Zevachim 23a (כג.) — the Talmud in English

And it is still difficult:

but it is written

in the context of the Paschal offering: “

a man

according to his eating.”

If so, how can a ritually impure person send his offering? He does not eat it.

And we answer: This verse, too, was stated

only as a mitzva

and not as a requirement.

And we challenge this:

And

if

to prevent fulfillment,

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

was this not

stated in this verse?

But it was taught in a baraita: “

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 on behalf of those who registered for it in order to eat it. And if

he slaughtered it not for those registered for it, could it be merely

only

a transgression of the mitzva

and the offering would nevertheless be valid?

The verse states: “

You shall register yourselves” —

the verse repeated it in order to make it an impediment!

And those who eat it were made analogous to those registered for it.

For in the continuation of this verse, which teaches that slaughtering it not for those registered for it invalidates the offering, it says: “A man according to his eating shall you register yourselves for the lamb,” teaching that if it was slaughtered not for those who would eat it, it is likewise disqualified. If so, how could the Elders of the South hold that a ritually impure person sends his Paschal offering and thereby fulfills his obligation to bring the Paschal offering after the fact? Since it was slaughtered on behalf of the ritually impure person, who is unfit to eat it, the offering should be disqualified under the law of “he slaughtered it not for those who would eat it.” And we answer:

The Elders of the South do not accept the analogy.

They do not hold of the derivation that those who eat it are analogous to those registered for it. Consequently, it is possible to slaughter a Paschal offering sent by one impure through contact with a corpse. Likewise, there is no necessity to conclude that a priest impure through contact with a corpse disqualifies an individual offering through his service.

Rav Ashi said: And even if they do not accept the analogy as well:

even if the Elders of the South do not hold of the analogy between those who eat it and those registered for it, they still

have a refutation:

And in the case of owners who became impure through contact with a creeping creature,

the law is

that they send their offerings ab initio,

and nevertheless

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

If so,

in a case where the owners became impure through contact with a corpse, in which they do not send their offerings ab initio,

for an individual who became impure through contact with a corpse should preferably wait for the second Paschal offering, so that he can also fulfill the mitzva of eating it, and only after the fact, if he sent his offering with the first Paschal offering, has he fulfilled his obligation,

is it not a logical conclusion

that if

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

The difficulty thus returns: How could the Elders of the South have said that the teaching we learned, that a ritually impure priest is disqualified, refers only to one impure through contact with a creeping creature, whereas, in the case of one impure through contact with a corpse, the tzitz effects acceptance for his service?

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

It was raised as an objection from what we learned in tractate Pesahim [80b]: If the blood of the Paschal offering was sprinkled, and afterward it became known that the blood had been impure, the tzitz effects acceptance for it, and he is exempt from performing the second Paschal offering. If its owners became impure through bodily impurity resulting from contact with a corpse, the tzitz does not effect acceptance for it, and he is obligated to perform the second Paschal offering,

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,

because they said: For the nazirite and one who performs the Paschal offering, the tzitz effects acceptance for impurity of the blood,

for if the blood became impure and was sprinkled, in the case of a nazirite’s offering the sprinkling of the blood renders it permissible for him to drink wine and become impure through contact with the dead, and in the case of the Paschal offering it exempts him from the second Paschal offering,

but the tzitz does not effect acceptance for bodily impurity

of the owner of the offering. Therefore, in the case of a nazirite, he must observe a new nazirite status, and in the case of the Paschal offering, he must bring a second Paschal offering. [This law of bodily impurity applies only to the Paschal offering and to a nazirite, because, with other offerings, impurity of the owners does not disqualify them.]

And we examine this:

With regard to what, that is, what type of “bodily impurity,” is this Mishna speaking?

If you say it is impurity from a creeping creature,

If you say it is impurity from a creeping creature,

you have already said that one slaughters and sprinkles the blood of the Paschal offering

on account of impurity from a creeping creature.

Rather,

it must be speaking of a case in which the owners were impure with

impurity from a corpse.

And it teaches: The tzitz does not effect acceptance

even after the fact, and they are obligated to perform the second Paschal offering.

Apparently, when the owners became impure through contact with a corpse, they do 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,

there is no proof from this Mishna that one impure through contact with a corpse does not send his offerings. Rather,

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

they send their offerings. But

with what are we dealing here? With a priest who became impure through contact with a creeping creature,

for such a priest disqualifies the offering through his service, and therefore the tzitz does not effect acceptance. [

Accordingly, it is not only in the case of the Paschal offering and the nazirite’s offering that the offering is disqualified on account of the priest’s bodily impurity; the same applies to all individual offerings. However, the tanna mentioned specifically “the Paschal offering and the nazirite’s offering” because the latter part of this Mishna introduces a special law concerning the Paschal offering and the nazirite’s offering: acceptance is effected even when they were performed in a state of hidden impurity, an impurity of which no one was aware at the time the person became impure, as will be explained below.]

And we challenge this:

If so,

if, as you say, the Mishna in tractate Pesahim is speaking of a case in which the priest became impure through contact with a creeping creature,

say the latter clause:

If he became impure

with

hidden impurity,

that is, he came into contact with an impurity of which no person was aware, and at the time of his contact he had no knowledge whatsoever of the impurity; only after the nazirite’s offerings or the Paschal offering had been brought did he become aware of the impurity and of his contact with it,

the tzitz effects acceptance

for such impurity, and the offering is accepted on behalf of its owner! And if we say that the Mishna is speaking of 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 hidden impurity

was permitted in the case of a nazirite and one performing the Paschal offering

only for

impurity from

a corpse!

The Gemara infers from Rabbi Hiyya’s statement that “hidden impurity was permitted only for

the

impurity of a

corpse

alone”:

What does this exclude? Is it not intended to exclude hidden impurity from a creeping creature,

which was not permitted? If, according to the Elders of the South, this Mishna must be speaking of a case in which the priest was impure through contact with a creeping creature, how could the latter clause of the Mishna teach that his service is valid in a case of hidden impurity? According to Rabbi Hiyya, hidden impurity from a creeping creature was not permitted.

And we answer:

No,

Rabbi Hiyya did not exclude impurity from a creeping creature. Rather, he intended

to exclude hidden impurity

from gonorrheal flux.

This is referring, for example, to a zav [whose severe impurity, requiring him to count seven clean days, applies only when he saw two emissions of flux on two separate days] who saw an emission of flux during twilight, and it is impossible to know whether this emission was entirely on the preceding day or entirely on the following night. It follows that he has only one emission. Alternatively, the time of the emission may have been divided, with the first half occurring during the day and the second half at night, in which case he has two separate emissions on two separate days and must count seven clean days.

Such uncertainty concerning an emission during twilight is considered “hidden impurity,” because no person can determine the resolution of the uncertainty concerning the impurity. They were stringent with regard to hidden impurity from gonorrheal flux because it is a severe impurity that issues from the person’s body.

But the Gemara still challenges this: Since, according to you, the latter clause of the Mishna indicates that if the priest became impure through hidden impurity 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 the priest who effects acceptance through the offerings

of a nazirite and one performing the Paschal offering who became impure through hidden impurity, does

hidden impurity become permitted for him,

so that he does not profane the service through his impurity,

or not,

and hidden impurity was permitted only to the owners and not to the priest, so that if the priest performed the service, the offering is disqualified?

Resolve from this that it is permitted for 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 law: If the priest was impure with hidden impurity, his service is valid?!

And we answer:

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?