just as the case of one who was ritually impure is referring to one who has the means to observe the first Pesaḥ via an agent but does not do so because the Torah prohibited him from doing so, so too, the case of one who was on a distant journey also refers to one who has the means to observe the first Pesaḥ via an agent and eat the offering at night, but does not do so because the Torah prohibited him from doing so.

And Rav Naḥman could have said to you: Rabbi Akiva conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he holds that one may not slaughter a 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 could immerse and become ritually pure in time to partake of the Paschal lamb in the evening. This indicates that according to Rabbi Akiva, one who is unfit when the blood is sprinkled is completely disqualified from participating in the offering. But I hold in accordance with the one who said: One may slaughter a Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood on behalf of one who is ritually impure due to contact with a dead creeping animal, and therefore Rabbi Akiva’s ruling is not relevant to my opinion.

The Gemara cites a baraita in support of Rav Naḥman’s opinion. The Sages taught that these are the people who observe the second Pesaḥ: Zavim and zavot; male lepers and female lepers; and menstruating women and those men who had sexual relations with menstruating women; and women after childbirth; those who failed to observe the first Pesaḥ unwittingly, and those who were prevented due to circumstances beyond their control, and those who intentionally refrained from doing so; and one who was ritually impure; and one who was on a distant journey.

The baraita continues: If so, if one who missed the first Pesaḥ for any reason observes the second Pesaḥ, why is the case of one who was ritually impure stated explicitly in the Torah? The Gemara expresses surprise at this question: Why is it stated? It was necessary to mention this case to teach that if an impure person wishes to perform the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ we do not allow him to do so. Rather, the question should be: Why is the case of one who is on a distant journey stated in the Torah? It is stated to exempt him from karet even if he does not observe the second Pesaḥ. And this is in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that if the Paschal lamb was slaughtered on behalf of one who was on a distant journey it was accepted, which is the opinion of Rav Naḥman.

The baraita mentioned several types of ritually impure women who observe the second Pesaḥ rather than the first. The Gemara asks: Is a woman obligated to observe the second Pesaḥ? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: I might have thought that only one who is impure due to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse or one who was on a distant journey observe the second Pesaḥ; with regard to zavim, male lepers, and those men who had sexual relations with menstruating women, from where is it derived that they may observe the second Pesaḥ? The verse states: “If any man [ish ish] of you or of your generations shall be ritually impure due to a dead body or is on a journey far away, he shall still offer the Paschal lamb to the Lord” (Numbers 9:10). The word ish is doubled in order to include these other cases. Women are not included by the repetition of the word ish.

The Gemara answers that this is not difficult: This first baraita, which includes women, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei that one may slaughter the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ for women, and that second baraita, which includes only men, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, who hold that women do not have a full-fledged obligation to observe the second Pesaḥ.

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: One is liable to receive karet for intentionally refraining from observing the first Pesaḥ; similarly, one who could not observe the first Pesaḥ is liable to receive karet if he intentionally refrained from observing the second Pesaḥ. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Natan says: One is liable to receive karet for intentionally refraining from observing the first Pesaḥ; and one is exempt from karet for intentionally refraining from observing the second Pesaḥ even if he unwittingly failed to observe the first Pesaḥ, as the Torah does not specify a punishment of karet with regard to the second Pesaḥ. Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya says: Even for intentionally failing to observe the first Pesaḥ one is liable to receive karet only if he intentionally fails to observe the second Pesaḥ.

The Gemara adds that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Natan follow their line of reasoning as demonstrated by another dispute between them, which is related to the dispute quoted above. As it was taught in a baraita: A convert who converted during the month between the offering of the two Paschal lambs on the first and second Pesaḥ, and similarly, a minor who grew up and became obligated in mitzvot during the month between the offering of the two Paschal lambs, is obligated to observe the second Pesaḥ; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Natan says: Whoever needs to observe the first Pesaḥ needs to observe the second; whoever does not need to observe the first Pesaḥ, e.g., one who is a minor or is not yet Jewish, does not need to observe the second Pesaḥ either.

The Gemara explains: With regard to what do they disagree? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the second Pesaḥ is its own Festival, and anyone who did not participate in the first Pesaḥ is obligated to participate in the second even if he was not fit to bring the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ.

Conversely, Rabbi Natan holds that the second Pesaḥ is merely a redress for the first Pesaḥ, such that if one was obligated to bring the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ and did not, he may do so on the second Pesaḥ; however, it does not repair the failure to bring the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ. Therefore, one who intentionally refrained from bringing the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ is liable to receive karet even if he brought the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ. However, if one unwittingly failed to sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ, he is not liable to receive karet even if he intentionally refrained from observing the second Pesaḥ.

And Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya held: The second Pesaḥ repairs the failure to offer the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ. In other words, the Paschal lamb brought on the second Pesaḥ is not an independent obligation; rather, it allows a second chance to avoid the liability to receive karet.

And all three of them expounded the same verse to derive their opinions: “But the man who is ritually pure, and is not on a journey, 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, that man shall bear his sin” (Numbers 9:13). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the verse should be understood as follows: The phrase: “And refrains from offering the Paschal lamb, that soul shall be cut off,” means that he did not participate in the offering on the first Pesaḥ. In the continuation of the verse, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi understands the word ki to mean: If, as the word ki has various meanings, one of which is: If. Therefore, the verse can be interpreted in the following manner: If he also “did not bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season,” with regard to the second Pesaḥ, “that man shall bear his sin.”

The Gemara asks: And from where do we know that this phrase: Shall bear his sin, refers to karet and not to some other punishment?