Pesachim 79b (עט:) — the Talmud in English

And impure people do not perform

the

first

Paschal offering, nor do they perform

the second.

The reason is:

with regard to the first, the impure do not perform it, because

the impure

were not the majority

of Israel, such that they would be permitted to offer the Paschal offering in ritual impurity.

And

with regard to the second as well, they do not perform it, since

because

they were not a minority

of Israel; and the provision that a person is deferred to the second Pasover was stated only with regard to a minority of Israel. (128).

We challenge Rav from our Mishna:

We learned: If the community or most of it became impure, or if the priests were impure while the community was pure,

(it shall perform

they shall perform

it in impurity,

even the pure.

And we infer: “If

most”

of the community

became impure, it is then that they perform

even the impure on the first

in impurity; but

if the impure and the pure were

half and half,

that is, half and half—this implies that

they do not perform

the impure

on the first

at all!

And if so,

this is difficult for Rav, who said: Even the impure perform their Paschal offering on the first?!

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

Rav can say to you: Do not infer that if they are half and half the impure do not perform it at all. Rather, infer as follows:

If

a majority

of the community became impure, then

all of them perform it,

even the pure,

in impurity. (122)

But if they are

half and half: these,

the pure,

perform it for themselves

in purity,

and those,

the impure,

perform it for themselves

in impurity.

On the contrary, we support Rav from our Mishna:

indeed, it is reasonable

in accordance with Rav:

For

it

teaches

in the

latter clause

of our Mishna:

If a minority of the community became impure,

then

the

pure perform the first, and

the

impure perform the second.

This apparently means:

It is a minority that performs the second, but if they are half and half, they do not

perform the second;

they perform the first, and

nevertheless their status is not like that of “the majority became impure,” stated in the first clause. Rather,

these perform it for themselves and those perform it for themselves.

And once we have supported Rav’s position from our Mishna, we are astonished:

But then this is difficult for Rav Kahana?!

Rav Kahana can say to you: Do not infer from the latter clause that if they are half and half, the impure do not perform the second but rather the first [in accordance with Rav]. Rather:

If

a minority of the community became impure,

then

the pure perform the first and the impure perform the second.

Here, if they are half and half: the pure perform the first, but the impure perform neither the first nor the second,

and this is in accordance with Rav Kahana’s later formulation.

We are still astonished:

This works for Rav Kahana’s later formulation,

for our resolution is satisfactory.

But according to that formulation in which Rav Kahana says: The pure perform the first and the impure perform the second, what can be said?!

For one should infer from the latter clause of our Mishna that if they are half and half, the impure are not deferred to the second Pasover.

Rav Kahana can say to you: The same law applies—even if they are half and half,

their status is like that of a minority of the community that became impure, and

the pure perform the first and the impure perform 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 when they are half and half the law is different. Rather,

since it taught in the first clause

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

“a minority

(and

” —which is the opposite of a majority—but the same law applies to half and half.

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rav;

And

a beraita

of 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 perform it for themselves and those perform it for themselves;

and this is in accordance with Rav.

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rav Kahana’s first formulation:

If Israel were half pure and half impure: the pure perform the first and the impure perform the second;

and this is in accordance with Rav Kahana’s first formulation.

And a beraita was taught in accordance with Rav Kahana’s later formulation:

If Israel were half pure and half impure: the pure perform the first, while the impure perform neither the first nor the second;

and this is in accordance with Rav Kahana’s later formulation.

The Gemara now reconciles these beraitot according to all the opinions:

a.

According to Rav and according to Rav Kahana’s later formulation, this beraita that was taught: “The pure perform the first and the impure the second,”

which appears to follow Rav Kahana’s first formulation,

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, the impure were a minority; and one finds Israel half impure only by including the women, who were themselves mostly impure, so that Israel as a whole were half and half.

And this tanna

of the beraita held:

Women’s participation in the

first Pasover

is optional

and not obligatory, and all the more so with regard to the second [Rashi].

Therefore, we judge the males alone, and say:

subtract the women who are impure

[remove the women from the calculation of the impure],

and the impure are thereby a minority

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

and a minority is deferred to the second Pasover.

But when the males alone are half and half, you cannot derive anything at all concerning it from this beraita.

b.

According to Rav and according to Rav Kahana’s first formulation, this beraita that was taught: “The pure perform the first, while the impure perform neither the first nor the second,”

which appears to follow Rav Kahana’s later formulation,

how do they reconcile it?

Rav,

who holds that half of Israel is judged like a majority and performs the first Pasover,

reconciles it as follows:

For example, Israel were

the males alone

half impure and half pure, and

in fact

the women

“exceeded”

the pure,

for the women were mostly pure; and when you count the women together with them, the pure outnumber the impure.

And this tanna

of the beraita held:

women’s participation in the first Pasover is obligatory,

and they are counted in the calculation for the first Pasover with regard to a majority and a minority, whereas

with regard to the second it is optional,

and they are not counted in the calculation for the second Pasover.

Therefore:

with regard to the first, the impure do not perform it, since

the impure,

are a minority

of all Israel—men and women—who are obligated to perform the first Pasover;

and a minority

of impure people

do not perform it

on the first.

But

in any event

with regard to the second,

also

they do not perform it,

the impure, for women are not obligated to perform the second Pasover. Therefore,

subtract the women from them

[remove the women from the calculation of those who perform the second Pasover],

and they are thereby half and half—

that is, you come to obligate only half of Israel to perform the second Pasover—

and half do not perform the second.

And according to Rav Kahana,

in his first formulation,

who said: Half

of the impure

also perform the second, he reconciles the beraita as follows,

the beraita that teaches that when they are half and half the impure perform neither the first nor the second:

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

were the ones who

“completed”

the

half of the

pure—

that is to say: Among the males alone, the impure were the majority; and one finds Israel half pure only by including the women, who were themselves mostly pure.

And he held that

this tanna

women’s participation in the first Pasover is obligatory, and

whereas

with regard to the second it is optional.

Therefore:

with regard to the first, the impure do not perform it,

since among all Israel obligated in the first Pasover

they are half and half—

that is, you come to permit only half of Israel to perform the first Pasover in impurity—and

half do not perform it on the first.

With regard to the second as well, the impure do not perform it,

since women are not obligated in the second Pasover. Therefore:

subtract the women from the pure

[remove the women from the calculation of the pure, whose number is equal to that of the impure],

and

then

the impure are—

those whom you come to obligate to perform the second Pasover—

a majority

of the Israelites subject to the mitzva of the second Pasover,

and a majority do not perform the second.

c.

And according to Rav Kahana, this beraita that was taught: “If Israel were half pure and half impure, these perform it for themselves and those perform it for themselves,”

which is in accordance with Rav,

how does he reconcile it?

Rav Kahana can say to you:

This beraita is never in accordance with my opinion; rather, this beraita reflects a dispute among

tannaim,

and I state my opinion in accordance with one of the tannaim.

Indeed,

there is one who says—

the tanna of this beraita from which we raise the difficulty—

that 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 position—

that half and half is not like a majority.

As for the matter itself,

we learned in the beraita brought above:

If Israel were half pure and half impure, these perform it for themselves

in purity,

and those perform it for themselves

in impurity.

If the impure outnumber the pure even by one, they shall perform it

even the pure

in impurity, because a communal offering cannot be divided,

[see note ].

Rabbi Elazar ben Matya says: An individual does not cause the community to perform

in

impurity,

but only when the impure outnumber the pure by two or more do even the pure perform it in impurity,

as it is stated: