Pesachim 90b (צ:) — the Talmud in English

And one may neither slaughter nor sprinkle the blood on behalf of one who is impure with corpse impurity:

for the designation “impure” still applies to him—that is, before immersion. And although he can immerse that day and eat at night, it is prohibited. Its reason is explained below.

And this applies not specifically to one who is impure with corpse impurity, but likewise 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 on behalf of one who is impure with corpse impurity,

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

And the same law applies to all impure people who can 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 emissions on the seventh day. The Paschal offering may likewise be slaughtered on their behalf.

And we raise an objection:

According to Rav,

who said that one may not slaughter the Paschal offering on behalf of one who has immersed that day—

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

in the evening,

meaning, why is it different from one who has immersed that day, on whose behalf it is permitted to slaughter because he is fit to eat in the evening?

One who is impure with corpse impurity is also fit in the evening,

as one who is impure with corpse impurity is likewise fit to eat in the evening if he immerses before nightfall!

And we answer: One who is impure with corpse impurity

lacks immersion,

for he has not yet immersed.

And we raise an objection:

One who has immersed that day also lacks sunset,

for as long as the sun has not set, he is prohibited from eating sacrificial food!

And we answer:

The sun

sets on its own.

The sun sets by itself, and no action on the person’s part is required. This is unlike one who is impure and lacks immersion, for he lacks an action: if he does not immerse, he cannot eat sacrificial food.

And we raise an objection:

One who lacks atonement also

lacks an action, for

he lacks

the bringing of an offering of

atonement; so why may one slaughter and sprinkle the blood on his behalf?

And we answer: Here we are dealing with one who lacks atonement

who has his

nest,

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

in his possession,

so that he can bring it immediately if he wishes.

And we raise an objection: If so,

one who is impure with corpse impurity also,

although he must immerse,

has a ritual bath

prepared

before him,

and he can immerse immediately if he wishes!

And we answer: Nevertheless, in the case of one who is impure with corpse impurity, they were concerned

lest he be negligent

and fail to immerse before daybreak; therefore, one may not slaughter the Paschal offering on his behalf.

And we raise an objection:

If so,

if this is the reason—that they are concerned lest he be negligent—

one who lacks atonement also

should be a matter of concern:

lest he be negligent

and fail to bring his atonement offering!

And we answer: Indeed, in the case of one who lacks atonement there is also cause for this concern. But our Mishna is dealing with

a case in which he handed them over,

meaning, he handed over his offerings

to the court

of the priests; and they were not concerned that the court of the priests would be negligent and fail to offer them before daybreak.

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, and those who lacked atonement—such as women after childbirth, zavim, zavot, and lepers—would place their money in them so that the priests would purchase nests with it pairs of turtledoves or pigeons, in order that the priests offer them on their behalf. Those who lacked atonement could rely on the priests to offer them that day, and they would eat sacrificial food that evening.

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

there is a presumption that the court of the priests does not leave there

until they leave the courtyard

until they have completed

offering the nests on behalf of all the

money in the shofar-shaped boxes.

And we infer:

And according to Rav,

who said that one may not slaughter and sprinkle the blood on behalf of one who is impure with corpse impurity—and we explained Rav’s reason as concern that he might be negligent and fail to immerse—it follows that

according to Torah law he is fit,

and it would be appropriate to slaughter the Paschal offering on his behalf,

but

only

the Sages decreed concerning him

that one should not slaughter on his behalf, lest he be negligent and fail to immerse.

This is difficult:

But Rav said:

If, on the fourteenth of Nisan, the Jewish people were half pure and half impure, the pure half would offer the Paschal offering on the fourteenth only in purity, because half is considered like a majority. And if most of the community were pure, they would not be permitted to offer the Paschal offering in impurity.

But the impure half would offer the Paschal offering on the fourteenth in impurity, because for them as well, half is considered a majority. They were therefore permitted to offer the Paschal offering in impurity. Rav said concerning this that it is possible that there is a tanna who prohibits the impure people from offering the first Paschal offering by themselves in impurity, because a communal offering cannot be divided. That is, it is disgraceful for these to offer an offering for themselves and those to offer an offering for themselves. Moreover, the impure people cannot offer 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

from among the pure people

with corpse impurity.

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

And now this is difficult: Since we said that according to Rav, by Torah law one who is impure with corpse impurity may have the Paschal offering slaughtered on his behalf on the fourteenth, and the Sages merely prohibited this rabbinically, how could they permit the offering of the Paschal offering in impurity by rendering one of the pure half impure with corpse impurity? By Torah law, the Paschal offering may be slaughtered on his behalf, and there is no majority of the community that is unable to offer a Paschal offering due to impurity!

And we answer:

Rather, according to Rav, by Torah law as well he is not fit.

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

As it is written:

“And there were people who were impure through contact with a dead person, and they could not offer the Paschal offering on that day.” This refers to the fourteenth of Nisan. And later in the passage it is stated: “And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel, saying:

Any person who becomes impure through contact with a dead person,

or is on a distant road, whether for you or for your generations, he shall offer a Paschal offering to the Lord.” This refers to the Second Paschal offering.

Are we not dealing

in this verse also with one impure through contact with a dead person—

whose seventh day occurred on Passover eve, that is,

in accordance with the law of

impurity through contact with corpse impurity,

so that he can immerse before daybreak and eat sacrificial food at night?

And

nevertheless

the Merciful One said: Let him be deferred,

the Torah said that he must be deferred to the Second Paschal offering. From here it follows that one who is impure with corpse impurity and has not yet immersed is not fit for the first Paschal offering, but only for the Second Paschal offering.

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

If you ask: From where do we know that the verse refers even to one impure through contact with a dead person whose seventh day occurred 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 with corpse impurity, since he cannot immerse that day.

Indeed, this seems to be the case, for the verse speaks of one impure through contact with a dead person. Why did it not speak of one impure with corpse impurity? Rather, because one impure with corpse impurity can immerse that day and is fit for the first Paschal offering, whereas the one impure through contact with a dead person is referring to the first six days of his impurity, during which he cannot immerse!

One can say: Rav

holds in accordance with Rabbi Yitzḥak.

For Rabbi Yitzḥak said

that the Torah states: “And there were people who were impure through contact with a dead person.” Who were those people?

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

There was a dead person whom it was a mitzva to become 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 offer the Paschal offering at its proper time.

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

As it is stated

later in the verse:

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

This implies specifically

“on that day”,

meaning, on the fourteenth of Nisan,

they were unable to offer it. But on the following day—

they could offer it.

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

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

And the Merciful One said: They are deferred.

God answered him that they were to be deferred to the Second Paschal offering. [That is, in the verse cited above: “Any person who becomes impure through contact with a dead person shall offer a Paschal offering to the Lord,” referring to the Second Paschal offering.]

From here Rav learned that one who is impure and has not immersed, although he can immerse that day and eat at night, may not have the Paschal offering offered on his behalf by Torah law. And we raise an objection to Rav from the fact that

we learned

in our Mishna:

A zav who experienced two

emissions—one may slaughter

on his behalf on the seventh day.

Does this not mean

that the Mishna is speaking of a case

in which he had not immersed—does it not also refer to one who had not immersed?

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

And infer from this: One may slaughter and sprinkle the blood on behalf of one who is impure with corpse impurity

before he immersed!

And we answer:

No!

The Mishna is speaking specifically of a zav

who immersed.

And we raise an objection:

If he immersed—

what does it teach us?

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

And we answer:

This teaches us

that this is the novelty:

Even though he lacks sunset,

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

it teaches us that the sun sets on its own.

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

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

This is also readily evident,

that it indeed refers specifically to one who immersed.

As it teaches in the latter clause,

as we learned at the end of the Mishna:

If he experienced three emissions—

one may slaughter on his behalf on the eighth day.

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

for that which we taught in the beginning:

a zav who experienced two emissions, one may slaughter on his behalf on the seventh day,

refers specifically to one who

immersed, then it is well that the tanna

which is plain,

needed

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

For

it might enter your mind to say that the reason

that you would be inclined to say that the one who

one who experienced two emissions, for whom the offering may be slaughtered

saw two signs that they slaughter for him

on the seventh day,

is

because

he does not lack an action,

for he has already immersed.

But

if he

experienced three emissions, while he is standing

when he stands

on

day the

the eighth day, he lacks an action,

for he still

lacks

the bringing of an offering for

atonement,

one might say that

one may not

slaughter the offering on his behalf.

Therefore,

it teaches us in the latter clause

that

that even though he lacks atonement—

one may slaughter and sprinkle the blood on his behalf

[on him].

But

But ]

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

if you say that what the Tanna taught in the beginning:

one who experienced two emissions, for whom the offering may be slaughtered

they slaughter for him

on the seventh day,

refers even to one

who had not immersed,

then there is a difficulty: The addition by the tanna,

“If he experienced three

emissions, the offering may be slaughtered on his behalf

on the eighth day”—

why is it necessary to say this? It is obvious that it may be slaughtered on his behalf on the eighth day, by means of a kal va-chomer:

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

Now it may be said: If he experienced two emissions,

while standing

on

day the

the seventh day in a state

in the condition

in which he had not immersed, and he is a fully impure person,

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

we slaughter and sprinkle the blood on his behalf.

If he experienced three,

while standing

on

day the

the eighth day, having immersed on the seventh,

for he had already immersed on the seventh,

his impurity is diminished,

for he no longer has complete impurity, but only a lesser degree of impurity—is it

not all the more so that we slaughter and sprinkle the blood on his behalf?!

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 may infer: If he experienced two emissions on the seventh day, we slaughter on his behalf,

the Mishna refers specifically to one who

immersed.

And we reject this:

No! Actually, I will say that he has not immersed.

And

even so,

it was necessary

for the tanna to state: “If he saw three emissions, they slaughter for him on the eighth.”

Because

it might enter your mind to say

that a zav who saw two emissions, for whom they slaughter

on the seventh—

that

is

because he can rectify

the situation, since a mikveh is before him and he can immerse.

But if he saw three emissions, and he is now

on the eighth, when he cannot bring the offering himself,

since only the koen can offer it, and it is not in his hands,

I might say that the koanim will be negligent with regard to him.

In this case, we would be concerned that perhaps the koanim would be negligent and would not offer the offering that day. And I would therefore say that it is prohibited to slaughter on his behalf.

This teaches us

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

in accordance with the statement of Rav Shemaya,

that there is a presumption concerning the court of koanim that they do not leave until all the money in the collection boxes has been used.

We learned in the Mishna:

And for a zava they slaughter

on her behalf on the eighth.

A tanna recited before Rav Adda bar Ahava:

The one who recited, before Rav Adda bar Ahava, a beraita

“And the zava”—

“they slaughter on her behalf on her seventh day.”

Rav Adda bar Ahava said to him,

the one who was reciting this beraita before him:

“A zava on her seventh day—

is she fit?”

Is she fit for them to slaughter on her behalf?!

But

even according to the one who says [Ulla]

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

who has not immersed,

this is the case

only

with regard to

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

as he is fit to immerse before nightfall and eat in the evening.

But

this one,

the zava on her seventh day,

is not fit until the next day, when she brings her atonement offering.

Until the following day, when she brings an offering for her atonement, she is not fit to eat; so how can they slaughter on her behalf?

Rather,

say

as follows: “And for the zava they slaughter on her behalf

on the eighth.”

And the one reciting the beraita challenged him:

It is obvious

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

Rav Adda bar Ahava answered him: The novelty is

lest you say

perhaps

since she lacks only atonement, they do not

slaughter on her behalf, lest the koanim have not brought her atonement offering.

