lost lamb is found <b>after</b> the <b>slaughter of the</b> replacement <b>Paschal lamb, it</b> itself <b>is sacrificed as a peace-offering, and so too, its substitute</b> is sacrificed, which explains the ruling that the substitute of a Paschal lamb is sacrificed as a peace-offering.",
            "In the case of <b>one who separates a female</b> animal <b>for his Paschal lamb</b> although the Torah requires a male, <b>or a male that is in its second year</b> although a Paschal lamb must be an animal that is in its first year, the animal <b>is left to graze until it</b> develops a blemish and <b>becomes unfit, and it is</b> then <b>sold and its money is used for free-will offerings</b> or <b>peace-offerings.</b> With regard to <b>one who separates his Paschal lamb and</b> then <b>dies, his son</b> may <b>not bring it after him for the purpose of a Paschal lamb</b> because it may no longer be used for that purpose after its owner has died. <b>Rather,</b> it is brought <b>for the purpose of a peace-offering.</b>",
            "In the case of <b>a Paschal lamb that was intermingled with</b> other <b>offerings,</b> such as guilt-offerings and burnt-offerings, and it is not known which animal was separated for which offering, <b>all of them</b> are left to <b>graze until they</b> develop a blemish and <b>become unfit; and they are</b> then <b>sold, and with the proceeds of the choicest of them he</b> must <b>bring this type</b> of sacrifice, <b>and with the proceeds of the choicest of them</b> he must bring <b>this</b> other <b>type</b> of sacrifice, meaning that he must purchase one of each type of sacrifice that was intermingled at the value of the most expensive animal in the group. <b>And he loses the difference from his own</b> pocket. Not all the offerings were as expensive as the most valuable animal in the group, yet he must purchase an animal for each type of offering for the value of the most expensive animal in the group. If a Paschal lamb <b>was intermingled with firstborn</b> animals, <b>Rabbi Shimon says: If</b> those whose offerings became mixed together were <b>groups of priests, they may eat</b> all of the animals on Passover night. This is because priests are permitted to eat the meat of a firstborn animal, and the slaughter and other services for a firstborn animal are the same as those for a Paschal lamb. The attending priests should state that they intend to sacrifice as a Paschal lamb whichever animal is the Paschal lamb and to sacrifice as a firstborn animal whichever animal is a firstborn.",
            "With regard to <b>a group whose Paschal lamb was lost, and they said to one</b> member of the group: <b>Go and search</b> for our Paschal lamb, <b>and</b> when you find it, <b>slaughter</b> it <b>on</b> our behalf; <b>and he went and found</b> the missing offering <b>and slaughtered</b> it on behalf of the entire group, but in the meantime <b>they took</b> a different animal <b>and slaughtered</b> it as a Paschal lamb, the <i>halakha</i> is as follows: <b>If his</b> Paschal lamb <b>was slaughtered first, he eats from his</b> offering, as he is considered to be registered specifically for that offering, <b>and they eat with him from his</b> offering, because he included them in his offering and it belongs to the entire group. The second animal does not have any registrants and is therefore burned. <b>And if theirs was slaughtered first, they eat from theirs</b> because they withdrew from the original offering through the act of slaughtering a replacement, <b>and he eats from his</b> because he was not registered for the replacement offering sacrificed by the remainder of his group. <b>And if it is not known which of</b> the offerings <b>was slaughtered first, or</b> if <b>both</b> the group and the individual <b>slaughtered</b> them <b>together, he eats from his and they do not eat with him</b> in case theirs was slaughtered first, <b>and theirs must be taken out to the place</b> designated for <b>burning.</b> The offering slaughtered by the group may not be eaten due to the concern that it was slaughtered second and the members of the group would therefore have been included in the first offering. However, <b>they are exempt from performing</b> the offering of the Paschal lamb on the <b>second <i>Pesaḥ</i>,</b> because they were included in the slaughter of whichever animal was slaughtered first. It is only due to external circumstances that they cannot complete the mitzva by eating the Paschal lamb, and this does not prevent them from fulfilling their obligation. A somewhat different case of a lost Paschal lamb would occur if the group had sent one member as an agent to search for the lost animal, and the agent <b>said to</b> the other members of the group before he left: <b>If I am late, go and slaughter</b> a Paschal lamb for me. <b>He</b> then <b>went and found</b> the lost Paschal lamb <b>and slaughtered</b> it, <b>and they took</b> another animal <b>and slaughtered</b> it as a Paschal lamb. In that case, <b>if theirs was slaughtered first, they eat from theirs and he eats with them,</b> because he requested to be included in their offering and they registered him for their Paschal lamb. <b>And if his was slaughtered first, he eats from his and they eat from theirs,</b> because the fact that they slaughtered a different animal indicates that they have withdrawn from the original offering. <b>And if it is not known which of</b> the animals <b>was slaughtered first, or</b> if <b>both</b> the group and the individual <b>slaughtered</b> them <b>together, they eat from theirs</b> because they definitely withdrew from the original offering by slaughtering a different one, <b>and he does not eat with them</b> because he also intended to be included in the animal he slaughtered and it is not clear which was slaughtered first. Therefore, <b>his must be taken out to the place</b> designated for <b>burning; and he is exempt from performing</b> the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on <b>the second <i>Pesaḥ</i>.</b> If <b>he said to them</b> that if he is delayed they should include him in their Paschal lamb, <b>and they said to him</b> that if he finds the original offering he should slaughter it on their behalf, <b>all of them eat from the first</b> sacrifice that was slaughtered. <b>And if it is not known which of them was slaughtered first, both of them must be taken out to the place</b> designated for <b>burning,</b> and the entire group is exempt from participating in the Paschal lamb on the second <i>Pesaḥ</i>. If <b>he did not say</b> anything <b>to them and they did not say</b> anything <b>to him,</b> meaning that neither side granted the other authority to slaughter a Paschal lamb on its behalf, <b>they are not responsible for each other,</b> and the members of the group eat their Paschal lamb while the individual sent to find the lost animal eats from his own offering. The reason for this is that the individual is registered only for the original offering, while the other members of the group withdrew from that lost offering by sacrificing a different Paschal lamb.",
            "<b>Two groups whose Paschal lambs have become intermingled</b> and they do not know which one belongs to which group should act in the following manner: <b>These</b> members of the first group <b>draw one</b> of the animals separated as a Paschal lamb <b>for themselves, and those</b> members of the second group <b>draw one for themselves. One of these,</b> a member of one group, <b>comes to those,</b> the members of the other group, <b>and one of those</b> members of the second group <b>comes to these</b> members of the first group. <b>And this is what</b> each group <b>says</b> to the member of the other group who has come to join them: <b>If this Paschal lamb</b> that is now in our possession <b>is ours, you are withdrawn from</b> the Paschal lamb that was <b>yours, and you are registered for our</b> Paschal lamb and you may eat from it. <b>And if this Paschal lamb is yours,</b> meaning that it actually belongs to the other group, including this individual, <b>we are</b> hereby <b>withdrawn from ours and we are registered for your</b> Paschal lamb, which you agree to share with us. The other group makes the same statement. <b>And similarly,</b> if there were <b>five groups of five</b> people <b>each</b> or <b>of ten</b> people <b>each, they draw one</b> person <b>from each and every group, and they say this</b> statement mentioned in the case of two groups. The remaining member or members of each group will grant the representatives of the other groups that have come to join them a share in the Paschal lamb, and they will acquire a share in it for themselves in case the animal they have chosen belonged originally to one of the other groups.",
            "In the case of <b>two</b> individuals <b>whose Paschal lambs became intermingled</b> and each person was the only one registered for his offering, what should they do? <b>This</b> person <b>draws one</b> of the Paschal lambs <b>for himself and that</b> person <b>draws one for himself; this</b> person <b>registers someone from the marketplace with him</b> on his Paschal lamb <b>and that</b> person <b>registers someone from the marketplace with him</b> on his Paschal lamb. Once this has been done, <b>this one comes to that</b> person from the marketplace who has been added to the other person’s sacrifice, <b>and that one comes to this</b> person from the marketplace who has been added to the first person’s sacrifice, <b>and this is what they say: If this Paschal lamb is mine, you are withdrawn from yours and you are registered for mine, and if this is your Paschal lamb, I am withdrawn from mine and I am</b> hereby <b>registered for yours,</b> as described previously. The reason it is necessary for each individual to add an additional person to his Paschal lamb, is to ensure that when each person withdraws from his original Paschal lamb and registers for the other, no Paschal lamb will be left ownerless for any amount of time."
