Pesachim 80b (פ:) — the Talmud in English

The ritual impurity

of the rest of the public is

set aside

for the individual to observe the second Pesaḥ, but

the impurity

of the rest of the public

is not set aside

for the individual to observe the second Pesaḥ. And since impurity is merely deferred in the case of the public, they are considered impure, and the individual does not observe the second Pesaḥ.

And [the Gemara] says —

Rav Adda bar Ahava —

held: Even the impurity

of the rest of the public

is also set aside

for the individual to observe the second Pesaḥ.

It was stated:

If one third of them

of the Israelites

were zavin; one third were ritually pure; and one third were impure with corpse impurity:

Rabbi Mani bar Patis said:

Those impure with corpse impurity do not observe either the

first Pesaḥ

or the

second Pesaḥ

either,

as he proceeds to explain.

They do not observe the first Pesaḥ

those impure with corpse impurity, because

the zavin became more numerous [

they were added to them]

than the ritually pure, for

this

they do not observe

the zavin

in a state of impurity ,

and if so,

those impure with

the

corpse —

equal in number to the zavin and the ritually pure together —

are a minority

whom you are coming to permit to observe it in a state of impurity,

and a minority

is

not permitted to observe it

in a state of impurity

on the first.

And

they do not observe the second Pesaḥ either

those impure with corpse impurity, because, with regard to being deferred to the second Pesaḥ,

the zavin were joined [

were combined]

with those impure with

the

corpse, for

this

they do not observe

the zavin

in a state of impurity (137)

and

they have become a majority

of Israel whom you are coming to defer to observe the second Pesaḥ,

and

yet

a majority is not deferred to the second Pesaḥ, [see note ].

see the note ].

Mishna:

The Pesaḥ

of an individual

whose blood was sprinkled, and afterward it became known

that it

was the blood [see note ]

impure,

then

the tzitz effects acceptance

for it, and the Pesaḥ is valid. And he is exempt from the second Pesaḥ [Rashi].

But if

the body

of the owner became impure [Rashi],

the tzitz does not effect acceptance.

Because they said:

a. A nazirite must shave his head on the day after the completion of his nazirite term, and brings his offerings on that day [and this is called: purification shaving].

b. A nazirite who became impure through contact with a corpse “during” his nazirite term thereby invalidates all the days during which he observed naziriteship, observes seven days of impurity naziriteship, shaves his head, and brings impurity offerings [and this is called: impurity shaving], and then again counts a number of days of naziriteship equal to the number of days for which he had vowed naziriteship.

The nazirite

who is pure, when he brings his offerings after completing his nazirite term,

and observes the Pesaḥ

as an individual —

the tzitz effects acceptance for impurity of the blood

of the nazirite’s offerings and of the offerings of the one observing the Pesaḥ.

But the tzitz does not effect acceptance for impurity of the body.

That is to say: A nazirite who became impure “during” his nazirite term thereby invalidates his naziriteship, and the tzitz does not effect acceptance for the impurity of the body, which was impure when he brought his offerings “after” completing his nazirite term.

Similarly, one who observes the Pesaḥ and was impure at the time the Pesaḥ was sprinkled upon him is not exempt from observing the second Pesaḥ.

But with regard to other offerings, impurity of the owner’s body does not disqualify them from sending their offerings; therefore, he specifically mentioned a nazirite and one who observes the Pesaḥ [Rashi, Zevaḥim 23a].

But if

the body

of the nazirite and of the one observing the Pesaḥ became impure through

impurity of the depths [

impurity whose existence was known to no one, as will be explained], then

the tzitz effects acceptance,

and this is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai. That is: A nazirite who became impure during his nazirite term through impurity whose existence at the time it occurred was known to no one, and he did not learn that he had become impure through it until after his offerings had been slaughtered on his behalf [and even if he learned of it before the blood was sprinkled, as the Gemara ultimately concludes], this impurity does not invalidate his nazirite term, and he brings his offerings at their proper time. [The other details of impurity of the depths will be explained in the Gemara.]

Similarly, one who observes the Pesaḥ and became impure through impurity whose existence was known to no one at the time he became impure, and after the slaughter but before the sprinkling he learned that he had become impure through it, has the blood sprinkled on his behalf and is exempt from observing the second Pesaḥ, because the tzitz effects acceptance even for impurity of the body in the case of impurity of the depths, by a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The Pesaḥ whose blood was sprinkled and afterward it became known that it was impure, the tzitz effects acceptance:

And we infer:

The reason is that the blood was sprinkled

and afterward

it became known

that it was impure; in that case the tzitz effects acceptance.

But if it became known

that it was impure

and afterward the blood was sprinkled,

since it was sprinkled improperly, for the tzitz does not effect acceptance so as to permit sprinkling it ab initio [see note whether this is by Torah law or rabbinic law], even after the fact

it does not effect acceptance.

And we raise a contradiction: For what does the tzitz effect acceptance? For the blood

that became impure,

and for the flesh and the fat that became impure,

so that the sprinkling of the blood will be effective even according to Rabbi Yehoshua, who holds: If there is neither flesh nor fat, there is no blood [Rashi above, 16b].

Whether

he sprinkled it

unintentionally [

this was the initial understanding],

or whether

he sprinkled it

intentionally.

Whether under duress or willingly.

Whether by an individual or by the public.

We have learned, then, that the tzitz effects acceptance even if he transgressed and sprinkled the blood after learning that it had become impure, contrary to what is implied by our Mishna?!

Ravina said

in answer:

“Its impurity: Whether unintentionally or intentionally, it is accepted”,

that is, when the baraita said, “whether unintentionally or intentionally,” it was not referring to the sprinkling, but to the body of the impurity, teaching that the tzitz effects acceptance even if the impurity occurred intentionally.

But

its sprinkling: Unintentionally

is when it

is accepted,

but if he sprinkled it

intentionally

after learning that it had become impure,

it is not accepted,

as we inferred from our Mishna.

Rabbi Sheila said:

The law is not as Ravina states, but rather:

Its sprinkling

of the blood that became impure:

Whether unintentionally or intentionally, it is accepted.

But

its impurity

of the blood:

If it was unintentional, it is accepted; if intentional, it is not accepted.

And

as for that which it teaches

in the baraita: For what does the tzitz effect acceptance, etc.,

whether unintentionally or intentionally,

this does not mean that the tzitz effects acceptance even when the blood became impure intentionally. Rather:

This is what it is saying: The blood became impure

unintentionally,

and he sprinkled it whether unintentionally or intentionally;

in that case

it is accepted.

And as for that which it teaches

in our Mishna:

Blood that was sprinkled

“and afterward”

it became known,

and it implies:

The reason is that it was sprinkled and afterward it became known

that it is accepted,

but if it became known and afterward it was sprinkled, it is not

accepted; yet the sprinkling is accepted whether unintentionally or intentionally?!

The same law applies even when it became known and afterward it was sprinkled; and the reason it teaches: It was sprinkled

“and afterward”

it became known

is not to infer that if it became known and afterward it was sprinkled, it is not accepted. Rather,

because it needed to teach in the latter clause: If the body became impure, the tzitz does not effect acceptance, for

in the case of impurity of the body,

even if it was sprinkled and afterward it became known, it is not

accepted, therefore

it teaches

in

the first clause as well: It was sprinkled

“and afterward”

it became known.

We learned in the Mishna:

“He became impure with corpse impurity of the depths”

the tzitz effects acceptance:

Rami bar Ḥama raised a dilemma: In the case of a kohen who effects acceptance through the offerings of a nazirite and one performing the Paschal offering,

is

it permitted for him

corpse impurity when he became impure through

impurity of the depths,

just as it is permitted for them when the nazirite or the one performing the Paschal offering themselves became impure through impurity of the depths,

or not?

And we explain:

Do we say: When they learned

from the halakha given to Moses at Sinai that impurity of the depths is permitted,

they learned it with regard to the owners

but

they did not learn it with regard to the kohen?

Or perhaps: They learned it with regard to the offering

and this is how the halakha was stated: The tzitz effects acceptance for a nazirite and for a Paschal offering with regard to impurity of the depths, and if so:

Is there no difference whether it is the kohen or the owners?

Rava said: Come and hear: As Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: They spoke of impurity of the depths only with regard to

corpse

impurity alone,

but other forms of bodily impurity, even when they are impurity of the depths, were not permitted.

But:

a. Impurity of

“corpse”

to exclude what? [

What forms of impurity does the beraita come to exclude?] Surely

is it not to exclude impurity of the depths caused by a creeping creature?!

b.

And with regard to what case are we dealing,

whose impurity are we coming to exclude, that of the owners or that of the kohen?

If you say it is with regard to the owners,

who became impure with impurity of the depths caused by a creeping creature, and we are coming to exclude them from the permission of impurity of the depths?

b.

And with regard to whom [

and with regard to which person], a nazirite who became impure or one performing the Paschal offering who became impure?

If it is with regard to a nazirite

who became impure through contact with a creeping creature, and with regard to the negation of his naziriteship—surely it cannot be explained in this manner: Is it so that known impurity caused by a creeping creature

is effective for him

in negating his count and requiring him to bring his offerings [Rashi], that you would need to exclude the case in which impurity of the depths is not permitted for him?!

But

“when a person dies upon him”

is what

the Merciful One stated

as negating his count, but not impurity caused by a creeping creature.

Rather,

it is necessarily the case, according to the interpretation that we are dealing with the owners, that

one performing the Paschal offering

who became impure is the one for whom we exclude impurity of the depths caused by a creeping creature, so that his offering will not effect acceptance.

But this interpretation, too, cannot be correct:

For:

This works well according to the one who says: One may not slaughter and sprinkle

the Paschal offering

for

owners who are

impure through contact with a creeping creature,

even though it is possible for them to immerse and become pure by evening.

If so, it can indeed be interpreted that the beraita comes to exclude the case in which even impurity of the depths is not permitted for him.

But according to the one who says: One may slaughter and sprinkle for one impure through contact with a creeping creature,

since he can immerse and become pure by evening, how can one say that the beraita excludes impurity of the depths in his case? For there is a kal va-chomer:

Now that known impurity

caused by a creeping creature

is permitted for him, impurity of the depths

caused by a creeping creature

should certainly be permitted for him!

Rather, is it not with regard to the kohen—

whose service is invalid when he is impure with known impurity caused by a creeping creature—that we exclude him from performing the service even when he became impure with impurity of the depths caused by a creeping creature?

And

consequently

infer from it: Impurity of

the depths

caused by a corpse is permitted for him, and therefore it was necessary to exclude impurity of the depths caused by a creeping creature in his case; Rami bar Ḥama’s dilemma is thus resolved.

A zav who experienced one emission: This emission is no more than an ordinary seminal emission, and he is impure until evening.

If he experienced two emissions, he must count seven clean days free of gonorrhea in order to become pure; he immerses “during” the seventh day, and he remains a tevul yom until he becomes pure at sunset.

A zav during the seven days, until he immerses, renders his bedding and seat impure, and they become a primary source of impurity, rendering a person impure.

If he experienced a gonorrheal emission during those seven days, he thereby negates his count and must have seven other clean days:

If the zav experienced a gonorrheal emission on the seventh day, even after part of the day had passed and even after he had immersed, we establish the halakha in accordance with the Rabbis, that he thereby negates his count by Torah law and must count another seven days; and since he negated his count, he retains his severe impurity, rendering bedding and seat impure retroactively from the time of his immersion. [And in the sugya before us it will be explained that there are tannaim who dispute this].

A zav during the seven days cannot bring the Paschal offering; but on the seventh day, since he can immerse and will become completely pure once the sun sets, his status depends on the dispute whether “one slaughters and sprinkles for a person impure through contact with a creeping creature”; after he immerses, everyone agrees that one slaughters and sprinkles for him, as for any tevul yom.

If the zav experienced three emissions, he counts seven clean days and must bring his atonement offerings on the eighth day; therefore, he cannot bring the Paschal offering on his seventh day, since he is one lacking atonement and is forbidden to eat consecrated offerings, and he cannot eat his Paschal offering in the evening.

He said,

rejecting this,

Rav Yosef: No,

it is not as you said, that the beraita comes to exclude impurity of the depths caused by a creeping creature, which can be excluded only with regard to kohanim.

Rather,

it is always with regard to the owners

that we come to exclude impurity of the depths caused by other forms of impurity.

And with regard to

one

performing the Paschal offering,

for whom even other forms of impurity disqualify him from sending his offerings.

But we do not exclude impurity of the depths caused by a creeping creature, since he can become pure by evening; rather,

we exclude impurity of the depths caused by gonorrhea.

That is to say: A zav who has experienced two emissions on his seventh day —

if he does not experience an emission today and thereby negate his count, it is possible to slaughter and sprinkle for him as for one impure through contact with a creeping creature, since he will become pure by evening—if they slaughtered and sprinkled the Paschal offering for him, and afterward he experienced an emission and retroactively negated his count, it turns out that he was not fit to bring the Paschal offering.

This retroactive impurity is “impurity of the depths,” since this impurity was not known to anyone, for who knew that he would negate his count?

The beraita comes to exclude the case in which, although his impurity was not known and is therefore impurity of the depths, nevertheless the tzitz does not effect acceptance, since it is not corpse impurity.

We raise an objection to this:

And

is it so that

impurity of the depths caused by gonorrhea does not effect acceptance?!

But it was taught:

According to the view that we establish in accordance with the Rabbis, and in some matters tannaim dispute one another in our sugya:

A woman who experienced a discharge of blood is a nidda; she is impure for seven days, and immerses after them and becomes pure.

After seven days from the beginning of her sighting, she enters the eleven days of gonorrhea; this is her status during those days:

If she experienced a discharge during those days, specifically three emissions on three consecutive days, she is a zava gedola; she counts seven clean days like a zav, and on the eighth day she brings her offerings.

If she experienced a discharge for one day, she is a zava ketana and must be a “woman who observes one day for one day”; that is, she must count only one clean day, and she immerses on the day of observation and becomes pure at sunset:

Both a zava ketana and a zava gedola, before they have immersed, render bedding and seat impure like a zav.

A woman who observes one day for one day, who experienced a discharge of blood after part of her day of observation had passed, and even after she had immersed, since the entire day of observation was not clean, must observe another day on account of her earlier discharge [like a zav and zava who experienced an emission in the middle of their count or on the seventh day]; therefore, she remains impure and renders bedding and seat impure retroactively from the time of her immersion.