Pesachim 67
אֶלָּא יֵשׁ לְךָ שָׁעָה שֶׁזָּבִין וּמְצוֹרָעִין מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין וְאֵין טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין, וְאֵיזֶה זֶה — פֶּסַח הַבָּא בְּטוּמְאָה.
Rather, it teaches you that you have a time when zavin and lepers are sent out from the camp, but those who are ritually impure due to contact with a corpse are not sent out. And what is this time? When a Paschal lamb is brought in impurity, when those impure due to contact with a corpse are permitted to participate, but a zav and a leper may not. From here we learn that when most of the nation is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, the Paschal lamb is brought anyway in a state of ritual impurity.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִי הָכִי, לֵימָא נָמֵי: יֵאָמֵר זָב וּטְמֵאֵי מֵתִים, וְאַל יֵאָמֵר מְצוֹרָע, וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: זָב מִשְׁתַּלֵּחַ, מְצוֹרָע — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן. אֶלָּא: יֵשׁ לְךָ שָׁעָה שֶׁמְּצוֹרָעִין מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין, וְאֵין זָבִין וּטְמֵאֵי מֵתִים מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין, וְאֵיזֶה זֶה — פֶּסַח הַבָּא בְּטוּמְאָה.
Abaye said: If so, that this is how the verse is to be interpreted, let us also say that the verse should only say zav and those ritually impure due to a corpse and not say leper, and I would say this law on my own through an a fortiori inference: If a zav is sent out, then with regard to a leper, whose ritual impurity is more severe than that of a zav, all the more so is it not clear that he should be sent out? Rather, the seemingly unnecessary mention of a leper teaches that you have a time when only lepers are sent out, but zavin and those ritually impure due to contact with a corpse are not sent out. And what is this time? When a Paschal offering is brought in impurity, when zavin and those impure due to contact with a corpse are permitted to participate, but a leper may not.
וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָתְנַן: פֶּסַח הַבָּא בְּטוּמְאָה לֹא יֹאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ זָבִים וְזָבוֹת נִדּוֹת וְיוֹלְדוֹת, וְאִם אָכְלוּ — פְּטוּרִין.
And if you say that it is indeed so that even a zav may participate when the Paschal lamb is brought in a state of impurity, there is a difficulty, for didn’t we learn in a mishna: When a Paschal lamb is brought in a state of ritual impurity, zavim and zavot, menstruating women and women after childbirth, whose impurity is comparable to that of a zav, may not eat from it; but if they ate, they are exempt from karet. This demonstrates that the verse cannot be explained in accordance with Reish Lakish’s inference.
אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם מִקְּרָא קַמָּא. אִם כֵּן, נִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי יִהְיֶה טָמֵא״, ״לָנֶפֶשׁ״ לְמָה לִי?
Rather, Abaye said: Actually, the law can be derived from the first verse quoted by Rabbi Yoḥanan: “Any man who shall be impure by reason of a corpse.” And the derivation should be understood as follows: If so, that the verse comes to teach that only an individual can rectify his situation on the second Pesaḥ, but not the community, the Merciful One should have written: “Any man who shall be impure.” Why do I need the words “by reason of a corpse”?
וְכִי תֵּימָא הַאי ״לָנֶפֶשׁ״ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא: הַטְּמֵא מֵת הוּא דְּנִדְחֶה לְפֶסַח שֵׁנִי, אֲבָל שְׁאָר טְמֵאִין לָא. וְהָתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל לֹא יְהוּ עוֹשִׂין פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי אֶלָּא טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים וְשֶׁהָיָה בְּדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה, זָבִין וּמְצוֹרָעִין וּבוֹעֲלֵי נִדּוֹת מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״, ״לָנֶפֶשׁ״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי?
And if you say that these words “by reason of a corpse” come for this reason, to teach us that it is only one who is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse that is deferred to the second Pesaḥ but the rest of those who are impure are not deferred to the second Pesaḥ, there is a difficulty. For wasn’t it taught otherwise in the following baraita: One might have thought that only those ritually impure due to contact with a corpse and those on a distant journey observe the second Pesaḥ. From where do we derive that even zavin, lepers and those who had relations with menstruating women may participate in the second Pesaḥ? Therefore, the verse states: “Any man,” to include even people with these types of impurity. If so, why do I need the words “by reason of a corpse” that the Merciful One writes, as it would seem that they teach us nothing?
אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִישׁ נִדְחֶה לְפֶסַח שֵׁנִי, וְאֵין צִיבּוּר נִדְחֶה לְפֶסַח שֵׁנִי, אֶלָּא עָבְדִי בְּטוּמְאָה. וְכִי עָבְדִי צִיבּוּר בְּטוּמְאָה — בִּטְמֵא מֵת, אֲבָל שְׁאָר טוּמְאוֹת — לָא עָבְדִי.
Rather, this is what the verse is saying: A single individual or a group of individuals are deferred to the second Pesaḥ, but the entire community or the majority thereof is not deferred to the second Pesaḥ; rather, they observe the first Pesaḥ in a state of ritual impurity. And when we say that the community observes it in a state of impurity, that is only when they are ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, as indicated by the expression “by reason of a corpse,” but when they are impure with other types of impurity, they do not observe it in a state of impurity, even if the majority of the community is impure.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מְצוֹרָע שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְפָנִים מִמְּחִיצָתוֹ פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בָּדָד יֵשֵׁב מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה מוֹשָׁבוֹ״.
Having cited verses dealing with the requirement to send out the ritually impure from the camp, the Gemara addresses several halakhot relevant to that topic. Rav Ḥisda said: A leper, who must be sent out from all of the camps including the Israelite camp, who went in beyond his boundary, that is, he entered an area that is prohibited to him, is nonetheless exempt from the punishment of lashes. With regard to the ritually impure, the Torah states: “Both male and female shall you send out, outside the camp shall you send them, and they shall defile not their camps in the midst of which I dwell” (Numbers 5:3), from which we learn that an impure person who enters the camp is liable to receive lashes for having violated the prohibition of “they shall not defile.” A leper, however, is exempt, as it is stated: “All the days that the plague shall be in him he shall be impure; he is impure, he shall dwell in isolation, his dwelling shall be outside the camp” (Leviticus 13:46).
״בָּדָד יֵשֵׁב״ — לְבַדּוֹ יֵשֵׁב. ״מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה מוֹשָׁבוֹ״, הַכָּתוּב נִתְּקוֹ לַעֲשֵׂה.
The Gemara explains that the verse is explicated in the following manner: “He shall dwell in isolation” means he shall dwell alone, without even the company of others who are impure. “His dwelling shall be outside the camp” teaches that the verse has transmuted the negative precept into a positive mitzva. In other words, the verse establishes that if a leper entered an area that is prohibited to him, he is commanded to leave, and fulfilling this command removes the full force of the prohibition he has already violated. The rule is that lashes are not administered for the violation of a prohibition, if that violation can be rectified by the fulfillment of a positive commandment.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: מְצוֹרָע שֶׁנִּכְנַס לִפְנִים מִמְּחִיצָתוֹ — בְּאַרְבָּעִים. זָבִין וְזָבוֹת שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לִפְנִים מִמְּחִיצָתָן — בְּאַרְבָּעִים. וּטְמֵא מֵת מוּתָּר לִיכָּנֵס לְמַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה.
An objection was raised against Rav Ḥisda from a baraita: A leper, who may not even enter the Israelite camp, who went in beyond his boundary, is punished with forty lashes like one who violates a regular Torah prohibition. Similarly, zavin and zavot, who are prohibited from entering the Levite camp, who went in beyond their boundaries, are punished with forty lashes. And one who is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse is permitted to enter even the Levite camp.
וְלֹא טְמֵא מֵת בִּלְבַד אָמְרוּ, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ מֵת עַצְמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת עַצְמוֹת יוֹסֵף עִמּוֹ״ — ״עִמּוֹ״ בִּמְחִיצָתוֹ!
And not only did they say that one who is ritually impure due to a corpse may enter this area, but even a corpse itself may be brought into the Levite camp, as it is stated: “And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him” (Exodus 13:19), the words “with him” implying that the bones were taken within his boundary, i.e., that Joseph’s coffin was found in the same area in which Moses dwelled. Since Moses was a Levite and lived in the Levite camp, it follows that even a corpse may be brought into the Levite camp. In any event, we see from the first clause of the baraita that a leper does in fact receive lashes for entering an area prohibited to him, against Rav Ḥisda.
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״בָּדָד יֵשֵׁב״ — לְבַדּוֹ יֵשֵׁב, שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ טְמֵאִין אֲחֵרִים יוֹשְׁבִין עִמּוֹ. יָכוֹל יְהוּ זָבִין וּטְמֵאֵי מֵתִים מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין לְמַחֲנֶה אַחַת — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלֹא יְטַמְּאוּ אֶת מַחֲנֵיהֶם״, לִיתֵּן מַחֲנֶה לָזֶה וּמַחֲנֶה לָזֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The Gemara answers: This is a matter that is subject to dispute between tanna’im, for it was taught in a different baraita: “He shall dwell in isolation” indicates that he shall dwell alone, meaning that other ritually impure people, such as zavin and those who are ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, should not dwell with him. One might have thought that zavin and those who are ritually impure due to contact with a corpse are sent to one camp, meaning that the laws governing which camps they may or may not enter are the same for both. Therefore, the verse states: “Both male and female shall you send out, outside the camp shall you send them out, and they shall defile not their camps in the midst of which I dwell” (Numbers 5:3). The plural term “camps” teaches that there are multiple camps for those who are ritually impure, so that we give a camp for this one and a camp for that one; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Thus, in his opinion, there are three camps: One which a leper may not enter, one which a zav may not enter, and one which even someone ritually impure due to contact with a corpse may not enter.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וִישַׁלְּחוּ מִן הַמַּחֲנֶה כׇּל צָרוּעַ וְכׇל זָב וְכֹל טָמֵא לָנֶפֶשׁ״, יֵאָמֵר טְמֵאֵי מֵת וְאַל יֵאָמֵר טְמֵאֵי זָב, וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין, זָבִין — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן. לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר זָב — לִיתֵּן לוֹ מַחֲנֶה שְׁנִיָּה.
Rabbi Shimon says: It is not necessary to derive this law from the plural term “camps,” for surely the verse says: “Command the children of Israel that they send out from the camp any leper and any zav and anyone impure by reason of a corpse” (Numbers 5:2). The verse includes an unnecessary phrase: Let the verse say only that they are to send out those who are ritually impure due to a corpse, and not say anything about those impure as a zav, and I would say on my own that a zav is obviously included in this law: If those ritually impure due to a corpse are sent out from the camp, all the more so is it not clear that zavin should be sent out? If so, why is a zav stated? To give him a second camp, that is, to teach us that the law governing a zav is more severe than the law relating to one who is impure due to a corpse and there is an additional camp that he may not enter.
וְיֵאָמֵר זָב וְאַל יֵאָמֵר מְצוֹרָע, וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: זָבִין מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין, מְצוֹרָעִין לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר מְצוֹרָע — לִיתֵּן לוֹ מַחֲנֶה שְׁלִישִׁית, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״בָּדָד יֵשֵׁב״ — הַכָּתוּב נִתְּקוֹ לַעֲשֵׂה.
