Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

On the fourteenth of Iyar, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 1.
The Rambam is speaking about individuals other than those impure because of contact with a human corpse and also other than those impure, but whose impurity could be resolved by immersion and waiting until nightfall. All of the individuals mentioned in this clause are impure for longer periods of time.

The term refers to men who have three successive emissions from their sexual organs similar to those resulting from a gonorrheal infection. Such individuals are ritually impure as stated in Leviticus, ch. 15; Hilchot Mechusrei Kaparah 2:1; Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav, ch. 1.

Women who experience vaginal bleeding for three consecutive days outside their menstrual cycle. Their impurity is mentioned in Leviticus, op. cit.; Hilchot Mechusrei Kaparah 1:6; Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav, ch. 1.

Their impurity is mentioned in Leviticus, op. cit.; Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah, ch. 4; Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav, ch. 1.

Their impurity is mentioned in Leviticus, ch. 12; Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah, ch. 10; Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav, ch. 1.

Their impurity is mentioned in Leviticus, ch. 15; Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 6:17; Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav, ch. 3.

Their impurity is mentioned in Leviticus, ch. 11; Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTumah, chs. 1-2.

Their impurity is mentioned in Leviticus, op. cit.; Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTumah, ch. 4.

But not before they immerse themselves. They must reach a condition where their ritual impurity is an inevitable fact, dependent only on the setting of the sun. This explanation resolves the apparent contradiction between this ruling and the Rambam’s statements in Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 2:12.

I.e., he has done everything necessary from his perspective to regain ritual purity and that will be achieved at the setting of the sun. As Numbers 19:19 relates, to regain ritual impurity after becoming impure through contact with a human corpse, one must have the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled on him on the third and seventh days and immerse on the seventh day.

Even though the Paschal sacrifice may be slaughtered on behalf of others who become pure in the evening, greater stringency is recommended in this instance.

The Sifri comments that they were not able to offer their sacrifices that day, but they would be able to offer them the following day.

Numbers 9:7 states that they approached Moses and told them they were ritually impure and asked to offer the Paschal sacrifice.

And instead instructed them to offer the second Paschal sacrifice.
According to the Rambam, the Torah is speaking about a situation where they had already done everything in their power to purify themselves and were merely waiting for nightfall. The Ra’avad differs and maintains that they had not yet immersed or the blood had not been sprinkled upon them. Hence, they were entirely impure. Were they, in fact, to have done everything necessary to guarantee their purity, the sacrifice could be offered for them. The Kessef Mishneh and Rav Yosef Corcus justify the Rambam’s position.

A Nazirite is required to shave his body when he becomes impure due to contact with a human corpse. See Hilchot Nazir, ch. 7, which explains which situations require such a shaving and which do not.

Leniency is granted in this instance, for such a person’s state of ritual impurity is not that severe. (Based on Hilchot Tuma’at Meit 3:3, 5:5, there are some authorities who maintain that it is merely a Rabbinic decree.) As stated in Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 3:13-14, if a person who is impure for such reasons partook of sacrificial foods, he is not liable for karet or to bring a sacrifice.
The Ra’avad comments that this distinction is a product of the Rambam’s own deduction based on the law stated in Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash, but does not have an explicit prior Rabbinic source. Rav Yosef Corcus explains that the Ra’avad is not differing with the Rambam. Nevertheless, Rav Yosef Corcus does cite a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud (Pesachim 8:8) which focuses on the same distinction the Rambam makes here.

As explained in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 2:1 this refers to a person who experiences discharges similar to, but not identical with those experienced by a person infected with gonorrhea.

As will be explained (ibid.:6), when a zav experiences two discharges, he must count seven days without a discharge and then immerse himself in “living water.” There is no difference between him and one who experiences three discharges except that the one who experiences three must bring a sacrifice.

I.e., seven days without a discharge.

If, however, he did not yet immerse, it cannot be sacrificed on his behalf even though he has the potential to immerse.

For he will regain his purity at that time.

