Zevachim 23a — the Talmud in English

And it is still difficult:

but it is written

concerning the Paschal offering,

“a person” ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

“according to his eating”:

If so, how can an impure person send his offering, when he does not eat it?

And we answer: This verse, too, was stated

only as a mitzva

and not as a condition for validity.

And we ask: But if the verse is not meant

to prevent validity,

that a person does not fulfill his obligation with the first Paschal offering when it is slaughtered on his behalf despite his impurity,

was this

that he does not fulfill his obligation with the first Paschal offering

not

stated in this verse?

But it was taught:

“According to the number of persons”—

this teaches that the Paschal offering may be slaughtered only for those registered for it;

it must be slaughtered for the sake of those who registered to eat it. And if

one slaughtered it not for those registered for it, perhaps it would be

only

a person who violates a mitzva

and the offering would nevertheless be valid.

The verse therefore says

“you shall register yourselves”—

the verse repeated this matter to make it an impediment to validity!

And it equated those who eat it with those registered for it.

For later in this verse, which teaches that slaughtering it not for those registered for it prevents the offering from being valid, it says: “A person according to his eating you shall register yourselves for the lamb,” teaching that if it was slaughtered not for those who will eat it, it is also disqualified. If so, how could the Elders of the South hold that an impure person sends his Paschal offering and thereby fulfills his obligation to bring the Paschal offering after the fact? Since it was slaughtered for the sake of the impure person, who is not fit to eat it, the offering should be disqualified under the rule “slaughtered not for those who will eat it.” And we answer:

The Elders of the South do not accept the equation;

they do not hold by the derivation equating those who eat it with those registered for it. Therefore, it is possible to slaughter a Paschal offering sent by one impure through contact with a corpse. Likewise, there is no necessary proof that an impure priest disqualifies an individual offering through his Temple service.

Rav Ashi said: But even if they do not accept the equation as well,

even if the Elders of the South do not accept the equation of those who eat it with those registered for it, they still

have a refutation:

If, in a case where the owners became impure through contact with a creeping creature,

the law is

that they may initially send their offerings,

and nevertheless

a priest who became impure through contact with a creeping creature does not grant acceptance.

If so,

in a case where the owners became impure through contact with a corpse, in which they may not initially send their offerings,

since it is preferable for an individual who became impure through contact with a corpse to wait for the Second Pesaḥ, so that he can fulfill the mitzva of eating it as well, and only after the fact, if he sent his offering with the first Pesaḥ, has he fulfilled his obligation,

is it not an a-fortiori inference

that if

a priest who became impure through contact with a corpse performed the service, he should not grant acceptance?!

The question therefore returns: How could the Elders of the South say that the teaching “an impure priest is disqualified” refers only to one impure through contact with a creeping creature, but that, in the case of one impure through contact with a corpse, the tzitz grants acceptance for his service?

The Gemara raises another difficulty against the Elders of the South:

They raise an objection from what we learned in tractate Pesaḥim [80b]: If the blood of the Paschal offering was sprinkled, and afterward it became known that the blood had been impure, the tzitz grants acceptance for it, and the owner is exempt from making a Second Pesaḥ. If its owners became impure through contact with a corpse, the tzitz does not grant acceptance for it, and he is obligated to make a Second Pesaḥ.

Because they said: In the case of a nazirite and one who makes the Paschal offering, the tzitz grants acceptance for impurity of the blood,

for if the blood became impure and was sprinkled, in the offering of a nazirite the sprinkling of the blood permits him to drink wine and come into contact with the dead, and in the Paschal offering it exempts him from making a Second Pesaḥ.

But the tzitz does not grant acceptance for impurity of the person

who owns the offering. Therefore, a nazirite must observe a new period of nazirite status, and with regard to Pesaḥ he must bring a Second Pesaḥ. [This rule concerning impurity of the person applies only to Pesaḥ and to a nazirite, because in other offerings the impurity of the owners does not disqualify them.]

And we examine this:

With regard to what

impurity of the person is this Mishna discussing?

If you say it is impurity from a creeping creature,

you already said that the blood of the Paschal offering may be slaughtered and sprinkled

when the person has impurity from a creeping creature.

Rather, it must be discussing a case in which the owners were impure with

impurity from contact with a corpse.

And it teaches: The tzitz does not grant acceptance,

even after the fact, and they are obligated to make a Second Pesaḥ.

It is evident, then, that when the owners became impure through contact with a corpse, they may not send their offerings.

This poses a difficulty to the Elders of the South, who said that one impure through contact with a corpse sends his offerings.

And we answer:

No,

this Mishna does not prove that one impure through contact with a corpse may not send his offerings. Rather,

if the owners became impure through contact with a corpse, here too,

they may send their offerings. But

what is the case here? For example, a priest became impure through contact with a creeping creature,

and such a priest disqualifies the offering through his service; therefore, the tzitz does not grant acceptance.

Accordingly, the offering is disqualified not only in the case of Pesaḥ and a nazirite, due to impurity of the priest performing the service, but also in all individual offerings. However, the tanna mentioned specifically “Pesaḥ and a nazirite” because the latter part of this Mishna introduces a special rule concerning Pesaḥ and a nazirite: the tzitz grants acceptance even when they were performed in a state of “impurity of the depths,” an impurity of which no one knew at the time the person became impure, as will be explained below.

And we ask:

If so, if, as you say, the Mishna in tractate Pesaḥim is discussing a case in which the priest became impure through contact with a creeping creature,

consider the latter clause:

If he became impure

with

impurity of the depths,

having touched an impurity of which no person was aware, and at the time of contact he had no knowledge at all of the impurity; only after the nazirite’s or the Paschal offering had been brought did he learn of the impurity and of the contact with it,

the tzitz grants acceptance

for such impurity, and the offering is accepted on behalf of its owner!

But if we say that the Mishna is discussing a case in which the priest became impure through contact with a creeping creature, the following difficulty arises:

But Rabbi Hiyya taught: They said that impurity of the depths

is permitted in the case of a nazirite and one who makes the Paschal offering only for impurity from

contact with a

corpse!

The Gemara infers from Rabbi Hiyya’s words that “impurity of the depths was permitted only for impurity from contact with a corpse alone.” What does this exclude? Is it not meant to exclude impurity of the depths from a creeping creature, which was not permitted? If, according to the Elders of the South, this Mishna must be discussing a case in which the priest was impure through contact with a creeping creature, how could we have learned in the latter clause of the Mishna that his service is valid in a case of impurity of the depths? According to Rabbi Hiyya, impurity of the depths from a creeping creature was not permitted. And we answer:

impurity from

a corpse!

No, Rabbi Hiyya did not exclude impurity from a creeping creature. Rather, he intended

to exclude impurity of the depths

from

gonorrhea-like discharge.

»,

Such uncertainty regarding a sighting at twilight is considered “impurity of the depths,” because no person can determine the outcome of the uncertainty concerning the impurity. They were stringent regarding impurity of the depths involving a discharge because it is a severe impurity that issues from a person’s body.

But the Gemara still asks: Since, according to your explanation, the latter clause of the Mishna teaches that if the priest became impure through impurity of the depths from a creeping creature, his service is valid, the following difficulty arises:

And if so, what of the question raised by Rami bar Hama: In the case of a priest who grants acceptance for the offerings

of a nazirite and one who makes the Paschal offering, who became impure with impurity of the depths, whether

impurity of the depths was permitted to him

and his service does not desecrate the offering,

or not

—whether impurity of the depths was permitted only to the owners and not to the priest, so that if the priest performed the service, the offering would be disqualified?

Resolve that it was permitted to him, for here,

in the first clause of the Mishna, according to the Elders of the South, it is evident that

we are dealing with a priest,

and it follows that the latter clause explicitly states this rule: If the priest was impure with impurity of the depths, his service is valid?!

And we answer:

Rami bar Hama certainly disagrees

with the Elders of the South. He explains the Mishna in Pesaḥim as referring to a case in which the owners became impure through contact with a corpse, and not to impurity of the priest. In his view, one impure through contact with a corpse does not send his Paschal offering, because he must also be fit to eat the Paschal offering. Therefore, the latter clause says that in the case of impurity of the depths involving contact with a corpse, the tzitz does not grant acceptance.

And we ask Rami bar Hama:

Come and hear: It is stated concerning the tzitz:

“And Aaron shall bear the iniquity of the sacred things”,

and its meaning is that the tzitz grants acceptance for disqualified offerings.

And what iniquity does the tzitz bear

?

Rami bar Hama certainly disagrees

with the Elders of the South. He establishes the Mishna in Pesahim as referring to a case in which the owners became impure through contact with a corpse, and not to impurity of the priest. In his view, one impure through contact with a corpse does not send a Paschal offering, because he must also be fit to eat the Paschal offering. Therefore, the latter clause states that, in the case of hidden impurity from a corpse, there is no acceptance by the tzitz.

We challenge Rami bar Hama:

Come and hear: It is stated concerning the tzitz: “

And Aaron shall bear the iniquity of the sacred things,”

and Aaron shall bear the iniquity of the sacred things,

meaning that the tzitz effects acceptance for disqualified offerings.

And what iniquity does

the tzitz bear?