Pesachim 68a (סח.) — the Talmud in English

mейtivi:

We learned in the continuation of that same Mishna:

one who has intercourse with a menstruant

his status

is like that of one impure through contact with a corpse.

And we raised the following difficulty:

For what purpose,

in what regard are one who has intercourse with a menstruant and one impure through contact with a corpse comparable?

If you say with regard to

the matter of

their impurity,

as the impurity of both lasts seven days.

This is explicitly stated in the verse, and there is no need for the Mishna to teach it,

because

with regard to this one, impurity for seven days is written, and with regard to that one, impurity for seven days is written.

Rather, is it not that the Mishna comes to teach that they are equivalent

in the matter of their

camps?

And since the latter clause

of the Mishna

with regard to their camps teaches this,

the first clause

of the Mishna, which compares one who experienced a seminal emission to one who touched a creeping animal,

also concerns their camps!

And this proves that one who experienced a seminal emission is not sent outside two camps, like a zav, but is sent only outside one camp, like one impure through contact with a creeping animal.

And we answer:

Is there anything

that proves from the latter clause that the first clause

necessarily

deals with the same matter?

For we can say:

This,

the latter clause,

is as it stands,

with regard to the camps.

And

if

this,

the first clause,

is as it stands

with regard to impurity.

mейtivi,

from a beraita in which we learned with regard to sending the impure outside the camps:

A leper is more severe than a zav,

as a leper is sent outside all three camps, whereas a zav is sent outside two.

And a zav,

who is sent outside two camps,

is more severe than one impure through contact with a corpse,

who is sent outside only one camp.

One who experienced a seminal emission is excluded

[as will be explained below, what this exclusion means],

as one impure through contact with a corpse is more severe than he.

And we raise the following difficulty:

What is meant by

“one who experienced

a seminal emission

is excluded”?

Is it not that

one who experienced

a seminal emission

is excluded from

the law governing the sending outside of

a zav,

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

and comes within

the scope of the sending outside applicable to

one impure through contact with a corpse?

And the reason for this is

that one impure through contact with a corpse is more severe than he,

than one who experienced a seminal emission, since the impurity of one impure through contact with a corpse lasts seven days, whereas that of one who experienced a seminal emission lasts one day,

and

nevertheless

it is permitted

for one impure through contact with a corpse to remain

in the camp of the Levites,

and the same law applies: it is permitted for one who experienced a seminal emission, whose impurity is less severe, to remain in the camp of the Levites.

This presents a difficulty to Rabbi Yohanan, who said that one who experienced a seminal emission is sent outside two camps!

And we answer:

No,

the beraita did not intend to say this. Rather, it intended to say:

One who experienced

a seminal emission

leaves the camp of one impure through contact with a corpse—

and enters the camp of a zav.

And although one impure through contact with a corpse is more severe than he,

than one who experienced a seminal emission,

and it is permitted

for one impure through contact with a corpse to remain

in the camp of the Levites,

nevertheless, one who experienced a seminal emission, who is less severe than he, is forbidden to remain in the camp of the Levites.

And the reason is that the sending outside the camps of one who experienced a seminal emission is derived from the additional expression “every zav,” and therefore his status is like that of a zav. Whereas from the additional expression “every impure person,” one who is impure through contact with a creeping animal is included, and his status is like that of one impure through contact with a corpse.

Since each of the additional expressions

is compared to the one resembling it.

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

And what the beraita said, “one who experienced a seminal emission is excluded,” means:

All impure persons are sent outside the camp according to the degree of their impurity. But one who experienced a seminal emission is excluded from this rule: although the degree of his impurity is less than that of one impure through contact with a corpse, he is sent outside two camps [in accordance with the sending outside applicable to a zav], whereas one impure through contact with a corpse is sent outside only one camp.

A tanna taught before Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi:

A special passage concerning sending one who experienced a seminal emission outside the camps is stated in the Book of Deuteronomy: “

When a camp goes out against your enemies, you shall guard against every evil matter.

When there is among you a man who is not pure, because of an occurrence at night,

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

And the tanna expounded before Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi:

“He shall go outside the camp”—

this is the camp of the Divine Presence.

“He shall not enter within the camp”—

this is the camp of the Levites.

That is, the verse is speaking of one who experienced a seminal emission who became impure while he was in the camp of the Divine Presence, and it says that he must leave it, and he may not even enter the camp of the Levites; rather, he must go as far as the camp of Israel.

From here it follows concerning one who experienced a seminal emission

that he must go outside two camps.

He said to him,

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

You still

have not yet

brought him in,

you have not brought one who experienced a seminal emission into the camp of the Levites, and already

you have taken him out

of it!?

That is, how can the verse speak of removing one who experienced a seminal emission from the camp of the Levites before he entered it?

For the expression in the verse, “he shall not enter within the camp,” means that after he is required to leave it, he may not return to it until he becomes pure.

But this person has still not entered the camp of the Levites.

Alternatively,

this is how Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi challenged him:

You still

have not yet

taken him out,

you have not removed him from the camp of the Levites, since the verse did not say to remove him from there, and already

you have brought him in, as it already warns him not to enter before the verse has warned about sending outside one who experienced a seminal emission who became impure while he was there.

as you already warn him not to enter, before the verse has warned about sending out one who experienced a seminal emission after becoming impure there.

Rather,

said Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi:

Say

and expound the verse as follows: “

And he shall go

outside the camp”—

this is the camp of the Levites,

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

And once he has left the camp of the Levites:

“He shall not enter within the camp”—

this is the camp of the Divine Presence.

