Pesachim 81b — the Talmud in English

Is it not a matter of kal va-homer that the impurity of the depths should be permitted to him?

.

Is it not an a-fortiori inference that the impurity of an unknown grave should also be permitted to him? They said

the members of the academy in refutation:

But

is it possible

to derive an a-fortiori inference from

something that is

a halakha

transmitted to Moses at Sinai, like the permission concerning the impurity of an unknown grave?!

And it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Akiva

who was teaching that when a nazirite becomes impure through a quarter-log of blood from a corpse, he shaves for it—that is, he shaves the hair of his nazirite status, brings a purification offering, and begins counting his nazirite period anew—by means of an a-fortiori inference from a barley-grain-sized bone from a corpse, for which a nazirite shaves:

Akiva!

But

the barley-grain-sized bone

for which the nazirite shaves was not derived from verses; rather,

it is a halakha

transmitted to Moses at Sinai.

And the quarter-log of blood

you wish to derive from it

through an a-fortiori inference; but

the fact is that

one cannot derive an a-fortiori inference from a halakha.

Rather, Rava said:

A kohen—one who has the Temple status of a descendant of Aaron—who is performing the sacrificial service for the daily offering is permitted to become impure through an unknown grave, because he

derives

the term “at its appointed time”

stated with regard to the daily offering from

the term “at its appointed time”

stated with regard to

the Paschal offering,

through a derivation based on an identical expression.

And we explain the essential law stated in our Mishna concerning the permission of impurity from an unknown grave:

And where is the law of impurity from an unknown grave itself written?

Rabbi Elazar said: The verse states: “And if a person dies suddenly beside him,”

“upon him,”

and he becomes impure, and the consecrated hair of his nazirite status is impure, and he shaves his head on the day of his purification; on the seventh day he shall shave it.

And we expound the word “upon him”

as meaning: clear to him,

so that the impurity must be clear to him.

But still:

we have found this with regard to a nazirite;

but

from where

do we know that the one who offers the Paschal offering is likewise permitted to become impure through an unknown grave?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The verse states:

“Any person who becomes impure through contact with a corpse, or

is on a distant road

for you,

or for your generations, and he shall perform the Paschal offering for the Lord, in the second month.”

And we expound the word “for you” as applying also to impurity, to teach:

clear

impurity

for you.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said that he derives from this verse the permission concerning impurity from an unknown grave in the case of the Paschal offering in a different manner:

Since the verse juxtaposed “impure through contact with a corpse” to “road,” we derive that the impurity must be

like a

“road.”

Just as a road is exposed, so too must the impurity be exposed.

They raise an objection from a source

against all the derivations stated above:

As it was taught in a beraita:

What is impurity from an unknown grave?

Any impurity that was not known

to anyone at the time when the nazirite or the one offering the Paschal offering became impure, even

to one person at the end of the world,

but the impurity was hidden from everyone, as though it had been in the depths of the earth. For example, a wall collapsed at night, and a person happened to be beneath it and died there, and no one anywhere in the world knew of it.

But

if it was known

even

to one person at the end of the world, this is not impurity from an unknown grave.

And this beraita may be challenged according to all the opinions:

According to Rabbi Elazar, who said: “clear

impurity

‘upon him,’”

you should derive that impurity is considered impurity from an unknown grave

until he knows of it,

that is, until the nazirite or the one offering the Paschal offering knows of it. But from where do you derive that if one person at the end of the world knew of it, it would no longer be impurity from an unknown grave?!

According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said: “clear

impurity

‘for you,’”

in the plural, you should derive that impurity is considered impurity from an unknown grave

until two people know of it

that is, two people know of the impurity. But from where do you derive that the knowledge of one person is enough to remove from it the status of impurity from an unknown grave?!

According to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who said:

«

“like a road,”

you should derive that impurity is considered impurity from an unknown grave

until everyone knows of it,

and the knowledge of one person is not enough?!

And we conclude:

Rather, the law of impurity from an unknown grave is a halakha

learned by tradition from Moses at Sinai;

and the verse

brought by each of the amoraim

is merely a supporting allusion

to the received law.

Mar bar Rav Ashi said:

They taught

that the forehead plate of the High Priest effects acceptance for impurity from an unknown grave in the case of a nazirite and one offering the Paschal offering

only

when

it became known to him—to the nazirite or to the one offering the Paschal offering—that he had become impure through that impurity

after the blood was sprinkled.

after the sprinkling.

And this is because:

once the blood was sprinkled, it was sprinkled properly

that is, the sprinkling was valid.

But if it became known to him before the sprinkling

even after the slaughter, that he had become impure through it,

the forehead plate does not

effect acceptance for this impurity. [See note ]

They raise an objection from a source: One who finds a corpse lying across the width of a road

on which he passed, and he certainly became impure through that corpse, although no one in the world knew that the corpse was there when he passed on the road [this will be explained more fully in the continuation of the Gemara].

If the person who passed was a kohen, then

with regard

to

teruma,

which one may not eat while impure, he is

impure,

because the permission concerning impurity from an unknown grave was not stated with regard to teruma.

But

with regard to a nazirite and one offering the Paschal offering,

for whom impurity from an unknown grave was permitted,

he is pure,

each of them.

And

the terms

“impure”

and “pure”

refer to the future,

not

as Mar bar Rav Ashi said, that the permission applies only to a sprinkling that had already taken place.

Rather, if it was stated, this is what was stated. Bar Rav Ashi said:

Do not say: It is only when it became known to him after the sprinkling that the forehead plate effects acceptance, but if it became known to him

after the slaughter and

before the sprinkling, it does not effect acceptance.

Rather: Even if it became known to him

after the slaughter

and before the sprinkling,

also

the forehead plate effects acceptance

for impurity from an unknown grave.

As for the matter itself:

One who finds a corpse

hidden in straw or among stones, and the impurity was impurity from an unknown grave, as the end of the beraita explains.

And the corpse was

lying across the width of the road

on which the finder passed, so that it was impossible for the passerby not to touch the corpse or move it, or become impure by overshadowing it.

If the person who passed along that road was a kohen, then

with

regard to eating

teruma,

he is

impure,

because he certainly became impure through it.

But

with regard to a nazirite and one offering the Paschal offering,

he is

pure,

because this is impurity from an unknown grave.

However, if the corpse was lying lengthwise along the road, he is pure even with regard to teruma.

In what case

is he impure with regard to teruma? When

there is no room for him to pass

along that road without becoming impure, because the corpse fills the entire width of the road.

But if there is room to pass

without becoming impure, and the matter is only a doubt concerning impurity,

even with regard to teruma

he is

pure, because we maintain: In a doubt concerning impurity in the public domain, he is pure.

And even when the corpse filled the entire width of the road,

in what case

is he impure with regard to teruma? When

he

found

the corpse

whole; but

if the corpse was

broken and dismembered,

he is

pure

even with regard to teruma.

For it is still a doubt concerning impurity in the public domain, because

perhaps he passed

between the joints

of the corpse

and did not become impure.

And if the corpse was lying

in a grave,

even

if it was lying there

broken and dismembered,

he is

impure

even with regard to teruma.

And

because the grave joins it together

with the corpse—that is, the entire grave transmits impurity through overshadowing, even the empty space within it, as it is written: “And whoever touches, in the open field … or a grave shall be impure for seven days.”

In what case

is it said that when there is room for him to pass, or when the corpse is broken and dismembered, he is pure with regard to teruma?

When he is walking on his feet.

But

if the person who passed there was

carrying

a load on his shoulders,

or if he was

was

riding,

he is

impure

even with regard to teruma, even if there was room for him to pass or the corpse was broken and dismembered.

Because when he is walking on his feet,

it is indeed

possible that he will neither touch nor overshadow the corpse; but when he is carrying

a load

or riding, it is impossible that he will not touch

or overshadow it, because he moves and sways from side to side and overshadows even the sides of the corpse.

because he moves and sways this way and that and passes over its sides [Rashi].

In what case

is he pure with regard to the nazirite and the one offering the Paschal offering?

When the impurity is impurity from an unknown grave.

But with regard to known impurity,

when it was known that a person was lying there, he is

impure

even with regard to a nazirite and one offering the Paschal offering, in the same manner in which he is impure with regard to teruma.

And what is impurity from an unknown grave? Any impurity that was not known to one person at the end of the world

when this person became impure through it.

But if one person at the end of the world recognized it, this is not impurity of the abyss.

If they found it concealed in straw, in earth, or in pebbles, this is impurity of the abyss.

But if they found it concealed

in water,

or

in darkness—

that is to say: a place that is always dark—or if they found it

in the crevices of the rocks,

but it is not covered [Tosafot on Nazir],

this is not impurity of the abyss,

for in all these places, one who peeks there can see it; and see the note .

And they said

that it was permitted,

the impurity of the abyss only in the case of a corpse,

but other impurities—even those of the abyss—the impurity of the abyss was not permitted in their case, as is explained in the sugya above.

Mishna:

A. The Pesach offering that became impure or was left over [and likewise other disqualifications] requires burning.

B. Offerings of lesser sanctity, and the Pesach offering among them, are burned in every place in Jerusalem, for its wall is the partition of offerings of lesser sanctity when they are fit, and there they are burned when they are disqualified.

C.

Became impure

the Pesach offering

in its entirety or most of it,

there is negligence here on the part of the owners [Meiri], and therefore the Sages decreed that they should

burn it before the bira,

the Temple [Rashi; and see the note ].

And the reason they said this is: in order to shame him before everyone, so that they will be careful concerning it another time, as is explained in the Gemara.

And since they required him to burn it before the bira in order to shame him, they did not trouble him to bring his own wood, and he may benefit from consecrated property; rather, they burn it

with wood from the arrangement,

which is on the altar [Tosafot ].

D.

If a minority became impure

of the Pesach offering alone,

and

likewise

the remainder

of a pure Pesach offering, for there is not so much negligence here [Meiri]:

They burn it

in Jerusalem

in their courtyards or on their roofs, with their own wood

of the owners of the Pesach offering; but it is forbidden to burn it with wood from the arrangement, for why should the court allow them to benefit from the wood of the consecrated arrangement [Maharsha according to Tosafot] (178).

E.

The misers [the restrictive ones, that is, they are narrow-fisted, Rashi],

whose minority of Pesachim became impure or which was left over; and the Sages were concerned lest they not wish to spend money on wood in order to burn it, and refrain from burning it, and thus come to transgression. Therefore they said:

They burn it

if they wish

before the bira, in order to benefit from the wood of the arrangement.

That is to say: because of this concern, the Sages permitted them to benefit from the wood of the arrangement, but they did not permit them to burn it with the wood of the arrangement unless they burn it before the bira [and the reason for this was explained in the Gemara]; and since this is so, if they wish to benefit from the wood of the arrangement, they should come and burn it before the bira.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: If its entirety became impure, they burn it before the bira:

And we explain:

What is the reason

that they burn it specifically before the bira, and are not permitted to burn it wherever it may be in Jerusalem?

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina said: In order to shame them

before everyone because they rendered it impure through their negligence.

We learned in the Mishna:

a minority became impure

of it, and the remainder—they burn it in their courtyards or on their roofs with their own wood:

It follows that they cannot burn it with the wood of the arrangement

; but we raise a contradiction,

from the Mishna above, Pesachim 49a:

And likewise one who went out from Jerusalem and remembered that he had consecrated meat in his possession

of offerings of lesser sanctity, and it became disqualified upon his leaving the city because of “that which went out,” and he must burn it:

If he passed

the village [Rashi above] called

“Zophim”

[and it is so called because from there one can look out over Jerusalem], they no longer troubled him to return and burn it in Jerusalem, and this is

he burns it in its place,

where it was mentioned.

For the law that the burning of offerings of lesser sanctity in Jerusalem alone applies only by rabbinic decree, and therefore they were lenient with him because of the trouble.

And if not,

that he has not yet gone a great distance after Zophim:

He is obligated to return to Jerusalem and burn it according to its law, wherever he wishes.