Pesachim 67a (סז.) — the Talmud in English

Rather, you have an hour when zavin and lepers,

whose impurity is severe,

are sent out

of the azara. That is, they have no special dispensation permitting them to enter the azara even at that time.

And

at that time

those impure through contact with the dead

whose impurity is less severe,

are not sent out

of the azara.

And what

time is this?

This

is the time when the

Passover offering brought in impurity

is sacrificed. The verse comes to teach that when the majority of the public are impure through contact with the dead specifically, only those impure through contact with the dead perform the offering in a state of impurity, whereas zavin and lepers are deferred from performing it.

Abaye

objected:

If so,

rather than derive from the verse “When any person is impure through contact with a corpse,” in which it is explicitly mentioned that the dispensation for impurity in the public applies to impurity through contact with the dead, let us infer it from the verse cited by Reish Lakish, in which it is not mentioned which impurity was permitted for the public. If so, it would be possible to infer that the impurity of a zav was also permitted for the public!

For Reish Lakish’s inference is based on the fact that the Torah mentioned both one with severe impurity and one with less severe impurity. From this it may be inferred that there is a time when only one with severe impurity is sent out of the azara, whereas one with less severe impurity enters it to perform the Passover offering.

And one could object: According to this inference,

let us also say

that an additional inference should be made:

Let

the verse state that those who are to be sent out of the camp are those impure through

zav discharge and those impure through contact with the dead,

whose impurity is relatively less severe than that of a leper,

and let the verse not state

the word

“leper,”

whose impurity is more severe than theirs [as the severity of his impurity will be explained below]. It would then be obvious that he too is sent out.

And I say

to myself: If a

zav,

whose impurity is less severe,

is sent out, then a

leper,

whose impurity is more severe,

all the more so

is sent out.

Rather,

the verse comes to say that

you have a time when

only

lepers are sent out

of the azara,

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

from it.

And what is this

time? When the

Passover offering is brought in impurity.

And if you would say

to resolve the matter by saying that indeed

so too,

a zav performs the Passover offering when the Passover offering is brought in a state of public impurity—

It is not correct to say this. For—

And we learned in the Mishna: With regard to a Passover offering brought 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.

Since from the verse cited by Reish Lakish it may be inferred that the impurity of a zav was permitted for the public, whereas the Mishna states that the impurity of a zav was not permitted for the public, it is proven from here that the derivation is specifically from the verse cited by Rabbi Yohanan.

That verse speaks only of impurity through contact with the dead, as it says: “When a person is impure through contact with a human corpse.” From it one may infer that only an individual impure through contact with the dead is deferred from the Passover offering, whereas a public that is impure through contact with the dead is not deferred.

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

“When any person is impure through contact with a human corpse,” from which Rabbi Yohanan derived the law of a Passover offering brought in impurity. From it we learn that an individual is deferred to the Second Passover, but the public is not deferred to the Second Passover.

As for Reish Lakish’s objection to Rabbi Yohanan—that it is possible to infer the opposite from the verse, namely, that a public impure through contact with the dead is entirely deferred from the Passover offering, both from the First Passover and from the Second Passover—the matter may be resolved as follows:

If so,

according to your words, that the phrase “When a person is impure through contact with a corpse” does not mean that it comes to be lenient and permit a public impure through contact with the dead to offer the sacrifice in impurity, but, on the contrary, that it comes to be stringent and exclude such a public entirely from offering the Passover sacrifice, why did the verse state “through contact with a corpse”?

The addition of the word “corpse” serves to exclude zavin and lepers, whose impurity is more severe. But in what way would the Torah be more stringent with them than with impurity through contact with the dead, if, according to your words, this verse comes to be stringent with regard to public impurity and defer the public from the Passover offering entirely?

Indeed, according to your words, it would have been preferable for

the Merciful One to write

“When any person is impure,”

without qualification. We would then understand from it that in every type of impurity an individual is deferred to the Second Passover, whereas a public that becomes impure has no remedy. “Impure

through contact with a

corpse,”

as the verse states here, whose meaning is that zavin and lepers should be treated more stringently than one impure through contact with a corpse—

why do I need it?

Rather, necessarily, the matter is as Rabbi Yohanan said: the verse comes to be lenient, not stringent.

It teaches that an individual impure through contact with the dead is deferred to the Second Passover, whereas a public impure through contact with the dead performs the First Passover in impurity.

Therefore the verse states “through contact with a corpse,” referring to impurity through contact with the dead, because only in that case does the public perform the First Passover in impurity. But if the public were impure through zav discharge, or if the majority of the public were lepers, they would not perform the First Passover in impurity.

And if you would say,

if you wish to say that

this

“through contact with a corpse” \-

comes only for this purpose,

that the verse comes to say:

It is the one impure through contact with the dead

alone

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

deferred to the Second Passover; rather, they do not bring a Passover offering at all—

It is not possible to say this. For—

And it was taught in a beraita: 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 Passover.

Zavin, lepers, and those who had relations with menstruating women,

who are not mentioned in the verse—

from where

do we know that they perform the Second Passover?

The verse states: “When any person

is impure through contact with a corpse.”

The verse could have stated simply “impure,” thereby including all impure persons.

“Through contact with a corpse,”

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

the First Passover

in impurity.

b.

And when a public performs

the First Passover

in impurity,

this is specifically when they were impure

through contact with the dead.

But

if the public was impure with

other types of impurity, they

do not perform

the First Passover 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 is the area of the Temple and the entire area within the wall of the azara. All impure persons are sent out from it, even those impure with “less severe impurities,” such as those impure through contact with the dead.

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

From the Camp of Israel, meaning all the cities of Israel, only lepers are sent out.

The mitzva of sending the impure out of the camps includes both a prohibition and a positive mitzva.

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

Command the children of Israel that they send out from the camp every leper, everyone with a zav discharge, and everyone impure through contact with a corpse.

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

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

Rav Hisda said: A leper,

who is required to remain outside the Camp of Israel and is forbidden to enter the Camp of Israel because of the prohibition “And they shall not defile their camps,” if it happened

that he entered

deliberately into the Camp of Israel, which is

“within his partition,” he is

exempt

from lashes.

This is

because it is stated

with regard to a leper [Leviticus 13]:

“He shall dwell in isolation; outside the camp shall be his dwelling.”

“He shall dwell in isolation”—

he shall dwell alone.

“Outside the camp shall be his dwelling”—

the verse detached

the prohibition of a leper

to

a

positive mitzva.

And one does not receive lashes for any prohibition that has been detached for fulfillment of a positive mitzva.

He raised an objection to him

from what we learned in a beraita:

a.

A leper who entered

a city,

within his partition—

his law is that he receives

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 that they receive

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

may be brought there.

As it is stated

[Exodus 13]:

“And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him.”

And “

with him” means

within his partition,

the Camp of the Levites.

The beraita explicitly states that a leper receives lashes, contrary to what Rav Hisda said, namely, that he is exempt because the prohibition is one detached for fulfillment of a positive mitzva!

And we answer:

It is a dispute between tanna’im,

who disagree concerning 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,” does not refer to a positive mitzva that detaches the prohibition. Rather, it teaches that a leper is sent out of a third camp, from which only a leper is sent out [because in the passage concerning sending out from the camps, sending out from only two camps is mentioned].

According to his opinion, one receives lashes for the prohibition.

Rav Hisda, however, holds in accordance with the opinion of the tanna who says that this verse is not needed to teach that a leper is sent out of a third camp. Therefore, this verse comes to say that sending a leper outside the camp is a positive mitzva, which detaches the prohibition.

Therefore Rav Hisda, who holds in accordance with his opinion, exempts him from lashes, as is the law concerning a prohibition detached for fulfillment of a positive mitzva.

For it was taught in a beraita: It is stated in the passage concerning a leper: “He shall dwell in isolation; outside the camp shall be his dwelling.”

It is stated in the passage concerning a leper: “He shall dwell in isolation; outside the camp shall be his dwelling.”

“He shall dwell in isolation”—

he shall dwell alone.

The verse teaches

that no other impure persons,

such as zavin or those impure through contact with the dead,

shall dwell with him

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

This teaches you that only the leper alone is sent out even beyond 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 to one camp

[that is, their laws are identical, and both are sent 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.”

The fact that it states “their camps” in the plural, rather than “camp” in the singular, teaches that the verse came

“to assign one camp to this one and one camp to that one”; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

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

According to Rabbi Yehuda, the third verse concerning the leper does not detach the prohibition of a leper to a positive mitzva; rather, it comes to teach that the leper is sent out of the Camp of Israel.

And this is the opinion of the tanna who obligates him to receive 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 from which a leper is sent out, since all three camps can be derived 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, everyone with a zav discharge, and everyone impure through contact with a corpse.”

Perforce, this verse speaks of three acts of sending out from three camps, involving three different impure persons with different degrees of impurity.

For if it were speaking of one comprehensive act of sending all impure persons out of one camp,

let

the verse state that the one to be sent out of the camp is one impure through contact with the

dead,

whose impurity is less severe,

and let it not state

the mitzva of sending out one impure through

zav discharge

from the camp.

And I say,

I can derive the sending out of a zav by means of a kal va-chomer:

And just as

those impure through contact with the dead are sent out

from the camp—

zavin,

whose impurity issues from their bodies and is a severe impurity,

all the more so

are sent out from the camp!

If so,

why is a zav mentioned?

To assign him

sending out from a

second camp.

And

if the verse were speaking of sending out from only two camps,

let

the verse state that a

zav

is sent out from the second camp,

and let it not state

that a

leper

must also be sent out from it.

And I say,

I can derive this myself:

If

zavin are sent out

beyond the second camp,

lepers,

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

all the more so

are also sent out from the second camp!

If so,

why is it stated

in the passage concerning sending out from the camps that also a

leper—

to assign him

sending out beyond the

third camp.

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

when it says

in the passage concerning a leper,

“He shall dwell in isolation;

outside the camp shall be his dwelling”—

the verse detached

the prohibition concerning sending out a leper from the camps

to a positive mitzva.

Rav Hisda holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

The Gemara now explains Rabbi Shimon’s statement in the beraita, that a zav is more severe than one impure through contact with the dead, and that the sending out of a zav can be derived by a kal va-chomer from one impure through contact with the dead:

What is the severity of a zav

relative to

one impure through contact with the dead—

the impurity

of the zav

issues from his body.

And we raised a difficulty:

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

than a zav,

as he requires sprinkling

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

third

and on the

seventh

day, unlike a zav.

And we answer:

The verse states

that one is to be sent out from the camp who is

impure

through contact with the dead, but the verse added the word “every,” as it is stated: “And they shall send out from the camp every leper, everyone with a zav discharge,

and everyone impure

through contact with a corpse.” From the word “every” we learn

to include sending out from the camps

one

impure through contact with a creeping creature.

And

indeed, a

zav

[who does not require sprinkling]

is more severe than one impure through contact with a creeping creature,

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

And what is his severity,

that of a zav?

As we said,

his impurity issues from his body.

And we refute this:

On the contrary,

one

impure through contact with a creeping creature is more severe

than a zav,

as

the creeping creature

imparts impurity

through contact even

involuntarily,

whereas a zav discharge that issues from a zav involuntarily [and not as a result of his being afflicted with zav disease] does not render him impure.