And if the verse were speaking not of two camps but of one camp, we would interpret it as referring to one who became impure in the camp of the Divine Presence, who must be sent out of that camp alone.

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

both of the camps mentioned here, mean

the

sending outside

the camp of the Divine Presence

alone.

And

the verse repeated the command to send him outside the camp of the Divine Presence in order

to subject him

also

to a positive commandment and

also to

a prohibition!?

And we answer:

If so,

if both camps refer to the camp of the Divine Presence,

let the verse say

“And he shall go outside

the camp”

[that is, a positive commandment],

“and he shall not enter within

it” [that is, a prohibition].

The addition of the word

“the camp”,

which the verse states—

why do I need it?

Conclude from it: to provide him with another camp.

We learned in the Mishna:

And scraping out its intestines

of the Paschal offering overrides Shabbat.

And we raise the following question:

What is meant by

“scraping out its intestines”?

Rav Huna said: They pierce them with a knife,

so that the excrement will come out and it will not putrefy.

The term “scraping out” means removing soft excrement, or piercing [the intestines]. See Rashi.

Ḥiyya bar Rav said: Scraping out its intestines means removing the mucus that adheres to the intestines, called

the

shirqa of the intestines,

which is a repulsive substance,

that comes out

when it is forced out

by the pressure of the knife.

Rabbi Elazar said: What is the reason

what is the support

for Ḥiyya bar Rav’s opinion?

As it is written

[Isaiah 5]:

“And the ruins of the repulsive

[things]

strangers shall eat.”

What

is the basis for

understanding

that “repulsive things” refers to a repulsive substance?

As Rav Yosef translated

this verse:

“And the property of the wicked”

[those who are hated and despised]—

“the righteous shall inherit”

and inherit it.

And the Gemara explains the beginning of the verse:

“And sheep shall graze

[Israel]

as they speak.”

Manshiyya bar Yirmeya said in the name of Rav:

Israel shall graze like sheep,

as it was spoken of them,

as was promised to them by the prophet.

And we raise the following question concerning his statement:

What is meant by

“as it was spoken of them”?

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

Abaye said: It is as spoken of later in the verse:

It means as stated later in the verse:

“And the ruins of the repulsive things”,

the property of the wicked, who are despised—

the righteous, like

strangers and sojourners,

shall eat.

Rava said to him: Granted, if it were written

later in the verse

“ruins”

without the conjunction “and”—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 conjunction “and,” it necessarily means that

it is stating another matter.

Rather, Rava said: “As they speak” means as it was spoken of them,

as was stated

as Rabbi Ḥanan said in the name of Rav.

For Rabbi Ḥanan said in the name of Rav: The righteous are destined to revive the dead,

just as Elijah and Elisha revived the dead.

And this is learned by means of a gzera shava:

Here it is written,

“And sheep shall graze

the righteous

as they speak,”

as was spoken of Elijah and Elisha, who revived the dead.

And there it is written

[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 he afflicted and judged in Bashan.”

And it is written

[II Kings 3]:

“Here is Elisha son of Shaphat

[from Bashan],

who poured water over Elijah’s hands.”

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 sheep shall graze”: just as they revived the dead, so the righteous will revive the dead.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: The righteous are destined to 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 great age.

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 this is learned by means of 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 is, the Angel of Death will be swallowed up, and he will no longer rule.

And

on the other hand

it is written

in Isaiah [chapter 65]:

“For the boy—

a hundred years old shall die.”

This indicates that even then the Angel of Death will rule, except that people will live many years, and one who dies at the age of one hundred 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 the age of one hundred.

And we raise the following question:

And the nations—

what are they needed for

why will they be there and what will they do

there,

at the time of redemption? And we answer:

As it is written

[Isaiah 61]:

“Strangers shall stand and pasture your flocks, and the sons of foreigners shall be your farmers and vinedressers.”

Rav Ḥisda 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 shine.

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,” meaning seven times seven, which is forty-nine, and this total 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 today. 343 = 777

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

Here—

in the World to Come,

the luminaries will not shine there; rather, there will be light from the radiance, splendor, and appearance of the Divine Presence [in the language 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 view of

Shmuel, who said: The only difference between this world and the days of the Messiah is the subjugation to the kingdoms,

what can be said,

how will he explain the verse stating 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 the conditions of this world.

And it is not difficult.

Here, in the camp of the Divine Presence,

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

Here, in the camp of the righteous,

the light of the sun will be of great intensity.

Rava raised a contradiction:

[Deuteronomy 32]

“I put to death and give life.”

And

on the other hand

it is written

“I have wounded, and I heal.”

At first glance, the second verse is superfluous. For

now, if He brings the dead to life,

since He revives the dead,

healing

the sick

is certainly implied!

Rather,

this is what

the Holy One, blessed be He, said:

“Those

whom I put to death—

I revive, just as those whom I

have

wounded—

I heal.”

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

Therefore He said, “I have wounded, and I heal,” for the healing is of one who was wounded, not of one who was not wounded; likewise, the one whom I put to death is the one whom I will bring to life.

The Sages taught: “I put to death and give life.”

One might have thought: Death for one person, and life for one

different person,

as is the way of the world?

The verse states

“I have wounded, and I heal”—

just as wounding and healing occur in

one

person, so too death and life

in one

person.

From here there is an answer to those who say

“There is no source for the resurrection of the dead in the Torah.”

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

At the resurrection of the dead they will arise in the same physical condition in which they were at the time of their death.

And afterward—

those whom I have wounded,

those who had physical defects and arose with those defects at the resurrection—

I will heal.