Not only is he impure from that time onward, experiencing the discharge nullifies his prior immersion (ibid., ch. 3).

Rav Yosef Corcus and the Lechem Mishneh to Hilchot Nizirut 4:4, question the Rambam’s ruling: for if his immersion is nullified, it is as if he was impure at the time the sacrifice was brought.

Such a woman experienced a discharge of blood at a time other than the time due for her menstruation.

Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 6:9.

As in the instance of the zav mentioned above, this also represents a difficult issue for the Rambam.

Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 4:6; Hilchot Mikvaot 1:6.

Thus at the time the Paschal sacrifice was offered, she was impure and at the time it could be eaten, she was unfit to partake of it.

This term refers to a zavah, a woman after childbirth, a zav, and a person afflicted by tzara’at. The term “requiring atonement” is used because: “even after each one of them has become pure from the condition that caused his impurity, he has immersed [in a mikveh], and the day [of the immersion] has passed, the person’s status is still lacking. His attainment of purity is not complete to the extent that he may partake of sacrificial foods until he brings the sacrifice [required of] him” (Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:1).

Generally, no other sacrifices are offered after the daily sacrifice of the afternoon except the Paschal offering. Nevertheless, an exception is made in this instance, because failing to bring a Paschal sacrifice is punishable by karet and thus it supersedes the mitzvah of concluding the order of the sacrificial offerings with the afternoon sacrifice (Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 1:3-4).

Once the sacrifices have been entrusted to the court, however, they can assume that they were offered (Pesachim 58b).

A person afflicted by tzara’at must shave his flesh on the first day of his purification process. On the seventh day, he shaves again and immerses himself in a mikveh, as explained in Hilchot Tum’at Tzara’at, ch. 11. On the eighth day, he is required to bring his sacrifices (Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 4:1).

A seminal emission renders a person ritually impure. If, however, he immerses himself, he can regain ritual purity with the passage of that day. Thus at the time when the Paschal sacrifice could be eaten, the person would be fit to partake of it.

See ibid.:2 which explains the reasons why it is necessary for him to enter the Women’s Courtyard.

Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 3:6. See also Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:17.

Hence he is allowed to enter the Women’s Courtyard for that purpose. The prohibition against a person who immersed that day from entering the Women’s Courtyard is only Rabbinic in origin. According to Scriptural Law, there is no difference in between that place and any other place on the Temple Mount.

A person who becomes impure due to contact with a human corpse can regain ritual purity through a purification process that involves having the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh days after contact with the corpse (see Numbers 19:19, Hilchot Parah Adumah, ch. 11).

This is a decree, safeguarding the holiness of the Sabbath. This follows the Rambam’s approach (ibid. 11:2), that the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer need not be performed only on the days prescribed by the Torah (the third and the seventh), but can be performed after those days as well. The Ra’avad disagrees, both in that source and here. He maintains that although one need not have the ashes sprinkled upon himself on the third day after his contact with a corpse, once he has the ashes sprinkled -upon himself on his “third” day, the seventh day must be in direct sequence, no more than four days after the third day. Therefore, a person should always calculate the days when the ashes will be sprinkled upon him so that the seventh day will not fall on the Sabbath.

The Rambam is emphasizing that although the Jew who circumcised himself was not fit to partake of the Paschal sacrifice earlier and his actions on the fourteenth of Nisan make that possible, the sacrifice may still be slaughtered on his behalf. In explanation of the need to clarify this point, the Kessef Mishneh cites Pesachim 92a which states that, in contrast to the convert mentioned in the following clause, a Jew can immerse and have the sacrifice offered on his behalf. The commentaries question the need for such an immersion on behalf of a Jew.

I.e., the Sages feared that the convert would unknowingly desire to partake of the Paschal sacrifice after merely immersing himself rather than undergo the entire purification process for contact with a corpse.

I.e., this represents a further stringency than the case mentioned in the previous halachah, because here, the Sages’ decree takes effect on the day of the sacrifice itself. The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s reasoning here, explaining that this is not sufficient reason to nullify the observance of a positive commandment punishable by karet, and instead offers a different rationale. Rav Yosef Corcus defends the Rambam’s decision.

See Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 13:6.

Ibid. 14:5.

Rav Yosef Corcus explains the rationale for the Rambam’s ruling: A convert must convert under the supervision of the Jewish court and the court would not accept his performance of the acts of conversion in a way that violates our Sages’ directives. Since the Sages desired that he not become circumcised and immerse on the same day, particularly, when that day is the fourteenth of Nisan, it is considered as if they invalidated his conversion.

The term refers to a field in which a grave was plowed over. Our Sages decreed that anyone who passes through such a field is impure lest he have touched or moved a piece of bone. See Hilchot Tum'at Meit 2:16 and ch. 10.

Checking the earth he walked on for pieces of bone. The Rambam also mentions sifting the earth of a beit hapras in Hilchot Eruvin 6:17.

Halachah 5.

He may cross such a field even as an initial preference, for we assume that any fragments of bone were crushed and are no longer large enough to impart ritual impurity (Rashi, Ketubot 28b). These leniencies are granted only with regard to the Paschal sacrifice. In general, one must follow a more inclusive process for purifying a beit hapras, as mentioned in Hilchot Tum’at Meit 10:12.

The term onein refers to a person on the day he has suffered the loss of one of the seven relatives (his father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, or spouse) for which Hilchot Evel 2:1 requires him to mourn. On that day, he is forbidden to partake of any sacrificial food (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:7, based on Deuteronomy 26:14; see also Leviticus 10:9).

Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 2:9.

See Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 12:15 which states that this immersion is necessary because, while in a state of aninut a person might not be careful regarding the laws of ritual purity (since he is forbidden to partake of sacrificial foods regardless).

See Chapter 1, Halachah 1.

I.e., Pesach Sheni, on the fourteenth of Iyar, as mentioned above. Since at the time the obligation to slaughter the sacrificial animal took effect, the person is unfit, it is as if the obligation did not fall upon him. See Chapter 4, Halachah 5.

Thus on the night of Pesach there is no difficulty in partaking of the Paschal sacrifice even according to Rabbinic decree. See also Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 2:10.

See Hilchot Evel 7:1 from which it appears that this is referring to a report heard within 30 days of the person’s death.

See ibid. 12:8.

This is not speaking about a person who gathered the bones himself, for if so, he would be impure because of contact with a corpse and would not be permitted to partake of the Paschal sacrifice (Rav Yosef Corcus).

For it is likely that he stood over the corpse.

Significantly, Pesachim 91a, the Rambam’s source speaks of the time of slaughter. The wording here, however, is more exact, because if the person was impure at the time the blood was poured, his offering is unacceptable. See the Jerusalem Talmud (Pesachim 8:6).

And small, thus wherever he stood, he would be standing over the corpse.

Because at the critical time, he was impure and thus the sacrifice was not acceptable on his behalf.

I.e., the mound was far larger than the corpse and it is possible that the person had not stood over the corpse and thus not become impure at the time the blood was poured.

The second Paschal sacrifice should not be offered for him conditionally, as explained in Chapter 3, Halachah 9.

So that it could be assumed that he passed over him.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 7:7), the Rambam explains that this term is used to refer to “a corpse that is hidden and not known about at all, as if it were in the very depths.” See also the gloss of Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura (Parah 3:2) which explains the term as follows: Just like mortal wisdom cannot fathom the extent of the depths, so, too, the existence of this corpse is not known to any mortal.
Hilchot Nizirut 6:18 describes this impurity as stemming from contact with a human corpse, about which “no one, not even one at the end of the world, knows.”

Which must also be eaten in a state of ritual purity. As stated in Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTum’ah 18:3, if a person passes over a road and then a corpse is discovered lying across it, he is regarded as ritually impure with regard to terumah, even if the impurity is likened to the depths.

Or stood over it and thus contracted ritual impurity.

Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 6:4 states that when: “a priest performed service and afterwards, it became known that he was impure... if he became impure due to the impurity [likened to] the depths, the forehead plate [of the High Priest] brings about appeasement and all the sacrifices he offered are accepted.” In this instance, however, even though he is impure, he is given license to offer the Paschal sacrifice.

If the corpse was not intact, it is possible to say that the person passed through the places where the body was severed.

Pesachim 81b, the Rambam’s source, speaks of the person having no place to pass without touching or stepping over the corpse.

For it is possible that he swerved to the side and did not come into contact with the corpse. From this, we see that the Rambam is not granting total license for an impure person to offer the Paschal sacrifice. There must be some possibility that he is pure. See the gloss of Rav Yosef Corcus.

When he is carrying a burden, he cannot move deftly, but will instead sway to the side and will certainly pass over the impurity. And when he is riding, his body is spread out over a large area and will certainly have passed over the corpse.

Hilchot Nizirut 6:18.

For the High Priest’s forehead plate brings about appeasement. Rav Yosef Corcus states that this halachah appears to contradict the previous one which states that such a person may offer a Paschal sacrifice as an initial preference. Among the resolutions he offers is that this halachah is speaking about a person who is carrying a burden or riding an animal.

I.e., it is a halachah communicated to Moses at Sinai and transmitted as part of the Oral Tradition.

For his initial offering is disqualified.

This is speaking about a person who had the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled on him before the fourteenth of Nissan, but contracted the impurity likened to the depths afterwards and did not discover his impurity until after offering the Paschal sacrifice.

As in the previous halachah, the forehead plate of the High Priest brings about appeasement for this sacrifice.

After having the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled upon him, the person must immerse to complete his purification process (Hilchot Parah Adumah 11:1).

I.e., while he was in the midst of the purification process.

They bring the offering together. Since the majority of the community is impure, the entire community is considered as a single entity and brings its offering as a single group.

For the term “men” implies only a small group.

And not with regard to other forms of ritual impurity, e.g. they were zavim, afflicted with tzara’at, or the like. Pesachim 79a derives this concept from the use of the term “soul” in the prooftext cited above. Implied is that impurity involving a soul is what causes a person’s offering to be postponed until the second Pesach.

Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 4:12, 16.

The rationale is that half of the people is considered equivalent to the majority. Thus the impure people are considered as being the majority and are allowed to offer their sacrifices on the first Pesach. And the pure are also considered as being the majority and are required to bring their sacrifice in a state of purity.

Even though the sacrificial meat becomes impure, as explained in Halachah 8.

For women are obligated to bring the first Paschal sacrifice and hence, they are included in the reckoning of the people.

For these individuals are also forbidden to bring the Paschal sacrifice, as stated in Chapter 6. Even when the sacrifice is offered ill a state of impurity, they are not granted license to offer it, as stated in Halachah 1 and in the following halachah.

And the Paschal sacrifice is brought in impurity only when the majority of the people are impure, because of contact with a human corpse.

Thus in this situation, the Paschal sacrifice should be brought only by the small amount of people who are ritually pure.

Because they are the majority of the people.

And not for those of lesser types of impurity. Rav Yosef Corcus explains that they do not join those who are impure because of contact with a human corpse like those who are pure do. The rationale for the distinction is that those who are pure are supposed to bring the Paschal sacrifice on the first Pesach. Hence even when license is granted to those impure because of contact with a corpse, their obligation remains unchanged. Those impure due to other types of impurity are forbidden to bring the Paschal sacrifice in Nisan. That law remains even though license is granted to those impure because of contact with a corpse.

In Halachah 4.

Based on Pesachim 94b, it is explained that, in this context, those outside the Temple Courtyard are considered as “on a distant way” and therefore not included in this reckoning.

Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTumah 15:8. There it is stated that if there is a question whether a person contracted ritual impurity in a private domain, he is considered as impure.

For even though their impurity is a matter of question, the majority of the people are unfit to bring the first Paschal sacrifice.

