קסבר מגדף היינו מברך השם וכתיב במברך את השם ונשא חטאו

He holds that with regard to the case of the blasphemer mentioned in the verse: “ That person blasphemes the Lord and that soul shall be cut off [karet] from among his people” (Numbers 15:30), this is identical to the case of one who blesses the name of God, a euphemism for cursing God’s name. And it is written with regard to one who blesses the name of God: “ Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin” (Leviticus 24:15). Therefore, the punishment of karet applies to a sin about which the Torah states: Shall bear his sin.

וגמר האי חטאו דהכא מחטאו דהתם מה להלן כרת אף כאן נמי כרת

And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi learned the meaning of this phrase: “ And he shall bear his sin, ” stated here, with regard to one who did not sacrifice the Paschal lamb, by way of a verbal analogy from the phrase: “ Shall bear his sin” stated there, with regard to the blasphemer. Just as later, with regard to the blasphemer, it is referring to the punishment of karet, so too here, with regard to the Paschal lamb, it is referring to the punishment of karet. This concludes the Gemara’s explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

ורבי נתן סבר וחדל לעשות הפסח ונכרתה דהאי כי לשון דהא הוא והכי קאמר רחמנא דהא קרבן ה׳ לא הקריב במועדו בראשון

And Rabbi Natan holds that the verse should be understood differently. In the verse:“ And refrains from offering the Paschal lamb, that soul shall be cut off from his people; because [ki] he did not bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season” (Numbers 9:13), this word ki has the meaning of: Because. And this is what the Torah is say ing: “ Because he did not bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season, ” referring to participating in the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ , he is liable to receive karet.

האי חטאו ישא מאי עביד ליה קסבר מגדף לאו היינו מברך את השם וגמר האי חטאו דהתם מהאי חטאו דהכא מה הכא כרת אף התם כרת

The Gemara asks: If so, that part of the verse which says: He shall bear his sin, what does Rabbi Natan do with it? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Natan holds that the case of the blasphemer is not identical with the case of one who blesses the name of God; blasphemy refers instead to one who sings praises to false gods. Thus, the Torah does not specify the punishment of one who curses God. He learned the meaning of that phrase“ his sin, ” there, with regard to one who curses God, by way of a verbal analogy from this phrase“ his sin” here, in the case of one who did not offer the Paschal lamb. Just as here, with regard to the Paschal lamb, the punishment is karet, so too there, with regard to one who curses God, the phrase: He shall bear his sin, is a reference to the punishment of karet.

ורבי חנניא בן עקביא סבר וחדל לעשות הפסח ונכרתה אי קרבן ה׳ לא הקריב במועדו בשני

And Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya holds that the word ki in the verse should be rendered: If, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interpreted it, but the verse should be understood as follows:“ And refrained from participating in the offering of the Paschal lamb, that soul shall be cut off from his people if he did not bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season, ” which is on the second Pesaḥ .

והאי חטאו ישא מאי עביד ליה כדאמרן

The Gemara asks: And with regard to that phrase:“ He shall bear his sin, ” what does Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya do with it? The Gemara answers: He uses it in the same way as Rabbi Natan, as we said above, to derive the punishment for one who curses God.

הלכך הזיד בזה ובזה דברי הכל חייב שגג בזה ובזה דברי הכל פטור

Therefore, if one intentionally refrained from offering the Paschal lamb on both the first and second Pesaḥ , all agree that he is liable to receive karet. If one unwittingly forgot on both the first and second Pesaḥ , all agree that he is exempt from karet.

הזיד בראשון ושגג בשני לרבי ולרבי נתן מחייבי לרבי חנניא בן עקביא פטור

If one intentionally refrained from offering the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ and unwittingly forgot on the second, according to the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Natan he is liable to receive karet, because he intentionally refrained from offering the sacrifice on the first Pesaḥ and did not rectify his mistake on the second Pesaḥ ; however, according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya he is exempt, because he holds that one is liable only if he intentionally refrained both times from offering the Paschal lamb.

שגג בראשון והזיד בשני לרבי חייב לרבי נתן ולרבי חנניא בן עקביא פטור:

If one unwittingly forgot on the first Pesaḥ and intentionally refrained from bringing the offering on the second Pesaḥ , according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi he is liable, because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi considers the second Pesaḥ an independent Festival that is mandatory for all those who did not offer the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ . According to the opinions of Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya, who hold that the second Pesaḥ is a chance to redress the sin of the first Pesaḥ , since he did not intentionally fail to offer the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ , he is exempt from the punishment of karet even if he intentionally failed to offer the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ .

מתני׳ איזו היא דרך רחוקה מן המודיעים ולחוץ וכמדתה לכל רוח דברי רבי עקיבא רבי אליעזר אומר מאיסקופת העזרה ולחוץ אמר ליה רבי יוסי לפיכך נקוד על ה׳ לומר לא מפני שרחוק ודאי אלא מאיסקופת העזרה ולחוץ:

MISHNA: What is the definition of a distant journey that exempts one from observing the first Pesaḥ ? Anywhere from the city of Modi’im and beyond, and from anywhere located an equal distance from Jerusalem and beyond in every direction; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer says: From the threshold of the Temple courtyard and beyond 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 Pesaḥ . Rabbi Yosei said to him: Therefore, the word is dotted over the letter heh in the word“ distant [reḥoka]” to say that the meaning of the word should be qualified: It should be understood that it is not because he is really distant; rather, it includes anyone located from the threshold of the Temple courtyard and beyond.

גמ׳ אמר עולא מן המודיעים לירושלים חמשה עשר מילין הויא סבר לה כי הא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן כמה מהלך אדם ביום עשרה פרסאות מעלות השחר ועד הנץ החמה חמשת מילין משקיעת החמה ועד צאת הכוכבים חמשת מילין פשו לה תלתין חמיסר מצפרא לפלגא דיומא וחמיסר מפלגא דיומא לאורתא

GEMARA: Ulla said: The distance from the city of Modi’im to Jerusalem is fifteen mil. He held like this following opinion that Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: How far can an average person walk on an average day? One can walk ten parasangs [parsaot], which are forty mil. This is divided in the following way: From dawn until sunrise one can walk a distance of five mil, and from sunset until the emergence of the stars one can walk another five mil. There are thirty mil remaining that one can walk in a day: Fifteen from the morning until midday, and fifteen from midday until evening.

עולא לטעמיה דאמר עולא אי זה הוא דרך רחוקה כל שאין יכול ליכנס בשעת שחיטה

The Gemara explains that Ulla conforms to his standard line of reasoning below, as Ulla said: What is the definition of a distant journey? It is any distance from which one is unable to reach Jerusalem and enter the Temple by the earliest time of the slaughter of the Paschal lamb. The obligation to slaughter the Paschal lamb begins at noon; therefore, if one is a distance of fifteen mil from the Temple in the morning, he will not be able to arrive there before the time that the offering may be slaughtered.

אמר מר מעלות השחר עד הנץ החמה חמשת מילין מנא לן דכתיב וכמו השחר עלה ויאיצו המלאכים וגו׳ וכתיב השמש יצא על הארץ ולוט בא צוערה ואמר רבי חנינא לדידי חזי לי ההוא אתרא והויא חמשה מילין

The Gemara addresses the previously mentioned discussion: The Master said that from dawn until sunrise one can walk a distance of five mil. From where do we derive this? As it is written: “ And when the morning arose, the angels hastened Lot, say ing: Arise, take your wife and your two daughters that are here, lest you be swept away in the iniquity of the city” (Genesis 19:15), and it is written: “ The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot came to Zoar” (Genesis 19:23). Therefore, the distance between Sodom and Zoar is the distance one can walk between dawn and sunrise, and Rabbi Ḥanina said: I myself saw that place, and it is a distance of five mil. This serves as a biblical proof that one can walk five mil between dawn and sunrise.

גופא אמר עולא איזה הוא דרך רחוקה כל שאין יכול ליכנס בשעת שחיטה ורב יהודה אמר כל שאין יכול ליכנס בשעת אכילה

The Gemara discusses the matter of the above statement itself. Ulla said: What is the definition of a distant journey; any journey of a distance from which one is unable to reach Jerusalem and enter the Temple by the earliest time of the slaughter of the Paschal lamb. And Rav Yehuda said: Any journey of a distance from which one is unable to reach Jerusalem, where the Paschal lamb is eaten, and enter during the time of the eating, the following night.

אמר ליה רבה לעולא לדידך קשיא ולרב יהודה קשיא לדידך קשיא דאמרת כל שאין יכול ליכנס בשעת שחיטה והא טמא שרץ דאין יכול ליכנס בשעת שחיטה וקאמרת שוחטין וזורקין על טמא שרץ

Rabba said to Ulla: According to your opinion it is difficult, and according to Rav Yehuda’s opinion it is difficult. According to your opinion it is difficult, as you said that any journey of a distance from which one is unable to reach Jerusalem and enter the Temple courtyard by the time of the slaughter of the Paschal lamb is considered a distant journey. Yet with regard to one who is ritually impure due to contact with a dead creeping animal, who is unable to enter the Temple courtyard at the time of the slaughter due to his impurity, you said: One may slaughter the Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood on behalf of one who is ritually impure due to contact with a dead creeping animal, even though he will only become pure after nightfall, when the Paschal lamb is eaten.

ולרב יהודה קשיא דאמר כל שאין יכול ליכנס בשעת אכילה והא טמא שרץ דיכול ליכנס בשעת אכילה וקאמר אין שוחטין וזורקין על טמא שרץ

And according to Rav Yehuda’s opinion it is difficult, as he said that any journey of a distance from which one is unable to enter Jerusalem during the time of the eating is considered a distant journey; yet with regard to one who is ritually impure due to contact with a dead creeping animal, who is able to enter Jerusalem and participate in consuming the offering at the time of the eating, he said the opposite: One may not slaughter the Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood on behalf of one who is ritually impure due to contact with a dead creeping animal, even though he will be able to immerse and become ritually pure by nightfall, when the offering is to be eaten.

אמר ליה לא לדידי קשיא ולא לרב יהודה קשיא לדידי לא קשיא דרך רחוקה לטהור ואין דרך רחוקה לטמא

Ulla said to him: According to my opinion it is not difficult, and according to Rav Yehuda’s opinion it is not difficult. According to my opinion it is not difficult because I hold that the concept of a distant journey applies only to one who is ritually pure, and the principle of a distant journey does not apply to one who is ritually impure. If one is ritually impure at the time of the slaughter, his obligation is immediately deferred to the second Pesaḥ regardless of the fact that he will become ritually pure in time to eat the offering at nightfall.