Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

February 8, 2021 | ื›ืดื• ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืคืดื

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

Pesachim 79

Today’s Daf is sponsored by Regina Raphael in memory of her mother Rose B. Raphael on her second yahrzeit. “She was an advocate of women’s learning and independence. Rose was the first in her family to attend College and had a career in television before starting a family. She always maintained a professional career until her passing starting a new career in real estate in her 60’s.” And by Elisheva Gray in memory of a dear teacher and friend, Yoel Melech ben Moshe v’Sarah, z”l. “His passion and fervor for Judaism and Jewish learning has been and continues to be an inspiration for me.”

The gemara gives another explanation for the words of a Rav who said that the mishna was ab initio but if the blood was put on the altar, the sacrifice is valid, even if the meat is impure. The suggestion is that Rav holds like Rabbi Yehoshua. Also the rest of the mishna corresponds to Rabbi Yehoshua. From where do we derive that in other sacrifices, if the cheilev or the other parts that are burned on the altar are still pure, the blood can be brought? The mishna discusses the law that impurity was allowed in the case of a majority of impurity. When does this law apply? What if the public is 50% unclean and 50% pure, is it permitted to bring the sacrifice? Rav and Rav Kahana disagree on the matter. Within Rav Kahana, there are two different ways to understand his opinion. The gemara brings braitot to support each position and then try to reconcile each braita with the other positions.

ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืจื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ืฉื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื ื˜ืžื ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื—ืœื‘ ืงื™ื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื ื˜ืžื ื—ืœื‘ ื•ื‘ืฉืจ ืงื™ื™ื ื–ื•ืจืง ืืช ื”ื“ื


And if you wish, say that Rav, who said that, according to the mishna, if one did sprinkle the blood it is accepted, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, that eating the Paschal lamb is not essential. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all offerings in the Torah, whether the meat became ritually impure and the fat remains pure, or the fat became ritually impure and the meat remains pure, one may sprinkle the blood.


ื ื–ื™ืจ ื•ืขื•ืฉื” ืคืกื— ื ื˜ืžื ื—ืœื‘ ื•ื‘ืฉืจ ืงื™ื™ื ื–ื•ืจืง ืืช ื”ื“ื ื ื˜ืžื ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื—ืœื‘ ืงื™ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื–ื•ืจืง ืืช ื”ื“ื ื•ืื ื–ืจืง ื”ื•ืจืฆื”


With regard to the offerings of a nazirite and one who performs the ritual of a Paschal lamb, if the fat became impure and the meat remains pure, one may sprinkle the blood. If the meat became impure and the fat remains pure, one may not sprinkle the blood because eating the offering is a part of the mitzva itself and the impure meat may not be eaten. However, if he sprinkled the blood, it was accepted.


ื ื˜ืžืื• ื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื‘ืžืช ืœื ื™ื–ืจื•ืง ื•ืื ื–ืจืง ืœื ื”ื•ืจืฆื”:


If the owners became ritually impure from a corpse and therefore cannot eat the offering, one may not sprinkle the blood; and if one sprinkled it, it was not accepted. Although failure to eat the offering does not preclude it from being accepted, that rule applies only when the owner of the offering is personally fit to eat it.


ื‘ืžื•ืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื›ืŸ ื•ื›ื•ืณ: ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืžื ื™


It was taught in the mishna: With regard to other offerings it is not so; even if the meat has become ritually impure, if the fat remains pure, the blood is sprinkled on the altar. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna of the mishna?


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ืฉื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื ืฉืชื™ื™ืจ ืžื”ืŸ ื›ื–ื™ืช ื‘ืฉืจ ืื• ื›ื–ื™ืช ื—ืœื‘ ื–ื•ืจืง ืืช ื”ื“ื ื›ื—ืฆื™ ื–ื™ืช ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื›ื—ืฆื™ ื–ื™ืช ื—ืœื‘ ืื™ืŸ ื–ื•ืจืง ืืช ื”ื“ื


The Gemara answers: It is Rabbi Yehoshua. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all the offerings in the Torah from which there remains an olive-bulk of meat that is fit to be eaten or an olive-bulk of fat that is fit to be sacrificed on the altar, one may sprinkle the blood. If all that remains is half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat, one may not sprinkle the blood. The fat is burned on the altar and the meat is eaten by the priests. Since the meat and fat serve different functions, they do not combine to equal the minimum amount that must remain in order to sprinkle the blood.


ื•ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ื—ืฆื™ ื–ื™ืช ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื›ื—ืฆื™ ื–ื™ืช ื—ืœื‘ ื–ื•ืจืง ืืช ื”ื“ื ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื›ื•ืœื” ื›ืœื™ืœ ื•ื‘ืžื ื—ื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื›ื•ืœื” ืงื™ื™ืžืช ืœื ื™ื–ืจื•ืง


And with regard to a burnt-offering, even if all that was left was half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat, one may sprinkle the blood because it is all consumed on the altar. Since both the meat and the fat are sacrificed on the altar, they can be combined. And with regard to a meal-offering, although all of it remains pure, one may not sprinkle the blood of the animal offering that is brought together with it.


ืžื ื—ื” ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ืชื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืžื ื—ืช ื ืกื›ื™ื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืงื ืืชื™ื ืžื›ื— ื–ื‘ื— ื›ื’ื•ืคื™ื” ื“ื–ื‘ื— ื“ืžื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ


The Gemara expresses surprise: What is the mention of a meal-offering doing here? The discussion is about sprinkling blood, which is not relevant in the case of a meal-offering. Rav Pappa said: The meal-offering under discussion is the meal-offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings. It could enter your mind to say: Since it comes due to the offering, it is comparable to the offering itself. One might think that even if the offering became impure but the meal-offering remained pure, one would be permitted to sprinkle the blood of the animal due to the remaining meal-offering. Consequently, it teaches us that this is not the case.


ื—ืœื‘ ืžื ื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื•ืžื˜ื• ื‘ื” ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ื—ื ื ื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื”ืงื˜ื™ืจ ื”ื—ืœื‘ ืœืจื™ื— ื ื™ื—ื— ืœื”ืณ ื—ืœื‘ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจ


From where do we derive that if only the fat remains, one may sprinkle the blood of the offering? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, and there are those who determined that this halakha was stated in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben แธคananya: As the verse states: โ€œAnd the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of the Lord at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting; and he shall make the fat smoke for a satisfying aroma to the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 17:6). This verse indicates that one may sprinkle the blood if the fat remains pure although there is no pure meat.


ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ื—ืœื‘ ื™ื•ืชืจืช ื”ื›ื‘ื“ ื•ืฉืชื™ ื›ืœื™ื•ืช ืžื ื ืœืŸ


The Gemara asks: We have found a source for the halakha that one may sprinkle the blood if only fat remains; but if all that is left is the diaphragm and the two kidneys, which are also sacrificed on the altar, from where do we derive that one may sprinkle the blood?


ื”ื™ื›ื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื“ื–ืจืงื™ื ืŸ ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ื•ื‘ืžื ื—ื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื›ื•ืœื” ืงื™ื™ืžืช ืœื ื™ื–ืจื•ืง ืžื ื—ื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ืื‘ืœ ื™ื•ืชืจืช ื”ื›ื‘ื“ ื•ืฉืชื™ ื”ื›ืœื™ื•ืช ืฉืคื™ืจ ื“ืžื™ ืžื ื ืœืŸ


The Gemara responds: Where did we say that one may sprinkle the blood in such a case? The Gemara answers: The fact that one may sprinkle the blood in that case is clear from the fact that it is taught at the end of the baraita: And with regard to a meal-offering, although all of it remains pure, one may not sprinkle the blood. It can be deduced from this statement that it is a meal-offering for which one may not sprinkle the blood, as the meal-offering is not part of the animal; but with regard to the diaphragm and the two kidneys, it seems well to sprinkle the blood if they remain. That being the case, from where do we derive this halakha?


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืœืจื™ื— ื ื™ื—ื— ื›ืœ ืฉืืชื” ืžืขืœื” ืœืจื™ื— ื ื™ื—ื•ื—


The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan himself said, this time without quoting tannaโ€™im: The verse we quoted above states: For a satisfying aroma, which indicates that anything you raise as a satisfying aroma, i.e., anything burned on the altar, is enough to sprinkle the blood.


ื•ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœืžื›ืชื‘ ื—ืœื‘ ื•ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœืžื›ืชื‘ ืจื™ื— ื ื™ื—ื•ื— ื“ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื—ืœื‘ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื—ืœื‘ ืื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืชืจืช ื”ื›ื‘ื“ ื•ืฉืชื™ ื”ื›ืœื™ื•ืช ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœืจื™ื— ื ื™ื—ื•ื— ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœืจื™ื— ื ื™ื—ื•ื— ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœืจื™ื— ื ื™ื—ื•ื— ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืžื ื—ื” ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื—ืœื‘:


The Gemara notes: And it is necessary to write fat in that verse and it is necessary to write: For a satisfying aroma. As, if the Merciful One had written only fat, I would have said that if fat remains, yes, the blood may be sprinkled, but if only the diaphragm and two kidneys remain, which are not as significant as the fat, no, the blood may not be sprinkled. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: For a satisfying aroma. And if the Merciful One had written only: For a satisfying aroma, I would have said that it includes anything that rises as a satisfying aroma, and even a meal-offering is included. Therefore, the Merciful One writes fat, to teach that this halakha applies only to sacrificial parts of the animal and not to accompanying libations and meal-offerings.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื ื˜ืžื ืงื”ืœ ืื• ืจื•ื‘ื• ืื• ืฉื”ื™ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื˜ืžืื™ื ื•ื”ืงื”ืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ื ื™ืขืฉื• ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื ื˜ืžื ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ ื”ืงื”ืœ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื”ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉื ื™:


MISHNA: If the entire community or most of it became ritually impure, or the priests were all impure and the community was pure, they should perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in ritual impurity. If a minority of the community became impure, even if they are many people, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ, and those who are impure perform the ritual on the second Pesaแธฅ.


ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ืฉื”ื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื•ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื•ื›ืœื™ ืฉืจืช ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืื• ืฉื”ื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื•ื›ืœื™ ืฉืจืช ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื›ืœื™ ืฉืจืช ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื™ืขืฉื• ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื—ืœื•ืง


GEMARA: The Sages taught: If most or all of the Jewish people were impure and the priests and sacred vessels used in the Temple service were pure; or, conversely, if the Jewish people were pure and the priests and sacred vessels were impure; and even in a situation in which the Jewish people and the priests were pure and the sacred vessels were impure, they may perform any part of the ritual of the Paschal lamb in ritual impurity. The reason for this is that a communal offering, which is sacrificed even in a state of ritual impurity, is not divided. Therefore, since some of the service must be performed in a state of ritual impurity, it may all be performed in a state of ritual impurity.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉื ื˜ืžื ื”ืกื›ื™ืŸ ื‘ื˜ืžื ืžืช ื“ืจื—ืžื ื ืืžืจ ื‘ื—ืœืœ ื—ืจื‘ ื—ืจื‘ ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื›ื—ืœืœ


Rav แธคisda said: They taught that the service may be done in a state of ritual impurity if the sacred vessels are impure only in a case where the knife to be used for slaughtering became impure through contact with one who was ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, as the Merciful One states: โ€œAnd whoever shall touch on the open field one slain with a sword, or one that died, or the bone of a man, or a grave, shall be impure for seven daysโ€ (Numbers 19:16). The Sages expounded: A sword is like a corpse. Therefore, a sword or another metal implement that touches a corpse attains the same level of impurity as the corpse itself, which is the ultimate primary source of ritual impurity. Similarly, a knife that touches a person who is a primary source of ritual impurity due to contact with a corpse attains that same status.


ื•ืงื ืžื˜ืžื ืœื’ื‘ืจื ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื›ื™ ืžื™ืชืขื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืืช ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื“ื›ืจืช ืงื ืžื™ืชืขื‘ื™ื“


Therefore, it renders impure the person who uses it for slaughtering. In this case, when the ritual of the Paschal lamb is initially performed, it is performed in a state of ritual impurity of the body. Generally, one who is impure in this way is liable to receive karet if he eats sacrificial meat or enters the Temple.


ืื‘ืœ ื ื˜ืžื ื”ืกื›ื™ืŸ ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืฉืจืฅ ื“ื‘ืฉืจ ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื˜ืžื™ื ืœื™ื” ืœื’ื‘ืจื ืœื ืžื˜ืžื™ื ืœื™ื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืœื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืžื•ื˜ื‘ ื™ืื›ืœ ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืืช ื‘ืฉืจ ื‘ืœืื• ื•ืืœ ื™ืื›ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืืช ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ืฉื”ื•ื ื‘ื›ืจืช


However, if the knife became ritually impure with the impurity of a creeping animal, which renders the meat impure but does not render the person impure, because something rendered impure by a primary source of ritual impurity becomes a secondary source of ritual impurity, which can render food impure but not people, those who are pure may perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb, but those who are impure may not perform the ritual. This is because it is preferable that one eat the Paschal lamb with impurity of the meat, as the nature of its prohibition is that of a regular negative commandment, and one should not eat the meat with impurity of the body, which renders one liable to receive karet.


ืืœืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื“ื—ื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื‘ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื“ื—ื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื‘ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ


The Gemara comments on Rav แธคisdaโ€™s attempt to distinguish between different types of impurity and to claim that the entire community sacrifices the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity only when the people have become impure with a severe form of impurity. Apparently, Rav แธคisda holds that impurity is overridden in cases involving the public. The prohibition of sacrificing offerings in a state of impurity is not wholly permitted for a community; rather, it is overridden in cases of great need. Therefore, whenever it is possible to minimize the severity of the impurity, it is necessary to do so. And, so too, Rabbi Yitzแธฅak said explicitly: Impurity is overridden in cases involving the public.


ื•ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืืฉืจ ื™ื’ืข ื‘ื›ืœ ื˜ืžื ืœื ื™ืื›ืœ ื‘ืืฉ ื™ืฉืจืฃ ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ื›ืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื™ืื›ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ


And Rava said that whenever there is any form of ritual impurity involved in the service, even those who are ritually impure may also perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb. What is the reason for this? As it is written: โ€œAnd the flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten, it shall be burned in fire; and the flesh, every one that is pure may eat the fleshโ€ (Leviticus 7:19).


ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ืงืจื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืืฉืจ ื™ื’ืข ื‘ื›ืœ ื˜ืžื ืœื ื™ืื›ืœ ืœื ืงืจื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ื›ืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื™ืื›ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืงืจื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืืฉืจ ื™ื’ืข ื‘ื›ืœ ื˜ืžื ืœื ื™ืื›ืœ ืงืจื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ื›ืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื™ืื›ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ


Rava derives from this verse that anywhere that we do not apply the halakha that โ€œthe flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eatenโ€ and the meat may be eaten despite being impure, we also do not apply โ€œand the flesh, every one that is pure may eat the flesh.โ€ In that case, the meat may be eaten even by one who is impure. Just as the first half of the verse is not applicable, the second half is also not applicable. It is only anywhere that we apply the halakha that โ€œthe flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eatenโ€ that we also apply the second half of the verse: โ€œAnd the flesh, every one that is pure may eat the flesh.โ€ Therefore, when the offering is sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity, there is no prohibition for impure people to eat it.


ืื™ืชืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืฉื”ื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื•ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืืžืจ ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ืื™ื ื• ื›ืจื•ื‘


It was stated that the amoraโ€™im disagreed with regard to the mishnaโ€™s statement that the Paschal lamb may be sacrificed in a state of impurity if the majority of the public is impure. In a case where the Jewish people were divided, and exactly half were pure and half were impure, Rav said half and half is like the majority, and Rav Kahana said half and half is not like the majority.


ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื”ืœืœื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžืŸ ื•ื”ืœืœื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžืŸ ื•ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ืื™ื ื• ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉื ื™


The Gemara explains the dispute between Rav and Rav Kahana. Rav said: Half and half is like the majority, meaning that each of the two groups has the status of the majority of the public. Therefore, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of ritual purity. And those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of ritual impurity. They are also considered like the majority of the public, and the sacrifice of the majority of the public is not deferred to the second Pesaแธฅ. And Rav Kahana said: Half and half is not like the majority. Therefore, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ, and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaแธฅ.


ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ืื™ื ื• ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ


Some say that what was stated above is not the correct conclusion based on Rav Kahanaโ€™s statement. Rather, Rav Kahana said: Half and half is not like the majority. Therefore, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ,


ื•ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœื ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ืœื ืืช ื”ืฉื ื™ ื‘ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื• ืจื•ื‘ื ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื• ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื


and those who are impure do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ or the second. They do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ because they are not the majority, and the Paschal lamb may be sacrificed in a state of impurity only when the majority of the community is impure. Additionally, they may not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaแธฅ because they are not the minority, and only the sacrifice of a minority of the community is deferred to the second Pesaแธฅ.


ืชื ืŸ ื ื˜ืžื ืงื”ืœ ืื• ืจื•ื‘ื• ืื• ืฉื”ื™ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืงื”ืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ื ื™ืขืฉื” ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืจื•ื‘ื• ื”ื•ื ื“ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืื‘ืœ ืคืœื’ื ื•ืคืœื’ื ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื‘ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืงืฉื™ื ืœืจื‘


The Gemara raises an objection from that which we learned in the mishna: If the entire community became ritually impure, or if most of it became impure, or if the priests were impure and the community was pure, they should perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in impurity. This indicates that it is only when most of the community is impure that they perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in impurity, but if it is half and half, they do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ. This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav.


ืืžืจ ืœืš ืจื‘ ืจื•ื‘ื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืคืœื’ื ื•ืคืœื’ื ื”ืœืœื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžืŸ ื•ื”ืœืœื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžืŸ


Rav could have said to you: When a majority of the community is impure, they may all perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in impurity. Even those who are still pure are not required to ensure that they remain pure in order to sacrifice the Paschal lamb. When it is half and half, these who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of purity and these who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of impurity.


ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื ื˜ืžื ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ ื”ืงื”ืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉื ื™ ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ ื”ื•ื ื“ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืื‘ืœ ืคืœื’ื ื•ืคืœื’ื ืœื ื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื‘ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื”ืœืœื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžืŸ ื•ื”ืœืœื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžืŸ


The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable to understand the mishna in this way, as the latter clause teaches: If a minority of the community became impure, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaแธฅ. This indicates that it is only when the minority has become impure that they perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaแธฅ. But when it is half and half this is not the case; rather, these perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of purity and those perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of impurity on the first Pesaแธฅ.


ื•ืืœื ืงืฉื™ื ืœืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืืžืจ ืœืš ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื ื˜ืžืื• ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ ื”ืงื”ืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉื ื™ ื”ื ืคืœื’ื ื•ืคืœื’ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืื™ื ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœื ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ืœื ืืช ื”ืฉื ื™


However, if so, it then poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Kahana. The Gemara responds: Rav Kahana could have said to you that the latter clause of the mishna should be understood as follows: If a minority of the community became ritually impure, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaแธฅ. This indicates that if it is half and half, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ and those who are impure do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first or the second Pesaแธฅ.


ื”ืชื™ื ื— ืœืœื™ืฉื ื ื‘ืชืจื ื“ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืืœื ืœื”ืš ืœื™ืฉื ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ื ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉื ื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ


The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the latter version of Rav Kahanaโ€™s statement, according to which this is the halakha when exactly half of the community is pure and half is impure. But according to that first version, in which Rav Kahana said that when half the community is pure and half is impure, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaแธฅ, what is there to say?


ืืžืจ ืœืš ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื”ื•ื ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ืคืœื’ื ื•ืคืœื’ื ื ืžื™ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉื ื™ ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ ื”ืงื”ืœ ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืชื ื ืจื™ืฉื ืจื•ื‘ื• ืชื ื ื ืžื™ ืกื™ืคื ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื•


Rav Kahana could have said to you that the mishna should be understood as follows: The same is true even in a case of half and half as well; those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ, and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaแธฅ. And that which was taught in the mishna that the sacrifice of a minority of the community is deferred to the second Pesaแธฅ is not meant to indicate that half the community cannot observe the second Pesaแธฅ. Rather, since it taught in the first clause of the mishna the case in which the majority of the community became ritually impure, it also taught in the latter clause the case in which the minority of the community became impure, so as to employ a parallel formulation.


ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื›ืชืจื™ ืœื™ืฉื ื™ ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื”ืœืœื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžืŸ ื•ื”ืœืœื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžืŸ


The Gemara points out that it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana, in accordance with each of the two versions of his opinion. It was taught in the following baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: If the Jewish people were divided, and half were pure and half were impure, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of purity, and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of impurity on the first Pesaแธฅ.


ืชื ื™ื ื›ืœื™ืฉื ื ืงืžื ื“ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื”ืจื™ ืฉื”ื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉื ื™


It was taught in the following baraita in accordance with the first version of the opinion of Rav Kahana: If the Jewish people were divided, and half were pure and half were impure, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ, and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaแธฅ.


ื•ืชื ื™ื ื›ืœื™ืฉื ื ื‘ืชืจื ื“ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื”ืจื™ ืฉื”ื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืื™ื ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœื ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ืœื ืืช ื”ืฉื ื™


And it was taught in the following baraita in accordance with the latter version of the opinion of Rav Kahana: If the Jewish people were divided, and half were pure and half were impure, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ, and those who are impure do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ or the second Pesaแธฅ.


ืœืจื‘ ื•ืœืœื™ืฉื ื ื‘ืชืจื ื“ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื”ื ื“ืชื ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉื ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืชืจืฆื™ ืœื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื•ื ืฉื™ื ืžืฉืœื™ืžื•ืช ืœื˜ืžืื™ื


The Gemara asks: According to Rav and according to the latter version of the opinion of Rav Kahana, with regard to that which was taught in the second baraita quoted above, that those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaแธฅ, how do they reconcile it? The Gemara answers: According to them, the case under discussion is one where the Jewish people are divided, and half are pure and half are impure. However, the majority of the men are pure, and the majority of the women are impure and the women complete the number of impure people necessary to reach half of the community.


ื•ืงืกื‘ืจ ื ืฉื™ื ื‘ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืจืฉื•ืช ื“ืœ ื ืฉื™ื ืžื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื•ื• ืœื”ื• ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื ื•ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื ื™ื“ื—ื• ืœืคืกื— ืฉื ื™


And this tanna holds that the participation of women in the first Pesaแธฅ is optional. Therefore, remove the women from those who are impure, and the impure become the minority. And the sacrifice of the minority is deferred to the second Pesaแธฅ according to all opinions.


ืœืจื‘ ื•ืœืœื™ืฉื ื ืงืžื ื“ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื”ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœื ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ืœื ืืช ื”ืฉื ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืชืจืฆื™ ืœื”


The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rav and according to the first version of the opinion of Rav Kahana, with regard to that which was taught in the third baraita cited above: Those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ and those who are impure do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ or on the second Pesaแธฅ, how do they reconcile it according to their opinions?


ืจื‘ ืžืชืจื™ืฅ ืœื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื ืฉื™ื ืขื•ื“ืคื•ืช ืขืœ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ื ื•ืงืกื‘ืจ ื ืฉื™ื ื‘ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื—ื•ื‘ื” ื•ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืจืฉื•ืช


Rav reconciles the baraita by explaining that it is referring to a case where the men of the Jewish people were divided, and half were impure and half were pure, and the women, a majority of whom were pure, added on to the number of those who were pure so that the majority of the community was pure. And this tanna holds that the participation of women in the first Pesaแธฅ is obligatory, and their participation in the second Pesaแธฅ is optional.


ื‘ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื™ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ ื•ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื‘ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื“ืœ ื ืฉื™ื ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ื”ื•ื• ืœื”ื• ืคืœื’ื ื•ืคืœื’ื ื•ืคืœื’ื ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื‘ืฉื ื™


Therefore, on the first Pesaแธฅ, those who are impure do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb because they are a minority, and a minority of the community that is ritually impure may not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ. And on the second Pesaแธฅ they do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb because when one removes the women from them, those who were impure are half of the community, and half the community does not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaแธฅ.


ื•ืœืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื“ืืžืจ ืคืœื’ื ื ืžื™ ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื‘ืฉื ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžืชืจื™ืฅ ืœื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื•ื ืฉื™ื ืžืฉืœื™ืžื•ืช ืœื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืงืกื‘ืจ ื ืฉื™ื ื‘ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื—ื•ื‘ื” ื•ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืจืฉื•ืช


And according to the first version of the opinion of Rav Kahana, in which he said that half the community also performs the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaแธฅ, this is how he would reconcile the baraita with his opinion: It is addressing a case where the Jewish people were divided, and half were pure and half were impure. However, the majority of the men were impure, and it is the women who completed the necessary number of the pure so that the division was half and half. And this tanna holds that the participation of women on the first Pesaแธฅ is obligatory, and their participation on the second Pesaแธฅ is optional.


ื‘ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื• ืœื”ื• ืคืœื’ื ื•ืคืœื’ื ื•ืคืœื’ื ื‘ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื‘ืฉื ื™ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื“ืœ ื ืฉื™ื ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื• ืœื”ื• ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืจื•ื‘ื ื•ืจื•ื‘ื ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื‘ืฉื ื™


Therefore, on the first Pesaแธฅ they may not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb because they are half and half, and according to his opinion, half of the community may not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ in a state of impurity. On the second Pesaแธฅ as well, they may not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb because one must remove the women from the number of those who are pure, and the impure become the majority, and the majority does not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaแธฅ.


ื•ืœืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื”ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืจื™ ืฉื”ื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื”ืœืœื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžืŸ ื•ื”ืœืœื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžืŸ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืชืจื™ืฅ ืœื” ืืžืจ ืœืš ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืชื ืื™ ื”ื™ื ืื™ื›ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื•ืื™ื›ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ืื™ื ื• ื›ืจื•ื‘


The Gemara asks further: And according to Rav Kahana, with regard to that which was taught in the first of the three baraitot above: If the Jewish people were divided, half were pure and half were impure, those who were pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves on the first Pesaแธฅ, and those who were impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves on the second Pesaแธฅ, how does he reconcile it? Rav Kahana could have said to you: This matter is subject to a dispute between the tannaโ€™im. There is one who said that in a case of half and half, each half by itself is considered like the majority, and there is one who said that half and half is not like the majority.


ื’ื•ืคื ื”ืจื™ ืฉื”ื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื”ืœืœื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžืŸ ื•ื”ืœืœื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžืŸ ื”ื™ื• ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืขื•ื“ืคื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืื—ื“ ื™ืขืฉื• ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื—ืœื•ืง


The Gemara addresses the matter itself discussed in the baraita cited previously. If the Jewish people were divided, half were pure and half were impure, those who were pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves on the first Pesaแธฅ and those who were impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves on the second Pesaแธฅ. If those who were impure outnumbered those who were pure even by one person, they should perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in ritual impurity on the first Pesaแธฅ because a communal offering is not divided. Therefore, the entire community may sacrifice the Paschal lamb in a state of impurity. This includes those who were pure; they do not need to take care to remain pure in order to sacrifice the Paschal lamb.


ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืžืชื™ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืžื›ืจื™ืข ืืช ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืœื˜ื•ืžืื” ืฉื ืืžืจ


Rabbi Elazar ben Matya says: The individual cannot tip the balance of the entire public toward ritual impurity, as it is stated:


Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Dr. Tamara Spitz

Pesachim 74-80 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we start the 7th chapter of Pesachim and learn how the Pesach sacrifice was roasted. We will learn...
daf_icon

Pesachim 67-73 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the 3 camps that existed in the desert and who needed to leave which...

Pesachim 79

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 79

ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืจื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ืฉื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื ื˜ืžื ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื—ืœื‘ ืงื™ื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื ื˜ืžื ื—ืœื‘ ื•ื‘ืฉืจ ืงื™ื™ื ื–ื•ืจืง ืืช ื”ื“ื


And if you wish, say that Rav, who said that, according to the mishna, if one did sprinkle the blood it is accepted, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, that eating the Paschal lamb is not essential. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all offerings in the Torah, whether the meat became ritually impure and the fat remains pure, or the fat became ritually impure and the meat remains pure, one may sprinkle the blood.


ื ื–ื™ืจ ื•ืขื•ืฉื” ืคืกื— ื ื˜ืžื ื—ืœื‘ ื•ื‘ืฉืจ ืงื™ื™ื ื–ื•ืจืง ืืช ื”ื“ื ื ื˜ืžื ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื—ืœื‘ ืงื™ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื–ื•ืจืง ืืช ื”ื“ื ื•ืื ื–ืจืง ื”ื•ืจืฆื”


With regard to the offerings of a nazirite and one who performs the ritual of a Paschal lamb, if the fat became impure and the meat remains pure, one may sprinkle the blood. If the meat became impure and the fat remains pure, one may not sprinkle the blood because eating the offering is a part of the mitzva itself and the impure meat may not be eaten. However, if he sprinkled the blood, it was accepted.


ื ื˜ืžืื• ื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื‘ืžืช ืœื ื™ื–ืจื•ืง ื•ืื ื–ืจืง ืœื ื”ื•ืจืฆื”:


If the owners became ritually impure from a corpse and therefore cannot eat the offering, one may not sprinkle the blood; and if one sprinkled it, it was not accepted. Although failure to eat the offering does not preclude it from being accepted, that rule applies only when the owner of the offering is personally fit to eat it.


ื‘ืžื•ืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื›ืŸ ื•ื›ื•ืณ: ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืžื ื™


It was taught in the mishna: With regard to other offerings it is not so; even if the meat has become ritually impure, if the fat remains pure, the blood is sprinkled on the altar. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna of the mishna?


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ืฉื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื ืฉืชื™ื™ืจ ืžื”ืŸ ื›ื–ื™ืช ื‘ืฉืจ ืื• ื›ื–ื™ืช ื—ืœื‘ ื–ื•ืจืง ืืช ื”ื“ื ื›ื—ืฆื™ ื–ื™ืช ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื›ื—ืฆื™ ื–ื™ืช ื—ืœื‘ ืื™ืŸ ื–ื•ืจืง ืืช ื”ื“ื


The Gemara answers: It is Rabbi Yehoshua. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all the offerings in the Torah from which there remains an olive-bulk of meat that is fit to be eaten or an olive-bulk of fat that is fit to be sacrificed on the altar, one may sprinkle the blood. If all that remains is half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat, one may not sprinkle the blood. The fat is burned on the altar and the meat is eaten by the priests. Since the meat and fat serve different functions, they do not combine to equal the minimum amount that must remain in order to sprinkle the blood.


ื•ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ื—ืฆื™ ื–ื™ืช ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื›ื—ืฆื™ ื–ื™ืช ื—ืœื‘ ื–ื•ืจืง ืืช ื”ื“ื ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื›ื•ืœื” ื›ืœื™ืœ ื•ื‘ืžื ื—ื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื›ื•ืœื” ืงื™ื™ืžืช ืœื ื™ื–ืจื•ืง


And with regard to a burnt-offering, even if all that was left was half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat, one may sprinkle the blood because it is all consumed on the altar. Since both the meat and the fat are sacrificed on the altar, they can be combined. And with regard to a meal-offering, although all of it remains pure, one may not sprinkle the blood of the animal offering that is brought together with it.


ืžื ื—ื” ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ืชื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืžื ื—ืช ื ืกื›ื™ื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืงื ืืชื™ื ืžื›ื— ื–ื‘ื— ื›ื’ื•ืคื™ื” ื“ื–ื‘ื— ื“ืžื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ


The Gemara expresses surprise: What is the mention of a meal-offering doing here? The discussion is about sprinkling blood, which is not relevant in the case of a meal-offering. Rav Pappa said: The meal-offering under discussion is the meal-offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings. It could enter your mind to say: Since it comes due to the offering, it is comparable to the offering itself. One might think that even if the offering became impure but the meal-offering remained pure, one would be permitted to sprinkle the blood of the animal due to the remaining meal-offering. Consequently, it teaches us that this is not the case.


ื—ืœื‘ ืžื ื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื•ืžื˜ื• ื‘ื” ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ื—ื ื ื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื”ืงื˜ื™ืจ ื”ื—ืœื‘ ืœืจื™ื— ื ื™ื—ื— ืœื”ืณ ื—ืœื‘ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจ


From where do we derive that if only the fat remains, one may sprinkle the blood of the offering? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, and there are those who determined that this halakha was stated in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben แธคananya: As the verse states: โ€œAnd the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of the Lord at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting; and he shall make the fat smoke for a satisfying aroma to the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 17:6). This verse indicates that one may sprinkle the blood if the fat remains pure although there is no pure meat.


ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ื—ืœื‘ ื™ื•ืชืจืช ื”ื›ื‘ื“ ื•ืฉืชื™ ื›ืœื™ื•ืช ืžื ื ืœืŸ


The Gemara asks: We have found a source for the halakha that one may sprinkle the blood if only fat remains; but if all that is left is the diaphragm and the two kidneys, which are also sacrificed on the altar, from where do we derive that one may sprinkle the blood?


ื”ื™ื›ื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื“ื–ืจืงื™ื ืŸ ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ื•ื‘ืžื ื—ื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื›ื•ืœื” ืงื™ื™ืžืช ืœื ื™ื–ืจื•ืง ืžื ื—ื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ืื‘ืœ ื™ื•ืชืจืช ื”ื›ื‘ื“ ื•ืฉืชื™ ื”ื›ืœื™ื•ืช ืฉืคื™ืจ ื“ืžื™ ืžื ื ืœืŸ


The Gemara responds: Where did we say that one may sprinkle the blood in such a case? The Gemara answers: The fact that one may sprinkle the blood in that case is clear from the fact that it is taught at the end of the baraita: And with regard to a meal-offering, although all of it remains pure, one may not sprinkle the blood. It can be deduced from this statement that it is a meal-offering for which one may not sprinkle the blood, as the meal-offering is not part of the animal; but with regard to the diaphragm and the two kidneys, it seems well to sprinkle the blood if they remain. That being the case, from where do we derive this halakha?


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืœืจื™ื— ื ื™ื—ื— ื›ืœ ืฉืืชื” ืžืขืœื” ืœืจื™ื— ื ื™ื—ื•ื—


The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan himself said, this time without quoting tannaโ€™im: The verse we quoted above states: For a satisfying aroma, which indicates that anything you raise as a satisfying aroma, i.e., anything burned on the altar, is enough to sprinkle the blood.


ื•ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœืžื›ืชื‘ ื—ืœื‘ ื•ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœืžื›ืชื‘ ืจื™ื— ื ื™ื—ื•ื— ื“ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื—ืœื‘ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื—ืœื‘ ืื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืชืจืช ื”ื›ื‘ื“ ื•ืฉืชื™ ื”ื›ืœื™ื•ืช ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœืจื™ื— ื ื™ื—ื•ื— ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœืจื™ื— ื ื™ื—ื•ื— ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœืจื™ื— ื ื™ื—ื•ื— ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืžื ื—ื” ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื—ืœื‘:


The Gemara notes: And it is necessary to write fat in that verse and it is necessary to write: For a satisfying aroma. As, if the Merciful One had written only fat, I would have said that if fat remains, yes, the blood may be sprinkled, but if only the diaphragm and two kidneys remain, which are not as significant as the fat, no, the blood may not be sprinkled. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: For a satisfying aroma. And if the Merciful One had written only: For a satisfying aroma, I would have said that it includes anything that rises as a satisfying aroma, and even a meal-offering is included. Therefore, the Merciful One writes fat, to teach that this halakha applies only to sacrificial parts of the animal and not to accompanying libations and meal-offerings.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื ื˜ืžื ืงื”ืœ ืื• ืจื•ื‘ื• ืื• ืฉื”ื™ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื˜ืžืื™ื ื•ื”ืงื”ืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ื ื™ืขืฉื• ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื ื˜ืžื ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ ื”ืงื”ืœ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื”ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉื ื™:


MISHNA: If the entire community or most of it became ritually impure, or the priests were all impure and the community was pure, they should perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in ritual impurity. If a minority of the community became impure, even if they are many people, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ, and those who are impure perform the ritual on the second Pesaแธฅ.


ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ืฉื”ื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื•ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื•ื›ืœื™ ืฉืจืช ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืื• ืฉื”ื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื•ื›ืœื™ ืฉืจืช ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื›ืœื™ ืฉืจืช ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื™ืขืฉื• ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื—ืœื•ืง


GEMARA: The Sages taught: If most or all of the Jewish people were impure and the priests and sacred vessels used in the Temple service were pure; or, conversely, if the Jewish people were pure and the priests and sacred vessels were impure; and even in a situation in which the Jewish people and the priests were pure and the sacred vessels were impure, they may perform any part of the ritual of the Paschal lamb in ritual impurity. The reason for this is that a communal offering, which is sacrificed even in a state of ritual impurity, is not divided. Therefore, since some of the service must be performed in a state of ritual impurity, it may all be performed in a state of ritual impurity.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉื ื˜ืžื ื”ืกื›ื™ืŸ ื‘ื˜ืžื ืžืช ื“ืจื—ืžื ื ืืžืจ ื‘ื—ืœืœ ื—ืจื‘ ื—ืจื‘ ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื›ื—ืœืœ


Rav แธคisda said: They taught that the service may be done in a state of ritual impurity if the sacred vessels are impure only in a case where the knife to be used for slaughtering became impure through contact with one who was ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, as the Merciful One states: โ€œAnd whoever shall touch on the open field one slain with a sword, or one that died, or the bone of a man, or a grave, shall be impure for seven daysโ€ (Numbers 19:16). The Sages expounded: A sword is like a corpse. Therefore, a sword or another metal implement that touches a corpse attains the same level of impurity as the corpse itself, which is the ultimate primary source of ritual impurity. Similarly, a knife that touches a person who is a primary source of ritual impurity due to contact with a corpse attains that same status.


ื•ืงื ืžื˜ืžื ืœื’ื‘ืจื ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื›ื™ ืžื™ืชืขื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืืช ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื“ื›ืจืช ืงื ืžื™ืชืขื‘ื™ื“


Therefore, it renders impure the person who uses it for slaughtering. In this case, when the ritual of the Paschal lamb is initially performed, it is performed in a state of ritual impurity of the body. Generally, one who is impure in this way is liable to receive karet if he eats sacrificial meat or enters the Temple.


ืื‘ืœ ื ื˜ืžื ื”ืกื›ื™ืŸ ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืฉืจืฅ ื“ื‘ืฉืจ ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื˜ืžื™ื ืœื™ื” ืœื’ื‘ืจื ืœื ืžื˜ืžื™ื ืœื™ื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืœื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืžื•ื˜ื‘ ื™ืื›ืœ ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืืช ื‘ืฉืจ ื‘ืœืื• ื•ืืœ ื™ืื›ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืืช ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ืฉื”ื•ื ื‘ื›ืจืช


However, if the knife became ritually impure with the impurity of a creeping animal, which renders the meat impure but does not render the person impure, because something rendered impure by a primary source of ritual impurity becomes a secondary source of ritual impurity, which can render food impure but not people, those who are pure may perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb, but those who are impure may not perform the ritual. This is because it is preferable that one eat the Paschal lamb with impurity of the meat, as the nature of its prohibition is that of a regular negative commandment, and one should not eat the meat with impurity of the body, which renders one liable to receive karet.


ืืœืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื“ื—ื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื‘ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื“ื—ื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื‘ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ


The Gemara comments on Rav แธคisdaโ€™s attempt to distinguish between different types of impurity and to claim that the entire community sacrifices the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity only when the people have become impure with a severe form of impurity. Apparently, Rav แธคisda holds that impurity is overridden in cases involving the public. The prohibition of sacrificing offerings in a state of impurity is not wholly permitted for a community; rather, it is overridden in cases of great need. Therefore, whenever it is possible to minimize the severity of the impurity, it is necessary to do so. And, so too, Rabbi Yitzแธฅak said explicitly: Impurity is overridden in cases involving the public.


ื•ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืืฉืจ ื™ื’ืข ื‘ื›ืœ ื˜ืžื ืœื ื™ืื›ืœ ื‘ืืฉ ื™ืฉืจืฃ ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ื›ืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื™ืื›ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ


And Rava said that whenever there is any form of ritual impurity involved in the service, even those who are ritually impure may also perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb. What is the reason for this? As it is written: โ€œAnd the flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten, it shall be burned in fire; and the flesh, every one that is pure may eat the fleshโ€ (Leviticus 7:19).


ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ืงืจื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืืฉืจ ื™ื’ืข ื‘ื›ืœ ื˜ืžื ืœื ื™ืื›ืœ ืœื ืงืจื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ื›ืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื™ืื›ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืงืจื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืืฉืจ ื™ื’ืข ื‘ื›ืœ ื˜ืžื ืœื ื™ืื›ืœ ืงืจื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ื›ืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื™ืื›ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ


Rava derives from this verse that anywhere that we do not apply the halakha that โ€œthe flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eatenโ€ and the meat may be eaten despite being impure, we also do not apply โ€œand the flesh, every one that is pure may eat the flesh.โ€ In that case, the meat may be eaten even by one who is impure. Just as the first half of the verse is not applicable, the second half is also not applicable. It is only anywhere that we apply the halakha that โ€œthe flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eatenโ€ that we also apply the second half of the verse: โ€œAnd the flesh, every one that is pure may eat the flesh.โ€ Therefore, when the offering is sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity, there is no prohibition for impure people to eat it.


ืื™ืชืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืฉื”ื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื•ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืืžืจ ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ืื™ื ื• ื›ืจื•ื‘


It was stated that the amoraโ€™im disagreed with regard to the mishnaโ€™s statement that the Paschal lamb may be sacrificed in a state of impurity if the majority of the public is impure. In a case where the Jewish people were divided, and exactly half were pure and half were impure, Rav said half and half is like the majority, and Rav Kahana said half and half is not like the majority.


ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื”ืœืœื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžืŸ ื•ื”ืœืœื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžืŸ ื•ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ืื™ื ื• ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉื ื™


The Gemara explains the dispute between Rav and Rav Kahana. Rav said: Half and half is like the majority, meaning that each of the two groups has the status of the majority of the public. Therefore, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of ritual purity. And those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of ritual impurity. They are also considered like the majority of the public, and the sacrifice of the majority of the public is not deferred to the second Pesaแธฅ. And Rav Kahana said: Half and half is not like the majority. Therefore, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ, and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaแธฅ.


ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ืื™ื ื• ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ


Some say that what was stated above is not the correct conclusion based on Rav Kahanaโ€™s statement. Rather, Rav Kahana said: Half and half is not like the majority. Therefore, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ,


ื•ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœื ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ืœื ืืช ื”ืฉื ื™ ื‘ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื• ืจื•ื‘ื ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื• ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื


and those who are impure do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ or the second. They do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ because they are not the majority, and the Paschal lamb may be sacrificed in a state of impurity only when the majority of the community is impure. Additionally, they may not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaแธฅ because they are not the minority, and only the sacrifice of a minority of the community is deferred to the second Pesaแธฅ.


ืชื ืŸ ื ื˜ืžื ืงื”ืœ ืื• ืจื•ื‘ื• ืื• ืฉื”ื™ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืงื”ืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ื ื™ืขืฉื” ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืจื•ื‘ื• ื”ื•ื ื“ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืื‘ืœ ืคืœื’ื ื•ืคืœื’ื ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื‘ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืงืฉื™ื ืœืจื‘


The Gemara raises an objection from that which we learned in the mishna: If the entire community became ritually impure, or if most of it became impure, or if the priests were impure and the community was pure, they should perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in impurity. This indicates that it is only when most of the community is impure that they perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in impurity, but if it is half and half, they do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ. This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav.


ืืžืจ ืœืš ืจื‘ ืจื•ื‘ื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืคืœื’ื ื•ืคืœื’ื ื”ืœืœื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžืŸ ื•ื”ืœืœื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžืŸ


Rav could have said to you: When a majority of the community is impure, they may all perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in impurity. Even those who are still pure are not required to ensure that they remain pure in order to sacrifice the Paschal lamb. When it is half and half, these who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of purity and these who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of impurity.


ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื ื˜ืžื ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ ื”ืงื”ืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉื ื™ ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ ื”ื•ื ื“ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืื‘ืœ ืคืœื’ื ื•ืคืœื’ื ืœื ื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื‘ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื”ืœืœื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžืŸ ื•ื”ืœืœื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžืŸ


The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable to understand the mishna in this way, as the latter clause teaches: If a minority of the community became impure, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaแธฅ. This indicates that it is only when the minority has become impure that they perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaแธฅ. But when it is half and half this is not the case; rather, these perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of purity and those perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of impurity on the first Pesaแธฅ.


ื•ืืœื ืงืฉื™ื ืœืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืืžืจ ืœืš ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื ื˜ืžืื• ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ ื”ืงื”ืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉื ื™ ื”ื ืคืœื’ื ื•ืคืœื’ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืื™ื ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœื ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ืœื ืืช ื”ืฉื ื™


However, if so, it then poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Kahana. The Gemara responds: Rav Kahana could have said to you that the latter clause of the mishna should be understood as follows: If a minority of the community became ritually impure, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaแธฅ. This indicates that if it is half and half, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ and those who are impure do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first or the second Pesaแธฅ.


ื”ืชื™ื ื— ืœืœื™ืฉื ื ื‘ืชืจื ื“ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืืœื ืœื”ืš ืœื™ืฉื ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ื ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉื ื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ


The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the latter version of Rav Kahanaโ€™s statement, according to which this is the halakha when exactly half of the community is pure and half is impure. But according to that first version, in which Rav Kahana said that when half the community is pure and half is impure, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaแธฅ, what is there to say?


ืืžืจ ืœืš ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื”ื•ื ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ืคืœื’ื ื•ืคืœื’ื ื ืžื™ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉื ื™ ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ ื”ืงื”ืœ ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืชื ื ืจื™ืฉื ืจื•ื‘ื• ืชื ื ื ืžื™ ืกื™ืคื ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื•


Rav Kahana could have said to you that the mishna should be understood as follows: The same is true even in a case of half and half as well; those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ, and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaแธฅ. And that which was taught in the mishna that the sacrifice of a minority of the community is deferred to the second Pesaแธฅ is not meant to indicate that half the community cannot observe the second Pesaแธฅ. Rather, since it taught in the first clause of the mishna the case in which the majority of the community became ritually impure, it also taught in the latter clause the case in which the minority of the community became impure, so as to employ a parallel formulation.


ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื›ืชืจื™ ืœื™ืฉื ื™ ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื”ืœืœื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžืŸ ื•ื”ืœืœื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžืŸ


The Gemara points out that it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana, in accordance with each of the two versions of his opinion. It was taught in the following baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: If the Jewish people were divided, and half were pure and half were impure, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of purity, and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of impurity on the first Pesaแธฅ.


ืชื ื™ื ื›ืœื™ืฉื ื ืงืžื ื“ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื”ืจื™ ืฉื”ื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉื ื™


It was taught in the following baraita in accordance with the first version of the opinion of Rav Kahana: If the Jewish people were divided, and half were pure and half were impure, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ, and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaแธฅ.


ื•ืชื ื™ื ื›ืœื™ืฉื ื ื‘ืชืจื ื“ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื”ืจื™ ืฉื”ื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืื™ื ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœื ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ืœื ืืช ื”ืฉื ื™


And it was taught in the following baraita in accordance with the latter version of the opinion of Rav Kahana: If the Jewish people were divided, and half were pure and half were impure, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ, and those who are impure do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ or the second Pesaแธฅ.


ืœืจื‘ ื•ืœืœื™ืฉื ื ื‘ืชืจื ื“ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื”ื ื“ืชื ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉื ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืชืจืฆื™ ืœื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื•ื ืฉื™ื ืžืฉืœื™ืžื•ืช ืœื˜ืžืื™ื


The Gemara asks: According to Rav and according to the latter version of the opinion of Rav Kahana, with regard to that which was taught in the second baraita quoted above, that those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaแธฅ, how do they reconcile it? The Gemara answers: According to them, the case under discussion is one where the Jewish people are divided, and half are pure and half are impure. However, the majority of the men are pure, and the majority of the women are impure and the women complete the number of impure people necessary to reach half of the community.


ื•ืงืกื‘ืจ ื ืฉื™ื ื‘ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืจืฉื•ืช ื“ืœ ื ืฉื™ื ืžื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื•ื• ืœื”ื• ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื ื•ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื ื™ื“ื—ื• ืœืคืกื— ืฉื ื™


And this tanna holds that the participation of women in the first Pesaแธฅ is optional. Therefore, remove the women from those who are impure, and the impure become the minority. And the sacrifice of the minority is deferred to the second Pesaแธฅ according to all opinions.


ืœืจื‘ ื•ืœืœื™ืฉื ื ืงืžื ื“ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื”ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœื ืืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ืœื ืืช ื”ืฉื ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืชืจืฆื™ ืœื”


The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rav and according to the first version of the opinion of Rav Kahana, with regard to that which was taught in the third baraita cited above: Those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ and those who are impure do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ or on the second Pesaแธฅ, how do they reconcile it according to their opinions?


ืจื‘ ืžืชืจื™ืฅ ืœื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื ืฉื™ื ืขื•ื“ืคื•ืช ืขืœ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ื ื•ืงืกื‘ืจ ื ืฉื™ื ื‘ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื—ื•ื‘ื” ื•ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืจืฉื•ืช


Rav reconciles the baraita by explaining that it is referring to a case where the men of the Jewish people were divided, and half were impure and half were pure, and the women, a majority of whom were pure, added on to the number of those who were pure so that the majority of the community was pure. And this tanna holds that the participation of women in the first Pesaแธฅ is obligatory, and their participation in the second Pesaแธฅ is optional.


ื‘ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื™ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ ื•ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื‘ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื“ืœ ื ืฉื™ื ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ื”ื•ื• ืœื”ื• ืคืœื’ื ื•ืคืœื’ื ื•ืคืœื’ื ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื‘ืฉื ื™


Therefore, on the first Pesaแธฅ, those who are impure do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb because they are a minority, and a minority of the community that is ritually impure may not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ. And on the second Pesaแธฅ they do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb because when one removes the women from them, those who were impure are half of the community, and half the community does not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaแธฅ.


ื•ืœืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื“ืืžืจ ืคืœื’ื ื ืžื™ ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื‘ืฉื ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžืชืจื™ืฅ ืœื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื•ื ืฉื™ื ืžืฉืœื™ืžื•ืช ืœื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืงืกื‘ืจ ื ืฉื™ื ื‘ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื—ื•ื‘ื” ื•ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืจืฉื•ืช


And according to the first version of the opinion of Rav Kahana, in which he said that half the community also performs the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaแธฅ, this is how he would reconcile the baraita with his opinion: It is addressing a case where the Jewish people were divided, and half were pure and half were impure. However, the majority of the men were impure, and it is the women who completed the necessary number of the pure so that the division was half and half. And this tanna holds that the participation of women on the first Pesaแธฅ is obligatory, and their participation on the second Pesaแธฅ is optional.


ื‘ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื• ืœื”ื• ืคืœื’ื ื•ืคืœื’ื ื•ืคืœื’ื ื‘ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื‘ืฉื ื™ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื“ืœ ื ืฉื™ื ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื• ืœื”ื• ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืจื•ื‘ื ื•ืจื•ื‘ื ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื‘ืฉื ื™


Therefore, on the first Pesaแธฅ they may not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb because they are half and half, and according to his opinion, half of the community may not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaแธฅ in a state of impurity. On the second Pesaแธฅ as well, they may not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb because one must remove the women from the number of those who are pure, and the impure become the majority, and the majority does not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaแธฅ.


ื•ืœืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื”ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืจื™ ืฉื”ื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื”ืœืœื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžืŸ ื•ื”ืœืœื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžืŸ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืชืจื™ืฅ ืœื” ืืžืจ ืœืš ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืชื ืื™ ื”ื™ื ืื™ื›ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื•ืื™ื›ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ืื™ื ื• ื›ืจื•ื‘


The Gemara asks further: And according to Rav Kahana, with regard to that which was taught in the first of the three baraitot above: If the Jewish people were divided, half were pure and half were impure, those who were pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves on the first Pesaแธฅ, and those who were impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves on the second Pesaแธฅ, how does he reconcile it? Rav Kahana could have said to you: This matter is subject to a dispute between the tannaโ€™im. There is one who said that in a case of half and half, each half by itself is considered like the majority, and there is one who said that half and half is not like the majority.


ื’ื•ืคื ื”ืจื™ ืฉื”ื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื”ืœืœื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžืŸ ื•ื”ืœืœื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžืŸ ื”ื™ื• ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืขื•ื“ืคื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืื—ื“ ื™ืขืฉื• ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื—ืœื•ืง


The Gemara addresses the matter itself discussed in the baraita cited previously. If the Jewish people were divided, half were pure and half were impure, those who were pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves on the first Pesaแธฅ and those who were impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves on the second Pesaแธฅ. If those who were impure outnumbered those who were pure even by one person, they should perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in ritual impurity on the first Pesaแธฅ because a communal offering is not divided. Therefore, the entire community may sacrifice the Paschal lamb in a state of impurity. This includes those who were pure; they do not need to take care to remain pure in order to sacrifice the Paschal lamb.


ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืžืชื™ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืžื›ืจื™ืข ืืช ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืœื˜ื•ืžืื” ืฉื ืืžืจ


Rabbi Elazar ben Matya says: The individual cannot tip the balance of the entire public toward ritual impurity, as it is stated:


Scroll To Top