וְכׇל שֶׁאִילּוּ בְּיָחִיד נִדְחֶה, בְּצִיבּוּר עָבְדִי בְּטוּמְאָה. וְכׇל מִילְּתָא דְּאִיתָא בְּצִיבּוּר, אִיתָא בְּיָחִיד. וְכׇל מִילְּתָא דְּלֵיתָא בְּצִיבּוּר, לֵיתָא בְּיָחִיד. And Rabbi Eliezer further maintains with regard to any form of impurity due to which an individual is deferred to the second Pesaḥ, that if the entire community is afflicted with it, they observe the first Pesaḥ in a state of ritual impurity. And he accepts yet another principle: Anything that applies to the community applies to an individual, and anything that does not apply to the community does not apply to an individual.
עֲרֵילוּת, דְּאִי כּוּלֵּיהּ צִיבּוּר עֲרֵלִים נִינְהוּ, אָמְרִינַן לְהוּ: קוּמוּ מְהוּלוּ נַפְשַׁיְיכוּ וַעֲבִידֵי פִּסְחָא. יָחִיד נָמֵי, אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: קוּם מְהוֹל וַעֲבֵיד פִּסְחָא. וְאִי לָא מָהֵיל וְעָבֵיד — עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת. On the basis of these principles, we can say as follows: With regard to lack of circumcision, if the entire community is uncircumcised we say to them: Arise, and circumcise yourselves, and offer the Paschal lamb, and we do not allow them to offer the sacrifice while uncircumcised. Therefore, with regard to an individual as well, we say to him: Arise, and circumcise yourself, and offer the Paschal lamb; and if he does not circumcise himself and offer the Paschal lamb, he is liable to the punishment of karet.
טוּמְאָה, דְּאִי כּוּלֵּיהּ צִיבּוּרָא טְמֵאִין נִינְהוּ — לָא מַדֵּינַן עֲלַיְיהוּ, אֶלָּא עָבְדִי בְּטוּמְאָה, יָחִיד נָמֵי פָּטוּר. With regard to impurity, however, if the whole community is impure we do not sprinkle the purifying water on them; rather, they offer the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity. Therefore, an individual, as well, is exempt from sprinkling; and since he is exempt, sprinkling does not override Shabbat. A distinction may be drawn between the two cases: An uncircumcised person must circumcise himself, but a person who is ritually impure need not undergo purification.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרָבָא: וַהֲרֵי פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי, דְּלֵיתֵיהּ בְּצִיבּוּר וְאִיתֵיהּ בְּיָחִיד! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּהָא עֲבַד לֵיהּ צִיבּוּרָא בְּרִאשׁוֹן. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: Are these principles really correct? But there is the second Pesaḥ, which does not apply to the community and yet it applies to an individual. Rava said to Rav Huna: It is different there, as the community already offered the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ in a state of ritual impurity, and therefore the second Pesaḥ can apply to individuals although it does not apply to the community.
מֵיתִיבִי: יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת אֶלָּא שֶׁהָיָה טָהוֹר וְשֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה. עָרֵל וּטְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַטְּמֵאִים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהָאִישׁ״. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita in which it was taught: One might have thought that only one who was pure and not on a distant journey is punishable by karet for having neglected to offer the Paschal lamb, as the Torah explicitly states that a person who was ritually impure or on a distant journey is exempt from the first Pesaḥ and obligated in the second Pesaḥ. But as for one who was uncircumcised or ritually impure from a creeping animal and all the others who are ritually impure not from a corpse, and they did not undergo circumcision or purification before Passover, from where do we know that they are also liable to receive karet? The verse states: “But the man that is clean, and is not on a journey, and fails to keep the Passover, then that person shall be cut off from his people” (Numbers 9:13); the expression “but the man” comes to include anyone who can become pure and fit to participate in the Paschal lamb, but fails to do so.
מִדְּקָא מְהַדַּר אַטְּמֵא שֶׁרֶץ, קָסָבַר: אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עַל טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ, דְּאִי שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עַל טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ — לְמָה לֵיהּ לְאַהֲדוֹרֵי עֲלֵיהּ, הַיְינוּ טָהוֹר. אַלְמָא: אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא חֲזֵי — חִיּוּבָא עֲלֵיהּ, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵיתֵיהּ בְּצִיבּוּר — אִיתֵיהּ בְּיָחִיד. The Gemara infers from this baraita: From the fact that he searches for a source to include one who is ritually impure from a creeping animal, it is clear that he holds that one may not slaughter the Paschal lamb or sprinkle its blood for someone who is ritually impure from a creeping animal. For if one may slaughter and sprinkle for someone impure from a creeping animal, why did he search for a source to include it? He is the same as anyone who is pure and did not offer the Paschal lamb, for he could have sent his offering with someone else and eaten from it in the evening after having undergone ritual immersion. Rather, it is clear that one may not slaughter or sprinkle for him; and, nonetheless, if he neglected the mitzva of the Paschal lamb, he is liable to receive karet. Apparently then, although he was not fit at that time to offer the Paschal lamb, the obligation is nonetheless incumbent upon him to render himself fit. And although this does not apply to the community, for a community that is impure with the impurity of a creeping animal brings the Paschal lamb in a state of impurity, it does apply to an individual.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: קָסָבַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עַל טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ, וְהוּא הַדִּין לִטְמֵא מֵת בִּשְׁבִיעִי שֶׁלּוֹ. הַזָּאָה לְמַאי? לַאֲכִילָה אֲכִילַת פְּסָחִים לָא מְעַכְּבָא! Rather, Rava said that we should reject the previous statement and say instead that Rabbi Eliezer holds that one may slaughter the Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood for someone who is ritually impure from a creeping animal, and the same is true with regard to someone who is ritually impure from a corpse on his seventh day of impurity. If so, for what purpose is the sprinkling of the purifying water? If it is possible to slaughter the Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood on this person’s behalf even when he is impure, the only reason to sprinkle the purifying water is for the purpose of eating the Paschal lamb. However, eating of the Paschal lamb is not essential for the fulfillment of the mitzva, for if the blood of the sacrifice is sprinkled in a permitted fashion on someone’s behalf and afterward he is unable to eat the meat of the sacrifice, e.g., it became impure or was lost, he has fulfilled his obligation and is not liable to receive karet. This being the case, sprinkling the purifying waters is not an act that is necessary to facilitate a mitzva and does not override Shabbat even according to Rabbi Eliezer.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַבָּא לְרָבָא: אִם כֵּן, נִמְצָא פֶּסַח נִשְׁחָט שֶׁלֹּא לְאוֹכְלָיו. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שֶׁלֹּא לְאוֹכְלָיו — לְחוֹלֶה וּלְזָקֵן, דְּלָא חֲזֵי. אֲבָל הַאי — מִיחְזֵא חֲזֵי, תַּקּוֹנֵי הוּא דְּלָא מְתַקַּן. Rav Adda bar Abba said to Rava: If it is so, that one may slaughter the Paschal lamb for someone who is ritually impure from a creeping animal, it turns out that the Paschal lamb is slaughtered for people who cannot eat it, and it is stated elsewhere that such a sacrifice is disqualified. Rava said to him: When it says that a Paschal lamb that is slaughtered for people who cannot eat is disqualified, this refers to a case where it is slaughtered for a sick or elderly person who is not at all fit to eat the sacrifice. But this person is essentially fit to eat the sacrifice but has not yet been made ready to actually eat it. He himself is regarded as fit to eat the sacrifice, and it is only some external factor that prevents him from doing so.
כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וּתְנַן נָמֵי גַּבֵּי מִילָה כִּי הַאי גַּוְונָא, כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: כׇּל מְלָאכָה שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, מִילָה שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva stated a principle that any prohibited labor required for the offering of the sacrifice that can be performed before Shabbat does not override Shabbat; whereas slaughter, which cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat, overrides Shabbat.Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva with regard to the Paschal lamb. The Gemara points out that we also learned something similar to this in another mishna with regard to circumcision: Rabbi Akiva stated a principle: Any prohibited labor required for circumcision that can be performed on the eve of Shabbat because it need not be done specifically on the day of the circumcision does not override Shabbat; the circumcision itself, which cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat, since it is not yet time to perform the circumcision, overrides Shabbat. And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva with regard to circumcision.
וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גַּבֵּי פֶסַח: הָתָם (דְּהוּא מַכְשִׁירֵי) מִצְוָה לָא דָּחוּ שַׁבָּת, מִשּׁוּם דְּלֹא נִכְרְתוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה בְּרִיתוֹת. אֲבָל מִילָה, דְּנִכְרְתוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה בְּרִיתוֹת, אֵימָא לִידְחֵי. The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to state this ruling in both cases, for had Rav taught us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva only with regard to the Paschal lamb, the conclusion would have been: It is specifically there that the facilitators of a mitzva that can be performed the day before do not override Shabbat because thirteen covenants were not established upon the Paschal lamb, and it is therefore not so significant. But with regard to circumcision, upon which thirteen covenants were established, as is evidenced by the fact that the word covenant appears thirteen times in the chapter relating to circumcision (Genesis 17), which serves as a covenant between God and the Jewish nation, I would say that even facilitating actions that could have been performed on Shabbat eve should override Shabbat.
וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן מִילָה: הָתָם הוּא דְּמַכְשִׁירֵי מִצְוָה לָא דָּחוּ שַׁבָּת, דְּלֵיכָּא כָּרֵת, אֲבָל פֶּסַח דְּאִיכָּא כָּרֵת, אֵימָא לִידְחֵי. צְרִיכָא. And had Rav taught us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva only with regard to circumcision, the conclusion would have been: It is specifically there that the facilitators of a mitzva that can be performed before Shabbat do not override Shabbat, as there is no punishment of karet if the circumcision is delayed, since liability for karet only applies when the child becomes obligated in mitzvot and chooses not to circumcise himself. But with regard to the Paschal lamb, where there is karet for one who fails to offer the sacrifice at its proper time, I would say that such facilitators should override Shabbat. It is therefore necessary to teach that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in both cases.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵימָתַי מֵבִיא חֲגִיגָה עִמּוֹ? בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא בָּא בַּחוֹל, בְּטָהֳרָה וּבְמוּעָט. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהוּא בָּא בְּשַׁבָּת, בִּמְרוּבֶּה וּבְטוּמְאָה — אֵין מְבִיאִין עִמּוֹ חֲגִיגָה. MISHNA: When does one bring a Festival peace-offering with the Paschal lamb? A special offering is brought on the fourteenth of Nisan together with the Paschal lamb when the Paschal lamb comes on a weekday rather than on Shabbat, and when it comes in a state of ritual purity as opposed to when it is brought in a state of impurity because most of the community is impure, and when many people are registered for the Paschal lamb so that each person will receive only a small portion from it. When these three conditions are met, the Festival peace-offering is eaten first and the Paschal lamb is eaten afterward. When, however, the Paschal lamb comes on Shabbat, or when few people are registered for it so that each person will receive a large portion, or when it is brought in a state of ritual impurity, one does not bring a Festival peace-offering with it.
חֲגִיגָה הָיְתָה בָּאָה מִן הַצֹּאן מִן הַבָּקָר, מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים וּמִן הָעִזִּים, מִן הַזְּכָרִים וּמִן הַנְּקֵבוֹת, וְנֶאֱכֶלֶת לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד. With regard to the extra offering itself, the Festival peace-offering would come from the flock, from the herd, from sheep or from goats, from males or from females, 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. And the Festival peace-offering is eaten for two days and one night like other peace-offerings.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי תַּנָּא דְּקָתָנֵי חֲגִיגָה? תָּנָא הַרְכָּבָתוֹ וַהֲבָאָתוֹ דְּלָא דָּחֵי שַׁבָּת, וְקָתָנֵי נָמֵי חֲגִיגָה דְּלָא דָּחֲיָא שַׁבָּת. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵימָתַי מְבִיאִין עִמּוֹ חֲגִיגָה — בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא בָּא בְּחוֹל, בְּטׇהֳרָה וּבְמוּעָט. GEMARA: The Gemara questions why this halakha is recorded here: What did the mishna previously teach that made it relevant to teach this halakha with regard to a Festival peace-offering despite the fact that it seems to be unconnected to the previous mishnayot? The Gemara answers: Since it taught that carrying the Paschal lamb through a public domain and bringing it from outside the Shabbat limit do not override Shabbat, it also taught with regard to the halakha of a Festival peace-offering, that it does not override Shabbat. And this is what the mishna is saying: When does one bring a Festival peace-offering with the Paschal lamb? When it comes on a weekday, in a state of ritual purity, and when each person’s portion is small.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ חֲגִיגַת אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר Rav Ashi said: Learn from this that the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth of Nisan, which comes with the Paschal lamb and is the subject of our mishna, as opposed to the Festival peace-offering that is brought on the first day of Passover and is called the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth,