Pesachim 80

לא תוכל לזבח את הפסח באחד שעריך

“You may not sacrifice the Paschal lamb in any one of your cities” (Deuteronomy 16:5). Rabbi Elazar ben Matya derived from the expression “in any one” that one person cannot be the determining factor in whether the community sacrifices the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual purity or impurity.

רבי שמעון אומר אפילו שבט אחד טמא ושאר כל השבטים טהורים הללו עושין לעצמן והללו עושין לעצמן מאי טעמא דרבי שמעון קסבר שבט אחד איקרי קהל

Rabbi Shimon says: Even if one tribe is ritually impure and all the rest of the tribes are pure, those tribes who are ritually pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of purity, and those members of the tribe that is impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The Gemara answers: He holds that one tribe is called a community, and a community may sacrifice the Paschal lamb in a state of impurity.

רבי יהודה אומר אפילו שבט אחד טמא ושאר כל השבטים טהורין יעשו בטומאה שאין קרבן ציבור חלוק רבי יהודה סבר שבט אחד איקרי קהל והוו להו פלגא ופלגא ואין קרבן ציבור חלוק ועבדי כולהו בטומאה

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if one tribe is impure and all the rest of the tribes are pure, all the tribes may perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity, as a communal offering is not divided. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda holds that one tribe is called a community, and since an entire community is impure, it is considered as though half the Jewish people were pure and half were impure. And a communal offering is not divided. Therefore, all of them may perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity.

איתמר היו ישראל מחצה טהורין ומחצה טמאין אמר רב מטמאין אחד מהן בשרץ

It was stated that the amora’im disputed the following issue: If the Jewish people were divided, and exactly half were pure and half were impure, Rav said: They render impure one of those who was pure with a creeping animal. The majority of the people will then be ritually impure and they may all sacrifice the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity.

ואמאי ניעבדו הני לחודייהו והני לחודייהו דהא אמר רב הללו עושין לעצמן והללו עושין לעצמן אמרי הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהיו טמאין עודפין על הטהורין אחד

The Gemara asks: Why do so? Let those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on their own in a state of purity and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on their own in a state of impurity. Didn’t Rav himself say: If half the community is ritually pure and half is ritually impure, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves? Say in answer to this question: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a unique circumstance where the ritually impure outnumbered the ritually pure by one person.

אי הכי הוו להו רובא טמאים ניעבדו כולהו בטומאה סבר לה כרבי אלעזר בן מתיא דאמר אין היחיד מכריע את הציבור לטומאה אי הכי הדר קושיין לדוכתיה ניעבדו הני לחודייהו והני לחודייהו

The Gemara challenges this answer: If so, the majority of the community is impure. Therefore, let them all perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in a state of impurity. The Gemara answers: Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Matya, who said: An individual cannot tip the balance of the community toward ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: If so, our question has returned to its place. If this situation is considered half and half, let those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on their own in a state of purity and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on their own in a state of impurity.

אלא הכי קאמר אי איכא תנא דסבר לה כתנא קמא דאמר פלגא ופלגא לא עבדי כולהו בטומאה וסבר לה כרבי יהודה דאמר אין קרבן ציבור חלוק מטמאין אחד מהן בשרץ

Rather, this is what Rav said: If there is a tanna who holds in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, who said that in a case where half the community is pure and half is impure, they do not all perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in a state of impurity, and also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that a communal offering is not divided, there is no way to solve the problem other than to render impure one of those who were pure with a creeping animal.

ועולא אמר משלחין אחד מהן לדרך רחוקה ויטמאנו בשרץ

And Ulla said: They do not render one of them impure with a creeping animal. Rather, they send one of them who is pure to a distant place, so that the majority of the community that is present at the Temple will be ritually impure, and they will all sacrifice the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity. The Gemara suggests: Let them render him impure with a creeping animal as Rav said, which is easier to implement.

קסבר שוחטין וזורקין על טמא שרץ

The Gemara responds: Ulla holds that one may slaughter the Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood even for someone who is ritually impure from a creeping animal because he can become ritually pure by the evening and eat from the Paschal lamb. Therefore, rendering someone impure with a creeping animal does not disqualify him from participating in the Paschal lamb in a state of purity.

ויטמאנו במת מדחהו אתה מחגיגתו

The Gemara suggests: Let them render him impure with a corpse, which causes ritual impurity for seven days. The Gemara responds that this solution is not implemented because you would defer him from his Festival peace-offering. Since he would be impure for the entire Festival, he would be unable to sacrifice a Festival peace-offering, which is the peace-offering brought by each person who visits the Temple on the Festival. He would needlessly be prevented from performing a mitzva.

השתא נמי מדחהו אתה מפסחו אפשר דעביד בשני

The Gemara challenges this response: Now, too, by sending one pure person to a distant place, you disqualify him from sacrificing his Paschal lamb and prevent him from performing a mitzva. The Gemara answers: His sacrifice of the Paschal lamb will not necessarily be totally disqualified. It is possible that he will perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ.

במת נמי אפשר דעביד בשביעי דהוה ליה שמיני שלו

The Gemara challenges this response: With regard to ritual impurity from a corpse also, it is possible that he will perform the ritual of the Festival peace-offering on the seventh day of Passover, which is his eighth day of ritual impurity, since he became impure on the eve of Passover. He can become ritually pure by the seventh day and still sacrifice a Festival peace-offering.

קסבר עולא כולהו תשלומין דראשון נינהו דחזי בראשון חזי בכולהו וכל היכא דלא חזי בראשון לא חזי בכולהו

The Gemara answers: Ulla holds that all the days of the Festival on which one may sacrifice a Festival peace-offering are redress for what one was obligated but unable to bring on the first day. Therefore, one who is fit to bring the offering on the first day is fit on all of them, and whenever one is not fit on the first day, he is not fit on all of them. Consequently, one who is impure on the first day of the Festival is unable to sacrifice a Festival peace-offering the rest of the Festival.

אמר להו רב נחמן זילו ואמרו ליה לעולא מאן ציית דעקר סיכיה ומשכניה ורהיט

Rav Naḥman said to the students: Go and say to Ulla that his solution is not practical. Who will listen to uproot his pegs and tent and run to a distant place?

איתמר היו רובן זבין ומיעוטן טמאי מתים אמר רב אותן טמאי מתים אינן עושין לא בראשון ולא בשני

It was stated that the amora’im discussed the following matter: If the majority of the public were zavim and a minority of them were ritually impure from impurity imparted by a corpse, what should they do? The halakha is that even if the majority of the public has the status of zavim, they may not sacrifice the Paschal lamb in a state of impurity. Rav said: Those who are impure from impurity imparted by a corpse do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ or on the second Pesaḥ.

ראשון לא עבדי דהוו מיעוטא ומיעוטא לא עבדי בראשון בשני נמי לא עבדי כל היכא דעבדי ציבור בראשון עביד יחיד בשני כל היכא דלא עבדי ציבור בראשון לא עביד יחיד בשני

Rav explains: On the first Pesaḥ they do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb because they are the minority, and the minority may not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ in a state of impurity. On the second Pesaḥ, they also do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb because whenever the community performs the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ, the individual performs the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second. Conversely, whenever the community does not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ, the individual does not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ.

אמר להו שמואל זילו אמרו ליה לאבא ויעשו בני ישראל את הפסח במועדו מאי עבדת ליה אמר להו זילו אמרו ליה כי הוו כולהו זבין מאי עבדת ליה אלא כיון דלא אפשר לא אפשר הכא נמי לא אפשר

Shmuel said to those who informed him of Rav’s ruling: Go and say to Rav, whose first name was Abba: What do you do with the following verse: “Let the children of Israel offer the Paschal lamb in its appointed time” (Numbers 9:2)? Rav said to those who transmitted Shmuel’s objection: Go and say to him: When they are all zavim, what do you do? Rather, you are forced to say that since it is impossible to fulfill the mitzva, it is impossible. Here, too, it is impossible.

איתמר היו רובן טמאי מתים ומיעוטן זבין

It was stated that the amora’im discussed the following matter: The majority of the public were ritually impure from impurity imparted by a corpse on the first Pesaḥ, so that the Paschal lamb is sacrificed in a state of impurity, and a minority of them were zavim, whose impurity does not permit them to sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ.

רב הונא אמר אין תשלומין לפסח הבא בטומאה ורב אדא בר אהבה אמר יש תשלומין לפסח הבא בטומאה

In a case where the zavim became pure in time for the second Pesaḥ, Rav Huna said: There is no redress for a Paschal lamb that is brought in ritual impurity. Since the Paschal lamb was sacrificed in a state of impurity on the first Pesaḥ, it cannot be sacrificed on the second Pesaḥ that year. And Rav Adda bar Ahava said: There is redress for a Paschal lamb that is brought in a state of impurity. Therefore, one who was unable to participate when the public sacrificed the Paschal lamb in a state of impurity may still bring the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ.

