Pesachim 81a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yosei says: A woman who observes one day corresponding to one day, for whom they slaughtered and sprinkled the blood of the Passover offering

the Passover offering [image: exact page location]

on her second day,

on the day of observation, on the day following the day on which she saw,

and afterward she saw

blood.

This woman

does not eat

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

And

indeed

she is exempt

she

from making the Second Passover,

even though the matter was revealed retroactively: at the time of the offering of the Passover offering she was still a menstruant, who was unfit to bring a Passover offering, for the second day had not been clean until evening.

And

for what reason

does she not need to make the Second Passover?

Is it not because the frontplate effects acceptance,

since it is impurity of the depths, as it was not known that she would see and invalidate her count?

We have therefore learned: The frontplate effects acceptance even for impurity of the depths of a menstruant.

The members of the academy said

to reject [this]:

No,

not as you said, that the reason is because it is impurity of the depths.

Rather,

because Rabbi Yosei holds:

with regard to a woman who observes one day corresponding to one day, who counted part of the day in purity, we say: “part of the day is like the whole day,” and her counting has already been completed; and the sight that she sees even on that same day does not invalidate the counting that she was required to count because of the previous sight.

And therefore:

a. If she saw after her immersion, we do not say that she is retroactively impure with the impurity of a menstruant; rather, since she has already immersed, she became pure from her flow, and only

from that point onward,

from the time of the sight on the second day,

does she impart impurity

with the impurity of a menstruant; and from the time of her immersion until her sight, she is only one who immersed that day.

b. If, after part of the day had passed in purity, they slaughtered and sprinkled the blood of the Passover offering for her, even before she immersed [as is the law of one impure through a creeping creature, since she is fit to immerse and become pure at sunset, they slaughter and sprinkle for him, according to what the Gemara currently holds: “They slaughter and sprinkle for one impure through a creeping creature”]; and afterward she returned and saw, since according to Rabbi Yosei she does not invalidate her count, and it was not revealed retroactively that at the time of the sprinkling of the blood she needed observation on another day, the offering that they offered for her before her sight is valid, since she was fit to immerse and become pure at sunset, and they slaughter and sprinkle for one impure through a creeping creature. [

And likewise, with regard to a man with a flux and a woman with a major flux who saw on the seventh day, after part of the day had passed, Rabbi Yosei maintains that they do not invalidate their count, and from that point onward they impart impurity, as is explained later in the sugya. ]

And this is what Rabbi Yosei says: She is exempt from making the Second Passover, and not because of the acceptance effected by the frontplate for impurity of the depths of a menstruant.

And we raise an objection to our rejection:

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

A man with a flux who had two sights, for whom they slaughtered and sprinkled the blood of the Passover offering

the Passover offering

on

the

seventh day of his, and afterward he saw.

And likewise, a woman who observes one day corresponding to one day, for whom they slaughtered and sprinkled

the Passover offering

on her second day, and afterward she saw.

These

two

impart impurity to a bed and a seat retroactively

from the time of their immersion until their sight, for they invalidated their count, and they impart impurity to their bed and seat like a man with a flux and a woman with a flux.

And they are exempt from making the Second Passover.

We have explicitly learned that a woman who observes one day corresponding to one day invalidates her count, and nevertheless she is exempt from making the Second Passover; necessarily, it is only because the frontplate effects acceptance for impurity of the depths of a menstruant [Rashi; and see the note]?!

The members of the academy said

to answer: In truth, Rabbi Yosei maintains that by Torah law the man with a flux and the woman who observes one day, who saw after part of the day, do not invalidate their count, and therefore they are exempt from making the Second Passover.

What: “

These impart impurity to a bed and a seat

retroactively

,” as Rabbi Yosei said? Since they did not invalidate their count, they should have imparted impurity to the bed and seat only from the time of their sight, and not retroactively from the time of their immersion.

This law is not from the Torah, but

rabbinically,

for they said that they should invalidate their count retroactively, and rabbinically they impart impurity to the bed and seat retroactively from the time of their immersion.

And since at the time of the sprinkling she was unfit for a Passover offering only rabbinically, she is exempt from making the Second Passover.

And Rabbi Oshaya too holds:

according to Rabbi Yosei, the man with a flux

does not impart impurity retroactively

except

rabbinically.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Oshaya says: But a man with a flux who saw on his seventh day,

this is

one who invalidates

the days

before him,

and he returns and counts seven clean days.

And Rabbi Yohanan said to him:

Why should he invalidate all seven days?!

He should invalidate only his day

on which he saw! And he should add only one clean day.

And later in the sugya we explain this statement, that Rabbi Oshaya holds that he imparts impurity retroactively rabbinically; but initially we raise an objection to Rabbi Yohanan’s words:

But

in either case:

If Rabbi Yohanan holds

Rabbi Yohanan

that he imparts impurity retroactively,

that is, that part of the day counts for him as none of the seven clean days, and he lacks one clean day; and for this reason Rabbi Yohanan said that he should invalidate his day?

If so, why should he invalidate only his day?

Let him invalidate even all

seven days

?!

For since the seven days have not been completed, he cannot complete this day on another day, but must count all of them together; and because it is written: “And he shall count for himself seven days for his purification,” this teaches that there must be one purification for all of them, and impurity must not interrupt between them, [and for this reason anyone who sees flux during the seven days does not complete a clean day in its place, but invalidates his count and counts seven new days].

And

if Rabbi Yohanan holds

Rabbi Yohanan:

from that point onward he imparts impurity,

because the seven clean days have already been completed once part of the day had passed, for it is like the whole day.

If so:

his day [

the seventh day on which he saw]

should also not be invalidated,

but he should impart only sunset impurity, like the first sight of a man with a flux.

Rather,

because of this objection,

say:

This is what Rabbi Yohanan said:

Since he imparts impurity from that point onward, if so,

he should invalidate neither, not even his day,

that is, he should not invalidate even this day, but should impart only sunset impurity.

And he said to him

Rabbi Oshaya to Rabbi Yohanan, who had challenged him, “He should invalidate neither, not even his day”:

Rabbi Yosei stands according to your view,

for he too holds that he imparts impurity from that point onward, since Rabbi Yosei said in the beraita above: The man with a flux who saw on his seventh day is exempt from making the Second Passover.

We have thus learned from Rabbi Oshaya’s words that Rabbi Yosei did not say in that beraita that the man with a flux imparts impurity to a bed and a seat retroactively except rabbinically.

For how could Rabbi Oshaya say according to Rabbi Yosei that the man with a flux does not invalidate his count?

But

we learned in that same beraita:

Rabbi Yosei says: They impart impurity to a bed and a seat retroactively,

and necessarily this is because the man with a flux invalidates his count?!

Rather, learn from it:

Rabbi Yosei did not say that the man with a flux and the woman who observes one day

impart

impurity

to a bed and a seat

retroactively, except

rabbinically.

Learn from it!

And here the Gemara returns to the uncertainty it had raised: whether impurity of the depths was permitted even with regard to the bodily impurity of the kohen, and it resolves the uncertainty according to Rabbi Yosei:

And according to Rabbi Yosei, now that he says [

Rabbi Yosei] that by Torah law the man with a flux does not invalidate his count and impart impurity retroactively, but

from that point onward he imparts impurity,

there is no case at all of “impurity of the depths of a menstruant” by Torah law, for he is not impure retroactively.

It follows that according to Rabbi Yosei it is impossible to explain what Rabbi Hiyya taught: They spoke of impurity of the depths only with regard to a corpse, for this excludes owners of the Passover offering who were impure with “impurity of the depths of a menstruant” [as we explained above, in order to reject the resolution of the uncertainty from this beraita].

And if so, according to Rabbi Yosei, what Rabbi Hiyya taught: They spoke of impurity of the depths only

with regard to a corpse

alone—for what does it exclude?

Necessarily, it excludes impurity of the depths caused by a creeping creature, with which the kohen who effects acceptance in the offerings of the nazirite and the one who makes the Passover offering became impure; 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 Passover offering who became impure through a creeping creature, since “they slaughter and sprinkle for one impure through a creeping creature” [as all this was explained above in the Gemara].

And if so:

we can resolve from it: With regard to a kohen

who became impure through a corpse,

impurity of the depths was permitted to him;

for if not, there would be no need to exclude impurity of the depths caused by a creeping creature with regard to a kohen [as was explained above in the Gemara].

The members of the academy said

to reject the resolution:

In truth,

the beraita came to exclude impurity of the depths caused by a creeping creature

with regard to the owners [

and not with regard to the kohen],

and with regard to the Passover offering

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

And that which is difficult for you: But even if the owners became impure through a creeping creature, they are fit to bring an offering, since “they slaughter and sprinkle for one impure through a creeping creature”?!

It is not difficult: For

Rabbi Yosei holds [Tosafot in Nazir]:

They do not slaughter and sprinkle

the Passover offering

for those impure through a creeping creature.

And

therefore

it was necessary to exclude

impurity of the depths caused by a creeping creature with regard to the owners, to teach you that it too was not permitted for him, since the permission of impurity of the depths was stated only with regard to impurity caused by a corpse.

We further challenge Rabbi Yosei:

An introduction, according to Rashi’s method:

a. A woman who saw blood and observed in purity the “beginning” of the following day: according to Rabbi Yosei, since “part of the day is like the whole day,” the part of the day that she counted counts for her as observation for the preceding day; but the middle of the day or its end does not count for her as observation, [unlike Tosafot, who hold that according to Rabbi Yosei even the end of the day counts for her as observation].

b. Even observation in purity at the beginning of the night counts for her as a full day, because counting at night is counting, [and Tosafot disagreed with him on this, for counting at night is not counting even according to Rabbi Yosei].

c. A woman who sees blood for one day and performs observation even for part of the day [according to Rabbi Yosei]: the sights no longer join together to make her a woman with a major flux, and it is as though she becomes pure through counting the day from her previous sight [Tosafot of Rashba], and she is like one who saw for three days that were not consecutive, who does not become a woman with a major flux [Tosafot, Nazir 16a].

But according to Rabbi Yosei, a woman with a complete flux [“a woman with a major flux”]

“a woman with a complete flux”

how can one find her?! [

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

And Rabbi Yosei, since

behold, he

holds: Part of the day is like the whole day,

and if so,

a woman with a complete flux who brings an offering—

how can one find her?!

But

since she saw in the middle of the day,

behold,

the other half of the day,

that is, the first half of the day in which she did not see blood, has already

counted for her as observation,

counting for her as observation for a full day?! ]

And this is the meaning: Since according to Rabbi Yosei the beginning of the day of observation counts for her as a full day even if she sees on that day during its second half,

if she saw a second sight during the second half of the day [“in the middle of the day,”] half of that day [“the other half of the day”] counts for her as observation for the sight of the first day, and it is as though she became pure from it, [even if she has not yet immersed, Meiri].

It follows that the second sight is only a first sight, for it did not “join” the first sight so that together they would constitute two sights, and she will never be a woman with a major flux. (155)

And we answer:

When she flows [

a woman with a flux who releases blood without interruption] for three days, and there are therefore three sights without observation between them.

Alternatively, one can say:

She need not see for three consecutive days!

For she need only see immediately at the beginning of the night of the day of observation, and even if she stopped afterward, there is no observation here.

And since that is so, it can be found

for example, when she saw

without interruption

through both twilights

which are doubtfully day and doubtfully night.

For example:

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

There are therefore two sights: the end of the day of Friday eve and the beginning of Friday night.

And since she was flowing throughout “all” the twilight, it is certain that she was seeing blood from the beginning of Shabbat, which is the day of observation for the sight of Friday eve, and there is no observation here for the first sight.

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

There is therefore a third sight at the beginning of Sunday night.

And since she was flowing throughout “all” the twilight, it is certain that she saw blood immediately at the beginning of Sunday night, which is the day of observation for the preceding sights.

It follows that there is no observation here at all, and it is as though she flowed for three consecutive days, and she became “a woman with a major flux.”

Rav Yosef raised a question: The kohen who effects acceptance in the daily offering

of the entire year [and likewise in the other communal offerings, see Meiri], whether

impurity of the depths was permitted to him, or not?

And we explain:

If you should say:

Even

the kohen who effects acceptance in their offerings

of the nazirite and of the one who makes the Passover offering,

impurity of the depths was permitted to him,

we ask:

The kohen who effects acceptance in the daily offering—what is the law?

Do we say: When the halakha of impurity of the depths was transmitted, it was transmitted for the Passover offering and the nazirite—

for this is how the halakha was received—

but

for the daily offering

behold, it

was not transmitted; or perhaps:

nevertheless,

the daily offering is derived from the Passover offering.

Rava said: kal va-chomer

that the kohen would desire it even with the daily offering:

And where -

with a nazirite and a Pesach, which are individual offerings -

that was not permitted to him

to the kohen

known impurity,

nevertheless

impurity of the depths was permitted to him.

A place -

a daily offering, which is a communal offering -

where known impurity was permitted to him,

that is: “that is pushed aside” for him, the impurity, in a place where it is impossible to perform it with pure [people], for impurity is pushed aside for the community [Rashi].