Pesachim 81b (פא:) — the Talmud in English

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

The members of the yeshiva said

to reject this:

But [

or is it so that]

we derive a kal va-homer from

something that is

a halakha

transmitted to Moses at Sinai, such as the permission of the impurity of the depths?!

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

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

Akiva!

But

a bone the size of a barley grain

for which a nazirite shaves, we did not derive it from the verses; rather,

it is a halakha

transmitted to Moses at Sinai.

And a quarter-log of blood

you seek to derive from it

by a kal va-homer; but

behold,

one does not derive a kal va-homer from a halakha.

Rashi explained the reason for this in Shabbat 132a: “The Oral Torah was not given to be expounded through the thirteen hermeneutical principles.” This requires explanation: The continuation of the sugya has Rava deriving the law of impurity of the depths in a communal offering through a gezera shava from the Paschal offering, which proves that one may derive even from a halakha through a gezera shava. How, then, did Rashi write that none of the thirteen principles may be used to derive a law from a halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai? The Tzelach answered: Since this gezera shava was given to derive other matters from it—namely, the permission of impurity and Shabbat in the case of a communal offering, as explained above, 77a— ; and:

Rather, Rava said:

A koen who performs the sacrificial service of the daily offering is permitted the impurity of the depths, because he

derives

“at its appointed time”

stated with regard to the daily offering from

“at its appointed time”

stated with regard to the

Paschal offering,

through a gezera shava [see note

163]. And we explain the essential law stated in our Mishna concerning the permission of impurity of the depths:

And where is impurity of the depths itself written?

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

“beside him”

“unexpectedly, and he defiles the consecrated head of his naziriteship, and he shall shave his head on the day of his purification; on the seventh day he shall shave it.”

And we expound “beside him” [Gemara, Nazir]:

in a manner clear beside him,

so that the impurity is clear to him.

But still:

we have found this with regard to a nazirite,

but

one who performs the Paschal offering—from where

do we know that impurity of the depths was permitted to him?

Rabbi Yohanan said: The verse states:

“Any person who will become impure through contact with a dead person, or

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 “for you” as applying also to impurity, to teach:

in a manner clear

the impurity

to you.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said,

he derives from this verse the permission of impurity of the depths in the case of the Paschal offering in a different manner:

Since the verse juxtaposed “impure through contact with a dead person” to “road,” we derive [Tosafot, Nazir] that the impurity must be

like a “road.”

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

Meytivi

against all the stated derivations:

For it was taught in a beraita:

What is impurity of the depths?

Any impurity that he did not know about

at the time the nazirite or the one performing the Paschal offering became impure, even

one person at the other end of the world,

but the impurity was hidden from everyone, as though it were in the depths; for example, a wall collapsed at night, and a person happened to be beneath it and died there, and no one in the world knew of it [Meiri].

But if he

knew about it,

even

one person at the other end of the world, this is not impurity of the depths.

And this beraita may be challenged against all of them:

According to Rabbi Elazar, who said: “in a manner clear”

the impurity

“beside him,”

you should derive that impurity of the depths is considered such

until he knows of it,

the nazirite or the one performing the Paschal offering. But from where do you derive that if one person at the other end of the world knew about it, it is no longer impurity of the depths?!

According to Rabbi Yohanan, who said: “in a manner clear”

the impurity

“for you,”

in the plural, you should derive that impurity of the depths is considered such

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 sufficient to remove from it the designation of impurity of the depths?!

According to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who said that the impurity must be

“like a road,”

you should derive that impurity of the depths is considered such

until everyone knows of it,

and the knowledge of one person is insufficient?!

And we conclude:

Rather,

impurity of the depths is a halakha

learned by tradition from Moses at Sinai;

and the verse

that each of the amoraim cited

is merely an asmachta,

a supporting allusion.

Mar bar Rav Ashi said:

They taught

that the tzitz effects acceptance for impurity of the depths in the case of a nazirite and one performing the Paschal offering [Rashi]

only

when

it became known to him—

the nazirite or the one performing the Paschal offering—that he had become impure through that impurity

after the sprinkling.

From the implications of Rashi’s wording above on this page, s.v. “And do we derive,” and below, s.v. “who has none,” it follows that the entire discussion in this sugya concerns only the knowledge of the impure person who became impure through that impurity: whether it must occur after the sprinkling or may even occur beforehand. ; and:

And this is because:

since, when the blood was sprinkled, it was properly sprinkled

[the sprinkling was performed according to law].

But if it became known to him before the sprinkling

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

not;

the tzitz does not effect acceptance for this impurity. [See note

165.]

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].

Meytivi: One who finds a corpse lying across the width of a road

and

with regard to

teruma,

which one may not eat in a state of impurity,

is impure;

for the permission of impurity of the depths was not stated with regard to teruma [Rashi].

But

with regard to a nazirite and one performing the Paschal offering—

for whom impurity of the depths was permitted—

each of them is pure.

And

therefore,

behold,

every

“impure”

and “pure”

refers to the future,

and 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, it was stated as follows. Bar Rav Ashi said:

Do not say: It is only when he learned of it after the sprinkling that the tzitz effects acceptance, but if he learned of it

after the slaughter and

before the sprinkling, it does not effect acceptance.

Rather, even if he learned of it

after the slaughter [Rashi, s.v. “who has none,” and Rashi on the Mishna, and Tosafot here], and

before the sprinkling,

also

the tzitz effects acceptance

for impurity of the depths.

The body of the matter:

; and:

One who finds a corpse

hidden in straw or among stones [Rashi’s explanation in Nazir], and the impurity was impurity of the depths, as the end of the beraita explains.

And the corpse was

lying across the width of the road

through which the finder passed, and it was impossible for the passerby not to touch the corpse there [or move it, or pass over it, Rashi]:

If the passerby on that road was a koen, and

with regard to

eating

teruma,

he

is impure,

for he certainly became impure through it.

Whereas

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

he

is pure,

for this is impurity of the depths.

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

In what case does this apply

that with regard to teruma he is impure? 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 case of doubtful impurity,

even with regard to teruma

he is

pure;

for we hold that doubtful impurity in the public domain renders one pure.

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

in what case does this apply

that with regard to teruma he is impure? When he

found

the corpse

whole; but

if the corpse was

broken and dismembered,

he

is pure

even with regard to teruma.

For it remains a case of doubtful impurity in the public domain, because

perhaps between the joints

of the corpse

he passed

and did not become impure.

And

if the corpse was lying

in a grave, even

if it had been placed 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 a tent, even its empty space, as it is written: “And whoever touches one slain with a sword, or one who died of natural causes, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be impure for seven days” [Rashi].

In what case does this apply

that when there is room for him to pass [the Gra] 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

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.

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

For one walking on his feet

can indeed

possibly avoid touching and passing over it, but one carrying

a load

or riding cannot avoid touching

and passing over it,

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

In what case does this apply

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

When it is impurity of the depths.

But in the case of known impurity,

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

is impure

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

And what is impurity of the depths? Any impurity that no one at the other end of the world knew about

at the time this person became impure through it [Rashi, s.v. “And do we derive”].

However, if one person recognized it, even at the end of the world, this is not tum'at hatehom.

; and:

If they found it buried in straw, earth, or stones, this is tum'at hatehom.

; and:

However, if they found it buried

in water,

or

in darkness—

that is, a place that is always dark—or if they found it

in crevices in the rocks,

but it is not covered [Tosafot, Nazir

—this is not tum'at hatehom,

since in all these places, one who peers there can see it; see the note .

And they said

that tum'at hatehom

was permitted only in the case of a corpse,

but with regard to other forms of ritual impurity, even tum'at hatehom, tum'at hatehom was not permitted, as explained in the sugya above.

Mishna:

a. A Pesaḥ offering that became impure or was left over [and likewise other disqualified offerings] requires burning.

b. Kodashim kalim, including the Pesaḥ offering, are burned anywhere in Jerusalem, for the wall of Jerusalem serves as the boundary for kodashim kalim when they are fit, and they are burned there when they are disqualified.

c.

If the Pesaḥ offering became impure

whole

or most of it,

there is negligence on the part of the owners [Meiri]. Therefore, the Sages decreed that it be

burned before the bira

the Temple [Rashi; see the note ].

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

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

with wood from the arrangement

on the altar [Tosafot ].

d.

If only a minority of the Pesaḥ offering became impure,

and only that part,

and

likewise

the leftover portion

of a pure Pesaḥ 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,

that of the owners of the Pesaḥ offering. However, it is forbidden to burn it with wood from the arrangement, for why should the court stipulate that they may benefit from the wood of the consecrated arrangement? [Maharsha, according to Tosafot] (178).

e.

The miserly ones

[stingy, meaning that they are tightfisted, Rashi], whose minority portion of the Pesaḥ offering became impure or was left over. The Sages were concerned that they might not wish to spend money on wood in order to burn it, and would refrain from burning it, thereby coming to transgress. Therefore, they said:

They burn it

if they wish

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

That is, 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 wood from the arrangement unless they burn it before the bira [the reason for this was explained in the Gemara]. Accordingly, 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 the entire offering 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 anywhere they wish in Jerusalem?

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: In order to shame them

before everyone, because they rendered it impure through their negligence.

We learned in the Mishna:

If a minority became impure,

and the leftover portion, they burn it in their courtyards or on their roofs, with their own wood:

This implies that they cannot burn it with wood from the arrangement

; but we raise a contradiction,

from the Mishna above, 49a:

And likewise, one who left Jerusalem and remembered that he had consecrated meat in his possession

from kodashim kalim, which became disqualified upon leaving the city because of the prohibition of yotzei, and he must burn it:

If he has passed

the village [Rashi above] called

“Tzofim”

[and it is called this because from there one can see Jerusalem], he is no longer burdened to return and burn it in Jerusalem; rather,

he burns it where he is

there, as stated.

For the law requiring the burning of kodashim kalim only in Jerusalem is merely rabbinic, and therefore they were lenient with him on account of the exertion involved.

And if not,

that he has not yet gone far after Tzofim:

He must return to Jerusalem and burn it in accordance with its law, wherever he wishes.