One may not slaughter the Passover offering for a single person: this is R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y]`s view; but R. Jose [T4] permits it. And even a company of a hundred who cannot eat as much as an olive [jointly], one may not kill for them. And one may not form a company of women and slaves and minors.
t.Pes.8.7
A. These are the points of difference between the first Passover and the second [cf. M.Pes.9.3]:
B. The first is [observed by dividing the people] into three divisions, but the second is not [observed by dividing the people] into three divisions.
C. The first overrides considerations of uncleanness, and the second does not override considerations of uncleanness.
D. ``On account of the first they are liable to extirpation, and on account of the second they are not liable to extirpation,`` the words of Rabbi.
E. R, Nathan [T5] says, ``Also on account of the second they are liable to extirpation.``
F. R. Hanina [PA1, PA3 or PA5] b. `Aqabia says, ``If they observed the second, they are not liable for extirpation on account of the first. [If] they did not observe the second, they are liable to extirpation on account of the first`` [cf. M.Pes.9.1].
G. The first requires [an additional] festal offering, and the second does not require a festal offering.
H. The first is celebrated all seven days, but the second is celebrated only for one day.
MISHNAH: m.Pes.8.7One may not slaughter the Passover offering for a single person: this is R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y]`s view; but R. Jose [T4] permits it. And even a company of a hundred who cannot eat as much as an olive [jointly], one may not kill for them. And one may not form a company of women and slaves and minors.
GEMARA: Our Rabbis taught: How do we know that one may not slaughter the Passover-offering for a single person? Because it is said, Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover-offering for one: this is R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y]`s opinion. But R. Jose [T4] maintained: A single person and he is able to eat it, one may slaughter on his behalf; ten who are unable to eat it, one must not slaughter on their behalf. Now R. Jose [T4], how does he employ this `for one`? He requires it for R. Simeon`s [T4] [deduction]. For it was taught, R. Simeon [T4] said: How do we know that one who sacrifices his Passover offering at a private bamah at the time when bamoth were prohibited violates a negative command? Because it is said, `Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover-offering within one of thy gates`. You might think that it is also thus when bamoth were permitted: therefore it is stated, `within one of thy gates`: They ruled [that he violates a negative injunction] only when all Israel enter through one gate. And how does R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] know this? You may infer two things from it. Now according to R. Jose [T4], whence [does he know] that its purpose is for what R. Simeon [T4] said: perhaps it comes for what was stated by R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y]? He can tell you: you cannot think so, for surely it is written, according to every man`s eating. R. `Ukba b. Hinena of Parishna pointed out a contradiction to Raba: Did then R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] Say: One may not kill the Paschal lamb for a single person? But the following contradicts it: [As to] a woman; at the First [Passover] one may slaughter for her separately, but at the second one makes her an addition to others: this is the view of R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y]. Said he to him, Do not Say, `for her separately,` but `for them separately.` Yet may we form a company consisting entirely of women? Surely we learned, one may not form a company of women and slaves and minors. Does that not mean women separately and slaves separately and minors separately? No, he replied, [it means] women and slaves and minors [together]. Women and slaves, on account of obscenity; minors and slaves, on account of b.Pes.91b licentiousness. [To turn to] the [main] text: [As to] a woman, at the First [Passover] one slaughters for her separately, while at the second one makes her an addition to others: this is the view of R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y]. R. Jose [T4] said: [As to] a woman, at the Second [Passover] one slaughters for her separately, and at the First it goes without saying. R. Simeon [T4] said: [As to] a woman, at the First one makes her an addition to others; at the second one may not slaughter for her at all. Wherein do they differ? R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] holds: according to the number of the souls [implies] even women. And should you say, if so, even at the Second too? It is [therefore] written, that man shall bear his sin: only a man, but not a woman. Yet should you argue: if so, she may not even be [made] an addition at the Second, [therefore is written,] according to all the statue of the [first] passover, which is effective in respect of [her being made] a mere addition.
And R. Jose [T4]? What is his reason! Because in connection with the First [Passover] it is written, `according to the number of souls,` [implying] even a woman. Again, in connection with the Second Passover it is written, that soul shall be cut off from his people, `soul` [implying] even women. While what does `that man shall bear his sin` exclude? It excludes a minor from kareth. While R. Simeon [T4] [argues]: In connection with the First [Passover] `a man is written: only a man but not a woman. Yet should you say. If so, [she may] not even [be made] an addition:. [therefore is written] `according to the number of sous`, which is effective in respect of [her being] an addition. But should you say, then even at the Second too, [therefore] the Divine Law excluded [her] from the second, for it is written, `that man shall bear his sin`: [implying] only a man, but not a woman. Now from what is she excluded? If from an obligation, [this cannot be maintained]: seeing that there is no [obligation] at the first, is there a question of the second! Hence [she is surely excluded] from [participation even as] an addition.
Now, what is [this] `man` which R. Simeon [T4] quotes? If we say, they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to their fathers` houses etc. Surely that is required for [the teaching] of R. Isaac [T5 or PA3]. who deduced: only a `man` can acquire [on behalf of others], but a minor cannot acquire [on behalf of others]! Rather [it is derived] from `a man, according to his eating`. But since R. Jose [T4] agrees with R. Simeon [T4], R. Simeon [T4] too must agree with R. Jose [T4], and he needs that [verse to teach] that one slaughters the Passover-offering for a single person? He can answer you: If so, let the Divine Law write `according to his eating`, why [state] `a man`? Hence you infer two [laws] from it. With whom does the following dictum of R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] agree. [viz.]: `[The observance of the Passover-offering by] a woman at the First [Passover] is obligatory, while at the Second it is voluntary, and it overrides the Sabbath.` If voluntary, why does it override the Sabbath? Rather say: `at the Second it is voluntary, while at the First it is obligatory and overrides the Sabbath.` With whom [does it agree]? With R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y]. R. Jacob [T4] said in R. Johanan`s [PA2] name: A company must not be formed [consisting] entirely of proselytes, lest they be [too particular about it and bring it to disqualification. Our Rabbis taught: The Passover-offering and unleavened bread and bitter herbs are obligatory on the first [night], but voluntary from then onwards. R. Simeon [T4] said: In the case of men [it is] obligatory; in the case of women, voluntary. To what does this refer? Shall we say, to the Passover-offering is there then a Passover-offering the whole seven days! Hence [it must refer] to unleavened bread and bitter herbs. Then consider the sequel: R. Simeon [T4] said: In the case of men [it is] obligatory; in the case of women, voluntary. Does then R. Simeon [T4] not agree with R. Eleazar`s [T4 in M or PA3] dictum: Women are bound to eat unleavened bread by Scriptural law, for it is said, Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith: whoever is subject to, `thou shalt eat no leavened bread,` is subject to [the law]. `arise, eat unleavened bread`; and these women, since they are subject to, `thou shalt eat no leavened bread,` are also subject to [the law], `arise, eat unleavened bread?` Rather say: The Passover-offering, unleavened bread, and bitter herbs are obligatory on the first [night]; from then onwards [the latter two] are voluntary. R. Simeon [T4] said: As for the Passover-offering, in the case of men it is obligatory, in the case of women it is voluntary.
[A] ``They do not slaughter [a Passover offering] in behalf of a single individual,`` the words of R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y].
[B] And R. Yose permits [doing so].
[C] Even if there is an association of a hundred people who cannot eat an olive`s bulk of the meat - they do not slaughter [a Passover offering] in their behalf.
[D] They do not form an association consisting only of women, slaves, and [or] children. y.Pes.8.7 I
[A]Said R. Yohanan [PA2], ``R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y]`s [reasoning is based upon the following verse:] `You are not permitted to slaughter the Passover offering in one of your settlements` (Deut.16.5) [with the `in one` taken to mean `for one,` i.e., for one individual].``
[B] What does R. Yose [who holds that one may slaughter it for a single individual] do with the reason of R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y]?
[C] He may explain it in accord with R. Eleazar b. Matia, for it is taught:``R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] says, `Perhaps a single individual might tip the balance regarding uncleanness [of the community, providing a majority of one who are unclean, as a result of which the unclean individuals are not postponed to the second Passover, but the entire community performs the first Passover in uncleanness]? The teaching says, ``You are not permitted to slaughter the Passover offering in one`` [meaning you should not rely on one individual in guiding you how to offer the Passover sacrifice; rather you should rely on at least two individuals]``` [t.Pes.6.2C].
[D] Said R. Yohanan [PA2], ``R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] admits that if [a person] transgressed [the ban on not sacrificing the offering for a single individual] and tossed the blood, that it is favorably received [by God, and that person does not have to bring a second Passover offering];
[E] ``[and that if he] transgressed and slaughtered [the animal for a single individual, they] permit him to toss the blood.`` y.Pes.8.7 I:2
[A] It is taught: ``[They] do not form a association of women and slaves and minors because [together] they increase licentiousness`` [t.Pes.8.6].
[B] Bar Qappara [T6] teaches [the foregoing teaching with an alternative rationale]: ``so as not to bring Holy Things to a state of disgrace [which might occur, because the specified individuals are not accustomed to taking the proper precautions regarding holy objects].``
[C] R. Jacob b. Aha [PA3] in the name of R. Issi [PA3] ``[They] do not form a association of converts because they are` [overly] exacting with it [the offering] and they [would] bring it into a state of invalidation.``