נימא בהא קמיפלגי דמאן דאמר אין תשלומין לפסח הבא בטומאה קסבר טומאה דחויה היא בציבור

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about the following: Rav Huna, the one who said there is no redress for a Paschal lamb that is brought in a state of impurity, holds that ritual impurity is merely overridden in cases involving the public. It is not fully permitted. Therefore, although those who are impure are deferred to the second Pesaḥ when the Paschal lamb is brought in a state of purity, there is no indication that the same is true when it is brought on the first Pesaḥ in a state of impurity.

ומאן דאמר יש תשלומין לפסח הבא בטומאה קסבר טומאה הותרה בציבור

Conversely, Rav Adda bar Ahava, the one who said there is redress for a Paschal lamb that is brought in ritual impurity, holds that ritual impurity is wholly permitted in cases involving the public. Therefore, it is considered as though the Paschal lamb were sacrificed on the first Pesaḥ in a state of purity, and those who were unable to sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ sacrifice it on the second Pesaḥ.

אמרי לא דכולי עלמא טומאה דחויה בציבור ובהא פליגי מר סבר

Say: No, it is unnecessary to accept this assumption. It is possible that everyone agrees that ritual impurity is overridden in cases involving the public, and they disagree about this other issue: This Master, Rav Huna, who said there is no redress, holds:

טהרה מדחיא טומאה לא מדחיא ומר סבר אפילו טומאה נמי מדחיא

A Paschal lamb offered in a state of purity defers those who are unable to bring the offering to the second Pesaḥ, but a Paschal lamb brought in a state of impurity does not defer those who are unable to bring the offering to the second Pesaḥ. And this Master, Rav Adda bar Ahava, who said there is redress, holds that even a Paschal lamb offered in a state of ritual impurity defers those who are unable to bring the offering to the second Pesaḥ.

איתמר היו שלישיתן זבין ושלישיתן טהורין ושלישיתן טמאי מתים אמר רבי מני בר פטיש אותן טמאי מתים אינן עושין לא את הראשון ולא השני

It was stated that the Sages discussed the following matter: If one-third of the members of the community were zavim, and one-third of them were ritually pure, and one-third of them were ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, what is the halakha? Rabbi Manni bar Pattish said: Those who were ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ or the second Pesaḥ.

בראשון לא עבדי הגדילו זבין על הטהורים דלא עבדי בטומאה הוה ליה טמאי מתים מיעוטא ומיעוטא לא עבדי בראשון בשני לא עבדי נצרפו זבין עם טמאי מתים דלא עבדי בראשון הוו להו רובא ורובא לא מדחו לפסח שני:

On the first Pesaḥ, they do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb because the zavim increased the number of the ritually pure, as zavim may not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in a state of impurity. Therefore, the ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse are the minority, and a minority may not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity on the first Pesaḥ. On the second Pesaḥ, they may not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for a different reason: The zavim are joined with those who were ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, who did not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ. Consequently, they are the majority, and the offering of the majority is not deferred to the second Pesaḥ.

מתני׳ הפסח שנזרק דמו ואחר כך נודע שהוא טמא הציץ מרצה נטמא הגוף אין הציץ מרצה מפני שאמרו הנזיר ועושה פסח הציץ מרצה על טומאת הדם ואין הציץ מרצה על טומאת הגוף

MISHNA: In a case of a Paschal lamb whose blood was sprinkled and subsequently it became known that the meat or blood was ritually impure, the frontplate of the High Priest appeases God for the ritual impurity after the fact, and the owners are exempt from observing the second Pesaḥ. If it became known later that the body of the individual who brought the Paschal lamb had become ritually impure, the frontplate does not appease God. The individual has not fulfilled his obligation to bring the Paschal lamb, and therefore he must observe the second Pesaḥ. This is because the Sages said that with regard to the nazirite and one who performs the ritual of the Paschal lamb, the frontplate appeases God for both impurity of the blood and meat of the offering, but the frontplate does not appease God for impurity of the body of the individual bringing the offering.

נטמא טומאת התהום הציץ מרצה:

The mishna introduces a halakha with regard to ritual impurity of the deep, a term that refers to a source of impurity that is unknown to anyone and is discovered only after it has rendered someone impure. If it became known after the offering was brought that the person had become impure due to ritual impurity of the deep, e.g., if he was informed that there was a concealed grave under the place he had sat in a house where he had previously stayed, the frontplate appeases God and the offering is valid.

גמ׳ טעמא דנזרק ואחר כך נודע אבל נודע ואחר כך נזרק לא מרצה

GEMARA: The Gemara begins with an inference with regard to a Paschal lamb that is found to be ritually impure after its blood was sprinkled. The reason the frontplate appeases God is that the blood was sprinkled and it subsequently became known that it was ritually impure. However, if it became known that it was ritually impure and its blood was subsequently sprinkled, the frontplate does not appease God and the offering is disqualified.

ורמינהו על מה הציץ מרצה על הדם ועל הבשר ועל החלב שנטמא בין בשוגג בין במזיד בין באונס בין ברצון בין ביחיד בין בציבור

The Gemara raises a contradiction from what was taught in a baraita: For what does the frontplate appease God? It appeases God for the blood and the meat and the fat that became impure, whether unwittingly or intentionally, whether by circumstances beyond his control or willfully, and whether the offering belonged to an individual or the public. This indicates that the frontplate appeases God even when the blood was sprinkled, despite the fact that it was already known that the meat or blood was ritually impure.

אמר רבינא טומאתו בין בשוגג בין במזיד הורצה זריקתו בשוגג הורצה במזיד לא הורצה

Ravina said that the baraita should be understood as follows: With regard to its ritual impurity, regardless of whether it became impure unwittingly or intentionally, the frontplate appeases God for the impurity and the offering is accepted. However, with regard to the sprinkling of its blood, if it was unwittingly sprinkled while the meat was ritually impure, then the offering is accepted, but if it was intentionally sprinkled while the meat was impure, it is not accepted.

רבי שילא אמר זריקתו בין בשוגג בין במזיד הורצה טומאתו בשוגג הורצה במזיד לא הורצה

Rabbi Sheila said that the baraita should be understood as follows: With regard to sprinkling the blood of the impure offering, whether it was done unwittingly or intentionally, it is accepted. However, with regard to the manner in which it contracted its ritual impurity, if it became impure unwittingly the offering is accepted, and if it became impure intentionally it is not accepted.

אלא הא דקתני בין בשוגג בין במזיד הכי קאמר נטמא בשוגג וזרקו בין בשוגג בין במזיד הורצה

The Gemara explains: However, that which was taught in the baraita that the frontplate appeases God regardless of whether the impure offering was brought unwittingly or intentionally, this is what it is saying: If the offering became impure unwittingly and one sprinkled its blood, whether unwittingly or intentionally, it is accepted.

והא דקתני דם שנזרק ואחר כך נודע טעמא דנזרק ואחר כך נודע אבל נודע ואחר כך נזרק לא הוא הדין דאפילו נודע ואחר כך נזרק

And from that which was taught in this mishna with regard to blood that was sprinkled and subsequently it became known that the offering was impure, one should not infer that the reason the frontplate appeases God is specifically that the blood was sprinkled and subsequently it became known that the offering was impure, but if it became known that the offering was impure and subsequently the blood was sprinkled, even unwittingly, the frontplate does not appease God. In fact, the same is true, i.e., the frontplate appeases God, even if the impure status of the offering became known and the blood was subsequently sprinkled.

והאי דקתני נזרק ואחר כך נודע משום דבעי למתני סיפא נטמא הגוף אין הציץ מרצה דאפילו נזרק ואחר כך נודע לא קתני רישא נמי נזרק ואחר כך נודע:

And that which was taught in the mishna with regard to blood that was sprinkled and subsequently it became known that it was impure, was formulated in that particular way because the tanna wanted to teach the latter clause of the mishna, which states that if the body of the individual bringing the Paschal lamb became impure, the frontplate does not appease God for his impurity. In this case, even if the blood was sprinkled and subsequently it became known that the body of the individual had been impure, the frontplate does not appease God. Therefore, he also taught the first clause in a parallel way, as one in which the blood was sprinkled and subsequently it became known that the offering was impure. However, the halakha holds true even if the ritual impurity of the blood or meat of the offering was known before the sprinkling of the blood.

נטמא טומאת התהום וכו׳ בעי רמי בר חמא כהן המרצה בקרבנותיהן הותרה לו טומאת התהום או לא מי אמרינן כי גמירי טומאת התהום בבעלים בכהן לא גמירי או דילמא בזבחא גמירי לא שנא בכהן ולא שנא בבעלים

It was taught in the mishna that if one became ritually impure through impurity of the deep, the frontplate appeases God. Rami bar Ḥama raised a dilemma: With regard to the priest who facilitates acceptance of their offerings, i.e., who performs the service of the Paschal lamb or the offerings of the nazirite, is ritual impurity of the deep permitted for him too or not? Do we say that they learned the leniency of impurity of the deep through oral tradition only with regard to the owners of the offering, but they did not learn through oral tradition that it applies also to a priest? Or perhaps they learned through oral tradition that this leniency applies to the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb and the offering of a nazirite, and therefore it is no different whether the priest was impure or whether the owners were impure.

אמר רבא תא שמע דתני רבי חייא לא אמרו טומאת התהום אלא למת בלבד מת למעוטי מאי לאו למעוטי טומאת התהום דשרץ

Rava said: Come and hear a resolution to this question, as Rabbi Ḥiyya taught that they stated the rule of impurity of the deep only with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. The Gemara infers: Ritual impurity imparted by a corpse was specified to exclude what? Is it not to exclude impurity of the deep of a creeping animal, so that in a case of impurity caused by a creeping animal that had not been known, the frontplate does not appease God?

ובמאי עסקינן אי נימא בבעלים ובמאן אי בנזיר מי מהני ביה כי ימות מת עליו אמר רחמנא

And with what are we dealing? If we say that we are dealing with a case where the owners became impure, to whom does this apply? If it applies to a nazirite, is impurity imparted by a creeping animal effective in interrupting his term as a nazirite and requiring him to bring offerings? The Merciful One states: “And if any man shall die very suddenly beside him and contaminate his nazirite head, he shall shave his head on the day of his purification; on the seventh day shall he shave it” (Numbers 6:9). This indicates that one’s term as a nazirite is interrupted only due to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse and not due to the impurity imparted by a creeping animal.

אלא בעושה פסח הניחא למאן דאמר אין שוחטין וזורקין על טמאי שרץ אלא למאן דאמר שוחטין וזורקין על טמאי שרץ השתא טומאה ידועה הותרה לו טומאת התהום לא כל שכן

Rather, say that we are dealing with one performing the ritual of the Paschal lamb. If so, it works out well according to the one who said one may not slaughter the Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood for those who are impure from creeping animals, and therefore there is reason to discuss impurity of the deep. However, according to the one who said that one may slaughter and sprinkle the blood of the Paschal lamb for those who are impure from creeping animals so that they will be able to eat its meat at night, when they are pure, now you have said that known impurity is permitted for him, meaning that even when it is clear that one is ritually impure from a creeping animal, he is not prevented from participating in the Paschal lamb. In that case, with regard to impurity of the deep, is it not all the more so true that he is permitted to offer the Paschal lamb?

אלא לאו בכהן ושמע מינה הותרה לו טומאת התהום

Rather, is Rabbi Ḥiyya not referring to a priest who has become ritually impure? Learn from here that impurity of the deep is permitted for a priest.

אמר רב יוסף לא לעולם בבעלים ובפסח ולמעוטי טומאת התהום דזיבה

Rav Yosef said: No, this cannot be proven from Rabbi Ḥiyya’s statement. Actually, it is possible to say that Rabbi Ḥiyya was referring to a case where the owners became ritually impure with impurity of the deep, and they intended to offer the Paschal lamb. And the limitation of the leniency to a case of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse is meant to exclude impurity of the deep imparted by the discharge of a zava. The frontplate does not appease God with regard to ritual impurity from impure discharges that are unknown.

וטומאת תהום דזיבה לא מרצה והתניא רבי יוסי אומר שומרת יום כנגד יום ששחטו וזרקו עליה

The Gemara asks: Does the frontplate not appease God with regard to ritual impurity of the deep imparted by the discharge of a zava? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: A woman who keeps watch a day for a day is a woman who discharges blood for one or two days at a time when she does not expect her menstrual period. The case under discussion is one where she experienced a discharge for one day and they slaughtered a Paschal lamb and sprinkled the blood for her