Although other communal offerings can be offered in a state of impurity under certain circumstances, none of their meat should be eaten (Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 4:11). The rationale is that unlike the Paschal sacrifice, the primary purpose of the other sacrifices is to be offered on the altar’s pyre.
There are several different versions of the text of the Mishneh Torah, but in all instances the intent is the same.

I.e., due to the forms of ritual impurity the Rambam will mention shortly.

Those who touched an animal corpse and the like. Although they should purify themselves beforehand, even if they do not, they are not forbidden to partake of the Paschal sacrifice in this situation.

It is forbidden to partake of sacrificial meat while ritually impure.

They are exempt from the prohibition against eating sacrificial meat while impure. They are, however, still liable for partaking of the portions to be offered on the altar, for that prohibition is not lifted (Rav Yosef Corcus).

For in such a situation, when the blood was poured on the altar, it was known that the people were impure. See also the following halachah.

For when a sacrifice was offered in a state of ritual purity, it should not be eaten in impurity.

Pesachim 78b asks how such a situation could take place and explains that it is speaking about an instance where the nasi died and the people became impure during his funeral.

I.e., they will not appreciate that in the previous year, the blood was poured on the altar after they had become impure and thus the sacrifice was offered for impure members of the community. In this instance, they were pure at the time the sacrifice was offered.

As stated in Halachah 1, in such an instance, the Paschal sacrifice should be brought even though it will be eaten in a state of impurity.

Hilchot Tumat Meit 5:7. As explained there, the utensil is merely a derivative of ritual impurity and hence, imparts impurity only to food, but not to humans.

As explained in Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 4:15, although the prohibitions against offering and partaking of sacrifices in a state of ritual impurity were suspended with regard to communal offerings, they were not released entirely. Therefore, the Sages tried to minimize the degree to which the norms were overstepped to the greatest degree possible.

Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:12-13.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 56) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 6) include this as one of 613 mitzvot in addition to the mitzvah to offer the sacrifice. As stated in Hilchot Avodah Sarah 12:3, women are also obligated in this mitzvah.
Ma’aseh Nissim, sec. 5, raises the question: Since the entire purpose of offering the Paschal sacrifice is to partake of it, why are offering it and partaking of it considered as two mitzvot? (See Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 9, which states that when the fulfillment of a command involves two activities, they should be considered as a single mitzvah.)
Rabbenu Avraham, the Rambam’s son, explains that his father considered the two activities as separate mitzvot because the times when they must be fulfilled are different. The Paschal sacrifice is offered during the daytime and it cannot be eaten until after nightfall. Also, the punishments associated with the negation of these commands are different. One is liable for karet for failing to offer the Paschal sacrifice, but not for failing to partake of it.

The Mechilta derives this concept from the conclusion of the prooftext which states: “shall you partake of it,” implying that, when there is no other alternative, partaking of “it,” the Paschal sacrifice is sufficient.

I.e., there is no Scriptural mitzvah. Our Sages, however, instituted the mitzvah of partaking of bitter herbs on Pesach night (see Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 7:12). It is, however, a Scriptural mitzvah to partake of matzah independent of the Paschal sacrifice, for Exodus 12:18 states: “In the evening, you will partake of matzot” (ibid. 6:1).

For this is a sign that one ascribes importance to the food that one is eating last (Rav Yosef Corcus). The Kessef Mishneh interprets the comments of the Mechilta on the verse from Exodus cited above as implying that after one eats his fill of matzot and bitter herbs, he should partake of the Paschal sacrifice.

As stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 13, there is no obligation to bring a festive offering. The matter is left to the person’s choice.

The measure associated with most mitzvot and transgressions associated with eating. Even if he is not satiated, eating this measure fulfills the mitzvah.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 58) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 381) include this as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot.

Although it is forbidden to eat a lesser amount prepared in these prohibited manners, one is liable only for partaking of an olive-sized portion or more.

I.e., the first or the second Pesach.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 125) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 7) include this prohibition as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot.

See the definition of this term in Halachah 6.

See Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., which quotes the discussion in Pesachim 41a as to whether the two charges are considered as separate prohibitions or not. See also Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2 which explains why this prohibition is not considered as “a prohibition of a general nature.” Were it to have been placed in that category, one would not be liable for lashes at all.

It is, however, forbidden to do so, and one also violates a positive commandment, as stated in the following halachah.

I.e., after nightfall.

And thus is not punishable by lashes.

For he did not violate a prohibition.

Implied is that this is not the desirable way of fulfilling the commandment (Pesachim 42b). As long as the meat is fit for consumption, however, he fulfills his obligation (Meiri).

I.e., although the verse explicitly mentions “cooked in water,” the repetition of the root implies that one is also liable for cooking in other liquids.

Even without water, but allowing it to cook in its own juices (Rashi, Pesachim 40a). See the Kessef Mishneh which explains the Rambam’s interpretation of that passage so that his rulings here do not appear contradictory.

I.e., putting on the floor of either a stone or metal oven.

I.e.; the intent is that the meat should be roasted with the heat of the fire itself and not from an object that becomes hot from the fire and then cooks the meat.

The Ra’avad qualifies this statement saying that the perforated utensil must not touch the meat of the Paschal sacrifice. If it does, the place where contact was made must be removed before partaking of the meat. The Kessef Mishneh debates whether or not the Rambam would accept this point.

Using the heat radiated from the walls of the oven to roast the sacrifice.

For the fire has already been removed and the heat is considered merely a derivative of fire (see Pesachim 75a).

In contrast to the ordinary practice of roasting it whole, as stated later on in the halachah. See also Chapter 10, Halachah 11.

Even though there is no apparent fire, the burning coals are considered to be fire and not the derivatives of fire.

This is a somewhat hypothetical question, because there are no such hot springs in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem.

Although these substances have natural warmth from the earth’s element of fire, this is not considered as fire in a simple sense.

Because wood is a poor conductor of heat and will not roast the meat on its own.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 7:1), the Rambam writes that pomegranate wood does not emit any sap at all when heated. The commentaries explain that although a pomegranate spit is preferable, a spit of any type of wood is acceptable.

In contrast to skinning of a thin layer of meat as required by the previous halachah, here it is necessary to cut off a portion the thickness of a finger. This is necessary because the fat of the juice will cause it to penetrate the thickness of the meat.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 7:2), the Rambam explains that the flour is forbidden because it absorbed the juice of the Paschal sacrifice and it is forbidden to partake of any portion of the Paschal sacrifice that is not connected to the body of the sacrifice itself.

Which may be eaten only by priests in a state of ritual purity.

Who are forbidden to partake of terumah.

To remove the oil.

To remove both the remnants of the oil and also the water, because it is forbidden to apply water to it, as stated in Halachah 8 (Har HaMoriah).

I.e., if the oil had been applied while the sacrifice was being roasted or afterwards, while it was still hot.

Because it absorbed the oil which is forbidden to a non-priest. Only the outer portion is forbidden for this reason.

Which must be eaten in a state of holiness in Jerusalem.

Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 2:8. It is forbidden to sell produce of the second tithe even if it will be eaten while upholding all the restrictions associated with this produce.

And thus the Paschal sacrifice would be eaten by persons who were not enumerated on it.

Even though they would not normally become intermingled, because they are two different species, our Sages instituted this safeguard to prevent companies from roasting their sacrifices together.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 10:8; Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 6:12, Chapter 10, Halachah 14, in these halachot. (Significantly, the other two sources do not mention the Paschal sacrifice explicitly.)

This safeguard is a Rabbinic decree, lest they partake of it after dawn and become liable for karet.

For when a mitzvah applies at night, it applies the entire night (Megilah 2:6; see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah).

Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 8:10 with regard to the recitation of Halle!; and 8:14, with regard to not eating after waking.

See Chapter 10, Halachah 15.

As explained in Hilchot Chametz UMatzah, this applies only when: a) all the members of the company fell asleep; and b) their sleep was so sound that they would not respond to questions posed to them.