Pesachim 81a (פא.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yosei says: In the case of a woman who observes one day in purity corresponding to one day of impurity, for whom they slaughtered and sprinkled the blood of the Paschal offering

the Paschal offering

on her second day,

the day of observance following the day on which she saw blood,

and afterward she saw

blood.

This woman

does not eat

the Paschal offering that evening, for she is still impure and must observe one additional day on the following day.

And

indeed, she is

exempt

from

making the Second Pesaḥ,

even though it has become clear retroactively that, at the time the Paschal offering was brought, she was still a zavah and unfit to bring the Paschal offering, since the second day had not remained clean until evening.

And

what is the reason

that she need not make the Second Pesaḥ?

Is it not because the forehead-plate effects acceptance,

since this is an unknown impurity, as it was not known that she would see blood and invalidate her count?

We have therefore learned that the forehead-plate effects acceptance even for the unknown impurity of a zavah.

The students of the academy say

to reject this:

No,

not as you said, that the reason is that it is an unknown impurity.

Rather,

because Rabbi Yosei holds:

In the case of a woman who observes one day in purity corresponding to one day of impurity, after she has counted part of the day in purity, we say: “Part of the day is equivalent to the entire day,” and her count has already been completed; therefore, seeing blood even on that same day does not invalidate the count that she was required to make on account of her earlier sighting.

Accordingly:

a. If she saw blood after immersing, we do not say that retroactively she is impure with the impurity of a zavah. Rather, since she has already immersed, she has become pure from her flow, and only

from that point onward,

from the time she saw blood on the second day,

does she become impure

with the impurity of a zavah; from the time she immersed until she saw blood, she has only the status of one who immersed that day and awaits sunset.

b. If, after part of the day had passed in purity, they slaughtered and sprinkled the blood of the Paschal offering on her, even before she immersed—as in the case of one impure due to a creeping creature, since he is fit to immerse and become pure at sunset, the offering may be slaughtered and its blood sprinkled on his behalf, according to the Gemara’s present understanding: “The offering may be slaughtered and its blood sprinkled on behalf of one impure due to a creeping creature”—and afterward she again saw blood, since according to Rabbi Yosei this does not invalidate her count, and it is not revealed retroactively that at the time the blood was sprinkled she needed to observe another day, the offering brought on her behalf before she saw blood is valid. For she was fit to immerse and become pure at sunset, and the offering may be slaughtered and its blood sprinkled on behalf of one impure due to a creeping creature.

And likewise, in the case of a zav or a major zavah who saw blood on the seventh day after part of the day had passed, Rabbi Yosei holds that they do not invalidate their count; from that point onward they become impure, as will be explained later in the sugya.

And this is what Rabbi Yosei said: She is exempt from making the Second Pesaḥ, not because the forehead-plate effects acceptance for the unknown impurity of a zavah.

We challenge our rejection:

But it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says:

A zav who had seen twice, for whom they slaughtered and sprinkled the blood

of the Paschal offering

on

his

seventh day, and afterward he saw blood.

And likewise, in the case of a woman who observes one day in purity corresponding to one day of impurity, for whom they slaughtered and sprinkled the blood

of the Paschal offering

on her second day, and afterward she saw blood.

These

two

render bedding and seating impure retroactively

from the time of their immersion until the time they saw blood, since they invalidated their count; and they render their bedding and seating impure like those of a zav and a zavah.

And they are exempt from making the Second Pesaḥ.

We have explicitly learned that the woman who observes one day in purity corresponding to one day of impurity invalidates her count, and nevertheless she is exempt from making the Second Pesaḥ. Necessarily, this is only because the forehead-plate effects acceptance for the unknown impurity of a zavah [Rashi; see the note]?!

The students of the academy say

to resolve this: Rabbi Yosei actually holds that by Torah law, a zav and a woman who observes one day in purity corresponding to one day of impurity who saw blood after part of the day had passed do not invalidate their count; therefore, they are exempt from making the Second Pesaḥ.

What, then, is the meaning of the statement

“These render bedding and seating impure

retroactively”

that Rabbi Yosei stated? Since they did not invalidate their count, they should have rendered bedding and seating impure only from the time they saw blood, and not retroactively from the time of their immersion.

This law is not from the Torah, but

rabbinic,

as the Sages said that they invalidate their count retroactively; and by rabbinic law they render bedding and seating impure retroactively from the time of their immersion.

And since at the time the blood was sprinkled she was unfit for the Paschal offering only by rabbinic law, she is exempt from making the Second Pesaḥ.

Rabbi Oshaya, too, holds:

According to Rabbi Yosei, the zav does not

render retroactively impure

except

by rabbinic law.

As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Oshaya says: But a zav who saw blood on his seventh day,

he

invalidates

the days

preceding it,

and resumes counting seven clean days.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him:

Why should he invalidate all seven days?!

He should invalidate only the day

on which he saw blood! And he should add only one day of purity.

The Gemara explains later that when we say that Rabbi Oshaya holds that he renders retroactively impure, this is by rabbinic law. Initially, however, we challenge Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement:

But

in either case:

If Rabbi Yoḥanan holds

that

he renders impure retroactively,

meaning that part of the day does not count toward his counting of seven clean days and he is missing one clean day—and this is why Rabbi Yoḥanan said that he should invalidate that day—

if so, why should he invalidate only that day?

Let all

seven days

be invalidated?!

Since the seven days have not been completed, he cannot make up this day on another day; rather, he must count all of them as one unit. This is because it is written: “And he shall count for himself seven days for his purification,” which teaches that there must be one purification for all of them, with no impurity interrupting between them. [For this reason, anyone who sees zavah discharge during the seven days does not complete one clean day in its place; rather, he invalidates his count and counts seven new days.]

And

if Rabbi Yoḥanan holds:

that

he renders impure from that point onward, because the seven clean days have already been completed once part of the day has passed, as part of the day is equivalent to the entire day—

if so:

even

his day [

the seventh day on which he saw blood ]

should not be invalidated,

but he should have only the impurity lasting until evening, like the first sighting of a zav.

Rather,

on the basis of this challenge,

say:

This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

Since he renders impure from that point onward,

he should invalidate neither the count nor that day,

meaning that he should not even invalidate that day, but should have only the impurity lasting until evening.

And Rabbi Oshaya said to him,

to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who had challenged him, “He should invalidate neither the count nor that day”:

Rabbi Yosei agrees with you,

for he too holds that he renders impure from that point onward. For Rabbi Yosei said in the baraita cited above: A zav who saw blood on his seventh day is exempt from making the Second Pesaḥ.

We have thus learned from Rabbi Oshaya’s words that Rabbi Yosei did not say in that baraita that the zav renders bedding and seating retroactively impure except by rabbinic law.

For how could Rabbi Oshaya say, according to Rabbi Yosei, that the zav does not invalidate his count?

But

we learned in that same baraita:

Rabbi Yosei says: They render bedding and seating retroactively impure,

which necessarily means that the zav invalidates his count?!

Rather, conclude from it:

Rabbi Yosei did not say that the zav and the woman who observes one day in purity corresponding to one day of impurity

render

bedding and seating

impure

retroactively except

by rabbinic law.

Conclude from it!

The Gemara now returns to the doubt it raised: Is unknown impurity permitted even in the case of bodily impurity of the koen? It resolves the doubt according to Rabbi Yosei’s view:

And according to Rabbi Yosei, now that he says

that according to Torah law the man with a flux does not invalidate his count and impart impurity retroactively, but

that by Torah law the zav does not invalidate his count and render retroactively impure; he renders impure from that point onward,

there is no way at all for there to be “the unknown impurity of a zavah” by Torah law, since he is not impure retroactively.

It follows that according to Rabbi Yosei it is impossible to explain the statement taught by Rabbi Ḥiyya: “They spoke of unknown impurity only with regard to a corpse,” as excluding owners of the Paschal offering who were impure with “the unknown impurity of a zavah” [as we explained above, in order to reject the resolution of the doubt from this baraita].

If so, according to Rabbi Yosei, when Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: “They spoke of unknown impurity only with regard

to a corpse”

alone, what does this exclude?

Necessarily, it comes to exclude the unknown impurity of a creeping creature, in the case of the koen who effects acceptance for the offerings of a nazirite and of one who makes the Paschal offering. For you cannot say that it comes to exclude a nazirite who became impure through a creeping creature, since he does not invalidate his count; and you cannot explain that it comes to exclude owners of the Paschal offering who became impure through a creeping creature, since “the offering may be slaughtered and its blood sprinkled on behalf of one impure due to a creeping creature” [as all this was explained above in the Gemara].

If so:

we can resolve from it that, in the case of a koen

who became impure through a corpse,

unknown impurity is permitted to him;

for otherwise, there would be no need to exclude unknown impurity through a creeping creature in the case of a koen [as explained above in the Gemara].

The students of the academy say

to reject this resolution:

Actually,

the baraita comes to exclude the unknown impurity of a creeping creature

in the case of the owners [

and not in the case of the koen ],

and with regard to the Paschal offering

alone, and not with regard to a nazirite, as we sought to resolve.

And as for what is difficult for you: Even if the owners became impure through a creeping creature, they are fit to bring an offering, since “the offering may be slaughtered and its blood sprinkled on behalf of one impure due to a creeping creature”?!

