Pesachim 90b — the Talmud in English

And one may not slaughter or sprinkle the blood of the Paschal offering on behalf of one who is impure due to contact with a creeping creature,

because the designation “impure” still applies to him—that is, before immersion. Even though he can immerse that day and eat the sacrificial meat that night, it is forbidden. The reason is explained below.

This applies not only to one impure due to contact with a creeping creature; the same law applies to all impure people who have not immersed: one may not slaughter the Paschal offering on their behalf.

And Ulla said: One may even slaughter and sprinkle the blood of the Paschal offering on behalf of one impure due to contact with a creeping creature,

since he can immerse that same day before nightfall and eat sacrificial meat that evening.

The same applies to all impure people who are able to immerse during the day and eat that evening—for example, one impure through contact with a corpse on the seventh day, or a zav who experienced two sightings on the seventh day. The Paschal offering may also be slaughtered on their behalf.

The Gemara raises an objection:

According to Rav,

who said that one may not slaughter the Paschal offering on behalf of one who has immersed that day but must wait for nightfall,

what is different about one who has immersed that day, who is fit

that evening?

Why is it permitted to slaughter the offering on his behalf because he is fit to eat the sacrificial meat that evening?

One impure due to contact with a creeping creature is also fit that evening,

since he too is fit to eat sacrificial meat that evening if he immerses before nightfall.

The Gemara answers: One impure due to contact with a creeping creature

is lacking immersion,

since he has not yet immersed.

The Gemara asks:

One who has immersed that day is also lacking sunset,

since until the sun sets he is forbidden to eat sacrificial meat!

The Gemara answers:

The sun

sets automatically.

The sun sets on its own, and no action by the person is required. This is unlike one who is impure and is lacking immersion, since he is lacking an action: if he does not immerse, he will not be able to eat sacrificial meat.

The Gemara asks: But

one who is lacking atonement is also

lacking an action, since

he is lacking

the bringing of an offering for

atonement. Why, then, may the offering be slaughtered and its blood sprinkled on his behalf?

The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with one lacking atonement

who has

his birds—

the pair of turtledoves or two pigeons that he must bring for his atonement—

in his possession;

he can bring them immediately if he wishes.

The Gemara asks: If so,

one impure due to contact with a creeping creature also,

although he must immerse,

has a ritual bath

prepared

before him,

and he can immerse immediately if he wishes!

The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, in the case of one impure due to contact with a creeping creature, the Sages were concerned

perhaps he will be negligent

and will not immerse before the day ends. Therefore, one may not slaughter the Paschal offering on his behalf.

The Gemara asks:

If so,

if this is the reason—that we are concerned that perhaps he will be negligent—

one lacking atonement also

should be a matter of concern:

perhaps he will be negligent

and will not bring his offering for atonement!

The Gemara answers: Indeed, this concern also exists with regard to one lacking atonement. But our Mishna is speaking

for example, when he handed them over,

when he handed over his offerings

to the court

of the priests. There was no concern that the priestly court would be negligent and fail to offer them before the day ended.

And this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Shemaya,

who said

that there were collection boxes in the Temple courtyard shaped like shofarot. People lacking atonement—such as women after childbirth, men and women with a discharge, and lepers—would place money in them so that the priests could purchase birds for them —pairs of turtledoves or pigeons—and the priests would offer them on their behalf. Those lacking atonement could rely on the priests to offer them that same day and could eat sacrificial meat that evening.

And they were not concerned that the priests might not have enough time to offer the birds, because

it is an established presumption that the priestly court does not leave from there

—that is, leave the courtyard—

until they have finished

offering the birds on behalf of all

the money in the shofar-shaped boxes.

The Gemara analyzes this:

And according to Rav,

who said that one may not slaughter or sprinkle the blood on behalf of one impure due to contact with a creeping creature—and we explained Rav’s reason as concern that perhaps he will be negligent and fail to immerse—it follows that

according to Torah law he is fit

for the Paschal offering to be slaughtered on his behalf,

and

only

the Sages decreed concerning him

that the offering should not be slaughtered on his behalf, lest he be negligent and fail to immerse.