And furthermore: Let the verse say only that they are to send out a zav, and not say anything about a leper, and I would say on my own that a leper is obviously included in this law as well: If zavin are sent out, all the more so is it not clear that lepers should be sent out? Why then is a leper stated? To give him a third camp that he may not enter. When the verse says with regard to a leper: “He shall dwell alone,” the verse has transmuted the negative precept into a positive command. This teaches us that a leper who enters a camp that is prohibited to him does not receive lashes for his violation of a negative commandment, which is consistent with the ruling of Rav Ḥisda.
מַאי חוּמְרֵיהּ דְּזָב מִטְּמֵא מֵת? שֶׁכֵּן טוּמְאָה יוֹצְאָה עָלָיו מִגּוּפוֹ. אַדְּרַבָּה: טְמֵא מֵת חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן טָעוּן הַזָּאָה שְׁלִישִׁי וּשְׁבִיעִי.
The Gemara questions the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: We see from the discussion cited above that it was clear to Rabbi Shimon that the impurity of a zav is more severe than that of one who is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, and that the impurity of a leper is even more severe than that of a zav. What is the stringency of a zav over one who is ritually impure due to a corpse? That the impurity of the zav issues out upon him from his own body, rather than coming from an external source, as is the case when impurity is contracted from a corpse. But on the contrary, it may be argued that the legal status of one who is ritually impure due to a corpse is more severe, as he requires sprinkling of the purifying waters on the third and seventh days of his purification process, whereas a zav, who is also impure for seven days, does not require such sprinkling.
אָמַר קְרָא ״טָמֵא״ ״וְכֹל טָמֵא״, לְרַבּוֹת טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ. וְזָב חָמוּר מִטְּמֵא שֶׁרֶץ.
The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states not just “impure” but “and anyone impure.” The additional words come to include one who is ritually impure due to contact with a creeping animal. He, too, is sent out from the camp like one who is impure due to contact with a corpse, and it is clear that the legal status of a zav is more severe than one who is ritually impure due to contact with a creeping animal.
וּמַאי חוּמְרֵיהּ? כְּדַאֲמַרַן. אַדְּרַבָּה: שֶׁרֶץ חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן מְטַמֵּא בְּאוֹנֶס! אָמְרִי:
The Gemara asks: And what is his stringency? In what way is a zav more stringent than one who has contracted ritual impurity from a creeping animal? The Gemara answers: As we have said, that his impurity issues out upon him from his own body, unlike one who has contracted impurity from a creeping animal. But on the contrary, it is possible to say that the legal status a creeping animal is more severe, for it imparts ritual impurity even through an accident. A zav only becomes impure when it is clear that his discharge did not result from sickness or some other accident, but a person who comes into contact with a creeping animal contracts ritual impurity regardless of the circumstances of that contact. They say in answer to this question:
כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא — זָב נָמֵי טַמּוֹיֵי מְטַמֵּי בְּאוֹנֶס כִּדְרַב הוּנָא. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: רְאִיָּה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁל זָב מְטַמְּאָה בְּאוֹנֶס.
In a case like this, meaning, if we compare the two cases in this way, a zav also becomes impure through an accident, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, for Rav Huna said: The first sighting of a zav establishes ritual impurity even through an accident. In order to contract the more severe ritual impurity of a zav that lasts seven days, a man must experience at least two zav discharges. If he has only a single discharge, he contracts a less severe ritual impurity that lasts until evening, like one who experienced a seminal emission. This first discharge establishes impurity even if it results from some accident, and no effort is made to attribute it to some other factor.
מַאי חוּמְרֵיהּ דִּמְצוֹרָע מִזָּב? שֶׁכֵּן טָעוּן פְּרִיעָה וּפְרִימָה, וְאָסוּר בְּתַשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה. אַדְּרַבָּה זָב חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן מְטַמֵּא מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב, וּמְטַמֵּא כְּלִי חֶרֶס בְּהֶיסֵּט.