        ],
        [
            "On <b>the eve of Passover, adjacent to <i>minḥa</i></b> time, <b>a person</b> may <b>not eat until dark,</b> so that he will be able to eat <i>matza</i> that night with a hearty appetite. <b>Even the poorest of Jews</b> should <b>not eat</b> the meal on Passover night <b>until he reclines</b> on his left side, as free and wealthy people recline when they eat. <b>And</b> the distributors of charity should <b>not give</b> a poor person <b>less than four cups of wine</b> for the Festival meal of Passover night. <b>And</b> this <i>halakha</i> applies <b>even</b> if the poor person is one of the poorest members of society and receives his food <b>from the charity plate.</b>",
            "The <i>tanna</i> describes the beginning of the Passover seder. The attendants <b>poured</b> the wine of <b>the first cup</b> for the leader of the seder. <b>Beit Shammai say: One recites the blessing over the</b> sanctification of the <b>day,</b> i.e., the <i>kiddush</i> for the Festival: Who blesses Israel and the Festivals, <b>and thereafter he recites the blessing over the wine:</b> Who creates fruit of the vine. <b>And Beit Hillel say: One recites the blessing over the wine and thereafter recites the blessing over the day.</b>",
            "The attendants <b>brought</b> vegetables <b>before</b> the leader of the seder prior to the meal, if there were no other vegetables on the table. <b>He dips the <i>ḥazeret</i></b> into water or vinegar, to taste some food <b>before he reaches the</b> dessert of <b>the bread,</b> i.e., the bitter herbs, which were eaten after the <i>matza</i>. <b>They brought before him <i>matza</i> and</b> <i>ḥazeret</i> <b>and <i>ḥaroset</i>, and</b> at least <b>two cooked dishes</b> in honor of the Festival. The <i>tanna</i> comments that this was the practice, <b>although</b> eating <b><i>ḥaroset</i> is not a mitzva</b> but merely a custom. <b>Rabbi Eliezer ben Tzadok says:</b> Actually, it is <b>a mitzva</b> to eat <i>ḥaroset</i>. <b>And in</b> the period when <b>the Temple</b> stood and they offered the Paschal lamb, <b>they brought before him the body of the Paschal lamb.</b>",
            "The attendants <b>poured the second cup for</b> the leader of the seder, <b>and here the son asks his father</b> the questions about the differences between Passover night and a regular night. <b>And if the son does not have the intelligence</b> to ask questions on his own, <b>his father teaches him</b> the questions. The mishna lists the questions: <b>Why is this night different from all other nights? As on all other nights we eat leavened bread and <i>matza</i></b> as preferred; <b>on this night all</b> our bread is <b><i>matza</i>. As on all other nights we eat other vegetables; on this night</b> we eat <b>bitter herbs.</b> The mishna continues its list of the questions. When the Temple was standing one would ask: <b>As on all other nights we eat</b> either <b>roasted, stewed,</b> or <b>cooked meat,</b> but <b>on this night all</b> the meat is the <b>roasted</b> meat of the Paschal lamb. The final question was asked even after the destruction of the Temple: <b>As on all other nights we dip</b> the vegetables in a liquid during the meal only <b>once;</b> however, <b>on this night</b> we dip <b>twice.</b> <b>And according to the intelligence</b> and the ability <b>of</b> the <b>son, his father teaches him</b> about the Exodus. When teaching his son about the Exodus. <b>He begins with</b> the Jewish people’s <b>disgrace and concludes with</b> their <b>glory. And he expounds from</b> the passage: <b>“An Aramean tried to destroy my father”</b> (Deuteronomy 26:5), the declaration one recites when presenting his first fruits at the Temple, <b>until he concludes</b> explaining <b>the entire section.</b>",
            "<b>Rabban Gamliel would say: Anyone who did not say</b> <b>these three matters on Passover has not fulfilled his obligation:</b> The <b>Paschal lamb, <i>matza</i>, and bitter herbs.</b> When one mentions these matters, he must elaborate and explain them: The <b>Paschal lamb</b> is brought <b>because the Omnipresent passed over [<i>pasaḥ</i>] the houses of our forefathers in Egypt, as it is stated: “That you shall say: It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s Paschal offering for He passed over</b> the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses” (Exodus 12:27). Rabban Gamliel continues to explain: The reason for <b><i>matza</i></b> is <b>because our forefathers were redeemed from Egypt, as it is stated: “And they baked the dough that they took out of Egypt</b> as cakes of <i>matzot</i>, for it was not leavened, as they were thrust out of Egypt and could not tarry, neither had they prepared for themselves any victual” (Exodus 12:39). The reason for <b>bitter herbs</b> is <b>because the Egyptians embittered our forefathers’ lives in Egypt, as it is stated: “And they embittered their lives</b> with hard service, in mortar and in brick; in all manner of service in the field, all the service that they made them serve was with rigor” (Exodus 1:14). The <i>tanna</i> of the mishna further states: <b>In each and every generation a person must view himself as though he</b> personally <b>left Egypt, as it is stated: “And you shall tell your son on that day, saying: It is because of this which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt”</b> (Exodus 13:8). In every generation, each person must say: “This which the Lord did for me,” and not: This which the Lord did for my forefathers. The mishna continues with the text of the Haggadah. <b>Therefore we are obligated to thank, praise, glorify, extol, exalt, honor, bless, revere, and laud [<i>lekales</i>] the One who performed for our forefathers and for us all these miracles: He took us out from slavery to freedom, from sorrow to joy, from mourning to a Festival, from darkness to a great light, and from enslavement to redemption. And we will say before Him: <i>Halleluya</i>.</b> At this point one recites the <i>hallel</i> that is said on all joyous days. Since one does not complete <i>hallel</i> at this point in the seder, the mishna asks: ",
            "<b>Until where does one recite</b> <i>hallel</i>? <b>Beit Shammai say: Until</b> “Who makes the barren woman dwell in her house as <b>a joyful mother of children,</b> <i>halleluya</i>” (Psalms 113:9). <b>And Beit Hillel say: Until</b> “Who turned the rock into a pool of water, <b>the flint into a fountain of waters”</b> (Psalms 114:8). <b>And one concludes</b> this section of <i>hallel</i> <b>with</b> a blessing that refers to <b>redemption. Rabbi Tarfon says</b> that although one should recite: <b>Who redeemed us and redeemed our forefathers from Egypt,</b> one who did so <b>would not conclude</b> with the formula: Blessed are You, Lord. <b>Rabbi Akiva says</b> that one recites a different version of this blessing: <b>So too, the Lord our God and the God of our forefathers will bring us to future holidays and Festivals in peace, happy over the building of Your city and joyous in Your service. And there we will eat from the Paschal lamb and other offerings, etc., until: Blessed are You, Lord, Who redeemed Israel.</b> ",
            "<b>They poured for</b> the leader of the seder <b>the third cup</b> of wine, <b>and he recites the blessing over his food,</b> Grace After Meals. Next, they pour him the <b>fourth</b> cup. <b>He completes <i>hallel</i> over it,</b> as he already recited the first part of <i>hallel</i> before the meal. <b>And he</b> also <b>recites the blessing of the song</b> at the end of <i>hallel</i> <b>over</b> the fourth cup. During the period <b>between these cups,</b> i.e., the first three cups established by the Sages, <b>if one wishes to drink</b> more <b>he</b> may <b>drink;</b> however, <b>between the third</b> cup <b>and the fourth</b> cup one should <b>not drink.</b>",
            " <b>One does not conclude after the Paschal lamb with an <i>afikoman</i>.</b> <b>If some of</b> the participants at the seder <b>fell asleep,</b> thereby interrupting their meal, <b>they</b> may <b>eat</b> from the Paschal lamb when they awake. If the <b>entire</b> company fell asleep, <b>they</b> may <b>not eat</b> any more. If they all fall asleep, this is considered a complete interruption, and if they were to resume their meal it would be akin to eating the offering in two different places. <b>Rabbi Yosei says:</b> If <b>they dozed they</b> may <b>eat</b> from the Paschal lamb when they awake, but if <b>they fell</b> fast <b>asleep they</b> may <b>not eat</b> from it.",
            "The Sages further said: <b>The Paschal lamb after midnight renders one’s hands ritually impure,</b> as it becomes <i>notar</i>, an offering that remained after the time when they may be eaten has expired; and the Sages ruled that both <b><i>piggul</i>,</b> offerings that were invalidated due to inappropriate intent while being sacrificed, <b>and <i>notar</i> render one’s hands ritually impure.</b> If <b>one recited the blessing over the Paschal lamb,</b> which is: Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to eat the Paschal lamb, <b>he has</b> also <b>exempted</b> himself from reciting a blessing over the Festival <b>offering.</b> The blessing for the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth of Nisan is: Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to eat the offering. However, if <b>he recited the blessing over the</b> Festival <b>offering, he has not exempted</b> himself from reciting a blessing over <b>the Paschal lamb.</b> This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: This</b> blessing <b>does not exempt</b> one from reciting a blessing over <b>this one, and that</b> blessing <b>does not exempt that one,</b> as there is a separate blessing for each offering."
        ]
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Chapter",
        "Mishnah"
    ]
}