This is difficult, for

Rav said:

[Earlier, on page 80a:] If, on the fourteenth of Nisan, half of the Jewish people are pure and half are impure, the pure half brings the Paschal offering on the fourteenth in a state of purity, because half is treated as the majority. If the majority of the community is pure, they may not bring the Paschal offering in impurity.

But the impure half brings the Paschal offering on the fourteenth in impurity, because with regard to themselves, half is treated as the majority. They are therefore permitted to offer the Paschal offering in impurity. Rav said concerning this that there may be a tanna who prohibits the impure people from bringing the first Paschal offering by themselves in impurity, because a communal offering cannot be divided. That is, it is improper for one group to bring the offering separately from the other group. Furthermore, the impure people cannot bring a second Paschal offering, because they are considered the majority of the community. Rav said that their remedy is:

They render one of them impure—

one of the pure people—

through contact with a creeping creature.

The majority of the community then becomes impure, and impurity is permitted in the case of a communal offering. The pure people can then also bring the Paschal offering in impurity.

The difficulty is now clear: Since, according to Rav, one impure due to contact with a creeping creature is fit according to Torah law to have the Paschal offering slaughtered on his behalf on the fourteenth, and the Sages merely prohibited this by their decree, how could they permit bringing the Paschal offering in impurity by rendering one of the pure half impure through contact with a creeping creature? According to Torah law, the Paschal offering could be slaughtered on his behalf, so there would not be a majority of the community unable to bring the Paschal offering because of impurity!

The Gemara answers:

Rather, according to Rav, even according to Torah law he is not fit.

Even according to Torah law, one impure through contact with a corpse is not fit to have the Paschal offering slaughtered on his behalf.

As it is written:

[Numbers 9:6]: “There were people who were impure through contact with a human corpse, and they could not bring the Paschal offering on that day.” This refers to the fourteenth of Nisan. The passage continues [verses 9–10]: “The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the Children of Israel, saying:

When any person becomes impure through contact with a corpse

or is on a distant journey, whether among you or in future generations, he shall make a Paschal offering for the Lord.” This refers to the second Paschal offering.

Are we not dealing

in this verse also with one impure through contact with a corpse [that is, one impure through contact with a corpse]

whose seventh day occurs on the eve of Passover—that is,

according to the law of

impurity through contact with a creeping creature,

since he can immerse before the day ends and eat sacrificial meat that night?

And

even so,

the Merciful One said: Let him be deferred:

the Torah said that he must be deferred to the second Paschal offering. This shows that one impure through contact with a creeping creature who has not yet immersed is not fit for the first Paschal offering, but only for the second.

But if you would say: From where is this so?

If you say: From where do we know that the verse refers even to one impure through contact with a corpse whose seventh day fell on the fourteenth of Nisan? Perhaps the verse refers specifically to one impure through contact with a corpse during the first six days of his impurity, when he is unlike one impure through contact with a creeping creature, since he cannot immerse that same day.

Indeed, it appears that this is so: The verse speaks of one impure through contact with a corpse. Why did it not speak of one impure through contact with a creeping creature? Rather, because one impure through contact with a creeping creature can immerse that same day and is fit for the first Paschal offering, whereas the person impure through contact with a corpse is speaking of someone in the first six days of his impurity, when he cannot immerse.

One can say: Rav

followed the view of Rabbi Yitzḥak.

As Rabbi Yitzḥak said:

The Torah says: “There were people who were impure through contact with a human corpse.” Who were those people?

They were people impure through contact with a corpse for the sake of a mitzva, whose seventh day occurred on the eve of Passover.

There was a corpse whom it was a mitzva to render oneself impure for, and they were permitted to become impure through contact with the corpse before Passover, even though they thereby caused themselves to be unable to bring the Paschal offering at its appointed time.

And from where do we know that their seventh day occurred on the eve of Passover?

As it is stated

later in the verse:

“And they could not bring the Paschal offering on that day.”

This implies specifically

“on that day”,

that is, on the fourteenth of Nisan,

they could not bring it. But on the following day—

they could bring it.

That is, it was the seventh day of their impurity, when they could immerse that day and bring the Paschal offering that evening, which was already the following day.

Moses said to them concerning this: “Stand still, and I will hear what the Lord will command concerning you.”