The Gemara asks further: What is the stringency of a leper over a zav? That a confirmed leper is required to let his hair grow and rend his garments and he is prohibited from marital relations, none of which applies to a zav. But on the contrary, there is room to say that the legal status of a zav is more severe, for a zav imparts ritual impurity to that upon which he lies or sits even if he does not come into direct contact with it, and he imparts ritual impurity to an earthenware vessel through movement. If he causes an earthenware vessel to move, it becomes ritually impure even if he touches it on the outside, and even if he does not touch the vessel at all. Ordinarily, an earthenware vessel becomes impure only through contact on the inside of the vessel.
אָמַר קְרָא ״זָב״, ״וְכׇל זָב״, לְרַבּוֹת בַּעַל קֶרִי. וּמְצוֹרָע חָמוּר מִבַּעַל קֶרִי.
The Gemara answers: The verse states not just “zav” but “and any zav,” and this inclusive expression “any” comes to include a person who experienced a seminal emission, whose impurity is of the same type as a zav, and it is clear that the legal status of a leper is more severe than a person who experienced a seminal emission. We can therefore derive through an a fortiori inference that if one who experienced a seminal emission is prohibited from entering a certain camp, a leper is certainly prohibited from entering that camp.
וּמַאי חוּמְרֵיהּ — כְּדַאֲמַרַן. אַדְּרַבָּה: בַּעַל קֶרִי חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ!
The Gemara asks: And what is his stringency? In what way is the legal status of a leper more severe than one who experienced a seminal emission? As we said, that he must let his hair grow and rend his garments and he is prohibited to engage in marital relations. But we may ask: On the contrary, there is room to say that the legal status of one who experienced a seminal emission is more severe, for he becomes ritually impure even with any amount. For the Torah did not specify an amount of semen that must be emitted in order to become impure, and one therefore becomes impure upon emitting even a minute amount, whereas leprous signs do have a minimum measure.
סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי נָתָן. דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: זָב צָרִיךְ כַּחֲתִימַת פִּי הָאַמָּה, וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים. וְאִיתַּקַּשׁ לֵיהּ בַּעַל קֶרִי לְזָב.
The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: In order for a zav to become ritually impure, he needs to experience a discharge substantial enough to cause a blockage of the tip of the male organ. But the Rabbis did not agree with him. Thus, according to Rabbi Natan, a zav only becomes ritually impure if he experiences a discharge of a particular amount. And one who experienced a seminal emission is compared to a zav and therefore the same amount of discharge is required in order to cause ritual impurity. Therefore, the ritual impurity of a leper is more severe than that of one who experienced a seminal emission, and the original a fortiori inference applies.
״וְכׇל צָרוּעַ״ לְמָה לִי? אַיְּידֵי דִּכְתִיב ״כׇּל זָב״, כְּתִיב נָמֵי ״כׇּל צָרוּעַ״.
The Gemara asks: The expressions “any zav” and “anyone impure” teach that their respective categories are more inclusive than one would otherwise have thought. But why do I need the inclusive expression “and any leper”? What does the word “any” include? The Gemara explains: Since it is written “any zav,” it is also written “any leper,” so that the wording of the verse will be consistent.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, שַׁפִּיר קָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן?
The Gemara challenges the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda quoted above: Rabbi Shimon spoke well when he derived the three camps from which the three different classes of people are sent out from the verse: “That they send out from the camp any leper and any zav and anyone impure by reason of a corpse.” How does Rabbi Yehuda counter this argument?
הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל דָּחֲקוּ זָבִין וּמְצוֹרָעִין וְנִכְנְסוּ לָעֲזָרָה בְּפֶסַח הַבָּא בְּטוּמְאָה, יָכוֹל יְהוּ חַיָּיבִין, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וִישַׁלְּחוּ מִן הַמַּחֲנֶה כׇּל צָרוּעַ וְכׇל זָב וְכֹל טָמֵא לָנֶפֶשׁ״. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁטְּמֵאֵי מֵתִים מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין — זָבִין וּמְצוֹרָעִין מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין, אֵין טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין — אֵין זָבִין וּמְצוֹרָעִין מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין.
The Gemara answers: He needs that verse for that which was taught in a different baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: One might have thought that if zavin and lepers pushed and entered the Temple courtyard during the offering of a Paschal lamb that is brought in a state of impurity, when the majority of the nation are ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, that perhaps they would be liable for punishment for having violated the prohibition of entering the Temple while ritually impure. They are prohibited from entering even under such circumstances. Therefore the verse states: “That they send out from the camp any leper and any zav and anyone impure by reason of a corpse” (Numbers 5:2), which teaches us that at a time when those impure due to a corpse are sent out, zavin and lepers are sent out and are liable to karet for entering the Temple; but when those impure due to a corpse are not sent out, zavin and lepers are not sent out, meaning, they are not liable to receive karet for entering the Temple.
אָמַר מָר: ״זָב״, ״וְכׇל זָב״ — לְרַבּוֹת בַּעַל קֶרִי. מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מְחִילּוֹת לֹא נִתְקַדְּשׁוּ, וּבַעַל קֶרִי מִשְׁתַּלֵּחַ חוּץ לִשְׁתֵּי מַחֲנוֹת.
The Master said above: The fact that the verse does not just say “zav” but rather the inclusive expression “and any zav” comes to include a person who experienced a seminal emission. The Gemara notes: This exposition supports the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, for Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The tunnels under the Temple were not sanctified with the sanctity of the Temple; and a person who experienced a seminal emission is sent outside the two camps just like a zav. The exposition quoted above supports this second ruling of Rabbi Yoḥanan.
מֵיתִיבִי: בַּעַל קֶרִי כְּמַגַּע שֶׁרֶץ, מַאי לָאו לְמַחֲנוֹתָם? לֹא, לְטוּמְאָתָם.
The Gemara raises an objection based on what we learned in a mishna: The law governing a person who experienced a seminal emission is like the law governing someone who became ritually impure through contact with a creeping animal. What, is the intent not to compare them with regard to their respective camps, that one who experienced a seminal emission is prohibited from the same camps that are prohibited to one who touched a creeping animal? Thus, it follows that a person who experienced a seminal emission is permitted to enter the Levite camp. The Gemara answers: No, they are compared with regard to their impurity, in that each is impure only until the evening.
לְטוּמְאָתָם?! הַאי טוּמְאַת עֶרֶב כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ, וְהַאי טוּמְאַת עֶרֶב כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ! אֶלָּא לָאו, לְמַחֲנוֹתָם!
The Gemara expresses surprise: Why did the mishna need to teach that they are comparable with regard to their impurity? Impurity until evening is explicitly written in the Torah about this one, meaning that one who came into contact with a creeping animal is impure until the evening and then must undergo ritual immersion in order to become pure, as it states: “And for these you shall be unclean; whoever touches the carcass of them shall be unclean until evening” (Leviticus 11:24). And impurity until evening is explicitly written about that one, one who experienced a seminal emission, as it states: “And if semen goes out from a man, then shall he bathe all his flesh in water and be unclean until evening” (Leviticus 15:16). Rather, is it not that they are compared with regard to their camps, which is not explicit in the Torah?
לָא, לְעוֹלָם לְטוּמְאָתָם, וְהָא קָמַשְׁמַע לַן דְּבַעַל קֶרִי כְּמַגַּע שֶׁרֶץ: מָה מַגַּע שֶׁרֶץ מְטַמֵּא בְּאוֹנֶס — אַף בַּעַל קֶרִי מְטַמֵּא בְּאוֹנֶס.
The Gemara answers: No, actually it is possible to say that the comparison relates to their impurity, and it teaches us that a person who experienced seminal emission is governed by the same law as someone who became ritually impure through contact with a creeping animal in another regard: Just as contact with a creeping animal imparts ritual impurity through an accident, even when the contact is unintentional, so too a person who experienced a seminal emission becomes ritually impure through an accident, even when the emission of semen is unintentional, unlike the law governing a zav.
מֵיתִיבִי:
The Gemara raises an objection:
