Pesachim 80b — the Talmud in English

Purity

of the rest of the public is

set aside

for the individual to [make] the Second Passover, but

impurity

of the rest of the public

is not set aside

for the individual to [make] the Second Passover. And since the impurity is merely deferred in the case of the public, they are impure, and the individual does not make the Second Passover.

And he says —

Rav Adda bar Ahava —

he holds: Even impurity

of the rest of the public

is also set aside

for the individual to [make] the Second Passover.

It was stated:

If one-third of them

of Israel

were zavim; one-third of them were pure; and one-third of them were impure through contact with the dead:

Rabbi Mani bar Pati said:

Those impure through contact with the dead do not make either the

first Passover

or the

second Passover

either,

as he explains and proceeds.

They do not make the first

the impure through contact with the dead, because

the zavim increased [

they were joined by the zavim ]

over the pure, for

this

they do not make

the zavim

in impurity ,

and if so,

the impure

through

contact with the dead would be —

against the zavim and the pure together —

a minority

that you are coming to permit them to make [the Passover] in impurity,

and a minority

therefore

they do not make

in impurity

the first.

And

on the second they do not make it

the impure through contact with the dead, because, with regard to being deferred to the Second Passover,

the zavim were joined [

were joined ]

with those impure through

contact with

the dead, for

this

they do not make

the zavim

in impurity (137)

and

they are a majority

of Israel whom you are coming to defer to make the Second Passover,

and

therefore

a majority is not deferred to the Second Passover, [

see the note ].

Mishna:

The Passover

of an individual

whose blood was sprinkled, and afterward it became known

that it

was the blood [see the note ]

impure,

then

the tzitz effects acceptance

for it, and the Passover offering is valid. And he is exempt from the Second Passover [Rashi].

But if

the body

of the owners 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 the days of his naziriteship, and he brings his offerings then [and it is called: purification shaving].

b. A nazirite who became impure through a corpse “within” the days of his naziriteship thereby invalidates all the days during which he practiced naziriteship, observes seven days of impurity-naziriteship, shaves his head, and brings impurity offerings [and it is called: impurity shaving], and then again counts days of naziriteship equal in number to the days for which he had taken the nazirite vow.

The nazirite

who is pure, when he brings his offerings after the completion of the days of his naziriteship,

and makes the Passover offering

as an individual —

the tzitz effects acceptance for the impurity of the blood

of the nazirite’s offerings and of the one making the Passover offering.

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

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

Likewise, one who makes the Passover offering while he was impure at the time of the sprinkling of the Passover offering is not exempt from making the Second Passover.

But with other offerings, impurity of the owners’ bodies does not disqualify them from sending their offerings; therefore it specifically mentions: a nazirite and one who makes the Passover offering [Rashi, Zevaḥim 23a].

But if

the body

of the nazirite and of the one making the Passover offering became impure through

impurity of the depths [

impurity whose existence was known to no person, 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 within the days of his naziriteship through an impurity whose existence at the time of the impurity was known to no person, 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 is concluded in the Gemara], this impurity does not invalidate his naziriteship, and he brings his offerings at their proper time. [The other details of impurity of the depths will be explained in the Gemara].

Likewise, one who makes the Passover offering and became impure through an impurity whose existence was known to no person at the time he became impure, and after slaughtering and before sprinkling he learned that he had become impure through it, they sprinkle the blood on his behalf, and he is exempt from making the Second Passover, 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 Passover offering whose blood was sprinkled and afterward it became known that it was impure, the tzitz effects acceptance:

And we infer:

The reason is that it was sprinkled

the blood

and afterward it became known

that it was impure; only then does the tzitz effect acceptance.

But if it became known

that it was impure

and afterward it was sprinkled,

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

it does not effect acceptance.

And he raises a contradiction: For what does the tzitz effect acceptance? For the blood

that became impure,

and for the meat and the fat that became impure,

so that the sprinkling of the blood is effective even according to Rabbi Yehoshua, who holds: If there is no meat and fat, there is no blood [Rashi above, 16b].

Whether

they sprinkled it

unintentionally [

this is what we initially understand ],

whether

they sprinkled it

intentionally.

Whether under compulsion or willingly.

Whether for an individual or for the public.

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

Ravina said

in response:

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

that is, when the beraita said “whether unintentionally or intentionally,” it does not refer 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

is when it

it is accepted,

but if he sprinkled it

intentionally,

after learning that it had become impure, then

it is not accepted, as we inferred from our Mishna.

as we inferred from our Mishna.

Rabbi Shila said:

The law is not as Ravina said, but rather:

Its sprinkling,

of the blood that became impure:

whether unintentionally or intentionally, it is accepted.

But

its impurity,

of the blood:

if unintentionally, it is accepted; if intentionally, it is not accepted.

And

but as for that which it teaches

in the beraita: “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, but rather:

This is what it says: It became impure

the blood

unintentionally, and they sprinkled it whether unintentionally or intentionally,

then

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 its sprinkling, whether unintentionally or intentionally, is accepted?!

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

“and afterward”

it became known,

is not in order to infer that if it became known and afterward it was sprinkled, it is not [accepted], but rather

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

with 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 also: it was sprinkled

“and afterward”

it became known.

We learned in the Mishna:

“He became impure with tum'at ha-tehom”

the tzitz effects acceptance:

Rami bar Hama asked: The koen who effects acceptance through their offerings

of the nazirite and the one who performs the Passover offering, does

thereby have permitted to him

bodily impurity when he became impure with

“tum'at ha-tehom”,

just as it was permitted to them when the nazirite and the one who performs the Passover offering themselves became impure with tum'at ha-tehom,

or not? And we explain:

And we explain:

Do we say: When they learned

from the halakha given to Moses at Sinai the permission regarding tum'at ha-tehom,

it was with regard to the owners

that they learned it, but

with regard to the koen they did not learn it.

Or perhaps: They learned it with regard to the offering, thus the halakha was stated: With regard to the nazirite and the Passover offering, the tzitz effects acceptance for them concerning tum'at ha-tehom, and if so:

that is how the halakha was stated: The forehead plate effects acceptance for a nazirite offering and a Paschal offering despite an impurity of the depths, and if so,

is there no difference whether it is with regard to the koen or whether it is with regard to the owners?

Rava said: Ta shma: For Rabbi Hiyya taught: They spoke of tum'at ha-tehom only with regard to

impurity of

a corpse alone, but other bodily impurities, even those of tum'at ha-tehom, were not permitted.

And behold:

a. Impurity of

a. The word

“a corpse”

to exclude what

[which impurities does the beraita come to exclude]? Is it not

to exclude tum'at ha-tehom of a creeping creature?!

b.

And with what are we dealing,

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

If you say: With regard to the owners,

who became impure with tum'at ha-tehom of a creeping creature, and we are coming to exclude them from the permission of tum'at ha-tehom?

b.

And with regard to whom

[and with regard to whom], the nazirite who became impure or the one who performs the Passover offering who became impure?

If it is with regard to the nazirite,

who became impure through a creeping creature, and with regard to the interruption of the nazirite status? It is impossible to explain it in this manner: For is it so that a known impurity of a creeping creature

is effective for him

to interrupt his counting and the bringing of his offerings [Rashi], that you need to exclude that tum'at ha-tehom was not permitted with regard to him?!

And behold,

“when a dead person dies upon him”

is what

the Merciful One said

would interrupt his counting, and not the impurity of a creeping creature.

Rather,

of necessity, according to what we are coming to explain, that we are dealing with the owners—it is

with the one who performs the Passover offering

who became impure that we exclude tum'at ha-tehom of a creeping creature, so that his offering will not be accepted.

And behold, this too is impossible to explain:

For:

This works according to the one who says: They do not slaughter and sprinkle

the Passover offering

for

owners

impure through a creeping creature,

even though it is fit for him to immerse and become pure by evening.

If so, it can indeed be explained that the beraita comes to exclude that even tum'at ha-tehom was not permitted with regard to him.

But according to the one who says: They slaughter and sprinkle for one impure through a creeping creature,

since he is able to immerse and become pure by evening, how can one say that the beraita excludes tum'at ha-tehom with regard to him? Behold, it is a kal va-chomer:

Now, known impurity

of a creeping creature

was permitted to him; tum'at ha-tehom

of a creeping creature

is it not all the more so?!

Rather, is it not with regard to the koen—

whose service is invalid when he is impure with known impurity of a creeping creature—that we exclude him from serving, even when he became impure with tum'at ha-tehom of a creeping creature?

And

consequently

infer from this: The impurity of

the tehom

of a corpse was permitted to him, and therefore we needed to exclude from it tum'at ha-tehom of a creeping creature; and Rami bar Hama’s question is resolved.

A zav who saw one sighting: this sighting is only like an ordinary seminal emission, and he is impure with impurity lasting until evening.

If he saw two sightings, he must count seven clean days from flux for his purification; and he immerses “by day” on the seventh day, and he is a tevul yom until he becomes pure at sunset.

The zav during the seven days, until he immerses, renders his lying-place and sitting-place impure, and they become a primary source of impurity, to render a person impure.

If he saw flux during those seven days, he thereby interrupts his counting, and he requires seven other clean days:

If he saw flux on the seventh day, even after part of the day had passed and even after he had immersed, we hold in accordance with the Rabbis that he thereby interrupts his counting by Torah law, and he must count seven other days; and since he interrupted his counting, he remains in his severe impurity, to render his lying-place and sitting-place 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 within the seven days cannot bring the Passover offering; and on the seventh day, since he can immerse and, when the sun sets, become completely pure, his law depends upon the dispute whether “they slaughter and sprinkle for one impure through a creeping creature”; but after he immerses, they slaughter and sprinkle for him, according to everyone, like any other tevul yom.

If the zav saw three sightings, he counts seven clean days and must bring his atonement offering on the eighth day; and therefore he cannot bring the Passover offering on his seventh day, for he is one lacking atonement and is forbidden to eat sacred things, and he cannot eat his Passover offering in the evening.

He said,

rejecting this,

Rav Yosef: No,

not as you said, that the beraita comes to exclude tum'at ha-tehom of a creeping creature, which can be excluded only with regard to kohanim.

Rather,

actually, it is with regard to the owners

that we come to exclude tum'at ha-tehom of other impurities.

And with

the one who performs the

Passover offering,

for even other impurities disqualify him from sending his offerings.

But we do not exclude tum'at ha-tehom of a creeping creature, since he can become pure by evening; rather,

to exclude tum'at ha-tehom of flux.

That is to say: A zav with two sightings on his seventh day —

for if he does not see today and interrupt his counting, it is possible to slaughter and sprinkle for him as for one impure through a creeping creature, since he will become pure by evening—they slaughtered and sprinkled the Passover offering for him, and afterward he saw and retroactively interrupted his counting, and it was found that he was not fit to bring a Passover offering.

And this retroactive impurity is “tum'at ha-tehom,” since this impurity was not known to any person, for who knew that he would interrupt his counting?

And the beraita comes to exclude that even though his impurity was not known, and it is tum'at ha-tehom, nevertheless the tzitz does not effect acceptance, since it is not impurity of a corpse.

And we raise an objection against it:

And

is it so that

the tzitz does not effect acceptance for tum'at ha-tehom of flux?!

But it was taught:

According to the fact that we hold in accordance with the Rabbis, and in some matters tannaim disputed in our sugya:

A woman who saw blood is a “nida,” and is impure for seven days, and immerses after them and becomes pure.

After seven days from the beginning of her seeing, she stands within the eleven days of flux; and this is her law during those days:

If she saw during those days only three sightings on three consecutive days, one after the other, she is a “zava gedola”; and she counts seven clean days like a zav; and on the eighth day she brings her offerings.

If she saw on one day, she is a “zava ketana,” and she must be a “guardian of one day corresponding to one day”; that is to say, she must count only one clean day; and she immerses on the day of guarding and becomes pure at sunset:

Whether a zava ketana or a zava gedola, before they immersed they render a lying-place and sitting-place impure like a zav.

A guardian of one day corresponding to one day who saw blood after part of her day of guarding had passed, and even after she had immersed, since the entire day of guarding was not clean, she must guard another day on account of her previous sighting [like a zav and a zava who saw in the middle of their counting or on the seventh day], and therefore she remains in her impurity, to render a lying-place and sitting-place impure retroactively from the time of her immersion.