And the Merciful One said: Let them be deferred.

God answered him that they should be deferred to the second Paschal offering. [That is, in the verse cited above: “When any person becomes impure through contact with a corpse, he shall make a Paschal offering for the Lord,” referring to the second Paschal offering.]

From here Rav learned that one who is impure and has not immersed, even though he can immerse that day and eat sacrificial meat that night, may not have the Paschal offering brought on his behalf according to Torah law. The Gemara raises an objection to Rav from the following teaching:

We learned

in our Mishna:

A zav who experienced two

sightings—the offering may be slaughtered

on his behalf on the seventh day.

Does this not mean

that the Mishna is speaking of the case in which he

has not immersed?

Does it not refer even to one who has not immersed?

And learn from it: The offering may be slaughtered and its blood sprinkled on behalf of one impure through contact with a creeping creature

before he has immersed!

The Gemara answers:

No!

The Mishna is speaking specifically of a zav

who has immersed.

The Gemara asks:

If he has immersed,

what does it teach us?

If the Mishna is speaking specifically of a zav who has immersed, what new point does the tanna teach us? It is obvious that the offering may be slaughtered on his behalf, since he is fit to eat the sacrificial meat that night!

The Gemara answers:

This teaches us

[this is the novel point]:

that although he is lacking sunset,

and one might have thought that the Paschal offering may not be slaughtered on his behalf as long as the sun has not set,

this teaches us that the sun sets automatically.

The tanna teaches us that since the sun sets on its own, without any action by the person, he is not considered to be lacking an action; therefore, the offering may be slaughtered on his behalf.

The Gemara proves that the Mishna is speaking of a zav who has immersed:

It is also reasonable

that it is indeed speaking specifically of one who has immersed.

As it teaches in the latter clause,

at the end of the Mishna:

One who experienced three sightings—

the offering may be slaughtered on his behalf on the eighth day.

If you say that what we learned in the first clause—

что то, что мы учили в начале, —

a zav who experienced two sightings, the offering may be slaughtered on his behalf on the seventh day—is speaking specifically of one

refers specifically to one who

who has immersed, it is well that

необходимо

it was necessary for the tanna to add: “One who experienced three sightings, the offering may be slaughtered on his behalf on the eighth day.”

to add, “If he experienced three emissions, one may slaughter on his behalf on the eighth day.”

For

it might have entered your mind to say that the reason one who

что тот, кто

experienced two sightings, for whom the offering may be slaughtered

и за него режут

on the seventh day,

is

because

he is not lacking an action, since he has already immersed.

for he has already immersed.

But

if he

experienced three, while he is standing

когда находится

on

восьмой день,

the eighth day, he is lacking an action,

since he is still

lacking the bringing of an offering for

the bringing of an offering for

atonement. In that case one might say that the offering may

one might say that

not be slaughtered on his behalf.

slaughter the offering on his behalf.

Therefore,

this teaches us in the latter clause

that

although he is lacking atonement—

the offering may be slaughtered and its blood sprinkled on his behalf

[that is, on behalf of the zav].

But

[однако]

if you say that what we learned in the first clause—

увидел два истечения, и за него режут

one who experienced two sightings, the offering may be slaughtered on his behalf

говорит даже о том, кто

on the seventh day—is speaking even when he

refers even to one

has not immersed,

then there is a difficulty: The additional statement of the tanna,

“one who experienced three

sightings, the offering may be slaughtered on his behalf

on the eighth day”—

why is it needed?

It is obvious that the offering may be slaughtered on his behalf on the eighth day, by an a-fortiori inference:

Now, one can reason as follows: One who experienced two sightings,

if he is standing

on

«не погрузился, поскольку он полностью нечист»,

the seventh day in the state of

«режем и бросаем кровь за него».

not having immersed, he is fully impure,

since he is completely impure before immersion, and nevertheless the tanna said

that we slaughter and sprinkle the blood on his behalf.

One who experienced three,

standing

on

поскольку на нём уже нет полной нечистоты, а лишь слабая нечистота, —

the eighth day,

having immersed on the seventh, since he already immersed on the seventh,

whose impurity is weaker,

since he no longer has complete impurity, but only a lesser form of impurity—

all the more so may we slaughter and sprinkle the blood on his behalf?! And if so, why did the tanna need to state in the latter clause, “one who experienced three sightings, the offering may be slaughtered on his behalf on the eighth day”?

