Pesachim 90a (צ.) — the Talmud in English

Abaye said to resolve:

It is necessarily impossible to say, as the questioner—Ulla or Rabbi Oshaya—understood it simply, that both the money was entirely consecrated and the lamb was entirely consecrated.

Rather, one must say that one of them was not “entirely consecrated.”

There are two possible ways to explain this:

a. The owner of the money, who designated his money for the Paschal offering, retained something of its sanctity. He said: “This money is consecrated on the following condition: When I give it to the owner of the lamb in order to join him, its sanctity will thereby lapse, and from then on it will be non-sacred in his possession. I will be able to give him the money merely as a gift, and he will include me in his offering as a gift.”

b. The owner of the money consecrated it entirely, but the owner of the lamb did not consecrate it entirely, as will be explained below.

We find a source for the possibility that the lamb or the money is not entirely consecrated in a beraita [Temura 30a], in which Rabbi and the Sages disputed the case of one who designated a lamb for his Paschal offering, then needed money, and wished to include others in his offering and receive from them the money they had designated to purchase a Paschal offering, so that he could use that money.

According to the Sages, he may use this money only for the needs of eating the Paschal offering [for example, to purchase wood with which to roast it].

Whereas Rabbi holds that he may use it for an entirely non-sacred purpose, and may purchase a shirt or a cloak for himself with this money, even though the money he received is consecrated money and apparently cannot be transferred onto the already-consecrated offering.

It is therefore necessary to say that Rabbi holds that the money is not entirely consecrated.

There are two possible explanations for Rabbi’s reason that the money is not consecrated:

a. When the purchaser initially designated the money, he retained something of his consecration. He designated it in order to give it to the owner of the offering so that he could join the Paschal offering, on the condition that the money would be non-sacred in the seller’s possession.

b. The owner of the lamb did not intend to consecrate it entirely. Rather, he retained something of its sanctity, so that part of the lamb would remain non-sacred, enabling him to include others in his Paschal offering.

Consequently, when he receives consecrated money from other people in exchange for their participation in the lamb, the sanctity in the money takes hold of the non-sacred portion that remained in the lamb. That is, the money itself is transferred onto it and becomes non-sacred.

How can we determine which of the two explanations is correct? Is Rabbi’s reason that something was retained in the sanctity of the money, or that something was retained in the sanctity of the Paschal offering?

This matter is derived from the beraita in Temura 30b, concerning the payment of a prostitute, as will be explained below: “

The payment of a prostitute”: This refers to one who says to a prostitute, “Here is this lamb as your payment.” It is prohibited to sacrifice this lamb, which is the payment of a prostitute, on the altar. [Temura 29a] This applies specifically when he paid the prostitute with an animal of his own. But if he paid her with an animal that did not belong to him, the animal is not prohibited, for “a person cannot prohibit an object that does not belong to him.”

And in the beraita in Temura 30a they asked: From where do we know that one who gives an offering animal to a prostitute does not render the animal prohibited? The beraita answered that there is a verse from which we learn that when one gives consecrated property to a prostitute, the prohibition of payment to a prostitute does not take effect upon it, as follows.

The Gemara there asked: Why was it necessary for the beraita to cite a verse to teach that the prohibition of payment to a prostitute does not take effect upon consecrated property? Consecrated property belongs to the Most High; it is not his, and a person cannot prohibit an object that does not belong to him!

Rabbi Oshaya answered to resolve this: The beraita is speaking of a Paschal offering in which he included a prostitute as payment for her services. This Paschal offering was partially non-sacred, in accordance with Rabbi, who holds that one may purchase a shirt or a cloak with money received for that portion.

And since the lamb designated for his Paschal offering had something retained in its sanctity, with part of it being non-sacred, it might have been thought that it should be prohibited as payment to a prostitute. Therefore, the beraita had to cite a verse to permit it.

It follows from this beraita, according to Rabbi Oshaya’s explanation, that the lamb designated for one’s Paschal offering is partially non-sacred.

This resolves the uncertainty raised earlier concerning Rabbi’s position: Is his reason that something was retained in the sanctity of the money, or that something was retained in the sanctity of the lamb?

For Rabbi Oshaya’s words prove that he explains Rabbi’s position as being based on something retained in the sanctity of the lamb.

Abaye now comes to explain the beraita that says that when one includes others in his Paschal offering, the money in his possession is non-sacred, in accordance with Rabbi, who holds that a person may purchase even a shirt or a cloak with money received from those who join his Paschal offering.

And this is what Abaye said:

If Rabbi Oshaya had not established that beraita

if Rabbi Oshaya had not interpreted the beraita concerning payment to a prostitute

as referring to one who included a prostitute in his Paschal offering,

so that, on the basis of reasoning alone, it would have been appropriate to say that the Paschal offering is prohibited as payment to a prostitute, since part of the Paschal lamb is non-sacred,

and it is Rabbi’s

view, and therefore the beraita needed to derive from a verse that the Paschal offering is permitted,

I, Abaye, would not have interpreted the beraita in accordance with Rabbi’s view.

Rather,

I would have established it

I would have established this beraita

with

all

types of lesser sanctity,

and not specifically with regard to the Paschal offering [for example, where one gave a peace offering to a prostitute as her payment],

and

only

in accordance with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

For

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili

said:

Lesser sanctity—

it

belongs to the owners.

But

what Rabbi Oshaya said, that according to Rabbi something is retained in the sanctity of the Paschal lamb—that is not what I [Abaye] would have inferred on my own.

For I would have said:

With regard to

the consecration with which a person consecrated the

Paschal offering

itself, with sanctity intrinsic to the object, in order to sacrifice it on the altar—

a person does not retain

anything in its sanctity. Rather, he intends to consecrate all of it completely.

Only

with regard to money,

which a person sets aside for a Paschal offering, does Rabbi hold

that a person certainly retains something

of its sanctity, since

initially

from the outset,

when he designates it,

when he designates it,

he designates it with this intention:

He designates it on the condition that when he gives it to the owner of the offering, the money will be non-sacred in the possession of the owner of the offering who includes him in it, and he will be able to use it for whatever he wishes.

That is, the owner of the lamb does not transfer to the owner of the money his share in the offering in exchange for his money. Rather, he includes him in it as a gift, and the money that the participant gives him is likewise given as a gift. It is non-sacred because of the reservation made by the owner of the money when he consecrated it: its sanctity was to have this form.

However,

but

with regard to the beraita concerning one who includes others in his Paschal offering, which says that the money in his possession is non-sacred, and Ulla—or, if you wish, Rabbi Oshaya—said, “Is it possible that my Babylonian colleagues know the reason for this matter?”—I would certainly say that this beraita follows the opinion of

Rabbi.

And for this reason

for this reason

the money in his possession is non-sacred,

for I have already said that in my opinion Rabbi holds that

with regard to money, a person certainly retains something

of its consecration.

And although the beraita also says that when one includes others in his festival offering, the money is non-sacred, Rabbi also spoke about the festival offering that comes with the Paschal offering, as will be explained below.

And

if that beraita

in question,

concerning payment to a prostitute in the case of consecrated property [where it is explained that, on the basis of reasoning alone, the prohibition of payment to a prostitute should apply to consecrated property, but the verse explicitly excludes it],

which he establishes

which he interprets

Rabbi Oshaya in accordance with Rabbi,

and with regard to a Paschal offering—

I would not establish it myself in accordance with Rabbi.

I would not, on my own, interpret that beraita as following Rabbi’s view with regard to a Paschal offering.

For one might say

that with regard to a Paschal offering a person does not retain anything

even according to Rabbi.

And if so, the Paschal lamb does not belong to him, and it does not become payment to a prostitute, since a person cannot prohibit an object that does not belong to him.

Abaye now returns to explain his statement: The beraita that says that when one includes others in his Paschal offering, the money in his possession is non-sacred, must certainly be interpreted in accordance with Rabbi, and cannot be interpreted in accordance with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who holds that lesser sanctity belongs to the owners:

But

the beraita concerning one who includes others in his Paschal offering—

cannot be established in accordance with Rabbi Yosei

HaGelili.

For it teaches concerning it,

for it teaches later, in its conclusion:

And one who sells his olah and peace offerings—

has accomplished nothing.

But according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, peace offerings, which are offerings of lesser sanctity, belong to the owners, and he may sell them .

