Pesachim 67a — the Talmud in English

Rather, you have an hour when zavin and lepers

whose impurity is severe

are sent out

from the Temple courtyard. That is, they have no special permission to enter the Temple courtyard even at that hour.

And

at that hour

those impure through contact with the dead

whose impurity is light

are not sent out

from the Temple courtyard.

And which

hour is this?

This

is the time when one offers the sacrifice of

a Paschal offering that comes in impurity.

And the verse comes to teach that when the majority of the public are impure through impurity imparted by the dead specifically, only those impure through contact with the dead perform the Paschal offering in impurity, whereas zavin and lepers are deferred from performing it.

Said

[that is, he raised the following objection]

Abaye: If so,

we should not learn from the verse, “Any man, when he becomes impure through a person,” in which it is explicitly mentioned that the allowance of impurity in the public is with impurity imparted by the dead. Rather, let us infer this from the verse cited by Reish Lakish, in which it is not mentioned which impurity was permitted in the public; if so, it is possible to learn that even the impurity of a zav was permitted in the public!

For the inference of Reish Lakish is from the fact that the Torah wrote both a severe impure person and a light impure person, and from this one learns that there is an hour at which only the severely impure person is sent out from the Temple courtyard, whereas the lightly impure person enters it to perform the Paschal offering.

And let the following objection be raised: For according to this inference,

let us also say

that we should make an additional inference:

Let

the verse say that those impure

through a zav and those impure through contact with the dead

whose impurity is relatively lighter than the impurity of a leper

should be said,

but let

a leper

whose impurity is more severe than theirs not be said, and it is obvious that he too is sent out.

And I say

on my own: If

a zav,

whose impurity is light,

is sent out—

a leper,

whose impurity is severe,

is it not all the more so

that he is sent out?

Rather,

the verse comes to say that

you have an hour when

only

lepers are sent out

from the Temple courtyard,

whereas zavin and those impure through contact with the dead are not sent out

from it.

And which is this

time?—When they offer

a Paschal offering that comes in impurity.

And if you would say

to answer that indeed

so too,

a zav also performs the Paschal offering when the Paschal offering comes in impurity for the public.

It is not correct to say this. For—

And we learned in the Mishna: A Paschal offering that comes in impurity

for the public—

zavin and zavot, menstruating women and women after childbirth may not eat from it.

And if they ate, they are exempt.

And since from the verse cited by Reish Lakish it is possible to infer that the impurity of a zav was permitted in the public, whereas the Mishna says that impurity was not permitted in the public for a zav, it is proven from here that the derivation is specifically from the verse cited by Rabbi Yoḥanan.

For this verse speaks only of impurity imparted by the dead, as it says in it, “Any man, when he becomes impure through a human person,” and from it one may infer that only an individual impure through contact with the dead is deferred from the Paschal offering, whereas a public impure through contact with the dead is not deferred.

Rather, Abaye said: Actually, from the first verse,

“Any man, when he becomes impure through a person,” from which Rabbi Yoḥanan expounded, we learned the law of a Paschal offering that comes in impurity: an individual is deferred to the Second Pesaḥ, whereas the public is not deferred to the Second Pesaḥ,

and regarding what Reish Lakish objected to Rabbi Yoḥanan, that it is possible to infer from the verse the opposite—that a public impure through contact with the dead is entirely deferred from the Paschal offering, both from the First Pesaḥ and from the Second Pesaḥ—we answer:

If so,

according to your words, that the wording of the verse, “Any man, when he becomes impure through a person,” does not mean that it comes to be lenient and permit a public impure through contact with the dead to offer in impurity, but, on the contrary, that it comes to be stringent and exclude it entirely from offering the Paschal offering—why did the verse state, “when he becomes impure through a person”?

For the addition of the word “through a person” means to exclude zavin and lepers, whose impurity is more severe. And in what way should one be more stringent with them than with impurity imparted by the dead, when this verse, according to your words, comes to be stringent regarding public impurity and to defer it from the Paschal offering altogether!

For according to your words, it would have been preferable that

the Merciful One write

“Any man, when he becomes impure”

without qualification, and we would hear from it that in any impurity whatsoever the individual is deferred to the Second Pesaḥ, whereas a public that became impure has no remedy. “

Impure

through a person,”

which the verse stated here, meaning that one should be more stringent with zavin and lepers than with one impure through a person—

why do I need it?

Rather, necessarily, it is as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: the verse comes to be lenient and not stringent.

To say that an individual impure through contact with the dead is deferred to the Second Pesaḥ, whereas a public impure through contact with the dead offers the First Pesaḥ in impurity.

And therefore the verse stated “through a person,” referring to impurity imparted by the dead, for only with this impurity does the public perform the First Pesaḥ in impurity. But if the public were impure with the impurity of a zav, or if the majority of the public were lepers, they would not offer the First Pesaḥ in impurity.

