Pesachim 79b — the Talmud in English

And impure persons do not make

the Pesach

offering, nor do they make

the Pesach

offering

And the reason is:

In the first

the impure persons

did not make it,

for they were not the majority of Israel, such that it would be permitted for them to offer the Pesach in impurity.

And

in the second also they did not make it,

since

they were not a minority

of Israel; and the postponement to the Second Pesach was stated only with regard to a minority of Israel.

And we challenge Rav from our Mishna:

We learned: If the community or the majority of it became impure, or if the priests were impure and the community pure,

(he shall make

they shall make

it in impurity

even the pure persons.

And we infer: “If

the majority”

of the community

is what makes it

even the impure persons on the first Pesach

in impurity, but

if the impure and the pure persons were

half-and-half

[half-and-half], it implies that

they do not make it

the impure persons

on the first

at all!

And if so,

it is difficult for Rav,

who said: Even the impure persons make their Pesach offering on the first?!

Rav can say to you:

Do not infer: Here, half-and-half means that the impure persons do not make it at all. Rather, infer as follows:

The majority

of the community who became impure—then

all of them make it

even the pure persons

in impurity. (122)

But

half-and-half: these

the pure persons

make it for themselves

in purity,

and these

the impure persons

make it for themselves

in impurity.

And, on the contrary, we support Rav’s words from our Mishna:

It is also reasonable

in accordance with Rav:

For

it

teaches

in the

latter clause

of the Mishna:

If a minority of the community became impure,

then

the

pure persons make the first, and the

impure persons make the Second

[Pesach].

It therefore implies:

A minority is what makes the Second, but half-and-half does not

make the Second,

but makes the first, and

nevertheless its law is not like “the majority became impure,” in the first clause, but rather,

these make it for themselves and those make it for themselves.

And since we have supported Rav’s words from our Mishna, we wonder:

But is it not difficult for Rav Kahana?!

He can say to you,

Rav Kahana: Do not infer from the latter clause that here, half-and-half means that the impure persons do not make the Second but only the first [and in accordance with Rav]. Rather:

If a minority of the community became impure,

then

the pure persons make the first and the impure persons make the Second.

Here, half-and-half: the pure persons make the first, but the impure persons make neither the first nor the Second,

and this is in accordance with the latter formulation of Rav Kahana.

And we still wonder:

This works for the latter formulation of Rav Kahana,

it is satisfactory as we have answered.

But according to that formulation in which Rav Kahana said: The pure persons make the first and the impure persons make the Second, what is there to say?!

For one should infer from the latter clause of our Mishna that if they were half-and-half, the impure persons are not postponed to the Second Pesach.

Rav Kahana can say to you: The same law applies, that even half-and-half also

has the same law as when a minority of the community became impure, and then

the pure persons make the first and the impure persons make the Second.

And the fact that it teaches

in the latter clause: If

“a minority of the community” became impure,

is not intended to teach that with half-and-half it is not so, but rather:

Since it taught in the first clause

“the majority,” it also taught in the latter clause

“the minority

(and

,” which is the opposite of the majority, but the same law applies to half-and-half.

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rav;

And

a beraita

two beraitot

was taught in accordance with Rav Kahana, according to both formulations:

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rav:

If Israel were half pure and half impure: these make it for themselves and those make it for themselves;

and this is in accordance with Rav.

A beraita was taught in accordance with the first formulation of Rav Kahana:

If it happened that Israel were half pure and half impure: the pure persons make the first and the impure persons make the Second;

and this is in accordance with the first formulation of Rav Kahana.

And a beraita was taught in accordance with the latter formulation of Rav Kahana:

If it happened that Israel were half pure and half impure: the pure persons make the first, and the impure persons make neither the first nor the Second;

and this is in accordance with the latter formulation of Rav Kahana.

And now the Gemara reconciles these beraitot according to all the views:

A.

For Rav, and for the latter formulation of Rav Kahana, this that was taught: The pure persons make the first and the impure persons the Second,

which implies in accordance with the first formulation of Rav Kahana,

how do they reconcile it

[how do they explain it]:

For example: Israel were half pure and half impure, and women

were the ones who

“completed”

the

half of the

impure.