And now, that he established it and now that he established Rabbi Oshaya that beraita concerning payment to a prostitute in the case of consecrated property as referring to one who included a prostitute in his Paschal offering, and it is Rabbi’s view, according to which he includes her in a Paschal lamb in whose sanctity something has been retained and which contains a non-sacred aspect [and therefore, were it not for the exclusion in the verse, it would have been appropriate to say that the designation as payment to a prostitute takes effect upon it]— infer from it from Rabbi Oshaya’s words, that he holds that even with regard to the sanctity of his Paschal offering a person retains something, and not only with regard to money, which does not possess sanctity intrinsic to the object. If so, all the more so one should say that a person retains something with regard to money. And if so, according to Rabbi Oshaya’s words, all the more so it is possible to establish the beraita concerning one who includes others in his Paschal offering, in which the money in his possession is non-sacred, in accordance with Rabbi. For according to his words, neither the lamb nor the money is entirely consecrated. If so, it is obvious that the money in his possession is non-sacred. And now the Gemara explains: What is Rabbi Oshaya’s view? With regard to which Mishna did Rabbi Oshaya speak? For it was taught concerning payment to a prostitute [Temura 30a]: If he gave her the prostitute consecrated property animals consecrated for an offering as her payment— these are permitted. The prohibition of payment to a prostitute does not take effect upon them. If he gave her birds such as doves or young pigeons of non-sacred property as her payment— these are prohibited. And if you say: What novelty is there in this, that if he gave her non-sacred birds they are prohibited as payment to a prostitute? Is it not obvious that they are prohibited ! And for what reason would it occur to you to permit them? The answer is: It could have been derived to permit non-sacred birds by means of a kal va-homer: And if animals consecrated, with regard to which the Torah was stringent, in that a blemish disqualifies them, whether the blemish developed before they were consecrated or after they were consecrated—and nevertheless there is no prohibition of payment to a prostitute or the price of a dog [when one exchanges a non-sacred animal for a dog, it is prohibited to sacrifice the animal, and it is called “the price of a dog”]. Birds of non-sacred property, with regard to which the Torah was lenient, in that a blemish does not disqualify them [the laws of “it shall die” and “male” were not stated with regard to birds]— is it not the case that there is no prohibition of payment to a prostitute or the price of a dog that takes effect upon them! The verse states: [Deuteronomy 23:19] “You shall not bring the payment of a prostitute or the price of a dog to the House of the Lord your God for any vow”— “any” includes birds. Therefore, it is necessary to teach us that the prohibition of payment to a prostitute takes effect upon non-sacred birds. Thus far are the words of the Mishna. The continuation of the Mishna appears in a beraita: The tanna in the beraita raises a difficulty: Now that we have learned from the verse that the prohibition of payment to a prostitute takes effect upon non-sacred birds, let us say the opposite: A kal va-chomer to consecrated property now! The prohibition of payment to a prostitute should likewise take effect upon consecrated animals: For if non-sacred birds, with regard to which the Torah was lenient, in that a blemish does not disqualify them, the Torah was stringent with regard to them, so that the other person may acquire atonement through the offering, contrary to the position of Ketzot HaḤoshen. [See Or Sameaḥ, chapter 2 of the laws of theft; Emek HaShaila, Emor, question 111; and Kehillot Yaakov, Bava Kamma, section 12, where it is stated that all hold that Rambam ruled not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili]. [The source text appears to continue the quotation here; unclear: the segment’s punctuation and division combine the continuation of the beraita with an editorial note.] In short: Abaye himself wishes to interpret the beraita concerning one who includes others in his Paschal offering as referring to Rabbi’s view: when he designated the money, he did so with this intention, so that the participant would be able to use it for whatever he needed.

And Abaye continues and says:

And now, that he established it

and now that he established

Rabbi Oshaya

that beraita concerning payment to a prostitute in the case of consecrated property

as referring to one who included a prostitute in his Paschal offering, and it is Rabbi’s view,

according to which he includes her in a Paschal lamb in whose sanctity something has been retained and which contains a non-sacred aspect [and therefore, were it not for the exclusion in the verse, it would have been appropriate to say that the designation as payment to a prostitute takes effect upon it].

Infer from it

from Rabbi Oshaya’s words,

that he holds

that

even with regard to

the sanctity of

his Paschal offering a person retains something,

and not only with regard to money, which does not possess sanctity intrinsic to the object.

If so, all the more so one should say that a person retains something with regard to money.

And if so, according to Rabbi Oshaya’s words, all the more so it is possible to establish the beraita concerning one who includes others in his Paschal offering, in which the money in his possession is non-sacred, in accordance with Rabbi.

For according to his words, neither the lamb nor the money is entirely consecrated. If so, it is obvious that the money in his possession is non-sacred.

And now the Gemara explains:

What is Rabbi Oshaya’s view?

With regard to which Mishna did Rabbi Oshaya speak?

For it was taught

concerning payment to a prostitute [Temura 30a]:

If he gave her

the prostitute

consecrated property

animals consecrated for an offering

as her payment—

these are permitted.

The prohibition of payment to a prostitute does not take effect upon them.

If he gave her

birds

such as doves or young pigeons

of non-sacred property

as her payment—

these are prohibited.

And if you say: What novelty is there in this, that if he gave her non-sacred birds they are prohibited as payment to a prostitute? Is it not obvious that they are prohibited! And for what reason would it occur to you to permit them?

Your answer is:

It could have been derived

to permit non-sacred birds by means of a kal va-chomer:

And if

animals

consecrated,

with regard to which the Torah was stringent, in that

a blemish disqualifies them,

whether the blemish developed before they were consecrated or after they were consecrated,

and nevertheless

there is no

prohibition of

payment

to a prostitute

or the price

of a dog [when one exchanges a non-sacred animal for a dog, it is prohibited to sacrifice the animal, and it is called “the price of a dog”].

Birds

of non-sacred property, with regard to which the Torah was lenient,

in that a blemish does not disqualify them [the laws of “it shall die” and “male” were not stated with regard to birds]—

because the laws requiring an animal to die or to be male were not stated with regard to birds—

is it not the case that there is no

prohibition of

payment

to a prostitute

or the price

of a dog

that takes effect upon them!

The verse states: [Deuteronomy 23:19] “You shall not bring the payment of a prostitute or the price of a dog to the House of the Lord your God

“You shall not bring the payment of a prostitute or the price of a dog into the House of the Lord your God

for any vow”—“any”

“any”

includes birds.

Therefore, it is necessary to teach us that the prohibition of payment to a prostitute takes effect upon non-sacred birds.

Thus far are the words of the Mishna.

The continuation of the Mishna appears in a beraita:

The tanna in the beraita raises a difficulty: Now that we have learned from the verse that the prohibition of payment to a prostitute takes effect upon non-sacred birds, let us say the opposite:

A kal va-chomer to consecrated property, now!

The prohibition of payment to a prostitute should likewise take effect upon consecrated animals:

For

if non-sacred birds,

with regard to which the Torah was lenient,

in that a blemish does not disqualify them,

the Torah was stringent with regard to them, in that

payment and the price take effect upon them,

consecrated property,

with regard to which the Torah was stringent,

in that a blemish disqualifies them—

is it not certainly the case that payment and the price take effect upon them?!

And the beraita answers:

The verse states:

there,

“for every vow”—

excluding

something designated by a vow.

And this is the interpretation of the verse: It is prohibited to bring the hire of a prostitute and vow concerning it that it is to be for a sacrifice. From this, consecrated property is excluded, since one has already vowed concerning it that it be a sacrifice; the prohibition of the hire of a prostitute does not take effect upon it.

And we infer from the beraita:

It follows from the words of the beraita that we would not have known that the prohibition of the hire of a prostitute does not take effect upon consecrated property

except

only from

the reason that the Merciful One wrote, “every vow.”

And it follows that

if not for this [the verse],

[if not for this verse],

I would have thought

that

consecrated property—

the prohibition of the hire of a prostitute would take effect upon it!

And we raise an objection to this:

But does a person have the power to prohibit something that is not his?!

And consecrated property belongs to the Most High; how can a person impose upon it the prohibition of the hire of a prostitute?

Concerning this,

Rabbi Oshaya said

in explanation: The beraita is speaking

of one who designates a prostitute for his Paschal offering,

as the Paschal offering belongs to its owners,

and it is the opinion of Rabbi.

And the Gemara explains:

What is Rabbi’s opinion?

Where do we find that Rabbi holds that the Paschal offering belongs to its owners?

As it was taught:

It is stated concerning the Paschal offering [Exodus 12]:

“But if the household be too small for a lamb”

“then he and his neighbor who is near his house shall take it, according to the number of persons.”

And the verse is interpreted as follows: “

If the household be too small”—meaning that the owner of the Paschal offering has only a small amount of money. “

For a lamb”—meaning that he has nothing with which to purchase what is needed for eating the lamb of the Paschal offering [for example, he has no wood with which to roast it, as stated below].

Then, “he and his neighbor who is near his house shall take it”—he should take money from his neighbor, designate him as one of those registered for his Paschal offering, and use some of this money to obtain whatever he needs in order to eat the Paschal offering.

The Sages say: “For a lamb”—

keep

the lamb alive,

only if the household is too small

for the food

of the lamb.

For example, he has no wood with which to roast it.

For he may sell it only for the purpose of eating the lamb, by designating additional people for his offering.

And not

if the household is too small

for a purchase!