This teaches us, in accordance with the statement of Rav Shemaya,

that there is a presumption that the koanim will offer her offering that day.

Ravina said:

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

“a menstruating woman”

he recited before him:

“And for the menstruating woman—

they slaughter on her behalf on the seventh.”

A menstruating woman does not lack atonement, since the Torah did not obligate her to bring offerings.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said to him,

the tanna:

“A menstruating woman on the seventh day—

is she fit?”

Is she fit for them to slaughter the Paschal offering on her behalf on her seventh day?!

After all,

even according to the one who says that they slaughter and sprinkle on one who is impure with a creeping creature,

who has not immersed, this is because

he is fit for the evening

immediately, as he is fit to immerse before nightfall and eat immediately in the evening.

But a menstruating woman

is not fit to immerse on the seventh day.

Rather, only

at the evening of the seventh day does she immerse,

for only on the night following the seventh day can she immerse.

Although a zava immerses on the seventh day, that applies specifically to a zava, 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 in a mikveh on that very day and becomes pure. But a menstruating woman, according to Torah law, does not count seven clean days; 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.

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

until the eighth, when she has effected [that is, performs, on the following day]

the

setting of the sun—

she is not fit

to eat sacrificial food!

So how can you, [the tanna,] recite that for a menstruating woman they slaughter on her behalf on the seventh?

Rather, say

as follows: “And for the menstruating woman they slaughter on her behalf

on the eighth.”

And the tanna challenged Rav Adda bar Ahava:

It is obvious

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

Now, if a zava, who lacks atonement, [that is, she must bring offerings on the eighth day for her purification,] nevertheless we learned in the Mishna that

they slaughter and sprinkle on her behalf on the eighth.

If so,

a

menstruating woman, who does not lack atonement [as she does not need to bring offerings on the eighth day]—

is it necessary to say that

we slaughter and sprinkle on her behalf,

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

Rav Adda bar Ahava answered him:

It was necessary to mention a menstruating woman

to teach us the opposite point. And

this teaches us

the following: specifically

on the eighth—

yes

[they slaughter on her behalf]; but

on the seventh, no,

they do not slaughter on her behalf, to teach us that she cannot immerse before nightfall.

As it is taught in a beraita: All those who are obligated to immerse—

their immersion is during the day

on the last day of the periods of impurity stated concerning them.

But

a menstruating woman and a woman who has given birth—

their immersion is at night

following the periods of impurity stated concerning them.

And from where did they learn that a menstruating woman and a woman who has given birth immerse at night?

As it is taught in a beraita: One might have thought that

a menstruating woman

may immerse before nightfall?

The verse states [Leviticus 15], concerning a menstruating woman:

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

And the Sages expounded:

She shall remain in her menstruation for all seven days,

until the night following the seventh day.

And a woman who has given birth is juxtaposed

[that is, compared]

to a menstruating woman.

For it is stated concerning a woman who has given birth [Leviticus 12]: “She shall be impure for the days of the menstruation of her condition.” That is, a woman who has given birth is impure according to the law of a menstruating woman.

Mishna:

Our Mishna comes to teach that they slaughter the Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan even for people concerning whom there is a concern that they will not be able to eat from the Paschal offering that night.

The acute mourner,

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

By Torah law, an acute mourner is prohibited from eating sacrificial food only on the day of the death, but on the following night he is permitted [as it is stated concerning an acute mourner, who is prohibited from sacrificial food [Leviticus 10]: “Behold, today they have brought their sin-offering and their burnt-offering before the Lord, and such things as these have befallen 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 prohibited. But the night is permitted].

The Sages prohibited an acute mourner from eating sacrificial food even on the night following the day of death. But with regard to eating the Paschal offering, they did not enact this decree.

Therefore, for an acute mourner they slaughter on the fourteenth of Nisan, since he is fit to eat on the night of the fifteenth.

And although there is concern that perhaps he will become impure through contact with his dead relative when he buries him, nevertheless, at present he is fit to eat, since he has not yet become impure.