This is not difficult, because

Rabbi Yosei holds [Tosafot in Nazir] that

the offering may not be slaughtered and its blood sprinkled

the Paschal offering

on behalf of those impure through a creeping creature.

And

therefore,

it was necessary to exclude

the unknown impurity of a creeping creature in the case of the owners, to teach that it too was not permitted for them, since the permission of unknown impurity was stated only with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse.

We further challenge Rabbi Yosei:

An introduction, according to Rashi’s method:

a. If a woman saw blood and observed in purity the “beginning” of the following day, then according to Rabbi Yosei, since part of the day is equivalent to the entire day, the part of the day that she counted serves for her as observance for the preceding day; but the middle or end of the day does not count for her as observance, [unlike Tosafot, who hold that according to Rabbi Yosei even the end of the day counts for her as observance].

b. Even observing in purity at the beginning of the night counts for her as an entire day, since counting at night is considered counting, [but Tosafot disagreed with him on this, holding that counting at night is not considered counting even according to Rabbi Yosei].

c. If a woman sees blood for one day and observes even part of the day [according to Rabbi Yosei], subsequent sightings do not join with it to make her a major zavah, as though by counting that day she became pure from her earlier sighting [Tosafot of the Rashba]; she is therefore like one who saw blood on three nonconsecutive days, who does not become a major zavah [Tosafot, Nazir 16a].

But according to Rabbi Yosei, how can a fully-fledged zavah [

“a major zavah” ]

ever occur?! [

And the wording of the Gemara in Nazir 16a is:

And Rabbi Yosei, since

he

holds that part of the day is equivalent to the entire day,

if so,

how can a fully-fledged zavah who brings an offering—

ever occur?!

For

once she sees in the middle of the day,

the

other half of the day,

namely, the first half of the day during which she did not see blood, has already

counted for her as observance,

counting for her as observance for an entire day?!]

This is the meaning: Since according to Rabbi Yosei the beginning of the day of observance counts for her as an entire day, even if she sees blood during the second half of that day—

if she saw a second sighting during the second half of the day [“in the middle of the day”], then that day’s first half [“the other half of the day”] counts for her as observance for the sighting of the first day, as though she had become pure from it, [even if she had not yet immersed, Meiri].

It follows that the second sighting is merely a first sighting, since it did not “join” the first sighting so that together they would constitute two sightings; she can never become a major zavah. (155)

And we answer:

In the case of a continuous flow

of flux blood without interruption for three days, and therefore there are three sightings with no intervening observation of purity.

for three days, so that there are three sightings without observance between them. Alternatively,

it is not necessary for her to see blood on three consecutive days!

For it is sufficient that she see blood immediately at the beginning of the night of the day of observance; even if the flow stops afterward, there is no observance here.

And accordingly, this can occur

for example, if she saw

without interruption

throughout two twilight periods,

which are of uncertain status, day or night.

For example:

a. She saw blood the first time throughout the twilight of Friday night.

There are thus two sightings: the end of Friday, and the beginning of Friday night.

And since she flowed throughout “the entire” twilight period, she certainly saw blood from the beginning of Shabbat, which is the day of observance for the sighting on Friday; there is therefore no observance for the first sighting.

b. She saw blood the second time throughout the twilight at the conclusion of Shabbat.

There is thus a third sighting at the beginning of Sunday night.

And since she flowed throughout “the entire” twilight period, she certainly saw blood immediately at the beginning of Sunday night, which is the day of observance for the preceding sightings.

It follows that there was no observance at all, and it is as though she flowed for three consecutive days, becoming a “major zavah.”

Rav Yosef raised a question: In the case of the koen who effects acceptance for the daily offering

of the entire year [and likewise for the other communal offerings; see Meiri], is

unknown impurity permitted to him, or not?

And the Gemara explains:

If you should say

that even

the koen who effects acceptance for their offerings

of a nazirite and of one who makes the Paschal offering,

unknown impurity is permitted to him,

we must ask:

In the case of the koen who effects acceptance for the daily offering, what is the law?

Do we say: When the halakha concerning unknown impurity was given, it was given for the Paschal offering and the nazirite offering—

for this is how the halakha was transmitted—

but

for the daily offering

it

was not given; or perhaps:

nevertheless,

the daily offering is derived from the Paschal offering.

Rava said: kal va-homer:

the kohen will be willing to offer even the daily offering:

And what in a case -

of a nazirite offering and a Passover offering, which are individual offerings -

for which it was not permitted to him

the kohen

known impurity,

nevertheless

impurity of the depths was permitted to him.

In the case -

of the daily offering, which is a communal offering -

for which known impurity was permitted to him,

meaning: “that the impurity is overridden for him in a case where it is impossible to perform it with those who are pure, since impurity is overridden for the community [Rashi].