Thus, if he has no money for merchandise, he may not sell his Paschal offering for that purpose.

Rabbi says: Even

if the household is too small

for a purchase.

If he has no

money for buying and selling,

he designates another person with him for his Paschal offering and his festival peace offering, and the money in his possession remains non-sacred,

since

the Jewish people consecrated their Paschal offerings with this stipulation: The lamb should not be entirely consecrated, but a non-sacred portion should remain in it so that others may be registered for it, and the money should be exchanged for the non-sacred portion of the offering. It is permitted to do this even in order to use the money he receives for buying and selling. [

that the lamb would not be entirely consecrated, but that they would leave a non-sacred portion in it so that others could be enrolled in it, and the money would become consecrated in place of the non-sacred share of the offering. It is permitted to do this even in order to use the money he receives for buying and selling.

And this is in accordance with the view of Rabbi Oshaya, whereas according to Abaye, the Gemara explains below.]

Rabba and

Rabbi Zeira

disagreed concerning the explanation of the dispute between Rabbi and the Sages:

One said: With regard to wood for roasting it,

everyone agrees

that it is permitted to sell a portion of the offering to others, and it is permitted to purchase with the money received from those registered for the Paschal offering wood for roasting it,

since it is a requirement for the Paschal offering,

it is considered like the body of the Paschal offering.

When they disagree [concerning what Rabbi and the Sages dispute],

[about what Rabbi and the Sages disagree], it is

it is with regard to matza and maror,

when he wishes to purchase them with this money:

The Sages hold: This

matza and maror

constitute a different act of eating,

and are not part of the eating of the Paschal offering itself.

But Rabbi holds: Since they are a requirement of the Paschal offering,

as matza and maror enable the eating of the Paschal offering, concerning which it is stated, “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs,” they too

are considered like the body of the Paschal offering.

And the other said: With regard to matza and maror as well, everyone agrees

[they do not disagree], as it is written concerning the Paschal offering [Exodus 12]:

“They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs.” Since

matza and maror

are requirements of the Paschal offering

[they are]—

they are considered like the Paschal offering.

When they disagree,

this is what Rabbi and the Sages dispute:

to purchase with it,

with the proceeds of the Paschal offering,

a garment.

The Sages hold: The Merciful One states, “for a lamb,”

and they interpret it:

keep the lamb alive

for the purpose of eating it, using the money.

But Rabbi holds: “For a lamb”—that is,

keep yourself alive with

sustain yourself from

the sale of the

lamb. [

For the Torah does not state, “for a sheep,” but rather, “for my sheep.” Rach.]

And we raise an objection from the wording of the beraita to Abaye’s statement:

But according to Abaye, who said: If Rabbi Oshaya had not established

[if he had not established]

that

the beraita

in that case,

concerning the hire of a prostitute and consecrated property,

as referring to one who designates a prostitute for his Paschal offering, and it is Rabbi’s opinion,

who holds that the Paschal offering itself is not entirely consecrated—

we would have established it,

I, Abaye, would have established the beraita

as referring to offerings of lesser sanctity, and in accordance with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says that offerings of lesser sanctity belong to their owners.

But with regard to the Paschal offering—

a person does not retain

anything of its sanctity. Rather, he consecrates all of it to the Most High.

And according to his statement, there is a difficulty:

But it explicitly teaches

in the beraita: “Rabbi says: Even for a purchase; if he has no money, he designates another person with him for his Paschal offering and his festival peace offering, and the money in his possession remains non-sacred,

‘since the Jewish people consecrated their Paschal offerings with this stipulation.’”

It is therefore evident that they consecrated their Paschal offerings with the stipulation that they not be entirely consecrated, but that they retain a non-sacred portion in their sanctity. This contradicts Abaye, who said that with regard to a Paschal offering, a person does not retain anything!

And we answer:

Say instead: The Jewish people consecrated the money of their Paschal offerings with this stipulation.

That is, when one registered for the Paschal offering set aside his money, he retained a non-sacred status for it, stipulating that if he wished to give it as a gift, he could give it as a gift on the presumption that it was non-sacred.

Mishna:

To understand what is stated in our Mishna, several matters must first be introduced:

A. The law of a zav:

If a person experienced one emission of zav on one day, then after the sun had set [at the emergence of the stars], he may immerse and eat sacrificial food.

If he experienced two consecutive emissions on the same day, or on two consecutive days, he must count seven clean days without an emission, immerse on the seventh day, and eat sacrificial food in the evening.

If he experienced three consecutive emissions, he counts seven clean days from zav and immerses on the seventh. He is still prohibited from sacrificial food. On the following day, the eighth, he brings the offerings that the Torah obligates a zav to bring, and he may eat sacrificial food in the evening. [

The Sages required him to immerse a second time on the eighth day, after bringing his offerings, and only afterward may he eat sacrificial food in the evening.]

B. The law of a woman who saw blood:

The first seven days during which a woman sees blood are called “days of menstruation,” and they are followed by eleven days called “days of zavah”; if she sees blood during them, she has the status of a zavah. Once these eleven days have ended, her days of menstruation return—for any blood she sees during them, she has the status of a menstruating woman.

The law of the days of menstruation is as follows:

Whether she saw blood for one day or saw it for seven consecutive days, she is always impure for seven days. Even if she saw blood throughout all seven of these days, once the seventh day arrives and she has stopped seeing blood, she waits until after the sun has set, may immerse that night, and is immediately permitted to her husband; nevertheless, she remains prohibited from eating sacrificial food until the evening of the eighth day, the following day.

The law of the days of zavah is as follows:

If during those eleven days she saw blood for one day [even if she experienced several emissions on that day], she is called “one who observes a day corresponding to a day,” meaning that she must “observe” the day following her sighting in purity, checking that she has no blood on that day. She immerses on that day and, after the sun has set, may eat sacrificial food.

The same law applies if she saw blood on two days: She observes the third day in purity, immerses on that day, and is permitted to eat sacrificial food in the evening.

But if she saw blood for three consecutive days, she counts seven clean days during which she sees no blood, and only on the seventh day does she immerse. On the eighth day she must bring an offering for her atonement, and she may eat sacrificial food after the evening of the eighth day has begun.

C. One who touches a corpse is impure for seven days. The water of purification is sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh days, he immerses on the seventh day, and he may eat sacrificial food in the evening.

D. One who touches a creeping animal is impure for one day. He immerses that same day and may eat sacrificial food in the evening.

E. “One who has immersed that day” is a designation for anyone who was impure and immersed. Although he is no longer called “impure” [and his contact and carrying do not transmit impurity], he nevertheless retains a lesser degree of impurity and may not eat sacrificial food until the evening following his immersion.

F. “One lacking atonement” is a designation for a person whose time to become pure has arrived and who has immersed, but who still needs to bring offerings for his atonement. Only after he brings the offerings and the sun sets [after he brings his offerings] is he permitted to eat sacrificial food.

The principle that the Mishna comes to teach us is:

The Paschal offering is slaughtered on the fourteenth of Nisan on behalf of an impure person, so that he will be able to eat sacrificial food on the night of the fifteenth, even though at present he is still unfit to eat sacrificial food.

Therefore:

A.

A zav who experienced two emissions,

who is impure for only seven days and is not obligated to bring an offering—

the offering is slaughtered on his behalf

on the fourteenth of Nisan, when this day occurs

on the seventh

day of his impurity. Although at present he is still unfit to eat sacrificial food because he is still within his seven days of impurity, nevertheless, he will be fit to eat sacrificial food in the evening [the Gemara explains whether this refers even to the time before he immersed or only after he immersed].

But if he

experienced three

emissions, the offering is not slaughtered on his behalf on the seventh day. For he is obligated to bring an offering for his atonement on the eighth day and will not be fit to eat in the evening.

Therefore,

the offering is slaughtered on his behalf

only

on

the day of his

eighth,

when it falls on the fourteenth of Nisan.

B.

A woman who observes a day corresponding to a day,

a woman who saw blood during the eleven days called “days of zavah,” and who must observe the following day in purity and immerse in the evening—

the offering is slaughtered on her behalf on her second day,

the day following the day of her sighting, since she is permitted to eat on the night that follows.

But if she

saw

blood for

two days,

and must observe the third day in purity,

the offering is slaughtered on her behalf on the third day,

since she is permitted to eat on the following night.

C.

And a zavah

who saw blood for three consecutive days during the days of zavah and must count seven clean days and bring an offering on the eighth day—the offering is slaughtered on her behalf

on the eighth day,

and she brings her atonement offering before nightfall and eats the Paschal offering that night.

Gemara:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The offering is slaughtered

the Paschal offering,

and its blood is sprinkled

its blood

for

on behalf of

one who has immersed that day,

after he has immersed and become purified from his impurity, but before the sun has set.

And

likewise, on behalf of

one lacking atonement

before he has brought his offering on the eighth day, since it is in his power to offer his offerings and become pure in the evening.