And if so, why did the tanna need to state in the latter clause, “If he experienced three emissions, one may slaughter on his behalf on the eighth day”?

Rather, is it not

necessarily the case that

we learn from this: One who experienced two sightings on the seventh day, the offering may be slaughtered on his behalf,

is speaking specifically of one who

has immersed.

And we reject it:

No! I will always say to you that he has not immersed.

And

even so,

it was necessary

for the tanna to teach: “If he saw three, they slaughter on his behalf on the eighth.”

For

it might have entered your mind

that you would say: A zav who saw two sightings, that they slaughter on his behalf

on the seventh—

it is

because

he has the ability to rectify it,

since a ritual bath is before him and he can immerse.

But if he saw three, if he is now

on the eighth, for he has no ability to offer a sacrifice,

since it is only in the power of the kohen to offer it, and not in his power,

I would say: the priests might be negligent with regard to him.

In this case, we would be concerned lest the priests be negligent and not offer the sacrifice on that day. And I would say that it is forbidden to slaughter on his behalf.

This teaches us

the tanna in our Mishna, that they slaughter on his behalf,

in accordance with Rav Shemaya,

for there is a presumption concerning the court of priests that they do not leave there until the money in the collection boxes has been exhausted.

We learned in the Mishna:

And for the zava they slaughter

on her behalf on the eighth.

A tanna taught before Rav Adda bar Ahava:

the one who taught

“And in the case of a woman with a discharge—

a beraita before Rav Adda bar Ahava : And the zava— they slaughter on her behalf on her seventh.

He said to him

Rav Adda bar Ahava to the one who taught this beraita before him:

A zava on her seventh—

is she fit?

For is she fit, that they should slaughter on her behalf?!

For

even according to one who says [Ulla]

that they slaughter and sprinkle on one who is impure with a creeping creature,

they slaughter and sprinkle on one impure with a creeping creature

who has not immersed,

these words

apply specifically with regard to

one impure with a creeping creature, for he is fit for the evening,

for he is fit to immerse while it is still day and to eat in the evening.

But

this one,

the zava on her seventh,

until tomorrow, when she brings atonement, she is not fit.

Until the next day, when she brings a sacrifice for her atonement, she is not fit to eat, and how can they slaughter on her behalf?

Rather,

say:

say: And for the zava they slaughter on her behalf

on the eighth.

And the one who taught the beraita objected to him: Behold,

it is obvious

that on the eighth they slaughter on her behalf, since she is fit in the evening!

And Rav Adda bar Ahava answered him: The novelty is:

lest you say

lest you say:

Since she lacks atonement, they do not

slaughter on her behalf, lest the priests have not effected atonement for her.

This teaches us, in accordance with Rav Shemaya,

that there is a presumption concerning the priests that they will offer her sacrifice on that day.

Ravina said:

The tanna did not teach before Rav Adda, “And for the zava they slaughter on her behalf on the seventh.” Rather,

a nidda—

he taught before him:

And the nidda—

they slaughter on her behalf on the seventh.

And a nidda does not lack atonement, since the Torah did not obligate the nidda to bring sacrifices.

He said to him

Rav Adda bar Ahava to the tanna: Is it so that

a nidda on the seventh—

is she fit?

For is she fit, that they should slaughter the Paschal offering on her behalf on her seventh day?!

Behold,

even according to one who says, “They slaughter and sprinkle on one impure with a creeping creature,”

who has not immersed, this is because

he is fit for the evening

immediately, for he is fit to immerse while it is still day and to eat immediately in the evening.

But a nidda

is not fit to immerse on the seventh day.

Rather, only

on the evening of the seventh does she immerse,

for only on the night following the seventh day can she immerse. [Although a zava immerses on the seventh day, this applies specifically to a zava, concerning whom it is written: “And she shall count for herself seven days, and afterward she shall become pure.” For after she has counted the seventh day, she immerses in a ritual bath on that very day and becomes pure. But a nidda, according to Torah law, does not count seven clean days, since even if she saw blood for seven days and ceased seeing blood only close to sunset on the seventh day, she immerses at the conclusion of the seventh day, after the sun has set on the seventh day].