That is to say: Among the males alone there was a minority of impure persons, and you find half of Israel impure only through the women, who were mostly impure; and together it came out that among Israel as a whole there was half-and-half.

And this tanna holds

of the beraita:

Women in

Pesach

the first are optional

and not obligatory, and all the more so in the Second [Rashi].

Therefore we judge the males alone, and say:

Remove the women

[remove the women from the reckoning of the impure persons],

and they are a minority of impure persons

[the impure males are found to be a minority of Israel],

and a minority is postponed to the Second Pesach.

But half-and-half among the males alone—you cannot learn anything at all from this beraita.

B.

For Rav, and for the first formulation of Rav Kahana, this that was taught: The pure persons make the first, and the impure persons make neither the first nor the Second,

which implies in accordance with the latter formulation of Rav Kahana,

how do they reconcile it:

Rav,

who holds that half of Israel is judged like a majority and makes the first Pesach,

reconciles it as follows:

For example, Israel were

the males alone

half impure and half pure, and

indeed

the women

“exceeded”

the pure persons,

for the women were mostly pure, and when you count the women together with them, the pure persons are more numerous than the impure persons,

and this tanna holds

of the beraita:

Women in the first are obligatory,

and they are counted in the reckoning of the first Pesach with regard to a majority and a minority, whereas

in the Second they are optional

and they are not counted in the reckoning of the Second Pesach.

Therefore:

In the first the impure persons do not make it,

the impure persons, since

they are a minority

of all Israel—the men and women—who are obligated regarding the first Pesach,

and a minority

of impure persons

does not make it

on the first.

And

however

in the Second

also

they do not make it,

the impure persons, for the women are not obligated regarding the Second Pesach. Therefore

remove the women from them

[remove the women from the reckoning of those making the Second Pesach],

and they are half-and-half,

that is to say: You come to obligate half of Israel regarding the Second Pesach,

and half do not make it in the Second.

And for Rav Kahana,

in the first formulation,

who said: Half

impure persons

also make it in the Second, he reconciles it as follows

with regard to the beraita that teaches: Half-and-half—the impure persons make neither the first nor the Second:

For example, Israel were half pure and half impure, and the women

were the ones who

“completed”

the

half of the

pure,

that is to say: Among the males alone there was a majority of impure persons, and you find half of Israel pure only through the women, who were mostly pure.

And he holds

this tanna:

Women in the first are obligatory, and

whereas

in the Second they are optional.

Therefore:

In the first the impure persons do not make it,

the impure persons, for among all Israel obligated regarding the first Pesach

they are half-and-half,

that is to say: You come to permit only half of Israel to make the first Pesach in impurity, and

half does not make it on the first.

In the Second also they do not make it,

the impure persons, for the women are not obligated regarding the Second Pesach. Therefore:

Remove the women from among the pure persons

[remove the women from the reckoning of the pure persons, who are equal in number to the impure persons],

and

then

the impure persons are—

whom you come to obligate to make the Second Pesach—

a majority

of Israel who are relevant to the mitzva of the Second Pesach,

and a majority does not make it in the Second.

C.

And for Rav Kahana, this that was taught: If it happened that Israel were half pure and half impure, these make it for themselves and those make it for themselves,

and this is in accordance with Rav,

how does he reconcile it:

Rav Kahana can say to you:

This beraita is indeed never in accordance with my view; rather, this beraita is subject to a dispute among

the tannaim,

and I state my opinion in accordance with one tanna.

For indeed

there is one who says—

the tanna of this beraita from which we are challenging—

half-and-half is like

a majority; and

indeed

there is

also

one who says—

the tanna of the beraita brought above as support for Rav Kahana’s view—

half-and-half is not like a majority.

The matter itself

we learned in the beraita brought above:

If it happened that Israel were half pure and half impure, these make it for themselves

in purity,

and those make it for themselves

in impurity.

If the impure persons were more numerous than the pure persons, even by one, they shall make it

even the pure persons

in impurity, for a communal offering is not divided, [

see the note ].

Rabbi Elazar ben Mattiah says: An individual does not determine the community to

make it in

impurity,

and only when the impure persons were more numerous than the pure persons by two or more is it the case that even the pure persons make it in impurity,

as it is stated: