Pesachim 80a (פ.) — the Talmud in English

“You may not slaughter the Paschal offering within any of your gates”,

and we expound it: “You may not slaughter the Paschal offering within any one [of your gates].” This teaches you: You may not slaughter it on behalf of an individual, so that that individual would cause or contribute in any way to a deviation in its slaughter [Rashi].

Rabbi Shimon says:

It is not necessary that the majority of Israel be impure in order to perform it in a state of ritual impurity; rather,

even one tribe

of Israel

is impure, and

if

all the other tribes are pure,

although this tribe is not the majority of Israel, we treat each tribe as a communal entity.

Therefore:

These—

the impure tribe—

perform it for themselves

in a state of impurity, like a community that is not deferred to the Second Pesaḥ.

And those—

the other tribes—

perform it for themselves

in purity.

What is the reason for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion? He holds that one tribe is called

“a community,”

and therefore one tribe has the status of a community that is not deferred to the Second Pesaḥ.

Rabbi Judah

adds to the statement of Rabbi Shimon, and

says: Even if one tribe is impure and all the other tribes are pure, all Israel shall perform it

—all Israel—

in a state of impurity

on account of this tribe, which performs it in impurity, because

a communal offering cannot be divided.

And we explain his reasoning:

Rabbi Judah holds that one tribe is called a community,

so you have “an impure community”; and since the rest of the community is pure, you have “a pure community,”

and they are therefore half and half,

meaning, it is as though they were half and half.

And a communal offering cannot be divided

even when they are half and half,

and

therefore

they all perform it in a state of impurity.

But Rabbi Shimon holds that the principle “a communal offering cannot be divided” is not effective when they are half and half [see below in the notes].

It was stated: If the Jewish people were half impure and half pure:

Rav said: We render one of them

[of the pure ones]

impure through contact with a creeping creature,

so that the majority become impure, and all Israel can perform the Pesaḥ in a state of impurity.

We raise an objection:

And why

render one impure?

Let these

the impure ones

do so on their own

[let the impure ones perform it in their impurity by themselves],

and these

the pure ones

on their own,

in purity.

For Rav said

above:

These perform it for themselves, and those perform it for themselves.

That is to say: The half that is impure is not deferred to the Second Pesaḥ, such that there is a need to devise a stratagem to permit them to offer the First Pesaḥ, in accordance with Rav’s own opinion, in which he disagreed with Rav Kahana above and held that even the impure perform the First Pesaḥ; only the pure do not follow them to perform it in impurity.

And since this is so, what difference does it make if these perform it separately and those separately, since ultimately all Israel perform the First Pesaḥ?!

They said

the scholars in explanation:

What are we dealing with here? For example, the impure outnumbered the pure by one

alone [and the answer is not understood, and the Gemara immediately raises an objection to it].

We raise an objection to this:

If so,

all the more so it is difficult:

they are a majority of impure people,

and

let them all perform it in a state of impurity;

why do we need to render one of them impure through contact with a creeping creature?!

And we explain:

Rav agrees

with

Rabbi Elazar ben Mattiah, who says

in the beraita above:

An individual cannot determine that the community shall

perform the Pesaḥ in a state of

impurity [and the answer is not understood, and the Gemara immediately raises an objection to it].

We are still puzzled:

If so,

we have accomplished nothing with our answer, and

the original difficulty returns to its place.

For according to Rabbi Elazar ben Mattiah, when one impure person outnumbers the pure, they are considered like half and half; if so:

Let these perform it separately and those perform it separately?!

And we explain Rav’s statement:

Rather,

Rav is actually speaking when they were exactly half and half, without an excess, and

this is what he is saying:

If there is a tanna

[should you find a tanna]

who agrees with the first tanna

[Rabbi Shimon in the beraita above], who says that when half are impure and half are pure, they do not all perform it in impurity; rather, these perform it for themselves and those perform it for themselves,

and

you also find that this tanna

agrees

as well

with Rabbi Judah

in the beraita above,

who says: A communal offering cannot be divided, and it is forbidden to divide Israel so that some perform it in purity and others in impurity, because this is disgraceful, as it becomes apparent that these are careful to avoid the others.

and it is forbidden to divide Israel so that these perform it in purity and those in impurity, because this is disgraceful, as it becomes apparent that these are careful to avoid the others.

What should they do?

They render one of them impure through contact with a creeping creature,

and they all perform it in impurity [see the explanation of the sugya in the note].

And Ulla said:

Why did Ulla disagree with Rav

and render him impure through contact with a creeping creature

as Rav held? And we explain:

Ulla holds

that

one may slaughter and sprinkle

the blood of the Pesaḥ even

on behalf of one impure from contact with a creeping creature,

and since this is so, he is considered pure with regard to the Paschal offering. Thus they remain half pure and half impure, and the communal offering is divided.

Whereas Rav holds that one may not slaughter and sprinkle the blood of the Pesaḥ on behalf of one impure from contact with a creeping creature, as one does on behalf of one impure through contact with the dead; thus, the person impure through contact with a creeping creature joins the count of the impure, and they all perform it in impurity.

We challenge Ulla:

Then let us render him impure through contact with the dead?!

And we answer: If you render him impure through contact with the dead, so that he remains impure for seven days, then

you thereby defer him

from his festival offering,

which he is obligated to offer on the following day, since he cannot offer a festival offering in impurity. In order not to cause him to lose the mitzva of the festival offering, we render him impure through contact with a creeping creature, whose impurity lasts only until evening, so that he can immerse and offer his festival offering on the following day.

We challenge this: Even

now,

when you render him impure through contact with a creeping creature,

you thereby defer him from his Pesaḥ;

what difference is there between deferring him from the Pesaḥ and deferring him from the festival offering?!

We raise a difficulty: But now too, when you render him impure through contact with a creeping creature,

And we answer: You do not defer him entirely from his Pesaḥ, because

he may perform his Pesaḥ

on the Second [Pesaḥ].

We are still puzzled: Let us render him impure through contact with the dead. And if the reason is that you defer him from his festival offering, when he becomes impure

through contact with the dead, he may also perform

his festival offering

on the seventh day

of Pesaḥ, for a festival offering may be made up throughout all seven days,

so that his eighth day

from the day he became impure has arrived, and he is already permitted with regard to consecrated offerings?!

And we answer:

It is stated in the Torah, in the passage concerning Sukkot, and it is brought in tractate Hagiga 9a:

“And you shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord for seven days.”

One might have thought that he may continue celebrating throughout all seven days; therefore, the verse states: “It.”

You celebrate it, but you do not celebrate throughout all seven days.

If so, why is “seven” stated? It is for making up the offering.

What does “making up” mean [how are they days of making up, Rashi]?

Rabbi Yohanan said: They are days of making up for the first [since Scripture made one day primary among all of them, as it is written “it,” and made the days after it days of making up for it. Rashi].

And Rabbi Oshaya said: They are days of making up one for another. [There is no day among them on which the obligation is not independently dependent for one who was not fit to bring a festival offering on the preceding days; for him, the first day on which he becomes fit to bring it is primary, and the days after it are days of making up for it].

What is the practical difference between them? Rabbi Zeira said: The difference is in a case where one was lame on the first day and recovered on the second.

Rabbi Yohanan said that they are days of making up for the first: Since he was not fit on the first day [to bring a festival offering, because he was not fit to appear], he is not fit on the second.

And Rabbi Oshaya said that they are days of making up one for another: Although he was not fit on the first day, he is fit on the second.

Ulla holds: All

seven days during which one may make up the offering of the festival offering

are days of making up for the first,

and they are not days of making up one for another.

And if so, whoever

was fit on the first day

[was fit to bring his festival offering on the first day on which he became obligated], is

fit on all of them

the seven days [he is fit to complete the festival offering during the seven days]. But

wherever he was not fit on the first day,

for example, if he was impure, he is

not fit on all of them,

and he has no days of making up.

It follows that if we render him impure through contact with the dead, he will no longer have days of making up. Therefore, we render him impure through contact with a creeping creature, so that he can bring his festival offering on the following day; whereas as for his Pesaḥ, he can make it up on the Second Pesaḥ.

Rav Nahman said to them

to those who had reported Ulla’s statement to him, that one of them is sent to a distant road:

Go and tell Ulla

“Who will listen, uproot his tent pegs and his dwelling, and run”

[who will listen to us and uproot his tent and its pegs from here and run to a distant road]? Therefore, Rav’s advice—to render one of the pure impure through contact with a creeping creature—is preferable.

[who will listen to us to uproot his tent and its stakes from here, and run to a distant road]? Therefore Rav’s counsel is preferable: to render one of the pure impure through a creeping creature.

It was stated:

The impurity of a zav is not overridden even in the case of a community [and even if the impurity had already been overridden on account of those impure through contact with the dead, who constituted the majority of Israel, nevertheless, the zavim do not perform it in impurity].

Therefore:

If the zavim constituted a minority of Israel, they are deferred to the Second Pesaḥ.

If the zavim constituted a majority of Israel, they perform neither the First Pesaḥ nor the Second Pesaḥ.

For they do not perform the First Pesaḥ, because they are zavim, and their impurity was not permitted in the case of a community.

And they do not perform the Second Pesaḥ either, because they are a community, and a community is not deferred to the Second Pesaḥ.

If the majority

of Israel

were zavim, and the minority were impure through contact with the dead:

Rav said: Those impure through contact with the dead do not perform

the Pesaḥ

neither on the First nor on the Second [Pesaḥ],

as will be explained.

as he proceeds to explain.

On the First Pesaḥ they do not perform it,

because

they were

those impure through contact with the dead

a minority

of Israel—the zavim do not join them, because they are not permitted to perform it in impurity even in the case of a community—and

a minority

does not perform the Pesaḥ

on the First [Pesaḥ].

They do not perform it on the Second Pesaḥ either,

because

wherever a community performs

the Pesaḥ

on the First [Pesaḥ], it is

that

an individual performs the Second [Pesaḥ].

But

wherever a community does not perform the First Pesaḥ, an individual does not perform the Second Pesaḥ.

wherever a community does not perform on the First, an individual does not perform on the Second.

Shmuel said to them

who had reported Rav’s statement to him:

Go and tell Abba

[go and say to Abba]—that is, Rav, since that was his name:

According to your statement,

“And the Children of Israel shall perform the Pesaḥ at its appointed time,”

what will you do with it?

That is to say: Is it possible that all the “Children of Israel” would be prevented from performing the Pesaḥ at its appointed time?!

Rather, it is certainly the case that impure people are not prevented from performing the Pesaḥ on the First Pesaḥ, unless the majority of the Children of Israel are performing the Pesaḥ on the First Pesaḥ. Since there is no majority of Israel performing it on the First Pesaḥ, those impure through contact with the dead shall perform it in impurity. [This has been explained according to Tosafot on page 80b, s.v. BaRishon, and according to the statement of the Maharshal there; see the Maharsha there.]

And when they came and told Rav the words of Shmuel, he returned and

said to them

Rav:

Go and tell him

to Shmuel:

But

when all

Israel

were zavim—for you too admit that they do not offer it on the first [Pesach]—and

what have you done with

the verse that you cited? You have thereby nullified all the Children of Israel from offering the Pesach at its appointed time?!

Rather—

you too admit—

since it is impossible

to fulfill the verse,

it is impossible; here too

behold,

it is impossible, and all Israel would be prevented from offering the Pesach on the first [Pesach].

It was stated:

The majority

of Israel were

impure through contact with the dead

and offered the Pesach in a state of impurity, while

the minority were zavim

and did not offer the first Pesach, even though the Pesach came while the community was in a state of impurity due to corpse impurity:

Rav Huna said:

The zavim do not offer the second Pesach, because

there is no compensatory offering

for the second Pesach

for

the first Pesach of the majority of the community

brought in impurity—and the Gemara proceeds to explain this.

of the community, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

The zavim do offer the second Pesach, because

there is a compensatory offering for a Pesach brought in impurity,

as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

Let us say that they disagree over this:

Everyone agrees that, since it is written in the passage concerning the second Paschal offering: “If any person will be impure through contact with the dead, and he shall make a Pesach to the Lord; in the second month,” which indicates that only that individual was impure, whereas the rest of the community was pure, we may infer: It is the “purity” of the rest of the community that “defers” the individual to the second Pesach, but impurity does not defer the individual to the second Pesach. Rather, this is the point over which Rav Huna and Rav Adda bar Ahava disagree:

The one who says—

Rav Huna—

that there is no compensatory offering for a Pesach brought in impurity holds that impurity is merely deferred in the community, and since the Torah “deferred” their impurity only with difficulty, they are still considered impure; and impurity is not deferred.

and since it was only with difficulty that the Torah “pushed aside” the impurity for them, they are still considered impure, and behold, impurity is not pushed aside.

And the one who says—

Rav Adda bar Ahava—that

there is

a compensatory offering for a Pesach brought in impurity holds that impurity is permitted in the community, and since that is so, they are considered like pure people; and purity is indeed deferred. [This was explained according to Tosafot; see the commentary of Rabbeinu Hananel].

and since this is so, they are considered like pure people, and purity is indeed pushed aside. [This was explained according to Tosafot; see the commentary of Rabbenu Hananel.]

The members of the academy said

to reject this:

No,

not as you said, that everyone agrees that impurity is not deferred, and therefore you had to say that according to Rav Adda bar Ahava impurity is permitted in the community. Rather,

everyone agrees that impurity is deferred

in

the community, and they are considered impure; rather,

they disagree

in this—

in the very law that “impurity is not deferred”—

they disagree.

—

One—

Rav Huna—

holds: