Pesachim 68a — the Talmud in English

They raise an objection from a source:

We learned in the continuation of that same Mishna:

one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman

his status

is like that of one impure with corpse impurity.

And we raised it:

For what purpose—

in what respect are one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman and one impure with corpse impurity similar?

If you say, with regard to

the matter of

their impurity—

that in both of them it is seven days,

this is explicitly stated in Scripture, and there is no need for the Mishna to say it.

For

with regard to this one, impurity of seven days is written concerning him, and with regard to that one, impurity of seven days is written concerning him.

Rather, is it not

that the Mishna comes to innovate that they are equal

with regard to their encampments?

And since the latter clause

of the Mishna says

with regard to their encampments—

the first clause

of the Mishna, which compares one who experienced a seminal emission to one who touches a creeping creature,

also concerns their encampments!

And it is thereby proven that one who experienced a seminal emission is not sent out beyond two encampments, like a zav, but is sent out only beyond one encampment, like one impure through contact with a creeping creature.

And we answer:

Is there anything—

is there any proof from the latter clause that in this respect also

necessarily

the first clause is dealing?

For we can say:

This—

the latter clause—

is as it stands

with regard to encampments.

And

if

this—

the first clause—

is as it stands

with regard to impurity.

They raise an objection from a source

from a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna, in which we learned with regard to exclusion from the camps:

A leper is more stringent than a zav,

as a leper is sent out beyond three encampments, whereas a zav is sent out beyond two.

And a zav,

who is sent out beyond two encampments,

is more stringent than one impure with corpse impurity,

who is sent out beyond one encampment.

One who experienced a seminal emission goes out

[and what his going out is will be explained below],

for one impure with corpse impurity is more stringent than he.

And we raised it:

What

does “goes out

one who experienced a seminal emission” mean?

Is it not

that

he goes out

one who experienced a seminal emission

from the category

of the law of sending out of a

zav,

despite the fact that he resembles him in that the impurity issues from his body,

and comes into the category of

the sending out of

one impure with corpse impurity?

And the reason for the matter is

for one impure with corpse impurity is more stringent than he,

than one who experienced a seminal emission, for the impurity of one impure with corpse impurity is seven days, whereas that of one who experienced a seminal emission is one day,

and

nevertheless

it is permitted

for one impure with corpse impurity to remain

in the Levite encampment,

and the same law applies: it is permitted for one who experienced a seminal emission, whose impurity is lighter, to remain in the Levite encampment.

This is difficult from here for Rabbi Yohanan, who said that one who experienced a seminal emission is sent out from two encampments!

And we answer:

No,

the beraita did not intend to say this, but rather this:

One who experienced a seminal emission goes out

one who experienced a seminal emission

from the encampment of one impure with corpse impurity—

and enters the encampment of a zav.

And although one impure with corpse impurity is more stringent than he,

than one who experienced a seminal emission,

and it is permitted

for one impure with corpse impurity to remain

in the Levite encampment—

nevertheless, one who experienced a seminal emission, who is lighter than he, is forbidden to remain in the Levite encampment.

And the reason for the matter is that the sending out from the encampments of one who experienced a seminal emission is learned from the inclusion “every zav,” and therefore its law is like that of a zav. Whereas from the inclusion “every impure person,” one who is impure through contact with a creeping creature is included, whose law is like that of one impure with corpse impurity.

Since each of the inclusions is one that is

compared to the one to which it is similar.

And the law of sending out one who experienced a seminal emission can be compared to the law of a zav, since in both of them impurity issues from their bodies. And one impure through contact with a creeping creature is compared to one impure with corpse impurity, since impurity does not issue from their bodies.

And what the beraita said, “One who experienced a seminal emission goes out,” means:

All impure persons are sent out from the encampment according to the degree of their impurity. But one who experienced a seminal emission is an exception: although the degree of his impurity is lighter than corpse impurity, he is sent out beyond two encampments [according to the law of sending out a zav], whereas one impure with corpse impurity is sent out only from one encampment.

A tanna taught before Rav Yitzhak bar Avdimi:

In the book of Deuteronomy [chapter 23], a special passage concerning the sending out from the encampments of one who experienced a seminal emission is stated: “

For when your encampment goes out against your enemies, you shall guard yourself from every evil matter.

When there shall be among you a man who shall not be pure, through an occurrence at night,

he shall go outside the encampment; he shall not enter within the encampment.”

And the tanna expounded before Rav Yitzhak bar Avdimi:

“And he shall go outside the encampment”—

this is the Divine Presence encampment.

“He shall not enter within the encampment”—

this is the Levite encampment.

That is, the verse is dealing with one who experienced a seminal emission who became impure while he was in the Divine Presence encampment, and it says that he should leave it, and he should not even enter the Levite encampment, but should go out as far as the Israelite encampment.

From here: one who experienced a seminal emission—

that he goes outside two encampments.

He said to him,

Rav Yitzhak bar Avdimi said to the tanna who taught this before him:

Still,

still

you have not brought him in,

you have not brought one who experienced a seminal emission into the Levite encampment, and already

you have taken him out,

you have taken him out from it!?

That is, how is the verse speaking of taking out one who experienced a seminal emission from the Levite encampment before he entered it?

For the expression of the verse, “He shall not enter within the encampment,” means that after he has been required to leave it, he may not return to it again until he becomes pure.

But this still has not entered the Levite encampment.

Another formulation,

this is how Rav Yitzhak bar Avdimi argued:

Still,

still

you have not taken him out,

you have not taken him out from the Levite encampment, for the verse did not say to take him out from there, and already

you have brought him in,

and already it warns him not to enter, before the verse warned about sending out one who experienced a seminal emission who became impure while he was there.

Rather,

Rav Yitzhak bar Avdimi said:

Say

and expound the verse as follows: “

And he shall go

outside the encampment”—

this is the Levite encampment,

from which one who experienced a seminal emission who was there and became impure is required to leave [and all the more so, if he was in the Divine Presence encampment, he is required to leave it].

And when he has left the Levite encampment:

“He shall not enter within the encampment”—

this is the Divine Presence encampment.

And if the verse were speaking not of two encampments but of one encampment, we would establish it as referring to one who became impure in the Divine Presence encampment, who must be sent out from it alone.

Ravina raised an objection to this: Say that both this and that,

both of the encampments mentioned here—

the

sending out

from the Divine Presence encampment

alone is intended.

And

the verse repeated the sending out from the Divine Presence encampment in order

to subject him to

both

a positive commandment and

also a

negative commandment!?

And we answer:

If so,

that the two encampments are the Divine Presence encampment—

let the verse say

“And he shall go outside

the encampment

[that is, a positive commandment],

and he shall not enter within

it.” [That is, a negative commandment.]

The addition of the word

“the encampment,”

which the verse said—

why do I need it?

Conclude from it: to give him another encampment.

We learned in the Mishna:

and scraping out his innards

of the Paschal offering overrides Shabbat.

And we raised it:

What

is “scraping out his innards”?

Rav Huna said: that he pierces them with a knife,

so that the excrement should come out and he should not become putrid. “

Scraping out” means removing soft feces, or piercing [the innards]. See Rashi.

Hiyya bar Rav said: scraping out his innards is the removal of the slime attached to the intestines, which is called

“the intestinal slime,”

and it is a contemptible substance,

which issues

out

by means of

the pressure of the knife.

Rabbi Elazar said: What is the reason

what is the support

for Hiyya bar Rav?

For it is written

[Isaiah 5]:

“And the ruins of slime

[contemptible substances]—

strangers shall eat.”

What

from where is it

indicated

that “slime” is a contemptible substance?

As Rav Yosef translated

this verse:

“And the property of the wicked”

[the hated and contemptible]—

“the righteous shall inherit it,”

they shall inherit it.

And the Gemara explains the beginning of the verse:

“And lambs

[Israel]

shall graze according to their word.”

Menasya bar Yirmeya said in the name of Rav:

And Israel shall graze like lambs,

according to what was spoken of them,

as was promised to them by the prophet.

And we raised it concerning his words:

What

is “according to what was spoken of them”?

What is that promise, and where were they promised it?

Abaye said:

According to what was spoken in the continuation of the verse:

“And the ruins of slime,”

the contemptible property of the wicked—

strangers

and sojourners,

shall eat.

Rava said to him: Granted, if it were written

in the continuation of the verse

“ruins”

without the conjunctive vav—it would be well

as you say,

that the end of the verse explains the promise at the beginning of the verse.

But

now that it is written

“and ruins”

with the conjunctive vav, necessarily

it is stating another matter.

Rather, Rava said: “According to their word” means according to what was spoken of them,

as Rav Hananel said in the name of Rav.

For Rav Hananel said in the name of Rav: The righteous in the future will revive the dead,

as Elijah and Elisha revived the dead.

And this is learned by

a gzera shava:

it is written here

“And lambs

the righteous

according to their word,”

according to what was spoken of Elijah and Elisha, who revived the dead.”

And it is written there

[Micah 7], concerning Elijah and Elisha:

“They shall graze in Bashan and Gilead as in days of old.”

Bashan—

this is Elisha, who came from Bashan.

As it is stated

[I Chronicles 5]:

“And Yaani and Shafat in Bashan.”

And it is written

[II Kings 3]:

“Here is Elisha son of Shafat

[from Bashan],

who poured water upon the hands of Elijah.” “

Gilead—

this is Elijah.

As it is stated

[I Kings 17]:

“And Elijah the Tishbite said, from the inhabitants of Gilead.”

And the gzera shava is “they shall graze—and lambs shall graze”: just as they revived the dead, so the righteous will revive the dead.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: The righteous in the future will revive the dead.

As it is stated

[Zechariah 8]:

“The elderly men and elderly women shall yet sit in the streets of Jerusalem, each man with his staff in his hand because of his many days.”

And it is written

concerning Elisha, who revived the son of the Shunamite woman—that he said to his servant:

“And you shall place my staff upon the face of the boy.”

And we learn this by the gzera shava: “his staff—my staff.”

Ulla raised a contradiction: It is written

in the book of Isaiah [chapter 25] that in the future

“He will swallow up death forever.”

That the angel of death will be swallowed up and will no longer rule.

And

on the other hand

it is written

in Isaiah [chapter 65]:

“For the boy—

a son of one hundred years shall die.”

And it indicates that even then the angel of death will have dominion, except that they will live long, and one who dies at one hundred years will be considered as though he died while still a boy.

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

Here—

with regard to Israel,

the angel of death will no longer rule over them.

Here—

with regard to the nations,

the boy will die at one hundred.

And we raised it:

And the nations—

what do they want

why will they be and what will they do

there,

at the time of the redemption? And we answer:

For it is written

[Isaiah 61]:

“And strangers shall stand and pasture your flocks, and the sons of the foreigner shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.”

Rav Hisda raised a contradiction: It is written

in Isaiah [chapter 24] that in the future

“The moon shall be ashamed, and the sun shall be embarrassed,”

and they will no longer give light.

And

on the other hand

it is written

in Isaiah [chapter 30]:

“And the light of the moon shall be like the light of the sun.

And the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, like the light of the seven days,”

that is, at that time the light will be “sevenfold,” which is seven times seven, which is forty-nine, and this sum of forty-nine is to be multiplied by seven, “like the light of the seven days.” It follows that this light will be 343 times greater than the light of today. 343 = 777

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

Here—

in the World to Come,

the luminaries will not give light in it, but there will be light from the radiance of the splendor and appearance of the Divine Presence [the wording of Rashi].

Here—

in the days of the Messiah,

the light of the moon will be like the light of the sun, and the light of the sun will be sevenfold, like the light of the seven days.

And we challenge this:

And according

to the method of

Shmuel, who said: There is no difference between this world and the days of the Messiah except the subjugation to kingdoms—

what is there to say,

how will he explain the verse that the light of the moon will be like the light of the sun?

And we answer:

Both this and that,

the two verses speak

of the World to Come,

in which there will be a change from this world.

And it is not difficult.

Here, in the Divine Presence encampment,

there will be no sunlight, but only light from the radiance of the Divine Presence.

Here, in the encampment of the righteous,

the sunlight will be of great intensity.

Rava raised a contradiction: It is written

[Deuteronomy 32]

“I put to death and I make alive.”

And

on the other hand

it is written

“I wounded and I shall heal.”

And apparently the second verse is superfluous. For

now, if He makes the dead live,

since He revives the dead—

healing

the sick

is certainly no more so!

Rather,

thus

said the Holy One, blessed be He:

The one

whom I put to death—

I revive, just as

the one whom

I wounded—

I shall heal.

That is, so that we should not err to say that this is what He said: I will put the dead to death, and I nourish and give life to the living, and create those who are born.

Therefore He said: “I wounded and I shall heal,” for healing is in the one who was wounded and not in one who was not wounded; and likewise, the one whom I put to death, I will revive.

The Sages taught: “I put to death and I make alive.”

One might have thought: death in one person, and life in one

different,

as the world conducts itself?

The verse states

“I wounded and I shall heal”—

just as wounding and healing are in

one person,

so too death and life

in one person

are in one.

From here there is an answer to those who say

“There is no revival of the dead from the Torah.”

Alternatively: At first, the one whom I put to death I revive.

For at the revival of the dead they will rise in the same bodily state in which they were at the time of their death.

And afterward—

those whom I wounded,

those who had a bodily defect and rose in this condition at the revival—

I shall heal.