And if you would say,

and if you wish to say that

this

“through a person” \-

comes for this,

that the verse comes to say:

the one impure through contact with the dead

[as an individual]

is the one who is deferred to the Second Pesaḥ, but other impure persons are not

deferred to the Second Pesaḥ; rather, they do not bring a Paschal offering at all.

It is not possible to say so. For—

And it was taught in a baraita: One might have thought that only those impure through contact with the dead and

one

who was on a distant road,

who are mentioned in the verse, perform the Second Pesaḥ.

Zavin, lepers, and those who have intercourse with menstruating women,

who are not mentioned in the verse—

from where

do we know that they perform the Second Pesaḥ?

The verse states: “Any man

when he becomes impure through a person.”

And the verse could have written merely “impure,” thereby including all the impure.

“Through a person”

that the Merciful One wrote—

why do I need it?

Rather,

the verse comes to teach an additional matter, and

this is what it says:

a.

An individual

alone

is deferred to the Second Pesaḥ, whereas a public is not deferred to the Second Pesaḥ; rather, they perform

the First Pesaḥ

in impurity.

b.

And when the public performs

the First Pesaḥ

in impurity—

only when they were impure

through impurity imparted by the dead.

But

if the public were impure with

other impurities—

they do not perform

the First Pesaḥ in impurity.

There are three camps: the camp of the Divine Presence, the camp of the Levites, and the camp of Israel.

The camp of the Divine Presence, which is the place of the Temple and all the area within the wall of the Temple courtyard, and from it all the impure are sent out, even those impure with “light impurities,” such as those impure through impurity imparted by the dead.

The camp of the Levites, which is the Temple Mount: only those impure with severe impurity are sent out from it, such as zavin and those who experienced a seminal emission, whose impurity emerges from their bodies; but those impure through contact with the dead are not sent out from it.

And from the camp of Israel—that is, all the cities of Israel—only lepers are sent out.

Regarding the mitzva of sending out from the camps, both a prohibition and a positive mitzva were stated.

And this is what is stated in the passage of Naso [Numbers 5:2]: “

Command the Children of Israel, and they shall send out from the camp every leper and every zav, and everyone impure through a person.

From male to female you shall send out; outside the camp you shall send them.

And they shall not defile their camps, within which I dwell.”

Rav Ḥisda said: A leper,

who is required to be outside the camp of Israel, and who is prohibited from entering the camp of Israel because of the prohibition, “And they shall not defile their camps,” and it happened

that he entered

intentionally into the camp of Israel, which is

“within his partition”—

he is exempt

from lashes.

Because

it is stated

regarding a leper [Leviticus 13]

“He shall sit isolated; outside the camp shall be his dwelling.”

“He shall sit isolated”—

he shall sit alone.

“Outside the camp shall be his dwelling”—

the verse severed it

from the prohibition of a leper

to

the mitzva of

a positive mitzva.

And any prohibition that is severed into a positive mitzva does not incur lashes.

He raised an objection to him

from what we learned in a baraita:

a.

A leper who entered

a city,

within his partition—

his law is

forty

lashes for the prohibition, “And they shall not defile their camps.”

b.

Zavin and zavot who entered

the Temple Mount,

within their partition—

their law is

forty

lashes.

c.

And one impure through contact with the dead is permitted to enter the camp of the Levites

[the Temple Mount].

And it was not only one impure through contact with the dead that they said

is permitted to enter the camp of the Levites;

rather, even the corpse itself

is permitted to be brought there.

As it is stated

[Exodus 13]

“And Moses took Joseph’s bones with him.”

And “with him” means

“with him”—

within his partition,

that of Moses, in the camp of the Levites.

And it is explicit in the baraita that a leper incurs lashes, contrary to what Rav Ḥisda said, that he is exempt because it is a prohibition severed into a positive mitzva!

And we answer:

It is a dispute between tannaim,

who disagreed about this matter.

There is a tanna who holds that the verse stated in the passage concerning a leper, “Outside the camp shall be his dwelling,” did not come for a positive mitzva that severs the prohibition, but to teach about sending a leper from a third camp, from which only a leper is sent out [for in the passage concerning sending out from the camps, sending out from only two camps is mentioned].

And according to his view, lashes are incurred for the prohibition.

Whereas Rav Ḥisda holds in accordance with the view of the tanna who says that there is no need for this verse to teach about sending a leper from a third camp. Therefore, this verse comes to say that in sending a leper outside the camp there is a positive mitzva, which severs the prohibition into it.

And therefore Rav Ḥisda, who holds in accordance with him, exempts him from lashes, according to the law of a prohibition severed into a positive mitzva.

For it was taught:

It is stated in the passage concerning a leper, “He shall sit isolated; outside the camp shall be his dwelling.”

“He shall sit isolated”—

he shall sit alone.

The verse teaches

that other impure persons shall not

such as zavin or those impure through contact with the dead

sit with him

outside the camp of Israel; rather, they may remain in the camp of Israel.

To teach you that only the leper alone is sent out even outside the camp of Israel.

One might have thought that zavin and those impure through contact with the dead

[whom we have now learned may remain in the camp of Israel]

are sent out one camp

[that is, their law is equal, and both are sent out from the camp of the Divine Presence to the camp of the Levites, or from the camp of the Levites to the camp of Israel]—

the verse states

[Numbers 5]

“And they shall not defile their camps.”

And from the fact that it wrote “their camps” in the plural, and did not write “camp” in the singular, the verse teaches that it came

“to assign one camp to this one and one camp to that one, the words of Rabbi Yehuda.”

And from this verse, in which the term “camp” is stated twice—“outside the camp you shall send them,” “and they shall not defile their camps”—we learn about two camps. And from the verse stated regarding a leper, “Outside the camp shall be his dwelling,” we learned about a third camp, from which the leper alone is sent out.

And according to Rabbi Yehuda, the third verse concerning a leper does not sever the prohibition of a leper into a positive mitzva; rather, it comes to teach about sending the leper from the camp of Israel.

And this is the view of the tanna who obligates him in lashes.

Rabbi Shimon says: It is not necessary

to use the verse concerning a leper, “Outside the camp shall be his dwelling,” to teach about a third camp for sending out a leper, since all three camps can be learned from the passage concerning sending out from the camps.

For

it says

in the passage concerning sending out from the camps [Numbers 5]

“And they shall send out from the camp every leper and every zav and everyone impure through a person.”

And necessarily, this verse speaks of three sendings out from three camps, of three different impure persons, with different degrees of impurity.

For if it speaks of one comprehensive sending out of all the impure from one camp,

let

the verse say that they are sent out from the one camp of

those impure through contact with the dead,

whose impurity is light,

but let

the verse not say the mitzva of sending out

those impure through a zav

from the camp.

And I say,

I can learn the sending out of a zav on my own by a kal va-chomer:

And just as

those impure through contact with the dead are sent out

from the camp—

zavin,

whose impurity emerges from their bodies and is severe,

is it not all the more so

that they are sent out from the camp!

If so,

why is a zav stated?

To assign him

sending out from

a second camp.

And

if the verse speaks of sending out from only two camps,

let

the verse say that a

zav

is sent out from the second camp,

but let

it not say that a

leper

also needs to be sent out from it.

And I say,

I can learn this on my own:

If

zavin are sent out

outside the second camp—

lepers,

whose impurity is more severe than the impurity of zavin [as will be explained],

is it not all the more so

that they too are sent out from the second camp!

If so,

why is it stated

in the passage concerning sending out from the camps also

a leper—

to assign him

the leper sending out outside

a third camp.

And Rabbi Shimon adds and says: Since all three camps are learned from the verse stated in the passage concerning sending out from the camps,

when it says

in the passage concerning a leper

“He shall sit isolated

outside the camp shall be his dwelling”—

the verse severed

the prohibition of sending out from the camps regarding a leper

into a positive mitzva.

And Rav Ḥisda holds in accordance with the view of Rabbi Shimon.

And now the Gemara explains Rabbi Shimon’s words in the baraita, that a zav is more severe than one impure through contact with the dead, and it is possible to learn the sending out of a zav by a kal va-chomer from one impure through contact with the dead:

What is the severity of a zav

more

than one impure through contact with the dead—

for the impurity

of a zav

emerges upon him from his body.

And we raised it as a difficulty:

On the contrary, one impure through contact with the dead is more severe

than a zav,

for he requires sprinkling

of the water of the ashes of the red heifer on the

third and

on the

seventh

day, which is not so with a zav.

And we answer:

The verse says

to send out from the camp

one impure

through contact with the dead, except that the verse added to say also the word “every,” as it is stated, “And they shall send out from the camp every leper and every zav

and every impure

through a person.” And from “every” we learn

to include

sending out from the camps of

one impure through a creeping creature.

And

behold, a

zav

[who does not require sprinkling]

is more severe than one impure through a creeping creature,

and therefore it is possible to learn by a kal va-chomer from one impure through a creeping creature that a zav too is sent out from the camp.

And what is its severity,

that of a zav?—

As we said,

that impurity emerges from his body.

And we refute:

On the contrary,

one impure through a

creeping creature is more severe

than a zav.

For

the creeping creature

imparts impurity

through contact even

unintentionally,

whereas an emission issuing from a zav unintentionally [and not as a result of his being ill with the illness of zav] does not render him impure.