Although a woman with a discharge immerses herself on the seventh day, this applies specifically to a woman with a discharge, concerning whom it is written: “And she shall count for herself seven days, and afterward she may be purified.” After she has counted the seventh day, she immerses herself in a ritual bath on that very day and becomes pure. But in the case of a menstruating woman, according to Torah law she does not count seven clean days. Even if she saw blood for seven days and stopped seeing blood only immediately before sunset on the seventh day, she immerses herself only at the conclusion of the seventh day, after the sun has set on the seventh day. ]

And since she immerses only on the night of the eighth, and the sun has not yet set after she immersed, behold,

until the eighth, when she has performed [A0093]]what she does, on the next day]

the

the setting of the sun—

she is not fit

to eat consecrated food!

And how do you [the tanna] teach concerning a nidda that they slaughter on her behalf on the seventh?

Rather, say

say: And for the nidda they slaughter on her behalf

on the eighth.

And the tanna objected to Rav Adda bar Ahava:

It is obvious

that for a nidda they slaughter on her behalf on the eighth! For this can be learned by a kal va-chomer:

Now, and what of a zava, who lacks atonement [who must bring sacrifices for her purification on the eighth day], even so we learned in the Mishna that

they slaughter and sprinkle on her behalf on the eighth.

they slaughter and sprinkle on her behalf on the eighth.

If so,

a nidda, who does not lack atonement [who does not have to bring sacrifices on the eighth day], and is it

is it necessary to say that

necessary to say that we slaughter and sprinkle on her behalf,

is it necessary to tell us that they slaughter and sprinkle on her behalf on the eighth day?!

Rav Adda bar Ahava answered him:

A nidda was needed

to teach it in order to inform us of the opposite direction. And

this teaches us [and this comes to teach us]: specifically

that specifically

on the eighth—

yes [they slaughter on her behalf], but

they slaughter the offering on her behalf; but

on the seventh, no

they do not slaughter on her behalf, to teach us that she cannot immerse while it is still day.

As it is taught: All those obligated in immersions—

their immersion is during the day

on the final day of the days of impurity stated concerning them.

But

a nidda and a woman who gave birth—

their immersion is at night

following the days of impurity stated concerning them.

And from where did they learn that a nidda and a woman who gave birth immerse at night?

As it is taught: Could it be that

a nidda

immerses while it is still day?

Scripture says [Leviticus 15] concerning a nidda:

“She shall be in her menstruation for seven days.”

“She shall be in her menstrual impurity seven days.”

And the Sages expounded:

She shall be in her menstrual impurity all seven,

until the night following the seventh day.

And a woman who gave birth was juxtaposed

[was made analogous]

to a nidda.

For it is stated concerning a woman who gave birth [Leviticus 12]: “As the days of the impurity of her menstrual condition, she shall be impure.” That is, a woman who gave birth is impure according to the law of a nidda.

Mishna:

Our Mishna comes to teach that they slaughter the Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan even for people concerning whom there is concern that they will be unable to eat from the Paschal offering at night.

The one in acute mourning,

one whose one of the seven close relatives [mentioned in the Torah at the beginning of the portion of Emor, Leviticus 21] has died, and he has not yet been buried.

According to Torah law, one in acute mourning is forbidden to eat consecrated food only on the day of the death, but on the night following it he is permitted [as it is stated concerning one in acute mourning, who is forbidden to eat consecrated food [Leviticus 10]: “Behold, today they brought their sin-offering and their burnt-offering before the Lord, and such things befell me. Had I eaten a sin-offering today, would it have been good in the eyes of the Lord?” And they expounded: “Today”—specifically, the day is forbidden. But the night is permitted].

And the Sages prohibited the eating of consecrated food by one in acute mourning also on the night following the day of the death. But with regard to eating the Paschal offering, they did not decree.

Therefore, for one in acute mourning, they slaughter on his behalf on the fourteenth of Nisan, because he is fit to eat on the night of the fifteenth. And even though there is concern lest he become impure for his dead when he buries him, nevertheless, now he is fit to eat, since he has not yet become impure.